Powers of several assemblies with regard to churches that deviate from church ordinances

1. Introduction

Current

The present paper by Deputaten kerkorde en kerkrecht deals with the question of what is the right way, from the point of view of church law, to deal with congregations that do not comply with binding church decisions. In particular, we look at the options available to a superior assembly to respond. This involves questions such as: how far does the authority of the classis and even wider assemblies to intervene go? Such questions are currently preoccupying all kinds of church assemblies and concerned church members, as there are church councils that openly deviate from church ordinances where even assigned appeals against that deviation do not lead to change of action.
From the churches, deputies on Church Order and Church Law are being asked what measures can be taken against church councils within the framework of the Church Order and the principles of Reformed Church Law. At GS level, proposals are being made to amend the Church Order, as the current Church Order provisions would not provide sufficient opportunities to call deviant congregations to order.

When we want to say something in general in this paper about the possible consequences of deviating from church ordinances, a complicating factor is that the call for action is mainly focused on some topics that are currently the subject of discussion and causing great unrest. Indeed, deviating from church ordinances in itself does not always appear to lead to much discussion and calls for action. The fact that there are church councils that do not abide by binding church agreements is not new. For instance, there are local congregations that have the practice of making confessions of faith, against the decision that confession of faith should be asked (GS 1950 decision), there are churches that structurally do not keep to the frequency of the celebration of the Lord's Supper (contrary to art. 63 K.O.), there are churches that have proceeded to hold one service per Sunday without the consent or understanding of the classis (in violation of art. 64 K.O.), there have been deviations from the provisions concerning church singing (art. 69 K.O.) and there are some congregations where ministers are not reconfirmed (in violation of art. 22 K.O, para. 1). And more examples could be cited.
What makes the questions now more pressing is perhaps the fact that there have been appeal cases where the appeal was upheld but not followed by the local church, and the fact that these are cases where the GS has made certain statements about what Scripture says, and where a local church says: and yet we do not follow that line. Now it should be noted that the GS has not actually made a principled statement on what Scripture says on that point in all the issues that are now causing unrest, but at least the feeling is: these are issues that touch on what Scripture says, and then what if congregations take their own course on those issues? Nevertheless, in this reflection paper it is important to stick to a purely ecclesiastical approach, regardless of the issues that are currently playing such a strong role, regardless of an a priori judgement on whether a fundamentally different situation really exists (after all, some other situations could be questioned as to whether they too do not touch upon the speaking of Scripture), and to stick to the main question of this paper: what are the possibilities for an ecclesiastical association when local churches withdraw from binding ecclesiastical decisions?

Reading guide

In this note, deputies try to look for church law answers to the question of how to act when a church does not conform to synodal decisions.¹ A simple answer cannot be given. To give a well-grounded answer that does justice to the Church Order and the principles of Reformed church law, we will have to delve deeper and examine thoroughly what lines can be drawn from church law.
We begin in section 2 by asking about the church: what do we believe about the church? What are the attributes and characteristics of the church? Then, in Section 3, we turn to the character of our church body. What is the essence of our church affiliation? What is the commitment churches have made to each other? What does the Presbyterian-Synodal system mean? In Section 4, we consider the nature and powers of the multiple assemblies. What is the role of the classis? How binding are synodal decisions? Section 5 deals with the role of the multiple assemblies in church discipline. Is discipline possible over an entire council of churches and, if so, in what cases? Then, in Section 6, we give a brief treatise on the tools that church law provides to multiple assemblies to deal with local churches that do not comply with church-ordinance decisions. We conclude with a summary in section 7.

2. What do we believe regarding the church?

The foundation

The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets of which Jesus Christ Himself is the cornerstone.² So the church has a very firm, unshakable foundation. Jesus Himself says that He is going to build His church on Peter's confession: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Matthew 16:18). This personal trust in Christ is the hallmark of the church. All those who have put their trust in Christ, as Peter did, collectively constitute the church. Peter expresses this truth when he says: 'Join Him, the living stone rejected by men but chosen by God for His preciousness, and let yourselves also be used as living stones for the building of a spiritual temple. Form a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices that are pleasing to God, thanks to Jesus Christ'.³
Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation and the owner-builder of the church. The church is not built by people, it is built by the owner himself. Jesus said 'I will build My church' (Matt 16:18). We must always realise that the church does not belong to us, but to Jesus Christ. He builds His church on Peter, in his quality as confessor, as apostle, eyewitness of Jesus' way and work, called by Him and empowered by Him.⁴
With Sunday 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism, we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gathers a church and that He protects and maintains it forever. So the church is not an association, establishing statutes and regulations and electing a board. Nor is the church a democratic body or something over which we have control. The church is that our Lord Jesus Christ from the beginning of the world to the end gathers Himself from the whole human race by His Spirit and Word in the unity of the true faith a congregation chosen to eternal life.
In short: the Lord Jesus is building the church on the foundation of the apostles. He is the owner and builder of the church, not us. It is on this pitch that we speak of the church.

The properties

We confess with the Nicene Creed what the attributes or essential characteristics of the church are: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. These attributes say what is inherent in the church as church. To be church, she cannot lack any of these attributes. It is essentially inherent to her to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. These attributes are not separate but interrelated, and are gift and task at the same time. As the church of Christ, the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. But she is all that to become more and more so.

