As Presbyterians we have a unique system of government that holds the Session of the church and the Congregation in a tension that sometimes is not readily grasped or easily explained. And in my years on the Committee on Ministry I have found that often the session and congregation each thinks it has more authority than it actually does. I have also found that a Session, intentionally or unintentionally, has led a congregation to believe that the congregation has virtually no power. In reality the congregation has significant power and authority but in a narrow range.
If you want a clear demonstration of the tensions around congregational powers you need look no further than the recent decisions from the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) of the PC(USA). The case of Yun v. Korean United Presbyterian Church had to do with election of officers and procedures at congregational meetings. In Sundquist v. Heartland the GAPJC ruled, in part, that it is not a right of a congregation to be able to vote to be dismissed from the denomination. This ruling upheld an authoritative interpretation (AI) from the 218th General Assembly specifying this. But this AI also reinforced the congregation’s authority to specify the quorum for a congregational meeting and that this was not something the session or the presbytery could not alter.
It is interesting that with these cases concerning what a congregation can and can not do, if you look at the “What Presbyterians Believe” section of the PC(USA) web site you will find articles concerning what they believe about elders, deacons, how Presbyterians make decisions, the priesthood of all believers, and many more topics, but nothing clearly about congregations, covenant community, or the body of Christ.
So, as I was working on another piece about polity and Presbyterian congregations I figured that I should tackle the role of the congregation in Presbyterian government first. However, in this post I will review the powers and responsibilities of the congregation without the full development of the congregation as the “Body of Christ” and the “Covenant Community.” That will come later.
There is a short answer to the question about what the roll of the congregation is in governance: Across most, but not all, Presbyterian branches it is the right and responsibility of the congregation to decide almost all matters related to the officers of their church. As the PC(USA) Book of Order puts it:
The government of this church is representative, and the right of God’s people to elect their officers is inalienable. Therefore, no person can be placed in any permanent office in a congregation or governing body of the church except by election of that body. [G-6.0107]
The Book of Order of the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand puts is another way in the Background section of Chapter 7:
In the Presbyterian tradition, a congregation calls a minister and elects elders to undertake spiritual oversight, leadership in mission, and pastoral care. A congregation may elect either a deacons’ court or a board of managers to manage the property and finances of the congregation.
And this understanding goes back to the Reformation. The 1556 Genevan Book of Order, used by the English speaking congregation in that city (you can’t say the immigrant fellowships are a new phenomenon), begins with this sentence about selecting ministers, and the elder and deacon selection sections refer back here to do it in the same way:
The
ministers and elders at such time as there wants a minister, assemble
the whole congregation, exhorting them to advise and consider who may
best serve in that room and office.
And in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin concludes a section arguing from scripture and the writing of Cyprian with
We see then, that ministers are legitimately called according to the
word of God, when those who may have seemed fit are elected on the
consent and approbation of the people. Other pastors, however, ought to
preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the
general body either through levity, or bad passion, or tumult. [Book IV, Chapter 3, Section 15]
As I said, this is not completely universal and An Introduction to Practice and Procedure in the Church of Scotland tells us:
Elders are chosen in one of three ways, but it is important to note that, whichever method is followed, the final decision, both as regards the method to be followed and the persons to be appointed, rests with the Kirk Session. Elders may be chosen (a) by the Kirk Session itself; (b) by a congregational meeting; or (c) by means of signed lists.
While the Church of Scotland can have elders appointed by the Session, they join the majority of Presbyterian branches in making it the right and responsibility of the congregation to search for and call a pastor. In most branches the congregation elects the search committee from among its members and when the search committee has a nominee they bring it back to the congregation for approval. There are some branches, like the Presbyterian Church in Ghana, where their tradition is to appointed ministers to parish positions.
It was in the pastor search process where I have had to deal with tensions with the session. Sometimes the session wants a hand in the selection — they may want veto authority or they may want to direct the selection either by being the search committee or by guiding the search committee. In a few circumstances related to calling temporary or interim pastors I have seen the session empowered as the search committee. But when it comes to searching for a regular installed pastor or associate pastor the session can have input and make suggestions, but the selection process is up to the committee and the approval up to the congregation as a whole. This does not mean that session members can not serve on the search committee, but like regular nominating committees in the PC(USA) the majority of the membership should be from the congregation at-large.
I have seen this lack of control confuse, irritate, and annoy session members. Some have the understanding that they run the church and that should apply to the leadership as well. When they find out they do not have a deciding voice in the selection process for the next pastor they sometimes are very surprised.
Now, as they say, “with great power comes great responsibility.” Since the congregation selects and calls the pastor, the congregation also has the full responsibility to support the pastor, including the prayer and financial support. The congregation approves the compensation package for the pastor. And in the installation questions the congregation must promise their support. The Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order asks these questions in section 21-10
3. Do you promise to encourage him in his labors, and to assist his endeavors for your instruction and spiritual edification?
4. Do you engage to continue to him while he is your pastor that competent worldly maintenance which you have promised, and to furnish him with whatever you may see needful for the honor of religion and for his comfort among you?
