The core of the issue addressed by the Eggert concurrence was a disagreement between a temporary session and some of the members of the congregation they were supposed to be serving and shepherding. All church members have a duty to honor their leaders, “to submit to the government and discipline of the Church, and to study her purity and peace.” But this submission does not mean members of a mission congregation must have their consciences bound by the preferences and recommendations of a temporary session comprised of men who are not members of the congregation.

How a church-plant, or “mission church,” (BCO 5-1) transitions to become a “Particular Church” is outlined in BCO 5-9.
Until a “mission church” becomes a particular church, the church plant is usually under the care of a Presbytery by means of one of two temporary arrangements. In the first arrangement, a commission of elders from the Presbytery is appointed to serve as a temporary session (BCO 15-1). In the second arrangement, the “mission church” is erected as a daughter church of another particularized congregation (BCO 5-3b), and the session of that particularized congregation serves as the overseeing session for the mission church.
A mission church is usually served by a “church planter” who is also a member of the commission serving as session (BCO 5-4a). This church planter is called by Presbytery to do the work of ministry organizing the church plant/mission work with the hopes that it will one day be particularized according to the steps outlined in BCO 5-9.
A crucial step toward becoming a particular congregation is the election of a pastor and other  officers.
The election of a Teaching Elder can sometimes be confusing in the case of a mission work. Ordinarily, a church plant already has had a Teaching Elder ministering as a “church planter” among the saints in that congregation for quite some time. In many instances, the members of the church plant will elect that church planter “to be their pastor” (BCO 5-9f), but not always.
If the members of a congregation “choose not to continue the pastoral relationship” with the church planter, they are free to follow the steps of BCO 20 to elect a different pastor in the ordinary manner.
Before the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) last year, there was a curious case that tested the principles of our Presbyterian polity and challenged the integrity of our Constitution regarding the selection of a pastor by a church plant.
A group of men from a mission work met with the session – including the church planter – overseeing the plant to express their desire that candidates other than the initial church planter be considered for the position of pastor.
It was an undeniable difficult situation. The church planter had labored for years, investing much of his time and energies in the church plant. But now a group of men from several households in the congregation went to the elders and expressed a disagreement with the church planter’s philosophy of ministry and vision for the work.
The Session responded to the men’s concerns by doing three things. First, the Session demanded the men repent of any sin whether of omission or commission against the church planter. Second, the Session demanded the men reaffirm their membership vows. And third, the Session reaffirmed its belief that one of their number should be “offered to the congregation as a candidate to serve as its pastor.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Pilate would gladly be free from the blood of the innocent Christ, so not only does he wash his hands, but he says of himself, “I am free.” But a basin of water from the local spring can do nothing to free us from the stain of sin. The only effectual cleansing for a heart racked by sin is the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26). We must personally partake of the Water of Life if we desire to be thoroughly clean and truly free.   

And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.(Luke 23:22).
How often are we backed into a position of choice between taking our stand alone with Christ or succumbing to the jeering crowd making a mockery of our God? At this mock trial of Christ before the people, with Pilate occupying the judge’s seat, he finds himself in a similar predicament. He must either condemn this Jew whom he believes to be innocent or identify himself as an enemy of Caesar. That is precisely the choice put to him by the religious leaders who initially brought Jesus to Pilate, “He that makes himself a king as this man does is an enemy to Caesar, and if you let him go, you are not Caesar’s friend,” (John 19:12).
Pilate is afraid of either choice and would happily spare both Jesus and Barabbas, but that choice is not an option. And so, he chooses to spare himself rather than Jesus. The religious leaders brought Christ to trial out of envy (Matt. 27:18), and Pilate delivers him over to the executioners out of fear. Pronouncing Christ’s innocence and publicly washing his hands of his blood guiltiness only serves to secure his own eternal condemnation, for innocence either absolves the prisoner or condemns the judge. To say, “Take him and crucify him,” and yet, “I find no fault in the man,” (John 19:6; Luke 23:14) turns the point of Pilate’s sword into his own heart and makes the bench the bar.
With his wife’s dream and our Savior’s confession on the one side (Matt. 27:19), and the people’s willful violence and the threat of being identified as Caesar’s enemy on the other, Pilate’s soul is bound for destruction. How soon does he discover that his own conscience is a worse enemy than Caesar? Guilt at once kindles in the heart both shame and horror (Matt. 27:24), and it is so fierce a fire that the basin of water before him cannot put it out. For what can a little water in a bowl or even Jordan’s floods do toward washing those stained hands that had the power to release innocence and yet chose not to (John 19:10)?
Read More
Related Posts:

Bernard of Clairvaux once mentioned an old man who, upon hearing about any professing Christian who fell into sin, would say to himself: “He fell today; I may fall tomorrow.” The apostle Paul commended the same mindset when he wrote, “let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). There is great wisdom in not trusting our own ability to stand. When I was a boy, my father would often say, “The person I trust least of all is myself.” It should shock us to hear a professing Christian say, “I would never do that,” or, “How could anyone do that?” The Scriptures record great sins of unbelievers and believers alike to instruct us in diverse ways. The former teach the unregenerate their need for the new birth. The latter teach the saints their need to distrust themselves. It is one thing to understand the sinful actions of unbelievers in Scripture; it is quite another to understand the sins of the saints.
Consider the following: If an innocent man could choose a piece of fruit over the infinitely valuable God (Gen. 3:6); if the most righteous man of his day could get so drunk that he passed out naked before his sons in his tent (9:21); if the most faithful man of his day could father a child with his wife’s handmaiden (16:1–4) and twice hand his wife over to other men (12:11–15; 20:1–2); if the mother of promise could laugh at the words of the God of promise and then lie to Him about doing so (18:9–15); if “righteous Lot” could greedily pick the most materialistic and sexually depraved place for himself and his family to live (13:8–13), and could hand his daughters over to the sexually perverse men of the city (19:4–8); if the son of promise could show partiality to his oldest son because he liked his hunting skills (25:28), and he, too, could hand his wife over to another man (26:6–11); and if the namesake of Israel could swindle his brother for a birthright (25:29–34), then so could I.
Read More