1. The church is one. That is, the church is singular and not plural. There cannot be multiple churches. After all, there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is the body of Christ of which He is the Head (Ephesians 1:23-24).⁵ The Concise Reformed Dogmatics emphasises that in the doctrine of the church we do not start from what we see around us, but we must always ask ourselves what we can say of the church in faith. 'The first then is not that she should be one, but that she is one. It is proper for the church to be one'.⁶ It then emphasises there that this unity must then also come out in the concrete stature of the church. 'The unity of the church is given in Him (Christ). He is the Head of the church. Those who belong to Him belong together. That can be called a spiritual unity, provided it does not mean that the unity is not visible. The unity of the church must be visible to every one (John 17:21)'.⁷ It is precisely because unity is given to the church that it is called to it. There is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one God and Father of all. Therefore, believers are called to strive to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.⁸ Spiritual unity must also take shape in church life. Or as Prof K. Schilder said: 'Spiritual unity does take precedence, but then it must also push to institutionality'.⁹ That the body of Christ has become divided over the centuries is a situation that hurts and must continue to hurt and calls for the churches to seek each other out.
2. The church is holy. The church is a group set apart, called out of the world by God to belong to Him. The church therefore does not find holiness in herself, but in Christ, Who became her for sanctification (1 Corinthians 1: 30). The church's holiness is not founded on moral purity or on the perfection of an ethical walk of life. The church is holy in and through Jesus Christ. The church is not holy by virtue of what it brings or does itself; holiness expresses its relationship to God. The church is holy even though this people is naturally disobedient: justified and sanctified by faith. Holiness is gift and at the same time task. This characteristic of the church is also spiritual, but not invisible. It is precisely in the holiness of the church that the world must see that God has on earth a people who belong to Him (1 Pet. 2:9,10). Prof Van Genderen, in the Concise Reformed Dogmatics, says that even when it comes to the holiness of the church, it must become what it is. 'The church is holy in communion with Christ in order that it may become more and more so in obedience to Him and be perfect once through the grace of God'¹⁰.
Whereby, "The holiness of the church does not depend on the blamelessness of its members, but is tied to the pure ministry of the Word and sacraments, to which the promise of the Holy Spirit is given.¹¹
3. The church is Catholic. Catholic is originally a Greek word meaning 'spread throughout' (general, universal). The Church knows no boundaries of gender or age, standing or rank, nationality or language and has a message intended for all people. The church's catholicity is linked to the authority of its Head. In Him is the fullness, the completeness of salvation and truth. Catholicity is therefore not only to be understood quantitatively, but also qualitatively. It is about the fullness of Christ. 'It is the fullness of truth, the fullness of salvation in Christ, the central revelation of God, all that in which the church may share in communion with Christ her Head'.¹² Like unity and holiness, the church's catholicity is both gift and mission. 'If we are catholic, it means that we want to live out of the fullness given in Christ, and we want to grow towards the fullness, and that with all the saints together (Eph. 3:14-18)'.¹³ It means fighting against one-sidedness of any kind, and not excluding churches or Christians He does not exclude, but also not including what He does not include.
4. The church is apostolic. The church is called apostolic because it bears the stamp of the apostles' work and should continue to bear it. The apostles were the disciples of Jesus, they were taught by Him and what they saw and heard from Him they in turn passed on. Thus, throughout the history of the church, from generation to generation, the teachings of the apostles (which they themselves had received from Jesus) were received and passed on again. The church is always building on and returning to the testimony of the apostles. The church in Jerusalem was the apostolic church because it persisted in the apostles' teaching (Acts 2:42). Apostolic teaching is the gospel as the apostles proclaimed it in the name of Christ. The church has to abide by it (2 Tim 2:2, 1 Tim 6:20). 'The church can only be apostolic church if it takes to heart the apostolic admonitions and does not deviate from the truth'¹⁴. The church is apostolic if it adheres to the teaching of the apostles.¹⁵

The features

We need to know not only what the church is, but also where it is. According to Article 28 of the NGB, we are called to join the church, and we should therefore carefully discern, on the basis of God's Word, what the true church is (Article 29 NGB). That question became topical at the time of the creation of the Dutch Creed, as the Roman Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation disputed each other's right to call themselves church. The churches of the Reformation then formulated as characteristics of the true church three things (Article 29 NGB): the pure preaching of God's Word, the pure ministration of the Sacraments and the exercise of church discipline. The characteristics of the church have a critical function: in a positive sense, because they show us which church is truly church of Christ, and in a negative sense because they also make clear which church is not.

Calvin discusses the characteristics of the church in detail in sections 12 and 13 of Book IV of the Institutes and when, in his view, a church should be broken with. 'The pure ministry of the Word and the pure manner of administering the sacraments constitute a suitable pledge and guarantee that we can safely accept as a church a community in which both of these occur. When we say this, it also means that a church should not be rejected under any circumstances as long as it holds to it, even if it is full of flaws in other respects. It is even possible for a defect to creep into the doctrine or the ministry of the sacraments, without this being allowed to alienate us from communion with it'.
Calvin agreed with the Lutheran conviction that for the true unity of the church, it is sufficient when the gospel is brought purely and the sacraments are properly administered.¹⁶ Errors and flaws cannot be a reason to break with a church. Nor are errors in doctrine automatically a breaking point, because not all parts of doctrine are of equal weight. Some teachings he considers necessary and absolute, such as the confession that there is one God, Christ is God and that in the Son of God and in God's mercy our salvation lies.¹⁷ The bottom line is that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Every spirit that confesses Him is from God.¹⁸
The pure ministry of the gospel has been central to the history of the Christian Reformed Churches. In 1834, Hendrik de Cock was forced to separate from the church because he was severely restricted in proclaiming the Gospel. Had he been allowed to freely proclaim the Gospel within the patriotic church, as it had been re-understood in the Reformation, he would have gladly stayed. Both the Reformation and the Secession were about the pure proclamation of the Gospel.

Visible and invisible church

As mentioned above, we confess with Article 28 NGB that we must join the church of Christ, and not separate ourselves from it. That is, once and as long as the church is truly the church of Christ, we may not break the church. This applies not only to that great worldwide church of Christ (we cannot break it), but also to the concrete church of which we are a part. There is no contradiction between the 'invisible' church, which you can speak of in high terms, and the 'visible' one, where that would matter a little less. So you could say: that one worldwide church of His, that ís already one, in Him. At the same time, this also implies a task for the concrete church we are part of: if Christ's church is one, it is to become visible, to actually be one. It is important to see that it is not a contradiction, the church of Christ, and the church as we see it before our eyes.¹⁹
This does not mean that the Christian Reformed Churches coincide with the great worldwide church of Christ, but it does mean that what is professed of the church should also apply to that concrete small church body of which we are members. The church confesses of herself that she is the one, holy, universal and apostolic church. Therein lies great wealth. At the same time, the church is called to display those attributes: the riches of these gifts must become visible in the church. This calling is addressed to the concrete, name-bedecked church here on earth, and thus also applies to our own small denomination. As Christian Reformed Churches, we have the high calling to be church of Christ; our name carries it with it. At the same time, we have to realise that the church of Christ is not exhausted with the Christian Reformed Churches.

3. The character of our denomination

Roots of church

Where are the roots of our church body? At the Synod of Emden (1571), the Dutch churches of the Reformation agreed on a church organisation for the first time. At this synod, delegates drew up a church order, based on Scripture and the Dutch Creed. The Church Order of Emden 1571 laid down the arrangements for church life. Because there was unity in confession, there was ground and reason to jointly regulate all other things that were necessary. As the main motive for holding the synod, the letter of convocation mentioned that church 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 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 wellbeing of the joint churches".²⁰
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".²¹
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 that is what our Reformed forefathers did. 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, that of the unity of the churches.²²
The unity of the church lies in the actual recognition of Christ's kingship and unity in scriptural doctrine. Therefore, the Reformed confession forms the indispensable and unfailing foundation of local church life as well as of the church body. The ground under the church alliance is the common confession, and on the basis of the unity found in it, further agreements have been made to live together ecclesiastically.²³ So the ground under the church unity is not the church agreements in themselves, but the unity in confession - and as long as that unity is maintained, organisational unity will also have to be preserved.

