Elders in Context: ConsideringInternational Church LeadershipFrom a Reformed and CovenantalPerspective

Introduction: 

The long and winding road 

I never intended to write what you see here. This started as a modest response to a  request by the International Presbyterian Church. The IPC, is a diverse lot,  representing many nationalities and cultures. That diversity extends to other things  as well. Presbyterianism itself, as IPCers know is not monolithic. Though it is united  within a broad, common polity, there are significant differences among Presbyterians  and other Reformed churches. Questions bubble up as different ways of being  reformed and presbyterian emerge, clash and evolve. How do you live out your  denominational identity? What does being presbyterian mean? We have pastors,  elders and deacons. How do they relate? How do presbyterian churches relate? How  do presbyterian denominations relate? How do presbyterians live with other  Christians? See what I mean? 

I should also say, before we get into the heart of this particular work, that underlying  my efforts was a constant thought, a harmony I hope. It is the conviction that the  purpose of the the Church, THE Church, the one global body of Christ, is to glorify  God through mission. It is to see that the sweet aroma of Christ, as 2 Corinthians  says it, reaches into all the world. I have the conviction that the work I started doing  on behalf of the IPC, ostensibly to examine the relationships between pastors and  elders, has larger significance. I began to hope, as I dug into the material, that this  work might serve as a help to the church in encouraging relationships between  Christians of different stripe for the sake of the kingdom. 

What started out as a relatively simple exercise, comparing a few New And Old  Testament passages quickly branched into a broader examination that now includes  pre-Christian history, Patristics, the Reformation, modern history, theology etc. I  found out that making decisions about what to do or not do with regard to what kind  of church government to have is a far more difficult affair than I thought. I discovered  many, many forks in the road, with different parts of the Church going one way and  another, all armed with the Scripture. I also discovered that local decisions were  often made based in a very limited context that were later universalized, complete  with a scriptural justification that made the decision seem for posterity as though it  was the only biblical choice available. I am no relativist. I believe that the Bible is  perfect and complete as a rule for faith and practice, but I also am not so sure that  what it says is always so clear to us, so beyond dispute than we can always say that  what we have apprehended as to its meaning is exclusive truth. I suppose, I have  discovered what many have known, that we can do what we do because we think  that the Bible affirms it and, likewise, join ranks with those that do it somewhat  differently. Personally, as a Presbyterian, I also can say there is more than one good  way to be Presbyterian. 

One practical note: While we will get to many issues along the way, the core  discussion will revolve around one question. How many offices should there be in a  reformed church and how should they relate? My principal interest is in examining  the relationship between the pastor and elders in the church. Are they, for example  

2

separate offices, are they two different types of elder, or are all elders the same,  even if you have one that you designate the pastor? 

The long and winding road of research and study has probably made this offering  undoubtedly harder to read, though hopefully not more dull, and, I trust, much more  useful. At the end of my sifting through thousands of pages of material, biblical and  otherwise, I emerge more hopeful, more confident, and more energized to join the  fray. I hope you will be too. 

Donʼt know much about history... 

In order to make reasonable decisions about church polity, whether your questions  are pretty limited (How many offices are there in the church?) or really broad (Should  we be episcopalian, presbyterian, or congregational?), you have to look at history.  The decisions that the historic church reached in the past with regard to polity were  made, obviously within a historical context. Making sense of their decisions, and  getting our own decisions to make sense, means paying attention to history. There is  no way, for example, to understand the creation of modern denominations or  denominationalism without considering the wars of the Reformation or the Thirty  Years War. Luther has to be taken alongside of Erasmus and Charles V.  

 In my own survey of books written in order to explain denominational polity,  especially presbyterian and reformed, I have noticed a few things. Few really seem  to treat history that seriously. Many skip it altogether. Those that do mention it usually  spend time discussing the New Testament situation, then jump to the Reformation,  and, if they are American, launch straight into the American historical context, talking  about nineteenth century figures such as Charles Hodge, Samuel Miller, James  Henry Thornwell and Robert Dabney.  

We cannot afford to narrow things in that way. We need to go, as the childrenʼs song  says it, “deep and wide.” Therefore, we need to start with the Jewish Second Temple  contexts before looking at the New Testament and the history that followed it. We  also need to spend a great deal of time looking closely at the Reformational context,  both on the Continent and in the British Isles and the emergence of what we now  know as presbyterianism in the Elizabethan period. As we do this, we will also see  the presbyterian church at its genesis, as it differentiated itself in Great Britain from  Anglicanism first and then congregationalism.  

There is, of course, far too much to address in a short work, so we have to draw  boundaries somewhere. As far as this paper is concerned, I do so by limiting the  number of issues we address. We only concern ourselves with the things that  distinguish presbyterians from another with regard to eldership. In a very minor  excursus, we also will look at what distinguished presbyterians from Anglicans at the  outset and then just touch on congregational polity. These explorations have to be  very brief. We have a schedule to keep and we must not be delayed. 

3

Briefly Detailing the Issue 

Ian Murray, in an address to the Leicester Ministers Conference in 1995, outlined  three approaches to how to envisage New Testament eldership.¹ They consist of the  following options: 

1. One office, two functions: The New Testament office of elder (presbuteros)  contains two distinct classes. It contains “teaching elders” who preach and  administer the sacraments (ministry function “A”) as well as governing and  overseeing the people (ministry function “B”). It also has “ruling elders” who only  

rule and govern (ministry function “B). Both teaching and ruling elder are equal in  authority but they focus on different ministry functions. 

2. Two separate offices: All New Testament elders (presbyteroi) are preachers and  pastors. There is a second office that is commonly called “elder” (though it does  not conform to the New Testament use of the word), that is justified by historically  reformed churches during and after the Reformation. This second office  describes laymen called “elder” (based on sixteenth century usage and these  churchesʼ understanding of Jewish synagogal polity) that work alongside of the  ministers to practically implement the spiritual oversight of the church to the  people. Therefore, we actually have two different offices that oversee the church. 

3. One office, one function: This is the view similar to that of the Christian Brethren.  There is only one kind of elder and all elders have the same authority and the  same duties; all may preach and teach the Word; all may administer the  sacraments. 

¹ Ian Murray, “The Problem of the Eldership and its Wider Implications” Originally published in Banner  of Truth Magazine (Aug-Sept 1996) 395-96. The Eldership Center http://eldership.org. 

4 

Pre-Christian Sources: 

Old Testament 

The Old Testament leadership triad of prophet, priest and king is a commonplace  among Christians, finding its ultimate fulfillment in Christ of course, but also serving  as a basis for expectations with regard to the ministry. Less well developed are two  identities that only reach prominence in the New Testament. 

The Mᵉbaqqer (overseer-episkopos in Greek) is a variant of the verb root paqad (to  take care of or investigate (1Sa 14:17; Num. 1:44). It is also used for Godʼs loving  watchful care over his land (Dt 11:12) and people (Ruth 1:6; Ps 80:14). It, in one  form occurs some 150 times, 48 of which are in Numbers, to refer to the reviewing of  the tribes and families of Israel.² Most forms of this root however are verbs or  adjectives. In its noun form, it only appears a handful of times to denote “Overseer”,  “officer”, or “governor”, being found only in 2 Chr. 24:11; Neh. 11:9, 14, 22; 12:42. 

The term for elder “zaqen”, originally connoted someone bearded or senior. In the  Old Testament, however, it had two main meanings. It stood generally for a man that  was part of a body of men within a tribe that were responsible for a wide range of  activities. Interestingly, elders and commanders often combined to make governing  bodies.³ Elders settled legal questions concerning disputed virginity (Dt 22:15),  ratified property settlements (Ruth 4:9, 11) and tried murder cases (Dt 19:12). We  see it was the title given to 70 men that Moses twice chose as representative bodies  over the Israelites (Ex 24:1; Nu 11:16ff). They stood in for Moses when he went up  the mountain (Ex 24:14). Elders decided to send out the ark against the Philistines  (1Sa 4:3) and elders spoke up to demand the institution of a monarchy in Israel (1Sa  8:4ff). They, along with the judges, assured that the Law was kept and they shared a  general oversight of the community with the priests (Dt 13:9). They laid their hands  on the head of the sin offering when Israel had sinned (Lev 4:15). On a few  occasions it was also used to identify ambassadors or spokesmen (2 Chr. 32:31; Nu  21:21; 22:5; Dt 2:26). During and after the exile, they appear as guardians and  representatives (Jer. 29:1). Finally, after the destruction of the temple, they also  become synonymous with outstanding theological scholarship.⁴ 

It would, of course, be inaccurate to say that the elders took centre stage in terms of  Old Testament leadership. That distinction clearly was seen in the prophets, priests  and kings. Judges as well exerted influence and obtained prominence along with  scribes, but we can see in the Old Testament patterns for the future. As we know,  after the exile and the destruction of the temple, their relative significance grew,  culminating in the emergence of “eldership” in the New Testament church. 

² L. Coenen, “Bishop, Presbyter, Elder” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 1.  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) 194. 

I. ³ Jack P. Lewis, “Zaqen” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament Vol. 1. (Chicago: Moody  Bible Institute, 1980) 249. 

⁴ Coenen 197.

5 

Second Temple Judaism 

Perhaps the most significant development that helps us in a modern search for the  historical roots of our polity is the explosion of historical research since the 1960s  concerning Second Temple Judaism, the period between the post-exilic restoration  of Israel and its temple and the coming of Christ. The discovery of the Dead Sea  Scrolls and Nag Hammadi manuscripts were but two of many discoveries that have  propelled our new understanding of the times. These and other discoveries have  given us a far clearer picture of what religious communities looked like, how Judaism  practiced its faith and how it organized itself.  

Examinations of the organizational structure and activities associated with the  ancient synagogue tells us a great deal about how the believing community  functioned. The first thing that it shows us is its similarities, from to place to place,  and its significant diversity at the same time. In other words, when we look at  synagogues throughout the Jewish Diaspora in the Mediterranean world, we see that  all synagogues do some things but not every thing. We also see that staff positions  within the synagogue depend on location as well. Sixty years ago or more, we  assumed a general uniformity, based largely on one particular view of rabbinic  Judaism that took hold in Palestine after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.  

Synagogue 

The best place to start is the synagogue. It serves as the proto-church for early  Christianity. In other words, if we want to see how churches formed in the early  Christian period, we get excellent clues from second temple synagogues. The first  thing to say about them is that they were revolutionary structures. They embody  ideas and activities never seen before in Judaism. Lee Levine notes four  revolutionary distinctives: 

1. Location: It was universal in nature. They, unlike the temple, could be  found anywhere a Jewish community existed. 

2. Leadership: The leadership and functionaries were not limited to one  caste, tribe or socioreligious group. Anyone could, in theory, be a leader.  This does not imply that the priesthood had no role to play outside of the  temple. They did, but the reason for that was because they understood the  liturgy, not because they came from a particular line of priests or tribe. 

3. Participation: The community itself was directly involved in all aspects of  synagogue practice. 

4. Worship: The synagogue eventually embraced a wide variety of practices  such as scripture reading, communal prayer, hymns, targums (translations  of the Hebrew text into the vernacular), sermons, and piyyut (liturgical  poems that were sung or chanted). Unlike the temple, silence was not  golden. Beyond that, the synagogue for the first time, made Jewish  religious practice revolve around the communal reading and study of the  Bible itself, rather than other liturgical components.⁵ 

Activities 

The first century of the Christian era saw strong developments in the synagogue,  many of which found themselves into the emerging Christian community that saw  

⁵ Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University,  2005) 2f.

6 

itself in covenantal continuity with Israel. Weekly services that included the  communal reading of sacred scripture became universal, and unique to Judaism as  Levine notes. Reading however was not an end in itself. It springboarded into further  focused study. The Alexandrian Jewish writer Philo noted that the synagogue and  Jewish religious communities became bywords for schoolhouses for the learning of  virtues.⁶ Josephus noted that synagogue-goers gathered to hear the biblical text  exposited by their elders.⁷ In other words, the believers in the community gathered  on the Sabbath to read the scripture and listen to a sermon. Having said that, each  region appeared to exercise these practices differently. Judaean communities tended  to stick closely to the reading and expositing of a biblical text while diaspora  communities placed more focus on communal prayer.⁸ 

Officers  

Priests: We also used to think that priests had little to do with synagogues,  particularly after the destruction of the temple. Synagogues were consequently seen  as centres of rabbinic (scribal) power and influence. We now know however that the  picture was far more complex. Priests were very active in synagogues prior to and  after AD 70. Just as we learned that synagogues had a richer, more diverse liturgical  life than we thought, we discovered that priests played a commensurately greater  role as well. The reason for that was simple: priests were seen as experts in liturgy  and that expertise was not confined to the temple and its environs. Priests were  given the priority in Torah reading for example. Additionally, it was the priests who  recited the blessing, much like our benediction and may have led the prayer services  as well.⁹ 

All of this priestly activity pointed out one essential point. Synagogues were not  simply places where the Scriptures were read; they were places redolent with liturgy.  They echoed with the Scripture, prayers, chants and sermons. They may not have  sounded all that different from Sunday worship in historical churches. The point of  course is that while there were profound differences that emerged between  synagogues and early churches, due to their different perspectives (the deity of  Christ versus the destruction of the temple) there were also striking similarities that  make our understanding of early Christian practice a bit more intelligible. Levine  furnishes one additional analogy that helps drive that point home. He notes that the  early Christian eucharist was originally part of a love feast remarkably like meals  enjoyed in the synagogue. It only departed from this earlier practice in the second  century as it became “an independent worship unit.”¹⁰ 

⁶ Levine 155f. “On the seventh day they all come together as if to meet in a sacred assembly; and  then the eldest of them who has the most profound learning in their doctrines, comes forward and  speaks...investigating with great pains, and explaining with minute accuracy the precise meaning of  the laws.” Philo of Alexandria, On the Contemplative Life of Suppliants 30-31. 

⁷ Flavius Josephus, Antiquities 12 Works of Josephus ( William Whiston trans. 1736, repr.  Hendrickson, 1987) 107-108. See also Letter of Aristeas 305-8. 

⁸ Levine 171. 

⁹ Levine 525f. 

¹⁰ Levine 560. 

7 

Archisynagogue: Another prominent officer associated with the synagogue was the  archisynagogue. Whatever else we can say about him, he was someone that  enjoyed a large measure of prestige within the synagogue community. Opinions vary  as to whether his principal responsibilities were religious, political, financial or  managerial. Burtchaell, exploring the same possibilities, concluded that he was the  chief executive of the local community and the worship leader, perhaps acting under  the oversight of the elders.¹¹ It is likely however that he is best seen as having  leadership responsibilities that engaged all of these, albeit not exclusively.¹² There  were others, as we shall see, that worked alongside him in this work. What also  emerges from the data, whether he followed the elders in the chain of command,  stood apart from it, or even over it (depending on the source of information) is that  the archisynagogue was seen as being “the man at the forefront of his community.”¹³ Eventually the title “archisynagogue” fades from use in the newly emerging Christian  communities. At times, they used the word presbyteros (elder) to define the same  functions, but eventually that too gave way to the more popular episkopos (overseer  or bishop).¹⁴ 

Presbyter: Presbyters or elders feature prominently in synagogue communities,  particularly in Asia Minor and Southern Italy. On the other hand, we do not see them  at all in Rome or Egypt and then only sporadically in North Africa, Syria and  Palestine. It is also difficult to get a consistent feel for what they did. Some think that  they served as an overall board overseeing the welfare of the believing community  who then delegated responsibility for day-to-day management to other synagogue  functionaries, the archons.¹⁵ This however may not be accurate or it may be splitting  hairs since there is evidence to support the fact that the two terms may have  described the same people; the difference being that one word addressed Aramaic  readers and the other Greek. The word is used, however, clearly and repeatedly for  the delegates of the Sanhedrin, demonstrating the elderʼs responsibilities as  representatives involved in governing the people. We also encounter the term as a  description of local councils in individual cities.¹⁶ 

Archon: Archons were encountered by name particularly in Palestine and Rome. At  times, they were seen alongside the archisynagogue and at other times it was hard  to tell them apart. Levine notes that on one occasion, the same person held both  titles in two different places (Rome and Capua). Matthew used archon and Mark  used archisynagogue to describe the same person, Jairus. On the other hand, the  archeological site of an ancient synagogue in Spain suggests that archons and  

¹¹ James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the  Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992) 244. 

