The Historical Function of Synods

[andrewnrice]

I've noticed that in many evangelical Presbyterian & Reformed denominations, there are three courts of the church, as opposed to the four outlined in Form of Presbyterial Church-Government, where it states: "It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that there be a subordination of congregational, classical, provincial, and national assemblies, for the government of the church." (Of Synodical Assemblies) (i.e., Session, Presbytery, Synod, & General Assembly)

I've been interested in church polity as of late, and I've always wondered: what function did synods serve in the church distinct from the other courts of the church? Additionally, I have a hypothetical: if the PCA (my denomination) were to create synods, what function and purpose would they serve, and how would they be adapted for our "grassroots" nature? If you have any free resources I can read on this topic, I would appreciate it.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I've noticed that in many evangelical Presbyterian & Reformed denominations, there are three courts of the church, as opposed to the four outlined in Form of Presbyterial Church-Government, where it states: "It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that there be a subordination of congregational, classical, provincial, and national assemblies, for the government of the church." (Of Synodical Assemblies) (i.e., Session, Presbytery, Synod, & General Assembly)

I've been interested in church polity as of late, and I've always wondered: what function did synods serve in the church distinct from the other courts of the church? Additionally, I have a hypothetical: if the PCA (my denomination) were to create synods, what function and purpose would they serve, and how would they be adapted for our "grassroots" nature? If you have any free resources I can read on this topic, I would appreciate it.

There is no place for synods in the pca because they are committed to the presbytery as the root court, and are opposed to a delegated assembly. The only roll for synods I can think of, going on the pca ga model, is regional conventions, because that is what the pca ga is, with their main job to vote on overtures, which are handled by a temporary committee each year, for now. I expect to see a move to have a standing overtures commission like a standing judicial commission, which from a judicial point of view is the "real" ga, a delegated assembly that deals with court cases, but defectively because it only deals with "was procedure properly followed" because presbytery is the root court; and at that the SJC is a benign star chamber whose rulings the ga can't even take up. The problem in the pca is that for fear from PCUS abuse it rejects Acts 15 as far as an assembly that handles cases and has real authority to issue orders "for to keep" regarding doctrine; pca polity is not jus divinum presbyterianism but business model presbyterianism.

 

[Edward]

The PCUSA (and predecessor bodies) Synods are historic relics which have outlived their usefulness and survive to preserve jobs for an entrenched bureaucracy. With improved transportation and communication, and a shrinking population, there is no need for the middle management. Organizations with 4.5 million members need more management than does an organization with a claimed ~1 million members. (There was some synodical overlap between the pre-merger constituent denominations and there were some segregated Black synods in the northern church https://digital.history.pcusa.org/islandora/46733?search_api_fulltext=synod maps )

That being said, the PCA does have multi-presbytery regional structures that likely would have been under Synod direction in the historic denominations. (Church planting and disaster relief under MNA come to mind. I don't know if it is still functional, there was a Mid-South Men's Rally serving several presbyteries but largely sponsored by a single congregation.)

 

[andrewnrice]

Are there any Presbyterian denominations today that have a jus divinum Presbyterian polity? Also, my primary question was, "What function did synods serve in the church distinct from the other courts of the church?" I agree that the PCA will almost never create synods, but I thought it was a fun thought experiment. On that note, the Church of Scotland had synods until 1993, when they were dissolved, I don't know the exact reasons why that was, but I thought it was relevant.

 

[andrewnrice]

The PCUSA (and predecessor bodies) Synods are historic relics which have outlived their usefulness and survive to preserve jobs for an entrenched bureaucracy. With improved transportation and communication, and a shrinking population, there is no need for the middle management. Organizations with 4.5 million members need more management than does an organization with a claimed ~1 million members. (There was some synodical overlap between the pre-merger constituent denominations and there were some segregated Black synods in the northern church https://digital.history.pcusa.org/islandora/46733?search_api_fulltext=synod maps )

That being said, the PCA does have multi-presbytery regional structures that likely would have been under Synod direction in the historic denominations. (Church planting and disaster relief under MNA come to mind. I don't know if it is still functional, there was a Mid-South Men's Rally serving several presbyteries but largely sponsored by a single congregation.)

