Presbyterian Polity

The third and last division of this paper deals with our Presbyterian polity (form of Church government). I introduce it because I believe that much of the situation which we are facing in the Church of Scotland today derives from the apparent failure of many evangelicals in our Church’s ministry over the years to take our Presbyterian polity seriously.

Every office-bearer in our Church at his ordination is .required to say, “Yes” to this question:

“Do you acknowledge the Presbyterian government of this Church to be agreeable to the Word of God; and do you promise to be subject in the Lord to this Presbytery and to the superior Courts of the Church, and to take your due part in the administration of its affairs?”

It is clear from this question that every office–bearer should be aware that he is entering a Presbyterian Church and that this requires his active participation in the conciliar government of the Church—the Kirk Session, the Presbytery, the Synod and the General Assembly. It is not an “optional extra” for those who might feel they have an aptitude for ecclesiastical business: it is mandatory for all. And the evangelical, above all, should recognize and welcome the fact that he has constitutional recourse to this system of Courts within Presbyterianism to seek redress in those matters where he knows the Church has taken a wrong course; and, positively, that it is a means to further reformation in the Church.

But what, in fact, actually tends to happen? It is more than evident from events in our own times and from a study of the history of the evangelicals in the Church of Scotland that evangelicals generally tend to be practical congregationalists. They operate as congregationalists within a Presbyterian setting! This may be for a variety of reasons: for example, the pressures of the parish ministry may seem to preclude a Minister using his time to grapple with issues in the courts of the Church which seem to .have little enough relevance anyway to life in the parish; or, it may be the attitude that God’s call has been to preach the Gospel, not to “play” at ecclesiastical politics. (While the motive may be laudable, we must surely ask, “Where does this man stand in relation to his ordination vows?” And, “Is he really acting consistently in a Presbyterian Church?”).

Unhappily , it is surely true (as the Rev. lain Inglis reminded us in his fine address on the contemporary situation in the Southern Presbyterian Church) that “One of the things we must face up to is that by and large we have a tendency to be practical congregationalists. We have put into practice the words of the children’s chorus, ‘You in your small corner and I in mine.’ We must come to the conclusion that if anything is to be done for our cause it cannot be done in isolation or single-bandedly” (Contemporary Trends in Historic Presbyterianism, p. 25).

John Macleod, in his Scottish Theology repeatedly laments the lack of evangelical unity throughout much of the Church of Scotland’s life. For example, speaking of the evangelicals in the days of the First Secession, he says that although they were in a definite majority in the Assembly, “they were more or less of a mob for lack of organized unity. They lacked coherence of polity” (p. 171). And again, “It was the weakness of the devout evangelicals that they lacked concerted counsel and action” (p. 172). He goes on to say that if the evangelicals had taken seriously their work in the Courts of the Church, their influence would probably have prevented the rise of the “Moderate” party in the Church in the latter half of the 18th century . . . .

If the Orthodox were but to adopt the tactics of their opponents and combine in following a considered polity they could still outvote the broad Church Erastians. If only they had men like Maclaurin and Witherspoon (two leading evangelical statesmen) to lead them and organize them, things would have been different. Their forte, however, was not the sphere of the ecclesiastical schemer and manager. Had they given better consideration to what could have been done in the region of the Church’s public business, the vogue of fashionable Moderatism might never have come to have the place which it got in the life of the Church (p. 192 ibid.).

This verdict, you will agree, has much to say to the situation of evangelicals in the Church of Scotland today.

Let me summarize the points which I wish to make in this way:

1. It is incumbent upon a Reformed minister to be concerned for the maintenance of Presbyterian principles within the Church of Scotland. He bas entered a Presbyterian Church and has undertaken solemn vows to uphold its Constitution. If its doctrines, worship and polity mean so little to him that he feels at liberty to show lack of concern when they are under attack, it is questionable whether the decision to enter the ministry of a Reformed and Presbyterian Church was a carefully considered one in the first place.

2. It is also incumbent upon him to keep up a continual awareness of the main issues which are being brought before the Church through its Committees and its Courts. It is not sufficient to consider that what we do in our own parishes is the “all-important” thing, to the neglect of involvement in the wider issues. For it is not in the local congregations, but in the Courts of the Church that the future structure of the Church (in its doctrine, polity and worship) is being steadily determined. We cannot escape the verdict that it is because of lack of evangelical influence upon decisions that have been taken over the years that the Church is facing a steady erosion of its Reformed heritage today.

3. Since it is impossible to achieve very much in the present situation by oneself, it is surely an obvious duty to seek to act together in the preservation and propagation of the Church’s Reformed heritage. This is particularly so in the light of the fact that those who seek to remove the Church from its historic roots are themselves organized and committed to the achievement of a definite polity. Moreover, this conclusion is strengthened by other branches of the historic Presbyterian Church overseas, where the issues they face are remarkably similar to those in Scotland.

4. There are particular areas of concern which may constitute a priority at the present time.

(a) A Reformed minister will be concerned to communicate to his flock something of the seriousness of the Church’s position, to elicit their prayers and mutual concern.

(b) He will wish to inform his Elders in particular of these issues. He will want to encourage those who are commissioners to the higher Courts to be particularly conversant with leading issues and to be equipped to speak on these issues.

(c) He will be concerned that Divinity Students be conversant with the situation within the Church. In particular, he will take special care to instruct any from his own congregation in the nature of the Church as Reformed in doctrine and Presbyterian in polity.

(d) He will be concerned to write to the Press in the interest of upholding his Church’s true position when this is under attack.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have endeavored to present some of the chief lineaments of what may be considered to be “A Reformed Ministry today” in the Church of Scotland. In the nature of the case, it is impossible to say all: I hope that I have said something, at least, of value.

One thing is clear: that to be “Reformed” involves bringing our theology and our practice into conformity with each other. A Reformed ministry is not simply a preaching ministry. It is a ministry whose whole practice is being brought consistently to the touch-stone of Scripture, subordinate to and under the authority of the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures.

Anthony R. Dallison is a Presbyterian minister at Box 1064, King City, Ontario, Canada LOG JKO. This address was given at a conference in Glasgow, Scotland, September 6, 1975.