¹² Levine 419. 

¹³ Burtchaell 244. 

¹⁴ Burthchaell 283. 

¹⁵ Levine 433. 

¹⁶ Frederick William Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and  Other Early Christian Literature Third Edition (BDAG). (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000) 862.

8 

presbyters were two entirely separate groups that sat in two different locations within  the building. Burtchaell likewise notes distinctions between elders and archons. 

Hazzan: The ancient record also addresses one other position. The hazzan appears  to have been a pivotal figure in Palestinian synagogues, answering either to the  archisynagogue, the presbyters/rabbis or the community in general. The degree of  prestige afforded o him differed widely according to location. He must have had a  fairly wide range of responsibilities, depending on the local context. Some of these  included temple reading, public prayer, public announcements, and a prominent role  in judicial proceedings. In other words, when the believing community convened a  court, he was seen to summon litigants, and more ominously, he was responsible for  implementing the courtʼs decision, particularly when it concerned flogging.¹⁷ 

Dead Sea Scrolls 

I started to title this subsection “Qumran”, but I plumped for what you see for one  very good reason. When we say Qumran, we tend to lump all of the Dead Sea  Scrolls together in a way that suggests that they were describing one homogeneous  community. As more and more of these have been unearthed, translated and  analyzed, we realize that this is not true. In fact, that is what makes them truly  valuable. They do not describe the beliefs and practices of one single ancient, semi monastic Jewish sect community. There are many scrolls that we now know were  used in a variety of places with a pretty diverse community. Of course, they do  describe observant Jews and their lives, but those lives were found in a variety of  settings, each with similarities and differences. For that reason, we now think that  they are important indicators of contemporary religious practice throughout Judea  and part of the diaspora. 

In our consideration of second Temple Judaism and its religious practices, two  documents stand out: The Community Rule (1Q) and the Damascus Document  (Geniza A+B, 4Q266-272). Both describe the organizational structures and operating  instructions for two religious communities but it appears very likely that these were  used in a variety of locations scattered throughout the region.¹⁸ Letʼs see what these  say and then discuss what they imply. 

The Community Rule 

This is one of the most important works found in Qumran. There were almost as  many copies recovered as there were of Genesis and Exodus. The association or  community consisted of priests, Levites (a secondary priestly order in the  community) and Gentile proselytes. Each chapter of the association had a leader  who may have been the senior priest who oversaw the deliberations as they dealt  with government, group finances and theology. Decisions however were made by  majority vote. The larger group was subdivided into smaller chapters of at least ten  men who gathered for meals and Bible study. The overall organization appears to  have been modeled on Joshuaʼs army as it entered Canaan. Entry into the  community was seen by its members as entry into a new covenant, in fulfillment of  

¹⁷ Levin 442. 

¹⁸ Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New  Translation and With Commentary (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996) 123.

9 

the Mosaic covenant. Like Christianity, the community also saw itself as a temple of  Israel.¹⁹ 

1Q 6 “Wherever there are ten men of the Council of the Community there shall not  lack a priest among them. And they shall all sit before him according to their rank  and shall be asked their counsel in all things in that order. And when the table has  been prepared for eating, and the new wine for drinking, the Priest shall be the first  to stretch out his hand to bless the first-fruits of the bread and the new wine.”²⁰ 

“This is the rule for an assembly of the congregation. Each man shall sit in his place:  the priests shall sit first, the elders second, and all the rest of the people according to  their rank. No man shall speak without the consent of the congregation, nor indeed  of the Guardian (Mebaqqer-the community leader).”²¹ The text goes on to say that  the Guardian in the presence of the congregation interviews prospective new  members. Interestingly, junior members had to formally request permission of the  assembly before they could verbally address the body. The community therefore  gave evidence of a formal social hierarchy and a very definite protocol. 

A smaller, more obscure document, the Charter for Israel in the Last Days (1QSa,  1Q28a) may furnish additional details concerning the makeup of the community and  its organization. Like the Community Rule, this document draws parallels between  

the religious order and army structure. It stipulates that, at age 25, a member is  eligible to take his place in the congregation and serve it; at 30, he may participate in  legal proceedings and is eligible for command, whether that be of tens, fifties,  hundreds, or thousands, depending on his intelligence and moral uprightness.²² 

Damascus Document 

This gives us another good picture into how religious communities were organized. It  had ten judges over the community well versed in the Book of Meditation (no one is  sure what this was) and, significantly, basic covenantal principles. They each had to  be at least 25 years of age, but no more than 60 due to the likelihood of diminished  mental capacity. They presided over groups of men organized once again in military like divisions. A priest was on call at all times, due to his superior knowledge.  

The camp also had an overseer, between 30 and 50, gifted in wisdom and  discernment, responsible for teaching the general membership about matters of the  faith, caring for them “as a father does his children, taking care of all their problems  

¹⁹ Wise 125f. Members saw themselves as a “temple for Israel and ...Holy of holies...the tested wall,  the precious cornerstone whose foundation shall neither be shaken nor swayed...a blameless and  true house in Israel.” 

²⁰ Geza Vermes, trans., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English Revised Version (London:  Penguin, 2004) 105. 

²¹ Wise, Abegg and Cook translate this slightly differently, implying that the Guardian receives more  deference than even the elders themselves. See 134. 

²² Wise 145

10 

as a shepherd does for his flock.”²³ It is easy to hear echoes of what we later  associate with the expectations meted out to elders and pastors. 

Interim observations and conclusions 

A number of things leap out at us as we consider the leadership context of pre Christian Israel²⁴ and compare to the Christian era. The first, most obvious, and most  important one is that Christ was not in the picture. That meant several things to the  believing community. It meant that there was no Christ to whom leaders could look  as an exemplar. If Christ is the the fulfillment of all of the Old Testament models  related to prophet, priest, and king, the pre-Christian community had to look  elsewhere. In that case, Moses, David, and Elijah came to the fore. Associated with  this was a different focus. As elders, we see ourselves as instruments of grace in the  world. We carry the sweet aroma of Christ to the world. There is therefore, among  Christian ministers, an unbreakable connection between our ministries, Christ and  grace. It is our theme, the irreducible minimum for us.  

In the pre-Christian Jewish community, grace was understood and communicated  differently by its leaders. At this point, we must not fall into the trap of saying that  while the New Testament was all about grace, the Old was characterized by works.  That is not true. Grace existed and was expressed in both, but Christ transformed,  revolutionized its understanding and expression. The model for Israel, however, was  preeminently Moses the law-giver. We can see the judicial aspect of eldership and  other leadership at every level throughout ancient Israel. We also see a part of that  emphasis transfer into the Christian identity, but the presence of the resurrected  Christ in the Church transforms leadership and remakes it. This is, in my opinion, a  key point we must remember as we model ourselves within the Church today. We  stand in covenantal continuity with Israel, but Christ was not simply an addition to it. 

On the other hand, we can see in all of this the roots of Christian ministry. There are  Jewish leaders performing tasks and bearing responsibilities roughly analogous to  those exercised later in the church. There are leaders of worship, administrators,  singers, sages, and wise old heads ensuring that the religious community stays on  track. Roger Beckwith makes a small, but interesting observation. He notes that,  according to the Mishnah, whenever a court was convened in the second temple  religious community, three judges were assigned to the case.²⁵ Now, without trying to  strain the analogy too far, I think we can still see in regulations such as this an echo  of later regulations governing how many elders are required to constitute a particular  church. I know that not all churches and denominations have the same rules. I  merely suggest that when we make up our rules, we often nest those in a perceived  tradition. I just think that these traditions go further back than we realize when we  make them. 

²³ Wise 70f. 

²⁴ Note: It is true that some Second temple literature and the Qumran communityʼs scrolls overlap with  the Christian period. They do, however, express a pre-Christian outlook towards leadership at any  rate.  

²⁵ Roger Beckwith, Elders in Every Church: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry  (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003) 34.

11 

New Testament  

The New Testament is dominated by the leadership of Jesus and the Apostles. The  former takes covenantal Israel and fulfills it in himself in such a way that he  transforms and completes it. The result is the visible Church. He revolutionizes its  focus and self-identity. He establishes himself as the standard by which and in which  everything is measured. He embraces and exemplifies every expression of Old  Testament leadership, prophet, priest and king, in himself. He also constructs the  visible eschatological dimension of his leadership in the Apostles. They carry on and  extend his work in the world. All of this, however, is a far cry from the structure we  know as “Church.” There is, for example, very little indication that the apostles had  much personally do do with the administration of the sacraments. Peter commanded  the baptism of others, but he did not appear to perform the function himself (Act  10:48). Paul explicitly pointed out how few people he baptized (1Co 1:13-17).²⁶ The  activities concerning the daily warp and woof of the church, of its health, growth and  struggles lay with others, to a gradually developing infrastructure characterized by  visible leadership. 

Episkopos: “Overseer” or “bishop” rises in prominence in the New Testament and is  then increasingly differentiated from other terms and people in the post-apostolic  period. It is summed up by the person of Jesus Christ in 1Pt 2:25, where Jesus is  described, using Old Testament imagery, as the shepherd (poimen-poimhn) and  guardian (episkopos-episkopos) of souls.²⁷ In its Greek form, it carries on one of the  less frequent uses of zaqen (elder) in the Old Testament; that of the inspector or  ambassador. Apparently, in ancient Athens, the overseer was someone dispatched  by the city to inspect subject states.²⁸ 

²⁶ Beckwith, 25. 

²⁷ Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament  Unabridged, 5th, revised edition. (Rome: Editrice Pontoficio Istituto Biblico, 1996) 709. 

²⁸ H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon Abridged edition. (Oxford, 1871, repr. Oxford:  Clarendon, 1996) 260.

12 

The image of the shepherd has to be better understood. We all too readily associate  it with the Christmas creche; shepherds being a benign, almost naive presence. This  is to miss an enormously important nuance known throughout the Old Testament.  The term “shepherd” was not simply associated with livestock. It had an important  dimension in describing military command as the passage in Numbers highlights. As  Moses contemplated the end of his ministry to Israel and as he thought of their  needs just prior to the conquest of Canaan, he thought of Joshua, not because he  was a stellar keeper of sheep, but because he was a fine, tested military  commander.²⁹ In other words, to be an overseer is to lead from the front; to motivate  and to command and to go into battle at the head of your people. It was also to  protect them. This is the dimension of the task addressed throughout the Book of  Jude. It also introduces some ambiguity into our sorting out who the overseers are.  In some cases, the word seems to apply to what we otherwise know as elders, but it  also described, in the Old Testament, others.  

Jesus was the ultimate example of this, embodying in the motif of the shepherd, the  leader, motivator, and protector of the flock consolidated under his headship and  headed from where they graze to a much better land.³⁰ “And I have other sheep that  are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there  will be one flock, one shepherd.” It seems clear that the church itself has the  responsibility to carry out this commission, to be an ever expanding, ever inclusive  family moving toward its ultimate consummation in Christ. How is that to be led? Is  that a function transferable to a council of elders, a pastor, a prophet or apostle, the  entire body or Christ alone? It seems to me that what we endeavor to do in studying  relationship within the leadership of the church is to seek to grasp and apply an  understanding of this. 

²⁹ A. Noordtzij, Numbers Bible Studentʼs Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 256. See  Philip J. Budd, Numbers Word (Waco: Word, 1984) 306. See also Jos. 14:11; 1Sa 18:13-16; 1Kg 3:7;  2Kg 11:9 for connection between “go out before them and come in before them” and combat  operations. 

³⁰ Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Jesus the Good Shepherd Who Will Also Bring Other Sheep (John  10:16): The Old Testament Background of a Familiar Metaphor” Bulletin for Biblical Research 12.1  (2002) 71.

13 

This connection of the shepherd and guardian, already combined in the Old  Testament (Num. 27:17 when speaking of Joshua replacing Moses) is then applied  in its description of the Ephesian elders addressed by Paul (Act 20:28).³¹ It appears  here that the same men that are described as overseers are also termed elders as  well. At this point, we do not see good evidence of three offices.³² It seems likely  therefore that the terms were considered as synonymous, at least very early in the  churchʼs foundation and within this particular context. The issue however is whether  the words carry any more universality in the New Testament Church than they did in  pre-Christian Judaism. Some suggest that 1Ti 3:1 and following describes a unique,  particular office³³, but it is difficult to justify that leap on the basis of the text alone.  

Presbyteros: Presbuteros (elder), as we noted earlier, is connected to the idea of  age, carrying with it an implied sense of respect.³⁴ There is a sense of trust and  stability that accompanies the word, whether that be in the Old Testament, New  Testament or extra-biblical sources. Elders are people that you can trust to make  sure things are done well and with integrity. They govern the affairs of the  established church. It is no surprise therefore that they should be summoned to visit  the ill (James 5:14). “They should be able to discern the will of the Lord and to pray  with the faith that recognizes and receives Godʼs gift of healing.”³⁵ 

They are not, however, identified with Christianity alone. The New Testament  continues to use the term for members of the Jewish community, whether they  support Jesus or oppose him. We see this for example in Acts 4:5, when the rulers,  elders, scribes and priests come to challenge Peterʼs authority in the aftermath of  what had just taken place during Pentecost. Jesus received the same reception from  the elders and chief priests who demanded to know what the basis of his authority  was (Mt 21:23). Both texts point out an important dimension of the elders; the  exercise of judgment on behalf of the believing covenantal community. It is likely,  given the lack of any discussion in the New Testament itself concerning the  

³¹ Coenen 191. 

³² Beckwith 11. 

³³ Coenen 192. Some such as Thomas Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus Interpretation  (Louisville: John Knox, 1989) 74f, see the passage focused narrowly on pastors, without addressing  whether that is an office or a function. William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles Word (Nashville:  Thomas Nelson, 2000) 186ff, urges caution with regard to identifying offices on the basis of this and  other NT passages. See his extensive excursus. In general he sees Timothy and Titus as apostolic  appointees to exercise Paulʼs authority over these churches, rather than as part of the institutional  structure itself. John Calvin, Paulʼs First Epistle to Timothy Trans. By T.A. Smail. Calvinʼs New  Testament Commentaries: A New Translation. Edited by Torrance and Torrance (Geneva, 1556, repr.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 221f, clearly associates the passage with episcopal office. It  therefore refers to the office of pastor and not an elder or the hierarchical bishops of the later Roman  Catholic period. On the other hand, George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on  the Greek Text New International Greek Testament Commentary (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992)  175-77, argues for seeing episkopos as being a synonym of presbyteros (elder). See the theological  section for a detailed examination of this. 

³⁴ Liddell and Scott 583. 

³⁵ Moo 237f.

14 

appropriateness of the office, that the office transferred over from the synagogue,  with all of its diversity.³⁶ 

We see that they were trusted with money, receiving donations and relief funds on  behalf of the Judaean church (Act 11:30). They appear as a determinative body at  the Jerusalem Council alongside James. The whole of Acts 15 describes two groups  of people involved in the discussions and the decisions-the apostles and the elders.  At the end of the proceedings, James spoke and rendered his judgment that the  apostles and elders found agreeable. They then dispatched Paul and Barnabas, with  the authorization of the apostles and the elders. 

There is as well, an ambiguity wrapped up in the language of the New Testament  with regard to pastors and elders. As Moo notes, pastors are never mentioned  alongside of elders in the New Testament.³⁷ In that case, aligning the episkopos with  the pastor as opposed to the elder is difficult to prove as we saw in Acts 20:28.  Burtchaell addresses elders and overseers as synonyms in the New Testament,  though he suggests that “overseer” differs in having less overtones of the  synagogue.³⁸ He also notes this against the backdrop of a rapidly changing religious  community environment punctuated by a growing differentiation between synagogue  and church. In other words, while the church clearly borrowed from the synagogue, it  was also in the process of moving away from it. These dynamics may also explain  some of the confusion we experience when we attempt to define who elders were  exactly and what the relationship between them and an increasingly defined pastoral  office was. 

