Review, Control, and Synods: The Church’s Connection

Back on October 5th I delivered a talk to the New River Presbytery of the EPC on the topic of review and control and its relation to Westminster Confession of Faith 31 “On Synods and Councils”. This topic was at their request! Really it is the nature of presbyterian polity. It’s taken me awhile to get this up on the blog, but below is my transcript, slightly edited for readability.

---

The great Cappadocian church father Gregory of Nazianzus, who chaired the Council on Constantinople which settled the Nicene Creed, said “I saw the end of not even one synod as being useful”. Replace “synod” with “presbytery” and you get the idea. Herman Bavinck relays a proverb, “Every [church] council gives birth to [further] battles.” To riff on Ecclesiastes: Of meetings there is no end.

I was asked to speak on that exciting topic of “review and control” and Westminster Confession of Faith 31, “On Synods and Councils”.  This risks significant boredom in our listener, or alternatively, perhaps the polity nerds are the ones already here. Yet the subject of review and control has great relevance to the ministry and mission of the church

“Review and control” is a phrase used in the EPC’s constitution and throughout American Presbyterianism, and means that higher church courts (presbyteries to sessions, general assemblies/synods to presbyteries) have the right and responsibility to review the actions of their subordinate courts and to correct them if necessary. This relationship has a confessional basis. WCF 31.2 states,

It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.

The intersection and relationship of these two things (review and control, the courts of the church) gets to the core of what Presbyterianism is. The resolution of this relationship establishes how the church is governed and drives at the administrative essence of the church itself; namely, the relation of the local church to the regional, national, and global church. This relationship informs how we think about the church’s mission, witness, ministry, and unity — how the church’s bureaucracy relates to Jesus’ prayer in John 17.

So what we’re going to do this morning is start local and work our way up to the higher courts, then come back down.

The Session

Raise your hand if you were a member or officer of a PCUSA congregation in the past 15 years. Moving from the PCUSA to the EPC is moving from one brand of Presbyterian to another, but there are some different instincts when it comes to polity, even locally. For instance, in former PCUSA congregation it is common to hear that ruling rlders represent church members; that committees function as congregational checks and balances on the session; and that ruling elders function as checks and balances on the pastor. When it comes to the greater denomination, for many of us the instinct is to hunker down, keep your head low, and do your own thing.

So we start here: The session is the first court of the church. Now, a note on terminology. “Session” means meeting; it is the court of elders in active meeting. “Presbytery” means council of elders; the session is the presbytery of the local church. “Presbyter” has a legal etymology, which is why the different gatherings of elders are often called “courts”.

But the term “presbytery” means “council”, which is how it’s translated in the New Testament and used in the Westminster Confession of Faith; the EPC Book of Government use “court”, but we should revert back to the biblical and confessional term “council”. Our terminology shapes the way we think about meetings and the purpose of our gatherings. For example, consider Robert’s Rules of Order. Its benefits including being a great tool for organizing meetings, keeping people from getting steamrolled (we have an established procedure that everyone must follow!) and organizes things to be decently and in order (or so it would seem). Its drawbacks: it forces the focus of meetings to be on debate (you must speak for or against motions) rather than upon deliberation and prayerfulness. And if you’re not a parliamentary expert those who know the ropes can still steamroll you.

Why spend time on this? Because this gets to the essence of what our meetings should be about. The biblical basis for the role of ruling elders includes Romans 12:8 (the gift of aid/leading, depending on translation) and 1 Corinthians 12:28 (the gift of helping, administering/governing). In both cases this set of gifts is paired with (though distinct from and complimentary to) the gifts and work of teaching, prophecy, and exhortation; that is, the ministry of the word. What is the purpose of the council of elders? The session is to support and maintain (aid, help, administer) the work of the gospel (teaching, prophesying, exhortation) and its deliberations should be focused on that.

The spirit within the session should be one of partnership and fraternity for purpose of ensuring that the worship of the church, preaching of the gospel, administration of the sacraments, prayerfulness of the people, teaching of the congregation, parenting of the children, counseling of the broken, service to the needy, and discipline of the wayward is happening.

This is the purpose of elders, both TE and RE. And the council of elders, the presbytery of the local church— the session— exists to do this. Robert’s Rules and parliamentary procedure exists to facilitate this. Recall Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:23-24, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

There’s a reminder there of the danger facing us: “Woe to you Presbyterians, you manage to record who made the motion and seconded it, whether this was a friendly or substitute amendment, but you neglect the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.”

