The Form of Presbyterian Church Government agreed upon by the Westminster Assembly sets out, at the very forefront of it, the Headship of Christ over His Church. This is a glorious doctrine which true and faithful presbyterians will ever hold fast to. In the maintenance of this doctrine many have laid down their lives, rather than dishonour Christ by denying it. Such have received their reward: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”
The Confession of Faith states the same doctrine of Christ’s Headship over the Church, while repudiating at the same time in unequivocal language the Pope’s claim to be the head of the Church. “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.” Chapter 26, Section 6.
Professor Witherow, in his book “The Apostolic Church — Which is it?”, outlines the six principles required for Scriptural Church government as these were manifest in the Apostolic Church. They are: (1) That the office-bearers were chosen by the people; (2) That the office of bishop and elder were identical; (3) That there was a plurality of elders in each Church; (4) That ordination was the act of a presbytery — that is, of a plurality of elders; (5) That there was the privilege of appeal to the assembly of elders; and the power of government was exercised by them in their associate capacity; and (6) That the only Head of the Church was the Lord Jesus Christ. Applying these principles to the three forms of Church Government, the Prelatical, the Independent and the Presbyterian, Witherow finds that none of these principles is found in episcopacy, only three are found in the independent system, while all six are embodied in Presbyterianism. He, accordingly, concludes that the Presbyterian is, in point of government, the only apostolic church.
The Scriptural form of Church Government is exercised at different levels. These consist of Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods and in larger Churches, General Assemblies. In single congregations, there is also the Deacon’s Court which looks after the temporal affairs of the congregation and is independent in its own sphere. The Scriptural basis for Deacons’ Courts is found in Acts, Chapter 6 where a murmuring arose about the daily ministration. It was then that seven men were appointed as Deacons to look after the temporal affairs of the Church, so that the Apostles could give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word. This principle of setting the elders free to devote themselves to the spiritual side of the work, while the Deacons concentrate on the temporal side, still holds good. Therefore, although the greater office includes the lesser, yet the ideal would be that the elders would be wholly relieved of the temporal concerns of the congregation.
In the Apostolic Church there were some extraordinary offices, such as apostles, evangelists and prophets, which are now ceased. There remains in the Church pastors or preaching elders, ruling elders and deacons. The distinction between preaching and ruling elders appears in 1 Timothy 5: 17, where it is said: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine.” The latter are ministers of the Gospel who are called of God to that work. While such, in being ordained to the office of the ministry, are necessarily called to administer the sacraments, yet this is not their main function. Their main function is to preach the Gospel. The main function of the ruling elder, on the other hand, is to exercise spiritual oversight in the congregation, in conjunction with the pastor. This rule and oversight is ministerial, and not lordly.
The exercise of discipline belongs to the Kirk Session and is to be administered according to the terms laid down in the Word of God. The purpose of church discipline, as outlined in the Confession, is “for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from like offences, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honour of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.” Yet those called on to exercise discipline are ever required to keep in mind their own exposure to temptation and proneness to go aside. The Apostle counsels the Galatian Churches: “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself lest thou also be tempted.”
The Form of Church Government shows that Scripture holds out a presbytery in a Church, consisting of ministers of the Word and ruling elders. That many congregations may be under one presbyterial government is proved by the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Ephesus, both consisting of more congregations than one, and all the congregations of each city area being under one presbyterial government. The Presbytery, besides its oversight of the congregations within its bounds, its power of ordination to the ministry, and other functions, also acts as an appeal court from the Kirk Session. Further appeals may be carried to the higher courts such as Synods and General Assemblies.
If Presbyterian Church Government is the Scriptural form of church government, then we must conclude that it is the most efficient form of church government because divinely ordained. If the officers of the Church are what they ought to be then, no doubt, it would also be seen to be the most efficient form of church government. But owing to the shortcomings of men, it often falls far short of the ideal. One reason for this is that, for its efficient working, those ruling in the church have need of the wisdom that is from above, and an abundant measure of the grace of humility. Where these are lacking the wheels of presbyterian church government drive slowly. Often, through the pride of men’s hearts, scriptural government and discipline is subverted. Sometimes church courts have become lordly and, as such, prove vehicles of oppression to the people of God. At other times they have been misused by men in order to set up error in doctrine and practice within the visible church. A rascally majority can ride over the pleas of a faithful minority. In a marked way this was true in the Disruption Free Church, and is ever the way where a worldly and unsanctified intellectual spirit prevails. Sometimes a gifted but graceless leader in a Church Court may by his cunning set the Church on a course which it will later come to regret. The Church in our land also has had bitter experience of interference, by kings and by others in authority, in the affairs of the Church of God. At the Disruption six hundred ministers preferred to abandon the State Church rather than suffer interference from the Civil Courts in matters which belonged to the Church of God.
Another danger, this time within the Church, to Scriptural government by Presbyteries, is when Committees begin to usurp the place of Presbyteries. Committees are necessary to oversee certain aspects of the Church’s affairs between the meetings of Synod or Assembly, but every effort ought to be made to prevent them impinging on the work of Presbyteries. These Committees are appointed yearly and are given a remit which they are required to abide by, and they are accountable each year to the body that appointed them.
It may be that outwith our bounds there are Churches where many things are done that are contrary to Presbyterian Church Government but we are to be especially concerned as to what takes place within our own bounds. It should be our earnest desire and prayer that all that is done may be in accordance with the rules of God’s Word and that all may be done to His glory and for the advancement of His kingdom.