Jerusalem: Independent or Presbyterial?

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Phillip,

Can your church, at any time they deem convenient, vote you out? Does the congregation have that power or not? (i.e. can they elect to ordain you, or unordain you?) Would this not be congregationalism?

That is the way it is done through Albert Martin's Church and all the elders that have trickled down through them, including many ministers I know that have come over from England as well. At any time (for them they officially do this once a year) the congregation reevaluates the pastors to see if they still want them to be pastor. They do this with the deacons as well. That's congregationalism with a vengeance.

 

[blhowes]

In the baptist churches I've known, the pastor was ordained by other ordained pastors. If this pattern is traced back, wouldn't it stand to reason that the original ordination would have either come from somebody who had been ordained in the catholic church and then left it or, if they didn't come out of that church, back to the apostles.

You guys are much more familiar with church history than I. Is there any historical evidence that would lead us to think that somewhere along the line an unordained pastor was ordained by somebody else who wasn't ordained?

Bob

 

[JohnV]

I don't mean to make this personal, but this touches on something that is very important to me at this time. But I will try to keep it to the subject as much as possible.

I'm not familiar with the SL&C. I downloaded it once so that I could go through it and never did. I'll have to bone up on it. Someday.

It is interesting that the Belgic Confession states the marks of a true church are the pure preaching of the Word, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the rightful use of discipline. These three touch every concern in the church: the centrality of a true fellowship with God; the signification of the promises of grace upon the membership; and the upholding of decency and good order. Somewhere in there is hidden a subheading on the ordination of elders and ministers (and thus deacons too), I would think.

In my situation we have duly ordained ministers and elders doing what is not good order. In another church, say one that has broken off from their denomination and ordained their own elders and minister, there is another kind of problem with good order. I want to have another look at the quote supplied by Dan, from Turretin.

[quote:f5d994ce3d]Although we maintain that a true call was in the church of Rome, we do not on this account recognize her as a true church, things do because these not equally answer each other in turn. Where a true church is, there indeed un­doubtedly is a true call. But not vice versa. Where a true call is, there is a true church because to the truth of the call the profession of Christianity is sufficient (which can exist in a false and heretical church). The truth of a church can no more be gathered from the call than from baptism, which evidently can be true even in a heretical church. Thus the mission can be among those who are not a true church, but retain something of a church because the mission does not arise from the church as its source and principle, but from God through men (even bad men). [/quote:f5d994ce3d]

I am going to assume that the bracketed sections are not original, but added by Dan. It may not be so, and if it isn't so I apologize to Dan. I am not saying this to insinuate anything at all, but just to state my uncertainty about them and so to exclude them from consideration, that's all. The thing is, I don't know if they are part of the original argument or not, or whether they are Dan's argument.

Notice that Turretin marks a difference between "call" and "ordination". You can have one or the other, but you [u:f5d994ce3d]need[/u:f5d994ce3d] both for the eldership. A real call is not to be discounted, but an ordination which is not fully proper is not to be counted. Yet that doed not discount the fact that there can be an original succession of ordination, even in an office in a church that has fallen away.

In my church the practice is to nominate people from the congregation, vote on them, and install them through ordination. That is considered legitimate. In the other church, they do the same, but they have no original elders who have been duly ordained. Outwardly the situation seems the same as far as ordaining elders is concerned. But the fact is that in the second scenario there is no real accountability: they could ordain whoever tickles their ears, and the blame falls just on them. In the first scenario the blame is much wider if they ordain people who tickle their ears.

The problem is, in my church situation it has become like that of the second church as well. A man is ordained to preach, and he thinks that he is the only one who has the Bible right in his church, him and others who think like him. If you disagree with him, then you disagree wth God. It's just that this is not the consensus of the denomination. So now you have a kind of sacerdotalism that the Reformers objected strenuously to, sitting securely in the Reformed churches. I need to "come out from among them", right? OK! How? Where do I go that is legitimate, without resorting to the second scenario?

