The Case for More Presbytery Consultation
Peter J. Wallace
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 6, no. 4 (October 1997)
Brethren, A recent incident in the Presbytery of the Midwest has awakened a dormant idea from its slumbers. I am increasingly convinced that presbyteries are not living up to what a presbytery should be. We do business and formal discipline, but where is the bond that holds us together? Someone can easily fall between the cracks because the pastoral side of presbytery is wholly optional. If someone takes the initiative, he can develop a whole network of friendships and mentors, but without such initiative, he could spend his entire ministry in virtual isolation. Hence, when one member of our presbytery sought spiritual counsel and wisdom, the presbytery offered him a committee which met a couple times, proclaimed him orthodox, and dissolved. A couple of its members tried sporadically to continue talking with him, but the presbytery forgot that he needed help. So he turned to someone who had a more organic understanding of the pastoral relationship—and he now is seeking to leave the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and to join the Antiochene Orthodox Church.
I don’t know how to create a more pastoral understanding of the presbytery. It would certainly involve changing the way we think about presbyteries. It might even involve some structural changes. We currently have a belief, as a relic of the past, that ministers are members of presbytery rather than members of a congregation. I call it a relic of the past because it appears to have virtually no substance as a belief, and no obvious effects in our corporate life. Beyond our yearly visitation (which is not given to all members of presbytery—only to each congregation), where is the presbytery’s pastoral oversight being exercised? In the local congregation, we not only worship together, but we have regular opportunities for fellowship, study, prayer, and spiritual development—not to mention systematic visitation and pastoral counseling. But where is that available (except upon special request) for pastors? We are beginning to develop better means for dealing with crises after they arise, but how might we be able to take our understanding of the organic nature of the body of Christ and make use of it to prevent at least some such crises.
So now my historian’s motor starts humming, and I recall how the “presbytery” of Geneva met regularly for joint study and discussion of various problems in the churches—not merely for conducting business, but for pastoral oversight, for mutual correction, and counsel in how to handle difficult situations. I could multiply examples beyond number.
Obviously many presbyteries are geographically too large for the whole body to get together. But then again, most presbyteries are numerically too large for a meeting of the whole to provide the sort of pastoral oversight that I envision and desire. I would suggest that each region have regular monthly (at least) meetings for the discussion of issues, pastoral counsel, and godly fellowship. Each region should consist of roughly five to ten ministers, plus ruling elders. For example, in my presbytery, according to my count, there are thirteen ministers in Illinois, five in Iowa (though I think two are in Dakotas presbytery), twenty-two in Michigan, one in Ontario, and twelve in Wisconsin. Perhaps the regions could be Wisconsin, Illinois/Iowa, Western Michigan, and Eastern Michigan.
Required meetings could be held every month except those months with business meetings. Perhaps at least half the meetings (if not more often), could be devoted to a specific topic. One member of the group would make a brief presentation, with discussion to follow. The topics would vary with the interests and needs of the group (ranging from “how do I handle this one” sorts of things, to relevant theological questions). Presentations could be exegetical and/or historical perspectives on issues to provoke discussion. Obviously each member of the group would not be expected to prepare one of these talks more than once a year. Other meetings could be devoted to simply talking through issues that have come up in the various congregations, encouraging and admonishing each other. Regions could combine and hold joint sessions involving special speakers, topics of joint interest, etc.
In doing this, we would be taking some concrete steps to assert that ministers are truly members of presbytery, and can find counsel, wisdom, and fellowship from one another. The Reformation did not reject the authority which bishops exercised, rather they affirmed that the presbytery should exercise that authority over one another. Have we become virtual congregationalists by diminishing the authority of presbytery to occasional visits and discipline? A good old Scottish presbytery acted like Paul in sending ministers to churches, rather than waiting for a congregation to request someone. Congregations could approve or veto the presbytery’s choice (as could the minister), but all involved recognized that the call of the presbytery was to be treated as the call of Christ unless good reasons could be produced. Charles Hodge recommended that the newfangled intrusion of allowing congregations to pay their own minister be abolished. He argued that this was a reason why Presbyterians rarely planted churches in poor neighborhoods, and claimed that it would inevitably lead to the reduction of both ministerial and presbyterial authority. He advocated the old Reformed and catholic practice of having the presbytery pay all pastors, both as a symbol of their membership in the presbytery, but also as a reminder to the congregation that once the money hit the offering plate, it was no longer theirs—it was God’s. Pastors would be paid according to their need, rather than according to the wealth and whim of their congregation.
I would love to see all three of these suggestions come to pass in the OPC, but for now I’ll settle for the first! These meetings should not be regarded as merely optional. We should not say that pastoral oversight is less important than business and discipline. We all need the lamp of the Word to shine on our ministry—and not merely in our own study, but in the fellowship of the presbytery to which we are subject. If we say that members of the congregation must not forsake the assembling of themselves together, by what logic can we say that ministers are excused from such requirements?
I grant that some presbyteries are probably too spread out for this, so I suppose that an electronic gathering would be acceptable if no other one is possible.
Would an amendment to the FOG, chapter XIV, be appropriate? Right now, while VI.4 implies that the presbytery is to exercise pastoral care and oversight, I can find no clear direction as to how this oversight is to be exercised. Most of the comments have to do with the exercise of formal discipline. Is it too much to ask that we commit ourselves—even in some general sense—to the pastoral care of one another in the presbytery?
Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
Blessings,
Peter J. Wallace
Grace Reformed Christian Fellowship
Walkerton, Indiana