Presbyterian-synodal church government

If you compare the church from the Emden church order with the (Roman Catholic) church to which people were accustomed in the 16th century, you notice that there is no place for hierarchy, because One is all Lord, namely Jesus Christ. The Reformed churches were given a presbyterial-synodal church government.²⁴ This system was developed in principle by Calvin, who drew back on the scriptures. He sharply recognised that ministers derive their authority from Christ. According to Bouwman, the system has four characteristics:
1. The basic principle is that the believers locally form a full church together, with their own ministers who collectively form the church council. These local churches are united into a whole in classis and synodal national churches.
2. Recognition of the threefold ministry according to the Word of the Lord: minister of the Word or teaching elder, (ruling) elder, deacon; this abolishes the opposition between the classes, as known in the papal and territorial systems, and makes all clericalism impossible.
3. Ecclesiastical authority rests with the local churches themselves, which exercise it through the ministers, locally in the church council, collectively in the multiple assemblies (classis, private, general synod), which consist of delegates from the churches. The governing power thus rests not monarchically with the pope (papal system), nor with the bishops, nor with the church members, but with the ministers, who are vested with equal power; all hierarchy is thus excluded.
4. Independence of the church from the state; the church has its own ministers. The Reformed want nothing to do with a supremacy of the state over the church; equally, however, they reject the supremacy of the church over the state, as Rome claims for itself.²⁵

In other words, in the Presbyterian-Synodal system, the primacy lies with the local churches. Each local church is an independent manifestation of the body of Christ. It has received ecclesiastical power from Him. The ministers (pastors, elders and deacons) have divine authority, classis and synod members have only derived authority. As a result, these assemblies have limited, ministerial power. One church may not rule over another, the same applies to the multiple assemblies. Churches do bind themselves to the decisions of the multiple assemblies, even if they would not agree with the decision taken. This is only different if a church council finds to itself that the decision taken is contrary to God's Word, the confession or the church order. The superior assembly does not have the power - the right of cassation - to overturn the decisions of a lesser assembly, but must refer them back to the lesser assembly that made the incorrect decision, giving reasons.²⁶

4. The nature and powers of multiple meetings

Relationship between local church and multiple assembly

So in Reformed church law, a key principle is that multiple assemblies have derivative and limited power. This is evidenced, among others, by Voetius, who consistently emphasises that multiple assemblies have only derivative and limited power.²⁷ Delegates do not meet by virtue of their office, but as a result of delegation (multiple meetings are meetings of churches and not ministers). Church council members hold an office, they speak and decide by virtue of the authority given to them by God. But delegates to a multiple assembly do not act by virtue of their own office, or by force of immediate law, but by positive law, according to the constitution and delegation of the local churches. So the multiple church assemblies are not church in a substantially similar sense to local churches. And they do not constitute an ecclesiastical whole, of which the local or private churches would be divisions. Nor is it the case that ecclesiastical power is actually bestowed upon it by Christ and descends from it on the local churches and councils of churches.²⁸
Prof W. van 't Spijker puts it as follows: 'The local church is the starting point, not because that is where the church would begin and end, but because the Reformed system does not want to be an expression of an abstract church idea, which has no relation to reality. The believer is given a place within history. He finds salvation where he lives through the ministry of the Word. (...) Yet it would be wrong to see this local church conception in opposition to the meaning of church affiliation. (...) Local church and church fellowship are not in a competitive position with regard to each other, they do not even complement each other. They belong together so naturally that Scripture can use the word church (ecclesia) both for the local church and for the supra-local community of churches (Gal. 1:13. 22; 1 Cor. 15:9; Acts 9:31)'.²⁹
Multiple Assemblies are limited to dealing with matters that concern the churches collectively, to revision and appeal cases and to dealing with what the lesser assembly has not been able to dispose of. The multiple assemblies have thus been given some very important tasks. For instance, they have to decide on appeals against decisions of lesser assembly. And they have the task of preserving the churches by God's Word and the Reformed confession. On behalf of the classis, the visitators will see to it that the ministers faithfully exercise their office, persevere in doctrine, follow the church order, etc. (Article 44 KO). This oversight aims to promote the peace, edification and welfare of the churches.³⁰

Binding decisions

Local churches and multiple assemblies belong together and form a whole. The fact that primacy lies with the local churches does not mean that the local churches are not bound by mutual agreements. Through their representatives at the multiple assemblies, the churches have indirectly made those agreements themselves. In doing so, it was agreed that the rulings of several assemblies would be binding. For the fact that the choice was made for the agreements to be binding, reference is sometimes made to what happened in the first congregations at the Apostles' Convent (Acts 15). There, indeed, what was expressed was accepted wholeheartedly by all, and seen as a clear path, pointed out by the Holy Spirit, which was gratefully followed. And from there, lines can certainly be drawn to the decision to let agreements of several assemblies be binding. At the same time, it is not clear to everyone that you can ground the authority of the multiple assemblies so one-to-one on Acts 15.³¹
In any case, the binding force of church decisions is enshrined in Article 31 of our Church Order. Subject to the right of appeal or revision, ecclesiastical decisions must therefore be observed in full by the local churches. The decisions of the superior assembly, insofar as taken within the limits of the Church Order, have a binding character. The churches promise to comply with them, even if they should disagree 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. In that case, this church council does not conform and must file a revision or appeal and show that the decision was incorrect.

Article 31 KO

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 wording of this article did raise questions in the past, and may do so now. For: when can it be considered proven that a decision is contrary to God's Word? And by whom must it be proven? Does the synod determine whether 'proof' has been given or the conviction of the church council challenging the decision? Furthermore, it does not say 'until' proven, but 'unless' proven. What exactly does this mean?

Clearly, a complicated situation can arise when a local church council continues to oppose a decision of a superior assembly, because the church council remains convinced that the decision taken is not in accordance with God's will and Word. Should the church council then still comply with the synod decision, or may its own interpretation of God's Word carry more weight? Can space be given to a 'conscientious objector' church council? This question is topical, for example around the issue of homosexuality. The General Synod ruled in 2013 that homosexual relationships are sinful. Now there are church councils that are fine with the synod's interpretation of Scripture, but struggle with the question of how church discipline should be applied therein. However, given the appeals lodged against the 2013 GS decision, there are also church councils that have a different Scripture interpretation with regard to homosexual relationships. It is readily understood that this 'stratification' should be taken into account when weighing the failure to (fully) comply with general-synodal decision-making.
In the history of Reformed church law, one repeatedly encounters the line that church councils' own understanding of Scripture should prevail over binding themselves to synodal rulings. Professor Rutgers, for example, believed that a church council is bound by decisions of several assemblies, unless it is proven to itself that God's Word forbids compliance with what has been found good. Indeed, it was on this same ground that the Reformed considered their opposition to the Roman Catholic hierarchy without waiting for a council decision and also in the face of Roman councils to be fully justified.³² Voetius stated that the churches 'must accept and carry out whatever the Synod determines concerning doctrine and other ecclesiastical matters, in so far as the observance or tolerance thereof does not conflict with God's Word. (...) If they are contrary to it, they must request either correction or non-application. If this is not available, then one must tolerate this evil so as not to break the good order, i.e. only tolerate it in such a way that one is not forced to do or promise something that one's conscience "per conscientiam Dei" cannot do or promise. But if the weight of the matter requires it, one must openly protest against the imposed order.' That protesting, according to Rutgers, 'naturally' includes 'protesting by deed, that is by openly refusing obedience'.³³

