Church law lines around church affiliation

Synod closed without designating calling church. What does that mean for the survival of the church body?

The final resolutions of the last General Synod raise questions about the survival of the denomination. Why is it bad that no calling church was designated? And is that inevitable if we are to continue together as a denomination? This note explores the ecclesiastical value of these synod decisions and what this means for local churches and for our living together as churches in our denomination.

1. The decision taken by the General Synod on 3 June 2025

1.1 The content of the decision

According to the letter sent by deputies of representation to the churches on 6 June last, the General Synod on 3 June 2025 decided as follows:

Both from a linguistic point of view and from church order lines, it is difficult to dissect exactly what the synod actually said with this. After all: once the assembly is closed, the responsibility that the synod had received from the churches naturally ends. There is no need to return the responsibility to the local churches; they already bear that responsibility in principle. In Reformed church law, a synod is not a permanent board; it exists only as long as the assembly lasts. So whether the synod in its own estimation has been able to fulfil the mandate according to art. 30 KO or not, the responsibility for a continuing
church life together after the close of the assembly is in principle already with the local churches, no separate synod decision is needed for that.

The last addition, that no calling church has been designated 'for that reason', is also unclear: it is not clear what 'for that reason' refers back to, nor does it become clear why, if responsibility is returned to the local churches, no calling church has been designated. Precisely if the responsibility lies with the local churches for the further life of the church, then those local churches would benefit from a designated church that could call the churches back together for a new assembly.

1.2 Clarification of the decision by deputies representation

Deputies of Representation, in their letter informing the churches of the decision taken, themselves provide an explanation of point 4. That explanation reads as follows:

A little further on in their letter, the deputies' representation say what they think Decision 4, in the light of the explanation given, means for the situation of the churches at the moment.
The first question that is asked in this regard is: 'does our church affiliation no longer exist now?'
We also reproduce the answer to that question below:

Even after this justification given by deputies for the decision taken, it remains unclear what exactly the decision means for the denomination. On the one hand, to the question of whether the alliance still exists, the deputies answer flat out 'yes'. But then the letter states that it is up to the local churches to ask themselves 'whether they want to reconvene in synod' and 'how then' and 'with which other congregations then'. These sentences refute the thesis that there is still a church alliance. For if the church alliance still exists, then the local congregations are not free to freely ask themselves whether they want to reunite and with which congregations they want to do so. Deputies say that these important questions are now on the table of the local churches, but these questions are not on the table of the local churches if the denomination still exists. In short, the letter adds rather than subtracts from the confusion.

To arrive at a responsible answer to the question of whether the denomination still exists now that the General Synod decided to close the assembly without designating a new calling church, we will have to go a little deeper into the question of what the denomination is, how the denomination is constituted and what sustains the denomination. This will require a bit more words than the simple explanations sometimes given of it in the press and elsewhere at the moment. But we consider it our duty to give a careful account of the church-law lines and to interpret the situation from there and to answer the question of whether the church alliance still exists.

2. Origin and foundation of the church system according to Reformed church law

2.1 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 have devised ourselves, 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, that He 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 the Dutch Creed 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 church is the assembly of those who are saved, and there is no salvation outside it, that no one should be separated from it", but that "all should be joined to 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 NGB says: 'therefore all who separate themselves from her or do not join her are acting contrary to God's ordinance'.

2.2 Church affiliation

This tone is the tone in which Reformed church law speaks of the church. And it is also the tone reflected in the way our Reformed churches have joined together. At the Synod of Emden (1571), a church organisation was formed for the first time by the Dutch churches of the Reformation. The organisation agreed there was approved by those churches with general consent, because the churches had found each other in the common confession. Because there was unity in confession, there was also room, ánd necessity, to arrange things together.

Church law expert Dr H. Bouwman says in his standard work on Reformed church law that this is part of the principles of Reformed church law: 'Because the churches are one in Christ, one in confession, and are called to put this unity into practice as far as possible outwardly, they also have the authority together to make ordinances, which, in submission to God's Word and the common confession, apply as rules for the life and welfare of the joint churches' (Reformed Church Law II, p. 4).

The Synod of Emden says in Article 2 that the common confession is 'the declaration of the mutual commitment and of the unity of the churches'. Assent to the confession was, in Emden, a condition for entering into the church alliance, and from the beginning it was true for the Reformed churches that common submission to the confession was 'the one indispensable thing' for the church alliance (so says F.L. Rutgers, who added: 'the unity of church forms may be desirable, but surely it is also possible if it is lacking'). Bouwman, reproducing the above quote in his book, concludes: 'unity in confession was accord of ecclesiastical fellowship' (Reformed Church Law II, p. 13).