Acts 

We also have to say something else about the difficulty of matching tasks to offices  in the New Testament. For example, when the church in Acts chapter 6 decides that  it needs to appoint seven men to help deal with the burdens of caring for people in a  growing church, particularly its Hellenistic constituency, who did it appoint? Did it  appoint deacons, as most of us have been taught, or were they elders or was there a  name for them at all? We of course look to the text in order to find clues on the basis  of what they were called and what they were called to do. Well, the first part of that is  a problem. The Bible tells us their names, but not much more. They are not titled at  all. How about the second part of the task, the part addressing their job description.  Well, that is not that easy to describe. We often jump at this point, stating that since  the widows were being neglected in their daily distribution (1), and that the disciples  expressed frustration because they could not wait tables and preach at the same  time (2), this must be a description of an office, the deacon. But is it that simple? We  know that these men had to be “full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” We know that there  was a laying on of hands and we know that the list included at least a couple of great  preachers and evangelists.  

³⁶ Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand  Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 193. 

³⁷ Douglas J. Moo, The Letters of James Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2000) 237. 

³⁸ Burtchaell 296.

15 

Before we rush into anything, we can say that these men were not called deacons or  elders. It is apparent that both Stephen and Philip also demonstrated a gift for  teaching. There is, as Jaroslav Pelikan pointed out, a high degree of ambiguity with  regard to office that was not really clarified until after the apostolic age.³⁹ Our present  view that these men had to be deacons stems from the opinions of a historical figure  in the Church, Irenaeus, who saw them as assistants to the apostles, servants  (diakonois) in other words. Despite what we see happen in Acts 6 and its obvious  significance to the church, we hear nothing of “deacons” in the rest of Acts either.⁴⁰ Wall furnishes us with one other piece of tantalizing information. The number seven  might not have been arbitrary. It was, after all, Jewish practice to choose seven wise  men to provide oversight of local congregations. These men, according to the Old  Testament, had significant supervisory responsibility.⁴¹ So, were the seven in Acts  servants, assistants or what? Were they helping to “rule” the body or does that fit in  another category? We seem to have a limited description of their responsibilities; a  few stories from some of their lives; and our own contemporary categories and  definitions of office. We therefore attempt to see which category of ours that they  should be squeezed into.  

J.B. Lightfoot had no doubt. They were deacons. He mustered considerable  evidence for that opinion. Irenaeus in the late second century thought they were. The  Roman church also always restricted its number of deacons to seven and the  Council of Neocaesarea in 315 did so as well, in imitation of the apostolic model.⁴² It  is an interesting and arresting justification. To be fair about things, he uses the same  sort of proof to support their identity as deacons that he does not admit when he  refutes the early presence of episcopal bishops. He refers to a tradition that does not  date earlier than the end of the second century. He also employs a bit of special  pleading. In answer to the observation that Stephen and Philip were ministers of the  word, he says that this had more to do with their gifting than their office. It seems to  me at least that this conclusion goes a bit beyond what the text itself says. To be  honest, I find early church evidence often a reliable indicator, but I think that it cannot  be harnessed to only support a favoured line.  

Corinthians and Ephesians 

Paulʼs letters largely seem to be balancing acts. He encourages people with the  Gospel of Christ and the gifts of the Spirit on one hand. He wants to see that the  churches understand the primacy of a relationship of a relationship to God in Christ  and through the Holy Spirit. At the same time, he also wants to make sure that this  understanding takes root and grows with the body, leading him to delve into the  details of discipline and organization. It was common, some years ago, for scholars  to routinely dismiss any thought that Paul might be interested in structure. Hans Von  Campenhausen for example embraced the idea that Paul actually rejected the idea  

³⁹ Jaroslav Pelikan, Acts Brazos Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005) 92f. 

⁴⁰ Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles The New Interpreterʼs Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002)  42. 

⁴¹ Wall 113. 

⁴² J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paulʼs Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan & Company, 1913, repr.,  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953) 189.

16 

of office, particular that of eldership, in favour of immediate charisma.⁴³ Believing  this, however, involves a trick or two. You have to believe that Paul did not write all of  the letters ascribed to him, or every part of the letters you think he did write, since  Paul alludes to elders in some of his work. The other point is related. Earlier modern  scholars often saw some of the epistles as not even having been written in the first  century and therefore could not have been written by Paul. While some evangelical  scholars go along with this, the more we know, the more we are beginning to realize  that things were written earlier than we thought and that much of what we dismissed  as not being Pauline, we are having to reconsider as very much done by the apostle  himself. As we embrace the idea that Paul did indeed write the things attributed to  his name, it is enriching our understanding of what he saw as the church, its  organisation and officers. 

For example, in 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul addresses the kinds of people God  appoints to work in the church, arranged around their apparent gifting. He mentions  “first apostles, second prophets, third teachers,” then miracles, healing, helping,  administrating, and various kinds of tongues. In Ephesians 4:11, he mentions what  look a bit more like positions: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.  How do these lists relate and what can they tell us about what Paul thought of offices  in the church? The sentence structure of the Corinthian passage is interesting. There  is a definite difference between the first three people listen (apostles, prophets,  teachers), all of which are numbered, “first, second, third,” and the rest which are all  lumped together. Is it coincidental or does Paul imply something of temporal  structure in the first three that foreshadows something even better defined to follow? ⁴⁴ Thiselton adds that he also sees a certain trajectory in the order, describing the  start of a church through its growth and development.⁴⁵ If this is true, then the  passage definitely is describing how an official structure takes root in a church and  implies at least the creation of identifiable positions to oversee that development.  This was also certainly how the early church itself understood this text (at least from  the early second century).  

P.T. OʼBrien contrasts the emphasis between the text in 1 Corinthians. He thinks that,  where the first text places the weight of emphasis on the gifts being exercised by  people, the text of Ephesians 4:11-12 shifts the emphasis to the ministers  themselves. These are definitely offices and not simply functions clustered around  charismatic gifts.⁴⁶ Ephesians however does present one last challenge. Are pastors  and teachers two different offices. Some such as Calvin have argued that they were.  Modern commentaries, on the other hand, apply syntactical rules to this to  

⁴³ Hans Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the  First Three Centuries (Tübingen, 1969, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997) 76. 

⁴⁴ See Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1997) 217. Contra  Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians New International Commentary on the New  Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 620. Fee disagrees with any order of priority in the text. 

⁴⁵ Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians New International Greek Testament  Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 1014-18. 

⁴⁶ P.T. OʼBrien, The Letter to the Ephesians Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1999) 301. Contra Gordon Fee.

17 

demonstrate that the text describes one group. In my own opinion, it seems that  Daniel Wallaceʼs study has decisively answered the point in favor of identifying more  than one discipline. “Although one cannot be dogmatic, there is a high probability  that, according to Eph. 4:11, all pastors are to be teachers, though not all teachers  are to be pastors.”⁴⁷ Ministers are given to the church in order to equip the members  for service in the body.⁴⁸ Bruce helpfully notes that the text does not say that the gifts  associated with these ministers is restricted to them. In other words, they can be  communicated to others in the church as well.⁴⁹ It does not appear however to  support a differentiation between teaching and ruling elders, but raises the question  on Calvinʼs mind, whether or not the Bible prescribed a separate function of teacher  along with the local church office of overseer. 

If our exegesis is correct, then, we discover something interesting and important  about these two texts when we see them side by side. 1 Corinthians dates  significantly earlier than does Ephesians. Taken together, both suggest a dynamic  environment in which offices within the church are being increasingly structured and  defined. The church is growing and as it grows, it becomes more well defined and  regulated. Thus, we have a coherent development that is in keeping with the New  Testament when we read it all together. This flow also shows how earlier structures  such as the synagogue would have been an expected model for the early church,  but that the church would have continued to grow and develop along its own lines in  the aftermath of the Resurrection. 

Philippians and the Pastoral Epistles 

Philippians stands apart from most of the Pauline letters in being addressed to the  overseers and deacons of the church, not just its members. The address is  important. It highlights the attention paid to leadership by Paul, repeated in his  correspondence to Timothy and Titus. Lightfoot seizes on an important observation.  There is no mention of presbyters in the address. In other words, what Paul says is  important, but so is what he leaves out. Lightfoot does not miss the significance:  “Now it is incredible that he should recognize only the first and third order and pass  over the second, though the second was absolutely essential to the existence of a  church and formed the staple of its ministry.”⁵⁰ He reaches the only reasonable  conclusion on the point-bishops and presbyters are synonymous. 

We see some of that continuing specificity in Paulʼs pastoral letters. Paul addresses  a group of men alternately as “overseers” (1Ti 3:1-7) and elders (1Ti 5:17-20).  

⁴⁷ Daniel B. Wallace, “The Semantic Range of The Article-Noun-Kai-Noun Plural Construction in the  New Testament” Grace Theological Journal 4.1 (1983) 83. Wallace undermines convincingly the  tool used by most modern exegetes to say that pastors and teachers are one and the same people. It  is called the Granville Sharp rule 

⁴⁸ OʼBrien 303. Contra others that see the passage as saying that it is the ministers themselves that  serve the community directly rather than as equippers of the laity to do so. See T. David Gordon,  “Equipping Ministry in Ephesians 4?” Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society 37.1 (March  1994). 

⁴⁹ F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians New International  Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 345-49. 

⁵⁰ Lightfoot, 96f.

18 

Campbell thinks, on the other hand, that we are talking about two qualitatively  different functions, apart from the deacons.⁵¹ He cites the fact that “overseer” is  always mentioned in the singular while “elder” may be given in the plural, implying  very different offices. This lines up with Calvinʼs own view of office. Calvin cites  support in 1 Timothy 5:17, seeing in the double honour a differentiation between  elders that resulted in two offices.⁵² Kruse agrees, citing Campbellʼs observation that  early churches were house churches. The heads of those households would have  exercised supervisory responsibility within their homes as a matter of course. Their  functions therefore would have mirrored those of the archisynagogue, looking  backwards, and to the bishop, looking ahead. This, therefore, would distinguish them  from other elders in the community.⁵³ These, on the other hand, as anchored in  ancient Israel, were characterized by “a form of leadership that was collective and  representative”. It was a term of honor based on existing relationships, rather than  an office.⁵⁴ The pattern outlined by Campbell of house churches overseen by a head  of the household would represent a clear development of the pattern found in  Qumran culminating in the house church of Philemon 1:1.  

A twist on a three-tiered proposal finds support in 1 Timothy 5:17: “Let the elders who  rule well be considered worthy of a double honour, especially those who labour in  preaching and teaching.” Some see in this the idea that the elders are as their name  implies, ʻolder menʼ, in other words a different category from overseers.⁵⁵ This is the  view also championed by Edmund Clowney.⁵⁶ 

Thielman, however, does not find this persuasive citing another study that notes that  Titus 1:5 spoke of appointing elders in every city, without mentioning overseers at all.  Thielman concludes from this that it seems more likely that overseer, as opposed to  elder, is a function rather than an office in the text.⁵⁷ Mounce agrees that 1 Timothy  5 describes a two-level structure: overseers and deacons. He, however is not  particularly convinced that the pastoral epistles have a well-defined ecclesiastical  structure. Knight refers to a similar two-fold structure with overseers as a sub-section  of the elder.⁵⁸ Lightfoot invokes the early church in support of this. He quotes  

⁵¹ Alastair Campbell, “The Elders: Seniority in Earliest Christianity” Tyndale Bulletin 44.1 (1993) 187. 

⁵² John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy Vol. 10. Calvinʼs New Testament  Commentaries. Translated by T.A. Smail. Edited by D.W. Torrance and T.F. Torrance (Geneva, 1556,  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 262. More of Calvin will follow in later sections. 

⁵³ C.G. Kruse, “Ministry” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993) 603f. ⁵⁴ Campbell 184. 

⁵⁵ Mounce cites Jeremias in this regard 307. Mount points out however that there is no evidence in  the New Testament that older men received funds from the church based on their age or infirmity.  

⁵⁶ Edmund P. Clowney, Jr., “The Relation of Ministers to Ruling Elders” www.hornes.org.  

⁵⁷ Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand  Rapids: Zondervan, 2005) 420. Thielman sees this as one office that is addressed with two different  terms and is probably assisted by another office, the deacons.  

⁵⁸ Knight 233.

19 

Jerome: “Among the ancients, bishops and presbyters are the same, for the one a  term of dignity, the other of age” (Letter 69).⁵⁹ 

I would say that the evidence appears to support a two-tiered leadership structure in  the church of Ephesus. The church there, as the letters to Timothy attest, is more  mature. It has more structure and is developing a leadership culture that expands  well beyond the apostolic envoy Timothy. Nevertheless, it does not seem to  demonstrate convincingly a solid three-office view. The post-apostolic church often  presumed that it was based on the idea that Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete  were apostles. There is no evidence of that. It is more likely that as a separate  category of office developed, it did so from below rather than being sent from  outside. If the New Testament had anyone that served with the authority and office of  what would later be identified as the episcopal bishop, it would have been James the  brother of the Lord. Even in his case, however, he appears to have emerged as the  senior representative of the church in Jerusalem. No apostle appointed him.⁶⁰ Crucially, too, there is not any evidence of an apostolic succession mentioned in Acts  or in the Pastoral letters. Ridderbos sees no clearly defined doctrine of office in any  of Paulʼs epistles and I am inclined to agree. Things were too new, too unsettled for  that kind of regularity.⁶¹ What we do have are some offices that have obvious  antecedents in Judaism, right down to their names, and others that, while they echo  synagogal patterns seem not to be synonymous with them. Could it be that  congregations designed structures themselves in interaction with their initial  apostolic leadership that would have emerged from the Holy Land, full of devotion to  the Lord, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in covenantal continuity with Israel? 

First Peter 

John Elliott believes that 1 Peter 5:1-5 presents a cluster of leadership descriptions  and identities that represent a trajectory leading to a threefold model of elders,  pastors and overseers. At this point, however, it appears as though “elder” and  “overseer” are synonymous.⁶² The construction of the sentences, with its emphasis  on older and younger leadership, highlights for him the likely setting of house  churches headed by older men, to whom the younger converts must submit. The  house churches themselves however, utilize the form of elder that carried over from  Israel and was also an established part of ancient social convention throughout the  Mediterranean. So it is evidence of evolutionary church structure.⁶³ The task of these  older leaders is to make sure that things are done the right way; that the flock are all  

⁵⁹ Lightfoot 98f. He also mentions similar opinions from Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodore of  Mopsuestia, and Theodoret. 

⁶⁰ Lightfoot 197. 

⁶¹ Ridderbos 475. 

⁶² Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman &  Holman, 2003. The author cites the work: The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church  (Ph.D. Diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000), 27-68 by B. Merkle in support of  seeing in the text and throughout the New Testament a two office view; the elder and the deacon. 

⁶³ J.N.D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude Thornapple Commentaries (JND  Kelly, 1969, repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 197. See also Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter Baker  Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005) 302f.

20 

headed in the right direction. They are elders for sure, but they are also pastors  entrusted with a crucial mission since error and persecution threatens these small  bodies. The coexistence of the terms “shepherd” and “oversight” in 1 Peter 5:2 does  not reflect two offices, but more likely connects the reader back to the Jewish image  of the shepherd and the sheep, a natural image given the risks to the flock that 1  Peter identifies.⁶⁴ The elders themselves must generate backbone for sure, but they  also have to be clothed in humility. They must maintain a balancing act between  collegiality and openness on one hand and strong decisive, character-based  leadership on the other that steadies the church as it is buffeted by the forces of the  world. It therefore is in an in-between place. It has strong elders, an indistinct  diaconate and a house structure that is on the verge of coalescing in the next age  into larger community structures that will naturally generate an enhanced managerial  leadership structure. Elliott sees a church, therefore, that is on the move.⁶⁵ 

Well, what have we discovered so far? It seems apparent that, rather than the New  Testament launching the church exclusively with the rocket assist of the apostles and  charismatic leadership that only gradually gave way to the more mundane  hierarchical organisation we saw in the Roman Catholic church (as modernists such  as Harnack and Von Campenhausen saw it), we had a messier but more coherent  model. The church emerged in covenantal continuity with Israel as its fulfillment.  Therefore, it found it perfectly natural to interact with and adopt earlier Jewish  constructions. They had a familiarity about them, but they were also radically  changed in the aftermath of the Resurrection and Pentecost. Christocentricity, the  dynamic pioneering of Spirit-led, apostolic authority and existing Jewish forms all  surged forth from the empty tomb into the world. The New Testament does not give  us a picture of consistent structure one way or the other. It again and again presents  us with a mix of familiarity and surprise with regard to the offices. But, this is only the  first leg of our long journey through the Bible, our own history and ideas.  

