Bringing together, then, the “permanency of the gifts which qualify for the office,” and the church’s judgment “that Christ is calling this man to the exercise of the office,” Murray considers it inconsistent for the elder to be installed for a specified period (despite the PCA’s “perpetual” ordination, this does not preclude churches from specifying terms for ruling elders’ service on the session).

I know a family with two cats of their own plus a third cat that holds a sort of quasi-official status. Number THREE gets fed morning and evening at the same time as ONE and TWO, but THREE doesn’t get the whipping cream treat of her fellow felines. ONE and TWO spend time outside during the day but come in at night. Alas, THREE is relegated to the outdoors except when the householder allows her into his office for a spell. THREE receives affection like ONE and TWO, but she lives somewhere between the status of a family cat and a neighborhood cat. The family has, in a sense, 2.5 cats.

I love the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), including our biblical form of government: rule by the plurality of elders. I recall, decades ago, the words of a long-serving ruling elder who told me: “The beauty of our church’s form of government is that a layman may rise to the highest office in the church, an elder.” His words reflected the PCA’s position, found in the Book of Church Order (BCO), of having only two offices in the church – elder and deacon.

Here I’ll suggest two specific areas in which the PCA – while holding to two offices, not three – in practice, encourages what has been called, half-seriously, a 2.5-office system.

First, ruling elder terms on the session.

An article by John Murray will be helpful, originally published in The Presbyterian Guardian (Feb. 15, 1955). An Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) teaching elder, Murray helped to revise the Church’s Form of Government. In “Arguments Against Term Eldership,” Murray states “the idea of being ordained to office for a limited period of time is without warrant from the New Testament, and is contrary to the implications of election and ordination.” (Murray makes clear there are cases in which a ruling elder may be removed from office.) He notes, “. . . there is no overt warrant from the New Testament for what we may call ‘term eldership.’ There is no intimation . . . that the elders in question were ordained to the office for a specified time. This is a consideration that must not lightly be dismissed.”

Murray acknowledges that while “the New Testament does not expressly legislate against term eldership, there are considerations which fall into the category of good and necessary inference, and which militate against the propriety of this practice.” He notes the qualifications for eldership are of a “high order,” from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The elder’s gifts “are not of a temporary character,” the implication, therefore, “. . . that he permanently possesses them.” When a church elects a man to the office of elder, she must be convinced that he possesses the requisite qualifications and gifts. Here Murray adds an essential consideration: in electing an elder the church also judges “to the effect that, by reason of the gifts with which he is endowed, Christ the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit who dwells in the church, are calling this man to the exercise of this sacred office. . . . The Church is acting ministerially in doing the will of Christ” (see Acts 20:28). Bringing together, then, the “permanency of the gifts which qualify for the office,” and the church’s judgment “that Christ is calling this man to the exercise of the office,” Murray considers it inconsistent for the elder to be installed for a specified period (despite the PCA’s “perpetual” ordination, this does not preclude churches from specifying terms for ruling elders’ service on the session).

Murray’s third line of argument “pertains to the unity of the office of ruling,” in which respect the ruling and teaching elder “are on complete parity.” He perceives that term eldership for ruling elders “draws a line of cleavage between ruling elders and teaching elders in respect to that one function” common to both. Murray refutes the argument that because teaching elders are called to full-time ministry but ruling elders to part-time, this provides a basis for ruling elder terms. Full- or part-time service has “absolutely nothing to do with the question of the permanency of the call to office,” he says. Murray concludes with seven practical considerations against term eldership.” The first two concern the “notion of trial periods,” in the minds of congregants, as well in the minds of elders themselves. Such notions have no place concerning eldership.

Second, infrequent or denied ruling elder leadership in corporate worship.

In the PCA, some if not many churches typically allow ruling elders a speaking part in the service: reading a passage of Scripture or leading the affirmation of faith, or offering one of the several prayers. But for those churches that do not, why is that the case? Certainly, there are a number of ruling elders (perhaps most, given some training?) possessing the requisite qualities for an effective reading or prayer (which should be assigned and prepared for). (An effective reading, by the way, is more challenging than one might assume; even more so, a prayer.) Shouldn’t we naturally expect that a congregation will be encouraged in their own Christian walk as they see and hear one of their own shepherds – a “non-professional” – leading in worship before the living God? Might not such examples serve to nudge some members to improve their own giving of attention to the Word and prayer?

Further, considering the character traits and gifts required of the ruling elder, and given that the PCA upholds the position of all elders sharing the same office, on what basis should any church view her elders as unequipped for leading some portions of corporate worship? Again, preparation for such a role is assumed. Every part of corporate worship is a holy act, and every participatory role a sacred undertaking. (It could be instructive that in a sister denomination, the OPC, although holding a three-office position – teaching elder, ruling elder, and deacon – ruling elder participation in corporate worship may be as widely practiced as in the two-office PCA.)

In conclusion, please don’t misinterpret my intent. These are not sin issues. Rather, may this essay encourage discussions within PCA churches and courts that may lead to a closer aligning of our practices with our excellent doctrine and polity. And, all to the glory of God! (I’ll close now, as cat THREE managed to wander inside the house uninvited.) That said, should greater consistency be achieved respecting these and possibly other ruling elder matters one day, truly it will be . . . the cat’s meow.

A Presbyterian Elder