Bishops versus moderators

Status
Not open for further replies.

SeanAnderson

Puritan Board Freshman
I'd like to know how moderators or superintendents in Presbyterian churches are specifically distinguished from bishops in episcopal churches. Can anyone enlighten me?
 
Moderators just oversee a meeting, ensure rules are followed, etc. A bishop has unilateral decision making powers.

There's a BIG difference between a moderator and a bishop.
 
Also depends on how the denomination views bishops. In "high traditions" a bishop has been endowed with sacramental grace (a little ontological extra) that authenticates the Lord's Supper, baptism, etc.
 
Moderators enable meetings to be conducted decently and in order (1 Cor 14:40). As Ben pointed out they make sure that the rules of order are being followed, and are a help to the other Presbyters. In the end, their vote counts only as much as any other elder in the church.

In most Presbyterian bodies above the Session, the Moderator is elected for a single term - in our denomination that term is for a single year. In a Session, it is typically the case that the Teaching Elder is the Moderator of the Session. Again, his vote counts the same as that of any other elder on the session.

Hope that is helpful.
 
Last edited:
In my state, the laws of incorporation require us to name a president, and in our case the moderator serves as president. However this is merely a formality and our moderator has no more authority than any other elder.
 
I'd like to know how moderators or superintendents in Presbyterian churches are specifically distinguished from bishops in episcopal churches. Can anyone enlighten me?

You might receive different answers because of variances on the number of offices. From the classic three office view, following the Free Church Practice and Procedure, I would submit the following:

The minister of the Word is distinguished from an episcopal bishop in that he is ordained by the presbytery, is chosen by his congregation (no pluralities or vacancies), exercises his ministry in parity with other ministers (in presbytery and higher courts), and rules in parity with other ruling elders. As the fully functioning bishop (overseeing by means of ruling and teaching) he is the moderator of the Session. As a member of Presbytery he is eligible to be chosen moderator but does not occupy that position by superior office.

Ideally the moderator does more than conduct meetings. He has a public function before the church and the world, serves to maintain and promote unity among brethren, and may need to take the lead in sensitive issues relating to brethren in office. As these are official functions of a presbyter they do not constitute a distinct office of "moderator," but fall to him as moderator only because he has the prime opportunity for dealing with matters which occasionally arise.

Because of this high view of the moderatorship some bodies might prefer to choose the man most qualified with experience, graces, and gifts, rather than rotate the function to give every one an opportunity. Even a permanent moderator is far removed from the idea of an episcopal bishop because the functions of the presbyterian moderator are always within the scope of his ordinary office and are exercised in parity with other presbyters.
 
I'll just add this since it has not yet been said, though certainly hinted at by Jacob in his mentioning a "high tradition": Rome and certain other high traditions believe that the bishop is successor to the apostles, not only in the way that we might, as to the ordinary aspects of apostolic office, but also to the extraordinary aspects of the apostleship.

In other words,those who believe in "apostolic succession" claim that the college of bishops constitutes an authoritative teaching authority of and for the church (a "magisterium") since they continue to instruct the church down through the ages as did the apostles in their time. They believe in a form of tradition that is sort of a grand "whisper down the lane," an oral tradition preserved in church by the bishopric and that serves alongside Scripture in determining doctrine. The bishops then are the definitive determiners of doctrine, mining Scripture and oral tradition to establish doctrine. For Rome, the bishops are the locus of authority and infallibility, centering ultimately on the Bishop of Rome, who is regarded as infallible when he promulgates church doctrine.

I could go on here but the point that I am trying to get across is that there is very much a high approach that sees the bishops as successors of the apostles, having been ordained by those in a line, by the laying on of hands, that goes back in an unbroken fashion to the apostles. Such churches believe that only churches that can properly claim such apostolic succession can rightly be regarded as the true church.

All of this is, as you can see, a far cry from anything like a moderator.

Peace,
Alan
 
Because of this high view of the moderatorship some bodies might prefer to choose the man most qualified with experience, graces, and gifts, rather than rotate the function to give every one an opportunity.

One of the most silly things I have noticed in certain circles over here is the concept of giving the moderator's chair to the "new kid on the block", so that the least experienced minister in the Presbytery ended up in the chair scarcely 2 or 3 years after ordination. Since the moderator is supposed to keep order and see that the laws of the church are upheld, it is little wonder that this practice usually leads to chaos. Why put such an inexperienced man in the chair, when there are several experts in ecclesiastical law sitting in the Presbytery who have not served as moderator since the time when they were just "wet behind the ears"?
 
Last edited:
Daniel:

We've often had the same dynamic over here ("you just got here: let's make you moderator!").

It seems not as prevalent as it was, however, and there seems to be some recognition of the value of securing experienced men as moderators for the presbytery. In general, there seems to be a greater appreciation for polity than when I came into the ministry and I am glad that a number of men seemed convinced of its importance.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top