2, 2.5 or 3 office?

[Reformed Covenanter]

Thanks, Robert. What is your general view of Thomas Smyth's work on church government? I have encountered Smyth when he was visiting Belfast during the 1840s (though I was not literally there at the time), but would like to do a bit more work on him.

 

[Scott1]

Let me ask this; what happens when a ruling elder aspires to and prepares for the ministry of word and sacrament in a 2/2.5 office view? Is the man ordained again to the office of minister of word and sacrament?

I believe the answer is 'yes, he is.' But why, if it is the same office, with merely a different function?

This may have been answered already, but from the PCA perspective:

Elders, though one "class," they are of two "types"- ruling and teaching. (I think this is what is referred to as a "2.5" view, for this poll anyway).

But, in the PCA, all Pastors must be teaching elders. Teaching elders are ordained and installed by the Presbytery, not the Session of the church they serve. The ordination and installation ceremonies, these are two separate things, may be held at the local church they serve, but this is actually only as a venue for the Presbytery meeting.

Interestingly, Teaching elders are not members of their local church, they are members of their Presbytery. Whereas ruling elders are ordained and installed by the Session of their local church, and are members of their church. So there is a distinction between these two types of elders. Though not "permanent" members of the Presbytery, ruling elders are "temporary" members of the Presbytery, often serving rotating terms there.

In a sense, the Teaching Elder represents the Presbytery to the local church.

The Ruling Elder represents the local church to the Presbytery.

It's a wise system, providing a spiritual jury of peers for those who labor most in word and doctrine, but not the only biblical one.

 

[One Little Nail]

Thanks, Robert. What is your general view of Thomas Smyth's work on church government? I have encountered Smyth when he was visiting Belfast during the 1840s (though I was not literally there at the time), but would like to do a bit more work on him.

Hi Daniel, I've only read through his ecclesiastical catechism in its entirety, which I found to be quite helpful, it was full of Scripture quotations, It seems from the quote above by Samuel Miller that he & Smyth see the Ministerial Office as being the Bishop, likewise Charles Hodge, which I take umbridge with as it would make Ruling "elders" a second class type of Elder or non-elder, one in name only, even a separate Order of Government, 1 Bishops, 2 Ruling "elders" & 3 Deacons.
whereas when Paul address' the Phillipians he mentions only 2 orders of Government, Bishops & Deacons, omitting any mention of Ruling Elders or Elders for that matter in that text.It would make it very strange to omit mention of Ruling Elders as they are a higher Office than Deacons, that is if Millers, Hodges & Smyths view of the Bishopric are correct.


as a side note, We know from a study of New Testament Scriptures that Bishops are Elders, & Elders are Bishops, this has been conceded even by Prelates, like the 19th Century J.B.Lightfoot, so if this be the case then, & additionally Ruling Elders be a distinct Office of Government in the New Testament Church, then they would have to be genuine Bishops & Elders as much as Ministers of the Gospel are, for we know that these Offices are distinct, yet Paul in Phil 1:1 only makes provision for 2 Orders of Government, thus these 2 separate & distinct Offices of the Church are compounded together in 1 Order of Government, the Eldership or Bishopric.

 

[Abeard]

Ruling elders are members of the Session and are only members of Presbytery as they are commissioned by the Session to serve in Presbytery (or judicatories higher/broader than Presbytery). The Presbytery consists of its "natural" members (all the ministers in the regional church) and those ruling elders commissioned to it for any of its particular meetings.

All ministers, whether installed in a local congregation as a pastor (Sr., Associate, etc.) or not, are members of Presbytery. As such they are governors of the regional church. So there is no such thing as a minister who does not rule, at least at the level of the regional church.

If a teaching elder (minister) is called by a local congregation to serve as pastor (or associate pastor; though not assistant--in the PCA--who is merely hired by the Session, not called by the congregation), upon installation he is a member of the Session. If a minister, say, one who is a teacher at a seminary, is only a member of Presbytery and not installed somewhere in a pastoral position, he is not a member of a Session, unless he is somehow made to serve on the Session (through, say, Presbytery augmentation and congregational/sessional approval). But a minister would never be "ordained by the Session" because he is already ordained to the office of minister

Peace,
Alan

Thanks for all your input Dr. Strange!

So not all ruling elders are members of the Presbytery? I assumed that they are automatically members of the Presbytery when they become ordained by the session. Which begs the question: does not the Presbytery have a say over who becomes a member via ruling elders?

Also, why is a minister not technically a member of the local church? Is it because conflict of interest?

Lastly, with the ruling elder not having the authority to teach/preach, does that mean he cannot lead the worship service? Does he have the authority to extend the "call to worship" and to give the benediction?

 

[Edward]

So not all ruling elders are members of the Presbytery?

In the PCA:
" The Presbytery consists of all the teaching elders and churches within its bounds that have been accepted by the Presbytery. When the Presbytery meets as a court it shall comprise all teaching elders and ruling elders as elected by their Session. Each congregation is entitled to two (2) ruling elder representatives for the first 350 communing members or fraction thereof, and one additional ruling elder for each additional 500 communing members or fraction thereof."
BCO 13-1.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Alex:

No, ruling elders have original membership in the local congregation. They are "rulers among the people" (sorry to cite my article again!). They are members of higher judicatories as they are commissioned by the session to serve on such. Hodge argued that if ruling elders hold the same office as ministers, then you have clericalism, with only clergy being involved in the governance of the church (in a scheme in which both ruling and teaching elders are considered as clergy). But, if the ruling elder is understood to be among the laity, selected by them to govern them, then both orders (lay and clergy) are involved in the rule of the church.

