PCA BCO 57-5

[DavidL]

I'm curious what the broad take on BCO 57-5 is, particularly with regard to previously baptized children who are now professing faith and becoming communing members. It has come to my attention that churches in our presbytery don't always ask the 5 membership questions of these children who are being welcomed to the table. Some practices that I have become aware of:

• Ask the questions as written in BCO 57-5
• Rewrite the questions to be better understood by a child, presumably without changing the content of the questions
• Ask a simple question such as "Who is your Lord and savior?" in lieu of the questions of BCO 57-5, with the understanding that the session has examined the individual prior to the public worship service

Grounds for this are rooted in the language of the BCO stating that "the minister may then address those making a profession..." (Note: it does not say "shall"). Under this interpretation, it seems like these questions would never be required to be asked of anyone, including adults as new members.

The question, I am finding, runs deeper to questions of discipline, particularly with question 5 in submitting to the government and discipline of the church. An argument was made that discipline of children is primarily a parental responsibility, so there is an objection to placing children in a position where a litigious session would be instituting process with a child who is failing to obey his or her parents as children often fail to do as they grow up. Therefore, there is discomfort with asking a child the fifth membership vow.

Perhaps my biggest concern here is that this ultimately creates a class of membership between non-communing and communing members, and I don't see grounds for this in the BCO. It seems to me like a communing child should have the right to be a full membership of the church while also submitting to the rightful authority of his or her parents, and that the church should come alongside in supporting and caring for parents as they discipline their children instead of jumping in to institute process and usurp the parental authority.

Does anyone have any insight into the transition from non-communing to communing membership, or perhaps know of any blogs or other resources where this is discussed?

 

[Edward]

If they are too young to answer the questions, they are too young to be admitted to the table.

If they are old enough to comprehend, but don't know how to answer, shame on the session for failing in their duties.

 

[fredtgreco]

The questions of membership are mandatory. The "may" refers to the time of public profession, which is distinct from their admission by the session. Several attempts to modify the questions by overture have been made to the Assembly and have failed. Morton Smith comments on this section:

Since this section is constitutional, it should be viewed as mandatory for the minister to use the questions as they are found in the book. Ministers should not "ad-lib" the questions or use another book of church order or directory for worship. This is especially important, in the event that discipline must be exercised regarding the confessor.

 

[Jack K]

In my experience, those questions have always been required in their exact wording. I've occasionally heard a minister add a brief explanation or commentary on them, but not change the wording of the questions themselves.

They are adult questions suitable for people who're making the transition to adult membership. I generally like it when elements of the service are put in kid-friendly language now and then, to help kids understand and be engaged. But if it needs to be done for those taking membership vows, I wonder if the Session is admitting kids to the table at too young an age.

A teenager still living at home should be able to submit to Christian parents and to a wise and godly Session at the same time. The concern that he can't sounds like it stems from an overemphasis on a father's authority, which exists in some circles.

 

[DavidL]

The questions of membership are mandatory. The "may" refers to the time of public profession, which is distinct from their admission by the session. Several attempts to modify the questions by overture have been made to the Assembly and have failed. Morton Smith comments on this section:

Thanks, Fred. As I've continued to have discussions, some additional related questions were raised.

1. If a Session admitted persons to the Lord's Table more than 60 days ago without asking the 57-5 questions, a complaint is not in order (BCO 43-2). But what is the proper path forward for a Session that agrees it erred by not asking the 57-5 questions in the past? Should the Session contact members who were not properly asked the 57-5 questions to ask them now and then note the irregularity in the minutes?

2. How should transfer of membership work with a family, including their communing children? The PCA's Certificate of Membership and Dismission notes the family's children, but does not note their communing/non-communing status. Should the communing children answer the 57-5 questions along with their parents? Does the previous church's failure to ask the 57-5 questions have any bearing on the necessary actions of the receiving church?

3. When a communing child grows up and moves away, should he or she seek to transfer membership just as any adult member would? Or is this affected by previously being under their father and mother? One argument was made was that the new membership needs to be made based on a reaffirmation of faith instead of a transfer, but I haven't found a basis for this in the BCO.

4. Since we only have 2 classes of membership (not including associate member), is it technically possible and in order for a communing 10 year old boy member to be nominated for church office?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

4. Since we only have 2 classes of membership (not including associate member), is it technically possible and in order for a communing 10 year old boy member to be nominated for church office?

I'm not sure why this is a germane question. At what age do you believe a person ought to become a communing member in order to avoid being nominated for office within the Church? I'm not advocating for very young people to become communing members but I don't understand this as a question. The ability for a person to be admitted to the Table is not predicated on whether or not they should also be Officers in the Church. We admit adult men who would not necessarily be fit for office.

 

[DavidL]

I'm not sure why this is a germane question. At what age do you believe a person ought to become a communing member in order to avoid being nominated for office within the Church? I'm not advocating for very young people to become communing members but I don't understand this as a question. The ability for a person to be admitted to the Table is not predicated on whether or not they should also be Officers in the Church. We admit adult men who would not necessarily be fit for office.

