Highlands Reformed Church

Rev. Brian M. Abshire

A fundamental problem that afflicts confessional churches concerns the issue of voting membership. Members have to elect officers, ruling elders, and as occasion demands, teaching elders to rule over them. The problem arises because elders are held to a different standard than the average member of the congregation. Elders must subscribe, by oath, to the confessional standards of the church. Voting members, usually, do not.

Hence the difficulty is that in growing churches, the voting members must chose men to rule over them according to a confessional standard that they themselves may neither understand nor necessarily accept. Granted, the problem is not always this severe, but there is a tendency for men to acquire teachers who will “tickle their ears” (2 Tim 4:3). And over time, the less committed the congregation is to Reformed doctrine and polity, the less likely they are to recognize truly Reformed elders from those who are weak on doctrinal issues. Thus over time, a vicious cycle can set in wherein the church becomes increasingly less Reformed as the members fail to call men with the right qualifications. A weak congregation calls weak elders, who are then ill equipped to teach the congregation, resulting in less and less commitment to Reformed distinctives.

Gary North in his important book on the loss the Northern Presbyterian Church to liberalism (“Crossed Fingers”) suggests that Presbyterian churches should have a two-tiered membership. There is a general membership, based upon a simple profession of faith in Christ and subscription to one of the ecumenical creeds of the church (such as the Apostles’, Nicene, etc.). These simple creeds contain all the basic elements of Christian orthodoxy and do not tax a new believer with philosophical and theological concepts that might be too difficult for him to understand. Such members are under the discipline and government of the church, admitted to the sacraments, etc., but are not allowed to vote.

The second tier of church membership is composed of those who have been instructed in the confessional standards of the church, understand the doctrine, theology and polity of historic Presbyterianism and take a vow that they will live and operate under those doctrinal standards. These individuals are the only ones allowed permitted to vote to elect elders (or in other church business).

Now while I am not known as Gary North’s biggest fan (see my essay, “Shootout at the Y2K Corral”) his approach has much to recommend it. The responsibility of choosing elders would fall on those who affirm and adopt the same doctrinal standards to which the elders themselves are to be held accountable. Hence, both elders and voters are under the same covenant obligations and sanctions. This would inhibit placing unqualified men in positions of responsibility over the church and leading the church into error. This process would also force the church to increase its level of theological understanding. There would be incentive to study the scriptures and confessions of the church in order to participate in choosing elders. It would appear that everyone would benefit.

However, the issue is not whether it is pragmatic, but whether we have a specific Biblical warrant for making this kind of distinction between church members. For some, a specific warrant is not necessarily required since the Confession itself allows that there are some aspects of church government that are open to the light of human reason and good order. Perhaps, this two-tiered approach falls into this category.

However, for many convinced Presbyterians, something as central as “who may vote in electing officers” is NOT just something to be worked out by the light of nature or reason. It is too important, to central to the wellbeing of the church. Hence, the need for a specific Biblical warrant becomes of paramount importance. What does the Bible actually require?

Old Covenant Church Precedent

Fundamentally, our concept of church government is a natural outgrowth and logical development of the system of government used by God to govern Israel, both in church and state. Moses had the people choose judges, over ten’s, fifties, etc., which he then confirmed. This rule by elders eventually resulted in the Sanhedron (or council of seventy) ruling over the civil aspects of the nation, but there were also elders over the priesthood as well. Thus, we have divine precedent for the most fundamental aspect of Presbyterian government, i.e., ascending courts composed of elders chosen by the people.

But notice this, the people were ALL under the same law and doctrine. They were voluntarily submitted to the Law of God. There was not one law or doctrine for the elders and another for the people. But rather, elders were to be chosen out of the people COMMITTED to the Law.

Thus, there is at least one aspect of North’s idea that has some Biblical precedent; the people have to be under the same covenant obligations and sanctions as the people they elect to govern them. The argument then proceeds to whether there is another class of people, included in the covenant, but excluded from certain aspects of it.

There is at least one such a category in the Law. When pagans came to faith and converted, they were excluded from certain aspects of the covenant community for ten generations. They were members of the covenant, under the obligations of the covenant, received all the blessings of the covenant, but were not allowed certain privileges of the covenant. Therefore, there IS at least one Scriptural example of a two-tiered membership within the covenant community.

Now whether or not this can be applied to the church remains yet to be seen. No direct statement in the New Testament applies this procedure to new converts (i.e., believing Jews were in one category and converted Gentiles in another). To the contrary, the emphasis in the New Testament is on the unity of Jew and Gentile believers. However, notice please that even in the pleas for the unity of the faith, there is still recognition that there are distinctions. Some people ate meat sacrificed to idols; others did not. Some kept holy days; others did not. There was to be a certain degree of toleration on some matters of conscience (cf. Rms 14:1ff). So even in our unity, there was recognition of diversity.

