I have always been a Presbyterian. The first church Iattended in 1982 was Presbyterian. The church I was baptised in wasPresbyterian. When I took office in another church several years later, Iserved in a Presbyterian Session. My theological training was also in aPresbyterian college.  And my firstpastoral experience was in a Presbyterian congregation, and so was my firstpastorate.

Thus, it maysound surprising if I tell you that I had never in these twenty-eight years asa Presbyterian attended a Presbytery meeting! Over the last ten years of ourexistence as a branch of the Lord Jesus Christ, our Session has receivedseveral invitations to attend a presbytery meeting with the EPC and also theGeneral Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing). But we had thusfar not been able to go for various reasons.

The Invitation

Whenthe invitation from Pastor Connors came for us to attend the July 2010Presbytery in Launceston, we were once again keen to go, but did not make anyplans due to the many pressing demands on our time and energy. Towards the endof May, however, things were starting to settle down a little, and Elder ThiamChye brought up the invitation again. He urged me to go as a representative ofour Session. I was somewhat reluctant as I thought it would be best, on thebasis of the principle of plurality in Presbyterianism that the Session berepresented by two members even if we were just going to be observers. But thatwas not possible given the present circumstances; and finally upon somecreative persuasion by our Elder, which he might have picked up from WilliamFarel, I decided to go after making arrangements to have the pulpit suppliedduring the whole period.

Iam thankful for the opportunity to attend this Presbytery, especially as itwould be the Presbytery that will conduct the licensing trials for the EPCministerial student, Dr David Torlach. The Presbytery, we must understand, doesnot have a fixed membership unlike the church Session. It comprises of aminister (teaching-elder) and a ruling-elder sent from each of thecongregations that are to be represented.

The Constitution of thePresbytery

ThePresbytery of July 2010 comprised Rev Mark Shand and Elder Robert Davidsonrepresenting Launceston; Rev Chris Connors and Elder Philip Greatbatchrepresenting Brisbane; Rev Philip Burley (emeritus) and Elder John Torlachrepresenting Winnaleah; and Rev David Higgs (on sick leave) from Brisbane. RevChris Coleborn (emeritus) was associated with the Presbytery for the purpose ofthe licensing trials of Mr Torlach. Sydneywas not represented due to the present difficulties facing the congregation.

Iwould be an observer. What this means is that I would be able to attend allmeetings when the court was open. In general, Session meetings of the churchare closed unless opened due to the many sensitive personal and disciplinaryissues that are discussed during the meetings. On the other hand, Presbyterymeetings are open unless closed.

First Impression

ThePresbytery commenced with Sabbath evening worship together with the hostingcongregation in Launceston on 18 July 2010. Pastor Connors, the current moderator, preached achallenging message on the importance of evangelism.

Thenext morning, the Presbytery was constituted with scripture reading, prayer anda psalm. This was followed by a presentation of credentials or letters ofcommendation by the sending Sessions.  

Itwas quite an experience to see our usually light-hearted and easy-goingAustralian brethren solemnly doing all things “decently and in order” (1Cor 14:40) during the meetings! Allmotions, questions and discussions were directed to the Moderator. A presbyterwho wished to move a motion would say: “Mr Moderator, I move this and that.” Asthis motion is made, the appointed clerk (in this case, Rev Mark Shand), wouldtype out the statement word for word. Then another presbyter would second the motion. The Moderator then opensthe motion for discussion. If there were no discussion, the matter is put to avote, and all in favour would say, “Aye.” The Moderator then announces that themotion is “Carried.”

Initially,having been used to rather informal church meetings all these years, I foundthe experience rather strange and thinking of how such a formal conduct ofmeetings would go down in our context. I wondered if I should or would evendare to introduce such a practice for our Session. Would it not be quiteinefficient and would any of us in the Session be prepared to move motions? Butas I thought about over the next few days, I began to see the value of such amanner of conducting the meetings. I think we will need time to get used to itif we are ever going to implement it (perhaps when our brother Linus isordained and we have started another congregation); but I can think of severalbenefits of eventually adopting this practice. In the first place, I can seehow it ensures that every member of the Presbytery is involved in the decision-makingprocess. In the second place, I can see how it will ensure that the decisionsof the Presbytery are clearly expressed, carefully decided upon, and accuratelyrecorded. In the third place, I can see how it would be closer to what theapostle Paul meant by doing all things decently and in order.

