Thank you, brothers, for your feedback. If you have time, here is my written justification for openness. Pastor Buchanan, special thanks to you. I borrowed from some of what you offered, as you'll notice. I welcome your thoughts.
Introduction
Should sessions and diaconates hold their meetings publicly? In other words, should any communing member in good standing with the church be allowed to observe the officers as they conduct their business. It is understandable if your answer to the question is "no." Sessions and diaconates handle very sensitive issues at times. As shepherds in the church, they handle matters that touch on the reputations of members of the church. At other times, they handle business that members of the church may be very passionate about. Does this justify secrecy? Sometimes, yes, situations demand discretion and confidentiality. However, the general practice of church officers should be to meet in open assembly since this: properly represents truth and truthfulness, the organic unity of the church, church power, is the expectation of Robert's Rules of Order, and isn't opposed to executive session.
Open Meetings Properly Represent Truth and Truthfulness
Scripture teaches us that "God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). To walk in truth and obedience is to walk in light "as he is in the light" (1 John 1:7). On the other hand, to believe lies and practice disobedience is to "walk in darkness." For instance, the one who hates his brother "is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where ahe is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes" (1 John 2:11).
Jesus taught that he who does "what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God" (John 3:21). Men of truth "come to the light," they do not slink to the shadows. On this verse, Calvin noted, "he intended simply to say that those who act sincerely desire nothing more earnestly than light, that their works may be tried; because, when such a trial has been made, it becomes more evident that, in the sight of God, they speak the truth and are free from all deceit." The man who deals truthfully has no fear of his work being tested.
When Paul was on trial before King Agrippa and Governor Festus, he testified that he made no effort to conceal his work. It had "not been done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). Finally, compellinglya, Paul defended godly ministry because of its openness. He declared in 2 Corinthians 4:2, "But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God."
If our practices are godly, we should have no fear of practicing them in the light. Shrouding our business in secrecy suggests we are "underhanded" in our ways, seeking to practice "cunning." Instead, let us commend the godliness of our demeanor and reasoning by doing our work in the open.
Not only do we see openness in principle, we see it in practice too. At the behest of his father-in-law, Moses appointed elders from each tribe to assist him (Exodus 18:13ff.). This work of judging took place in the open, for the people "stood around Moses from morning to evening" (Exodus 18:13). We might excuse this, saying, "Where else would they have met?" Yet as the history of Israel unfolds in the Old Testament, we find the leaders of Israel gathered at the city gates to conduct business (cf. Ruth 4:1-12). As king, David sat in the gate of the city to counsel the people (2 Samuel 19:8). This pattern seems to have continued with future kings (1 Kings 22:10). One commentator notes, "The gate area in Israelite cities was an open space that was the hub of activity…Numerous excavations have produced gate plans showing that often there were benches lining the whole area where people could meet for various purposes" (Keener, 280). Certainly meeting at the gate served a practical benefit. In a time without telephones and text messaging, a common meeting area was necessary for gathering men together. However, perhaps the men of that day believed the Proverb, "But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day" (Proverbs 4:18).
Open Meetings Properly Represent Organic Church Unity
The church of Jesus Christ is an organic unity. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul elaborated on this aspect of Christ's church. He wrote, "the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body" (1 Corinthians 12:12). This is because "we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:13). Throughout this chapter, he elaborates on the one body made up of many people. We are an organic unit with Christ as the head.
However, within this organism, each member plays a different role based on the gifts Christ has given by his Spirit. And the variety of gifts are given "for the common good" (1 Corinthians 12:7). Thus, "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together" (1 Corinthians 12:26). For the government of this one body, "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers…." (1 Corinthians 12:27). What this means is that we should think of these offices as serving the unity of the body, not standing above it. For this reason also, Presbyterians reject the labels of clergy and laity. As Guy Waters explains, "Church officers are not a cadre or caste separate from the body of Christ" (60-61).