How does all of this intersect with review and control and the role of synods? It’s about accountability, and it is here that checks and balances actually comes in. The church is bigger than our local congregations and our local sessions. Review and control means that our local churches and sessions answer to other groups, that there are standards to which our local practices and ministry must conform, and that there is a body larger than our local context with authority to which we must submit to that end. Review and control indicates that there is a higher power, greater standard than the opinions and practices our local congregations. It is a tool of reminder and enforcement that the church doesn’t belong to us, but to Jesus.

Greater Councils of Elders

The Westminster Assembly had four major views on polity held be its membership: Congregationalism/Independency, Presbyterianism, Episcopacy, and Erastianism. WCF 31 “On Synods and Councils” was written to try and be acceptable to the first three (though later John Owen and Congregationalists weren’t satisfied and revised this section in the Savoy Declaration). WCF 31 doesn’t spell out presbyterian polity. An additional document, “The Form of Presbyterial Church Government”, was drafted to do that and was only ever implemented in Scotland. The Westminster Confession only prescribes broad principles of connectionalism, not specific details. And during the Reformation the practice of presbyterian polity evolved.

We sometimes make the mistake of equating the history of presbyterian polity with Moses and the 10 Commandments, as if, like God delivering the Decalogue directly to Moses upon Sinai, he similarly gave to John Calvin at the apex of the Matterhorn a fully-fleshed Presbyterian book of government. But there was actually a lot of diversity during the Reformation in this area and continues to be so within the global family of Reformed churches. Calvin’s model was not national or regional, but very much city-based with a focus on a fraternal company of pastors. In the Reformation there were different approaches and phases between how the French, the Dutch, the Swiss, and the English/Scots had their local congregations relate to the greater church. Part of this is just how Reformed churches first formed; it was in France that the first regional presbyteries were established, and they were created by a national synod. On the other hand the Dutch regional presbyteries developed independent from each other and then united for the greater church.

It was either Presbyterianism from above or from below, a tension that still exists today.

In Presbyterianism from below local congregations are the only actual churches and partner together in larger groups (regional, national, etc.) for more effective ministry and witness. You can see this in the terminology used in the Dutch Reformed tradition. They call their regional presbyteries a “Classis”, which comes from the Latin word for “fleet” or “ships going together”. A classis is a “classical” presbytery with the local churches all working together. The local church is the building block of church unity, with presbyteries and denominations being expressions of the unity and partnership of these local churches

Presbyterianism from above begins with the truth that there is a single, catholic, universal church, which is the body of Christ. There is one church, which is expressed or manifested in local congregations.

A test case can demonstrate the practical tensions and differences: Are presbyteries administrative districts of a denomination? Or are synods and denominations the fruit of presbytery partnership? Denominationalism and the fracturing of Protestantism just exacerbates this question.

The Reformed have always had something of a tension on this question, and move back and forth about how we talk about things. Regardless, by the time of the Westminster Assembly and ever since, Presbyterians have believed that both presbyteries (regional council of elders) and larger synods or assemblies have a divine warrant and therefore have divinely established rights and responsibilities that cannot be superseded.

And these are? From WCF 31.2 (“On Synods and Councils”, which includes presbyteries) broadly,

1. Determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience;
2. To set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God,
3. To set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the government of God’s church;
4. To receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same.

What is the scriptural basis for these? 1 Timothy 3:15-16 describes the church as the pillar and buttress of truth. Paul moves seamlessly from this characterization of the church (great indeed) to the confession of the mystery of the gospel. The church is the pillar and buttress (i.e. structure that upholds) this confession of faith. This is not just the duty of the local congregation, but the whole body is to support and lift up the doctrines of the faith by reinforcement of the truth. The church does not establish doctrine (it supports and lifts up what is derived from scripture) but in its role as pillar and buttress settles disputes about doctrine in order to uphold the truth.

The pictures we see of the church in Acts are another basis. In Acts 6:1-7 a division emerges among the church and the apostles call a council to settle it. In Acts 20:17-36 Paul meets with the elders of the Ephesian church (most likely multiple congregations in the city representing all the church there) to exhort them as a unit to maintain the gospel (Acts 20:28-30). We see this kind of work especially in Acts 15:1-35 when the Jerusalem Council meets to settle a doctrinal and ministerial dispute for the entire Christian church. The council in Jerusalem exercises oversight of the church in Antioch, which was not in their immediate vicinity. In Acts 15:22 it is “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” who are acting. The phrase “the apostles and the elders” is a synecdoche for the “the whole church”, which that latter clause is intended to communicate. A “synecdoche” is a figure of speech in which the name of a part is used a stand in for the whole. For example, “all hands on deck” doesn’t just mean hands, but the sailors or workers to which they are attached. “The Pentagon” means the whole U.S. military complex, and when we say that “New York scored a run” we don’t mean the literal city, but the Yankee baseball team. Synecdoches are common in scripture, and when the elders as a council act they act on behalf of the whole church. Note that is not just the apostles, but the elders who also act at the Jerusalem Council.

And in Acts 15 the synod gave instructions for a local church that was not physically there with them (though Paul and Barnabas represented them), settled issues of faith, and set down rules for the governance of the church. We’ll return to this latter point, but importantly the Jerusalem Council gave instructions based on prudence, not just divine command from scripture.

Herman Bavinck notes that these gatherings, while they don’t look exactly like how the church later developed its polity, affirms that establishing church councils composed of elders to direct the greater church has biblical authorization. And the key here is that these assemblies, not just the local session, but presbyteries or synods, were focused on gospel ministry. That’s what they were about. Yet they were not doing the actual legwork work of ministry; the local churches and elders were. These greater councils were settling disputes, clarifying doctrine, and providing instructions on organization.

Acts 6 is an important demonstrative case. The apostles get involved in “maladministration”; the ministry of the local church going wrong and needing another, higher party to step in and correct things. This event is actually an implementation of the famous passage in Matthew 18:15-20. There Jesus commands witnesses “to tell to the church”, a synecdoche for the council of elders. The “two or three gathered in my name” references the council of elders acting on behalf of Christ to step in and rule on discipline and maladministration. The language here “binding and loosing” on earth and in heaven is a callback to Matthew 16:16-19 and Peter’s confession. In other words, the council elders binding and loosing the kingdom of heaven is practiced in their ruling on maladministration and discipline. The bureaucratic work of the session and presbytery must have a gospel focus.

What is implied in Matthew 18 and clear in the application of this principle in Acts is that there is system of appeals built into the greater relationships of the church. But all of these are tied to the main job of the church, which is the work of the gospel in restoring sinners to Christ.

Presbyteries

At the Westminster Assembly, English Congregationalists were the most numerous group, but the Presbyterians had the most influence. Why? Because of Scotland. This influence arose from a deal made to keep the Scots on the side of Parliament during the English Civil War.

Key works that reflect the Scottish Presbyterian influence include George Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming and An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland with Samuel Rutherford’s The Due Right of Presbyteries. Modern author and theologian Wayne Spear’s Covenanted Uniformity in Religion provides a good analysis of the polity influences and debates at the Westminster Assembly.

What are the specific rights and duties given to presbyteries rather than sessions or general assemblies? The right and responsibility of the presbytery is anything that affects the church regionally. Gillespie and Rutherford identified three things that fit into this category: the soundness of the preached word in local congregations, the purity of practiced worship in local congregations, and appeals related to local, alleged maladministration.

Presbyteries do not establish the doctrinal standards of the greater church (that’s for general assemblies or synods), nor do presbyteries do the work of preaching (that’s for pastors in local churches). Instead, presbyteries vet ministers before they enter pulpits and thereby serve as the pillar and buttress of the truth by ensuring that the Bible and its gospel is being faithfully taught within the bounds of the presbytery in accordance to the established doctrine of the greater church. This is in contradistinction to Independents/Congregationalists, where ministers are vetted by local congregation, exclusively (even if they voluntarily consult outsiders) and to Episcopalians where a Bishop or College of Bishops (wherein presbyters are excluded from participation) does the ministerial vetting and selection. The biblical basis for this approach includes Acts 1:15-26, where the 120 brethren select Matthias as an apostle, and 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that his ordination (gift of prophecy) came by laying on of hands by the presbytery.

The inherent and divine right and the purpose of presbyteries is the vetting of those who are preaching the gospel and overseeing worship within its bounds. This is the purpose of presbyteries and presbytery meetings: to ensure that the worship of the church, preaching of the gospel, administration of the sacraments, prayerfulness of the people, teaching of the congregation, parenting of the children, counseling of the broken, service to the needy, and discipline of the wayward is happening in the congregations within its bounds — and then to be the court of deliberation for appealed disciplinary cases (maladministration) and questions of faith and conscience arising with its bounds.

Where your meeting time is, there your missional heart is also.

The Divine Authority of Church Councils

Westminster Confession of Faith 31.2 reads,

It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.

That latter section sometimes makes us as grassroots Presbyterians squirm. Calvin talks about this subject at length in his Institutes when explaining what that favorite Presbyterian phrase, “decently and in order” from 1 Corinthians 14:40 actually means. There Paul uses the phrase “in all the churches” to describe customs that he believes should be practiced across the board. Paul is using his apostolic authority to establish decorum, not just in one local church, but in “the churches”.

In Institutes IV.10.28-30 Calvin spends a lot of time criticizing the Roman and Papal system of tradition and church government and then moves to commenting upon what decently and in order means. Now, first we need a quick refresher on the regulative principle of worship. The Westminsterian definition is,

The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men…or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture…[though] there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God…common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed (WCF 21.1, 1.6)

God establishes that things we are to do in worship (elements; e.g. preaching, praying) but the way in which they are carried out is left to our wisdom (circumstances) as long as the manner is consistent with general spirit of the Word. In addition to elements and circumstances, older Reformers, like Calvin and Henri Bullinger, had a third category: ceremonies. Ceremonies go beyond the way in which elements are conducted (“circumstances”) and include the rites and rituals that encompass them. Calvin’s definition of “decently and in order” deals with ceremonies. He asserts that “decency” means: By the use of rites to produce reverence, be excited in piety, and honor of the ceremonies be conspicuous. “In order” means: “That by duly arranging the state of the Church, provisions be made for peace and tranquility”. Ceremonies done decently “must lead us directly to Christ” and must not be about about the congregants or the minister. There should never be ceremony for ceremony’s sake, “but in that [ceremonial] arrangement…all confusion, barbarism, contumacy, all turbulence and dissension [is removed].”

Calvin provides as an example of bad ceremony the “profane entertainments” in the Lord’s Supper addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Good ceremonies though,

“[A]re many other things which we have in daily practice, such as praying on our knees, and with our head uncovered, administering the sacraments of the Lord, not sordidly, but with some degree of dignity; employing some degree of solemnity in the burial of our dead, and so forth. In the other class are the hours set apart for public prayer, sermon, and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the Church, and such like. To the same list especially may be referred those things which preserve discipline, as catechising, ecclesiastical censures, excommunication, fastings, &c. Thus all ecclesiastical constitutions, which we admit to be sacred and salutary, may be reduced to two heads, the one relating to rites and ceremonies, the other to discipline and peace.”

Calvin’s application of this is to bring the discussion back to the authority of synods,

Let us take, for example, the bending of the knee which is made in public prayer. It is asked, whether this is a human tradition, which any one is at liberty to repudiate or neglect? I say, that it is human, and that at the same time it is divine. It is of God, inasmuch as it is a part of that decency, the care and observance of which is recommended by the apostle; and it is of men, inasmuch as it specially determines what was indicated in general, rather than expounded.

For salvation, faith, and righteousness, God has adequately revealed the substance to which the church may not add. However, for his worship, he hasn’t provided all the details, and therefore some external details on ceremonies, discipline, and organization are left to the church. And the church, since it is from God, has the authority to establish ceremonies for the better governance of his worship.

We do this all the time when we ask or tell our people to “bow their heads with us in prayer”. Calvin is doing the same thing by taking Paul’s “in all the churches” and applying it. This is what WCF 31.2 means when it says “decrees and determinations [of synods], if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word”. To be fair, there is actually a division in the Reformed tradition on this point, with John Owen and the Independents rejecting the principle of WCF 31.2 and Calvin and the Presbyterians affirming it. But what we see in Acts 15 is an example of this: the Jerusalem Council put down rules for the whole church, including congregations in a different region, that were based on prudence and that ruling was received with reverence and submission for the power whereby it was made.

Critically, “decently and in order” is not about Robert’s Rules, but as Calvin said, “leading us to Christ”. It’s about the gospel. The church doing things decently and in order is about clarifying our witness, doctrine, and worship. The church’s worship practices tell us and the world what we believe about ourselves and God.

This means we must organize session meetings around prayer and shepherding and teaching and discipline, and the establishment of our governing rules must be that that end: leading people to Christ.

Review and Control

The church establishes rules for its governance and holds itself accountable through its higher councils. But how do the higher councils know what’s going on the lower ones? This is where taking minutes and keeping records comes in. The importance of these is to track the actions of the councils so that the church may maintain its standards.

Review and control is this practice: it’s when higher councils assess the work of lower councils and order corrections based upon the church’s agreed, shared rules and standards. Presbyteries review sessions and synods review presbyteries and deviations from the shared standards are corrected (control). Synods and presbyteries as pillars and buttresses should act by enforcing the rules, not capriciously create them. Rutherford authored Lex Rex after all; the church governs in accordance with its agreed upon rules.

“Review and Control” is not a term not found in the Westminster Standards but is indigenous to American Presbyterianism. The term goes back to the 1720s and the formation of the first American presbyteries. Charles Hodge in The Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and The Church and Its Polity argues that the principle of review and control has been true, from presbyteries to sessions and general assemblies to presbyteries, since the American Presbyterian church was founded.

So what should go in minutes of sessions for review and control by a presbytery? The content and focus of a session or presbytery’s minutes should be the purpose of those council’s existence: the propagation of the gospel. Really, minutes should be the content of the sermons being preached within a presbytery’s bounds and the nature of of ordination exams. Paul’s exhortation that Timothy keep watch on his teaching (1 Timothy 4:16) comes only two verses after he reminds his protege that his authorization to teach came from the council of elders; the presbytery has standards, so be held to them!

Pastors may react like this is proposing the EPC become something out of 1984. When the spirit and culture of a church court is akin to an HR department that makes sense. Alternatively, a healthy example can be found in Calvin’s Geneva. There the elders who composed the presbytery were a company of pastors; they were friends and co-laborers, a fraternity for the gospel who held one another accountable, assisted each other in their work, and prepared and assess candidates for gospel ministry. They also met monthly and kept the focus of their meetings on the biblical texts through which they were preaching. In the EPC each TE is supposed to provide an annual report to the presbytery on their past year of ministry. Typically we delegate the collection and processing of that information to a committee, and if the presbyteries I’ve served in are at all typical, the response rate is low and the followup rate abysmal. Yet the very reason presbyteries exist is to oversee the work of the ministry within their bounds. This is the necessary aspect of presbyterian polity. Connectionalism is the fostering and oversight of gospel ministry be gatekeeping ministers and supporting faithfulness thereafter.

Intentional efforts to alter the culture of our presbyteries towards fraternity and trust is absolutely necessary. Our presbytery meetings are often consumed with busy work that is tertiary to our mission, at best. If we want to get out of the HR-esque rut and not minimize our TE reports, and want to focus on the divine purpose of presbyteries, we need to clear our dockets, make our presbyteries smaller and more intimate, and elevate the importance the gospel oversight as the business of our councils.

Where your meeting time is, there your missional heart is also, and if we want the sheep in our churches and neighborhoods to be led to Christ, then we truly need to do our business decently and in order. We need. We need to focus on the oversight of gospel ministry.

Synods, or General Assemblies

The term “synod” shares an etymological root with its opposite, “exodus”. An exodus is a departure and scattering, a synod is a coming together. The council of a synod, or a general assembly, is like a presbytery, just one step up. Throughout Presbyterian history there has been debate and difference over the number and scope of higher courts (2-5 layers; city/regional/super-regional/national/global), but the consensus has been that the definite number is not fixed by scripture and requires wisdom with an eye towards expediency. The general principle is that the local sessions are subordinated to a larger body that acts on behalf of the greater church. Calvin’s company of pastors (city-based) was subordinated to broader, national church (rather than a regional presbytery), while Gillespie and Hodge both argued for a synod to oversee presbyteries. In this latter case, synods operate with the same general principles and responsibilities as presbyteries to session, just scaled up: they function as a final court of appeal with greater authority over the presbyteries.

Unlike regional presbyteries, larger synods don’t just enforce doctrinal conformity, but also settle matters of faith and doctrinal interpretation for the sake of the whole church. The great ecumenical councils of the early church are the best examples of this, and the Synod of Dort is the most important one from within the Reformed tradition. The Reformed churches, with all of Protestantism, have insisted that the only infallible interpretation of scripture is the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture itself. And Calvin argues that the most wise way to discern scripture’s meaning is in the councils of the church.

Bavinck in Volume 4 of his Reformed Dogmatics, makes several observations about the nature of synods.

1. Synods are not necessary for the being of the church (appeals for maladministration on a local level can go to presbyteries) but are good for its well-being;
2. Greater assemblies are necessary for the work of the church that affects the whole body: settling doctrinal standards, worship practices, governing organization (the greater church [national] sets standards, the regional [presbyteries] enforces and implements), and pooling of resources (e.g. missions) that can’t be done easily at local levels;
3. There is hierarchy in the sense that the broader councils are appealed to from lower councils, the lower must abide by the higher, and the higher councils speak with broader consensus;
4. But there is not hierarchy in the sense of power derived. The establishment of all church councils comes from God, and Christ is the direct authority over all.

This fourth point is riffing on an argument made by Gillespie centuries before and which is central to Scottish and American Presbyterianism: Presbyteries have a divine right to their regional work and cannot be stopped, but only challenged if their work is enforced incorrectly.

In other words, you need a presbytery to be Presbyterian, while synods are based on the needs of the church that arise from time to time. Following WCF 31.2 that need may include review and control of all the parts of the church within the jurisdiction of a larger denomination. The larger church or denomination can continue to function and exist without a general synod or assembly, but not without a presbytery.

Accountability Between Church Councils

Who is represented at church synods and general assemblies? The member congregations? The individual elders? The member presbyteries? The answer to this depends partially on whether we approach Presbyterianism from above or below: Are synods and general assemblies the sum of presbyteries? Acting for the whole church on their own? WCF 31.1 states,

For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils: and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which 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.

Again, the principle is that general assemblies or synods are summoned as needed (expedient). And they are composed of pastors (overseers) and ruling elders (church governors). They are synods and assemblies of elders of particular congregations, not of assemblies of presbyteries or sessions. The elders act on behalf of the whole church, not as representatives of the wishes of the lower councils. Calvin makes this case, as does the Leiden Synopsis (1625), and this was practice of the Westminster Assembly itself. This is important for the local church as well: ruling elders represent the congregation in the sense that they act on its behalf in session, but not the sense that they are delegates to enact the opinions of the congregants.

While synods and Councils and general assemblies have always been over presbyteries, they are expressions of the church as a whole through its officers, not of presbyteries. They are general assemblies of the church, not of presbyteries. This doesn’t rule out delegated assemblies when presbyteries elect the elders who participate in the higher council (whatever is expedient is fine) but elders are there as elders of the church, not delegates of the presbytery’s wishes.

Note what this means: the church exercises accountability downwards — synods to presbyteries to sessions — through review and control. The church exercises accountability upwards — sessions to presbyteries to synods — through participation. This rules out the hunker down mentality we may have inherited from the PCUSA. Theologian John Murray notes that there is a ministerial obligation to care for the whole church, not just local congregations, by engaging and participating in the work of the whole.

What about accountability side-to-side: session-to-session or presbytery-to-presbytery? Formally, this still occurs by review and control. If one presbytery believes a partner presbytery has violated their shared rules, they may request the general assembly to act. Different denominations have different mechanisms for dealing with a side-to-side complaint of maladministration, but the approach boils down to the same thing: We (the presbytery) are requesting you (the general assembly) to review this other presbytery’s actions and tell them to correct it (control). Informally accountability occurs side-to-side by members of the different councils personally participating in the higher councils and thereby engage review and control. By definition, accountability between Presbyterian councils is always reactive rather than proactive since the councils are responding to what the others have done.

However, biblically the most effective approach to accountability is to simply talk to each other. Presbyteries and synods are made up of people, after all. This is the Dutch Reformed “classis” approach and the model of Calvin’s company of pastors. Half the time when issues arise in my presbytery it’s because the pastors and elders are not talking to each other.

Ministry is Local. Engagement with the Larger Church Should be Presbytery-Centered

Pastoral, gospel ministry through word, sacrament, and prayer occurs in a local congregational context, and that should always be the focus of ministers and elders. Presbyteries, even when they function as a company of pastors, are necessary for the work of the local church by ensuring that its ministry is going well. The best way to invest in and relate to the larger church is to invest in healthy presbyteries.

Our mindset in relation to the larger church ought to shift from “hunker down” to a freedom mentality. Am I free as a pastor, or a ruling elder, or a local congregation to hold to and practice according to our shared confession of faith? Am we are able to freely enforce and ministerially practice those convictions in our local context? Hunkering down leads to a schism mindset — when the larger church is acting in ways contrary to my own convictions and I check out I am giving myself permission to separate. On the other hand, if my operating mentality is to assess whether I am free to follow our shared convictions and standards, then I am also liberated from the faddish currents of the larger denomination. Both Bavinck and Hodge make the case that schism is only ever allowable when a church or member is compelled to either profess or practice what they believe is wrong.

When the focus shifts to freedom to act, then we are freed to consider the presbytery rather than the denomination or general assembly the true partner of local ministry. Is the presbytery’s oversight allowing us to act decently and in order? To fulfill our confession of faith and lead to Christ? If so, we are free to minister. And the presbytery becomes the main arena in which we can act to help other congregations be free to do the same.