⁶⁴ Jobes 303. See too Isa 53:6. The LXX (Septuagint-translation mine) says: “All we sheep-like have  wandered off; every one of us wandered off in our own way; and the Lord laid on him our sins.” 

⁶⁵ John H. Elliott, “Elders as Leaders in 1 Peter and the Early Church” HTS 64.2 (2008) 681-695.21 

Church History and Theology The early Church 

Tradition has Clement as bishop of Rome, a community chief in the style of the  archisynagogue, around AD 96. Clement himself never uses the term to refer to  himself, though he does exercise considerable authority over the church as his  letters evidence. He also sees himself analogous to a high priest of the levitical  priesthood, in an obvious connection between what he considered appropriate  Christian polity and its Jewish antecedents. On the other hand, he only clearly  identifies two offices, overseers and deacons.⁶⁶ The appointment by the apostles of  the former were equated with Moses, other prophets and the priesthood. Just  following this, however, he terms them presbyters (elders).⁶⁷ We have to stop for a  moment and say something. We have to avoid something and that is reading our  own current polity back into Clementʼs world. We can only deal with what he said  and understand the context from within which he spoke. We can see that, as we saw  in Acts, the episkopos and the presbyteros are seen as being synonymous. What we  cannot see is anything much beyond that fact. We do not know how preaching was  done. We do not know whether all the local churches had a plurality of elders,  whether their function was the same or different from that of their synagogal  ancestors. We do not know how church was done with any real precision. We do  know, on the other hand, that the presbyters, whoever they were, were part of a  permanent office, and were responsible for discipline and doctrine.⁶⁸ 

Ignatius, writing about AD 110, addresses churches throughout Asia and Syria that  have a single overseer (episkopos) and a board or assembly of elders (presbyteroi).  These are distinguished from another office, the deacons. “See that you all follow the  bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as if it were the  Apostles. And reverence the deacons as the command of God.”⁶⁹ He addresses  these community chiefs by name (Onesimus of Ephesus; Damas of Magnesia; Polybius of Trailes; Polycarp of Smyrna). The overseer presided over the elders as a  separate office. He was seen as the master over the household of the faith  community, possibly in an echo of Revelation 320f.⁷⁰ The episcopate Ignatius  describes is not monarchical however. He constantly addressed the need for people  in whatever church he wrote (Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians etc.) to honour and  

⁶⁶ Clement of Rome, “Epistle to the Corinthians” The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St.  Ignatius of Antioch Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman, 1946) 35. See also “The  Didache” XV.1 “Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, meek men,  and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved, for they also minister to you the ministry of the  prophets and teachers.” Apostolic Fathers Vol. 1. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard  University, 1935) 331. 

⁶⁷ Clement, para. 44, 36. 

⁶⁸ Clement, para. 57, 44. 

⁶⁹ Ignatius of Antioch, “Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” Trans. By Kirsopp Lake Apostolic Fathers Vol. 1.  Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1935) 261. 

⁷⁰ Ignatius “Epistle to the Ephesians” The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of  Antioch Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman, 1946) 62.

22 

obey both the bishop and the elders.⁷¹ They worked together as “strings with a  harp.”⁷² 

They are not a collection of autonomous elders either. They form a presbytery. To  say, however, that this is not monarchical in the sense of an absolute rule is not to  deny that Ignatius had a strong sense of the difference between the two positions. “I  exhort you to strive to do all things in harmony with God: the bishop is to preside in  the place of God, while the presbyters are to function as the council of the Apostles,  and the deacons, who are most dear to me, are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus  Christ.”⁷³ He also presented the bishop as an indispensable office and a natural  corollary to the presbytery. It is needful then-and such is your practice-that you do  nothing without your bishop; but be subject also to the presbytery as representing  the Apostles of Jesus Christ.”⁷⁴ This is particularly important when considering the  sacraments. “Let that be considered a valid eucharist which is celebrated by the  bishop, or by one whom he appoints. It is not lawful either to baptise or hold an  ʻagapeʼ (love feast) without the bishop; but whatever he approve, this is also pleasing  to God.”⁷⁵ There are two things to notice here. First, it is a description almost  startlingly similar to that of the archisynagogue. Second, it is an office not held in the  same regard as the imperial episcopacy of the later Roman Catholic bishops. It is  functional first of all. It has not yet been associated with the later apostolic  succession. 

 Burtchaell interestingly concludes that this was an entirely probable progression in  the episcopate given the fact that Jewish synagogues placed such importance on the  archisynagogue. We should not rush to any conclusions however based on this. No  explicit common and widespread identification of the bishop is forthcoming until the  mid-second century. What we can say with some confidence is that Clement and  Ignatius, writing at the tail end of the apostolic age had identified two centres of  authority in the church with a third (the diaconate) exercising a supportive rather than  determinative role. 

⁷¹ Burthchaell 308. 

⁷² Ignatius of Antioch 61. 

⁷³ Ignatius of Antioch, “Epistle to the Magnesians 70f. 

⁷⁴ Ignatius of Antioch, “Epistle to the Trallians 75. 

⁷⁵ Ignatius of Antioch, “Epistle to the Smyrnaeans” 261.

23 

Reformation era and Elizabethan Age History It is difficult to know where to draw lines sometimes. I remember history courses I  took in grad school. I took courses on the Renaissance and Reformation. They were  dominated by events taking place on the Continent of Europe. I also took separate  courses on Tudor and Stuart England. I studied separately the Scottish Reformation.  I also had a minor in Early Modern Christianity that covered everything from the late  Middle Ages through the early seventeenth century. It covered the Western church  from Poland west to Ireland. Breaking things up like that makes it easier to explain  some of the details. You also cannot study absolutely everything. There is a penalty  however. Separating these fields is an artificiality at best and potentially a great  distortion of the historical truth. What happened with regard to the genesis of  presbyterianism in sixteenth century England and Scotland cannot be separated  from what happened on the Continent. The lives of protestants throughout Europe  were intertwined in such a way that to attempt understanding what happened to  Tudor and later Stuart England without bringing in a wider field of view is to miss the  essential points. We therefore cannot afford to make the same mistake ourselves.  No, you cannot talk about everything, but you must talk about the things that really  do matter. At least as far as my own study has been concerned, this tunnel-vision,  this parochialism has been a major culprit in the stunting of reformed churchesʻ interaction and ministry. 

As we explore the origins of presbyterian views concerning offices in the church, we  need to cast our net wide enough. We can do that by placing Reformation-era Great  Britain within its larger European context. Continental reformers such as Martin  Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, John a Lasco, Peter Martyr and others in addition to the  more familiar John Calvin all had a profound impact on British⁷⁶ protestantism. The  reason for the interrelations of Continental and British reformers is not that  complicated. The advent of the Reformation led to waves of persecution but not to  the same degree everywhere and not all at the same time. For example the freedom  of Swiss and South German reformers led to long periods of exchange between their  scholars who were encouraged by the English court and church, recently broken free  from Catholic control to find residence in London and subsequent persecution under  Queen Mary that led to waves of British refugees finding shelter in Continental  communities. It simply led to the cross-fertilization of ideas. The ways in which  people from England and Scotland related to their Continental cousins also served to  produce diverse polities in British churches, leading to presbyterianism, Anglicanism  and congregationalism in time.  

We also need to consider that things did not look the same then as they do now. For  example, we are accustomed to looking at both presbyterianism and Anglicanism as  they exist now, forgetting that both reflect centuries of particular development. The  churches that developed in the British Isles aligned themselves in a way that we now  generally forget. For example, when we consider Anglicanism today, we think of a  term, the via media. When we say that, however, we adopt the gloss on the phrase  given by John Henry Newman in the nineteenth century. He meant that the middle of  

⁷⁶ Note: I am well aware of the difficulties of using terms such as British, Britain, and the United  Kingdom in the period before the unification of the monarchy. I do so only to demonstrate how  reformers on either side of the English Channel influenced each other.

24 

the road (Anglicanism) was a place situated between Roman Catholicism and  protestantism. This was by no means what Archbishop Cranmer meant in sixteenth  century England. To Cranmer, that would have been like saying the church existed  between Christ and the antichrist. No, for Cranmer, the middle way was a reformed  church that existed ideologically between Lutherʼs Wittenberg and Zwingliʼs Zurich.  In that sense, he found very great common cause with continental reformers such as  Martin Bucer and Heinrich Bullinger.⁷⁷ Cranmer was an excellent church historian  and scholar, sharing some of the same carefulness and perspective as Calvin, even  as they disagreed over some important points. Cranmer was, in fact conversant in  Calvinʼs writings from at least the publication of the first edition of the Institutes of  Christian Religion in 1536.  

Both men were concerned with moving the Church away from medieval error and  back toward the New Testament era. Both saw in the early church a reliable and  simple extension of the covenant people of God. This clearly set the Reformation  apart from a mediaeval church that built on the unbiblical, post-apostolic explosion of  clerical offices and overlapping responsibilities. Eusebius, for example, in the mid third century noted that the church in Rome already had 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7  subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, 1500 widows (including those with ministry  responsibilities), lectors, readers, and door-keepers.⁷⁸There were differences  between these reformers however, and one particular difference would forever  distinguish reformed Anglicanism from fully-developed presbyterianism. Where  Calvin saw in the early church a general prescription for polity, Cranmer saw an  incomplete polity that was only remedied with the advent of Christian rulers such as  Constantine the Great. For Cranmer, the age of Christian rulers saw a necessary  completeness to Godʼs plan for his Church. This, of course, was similar to, but to a greater degree than the ideas expressed by Calvin. What we should not miss  however in all of this is the fact that Cranmer was no champion of apostolic  succession.⁷⁹ He was, in many ways, far closer to sixteenth century presbyterianism  than he was to later Anglicanism.  

Cranmer also had a different way of understanding offices, but those differences  should not be overdrawn. He saw, as he explained in his 1550 Preface to the  Ordinal of the Church of England that, from the times of the apostles, there had  been ordained three offices by God: bishops, priests, and deacons. His saying so  was not received as a stumbling block by other reformers because he did not mean  anything too entirely different from people like Bucer or Bullinger. His bishops were  not princes of the Church and his priests were not mediators between man and God.  In most ways, they conformed to other contemporary distinctions between pastors,  

⁷⁷ Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (New Haven: Yale University, 1996) 617. 

⁷⁸ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Vol. II. Loeb Classical Library trans. J.E.L. Oulton (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1932) VI.43.11.  

⁷⁹ MacCulloch, Cranmer 279.

25 

elders, and deacons.⁸⁰ Interestingly too, he embraced the higher supervisory role of  bishops and archbishops, but he did so not believing that this extension of office was  found anywhere in the Bible. He did not think that he had to. This issue exposed a  critical faultline between subsequent Anglicans and Presbyterians. Did the office of  bishop have to be prescribed? Cranmer saw it as a natural, useful extension of  biblical mandate, but not specifically prescribed. Calvin thought bishops were not an  essential part of the church, but not prohibited. Even Knox did not try to eliminate  bishops in Scotland. They remained there until 1638. It took others, the next and  following generations, reacting primarily to the political situation of the times, to  harden both positions in opposition to one another. Cranmer supported a  pragmatism concerning office. If it is not prohibited and it is useful, then we can  embrace it. Calvin was more conservative. If it is not explicitly stated, we should not  support it, but we can live with it until people understand that there is a better way.  Both positions eventually gave way to others on either side that believed that their  own polity was prescribed exclusively by the Bible.⁸¹ 

Presbyterianism grew in both England and Scotland as part of a large church  movement. The Church of England had, in fits and starts, become more and more  protestant after its inauguration in the 1530s. The process was complex since the  spark that set off the Reformation there was the kingʼs marital problems not a  German monkʼs Christian conscience. Though the reasons for the English  Reformation are many and complex, the entire affair was thrown into gear by the act  of the King, who separated his realm by law from the ecclesiastical control of Rome.  It was, therefore, from the beginning, going to be complicated. Gradually, however,  the Island lurches its way in the protestant direction. As we saw, this took place in  constant contact with the Reformation on the Continent, along with all of the  diplomacy and conflict taking place between sixteenth century states, Catholic and  protestant. From those early days through the end of Elizabethʼs reign in 1603, the  English and Scottish protestant churches emerged. 

Anglican conformism in general and presbyterianism, initially within the Church of  England, matured particularly during the reign of Edward VI, after Henryʼs death,  and in Elizabethʼs time. Origins of the development and the growing differences find  their source in the the way that the Church of England developed after the death of  Roman Catholic Queen Mary. During her reign, the older protestant leadership died  away, either through martyrdom or old age. She also created a new source of power  for her crown, a resurgent Catholicism in the state church, the Commons and Lords.  Some of her bishops were younger men, but many were hold-overs from her  

⁸⁰ Gerald Bray, “Bishops, Presbyters, and Women” The Theologian (2005) www.theologian.co.uk.  Paul Avis, The Anglican Understanding of the Church: An Introduction (London: SPCK, 2000)  explored Cranmerʼs understanding of these offices in the Ordinal. Cranmer referred to bishops as  chief pastors in the local church or diocese, overseeing issues of doctrinal purity and discipline.  

Presbyters or priests administered the sacraments, preached and pronounced the benediction.  Deacons appeared to be also involved with the Word and Sacrament, but also responsible for the  special care of the needy. This however was also seen as something of a probationary period prior to  priestly vows. On the other hand, the church at the time also had an additional, permanent diaconate  roughly similar to the office found in other reformed churches. 

⁸¹ Maurice Elliott, “Cranmerʼs Attitude to the Episcopate: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons” Churchman  109.4 (1995).

26 

predecessors. When Elizabeth assumed the throne in 1558, she had to assert her  authority over the country. Doing so meant nullifying the power of Catholic-minded  nobility and clergy. A vehicle for doing so in the Church came in two forms. It came in  the form of protestant clergy that had compromised politically enough to avoid death  or exile and in highly trained exiled Englishmen free to return from Geneva, Frankfurt  and Emden. Many assumed, with their theologies honed on the Continent, newly  vacated bishoprics. Others, unable to move into parish preferments, became  chaplains, lecturers, etc., all well supported but outside of the constraints of the  official Book of Common Prayer.⁸² 

To be honest, even the exiles themselves divided over the issue of polity as well. Of  course, this had always been a problem in the Reformation. When Lutherans and  Zwinglians clashed during the Colloquy of Marburg in 1529 over the meaning of the  Eucharist, they represented just the opening salvoes of internecine conflict that  would tear apart any hope of Protestant unity. For the future of presbyterianism,  events in Frankfurt among the English immigrant church, had long-term  consequences. These exiled congregations were essential for the growth of  reformed churches back in Britain after the coronation of Elizabeth. There were eight  of them and they represented significantly different views from each other in a  number of respects. Emden became home to many of John a Lascoʼs London  immigrant church and the centre of propaganda for the Reformation in England and  Scotland. It became the principal publisher of Knoxʼs work. Zurich and Strasbourg  represented the more moderate thinking of Peter Martyr and Heinrich Bullinger,  guided by Book of Common Prayer. The Genevan English congregation started in  1555, three years before Mary died, with 48 members who were largely followers of  Knox. Before their work began,however, in June 1554 William Whittingham and a  small entourage arrived in Frankfurt. They were warmly welcomed into the French  reformed church there. As time went on, Whittingham introduced the congregation to  a remodeled, more Calvinistic Prayer Book that abolished vestments. He also  changed the government of the church, without objection, and the church became  independent, with its own elected ministers and deacons.⁸³ He then attempted to get  the other exiled congregations to adopt the changes, but he met with resistance.  Some of these suggested that they needed a more competent leader and suggested  Dr. Richard Cox, a moderate Calvinist and former vice-chancellor of Oxford. They  got John Knox straight from Geneva. 