I didn't know that the church-planting networks were official PCA organizations. According to the PCUSA's .pdf on the church courts, a function of synods is the creation and dissolution of presbyteries, which I would imagine would create controversy in a denomination like the PCA where not everybody gets a say in the matter. Even at GA a couple of months ago, it seemed there was tension surrounding the creation of Smoky Mountain Presbytery out of Tennessee Valley. Even in my presbytery, my pastor and elders have talked about the possibility of a new presbytery because it has gotten so large. The primary issue seems to be how to create the boundaries for it, as well as the fact it has been considered a "purple" presbytery according to my session's clerk. Would you say that synods today aren't as necessary as they were back then and might run the risk of hierarchical polity?

 

[Rom]

Are there any Presbyterian denominations today that have a jus divinum Presbyterian polity? Also, my primary question was, "What function did synods serve in the church distinct from the other courts of the church?" I agree that the PCA will almost never create synods, but I thought it was a fun thought experiment. On that note, the Church of Scotland had synods until 1993, when they were dissolved, I don't know the exact reasons why that was, but I thought it was relevant.

In the Free Church, Synods serve primarily as a court of review. You can look at the Free Church Practice to understand them as practiced in the FCC:

FCC Standards

The Westminster Standards, Books of Discipline, Acts of Assembly, and Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) constitutional documents.

www.freechurchstandards.org

 

[WithinThePale]

there were some segregated Black synods in the northern church

Yikes!

 

[Edward]

I didn't know that the church-planting networks were official PCA organizations.

"MNA provides services to those seeking to be church planting catalysts (church planting networks, presbyteries, individual churches) "

FAQs: Church Planting - MNA Resources

Because it is the biblical means for spreading the Gospel. God loves the church and has ordained her to be the agent of redemption in the world. From the beginning of the established church…

resources.pcamna.org

Although MNA does seem to focus on ethnic church planing -

PLANT | MNA

www.pcamna.org

Even in my presbytery, my pastor and elders have talked about the possibility of a new presbytery because it has gotten so large.

Geographically, North Texas Presbytery is a lot smaller than it used to be at its greatest expansion. Given the historic rivalry between Fort Worth and Dallas, do they want the split to follow the Tarrant/Dallas county line?

 

[andrewnrice]

Although MNA does seem to focus on ethnic church planing -

PLANT | MNA

www.pcamna.org

Makes sense. It seems to me there is a large minority of Brazilian and Korean Presbyterian communities. Although, the MNA website includes more than just those two ethnic groups, I think there has been some criticism of this approach, if I remember correctly.

Geographically, North Texas Presbytery is a lot smaller than it used to be at its greatest expansion. Given the historic rivalry between Fort Worth and Dallas, do they want the split to follow the Tarrant/Dallas county line?

It seems the issue is finding appropriate boundaries and considering the theological sensibilities of the different churches in the presbytery. It could be done that way, although it might result in a presbytery becoming more "blue." According to my session's clerk, a church left the PCA for the OPC because they were upset with the presbytery, as some were determined to keep it more moderate. I just hope that when or if it happens, they don't rename it something strange. A presbytery could be named or renamed Trinity, after the Trinity River...

 

[andrewnrice]

In the Free Church, Synods serve primarily as a court of review. You can look at the Free Church Practice to understand them as practiced in the FCC:

FCC Standards

The Westminster Standards, Books of Discipline, Acts of Assembly, and Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) constitutional documents.

www.freechurchstandards.org

Thank you!

 

[Jack K]

I'm unsure when the full range of ecclesiastical assemblies was formed in Scotland, but they may have been following continental practices begun in France in the mid-1500s. My copy of The New Revised Church Order Commentary (Zondervan, 1967), commenting on the church order of the Christian Reformed Church, has three pages on this topic. It addresses both the history of the original four levels of assemblies and the reasons the CRC opted for just three when it was formed some 300 years later.

As you read, keep in mind that the Presbyterian and Continental terminologies differ when speaking of the church courts.

