Election of Returning REs in PCA Rotational Session System

[Bryce]

I’m an RE in a PCA church and we have a rotational system on our Session whereby REs serve for three year terms, rotate off the Session for one year (or more), and are then eligible to come back on the Session. This rotational system is noted in our bylaws, but we’ve recently determined that we haven’t been handling our election process in accord with the BCO.

In his commentary on the BCO, Morton Smith says that all eligible elders should be put on the ballot. He refers to a 1986 Constitutional Inquiry (Historical Development of the PCA Book of Church Order : Chapter 24, Paragraph 1) that asked:
QUESTION
2. May the Session limit the number of officers standing for election?
ANSWER
2. The session is to declare all of those who are eligible but may not otherwise determine the number of officers to be elected. The number of officers to be elected shall be determined by the congregation (BCO 24-1).

Then also a 1988 Constitutional Inquiry states (http://www.pcahistory.org/bco/fog/24/01.html):
QUESTION Re: Election of Officers under BCO 24-1.
"If a Session finds that four nominees for office adequately meet the Biblical requirements, may they, for the sake of limiting board size, only put two of those men on the ballot?"
ANSWER: "No.
1. BCO 24-1 requires that the session shall report all eligible men to the congregation, after examination.
2. BCO 24-1 says that the congregation determines the number of elders to be elected.
3. BCO 24-1 allows the Session to recommend the number to be elected."

When our church is selecting elders who are already ordained (after an earlier 3-year term), must all eligible ruling elders who agree to serve be on the ballot? This seems to be what this constitutional inquiry says, but I’ve also read that one of the advantages of the rotational system is that the system affords an opportunity to move men off the active Session without disciplining them per BCO 24-7. I’m not saying I think that 24-7 is the right way to move men off the Session, but if all eligible elders must be on the ballot, it wouldn’t seem that the Session could control who stands for election as long as they are duly ordained and have not become “unacceptable in his official capacity to a majority of the church which he serves.” I see that BCO 24-1 allows the Session to recommend the number to be elected, but if they are all on the ballot, it would seem likely that they would all be elected.

Putting all of the eligible REs on the ballot also wouldn't allow the session to manage the size of each RE class.

Thanks for your insight!

 

[whirlingmerc]

Giving people a year off has allot of advantages for family time.

I think all electable people who have been vetted for whether they are interested and recommended by at least one person and agreed to by the elders seems reasonable.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bryce,

That section of the BCO has nothing to do with the return of officers who are already ordained and are on sabbatical. Returning RE's (for those who manage their officers in the manner you described) are not re-elected by the congregation to serve anew as Officers. They are already ordained.

 

[Bryce]

That section of the BCO has nothing to do with the return of officers who are already ordained and are on sabbatical. Returning RE's (for those who manage their officers in the manner you described) are not re-elected by the congregation to serve anew as Officers. They are already ordained.

Perhaps that 24-1 doesn't, but see below that 24-8 does apply. REs who return to a Session in a rotational system after taking a year or more off from "active service" are required to be elected by the congregation. You can see this referenced in an article from PCA Stated Clerk Roy Taylor:

Here is a quote from Taylor's article (emphasis added):
The question is sometimes asked, “What are the privileges of officers whose terms have expired?” Officers in such circumstances do not have voting privileges on the Session or Diaconate when their terms of service have expired (BCO, “Preface, II Preliminary Principles,” 6. and 24-8). If the meetings are open meetings, they may attend. The Session or Diaconate may vote extend to them the privilege of the floor. If there is an executive session (see Roberts Rules of Order §9 on “executive session”), ordinarily officers whose terms have expired would be excluded. Only after they have been re-elected and installed would they have voting privileges (BCO, “Preface, II Preliminary Principles,” 6. and 24-8).

The General Assembly Constitutional Inquiry below (see bolded) addresses the election of REs and states that all REs eligible for election must be presented to the congregation. That would seem to include all of those men who were previously ordained as REs since they along with those new elders who successfully passed examination by the Session would be eligible for election.

CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY:
1986 - Inquiry #9, from the Covenant Presbyterian Church, Columbia, SC. [M14GA, Appendix I, Item 9, p. 332].
Questions -
1. Are rotating Sessions permissible according to the Book of Church Order?
2. May the Session limit the number of officers standing for election?
3. May the names of those eligible for election be printed before the day of election?
4. What grounds are allowed the Session for disallowing the nomination of any men nominated by the congregation?
5. Are there any limitations with regard to when an election may be held, i.e., once a year or more or less often?
Enclosed please find a copy of the present procedures which are a part of our policy manual. We request that you review these procedures...."
Answers:
1. See M12GA, p. 127, Item 20.
2. The Session is to declare all of those who are eligible but may not otherwise determine the number of officers to be elected. The number of officers to be elected shall be determined by the congregation. (BCO 24-1).
3. Yes. (M7GA, p. 101, Item 4).
4. The grounds allowed the Session for disallowing the nomination of any man nominated by the congregation shall be their failure to conform to Biblical and constitutional standards. (BCO 24-1, M8GA p. 119, Item 19; M7GA, p. 80, Item 3).
5. There are no constitutional limitations other than the 30 day notice prior to an election.
The Committee declines to review the Bylaws submitted because it is not authorized to do so.
Recommended: That the answer of the Permanent Committee concerning Constitutional Inquiry #9 from the Covenant Presbyterian Church, be ratified.
Ratified. [M14GA, 14-52, Item 17, p. 126].

I'm just looking for some practical insight on this issue of voting on REs returning from a year or more off the session. Apparently, BCO, “Preface, II Preliminary Principles,” 6. and 24-8 give the congregation the control on which REs serve either when they are first elected or when returning to the Session after a sabbatical. Further, it looks like all elders who are eligible must be presented to the congregation for a vote.

Thanks.

 

[SRoper]

This is another frustrating instance of the BCO not saying what it means. From the article:

A Ruling Elder's relationship with a Session may end without his ordination being removed.

...

3. He may rotate off a Session and be re-elected (BCO 24-8).

The cited section says nothing about the RE rotating off.

24-8. When a ruling elder or deacon who has been released from his official relation is again elected to his office in the same or another church, he shall be installed after the above form with the omission of ordination.

Rotating off is not even implied or a necessary consequence of this section. The previous section explained how a RE's official relation to the session could be dissolved. But the courts say they always meant to allow rotating off so the BCO allows rotating off, even if the BCO contradicts this interpretation (24-7).

In any case, you are asking about who is presented for election. The session is required to present all eligible candidates. I suppose if you think this means too many candidates because both the inactive REs and the new candidates are presented, you could change the bylaws to make it so that inactive REs are not automatically presented after their year of sabbatical but must be nominated again. But, according to how the BCO has been received, there is nothing the session can do to prevent a nominated, eligible man from being on the ballot.

 

[Edward]

Perhaps that 24-1 doesn't, but see below that 24-8 does apply.

?

"24-8. When a ruling elder or deacon who has been released from his
official relation is again elected to his office in the same or another church,
he shall be installed after the above form with the omission of ordination."

This seems to apply to circumstances covered by 24-7.

I am not convinced that Chapter 24 contemplates the practice of rotation of elders and deacons.

 

[Bryce]

This conversation is helpful. Scott's suggestion on the election procedure makes sense--at least based on my limited knowledge.

Regarding Edward's comment, the BCO allows for the rotation of elders even though it's not explicitly stated.

The General Assembly has taken up the issue of the rotation of elders on a number of occasions and has continually held “that the BCO was deliberately written neither to promote nor to prohibit the rotational system of church officers” (See PCA Historical Center).

Also, regarding whether the congregation or session decides on the rotational practice, the General Assembly has determined that “the BCO does not explicitly state where the power is vested to determine (under the BCO) whether the system of officers be rotational or perpetual” (See PCA Historical Center).

