The Presbytery's Role in Shepherding Pastors by Peter J. Wallace A recent incident in the Presbytery of the Midwest has awakened a dormant idea from its slumbers. I am increasingly convinced that presbyteries are not living up to what a presbytery should be. Business and formal discipline receive plenty of attention, but is that all that presbyteries are supposed to do? Someone can easily fall between the cracks because the pastoral side of presbytery is wholly optional. If someone takes the initiative, he can develop a whole network of friendships and mentors, but without such initiative, he could spend his entire ministry in virtual isolation. Hence, when one member of our presbytery sought spiritual counsel and wisdom, the presbytery offered him a committee which met a couple times, proclaimed him orthodox, and dissolved. A couple of its members tried sporadically to continue talking with him, but the presbytery forgot that he needed help. So he turned to someone who had a more organic understanding of the pastoral relationship--and he now is seeking to leave the OPC and join the Antiochene Orthodox Church. How can we create a more pastoral understanding of the presbytery? It would certainly involve changing the way we think about presbyteries. It might even involve some structural changes. We currently have a belief, as a relic of the past, that ministers are members of presbytery rather than members of a congregation. I call it a relic of the past because it appears to have virtually no substance as a belief, and no obvious effects in our corporate life. Beyond our yearly visitation (which is not given to all members of presbytery--only to each congregation), where is the presbytery's pastoral oversight being exercised? In the local congregation, we not only worship together, but we have regular opportunities for fellowship, study, prayer, and spiritual development--not to mention systematic visitation and pastoral counseling. But where is that available (except upon special request) for pastors? We are beginning to develop better means for dealing with crises AFTER they arise, but how can we take our understanding of the organic nature of the body of Christ to PREVENT at least some such crises? The basic question comes down to this: do we as pastors need one another? Heinrich Bullinger once sent to John Calvin a book he had written with an apologetic comment, suggesting that Calvin really didn't need to read it since he already knew everything in it. Calvin responded with a passionate rejection of Bullinger's attitude. Calvin insisted that he needed Bullinger to keep his own thinking in line. To paraphrase Calvin's letter: "by myself I'm a heretic." Do we really believe that we need one another? If we did, we might act like it. The biblical case for this approach may be found in the nature of the apostolic church. The only possible place where one pastor is found ministering by himself is Titus (even Timothy is ministering with Aquilla and Priscilla--II Tim. 4:19). Even Paul operated within a team of ministers--often surrounding himself with younger ministers and interns. The churches in Jerusalem and Antioch were pastored by a presbytery of sorts (Acts 11:30; 13:1-3; 15:2, 6, 22). The Ephesian presbytery that met with Paul (Acts 20) were commanded as a body to watch out for the flock. If our presbyteries are so large (geographically or numerically) that it interferes with this responsiblity, then it is incumbant upon us to do something about it. Modern presbyteries bear little resemblence to the biblical model. This divergence is of fairly recent origin. Scottish and early American presbyteries felt no compunction about calling ministers to move from one church to another without a call from the congregation, though the congregation was allowed to accept or reject the minister. They even held the Lord's Supper together with all the local churches as a display of the visible unity of the regional church. Into the nineteenth century the Presbyterian churches in New York City were pastored by a team of ministers. I offer one particular example as a model. The "presbytery" of Geneva met regularly for joint study and discussion of various problems in the churches. Not merely for conducting business, but for pastoral oversight, for mutual correction, and counsel in how to handle difficult situations. Philip Edgecombe Hughes's edition of the Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva contains some insights into the way the "presbytery" functioned there. The following quotation refers to "doctrine," but the topics under discussion were broader than mere systematics: "Firstly, in order that all ministers may maintain purity and agreement of doctrine among themselves, it will be expedient for them to meet together on one particular day of the week for discussion of the Scriptures, and no one shall be exempt from this without legitimate excuse....As for those who preach in the villages under the jurisdiction of the Seignury, our ministers of the city should exhort them to attend whenever they are able. In the event of absence for a whole month, however, this is to be treated as gross negligence, except in the case of illness or some other legitimate hindrance." (p37-38) [After discussing the importance of discipline among the clergy...] "For the effective maintenance of this discipline, every three months the ministers are to give special attention to see whether there is anything open to criticism among themselves, so that, as is right, it may be remedied." (p40) Naturally