Further, we ought to look at why Christ appointed officers in the church. In Ephesians 4, Paul wrote, "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-12). You see, officers are given by Christ to the church for the benefit of the church. The work of the officers is "to equip the saints" and to build "up the body of Christ."
Open Meetings Properly Represent Church Power
We define the organic relationship of officers to members by in terms of church "power." Christ is the only king and head of the church. He is the only one authorized by the Triune God to rule over the church (Isaiah 9:6). But he has authorized a particular form of government for his church on earth. In other words, his power vests in the church. This is why neither the apostles nor we do things in our own name. We open worship, baptize, and disciple in God's Name. We are not operating under our power, but Christ's.
Because we carry on these practices, we understand that Christ has delegated his power to his church. He empowers us to do these things. Built on the organic unity of the church body, we therefore understand church power "resides in the body as to its being; in the officers as to its exercise" (Thomas Peck). The body exercises the power delegated by Christ in electing its officers (cf. Acts 6:3). Officers are elected, not appointed. This is Christ's appointed means for the placement of officers. In continuity with Scripture's teaching on gifting, the congregation elects only those men whom Christ has gifted for office. "The officers of the church are chosen by the people. They are, however, first gifted by Christ for church office. Election acknowledges what is already the case" (Waters, 62). Therefore, when the officers of the church exercise power, they do so as representatives of Christ, not of the people.
Since we acknowledge officers, even after election, continue to be members of the body, they continue to be accountable to the body. As our Book of Church Order acknowledges, "The ruling elder or deacon, though chargeable with neither heresy nor immorality, may become unacceptable in his official capacity to a majority of the church which he serves. In such a case the church may take the initiative by a majority vote at a regularly called congregational meeting, and request the Session to dissolve the official relationship between the church and the officer without censure.." (BCO 24-7).
Open meetings play an important role in this accountability. They allow church members to observe the behavior and biblical understanding of each officer. Officers who demonstrate incompetence in either area, may be dissolved by action of the congregation, or deposed by disciplinary action of the session.
Open Meetings are the Expectation of Robert's Rules
Although the NCPC session does not have any official standing rules, Robert's Rules are foundational to the business of the Presbyterian Church in America. They guide the General Assembly and presbytery business because Robert's Rules defends the right of the minority to be heard and the right of the majority to rule - a biblical principle.
Robert's Rules "anticipates" open meetings. In other words, open meetings are the default position since the guidelines explain how "executive sessions" of governing bodies should work. In other words, executive sessions that exclude non-governing members from the body are the exception, not the rule. And this is for good reason. Secrecy only breeds mistrust and skepticism. Transparency encourages trust and confidence.
For this reason, all 50 states have adopted some form of open meetings law. The General Assembly and presbytery meetings are open meetings. Shall we backtrack from what even the civil magistrate has determined is good?
Open Meetings are not Opposed to Executive Session
There are practical and biblical reasons to occasionally bar church members from attending certain portions of session meetings. And, there is a proper way to do it to ensure even the secret occasions are above-board.
In Matthew 18:15, Jesus instructed, "“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone." Like tithing, fasting, and praying, the act of addressing sin judicially should be done privately. The motive behind this secrecy is two-fold. First, it admits our judgment about an individual's actions may be flawed. Pursuing him in secret prevents us from spreading a scurrilous falsehood! We understand the Proverb, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (Proverbs 18:17). Second, if our judgment about sin is correct, it is important not to harm a man's reputation any greater than his sin has done. The objective of discipline is correction, not humiliation. Therefore, in addressing sin, we keep matters as private as possible for as long as possible. It isn't until refusal to repent is confirmed and efforts at restoration exhausted that we make sins public (Matthew 18:17).
Conclusion
In the final analysis, each session must decide its meeting policy. I would urge any session to heed Solomon's words from Ecclesiastes when he said, "…there is more gain in light than in darkness." (Ecclesiastes 2:13). When we walk in the light, we have nothing to fear, for Christ is the defender of all who trust in him.
