Transferring Church Membership is not a Violation of the Presbyterian Church in America’s Membership Vows: A Gentle Rejoinder to an Earnest Man
Believers make their vows to the Church universal, and while they should be supportive of their local churches and not leave one lightly, nonetheless someone who transfers his membership to another local branch of the one Church is not guilty of infidelity to his PCA membership vows. Neither is the promise to submit to the church’s government a blanket promise of unyielding submission.
In a recent article at PCA Polity, Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) pastor Zachary Garris discusses the membership vows that all members of PCA churches take when they are accepted as members. His aim is to encourage a proper understanding of their solemnity, not only for their own sake, but also as part of a larger testimony to the truth in a society which is, alas, awash with insincerity, dishonesty, and self-seeking. His basic points are indisputable: a vow is a most solemn obligation, and there is a tendency in both church and society to neglect this somber truth. We must somewhat differ as to the particulars of his conception of the nature of the PCA membership vows, however.
Garris says that the fourth and fifth vows[1] mean that members promise to “yield to the Session when it makes a decision that the member disagrees with (‘support the Church’ and ‘study its purity and peace’),” and that “transferring membership to another church for insufficient reasons is also a violation of these vows,” in addition to such clear violations as “promoting false teaching or factions in the church.” That entails obvious difficulties: who is to say what qualify as “insufficient reasons” for a membership transfer? One’s own conscience? The session of the church one wishes to leave? That of the one to which they are transferring? Acceptable reasons for leaving a local church are not enumerated in any authoritative document that the PCA recognizes, and it is likely that people differ widely in what they consider insufficient reasons to leave a church.
There is also the practical difficulty that a church that receives a member from another church ipso facto regards the member’s reasons for transfer as good, or at the least, as being a matter about which it has no business inquiring; the same might be said of a church that has been left when it grants a letter of transfer. One wonders what would happen if a church attempted to act upon Garris’ conception here and refused transfer to a member because it deemed his reasons were insufficient. Any attempt to implement an arrangement by which only sufficient reasons were regarded as faithful to one’s sworn responsibilities of membership would require a member to state his reasons for wishing to leave to the sessions of both the church being left and that one being entered, as well as for them to jointly assess whether the reasons were deemed valid.
This would entail great difficulties. What if the churches disagreed about their sufficiency? What if the member had a good reason for leaving which good manners or prudence caused him to conceal? There are many people who have left churches because they thought the leadership incompetent or because they felt they had been wronged by their failure of leadership in a crisis. Are we quite sure we wish to expose people to the unpleasantry of having to explain and possibly justify why they are leaving to both the church being left and that being entered? That seems like a fine way to empty our pews, not least because it would entail needless intrusiveness and subjection of the individual believer’s freedom of conscience to the church as institution, something we elsewhere deprecate explicitly – the first preliminary principle of our constitution says that “God alone is Lord of the conscience” and “the rights of private judgment in all matters that respect religion are universal and inalienable.” Precisely which local church to attend would seem to be a “right of private judgment” of utmost importance.
To be clear, Garris does not suggest that churches should begin refusing membership transfers or interrogating members that desire them. But ideas have consequences, and it is not unreasonable or unfair to ponder the implications of an idea, even one that is made somewhat in passing. And judging by the minutes of the General Assembly and the Standing Judicial Commission, PCA churches don’t need any further ideas about how to drive sheep from our fold by heavy-handed notions of how to exercise church authority.
Of greater concern is that the notion that one commits oathbreaking by leaving a church for insufficient reasons seems to proceed on a misunderstanding of the church as it is conceived in the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO). The BCO distinguishes between the Church universal and local churches by means of capitalization: the capitalized “Church” means either the Church universal or the PCA in its entirety, whereas the lower case refers to a local/particular church (e.g., BCO 1- 5; 2-3; 8-3; 11-4; and 13-9). BCO 57-5, where the membership vows are prescribed, uses the capitalized “Church,” meaning it does not refer to a local church but to the Church universal or the PCA as a whole. Exactly which is not clear from the text itself, but as will be seen below, this seems to be a reference to the visible Church universal of which the PCA is a part.
With this subtle but consequential stylistic variation Garris’ point about insufficient reasons falls apart. For as each local church is a branch of the one Church – BCO 2-3: “It is according to scriptural example that the Church should be divided into many individual churches” – and as one’s membership vow is to support the capital-c Church, then moving from one local church to another is not a sinful violation of one’s membership vows, but a perfectly legitimate use of one’s liberty that is commensurate with those vows. Indeed, the very concept of being guilty of breaking one’s membership vows by transferring between local churches for insufficient reasons is an impossibility, provided one transfers to a true church, that is, to another manifestation of the Church to which one has sworn support.
