In recent months, in connection with rising tensions in the churches, the question of the possibility of rejecting the credentials of a congregation that does not adhere in all respects to previously made ecclesiastical agreements, with the result that that congregation is de facto no longer part of the church confederation, has been raised more and more emphatically at a multiple meeting. In this note, as a deputation, we want to draw some church law lines around that question. To do so, we take our starting point a step deeper, namely in a few remarks about what we profess about the church. From there, there is something to say about church affiliation, and finally about credentials and the possible possibility of not accepting them with the consequence that a local church is no longer part of the church affiliation.
1. About the church
When asked in the Heidelberg Catechism in Sunday 21: "What do you believe concerning the holy Catholic Church?", the answer is: "That from the beginning of the world to the end the Son of God, out of all mankind, assembled, protected and preserved by his Spirit and Word in the unity of the true faith, a congregation chosen unto eternal life; and that I am a living member thereof, and shall ever remain so. These are beautiful words, words to cling to for a lifetime. And words that set the only possible tone appropriate when speaking about the church. A high tone: the church is not an association, not an organisation that we ourselves have devised, let alone something over which we have control; the church, that is that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself gathers a congregation, and protects and maintains it forever - and that I, by sheer grace, may belong to that congregation.
Speaking about the church on this pitch cannot be without consequences for how you deal with the church. You can see this in what the Dutch Creed says when it talks about the church there, in Art 27ff. 'We believe and profess', it says there, 'a single Catholic or general church, as a holy assembly of the truly believing Christians, who expect all their salvation from Jesus Christ, washed by his blood and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit'. But we also believe, as a corollary, that "since this holy assembly and congregation is the assembly of those who are saved and there is no salvation outside it, that no one should separate themselves from it", but that "all should join it" and that "all believers should separate themselves from those who do not belong to the church in accordance with God's Word". In other words, joining the church of Christ, and separating oneself from what is not the church of Christ, is not a casual choice. Art 28 says: 'therefore all who separate themselves from her or do not join her are acting contrary to God's ordinance'.
2. About church affiliation
This tone is also the tone that Reformed church law tries to achieve, and it is the tone that is echoed in the way our Reformed churches have joined together. At the Synod of Emden (1571), the Dutch churches of the Reformation agreed on church organisation for the first time. As the main motive for holding the synod, the letter of convocation mentioned that ecclesiastical unity would serve God's honour and the edification of His congregation. The organisation of the churches agreed there was not imposed by the synod, but approved by the churches by general consent. Dr H. Bouwman says: 'After all, the Reformed were one in confession, their unity rested on that, and all that was derived from God's Word in terms of church government had already been accepted. (...) Because the churches are one in Christ, one in confession, and they are called to practise this unity to the outside world as much as possible, they also have the authority together to make ordinances, which, in submission to God's Word and the common confession, govern the life and welfare of the common churches" (Reformed Church Law II, p. 4).
In their conviction, they were thereby not only in tune with the confession, but also with Scripture. Bouwman: "The church is a holy assembly of true believers, it consists of people who have been gathered and joined by Christ and are governed by His Word and Spirit. Christ Himself builds the church on the foundation of apostles and prophets, He is the Head, the church is His body. And every local church, though an independent, complete church, is by virtue of its birth from Christ not the church, but only a revelation of Christ's church in a single place. She is therefore spiritually one with the whole church over the whole earth. The obligation to associate with other churches is especially pressing if in other places the church has also come to such a revelation that it is recognisable as the church of Christ and professes the same faith" (p. 5).
If the latter is so (that another church is also recognisable as the church of Christ and professes the same faith), then you must seek each other out, says our confession, and so did our Reformed forefathers. This is also evident from the rules drawn up in Emden. Besides the fundamental principle of the independence of the local church (Art. 1 says that no church or servant shall have dominion over the other), Emden has another principle, namely that of the unity of these churches, the unitas ecclesiarum. Prof. J. Hovius, in his 'Notes concerning the synod at Emden, 1571' show that a mode for this lay in church unity, in which both independence and unity could come into their own. All provisions that serve to preserve unity relate to unity of faith according to confession, in other things the churches are free.
Volunteer
For the Reformed, therefore, the ground for church affiliation was firstly the right of God revealed in Scripture, and secondly the consent of the local church; for every local congregation is an independent and complete church once the offices are instituted. Without the voluntary affiliation of believers, the institution of a church is not possible, nor is a church affiliation possible without voluntary affiliation. But, Bouwman then adds: 'this should not be misunderstood. Joining the alliance is voluntary in the sense that no one, no church or state power, can force it to join a particular alliance, since the church itself has to judge according to God's Word whether it belongs in that alliance and whether this will harm it or benefit it. But this freedom is not arbitrary. There must already be very weighty causes which justify the freedom to stand on its own' (p. 9). The Reformed did not derive church affiliation from freedom to choose, but considered it necessary because of unity in Christ. Where that unity is there, seeking one another is commanded, and where that unity is lacking, joint action is not possible. It goes without saying that this also says something about our freedom today, to enter into or break away from a church alliance. That cannot be an optional extra, but there is a high calling behind it: unity in Christ. And you can say that even more precisely. Bouwman writes that church unity is fundamentally based on the unity of the churches in Christ, but that because the church has a history and has developed in different ways in different places, that unity is practically only possible among churches of common confession. Confession is, as Article 2 of the Emden Synod declares, 'the declaration of the mutual union and unity of the churches'. Assent to the confession was a condition for entering into the alliance, and from the beginning it was true that common submission to the confession was, as F.L. Rutgers says, 'the one indispensable thing' for the whole church alliance; 'the unity of ecclesiastical forms may be desirable, but surely it is also possible if it is lacking'. Bouwman concludes: 'Unity in confession was agreed upon by the church community' (p. 13).
3. On credentials
So the Reformed churches established a form of church fellowship as soon as they could. The driving force was the conviction that no congregation should remain isolated because of unity in faith, but that it was its duty to join together in the denomination. Churches were free to join the denomination, but this should not be an arbitrary choice. 'Just as in every place no member was allowed to remain on his own, but every one had to join the church, so it was also with the churches with regard to the church association' (J. Smetius, Synodal Ordinances, p. 68). That non-randomness applied to joining the church body as well as to breaking with the church body: "once the churches have accepted unity in the church body, a church is not free to break with that body unless the churches with which it lives in communion have left the basis of society, the confession according to God's Word" (Voetius, Pol. Eccl. IV, p. 168). In this conviction, a church organisation was designed. At the Synod of Emden, concrete arrangements were made for the first time, including around the establishment of classes. Members of the classic assembly were the churches themselves, which had to send its representatives to the assembly with a well-defined mandate. The delegates included the churches, which is why they had to carry credentials and present them at the assembly. Those credentials had to include the names of the delegates, as well as a declaration that they were mandated and authorised by the church council to co-handle all lawfully tabled matters according to God's Word, the church's confession and the adopted church order. In short, the credentials are the official evidence of lawful delegation of the churches, which are the sole holders of ecclesiastical power and pool their power for certain matters1.
Sound
Along these lines, the Church Order of the CGK stipulates in art. 33 that delegation to several assemblies is done through credentials "signed by those who delegated them", and in art. 41 that these credentials must be "sound". A perusal of the arrangements at church assemblies in the 16th century shows that this provision goes back to the rule that they must bear signatures on behalf of the church council. Checking the credentials therefore refers to verifying whether the credentials are correct, whether the signatures are correct, whether the same delegates are present as are on the credentials, etc.; in short, whether they are in order. This is important, after all: they are the official proofs of legitimate delegation of the churches, bringing their power together in this assembly - without 'proper' credentials, no multiple assembly.
Refusing credentials?
What is currently being mentioned as a possibility in the CGK is that a very different kind of 'audit' will come into play when verifying credentials, namely one in which before the assembly begins the trustworthiness of a local church is the subject of consideration, and in which the question is asked: do we consider the credentials of a church that does not adhere to the agreed arrangements in all things? (After all, the credentials state that the delegates will participate in the assembly to decide and carry out everything with charge and power on the basis of God's Word, the adopted Forms of Unity, the Dordrecht Church Order and the further synodal provisions of the churches', and when there is reasonable doubt about the clarity of this framework on the part of the delegating church, the pressing question is to ask what that mandate is worth). And that if it is felt that this credibility is not there, that this can then be a reason to refuse the letter of credence of such a church, which de facto places that church outside the denomination.