Calvin, sensing trouble in the air with the exiles, counseled caution and patience to  Knox and Whittingham. He did not want the Prayer Book issue to divide the English speakers. The situation only became more polarized. Cox showed up in Frankfurt,  after having escaped to Antwerp and touring the other immigrant churches on the  Continent. Knox, perhaps uncharacteristically, welcomed Cox, but it led to a clash  between the two concepts of church polity, Knox and Cox. Members of the  congregation, already nervous by Knoxʼs attacks on the English monarchy, became  concerned that they would not be able to return home, even with a change of ruler.  More importantly, they feared that the Holy Roman Emperor would come to the  

⁸² Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 47-50. 

⁸³ A.G. Dickens, The English Reformation Second Edition (University Park, Pa: The Pennsylvania  State University, 1989) 345.

27 

defense of a fellow monarch and attack the city. They therefore expelled Knox who  returned to Geneva. The damage was done. Two strongly oppositional camps  emerged in the controversy and those two poles went home when Mary died.⁸⁴ The  same sorts of differences that distinguished Strasbourg, Zurich and Geneva found  their way back to the “sceptred Isle.” 

Interestingly, Cox also left for Zurich, satisfied in knowing that he had completed his  task. The people he left behind to manage things in Frankfurt did not last however.  By Feb 1557, they had in-turn been unseated by a constituency that rapidly adopted  a new Book of Discipline that contained some radical principles. The Frankfurt  church termed itself “a particular visible church” that, as such, was a self-governing  body not tied to any episcopal authority. More significantly, the minister himself was  now fully and directly subordinate to the congregation. The latter was invested with  new authority, being invested with the right to vote on the new Book of Discipline. It  is not difficult to see in embryonic form, separate Calvinist, Congregationalist  churches. Robert Browne, an Anglican priest, founded one such independent  Reformed church in Norwich in 1581. Subsequent persecution forced him and his  congregation to flee to Middleburg, Holland where he connected with Dutch  Anabaptists, moving independent churches one step closer to discovering full Baptist  identity and polity.⁸⁵ 

The period of Continental exile immediately fed two vigourous religious movements  in England with a third, congregationalism not far behind. There was Elizabethʼs  Church of England, controlled by her in large part, but remaining largely Calvinist,  and a dissenting part of that church that was either excluded from official power or  situated in such a way that allowed it to avoid state control. The reasons for the  apposition were largely political, though Elizabeth did not care for the edgier form of  Calvinistic polity espoused by Cartwright and others like him. She had a particular  dislike for John Knox that burned many a presbyterian bridge with his activities. She  was determined to maintain her own discipline over the church largely because she  saw it as fundamental to securing her crown and government. She did so with a  series of acts designed to reign in the clergy and move it to what she saw as the  middle. The Act of Uniformity and subsequent legislation (“Advertisements” etc.)  were forced through by the monarch and enforced, sometimes with vigor by bishops  that had to conform or lose their positions. The importance for us is that it set in  motion the drifting apart of the groups. By 1572, for example, Presbyterians had  established a fully-functioning presbytery in both the Channel Islands and  Wandsworth.⁸⁶ Elizabeth, through the Calvinist Archbishop Whitgift, had managed to  maintain episcopal and monarchical supremacy in the Church of England. She had  suppressed successfully the comeback hopes of Roman Catholicism (at least for a  century), but she had not managed to eliminate the competitive influence of  presbyterianism. 

⁸⁴ Dickens 346f. 

⁸⁵ Ian Gowers, “The Beginnings of Nonconformity in England” Chung Chi Journal (1961) 68-78. 

⁸⁶ Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox,  1534-1690 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 50f.

28 

We need to realize however that the kind of presbyterianism we know best really did  not emerge clearly until after Calvinʼs death in 1564, through the influence of his  successor Theodore Beza, professor of the Genevan Academy. Calvin had never  prohibited the presence of bishops in the church, so long as they did not rule by right  of apostolic succession or represented purely political appointments that made them  simply tools of the monarch. As long as the later condition did not raise its head,  Beza expressed respect for episcopal government. We know that this was true as  late as 1566.⁸⁷ He did not have a general concern with the Church of England. It  was, after all, led by people just as reformed and predestinarian as he was in most  ways. It really was a different time. People in England like bishops Jewel and Whitgift  were no episcopalians in our sense of the word and Continental reformers really  were not presbyterians in a way we now recognize either.⁸⁸ Bezaʼs concerns with the  importance of maintaining church discipline through a plurality of elders however  moved him in the direction of condemning the idea of an episcopate when he began  to realize that bishops too were instrumental in the maintaining of church discipline.  In other words, he saw this as representing two competing systems of authority. His  concerns were in-turn absorbed by international scholars in Residence at Geneva  such as Thomas Cartwright, Walter Travers and a Scot, Andrew Melville. Bezaʼs  perspectives also made their way through Continental reformed churches,  generating new confessions, catechisms and discipline.In its totality, we began to  see an emergent consistent presbyterian polity spread through Europe and, through  the international students, back into England. 

Thomas Cartwright returned from Geneva to become the new Lady-Margaret  professor of divinity at Cambridge. A consummate scholar, he used the new position  as a platform for delivering a series of lectures on the Acts of the Apostles in the  Spring of 1570. The heart of his teaching was an exposition of the early church in the  first two chapters of Acts. Cartwright used his exposition to directly challenge the  episcopal system in England. He announced that to apply the model of the church in  Acts would be to “call for the abolition of the names and offices of archbishops,  bishops, deans, and archdeacons, and for the reduction of the ministry to the  apostolic offices of pastor and deacon.” He also called for the immediate imposition  of election as the only vehicle for appointing new pastors.⁸⁹ It did not go down well  with young queen Elizabeth or the episcopal mainstream. He lost his chair and  returned to Geneva, but the rock he threw into the ecclesiastical pond produced  waves that swept through the British Isles. Of course, these ideas were not unique.  Luther and Tyndale had both equated bishops, priests and elders already. To some  degree, it was a matter of timing. Elizabeth still had to contend with trying to keep her  own realm from dissolving into religious war between Protestants and Catholics.  Cranmerʼs previous reformed version of the church also seemed a better way  through the mess than this sort of confrontation as well. It all may have represented  a false choice for her, the church and the country. Since the 1530s, refugee churches  in London had proved that the presence of a bishop did not mean that they would  

⁸⁷ Patrick Collinson 109. 

⁸⁸ The Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 made a point of distinguishing bishops from other pastors  and elders based on its identification of the bishop as a unique watchman over the Church. 

⁸⁹ Collinson 112.

29 

have to sacrifice their own self-government or worship styles. As it happened,  historic events propelled all of the participants in different directions, towards  competition rather than cooperation or at least mutual recognition. 

Meanwhile, the Scottish church only began to look like anything similar to its present  form and practices with Andrew Melvilleʼs Second Book of Discipline (1578). This  work reflected the heavy influence of Theodore Beza, Calvinʼs successor in Geneva,  who both followed his mentor and differed with his mentor in significant ways with  regard to church government. We can see both tendencies in Melvilleʼs work. As with  Calvin, only the pastor preached the Word and administered the sacraments. In a  similar manner as Calvin, Melville also cited the role of the doctor or teacher, which  he placed alongside of the pastor as another expression of the same sort of office  (elder), albeit with different responsibilities. The differences crop up with Melvilleʼs  description of elders. Melville enumerates the responsibilities of elders in a separate  section and breaks with Calvin in using the term “elder” in describing this office.⁹⁰ He  first addresses the confusion tied up in the term “elder”, noting that it can include  pastors and doctors as well as a separate office, known as seniors or elders. These  elders were what the apostles termed as “governors.” Unlike Calvin, Melville thought  that they were called to the office once and could not leave it. He thought so  because he believed that eldership was a fully spiritual office, whose responsibilities  extended far beyond those envisaged by Calvin.⁹¹ They were to rule the church by  watching over and ensuring the spiritual fruit of the congregation. This was  accomplished in conjunction with the pastors and doctors. He also greatly expanded  the description of assemblies, describing four levels: of single congregations, of a  province containing churches, a nation, and of a council that comprised the churches  in all nations. He then enumerated some of the ways in which the church officers  ruled through these, separately and corporately.⁹² 

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland convened in 1645 to draft The  Form of Presbyterial Church Government. The document laid out the roles and  responsibilities of officers in the church. First, they noted the office of pastor,  responsible for prayer, preaching, catechism, administering of the sacraments as  well as having “a ruling power over the flock.” It listed the doctor or teacher as a kind  of minister of particular use in schools or universities, modeling the position after the  examples of the prophets and pharisees such as Gamaliel in Jerusalem. Then, as a  separate office, they mentioned the “other church governors.” “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  

⁹⁰ Torrance. 

⁹¹ Torrance. 

⁹² Torrance points out that Scottish presbyterian polity continued to evolve after Melvilleʼs work. He  notes, for example, that annual elections were still reported as late as 1656. Gradually, however, the  changes instituted by the Second book of Discipline took hold aided and augmented by later  prescriptions such as Alexander Hendersonʼs The Government and Order of the Church of  Scotland.

30 

church. Which officers in the reformed churches commonly call elders. Again, the  document followed the typical pattern of strongly distinguishing between pastors or  doctors and elders who rule, whether they do so bearing that name or “senior” or  “governor”. In similar fashion, George Gillespieʼs Assertion of the Government of  the Church of Scotland in 1641 distinguished between what he saw as the biblical  distinction between the rule committed to all presbyters (including ruling elders) and  what he considered executive functions such as preaching, the administration of the  sacraments, and the pronouncements of judgments in church courts, that belonged  exclusively to ordained ministers of the Word.⁹³ 

The Westminster Assembly, which completed its Confession of Faith in 1647,  maintained the strong demarkation between ministers and lay elders. “There be only  two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism and  the Lordʼs Supper of the Lord; neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a  minister of the Word lawfully ordained” (XXVII.4). In its chapter on synods and  councils, it also stated that if magistrates were open enemies of the Church, the  ministers along with “other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may  meet together in assemblies” (XXXI.2).⁹⁴ We can see in this a strong demarkation  between ministers and non-ministers that are still considered leaders that can be  admitted into assemblies. Unlike the 1611 King James Bible, however, the Assembly  in its proceedings consistently avoided equating the term “elder” with “presbyter”,  preferring “other church governors”, “elders of the people” or “commonly called  elders” instead. Overtures made to the Westminster Assembly in 1643 to delineate  and distinguish between teaching and ruling elders, partially based on Calvinʼs  identifying of the two in 1 Ti 5:17, all met with failure.⁹⁵ 

The Eraʼs Theologians and Eldership 

Martin Bucer strongly influenced English churches, both when he lived in London  after fleeing the Rhineland and when English-speaking congregations sprouted in  Germany and Switzerland. He wrote extensively on the subject of church  government. His design for churches in Strasbourg and England included detailed  recommendations on establishing eldership in local churches, based on his  understanding of Titusʼs charge from Paul in Crete. He considered the pastor as a  type of elder, but strongly distinguished him from untrained lay elders, known as  governors. Together they would deal with discipline in the church. “It has pleased the  Holy Spirit from the beginning of the church to join to the ministers of the Word and  the sacraments, namely, the presiding elders and bishops, other men also from the  body of the church, serious men endowed with the gift for governing, to assist them  in exercising a concern for individuals and in keeping and strengthening the  

⁹³ In Maurice Roberts, “The Office of Eldership” Part II. Free Church Witness (November 2008) 9. 

⁹⁴ The American edition omits this section, substituting “And it belongeth to the overseers and other  rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power Christ hath given them for  edification, and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as  often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the Church.” 

⁹⁵ Roberts 8.

31 

discipline of Christ.” Deacons were responsible for poor relief and the distribution of  benevolence. ⁹⁶ Calvin had a similar view (Institutes IV.xi.1, 6; IV.iv.2).  

Heinrich Bullinger, the Swiss reformer also wrote extensively on church office. Like  other major reformers, Bullinger denied the apostolic succession of bishops. He  likened 16th century bishops to princes rather than pastors, condemning the change  in identity. “Men that are pastors of churches are all ministers, and all are equal.  Christ our Lord is the universal pastor, and chief and Lord of pastors.”⁹⁷ Consequently, God did not appoint popes that would act like princes, but ministers  and elders. We can see here, however, that Bullinger did differentiate between the  two. Ministers or pastors equate to bishops who are superintendents, keepers of the  Lordʼs flock. He sees their origin not in the priesthood but in the ordination of elders  in Ancient Israel (Numbers 11). He also addresses those that rule and do not teach,  but these seem to be something more like assistant pastors than ruling elders in the  subsequent presbyterian sense. These both are considered elders. It is just that  some are the principal overseers, teachers, and administrators of the body and the  rest come alongside them to govern.⁹⁸ Bullinger distinguishes between these trained  leaders and a separate office of lay leaders that he calls governors (1 Co 12) rather  than elders, again echoing Calvin. Finally, he also recognizes another office in the  church, that of the deacon. So, in Bullingerʼs understanding, there is an office of  overseer, with some men called as senior pastors and others to assist them in ruling  the body, a separate body of lay leaders called governors and a separate office  called deacons. Overarching the entire church structure is a collegiality of plural  leadership overseen in a gentle, non-dictatorial manner by the senior pastor.⁹⁹ In his  Belgic Confession, article 30, he summarizes his view: “We believe that this true  church must be governed by the spiritual policy which our Lord has taught us in his  word namely, that there must be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God, and  to administer the sacraments; also elders and deacons, who, together with the  pastors, form the council of the Church.” 

Calvin sees the heart of the church being the Word and sacrament, both of which are  focused in the appointed pastor. The pastor is likened to a teacher who bonds  through the Word to the congregation which are his pupils (Inst. IV.iii.1). This pastoral  office is of supreme prestige, since there is “nothing more notable or glorious in the  church than the ministry of the gospel” (Inst IV.iii.3). Calvin cites Ephesians 4 in  describing offices within the church. He distinguished between the four: Pastors  preached the Word, administrated the sacraments and, together with elders, made  ʻFraternal correctionsʼ; Teachers or doctors guarded the purity of doctrine in the body  and ensured a succession of capable ministers; elders (anciens) are a class of lay  associates dedicated to discipline and guidance of souls; and two different kinds of  deacons, one of which managed church funds and the other ministered to the poor  

⁹⁶ Martin Bucer, De Regno Christi (1550) Melanchthon and Bucer. The Library of Christian Classics  (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 231f. 

⁹⁷ Heinrich Bullinger, Decades The Fifth Decade. Parker Society (1552) (Trans. And repr. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1852) 43. 

⁹⁸ Bullinger 106f. 

⁹⁹ Bullinger 111.

32 

and needy.¹⁰⁰ These offices, unlike other temporary charism, were permanent offices  (Inst. IV.iii.4). The difference between the two is that teachers are not put in charge  of church discipline, the administration of the sacraments, warning and exhortations.  Rather, they are there to interpret Scripture, maintaining the purity of doctrine in the  body (Inst. IV.iii.4). 

Calvin specifically addresses ministers of the Word as presbyters, stating that  presbyters, bishops, pastors, and ministers are all used interchangeably in the Word  (IV.iii.8). Separately, he also describes governors of the church. These are,  according to 1Co 12:28, “elders chosen from the people, who were charged with the  censure of morals and the exercising of discipline along with the bishops. Each  church, therefore, had from its beginning a senate, chosen from godly, grave, and  holy me, which had jurisdiction over the correcting of faults.” This view of office,  culminating in a plural government only emerged with time. The concept of a  presbytery finally showed up in his Institutes of 1543. His views concerning  government seemed to grow and develop as he worked with both the bible and the  local situation in the church. 