Jansen discusses at length the crucial phrase in Article 31 KO 'unless proven'. Is that determined by the conviction of the person who believes something is proven or is that determined by the church body?
'But before whom? Does that mean that the appellant must prove it before the superior assembly, and if he can convince her with his evidence is discharged from it? But this speaks for itself. A decision contrary to God's Word is not valid for anyone. Or does it mean that we are bound by the decision of the superior assembly, unless someone considers some decision proven for himself to be contrary to God's Word? The latter is the correct one, and on the following grounds: 1. because on the same ground the Reformation opposition to Rome rested, namely that the Reformers were convinced in themselves that the Roman Catholic teachings were contrary to God's Word; 2. because we may not equate ecclesiastical decisions with God's Word;
3. because Voetius too says that a local church that would be forced to carry out a decision that is found to be contrary to God's Word should, if necessary, resign from the church, rather than act against God's Word and conscience.³⁴

In short: when a church council is convinced that Scripture points a different way than the church decision points, its own reading of Scripture is decisive. A church council cannot be forced to implement decisions against its own conscience. In the line of Voetius and Jansen, this may well have the extreme consequence of leaving the church body.
Greijdanus concurs with the view that the independence of local congregations implies that, finally, a church council still has its own considerations to make.³⁵ According to Veenhof, what Rutgers argues about this was the (general) Reformed view in both earlier and later times.³⁶ In our time, Dr Loonstra (CGK Gouda) argues, appealing to Article 7 of the Dutch Creed, that God's Word should weigh more heavily for a church council than an in itself binding statement of a church assembly.³⁷
Within the Christian Reformed Churches, the prevailing view seems to be that church decisions are binding anyway, and that the GS ultimately (after revision and appeal) has the final say when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture and not the church council's own judgement.³⁸ The question is whether this interpretation of art. 31 KO does justice to what the drafters of this article intended at the time ánd how this interpretation relates to Presbyterian-synodal church government (where the primacy lies with the local, see paragraph 3). In any case, for the time being, it is standing practice that local churches are not forced to implement decisions that they see as contrary to the scriptures and their conscience.
In order to avoid complicated situations, divisions, irritations and unrest, local churches and several assemblies should make every effort to agree among themselves as much as possible on the interpretation and elaboration of related parts of the text. A reference to the beginning of Article 31 RD is appropriate here, which states that the decisions of the assemblies should be taken "if possible by unanimous vote".

Resume

Questions of Scripture interpretation have been 'outsourced' by local churches to the GS. Many know more than one (cf. Spr. 15:22). In principle, the churches are bound by the GS decisions, but retain their own test. After all, primacy lies with the local churches. Now what if revision/appeal is rejected and the church council considers it proven that the GS decision is contrary to God's Word? Does then the GS decision take precedence or one's own interpretation of God's Word? The latter argued Voetius, Rutgers, Jansen and others, because otherwise -strictly speaking- the Reformation cannot be legitimised and the decrees from Rome should have been followed. A church council that considers for itself proven that a GS decision is contrary to God's Word will have to relate to the church body again. If it concerns core issues where the foundation is at stake and the denomination becomes a false church, as it were, the congregation will have to leave the denomination. Conversely, if a church council goes down a road where the foundation is at stake and the local church becomes a false church, as it were, then the church body should intervene (see chapter 5).

Specifically, the first part of Section 31 KO will have to be applied as follows:
1. GS decisions are fixed and binding, that is the starting point and main rule;
2. If one feels that a decision goes against Scripture, confession and/or Church Order, one goes the way of revision and appeal of art. 31 KO;
3. The decision on revision/appeal is again binding;
4. Where the appellate decision is not reasonably enforceable due to distress of conscience on the part of the appellant and/or the interest in complying with the appellate decision is disproportionate to the detrimental consequences of its implementation, the appellant will be required to notify the classis;
5a. The classis will have to bear the appellant's decision after due scrutiny if the provisions of 4 are met and the foundation of the church is not in question;
5b. If the foundation of the church does come into question, the classis will have to intervene (chapter 5).

Congregationalism and hierarchical thinking

In the 20th century, there was a church-law movement in the (then) Reformed Churches in the Netherlands that gradually led to a greater grip of the multiple assemblies on the church councils. The GS gained more and more control over the local churches. It is possible that certain social and political developments contributed to this.
Currently, it seems that the Presbyterian-Synodal Church law system is under pressure from two sides. On the one hand, there are congregations that seem to feel less attachment to the church body and deviate from church ordinances on sensitive issues. This is reminiscent of a Congregationalist form of church government, in which each congregation is in fact independent. On the other hand, we see in our churches a movement to close ranks from the centre. There is then a call for the church order to be enforced more stringently and, if necessary, for additional rules to be drawn up, so that there is more uniformity in the churches and dissenting congregations can be called to order with vigour.
Both approaches, both congregationalist and centralist thinking, are at odds with our church model in which primacy lies with local churches and churches are bound by synodal decisions. Moreover, both movements reinforce each other. Where churches become increasingly congregationalist in their thinking and actions, the other side expects the multiple assemblies to take action. And where church order becomes stifling, congregations will yearn for more freedom and be inclined to take dissenting decisions.

Main issue and side issues

At the time when the Reformed churches bound themselves to each other, that binding (even with all the principled and practical ecclesiastical agreements) arose because they found each other in the unity of the true faith. Binding to that main thing was necessary³⁹. And that required distinguishing between essentials and side issues. That was true then, and it is true now.
As churches, we should take care to distinguish, in weighing our mutual differences, between matters that touch the heart of the Reformed confession and those of somewhat different weight. The Christian Reformed Churches have traditionally been a church body in which there is room for variety and diversity. In core matters (those that follow directly from Scripture) we agree, on other matters we can and do differ.
Calvin lists the main points of doctrine (see above, pages 4 and 5). Those main points concentrate around the person and work of Jesus Christ. His acts of salvation form the basis of our faith and confession, as summarised in the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Three Forms of Unity are a further elaboration of this. By signing the signing form of ministers, elders and deacons, the elected ministers declare that they subscribe to the documents of this confession (doctrine).⁴⁰
In the history of the CGK, we have traditionally distinguished between serious classical conversation when deviating from church order in matters that do not touch Scripture and confession on the one hand and admonition in matters that do touch Scripture and confession for a long time. 'One sees 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, the disregard of the limits of a preaching authority and so on'⁴¹. And even in matters that do affect Scripture and confession, the CGK is sometimes reluctant to admonish. For example, it is known that when ministers express their views on the so-called millennial kingdom, the agreement in article 51, paragraphs 1 and 2 is no longer always adhered to; also, some congregations do not adhere to the established rule in article 61, paragraph 3 (making a 'profession of truth').⁴²
After all, there are rulings of the synod that, while binding, have not been unequivocally stated that the Reformed confession is directly at stake. This can be made clear, for example, by looking at the decision-making on women and ministry, 1998. The churches, meeting in General Synod, chose the interpretation of the Scriptures that leaves no room for female ministers. At the same time, they did not qualify any other interpretation as unreformed or unscriptural.

