Closed Session Meetings?

Status
Not open for further replies.

brianmccollough

Puritan Board Freshman
Brothers,
This is my first post on the Board, but I'm a frequent peruser. A question arose in a recent session meeting (PCA) as to the propriety of open meetings: should they be or shouldn't they be? In other words, should the meetings be open to any member of the church in good standing, or may members attend only at the invitation of the session? I have my own opinion, but I'd like to hear from you men. Have you dealt with this before? What are your justifications either way? TIA
 
I was taught polity in seminary by the PCA's premier churchman the late Morton Smith, and he taught us that the governmental meetings of the church are open, as a rule. All our business as a church is above-board, our meetings both worship and business should show us manifestly unembarrassed. See Jn.3:21, Act.26:26, 2Cor.4:2.

Enemies of the church should have no excuse to accuse her of nefarious secrets; members of the church should not regard the leadership or its work as arcane and Gnostic. See Tit.2:8, 1Pet.3:16. The secular government around us has adopted the virtues of open meetings; Presbytery meetings and the GA are public; so the church's session has little incentive to backtrack in this area.

As with other assemblies, there may be reasons for "executive session," which should be explained to visitors so their occasional exclusion is understood as reasonable. I recall my professor taught that there should be no votes in a church's executive session, but that any decision or judgment of the church-even those based on the deliberations in private--should be a public moment.

I hope this is helpful, and welcome to the PB.
 
Our session meetings are open but the elders reserve the right to have intervals that are closed. Such as the case of disciplinary issues.
 
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.
 
I welcome your thoughts.
I found the whole article beneficial. It is a clear argument with a straightforward outline, having multiple coordinate supports making a formidable case. I can imagine an outlet like Aquila Report presenting it to a wider audience, in whole or for complete reading by a link (if you post it on a website). As you may quibble with something I included in my comment above, so any minor disagreement I may have with your wording or thought is unmentionable.
 
Yeah, well as long as the minutes are available and accessible that counts as being open.

A silly note about discussions in minutes being non attributable if the work around is that people can just sit there and watch the meeting and take notes of who said what. I’ll pass.
 
Yeah, well as long as the minutes are available and accessible that counts as being open.

A silly note about discussions in minutes being non attributable if the work around is that people can just sit there and watch the meeting and take notes of who said what. I’ll pass.
Thanks for the reply. I semi-agree, re: minutes. I'm not sure I follow your second statement. What's the silly note? Are you in favor of closed meetings?
 
Session meetings can get intense, yet all done in charity and love among brothers.

We cannot assume congregants understand the dynamics of the above, can we? Would they be stumbled by their wrong assessment of heated (yet cordial) discussions?
 
Session meetings can get intense, yet all done in charity and love among brothers.

We cannot assume congregants understand the dynamics of the above, can we? Would they be stumbled by their wrong assessment of heated (yet cordial) discussions?
Yes the congregants can understand it if they are adults and understand the Bible. The Lord chose not to leave out Paul's and Barnabas' kerfuffle nor the cringeworthy jockeying for position of James and John. If the congregation is caused to stumble, they need to be catechized and/or counseled. I am grateful that our pastor has spoken of this before from the pulpit and am of the belief that congregants need to see their leaders disagree and dare I say, argue. This is not necessarily "toxic" to bring the buzzword of the day before us.
 
Last edited:
Session meetings can get intense, yet all done in charity and love among brothers.

We cannot assume congregants understand the dynamics of the above, can we? Would they be stumbled by their wrong assessment of heated (yet cordial) discussions?
I think this is a fair concern and point. I’ve had interactions in session meetings that were, quite frankly, sinful. The counterpoint might be that, as shepherds and examples to the flock, we ought to invite our congregations to observe how differences of opinion are navigated in a godly way. It might also benefit them to observe how mature brothers are reconciled and live in peace with one another even when they disagree sharply. Thoughts?
 