PRESBYTERIAN:
1. Session
2. Presbytery
3. Synod (if applicable)
4. General Assembly

CONTINENTAL:
1. Consistory
2. Classis
3. Provincial or Regional or "Particular" Synod (if applicable)
4. National or "General" Synod

 

[NaphtaliPress]

google's summary:
The complete four-tier Presbyterian system was officially approved and put in place in 1592 when the Scottish Parliament passed the "Golden Act." This historic legislation legalized a church governance hierarchy that had been developing in pieces for over thirty years since the Scottish Reformation. The national General Assembly was the first piece to emerge, meeting for the very first time in December 1560. Just two years later, in 1562, regional synods (originally known as Provincial Assemblies) began meeting twice a year to oversee large geographic districts. Smaller, localized presbyteries were later introduced in 1581 to manage groups of neighboring parishes and sit between the local kirk sessions and the larger regional synods. The 1592 Act formally locked all of these pieces together into the unified, climbing structure of church courts—Kirk Session, Presbytery, Synod, and General Assembly—that still defines Presbyterianism today.

I'm unsure when the full range of ecclesiastical assemblies was formed in Scotland, but they may have been following continental practices begun in France in the mid-1500s. My copy of The New Revised Church Order Commentary (Zondervan, 1967), commenting on the church order of the Christian Reformed Church, has three pages on this topic. It addresses both the history of the original four levels of assemblies and the reasons the CRC opted for just three when it was formed some 300 years later.

As you read, keep in mind that the Presbyterian and Continental terminologies differ when speaking of the church courts.

PRESBYTERIAN:
1. Session
2. Presbytery
3. Synod (if applicable)
4. General Assembly

CONTINENTAL:
1. Consistory
2. Classis
3. Provincial or Regional or "Particular" Synod (if applicable)
4. National or "General" Synod

View attachment 13060

View attachment 13061
View attachment 13062

 

[Edward]

According to my session's clerk, a church left the PCA for the OPC because they were upset with the presbytery, as some were determined to keep it more moderate.

I think I drifted off topic on this thread, so I'll reply privately before management gets involved.

 

[EmilyF]

If I have things straight, Synod is just the next level up from Presbytery. I was very interested to hear that the PCA does not have Synods. It makes sense that to emphasise Presbyteries you would skip that court, but to me that contradicts traditional Presbyterianism (not to start a debate but I mean it seems to be its own variant).

So I was going to add as an interesting tidbit, that on the other hand the FP Church does not currently have a GA whereas Synod is its highest court and meeting, because although we could have multiple Synods and GA it is just seen as impractical because we are on the smaller side, and so instead of skipping Synod like some denominations, we just say we are too small for a GA.

 

[EvanF]

I didn't know that the church-planting networks were official PCA organizations. According to the PCUSA's .pdf on the church courts, a function of synods is the creation and dissolution of presbyteries, which I would imagine would create controversy in a denomination like the PCA where not everybody gets a say in the matter. Even at GA a couple of months ago, it seemed there was tension surrounding the creation of Smoky Mountain Presbytery out of Tennessee Valley. Even in my presbytery, my pastor and elders have talked about the possibility of a new presbytery because it has gotten so large. The primary issue seems to be how to create the boundaries for it, as well as the fact it has been considered a "purple" presbytery according to my session's clerk. Would you say that synods today aren't as necessary as they were back then and might run the risk of hierarchical polity?

The organization and reorganization of presbyteries was one of the breaking points in the PCUS that led to the formation of the PCA. I assume at least part of the consideration in drafting the current PCA presbyterial structure was to make such gerrymandering more difficult for the GA.

 

[CGS]

So I was going to add as an interesting tidbit, that on the other hand the FP Church does not currently have a GA whereas Synod is its highest court and meeting, because although we could have multiple Synods and GA it is just seen as impractical because we are on the smaller side, and so instead of skipping Synod like some denominations, we just say we are too small for a GA.

Same in the ARP. We only have the Session, Presbytery, and Synod (once per year), but we do not have a GA. I'm not sure if our reasons are exactly the same as yours in the FP, but we are also on the smaller side and primarily located in the Southeastern US region. However, it seems like our Synod functions a lot like the GA does in other denominations (handling overtures/memorials, forming committees to study particular issues, etc.).

@iainduguid , @Jake - I know you are ARP guys...maybe you have more insight into why we don't have a GA?

