In the Presbyterian Church, we’re proud of pointing out the connections between our form of government and the rise of representative democracy. Well before the birth of John Locke, King James in England could already see the implications for the crown of the Presbyterian form of government (which was taking hold in Scotland). He thus asserted that “Presbytery agreeth with monarchy as God with the devil.”
John Witherspoon, the sole pastor to sign the Declaration of Independence, was a very influential Presbyterian. When one delegate of the Congress that produced the Declaration “expressed fear that America was ‘not yet ripe’ for independence, Witherspoon replied, ‘Sir, in my judgment the country is not only ripe for independence but in danger of rotting for want of it.’”
As president of what would later become Princeton University, he taught a course in political philosophy, among other things. Political views of his growing out of his Presbyterian Calvinism would include:
“(1) As sovereign, God alone, no king, can claim absolute authority.
(2) Humans are so sinful they must have checks and balances.
(3) God graciously provides government to curb our evil and promote good.
(4) Human life in this world changes, and therefore a constitution should be flexible enough to meet changing conditions.”
Finally, Witherspoon’s students included James Madison (the “Father of the Constitution”), who chose to stay an extra year after graduation in order to study further under this pastor. Additionally, “at one time or another Witherspoon taught his Presbyterian philosophy of government to many men who would become officeholders in the new republic, including a future president (Madison), a vice-president, nine cabinet officers, twenty-one senators, thirty-nine congressmen, three justices of the Supreme Court, and twelve state governors. Five of the signers of the Declaration had been this Presbyterian thinker’s students.” (All quotes from William M. Ramsay, Church History 101: An Introduction for Presbyterians.)
With all these similarities, how is the Presbyterian form of government different?
- Term limits—While pastors have a vote for life at Presbytery meetings and elders can serve there as long as their sessions continue to send them, there are other ways in which term limits have long been a part of our form of government. For example, elders are limited to six consecutive years on their church’s session and few elders or pastors have the opportunity to serve as commissioners to the General Assembly more than once in their lifetime—more than twice is probably almost unheard of.
- No Constituencies—Elders, Pastors, and Commissioners don’t represent constituencies. Though there is often some effort given to have a broadly representative session and/or presbytery, the job of elders and commissioners is to seek the mind and will of Christ, not to represent some constituency’s desires. While at meetings of governing bodies, elders, pastors and commissioners should not be focused on: “What does my Sunday School class, my church, or my presbytery want me to vote on this?” but rather on: “What would Christ have me to vote on this issue?” Members of a governing body become privy to all kinds of discussion and new information that folks who haven’t been at that meeting may not have. Similarly, they are also called to rise above their own self-interest when they vote. While balancing competing self-interest is at the core of our nation’s form of government, Presbyterian pastors and elders should seek to rise above that to seek the mind of Christ.
- Limited Vote—Most members never get a chance to vote at a level beyond the local congregation. In U.S. government, voters get to chime in on who will represent them at every level, from the most local level up to the presidency. This is not so in Presbyterian government. While the congregation votes for its elders, those elders, in turn, vote for who will be their commissioner(s) to presbytery, and the presbytery commissioners (elders and pastors) vote for who will represent them at the Synod and national levels. Similarly, people in the pews don’t vote on changes to our constitution or major denominational emphases or position statements. For some, this results in a feeling of having too little voice in the direction of the national church. There is, however, as much or more (generally much more) access to the national governing body (the General Assembly) for laity in the Presbyterian Church as in any other denomination.
- Self-promotion to office is frowned upon—Presbyterians generally do little more than mention that they might be interested in serving as an elder, a presbytery commissioner, a General Assembly commissioner, or even the Moderator of General Assembly. Any campaigning for office looks like a power-play that turns off more people than it attracts. Even for the moderator of GA--the one position where candidates promote themselves openly--there are strong limits on how much money can be spent and how much campaigning is deemed appropriate.
- Nominating committees exercise tremendous power—while we elect officers and commissioners, nominating committees lay the ground work by receiving recommendations, discussing what kind of people are needed to serve in different areas, approaching those they’d like to nominate, and ultimately presenting a slate of nominees to serve in all needed positions. Nominations can always be taken from the floor, but when things are going well in the church, those people the nominating committee present are generally elected unanimously. That’s quite different from the election process used in secular government that invites self-promotion, tearing down one’s opponents, and a win-lose mentality. It also means, though, that congregations and other governing bodies generally let the nominating committees do the work of choosing their representatives.
- There are no political parties. There are affiliation groups, some of which exclusively work to advocate for policy changes in the denomination, but many others help churches do ministry in a variety of ways. While many of the groups could roughly be called “conservative” or “liberal,” I suspect the majority of churches belong to none of the groups. There is certainly some polarization as in our secular political arena, but there seems to be a broader “middle” that ultimately determines what changes will be accepted.
The differences between our form of government and that of secular representative democracies is not accidental. Ultimately, we are not simply trying to provide a way for competing self-interests to be balanced. We are challenging those who serve in our church’s government to seek the guidance of the Spirit to be obedient to Christ’s calling. Obviously, it is still fallible people who make the decisions, thus there are many checks and balances to try to overcome for the inevitable presence of sin and self-interest. Still, the Spirit works in interesting and often inspiring ways to lift us above those baser motives.
If you worship in a Presbyterian Church or are considering doing so, enjoy the rich history of our wing of the Reformation. We have contributed greatly to introducing and spreading the representative form of democracy in churches and in secular governments. This form of government has proven to provide significant freedom from tyranny for people in many countries and many churches over the last 450 years. Also, try to appreciate the degree to which our church’s form of government is intentionally different from our country’s. Hopefully, there is less self-promotion, less breaking into rigid factions, and less energy spent on destroying the credibility of those who think differently than us. While we still have much to improve upon, there’s also a lot to celebrate and enjoy!