Do you get the idea of what (I take it) Turretin says? You can't just raise up churches here and there and everywhere based upon your or my idea of what church ought to be. It is, after all, Christ's church, and so there ought to be a legitimate tie to the invisible church, the community of true believers in all places and all times. The principles have to have a successive linkage, but the milieu needs to be authentic too. It is not one or the other, but both: it is not that you can have a legitimate ordination unless there is a true fellowship; but a true fellowship is not defined by due ordination. And the successive linkage can be there, and be successively legitimate, but that does not make it a true church, though the odination is to be esteemed.

The question is: how does God work it in His church? What is there that is distinguishable about His church that sets it apart from every church that sets itself up? Even those that have successive linkage?

I don't know if it is so clear that Congregational churches were all unordained men setting up their own ordinations. Surely there must have been at least one minister or elder among those who instituted independent churches. I'm not trying to say anything that I have no place to say. But for me this is of great moment. For I need to know whether I may, by Christ's admonition, come out from among those whom I am in the midst of. For me this is one of those "extraordinary circumstances" that the Reformation faced. I am not ordained, and I stand against those who are. The Presbyterian system has an answer to it with it's principles of government, I believe.

It is found in the mutual accountability that is a must in that system; one that is practiced among churches, and among wider assemblies as well. Sure, it has fallen on hard times in our day, but not the legitimacy of the churches themselves, or of the eldership. Inspite of the problems these are not questioned. Instead we have a right to question the faithfulness of churches and elders, but not their legitimacy. When the faithfulness has gone, then so has the legitimacy, but it is not gone until the faithfulness is gone, and not just in bad shape. That's what makes my situation so hard.

In our time we practice a degradation of the vows we take. We don't go through what the Church Order tells us is our right when we find great difficulties in the church; no, we just leave and go to a place that we can agree with. What happens when we do what we ought to have done, because of our vows and responsibilities to the church? Well, we get railroaded, that's what. True order has gone south. Because I didn't do what the herd does, I am an outcast. That's what it amounts to. I did what the church requires of me. I did not do it as well as hind-sight would suggest, but I did not just leave to suit my own fancies either.

So what is legitimate anymore? Is it not that the ordination is still to be respected, though the men themselves have become disreputable in their actions? Am I not truly a member of Christ's church by allowing them to excommunicate me for upholding the principles they would have me uphold by my vows? I really can't have that same comfort if I just leave to go to a church that suits me better.

I am making an example of myself to drive home a point. We have to recognize God's hand, successively, in the history of the church. Right back down to Acts and the Epistles. And we have to do that in every little individual action we are called to as well. We rob ourselves of something if we don't. And that comfort is important to the soul of the believer. It is for this soul.

 

[Dan....]

John,

Everything in brackets appears in the article as published on the "A puritan's mind" web site.


Matthew,

I don't see much difference between election of officers in LBC1689 churches than with what is stated in the PCA BCO.

Other than being overseen by the Presbytery, it appears that the election of its officers lies in the hands of the congregants. What am I missing? Consider the following from the BCO:


[quote:2b9262745e]
20-2. Every church should be under the pastoral oversight of a minister, and when a church has no pastor it should seek to secure one without delay.

A church shall proceed to elect a pastor in the following manner: The Session shall call a congregational meeting to elect a pulpit committee which may be composed of members from the congregation at large or the Session, as designated by the congregation (see BCO 25). The pulpit committee shall, after consultation and deliberation, recommend to the congregation a pastoral candidate who, in its judgment, fulfills the Constitutional requirements of that office (e.g., BCO 8, 13-6 and 21) and is most suited to be profitable to the spiritual interests of the congregation (cf. BCO 20-6).

The Session shall order a congregational meeting to convene at the regular place of worship. Public notice of the time, place, and purpose of this meeting shall be given at least one week prior to the time of the meeting.



20-3. When a congregation is convened for the election of a pastor it is important that they should elect a minister of the Presbyterian Church in America to preside, but if this be impracticable, they may elect any male member of that church. The Session shall appoint one of their number to call the meeting to order and to preside until the congregation shall elect their presiding officer. All communing members in good and regular standing, but no others, are entitled to vote in the churches to which they are respectively attached.



