# Presbyterian Church Government



## JML (Dec 16, 2010)

I couldn't find a forum for church government so if this needs to be moved, be my guest.

Here is my question. I am completely ignorant of presbyterian church government. Can someone briefly explain the different sections (Session, Presbytery, etc.), functions of those groups, membership of those groups, and proof texts for them? 

I am not posting this to argue against them and I would ask my Baptist or Congregationalist brethren to also refrain from disputing the proofs. I just want to learn more about Presbyterian church government. Thanks.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 16, 2010)

John, here a few simple definitions.

A session is simply the board of elders of the local church. Some Presbyterian denominations will make a distinction between Teaching Elders (the pastor/minister) and Ruling Elders (layman elected and ordained to serve in that leadership capacity). They are basically charged with the spiritual oversight of the congregation, but since you are functioning in a RB context and are an "elder in training," this probably would not differ much from your own polity.

A Presbytery is basically a regional group of churches. All the local churches in a particular geographical region form that particular presbytery. The churches are represented at presbytery meetings (usually meeting 2-3 times per year) by the pastor and a ruling elder of the individual congregation (although larger churches may be able to send more representatives). The presbytery functions in matters that extend beyond the purview of the local church. For example, the presbytery might decided where a new church should be planted, or when a church calls a pastor, the presbytery would examine that candidate as to his qualifications. The presbytery would typically have immediate jurisdiction over the pastors of the churches. The actions of the presbytery would be binding, in effect, on the churches in the presbytery.

A General Assembly or General Synod would the be the national gathering of the denomination. In the ARP, every church is entitled to send a pastor and elder as representatives to this meeting (this practice differs in some other presbyterian denominations, however). The GA/GS would handle matters that extend beyond the bounds of the presbytery. For example, there are certain denominational agencies that affect the entire denomination (missions boards, college and seminary, etc.) and the GS/GA oversees these agencies.

Hope that helps.


----------



## JML (Dec 16, 2010)

Yes. That helps a good bit. 

You mentioned seminaries. Does each Presbyterian denomination sponsor a Seminary? I know this wouldn't necessarily bind the minister in that denomination to attend that particular one but I was wondering if each one had a seminary.


----------



## alhembd (Dec 16, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> I couldn't find a forum for church government so if this needs to be moved, be my guest.
> 
> Here is my question. I am completely ignorant of presbyterian church government. Can someone briefly explain the different sections (Session, Presbytery, etc.), functions of those groups, membership of those groups, and proof texts for them?
> 
> I am not posting this to argue against them and I would ask my Baptist or Congregationalist brethren to also refrain from disputing the proofs. I just want to learn more about Presbyterian church government. Thanks.


 
John,

The best defence of Presbyterian Church government is George Gillespie's _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_. It is published by Sprinkle Publications, I do believe. A pivotal point in his defence of Presbyterial government is his Greek exegesis of Acts 16.4: "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." Gillespie proves that the Greek word for "decrees" is _dogma_, which means "binding decrees like those issued by an emperor." In fact, where it says in Luke 2 that Caesar Augustus issued a "decree" that all the world should be taxed, the Greek word used is our word _dogma._ Thus, the Jerusalem Synod did not simply offer advice, which the local churches could then reject at their own will. No, the decree was binding, and those who would not abide thereto would be cut off.

Now: Synods surely cannot preempt the authority of the Word of God, and therefore, any Synodical decree contrary to the Scripture must be disobeyed. But, that said, Synods are an ordinance of God, and all their decrees conformable to Scripture must indeed be obeyed. This is God's ordained means for keeping doctrinal purity in the Church.

In a sound Presbyterial Church, Synods preserve Confessional unity within the Church. It is a good thing when the watchmen of Zion see eye-to-eye, and when they mutually enforce right doctrine, not only within their own congregations, but also throughout the Church.


----------



## Bradwardine (Dec 16, 2010)

A very useful book to give both historical and Scriptural perspectives is:

Paradigms in Polity: Classic Readings in Reformed and Presbyterian Church Government 
David W. Hall (Author, Editor), Joseph H. Hall (Editor)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 16, 2010)

John,
As a RB, presumably, you would agree with the plurality-of-elder rule principle for a particular congregation. So, an extended discussion of the validity of a local session is probably superfluous.

The matter of presbyterys and larger (more encompassing bodies) such as synods and assemblies is an application of the principle of catholicity (universality) and unity of the church over which Christ is the head. We are all members, one with another, and not just to the handful (or several hundred) people to whom we have made formal vows. The connectionalism espoused by presbyterian government presupposes that it is possible and right to have formal accountability between particular congregations, not merely within them. And that there is a principle of "appeal" that goes beyond the local leadership.