 

[iainduguid]

The present ARP has grown from what was one synod of a much larger denomination, the Synod of the Carolinas. There were once many ARP churches throughout the eastern seaboard. The other Synods all joined what eventually became the PCUSA, but the Synod of the Carolinas remained separate. Hence we currently have a General Synod but no GA.

Incidentally, from my experience of the PCA and the ARP, I think a Synod/GA meeting becomes unwieldy as a place for substantive theological discussion once you get more than about 500 attendees (maybe even less than that). Some churches deal with the problem by having delegated assemblies, but having Synods could help a larger church like the PCA operate better, in my view.

 

[andrewnrice]

The present ARP has grown from what was one synod of a much larger denomination, the Synod of the Carolinas. There were once many ARP churches throughout the eastern seaboard. The other Synods all joined what eventually became the PCUSA, but the Synod of the Carolinas remained separate. Hence we currently have a General Synod but no GA.

Incidentally, from my experience of the PCA and the ARP, I think a Synod/GA meeting becomes unwieldy as a place for substantive theological discussion once you get more than about 500 attendees (maybe even less than that). Some churches deal with the problem by having delegated assemblies, but having Synods could help a larger church like the PCA operate better, in my view.

Mr. Coldwell thinks it may not happen because of the PCA's strong emphasis on the presbytery as the "root court" and how we don't have a delegated assembly, and I imagine that the PCA isn't too keen on giving that up. It would be interesting if the PCA were to ever create synods, although I find it unlikely, and some might even be wary of the change as they see it as going into the wrong direction or as relics of the past, as Edward put it. Dr. Duguid, how do you think the creation of synods would help the PCA?

 

[Jake]

The present ARP has grown from what was one synod of a much larger denomination, the Synod of the Carolinas. There were once many ARP churches throughout the eastern seaboard. The other Synods all joined what eventually became the PCUSA, but the Synod of the Carolinas remained separate. Hence we currently have a General Synod but no GA.

Incidentally, from my experience of the PCA and the ARP, I think a Synod/GA meeting becomes unwieldy as a place for substantive theological discussion once you get more than about 500 attendees (maybe even less than that). Some churches deal with the problem by having delegated assemblies, but having Synods could help a larger church like the PCA operate better, in my view.

@CGS I'll add a bit of context on to Dr Duguid's post:


The ARP Church was formed in 1782 as a merger of (most of) the Associate/Seceder and Reformed/Covenanter Presbyterians from Scotland. They were spread out including major groups in NY and PA. In the early 1800s, the ARP Church split into separate synods, largely because distance made it difficult to come together frequently. The 1803 formation of the Synod of the Carolinas/South continues to the present day in the ARP Church. The original plan was for the Synods to meet more frequently and to come together as an Assembly every few years. But in reality, the Assembly meetings didn't happen and the ARP synods drifted further apart, effectively acting as separate bodies.

The United Presbyterian Church (UPCNA) was an effort to bring together the ARP Church again. It was formed in 1858 of essentially all of the northern ARP synods and one remnant group of the APs who had stayed out of the 1782 merger. The UPCNA merged with the mainline northern Presbyterians to form the UPCUSA in 1958 and this group merged again later with the PCUS (mainline southern Presbyterians) to form what is again called the PC(USA). The UPCNA started off as a fairly conservative Psalm-singing group but became more mainline. The ARP (southern) synod was becoming more mainline in this period as well and there were talks of a merger with the PCUS that never happened (such discussions of a PCUS merger continued up to the 70s I believe).

All of that to say, the Synod language is maintained for our yearly meetings as we are a continuation of a single synod.

For information on the early history of the ARP, I recommend the book History of the Associate Reformed synod of the South by Robert Lathan. It's probably in your church library or you can find it on Archive.org or Google Books.

 

[Jake]

If I have things straight, Synod is just the next level up from Presbytery. I was very interested to hear that the PCA does not have Synods. It makes sense that to emphasise Presbyteries you would skip that court, but to me that contradicts traditional Presbyterianism (not to start a debate but I mean it seems to be its own variant).

So I was going to add as an interesting tidbit, that on the other hand the FP Church does not currently have a GA whereas Synod is its highest court and meeting, because although we could have multiple Synods and GA it is just seen as impractical because we are on the smaller side, and so instead of skipping Synod like some denominations, we just say we are too small for a GA.