5. The role of multiple assemblies in church discipline

Role of the classis

The New Testament warns against sinful acts in the congregation and against foolishness in numerous places. Paul calls on the congregation of Thessalonica to distance themselves from any brother who walks unruly (2 Thess. 3:6). In Titus 3:10, Paul calls for resolute action against error: 'Reject a heretical man after a first and second rebuke'. However, the Greek word used here is better translated as tearful rather than heretical.⁴³ In any case, there must be no room for error in the congregation (see e.g. Heb 13:9, 2 Jn 1:9, Rev 2:14). It is first and foremost the task of the church council, more specifically the elders, to fight against sin and error doctrine in the congregation. We discussed earlier that the classis also has a task in this, through the visitators. They should oversee the purity of doctrine (art. 44 KO). The classis churches also advise and assist each other regarding the good progress of congregational life. Church councils can ask the classis churches for judgement and help, and have a role around application of the church disciplinary procedure.⁴⁴

Learning pronouncements by the HS

The GS has an important task in explaining the scriptures. Through instructions, appeals and reports, questions related to the doctrine and interpretation of scripture are submitted to the GS. There is more knowledge and wisdom in the joint churches than in a single council of churches.⁴⁵ It is important here that both the churches and the GS can appreciate the weight of an issue. After all, not every question - however important it may be deemed - directly touches on Scripture and confession, on which mutual unity is founded.
The so-called doctrinal statements of the General Synod should be scrupulously followed by the churches. If there is a doctrinal statement, it is clearly recognisable from the wording of the statement as well as from its source. For doctrinal statements, the GS uses the words 'not reformed' and/or 'no scriptural ground'. By definition, this involves a matter fundamental to the GS in which the church's confession is at stake. The doctrinal statements are added to our Church Order, at Art 52 juncto 53.
The Christian Reformed Churches are very reluctant to make doctrinal statements.⁴⁶ The GS only made doctrinal statements around the themes of 'thousand-year kingdom of peace' and 'assumed rebirth'. The dispute over Kuyper's view on presumed rebirth was the main reason for some CGK congregations not to join the Association, from which the Reformed churches in the Netherlands would emerge, at the end of the nineteenth century. So for our churches, this was a fundamental doctrinal dispute that actually constituted a breaking point.⁴⁷
Non-compliance with doctrinal statements could possibly lead to disciplinary action towards ministers. After all, the church decisions mentioned in Article 52 paragraphs 2 and 3 KO put these decisions as doctrinal pronouncements on the level of the confession in church law.^{<a href="/en/”/#voetnoot48″">48</a>} Office bearers have by means of the signature form - under penalty of possible suspension^{<a href="/en/”/#voetnoot49″">49</a>} - promised not to propagate teachings contrary to scripture and confession.

Other GS rulings

Other GS decisions on the interpretation of Scripture are also binding on the churches, but are canonically at a different (lower) level than the official doctrinal pronouncements and are therefore also not always included in the edition of the Church Order.
Confirming women ministers is undoubtedly contrary to the GS decisions. Thus, confirming women ministers or steps in that direction are not church-ordained legitimate. In 1998, the GS was of the opinion that the view of the majority of deputies - as opposed to that of the minority - is a sound and convincing substantiation of the position that has always stood as the scriptural one in the CGK.⁵⁰ However, Synod did not go so far as to qualify as unscriptural or unreformed the position of the minority of the study committee, which did see room for women in ministry. The GS did not want to make a doctrinal statement on this issue. Thus, we can state that, on the one hand, the confirmation of women ministers is ecclesiastically impermissible within the CGK, but on the other hand, the minority position has not been said to be contrary to Scripture and confession.

We already noted in paragraph 1 that it is more common for churches not to comply with the Church Order in all respects. Each time, the question will be able to be asked whether it concerns fundamental matters affecting the confession of the churches or not. When it comes to deviations in certain agreed liturgical practices, few will believe that the foundation of the church is at risk. But that may be different if church-ordained agreements are violated around the use of the sacraments and the making of public profession of faith. We mentioned earlier the frequency of celebrating Holy Communion and making profession of faith, regarding which church ordinances are not always faithfully observed either. Does this affect the confession of our church? How do deviating decisions concerning Holy Communion and confession relate to deviating decisions around women and ministry?
What matters is whether in cases before us, the foundation of the church is at stake. Is the very essence of the church affected when such agreements are not kept and, if so, to such an extent that intervention is required? Is the foundation of the church at stake if women ministers are confirmed or if churches have a different view and practice regarding monogamous homosexual relationships? Is the church's foundation in question if Holy Communion is rarely celebrated or if the Sunday afternoon service is abolished? Is the foundation of the church at stake if churches go their own way in these matters and joint agreements are not kept?
Calvin and other Reformed Christians believed we should be extremely careful not to write off churches too quickly. Within our churches, we have also always been careful to deal with churches that do not comply with church decisions. The GS has been careful not to take directive decisions towards those church councils. As long as the heart of the gospel, the foundation of the church, is not at stake, great caution is needed. The foundation of the church is at stake if the gospel is no longer purely proclaimed or if the sacraments are no longer served. In short, if there is a 'false church' (art. 29 NGB).

Discipline on ministers

Article 79 KO defines the general nature of sins that necessitate discipline of ministers. It refers to public gross sins. When disciplining a minister, the church council of the neighbouring congregation should be involved; when disciplining a minister, the classis and deputies should also be involved according to Article 49 KO.
Which sins are worthy of discipline is not specified in detail by the Church Order. The Church Order is not a Penal Code, in which everything punishable is listed article by article. However, as a further elaboration of Article 79, Article 80 KO does list the main disciplinary sins committed by ministers. These include adherence to and propagation of unscriptural teachings, public schism, open blasphemy, faithless abandonment of the service or intrusion into the service work of another, perjury, adultery, sexual abuse, theft, committing physical and psychological violence, alcohol abuse, dishonest pursuit of profit.⁵¹

