One of the things I find most helpful in Presbyterianism is the clear
distinction it makes between members and office bearers. To be a member
of a Presbyterian church, one need only confess with the mouth that
Jesus is Lord and believe in one's heart that God raised him from the
dead (Rom. 10).
In practice, this means that if you profess to believe Jesus is Lord
and risen and you live a life that appears consistent with that
testimony, you can be a member. of the church.
To be an office bearer, however - a minister or elder - one has to take a vow to uphold the teaching of the Bible as elaborated in the Westminster Standards. In other words, there is a lot more material that you need to believe, articulate and be prepared to defend in order to hold office. That seems consistent with Paul's vision of elder; and it is also consonant with the notion that elders are to bring the congregation to maturity. If the elders were only as mature and as informed as the average member, then congregational growth to maturity would be dramatically hindered.
Of course, this also means that ministers and elders are to be held to higher standards. For a congregant to make a silly and incorrect doctrinal statement in a conversation over coffee after the service is one thing; for a minister to make a public statement as a minister which is wrong is a far more serious matter. Public mistakes by ministers cannot be dealt with privately because the mistake is part of his public teaching role. People look to the minister for a lead; and when he falls dramatically short, the implications can be very significant for the church. I cannot deny election, for example, and expect a free pass. I will be held to my vows, and that publicly. In fact, I would probably be required to step down from my teaching position until such time as I was able to honour my vows with a good conscience. Keep Reading...
To be an office bearer, however - a minister or elder - one has to take a vow to uphold the teaching of the Bible as elaborated in the Westminster Standards. In other words, there is a lot more material that you need to believe, articulate and be prepared to defend in order to hold office. That seems consistent with Paul's vision of elder; and it is also consonant with the notion that elders are to bring the congregation to maturity. If the elders were only as mature and as informed as the average member, then congregational growth to maturity would be dramatically hindered.
Of course, this also means that ministers and elders are to be held to higher standards. For a congregant to make a silly and incorrect doctrinal statement in a conversation over coffee after the service is one thing; for a minister to make a public statement as a minister which is wrong is a far more serious matter. Public mistakes by ministers cannot be dealt with privately because the mistake is part of his public teaching role. People look to the minister for a lead; and when he falls dramatically short, the implications can be very significant for the church. I cannot deny election, for example, and expect a free pass. I will be held to my vows, and that publicly. In fact, I would probably be required to step down from my teaching position until such time as I was able to honour my vows with a good conscience. Keep Reading...
