Order in the Offices: Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers, 2nd edition, Mark R. Brown, general editor. Reformed Forum, 2024, xiii + 278 pages, $34.99.

An old military saw asserts that generals and politicians always prepare to fight the last war, meaning not the final conflict, but the previous one. Like churches, armies have traditions, doctrine, and—above all—a defined order. Critical to order are the officers, ranks, roles, and hierarchies of authority. Of course, a church is like an army but is also very different from any earthly military force, being a spiritual body, both visible and invisible, at once voluntary and involuntary, and having a Warrior-King leader who is mysteriously both absent and present. Some ancient armies consisted of little more than the older boys and men of a tribe armed with sticks, blades, and stones, and the tribe itself was essentially a large family. Modern armies are national bureaucracies staffed by professionals, albeit professionals with weapons of terrifying power, accuracy, and cost.

Military forces have changed dramatically. The church, having existed since the time of the first family, ought to have changed but little, especially since Christ’s ascension, when he gave gifts to men, followed so soon by the coming of the Holy Spirit in covenantal fullness and more slowly by the inspired New Testament witness. The King’s gifts to the church and the Spirit-enabled understanding of the biblical witness should produce a stable, recognizable, agreed order in the Church. We confess, after all, that the “whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for . . . faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (Westminster Confession of Faith, WCF 1.6). All “things necessary for . . . faith and life” must include our doctrine of the church. Because God has spoken to us even about his church and her order, it is no surprise that Order in the Offices has been so valued by the officers of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for the last three decades and why the new edition has been greeted so warmly. OPC people love their church, and this work, edited by Mark R. Brown. It is beautifully bound and printed, seeks to bolster and explain some of the most important aspects of the church’s ministry and organization.

Of the fifteen chapters in the work, only one is new; six predate the first edition’s 1993 publication date; the remaining eight were written for this collection. Order in the Offices will succeed at confirming convinced holders of the three-office view, but because of the dismissive view which some of the chapters have of the two-office position, and because of certain anachronisms in the authors’ catalog of opponents from previous wars, it will fail to convince principled holders of the two-office position. (Full disclosure, as a ruling elder since 2009 in the Presbyterian Church in America, serving with a teaching elder who is arguably the foremost living authority on Southern Presbyterian ecclesiology and history, I may hold the two-office view as firmly and advisedly as most current OPC ministers hold the three-office view.)

The book will dispel any impression that the issue of the number and nature of the offices is a minor one between the OPC and the PCA; it is decidedly not “two ways of describing the same thing,” at least for thoughtful and principled holders of the two positions, of which, we trust, there are many. To slightly modify one of J. Gresham Machen’s famous lines, the really important things are the things about which men will controvert![1] And this controversy may be argued on biblical, historical, and practical grounds.

We learn right off the bat that the disagreement is biblical: “The precise exegetical question here is, what is the nature of the office to which Paul refers in 1 Timothy 3:1? Once this question is settled, all else falls into place” (21). The three-office interpretation usually admits that episkopos (ἐπίσκοπος, bishop/overseer)—which only in this passage clearly refers to a perpetual New Testament office—is more or less interchangeable with presbyteros (πρεσβύτερος, elder) elsewhere. The qualifications, for whatever office this may be, are followed immediately by qualifications for the altogether separate office of deacon. A simple PCA ruling elder, armed only with a Greek lexicon and concordance has to ask where the qualifications for ruling elders are in this passage and whether “apt to teach” applies only to preachers. Indeed, in the first chapter of Titus, episkopos (overseer) is used interchangeably with presbyteros (elder), so a simple ruling elder asks if there are any biblical qualifications for him at all in either passage. The answer given is that the overseer (pastor/minister) “in his one office . . . includes all the lower offices, the qualifications for him are also those that apply to the lower office (elders who rule)—except for any qualification that belongs exclusively to his office” (29). The argument is more about context than about words, and I would not downplay the importance of context. The nuanced arguments are capably and carefully made in several of the book’s chapters, but they remain complex and sometimes fly in the face of a plain reading. Those ordained to the “lower office” may have to take the arguments on faith!

Of course, two-office advocates are loath to speak of a “lower office” even as they hold to the high, essential, indispensable role of that “superadded” class of elders who “especially . . . labor in preaching and teaching.” Three-office advocates may deny that 1 Timothy 5:17 depicts one office of elder with two classes, but the argument is not to be dismissed out of hand. It is reasonable, but does it hold up historically?