He summarizes his understanding of offices. “We have stated that the Scripture sets  before us three kinds of ministers. Similarly, whatever ministers the ancient church  had it divided into three orders. For from the order of presbyters one part were  chosen pastors and teachers; the remaining part were charged with the censure and  correction of morals; and the care of the poor and the distribution of alms were  committed to the deacons” (Inst. IV.iv.1). In the French Confession of Faith (1559),  prepared by Calvin, he reiterated the existence of four offices, pastors, doctors,  overseers, and deacons. He buttressed this opinion located in Ephesians 4 and 1 Co  12:28 with his interpretation of 1Ti 5:17, believing that the passage identified two  offices, rather than one. The key to understanding his view of the overseers hinged  on Calvinʼs assertion that discipline was a necessary part of church order. Therefore,  these men did not need to preach or administer the sacraments. They were crucial  however in maintaining appropriate discipline in the church.¹⁰¹ 

It is important to note, at this point, that Calvin made recommendations keeping two  things in mind; whether he could find offices in the Scripture itself and never going  further than what the Scripture suggested. So, he generally recognized four offices,  but on at least one occasion, he only mentioned three. He considered pastors and  teachers so close to one another that he sometimes conflated the two. He refused to  craft a position based on a simple imitation of the primitive church, but he also held  what he considered to be biblical positions with some nuance and latitude, based on  what he saw as less than concrete evidence.¹⁰² 

¹⁰⁰ John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (London: Oxford University, 1954)  161-63. McNeill quotes from Calvinʼs 1541, Ordinances ecclésiastiques. 

¹⁰¹ Elsie Anne McKee, “Calvinʼs Teaching on the Elder Illuminated by Exegetical History” John Calvin  & the Church: A Prism of Reform (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990) 150-52. 

¹⁰² François Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought Translated by  Philip Mairet (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963) 302f.

33 

John Knox, the Scottish reformer who spent considerable time living on the  Continent in Frankfurt and Geneva returned to Scotland to write The Buke of  Discipline in 1560. Churches need both elders (senioris) and deacons. If a church is  too small to have the required offices, they should consider uniting with others so  that they can corporately achieve a plurality.¹⁰³ Both elders and deacons should  stand for annual election, so their positions were not permanent. Elders were  distinguished as well from the minister, who occupied a separate office. Calvin, Knox  and other reformers sharply divided between pastors and lay elders. The reasons for  that were often contextual rather than being strictly scriptural. In both Calvinʼs  Geneva and in Knoxʼs Scotland, elders were also leading players in government. In  Scotland, for example, elders were also Burgh councillors.¹⁰⁴ In other words, like  their Jewish ancestors, elders were lay leaders of the wider community, not just  officers in the church. In Knoxʼs case, he formulated his ideas by dealing with  particular biblical texts (Ro 12; 1Co 12; Eph 4) and his own national context.  

This interaction produced a conviction like Calvinʼs that elders came from a separate  line of authority than that of ministers and other trained clergy. Pastors were to be  ministers of Christ and expositors of the Word, as well as administrators of the  sacraments, not lords or rulers. Therefore, it was wise counsel from being immersed  in the Scripture rather than authority that stood out.¹⁰⁵ Elders, on the other hand, did  not preach or administer sacraments, but, along with the rest of the ministers, ruled  the church. Therefore, “the proper order of the church consists of overseers, elders,  and deacons”. In an interesting use of phrasing , it is the elders and deacons that  rule with the minister.¹⁰⁶ It is easy to see that Knox, following the Continental pattern,  sees three offices present.  

Historical Perspective 

Trained historians learn from the start that we can never and should never “what if”  history. In other words, we are cautioned against speculating about what might have  happened in the present if this or that had been even slightly different in the past. It  is a wise but not always helpful thought. Just facing facts is not always the best way  to envisage the future. Diarmaid MacCulloch deliberately violated this rule as he  wrote the aftermath and retrospect for his biography of Thomas Cranmer. It is well  worth considering as we conclude this section of our study.  

¹⁰³ John Knox, The Buke of Discipline (1560) Vol. II. The Works of John Knox (repr. Edinburgh:  Ballantine Club, 1845) 234. 

¹⁰⁴ Thomas F. Torrance, “The Eldership in the Reformed Church” Scottish Journal of Theology 37.4  (1984). Reprinted by the Eldership Centre http://eldership.org.  

¹⁰⁵ John Knox, The forme of prayers and ministrations of the sacramentes, etc., used in the  English Congregation at Geneva; and approved, by the famous and godly learned man, M.  John Calvin (1562) Vol. IV The Works of John Knox 174. See also Vol. VI, The Book of Common  Order (1564). 

¹⁰⁶ John Knox, The Confessioun of faith professit and believit be the protestantis within the  realme of Scotland (1561) Vol. II. The Works of John Knox 151.

34 

MacCulloch speculates about what might have happened if Queen Mary, the Roman  Catholic “Bloody Mary” of popular history, had never assumed the English throne  after the death of her protestant half-brother Edward VI. It was a plausible scenario  since there was a way in which a rival claim to the throne might have resulted in an  evangelical protestant monarch. What would the future have brought if things had  turned out differently? MacCulloch, no supporter of reformed evangelicalism, had  some interesting insight. First, Cranmer, the champion of the Reformation in England  would have continued his reforming of the church rather than being burned at the  stake. Elizabeth, rather than becoming the moderately protestant “virgin queen”  would have been married off to someone of good, reliable protestant stock. John  Knox, rather than being cast away from the English court, as was the case after he  infuriated Queen Elizabeth, would have been made the Bishop of Newcastle in a  united reformed protestant church. The parishes in England and Scotland would  have quickly adopted Genevan-style metrical psalms, what MacCulloch  characterized as “the best secret weapon of the English Reformation” (since they  were hugely popular and very effectively taught reformed doctrine at the popular  level). A consolidated reformed protestant Britain would have been the most powerful  and unifying player in the European camp, bringing together into alliance all of the  reformed churches from England to Central Europe. The fragmentation of  protestantism that plagued the era and eventually culminated in fragmentary  protestant denominationalism would not have happened. It is of course, as the  author points out, a history that never happened.¹⁰⁷ 

Why tell it then? The point I suppose is that we live with polities and attitudes  concerning them that have been conditioned by hundreds of years of actual history.  Events and theology have always interacted to create structures and policies. As  time goes by, we tend not to reflect on how it all happened, convinced that what we  do is not only biblical but is the right way to be biblical. I think that this story is  important to me because it points to something good that projects beyond the  disastrous consequences of sin and disaster. In other words, this sort of story not  only points out what was missed, but also what might still be, at least in part. Can  there be a way in which we can make our own peace concerning how we exercise  our own polity and, at the same time, develop far more effective relations with those  with whom we differ? I rather think we can. 

¹⁰⁷ MacCulloch 618-620.

35 

Nineteenth and twentieth century developments Nineteenth century American presbyterians made eldership a key battleground  issue. The debate was sparked largely by the publishing in 1831 of Samuel Millerʼs  The Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of Ruling Elder. Miller referred to 1  Ti 5:17 in support of the office of ruling elder. “In every church completely organized,  that is, furnished with all the officers which Christ has instituted, and which are  necessary for carrying into full effect the laws of his kingdom, there aught to be three  classes of officers, viz.: at least one Teaching Elder, Bishop, or Pastor-a bench of  Ruling Elders-and Deacons. The first to ʻminister in the Word and Doctrine,ʼ and to  dispense the Sacraments;-the second to assist in the inspection and government of  the Church;-and the third to ʻserve tables;ʼ that is, to take care of the Churchʼs funds  destined for the support of the poor, and sometimes to manage whatever relates to  the temporal support of the gospel and its ministers.”¹⁰⁸ As an office with spiritual  authority, they would be ordained through the laying on of hands and also lay hands  during the ordination of fellow ruling elders and deacons. Miller went back to the  ancient Jewish synagogue to root his model for a “bench” of elders there, though he  seems to have, like others of the time, conflated the position of elder and  archisynagogue. He then saw the same model repeated in both the New Testament  and Reformation periods. He was largely correct in this observation, but it seems to  me, too quickly homogenized their opinions.  

By declaring for a three office view, he effectively divided the American Presbyterians  between his view, that of Thornwell and Breckenridge who saw in the New  Testament only one type of eldership, and Charles Hodge and Thomas Smyth who  maintained a position similar to that of the Westminster divines. Like Westminster,  Miller saw three offices, but unlike them he referred to the lay office as that of a  ruling elder.¹⁰⁹ “There ought to be three classes of officers: at least one teaching  elder, bishop or pastor-a bench of ruling elders-and deacons. The first to ʻminister in  the Word and doctrineʼ, and to dispense the Sacraments; the second to assist in the  inspection and government of the Church; and the third to serve tables, that is, to  take care of the poor, and sometimes to manage whatever relates to the temporal  support of the gospel and its ministers.”¹¹⁰ 

James Henley Thornwell, the leading light of Southern American presbyterianism  before the Civil War, was a man of admirable precision. He believed that the word  presbyter in the New Testament simply meant a ruler. It was also, however, the basic  ordained office of elder ruling in the church. As such, preachers were simply elders  exercising a new function “superadded to the presbyterate”, not a new and separate  office. Preachers and ruling elders were both elders. To be more precise, there was  only one simple office of elder. Differences in function among elders did not imply  

¹⁰⁸ Samuel Miller, An Essay, on the Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of the Ruling Elder  in the Presbyterian Church (New York: Samuel Leavitt, 1831) www.reformed.org.  

¹⁰⁹ Contra Mark Shand, “How Many Elders? The Presbyterian View of the Ruling Elder” Protestant  Reformed Theological Journal 3.1 (November 1999) 48, who sees Miller and Westminster in  essential agreement. 

¹¹⁰ In Shand 48.

36 

two different types of office of elder.¹¹¹ Distinctions of office between the two did not  appear until Ignatius in the second century. Therefore, the heart of polity in  presbyterianism was the office of the elder, not the minister.¹¹² 

Since there is a genuine parity between both functions: the preaching and teaching  of the pastor and ruling of the ruling elder, and more importantly, since both are  presbyters, ruling elders could not be excluded from presbyteries and the laying on  of hands of new ordinands. 1 Ti 4:14, therefore, was intended both for ministers and  ruling elders as two functions of one office. Thornwell buttressed his opinions by  appeals to eldership in the Old Testament (in the Jewish synagogue, presbyter and  ruler were synonymous). Expressing a somewhat dated understanding of Jewish  practice, particularly in the Second Temple period, he stated that the synagogue had  no office resembling that of the preacher, noting that anyone gaining permission from  the elders could address the people. Therefore, “there were presbyters in the  synagogue, but no preachers.” Thornwell also claimed that any idea of an apostolic  enlargement in the church by adding a teaching office was completely unprovable  according to the Bible and early church history. In other words, there was no  evidence that the apostles created any offices. Thornwell concluded: “The eldership  as such never includes teaching-this is always a superadded function-and it is not in  consequence of his Presbyterial authority that an elder preaches.”¹¹³ It seems, in one  way, that Thornwell wanted to have his cake and eat it too. At the same time that he  asserted preaching as a “superadded” function, he was anxious to avoid the  elimination of a distinctive “minister of the Word”, even if it was just a distinction of  function not office. “We affirm without hesitation, that all ministers of the Word,  lawfully called and ordained, are presbyters, but we are very far from affirming that  all presbyters, lawfully called and ordained are ministers of the Word.”¹¹⁴ 

Thornwellʼs views were seen by presbyterians holding to older Reformational views  as a real threat and not simply an intramural debate or less charitably as the splitting  of ecclesiological hairs. Thornwell had relentlessly and logically made “ruling” the  sine quo non of Reformed leadership. This was essentially a position of  administration, control, and judicial purpose. His opponents saw in this formulation  strong echoes of the Sanhedrin and the Law, rather than the gospel and evangelism.  What of the priority of preaching then? In eliminating a specific and separate  preaching office, Thornwell appeared to move the church further from the churchʼs  actual experience of apostolic evangelism and growth. Wasnʼt the New Testament all  about the evangel, the Good News, being proclaimed to the unbelieving world, from  Jerusalem to the ends of the earth? Preaching and teaching was the heart of the  matter, not something superadded to it. To these men, the idea of parity,  paradoxically did not really echo the essence of the apostolic age, it denied it. So, on  one side of the divide Miller, Thornwell, Dabney and others saw in a single, unified  presbyterate, authentic biblical expression and on the other, parity represented a  

¹¹¹ See Maurice Roberts, “The Office of Eldership” Part II. Free Church Witness (November 2008) 8. 

¹¹² James Henry Thornwell, “On Ruling Elders” Spirit of the Nineteenth Century (December 1843)  31. 

¹¹³ Thornwell 34. 

¹¹⁴ In Shand, 55.

37 

denial of gospel power and its core meaning. We readers, looking back on these  debates, are often dumbfounded by the seeming inexplicable fervor with which  arguments were made and with the apparent lack of charity involved. It is, I believe,  important for us to also fully understand their minds and motives before we judge  them too harshly. 

Charles Hodge, writing in the Princeton Review, saw the debate as a choice  between two radically different views of the elder. As he explained, either the elder  was a layman belonging to a different order from the minister; differing from the  minister in office, vocation (the elder being a ruler, not a bishop, pastor, or teacher),  and ordination; or the elder was a clergyman, sharing the same office with the  minister but differing in function.¹¹⁵ Hodge was quick to point out that the distinction  between the views did not focus on the relative importance of the ruling elder, but  rather the nature of the office. The new perspective on eldership was collapsing the  two distinct offices into one, giving both ministers and ruling elders the right to  preach, ordain, and administer the sacraments. 

This was going too far for Hodge. He gave three principal objections to the  conflation:  

1. It is entirely contrary to the doctrine and practice of all Reformed churches. 2. Its value is destroyed in wiping out the peculiarity of the office. 3. It reduces the government of the church to a clerical despotism. 

Hodge first asserts that ruling elders had always been seen as laymen, basically  distinct from ministers (in keeping with the 1645 Form of Presbyterial Church  Government) and therefore not addressed in any of the New Testamentʼs  references to the presbuteroi. The differences manifest themselves in different  ways. Ministers could ordain ruling elders, but presbyteries ordained ministers.  Ministers had sole responsibility for preaching the Word and administering  sacraments. Ruling elders, on the other hand, were restricted to assisting in the  churches governance and the maintaining of its discipline. Hodge gloried and wanted  us to glory in the distinctiveness of the ruling elder. It was the differences as a  layman, a non-professional, that made the office special. Finally, Hodge saw in the  new proposal for equity, a subtle attempt by clergy to maintain control over the  church by appearing to submit to parity. He thought that by conflating the offices, the  church was losing its checks and balances. Clergy had the advantage of far greater  education, particularly theological training, not to mention greater access to the  pulpit. Therefore, contrary to the stated purpose of parity, the innovations would  enshrine inequity. 

Hodge argued largely from general principles and history.¹¹⁶ Though a fellow believer  in biblical infallibility, he adopted this approach because he did not think that the  

¹¹⁵ Charles Hodge, “Presbyterianism” The Princeton Review (1860) repr. Theologia  www.hornes.org.  

¹¹⁶ Hodge, “Presbyterianism.” “We hold with Calvin, that the official presbyters of the New Testament  were bishops, but he distinguishes between them and ruling elders (Inst. IV.3.8).”

38 

scriptures were as specific about polity as they were about doctrine.¹¹⁷ Thornwell, by  contrast, believed in a theory of verbal dictation that denied the church much  flexibility concerning polity. His extension of regulative principles to church  government also meant that he had to deny the existence of voluntary societies and  denominational mission boards, the latter being especially dear to Hodgeʼs heart.¹¹⁸ Hodge believed that making presbyterian polity too prescriptive would be to deny the  validity of other polity, destroying the catholicity of the Church. The Church could not  be “essentially” presbyterian without disenfranchising other churches. The heart of  the Church could not reside in its government. The heart of the Church was not  structure but the spiritual act of worship. The oversight of that prime directive, of  worshipping the God of the Bible had to then be in the office of pastor, which  crystalized worship around the faithful preaching of the Word.¹¹⁹ Hodge was most  concerned about Southern Presbyteriansʼ propensity for what he considered “high  churchism.”¹²⁰ 

He was also, therefore, sensitive to charges brought by Thornwell and other  Southern Presbyterians, that Hodgeʼs theories were heavy on opinion and light on  scripture. According to Hodge, Thornwell attempted to get Hodge to admit that  scripture indeed asserted that elders were presbyters. Hodge countered by asking  Thornwell whether apostles were deacons. Hodgeʼs tactic was to undermine  Thornwellʼs use of Greek terms (presbyteros) as a way of saying that the word  precisely signified a specific office. When Thornwell stated that apostles were not  deacons, he was saying that the diakonos therefore was not necessarily indicative of  office but of function. Hodge concluded from the two questions that “If the apostles  being deacons in the wide sense of the word, does not prove that they were officially  deacons, then that elders are presbyters in the one sense, does not prove them to  be presbyters in the other sense.” This, of course, was a fascinating and important  issue. We can see in both perspectives two different hermeneutical approaches to  the question itself; one committed to anchoring doctrine explicitly to specific  passages in the Bible and the other attempting to capture the canonical and  covenantal thrust of Scripture as a whole.¹²¹ 

Hodge capped his article on church polity by once more taking a global perspective.  He, like all other reformed and presbyterian theologians, saw some sort of  government asserted in the New Testament, but he insisted that it was only  presented in broad outline. “There is a wide discretion allowed us by God, in matters  of detail.” Hodge had always associated the New Testament faith with the idea of  

¹¹⁷ Alan D. Strange, “Preface to Charles Hodgeʼs The Church and its Polity” Mid-America Journal  of Theology 13 (2002) 28. 

¹¹⁸ Holifield 391. 

¹¹⁹ Strange 34f. 

¹²⁰ E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to  the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University, 2003) 389. 

¹²¹ Of course the distinction is not absolute. Both sides saw the necessity of honouring both needs. I  simply point out that one emphasis or the other seems to take priority. In the case of this particular  exchange, it is interesting to note that Hodge made his comparison without actually addressing  specific passages, no doubt offending Thornwellʼs hermeneutical sensibilities yet again.

39 

freedom. This liberty therefore extended not simply to matters of salvation, but to the  enjoyment of some latitude with regard to how churches were to be structured and  governed. His contrast between his own “New Testament thinking” and that of his  opponents in the polity controversy was telling. “The other doctrine is the opposite of  this.” His point was not simply that he argued for latitude and that Thornwell etc.  advocated strict prescription. Hodge was suggesting that his attitude concerning  polity was commensurate with his overall commitment to grace and freedom in  Christ, while his opponents, though clearly Christian, reflected in their thinking a  disturbing backward looking, too fascinated with Old Testament thinking and forms. It  is sobering, is it not, to consider that the same charges and countercharges  characterize contemporary Presbyterian life. 

Charles Hodge tried, as one of the few Americans trained theologically in Europe, to  influence thinking concerning polity in nineteenth century Scotland. His attempts to  sway Scotlandʼs William Cunningham largely failed, however, as a single-office view  of eldership swept through presbyterian circles. The tide was now firmly moving in  Thornwellʼs direction despite the efforts of Hodge, Smyth and Peter Campbell.  Campbellʼs Theory of Ruling Eldership (1866) taught that ruling elders were simply  laymen and congregational representatives, portraying them in an entirely different  category from the clergy.¹²² In this, we can see at least distant echoes from  Genevaʼs seigneurs. Campbell, if fact, shied from using the term presbyter in  connection with these lay representatives. He saw “presbyter” used on conjunction  with the work of the pastor or overseer. Since laymen were not ministers, Campbell  did not see how the term presbyter could apply to them. Like Calvin, he saw lay  participation as essential to the church, particularly with regard to the application of  discipline, but it was not equivalent to biblical eldership.¹²³ Presbyteries therefore  could not legitimately be comprised of ministers (presbyters) and lay representatives.  He ultimately saw no scriptural justification for two kinds of presbyters.¹²⁴ 

Thomas Witherowʼs “The New Testament Elder” of 1873 eliminated all distinctions  between elders. All elders had the right to rule, teach, preach, and administer the  sacraments. Any distinctions between elders in a given church resulted solely from  the recognition that they each had different gifts. He took Thornwellʼs ideas of parity  between elders to their extreme conclusion. There is only one type of elder and that  office has access to every ministry committed to the presbuteros. “All elders, being  bishops, have an equal right, according to the Scriptures, to preach, baptize,  administer the Lordʼs Supper and ordain”, but these tasks devolved to one principal elder, the minister who was appointed for the task based on his specialized  education and the general consent of the church. Witherowʼs work led to three  distinct views concerning presbyterian eldership in the nineteenth century. Hodge  

¹²² D.C. Lachman, “Elder, Eldership” Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology (Downers  Grove: IVP, 1993) 287-88. Campbell saw support for ruling elders in Ro 12:8; 1Co 12:28 but not 1Ti  5:17; 1Ti 3; or Tit 1. 

¹²³ Contra the strong objections of Sherman Isbell, Book review, Order in the Offices by Mark R.  Brown (Classic Presbyterian Government Resources, 1993) in The Westminster Presbyterian. 

¹²⁴ Mark Shand, “How Many Elders? The Presbyterian View of the Ruling Elder” Protestant  Reformed Theological Journal 3.1 (November 1999) 56f.

40 

and Smyth supported the idea that ministers and lay elders represented two distinct  offices. Thornwell, Dabney and Breckenridge saw one unified eldership with distinct  differences in function between elders that taught and ruled. Finally, Witherow saw  one office of elder in view with no distinction between teaching and ruling. 

John Murray, professor of theology at Westminster Seminary, noted Paulʼs  instructions to Titus to ordain elders (plural) in every city and that there had to be not  simply plurality but parity among these as well. “There is not the slightest evidence in  the New Testament that among the elders there was any hierarchy; the elders  exercise government in unison, and on a parity with one another. In the New  Testament the term ʻbishopʼ is identical in respect of office and function with that of elder.”¹²⁵ Therefore, when we examine passages such as Ephesians 4:11 and  1Timothy 5:17, we cannot legitimately recognize two groups or offices in view. In  fact, according to Murray, both teaching and ruling elders labour in the Word of  God.¹²⁶ Lawrence Ayres agrees in seeing a two-office view, elders and deacons  dominant in the biblical church. Citing once again 1Ti 5:17, he affirms a distinction in  function between elders who preach and teach and those who rule, but that never  equates to separate offices. At the heart of his argument is the desire to prevent  “one-man rule” in the church.¹²⁷ 

Edmund Clowney, also of Westminster, differed with his colleague Murray, by  largely adopting Hodgeʼs original position. He challenged the assertion that presbyter  included ruling elders. He did so by asserting that 1Ti 5:17 referred not to the  difference between teaching and ruling elders but between younger and older ones.  He also suggested that presbyter could, without limitation, refer exclusively to  ministers as opposed to a lay-dominated office. Clowney based this on making  presbyter parallel to diakonos. Diakonos (minister) may be used of all Christians (Jn  12:26), of all officers (1Pt 4:10), of deacons in the narrow sense (Phil 1:1; 1Ti 3:8) or  of ministers of the gospel, exclusive of ruling elders and deacons. “It would seem  that just as ʻdeaconʼ may be used of the minister of the gospel as a title for his  particular office in spite of a broader use and another specialized meaning, so  ʻpresbyterʼ may apply to the minister specifically in spite of the fact that there is a  more general usage for older men and for all who are rulers, and in Jewish circles,  one who is only a ruler and not a teacher.¹²⁸ 

Sean Michael Lucas, expressing the majority view in the Presbyterian Church in  America, recognizes two classes of church officers; one for oversight and the other  for service.¹²⁹ The office associated with oversight (eldership) is divided into two  

¹²⁵ John Murray, “The Form of Government” (1958) Collected Writings of John Murray Volume 2:  Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977) 345-348. 

¹²⁶ Murray, “Office in the Church” Collected Writings 2. 361. 

¹²⁷ Lawrence R. Ayres, The Elders of the Church (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1975) 4. 

¹²⁸ Edmund P. Clowney, “The Relation of Ministers to Ruling Elders” www.hornes.org. Clowneyʼs  correlation of 1Ti 5:17 and older men has been decisively challenged and answered in Mounce,  Pastoral Epistles Knight, The Pastoral Epistles. 

¹²⁹ Sean Michael Lucas, On Being Presbyterian: Our Beliefs, Practices, and Stories (Phillipsburg:  P&R, 2006) 141.

41 

orders, teaching and ruling elders. Citing the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO),  teaching elders not only rule along with the ruling elders; they also “feed the flock” by  tending to the ministry of the Word and sacraments. Ruling elders, on the other  hand, maintain the order and discipline of the church. They also, however, are  responsible for cultivating their own ability to teach the Bible. By adding this proviso,  Lucas is saying that, while teaching and rulers have two different spheres of  responsibility, they do in fact overlap. So, preaching and teaching, is not the special  preserve of the preaching office. In his view, assuming it is would be tantamount to  viewing the minister as a special priestly class within the church.¹³⁰ 

Ian Murray noted problems and potential with all three of the elder views that he  enumerated. He stated that the first option, the one office, two function view has only  one solid proof text, 1 Ti 5:17. He points out that the Greek does not support a strict  differentiation between those who labour to preach and teach and those who do not.  He would translate the verse as, “All elders who do well as leaders are worthy of  double honour, especially those who are painstaking in preaching...”, but that does  not require a hard, positional distinction between two different types of elders  (teaching and ruling) to accomplish the aims of the verse.¹³¹On the other hand, 1Ti 3  seems to join teaching and ruling together. Likewise, Titus 1:9 portrays presbyters as  those who rule by teaching the scriptures rather than making decisions (the common  contemporary understanding of “ruling”). Murray concludes his critique of the first  view by pointing out the error of equating the option with the Westminster Standards  as some do. 

In summarizing the second view, Murray sees it as God accepting two kinds of  overseer that belong to two different offices. The first (the minister or pastor)  corresponds to the New Testament office and the second is a sixteenth century  construct that arises as a practical measure so that the church can enforce the third  mark of the church, discipline. He then notes objections to this alternative. First, if all  of the New Testament elders were preachers, “there would appear to be an  unusually large number of preachers in New Testament congregations.”¹³² More  significantly, passages such as Ro 12:8 (“the one who exhorts in his exhortation; the  one who leads with zeal”) and 1Co 12:28 both describe gifts for the body of Christ  that do not necessitate their expression in completely different offices. This, as  Murray pointed out, was the principal objection to the two elder office view made by  Thornwell. 

Finally, Murray addresses the one office, one function alternative. He states that,  contrary to the claims made by its proponents, the preaching office does not depend  

¹³⁰ Lucas 142. 

¹³¹Much of the interpretation of 1Ti 5:17 depends on the translation of the word malista (“especially,  above all, definitely, certainly, namely etc.”). Its use in contemporary does suggest that whoever  exercises this burden should receive some sort of financial compensation. A paraphrase of the verse  might read: “Elders that lead (proestὣteς) as they should definitely deserve financial support;  unquestionably those working hard preaching and teaching.” Mounce renders malista as “namely,”  eliminating the need for two different categories of elders. 

¹³² This observation may be answered in part by Alastair Campbellʼs examination of house church  leadership.

42 

primarily on oneʼs training or education, but by his calling. Therefore, it is not a  pragmatic distinction among a common office, but the heart of ministry, around which  everything else formed. He also noted that this idea of a team of equals and  preachers, without an appointed leader, seems to contradict the testimony of church  history.  

Having analyzed these alternatives, Murray lays down a few observations: 1. The question of leadership is not straightforward 

2. The word “presbyter” is somewhat ambiguous in its New Testament use.  3. The New Testament appears to chronicle transition and development (compare  Acts 6 and 1Ti 3) 

4. The word “governor” instead of “ruling elder” would cut down the confusion, but  there is no clear biblical evidence for its existence 

5. It might be better to see deacons as ruling elders, since “The best, and indeed  the only biblical evidence for the ministry fulfilled by our elders is found in New  Testament teaching about deacons.” 

6. “Christ has, in his infinite wisdom, left his church free to modify her government,  in accordance with these general principles, as may best suit her circumstances  in ages and nations.” 

He ends by making four conclusions.  

1. No modern church can reliably base every feature of its church government on  the basis of proof texts 

2. If we insist on precise biblical evidence in order to justify a particular church  polity, then non-preaching elders cannot be part of it 

3. If the two-office view of eldership can be defended from general biblical  principles, so can other views as well 

4. We have left the New Testament when we spend more time and effort  concentrating on establishing a particular form of church government than we do  “seeing men and women joined to the church universal and in possession of  eternal life.” 

T.F. Torrance, a Scottish Presbyterian, seriously rocked the reformed boat with his,  “The Eldership in the Reformed Churchʼ” published in 1984.¹³³ Writing as a member  of the Church of Scotland, Torrance takes the reader through a survey of  Reformational usage of the term “elder.” Reformation era scholars found justification  for lay leadership within the early church, their function examined by Zwingli, Bucer,  Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr and John Calvin. In most cases, the idea of elders  already existed in European local government and was based largely on a system of  monied or landed seniority that the reformers could see was in some ways roughly  equivalent to earlier synagogal practices. Each of these reformers developed their  own ways of incorporating lay leaders into church government. Calvin, for example,  had to cope with city councillors that would work in conjunction with clergy to  oversee the discipline of the believers in Geneva. He did, as Torrance pointed out,  require the councillors to lay aside their temporal authority whenever they made  judgments within the church. Likewise, they were not ordained and did not constitute  part of the presbytery. Their Scottish equivalents also represented municipal or  

¹³³ Thomas F. Torrance, “The Eldership in the Reformed Church” Scottish Journal of Theology 37.4  (1984) 503-518. Reprinted by The Eldership Center http://eldership.org. 

43 

district leadership. They were appointed annually to work with ministers in church  courts, synods and assemblies, but they remained unordained. Torrance, as we also  noted earlier, saw real changes in Scotlandʼs view of presbyterian polity really form in  the aftermath of the publication of the Second Book of Discipline, though these  changes did not really spread throughout the church until the 1650s. 

Reflecting on the present, Torrance made a crucial distinction within Scottish  presbyterianism between the ministry in service to the Word and Sacrament (the  domain of ministers), and ministry in service to the response to the Word (the work of  lay representatives). The latter category Torrance identifies with the biblical office of  deacon (which he also calls the elder-deacon) rather than the office of elder. He cites  Phil 1:1 in support, noting that the text only mentions bishops and deacons. A  separate category of “elder” is nowhere to be seen. The key to understanding what  Torrance is saying is his seeing the close association of New Testament elders and  deacons to the sacraments. Both presbyters and deacons participated actively in the  liturgical life of the church that culminated in the Supper. This would include reading  scripture, prompting responses, leading praise, taking up collections and distributing  them for the sake of the needy. There was, therefore, a close connection between  the ministry of the Word and the appropriate response to it. Torrance sees this close  collaboration as a justification for including presbyters (ministers) and elder-deacons  in church courts. This he sees as properly constituting the corporate priesthood of  the Church. 

Torrance has a strong view with regard to the presbyterial ministry of the church. He  traces this back to Act 6. Drawing on the wisdom of the great church scholar John  Lightfoot, he notes that Peter in Acts 1:15 addressed an assembly of 120. This  demonstrates conformity to Jewish law that stated that when an assembly of 120  people congregates, they are entitled to have a sanhedrin of seven men appointed  through the laying on of hands to exercise oversight of the body. Torrance concludes  from this that Acts 6 actually gives us a record of the appointment of a plurality of  elders, not deacons. In Rome the same model is seen in the synagogue there,  complete with elders and an archisynagogue. The Christian congregations in Rome  followed exactly the same pattern as well. As an illustration, Torrance notes that the  ancient catacomb of Aquila and Pricilla (early Christian martyrs) depicts seven  presbyters in a semi-circle behind the communion table, with Aquila as the presiding  bishop assisted by deacons in front holding baskets of offerings. Crucially, for  Torranceʼs view, he sees the presbyters and deacons integrated around the sacramental life of the church. That is why he balks at restricting the diaconate to the  collecting of alms and distribution of pastoral care. The church, rather consists of  presbyters and elder-deacons that together ensure that the Word works its way into  the life of the people of God. The presbyter preaches and administers the  sacraments, but the elder-deacons ensure that a growing, maturing spiritually  equipped body emanates out from the table into the world. To summarize Torrance  then: There are two offices, presbyters and elder-deacons.  

