The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Who can teach in a Presbyterian church?

Are lay people allowed to teach (as in Bible study, catechizing) in a Presbyterian church? I think not, but are there extenuating circumstances that may be considered? Would this be the same in other denominations?

The short answer to your question is, "Yes"... lay members are allowed to teach in a Presbyterian church. However, the bulk of the teaching is rightly done by the elders. Most other denominations, i.e., non-Reformed allow almost anyone to teach.

Thanks, Pilgrim. In Asia, and the "kirks" in Scotland where the historical Westminster system is dominant, only ordained men teach (at least formally, e.g., the catechism)

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/p395-form_presby_gov.html#pastors

The emphasis on individual liberty and equality in America is probably a factor. In East Asia, public, parochial and private schools all have a school uniform. Cultural differences may play a part, too. Confucian societies revere the teacher or sensei, while in the West, pastors and professors are often addressed by their first names——a practice generally frowned upon in the Far East. However, even these cultural norms are rapidly changing now.

Yes, Elders are the only ones who are qualified to teach the Catechism, although there is unfortunately a modern movement in the West that ignores the practice. Informal Bible Studies are a different matter where a lay person can teach yet under the supervision of the consistory/session... at least that is my view. Within the church, however, it is my firm belief that only elders should be doing the teaching and preaching. This applies to ALL elders. I stress ALL because there is a long-standing policy and in the Dutch reformed churches a 'doctrine' that bifurcates the eldership into two 'offices'; teaching elder and ruling elder, which I find no support for in Scripture. Thus, you have one man in particular who is revered above all others and basically controls everything. Yet when one reads the qualifications for elder (singular), ALL are to possess the gifts necessary and whose lives must conform to that which Paul says are requirements. The bottom line is, in my view, that ALL elders must be able to preach, teach and rule. Yes, there may be one or more who are more given to preaching and thus within the eldership a decision can be reached that that particular man/men should bear the responsibility of preaching.

Just one more comment on this matter of ordained vs. laity in the Church. It is very common in the West to have various 'ministers' (specialists) that have responsibilities which only elders are warranted to do, e.g., the "Minister of Music", the "Minister of Worship", the "Minister of Childrens Ministries", ad nauseam. Many of these individuals are not ordained, some are. However, no such designations are to be found in Scripture. It is just another example of man thinking he can improve upon God's design for the Church.

Thanks, Pilgrim! The original Form of Presbyterial Church-Government implicitly restricts Elders to church governance, and explicitly states that deacons are not authorized to teach (or to administer the sacraments). So the Dutch Reformed churches are not really alone in this matter.
I tend to agree with you that all elders must be able to preach, teach and rule, but there is a great weight of historical precedence and tradition to reckon with.
Effectually, a Reformed and confessional church has a teaching magisterium and received dogma (as do the Romish church and the Episcopal church). In our day and age, these concepts are not likely to be popular.

Yes, there is definitely "a great weight of historical precedence and tradition to reckon with." yet that in itself is not infallible. Martin Luther contended with the far longer historical tradition of the Roman State Church and showed it was in gross error. I have had a number of "go arounds" with the "magisterium" of some Dutch Reformed churches and when asked the question as to their warrant for bifurcating the Eldership, their answer invariably was (based upon the Heidelberg Catechism and/or Belgic Confession) The offices in the church are formed to that owned by Christ himself; Prophet, Priest and King. Thus, the teaching/preaching elders equates with that of Prophet, the ruling elders equate with that of King and the deacons equate with that of Priest. However, when asked if they could show me the BIBLICAL evidence to support that tradition, none could do so. I was told to "close the Book because there is far more to all this" and I needed to simply accept the tradition and not make trouble by asking such questions.

So, there are some good traditions which can be justified from Scripture, which is the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. And, there are some bad traditions, which cannot be substantiated from Scripture and should be abandoned. "We've always done it this way!" is no defense of any particular practice or tradition. We should be very thankful that Martin Luther, by God's grace, stood firmly against the errors of Rome and stood upon the inspired written Word of God and not tradition in his case. Else, we would all be praying "Hail Mary" and "Our Father" to saints and Mother Mary instead of going directly to God through Christ. And none of us would ever experience the joy of being declared justified of ALL our sins, clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ and adopted as the true children of God who have been given eternal life.