20-4. Method of voting: The voters being convened, and prayer for divine guidance having been offered, the moderator shall put the question:



Are you ready to proceed to the election of a pastor?



If they declare themselves ready, the moderator shall call for nominations, or the election may proceed by ballot without nominations. In every case a majority of all the voters present shall be required to elect.



20-5. On the election of a pastor, if it appears that a large minority of the voters are averse to the candidate who has received a majority of votes, and cannot be induced to concur in the call, the moderator shall endeavor to dissuade the majority from prosecuting it further; but if the electors be nearly or quite unanimous, or if the majority shall insist upon their right to call a pastor, the moderator shall proceed to draw a call in due form, and to have it subscribed by them, certifying at the same time in writing the number of those who do not concur in the call, and any facts of importance, all of which proceedings shall be laid before the Presbytery, together with the call.

[/quote:2b9262745e]

Sounds to me like (in your words with minimal modification) "[i:2b9262745e]Women and children would really run the church by thier God given right to do so according to the [PCA-BCO] because it places the power to choose in the hands of the people, not the presbytery, and then uses the elders of [the Presbytery] (whom they chose) to set these men to their task.[/i:2b9262745e]"

What am I missing here, if anything?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:a859848a5c]
I don't know if it is so clear that Congregational churches were all unordained men setting up their own ordinations. Surely there must have been at least one minister or elder among those who instituted independent churches.
[/quote:a859848a5c]

That is the question at hand. Once a minister "leaves" a church, their ordination is no longer recognized by that denomination. If a group of minsiters who ordained "Harry" watch "Harry" leave their denomination of affiliation, they no longer recognize the ordination they placed on him because it has direct bearing on the covenanted fellowship of the church. That's why the question stands - who ordained the first congregationalist? No one. They either created their own ordination, or they shifted in their theology to allow the inherent right or ordaining or unordaining to the people of the church, not the elders.

Dan,

No one is ever contesting that the congregation is not involved. However, in a Presbyterial system the cognregation does not have the final say. They cannot "ordain the man" and the elders or session can "veto" their vote. They do have the right, if there is some scandalous sin that is unknown to the elders, to bring this up. The elders, if they are good elders, would then not disregard this. Bt the congregation does not have the right to ordain. They have the right to examine, but may in fact be overruled by the session agreeing to install a minister.

For instance, at church, they just went through "election of elders." The congregation gets to choose those they think may be suited for the task. THEN, those men are given to the session to be examined. If the session says yes, then they will install them as elders, if they say no, then they are not installed, regardless as to how much the congregation woudl "want" them installed. In this scenario, the 18 year old young men and women may want "Bob" to be an elder, but the session tells them whether such a man is fit or not, and makes the decision. If that man needs to be ordained, it goes to presbytery, not the congregation to make that decision.

Scenario 2 is my own experience. The congregational church votes me in by majority vote (everyone is a single vote just like the deacons and edlers already there) or they vote me out by a single meeting. If they vote me in, the edlers int hat church THEN ordain me by laying on of hands (in view of a call tot he church). But here, the power is in the congregation, not in the presbytery. At any time, they can vote me right out (which they did four months later for preaching on sin - go figure!).

[Edited on 6-26-2004 by webmaster]

 

[Dan....]

[quote:a1f3269584]
Scenario 2 is my own experience. The congregational church votes me in by majority vote (everyone is a single vote just like the deacons and edlers already there) or they vote me out by a single meeting. If they vote me in, the edlers int hat church THEN ordain me by laying on of hands (in view of a call tot he church). But here, the power is in the congregation, not in the presbytery. At any time, they can vote me right out (which they did four months later for preaching on sin - go figure!).
[/quote:a1f3269584]

The above is not the procedure of the Reformed Baptists churches with which I am familiar. Elders are not simply "voted into office". They must be appointed with the laying on of the hands of the existing elders. Hence, the existing elders are also responsible if they choose to follow through and appoint a visibly unfit man to office. Yes, those existing elders were also elected (by minimum 3/4 majority)to their position. But, aparently, such is similar for the "Presbyterian" system, as those within the Presbytery who must appoint new officers were also elected to their office by the congregants. In the end, the congregants have their way, no matter which way you cut it.