One could begin a defense of understanding of presbyterianism in either Testament. In the OT, starting with the tribes, there were recognized elders and heads, Ex.4:29; 24:14, where is appears as if Hur is a leader among the heads of the clans. Ex.18 includes the organization of the one people of God (or church) under a system of graded courts, by whom the people had appeal, and cf. Num.11:16-24. A system of elder rule continued, even in the days of the kings, 2Sam.5:3; 19:11; 1Ki.8:1, etc.

The "Sanhedrin" (in the days of Christ) was the highest governing body of the people, comprised of representatives from the nation.


> The Sanhedrin was, at and before the time of Christ, the name for the highest Jewish tribunal, of 71 members, in Jerusalem, and also for the lower tribunals, of 23 members, of which Jerusalem had two (Tōṣephtā' Ḥăghīghāh 11 9; Ṣanhedrin 1 6; 11 2).


from ISBE article, "Sanhedrin", ed. James Orr

This was the body that condemned Christ. Lk.23:50 refers to Joseph of Arimathea as a councillior, and Nicodemus also appears to have been one of the number in those days. The point is, that consistently in Scripture the people of God are governed by recognized elders who are from the body (laymen), and by those whom God has selected and ordained to positions of responsibility (ministers).

The churches in various places planted by the apostles continued under the jurisdiction of the apostles. Furthermore, Paul could write one letter to a whole city of individual congregations, as to "the church" in that place, see 1Cor.1:2. The sheer numbers of Christians (even if early on, such could only have been in the hundreds of members) in the cities, and the paranoia of secular government, coupled with the poverty of many Christians and the impossibility of meeting in large crowds, leads inexorably to the realization that the "church" in Corinth (and elsewhere) must have been spread over a number of congregations. This conclusion is also borne out by Paul, writing from Corinth to Rome (Rom.16:23), " Gaius my host, and of the *whole church*..." The adjective "whole" at least implies Paul has something in mind that goes well beyond a single congregation.

Rome itself has several particular congregations (churches) mentioned in Rom.16. It is very possible that the Roman situation had not (in fact) lent itself to true catholicity of the churches, as Paul had effected from the beginning in the places he ministered. While "saints" and "church" or "churches" are coordinated in 1Cor.1:2, 2Cor.1:1, cf.1Cor.14:33 and 16:1, it seems clear that by "church" Paul envisions organization and government, and "saints" individualism (and possibly the absence of a degree of organization). Paul _cannot_ write to THE "church" in Rome, instead addressing himself to the "saints" (1:7), while he acknowledges no less than seven particular organized congregations (ch.16), which are also "churches" in their own right, having some form of organization and leadership.

So, the noun "church" is applicable to particular congregations and to self-governing bodies that extend over a whole geography. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the last book of the Bible, Revelation, that contains _seven_ letters to whole cities, including Ephesus (which may have been by AD 100 the most "churched" city in Asia). Of course, "church" also extends to the true, universal church, which is worldwide; and even beyond that invisible body to include both the church-militant on earth and church-triumphant in heaven.

The organization of the particular churches in these cities in a single church-body through its combined eldership (presbyters) simply reflects the inherent unity of Christ's body. But it doesn't dissolve the particularity of its member-churches. In Presbyterianism, each particular church exercises the "whole power" of the church, not just a little sliver of that power. The particular church may need to yield to the greater weight of combined wisdom of MORE of the church gathered to assess a matter they have already addressed, or handed down to them as a matter not considered before; but this is naught but submission to the brethren, to which all should strive.

Nor does a thinking Protestant doubt that church-authority can be abused, but the distinction we make (contra the papists) is that infallibility does NOT reside in any particular church body--thus making its dictates beyond appeal. In the end, each man must obey God rather than man. But that sword cuts both ways--and the person who has fled a particular church, being unwilling to submit to her discipline, shall be taking his chances for exoneration to the judgment of God, if he is not received by another, more faithful church in this world.

As for the largest church-judiciaries, gathered for business and deliberation (for matters pertaining to the whole church), the NT precedent is Act.15. Representatives of various smaller church-bodies send their federal representatives to sit in council with the other representatives, to act in government for the church-as-a-whole.

Our goal in Presbyterianism is to faithfully represent the unity of Christ's church, under the Scriptures, through a common confession, and instruments that allow us to function deliberatively, fairly, and orderly as one organic whole--while we also delight in the Presbyteries (or regional churches); and in the particular, individual church-congregations that make up the whole. Unity in diversity.



Christ is still the head of his church.
The Apostle's still rule this church--through their writings, and the OT bequeathed to this age from the previous one--the Scriptures.
The Ministers serve the whole church, their Presbytery, and particular congregations, as successors and second-fiddles to the Apostles and first Evangelists (2Tim.2:2).
A whole host of elders also sit in council in and over the churches that have elected them, and appointed them to assist the Ministers in directing the course of the whole church.

Meanwhile, church-history serves many generations of the church as its handmaid, preserving the facts of history (the good and bad) and much of the wisdom of those who have served their time, and have gone to their rest, Rev.14:13.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 16, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> You mentioned seminaries. Does each Presbyterian denomination sponsor a Seminary? I know this wouldn't necessarily bind the minister in that denomination to attend that particular one but I was wondering if each one had a seminary.