I assume that you mean "raises the question" when you ask why ought not the presbytery approve ruling elders? Because they are approved by those over whom they naturally govern: the congregation, together with the rest of the session. The genius of presbyterianism in these respects is that both clergy and laity are represented in the two offices and no one is asked to sumbit locally to those to whom they've not agreed to have as governors and that those who come on the session must not only have congregational approval but must be placed there by the extant elders on the session. This provides all the checks needed: the congregation and session together agreeing that a man is fit to be a ruling elder does not need the overlordship of presbytery, though the presbytery can be asked to step in in disputed cases.

As for ministerial membership in the local congregation, ministerial membership is in the regional church and its presbytery, just like a ruling elder's membership is in his congregation and its session. This is the body to which he is directly accountable and which would try him if needed. He is a minister (servant) to the congregation, not a member of that body. That is the body he is called to serve and he's not a member of it himself, though there is provision in the OPC Form of Government allowing a session, with the conurrence of the presbytery, to grant the right to vote to a ministerial member of the regional church (FG 6.4).

Similarly, according to the OPC Directory for the Public Worship of God, "When the session deems it fitting, ruling elders may lead the congregation in prayer, read the Scriptures to the congregation, lead unison or antiphonal readings of Scripture by the congregation, lead congregational singing, or, on occasion, exhort the congregation as part of public worship. They may not, however, pronounce the salutation or the benediction or administer the sacraments" (DPW I.D.2.d).

Are either of these positions (allowing ministers to vote in a congregation or ruling elders to do what's described here) consistent with a three-office view? Arguably not. I personally don't think so but this demonstrates that we in the OPC are not as fully three-office as some assume, even as the PCA is not as two-office as many assume (since they require ruling elders to be ordained again in order to be teaching elders, for instance).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Abeard]

Similarly, according to the OPC Directory for the Public Worship of God, "When the session deems it fitting, ruling elders may lead the congregation in prayer, read the Scriptures to the congregation, lead unison or antiphonal readings of Scripture by the congregation, lead congregational singing, or, on occasion, exhort the congregation as part of public worship. They may not, however, pronounce the salutation or the benediction or administer the sacraments" (DPW I.D.2.d).

Does this vary throughout Presbyterian denominations? even with those who are three office?

No, ruling elders have original membership in the local congregation. They are "rulers among the people" (sorry to cite my article again!). They are members of higher judicatories as they are commissioned by the session to serve on such. Hodge argued that if ruling elders hold the same office as ministers, then you have clericalism, with only clergy being involved in the governance of the church (in a scheme in which both ruling and teaching elders are considered as clergy). But, if the ruling elder is understood to be among the laity, selected by them to govern them, then both orders (lay and clergy) are involved in the rule of the church.

So it's only the minister's who have membership in the Presbytery? Is this exclusive to the three office view?

When I attended an ARP Presbytery I am quite certain the elder's voted. Would that mean they are members of the Presbytery? (I wonder if the ARP i'm apart of is two office)

Sorry for all the questions! Feel free to ignore me if you have little time.

I plan to print your article and read finish reading it.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Alex:

Yes, the cited practice (elders leading in worship) would vary. A strict three-office church, which the OPC is not, would not permit it.

As to ministerial membership in the Presbytery, this is true even of a "two-office" church like the PCA. Only ministers have regular on-going membership. See Edward's post (#65). Even as the OPC is not consistenly three-office, the PCA is not consistently two-office. This reflects the historic tensions about the question, which is not an easy one (despite what anyone might say, and I admit this as a three-office man).

Of course, elders were voting at the Presbytery that you attended (just as they would at the GA), being commissioned or elected by their sessions to do so. Ruling elders vote in the higher/broader judicatories of which they are intermittently members, needing to be commissioned or elected to do so, as opposed to ministers, all of whom have the vote in every meeting of Presbytery.

Peace,
Alan

 

[fredtgreco]

Functionally, the PCA is not two office. I have been ordained twice: once as a Ruling Elder (in 1998) and once again as a Teaching Elder (in 2006). If there truly were only one office of elder, I would not have had to be ordained again.

 

[Abeard]

Of course, elders were voting at the Presbytery that you attended (just as they would at the GA), being commissioned or elected by their sessions to do so. Ruling elders vote in the higher/broader judicatories of which they are intermittently members, needing to be commissioned or elected to do so, as opposed to ministers, all of whom have the vote in every meeting of Presbytery.

Ok, I assumed they would need to be members of the Presbytery to vote. Thanks for the info.

When I was reading your article you mentioned that the two-office view came into effect in the 19th century through Scottish/American innovations. Who were the big propagators of this view?

Also, what reading would you recommend for learning the three-office view?

This is a fascinating topic for me! It's so important in the life of church leadership to know our roles.