This is not, let it be carefully noted, the mere opinion of the insignificant and decidedly-not-an-expert author of the present piece; it is the explicit statement of the PCA’s current Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). In 2020 the SJC handled a case (Case 2019-06), in which a petitioner had been removed from membership without process on the ground that she had made clear that she had “no intention of fulfilling her vows to submit to the authority of the Session” in her response to an arraignment for the charge of “failing to submit to the government and discipline of the church.” Without getting too much into minutiae, the petitioner subsequently began attendance at a local Baptist church, but also appealed to Presbytery that her removal from membership was unconstitutional. The SJC ruled that her complaint was valid, and that the session had erred by “conflating the ‘not guilty’ plea with a statement definitively indicating that the Petitioner had no intention to fulfill her vows.” In addition, they said that:
The Session erred by failing to determine whether the Petitioner could fulfill the duties of membership in another branch of the visible church. BCO 38-4 [removal without process] requires a session to render a judgment on whether the member will fulfill membership obligations in any branch of the Church.
And again, that:
This component of review wisely affords a session the opportunity to evaluate a member’s actions and statements thoroughly, to determine, among other things, whether the member’s actions are applicable only in one local PCA church, or more broadly, to any branch of the Church.
And lastly:
The Session and Presbytery have confirmed that in the time since she made the BCO 40-5 report, the Petitioner has joined another branch of the visible Church, indicating at least some willingness to fulfill membership obligations in that branch. Our churches should conform to the provision of BCO 38-4 and examine whether a member will fulfill membership obligations in another church prior to carrying out the erasure.
In other words, joining another local church, even one in a different, non-Reformed denomination, satisfies the responsibilities of one’s membership vows. (Provided, of course, that the duties of attendance, peace-seeking, etc. are actually performed there.)
The same case leads us to a similar conclusion regarding Garris’ opinion that the fourth membership vow means one must “yield to the Session when it makes a decision that the member disagrees with.” The petitioner above had been accused of “failing to submit to the government and discipline of the church” because she had filed for a divorce that the session believed was without scriptural warrant and which they had counseled her to avoid. She disagreed that the divorce was unjustified. The SJC ruled that her complaint was valid, and in so doing asserted that the petitioner had a right to “consider, but respectfully disagree with, the Session’s conclusion” that she should not divorce her husband, and that such action “would not, in itself, be a violation of membership vow 5 or de facto evidence of ‘failing to submit to the government and discipline of the church.’” It further said:
A member’s responsibility is to seriously and respectfully consider the counsel. But there may be many instances where a Session advises it regards something as sinful, without the member sinning by not following the advice.
This later elaboration dealt with questions of conduct about which believers often differ, but which some believers sometimes elevate to the level of legal duty (the acceptability of alcohol consumption, how to observe the Sabbath, style of dress, etc.), and in it the SJC affirmed that one’s vow to submit to the government of the church is not absolute or unconditional, and that it does not involve a surrender of one’s own rights. And as one retains the right of exercising his conscience in the conduct of his or her own affairs, so also does one retain the right to dissent where it believes a session has sinned in its actions. This is inherent in the vow to study the church’s purity and peace and finds scriptural warrant in the admonition to test all things (Rom. 12:2; 1 Thess. 5:21), and in the example of believers confronting other believers when they do wrong.
Without impugning the bulk of Garris’ article, the above considerations lead us to politely demur from his two suggestions considered here. Believers make their vows to the Church universal, and while they should be supportive of their local churches and not leave one lightly, nonetheless someone who transfers his membership to another local branch of the one Church is not guilty of infidelity to his PCA membership vows. Neither is the promise to submit to the church’s government a blanket promise of unyielding submission (as Garris’ statement arguably seems to imply). Inherent in it is the understanding that one retains those rights of private judgment, conscience, and appeal to higher authority which the PCA so zealously asserts, and that there are occasions where wisdom, practical considerations, or the need to oppose sin will lead one to refuse assent to the actions of a local session, perhaps by leaving the local church in question. Charity commends hoping that Garris would agree with much of what has been written here, but a defense of the rights of PCA members required considering the actual content and probable implications of what he did write, not the presumably more responsible body of his doctrine on this point that did not appear in his recent article.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation.
[1] From Book of Church Order chapter 57, section 5. Vow 4: Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability? Vow 5: Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?