The Standards of the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod (1979) did address this issue of rotating REs explicitly:

c. Ruling elders are ordained for life but may be elected for active service on the session for particular terms. Elders not in active service shall be entitled to represent their church in the higher courts of the church when appointed by the session or the presbytery. A particular church may elect elders to serve on its session for life, but it is also proper to arrange a system of rotation. In case there are a sufficient number of men competent for the eldership, a particular church may limit the number of successive terms in which the elders may serve.

 

[Bryce]

Scott suggests that 24-8 refers only to the circumstances outlined in 24-7 (and 24-7 doesn't directly speak to rotational systems of officers). I understand that is what the BCO seems to say, but PCA Stated Clerk Roy Taylor gives 24-8 as the citation for when an RE “may rotate off a Session and be re-elected” (See Taylor's article on Rotational System of Officers in the PCA).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bryce,

We're moving away from your OP.

24-1 governs the NOMINATION and election process. Look at the beginning of the section and it is speaking of those who have been nominated first who are then trained and examined and then brought before the congregation if they are determined to be eligible for election. An RE who has rotated off and is due to return from Sabtattical is not governed by 24-1 because his is not nominated for office again unless he is now a part of a new congregation.

 

[SRoper]

Yes, I know--I quoted that part of the article in my post. My point is that the BCO as written is at odds with what the PCA GA intended. I have no doubt that there were congregations that used the rotational system at the time the BCO was written. I have no doubt that they intended to allow the continuance of the practice. However, it's not what they wrote. At this point they apparently dusted off the BCO they inherited, found it didn't say anything one way or another about the rotational system, and said it was good.

The problem is 24-7 requires process to dissolve the relationship. Either the RE has to demit voluntarily with the session's approval, or the congregation votes to end its relationship with the RE and the session approves, or the RE is erased from the rolls after a period of one year, or the RE retires. It seems to me the reason for establishing a process is for it to be followed not for a session to create a parallel process where an officer is required to demit when the clock runs out.

If they really wanted to make the rotational system an option, perhaps they should have added language like they did with trustees (25-6) or assistants to the diaconate (9-7).

 

[Edward]

If they really wanted to make the rotational system an option, perhaps they should have added language like they did with trustees (25-6) or assistants to the diaconate (9-7).

Or incorporated the RPC,ES language quoted above following the joining and receiving.

 

[SRoper]

Rich, according to the received wisdom, an officer who has rotated off has dissolved their official relationship with the church. That's why they can't vote at session meetings during their sabbatical. They therefore need to be elected again according to 24-8, just like those who have asked to be relieved of their duties.

 

[Bryce]

It’s an overstatement to say an officer who has rotated off a session has dissolved his official relationship with the church (or really the session unless he demits or is deposed from office (obviously he would still be a communing member of the church, but I know we are talking about the office of elder). It’s true he would not be a member of the Session, but he would be expected to perform the duties of office such as visiting the sick, comforting the afflicted, etc. The office of elder is perpetual. Just like other people who are not a member of the Session cannot vote, neither can an elder not currently on the Session vote. That's basically a Robert's Rules issue (you can't vote in an deliberative assembly unless you are a member).

At least that's my take on things.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, according to the received wisdom, an officer who has rotated off has dissolved their official relationship with the church. That's why they can't vote at session meetings during their sabbatical. They therefore need to be elected again according to 24-8, just like those who have asked to be relieved of their duties.

Scott,

You are confusing Sabbatical or other forms of release from active status with dissolution of an official relationship. It is left to Sessions to decide what kind of process they will use. One of the things I don't think you realize about the PCA is that not everyone wants a manual that tells them everything they can and cannot do but want some room for discretion. Lawyers may like precision in the law and lament when the law doesn't prescribe how a person has to wipe their posterior but not so with PCA elders. If you doubt that then I would suggest you attend an Overtures committee meeting. You keep talking about the BCO as if its intent is to lock things down and keep people from doing certain nefarious things or things that some people didn't intend.

