To function effectively a Presbyterian church (at local, presbytery, and General Assembly levels) needs not just elders, (presbyters) participating — it needs elders of both types (teaching and ruling, pastors and lay) in numbers sufficient to represent and serve the churches. A Presbyterian church is incomplete with only one type of elder. There ought to be a plurality in local churches: pastors and lay elders. And a presbytery and General Assembly (the levels of court above the local session) similarly ought to be made up of both types of elder.

Many elders of  the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) agree that there is a crisis of one kind or another in the denomination. Ironically, one of these crises has to do with elders themselves. More specifically it concerns the participation of elders (especially ruling elders) in the courts of the church. It also involves the failure of churches and sessions to fund and encourage (or even require) this participation.

To function effectively a Presbyterian church (at local, presbytery, and General Assembly levels) needs not just elders, (presbyters) participating — it needs elders of both types (teaching and ruling, pastors and lay) in numbers sufficient to represent and serve the churches. A Presbyterian church is incomplete with only one type of elder. There ought to be a plurality in local churches: pastors and lay elders. And a presbytery and General Assembly (the levels of court above the local session) similarly ought to be made up of both types of elder.

The PCA has arguably the most robust principle of  the parity of elders among conservative presbyterian denominations. Book of Church Order (BCO) section 8-9 reads:

Elders being of one class of office, ruling elders possess the same authority and eligibility to office in the courts of the Church as teaching elders. They should, moreover, cultivate zealously their own aptness to teach the Bible and should improve every opportunity of doing so.

Equal “authority and eligibility to office in the courts of the Church” does not require exactly proportional representation of the two offices at the General Assembly (GA) and presbyteries, but many hold near-equal representation to be ideal. Indeed, the BCO (Rules of Assembly Operation 15-1) requires that each presbytery elect one ruling elder and one teaching elder to the powerful Overtures Committee which conducts the lion’s share of deliberation on overtures that will affect the order and life of the church. Nearly all committees and boards of the GA require roughly equal TE/RE representation as well.

The great disparity comes not at the committee level of GA, it comes in the general participation of commissioners. Ruling elders are often credited with a critical role in the formation of the PCA and they outnumbered teaching elders at the first two General Assemblies. Indeed, retired Stated Clerk Roy Taylor has stated, “The PCA was started primarily through the efforts of Ruling Elders.”

Sadly, since the early years of the PCA the participation of ruling has steadily declined (https://www.theaquilareport.com/the-ruling-elder-teaching-elder-disparity-in-the-pca/). Early on the ratio of teaching elders to ruling elders was nearly 1:1 or no more than 2:1. In recent decades, ruling elders typically make up somewhere between 21 and 33 percent of the commissioners to the General Assembly.

Some will say these are only numbers and the disparity is of no consequence, But many churchmen believe such an imbalance is harmful to the church since the laity are not well represented when ruling elders (who are themselves laypeople) are absent, and because the benefit of true diversity of experience and opinion is necessarily lost when teaching elders dominate the GA and, in like manner, the presbyteries.

Where does the blame for this disparity lie? Well — if you’ll pardon the expression — we have met the culprits and they are us! Ruling elders, teaching elders, sessions, presbyteries, and the General Assembly itself are all to blame. Even the non-officer members of churches cannot escape culpability in this case.

A word (chastising ruling elders who often failed to attend presbytery meetings) from the past is helpful at this point, from The Christian Observer, an old Southern Presbyterian magazine, from 1877:

This obligation to attend Presbytery is as binding on our consciences as the very existence of a Presbytery is essential, for whatever will justify habitual absence in any one, will justify the same in every one, and this would terminate the Presbytery’s existence at once. Dear brethren, if it seem to you unimportant, whether you go to Presbytery or not, and if, on this account, you are seldom there, reflect seriously that your course tends to the very destruction of a court appointed by your divine Master, and essential to the success of His cause among you.

Consider your solemn promise to God: “I accept the office of ruling elder or pastor and promise faithfully to perform all the duties thereof.” One of the most important of these duties, is to have your church statedly represented in Presbytery. My brother elder, how can you, in view of the above promise, as a godly and an honest man, be careless about having your church duly represented?    Dear brethren, your promise to discharge such duties, given to God and the Church, is just as sacred and as binding as human language can well make it. When next you feel inclined to shirk your duty and remain at home from your Presbytery, just take your ordination vows, and having read them, ask God whether He will bless their disregard to your soul’s peace and your life’s usefulness.

Does any one answer us, “I am too busy to attend the courts of the Church.” We desire to suggest whether, with equal pertinence, business engagement may not be pleaded in offset of the duty to preach or to pray? My dear brother, if too busy to perform the duties, you ought not to occupy the place of preacher or elder.

These are strong words from another century, but given the principles of our polity, are they not fitting? Ruling elders must consider their responsibilities and make sacrifices to fulfill their duties to the church..

Teaching elders must also bear some of the blame. It may be that many have failed to convey the importance of the role of the ruling elder to their sessions (the local church courts). Some ministers may be content to attend the General Assembly in the company of their “peers,” old friends, and seminary alumni, but is this what is best for the church? Teaching elders can and should do more to promote ruling elder participation.

Church sessions have also failed in not making attendance to presbytery and General Assembly a priority. It is they who set the priorities and the budgets. Presbyteries, too, have not encouraged participation of ruling elders as they should, and the percentage of ruling elders at presbytery meetings is often smaller even than that found at GA.

BCO 10-6 states: “The expenses of ministers and ruling elders in their attendance on the courts shall be defrayed by the bodies which they respectively represent.” This means that if financial barriers are the reason for lax attendance, the responsibility falls on the sessions and presbyteries. The current BCO even suggests that presbyteries ought to pay the GA expenses of those commissioners they send to the all-important GA Overtures Committee if necessary (15-2).

The General Assembly and the Administrative Committee (which plans GA)  can also be faulted for high registration fees and expensive lodging in convention center hotels, among other things. The PCA’s grassroots nature prevents mandatory funding schemes or “taxes.” And it is fair to say that the voting members of GA and the presbyteries who ultimately approve funding schemes have caused the high registration fees to some extent, thus requiring the GA expenses to be recouped through high registration fees. Beyond the registration fees, travel and lodging expenses can easily exceed $2000 per commissioner.

Lastly, the membership of our churches has failed to encourage and fund the participation of ruling elders in the higher courts of the church. It would be right and proper for members to demand more participation…and to provide the funds necessary where that is the hindrance.The PCA’s various controversies may seem intractable. Fuller participation of ruling elders at all levels of the PCA’s courts could at least give church members confidence that the best and most prudent efforts have been made to solve them — by their own elected and accountable elders.

Officers and members of PCA churches (especially smaller ones) may wish to learn more about the efforts of MORE in the PCA which has funds to help ruling elders attend General assembly. (https://www.moreinthepca.org/). Also of interest might be an overture submitted to the 2021 General Assembly that would lower the cost of ruling elder registration fees (https://pcaga.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Overture-24-TN-Valley-Reduce-Assembly-Registration-Fee.pdf).

Brad Isbell is a ruling elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and is a board member of MORE in the PCA. He has attended four General Assemblies since 2010, three as a commissioner.