Yes they congregants can understand it if they are adults and understand the Bible.
We also have to admit that a new convert might attend - one who is an adult but not yet mature in the faith - and misunderstand. However, this would be an opportunity for his shepherd to sit down with him and “debrief” so he grows personally.
 
Last edited:
My point of contention is what is observed may not be interpreted the right way. It is a bit too idealistic to expect congregants, when they see something confusing, to then ask elders for a right understanding of their observation, no? What if they just keep their observations to themselves and maintain a wrong understanding of it? Maybe my difference here is just simply pessimism to the whole idea.

@brianmccollough - if there were some tense parts of the meeting which were regrettable. And then there was some behind the scenes reconciliation. How would the observing congregant be informed of such reconciliation? They only have half the picture.
 
My point of contention is what is observed may not be interpreted the right way. It is a bit too idealistic to expect congregants, when they see something confusing, to then ask elders for a right understanding of their observation, no? What if they just keep their observations to themselves and maintain a wrong understanding of it? Maybe my difference here is just simply pessimism to the whole idea.

@brianmccollough - if there were some tense parts of the meeting which were regrettable. And then there was some behind the scenes reconciliation. How would the observing congregant be informed of such reconciliation? They only have half the picture.
That’s true and could definitely happen. My own opinion is that repentance should be as public as the sin. If you sin in front of your session, you should repent in front of your session.
 
An interested question: In your denominations are the higher courts likewise open, i.e. all may attend. I of course assume that on occasion all courts may be required to go 'in camera' to preserve reputations, protect congregants etc. but in general are they all open?
 
An interested question: In your denominations are the higher courts likewise open, i.e. all may attend. I of course assume that on occasion all courts may be required to go 'in camera' to preserve reputations, protect congregants etc. but in general are they all open?
The PCA GA is open and our local presbytery (Grace, South MS) is too.
 
Because you prefer swearing and name calling, or because you don’t think there’s a connection between accountability and godly behavior?
Because (1) there is a reason why discussions are to be non attributional in the minutes, and the open availability of the minutes amounts to an open meeting. (2) the GA matters are least sensitive and personal and have the Session meetings are the most personal and therefore sensitive. Literally no discussion and decision can be had or made without SOMEONE in the congregation have a vested interest in it. And *I have seen it consistently* that members of the church will get up in arms if a session member dares to not prioritize the thing that's important to them. Oftentimes showing up is a form of gossip or of applying pressure. And in either case it affects the ability to have discussion.
 
Further proof that the concept of a "one size fits all" LAW should be set aside in favor of devotion to principle. The principle has been fairly expressed in a number of ways by different writers in the thread (and I haven't seen a fundamentally different idea put forth)--namely that open meeting is preferred. Even taking SolaScriptura as the "contrarian," he presents the availability of unredacted minutes as sufficient to open up the meeting, while preserving a higher degree of discretion than others may find beneficial.

The thing about dedication to principle: inevitably people make arguments about how to realize it or aim at it, or the best way to implement it while balancing the rest of the set of principles that require constant re-prioritization. Some people seem always to put one principle above any other, thereby ranking it absolutely. I think for example (in secular terms) of the "free speech absolutist," who because of some reason or other subordinates every additional consideration to the 1st US Constitutional Amendment. Maybe he thinks all other freedoms will fall if that one is ever compromised, so he brooks no "balance" when that issue is raised. For all I know, he could be correct in that assessment; yet we should be leery of any effort to force every American to the same absolute priority--a notion seeming to undercut free speech, which includes the power to set our own hierarchy of values.

For one session, the culture of the congregation supports a procedure that consistently puts a higher priority on discretion than on transparency; and for another session, the culture supports the reversal of those same values. Furthermore, one session may adjust their priorities without prejudice to their earlier position; and later change again or back to the previous order as the season dictates. This can all be done without seriously undermining this or that principle of sound governance, so long as vital principles are constantly understood and concern for potential threats to them are constantly guarded against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top