24-7 Strictly governs cases where an Officer resigns from active service and dissolves the relationship with that particular Church. It also governs a case where the Church can decide to dissolve that relationship without censure. In either case, the office is retained but the relationship with that particular Church is dissolved. 24-7 has nothing to do with a Sabbatical.

24-8 Governs cases where an officer has been released from official relation (for any reason) and is re-elected. This is not Sabbatical because an official relation still exists. It is not one of active service bu the relationship has not been dissolved any more than it is dissolved when a TE is on Sabbatical.

My point is confirmed by 24-9. If, as you say, a person not currently on active service, has dissolved their relationship with the Church, then how is it that 24-9 envisions as one year period of non-active service beyond which an officer's relationship is dissolved? If his relationship is dissolved on Sabbatical then how can it be dissolved again at the end of one year? You are conflating Sabbatical (i.e. non-active service) with dissolution of the relationship.

24-10 governs emeritus status and now envisions a permanent release from active status where the relationship is not dissolved. How do we know this? Because he's released from regular duties but may still perform other duties (including higher court duties). He just can't vote at session meetings. This is not because his relationship has been dissolved but because he is not in an active status.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It’s an overstatement to say an officer who has rotated off a session has dissolved his official relationship with the church (or really the session unless he demits or is deposed from office (obviously he would still be a communing member of the church, but I know we are talking about the office of elder). It’s true he would not be a member of the Session, but he would be expected to perform the duties of office such as visiting the sick, comforting the afflicted, etc. The office of elder is perpetual. Just like other people who are not a member of the Session cannot vote, neither can an elder not currently on the Session vote. That's basically a Robert's Rules issue (you can't vote in an deliberative assembly unless you are a member).

At least that's my take on things.

He is a member of the Session. He's just temporarily released from regular duties.

 

[SRoper]

Bryce, I am not saying he has given up his office (which is perpetual), only that his relationship as an RE with that particular church is dissolved. That's why he must be elected and installed again. Certainly he can be called upon to perform certain duties, but that is the same as an RE who has moved to a new church or has retired. Dissolution of the relationship does not imply censure.

Rich, I think we are talking about two different situations. You are talking about a session that has permanent REs that take a year off from their normal duties from time to time. These sabbaticals may even be done on a fixed schedule. In that case, yes, they are still members of the session. The OP and I are talking about a rotational system where the REs are put up for reelection on a regular basis. The OP is talking about a specific implementation of this system that has a four year cycle--three years on and one year off. In any case, the official relationship is dissolved so that they can be put up for election again. That's why Roy Taylor can say that 24-8 covers the case of the reelection of elders in a rotational system.

My concern is not the specificity of the BCO as you suggest, only its accuracy. If the BCO is specific in outlining how the relationship between an elder and the session is to be dissolved, but those who adopted it wanted to cover additional cases that aren't stated, either include those cases or make it less specific. I don't care which.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK Scott. Thanks for clarifying. I was speaking of Sabbatical. It's funny how you can live within a system for a long time and not notice something. I'll be honest that I hadn't really studied this in detail and appreciate the discussion.

24-8 makes perfect sense if the relationship is dissolved. What's missing is any paragraph that speaks about what we might call a "common consent" dissolution. In other words, 24-7 outlines a process by which a man may have his relationship dissolved with a particular Church for reasons he specifies or when the Church simply decides it is time to dissolve that relationship but it doesn't really speak to a situation where the Session has decided to have a system whereby a man serves for X years, takes a year off, and then has to be voted back in again.

My concern is not the specificity of the BCO as you suggest, only its accuracy. If the BCO is specific in outlining how the relationship between an elder and the session is to be dissolved, but those who adopted it wanted to cover additional cases that aren't stated, either include those cases or make it less specific. I don't care which.

I think I agree with you. What's interesting is reading that, apparently, the GA has repeatedly stated that the BCO was written to specifically neither promote nor prohibit a rotational system but it gives no instructions on how to dissolve a relationship, without censure, except in 24-7. What's also interesting is that the Church has to be involved in the dissolution of relationship in 24-7 but, in a rotational system, the Session can simply decide (without congregational support) that it will automatically dissolve officer relationships on some sort of basis.

