Editor's Note: This article is part four of a series adapted from talks given to Faith Presbyterian Church in Tacoma, a congregation of our denomination (PCA) and presbytery (Pacific Northwest Presbytery). We have retained specific references to that congregation to keep intact the flow of thought. 

Having provided a definition of Presbyterian church government and having considered whether it is, by the teaching of Holy Scripture, a divine law to be obeyed by all Christians and all churches, we move now to considering some of the strengths of our polity, some to be mentioned in this installment of our series and some in the next. After all, the Lord’s commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3). “Great peace have those who love your law” (Psalm 119:165), and that is true whether we are thinking of the individual Christian life or the life of the church as a whole. With most of God’s laws, it is not difficult to see the wisdom and goodness in them, and the laws of church government are no exception. 

God has provided an office in the church to ensure that each area of responsibility (worship, rule, and mercy) is undertaken by godly and gifted men.

First, like no other system of church government, Presbyterianism trades on the principle that “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15:22). Three times in the book of Proverbs, we are reminded that wisdom and success are to be found in many counselors. It is for this reason that, in the Bible, the word “elder” is almost always found in the plural and invariably in the plural when describing elders at work. Each church, according to the Presbyterian system, should have a plurality of elders. The many counselors, in other words, are found at every level of the church’s government: the local session, the Presbytery, and the General Assembly. In the local church, the elder—by which I mean the lay ruler, what we call the ruling elder—does his work together with others, and in the meeting of their minds is found sound judgment. Most of us know very well how often talking out a matter with someone else has helped us to see an issue more clearly and to come to a better judgment about it. Well, in the same way, any man who has been an elder knows very well how much wiser a church session’s decisions are because they are the considered judgment of a number of godly minds and not just one. On the other hand, there is wisdom in many counselors, the Bible says, not in everyone having his say. Democracy is not the Bible’s principle of government and there is nothing in Holy Scripture to suggest that a majority vote of the congregation is a likely way to reach sound decisions. Congregationalists trust too much, we Presbyterians think, to the wisdom of the masses. The Bible’s way seems rather clearly to be to trust the wisdom of the godliest and most mature of the church’s men. I add my own testimony that this congregation has been greatly blessed by the collective wisdom of its elders and deacons.

Second, the provision of three distinct offices—the ministry, the eldership, and the diaconate—serves to ensure that the major responsibilities of church leadership are adequately provided for. The Second Book of Discipline of the Scottish church (chapter 2) reads in its old Scots way:

“The hail polity of the Kirk consisteth in three things, to wit, in Doctrine, Discipline, and Distribution. With Doctrine is annexit the administration of Sacramentis. And according to the pairts of this division ariseth a three-fauld sort of office-bearers in the Kirk, to wit, of Ministeris or Preachers, Elderis or Governors, and Deaconis or Distributeris.”

Everyone who has a long history in the church knows very well how easy it is to neglect one or the other of these vital functions, each necessary for the life, vitality, and fruitfulness of the church of God. God has provided an office in the church to ensure that each area of responsibility (worship, rule, and mercy) is undertaken by godly and gifted men who are made directly accountable for that and for nothing else. History seems clearly to teach that when one man or when every man is responsible for all things, some things don’t get done. In many churches of my upbringing, the ministry was the supreme office, the minister was very often in charge of almost everything, and the eldership and diaconate had fallen into serious neglect. The deacons often did the janitor’s work, the elders did some of the deacons’ work, and no one did either the deacons’ true work or that of the elders. The renewal of the offices of elder and deacon in Presbyterian churches over the past generation has done much to revitalize many of our churches.

I remember, early in my ministry at Faith Presbyterian, how much of the time in a session meeting was spent attending to matters that really belonged in the diaconate. Every meeting, the elders talked about money for a considerable part of the time. We had to learn to talk about other things—the things that belong directly to the elders’ office. Happily, your elders almost never talk about money in their meetings and haven’t for many years. They talk about the life of the people of Faith Presbyterian Church and the ministry of this church. I remember those early deacon meetings as well. We talked about minor matters concerning the church property and its upkeep most of the time. Such matters, thankfully, have been for a long time now an insignificant portion of the diaconate’s business. The deacons talk about their ministry of mercy to those within and outside of the congregation. How much healthier a church we have become precisely because each office is looking to its own responsibilities!

Third, the Presbyterian system, with its lay officers, creates a barrier against clerical supremacy. It is a fact of biblical history that priests and prophets, much more than elders, led Israel astray. False teaching is more deadly than false or ineffective ruling. And so it has continued in church history. The preacher has access to the entire congregation every Sunday. If he is an effective speaker and leader, he can lead Christian people—even people who should know better—to think thoughts they ought not to think. This has happened times without number over the centuries and is, alas, the sad story of Protestant Christianity in the 20th century. There is little check on the minister’s power and influence in Episcopal church government, but there is much in Presbyterian. There is a body of elders who also are responsible for the fidelity of their congregation to the Word of God and the gospel of Christ.

Before we go on next time to consider what is perhaps the greatest strength of the Presbyterian system, it behooves me to say as I conclude that it is perfectly obvious that Presbyterian church government, like all other Christian polities, is only as good as the men who occupy its offices. We have already admitted that Presbyterian church government has often failed to live up to its promise precisely because the officers did not do their work in faithfulness to the Lord and according to the instructions of his Word. It is both a proper humility and a biblical realism that leads many Presbyterians to admit that they would rather be governed by a godly bishop like J. C. Ryle or a godly rector like John Stott than by an unfaithful group of Presbyterian elders! I am thankful to be able to say that this congregation enjoys the blessing of godly men in both its eldership and its diaconate and so reaps the rewards of what we believe to be the most biblical form of church government.