It has been argued (incorrectly), that TE (in his oath to take charge) is somehow in authority over the RE's or a "first among equals". There is nothing in the PCA BCO that teaches this. Quite the contrary, read the various sections that speak about how authority and power is excersided.
3-2. Ecclesiastical power, which is wholly spiritual, is twofold. The officers exercise it sometimes severally, as in preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments, reproving the erring, visiting the sick, and comforting the afflicted, which is the power of order; and they exercise it sometimes jointly in Church courts, after the form of judgment, which is the power of jurisdiction.
4-3. Its jurisdiction, being a joint power, is lodged in the church Session, which consists of its pastor, pastors, its associate pastor(s) and its ruling elders.
7-2. The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders and deacons. Within the class of elder are the two orders of teaching elders and ruling elders. The elders jointly have the government and spiritual oversight of the Church, including teaching. Only those elders who are specially gifted, called and trained by God to preach may serve as teaching elders. The office of deacon is not one of rule, but rather of service both to the physical and spiritual needs of the people. In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.
8-1. This office is one of dignity and usefulness. The man who fills it has in Scripture different titles expressive of his various duties. As he has the oversight of the flock of Christ, he is termed bishop or pastor. As it is his duty to be spiritually fruitful, dignified, and prudent, an example to the flock, and to govern well in the house and Kingdom of Christ, he is termed presbyter or elder. As he expounds the Word, and by sound doctrine both exhorts and convinces the gainsayer, he is termed teacher. These titles do not indicate different grades of office, but all describe one and the same office.
8-5. When a man is called to labor as a teaching elder, it belongs to his order, in addition to those functions he shares with all other elders, to feed the flock by reading, expounding and preaching the Word of God and to administer the Sacraments. As he is sent to declare the will of God to sinners, and to beseech them to be reconciled to God through Christ, he is termed ambassador. As he bears glad tidings of salvation to the ignorant and perishing, he is termed evangelist. As he stands to proclaim the Gospel, he is termed preacher. As he dispenses the manifold grace of God, and the ordinances instituted by Christ, he is termed steward of the mysteries of God.
I would also note that, if an Elder is (by definition) a "first aong equals" when he is moderator then, by definition, I was first among all Presbyters within my Presbytery for a year and then lost that primacy when a new Elder took the role the following year.
Rich, I understand that the early chapters of the BCO teach sort of what you’re saying, but not in a way the nullifies the very real pastoral oversight of a minister that is expressed later. (I was taught that as a matter of hermeneutics: that which comes later explains that which came earlier... lol.) But the problem is that in asserting what I think you're trying to assert is that it causes one to basically flatline or downplay the implications of several key points in the BCO, that drive home that the distinctions between the orders are much greater than some want to acknowledge... such as the differences in vows, the differences in ordination, or to avoid the natural answer so to why the pastor is automatically by virtue “of his office” (which office? Office of elder? Where does the BCO talk about “office of pastor” so that it can be said that the pastor is “by virtue of his office”) the moderator of the Session* without necessary agreement by the Session (and yes, I know of churches that don’t want the pastor to moderate despite with the BCO says… I’ve seen it.) , or about why despite there being a session, nonetheless a church needs to be under the oversight of a minister, etc. there are significant and frequent glimpses throughout that are problematic when one tries to say that the difference between the two orders is simply that one is allowed to preach more frequently than the other.
I think the obvious answer is that the BCO is a hodgepodge document that clearly harkens back in the majority of its cases to the traditional three-office understanding and two-office language was inserted at key points in the earlier chapters without necessarily massaging it out in the later chapters. But we’ve settled on two classes of office with two orders in the one class, OK.
But still, the BCO uses the term "office" in various ways, and there’s something unique about the pastor‘s “office” that is distinct from that of ruling elders. (And I won't point out that the BCO calling it "office" right out the gate introduces confusion into its assertion that there are two "offices.") And of course, there’s only 2 classes of office, and those are elder and deacon. But I think that the preponderance of the BCO effectively demonstrates that in practice, the distinction between the two orders subsumed under that class are perhaps greater than some want two-office folks wish to acknowledge.