Nor are officers merely voted out of office. It must be demonstrated in his presence and in the presence of the congregation that he no longer meets the scriptural qualifications for his office. He has the right to answer any charges against him prior to voting toward his removal.

We are all responsible to God for our actions. Personally, I'd hate to stand before God on the Last Day and answer to why I participated in the removal of His minister, His gift to His church, from the office that God has mandated that we be in submission unto.

If you can produce scriptural warrant that demonstrates that more than this above should be required to appoint a man to office, or to remove him also from thence, then please do. If not, then anything more that anyone should require of the congregations of Jesus Christ would only work to bind the church to something which God has not commanded.

 

[Ianterrell]

Matt,

My admittedly limited experience with Reformed Baptist churches has led me to a similar conclusion about their government. My Pastor is an Albert Martin style Reformed Baptist. The church is congregationalist. Plurality of elders certainly does not make a church something other than congregationalist.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Dan,

I am not sure how you are mixing apples and oranges here. Reformed Baptist churches run on a congregational system that allows "voting" done by the congregation to allow a man to office. In the Presbyterian system there is no voting. Men are "nominated" and the Presbytery takes it from there. They are "voted in" so to speak by the Presbytery, not Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith.

In a congregational scheme, the congregation (thus the term) forbids or allows the ordination by voting. In Presbyterian polity, the Presbyters do this. The Congregation can bring charges against a condidate, and then there is a process for the Presbytery to look in the matter, but again, our church at First Pres cannot just all of a sudden decide to "unordain" a man. That is up to the Presbytery, not the congregation.

In terms of a Scripural warrant for any of this, I intend to take this up, as I said, for my dissertaion. I will laying out the whole scematic, both historically, and exegetically at that time.

In any case, for this thread, we know that at no time in the history of the church has the church deemed "congregationalism" as the norm. Again, it is relatively new fabrication.

What can we safely say?

1) Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong.
2) Ordination is the act of a presbytery, or elders, not the congregation. Auntie Emm and Mr. Johnson have no right to lay on hands a candidate for eldership. That is done by elders, and elders alone.
3) Form of Chruch Government says, "The power of ordering the whole work of ordination is in the whole presbytery, which, when it is over more congregations than one, whether these congregations be fixed or not fixed, in regard of officers or members, it is indifferent as to the point of ordination."
4) It is very requisite, that no single congregation, that can conveniently associate, do assume to itself all and sole power in ordination. This would be schism. Why?
a) Because there is no example in scripture that any single congregation, which might conveniently associate, did assume to itself all and sole power in ordination; neither is there any rule which may warrant such a practice.
b) Because there is in scripture example of an ordination in a presbytery over divers congregations; as in the church of Jerusalem, where were many congregations: these many congregations were under one presbytery , and this presbytery did ordain.
5) The preaching presbyters orderly associated, either in cities or neighbouring villages, are those to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations within their bounds respectively.

if your Reformed baptist church works differently than by a congregational vote, then your church is an annomaly.

Here is the PCA position in order:

16-2. The government of the Church is by officers gifted to represent Christ, and the right of God's people to recognize by election to office those so gifted is inalienable. Therefore no man can be placed over a church in any office without the election, or at least the consent of that church.

[The chruch consents, not votes.]

16-3. Upon those whom God calls to bear office in His Church He bestows suitable gifts for the discharge of their various duties. And it is indispensable that, besides possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, every one admitted to an office should be sound in the faith, and his life be according to godliness. Wherefore every candidate for office is to be approved by the court by which he is to be ordained.

[The candidate is approved by the court (i.e. the Presbytery) not the church. When I use "church" I mena the people sitting in the pew.]