I've often wondered if the FPs would ever have a separate synod for Zimbabwe to help administratively and maybe one day be a separate national church.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Mr. Coldwell thinks it may not happen because of the PCA's strong emphasis on the presbytery as the "root court" and how we don't have a delegated assembly, and I imagine that the PCA isn't too keen on giving that up. It would be interesting if the PCA were to ever create synods, although I find it unlikely, and some might even be wary of the change as they see it as going into the wrong direction or as relics of the past, as Edward put it. Dr. Duguid, how do you think the creation of synods would help the PCA?

And we have bigger problems, like pca churches that present to the world diaconates with men and women members with not even a figleaf of a qualification, which also says that many don't understand when a lie is a lie and when and how you break the ninth commandment, among other problems. https://www.savethepca.com/

 

[iainduguid]

Mr. Coldwell thinks it may not happen because of the PCA's strong emphasis on the presbytery as the "root court" and how we don't have a delegated assembly, and I imagine that the PCA isn't too keen on giving that up. It would be interesting if the PCA were to ever create synods, although I find it unlikely, and some might even be wary of the change as they see it as going into the wrong direction or as relics of the past, as Edward put it. Dr. Duguid, how do you think the creation of synods would help the PCA?

I think delegated assemblies might help more, but that is hardly likely to happen. I'm largely speaking of my own personal experience with PCA General Assembly and ARP General Synod. The former seemed to run like a convention, with no real space for theological discussion, so everything important happens out of sight; it was an opportunity to reconnect with old friends, but relatively little chance to make new acquaintances. Because the General Synod of the ARP is so much smaller, and meets at the denominational conference center, where we all eat together, I've felt there was more opportunity to discuss matters of substance on the floor of Synod.

One of the complaints I hear about the PCA has been the fact that discipline gets punted to the SJC because there's no way these matters could be adjudicated by a huge GA, with all the rest of the business that needs to be done. Synods might help with that, perhaps. But I'm not invested in my suggestion as the solution to all the challenges that the PCA faces; often new ideas simply create new problems..

 

[andrewnrice]

And we have bigger problems, like pca churches that present to the world diaconates with men and women members with not even a figleaf of a qualification, which also says that many don't understand when a lie is a lie and when and how you break the ninth commandment, among other problems. https://www.savethepca.com/

Agreed. The overwhelming rejection of Overture 37 at the last GA is promising, and so is the possibility of a constitutional directory.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Agreed. The overwhelming rejection of Overture 37 at the last GA is promising, and so is the possibility of a constitutional directory.

Agreed on 37; Pacific Presbytery needs to stop wasting GA's time. But the last thing we need is a constitutional directly like that proposed, for the many reasons I posted just prior to this summer's general assembly.

 

[Edward]

Home - Save the PCA

As we have discussed previously, I think they were a bit too broad in what they included, and would have presented a stronger case if they had been more selective.

But the last thing we need is a constitutional directly like that proposed, for the many reasons I posted just prior to this summer's general assembly.

But we agree on this. But again, I think targeted attacks (or a schwerpunkt) will be more effective in attacking adoption, rather than a broad front attack.

 

[andrewnrice]

Agreed on 37; Pacific Presbytery needs to stop wasting GA's time. But the last thing we need is a constitutional directly like that proposed, for the many reasons I posted just prior to this summer's general assembly.

I used to think more positively about the directory, but after thinking more critically about it, I don't think it would actually help the PCA's current situation. However, if it isn't adopted, we would still have no constitutional directory; it's a lose-lose.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Same in the ARP. We only have the Session, Presbytery, and Synod (once per year), but we do not have a GA. I'm not sure if our reasons are exactly the same as yours in the FP, but we are also on the smaller side and primarily located in the Southeastern US region. However, it seems like our Synod functions a lot like the GA does in other denominations (handling overtures/memorials, forming committees to study particular issues, etc.).

@iainduguid , @Jake - I know you are ARP guys...maybe you have more insight into why we don't have a GA?