Discipline on church councils

When sinful practices are publicly practised within a congregation or false doctrine is systematically preached, the classis has a duty to point this out to the local church council and, if necessary, to proceed to admonition (via the visitators, art. 44 KO). But what if a church council completely fails to heed this and sinful practices and teachings are tolerated or even facilitated within the congregation? Can we then proceed to suspend and dismiss ministers?
The basic principle is that while the multiple assemblies can call local church councils to apply discipline, they cannot force them to do so, nor can they impose the manner in which discipline is practised. It is up to elders' own pastoral considerations whether or not to proceed with disciplinary action in specific cases. A church council can of course be questioned on this by the visitators, but that is where it ends. The multiple assemblies have no authority to apply discipline. The exception to this rule is the authority of the classis to take disciplinary measures against a minister in consultation with the relevant church councils (art. 79 KO).
Now the question arises how discipline can be applied when not only one minister (whether or not a pastor) is worthy of discipline, but an entire council of churches. It is easy to imagine that the "normal route" as described in art. 79-80 KO cannot then lead to results: after all, that council of churches will never call a neighbouring council of churches to be suspended collectively. In the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands in the 20th century, disciplinary authority was granted not only to the classis, but even to the general synod. We refer to this in the literature as 'new church law'. The CGK has never declared this line to be theirs. Discipline of ministers remains an individual matter of church council and classis; for elders and deacons, church councils in each other's geographical vicinity suffice, for ministers the final decision is up to the classis.
For the exceptional situation in which (almost) all ministers in a congregation are worthy of discipline, the CGK has brought in Article 30 KO in the opposite sense.⁵² After all, there must be an ecclesiastical possibility to deal with such a situation ecclesiastically, for example when the church council is collectively guilty of corruption, excessive mismanagement, abuse of power or spreading unscriptural teachings. In cases of gross public sin on the basis of which an individual minister could be deposed under sections 79 and 80 KO, an entire church council (or perhaps better: all church council members) can be deposed by the classis if the church council members are collectively guilty of that sin. One might call it the 'extreme edge' of the application of Article 30 KO.⁵³ Rev Quant wrote about this use of art. 30 in "the opposite sense": "Traditionally, the K.O. has appointed the possibility of taking action against a minister - but that can therefore also be an entire church council - because of 'unscriptural teachings' (art. 80). Then the appropriate route is that of suspension and deposition, when the time of exhortation has not delivered what it serves: conversion. The church route here - however sad - is not complicated. 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 apply to suspend itself. Then art. 30 K.O. enters into force in the opposite sense, and the superior assembly does what the inferior one cannot do: it proceeds to suspend and dismiss, calling in the advisory assistance of deputies under art. 49 K.O. This instrument has been used several times in the past in the churches, most recently during the troubles in Zeewolde, 2002-2004.'⁵⁴ 
It goes without saying that such action is very drastic and can only be applied with extreme caution and should be seen as an ultimum remedium. The basis and starting point for Reformed church life is the recognition of the independence of local churches. The multiple assemblies have only limited authority and power, limited by the provisions of the church order (see paragraph 3). Intervention in local churches by dismissing church councils is conceivable only in exceptional cases of mismanagement and gross public sin. Such intervention is necessary when there is a legitimate call to do so from the congregation. And even if that call does not come, a classis should in extreme cases intervene and depose the church council, thus purifying the church and ridding the congregation of a corrupt church council. After all, church visitation by the classis is an ecclesiastically calibrated means of preserving the congregation spiritually in such a situation.⁵⁵

Unscriptural teachings

Disciplinary measures based on the propagation of unscriptural or deceptive teachings can only be resorted to if the foundations of the church are at stake, or rather the foundation. On Peter's confession "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" the church is built, says Jesus (Matt 16: 16,18). When the foundation is tampered with and the gospel of Jesus Christ is violated, the church - the body of Christ - is in danger and the classis cannot stand idly by. If church auditors believe that church members are getting stones for bread, action must be taken. The classis must continue to try with all its might to save the congregation spiritually - initially with the church council, but if that proves not to be a viable route, directly with the congregation.

Perjury

In the current constellation, the possibility of dismissing a church council for perjury is also sometimes mentioned, because there are church councils that break agreements and are thus guilty of breach of word. Can we then speak of perjury? Perjury is a serious offence punishable under the Penal Code. Section 207 states the following: 'He who, in the cases in which a statutory provision requires a statement under oath or attaches legal effects thereto, orally or in writing, personally or by a person specially authorised to do so, intentionally makes a false statement under oath, shall be punished with imprisonment of not more than six years or a fine of the fourth category.' Perjury undermines the establishment of truth in a constitutional state, which directly and seriously affects the public interest. For this reason, the basic principle is that unconditional imprisonment is required.
Do we think that failure to keep a church appointment can be equated with this?⁵⁶ It is important to discuss how this should be viewed, also in the light of the ninth commandment. In any case, the question will have to be addressed why a church council in conscience feels it cannot keep a church agreement.

Recent developments

We noted in section 4 that there was a church law movement during the 20th century that gradually led to more grip of the multiple assemblies on church councils. Disciplinary law in particular has been the object of this. In the 21st century, we see a return to narrowing the powers of the multiple assembly when it comes to the exercise of discipline. We see this particularly in the measures on ministers, and again particularly on pastors. It is interesting to observe that the new GKv Church Order (2014) has pushed those powers back from the classis to church councils. These themselves depose a pastor, release him etc. The classis has the advisory power, but the church council has the acting power.
In the CGK church order, the classis has the power to emeritate, detach, depose a pastor, allow him to adopt a different state of life etc. The position of elders and deacons is up to the church councils, possibly assisted by a neighbouring church council. Within the CGK, the acting authority of the classis in this area has remained in place. The idea that the classis would only have advisory authority (which we occasionally encounter in newspaper articles etc.) is not in line with the CGK church order. It is quite possible that something of the movement we currently see is being adopted in other churches, but church order has not changed the role of the multiple assemblies in the exercise of discipline.

6. The instruments of multiple meetings

The conversation

The first and main thing the classis can do is to enter into discussions with church councils that deviate from the Church Order. It is good to talk through at length the reasons why church councils have decided to do so. What makes them come to this decision? Church councils and congregations do not always feel understood by the Church Order and are not taken seriously in their specific situation. It is important to listen to them, without approving their decision. The conversation can possibly call for repentance and urge them to still and henceforth follow the Church Order.

Revision request and appeal

A revision petition may be filed by interested parties against a decision of a church council to deviate from the Church Order on a particular point. The revision petition offers congregation members, as well as classis churches and other interested parties, an excellent opportunity to enter into dialogue with the respective church councils. Under the new Integral Arrangement for the Revision and Appeal Procedure, appeals can be made to the classis after a rejected revision request.

Exhortation (by visitators)

Visitators should certainly enter into conversation with a dissenting church council and have the authority to admonish, art. 44 KO: 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 building up of the congregation by word and works. In doing so, they shall in good time fraternally admonish those found negligent in one or the other, and by word and deed do everything for the peace, edification and welfare of the churches'.⁵⁷

Refusal of credentials (mandates)

Denying credentials at the beginning or during a classis meeting is not a legitimate option from a church law perspective. Deputies have substantiated this at length in their November 2019 memo: 'The church, church affiliation and the acceptance of credentials'. Rejecting credentials alone is not possible because the assembly is constituted with the act of receiving credentials. So who then acts if those letters are refused? An assembly that has not yet been constituted? Moreover, refusing credentials runs up against elementary (disciplinary) principles of our church law: how is it possible to cut off a council of churches and thus an entire congregation without going through the appropriate stages of censorship? It would show great unmercifulness to exclude brothers and sisters of the same body - the body of Christ - in this way.

Applying discipline on ministers (79 - 80 KO)

This possibility is conceivable in extremis. The classis is not normally authorised to dismiss ministers on its own. After all, this is reserved for its own church council in cooperation with the neighbouring church council (in case of suspension of elders and deacons) and the classis (in case of suspension of ministers). In case of collective gross public sin, Article 30 KO in combination with Articles 79-80 KO is a last resort to dismiss a church council. Thus, a classis can deliver the congregation from misgovernment (in case of corruption, abuse of power, etc.) and preserve it from the gospel (in case of unscriptural teachings).

