In presbyteries across the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a longstanding but often overlooked polity question is resurfacing: Who should ordain deacons and ruling elders?
What may sound procedural is actually theological and structural.
What may sound procedural is actually theological and structural. At stake is where authority for leadership resides — in congregations, in presbyteries, or in both. As the church prepares for the 227th General Assembly in 2026, this question is gaining urgency through the Ordination Task Force, Overture 37, and requests for Authoritative Interpretation — formal appeals for constitutional clarity.
When the question surfaces in ministry
This issue is not merely theoretical. It is already shaping everyday ministry.
In many cases, sessions nominate ruling elders from their congregation for training in temporary pastoral leadership. After preparation and examination, presbyteries may commission these individuals to serve congregations without installed pastors. These leaders – often called commissioned pastors or commissioned ruling elders – preach, moderate session, offer pastoral care, and sometimes administer the sacraments
This issue is not merely theoretical. It is already shaping everyday ministry.
Such commissioned leaders have become an essential part of the church’s pastoral life, particularly when congregations lose their pastor and are unable to call and install a minister of Word and Sacrament.
Yet one distinction often surprises many Presbyterians: the presbytery that trains, examines, and commissions these leaders does not ordain them.
How ordination works in the PC(USA)
The Book of Order distinguishes clearly between election and ordination.
Congregations elect ruling elders and deacons, and sessions examine and ordain them (G-2.0401) — typically alongside installation for service in that congregation.
At the same time, ruling elders regularly serve the wider church. Presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly are composed of ministers of Word and Sacrament and ruling elders as commissioners (G-3.0301).
Presbyteries also train, authorize and commission ruling elders for pastoral service (G-2.1001) — meaning they entrust leaders with significant responsibilities without being the body that ordains them.
New ministry contexts raise new questions
Emerging forms of ministry are intensifying the need to think about who holds the power of ordination.
New worshiping communities and validated ministries often exist under presbytery oversight but are not yet chartered congregations. These communities often have vibrant leadership and active members — yet they cannot elect or ordain ruling elders because they do not have the session to do so.
As a result, these ministries may lack ordained leadership from ruling elders and, as a result, representation within the church’s councils.
Emerging forms of ministry are intensifying the need to think about who holds the power of ordination.
This raises a practical and theological question. If the church seeks to support emerging ministries and new forms of community, how can those ministries develop recognized leadership within the church’s ordered ministry?
Some proposals now being discussed suggest a potential expanded role for presbyteries in ordination, particularly for leaders serving beyond traditional congregational structures.
A tension within Presbyterian polity
Presbyterianism has long held together two convictions:
- Leadership arises from the congregation (G-2.0401)
- Authority is shared across the connectional church (F-3.0202).
The current PC(USA) system places greater emphasis on the session’s role in ordination. A presbytery-based model would shift the emphasis toward the wider church’s authority to recognize and deploy leaders.
Interestingly, the PC(USA) approach is not universal across the global Presbyterian family. In several other Presbyterian churches, including the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Presbyterian Church of Wales, and the Presbyterian Church in Canada, presbyteries ordain elders and deacons, while sessions install them for service in a particular congregation. In those churches, ordination is understood more explicitly as an act of the wider church, while installation connects the ordered minister’s service to a specific congregation where that ministry is exercised.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has historically emphasized the congregational dimension of that relationship. At General Assembly this summer, we will ask if the church should reconsider how those two commitments are held together.
Looking ahead to the 2026 General Assembly
This summer, commissioners will consider:
- the Ordination Task Force report
- Overture 37, “Overture on Ruling Elders Serving Beyond the Congregation”
- Ongoing requests for Authoritative Interpretation
Together, these signal a denomination actively reexamining how ordination functions in a changing church.
These signal a denomination actively reexamining how ordination functions in a changing church.
The question is no longer simply procedural. It is missional and ecclesiological.
How does the church call, ordain and deploy leaders in a time when ministry increasingly extends beyond traditional congregational boundaries?
More than a technical question
Who ordains church leaders may seem like a technical matter. In reality, it reflects a deeper question about shared authority in the church.
Presbyterians have long held commitments to congregational discernment and connectional governance. The challenge now is not choosing one over the other but discerning how to balance them together faithfully in new ministry contexts.
In the end, the question of who ordains may be less about procedure and more about how the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) equips and empowers leaders for Christ’s mission today.