Just as the many chapters chosen for Order in the Offices make careful scriptural arguments for three offices, so do they make an impressive and accurate case for its historical pedigree, though the case might have been made even stronger. Many wrongly assume that the “Southern” two-office scheme formally, constitutionally obtained in the old Southern church before the 1973 formation of the PCA, yet it did not. Two-office was merely an argued-for, controverted issue[2] until 1980 when a 1979 Book of Church Order amendment was ratified—the fact of the Southern two-office church is even more recent than is widely known![3]

But the relatively recent character of the enshrined two-office view only rules it out if we adopt a view of ecclesiology that we would never countenance regarding doctrine, namely, that more light and greater development in understanding of biblical doctrine is impossible. The chapters of this work often appeal to Calvin and Hodge—two men who would never assert that the doctrine of church government had been finally settled, least of all by them. A long list of doctrines, including union with Christ and covenant theology, could be cited to demonstrate that Presbyterians do change, and they do so out of concern for being faithful to the Scriptures.

Having an inconveniently recent relation to significant changes may make us uncomfortable but should not cause us to dismiss such changes out of hand. Nor should every development bring new complexity or even addition. Two-office Presbyterianism is blessedly simple and dear to many who hold it. For this reason, the scant, harsh, and disputable mention of the PCA in the book’s bibliography is disappointing: “The PCA’s Form of Government was later amended to reflect two-office views. However, much of the PCA’s polity remains three-office in principle and practice. The result is an unstable and ambiguous mixture of systems” (266).

History seeks to acquaint us with the practicalities and experiences of churchmen in earlier ages. Applying these to the present time is necessarily speculative, but considering history and practicalities bolsters the argument for two-office Presbyterianism, in my view, first with regard to declension in Presbyterian denominations. It may be that my following statement and questions will not be appreciated, but there are several assertions in Order in the Offices that are, if anything, more speculative, more a matter of opinion, and more insupportable.[4]

History suggests that ruling elders were not held in high esteem in the Northern church by the early twentieth century, Woodrow Wilson and Robert E. Speer, notwithstanding. Could this have been because they were held to be bearers of a “lower office.” Might ruling elders have done more to arrest the decline of the PCUSA if their office had been construed as more than mere jurists? It is reasonable to ask what might have been if more of the PCUSA’s ruling elders had been like those who requested J. Gresham Machen’s late 1921 address in Wayne, PA, which ultimately became Christianity and Liberalism. Were disengaged ruling elders responsible (at least in part) for the small number of churches willing to join Machen’s exodus in 1936? Of course, we will never know, but this we can know: Ruling elders were critically important to the formation of the PCA in 1973, a generation or two after the OPC was formed. Machen’s work and the OPC’s faithfulness certainly aided the founders of the PCA, and it may be that the Southern church’s generally higher regard for ruling elders contributed to the PCA's initial success, with larger numbers, more churches, and greater energy than the OPC could muster. Former PCA stated clerk Roy Taylor has contended that the PCA is the only denomination started primarily through the work of ruling elders.[5] And I would contend that the PCA’s recent course corrections, like her early successes, were due in no small measure to ruling elder involvement.

Maybe the OPC inherited a slighter regard for ruling elders from their wayward mother church, maybe not. Times were hard, and the OPC’s founders were fighting a life-and-death battle for the supernatural faith, not the finer points of ecclesiology. Machen, so far as we know, spoke little of office, though female deacons and ruling elders were present in some PCUSA churches by 1936. Even so, the OPC deserves tremendous credit for establishing a church order with only male officers. If they had not done so, it might have been much more difficult for the PCA to do so thirty-seven years later.

Finally, there is the question of anachronism. Some of Order in the Offices’ arguments are with movements or tendencies that no longer exist (at least in the OPC), though there are some contemporary parallels elsewhere. The invectives against egalitarianism and chaotic worship leadership likely had the New Life movement in view. Most of those churches had departed for the PCA before this work’s first edition was published, though maybe not before some of these chapters were written. The book’s opening chapter suggests that the very function of the ministers of the Word was under attack—that a “new consensus opinion, forming across denominational lines . . . questions whether” the minister’s work, historically understood, was even necessary (11). It seems likely that this was an overstatement. Many in the PCA, then and now, adhere to the regulative principle and highly value the ministry of the Word. Today, many PCA churches that worship and order themselves much like OPC churches self-identify as “Ordinary Means of Grace” churches. Granted, the existence of such a term implies that there is still considerable diversity and disagreement about worship within the PCA.[6] The first chapter seems to connect the degradation of worship and the ministry of the Word to two-office tendencies, which may just be shorthand for the PCA or for the kinds of churches then departing the OPC for the PCA. But did churches have ruling elders clamoring to preach, administer sacraments, and run worship in those days? That seems unlikely and is certainly not the case today.