-
Even Calvin Had a Team
For Calvin, the call to be a Christian pastor was a high and holy calling — but it was also a most challenging vocation, not to be lived in isolation. Ministers of the gospel flourished as they experienced communion with Christ through his word, were empowered by the Holy Spirit, and enjoyed the precious gift of godly colleagues in ministry.
ABSTRACT: Many who know John Calvin as a brilliant Reformed theologian do not yet know him as a model of pastoral collegiality and accountability. Under his leadership, ministry in sixteenth-century Geneva often happened in plurality and community. In particular, four regular meetings fostered Calvin’s vision of collegial ministry: the weekly Company of Pastors, Congrégation, and Consistory, and the quarterly Ordinary Censure. Through these institutions, the city’s pastors prayed together, studied together, encouraged and exhorted one another, and labored for the advance of the gospel together. Their model of ministry offers an enduring case study for pastoral practice, especially in a day when many pastors feel discouraged, isolated, and perhaps on the verge of burnout.
In a New York Times article from August 2010, Paul Vitello describes the serious difficulties faced by many Christian ministers in the United States today.
Members of the clergy now suffer from obesity, hypertension and depression at rates higher than most Americans. In the last decade, their use of antidepressants has risen, while their life expectancy has fallen. Many would change jobs if they could. Public health experts . . . caution that there is no simple explanation of why so many members of a profession once associated with rosy-cheeked longevity have become so unhealthy and unhappy.1
During the past decade, researchers have probed various factors contributing to the poor mental and physical health of America’s professional clergy.2 Some factors commonly identified include poor pastor-church alignment, lack of resilience, lack of self-awareness, unresolved conflicts, heavy workloads, unreasonable expectations, financial pressure, and loneliness or isolation. Though no single aspect is usually decisive, the cumulative effect of these tensions and troubles frequently produces high levels of stress that force pastors to question their vocation, or cause them to leave the ministry altogether. Pastoral work often becomes “death by a thousand paper cuts.”3
Thankfully, a variety of helpful resources are now available to support and encourage pastors who are burned out, bummed out, or burdened with congregational ministry.4 One important resource for pastoral health and flourishing that is frequently overlooked in contemporary discussions, however, is the history of the pastoral office — the practices, convictions, and institutions that Christians in the past have adopted to nourish and strengthen gospel ministers. As we shall see, a historical awareness of the pastoral office can provide a broader perspective and a refreshing draught of wisdom as modern-day Christian ministers live out their vocations in ways that are pleasing to God and sustainable for a lifetime of faithful and fruitful ministry. This present essay offers a case study of the model of ministry created by John Calvin in Geneva from 1536–1564. As we’ll see, Calvin recognized the unique challenges faced by faithful gospel ministers and created practices and institutions to promote pastoral collegiality, accountability, and spiritual vitality.5
Proclamation of the WordWhen John Calvin (1509–1564) first arrived in Geneva in the summer of 1536, the city republic had been Protestant for barely two months and faced an uncertain future. As Calvin later recalled, “When I first arrived in this church there was almost nothing. They were preaching and that is all. They were good at seeking out idols and burning them, but there was no Reformation. Everything was in turmoil.”6 Over the next 28 years (with a three-year hiatus from 1538–1541), Calvin emerged as the chief human architect responsible for building a new religious order in Geneva that prioritized the preaching of God’s word, the fourfold ministry (pastor, elder, deacon, professor), church discipline, and intensive pastoral care and visitation. Calvin’s vision for a church reformed in doctrine and practice was articulated in Geneva’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541), in the city’s catechism and liturgy (1542), and in Calvin’s expansive biblical commentaries and sermons. For the Genevan Reformer, the faithful exposition and proclamation of God’s word was one of the marks of a true church, standing at the center of gospel ministry. As he once noted, the word is the “means of our salvation, it is all our life, it is all our riches, it is the seed whereby we are begotten as God’s children; it is the nourishment of our souls.”7
One of the first steps Calvin took upon arriving in Geneva was to restructure parish boundaries in order to give priority to the preaching of the word of God. He and his colleague Guillaume Farel consolidated nearly a dozen Catholic churches and chapels into three parish churches within the city’s walls — St. Pierre, la Madeleine, and St. Gervais — and recruited six or seven Reformed ministers to serve these three urban congregations. Calvin also consolidated Geneva’s countryside parishes and appointed around a dozen pastors to serve these rural churches.
