Who nominates the members of the pulpit committee in the PCA?

[Pilgrim_]

Our church elders met last Sunday to nominate members for the pulpit committee. I know this because my wife was called and asked if she would serve on the committee - she would be a great choice by the way.

My concern is PCA BCO 20-2 says that the committee may be composed of members of the congregation at large or the Session as designated by the congregation. The Clerks BCO handbook says the Session can determine the "size and shape" of the committee, but nowhere does it say they can nominate the members.

I am interested to hear from those who are more familiar with PCA church polity than I am. Thanks for taking the time to read this and for you responses.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Your Session's actions are out of order. You need to call a congregational meeting (giving the congregation 1 week notice) and it is the congregation that elects the pulpit committee.

BCO 20-2
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.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I know many examples where the Session has basically decided who the nomination committee will be, but then they have a congregational meeting and have their selections essentially confirmed by congregational vote. Which is fine. The idea that the BCO requires us to essentially go into a congregational meeting as a free for all with floor nominations is incorrect.

So SOMEONE has to have put forth a list of people to be voted on at that congregational meeting… I think it’s just as well that it be the Session than anyone else.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I know many examples where the Session has basically decided who the nomination committee will be, but then they have a congregational meeting and have their selections essentially confirmed by congregational vote.

I think many congregations would accept whatever the Session recommends. Since it is a moderated meeting, the Session members can present who they think the committee members ought to be. However, the congregation that votes for the committee and the session members each have one vote.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I think many congregations would accept whatever the Session recommends. Since it is a moderated meeting, the Session members can present who they think the committee members ought to be. However, the congregation that votes for the committee and the session members each have one vote.

Of course. But it’s still OK for the Session to call around and have that list of people collected. And it absolutely makes sense that the session would control the list at the foundational level to ensure good selections are made. Just because someone wants to be on a committee does not mean they should be… And this is how it gets taken care of at the root.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Of course. But it’s still OK for the Session to call around and have that list of people collected. And it absolutely makes sense that the session would control the list at the foundational level to ensure good selections are made. Just because someone wants to be on a committee does not mean they should be… And this is how it gets taken care of at the root.

Sure. I wasn't disagreeing. I was just making sure I articulated where the authority for the committee derives. It's the congregation as a whole that has the authority to ultimately appoint the committee. It's a feature (not a bug) of Reformed Ecclesiology that the authority to elect its leaders belongs to the congregation. They elect whom they must then submit to (in contrast to Clericalism).

That said, I've found that a healthy congregation trusts its elders because they are trustworthy and will follow their suggestions.

We know of Sessions (or even pastors) who take away the rights of the congregation because they "know better," as in those who violate the BCO and do not permit the congregation to nominate any deacons because they want an unordained "diaconate" of women and men.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Of course. But it’s still OK for the Session to call around and have that list of people collected. And it absolutely makes sense that the session would control the list at the foundational level to ensure good selections are made. Just because someone wants to be on a committee does not mean they should be… And this is how it gets taken care of at the root.

Sure. I wasn't disagreeing. I was just making sure I articulated where the authority for the committee derives. It's the congregation as a whole that has the authority to ultimately appoint the committee. It's a feature (not a bug) of Reformed Ecclesiology that the authority to elect its leaders belongs to the congregation. They elect whom they must then submit to (in contrast to Clericalism).

That said, I've found that a healthy congregation trusts its elders because they are trustworthy and will follow their suggestions.

We know of Sessions (or even pastors) who take away the rights of the congregation because they "know better," as in those who violate the BCO and do not permit the congregation to nominate any deacons because they want an unordained "diaconate" of women and men.

Yep, and I’m not sure of any court of the church that has actually slapped anyone back for their gross deviations from what the BCO says about deacons. Which is sad.

And of course, the church needs to vote for its *leaders*… But at the same time, I’m a strong and vigorous proponent of the session carefully guarding who is put forward for ratification, that is election, to be on the nominating committee. (and no, the nominating committee, though formally elected, do not become the congregation’s leaders. So that argument strand really isn’t relevant in my mind.)

 

[NaphtaliPress]

When we went through the process two years back, the session asked for nominations (but only people that were first asked if they were willing to serve) and then presented those at the congregational meeting and voted on. All men filled the spots though some women were nominated. I was not looking to serve on another search committee; would be my fourth. All said though, except for one policy, it went very well. I think there's a thread here about it and I'll say no more; but I think ours was a typical process as to the nomination and make up; elders were able to be nominated and one did serve, which was helpful in many respects.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

By the way, here is the principle I was elucidating above from theBCO's Preliminary Principles:

6. Though the character, qualifications and authority of church officers are laid down in the Holy Scriptures, as well as the proper method of officer investiture, the power to elect persons to the exercise of authority in any particular society resides in that society.

