…the church has “members,” and that some of those members are selected by the others as “officers” who are entrusted with conducting the church’s affairs. Such officers are not part of a distinct class that propagates itself apart from the will of the other members (BCO Pref. II.6), and they cannot force any of their number on the members (conceived as a corporate body) apart from their approval. That is, elders and deacons are elected, and an elder serving in the role of pastor cannot be forced on a church apart from its approval…in general the officers of the church depend upon the members… for their elevation to office and investiture with authority, and they cannot exercise an office against the will of the body that office is meant to serve.

I have before me the statement of a man referring to himself as a “lay member” of a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregation. In fact, neither he nor any other person is any such thing—for the PCA has no laity. Neither does she have any clergy. The clergy-laity distinction is a hierarchical error forced upon the world by the ancient and medieval church in her corruption – or perhaps better, in good intentions in the midst of internal struggle and persecution somewhat before her corruption – and maintained now by Rome, the Easterners, and some Protestant churches who have not reliably reformed themselves.

Indeed, such a notion is contrary to the PCA’s doctrine and polity. Anyone who doubts this is invited to search her constitution for such a conception. And anyone who does so will discover that the thing is wholly absent: neither in her Book of Church Order (BCO), nor her confessional standards, the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter catechisms, will one find a term like clergy or laity in any iteration.[1] One will find instead that the church has “members,” and that some of those members are selected by the others as “officers” who are entrusted with conducting the church’s affairs.

Such officers are not part of a distinct class that propagates itself apart from the will of the other members (BCO Pref. II.6), and they cannot force any of their number on the members (conceived as a corporate body) apart from their approval. That is, elders and deacons are elected, and an elder serving in the role of pastor cannot be forced on a church apart from its approval. There are some exceptions[2], but in general the officers of the church depend upon the members (again, conceived as the corporate body of the church) for their elevation to office and investiture with authority, and they cannot exercise an office against the will of the body that office is meant to serve.

It is not that the officers derive their authority from the people as such, but that, the church being the body of Christ, they call him with that authority as a corporate body that Christ gives them. If all officers were to die or fall away tomorrow, the church would not be destroyed, because God could guide her to raise up new ones from her own midst (and bless and keep her until that was accomplished). Neither are officers necessary, in the strict sense, for the reception of saving grace, as all believers share in the Spirit and the grace and gifts he bestows (1 Cor. 12:4-13), and he is able to act through his word and providence to convert and maintain his people apart from the normal ministry of church officers. Officers are practically necessary for the wellbeing and good order of the church, and immensely helpful in teaching people the truth, and for that reason they have been given to the church by God (v. 28; Eph. 4:11-13); but they are not absolutely necessary to her salvation, such that to be without them for even a moment leaves her floundering and sundered from God’s grace. (By contrast, communions like Rome regard priests as essential mediators of grace, in such things as administering the sacraments and superintending confession and absolution.)[3]

In fact, not only does the PCA lack a priestly class of clergy, but such a thing contradicts her Protestant notions of the universal priesthood of all believers and the nature of the church, and our forebears had some strong words on this point. Hence the Free Church of Scotland professor James Bannerman, in his seminal work on ecclesiology, The Church of Christ, wrote:

The Church of Christ confesses to the existence within it of no clergy, as in the Church of Rome, distinguished by indelible “character” and internal powers from the laity or the Christian people. The true clergy of the Church of Christ are, according to the original import of the word, the κληρος [kleros], the “lot,” or “possession,” or “heritage” of Christ,—the whole body of His called and chosen people.

To elaborate, the way clergy is used now is contrary to its etymology as derived ultimately from the Gk. kleros (see Online Etymology Dictionary here and here), and the way that kleros is used in the New Testament. Laying aside its use to mean “lots” (as in the casting of lots, Lk. 23:34), kleros refers to the “inheritance of the saints in light” (Col. 1:12) and “a place among those who are sanctified by faith” (Acts 26:18), i.e., to eternal life and membership among the company of its recipients.[4] In giving instructions for how elders are to act, Peter uses it to refer to “those in your charge” (1 Pet. 5:3), that is, to the whole body of believers under their care (“the flock of God,” v. 2), a sense which approximates how many people talk about the “laity.”[5] Thus also Calvin comments on this verse, that:

It was, indeed, an ancient way of speaking, to call the whole order of ministers, clergy; but I wish that it had never occurred to the Fathers to speak thus; for what Scripture ascribes in common to the whole Church, it was by no means right to confine to a few men. And this way of speaking was spurious, at least it was a departure from apostolic usage.

He continues that:

Peter, indeed, expressly gives the churches this title [kleros], in order that we may know that whatever men ascribe to themselves is taken away from the Lord, as in many places he calls the Church his peculiar treasure, and the rod of his heritage, when he intends to claim his entire dominion over it; for he never delivers to pastors the government, but only the care, so that his own right remains still complete.[6]

From all this we can conclude, with Bannerman, that “in nothing is the spirit of Rome more apparent than in that distinction which she has set up between the clergy and the laity,—between a sacerdotal and profane caste.” More to our point, however, to distinguish believers into the two classes of clergy and laity (even without Rome’s intricate notions of each) is contrary to Christ’s teaching. In announcing woes to the scribes and Pharisees, he said:

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (Matt. 23:8-12).

And elsewhere:

And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:42-45).

