16 October 2024
.
.
“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” [Ezekiel 33:6]
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” [Ephesians 6:12]
Presbyterians Week Headlines
[1] Vanguard Presbytery: Church Power and Committees
Additional Articles of Interest
—
[1] Vanguard Presbytery: Church Power and Committees
The 1879 Book of Church Order of the PCUS gave a definition of church power that is exactly the same as can be found in many more recent BCO‘s, including those of the PCA and Vanguard Presbyterian Church, to wit:
“The power which Christ has committed to His Church vests in the whole body, the rulers and the ruled, constituting a spiritual commonwealth. This power, as exercised by the people, extends to the choice of those officers whom He has appointed in His Church.
“Ecclesiastical power, which is wholly spiritual, is two-fold: the officers exercise it sometimes severally, as in preaching the gospel, administering 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.” (1879 PCUS BCO 3:1, 2).
The gist of those two sections teach that all church power is vested in the whole body, both those who rule and those who are ruled. The officers of the church are elected by the people and rule according to that power exercised by the people. When an officer preaches the Word, administers a sacrament, reproves an erring person, visits the sick, or speaks words of comfort to a burdened soul, he is exercising that power severally, not jointly. Other ministers are exercising that same power in various churches or fields of labor. They have been ordained to that office for that purpose. The second form of church power is exercised “jointly in Church courts” and only in Church courts. That is the power of jurisdiction. This second form of church power cannot be exercised by executive committees of sessions whereby a smaller number of elders make decisions for the whole session which are then simply rubber stamped afterwards. It cannot be exercised by committees of presbytery that make decisions for the whole court. It cannot be exercised by permanent committees of the General Assembly that function independently of the Assembly. It can only be exercised in deliberative assemblies of each level of the Church courts. If Presbyterians had only heeded that truth then a tremendous number of problems in the Church would never have happened.
James Henley Thornwell wrote, perhaps, the most insightful thoughts on the subject of church power than can be found in the English language—at least according to my knowledge of such matters. The fourth volume of his collected works deals with Ecclesiastical matters. (Thanks to The Banner of Truth Trust all four volumes are now back in print). Thornwell’s papers concerning “Church Boards” are especially helpful.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century there was the growth of the modern missionary movement. The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A founded the Board of Foreign Missions in 1837. Other denominations had done or did the same. The Board of Foreign Missions was technically a part of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., but not in reality. The Board was wholly independent of the General Assembly and basically trampled on the rights of the courts of the church. It belongs solely to the church courts in joint deliberative assemblies to determine who is qualified to serve as missionaries and where. The Board of Foreign Missions seized that power away from the church courts and such missionary agencies have not given that power back in the 187 years since then. This would have never happened if the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (and later the PCUS) had simply followed chapter three of their BCO. Perhaps no part of the various BCO‘s of the various Presbyterian and Reformed denominations has been more neglected than those words quoted above. Expediency always tends to get in the way of doing things according to the Scripture.
The independency of the various Church Boards or Missions to the World of modern denominations all operate the same way. No matter the denomination, they all function according to Episcopacy or hierarchy. We are told that the Mission Board is composed of the “experts” and that we must get out of the way and allow them to make all the decisions. We receive reports of the numbers of missionaries that are on the field and where they serve, but the courts of the church never get to vote on the matter. The only thing that ever happens is that someone will appear before Presbytery out of the blue and tell the court: “I have been approved by the Mission Board as a missionary to China and I am here to be ordained.” The Presbytery is really not in a position to examine the credentials of such a person to serve as a missionary or to determine that his views are orthodox. The Board of the higher court, the General Assembly, has already made that decision for the Presbytery and all the lower court can do is to rubber stamp what has already been decided.
That would be bad enough if that was all that there was. Yet, things are even worse. The independency of Boards and Agencies and various committees has become common and accepted throughout the reformed churches. Vanguard’s BCO, like that of many reformed denominations, says concerning committees: “Committees examine, consider, and recommend to the court, but cannot take final action on any matter before it” (BCO 18:1). I wish that was how committees truly operated, but my forty-eight years of ministerial experience prove otherwise. Committees, in most instances, operate as though they are clothed with church power. They tend to believe that they can speak and act for the court. I know of instances in which committees have forced ministers to leave their fields of service or took ministers out of their pulpits and many other such things. In so doing, they do the very things that Thornwell warned against concerning Church Boards. A title often gives people the idea that they are clothed with all the power to do whatever they decided to do. Yet, that is not what the BCO says. The power always remains in the whole assembled court. I was watching a TV report by Sharyl Attkinson about a policeman in England who arrested a silent protester against abortion. The policeman questioned her, “What are you doing?” The lady responded, “I am only praying.” “That is not allowed.” “But I was praying silently, not out loud.” “It doesn’t matter. You were praying and that is not allowed. I am arresting you.” Freedom of speech is being lost and so is freedom of thought. In my own experience, I left the PCA because a committee of presbytery wanted to examine me concerning my thoughts, not my actions. They intended to be the judges of whether they thought my heart was in violation of my vows. I did not give them the opportunity to do so and many of them became angry with me. Of course, my “sin” was that I was speaking against the progressive direction of the denomination. That is not allowed, I found out.
In the mid-to-late 2000’s, the PCA went through some restructuring of their General Assembly that basically gave GA committees the authority to do the work of the whole court. That is why there are very few meaningful votes at that Assembly anymore. There are a few elections and votes on overtures. Then, it is just one committee report after another that are given as information only. In fact, the General Assembly does not operate according to the PCA’s BCO anymore. They now operate according to the Rules of Assembly Operation. Few people have ever read it. The RAO means that the General Assembly operates according to different rules than the other courts—the lower courts of the church. I remember when there were meaningful discussions and votes concerning a wide range of matters. The GA was important in those days.