- It does not appear in the Church Order
However, this way of dealing with credentials, and this way of allowing churches to become outside the church body is alien to Reformed church law. There is not a single article in our Church Order that talks about such a possibility. And this is not only 'to the letter' of the church order (as there are many situations not literally in the church order, which you can nevertheless resolve as churches in line with other articles or the principles of church law), but it is also not 'to the spirit' of Reformed church law.
To start with the 'letter', the question whether or not to accept credentials can only be raised before the meeting has even started legally (after all, it is only constituted by accepting the credentials, without credentials there is no meeting), and to raise a question about the trustworthiness of one of the assembling churches at that moment, with such major consequences, is a very unusual construction in church law. But much deeper is the objection that a reformed church order (including that of the CGK) does not have a way to "expel" churches from the church. The only way for a local church to get out of the church alliance (besides a church council's own decision to leave the alliance) is, when a path of discipline has been taken, a path of suspension and dismissal, via Articles 79 and 80 R.O.
Traditionally, the Church Order has appointed the possibility of action against a minister - but that could also be an entire church council - for "unscriptural teachings", or "public schism" (Art. 80). Then the appropriate route is that of suspension and deposition, when the time of exhortation has not delivered what it is supposed to: repentance. The ecclesiastical route here - however sad and drastic - is not complicated ecclesiastically. It is done with the involvement of an ordained council of churches and - in the case of a pastor - of a classis. When suspending an entire council of churches, it obviously cannot be done this way: its own council of churches will not submit a request to suspend itself. Then art. 30 K.O. comes into effect in the opposite sense, and the superior assembly does what the inferior one cannot do: it proceeds to suspend and dismiss, seeking the advisory assistance of deputies under art. 49 K.O.
That is the way in which, in the absence of evidence of repentance, and in the case of very weighty matters (namely matters that justify disciplinary action), the connection with the churches can be cut. There is no 'easier' way in Reformed church law for a church to cease to be part of the denomination. And that is for good reason; namely, the same reason as mentioned at the beginning of this memorandum: that there must be very weighty grounds for being allowed to break the connection, because of the unity of the churches in Christ - that breaking with the church is not allowed lightly, but only if that church has abandoned the basis of living together, the confession according to God's Word (Voetius), if that church has lost the signs of the true church and has become false church (art. 28 NGB).
- Nor has it been used like this before in history
There is little to be found in church law literature on the refusal of credentials, and this can probably be explained from the above, namely that it is not a real church law option to sever ties with a church in this way. Even in the history of churches in the Reformed yard, there are few leads to be found. Only one situation can be mentioned where this line of action was more or less followed, and that is the break-up of the Reformed Churches (liberated) in the 1960s. One case in point is the expulsion of Rev B.F.J. Schoep from the Synod of the Reformed Churches (liberated) in 1967.
There was no direct question of denial of credentials of a church here, but there is analogy. At the opening of the GS of Amersfoort-west, on 4 April 1967, the synod went straight into closed session after the delegates had agreed to the confession because of a pre-alabel proposal by the PS of Drenthe. That proposal was that the assent to the confession by Rev Schoep, delegated by the PS of North Holland, should be questioned in the light of an article he had written and of his signing the Open Letter. After a discussion about the instruction, a statement of principle was made in which contradiction was expressed between the Open Letter and agreeing to the confession at synod. In the end, it was decided 'by virtue of the confession of truth, not to receive Rev B.J.F. Schoep as a member of this General Synod'.
As mentioned, this was not a direct refusal of credentials from a church, but that direct refusal did occur in the developments that followed, culminating at the 1969/1970 Synod of Hoogeveen. The dismissal of one of their delegates tested the relations between the churches in North Holland and the synod. Moreover, the Open Letter, which had played a role in deeming that delegate untrustworthy, had been signed by 11 pastors from North Holland. There were difficulties in all classes as a result. A factor in this was that in several places, committees provided education on how to act when pastors were deemed 'untrustworthy'. If a church council did not proceed to suspend its preacher, church members were urged to get behind their ministers and 'take reformation in hand'. Thus, in various places in North Holland, two churches were formed: the old congregation, and a new 'stepped-out' church. Those outgoing churches then formed their own classes and a new PS. And so it came about that two credentials from North Holland were submitted to the GS of Hoogeveen: one from the original PS, and one from the new PS, which had also appointed delegates. The synod decided to receive the latter at the synod and refuse the credentials of the other churches.
So it has happened once in the history of the Reformed churches that the refusal of credentials (here of an entire PS) has been used to expel churches from the church. At the same time, it can be said that, following the whole course of developments, one cannot actually maintain that how was acted here can serve as an example of appropriate church law action to which one can fall back on in later times. So much has gone wrong, including in church law and church order, that it cannot be held up as an example of the application of Reformed church law in a way that can serve as legitimation to repeat it in later times2.
- Caution
These two observations together: the fact that it does not appear in our Church Order as a possibility, as well as the fact that it has not previously been used in the history of Reformed Church Law as a (properly) deployed means, are, as far as deputies are concerned, reason for great caution to dare point this way. The former prevails in this. Everything said above shows that severing ties with a church can only come into view as a possibility if there is a denominational dispute. But precisely when such a weighty reason must be at stake, that argues in favour of then also going the only way our Church Order points out, namely a way of exhortation and discipline. A way of calling back to Christ. After all, isn't that precisely the spirit of Reformed church law: that you protect a congregation that is apparently being led astray, on a path away from Christ, from this by taking the path of discipline? If you are truly convinced of the harmfulness of a certain path, then surely you should call your brothers and sisters back from that path instead of letting them go without obligation?
Refusal of credentials is a denunciation of unity in confession, unity in Christ, and is therefore as far-reaching, both in practical consequences and in principle, as a path of suspension and deposition - but without the lengthy effort and prayer that the latter path requires. And where our Reformed church law, with good reason, has no easy ways to break the bond between us as churches, deputies consider it very wise that we as churches refrain from seeking those ways anyway.
4. How then to act when a church does not conform to synodal decisions?
Denial of credentials is thus not an appropriate means of admonishing churches or denying them access to the church body. But then, what ecclesiastical instrument is available to a superior assembly to call to order a church council that does not abide by previously made agreements? That is the question that irrevocably follows the conclusion we just drew, and which is also repeatedly raised in requests for advice.
It is important to point out that there is no one answer to this question that applies everywhere in the same way, in the sense of: if a church council does this, this is the consequence, and if a church council does that, a classis must act that way. Every situation requires a separate and careful weighing up of everything that plays a role in that situation. But lines can be drawn.
Vermaan
The first thing a classis has to do when a church council goes in disorderly ways is to enter into conversation, with the possibility of admonition. That is a task assigned to the visitators in Article 44 RD: they "shall see to it" that the church council members "persevere in the purity of doctrine, maintain the adopted church order in every respect and duly promote the edification of the congregation by words and works. In doing so, they shall in good time fraternally admonish those found negligent in one or the other respect, and by word and deed do everything for the peace, edification and welfare of the churches'.
Fraternal vemanen... indeed, for the churches belong together to that one great household of our heavenly Father. The verb exhort is a Biblical word (1 Thess. 5:11 and 14 e.g.). In our Dutch translations, that exhort is also called call, encourage, comfort. It is a very hot word in the scriptures! So you take your time, you are patient, you know about waiting. Exhortation does not work on the watch, but is out for the good time. The cause of the unity of the churches is more than worthy of that: after all, it is about the peace bestowed by blood? He who gave that blood of His body also gave His Church the 'Our Father'. Not singular, but plural: our Father! We want to pray this together for as long as possible. Exhortation is made with an appeal to the 'mercies of God', Rom. 12:1. So also on that pitch. That exhortation may and will therefore take time. Sometimes there seems to be something of an impatience in the churches on this point: 'it has to end now!' That is not the style of the Kingdom. When a family member threatens to leave the family, family members keep calling for a return. If a family member's behaviour puts tension in the family's cohabitation, family members certainly do not reject him/her untimely...
Churchwardens will thus receive a specific assignment from the classis for this purpose, in accordance with Article 44. Hoping and praying that it helps.
But when to admonish?
It was explicitly stated above that the possibility of admonition exists. Conversation about disordered paths - on any subject - need not always and necessarily end in exhortation. That verb - on a Biblical pitch - is only an issue when one leaves the straight and narrow path Scripturally and confessionally. Art. 44 also speaks of admonition when the "adopted church order" is not maintained "in every respect". If a church council, for example, proceeds to hold one service per Sunday, a classis may express concerns about this, and may still use the word 'exhortation', but that is still exhortation on a different level than when Scripture and confession are at issue. Sometimes classic assemblies recognise that a church council is not (or no longer) reasonably able to uphold a particular church rule. And it submits to that.
In Scripture, the word exhortation stands for 'that activity which intends, by the means of words, to draw a Christian away from what is wrong and bring him to do good. In particular, it is the work of those who have responsibility for the faith and life of the congregation' (F.J. Pop, Biblical words and their secret, p. 449v). But church members also have this task among themselves (1 Thess. 5). 'It is also the first step taken to bring the wrongness of his actions or views to the attention of someone who is going down the heretical road' (p. 450). It is in this sense that the word is also heard in Articles 74 and 77 R.O.
In the CGK, we have long made the distinction between a serious classical conversation when deviating from the church order in matters that do not affect Scripture and confession on the one hand and admonition in matters that do affect Scripture and confession on the other. One can see the state of affairs regarding the church song, the number of services per Sunday, the limited service time of ministers, the systematic non-payment or underpayment for some church coffers, disregarding the limits of a preaching authority and so on. Incidentally, even in matters that do affect Scripture and confession, the CGK is sometimes reluctant to admonish. It is known, for example, that when it comes to views on ministers regarding the so-called millennial kingdom, the agreement in article 51, paragraphs 1 and 2 is not always adhered to; likewise, some congregations do not adhere to the established rule in article 61, paragraph 3 (making a 'profession of truth'). This makes the question of when not conforming to church agreements that affect Scripture and confession should lead to admonition (and eventually possibly even to breaking of the connection) to be considered with extreme caution. After all, there should be no double standards.
And then?
But what if a long time of conversation and/or exhortation has not led to reversal, or to coming closer together? Then a classis will have to consider. The main question that will then have to be asked is whether or not it is a fundamental denominational dispute. If the former is the case, that it concerns something in which the unity in confession, the unity in Christ, is broken, then there is only one way to proceed according to reformed church law: the way of discipline, and ultimately suspension and dismissal according to Articles 79 and 80 of the OC. And this can happen when long-term church admonitions for not conforming to a church decision of such weight are disregarded. It is a path that intervenes very deeply, and undoubtedly involves a lot of work: the congregation comes under the ecclesiastical administration of a classis after it has deposed the church council, the classis establishes an emergency church council and sees to it that a revival of congregational life under God's blessing can take place as soon as possible. But it is the only way possible in such weighty matters that warrant discipline.
When the dispute is not a fundamental denominational dispute, that path cannot be taken. In an article in Ambtelijk Contact, May/June 2019, 'Preserving unity, between fundamental and non-fundamental, p. 19, Rev H. de Bruijne argues for distinguishing 'between fundamental and non-fundamental'. He cites as an example 'matters not clearly established in the confession'. When it comes to the latter matters, a serious conversation can be helpful, but in the end it comes down to being willing to carry each other, and tolerating that the difference is there. In this regard, he writes: 'Tolerance does not exclude criticism and admonition. It is a question of being willing to suffer the (perhaps prolonged) pain of the (possibly profound) difference of opinion and also of prayerfully persevering to make the effort to want to bring each other to better thoughts'.3.
Review
Clearly, for a church council to simply go its own way when struggling with joint appointments is undenominational, and strains relationships between them. It also raises questions about the value of the words in a credential that delegates will participate in the assembly "to decide and carry out all things with charge and power on the basis of God's Word, the adopted Forms of Unity, the Dordrecht Church Order and the further synodal provisions of the churches". The discrepancy between these words and the fact that a delegating church itself does not abide by a particular church appointment is recognised by deputies. Despite this discrepancy, denying credentials is not a passable path. However, there are probing questions to be asked by the assembly about it, and there is a call for church action. Then the assembly will have to weigh what the answer to those questions leads to (and the possible outcomes are listed above).
It should be kept in mind, however, that the trinity: God's Word, adopted forms of unity and the Dordrecht Church Order is not subsidiary, but subordinate. At the top is Scripture (inviolable), below that the Confession (agreement of ecclesiastical co-existence to which everyone is accountable, with the right of gravamen), and below that again the Church Order, which can be increased and decreased as the churches deem appropriate. It is illuminating to include here the signing form on ministers. In it, ministers affirm that the confession (the "pieces of doctrine") is in accordance with God's Word and promise not to teach anything contrary to it. Where they deem a change necessary, they will raise it in the church way. Unity at denominational level, in other words. Admittedly, the CGK form also adds the sentence: 'Finally, we promise to act in all things according to the current church order and further provisions of the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland', but that is a definite oddity: in no other signing form in Reformed circles does one come across this passage. Why was it added? In Ambtelijk Contact, March/April 2019, Rev D. Quant wrote in 'Bound to - joined to. What do we declare in the signing form?" about the 1962 GS: "One signals that it has already happened several times that church councils have withdrawn from the denomination on the grounds of doctrinal disputes. They cannot be denied that right, but it is to be lauded when no attempt is first made to discuss these disputes in the church way. (...) The North asks the synod to seek ways to prevent this unchurchly action. After intensive discussion, the synod then decides, among other things, to include the sentence (...) in the formulary. In short: this sentence is only in the signature form to prevent church councils from simply severing ties with sister churches without spiritually and honestly discussing their difficulties with them. And in the first years after 1962, this must also have been "in everyone's mind": it is not acceptable for a church council that gets into trouble with the doctrine of the CGK to leave it unsaid and depart from the ecclesiastical connection; anyone who seriously believes that the sister churches do not fully adhere to the confession (or its correct interpretation), is spiritually obliged to bring this into discussion, in order to correct those sister churches - or, of course, to be corrected themselves. Now, more than 55 years later, this genesis is unknown to most. And we now read into it a general commitment to the content of our Church Order and our synodal decisions'.
So the latter is not justified. It would also be completely superfluous: this binding to church decisions is already found in article 87 of the R.O. And the risk is not imaginary that people would start thinking that the church order is on the same level as Scripture and confession, and that in case of deviation from it, a further statement should be requested. Further explanations are only and exclusively requested by a church assembly when denominational reliability is at risk. When it comes to deviations in the church orders that do not affect Scripture and confession, the church assemblies will discuss them (possibly through the church overseers) and exercise patience, possibly tolerate them. And in fact, this is no different from what the CGK has always done when church order rules are violated at that level (see, for example, the course of events concerning the church song, which dragged on from 1980 to 2004).
This has everything to do with the roots of Reformed church law. After all, the order of the church is the order of peace (1 Cor. 14:33). It is the peace that is the salutary result of the blood of Christ (Isa. 53:5). It is that peace that binds together; it is grace that brings together. But precisely because that is so, congregations also hold together for a long time, even in cases of non-principled deviation from agreements. As long as we recognise each other in preaching and conversation on the level of peace and grace, this transcends any possible church-orderly inaccuracies. Even when many of us find them very undesirable. It is precisely because of the power of grace that churches deal graciously with each other. These thoughts (needless to say) do not serve to applaud or encourage these inaccuracies. That is not the issue. The issue is how to respond ecclesiastically when these undesirable inaccuracies do occur in congregations. De Bruijne typifies this in his aforementioned article with words like suffering and pain, about each other, but explicitly also with each other. The blood of Christ, from which we all live, the grace we all need, is worth that.
Finally, there is one more important lesson to learn from history. In our canon law system, there is a connection between the presbytery and the synod. In that order, and emphatically not the other way round. The wider church assemblies are there to serve and help the church councils and, within them, the local congregations. That helping may hurt, but it must remain helping and not become ruling. A synod has no authority of its own. Its authority is the authority of the Word. Bouwman writes about this: 'the authority of an ecclesiastical assembly is linked to its calling to be the pillar and firmness of the truth; to confess, propagate and uphold the truth which it believes' (p. 210), and further on: 'There is no ecclesiastical assembly which can speak with infallible authority. (...) It has repeatedly happened that a synod has made entirely wrong decisions, and that the decisions of a synod have had very wrong consequences for the church. For this very reason, every synod should take care not to make a decision in a dispute where feelings are very much divided, as a result of which a large proportion of the members of the assembly, and therefore also of the churches, feel aggrieved and the peace of the churches is disturbed, unless the synod is convinced that its decision rests on the clearly expressed will of the Lord. (p. 212). This means that when matters come to its table, a GS should explicitly ask itself at what level the discussion topic is. In matters of principle, the GS will make binding statements. It cannot and should not do otherwise. And such statements will also have to be respected: after all, the Word is then at issue. But that has to be very clear. In non-political matters, the synod can give advice, express preferences, call for action or not. But it cannot be binding. And if it does, history shows that the issue irrevocably returns to the synod board after a number of years.
Bouwman writes immediately following the above quote about the minority conforming to the majority, subject to the appeal to Art. 31 K.O. That principle (conforming to church decisions taken) is probably more complicated and exciting today than it was half a century ago, and it requires a lot from church assemblies to deal with it properly. In view of this, it might be worth revisiting the wording of the first sentence of Article 31 RD: 'the decisions of an ecclesiastical assembly shall be taken after joint deliberation and, if possible, by unanimous votes'. Seeking that unanimity forces a church assembly to weigh the issue: principled or not principled. Binding or releasing. This is difficult, but it is especially beneficial: '(...) so that they will all call on the name of the LORD, to serve Him shoulder to shoulder' (literally: with a unanimous shoulder), Zeph. 3:9b.
November 2019, deputies church order and church law
Footnotes
- Of importance is the issuing by the sending authority: this prevented the government from usurping the right to send ecclesiastical trustees to the meeting, but also emphasised that it was an ecclesiastical meeting and not an association meeting or meeting in a personal capacity (Joh. Jansen, Brief Statement of the Church Order, pp. 151-153).
- For a detailed discussion of what also went wrong in the church order, see G. van den Brink and H.J. van der Kwast, Een kerk ging stuk, pp. 66-110.
- In the context of current tensions, this raises the question of to what extent the election of women ministers in a congregation constitutes a departure from Scripture and confession. And this is less straightforward than many would like to know: anyone who checks the course of events at the 1998 and 2001 general synods will discover that in both synods care was taken to avoid expressing a condemnation in principle of the position of the minority of the study committee. It was even stated that the synod did not want to cross this line (Acta GS 1998 art. 136) and did not cross it (Acta GS 2001, art. 111). So the question of whether there can be different scriptural interpretation on this point within Reformed hermeneutics has remained open since 1998. And this has been further underscored by an East PS instruction on the table at this GS. Until the GS has decided on this, at least ecclesiastically, we will have to stand still for the time being. This also suits the churches when local congregations pass the boundary of women in ministry in impatience; impatience on the part of one party cannot be met with impatience on the part of the other, especially in the Kingdom. Assuming that the reflection at GS leads to a decision that it is fundamentally possible to judge women and ministry differently, then it cannot be ruled out that the GS would at the same time reiterate the 1998 call to "preserve the unity of the churches" on this point (Acta GS art. 230). But a church council that nevertheless decides to introduce it at this state of affairs and does so in a biblically sound way cannot then be admonished at the level described above. But it is also possible that the GS, after its reflection, comes to a tightening of 1998 and pronounces that it is not possible within a Reformed scriptural view to arrive at female ministers; then the matter is different.