The proclamation of God’s word stood at the center of religious life in Calvin’s Geneva. In the city, preaching services included weekday sermons at 8:00 a.m., early morning sermons at 4:00 a.m. for domestic servants, Sunday sermons at 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., and a catechetical sermon on Sundays at noon for children. By 1561, there were 33 sermons preached within Geneva’s city walls each week. Calvin and his pastoral colleagues shared the preaching load and rotated between the city’s pulpits. “The preacher was not the proprietor of a pulpit or the captain of his congregation: it was Christ who presided over his Church through the Word.”8 Even so, a disproportionate responsibility for preaching fell on Calvin and his more gifted colleagues such as Theodore Beza and Michel Cop, who regularly preached more than 150 sermons per year.
Calvin and Geneva’s ministers prioritized God’s word in other ways as well. The Genevan liturgy, written by Calvin in 1542, was filled with scriptural allusions and rich biblical language. The singing of the Huguenot Psalter was a standard feature of both public and private worship in Geneva. Children were required to attend catechism classes where they learned the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer — a basic primer for Christian faith, conduct, and worship. In 1555, the ministers, along with the church’s elders, also began conducting annual household visitations to ensure that all of Geneva’s residents had a knowledge of basic biblical doctrine as articulated in the catechism and were living in accordance with God’s word. Finally, during the sixteenth century, Geneva became a center for Protestant publishing, with the city’s presses printing no fewer than eighty editions of the French Bible as well as translations of the Scripture into English, Italian, Spanish, and Latin. For Calvin and Geneva’s ministers, reading, hearing, and obeying God’s word was essential for the life of the church and the spiritual health of God’s people.
Pastoral Collegiality and AccountabilityIn addition to prioritizing the proclamation of God’s word, Calvin also created pastoral institutions in Geneva to encourage the collegiality, accountability, and spiritual health of the Protestant ministers who served the city’s churches. These institutions included the Company of Pastors, the Congrégation, the Ordinary Censure, and the Consistory — four pastoral bodies that profoundly shaped religious culture in Geneva and preserved Calvin’s theological legacy for generations to come.
Company of PastorsIn the mid-1540s, Calvin began to convene the ministers of the city and countryside every Friday morning to discuss the business of the church. This institution, known as the Company of Pastors, became a fixture of religious life in Geneva thereafter. The Company, whose membership consisted of around fifteen to eighteen pastors and several professors, was responsible to monitor public worship in the city, recruit and examine new pastors, supervise theological education at the Academy, oversee the work of the deacons and public benevolence, and offer godly advice to the city magistrates. Owing to the theological stature of Calvin and several of his colleagues, the Company of Pastors soon developed a vast correspondence with Reformed churches throughout Europe, becoming a kind of hub of international Calvinism. As such, the Company served as an advisory board to foreign churches on doctrinal and practical issues, solicited financial and political support for embattled Protestants, and supplied student-pastors to foreign churches. Moreover, the Company of Pastors began in 1555 a top-secret program where it recruited and trained Reformed ministers and sent them as missionary pastors to Catholic France.
Read More -
How do You Know if You Love Jesus?
Religious activity can make you feel “Christian”, at least for a little while. But if your Christianity is founded on you doing something for God, it has no root and will die in due time. A true, deeply rooted faith is founded in love for a person: Jesus. Anything less and you will either abandon the faith when trials or persecution comes or other desires will end up choking your faith. Don’t become distracted from the main thing: before you go “do something big for Jesus” or “go to Church” or “live for Jesus” start your day by simply asking “Do I love Jesus? Has my love grown cold for Jesus? Have I spent time with Jesus?”
“If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 16:22. Jesus after He rose from the dead asked Peter three times in John 21 “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” These are heart-searching and serious verses. Loving Christ is not an optional part of Christianity. Therefore, there is no better question to examine the state of your heart than simply asking “do I love Jesus or not?” Yet I have often found in my own life that this question can quickly become very abstract. How do you know if you love Jesus? Are there any objective tests to help you assess the state of your soul?
As is so often the case, J.C. Ryle in his book “Holiness” gives a clear and helpful answer on how you can know if you love Jesus or not. His words are worth your time and represent an excellent set of ways to examine yourself to determine if your love for Christ has gone cold. I quote his 8 marks of love below and for the rest of this post, I want to think through how these marks can help you know if you love Jesus. In fact, what Ryle gives below summarizes the Christian life itself powerfully and concisely.
If we love a person, we like to think about him.
If we love a person, we like to hear about him.
If we love a person, we like to read about him.
If we love a person, we like to please him.
If we love a person, we like his friends.
