Deputies on representation have sent the following letter to church councils on The church road to the General Synod of Hoogeveen.
Deputies of representation participated with gratitude in the prayer meeting on 7 February last. We were led together from God's Word to the throne of the Lord. There we can receive what is needed, in fact the only thing needed: grace, mercy and help. The prayers echoed the humility, embarrassment and expectation in which the deputies recognise themselves in their actions, and in which they want to continue.
With this letter, we would like to inform you about some important issues. The main issue is the church's path to the General Synod in Hoogeveen. We also include two letters sent to churches in recent weeks:
- Hoogeveen calling church's letter on revision requests;
- The letter announcing a general meeting by the Rijnsburg Direction Group.
Consequences of revision requests
After the publication of the Book of Decisions 11 December 2025, there was about a month's opportunity to apply to the synod for revision. That is a possibility offered by the Church Order, and involves a request to revise a decision of the previous synod. If that happens, that decision cannot yet take effect. Revision of (among other things) decisions to end the 2024 synod early, and not to designate a calling church for a subsequent synod, appears to have been requested. The civil judge already ruled on the latter. He called the churches to their own order. According to him, this meant that a calling church should have been designated for a subsequent synod (Article 50 of the Church Order). A calling church was still designated by the deputation of representation. But so even the synod itself will still have to decide whether those decisions could be taken that way. This also has implications for the mandate of deputations of representation. That mandate had been broadened, precisely in connection with those decisions. But with that, the mandate is now also under revision. Deputies must therefore operate all the more cautiously. They can inform, advise and suggest in the current situation, but they must respect the authority of church assemblies. Deputies do not want anything else either.
The church way
The revision requests also affect the churches gathered around the ‘Rijnsburg Direction Group’. Deputies, at least, cannot see it any other way. A general assembly has been announced, but deputies do not know its agenda. Earlier, they did formulate a clear intention: a new (they themselves speak of: restored) gathering in classical, private-synodal and general-synodal assemblies. In its letter of 9 February, it formulates: ‘to Deo volente 21 March 2026 shape church life together again’. Churches that deviate from the synod decisions on homosexual relations and women and ministry will not be allowed to do so. One appeals to the fact that the synod has returned responsibility to the local churches. Problem with this, then, is that this too is among the synod decisions whose revision has been requested, and which have therefore not come into force. Incidentally, the responsibility for the cohabitation of churches after the conclusion of a synod always reverts to the local churches. But those local churches have committed themselves to meet periodically with their neighboring churches classically (article 41 of the Church Order). For these reasons alone, it is not possible to want to stay with Scripture, confession, Church Order and synodal decisions on the one hand, and move to a new ecclesiastical cohabitation in several assemblies on the other. If the intention expressed earlier is acted upon, there would indeed be a secession in which a new church body would emerge. Churches going along with this should therefore realise that they are moving outside the context of the Christian Reformed Churches.
Core: The 2024 synod decided on a premature closure, without designating a calling church for a subsequent synod. The civil court called the churches back to their own order, and there have since been calls from the churches themselves to review these decisions as well. In such a case, no rights can be derived from those decisions. If, at the general assembly on 21 March, a number of Christian Reformed Churches decided on their own form of ecclesiastical coexistence with their own ecclesiastical assemblies, a new denomination would thus be created.
On agenda and decision-making is the GS of Hoogeveen
Deputies of representation, incidentally, prefer to name this sad prospect from a different perspective. Also in the ongoing conversation with the direction group, which is taking place in a mutually brotherly spirit. Deputies strongly question how the Rijnsburg intention relates to what Scripture and confession teach about the unity of the church. For certainly, for the sake of Truth, church separation may prove inevitable. It is also true that our church life ís torn. But can we justify a formal break-up at this time before the King of the church? Have we discussed long and deeply enough with each other whether there really is no longer unity in confession? Whether the foundation of the church among us is broken? Deputies are convinced that the church itself should be thought and talked about as fundamentally as homosexual relationships and women and ministry in the church. Deputies believe the General Synod is the right place to continue this conversation until conclusions can be drawn.
Once again, the desire was expressed from ‘Rijnsburg’ to continue cooperation in as many joint activities as possible. Think of missions, TUA and emeritikas, but also others. Deputies recognise this desire, because of the deep connection with the ‘Rijnsburg group’, and the desire to limit the damage as much as possible. But not until they have expressed their deep concern at the intention of their own church assemblies. Deputies also deem it important for lasting cooperation that Rijnsburg itself makes clear the status of the alliance of churches that commit to the decisions of the general assembly on D.V. 21 March. And ultimately then the general synod, and it alone, will decide on any forms of continuing cooperation. We know that several deputations are already discussing continued cooperation after an unexpected formal break-up. From the still polite connection with each other, and the gratitude for so much good we receive together, this is understandable. Deputies of representation do not want to step into the responsibility of deputations. Nevertheless, they would urge restraint in this regard, and the intention not to disseminate any ideas or proposals other than through their report to the Hoogeveen synod.
Core: Deputies believe that, as broadly as possible, longer discussions are needed about the church in the light of Scripture and confession. In doing so, the question must be faced honestly, whether the foundation of our church life together has fallen away. The desire to continue joint activities is recognised. However, according to the deputies, this requires clarity on how the churches that carry out these activities together relate to each other. It is up to the General Synod to decide on this.
