Deputies Church Order and Church Law have sent the letter below to all deputations. For your information, they share it publicly.
Reason
We were asked by the Deputaten Vertegenwoordiging for expertise and church law interpretation following the developments surrounding ‘Rijnsburg’. In particular, many questions are being asked from the churches about the status of deputies and deputations, now that the ‘Rijnsburg’ group has decided to create its own ecclesiastical structure.
This guide serves to guard the church law purity and unity of the mandate within the Christian Reformed Churches (CGK) and offers guidance on how this should be handled in an orderly manner.
1. Mandate, assignments and reporting
The principles of the Rijnsburg General Assembly (21 March last) suggest that deputies could serve two different multiple assemblies and report to both. This representation is impossible under the current Church Order:
- The mandate of the deputations comes exclusively from the CGK. The deputations are part and property of the CGK.
- Accountability can only be given to the CGK. A deputy works exclusively on behalf of the CGK.
- Only one line runs from the previous synod to a continuation of the CGK, and that line runs through the synod of Hoogeveen. Taking orders from another ‘general assembly’ does not fit within this structure.¹
2. Status of the ‘Rijnsburg’ association as another church association
The recent developments surrounding the general assembly of 21 March last raise penetrating questions. In church law and legal terms, a new denomination is being formed from Rijnsburg, outside the framework of the CGK.²
• Formation of a parallel structure: Initiatives are being taken to form its own classes with the power to make binding decisions and its own right of appeal. This will create a parallel church order and a new church structure alongside the CGK.
• Vision of church affiliation: Expressions from ‘Rijnsburg’ no longer speak from the unity of the existing connection, but about ‘groups of churches reorganising themselves’. In doing so, Rijnsburg places itself outside the current structure of the CGK and calls into question the church-ordained frameworks.³
• Link implications: When congregations join this new structure, a situation arises that amounts to a de facto break with the church affiliation. Although the ecclesiastical link formally ends only after going through the ecclesiastical route via the classis, participation in another structure means in practice that one no longer functions loyally within the CGK. This affects the legitimacy of the mandate of delegates. For pastors, their position becomes incompatible with being bound to the order of the CGK, as one cannot serve two different church communities at the same time.⁴
3. Implications for legal status and staffing
Membership status of the CGK is the statutory basis for filling a position within a deputation.
• Membership requirement: In accordance with the general ecclesiastical principles of the CGK, deputies are appointed by the private synod or the general synod, one of the conditions being that a person can only be considered for such appointment if he/she is a ‘member in full right of a local CGK’ (art. 50.13 KO).
When a congregation transitions to the structure around ‘Rijnsburg’, the status of that congregation within the connection must be addressed through the ecclesiastical route. As soon as the classis concludes that by this step the connection with the CGK has been severed, the delegate or deputation concerned loses the status of member of the CGK. At that point, the legal basis for exercising the deputation lapses.
• Role of the classis: Determining whether a congregation is still functioning within the context is a matter for the classis. Before a conclusion is reached, the ecclesiastical path is followed through a special church visitation. The purpose of this is pastoral: to call the congregation in love to the unity of the denomination. This requires careful conversation and patience. Only when this conversation comes to a definite standstill - for example, due to the classis no longer recognising it or explicitly opting for a structure outside the CGK - can the classis officially conclude that the congregation has withdrawn from the alliance.
• Status pending trial: Once the classis establishes that a congregation has disaffiliated from the CGK, the person concerned is no longer a member of the CGK and can therefore no longer hold office as a deputation. The administrative processing is done by the next General Synod, but the authority to act on behalf of the deputation ends at the moment of the ecclesiastical finding by the classis.
4. Ensuring mandate and managerial accountability
In carrying out the mandate, a complex situation arises when the unity of the church body and the legitimacy of the General Synod are in question. This requires deputations to carefully manage the tasks and resources entrusted to them.
• Carefulness in mandate and implementation: When ambiguity arises about the church-law status of a deputation, it affects the basis of the mandate. It is essential that actions and decisions always remain traceable to the CGK's frameworks. To ensure the legitimacy of policies, deputations should avoid ambiguity about the authority of those acting on behalf of the connection.
• Administrative accountability: Deputies manage funds owned by the CGK. As soon as a deputation joins another structure and thereby terminates its membership of the CGK, the statutory basis for exercising the deputation lapses. After all, discharge for the conducted policy can only be granted by the General Synod of the CGK. In order to guarantee the legality of actions and the integrity of the board, continuation of the function in that situation is no longer possible.
• The good talk: While the deputation has no statutory instruments to unilaterally terminate the membership of a deputy, it is the responsibility of the deputation to engage in conversation when in doubt. This conversation is aimed at taking joint responsibility for the progress of the work and preventing unauthorised legal acts. Pending formal decision-making by the classis, deputies are looking for ways to continue carrying out the CGK's mandate with integrity and purity.
Status of this guide
This handout has been prepared to inform deputations of the church law implications of the events on 21 March last. It will also be made available via the churches' websites to provide the necessary clarity.
With fraternal greetings on behalf of deputies Church Order and Church Law
A.J. van der Toorn, chairman
(signed by me due to temporary absence of the secretary)
1 See, e.g.. Judgment of the Gelderland District Court, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:8038.
2 See note De Hek and Sunday, 16 September 2025: https://cgk.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Notitie-juridische-situatie-CGK-H.-de-Hek-en-W.A.-Zondag-2.pdf.
3 See Report 1 of Committee 1 of the so-called Rijnsburg Group.
4 Art. 5.6 Church Order.