If we love a person, we are jealous about his name and honor.
If we love a person, we like to be always with him.
From “Lovest Thou me?” in Holiness by J.C. Ryle
You know what love looks like on a human level.
Ryle’s goal in this section of “Holiness” is simple: if you know what love looks like at a human level, then you already know what it looks like to love Jesus. Each of the 8 marks Ryle gives are based on the simple fact that if you love a person, you behave a certain way towards them. Likewise, if you don’t behave a certain way towards a person, chances are you don’t truly love them. If you love a person, you think about them, talk with them, want to be with them. You are concerned to please that person, you care about that person’s reputation. In short, your love for that person is demonstrated in visible outward behaviors.
Therefore, Ryle in these 8 marks wants you to simply ask “are these things true of me with regards to Jesus?” Do you think about Jesus? Do you long to hear from Him through daily Bible reading and the preached word? Are you concerned with pleasing Him and His opinion of you? Do you love the people He loves and died to redeem? When others speak poorly of Jesus, are you bold enough in your love for Him to defend His reputation? If the answer to these questions is “no” then perhaps your love for Christ has grown cold. You might say “of course I love Jesus!” but if that love is not seen in any of the ways Ryle lists, perhaps you love Jesus in word only.
How do you know if you love Jesus? Examine your life.
Asking whether you love Jesus isn’t a trick question or an impossibly abstract inquiry. Love for a person shows itself in inward delight and external expressions.
Read More
Related Posts: -
In Praise of the Boring, Uncool Church
In a world of dizzyingly disposable trends, so much seems to collapse as quickly as it arrives: brands, celebrities, movements, institutions, ideas. When we misconstrue faith as just another thing in the consumerist stew, it too becomes a flash-in-the-pan fashion, as fragile and fickle as the latest viral trend on TikTok. The life of Christian faith should be altogether different: a long obedience, a slow burn, a quiet diligence to pursue Jesus faithfully, with others in community, in good times and bad, for better or for worse.
“Hillsong, Once a Leader of Christian Cool, Loses Footing in America.”
By now, headlines like this one (from a March 29 New York Times article by Ruth Graham) have become sadly predictable. It seems almost every “leader of Christian cool”—whether a tattooed celebrity pastor or a buzzy nightclub church—flames out and loses its footing fairly quickly. Which is not at all surprising. By their very nature, things that are cool are ephemeral. What’s fashionable is, by the necessity of the rules of fashion, quickly obsolete.
This is one of many reasons why chasing cool is a fool’s errand for churches and pastors, as I argue in my book Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide. If you prioritize short-term trendiness, your ministry impact will likely be short-lived. If you care too much about being “relatable” and attractive to the fickle tastes of any given generation or cultural context, the transcendence of Christianity and the prophetic power of the gospel will be shrunk and shaped to the contours of the zeitgeist. Relevance-focused Christianity sows the seeds of its own obsolescence. It’s a bad idea. It rarely ends well.
Lament and Learn
From the Mars Hills to the Hillsongs (and countless others), it’s tragic to see churches fail—however predictable and ill-advised the “cool church” arc may be. We don’t rejoice over this. We should lament and learn.
What are the lessons?
For one, these headlines ought to remind us that relevance is no substitute for reverence and indeed may compromise it. The Christian life shouldn’t be oriented around being liked; it should be oriented around loving God and loving others. Far more important than being fashionable is being faithful. Far more crucial than keeping up with the Joneses is staying rooted in God’s unchanging Word.
Things like confession and repentance, daily obedience to the whole counsel of Scripture, and quiet commitment to spiritual disciplines aren’t cutting edge and won’t land you in a GQ profile about “hypepriests.” But these are the things that make up a healthy, sustainable, “long obedience in the same direction” faith. And with every hip church that closes and celebrity pastor who falls, more and more Christians are hopefully waking up to this fact.
Maybe boring, uncool, unabashedly churchy church is actually a good thing. Maybe a Christianity that doesn’t appeal to my consumer preferences and take its cues from Twitter is exactly the sort of faith I need.
Short-Term Success, Long-Term Failure
It’s counterintuitive, though. In the moment, a large church crowded with 20-somethings—eager to hear the celebrity pastor’s sermon and enthusiastic in their singing of arena-rock worship songs—seems like an unassailable triumph. Because our metrics for success in the American church have for so long mirrored the metrics of market-driven capitalism (bigger is always better; audience is king), we assume if a “cool church” is packed to the gills with cool kids, it’s working.
Read More
Related Posts:
