In Presbyterianism it is common to hear of church assemblies being described as church courts. Why?

This terminology promotes legalistic thinking, and this is too commonly found in dealing with cases of conscience or cases of discipline. This legal thinking needs to be balanced with the biblical teaching about office-bearers in the Church of Christ: “Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith you stand” 2Cor 1:24.

During my internet teaching, I point out that the Church is meant to be “a help” 2Cor 1:24 and not “a hindrance” Lk 11:52.

Jesus said to the ecclesiastical lawyers: “Woe unto you, lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge. You have not entered in yourselves, and you have hindered them that were entering in.”

Luke 11:52.

The apostle Paul also experienced such behaviour: “Who hindered you, that you should not obey the truth?” Gal 5:7.

Terminology

In presbyterianism, the spiritual assembly at the local, congregational level is called the Kirk Session, which draws attention to its office-bearers being met in session. However, the Deacons’ Court which administers the temporal affairs of the congregation is described as a court.  Why?

The root or radical court in presbyterianism is not the Kirk Session but the Presbytery, comprising ministers and elders, but like the Kirk Session it is frequently called a court. It is only a court in the sense that one can appeal from the Kirk Session to the Presbytery, but such appeals are rare and most of a Presbytery’s business is not judicial. A Presbytery is meant to distinguish its ordinary business from judicial proceedings, but this is not always observed. For example, in my experience relevant individuals may not recuse themselves from proceedings, and courts may not insist upon it. The higher governing structures in presbyterianism are called Synods and General Assemblies, but very often they are also called courts even when engaged in ordinary business, as may be seen in the wording of motions, etc.  Such terminology promotes the concept of authority but it also promotes legal thinking in the ordinary affairs of the church.

Legalism

This legal framework in proceedings leads to defensiveness instead of mutual support, far less does it encourage repentance where it is needed. Ecclesiastical lawyers shut the door to usefulness in the kingdom of heaven against those trying to enter in by repentance Lk 11:52. Instead of church assemblies counselling offenders into the paths of righteousness, they may spend their time as courts proving defendants are guilty and, having done so, they distance themselves from such offenders lest their own reputation should be tarnished.  This is the Caiaphas principle.  This is far from being “helpers” 2Cor 1:24, nor is it conducive to repentance, fellowship nor respect for ecclesiastical authority. Such collective behaviour brings reproach upon the Cause of Christ as surely as any individual’s behaviour. Do they not lay to heart Paul’s teaching in Rom 8:33-34?

Rather, church assemblies should only address sinners whose sins are plainly obvious and their guilt is already known or established. This is the proper application of “innocent until proved guilty”, and ecclesiastical office-bearers are not small-time lawyers.  Rather, if they have the grace, wisdom and spirituality Gal 6:1, office-bearers are to apply scriptural teaching to the obviously guilty offender in order to lead such sinners to repentance. Sadly, there are office-bearers who are a hindrance to this, weaponising their opportunity and their orthodoxy as if this gives them authority to throw their weight around 3Jn 1:9.

Privacy or secrecy

Dealing with obviously guilty sinners would obviate the need for privacy in church proceedings. It is usually said that private proceedings are for the benefit of the individual. In practice it allows the church court to work in secret without public scrutiny of its procedures. This is a recipe for abuse, as happens in the private ‘family courts’ in the English legal system and the Children’s Hearings in Scotland. Civil legal proceedings can change from their original intention by ‘mission creep’, and so can legalistic ecclesiastical procedures. It is not enough to have a good Constitution and correct procedures. These need to be known and followed; we need competent Christian men guiding the Christian church with Christian behaviour.

Mismanagement of ecclesiastical discipline is the single greatest cause of ecclesiastical  trouble.  This is no wonder because legalism is native to the human condition, seen in civil legal procedures also, but Christian behaviour would surmount such worldly behaviour in Christian gatherings. Excessive disicpline has done untold damage to the godly and to the Christian church, and Jesus warned against it Mat 13:28-30.