The route to achieve dismissal by the classis of an entire church council (or the CGK part of the church council, if it is a cooperating congregation) has the same procedure as the procedure for dismissal of a single minister. In outline:
1. sound investigation by the classis, as also indicated in the annex to the KO; specifically paying close attention to adversarial proceedings;
2. engage deputies to section 49 KO for advice;
3. when discipline is decided: first suspend and then give time for repentance; an emergency council of churches will also be set up;
4. when this period does not bear fruit, the final step: that of deposition.

7. Summary

In this memo, we have discussed what deputies believe is the right course of action from a church law perspective to take with congregations that do not abide by binding church orders. In paragraph 1, we explained that deviating from church ordinances puts pressure on the unity of our church body. We should bear in mind that this is not a new phenomenon. It is of all times that church councils take decisions that deviate from the church order. To find answers to the question of how we should deal with this, it is first of all important to have a clear view of what we profess about the church and our church-ness.
In section 2, therefore, we went into detail on the foundation of the church and the attributes (essential characteristics) of the church. On Peter's confession 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God' the church is built, says Jesus. In Sunday 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism, we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gathers a church and that He protects and maintains it forever. It is not our church, but His church. With the Nicene Creed we confess that the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
The true church has three characteristics: the pure preaching of the Gospel, the pure ministry of the sacraments and the exercise of discipline (art. 29 NGB). In line with Calvin, we see the emphasis on the pure proclamation of the Gospel and the sacraments reflected in the history of our churches, in which we have traditionally distinguished between fundamental matters (which touch the heart of the church's confession) and non-fundamental matters (which do not touch the confession or only indirectly). What is confessed of the great worldwide church also applies to that concrete church body of which we are members. There is no contradiction between the invisible church and the visible church. Each local church is an independent, complete church and a revelation of Christ's church in a single place (Bouwman).
In section 3, we considered the character of our denomination. The roots of our denomination lie at the Synod of Emden (1571). The unity of the church lies in the Reformed confession, which is the foundation of the denomination. On this basis, unity was found and further agreements were made to live together ecclesiastically. The Reformed churches were given a Presbyterian synodal church government. Primacy lies with the presbyters (elders) and local churches bind themselves to the synodal decisions.
In section 4, we discussed the nature and powers of the multiple assemblies in more detail. Local churches and multiple assemblies belong together and form a whole. Multiple Assemblies are limited to dealing with matters that concern the churches collectively. The fact that primacy lies with the local churches does not mean that the local churches would not be bound by mutual agreements. Through their representatives at the multiple assemblies, the churches have indirectly made those agreements themselves.
A tricky situation arises when a local church continues to oppose a decision of a superior assembly because the church council remains convinced that the decision taken is not in accordance with God's will and Word. It has been defended by leading church law experts that church councils' own understanding of Scripture should prevail over being bound by synodal rulings. In our churches, the prevailing view seems to be that church decisions are binding anyway (with the possibility of revision and appeal) and that the GS ultimately has the last word when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture and not the church council's own judgment. What is the correct historical interpretation of Article 31 KO deserves further study. In any case, local churches and multiple assemblies should make every effort to agree among themselves on the interpretation and elaboration of related parts of the text.
The 20th century saw a church law movement in the Reformed churches that gradually led to a greater grip of the multiple assemblies on church councils. Currently, it seems that Presbyterian-synodal church government is under pressure from two sides. On the one hand, we see less attachment to the church body and synodal decisions are sometimes perceived as clamping down; on the other hand, we see a movement to close ranks from the centre.
The 20th century saw a church law movement in the Reformed churches that gradually led to a greater grip of the multiple assemblies on church councils. Currently, it seems that Presbyterian-synodal church government is under pressure from two sides. On the one hand, we see less attachment to the church body and synodal decisions are sometimes perceived as clamping down; on the other hand, we see a movement to close ranks from the centre.
When public sinful practices are used within a congregation, the classis has a duty to point this out and admonish the local church council (art. 44 KO). As a rule, the several assemblies have no authority to apply discipline on their own. In very exceptional situations, however, the classis can still take disciplinary measures against an entire council of churches. This is possible through Article 30 KO, if it concerns disciplinary measures that its own church council cannot or will not take, in the case of (collective) public gross sins.
In section 6, we discussed the tools of the multiple assemblies towards church councils that deviate from church orders. The first and main thing the classis can do is to enter into dialogue with church councils. If they persist, the visitators can proceed to admonition on behalf of the classis (art. 44 KO). Further steps are not possible. Things can only be different if church councils are collectively guilty of gross public sin. Suspension and dismissal is then possible as a last resort on the basis of art. 30 KO in combination with art. 79 - 80 KO. This procedure has been followed once before in our churches.

Finally

'We must do all we can to prevent that,' Calvin's appeal reads.
'No fratricidal strife among guests at the same table' (W. Balke).⁵⁸

Deputates on Church Order and Church Law, December 2020.

