How does a session make decision?

[Presbaptist]

I come from a Congregational background but am more and more convinced of Presbyterianism (although as my other posts indicate, I still hold to credo baptism). My question is about how a session makes decisions? In my MacArthur like churches, the session would be committed to making decisions as a unit. But this does not work in practice. And so what happens is that more influential elders end up getting their way. So, in Presbyterianism, does the session take votes, kind of like the Supreme Court? I can understand the need to be on the same page as a session with huge decisions, but these would be rare.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

While I'm not sure exactly; sessions can set their rules (for many years my church's elders work by concensus; if not agreed, the issue does not move forward); but if there is not a consensus it can be majority vote; but wisdom dictates when to proceed when a vote is split and it is a serious disagreement.

 

[Presbaptist]

While I'm not sure exactly; sessions can set their rules (for many years my church's elders work by concensus; if not agreed, the issue does not move forward); but if there is not a consensus it can be majority vote; but wisdom dictates when to proceed when a vote is split and it is a serious disagreement.

Can the Presbytery break a tie or intervene?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Can the Presbytery break a tie or intervene?

Presbytery cannot intervene in a vote, but an elder can appeal an issue to presbytery if he disagrees with the decision and it is something under the presbytery's purview. Those with experience in different presbyterian denominations can opine on how this works and on what matters.

 

[mpinckard]

I come from a Congregational background but am more and more convinced of Presbyterianism (although as my other posts indicate, I still hold to credo baptism). My question is about how a session makes decisions? In my MacArthur like churches, the session would be committed to making decisions as a unit. But this does not work in practice. And so what happens is that more influential elders end up getting their way. So, in Presbyterianism, does the session take votes, kind of like the Supreme Court? I can understand the need to be on the same page as a session with huge decisions, but these would be rare.

At least in the PCA, officially speaking, sessions make decisions by majority vote. However, as Chris noted, wisdom may dictate that the majority choose not to proceed in the case of a split vote, if the disagreement is sufficiently serious, and a session may choose to generally operate on the basis of consensus or supermajority if they so desire. The session with which I serve makes pretty much every decision by consensus--not terribly difficult for a small group of like-minded men--but not because we have to.

There is always the possibility that a session is dominated by one or a handful of influential men. That ought not happen if all elders are committed to fulfilling their God-given calling, but we are fallible.

Can the Presbytery break a tie or intervene?

Generally speaking, no. Our higher courts are supposed to give great (not absolute) deference to lower courts, and they are only supposed to intervene when asked via reference (the session votes to refer the matter to presbytery) or complaint/appeal (one elder complains, or one disciplined person appeals). There are a couple possible exceptions that only apply when the session has violated Scripture or our constitution (or is accused of doing so on sufficient grounds).

Tied votes don't tend to happen all that often, because in many meetings the moderator doesn't vote except to break a tie. Some are under the impression that that's actually a rule, but it's not; just common practice.

 

[Edward]

Matt above mentioned reference in the PCA:

BCO 41-2 "Among proper subjects for reference are matters that are new, delicate or difficult; or on which the members of the lower court are very seriously divided; or which relate to questions involving the Constitution and legal procedures respecting which the lower court feels the need of guidance."

 

[Edward]

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has a similar provision for reference:

"Among proper subjects for reference are matters that are new, delicate, or difficult; or on which the members of the lower court are very seriously divided; or which relate to questions involving the Constitution 185 and legal procedures respecting which the lower court feels the need of guidance."

See the entirety of Chapter 22 for more details:
"https://epc.org/wp-content/uploads/...ConstitutionDoctrine/BookOfOrder2020-2021.pdf

 

[darrellmaurina]

I come from a Congregational background but am more and more convinced of Presbyterianism (although as my other posts indicate, I still hold to credo baptism). My question is about how a session makes decisions? In my MacArthur like churches, the session would be committed to making decisions as a unit. But this does not work in practice. And so what happens is that more influential elders end up getting their way. So, in Presbyterianism, does the session take votes, kind of like the Supreme Court? I can understand the need to be on the same page as a session with huge decisions, but these would be rare.

A caution here: I notice that you capitalized the word "Congregational." If intentional, and if we're talking about an actual Congregational church that is confessionally Reformed as opposed to lowercase "congregational," historic Congregationalism had ruling elders, the 1648 Cambridge Platform goes into considerable detail about their qualifications and duties, and most Congregational churches I know today that are Reformed have elders.

I often find in Baptist and broadly evangelical circles that people use "congregational," not to describe a church that is governed locally by its own elders and not subject to a presbytery, but rather to describe a church with no elders that is ruled by the congregational meeting.

Historic Congregationalists would have regarded rule by a majority vote at a congregational meeting with no elders as being a very bad thing.

 

[Pilgrim]

A split session is a good way to end up with a split church or the TE headed out the door.

 

[Theoretical]

A split session is a good way to end up with a split church or the TE headed out the door.

That or scattering the church members to the winds by both TE and elders mass resigning as the "compromise." Especially being a new Presbyterian, going through that congregational meeting was one of the worst experiences of my life to that point. Amazingly, the church has since recovered and is pretty vibrant.

 

[Edward]

The worst dust up at our church was a situation where the session was apparently largely on board on an issue, but hadn't bothered to get broad buy in or do ground work. When it was sprung on the congregation, there was strong push back from the diaconate and choir (and perhaps other constituencies). The session in its wisdom had a special called meeting and killed the idea. So even a unified session following the lead of the then senior pastor isn't a guarantee that something is going to go smoothly.