Need for further discussion on Hoogeveen's GS
As for the General Synod itself, the following. The apprehension about the General Synod on 21 March goes hand in hand with a recognition of the serious distress in our denomination. This has a cause and a reason. In the brochure ‘Seek first the Kingdom’ very sensible things are written about this. This brochure is the elaboration of the report of a synodal commission composed from the breadth of our churches. That report was received with broad approval at the 2019-2022 synod. Dissent from synodal decisions, including those on homosexual relations and woman& ministry, is cited as the cause of division. The cause is said to be mutual distrust, which was allowed to fester and grow over decades in our church confederation. There is talk of church-wide guilt, which should lead to joint humbling and repentance. In that light, the Hoogeveen Synod will also have to address the question of how to deal with churches that deviate from Synod decisions. In any case, this will have to be done in response to a report by the deputaten kerkorde en kerkrecht (church order and church law experts) on this subject, which was not discussed at the previous synod. In the run-up to the Hoogeveen synod, the deputies want to underline once again the seriousness of deviating from synod decisions:
- This deviation has been classified as contrary to Article 31 K.O;
- This deviation has been flagged as conflicting with the agreement to the liaison form, which all Christian Reformed ministers sign upon taking office;
- Churches have been admonished by church assemblies, but that seems to have done so little;
- Church assemblies have sometimes refrained from exhortation where, according to synodal decisions, it should have taken place.
On the part of church councils that deviate, what is stated at the first two lines of thought is contested. The sentiments of these church councils should be heard at the synod, but also judged.
The cause of distress (church-wide distrust) does raise the question of whether the exhortation has always taken place in the right spirit: in love, patiently listening, groping for understanding, seeking the Lord's will together, convinced in judgement, praying for each other and remaining committed to each other. As mentioned earlier, the General Synod is about its own agenda. But deputies of representation want to do what they can to make the need of the church body the first and most important issue on the agenda. As for the synod's scenarios, deputies do not want to do more at this point than repeat what they wrote to you in their letter of 30 October 2025: ‘... continued existence, unbundling (A and B model), dissolution of the church association and others? In each scenario, the possibility of the continuation of the work carried out jointly so far and the shared material goods will have to be examined. Each scenario will also have to take into account an orderly possibility for local churches to still leave the alliance in one direction or another.’. We believe we have grounds to call on all churches to be represented at the Hoogeveen synod. And, in any case, not to stand in each other's way in convening classis and private synod with a view to the General Synod of Hoogeveen.
Core: At the Hoogeveen synod, there will have to be a deep discussion, and also judgment, about departing from synodal decisions within our churches. The spiritual frameworks for that conversation can be found in the brochure ‘Seek first the Kingdom of God’. It speaks in great earnest about that deviation, but also about the root causes of the tornness of our church life.
The church route to the GS of Hoogeveen is through the classes
As for the classis, we submit the following to the churches:
a. An appeal to all churches to delegate to the classis with a lawful letter of mandate. To accept these letters of mandate, even if a church council has a deviant policy. In dealing with the letters of mandate, to make it abundantly clear that delegation does not mean legitimising deviant policies in a sister church, but rather tolerating them (under admonition) until the General Synod of Hoogeveen has determined how to deal with church councils with deviant policies;
b. To insist that classis churches that consider themselves unable or not competent to convene the classis themselves ‘for conscience’ make this known to the other classis churches as soon as possible. These can then come to an arrangement whereby another classis church becomes the convening church. The Deputates for Church Order and Church Law have a draft arrangement available for this purpose;
c. With church councils that unexpectedly do not allow themselves to be delegated to the classis, to have enquiries made by the calling church or the proposed moderation committee as to whether they intend to commit themselves as participants in the reorganisation of church life envisaged by Rijnsburg. If this is not (yet) the case, to ask whether brethren from the churches concerned can be delegated to the private and possibly General Synod. If it does, no brethren from these church councils can be delegated;
d. If there is a notion among the classes that an early General Synod would be a good thing, this notion ASAP make it known to the calling church of the private synod. This need not be in the form of an instruction, it can also be in a letter that does provide arguments for the request;
e. Thoughts concerning the agenda of the synod or the situation in the denomination in general do best take the form of an instruction. These need not be sent to the private synod, but can be sent directly to the calling church of the general synod.
We recently wrote to churches asking them to help ensure that upcoming classis meetings will be conditionally closed. This is something a classis can do if it knows that the classis will have interim possibly must reconvene. That may indeed be necessary, if the calling church calls the General Synod early. That is not certain at the moment, but certainly not ruled out either. If (in addition to the private synod of the west, which already did it) a second private synod calls for an early general synod, deputies deem it possible that the synod of Hoogeveen will not open in mid-2027 but in autumn 2026.
Core: Deputies are urging classes and private synods to assume their responsibilities to arrive at a delegation to the General Synod. Earlier, they requested conditional closure of the spring classis. It is of great importance that our churches in Hoogeveen will be represented as broadly as possible.
Call to unity and prayer
Deputies on representation express the hope that unity may be preserved in local churches. In many churches there will be diversity of feeling. Because it is about the church of Christ, in which we have been given a place by grace, these things will soon be experienced at heart level. How important it is then to know about each other's pain, to acknowledge it and to speak at such length that we can bring to the Lord not only our own pain but also that of the other.
We endorse the call of deputies on representation in old composition to choose one line as church councils, and to propagate it in unity in the congregation. And also to urge congregations to have confidence in the church council. Church councils may also be expected to prove worthy of that trust by proceeding with great openness, and not taking any steps that affect the position of the congregation in the church structure, without speaking to the congregation about it (article 37 R.D., sub 2). Hopefully, these things will get a place in the prayers of the congregation with regularity.
In pointing out the continuing need for prayer, we return to the beginning of our letter. Let us continually dedicate each other to the throne of grace. There is the King of the church, who is also our great High Priest, and our perfect Prophet.
Deputies reiterate their willingness to answer questions from local churches. Please address them boldly to the secretary of the deputation, Rev Oosterbroek. Thank you for your patience in reading another long letter about the situation in the church.
With brotherly greetings,
On behalf of the deputation representing churches,
Rev. J. Oosterbroek