There is a historical piece to this in the Covenanter (RPCNA) and Seceder (ARP) traditions. I've come across the opinion (but can't recall where) that these bodies only believe that you can have a GA if you are the established Church in your nation - until then, the highest body you can have in a synod. In other words, the Covenanter and Seceder traditions regard “General Assembly” as only properly denoting an assembly representing a whole visible national Church (or "particular churches" as used originally in the WCF - see 25.4) and therefore used “synod” in the way that we use "denomination" today (a fragment of the visible Church). So when the RPCNA and ARP constitutions, for example, today call Synod the “highest court of the church,” they're not saying they don't believe in a GA but rather that they can't have a GA because neither are the established national church and thus the synodical level is the highest they currently can have. Thus the RPCNA and ARP are in this way acknowledging that they do not constitute the entire visible Presbyterian church in the land.

In other words, in the Covenanter (RPCNA) and Seceder (ARP) traditions, there was a belief (now perhaps lost or obscured) that a body which knows itself to be only a portion of the visible church in a land should not ordinarily style its highest court a "General Assembly," because "General Assembly" properly belongs only to an assembly representing the church generally in that land, rather than merely the particular denomination. So the terminology is important - it is purposeful and precise because it reflects the Covenanter/Seceder understanding of presbyterianism as catholic and visible. The position isn't “We are one denomination among many, and that's just how Presbyterianism works” but rather more like "Christ has one visible Church and the existence of multiple competing bodies in a land is a disorder that ought ultimately to be remedied."

I'm afraid I don't have any sources at hand to share, so this is at best my recollection of a topic rarely broached (and so happy to be corrected), no doubt because of its interrelatedness to establishmentarianism - it is a moot point for US denominations like the PCA and OPC who follow the American 1788 Confession and thus they have no issue with having a GA since they do not accept the idea of an established Church. But to those still holding to the original WCF and the Form of Presbyterian Church Government, I would argue that this distinction exists for a reason and is still important.

 

[lunarWood]

But to those still holding to the original WCF and the Form of Presbyterian Church Government, I would argue that this distinction exists for a reason and is still important.

I am of no help to validate whether these things are historically accurate, but theologically, it is well in-line with the Covenanter position of wanting to see nation(s) covenant with God.

“For Christ’s crown and covenant.”

 

[EmilyF]

I've often wondered if the FPs would ever have a separate synod for Zimbabwe to help administratively and maybe one day be a separate national church.

We would hope that our church would be the national church wherever it is, if we believe it to be the best option. That would eventually be the goal, but I don't think we would split up until that is anywhere near probable.

Zimbabwe is still considered a mission despite doing better than some other countries, but forms its own Presbytery. Therefore it is still on that court level and does not require a Synod. Asia Pacific covers Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand, and will probably include the Philippines if our connections decide to join. Meanwhile, Southern Presbytery (Scotland) involves all lowland churches, the English churches, US and Canada, and nearly involved Ukraine as well. That would be a far-reaching Presbytery if ever we saw one. But because of actual numbers, not distance, they are still Presbyteries, and most of these are vacant, which means the Glasgow and Edinburgh ministers are interim moderators for other congregations in that whole area. It is amazing but sad to think that 'Glasgow and Ayrshire' was once a whole Synod (CofS, FC or RP, not sure), never mind a Presbytery!

 

[EmilyF]

In other words, in the Covenanter (RPCNA) and Seceder (ARP) traditions, there was a belief (now perhaps lost or obscured) that a body which knows itself to be only a portion of the visible church in a land should not ordinarily style its highest court a "General Assembly," because "General Assembly" properly belongs only to an assembly representing the church generally in that land, rather than merely the particular denomination. So the terminology is important - it is purposeful and precise because it reflects the Covenanter/Seceder understanding of presbyterianism as catholic and visible. The position isn't “We are one denomination among many, and that's just how Presbyterianism works” but rather more like "Christ has one visible Church and the existence of multiple competing bodies in a land is a disorder that ought ultimately to be remedied."

This makes a lot of sense and may be closer to our actual reasoning, though I'm not sure. I've just been told that the size is the reason, but I could get a proper response if I asked more diligently/the right people. What you have said is exactly the true Presbyterian position; the other side leans a little Voluntary. Strive for biblical unity. If you're going to unite, do it; if not, you better have a good reason and fight for it. Ultimately, though wishful thinking practically, and the end of many prayers, is that we would have a solid church and uphold our principles, and that such a church would become the Established Church when God turns the UK back if He wills.