Those distinctions between order are significant! And it’s not just played out in how frequently a man gets to preach, and I know that a man does not have to be ordained to preach, he “merely” needs to be “licensed”… The ordination to the ministry of the Word, the "office of the holy ministry" carries something beyond “mere” licensure. Amongst the more aggressive two-office crowd, there is the belief that elders can administer the sacraments, which is abhorrent. And even most who deny it still struggle to explain why, in a manner that consistently holds forth two-office principles. So the distinctions between the two orders of the class of elder are significant: So much so that when a man is ordained to the ministry, he is ordained as a minister (a term absolutely never used for ruling elders). (one of my gripes about BCO 8 is that the term "minister" is used three times more frequently in its pages than “teaching elder”, yet “minister” is never defined or described… It’s just suddenly inserted as an apparent synonym for a teaching elder.. I think there’s much needed polishing that could be done in regards to the BCO on this point.
All I’ve done in previous posts is to make observations from the BCO itself, and those observations create a picture. It’s up to you to explain why at the ordination of a minister, the man to be ordained gets on his knees at ordination, but a man to be ordained as a ruling elder or deacon don’t. It’s up to you to explain why the vows for a minister say he is accepting the charge of the church as overseer, (NOT “as
an overseer” like some would expect given our 2 office commitments) and it’s up to you to explain why that’s not said at a ruling elders ordination, it’s up to you to explain why the BCO calls heads of families to come up and show reception and affection, etc., to the minister… But yet that doesn’t happen at a ruling elder's ordination. And we both know that it paints a very distinct picture even if you don’t wanna say it. I’m not asserting anything other than I’m pointing out observations from the BCO that do in fact, establish that there is a real difference.It also paints a different picture to observe that despite the presence of a session, the BCO calls for the congregation to be "under the pastoral oversight of a minister" which again refers to more than preaching the word and the presence of the sacraments which can be arranged for.
Of course the BCO prevents a minister from thinking he’s the supervisor/boss of the ruling elders… But frankly, it slaps back the idea that a ruling elder can think he’s an egalitarian peer with the minister. Indeed, at the ordination of a ruling elder, it is the members of the Session, to include the pastor, but give him the right hand of fellowship and welcome him into sharing in the ministry with them… but when a pastor is installed, it isn’t the Session that welcomes him to the team to share in the ministry with them… No, it’s the Presbytery who welcomes him and says that he’s sharing in the ministry with them. Even though he’s just been on boarded onto a session and in the day and day out grind of ministry he’s going to be doing virtually all of his work and ministry in that local church. The difference is may be subtle, but they are real, and they are profound.
In regards to the local church, which is the proper purview of the REs. (Which is why REs - and Deacons - oaths of office specify their authority as being "of this church" and you can only participate in higher courts when so permitted by your Session as a delegate, so every ruling elder doesn't get to participate all the time, each church gets X number of ruling elder delegates: you are not a member of your Presbytery. Only the Ministers are, and only they as TEs are automatically permitted (expected!) to be there. The differences are significant. Of course as delegates to the Presbytery, they serve as peers on committees, etc.
So I, like many, believe that the best practical language to describe it is as “first among equals" though my usage is reference point is primarily in terms of the local church.
But I say again, in terms of practice: pity the church in which a ruling elder has more influence than the pastor. The Session as a whole can override the pastor, sure. But there should be no single more influential person than the pastor.
*I suspect that the pastor "by virtue of his office" (again, which office) being the moderator - and look close, the Session cannot just call in someone else to be moderator without the concurrence of the pastor unless there's an emergency - and look at the congregational meeting: the pastor is the moderator, and if in the absence of a pastor even if the Session wants one of their own (despite them being elected already as elders), it still has to be voted on by the congregation. Not so the Pastor... and I think that is a reflection of but one of the implications that by oath and installation he accepts "the charge of the church" and so he is by default in the position to have "all authority to maintain order" etc... whereas since we have no bishops, no one is ordained or installed as having the charge of the Presbytery or GA and so it has to be voted on each time (though Presbyteries can appoint someone for a year).