this is referring to a single city (although it included the regional church), but it consisted of at least five pastors, plus the several village pastors surrounding Geneva. Within a few decades the number of pastors had increased significantly. Numerical size is not the issue. The regularity of oversight and discipline one for another is. If you study the better monastic literature (the Rule of St. Benedict, Gregory the Great's "Pastoral Rule" [also translated as "Pastoral Care"], Bernard of Clairvaux, and the like), you will notice some real similarities. The Reformers did not reject the idea of the common life--they rejected the monastic vows and the idea of a "higher calling." If you compare Calvin's treatment of denying oneself with Gregory, you will find that Calvin took the monastic ideal, purged it of various unbiblical accretions, and insisted that it belonged to all Christians. Hence the ministers were expected to submit to one another on a regular basis. Obviously many presbyteries are geographically too large for the whole body to get together. Many presbyteries are numerically too large for a meeting of the whole to provide the sort of pastoral oversight that I envision. But as helpful as geographical proximity is, it does not guarantee pastoral care, and small numbers mean nothing without a passionate commitment to shepherding one another. If the divsion of the presbytery is neither desirable nor practicable, I would suggest that the presbytery set up regional meetings. Each region could have regular monthly (at least) meetings for the discussion of issues, pastoral counsel, and godly fellowship. Each region should consist of roughly five to ten ministers, plus ruling elders. For example, in my presbytery, according to my count, there are thirteen ministers in Illinois, five in Iowa (though I think two are in Dakotas presbytery), twenty-two in Michigan, one in Ontario, and twelve in Wisconsin. Perhaps the regions could be Western Wisconsin/Iowa, Eastern Wisconsin, Illinois, Western Michigan, and Eastern Michigan. Required meetings could be held every month except those months with business meetings. Perhaps at least half the meetings (if not more often), could be devoted to a specific topic. One member of the group would make a brief presentation, with discussion to follow. The topics would vary with the interests and needs of the group (ranging from "how do I handle this one" sorts of things, to relevant theological questions). Presentations could be exegetical and/or historical perspectives on issues to provoke discussion. Obviously each member of the group would not be expected to prepare one of these talks more than once a year. Other meetings could be devoted to simply talking through issues that have come up in the various congregations, encouraging and admonishing each other. Regions could combine and hold joint sessions involving special speakers, topics of joint interest, etc. In doing this, we would be taking some concrete steps to assert that ministers are TRULY members of presbytery, and can find counsel, wisdom, and fellowship from one another. The Reformation did not reject the authority which bishops exercised, rather they affirmed that the presbytery should exercise that authority over one another. Have we become virtual congregationalists by diminishing the pastoral authority of presbytery to occasional visits and discipline? Or will we let parachurch associations like the Whitefield Fraternals (wonderful as they are) take over the rightful calling of the church? These meetings should not be optional. We should not say that pastoral oversight is less important than business and discipline. We all need the lamp of the Word to shine on our ministry--and not merely in our own study, but in the fellowship of the presbytery to which we are subject. If we say that members of the congregation must not forsake the assembling of themselves together, by what logic can we say that ministers are excused from such requirements? Many pastors may object that they are too busy for monthly meetings. But what if the meetings were held on weekday mornings at 9:00 or 10:00? If the regional proposal were followed, few ministers would have to drive more than an hour or two, and since they would not be "business" meetings, the presence of a full complement of ruling elders would not be required (though ruling elders would be welcome). Even for the men from furthest away, they could still be home by early afternoon. Those men who are truly isolated could participate in an electronic meeting. There are other ways of accomplishing the same ends. Requiring younger ministers to establish a mentoring relationship with an older minister is one; requesting older (perhaps retired) ministers to take on a counseling ministry for other pastors is another. The reason I prefer the idea of a monthly meeting is because I am a presbyterian. I believe that what the Catholics and Episcopalians expect from the bishop is what the Scriptures expect of the presbytery. Until Presbyterians rediscover the pastoral function of presbytery we will be nothing more than quasi-congregationalists. Until we reassert the God-given authority of the presbytery as the locus of pastoral care for pastors, we will continue to promote an individualistic conception of ministry and therefore of the Christian life. Our congregations will take what they see in us and imitate it. If we reflect the communion of saints in the presbytery, perhaps it will take better root in our congregations as well.