I do not disagree with Ben, but I am merely underlining some principles about ecclesiastical authority that some are apt to forget (or ignore in some cases).

I agree, for instance, that a wise Session would know its congregation and communicate with it ahead of time if it wants to avoid having someone who would be disastrous on a pulpit committee.

I also know of a recent case where a commission from Memphis disciplined members of a congregation because they were forcing their vision upon the congregation (see the Jonesboro case).

 

[SolaScriptura]

All that to say… In my opinion… The Session will only be acting out of accord with the BCO if they don’t hold a congregational meeting to get the congregation to formally elect the nominating committee. But them simply calling around asking various people if they are willing to serve… totally fine and I think that’s them doing good prep work.

 

[Edward]

I know many examples where the Session has basically decided who the nomination committee will be, but then they have a congregational meeting and have their selections essentially confirmed by congregational vote.

That's the Presbyterian way. I don't think I've ever seen a floor fight at a congregational meeting. The only resistance I ever saw was a suggestion of the absence of a quorum (which was upheld). Meeting ended, leadership did its homework, and a new meeting was called a few weeks later to affirm the planned action.

 

[Edward]

We know of Sessions (or even pastors) who take away the rights of the congregation because they "know better," as in those who violate the BCO and do not permit the congregation to nominate any deacons because they want an unordained "diaconate" of women and men.

Sounds like congregations that need to be educated in BCO 25-2 and the ability of the congregation to force the session to call a congregational meeting. Although it would be easier to do in a big church than a small church. Mention of a possible petition drive might be enough to get a session to give more thought to its position.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sounds like congregations that need to be educated in BCO 25-2 and the ability of the congregation to force the session to call a congregational meeting. Although it would be easier to do in a big church than a small church. Mention of a possible petition drive might be enough to get a session to give more thought to its position.

Not quite. The BCO instructs Sessions that members must be allowed to nominate persons for the Office of Elder or Deacon. Some Sessions, desiring to maintain an unordained Diaconate, remove this right altogether because they want men and women to be commissioned as unordained members of a "Diaconate".

 

[Edward]

Not quite. The BCO instructs Sessions that members must be allowed to nominate persons for the Office of Elder or Deacon. Some Sessions, desiring to maintain an unordained Diaconate, remove this right altogether because they want men and women to be commissioned as unordained members of a "Diaconate".

My thought was to petition the session to call a congregational meeting for the purposes of electing deacons. Would that violate any express provisions of the BCO? It would certainly rock the boat.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My thought was to petition the session to call a congregational meeting for the purposes of electing deacons. Would that violate any express provisions of the BCO? It would certainly rock the boat.

Sorry, my vision caused me to misinterpret what you were writing earlier.

I think a congregation could do this.

The issue is that some Pastors and their Elders end up being aligned theologically in a way that is out of accord with the Standards. Congregations tend to reflect leadership. Consequently, the congregations where this is happening in the most egregious fashion would likely not be motivated to change what they are doing. You can watch the live stream from the last GA where a Pastor admits he's been violating the BCO for many years and that the PCA has now "changed" in forbidding Biblical office titles to non-ordained persons.

 

[3dawgnight]

I'll point out that the OP stated that his Session met to nominate members for a pulpit committee. From that, I get the impression that the plan is still for the congregation to elect the pulpit committee. I don't read anything in the BCO that prohibits the Session from nominating members to a pulpit committee, but the final choice is the congregation's.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'll point out that the OP stated that his Session met to nominate members for a pulpit committee. From that, I get the impression that the plan is still for the congregation to elect the pulpit committee. I don't read anything in the BCO that prohibits the Session from nominating members to a pulpit committee, but the final choice is the congregation's.

That's true. If the purpose of the meeting is to present the Session's recommended members of the pulpit committee, then it should be careful to record the reason why it is included in its minutes that it is nominating members.

By the way, not every "Session" that oversees a congregation during this process is necessarily close to the congregation. Especially in some Church planting situations, they may not be in a position to best determine the composition of the pulpit committee. I point that out because there may be times when a wise Session refrains from a recommendation if they are overseeing a congregation they don't know very well.

 

[Edward]

By the way, not every "Session" that oversees a congregation during this process is necessarily close to the congregation. Especially in some Church planting situations, they may not be in a position to best determine the composition of the pulpit committee. I point that out because there may be times when a wise Session refrains from a recommendation if they are overseeing a congregation they don't know very well.

Flip side of that is that some vetting of folks is a good thing. Having a congregational popularity contest can lead to disaster.