Church order and church law - FAQ

The churches of Reformed confession in our country have accepted as the foundation of the church: the confessional writings from the time of the Reformation, the Dutch Creed (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) and the Dordt Doctrine (1618/1619). In those confessional writings, the core of what is said about the church is that "from the beginning of the world to the end the Son of God gathers, protects and sustains out of all mankind a congregation, chosen unto eternal life, by his Spirit and Word in the unity of the true faith".

The word church is a noun in our language, but underlying it is the Greek word kuriakè. That is an adjective, derived from the noun: Kurios / Lord. The church is of the Lord. It is therefore not independent and has no 'identity' other than that it belongs to the Good Shepherd, who seeks lost people and grants salvation. At Holy Communion, therefore, we are also not like 'our kind of people' among ourselves, but for all our differences, we share this one thing, that we need and want it from Him who forgives us of guilt and renews our lives.

According to Reformed church law, the church alliance does not arise 'from above', from the multiple assemblies that are held, but 'from below', from the local churches seeking each other out. The church alliance exists because local churches recognise each other in a common confession and on the basis of that common confession decide to act together and arrange things together (see Emden 1571, 'Note on credentials'). A denomination does not exist by the grace of multiple assemblies running it. For much of the year, there are no multiple assemblies, just the local churches, and yet the denomination continues to exist.

Local churches can withdraw from the alliance (see Article 37.2 KO). However, Reformed church law does not describe how a church alliance can be broken, as it is fundamentally based on the belonging together of churches that are one in confession.

The church body does not cease to exist if the multiple assemblies (such as a synod) do not function properly. However, the continuity and the effective functioning of the church body are then seriously compromised. Multiple meetings are essential for jointly settling matters and settling disputes. If these functions are lost, this leads to great ambiguity, uncertainty for local churches and, in time, the church alliance may even 'fall apart' due to a lack of common direction and legal certainty.

When churches deviate from decisions of multiple assemblies, it is plainly contrary to the Church Order. When churches do not abide by joint agreements, mutual trust is greatly affected and put under pressure, with all its consequences. Of course, not every deviation is of the same order. The nature of the deviation, as well as its motives and the way churches diverge, play a role. Does it happen out of love, diligence and conviction? Or out of laziness, rebellion or polarisation?

The commitment of churches and church assemblies will therefore have to be to engage in a deep conversation about the cause of these deviations, with the ultimate aim of restoring unity and dealing carefully with theological and pastoral complexity.

This is a deliberate theological and ecclesiastical choice. It is not the task of deputies to pronounce such judgements on churches; in the ecclesiastical context, that is reserved at most for the multiple assemblies after a careful process. Another reason to be cautious in this regard is that some of these churches indicate that they are in distress of conscience and/or say they see no other option than to deviate from synodal decisions on the basis of obedience to God's Word. In this complex and delicate context, deputies do not consider it appropriate to reject these motives in advance and speak of sin one-to-one without weighing them up.

Deputies have always tried to make it clear in their communications that departing from synodal decisions is not legitimate (see, for example, our note ''Authority multiple meetings''). At the same time, church councils that deviate from synodal decisions do not necessarily go their own ways in all kinds of decisions. Most churches abide by all church ordinances and synodal agreements, but they make an exception at one point where they say they experience 'distress of conscience'.

Incidentally, deviating from church agreements is not happening now for the first time. The CGK has a long history of entering into dialogue with such a church in such cases. That could be a serious, admonishing conversation, but at the same time it was true that such a church council was not put under discipline, but that that church was tolerated in a deviant feeling or an actual deviant practice.

The confession that the church is one is a fundamental conviction deeply rooted in the testimony of Scripture and therefore also in the Reformed confession based on it. Article 27 of the Dutch Creed speaks of one, holy, general Christian Church, while Article 28 explicitly states that believers should not separate from this holy assembly, but should join and unite with it. This explicitly talks about preserving 'the unity of the Church'.

In line with these articles, the core belief is that if churches subscribe to the same Reformed confession, they 'are one', and not merely 'agree'. This means that separation in principle is seen as an impossibility and that unity should be actively sought. This line has indeed been followed in the history of the CGK, as evidenced by attempts to achieve unity with the Reformed Congregations and the Reformed Churches (liberated), among others.