The rationale for operating by committees rather than the whole assembled court is that it is more expedient and efficient. In the Scripture, I am able to clearly recognize that there are elders who are elected by the local church and have the power to govern; then, there are presbyteries that have the responsibility to ordain ministers and have jurisdiction over ministers and presbyteries; and, finally, there is a General Assembly—like the one that met in Jerusalem in Acts 15—to which the Church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to meet with the Apostles and elders. Here is what I can never find in the Scripture—I cannot find where committees are ever given the power of jurisdiction, or where committees ever have the power of oversight or the power to rule over others. Presbyteries have the power of jurisdiction because Timothy and others were ordained by the laying on of hands by the presbytery and were under their jurisdiction (I Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6). General Assemblies have that jurisdiction because the Jerusalem Council decided the issues concerning Gentile converts (Acts 15). Sessions composed of the duly elected and ordained elders have that jurisdiction because they rule over those congregations (1 Timothy 3:5; 5:17; Titus 1:9). Yet, there is not one hint in the Bible of the power of the church ever being given to a committee. All the power of jurisdiction is given to the whole court—not to a committee of the court. The great danger for the modern church is the temptation to erect an unscriptural form of church government that gives the power of the church to a committee. Committees, if not carefully hedged in, can lead to the destruction of our Scriptural form of church government in the Presbyterian churches. Committees have done so. As I have documented in this article, that is what has happened to the PCUS and the PCA and other denominations. In fact, the primary way that hierarchy slips into denominations is through committees. Hierarchy does not simply mean that a denomination is ruled by the General Assembly in unwarranted areas. That is, hierarchy is not merely top down rule. It can also be within the lower courts that hierarchy first begins to manifest itself. Hierarchy turns true Presbyterian church government on its head. Instead of exercising the power of the church through the votes of the whole deliberative assembly of the elders, hierarchy places all the power in the hands of a few and, thereby, takes the power away from the court. At the presbytery and sessional levels, hierarchy is almost always the result of clothing committees with powers that are given in the Scripture only to those courts—session, presbytery, and General Assembly.
So, what is wrong with hierarchy, someone might ask, since those committees are composed of duly elected elders who earnestly desire to serve the Lord? Should we not just trust those committees since they are our brothers and they have spent a lot of time praying over these issues? I would reply that there is not a single verse in Scripture that says we should just trust our leaders. Jesus did not do so. When Jesus went to the Passover after He was baptized, there were many people who were believing in Him as the result of the miracles He was performing. John 2:23-25 says: “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feats; many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.” Jesus did not simply trust even the disciples He had called to follow Him. There were weaknesses and problems with them all. I have served in 6 different presbyteries during my 48 year ministry, including my present service in Vanguard Presbytery. There have been many instances in which I have heard members of presbytery committees say to the whole court or to the people they were examining, investigating, r interrogating: “You need to trust us. We are praying for God’s guidance. He is going to lead us.” Then, I have seen the results of those decisions by the committees who usurped ecclesiastical power that did not belong to them. After 48 years, I must sadly say that there is not a single instance in which I thought that the committees got it right. Not one. Someone might retort that courts err also. Yes, they do, but courts are accountable. A session of a church has to face the members of their church each week. They are accountable. That fact sobers their decision making process. Committees, on the other hand, are unaccountable. After they do whatever they do, they just walk away. The presbytery does not question them because, after all, presbyters say, “We have to just trust that our committee did the best they could do.” I remember vividly as a young minister Ben Wilkinson once telling me about a situation in the presbytery where I served, “If presbytery hands this matter over to a committee, that committee will just stomp around until they start a fire and burn it all down. Then, they will walk away like there was nothing they could do.” He was right. That is what happened. I have seen the same thing in presbytery after presbytery. Many of you who receive this newsletter have witnessed the same thing in your presbyteries.
In conclusion, I submit to you the following assessment of ecclesiastical committees. Ecclesiastical committees are as dangerous to the church as socialism is to the civil government. Most of us are Americans and we do not believe in socialism. We see it as a great danger. We believe in self-government through duly elected leaders. That government is through the deliberative assembly of all the elected leaders—not through strongmen who usurp authority. We do not believe in government through bureaucrats or self-appointed “leaders.” By the same token, we Presbyterians believe in the right of governing ourselves through duly elected elders. Once again, that government is through the deliberative assembly of the whole body of elders at every level of the church. Committees are not deliberative assemblies of the whole except on that rare occasion when the court functions temporarily as a committee of the whole—which is allowed by our polity. Committees of smaller numbers of the whole are not allowed by our polity to take any final action or secret action or to fail to inform the court of all their actions. The power is in the ecclesiastical court just as the US Constitution begins with these words, “We, the people.” Socialism is the tail that wags the people and ecclesiastical committees are the tails that wag the church courts. Both are wrong.
Dewey Roberts, Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Destin, FL
+ Vanguard Presbyterian Church, PO Box 1862, Destin, Florida 32540, (850) 376-3166, drob9944@aol.com
Additional Articles of Interest
– Israel’s Own Footage Shows “Devastating” Civilian Harm Caused by Gaza Air Strikes
– Globalists Revving Up Plans to Engineer Global Famine and Starvation
– World Health Organization Officially Confesses COVID Shots CAUSE Monkeypox
– HORROR: Israeli Troops Live Streamed War Crimes and Genocidal Acts, Documentary Reveals
– Hurricanes as Weather Warfare
Comments are closed for this Article !