How Many Offices Are There: Practical Concerns
Larry Wilson
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1992)
It’s no secret that Presbyterians have a long-running debate about whether there are “two offices” or “three offices” in the church. The debate probably reached its zenith during the nineteenth century when James Henley Thornwell championed the “two-office” position and Charles Hodge championed the “three-office” view.
If you’re not familiar with the debate, the basic issue is: how do you classify the offices in biblical church government? Are there two offices—elder and deacon? Or are there three offices—minister, elder, and deacon? In specific, how sharp is the distinction between the minister of the Word (teaching elder) and the ruling elder? Are these two functions within one office (the “two-office” view), or are they two distinct offices (the “three-office” view)?
I hope you don’t expect me fully to resolve the debate. Frankly, I can’t. If you push me to the wall, I’ll identify myself as a “three-office” man.[1] But I doubt that it will be very helpful for us all to push each other to the wall on this issue. The Westminster Assembly couldn’t fully resolve it either.[2] To me, this implies that we had better tread very carefully.
Both sides plead exegetical concerns. But as I try to dissect this debate, it appears to me that each side emphasizes two major practical concerns, both positive and negative.
On the one hand, the “three-office” position is concerned, positively, to guard the faithful ministry of the Word (by maintaining its necessity, distinctiveness, and importance). Negatively, the “three-office” position is concerned not to undermine the office of “church governor” or “ruling elder” (by disqualifying men without gifts or training for publicly teaching the Word from serving as ruling elders).
On the other hand, the “two-office” position is concerned, positively, to guard the parity (equal authority and joint rule) of the governing officers in leading the church. The negative concern is its corollary: to avoid hierarchicalism in the church.
It strikes me that each of these practical concerns is biblical, and that in order to avoid abuse we must emphasize all four simultaneously. I don’t say this to advocate irrationalism. I’m advocating humility.
In fact, this is what the Orthodox Presbyterian Church does. Certain elements of the Book of Church Order clearly guard the “three-office” concerns; other elements reflect the “two-office” concerns. That’s why some say that the OPC affirms a “two-and-a-half office” position.
This is also our intent for Ordained Servant—not to toe either the “three-office” or the “two-office” line—but rather faithfully to advocate the above biblical, practical concerns without getting sidetracked by the formal debate.
As G. I. Williamson says, “More important than the way we classify the offices is the way we define them.” We can each stand instruction on how better to biblically define the offices and duties to which we are called. In the mean time, do we agree that the ministry of the Word is necessary, distinct, and vital to the well-being of the church? Do we agree that men may serve as ruling elders without the gifts and training for publicly teaching the Word? Do we agree that the authority of teaching elders and ruling elders is equal and jointly exercised? And do we agree that, therefore, there is to be no hierarchicalism in the governing of the church? Then, let’s roll up our sleeves and together get back to work.
Larry E. Wilson, Pastor
Grace OPC (Columbus, Ohio)
[1] Along the lines suggested in Edmund P. Clowney, A Brief for Church Governors in Church Government (N.D.); and Robert S. Rayburn, ‘Three Offices: Minister, Elder, and Deacon,’ Presbyterion, Vol. XII, No.2 (Fall 1986), pp. 105-114.
[2] See Ian Murray, ‘Ruling Elders—A Sketch of a Controversy,’ The Banner of Truth, No. 235 (1983), pp. 1-9; and Clowney, Op. Cit.