Despite the truth of the confession in Articles 27 and 28 of the Dutch Confession of Faith, the practice is that different church affiliations have emerged and now co-exist. Yet in the light of the Reformed confession, this should not be considered normal or justified. The basic principle remains that unity in confession will have to lead to one church alliance, unless there is a fundamental denominational difference that makes separation inevitable.

A legitimate ground for separation is linked in the Reformed confession only to the question of whether a church is a 'true' or 'false' church. By a 'false church' is meant a church that no longer observes or even opposes the fundamental characteristics of the true church (pure preaching of the Gospel, pure ministration of the sacraments and sound disciplinary practice) and subordinates the authority of Christ and His Word to human views or traditions. A church being 'false' is a legitimate reason to separate from such a church. If a church is not recognised as false, the canonical consequence is that one may not separate from it.

Disagreement or difference of opinion on the interpretation of a Scripture passage is not in itself a ground for divorce, unless this interpretation differs so fundamentally that it affects the core of the Reformed confession or makes the church a 'false church'.

The memorandum 'Powers of several assemblies with regard to churches that deviate from church ordinances' explicitly states that "Church decisions on the interpretation of Scripture are binding, but are ecclesiastically on a lower level than official doctrinal statements." This means that a deviation from a Synodal decision on Scripture interpretation admittedly may be an internal issue that warrants disciplinary action within the denomination (such as exhortation), but does not necessarily constitute grounds for separation from the denomination, except where it leads to a departure from the confession or where there is collective gross sin.

Our role is primarily advisory and facilitative with regard to church law processes. We explain the Church Order and advise church assemblies what Reformed Church Law means for the application of the Church Order and how to deal with deviations from the Church Order. It is not our job to impose disciplinary measures or make theological judgements ourselves. The authority to do so lies with the Church Assemblies.

At this confusing and worrisome time within our denomination, we are receiving many questions from church councils about the impact of recent synod decisions on church order and church law. This is particularly true of the synod's decision not to designate a calling church. Our note has been prepared to offer an analysis of this complex church-order situation and a possible solution direction for the stalled functioning of the church body. Publishing it is within our mandate to advise the churches and offer church law interpretation at a time of great uncertainty.

Although appointed by the synod, we are primarily in the service of the churches. Our mandate extends widely: our function, in addition to publishing the Church Order, is to provide church law advice, promote the proper use of Reformed church law and ensure legal certainty.

Article 31 KO states that decisions of an ecclesiastical assembly are made "after joint deliberation and, if possible, by unanimous votes" and that what is thus decided "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 or that the ecclesiastical assembly could not reasonably have reached the decision".

The article first says something about how church decisions should be made.

Next, the article says that what has been jointly decided in that good church way "shall be held for firm and binding", i.e. the churches must abide by it.

Finally, the article says that if a church is convinced that the decision taken is contrary to God's Word, the confession, the church order or reasonableness, it may not keep that decision but must convince the other churches that it is a wrong decision. This is done by submitting a revision request (to the assembly that made the decision) and possibly thereafter by appealing to a superior assembly.

If the path of appeal has been fully run and the other churches are NOT convinced by the arguments put forward that it is a wrong decision (i.e. the revision request and/or the appeal is rejected), then the decision stands. But what if the objecting church is not convinced by the rebuttal of its objection? This is a serious problem, which is also recognised in Reformed church law, for which solutions have been identified, but which is always very demanding of all churches. In 'The Dordrecht Church Order. A practical explanation', Rev K. de Gier writes about conscience-binding matters, that in doing so, the utmost must be done to be able to come to a resolution of the dispute within the church body. If no agreement can be reached, there are three options: 1. the objector complies with the ruling; 2. under certain conditions, the superior assembly tolerates the objector's dissenting opinion; 3. the superior assembly demands compliance with the decision by way of discipline. The ultimate consequence may be that the objector is excommunicated or that the objector breaks fellowship with the church of his own accord.

When both the objecting church cannot execute the decision out of conscientious objection and the church body cannot bear to accept the church in deviating from this decision, there is a line in Reformed church law that says that in that case it is better for the church to leave the church body, than to be forced to do something you cannot justify before God. That is substantially different from church law saying: then that church should leave the alliance. Church law says: 'it is better to leave the church than to do something you cannot do before God'. But both are not what canon law aims at.