44

Theological reflection  

Most of our options entertain two offices in the Church: elder and deacon. That  includes option 1(Teaching and ruling elders as two functions in one office); option 3  (all elders are equal and interchangeable) and Torranceʼs construct of the presbyter  and elder-deacon. The only exception is option 2, envisaging three offices. This  mirrors nineteenth and twentieth century developments in the Western, English  speaking church, particularly outside of Scotland. This, I think, demonstrates the  pervasive influence of American Presbyterianism. Paradoxically, however, it also  contradicts most church history. I do not mention it in order to prejudice things one  way or the other. I state it primarily so that we understand that our contemporary  understanding is a shifting thing. It represents change and not simply permanence.  This is important because so much of our discussion and argument assumes a  direct, unambiguous connection to biblical and Reformational roots. The first thing  we must note is that our opinions on the subject, whatever option we choose, cannot  conform perfectly either to a clear biblical prescription or a clear reformed, historical  model. They cannot because that sort of simplicity does not exist. 

There is no doubt, based on the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism, that  the believing community serves as an antecedent to the early church. Synagogues  had a liturgical life that had the Word at the center. They also had leaders such as  

elders, but they also had other positions such as the archisynagogos. Together they  led the faith community. Priests and their liturgical emphasis were also important to  the synagogue, contradicting earlier scholarship that dominated nineteenth century  thinking.  

The New Testament evidence for eldership is far from comprehensive. It, of course,  is mentioned in many places, but its exact makeup, functions etc., are very general.  It is also easy to see significant development in the office, culminating in the Pastoral  Epistles. Adding together descriptions of ministry and gifting in 1 Corinthians,  Galatians, Philippians, the Pastoral Epistles etc., helps create a composite picture of  responsibilities and relationships, but the very idea of doing so is posited on the  presupposition of a overarching prescriptive polity. This cannot be ascertained from  the biblical record itself, but rather seems to depend on a presupposed polity that is  then proven from the weaving together of the texts. At the same time, we must say  that there is no solid proof for any episcopal hierarchy either.  

A more basic question involves what our presuppositions are concerning church  government. Does the Bible prescribe the exact details of polity? It seems quite  certain that both Israel and the early church were overseen by a plurality of elders. It  is a stretch, however, I think to give eldership the comprehensive definition and  authority with which Thornwell invested it. His work was at times far more accurate  and careful than was Hodgeʼs, but I am increasingly persuaded that Thornwell may  have lost the forest for the trees. The New Testament was indeed about the evangel,  the good news of salvation proclaimed, not simply the management and discipline of  a faith community shaped fundamentally by the Law. Christ, therefore, was more  than simply an obedient child of Abraham whose life was shaped by Moses  

45

conveyance of Godʼs character in his statutes. Christ is of course the climax of the  covenant, but not just in the sense that he completes an essentially finished  structure, like a cherry sitting on top of a nice dessert. Christ is the whole point of the  thing. The law and every Old Testament form points to him. He recreates, reshapes,  reorients. He is the substance, not just the shadow. He is the good news. Therefore,  the proclamation of the gospel, the witness to Christ in all his transforming presence  must lie at the center of the believing community, not on the periphery. It seems to  me that Thornwellʼs thinking must inevitably take us to the margins, while Hodge,  sometimes clumsily, takes us to the heart. The proclamation and teaching of the  Word through preaching and the Sacraments is the heart of the matter rather than  the ruling. 

None of this, however, resolves our problem. To say, for example, that Thornwell  assumes too much when he draws strict lines of definition between two kinds of one  office of elder does not help us decide whether Thornwell is wrong to see teaching  and ruling are acceptable categories of eldership. Nor does it help us decide whether  or not ministers and lay elders belong in two different offices. How then do we decide  how elders should be seen in the church? There are several things that should be  pointed out. First, we have the testimony of history, not that it can resolve and issue  of this complexity by itself. We can see in the early church a growing assumption of  episcopacy. How should we interpret it? Harnackʼs old hypothesis of a Greek hostile  takeover of a Jewish church has long been discredited, so we cannot blame  Hellenization for episcopacy. On the other hand, the apostolic succession of  episcopal office also has no strong claim to legitimacy.  

Perhaps we can meet in the middle on this. We observe, for example, that as the  New Testament matures, it assumes greater and greater definition. We note that  bishops emerge in the writing of both Clement and Ignatius almost simultaneously  with the completion of the Book of Revelation. But, these bear no resemblance to  later imperial bishops. There is, in fact, no way to distinguish them from other  presbyters. Even more to the point, Ignatius and Clement do not try to distinguish  themselves either. What then can be gleaned from this? First, they represent  leadership such as that suggested by Campbell when he discussed the emergence  of house churches. Second, their growing prominence is closely connected to  several issues; the centrality of preaching; the key constitutive role of the sacraments  in bringing together the believing community; and related to that, the importance of  maintaining doctrinal integrity and church discipline. This can not be used to  definitively justify an episcopacy, but it can show that early churches, like  synagogues quickly developed a central position of leadership in addition to a  plurality of wise elders and servants. While it may be debatable to say that this  indicates two different offices of oversight, it certainly makes such a construct  plausible. On the other hand, I think that the scope of the Bible and span of history  together make option three, of one indistinguishable eldership highly unlikely. I do  not think, good men and their opinions to the contrary, that a homogeneous eldership  can be maintained. In looking closely at a very wide range of factors, I believe that  either option one or two can be legitimately defended. I only add, in this regard, that  whatever option is chosen, we do by clearly distinguishing between ministers and  other leadership. 

46

Should we expect to do more than that? Must we believe that details are prescribed  as is our current custom? Given the fact that the minority of reformers thought so  should give us pause. Remember even Calvin, when pressed by Knox for advice,  recommended a gentler approach to advocating his particular view of government. It  was not that Calvin believed less in a plurality of leadership in the church. He just  thought that issues involving government should not be placed on the same level as  salvific doctrine, unless a specific government directly undermined or endangered  the believing of the doctrines of grace. We should remember too that the Reformers  themselves represented a range of similar views and managed to fuel Reformation  growth. The one thing about which we have clarity from the Reformers was that none  of them saw ministers and lay leaders as representatives of the same office. We can  argue about why they differed with options one and three, but we know that they  did.¹³⁴ 

It seems to me that we do have choices and options. I believe that scripture does  prescribe elders for the church, but the exact nature of their formation is much less  certain, making their contemporary use far more flexible. In saying this, I also agree  with most of the Reformers that saw lay leadership as necessary for the health and  growth of the church, even if its form was not strictly prescribed. I think Thornwell  assumes too much when he claimed that the absence of such prescriptive certainty  would lead inevitably to pure worldly pragmatism. The presence of flexibility in the  application of essentially biblical models is not a curse but a blessing. In my opinion,  what all of this suggests is a flexible reformed and covenantal church that celebrates  strong lay leadership, but focuses on the key mission of the church to show Christ to  the world through preaching, teaching, and celebration of the sacraments, principally  through dynamic, centralized pastoral leadership.  

This is particularly urgent for the IPC. As a growing, multicultural and international  church, we have tremendous opportunities based on our diversity; but that diversity  can also present complications. At the point of my writing this, we have work that  stretches from London to Baku, Azerbaijan. We represent myriad cultures, each with  different concepts of what constitutes effective leadership. We also embody, as a  virtue, diversity of worship. These are, of course, opportunities, but they can also be  threats, particularly as we continue to expand. We need a few things to maintain our  coherence and cohesiveness. One would be a strong pastorate that is balanced by a  plurality of elders. The other is a stronger commitment to the frequent celebration of  the sacraments. In view of all of the linguistic and cultural diversity, we need things  that pull us together; practices that do not change as we go from one IPC body to the  next. A frequent (weekly) observance of the Lordʼs Supper would go a,long way to  providing this sort of unity. 

¹³⁴ Contra Isbell.

47 

Thinking big and thinking ahead 

The Church is one-not merely ought to be one,  

should strive to be one-but is one. The Church is  

one, not merely because it happens not to be more  

than one, but because it cannot be more than one. It  

is not ours to make this unity, but in heart and life  

to realize it. 

B. B. Warfield 

Likewise, we in the International Presbyterian Church must consider our relatively  new place among Reformed churches. How should we interact with other Reformed  and covenantal bodies? What happens when elders from other sister churches come  among us to labour? What governs their rights and privileges? Can an elder in  another denomination become part of one of our presbyteries? According to most  contemporary presbyterian polity, the answer would be “no.” He cannot be  accountable to more than one body at a time. How was that rule formed however?  Presumably, it was the result of the need for leaders to be accountable to one  another and to the church as a larger body. This is of course good and necessary  advice. Elder cannot expect to oversee discipline in the church if they themselves  are subject to no one.  

Consider missionaries labouring among churches in foreign countries. To whom are  they actually accountable? It is all too easy for them to slip between the cracks. The  hypothetical fear is that they will become slaves to two masters, but the actual  situation is one in which they answer to neither. This is clearly untenable. On the  other hand, we also have to see that the mechanisms in place for oversight of  ministry are inextricably linked to denominational structures that are the products of  geo-political developments and not simply exegesis. If we take a close look at  Reformed churches in the Reformation, we would see far less structural divides  between Reformed bodies and far more collaborative ministry and leadership  throughout Europe. People from one national body had little problem in leading or  serving local bodies in another. National churches expected visits, advice, support,  and cooperation in the running of their local bodies from leaders representing  churches in other countries. It was all far more interactive than it is now. Too bad  really.  

Well then, if we are not to be imprisoned by the exigencies of history after the  Reformation, so that we can express more fully the unity, holiness, catholicity, and  apostolicity of Christʼs church, how do we go about it practically and locally without  fatal compromise? This, as we used to say in the military, is an issue that is over my  pay grade, but I think we can edge a bit closer to achieving useful, God-honouring  ministry if we keep a few things in mind. First, we need to start with biblical principles  and work from there to structures and processes. For example, there are at least two  principles that seem to impact on a decision concerning elders relations to more than  

48

one denomination and presbytery. One is, of course, the issue of accountability; the  other concerns identity.  

How can someone, for example, be ordained by one Presbyterian body, but work  within another? Once answer, traditionally taken would be to transfer credentials  from one body to the other. This would have the benefit of simplicity. It would also be  a reliable way with which to judge someoneʼs sincerity. On the other hand, it is  permanent, costing the elder his old credentials and ties. In a sense, it would be like  walking over a newly erected bridge and them blowing it up after you had crossed. In  this sense, it would hardly be a bridge-building exercise, unifying Reformed churches  in ministry. It would make the denominational identity the key to relations. This is  unfortunate. One of the great strengths of Reformed Christianity during the  Reformation was its international character expressed in a celebration of national  cultural identity balanced with international cooperative ministry.  

The situation today, we must say, is very different. I once had lunch in Brussels with  two pastors from Reformed congregations in Togo. Both men wanted to assure a  Westerner like me that they appreciated the assistance of missionaries, but they also  wanted to comment on the disconnected (whether that meant overly detached or  intrusive) nature of their relationship as national believers with outside “help.” The  point one of these men made was that when they heard the word “missionary,” they  instinctively interpreted its meaning as “not one of us.” In view of us all being part of  the body of Christ, surely we can do better than that. The question remains: how?  How can a national church or a church in a given location work closely with elders  from another location without sacrificing its own identity and how can elders from one  body work in or with another without losing the mutual accountability that should  characterize their service? 

Can an elder in one Reformed and covenantal denomination be co-opted in some  way by another? It seems to me that there is no direct scriptural light that can be  shed on this. Historically, the answer would be yes, but things have changed since  the sixteenth century. Presbyterian denominations are today regulated by books of  church order (BCO) that, often in great detail, stipulate exactly how a presbyter  relates to his own and other bodies. The IPC has something of an advantage here in  having a BCO lacking this level of detail. In any case, suppose Americans working  with mission organizations in Europe wish to do so within the auspices of the IPC. If  they wish to become part of an IPC presbytery, and they are not previously ordained,  they can do so directly through the IPC, after receiving a specific call to an IPC  ministry. That part is easy. What if, however, they are ordained in another  Presbyterian denomination and they still wish to be part of the IPC? Can they do so,  and if so, how?  

IPC has several options. They can say no to any arrangement other than having the  person in question be examined by presbytery according to his views and then, upon  passing, have his credentials transferred to the IPC. They could also conceivably,  according to the IPC BCO, co-opt someone into the IPC without losing his former  credentials. How can this be accomplished however without compromising  credibility? In other words, if you co-opt someone into the IPC for the purpose of  working in the denomination, how can he submit himself to that body while he is also  subject to the discipline and oversight of another denominationʼs presbytery? Are  

49

there any alternatives other than “no?” Once again, before we attempt to brainstorm,  we need to consider two needs. First, we have the general principle of accountability.  Can we make elders in another presbyterian denomination fully accountable to the  IPC? Let me throw out a few hypothetical ideas. The IPC could approach a  prospective IPC elderʼs home denomination and ask for the person in question to be formally loaned to the IPC, making them fully and unambiguously accountable to that  body. Similarly, oaths might be devised for missionary workers that would be signed  by both parties deeding over to the IPC oversight of them with regard to any work  that directly effects the IPC. Such agreements would also stipulate that none of the  parties would make career decisions without a process of consultation. It would  certainly complicate things for mission boards, but it would also lead to much greater  trust and ministry effectiveness. At any rate, these are just hypothetical ideas, but  they do go some length toward addressing the key principle involved, accountability  rather than getting bogged down in denominational processes that never envisaged  the possibility of this sort of collaboration. 

Second, we have the issue of identity. The IPC is a genuinely international  presbyterian church rooted in Europe. It seems quite possible that unrestricted  immigration of American elders to the IPC could fatally unbalance the denomination.  Can that be prevented? I would say yes, but it would be hard to see how unless the  numbers of American applicants is controlled. In other words, the idea of quotas  would be introduced. Is that a good thing? On the surface of it, I would say no, but it  might be preferable to swamping a genuinely international body that encourages a  mix of European and immigrant leadership. The core principle is this case is  retaining the functionally international identity of the church. How do we do that  without turning the IPC into some sort of feat of social engineering rather than being  a glorious manifestation of Pentecost? One option might be to co-opt foreign elders  (people that do not envisage Europe becoming their permanent home) labouring in  Europe into one of our presbyteries but withholding voting rights. The historical  parallel (of sorts) would be that of lay elders or governors in Reformation churches  that had local authority but did not belong to presbyteries as voting members. 

It takes two to tango however. No denomination such as the IPC can solve any let  alone all of these issues unilaterally. Reformed churches must, over time, reflect on  how their bodies singly and in the aggregate display the one, holy, catholic, and  apostolic body of Christ. This is no concession to some sort of fatally compromised  ecumenism. It simply recognizes that the structures we have and the processes that  we employ are not just products or outcomes of biblical application. We all live with  the results of history and external influences as well. The question is: Can we sit  down and begin to reflect on how our structures and processes can better reflect  biblical reality, thereby equipping us more effectively to show Christ to the world? I  would suggest that we have an imperative to do so. Yes, it must be done responsibly  and carefully, but I strongly believe that it is a matter that requires immediate  attention. It most certainly will begin the process of redefining what we think of as the  visible church. It will completely revolutionize the identity and role of missionaries.  The only thing to add to that is the fact that we have another reason to compel us to  act on this. Islam is a growing, actively militant presence in our world. Muslims have  become an increasingly visible, viable, mainstream presence in Europe. When we  ponder their success, we often consider things such as the European indifference to  

50

organized religion, the corrosive effects of the Enlightenment on spirituality, high  Muslim immigrant birth rates etc. While these are all valid observations, we overlook  at least one important fact. The Muslims that immigrate to the West represent many,  many nations but as they settle into Europe or America, they also become part of a  relatively universalized Islam. Yes, there are basic distinctions between Muslim sects  (Sunni, Shia, Sufi etc), but there is no denominationalism such as there is among  Protestant Christianity. I am not saying that we need to abolish denominations in  order to answer Islamʼs witness in the West. I am simply suggesting that Reformed  Christians can, in interaction with the Word and their own history, do a much better  job of developing ways of doing ministry that reflects the reality of their all being part  of one body of Christ.