No, this is not the case. I would say _most_ of the major Presbyterian denominations have at least one seminary (the ARP has Erskine, the OPC has the two Westminsters, the PCA has Covenant [and Greenville, but I'm not sure of the official nature of its status], the RPCNA has Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, etc.; the mainline PC(USA) actually has several regional seminaries, most of which are pretty liberal). The EPC, however, does not have its own seminary to the best of my knowledge. And Presbyterians are not the only ones to sponsor seminaries; the SBC, for instance, also has several regional seminaries.

In practice, it is not required that a man attend the denomination's particular seminary. Generally a presbytery will have a list of approved seminaries, but even these are not restricted in extraordinary cases. And one of the better Presbyterian seminaries (actually some, since there are several campuses) is Reformed Theological Seminary, which is actually independent but which trains men in several denominations.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 16, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > You mentioned seminaries. Does each Presbyterian denomination sponsor a Seminary? I know this wouldn't necessarily bind the minister in that denomination to attend that particular one but I was wondering if each one had a seminary.
> ...


 
Westminster(s) is(are) independent too. They are not actually OP seminaries.... 

back to the discussion....


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 16, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Westminster(s) is(are) independent too. They are not actually OP seminaries....
> 
> back to the discussion....



I did not know that. I suspected that about Westminster Cal, but the original Westminster is too? The school of Machen et al is not OPC? Does the OPC have an official seminary then?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 16, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Westminster(s) is(are) independent too. They are not actually OP seminaries....
> ...


 
Q and A

Again... sorry that I am side tracking this... that is not my intention... carry on....


----------



## JML (Dec 16, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Again... sorry that I am side tracking this... that is not my intention... carry on....



You aren't side tracking. I asked about seminary sponsorship so it is well within the bounds of the thread. Thanks for the information.

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

How much room is there for differences between sessions within the same presbytery? Such as differences on views on worship or other doctrines.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 16, 2010)

Good questions, John. When I first came to the Puritan Board I didn't know what those terms you mention in your OP meant either, but after hanging out here for over six years I have a pretty good handle on it now. I think it's a good thing to know in general and a very good thing for Baptist (and others) to know who are on the PB.


----------



## JML (Dec 16, 2010)

Ivan said:


> Good questions, John. When I first came to the Puritan Board I didn't know what those terms you mention in your OP meant either, but after hanging out here for over six years I have a pretty good handle on it now. I think it's a good thing to know in general and a very good thing for Baptist (and others) to know who are on the PB.


 
I agree. It is good to know more about our brothers in Christ. We may have our differences but I am thankful to have them as brethren.


----------



## MW (Dec 16, 2010)

John, You might find the following of some help to you as you think through the subject:

On the Principles and Constitution of the Church of Scotland | Grace Presbyterian Church

There are four basic principles upon which the Presbyterian system is built: the supreme and all-sufficient authority of God's Word, the sole Headship of Christ over the church, the essential unity of all the members of Christ's church leading to the duty to express that unity in mutual submission and co-operation, and the parity of all ministers of the gospel. It is imperative, when looking at particular texts of scripture, that these principles are acknowledged. Where they are acknowledged, and the text of Scripture is fairly interpreted, I am confident presbyterianism will demonstrate itself to be the biblical form of church government.


----------



## Austin (Dec 18, 2010)

My 2 cents:

There are several courts of the Church which we see in Scripture as well as in the early history of the Church. These would be (in ascending order):
1) the Session, which serves as the pastoral authority of the local congregation.
2) The Presbytery which serves as the pastoral authority of the region. 
3) The General Assembly, which serves as the pastoral authority for the nation.
4) The Ecumenical Council (now defunct), which serves as the doctrinal and pastoral authority for the Church Catholic. 
5) the Court of Heaven, which is presided over by the King of Israel.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 18, 2010)

A well-written book that describes the Presbyterian view of government, and contrasts it with other forms of government:
Who Runs the Church? 4 Views on Church Government: Edited By: Steven B. Cowan, Paul E. Engle By: Paul E. Engle & Steven B. Cowan, eds.: 9780310246077: Christianbook.com

Also, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Book of Church Order has a lot of doctrine. The Preface is particularly helpful, and the Form of Government Sections:
http://www.pcaac.org/BCO 2010 Reprint All.pdf


----------



## lynnie (Dec 18, 2010)

My former PCA church had interns from both WTS and PTS ( Princeton, but solidly Reformed students). 

My hub has friends who got MDivs at WTS and pastor 3 different independent Calvinist credo churches...plus he knew PCA, OPC, and some small "Dutch" groups, not sure what lettters they go by  Back even in the 70s a lot of Philly area charismatic leaders who wanted solid bible training went there.


----------



## JML (Dec 21, 2010)

Thank you all for the information and book recommendations.


----------