No, on the basis of Reformed church law, it cannot be easily concluded that a church that does not comply with certain church decrees places itself outside the church body. The church is not an association grounded on statutes (the church order), where you are expelled if you do not comply with the statutes. The church is founded on the foundation of the church: Christ. It finds its unity in Him. And the rules for church life together (such as the church order) flow from that. Therefore, it is serious when the rules among themselves do not function properly. At the same time, it should not be lost sight of the fact that those rules themselves do not constitute the church body and that violation of the rules does not automatically lead to being outside the church.

Yes, Article 31 KO certainly states that decisions of multiple meetings are binding. However, that article says much more than just that. For further explanation, see the reply to question 13. But this is crucial: you should never be forced to do something you cannot in conscience justify before God.

Article 31 KO prescribes that if there is a church that in conscience cannot resign itself to a decision taken because it is convinced that it is not in accordance with God's Word, it should report this to the other churches and try to convince them that the decision taken is wrong. If that church does so, it should be assured that there will then be a concerted effort to remove the objection; that the Scriptures will be examined, in order to gain clarity together on the point that causes division. If the latter does not happen, arguments are not really listened to and Scripture is not opened in depth with each other, there is a good chance that the conscientious objection will remain. How the churches can deal with each other in such a situation in the light of Reformed church law comes to question 13 ADVERTISEMENT.

Article 31 of the Church Order is certainly in full effect and binding. Decisions of several assemblies are deemed to be 'firm and binding'. Failure to comply with a rule undermines compliance or practice, but does not deprive the rule itself of its binding character or 'legal force'. The article serves as the framework for church law procedures, through which it seeks to safeguard the structure and unity of the CGK.

Although in practice there are tensions and discussions about the interpretation and observance of the 'unless' clause in Article 31, this does not undermine the principle legal force of the article. On the contrary, the constant discussion of this article confirms its central and functional role in the Church order.

The 'calling church' is a specific local church designated at the end of a multiple assembly. That church is given the task and responsibility to prepare and convene the next multiple assembly (see Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Church Order). The designation of a calling church is thus a Church Order duty and is crucial to ensure the progress and functioning of the church body.

Designating a calling church can be likened to casting an anchor into the future. A calling church is given the task of calling the other churches together for another meeting at the appointed time.

A subsequent multiple meeting ensures the continuity of what the churches have agreed together. It is a promise and a hope that in three years' time we will meet again as churches and in the meantime work together as churches on the calling, agreements and assignments we have together. By not designating a calling church, as it were, the way to the future is blocked.

Failure to designate a calling church has major church order and practical consequences, which makes its importance so significant. The calling church acts as an "anchor to the future" and is essential for the continuity of the church body. Without a calling church, which is responsible for convening the next synod, the meeting structure of the church body is jeopardised. Also, the designation of a calling church is very important for the right of appeal: it is at the calling church that revision requests and appeals for the next synod are submitted. Moreover, the general synod is the assembly that has the final say ecclesiastically in the ecclesiastical appeal process (as described in the Integral Revision and Appeal Process (IRRA), which belongs to Article 31 KO). It is very important for legal protection that the General Synod be convened again and again.

No, failure to do so means that Church law was not followed on this point and the decision taken must be considered ecclesiastically incorrect. Designating a calling church is a procedural duty at the conclusion of a synod, enshrined in the Church Order (art. 50 KO). The fact that the General Synod itself indicated that it was "deadlocked" and therefore gave its "mandate back to the local churches" does not absolve it, ecclesiastically speaking, of the duty to designate a calling church.

The designation of a calling church serves to highlight the continuity of the meeting structure of the church body. The duty to do so remains even if a synod has been laborious and could not reach a supported solution on essential points. In such a case, it is up to a subsequent synod to continue where the previous synod could not and, where necessary, to still complete the agenda and deal with the documents previously placed on the synod's table by the churches.

