mgpcpastor's blog

The July Briefing includes an article entitled ‘The Denomination, The Pastor and the Work of Gospel Ministry’. Sadly the article is not one of the ones which is freely available, but could be purchased if you wish. The editorial describes it as ‘some helpful thoughts on working in your denomination as an evangelical’. The author of the article remains anonymous, though revealing that they work for the Presbyterian Church of Australia. In structuring the article the author seeks to explain how a minister/pastor can carry out their ministry while engaging with local elders (the Session); regional oversight (the Presbytery); along with State and National bodies (Assemblies).
It is a curious article. To paraphrase the fictional character Dr. Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy, ‘It’s Presbyterian, but not as we know it.’
The author identifies (from 2 Timothy 4; Ephesians 4; and 2 Timothy 2) that the role of pastors is ‘evangelism, edification, equipping and exporting.’ My lack of comfort with this essay is not so much this contention, but the way the author describes the Presbyterian Church and the suggestions which are made to implement these aims.
Presbyterian pastors, each time they are installed, give assent to this question (among others) ‘Do you own the Presbyterian form of government to be founded on the Word of God and agreeable thereto; and do you promise that through the grace of God, you will firmly and constantly adhere to, and to the utmost of your power, in your station, assert, maintain, and defend the same?’
The article in question affirms the structure of our church, but at the same time does so from what seem to be novel grounds.
While addressing the subject of the Session the author states ‘Theologically, there is no imperative to have more than one elder (i.e. the pastor) ruling the affairs of any congregation.’ Others joining the pastor in leadership as elders is ‘good stewardship’ and an ‘effective way’ of carrying out the work of ministry. It is a pragmatic justification adn not a necessity. This is an extraordinary statement within the context of Presbyterianism.
A document called the Form of Church Government, which was formulated with the Westminster Standards, has a paragraph entitled ‘Other Church Governers’. It reads: ‘As there were in the Jewish church elders of the people joined with the priests and Levites in the government of the church; so Christ, who hath instituted government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church, hath furnished some in his church, beside the ministers of the word, with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to join with the minister in the government of the church. Which officers reformed churches commonly call Elders.’
While a congregation can exist with only one leader, to say there is no imperative for there to be more than one leader and that the only justification for a collective leadership is a pragmatic one in unrecognisable within our denomination.
The author goes on to identify problems that arise when ‘elders exercise no teaching or leadership roles within the congregation, or ar unconverted.’ Sadly both of these situations can arise in our denomination. But to identify converted people who are not functioning in a particular way as being equivalent to unconverted people and then dealing with both groups as ‘unqualified people’ is odd. I understand that the constraints of an article mean certain shortcuts need to be used, but putting someone who is a Christian and who, for a variety of reasons, may not share a pastor’s vision in the same class as an unbeliever lacks sensitivity.
The contention that Session decisions needing to be made on a theocratic, rather than a democratic basis could be viewed as the Session needing to treat the vision of the pastor basically as God’s will.
Again the Standards of our Church are curiously presented when the author refers to their authors recognising that the ‘biblical model of church was “for the gathering and perfecting of the saints.”‘ Yet the endnote itself states that to the ‘catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints.’ The focus of this paragraph is upon the ‘ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God.’ It is these that God makes effectual. Yet rather than focusing on these elements the author seems to focus on the church itself as being the effectual instrument.’ The article mentions ministry a lot, but much less of oracles and ordinances.
The author indicates that ‘in the interests of real and effective congregational leadership’, that the formation of a consultative group comprised of everyone in the congregation who has a teaching or leadership role. The relationship of this leadership group to the Session seems to depend on the pastor or willing elders in order to function.
The notion that a pastor would simply establish such a group is bemusing to say the least. At mgpc we’re in the process of establishing what are basically portfolio groups, which our elders are part of, and their responsibilities embrace both formulation and execution of ministry areas. Yet the decision to proceed in this direction was entirely owned by the eldership as the accountable leaders of the parish. I can’t understand how a pastor could walk into a Session meeting, state that he had formed such a leadership group, and honestly maintain that he respected the collegial leadership of the elders.
It seems little wonder that the subject of dismissing unsuitable elders is raised again at this point. I know it lacks charity, but again it seems a sign of unsuitability is not agreeing with the pastor.
The author moves on to the body of regional oversight, the Presbytery. Again the idea that pastors and the leadership of local congregations have a biblical responsibility to be accountable to one another is not referred to. Rather the idea that we are in partnership with all (and presumably any) like-minded congregations is asserted. This leads to the rather novel Presbyterian polity that is taking root in the Church of Scotland, where evangelical Congregations intend to work together, while seemingly pretending that the others don’t exist. To quote: ‘With such groups, we may have denominational unity, but not unity in the gospel.’
Reference is made to attempts to hinder ‘innovative ministries’. Nothing more is said about what constitutes an innovative ministry, nor what constitutes hindrance. We’re left to assume that the former is good and the latter is bad, solely on the opinion of our anonymous author, particularly givent the lack of any further detail. The notion that the collegial leadership of a Presbytery may have some wisdom which the author lacks is never suggested. Perhaps the other members of the Presbytery should be cautioned lest they too find themselves labelled ‘unsuitable’.
Such seems to be the case because a further step extolled is for the pastor to gain membership of the Presbytery’s committee that deals with training candidates for the ministry. Candidates who demonstrate unsuitable traits, such as preserving ‘traditional worship’, Presbyterian heritage or the Sabbath are to be argued against. This despite the fact that worship and the Sabbath are both parts of the Confessional Standard to which all Presbyterian pastors and elders give assent before installation in office.
‘Anonymous’ advises that candidates should be assessed on the ‘important issues of life and doctrine.’ We’re left to determine what those are ourselves.
Reference to the State and Federal bodies is more fleeting.
The importance of working toward the freeing up of resources for use in evangelism, church planting, theological education and ministry training is one which is stressed in our state assemblies. The urgency with which these areas are being pursued by our various state churches is encouraging.
Also useful is the observation about the need to nurture sound relationships. While we have a comprehensive set of rules, our own fallen-ness should mean that we will not trust in rules alone to make us behave well, but rather our rules give us a commonly agreed framework in which our mutual desire to behave well can be expressed.
In closing, my problem with this article is that while it suggests many worthy things it neglects a great many of the strengths which are part of the Presbyterian system of church government. This may be because of particular negative experiences of the author, but surely a retreat into the less collegial, more independent mindset portrayed here not the answer.
Gary Ware.