Two things governed the rules for church life as drawn up in Emden, namely: on the one hand, the independence of the local churches and, on the other, the unity of those churches, because of their unity in Christ. Prof J. Hovius, in his 'Notes on the Synod at Emden, 1571′, has shown that in the church system the way was found in which both the independence and the unity of the churches could simultaneously come into their own.

The Reformed churches wanted to establish a form of church life together as soon as they could. Their driving force in this was the conviction that because of the unity of faith, no congregation should remain on its own, but that it was its duty to join the church body. Churches were free to join the denomination, but this should not be an arbitrary choice. 'Just as in every locality no member was allowed to stand alone, but everyone had to join the church, so it was also with the churches with regard to the church association' (J. Smetius, Synodal Ordinances, p. 68). This non-randomness applied to joining the alliance, but it applied equally to breaking with the alliance: 'once the churches have accepted unity in the alliance, a church is not free to break with that alliance, unless the churches with which it lives in communion have abandoned the basis of society, the confession according to God's Word' (Voetius, Pol. Eccl. IV, p. 168).

2.3 Character of church affiliation

On this ground, at the Synod of Emden (1571), the Dutch churches of the Reformation agreed on a church organisation. Because there was unity in confession, there was ground and reason to further arrange all things necessary together. The ecclesiastical agreements therefore do not form the ground under the church body, but they flow from it. Unity in confession forms the ground under the church alliance, and as long as this unity is maintained, it also urges organisational unity.

The Reformed churches, as mentioned above, aimed for an organisation in which, on the one hand, the independence of the local congregation could be done full justice and, on the other hand, togetherness and cooperation among themselves could be manifested, because the congregations are one in Christ and because they should help each other to keep His statutes and His teachings pure.

The Reformed churches were given a 'presbyterial-synodal' church government. In the name of this system, you find both elements: first (and for good reason) an emphasis on the local church with its ministers (presbyter = elder), but then also the coming together of those local churches in multiple assemblies (synod = multiple assembly).

In the Presbyterian-Synodal system, the starting point is the local church. Each local church is an independent and fully-fledged church of Christ. It has received ecclesiastical power from Him and this power is exercised by the ministers of the congregation. Between the various offices there is no difference in power, but there are distinctions in duties. The underlying principle is that God Himself in Christ exercises actual government in His church and that He does so through the service of the joint ministers.

The local churches then meet in classes and synods, known as multiple assemblies. The 'several' refers to the fact that they are assemblies of several churches. These multiple assemblies have no power of their own, but the local churches bring their power together in these assemblies by delegation. So the multiple assemblies have derived authority and they have limited, subservient power. They can only deal with matters that could not be dealt with in the lesser assembly or that concern the interests of the churches as a whole (art. 30 KO). Through the multiple assemblies in which the churches meet, expression is given to the fellowship of the church that extends beyond the local congregation alone. Thus, mutual edification is possible and congregations can keep each other on track when it comes to Scripture and confession.

The multiple church assemblies do not together constitute the actual church of which the local churches would be divisions. Nor is it the case that church power is actually bestowed by Christ on the multiple assemblies and descends from there onto the local churches and church councils. The local church is the starting point. The believer is given a place within history. He finds salvation through the ministry of the Word and that happens in the local church. However, this is not a contradiction with the meaning of church affiliation. Local church and church fellowship are not in a competitive position vis-à-vis each other, they do not even complement each other. They belong together so naturally that Scripture can use the word 'church' for both the local church and the supra-local community of churches (Gal. 1:13, 22; 1 Cor. 15:9; Acts 9:31).

So while the order presbyterial-synodal is significant and principled for our church system, the church body should not be spoken of in a substantially different way from the local church. Church fellowship too is about Christ's church coming together as one, brought together by Himself through His Spirit and Word.

The fact that primacy lies with the local church does not mean that that local church is autonomous and that the churches would not be bound by mutual agreements. Through their delegates, the churches indirectly made those agreements themselves. The decisions of the several assemblies have a binding character. The churches promise to comply with them, even if they would not agree with the decision. It is only different if a church council is of the opinion that the decision taken is contrary to God's Word, the confession or the church order. Then this church council does not conform and must ask for revision or appeal and prove that the decision was incorrect. The latter possibility is discussed in Article 31 R.D. when it says: "What has been pronounced by majority vote shall be held to be firm and binding, unless it is proved to be contrary to the Word of God, the confession or the church order.

The Presbyterian-synodal church system thus occupies an intermediate position between the Episcopalian and Congregationalist church systems. The Episcopalian church system is hierarchical in nature and has a clear separation between clergy and laity; the church is ultimately governed by one person in charge. Radically opposed to this is congregationalism, in which the members of the congregation (which is fully autonomous) have control. In Presbyterian-synodalism, ecclesiastical power lies with offices given by Christ to local congregations. It is the responsibility of the ministers to collectively lead the congregation, and the local congregations meet through delegation in the multiple assemblies to lead the life of the churches together.

2.4 Summary lines

The Reformed churches regarded church unity as necessary because of unity in Christ. If there is unity in Christ, we must seek one another, and if there is no such unity, we cannot join together. It goes without saying that this also says something about our freedom today to enter into or break up a church alliance.

The church body does not exist because multiple meetings are held, but the church body exists because the local churches are one in confession and come together in meetings on that basis. Therefore, the denomination also does not end when multiple meetings cannot be held (temporarily). The alliance ceases when it is jointly concluded that there is no longer unity in confession.

Does closing the synod without designating a calling church mean that the denomination no longer exists?

deadlock of the synod does not mean that the denomination has ended

Closing the synod without designating a calling church is drastic. You could compare the designation of a calling church to casting an anchor into the future. A calling church is tasked with calling the other churches together at the appointed time to reconvene for a next synod. A next synod ensures the continuity of what we have agreed together. It is a promise and a hope that we will meet again as churches in three years' time and in the meantime we will work together as churches to fulfil the call, agreements and assignments we have together as churches. By not designating a calling church, as it were, the road to the future is blocked. The road to the convening of a next synod is made difficult to travel and the coexistence of the churches in the denomination is thereby frustrated. But it is not without question the end of the denomination itself.

As has been said, the ground under church fellowship is not the meeting of the church assemblies. The ground under church fellowship is the common confession, unity in Christ. If the recently concluded synod came to the conclusion for itself that it has failed to properly fulfil the mandate of Article 30 KO (or, expressed in another place in the letter as "the synod has stalled"), that in itself is sad and serious. However, then suddenly the foundation on which the denomination stands is not gone. If there is the idea that that foundation is no longer intact, then that will have to be discussed, but so far the synod has not expressed that and the deputies' justification in their letter does not mention it either. The fact that the synod has not been able to carry out its task properly according to its own judgement does not in itself say that the church connection has ended.

However, the letter that deputies of representation sent to churches does sound this suggestion. Namely, it says that after the conclusion of this synod, it is up to the local churches to decide whether they want to reconvene in a synodal assembly, and how and with which congregations then. Reconvening in a synodal assembly can only be done if the current synod would no longer exist. In the letter from deputies on representation, this seems to be linked to the idea that a failure of some articles in the Church Order to function properly would irrevocably lead to this.

failure of the church order to function properly does not mean that the church is terminated

As mentioned, one of the arguments for closing the meeting without designating a calling church was 'the recognition that the synod has not been able to fulfil its mandate under article 30 K.O.'. To clarify this, the then moderation committee wrote in its report: 'does article 31 K.O. still function if practice shows otherwise? And when that is in question, how can the synod still lead the church body in line with article 30 K.O. ('to deal with what could not be dealt with in the lesser, or what belongs to the churches of the superior assembly in general')?'
Here, Articles 30 and 31 KO are mentioned as articles that are doubted to still function in the practice of church life together. And it is evident that the synod itself explicitly deviated from the Church Order by deciding to close the assembly without designating a new calling church entirely contrary to art 50 KO.

If it is at the very least unclear whether the Church Order is still functioning properly, should not the conclusion be that the Church Order thereby ceases to be valid as ecclesiastical authority to which the churches can collectively continue to appeal? And if the Church Order can no longer be seen 'as ecclesiastical authority to which the churches can jointly appeal', has not an essential pillar of church life together thereby ceased to exist? In other words, can we now still live together as a church body?

It is important to see that a church order has no independent authority. A church order contains the agreements that churches make to be and remain church together as they recognised and received each other: as churches that confess Christ as their Lord, and that in that unity of confession give themselves together to serve Him in this world. That is why church commitments are important. At the same time, that is why church commitments are never important in themselves. They are about Christ, about confessing Him, about His Word and His Spirit.

The observation that churches do not (properly) comply with Church Order articles does not in itself mean that the Church Order has thereby lost its meaning. Similarly, the Church Order's unjustified decision to close the Synod without designating a calling church is not in itself a licence to then abandon the Church Order en masse as local churches. After all, the Church Order is an elaboration of the joint confession. And with all the differences expressed, the churches have never expressed and decided that the foundation on which we recognised each other and were given to each other is no longer a common foundation. So there is every reason to continue to follow the Church Order in force among us and to act on it as churches that came together and belong together as churches of Christ.