Those who distinguish believers into two classes of clergy and laity make a hierarchy in the church, and refer the preeminence in it to the former class. (And in so doing they invariably create also a hierarchy within the clergy, placing bishops over priests, archbishops over bishops, and so on.) And they insert that hierarchy quite contrary to the spirit of the verses above.[7]

But even the apostles, whom Christ endowed with extraordinary power in ruling and teaching his church, did not regard themselves as better than the people. Paul said “what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4:5). His whole demeanor toward the Corinthians, his repeated pleading rather than using his authority without explanation, was aimed at their restoration and not his own advantage (13:9), such that he could say “we are glad when we are weak and you are strong” (ibid.). Peter, in that passage previously cited, urged elders “as a fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1) to fulfill their duties by “not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” (v. 3; comp. 1 Cor. 4:16; Phil 3:17).

To be sure, PCA officers have real authority to teach and rule, a power that extends even to accepting and excommunicating members in the exercise of church discipline. Ours is not a communion of perfect equality of function, in which all the affairs of the church as corporate institution are performed by all her members. We have a government, exercised through the offices, and it is that government that superintends the affairs of the church. It is spiritual, ministerial, and declarative in nature, so that its power is exercised for the good of its members, rather than for its own benefit: to work off Calvin above, Christ’s officers are entrusted with the government of the church not in an absolute sense, but with a view toward caring for its members. (Truthfully, it would be better to say that they guide or oversee the church than that they rule it, but even where we use the language of ruling we mean something very different than when we say that a king or other civil leader rules.)

And we have, as well, a hierarchy within our church government. It is however a hierarchy of courts rather than of offices or men. All elders are equal in their rights and authority to govern the church through these courts, and in practice important positions within them tend to rotate between teaching and ruling elders, with (as always), some exceptions (e.g., the pastor is moderator of his church’s session.) Each elder is a member of all such courts (session, presbytery, General Assembly), subject to some practical restraints that limit the number of elders from each church that can vote.

And while time would fail to consider all the minutiae of our polity, including some elements of it – and some present opinions about it – that sadly savor of a clerical spirit, we can nonetheless assert with confidence that clergy-laity is not a distinction we recognize. We distinguish between the church as a whole and those parts of her (her courts) that superintend her; between local churches; between our own church and others; between both those two groups and the Church universal (or catholic); and between officers and members. But to suggest that Christ possesses two peoples, the laity (sheep) and the clergy (shepherds), with the one governing the other not only in a practical sense for their own benefit, but because they are essentially different – which is what notions of clergy entail – is to divide the Church, which is one (Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:14-31; Eph. 4:1-16). And no man ought to divide or distinguish what God regards as one.

Tom Hervey is a member of Friendship Presbyterian Church in Laurens County, SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

[1] The term clerical appears a single time in BCO 3-2 to describe the duties of the denomination’s stated clerk as being administrative in nature, and as entailing “no special role as spiritual leader or teacher to the denomination.” In other words, to strongly emphasize that he is not the spiritual chief of the PCA, but only the person charged with handling its denominational business as “chief administrative officer” of its administrative committee (3-1; comp. also the other itemized duties of 3-2). He is a clerk, but not a cleric in the sense that, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury is.

[2] Especially as regards missions. For example, a temporary government will be appointed by the presbytery for a mission (church plant) that has not yet been particularized as a regular church (BCO Ch. 5). Some teaching elders labor “out of bounds” in ministries that are not formally part of the institutional church or on behalf of other denominations, while some are ordained to serve as evangelists, chaplains, or missionaries with PCA missions agencies.

[3] I am speaking generally, as is invariable in dealing with Rome, for she routinely asserts something with absolute vehemence, only to turn about and say ‘yes, but—’ and admit of exceptions. Hence she asserts that there is no salvation outside of the church (on her view, herself), and yet also that people can potentially be saved who have died in ignorance of Christ and his church; or again, that the sacraments are necessary to salvation, but that they can be accounted as having their effect if someone who intends to take them is prevented by circumstances (e.g., dies in a car wreck on his way to be baptized), the sincere desire for them being reckoned to that person’s account. See this line of argumentation here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-really-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church Hence Rome would say that under normal circumstances priests are necessary, but there are special cases where that might not apply.

[4] All verses from English Standard Version, produced by Crossway.

[5] Even the Roman encyclopedia admits this (“in the First Epistle of St. Peter (v, 3) it is applied to [sic] entire body of the faithful”).

[6] Older translations often rendered kleros as “heritage” in 1 Pet. 5:3, as can be seen in Calvin’s and Bannerman’s comments.

[7] Christ’s teaching in this passage is not that there is to be no leadership in the church, for he himself called his apostles and charged them with overseeing and teaching the church, and with selecting companions to do likewise (2 Tim. 2:2; Tit. 1:5), and in Matt. 23:2-3 he instructed his hearers to “practice and observe” what the scribes and Pharisees taught, as they sat “in Moses’ seat” (i.e., in his position as teacher of Israel). As he elsewhere gave the example of not doing various things that the Pharisees taught (esp. their extra-scriptural tradition, Matt. 15:1-9), his statement that his hearers ought to follow their teaching seems to be conditional: insofar as they sit in Moses’ seat and teach his law faithfully they are to be obeyed, but when they depart from that and make up impossible traditions that ensnare people and go beyond the law, they are not to be followed.