17-1. Those who have been called to office in the Church are to be inducted by the ordination of a court.



17-2. Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship.



17-3. As every ecclesiastical office, according to the Scriptures, is a special charge, no man shall be ordained unless it be to the performance of a definite work.

[self explanatory]

18-2. Every applicant for the ministry must put himself under the care of Presbytery, which should ordinarily be the Presbytery that has jurisdiction of the church of which he is a member. The endorsement of his Session must be given to the Presbytery, consisting of testimonials regarding his Christian character and promise of usefulness in the ministry. The endorsement should also describe the activities of ministry the applicant has participated in with brief evaluation.

[self explanatory]

18-3. The applicant shall appear before the Presbytery in person, and shall be examined by the Presbytery on experiential religion and on his motives for seeking the ministry.

18-4. The candidate continues to be a private member of the church and subject to the jurisdiction of the Session, but as respects his preparatory training for the ministry he is under the oversight of the Presbytery.

19-1. To preserve the purity of the preaching of the Gospel, no man is permitted to preach in the pulpits of the Presbyterian Church in America on a regular basis without proper licensure from the Presbytery having jurisdiction where he will preach.

In term sof voting to INSTALL a pastor, not ordain him, the following is the order - (remember, we are talking about putting him in a puplpit, not ordaining him 0 apples and oranges)

20-5. On the election of a pastor, if it appears that a large minority of the voters are averse to the candidate who has received a majority of votes, and cannot be induced to concur in the call, the moderator shall endeavor to dissuade the majority from prosecuting it further; but if the electors be nearly or quite unanimous, or if the majority shall insist upon their right to call a pastor, the moderator shall proceed to draw a call in due form, and to have it subscribed by them, certifying at the same time in writing the number of those who do not concur in the call, and any facts of importance, all of which proceedings shall be laid before the Presbytery, together with the call.

20-8. Prosecution of call: One or more commissioners shall be appointed by the church to present and prosecute the call before their Presbytery.

20-9. When a pastor desires to accept a call to another Presbytery, he must be examined and approved by the Presbytery for the pastorate to which he is being called, and must be released for transfer by his present Presbytery from his pastorate.

20-10. A congregation desiring to call a pastor from his charge, shall, by its commissioners to the Presbytery, prosecute the call before its Presbytery.

On Ordination, more specifically:

21-1. No minister, licentiate or candidate shall receive a call from a church but by the permission of his Presbytery.

21-2. When an intern has completed his internship to the satisfaction of the Presbytery, and has accepted a call, the Presbytery shall take immediate steps for his ordination.

[no voting!]

21-3. No Presbytery shall ordain any intern to the office of minister of the Word with reference to his laboring within the bounds of another Presbytery, but shall furnish him with the necessary testimonials, and require him to repair to the Presbytery within whose bounds he expects to labor, that he may submit himself to its authority, according to the Constitution of the Church.

21-5. The day appointed for the ordination having come, and the Presbytery being convened, a sermon suitable for the occasion shall be preached by a person appointed or invited by the Presbytery. The Presbytery member appointed to preside shall afterwards briefly recite from the pulpit the proceedings of the Presbytery preparatory to the ordination; he shall point out the nature and importance of the ordinance, and endeavor to impress the audience with a proper sense of the solemnity of the transaction.

Then he is installed, and the congregation is addressed upon reception of the installation of the man for their church.

21-7. The people having answered these questions in the affirmative, by holding up their right hands, the candidate shall kneel, and the presiding minister shall, with prayer and the laying on of hands of the Presbytery, according to the apostolic example, solemnly set him apart to the holy office of the Gospel ministry.

21-8. After the installation, the heads of families of the congregation then present, or at least the ruling elders and deacons, should come forward to their pastor, and give him their right hand, in token of cordial reception and affectionate regard.

In any case, that is a run through fro the PCA.

 

[Dan....]

Matthew,



First, what you mean by the following:
[quote:cff4d3a598]
16-2. The government of the Church is by officers gifted to represent Christ, and the right of God's people to recognize [b:cff4d3a598]by election[/b:cff4d3a598] to office those so gifted is inalienable. Therefore no man can be placed over a church in any office without the [b:cff4d3a598]election[/b:cff4d3a598], or at least the consent of that church.

[The chruch consents, not votes.]
[/quote:cff4d3a598]

How can "election" be interpreted any other way? Also, how does a church "consent"? Do they consent by majority? How many non-consenters are required for the church to not consent? (In other words, how can "consenting" be done apart from voting?)



Maybe I am mixing apples and oranges here....

Are you saying....

1. Perspective elders are originally nominated by the church...
2. Once he has been nominated, he appears before the Presbytery to be examined.
3. Then, under the authority of the presbytery he enters a stage of preporation for the ministry (internship???).
4. At some point the presbytery "ordains" him as an elder.
5. After he has been ordained an elder, he may then be elected (herein is where the congregation votes???) to serve as a minister in a particular congregation by that congregation.

Hence, "ordination" is completely separate from appointing one a minister of a particular congregation....???

....Help me out here. This seems to be quite a complicated process. Am I following now?

 

[py3ak]

Plurality in Ordination

I have a question that relates to the issue of succession in a practical way. As I understand it, the Webmaster is arguing that people must be ordained "by the laying on of hands of the presbytery." Now it is my impression that in an episcopal system the bishop ordains, appoints, etc. Now my question is, if the Biblical requirement for ordination is the "presbytery" [i:3ed21c1af4]plural[/i:3ed21c1af4], is the ordination by a singular bishop valid? Did the Catholic church in the Middle Ages ordain by presbytery or by bishop? I know there were controversies about who gave the pallium, with the popes wanting to maintain control over that.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Dan asked:

[quote:809442d8a3]
Are you saying....

1. Perspective elders are originally nominated by the church...
2. Once he has been nominated, he appears before the Presbytery to be examined.
3. Then, under the authority of the presbytery he enters a stage of preporation for the ministry (internship???).
4. At some point the presbytery "ordains" him as an elder.
5. After he has been ordained an elder, he may then be elected (herein is where the congregation votes???) to serve as a minister in a particular congregation by that congregation.

Hence, "ordination" is completely separate from appointing one a minister of a particular congregation....???

....Help me out here. This seems to be quite a complicated process. Am I following now? [/quote:809442d8a3]

Yes, complicated process to an extent, but you just summarized the PCA BCO nicely.

Length of time may differ according candidates too. "Bob" may be gifted as a minister should be, but not as "quick" on his feet as "harry." Harry has a better opportunity, more refined gifts, etc. So the process in terms of time may be more of less according to the eye of the Presbytery and the congregation that he is "interning" in under the Presbytery.

[Edited on 6-27-2004 by webmaster]

 

[fredtgreco]

Dan and Matthew,

You are each discussing multiple things at once. First, there are two sorts of elders:

[list:bf19579baf]
[*:bf19579baf]Teaching Elders (ministers)
[*:bf19579baf]Ruling Elders
[/list:u:bf19579baf]

Then there are two issues with respect to service:

[list:bf19579baf]
[*:bf19579baf]Ordination
[*:bf19579baf]Election to a specific work
[/list:u:bf19579baf]

With respect to ordination, the congregation does not have the power to ordain a man. The Presbytery ordains TEs (ministers) and the Session ordains Ruling Elders (and deacons as well).

The Congregation, however, ordinarily elects a man to a particular work.

The conflation comes because ordinarily a man must be called to a particular work before he is ordained - i.e. we do not ordain a man for no reason. He must show the need for ordination by a call. Now ordinarily we think of ordination as being with respect to a pastor. That is where the congregational voting comes in. But a man may be ordained as an evangelist, or as a missionary with a missionary body, or as a professor in a seminary. In none of those instances is a vote, concurrence or even the opinion of any congregation solicited.

Now in Presbyterian polity, ordination is separate and apart from service in a congregation. So if a congregation desires to sever its ties with a minister, it may do so by a vote, but the Presbytery must concur. In the case of a Ruling Elder, the Session must concur. But when it does, so, it does NOT unordain the man. It simply removes the man from that particular office. To not have the ability for the congregation to remove a man is episcopacy. To not require the concurrence of Presbytery is congregationalism. One more example of why Presbyterianism is the ideal Biblical model.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:33eac7280f][i:33eac7280f]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:33eac7280f]
Dan asked:

Are you saying....

1. Perspective elders are originally nominated by the church...
2. Once he has been nominated, he appears before the Presbytery to be examined.
3. Then, under the authority of the presbytery he enters a stage of preporation for the ministry (internship???).
4. At some point the presbytery "ordains" him as an elder.
5. After he has been ordained an elder, he may then be elected (herein is where the congregation votes???) to serve as a minister in a particular congregation by that congregation.

Hence, "ordination" is completely separate from appointing one a minister of a particular congregation....???

....Help me out here. This seems to be quite a complicated process. Am I following now?

Yes, complicated process to an extent, but you just summarized the PCA BCO nicely. [/quote:33eac7280f]

But the PCA BCO requires a call for ordination. So ordinarily, the congregational vote and call occur before the ordination.

 

[pastorway]

[quote:005d3d22fd][i:005d3d22fd]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:005d3d22fd]
Phillip,

Can your church, at any time they deem convenient, vote you out? Does the congregation have that power or not? (i.e. can they elect to ordain you, or unordain you?) Would this not be congregationalism?[/quote:005d3d22fd]

No they cannot. An elder can only be removed by a unanimous vote of the remaining elders.

Our church (congregation) does not vote! (A vote is nothing but a little church split and no one ever proved that the majority is always right).

In our church when the elders make a decision they must be unanimous before any action may be taken.

The congregation has the ability to nominate new elders and deacons, but the appointement of them is reserved for the board of elders. And the congregation does have input in setting the annual budget, recommending new missions or other expenditures for the year, but over all, it is the elders who decide the budget.

Our church is ruled by a plurality of elders.

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:d1558eb865][i:d1558eb865]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:d1558eb865]
[quote:d1558eb865][i:d1558eb865]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:d1558eb865]
Phillip,

Can your church, at any time they deem convenient, vote you out? Does the congregation have that power or not? (i.e. can they elect to ordain you, or unordain you?) Would this not be congregationalism?[/quote:d1558eb865]

No they cannot. An elder can only be removed by a unanimous vote of the remaining elders.

Our church (congregation) does not vote! (A vote is nothing but a little church split and no one ever proved that the majority is always right).

In our church when the elders make a decision they must be unanimous before any action may be taken.

The congregation has the ability to nominate new elders and deacons, but the appointement of them is reserved for the board of elders. And the congregation does have input in setting the annual budget, recommending new missions or other expenditures for the year, but over all, it is the elders who decide the budget.

Our church is ruled by a plurality of elders.

Phillip [/quote:d1558eb865]

Phillip,

Glad to hear it.

Although I must say that (having experienced it) the requirement of a unanimous vote ends up being more of a tyranny of one than a holy consensus. I would strongly discourage the requirement (although not the goal) of unanimity.

 

[pastorway]

If we are not unanimous then we pray, fast, read the Scriptures, and discuss. If one or more is not in agreement then we wait. Either side of the issue, God can change minds, and we learn to seek Him and esteem others as better than ourselves while we "rule" in the church.

While it is true too that we might be unanimously wrong......when [i:2f523e30b4]qualified[/i:2f523e30b4], called men are overseeing the flock, it is doubtful that bad decisions will be made.

[quote:2f523e30b4][i:2f523e30b4]from our bylaws[/i:2f523e30b4]
Decisions shall be reached after prayerful consideration by unanimous vote in a spirit of humility, with each Elder regarding one another before himself.[/quote:2f523e30b4]

I would also note that the board of elders cannot just decide to get rid of the pastor. The bylaws give specific instructions on when and how a pastor/elder may be removed from office:

[quote:2f523e30b4]Each member of the Board of Elders must be an active member of this Church and possess the qualifications described in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9.

Any Elder may be removed from office if he becomes physically incapacitated, spiritually unqualified, or his inability to serve is established in the minds of the remainder of the Board of Elders. [/quote:2f523e30b4]

And specific to the pastor:

[quote:2f523e30b4]He shall remain in office an indefinite period of time subject to the following reservations: The Board of Elders reserves the right to dismiss the Pastor upon giving him written notice of its intention to dismiss. This right may only be used by the Board of Elders in the event that the Pastor is physically incapacitated or spiritually disqualified to remain in his office.[/quote:2f523e30b4]

Phillip

[Edited on 6-27-04 by pastorway]

 

[Dan....]

Matthew and Pastor Fred,

Interesting....

I'll have to chew on that for a little while.

A couple of questions in the interim:

1. If a ruling elder be ordained by the session (which, is made up of the TE and RE???), if the congregation or he opts (for whatever reason) to remove from service to the particular congregation as elder, does he remain "ordained" as ruling elder? If so, ordained to what?

2. What becomes of an ordained Teaching elder if he has been removed from his post by the congregation? What does the Presbytery do with him? Is he recommended to other congregations within other presbyteries? Does he stagnate as a full member of the Prebytery until another congregation somewhere calls him?

Pastor Fred,

You speak of ordained evangelists ([i:7b10a219af]I'm assuming that this office of evangelist is different from that which was held by Timothy, Titus and Philip, as I think we'd all agree that this office passed with the apostles and prophets[/i:7b10a219af]) and missionaries. Are these different than teaching elders, or are they, in essence, the same office? Are they members of a presbytery?

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:c94f2d4ffa][i:c94f2d4ffa]Originally posted by Dan....[/i:c94f2d4ffa]
Matthew and Pastor Fred,

Interesting....

I'll have to chew on that for a little while.

A couple of questions in the interim:

1. If a ruling elder be ordained by the session (which, is made up of the TE and RE???), if the congregation or he opts (for whatever reason) to remove from service to the particular congregation as elder, does he remain "ordained" as ruling elder? If so, ordained to what?

2. What becomes of an ordained Teaching elder if he has been removed from his post by the congregation? What does the Presbytery do with him? Is he recommended to other congregations within other presbyteries? Does he stagnate as a full member of the Prebytery until another congregation somewhere calls him?

Pastor Fred,

You speak of ordained evangelists ([i:c94f2d4ffa]I'm assuming that this office of evangelist is different from that which was held by Timothy, Titus and Philip, as I think we'd all agree that this office passed with the apostles and prophets[/i:c94f2d4ffa]) and missionaries. Are these different than teaching elders, or are they, in essence, the same office? Are they members of a presbytery? [/quote:c94f2d4ffa]

Dan,

A Ruling Elder may cease to have a relationship with a congregation for a number of reasons. He might be like I am, and be "uninstalled" (i.e. not sitting currently on the Session) because he has family commitments, or has moved away, etc. He might have been removed from office by the congregation. He might have transferred membership to another church. In all these cases, he is still an ordained elder - ordination is for life. But he would need to be properly elected and installed if he desired to serve again or in another congregation.

The same is true to an extent of the Teaching Elder. If he is uninstalled from a position, he would still be a full member of Presbytery and have all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of that capacity. He would seek another call and the Presbytery would (or could) assist him in that matter. If a man remains without call for a time (say 3 years), he may be divested of office completely (i.e. have his ordination taken from him as a result of his unwillingness or inability to serve.

When I speak of an "evangelist" I am speaking of the PCA's BCO provision, not of a Biblical office. It is basically a pastor without a congregation - a church planter. Teaching elders are all the same and have the same authority at Presbytery, but they can serve the Church in different capacities, as church planters, pastors, teachers at colleges or seminaries, or missionaries.

 

[Dan....]

I just received a copy of [i:764ce44257]Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity[/i:764ce44257] in the mail today!!

Can't wait to dive in.....
I'll be back if I have any questions.