Privacy should not be a cloak for secrecy. The Christian church should deal openly with its offenders so that everyone is openly informed. In its absence, rumour, prejudice and ostracism abounds. “Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be” Jam 3:10. The apostle Paul witnessed and experienced much of it Heb 5:12; 1Tim 5:13; Tit 1:11.

“But we have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”

2Corinthians 4:2

The 16th-century Reformation exposed the corruptions of the Roman Catholic Confessional. Presbyterianism abolished the Confessional but it has retained the legalistic concept of penance in its formularies.

Just as bad is the rule in some churches that a defendant is allowed no representation at all, while the church court can draw upon its legal adviser to ensure correct procedure (usually only at the supreme court level, but sometimes in lower courts). Yes – this may surprise you, but you may find this is the official position in some Scottish presbyterianism. On the other hand, it is a maxim in legal circles not to represent yourself, but the opposite is mandated in some presbyterian churches. However, it gets worse.

Sometimes a defendant or petitioner might not even be present at all, and decisions are take completely in one’s absence without the opportunity to speak for oneself or to hear what is said. Yes, this happens in 21st-century Scotland. This is warped legalism, if it merits the concept of law applied to it at all. It is for lack of Christian process that it survives to the present day in the secrecy hiding behind privacy. It is very far removed from apostolic practice and there is little appetite for biblical reform, probably because so few see its need, and fewer know what needs to be done.

When a politician or a celebrity is accused of something, they have opportunity to use the media to correct or explain the issue. Not so an ordinary Christian subjected to the secrecy of Church courts.

Biblical privacy

Scripture teaches us about the ungodliness of those who cannot honour nor respect privacy. 

“A gossip discloses a private matter, but a trustworthy spirit covers it.”

Proverbs 11:13.

The biblical context is the contrast between the godly and the wicked, placing the gossiper among those wicked people who destroy the reputation of others Pro 11:8.

Yet privacy in church courts is routinely betrayed.  I heard it said at a theological conference in open discussion that because a husband and wife are “one flesh” Gen 2:24, Mat 19:5-6, therefore officer-bearers can discuss private church matters with their wife, to “relieve” their stress.  I contradicted this publicly at the time and informed conference attendees that this would be considered “serious professional misconduct” by the General Medical Council and would probably lead to their being removed from the Medical Register. I recall another situation when I informed attendees in a Synod meeting that a such-and-such proposed action would be considered serious professional misconduct among professional bodies.

Such opinions and behaviour demonstrate that there is one law for some and another law for others. How much better to turn from law to the spirit of the Gospel in ecclesiastical proceedings. Many times I heard people refer to “the Law Book” and I had to remind them that it was “a Manual of Practice” and that our law book is the Bible.

Hierarchy

Wherever there is structure, there is hierarchy to a greater or lesser degree. Presbyterianism promotes the biblical principal of the equal authority of equivalent office-bearers, but courts are hierarchial.  This gives scope to Diotrephes who loves to have the pre-eminence 3Jn 1:9. Committeeism is another opportunity for those who love to pull rank.

The historical rise of episcopacy is a feature of the worldly self-aggrandisement of ecclesiastical men.  Those who could debate theological doctrines about the Trinity and Christ’s divine and human natures were quite capable of ruthlessly excommunicating each other and begin the process of ecclesiastical murder which has a long and growing pedigree. Two thousand years of Christian history demonstrates the current and urgent need for Christian behaviour in the Christian church.

Links:

31 Oct 2020: an appeal system needs adequate advocacy.

15 Mar 2021: hindering those seeking Christ.

20 May 2021: the Christian church is supposed to help us, not to control us, nor hinder us Lk 11:52 and Gal 5:7.

5 Mar 2025: the 85 or so muslim Shari‘ah councils in the UK should not be called “courts” [at 20:10 hrs] far less “law courts”.

31 Jul 2025: the “culture of secrecy” during the 2020-2021 coronavirus pandemic was criticized in evidence to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.