AP
Reformed Thought for Christian Living
As the NSW Presbyterian Church nears the time of making a decision about female elders, some have been brought to the attention of a paper by Craig Tucker (known as […]
As the paper gathers readership and influence I feel it is necessary to correct what I perceive to be some of its historical errors.
I have sat and trained under the ministry of Craig Tucker and have benefitted greatly from it. As such, this article should not be seen as an attack against his person. In fact, I hold his ministry in high regard. But his paper is not one I can recommend.
If you have no knowledge of the paper, then this is not for you. I have no wish to make controversy where there is none. If you have read the paper and wonder about its truth, then please read on.
This is the basic outline of Tucker’s argument.
Now, if Tucker’s narrative is true it is easy to see how the PCNSW ought to keep the status quo of keeping female elders. If elders are not true biblical elders, but only “governors”, then perhaps the PCNSW ought to keep female elders in the church’s governing bodies.
I am not an historian, nor a son of a historian, but I am able to able to read English and access historical texts on the Internet, so I decided to look up some of these texts for myself.
In support of Tucker, I found that that the Westminster Form of Presbyterial Church Government, produced by the Westminster Assembly in 1649 does indeed make the distinction of supporting ministers with the NT overseer texts (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1), while ruling elders are supported with texts such as Romans 12.
However, I found a few things that did not fit with this reading of history.
Tucker claims: “…what is clear in an overall reading of the SBD is that ministers and elders are separate but overlapping offices; the office of pastor in the SBD is what the NT calls an overseer, and the office of elder in the SBD is what the NT calls a governor… The SBD never describes the minister and elder as being in the same office… At no point does the SBD merge the minister and elder into a single office.”
But this assertion seems to be contradicted in the very words of the SBD:
“Chapter VI Of Elders and Their Office:
1. The word Elder in the Scriptures sometimes is the name of age, sometimes of office. When it is the name of an office, sometimes it is taken largely comprehending as well the Pastors and Doctors as those who are called Seniors or Elders.
2. In this our division, we call those Elders whom the Apostles call Presidents or Governors.”
The SBD (agreed upon by the Church of Scotland General Assembly in 1578) views ministers (or pastors) and elders as being divisions of the one office. While it does dedicate two chapters for the two roles, it speaks of the one office “comprehending” both.
Tucker, asserting that the SBD adopted a separation between the offices of minister (=NT elder) and elder (=NT governor), asserts that the Scottish delegates to the Westminster Assembly persuaded the Assembly to accept this position since the Assembly was unfamiliar with ruling elders. That is, the way that the Assembly could get around to the idea of promoting these lay non-teaching ruling elders in the church, the Scottish delegates persuaded them that they would not need to view ruling elders as NT elders at all but need only accept them as “governors” in the sense of Romans 12.
This does not hold weight when we view George Gillespie’s (one of the Scottish delegates) seminal work on eldership: “An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland”. Gillespie in various places in this work leaves us in no doubt as to whether he thought ruling elders ought to be considered biblical elders:
Early on he says (Gillespie, p.13):
“The pastor labours in the Word of exhortation. By the gift of wisdom, he applies the Word to the conduct of his flock, both in season and out of season, addressing their particular cases as needed.
The doctor labours in the Word of doctrine, not through application as the pastor does, but by simple teaching. His task is to preserve the truth and sound interpretation of the Scriptures against all heresy and error.
The ruling elder does neither of these but focuses solely on the government and polity of the church.
The Apostle Paul distinguishes these three types of elders in 1 Timothy 5:17: ‘Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labour in the Word and doctrine.’ “
In a second place he says (Gillespie, p.46):
“Our fifth argument is taken from a clear passage, 1 Timothy 5:17: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.”
Hence we reason as follows: These churches which had some elders that did not labour in the word and doctrine, yet were worthy of double honour for ruling well, had the very same ruling elders we plead for.
But the apostolic churches had some elders that did not labour in the word and doctrine, yet were worthy of double honour for ruling well. Therefore, ruling elders existed in the apostolic church.”
In a third place he says (Gillespie, p.83):
“It was unnecessary for the Apostle to lay out separate canons and directions for pastors, doctors, and ruling elders individually. Since they are all elders and all members of the presbytery, it was sufficient to establish rules and directions that apply to them collectively.
Furthermore, the duties of ruling elders are essentially the same as those of pastors, with the key difference being that the pastor’s authority is cumulative—extending beyond that of ruling elders in the public ministry of the word and sacraments. This distinction is precisely what Paul establishes in 1 Timothy 5:17.”
It may be responded to by some that Gillespie and the other Scottish delegates may have held an earlier position that church elders were not to be considered NT elders during the Assembly but changed their position after. But this an argument from silence and is entirely at odds with the position of the Church of Scotland at that time (as demonstrated above with the SBD).
While it is not essential for our purposes to understand other Reformed churches practices at this time (other than Scotland), it does help seeing the wider picture of the Reformed world, especially because Tucker asserts that “those from Congregational backgrounds were accustomed to church governance being the responsibility of Pastors alone (whom they saw as mapped to the NT overseer texts)”.
The Congregationalist Cambridge Platform of Church Discipline agreed to by the congregational synod assembled in Cambridge, New England (1649), published 3 years after the first publication of WFPCG states:
Chapter VI: Of the Officers of the Church, and especially of Pastors and Teachers
…4. Of Elders (who are also in scripture called Bishops) some attend chiefly to the ministry of the word, as the pastors and teachers; other attend especially unto rule, who are, therefore, called ruling elders. 1 Tim 2:3. Phil 1:1. Acts 20:17,28. 1 Tim 5:17
While some may argue that these Congregationalists made a conscious break from the “Westminster model” and the practices of Congregationalists elsewhere, I have not yet found any evidence to support that.
Consider also the Reformed church in Europe. The Belgic Confession (written about 80 years before the Westminster Form of Presbyterial Church Government) adopted by regional synods at Wesel (1568), Emden (1571), Dort (1574), and Middelburg (1581), and finally at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) states:
Article 30: The Government of the Church
We believe that this true church ought to be governed according to the spiritual order that our Lord has taught us in his Word. There should be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and administer the sacraments. There should also be elders and deacons, along with the pastors, to make up the council of the church. By this means true religion is preserved; true doctrine is able to take its course; and evil people are corrected spiritually and held in check, so that also the poor and all the afflicted may be helped and comforted according to their need.
By this means everything will be done well and in good order in the church, when such persons are elected who are faithful and are chosen according to the rule that Paul gave to Timothy (1 Timothy 3).
It was the prevailing Reformed practice at this time to view ruling elders as fulfilling the office of elder alongside the minister / pastor within the council of elders.
We now circle back to the Westminster Form of Presbyterial Church Government and the fact of its use of NT overseer texts (e.g. 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1) to support the office of minister / pastor, while the office of ruling elder was only supported by the governor texts (e.g. Romans 12).
Did the Assembly abstain from using the NT overseer texts to support ruling elders because, as Tucker supposes, they didn’t see ruling elders as NT / biblical elders at all? Did the Assembly use the NT governor texts to support ruling elders because, as Tucker supposes, they were to be regarded as another kind of office separate from a biblical elder?
Tucker gives the impression that this was what happened by the aid of the Scottish delegates. But I think there is another way of reconstructing what happened that is more faithful to the above facts I have outlined.
Tucker rightly points out many in the Assembly were unaccustomed to the idea of ruling elders because it had not been part of their experience. The key question for them was what was the biblical evidence for allowing a class of leaders to fill the office of elder alongside the teaching elder, but whose main function was not to teach?
I think a more plausible reason for not using the 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 texts to support the case was, not that they denied that those texts applied to ruling elders at all, but because within those very texts were references to teaching (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:9). That is, these texts didn’t fit the purpose of presenting a clear case of allowing the inclusion of a non-teaching class of elder within the governing body.
The way this problem would be overcome was to note that the government / eldership of the “church” in Old Testament times (i.e. Israel) was ruled by a group of people larger than merely those whose main function was to teach. They noted that the Old Testament church was governed by a council of elders comprised of priests whose main function was to teach, together with elders from the people whose main function was to rule.
Consider the following excerpts from William Hetherington “History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines“ (162-64):
A still more important subject then came before the Assembly, – the subject of ruling elders; on the right understanding and decision of which depended the adoption or rejection of the distinctive principle of Presbyterian Church government… At length, having thoroughly exhausted their arguments, Henderson moved that a committee might be appointed to draw up a statement how far all parties were agreed, with the view of arriving at some fair accommodation; and being supported by Goodwin, this motion was agreed to, and the debate terminated.
The report of the committee contained these three propositions: –
1. Christ hath instituted a government and governors ecclesiastical in the Church;
2. Christ hath furnished some in his Church with gifts for government, and with commission to exercise the same when called thereunto;
3. It is agreeable to, and warranted by, the Word of God, that some others beside the ministers of the Word, or Church governors, should join with the ministers in the government of the Church.”
To these propositions were added the texts, Romans 12: 7, 8, and 1 Corinthians 12: 28.
And again,
There was yet one point to be discussed respecting the ruling elder. It had been decided that this officer is of divine institution, but it remained to define in what his office consisted; and this gave rise to another, and a very animated debate. In the previous discussion respecting the office itself, considerable weight had been attached to the argument drawn from the constitution of the Jewish Church, and from the elders of the people in that institution; and when preparing to define the office of an elder in the Christian Church, reference was again made to the corresponding functionary among the Jews; and the question arose, Whether the Hebrew elders were chosen purposely for ecclesiastical business? Coleman first brought forward the inquiry, affirming that both the elders and the seventy senators in the sanhedrim were civil officers; Mr. Calamy and Dr. Burgess both held the reverse; and Mr. Gillespie proved that the seventy were joined with both Moses and Aaron at their institution, – that the elders in other passages of Scripture are joined with the priests, and in others with prophets, and in others are spoken of as distinct from the rulers…
Again, it is important to note that nowhere do we see a repudiation of ruling elders as NT or biblical elders, or an assertion that ruling elders were in no way to equated with the overseers in 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1.
They may have been engaging in, what we might say, good “biblical theology”, and saw that the makeup of the eldership of the Old Testament church helped with answering the question of who could be in eldership in the New Testament church. Just as the government of the Old Testament church and its governors (i.e. elders) consisted of priests and elders, so too the government of the New Testament church and its governors (i.e. elders) could consist of ministers and ruling elders.
So a better way of seeing the overall picture is not, as Tucker suggests, to use the equations:
Ministers = NT elders
Ruling elders = NT governors
But,
Ministers = OT Priests
Ruling elders = OT Elders
OT Priests + OT Elders = Government (Eldership) of the OT Church
Ministers + Ruling Elders = Government (Eldership) of the NT Church
I am not an academic and would have preferred someone with a Church History PhD to weigh into this debate instead of me. I submit this piece purely because I feel it is necessary in the unfolding situation in our denomination.
But this is what I see: the Church of Scotland did not view ministers and ruling elders as completely separate offices. It saw them as divisions in the one biblical office. The Scottish delegates to the Assembly did not see them as separate either, but very much saw ministers and ruling elders as fulfilling divisions within the one office of elder too.
The best explanation as to why the Assembly chose the overseer texts to support ministers and governor texts to support ruling elders is not because they denied ruling elders to be NT / biblical governors.
A better explanation is that the Assembly looked for biblical evidence that the government of the church could include elders whose primary function was not to teach. They then saw the mixed body of eldership of Israel as being adequate proof and this was supported by corresponding governor texts in the New Testament, which they provided as prooftexts.
This means that the question of female elders ought not be from any view that PCA elders are not biblical / NT elders. Our elders are NT / biblical elders. The Westminster view merely reminds us that ruling elders do not have the primary function of teaching that ministers do have.
– Bryan Kim
