Ruling Elders and lay ministry

[augmentedfourth]

For context, I'm a member of the PCA, so I'm very interested in how this question would be answered by our understanding of ecclesiology specifically. But I'm interested in other perspectives as well.

Clearly, all members of a local church who aren't ordained are laypeople, and any ministry in which they engage is by necessity "lay ministry." Just as clearly, no pastor/teaching elder is a lay-person and is certainly clergy.

But what about ruling elders? Thomas Witherow, in "The Apostolic Church: Which Is It?," contends that ruling elders must not be termed laymen[1]:

No elder of any kind is a layman, but an ecclesiastical office-bearer, ordained with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, and appointed to the oversight of the flock and to the discharge of spiritual duties.

And a bit later:

There are in our church courts no lay representatives and no lay elders—a name which ignorance invented and malevolence has preserved, in order to bring the office into contempt and disrepute.

In Witherow's context (late 19th century Ireland) the concept of "lay elders" was used by Episcopalians to cast aspersions on the idea of a church leader that's not serving the church as a full-time vocation. Is the term "lay elder" appropriate in a modern context, or does that disparage the office? Also, in the PCA, ruling elders are ordained by the local session and not the Presbytery, so that might make a difference.

If ruling elders are not laymen, does that make them clergy, or are they in neither category? Do the ruling elders engage in "lay ministry" because they're not full-time professional/vocational elders? (Witherow suggests that even the Apostle Paul was engaged in secular pursuits, which would have made him a "lay elder" or engaged in "lay ministry" by this definition-- Acts 18:3, 1 Thess. 2:9.)

More from Witherow:

The disparity existing among teaching and ruling elders among Presbyterians, instead of being defended, is very much to be lamented, and ought as much as possible to be removed. This is to be done, however, not by lowering the teaching elder, but by elevating the ruling elder[.]

The PCA BCO doesn't mention laypeople or laity or even "unordained" (except for the text of an overture that isn't yet approved). So I'm curious what the general approach might be. I would suggest that laypeople are only those who aren't ordained, so no elder or deacon fits in that category. But maybe the clergy is only teaching elders and all other church members are laypeople (regardless of ordination)? Or maybe ordained officers might not be laymen but their avocational work for the church is still "lay ministry"?

I know, not a very specific question and answers are likely to be just as muddy. But I'm curious to hear confessional thoughts on the matter.

---

[1] Witherow, Thomas. I Will Build My Church: Selected Writings on Church Polity, Baptism, and the Sabbath (Library of Presbyterian Classics Book 1) (p. 175-176). Westminster Seminary Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

You may find the resources linked on this webpage very useful in your research:

Ruling Elders

“And God hath set some in the church… governments…” 1 Cor. 12:28 “…he that ruleth, [let it be] with diligence…” Rom. 12:8 “Let the elders that…

reformedbooksonline.com

 

[Edward]

The PCA is technically a two office church (but to some extent functions as a three office church). So there is a strong case for them not being lay.

And, don't forget, the diaconate is an ordained office as well.

 

[jfhutson]

The PCA is technically a two office church (but to some extent functions as a three office church). So there is a strong case for them not being lay.

Wouldn’t ruling elders not be lay under either system since they are ordained ecclesiastical officers?

I think to some extent this is a semantic disagreement though. Most people equate the word lay with volunteer or unprofessional, and clergy with professional pastors. But if clergy means ordained ecclesiastical officers and lay means the opposite, then ruling elders are certainly clergy, as well as deacons.

 

[jfhutson]

No elder of any kind is a layman, but an ecclesiastical office-bearer, ordained with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery

In the PCA at least I believe the session ordains ruling elders (someone correct me if I’m wrong). Do other churches have the presbytery do it, and does anyone know the history of that? I don’t think it affects the lay/clergy distinction but it’s an interesting side note.

 

[augmentedfourth]

Most people equate the word lay with volunteer or unprofessional, and clergy with professional pastors. But if clergy means ordained ecclesiastical officers and lay means the opposite, then ruling elders are certainly clergy, as well as deacons.

This is exactly the issue at hand. However, I'm concerned more about official ecclesial distinctions than the understanding of "most people" (or an individual's perception of what "most people" think).

In the PCA at least I believe the session ordains ruling elders (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

This is true, and I pointed it out in the initial post. It may be true, however, that this is a power delegated to the session by the presbytery (as suggested on the resource page linked above by @Alexander Suarez).

My own individual assumption is that ruling elders and deacons aren't laymen, but I have a hard time considering them to be clergy. Is there another category (other than merely "ruling elders and deacons", who are grouped together in BCO 25 as being ordained in similar fashion)? In any case, I think I'd like to peruse the linked resources and not rely on one book from over a century ago on another continent. But I'm still curious if there are other thoughts or other resources that might be helpful here.

 

[jfhutson]

However, I'm concerned more about official ecclesial distinctions

As far as I know the PCA does not have such a lay/clergy distinction. You mentioned it being in that overture, but I don’t see it. Maybe I missed it.

 

[augmentedfourth]

I didn't say that overture made the distinction, just that it was the only place the word "unordained" would be used in the BCO if it is passed.

If there's no official PCA distinction (which I wasn't really expecting to find), I'm curious how the terms have been used by members & officers within the denomination, throughout NAPARC, and through history.

 

[Edward]

Pick your definition of layman:

Google: a nonordained male member of a Church.
Merriam Webster: a person who is not a member of the clergy
OED: A man who is not a cleric; on of the laity
Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed: One of the people, and not one of the clergy; one who is not part of the legal profession
Ballentine's Law Dictionary 3rd ed: (laymen) Persons not of the profession, whether it be not of the clergy, of lawyers, of actors or physicians, but particularly that of the clergy

Under Laity in Black's - They are divided into three states (1) Civil, including all the nation, except the clergy, the army, and the navy and subdivided, into the nobility and the commonality; (2) military; (3) maritime, consisting of the navy - Wharton.

 

[jfhutson]

For what it’s worth, Calvin has a section in the Institutes that he’d prefer not to use “clergy” at all since the etymology has to do with the Levites having no inheritance, and so all Christians should be clergy under the priesthood of all believers.

 

[jfhutson]

I found a section in Samuel Miller's book on the Ruling Elder starting on page 169. He concludes:

Now, if this historical deduction of the titles clergy and laity be correct, it is plain that, according to early and general usage, ruling elders ought not to be styled laymen, or lay elders. They are as really in office — they as really bear an office of divine appointment— an office of a high and spiritual nature, and an office, the functions of which cannot be rightfully performed but by those who are regularly set apart to it — as any other officer of the Christian church. They are as really a portion of God's lot — as really set over the laity or body of the people, as the most distinguished and venerated minister of Jesus can be. Whether, therefore, we refer to early usage or to strict philological import, ruling elders are as truly entitled to the name of clergy, in the only legitimate sense of that term — that is, they are as truly ecclesiastical officers as those who "labour in the word and doctrine."

An essay on the warrant, nature, and duties of the office of the ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church : Miller, Samuel, 1769-1850 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Includes bibliographical references

archive.org