Taking a different tack for a moment, there IS a category of members in our churches who are given ALL the blessings of the covenant, but not entrusted with all the RESPONSIBILITIES of the covenant; our covenant children. We presume them to be among the elect (until they prove otherwise). We give them baptism. We catechize and instruct them, but normally speaking we do not give them voting privileges in the church (granted, to be consistent with both the Scriptures AND our Reformed heritage, only heads of households should vote anyway). But the point is before Presbyterian churches allow children to vote, they must pass certain tests to be “confirmed” as members, admitted to the Lord’s Table and must reach a certain age. Even if we do hold to voting by covenant heads of households, then still children are excluded from voting until they set up their own households. (Furthermore, in this case, godly wives and covenant children are admitted to the sacraments but cannot directly vote on church business).

Why then can we not consider “baby” Christians in the same way? They are babes in that they do not yet understand or necessarily accept sound doctrine (cf. Hebrews 5:11-14). Even if they are 70 years old, perhaps they have been in antinomian, arminian or dispensational churches where they have been starved for solid teaching. Regardless of their physical age, they have a child’s understanding of the faith. Therefore, though they can be members and under the care and government of the church, just like children they are not yet to be entrusted with all the responsibilities of members of the church until they can demonstrate a maturity of understanding.

Obviously, just as we endeavor to teach, train and educate our covenant children, we can and must seek to bring such brethren to a consistently Reformed world and life-view. But that takes time, and until they are ready to assume all the responsibilities of covenant membership, they should not be entrusted with all the duties thereof.

However, going back to our original question, the above may be consistent with our historical Presbyterian practice, but is there any Biblical mandate for doing this? For example, in Acts 6, the people are called to elect at least one type of church officer, the diaconate (though some dispute that these men were deacons since their duties do not precisely match up with our practices today). When a dispute arose about the distribution of food, the Apostles instructed the people to “select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.”

Now several interesting aspects to this decision have direct bearing on our present discussion. First, there is no mention of the Apostles asking for or receiving special revelation about this issue. While arguments from silence are always suspect, the text seems to imply that the Apostles were presented with a problem, and then simply gave a solution. It may well be that they did not NEED special revelation, but simply referred back to the leadership principle of Moses by having the people chose men from among themselves. This would certainly be consistent. If leaders were to be chosen from among the people (as were the judges, Saul, David and even Solomon), then it would certainly be the natural pattern that when faced with a leadership need, that the Apostles would use a similar method.

Secondly, notice that the people CHOSE, but the Apostles ordained; i.e., “whom WE may put in charge of this task…” Hence, this was NOT a pure democracy. The Apostles held genuine spiritual power and authority and DELEGATED that authority.

Thirdly, notice the difference between the way that deacons were chosen in Acts 6, and the way that elders are established in the pastoral epistles of Paul. The congregation chose deacons, but elders were APPOINTED by either Apostles or apostolic representatives. Titus was instructed to “appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” In other words, contrary to our historic Presbyterian practices, it certainly appears that elders were NOT chosen by the people, but appointed by a higher authority.

Now unless we want to go back to Episcopalism, concerned Presbyterians must interact with the implications of Paul’s instruction. Certainly, the people chose deacons (who also preached and baptized) in Acts six, but had elders appointed over them by Titus (and presumably Timothy). What was going on here?

Now it could be argued because of covenantal continuity that the method of selecting elders was a priori based on the Old Testament model where the people chose, but Moses confirmed. This happened as well in Acts 6; the people chose, but the Apostles ordained. Therefore, we should simply understand Paul’s words here to mean something like, “examine the candidates the churches chose and confirm those who meet the following qualifications…”

However, to find this in the text, we must first assume what we are trying to prove. It may be just as legitimate to say that the two processes are different in Acts and Titus because the two situations are different. In other words, there is a difference between the levels of spiritual maturity between the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and the pagan converts in Ephesus, Crete, Greece, etc. Jewish Christians, trained from childhood in the faith, understood that Jesus was the fulfillment of all the Old Testament shadows, types, signs and symbols. They therefore had a theological head start over their pagan peers. Because the degree of theological understanding was greater, then they could have been even greater freedom and responsibility.

Notice that in the book of Acts, elders are already present (cf. Acts 15 where the elders and apostles meet together to decide on the problem with the Christian Pharisees) but there is NO record of how certain men BECAME elders. We CAN assume that the early church naturally followed the process of Moses, but it is not present in the actual text, apart from the selection process for deacons.

But we DO have explicit instruction from Paul that Titus was to “appoint” elders. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the difference between Acts 6 and Titus 1:5 was the degree of spiritual maturity amongst the two groups. The Gentile churches were not yet sufficiently mature in either their understanding, or their practice of the Christian faith to reliably choose who would rule over them. Hence, the Apostles (or apostolic representatives) chose elders for them.