Later chapters connect (with, in this reviewer’s opinion, little evidence) the two-office position with egalitarianism. To be sure, there are currently PCA churches with egalitarian tendencies, and these tendencies are apparent in office[7] and in worship. Again, ruling elders are not running roughshod over worship. PCA churches often have unordained members leading nearly every part of worship, including the call to worship, Scripture readings, confessions, and prayers—pretty much everything, in rare cases, except the sermon and benediction. It is the ruling elders who are marginalized in the interest of diversity and “representation up front.” Something is going on, but it’s not about ruling elders stepping out of their lanes. Pastors at such churches (often church plants without local sessions or only recently particularized) lead the way in this innovation. The PCA’s preference for rapid growth and creativity, in this writer’s opinion, is better at building crowds than developing principled Presbyterian ruling elders. The fault does not lie with the number of offices, but with the convictions of the officers.

With appreciation for this book’s passionate concern to protect the ministry of the Word, let me close with a few words of hearty agreement with the OPC’s worship directory:

When the session deems it fitting, ruling elders may lead the congregation in prayer, read the Scriptures to the congregation, lead unison or antiphonal readings of Scripture by the congregation, lead congregational singing, or, on occasion, exhort the congregation as part of public worship. They may not, however, pronounce the salutation or the benediction or administer the sacraments.

This is a surprising find in the OPC directory, given the way Order in the Offices often portrays the two-office view as injurious to the prerogatives and position of the pastor. The PCA does not have such an explicit endorsement on ruling elder worship leadership! I would argue for the regular, limited involvement of ruling elders in public worship, including all elements up to the sermon text reading when a visiting minister or licentiate is present. In normal circumstances, it seems appropriate for ruling elders to lead the call to worship, offer a prayer, or other portions, such as a confession of faith or sin. There are several benefits of regular ruling elder involvement, including increased confidence in ruling elders’ competency to teach and lead, increased ruling elder “buy-in” and understanding of the liturgy, and preparation for those instances when a ruling elder must step in to lead worship. Church members need to see that ruling elders are more than judicial officials or functionaries. Ruling elders are pastors/shepherds in some important senses. Seeing them assist in the church’s most important weekly work can only strengthen their hands in the work of counseling, visitation, and teaching members in other settings. Order is necessary, but so is the confidence of the sheep that the entire session is leading their local churches, which Christ so greatly loves and for whom he so abundantly provides. It may be, in God’s mercy, that two-office and three-office Presbyterians can learn and benefit from each other.

Endnotes

[1] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1923), 1–2. “In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.”

[2]The view was strenuously promoted without success by J. Henley Thornwell and R. L. Dabney in the nineteenth century. Iain Murray deals with much of this history in chapter 8.

[3] Since 1980, PCA BCO 7–2 has read the following: “The ordinary and perpetual classes of office in the Church are elders and deacons. Within the class of elder are the two orders of teaching elders and ruling elders. The elders jointly have the government and spiritual oversight of the Church, including teaching. Only those elders who are specially gifted, called and trained by God to preach may serve as teaching elders. The office of deacon is not one of rule, but rather of service both to the physical and spiritual needs of the people. In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only.”

[4] Witness, “the two-office view falls prey to this (egalitarian) instinct by obliterating the distinction between ruler and pastor” (213); and “a further irony lies in the fact that where the two-office view prevails, the plurality of elders in a congregation tends to diminish the importance and therefore quality of the teaching office. . . . The logic of the two-office position is bound ultimately to do away with any distinction between the pastor and the ruling elder” (214). Note well, the only place to find two-office view today is the PCA, so there can be little doubt which pastors are in view.

[5] A notable PCA academic has often said that “Thornwell lost the battle but won the war.” The war in question being his respectful conflict over ecclesiology with Charles Hodge. Thornwell’s views on office, as mentioned above, did not become the law of any church until almost 120 years after his death.

[6] It should be noted that the recently concluded Fifty-Second PCA General Assembly voted to form a study committee to consider giving more constitutional force to the PCA’s mostly non-binding directory for worship.

[7] Some PCA churches have female quasi-officers or decline to ordain male deacons so that an unauthorized, unordained unisex “diaconate” or “mercy team” can be maintained.

Brad Isbell is a ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America serving Covenant PCA in Oak Ridge, TN, since 2009 and has co-hosted the Presbycast podcast since 2016. Ordained Servant Online, December, 2025