The other sticky thing about this, in my mind, is knowing of Churches that have rotational systems where the Elder has to be re-elected to his office to continue after the end of his year. In one case that elder still performs visitations but, if his relationship as and elder in that Church is dissolved he cannot even perform duties as an elder in that Church.

Here's one scenario that I can think of for a rotational system that could work. If the Church decides to insist upon a Sabbatical at the end of every X years then the Church can decide to either re-affirm the man's continued call or vote to dissolve the relationship. In this case, the dissolution does not occur automatically but has to be voted on per 24-7.

I guess this whole thing proves my point about the PCA being pretty comfortable with some ambiguity and "messiness". I do wonder if there are very many cases where Officers have looked at the "letter of the law" and appealed the fact that their relationship with a Church has been dissolved but not according to any process found in the BCO.

 

[fredtgreco]

It is my opinion (in my capacity as a polity instructor and not as the Chairman of the SJC ) that the issue here is the intentional vagueness of the BCO. At the founding of the PCA, there were two mechanisms for dealing with ruling elders on a Session. One mechanism was to have a Session composed of ruling elders who continually served until death or transfer from the church. Another mechanism was to have ruling elders serve a term of a specific length (e.g. three years) and then be off the Session, otherwise known as a "rotating session." Such elders are still elders, and not "inactive" as some name them; they are technically "uninstalled." Basically, the mechanisms for such rotating sessions are up to the local church and its bylaws. They may be required to be re-elected to office when rotating back on, or the bylaws could specify that a congregational election is not required. They may require re-nomination even; or not. There is not explicit BCO provision.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

O Polity Wonk (and I say that with real affection),

I appreciate you weighing in. I think my concern is that there is language for dissolution in 24-7 and 24-9 that covers dissolution of the relationship. It's hard to see how a rotational system fits the BCO other than people ignoring that there are cases where a Church can decide to have dissolved the relationship at the end of a rotation according to their bylaws. It's all sort of understood to be the case but I can't read out of the BCO that a Church can write bylaws to decide how to dissolve a relationship that doesn't match any of the conditions in the BCO. The language is not vague to me but is confusing if the PCA wanted to give the Session's more flexibility. If anything, it seems like the BCO ties the hands of local Churches. Why even have process for 24-7 since local bylaws could have covered those situations as well? You see what I'm getting at.

 

[fredtgreco]

Rich,

I think that is because in my mind the relationship is not severed by rotating off session. It makes a man uninstalled, not un-eldered.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think that is because in my mind the relationship is not severed by rotating off session. It makes a man uninstalled, not un-eldered.

Fred,

What is the difference between being "uninstalled" and what the BCO refers to as:

24-7 "dissolve the official relationship" (resignation)
"dissolve the official relationshp" (vote by congregation)

24-9 "his official relationship shall be dissolved" (after one year of not performing office)

Do you see a difference between "uninstalling" an Officer and "dissolving the official relationship" with the local congregation? In every case cited above, the Officer retains his office but no longer has an official relationship with the Church. That sounds like uninstallation to me.

Furthermore, if "in your mind" uninstalled does not equate to severing the official relationship then why does a man need to be re-installed if he has retained his official (meaning officer) relationship with that Church. How can one retain an officer relationship with a local congregation and still need to be re-"relationshiped" by a vote? I want to make sure you know that above, dissolution of the official relationship does not equate to being "uneldered" as you said but it means that the Officer no longer has that official capacity for that Church and would have to be re-installed (not re-ordained).

24-8 reads: 24-8. When a ruling elder or deacon who has been released from his official relation is again elected to his office in the same or another church, he shall be installed after the above form with the omission of ordination.

Is this not the "re-installed" you talk about for those who have been uninstalled? If not, what governs the re-installation of the officer who has been uninstalled but has not been "released from his official relation"?