Personally, I don't think it is a problem, either. After all, the Session will ultimately examine a candidate. However, this question is bothering someone else with whom I have been discussing this. So I think the answer is basically "yes...but so what?"

 

[Edward]

Personally, I don't think it is a problem, either. After all, the Session will ultimately examine a candidate.

Why would you think that a session that can't properly handle membership requirements set down in writing would be able to properly consider candidates for church office.

 

[DavidL]

Why would you think that a session that can't properly handle membership requirements set down in writing would be able to properly consider candidates for church office.

I am a relatively new ruling elder who is just trying to continually learn and work to faithfully follow the BCO by starting this conversation. While I certainly hope to bring attention to and correct areas where we might be out of order, my fellow elders are gifted in so many other ways as they serve the Lord and his church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Personally, I don't think it is a problem, either. After all, the Session will ultimately examine a candidate. However, this question is bothering someone else with whom I have been discussing this. So I think the answer is basically "yes...but so what?"

I think the fact that it bugs someone reveals more about them than an inherent problem with the idea of admitting persons who are of maturity to come.

I tend to wait until my kids are a bit older before I even start encouraging them to meet with the Session. I think a child must be more mature than simply being able to answer questions. I think they ought to be at a point in which they are reflecting upon their faith and their place in the Body.

That said, not one of my High School or College-aged children is ready for ordination. That doesn't make for "two classes of communicant member" but a recognition that even communicant members are inferiors, equals, and superiors in different contexts. It's the recognition that there are different parts of the Body and that the parts don't fall into "class" of utility.

 

[DavidL]

Perhaps question 4 can really be simply answered by the qualification of managing his household well (1 Tim. 3:4). A child living under his father does not meet this qualification because he is not called to manage his household but to instead be managed.

I hope that settles question 4 because I was far more interested in answers for 1-3 (in that order).

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Thanks, Fred. As I've continued to have discussions, some additional related questions were raised.

1. If a Session admitted persons to the Lord's Table more than 60 days ago without asking the 57-5 questions, a complaint is not in order (BCO 43-2). But what is the proper path forward for a Session that agrees it erred by not asking the 57-5 questions in the past? Should the Session contact members who were not properly asked the 57-5 questions to ask them now and then note the irregularity in the minutes?

A public admission of their error to the congregation should be sufficient, along with a statement indicating that all communicnant members are expected to affirm the 5 questions, and if any don't, they should bring thier concerns to the session. And yes, note the irregularity in the minutes, admitting the error and the steps taken to resolve it.

2. How should transfer of membership work with a family, including their communing children? The PCA's Certificate of Membership and Dismission notes the family's children, but does not note their communing/non-communing status. Should the communing children answer the 57-5 questions along with their parents? Does the previous church's failure to ask the 57-5 questions have any bearing on the necessary actions of the receiving church?

Communing children are communicant members, therefore they transfer under their own profession of faith and are treated like any other communicant member. But in the PCA, transfers within the PCA are not required to affirm the questions again, only those making profession of faith. A receiving session may choose to do it anyway, but it's not required. In this case, if the receiving session knew of the irregularity, it may be wise to have them affirm the questions, at least during the membership interview with the session.

3. When a communing child grows up and moves away, should he or she seek to transfer membership just as any adult member would? Or is this affected by previously being under their father and mother? One argument was made was that the new membership needs to be made based on a reaffirmation of faith instead of a transfer, but I haven't found a basis for this in the BCO.

Our BCO makes no distinction between a communicant child or communicant adult. A communicant member is a member, no matter his age, and all the privileges and requirements apply to him. While his parents may exercise authority over him in the home until adulthood, as far as the Session is concerned, he is treated as a full communicant member on his own.

 

[DavidL]

A public admission of their error to the congregation should be sufficient, along with a statement indicating that all communicnant members are expected to affirm the 5 questions, and if any don't, they should bring thier concerns to the session. And yes, note the irregularity in the minutes, admitting the error and the steps taken to resolve it.


Communing children are communicant members, therefore they transfer under their own profession of faith and are treated like any other communicant member. But in the PCA, transfers within the PCA are not required to affirm the questions again, only those making profession of faith. A receiving session may choose to do it anyway, but it's not required. In this case, if the receiving session knew of the irregularity, it may be wise to have them affirm the questions, at least during the membership interview with the session.



Our BCO makes no distinction between a communicant child or communicant adult. A communicant member is a member, no matter his age, and all the privileges and requirements apply to him. While his parents may exercise authority over him in the home until adulthood, as far as the Session is concerned, he is treated as a full communicant member on his own.

Thank you. This was very helpful.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

1. If a Session admitted persons to the Lord's Table more than 60 days ago without asking the 57-5 questions, a complaint is not in order (BCO 43-2). But what is the proper path forward for a Session that agrees it erred by not asking the 57-5 questions in the past? Should the Session contact members who were not properly asked the 57-5 questions to ask them now and then note the irregularity in the minutes?

2. How should transfer of membership work with a family, including their communing children? The PCA's Certificate of Membership and Dismission notes the family's children, but does not note their communing/non-communing status. Should the communing children answer the 57-5 questions along with their parents? Does the previous church's failure to ask the 57-5 questions have any bearing on the necessary actions of the receiving church?

3. When a communing child grows up and moves away, should he or she seek to transfer membership just as any adult member would? Or is this affected by previously being under their father and mother? One argument was made was that the new membership needs to be made based on a reaffirmation of faith instead of a transfer, but I haven't found a basis for this in the BCO.

1. Part of receiving communicant members into a Church, even by letter of transfer, is that the five membership questions in the BCO should be asked of them. The question you pose is germane not merely to those transferring from NAPARC Churches where letters of transfer can be received, but older children from Baptist Churches or other Churches. If an adult or child was a communing member of that congregation then you would interview the family and ask for their Christian testimony and pose to them the membership questions. I guess my point is that there is no way to "undo" the fact that the questions were not posed properly to communing members and the Session needs to interview any communing members coming into their Church regardless of how they got there.

2. When you receive a family, you note the names of those you have interviewed as communing members. Something like: "Joe and Mary interviewed by the Session for their Christian testimony along with their communing children Grace and Fred. The Session also received Sophia as a non-communing Covenant child." I'm being a little bit lazy in the exact wording because I don't want to look it up but the point is that you have to interview any persons coming into your Church by transfer and pose the membership questions to receive them as communicant members. Non-communicant children are simply received with their parents. Communing children don't "fall under" their parents in the sens of getting a pass from being interviewed by the Session. They are interviewed along with their parents and the membership questions are posed to each.

3. When a child becomes an adult as a communing member they are treated as an adult communing member. If they transfer to another congregation then they are received by way of a letter of transfer from their former Church. As with all communing members being received into the Church, the Session must interview them and pose the 5 membership questions. The fact that they were children when they became communicants has nothing to do with their present status.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But in the PCA, transfers within the PCA are not required to affirm the questions again, only those making profession of faith. A receiving session may choose to do it anyway, but it's not required. In this case, if the receiving session knew of the irregularity, it may be wise to have them affirm the questions, at least during the membership interview with the session.

I guess I should probably know this, but we always ask the membership questions. Part of the reason I suppose I thought it was necessary is that the fifth membership question is a vow to submit to the government of the Church they are joining.

We posted at the same time. I wish I had seen your post before I wrote a lame version of your response.

 

[fredtgreco]

Thanks, Fred. As I've continued to have discussions, some additional related questions were raised.

1. If a Session admitted persons to the Lord's Table more than 60 days ago without asking the 57-5 questions, a complaint is not in order (BCO 43-2). But what is the proper path forward for a Session that agrees it erred by not asking the 57-5 questions in the past? Should the Session contact members who were not properly asked the 57-5 questions to ask them now and then note the irregularity in the minutes?

I think just following up with the members is sufficient. It could be noted in the minutes.

2. How should transfer of membership work with a family, including their communing children? The PCA's Certificate of Membership and Dismission notes the family's children, but does not note their communing/non-communing status. Should the communing children answer the 57-5 questions along with their parents? Does the previous church's failure to ask the 57-5 questions have any bearing on the necessary actions of the receiving church?

Communing children should answer the 57-5 questions. I don't think the previous church's actions affect that. We include an indication of non-communing status when sending a transfer. I would suggest that a receiving church ask for clarification.

3. When a communing child grows up and moves away, should he or she seek to transfer membership just as any adult member would? Or is this affected by previously being under their father and mother? One argument was made was that the new membership needs to be made based on a reaffirmation of faith instead of a transfer, but I haven't found a basis for this in the BCO.

A communing member is a communing member. Period. There are no special provisions. The BCO does not even have special provisions for the voting rights of communing children.

4. Since we only have 2 classes of membership (not including associate member), is it technically possible and in order for a communing 10 year old boy member to be nominated for church office?

The requirement of the BCO is "an active male member who meets the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1" (BCO 24-1). I don't see how it would be possible for a 10 year old to meet those qualifications.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I guess I should probably know this, but we always ask the membership questions. Part of the reason I suppose I thought it was necessary is that the fifth membership question is a vow to submit to the government of the Church they are joining.

We posted at the same time. I wish I had seen your post before I wrote a lame version of your response.

This was something I learned upon joining the PCA. The OPC required any transfers from a non-OPC church to affirm the membership questions as a reaffirmation of faith. But when I looked up how to recieve some transfers in the PCA, it's only specifically required of those making profession of faith. It doesn't even require the questions of those transferring in from non-NAPARC churches. I found it odd, but that's what the BCO says... It's one more thing that should be clarified in our BCO. I could understand giving NAPARC transfers a pass on the questions, but not transfers from a non-reformed church. But our practice as a session currently is to ask the questions of every communicant during the session interview. But we only require the questions before the congregation of those making profession or transferring in from non-NAPARC churches.