Think about this, in modern Presbyterianism, the Presbytery recruits and empowers a man to start a new work. If he is given the powers of an evangelist, he is authorized to take people into membership. If not, potential members must be examined by Presbytery. Regardless, before the church can become particularized, the Pastor must recruit, train and prepare some men for eldership. The Presbytery examines such men and approves them. Then and only then, can the church vote on such men to be their elders.

But notice that UNTIL the church is particularized, that we have a de facto two-tired membership. The church CANNOT vote on elders, until the candidates have been examined by Presbytery. They cannot call a man to be a pastor, UNTIL they are given the authority to do so by Presbytery. Their responsibilities are limited, until certain qualifications are met; i.e., they have a pool of qualified men who have met the doctrinal and character standards we set. In other words, our actual practice is NOT all that different from what may have happened during Paul’s ministry.

Hence, there is both some Biblical warrant and historic Presbyterian precedent for a two-tiered membership, i.e., those who can sincerely adopt the churches Confession and those who for whatever reasons, are not yet ready to do so.

An Alternative Solution

However, some may argue that rather than have a two-tiered membership, why not require ALL the members of a church to subscribe to the Church’s confession and standards? After all, we receive the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms just because we believe them to be reliable and accurate summaries of the Bible’s own teaching. Therefore, when a person comes to faith in Christ, or wants to join our church, our confession and catechisms ought not to be optional for they are the Bible’s own message.

The problem of course is that not all men understand or believe everything in the Confession and Catechisms (sadly, not all elders believe these things either, but that is a different topic). If a person confesses faith in Christ, has been baptized, does he not belong to Christ, despite imperfections in his theology? And if he belongs to Christ, does he not have the right to belong to one of Christ’s churches? Where do we get the right to exclude a person from membership simply because he either does not understand or even if he disagrees with us on certain issues (cf. Rms 14: 1 again). And if we do allow him to become a member of the congregation, does he not have the right to participate in choosing the elders who will rule over him?

But that brings us right back to the practical question with which we began. If a church has a significant number of members who do not believe the doctrinal standards of the church, it is inevitable that they will move the church, over time to their doctrinal position. Hence, they will become increasingly less and less reformed.

One can argue that a person who does not believe in the historic Reformed faith, is implicitly under another law. The people of Israel COULD choose their own judges and elders BECAUSE they held to a common confession. Therefore, it IS Biblical to require people to submit to the government and doctrine of the church in order to be members. In other words, the membership vows they take MUST require that they will affirm the church’s confession, and if later they come to believe differently, they must make their change known and be held accountable, just as every elder is.

Granted, a person may not always understand all the implications of the Reformed faith when they join a Reformed church. It is our job to teach them. But might they not be allowed to join that church if they are willing to be governed and taught by that standard? And if they come to believe otherwise, if they are not convinced of election, covenant Baptism or any other Reformed distinctive, then let them be men of integrity, announce their beliefs and find a fellowship that is more compatible.

However, the reality is, that people are often NOT men of integrity. They will give lip service to a belief due to peer pressure, personal advancement, etc. There may be no practical way to weed such people out because we cannot read the human heart. In fact, we are forbidden to do so. Such things belong only to God. But the fact is that people may SAY they are willing to believe something, then later on, deny those things and not be open and honest about it (do we not have the same problem with some elders?).

If a person comes to membership, and we want to be honest with them, then before we admit him we ought to give him SOME understanding of what he is getting himself into. Therefore, we often have some kind of instructional class where the Reformed faith is taught. However, technically speaking, such a person is excluded from the sacraments because they are yet not members of an evangelical church (unless we are willing to change this requirement). Hence, their children cannot be baptized, they cannot take the Lord’s Supper and are technically not a member of the covenant community UNTIL they have finished the class.

Furthermore, since we do not unreasonably want to exclude such people from the sacraments any longer than necessary, we usually make the class as simple and superficial as possible. But the reality is that you cannot cram a lifetime’s education into a 10-week course. If we think we can, we simply cheapen the faith and give people a false sense of security.

Therefore, educating a person BEFORE we allow him to become a member, while better than nothing, is no solution in the long term. He still does not know or understand what he needs to know and understand in order to make wise decisions about who will rule over him. He will then likely still make less than optimal decisions and likely lessen the church’s commitment to the Reformed faith.

Conclusion

Therefore, I would suggest that we do have a precedent in Scripture in the way that Gentile churches were governed by having elders appointed over them, and historic Presbyterian precedent in the way we handle our own covenant children. Both groups are real members of the church, without all the adult responsibilities. Those who come to our churches, but do not understand the Reformed faith, or necessarily accept it, are in the same category as covenant children. They need to be taught, encouraged, loved, accepted and ministered to. They can still be members of the covenant community, just not given all the responsibilities of the covenant community.