Deputies note that the Church Order, having deliberately departed from the described law, does not provide a clear path on how to restore order. From the church law starting point that in a Presbyterian-synodal system the starting point lies with the local church, and from the decision taken by the Synod to place the responsibility for continued coexistence with the local churches, it seems to us to be most in line with both church law and the aforementioned decision if the local churches take up this responsibility and in one way or another appoint a new calling church. The church of Dordrecht-Zuid has taken a step in this direction by considering the church of Hoogeveen as such and calling on other churches to agree. This path does not seem to deputies to be contrary to the intent of the church order, although it is not pointed out in the church order for the reason mentioned.

The central call is, despite feelings of grief, confusion and indignation, to seek each other out as churches in the regional assemblies and to discuss the situation that has arisen there together. Important will be the questions about the foundation and essence of the church. Deputies call on the churches to love one another and to hold and find one another again on the foundation of unity in confession. From an ecclesiastical and denominational perspective, there is no basis for severing the church unity until after a thorough and detailed conversation with an opened Scripture, it is concluded together that there is no longer unity in confession.

Violating church agreements is serious and one of the main causes of the current crisis in our churches. In the memorandum 'Powers of multiple meetings' this is discussed in more detail. There it recognises the problem of deviant practices, even after exhortation, and identifies the options available to church assemblies to respond to them. Those options go as far as disciplining a congregation's ministers in extreme cases. This is by no means a trivialisation or failure to appreciate the seriousness of the situation.

Although this is disputed by some, we truly say on the basis of Reformed church law that áf order, obedience and spiritual fellowship have been violated, it is important that these be restored as soon as possible and that this should be done through the existing church structures.

Importantly, church law is such that when there is ecclesiastical disobedience (such as deviating from certain synod decisions) and ecclesiastical errors (such as when a superior assembly fails to appoint a new calling church), this does not nullify the church association. The Church Order applies unimpaired and the church assemblies of classis and private synod are simply intact. It is precisely through these existing church structures that church order and unity will have to be restored. Any attempt to reunite outside the existing structures cannot be characterised as anything other than ecclesiastical tearing.

It is therefore crucial for the restoration of order, obedience and unity that church assemblies meet lawfully (with valid mandates).

A mandate letter is given by a church to its delegates to a classis meeting. The letter lists the names of the delegates and declares that they have the mandate and authority to conduct all lawful classic affairs on behalf of the sending church, in accordance with God's Word, confession and church order. The mandate letter is thus evidence of lawful delegation.

A classis assembly is only lawfully convened and can act only after the letters of mandate have been checked and the lawful delegation determined. Without valid letters of mandate, there is no church assembly. As Rev K. de Gier states, "Without credentials, no one can sit as a member of the church assembly. By virtue of the credentials the delegates not only act in the name of their congregations (...), but by virtue of the credentials the several ecclesiastical assemblies also receive their authority" ('The Dordrecht Church Order', p. 183). Those without a mandate also have no right to vote or speak but can only be observers.

Letters of mandate are thus constitutive of the validity and authority of the assembly.

The Church Order does not mention a minimum number of churches that must be present for a classis meeting to be legitimate. However, Article 41 KO does assume a meeting of all the churches of the classic area. When all churches are invited to a meeting by the calling church (or in the case of a provisional or conditional closure by the current moderation committee for a follow-up meeting), all churches are expected. When churches from the classis cannot or will not attend, their absence does not invalidate the legality of the meeting. Of course, the classis churches should make every effort to ensure that all classis churches can attend the meeting. But ultimately, after the normal, careful invitation to a classis meeting, the legality of the meeting will be determined on the basis of the valid charge or credentials.

A letter of mandate from a congregation is proper when it contains these two things: the name of the delegates to a classis meeting and a declaration with signature from their church council, that these delegates have charge and power to handle on behalf of this church all matters lawfully on the table of the classis. Through a mandate letter, a church indicates that it is present at the meeting through the delegates themselves. By doing so, she and the other churches present through their delegates-with-letter of burden-constitute the assembly and thus make the assembly lawful.

Thus, a mandate letter is directly a proof of recognition of the legality of the church assembly and, by definition, cannot coexist with a statement on the mandate letter that one does not recognise the assembly. It is the duty of a calling church to check the charge sheets for soundness and to determine, if necessary, that a charge sheet cannot be accepted as a lawful charge sheet. The consequence of not bringing a proper mandate letter is that a person cannot take part in the classis meeting and at most can be received at the meeting as an observer.

When a church council gives its delegates with the mandate letter the instruction not to co-decide on some parts of the agenda, that is a matter for the church council and its delegates. That instruction is not part of the mandate letter itself. Church councils that participate in the meeting with a proper mandate letter are part of the classis meeting and recognise its ecclesiastical validity. That legal validity applies to the whole assembly and not only to those parts where the delegates actively participate in decision-making.

Yes, classis meetings should meet unabated. This is not an optional choice, but a Church Order appointment by which all 181 churches of the Christian Reformed Churches are bound. Indeed, Article 41 of the Church Order explicitly states that the classis shall meet at least twice a year at a fixed place and time, and that at the end of each meeting a subsequent calling church shall be appointed. These provisions are obligations agreed upon by the churches. Deliberate failure to hold classis meetings is unlawful, as article 87 R.O. requires that the Church Order be faithfully observed until the synod has taken a formal decision to amend it. The obligation to meet therefore remains in full force and effect.

The classis plays a crucial, fundamental role in the Presbyterian-synodal church structure; it is the first and most important concrete elaboration of the church body. In it, local churches assume their joint responsibility and the church body is actually shaped by direct connection and cooperation. The suggestion that the General Synod has returned its responsibility to the local churches, or that articles such as 30 and 31 K.O. have become "null and void" and as a result several assemblies could no longer meet lawfully, must be labelled incorrect and misleading. Section 30 K.O. stipulates the competence of assemblies, not that this competence lapses in case of division. Moreover, authority and responsibility are inseparable and cannot simply be delegated. The continuation of classis meetings is essential to the order, peace and functioning of the church body, and contributes to the constructive continuation of church life together.

This is described in Art. 5.4 K.O: 'The approval of the attestations issued according to art. 10 K.O. of a minister, called in another classis, may be made to the classis where he has been called, by two church councils appointed for that purpose, which shall invite all the church councils of the classis to their meeting. In the absence of the invited church councils, these will be deemed to tacitly agree to the approval. (1925)'. This course of action is also applied when certificates are issued to a pastor by the classis from which the pastor departs.

In the yearbook, each classis lists which two churches are designated for this purpose within the classis (with secundi, if any). This is behind "Address for approval of certificates of departing and incoming ministers".

Anything other than attestations from pastors who have accepted an appeal to another congregation cannot be handled through classis contracta.

First, a departing church must be publicly accountable to its own congregation in a mandatory congregational meeting.

Second, an ecclesiastical justification to the classis is required, justifying why the CGK is "no longer seen as Christ's church".
Finally, there is a strict ban on 'tacit eclipse', meaning that a church may not exit informally or without formal procedures, to ensure the orderliness and legal certainty of church life together.

This is a decision of General Synod 1965; see also Article 37.2 KO.

They hereby declare their heartfelt commitment to the Reformed confession. This confession includes the so-called Three Forms of Unity. With their signatures, they confirm that this confession corresponds to God's Word in all its parts.

The ministers pledge to faithfully uphold and teach Reformed doctrine. This commitment involves not only the head but also the heart; without this inner commitment, the minister's work within the congregation or the wider churches cannot be beneficial.

An important part of the declaration is the promise to take the church way in case of any "divergent feeling" from the confession. This means that doubts or divergent thoughts on this matter will be discussed only within the confidentiality of the church meetings, and will not be ventilated personally in the congregation, in order to avoid confusion. The minister also declares his willingness to explain himself further, if ecclesiastically desired.

A special feature of the CGK form is that ministers promise to "act in everything according to the current church order and the further provisions and decisions of the Christian Reformed Churches in the Netherlands". Although the order of precedence is Scripture, confession, church order, this sentence was added by the General Synod in 1962 to prevent church councils from simply withdrawing from the church order, without spiritual and honest discussion, in the event of doctrinal disputes.

On this and, in particular, the reason for including the explicit reference to the Synod decisions, Rev D. Quant wrote an article in the Ambtelijk Contact in 2019. The article can be found here: “Bound to - connected to. What do we declare in the signing form?"