This does not mean that it is unimportant if the Church Order does not function properly in practice or is even directly violated. This is serious precisely because the Church Order is an elaboration of the joint confession. And that is something that urgently needs to be discussed further. But a failure to handle the Church Order properly (and even a direct violation of the Church Order, however bad) does not yet mean that the Church Order in itself is out of use and that there would no longer be a church confession. The Church Order is not the ground under our church body, but flows from it. The ground is unity in confession. And however difficult it may have become to understand and hold on to each other, letting go of each other as churches can and should only be done when it is established that the unity of confession no longer exists. When Christ is no longer confessed as crucified and risen Lord and God's Word is no longer accepted as God's Word. Then the church is disconnected from its foundation.

But it is not necessarily so if the Church Order has not been/is not being followed in everything. As sad and disturbing as the current church situation is, we are still churches on the same foundation and therefore there is every reason to stick to the church order and also continue to organise ourselves as we always did, even if the General Synod also failed to designate a calling church for a next synod.

Our denomination is not founded on coming together in multiple assemblies, nor is it founded on the decisions taken together, but our denomination is founded on the unity of confession that lies as the foundation of that coming together and deciding together. And that foundation is not gone now that the synod is bogged down in its work, however serious the latter may be.

Meeting on an ánother foundation than unity in Christ is not an option, says our confession. It is not up to us to determine who belongs to the church of Christ and with whom we have to unite. And we are not free to choose at our own discretion with whom we would like to be church together. We confess that the church is where Christ by His Spirit assembles a congregation. And we confess that all who are Christ's are to join this church. As Christian Reformed Churches, to this day we have always recognised and acknowledged each other as congregations of Christ. Never has it been stated through, for example, an official doctrinal statement that we can no longer recognise one another in Christ when a congregation opens the offices to sisters. Therefore, according to our confession, we are bound to preserve and continue unity with one another.

Summary

The decision not to convene a new synod is profound and serious. But this decision in itself does not dissolve the church structure. However, there is a real risk that churches will drop out of the church structures, lose confidence, or go their own way. This does put pressure on the actual cohesion and unity of the alliance. But it is all the more important that churches who want to remain faithful to Scripture, confession and Church Order do not let go of the alliance, but instead commit to restoring order, obedience and spiritual fellowship. That is the way that fits with the Reformed conviction that Christ Himself gathers, protects and maintains His church - even in difficult times.

4. But then how, concretely, should we move forward with the church system?

We emphatically stated in the previous sentence that what matters now is that the churches will work to restore order, obedience and spiritual fellowship. Because with an observation that church fellowship is not gone by the decision taken, we are not there. There is indeed a major problem. If we conclude that order and obedience and spiritual fellowship must be restored, then by doing so we are also saying that these are seriously impaired at present. While church order rules are never rules per se, a failure to abide by church order rules is a serious sign that something is very deeply wrong. The foundation of unity in confession manifests itself in joint action in several meetings and joint adherence to agreements that are made. So if faithfulness to agreements made is gone, then very probing conversation is needed about the cause of that. And if church assemblies are either no longer called out or are meeting while some churches want to leave their seats empty, then there is something that needs deep repair.

But at the same time, based on the principle lines mentioned above, we say that there is no other path that can be taken ecclesiastically and ecclesiastically than to restore that order, obedience and spiritual communion. For this, a first condition is that the churches continue to meet and that the church structures that are in place are simply followed. And then that the conversation that failed to take place at the synod is still held. The churches can only come to conclusions together, with an open Scripture. Perhaps even that unity in Christ no longer exists. It would be terrible if that conclusion had to be drawn, but then there would be grounds for separation. Before that, on the basis of Scripture and our confession, there is no possibility to do so.

Very concretely, then, we appeal to the churches to continue to meet in the ordinary structures we have as churches: the classes, the private synods - and eventually again in a general synod. From an ecclesiastical point of view, there is plenty of room for this, because the church body still exists and the church order is still valid and must be followed. And ecclesiastically, there is every reason for this, because we have never declared as churches that we no longer belong together for Christ's sake. So there is not only ecclesiastical all room and ecclesiastical all reason, but it is no less than our calling to continue to come together as churches that recognised and received each other in Christ.

We will make this a bit more concrete by answering some questions that we are being asked a lot at the moment. If the churches have specific questions, also going far beyond what could be articulated in this document, we are very open to that and will try as best we can to provide those questions with answers as well.

For now, we only mention these questions: