Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian Elders

[thbslawson]

Greetings everyone. It's been a long time since I've posted, so I'll jump right in.

I'm curious to know your thoughts on a matter related to the qualifications for elder, specifically in regards to church polity in confessional Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist circles. Here it goes:

Let's say you have an elder in a Reformed Baptist (RB) church, a godly, qualified, vetted and ordained man. Providential circumstances lead him to move away. In the city where he's going there's no RB church, thus he attends services and worships with a PCA congregation. After a while, though he maintains his belief in credo baptism, he joins as a member. Though he has many opportunities to serve the body of Christ, he will never be able to be installed as an officer in the church unless his views change. Of course, this scenario could be flipped around to where it was a PCA elder joining a RB church. Either of these situation is likely not uncommon.

Now most confessional Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists I've ever known hold their brothers on the other side of the baptismal font with great respect. In just about every situation I've been in where there was cooperation and interaction taking place, Presbyterian and RB elders viewed each other truly as elders in the Biblical sense.

So that leads me to my question. In the situation above, would you consider the RB elder who has become a member at a PCA church, or the PCA elder who became a member of a RB church, a biblically qualified elder?

This isn't mean to be a discussion about whether or not either denomination should allow those who don't hold to their respective confessional standards to govern, but rather, how those who have been ordained as elders in one denomination or another should be viewed if their ministry context changes.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The issue would not be qualification, but confessional agreement. A confessional church must hold to a confession, and prudence dictates that all of the elders should fully subscribe to this confession. To do otherwise would only serve to bring division and lack of direction to the leadership.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Let's begin not with churches of two different confessions, but two Presbyterian churches.

A man was an elder at church #1, he leaves; and now he's a member at church #2. He's just a member now. I don't mean to put the man down, belittle his service, or lower the high calling of church membership. He is not a serving elder, and the members who surround him do not owe him "obedience in the Lord."

Is he still an elder, in some sense? If called to serve as an elder again, this time by the second congregation, he would not typically be ordained again; he would be installed. Comparatively, Presbyterian congregations that use term-eldership also reinstall any elder that is reelected in their own house, with or without a gap in service. Think: presidential inauguration; second time up, take the oath again.

Returning to the OP's supposition. Someone without full conviction of some church's official confession is yet allowed to be a member there. As I read the question, the uncertainty lies in whether or not to consider the man an "elder" or not. This seems to me to be a subjective judgment.

On the one hand, the man has been ordained to the office at one time; we may presume he has not been divested from his office. His ordination is valid in the church that ordained him until he be divested of it. What should other churches think of him? What do you think of the deputy from the next county?

Absent any connectional-church relation between two churches, there's no formal way to acknowledge the mark of respect given him by his previous church. Should they informally regard him as "Elder so-and-so?" That is the subjective judgment. I don't know if there's a "right" answer. We cannot base our present evaluation solely on past respects given by others. He is not a elder in his current church-context.

I personally don't think the man himself should be frequently drawing attention to his "status." If someone was constantly mentioning the fact in ordinary conversation, it might seem he was trying to leverage his "title" to add some authority to his words. "You should listen to my opinion." That's like a seminarian trying to get traction because of his education.

Show me you are a godly and wise man, and I will not be surprised to learn that some church in the past made you a leader.

 

[Edward]

So that leads me to my question. In the situation above, would you consider the RB elder who has become a member at a PCA church, or the PCA elder who became a member of a RB church, a biblically qualified elder?

No. The 'sound doctrine' requirement would disqualify him (Titus 1:9). Someone that doesn't have a sound understanding of the sacraments, as subscribed to by that body, is not qualified to be an ordained elder. (Baptists can, I suppose, substitute 'ordinance' for 'sacrament', but the result really should be the same.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There are men that I've known who were ordained as PCA RE's whom I know, today, are not Biblically qualified to be elders. I know of men who were ordained as PCA Elders that ought not have been ordained because they were not qualified.

That said, given the general nature of the question, I consider Reformed Baptist elders to be ordained men. They can meet the Biblical qualifications for the office of elder while still not being eligible for installation at a PCA Church. When we receive men from Baptist denominations who become fully Reformed in the views we install them because we recognize they have been ordained.

 

[MW]

I can't offer comment in terms of the particular denomination in the scenario, but as a matter of historic presbyterian principle no person could be considered as an elder of a congregation who has not been called to it by the congregation in which he would exercise his office.

Doctrinally, how does an antipaedobaptist on principle exercise oversight of a flock he does not consider to be baptised in most cases? He would be forced to repeatedly act against his conscience in overseeing a "mixed congregation" when he is committed to a "regenerate church membership." Would an overseer who could act so blatantly against the dictates of conscience be desirable? The first qualification of a steward is to be found faithful.

 

[Herald]

There is always the informal application of the office that is not dependent on ordination or confessional subscription. By that I mean that an ordained elder in one denomination will possess the wisdom and experience of that office even if providence leads them to a local church in which they have doctrinal differences. They may not be able to officially serve as an elder, but their value to the body should not be underestimated. There may still be plenty of opportunity for such a man to exercise his pastoral gifts. He may be a gifted counselor or confidant. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to teach other than in the pulpit. As an ordained Reformed Baptist elder who has recently relocated, I'm facing this situation right now. Most of the Baptist churches in my area are synergistic, or their claim to be monergistic is so diluted as to make them functionally synergistic. While I'm in agreement with these churches on baptism, my soteriological differences would be an impediment from my ever serving as an elder in these churches. Ditto with the Presbyterian churches in the area. The best I could hope for is to use the gifts God has graciously given me to serve the body. If I never serve in the official capacity as an elder again, that's OK. My ability to serve is not dependent on holding office.