And the PC(USA) wording is similar in W-4.006b
(2) Do we agree to encourage him (her), to respect his (her) decisions, and to follow as he (she) guides us, serving Jesus Christ, who alone is Head of the Church?
(3) Do we promise to pay him (her) fairly and provide for his (her) welfare as he (she) works among us; to stand by him (her) in trouble and share his (her) joys? Will we listen to the word he (she) preaches, welcome his (her) pastoral care, and honor his (her) authority as he (she) seeks to honor and obey Jesus Christ our Lord?
In my experience, the congregation has a great and important power and responsibility in selecting its ordained officers and for all of the officers this task should be approached with prayer and discernment. It is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.
The other powers lodged in the congregation are more of a temporal nature, to use the Church of Scotland terminology, and vary across state and national boundaries. But since these items do affect the ability of the church to carry out its mission they should not be viewed as being entirely non-spiritual or secular in nature.
The PC(USA) explicitly lists matters related to real property as another area that the congregation must make the decisions. The theory here is both a corporate one, that the members of the church are members of the civil corporation, as well as the pragmatic view that since the members of the congregation have paid for the building or will have to pay off the loan, they should be making the decision on property matters such as these. In some branches, like the Church of Scotland and the PC(USA), certain of these property matters must be reviewed and approved by a higher governing body.
Other items of congregational business typically include the decision to have a board of deacons or a board of trustees, since those are officer related, and approval of church bylaws, since that is a corporation decision.
There can be one more congregational power that It is not as well defined. In the case of the PC(USA) this is found in G-7.0304a(5) where it says what business may be conducted at a congregational meeting:
(5) matters related to the permissive powers of a congregation, such as the desire to lodge all administrative responsibility in the session, or the request to presbytery for exemption from one or more requirements because of limited size.
The question is what are the “permissive powers” of the congregation. A few observations about this:
1 – In what may be a rarity, this paragraph has no associated comments in the Annotated Version of the Book of Order
2 – It is a concept regarding government powers and “permissive powers” are like common law powers. They are contrasted with statutory powers, enabling powers, and prescriptive powers. (The examples given in the following links are not definitive but give examples via usage within government reports.) This seems to be used much more in Britain where it is frequently used in the context of town or city regulation and management of land. (Used in the first line of this UK Parliament publication) It is also found in reference to restructuring government, including a Task Force Report for Toronto, Ontario, Canada and a PowerPoint presentation for Spring Lake, Michigan, USA. And thanks to the magic of Google Books I found a couple of useful paragraphs in Social Welfare Alive! by Stephen Moore and Peter Scourfield and in The Law Of Public Officers by Ruben E. Agpalo.
3 – If you refer to a template for a manual for stated clerks (here is Seattle Presbytery’s version, excerpt from page 11) it says of the business of a congregational meeting:
“permissive powers” relates to adopting congregational bylaws, establishment of a unicameral board, waivers from election of officers, raising of the quorum, and buying, selling, and mortgaging of real property
This seems to take the “such as” items listed in G-7.0304a(5) and make them “limited to.”
4 – For an extensive discussion of the concept of “permissive powers” that follows the governmental-based concept that they are the opposite of “prescriptive powers” you need to check out Michael McCarty’s discussion a year ago on his blog Around the Scuttlebutt. He tackles the concept of permissive powers head-on with some preliminaries in parts 1, 2 and 3, a detailed discussion in parts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and wraps it up in part 9. Mr. McCarty looks at the Presbyterian tradition and the ambiguities in the Book of Order around this and other issues of polity, and concludes that the congregation has a significant say in its relationship to the higher governing bodies and that in the ambiguities deference should be given to the congregation.
5 – It is the general tradition in American Presbyterianism that the “central governmental unit” is the presbytery. This is reflected in the presbytery’s responsibility to organize, unite, receive, divide, dismiss and dissolve churches. (G-11.0103h-i PC(USA) Book of Order) It is also seen in the presbytery’s oversight of pastors and the pastoral call process. And for the PC(USA) [from G-9.0103] “The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body.” In the PC(USA)’s revision of the Form of Government the mandate stipulates that the presbytery is to remain the central governmental unit and the version presented to the last General Assembly eliminated the permissive powers of the congregation. This latter change did draw some criticism.
6 – Not all Presbyterian branches lodge the fundamental power with the presbytery. Some, like the Bible Presbyterian Church, place it with the congregation. As their Form of Government says in Chapter 1 on Preliminary Principles:
9. All powers not in this Constitution specifically granted to the
courts of the Church are reserved to the congregations respectively, or
to the people.
Typical of the Presbyterian form of government, the relationship of the congregation to the governing bodies is one that holds the power and responsibility in tension so that there is accountability and shared responsibility within the Covenant Community. But when there are misunderstandings or ambiguities the working out of the shared responsibility can lead to tensions between different entities in the system.
Having now laid the fundamental foundation of the role of congregations in Presbyterian polity I, at some future point, will post some thoughts about building on this foundation and tweaking it a bit.