Doctrine matters. We live in times when all truth is under attack, especially orthodox Christian teaching. The higher courts of the church are essential to preserve truth and to ensure that the church’s ministers teach and live in accordance with sound doctrine. Ruling elders are part of the firewall that protects the sheep of today and tomorrow from error and wolves. 

Some presbyters seem to believe that entering the arena of ecclesial/denominational controversy is—to quote the military supercomputer in the prescient 1983 teen movie WarGames—“a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” In the film, the drama was supplied by the assumption that thermonuclear combat led to the mutually assured destruction of all participants.

A ruling elder’s participation in the courts of the church, though, need not necessitate mutual assured destruction, to stick with Cold War imagery. Rather, the goal is the peace and purity of the church; the hope is divinely assured edification and protection of Christ’s flock. The Great Shepherd rules the church, but he does it mediately through weak and fallible men—presbyters—who are always plural in the New Testament and in biblical presbyterian order. This means power is not concentrated in one or a few elders or (as we shall see below) in one type of elders. Weakness and fallibility (also known as the fact of total depravity) demand the plurality of elders and the accountability of courts we find modeled in Acts and the Epistles.

The fact of total depravity means the ruling elder’s service in any level of the church courts can be less than enjoyable. A newly ordained ruling elder may soon be shocked by discipline cases and thorny issues in his local church. Romantic notions of the eldership are quickly dispelled. There may be trouble enough “at home,” but a presbyterian ruling elder’s responsibilities and concerns ought not end at the local church’s property lines.

Called To Enter Into The Conflict

“It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door”—so said Bilbo to his nephew. One might say the same to a ruling elder sent for the first time to presbytery or General Assembly, even though attending the higher courts of a presbyterian church may not be physically dangerous—apart from hours of sitting in uncomfortable chairs! The biggest casualty is lost time for ruling elders who are usually otherwise employed in the service of occupation or family when the courts meet. There are yet more participation costs. Showing up regularly can get you tasked with more responsibilities (such as committee service) since ruling elders are often in short supply. There is a steep learning curve for most ruling elders and staying in touch with and informed about the wider church is tough for a ruling elder. Little about the church courts is familiar, especially to a new ruling elder. The rules and processes of church courts can be bewildering. And there’s controversy and conflict. The problems of other churches and pastors and disagreements about doctrine and practice are anything but pleasant.

Gresham Machen famously wrote, “In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” The church doesn’t need men who look for fights or love to fight, but she does need ruling elders who bring common sense and practical experience to the courts…and who are willing to fight for truth and good order when needed. Total depravity means the need often arises.

Can’t pastors (teaching elders in Presbyterian Church in America parlance) be trusted to handle the affairs of the wider church? History says otherwise, and the polity of the PCA requires otherwise. The PCA has arguably the most robust principle of the parity of elders among conservative presbyterian denominations.

Read More