Trial of Dr David Torlach

Thetrials of Dr Torlach were held in open court; whereas the deliberations inregard to the trials were held in closed court. I had the benefit of attendingall the open court session and on a few occasions was asked by the Moderator togive some comments in private to the Presbytery before the closed court sessionbegan.

Aconsiderable portion of the Presbytery’s time was devoted to the trials. Itbegan on Monday with a closed court discussion of reports of supervisingpastors and deacons; as well as some consideration of the work undertaken by MrTorlach, as set by the Presbytery.

OnMonday night, Mr Torlach preached his trial sermon on the appointed text,Galatians 4:19—“My little children, of whom I travail in birth again untilChrist be formed in you” (Gal 4:19).The whole congregation of Launceston turned up for the service. On the whole itwas a useful sermon and very well received.

OnTuesday morning, the Presbytery reviewed the trial sermon in closed court; andon Wednesday, Mr Torlach was examined for 30 minutes each in 8 areas, namely,Bible Knowledge; Revelation; Theology proper; Anthropology; Christology;Soteriology; Ecclessiology and Eschatology. The plan was to have all thepresbyters ask a question each in turn until the half an hour was exhausted, atwhich time if the Moderator deemed it fit, he could invite me as a visitingminister to ask a question too.

Well,the rest of the questions dealt with during the day were not quite sochallenging, but they were nevertheless not beginner’s level questions. MrTorlach was for example asked to list the Judges and say something about eachone of them, which he did. He was also asked to make exegetical comments onvarious passages of Scripture and to answer numerous theological questions. Forexample, he was asked to prove the doctrine of perichoresis and why it is an important doctrine; which again hewas able to answer quite clearly.

OnWednesday, Mr Torlach was quizzed in six areas in 30 minutes slots as before,viz: Church Standards; History of the Reformation and of the EPC; PastoralTheology; Apologetics; Christian Ethics and Philosophies; and Law and Practiceof the Church. I am quite impressed at Mr Torlach’s grasp of church history aswell as his familiarity with the various Scottish Confessions that pre-datedthe Westminster Confession of Faith.

Aftera lengthy discussion on Friday, Mr Torlach was summoned before the Presbyteryand given advice concerning the areas he should work on before being told thatit has arrived at the decision to proceed with licensing. This was conductedquite simply with the moderator leading in prayer, the reading of scripture (thecharge), and Mr Torlach taking the vows and signing the formula ofsubscription.

OtherBusiness

Itshould be noted that the Presbytery was not entirely devoted to the licensingtrials. When the trials were not being conducted, many other matters were alsodiscussed, such as: correspondence, finance, contact with other churches,missionary work; anniversary celebration; etc. During the Contact Committeediscussions, I was asked to address the Presbytery and also to read the letterwhich our Session wrote to the Presbytery. Both the letter and the address werevery kindly received. We had requested help to provide our ministerial student,bro Linus, with some form of internship program in the EPC congregations and aswell as a couple of ministers for his ordination trials in June 2012. Both ourrequests were received positively. 

ThePresbytery finally ended on Friday evening with votes of thanks and a readingof the minutes of meeting. Yes, it was the minutes of the meeting thatconcluded!

The Sabbath After

On the Sabbath following the Presbytery, I was giventhe privilege of taking both services in the Launceston Congregation. Though Iwould much prefer to sit and listen to any of the ministers present, I felt itwas the least I could do in gratitude after receiving so much by way oflearning and hospitality during the week. I am thankful to the Lord that bothmessages were well received.

Conclusion

Ithank God for the extraordinary week in Launceston. We need to seek the Lord’swisdom and help to see if we might apply some of the procedures adopted by theEPC into our own Session and eventually Presbytery. But whatever the future mayhold, I believe that in the Lord’s hand, this visit has brought our twochurches closer together than we have been hitherto.

Weare looking to having our brother Linus go down for his internship stint andalso to enjoy the fellowship of a church that is so similar to our doctrine andpractices and yet so different from ours in culture and experience.

 It is my prayer that the close fellowship ourtwo churches enjoy will be used by the Lord, the King of the Church for ourmutual edification, the advancement of His kingdom and the enlargement of Hisglory. Amen. Ω