Footnotes

1. In a sense, this reflection paper is a follow-up to the memo 'The church, the church body and the acceptance of credentials' (November 2019), in which deputies have already substantiated at length that refusing credentials at classis meetings is not a viable course of action. Refusing credentials is an unlawful disciplinary measure that our church order does not know and has not been found legitimate in church history.
2. Ephesians 2: 20
3. 1 Peter 2:4-5
4. Van 't Spijker, The Church, p. 28.
5. See also NGB article 27-29
6. J. van Genderen, W.H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, p. 643
7. J. van Genderen, W.H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, p. 643
8. See Ephesians 4: 1-6.
9. K. Painter in Collected Works, The Church III, p. 129.
10. J. van Genderen, W.H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, p. 650
11. W. van 't Spijker (ed.), The Church, p. 270.
12. Van 't Spijker, The Church, p. 276.
13. J. van Genderen, W.H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, p. 653
14. J. van Genderen, W.H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, p. 653
15. In the Roman Catholic Church, conformity to the teachings of the apostles has been subordinated to apostolic succession. The gospel does not teach us apostolic succession. Not the succession of places and persons, but the teaching of the apostles is a characteristic feature of the church. The apostolicity of the church rests in the succession of doctrine. See W. van 't Spijker (ed), The Church, pp. 279-281.
16. Handbook of Reformed Church Law, ed. Selderhuis, p. 104.
17. Elsewhere, he adds: the depravity of the human race, justification by faith, the threefold ministry of Christ, conversion, faith in the promises, assurance of faith, prayer. In his view, there are also parts on which differences of opinion (on exegetical or dogmatic points, for example) can and may exist between local and regional churches, without breaking the unity of faith. See A. de Reuver in De Waarheidsvriend, https://www.digibron.nl/viewer/collectie/Digibron/id/tag:Waarheidsvriend,19951012:newsml_4b932d1ff5135 deafa4e5af3befe628c
18. 1 John 4: 2.
19. On this, see Calvin, Institutes IV, 1, 7; Van Genderen and Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, p. 640.
20. Reformed Church Law II, p. 4.
21. Idem, p. 5.
22. Prof. J. Hovius, in his 'Notes on the Synod at Emden, 1571′, showed 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 the confession, in other things the churches are free.
23. H.J. Selderhuis, 'Emden 1571', internal note: 'Our church affiliation goes back to the Synod of Emden where, in 1571, local churches joined together to form a church affiliation. The basis was common agreement with the Dutch Creed and the Heidelberg Catechism. (...) For us, the question is whether we should not first determine whether each still wants to bind itself to that confession. If that is the case, in view of the Emden principle, it should also be possible to find a solution to the question of women and ministry, unless, of course, being in favour of women ministers is connected with a different view of the confession. In any case, it is important today to go deeper than a discussion on women and ministry, and deeper means speaking about and from the foundation of Scripture and confession. Therein are the essentials and these connect or separate.'
24. A. van Harten-Tip, Church Gazette of the North 27 May 2011.
25. http://www.kerkrecht.nl/content/bouwman-m-1937-hii, p. 14.
26. Golverdingen (2001), pp. 105, 106.
27. Johannes Hoornbeeck, a contemporary of Voetius, says: 'The practice or power of synods cannot or should not interfere with the freedom or power of the local church, surely it (the power of synod) is not a robbing but an aggregating power (non privativa, sed cumulativa postestas) and each local church, whichever one, remains an independent and entitled to full ecclesiastical power.' See: http://www.kerkrecht.nl/content/lonkhuyzen-j-van-1926-iv
28. www.kerkrecht.nl/content/lonkhuyzen-j-van-1926-iv, p. 55. With the power of the several assemblies concerning the churches, according to Voetius, "it stands that this power and authority of classes and synods, composed of delegates: 1. does not concern a perpetual possession, but only the exercise; 2. and is not absolute, but limited; 3. is not governmental, but subservient; 4. is not supreme, but lower, if we consider all the delegated churches or their ruling ministers, when they met and voted at the same time; 5. not original, but derived and delegated; 6. not so much by virtue of a prerogative of jurisdiction, as of appreciation and respect."
29. W. van 't Spijker, The Church (1990), p. 327.
30. Handbook of Reformed Church Law, ed. Selderhuis, p. 300.
31. Calvin emphatically points to Acts 15 for the authority of the synod. He also grounds the synod on 1 Cor. 14: 29-32, where the prophets are granted the power to judge what a prophet says, which according to him also applies to the churches among themselves. Source: Institutes, chapter IV, 9, 13. Voetius also invoked Acts 15. With the correctness of this appeal to the Apostles' Convent, according to Voetius, the synodal regiment stands or falls. For in the Church there can be no regiment and no power not instituted and ordained by God. Source: 'Voetius on the authority of synod 1937'. Greijdanus, however, is of the opinion that the Jerusalem assembly can hardly be considered a synod in the usual sense: 'The Jerusalem assembly may give some divine direction as to the permissibility and desirability of synodal assemblies of local churches, but it must be remembered that only what is according to the Word has authority. Firm conclusions regarding multiple assemblies, however, are impossible. However, such assemblies can be desirable and useful. They are given with the unity of God's Church throughout the world in a certain sense. The local churches are only revelations of that one church and form with each other a spiritual whole, but in such a way that the independence of the local church always remains "untouched". On the part of man, among the several assemblies there is no other than mutual agreement, mutual agreement.' Source: S. Greijdanus, 'De quaestie van het nieuwe kerkrecht VI', in: De Reformatie, 11 November 1938. Italics and bold according to Greijdanus, p. 39.
32. "If a church council says to a superior assembly: your decision is not according to God's Word - this must of course be proven - then a difference will almost always arise between such a superior assembly, which took the decision in the opinion that it is according to God's Word and the church council concerned, which categorically denies it. The parties are then sharply opposed to each other. And in such a situation the church council must now decide for itself. The church council thus has the last word in holding on to the matter. Rutgers, The Jurisdiction of Our Local Churches, p. 34.
33. Idem, pp. 41-42.
34. Jansen, Brief Explanation of the Church Order, p. 147.
35. Greijdanus: "Namely, that it agrees with those other churches to refrain from individual doctrinal determinations, but to leave these to the several assemblies (in this case a synod), while retaining the right to make its own judgements regarding agreement with God's Word; cf. art. 31 R.D.. It also leaves the administration of the coexistence of the churches to the several assemblies, without, however, relinquishing its own judgment and independence in the process' www.kerkrecht.nl/content/harinck-g-ea-1998-h14, p.250.
36. C. Veenhof, Om de Unica Catholica - Een beschouwing over de positie van bezwaarden onder en over de synodocratie (Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1949), p. 319.
37. http://www.bertloonstra.nl/blog/artikel-31-2/
38. With the restriction that church councils can never be forced to take disciplinary action, as Rev Quant put it on behalf of deputies at the 2016 GS: 'Some decisions of the synod a church council can resign itself to, even if it does not agree with them. But you don't admonish or discipline a church member because the synod orders it, you do it out of your own conviction. The church council is not an executive body of the synod.'
39. In W. van 't Spijker (ed), De Kerk, p. 266, the example cited to illustrate this is that at the time of the Reformation, numerous prominent people of Reformed confession were willing to sign the Lutheran creeds: 'After all, it was about the one church, which could reveal itself in a certain independence in different national and local churches. It was Lutheran in Germany, Reformed in Switzerland, but essentially one church'.
40. Note: we bind ourselves to the 'pieces'. Confessional writings are ecclesiastical (and therefore human) summaries of Scripture; we do not bind each other to subordinate points, such as whether Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews (NGB art. 4); whether question and answer 11 HC does not wrongly contrast God's mercy and His righteousness.
41. D. Quant, memo credentials, p. 2 (internal memo dep. church order and church law, Sept. 2019)
42. D. Quant, memo credentials, p. 2 (internal memo dep. church order and church law, Sept. 2019)
43. Handbook of Reformed Church Law, ed. Selderhuis, p. 392.
44. See Article 41 KO and Articles 77 and 79 KO on the role of the classis in church discipline.
45. Remember Proverbs 15: 22: 'Plans fail, if there is no consultation, but through a multitude of counsellors the necessary comes to pass.'
46. The last doctrinal pronouncement was almost a century ago (see Article 52 under paragraph 2b). A GS cannot actually make doctrinal pronouncements beyond a very clear 'thus speaks the Lord'. After all, our knowing is partial. The CGK has always been very reluctant to accept doctrinal statements outside the three binding confessions. Church history has taught that we must be careful not to elevate our interpretation of Scripture passages to the only correct interpretation and the binding norm for the whole church body.
47. The objections of Rev Van Lingen and Rev Wisse looked at the doctrine of presumed rebirth advocated by Dr Kuyper. According to Kuyper, the church is an assembly of believers on the basis of predestination (election) and rebirth. According to him, the presumption of being born again is the ground for infant baptism. Emphasis should not be on the individual, but on God's covenant with man in the lineage. Pastors Van Lingen and Wisse found this doctrine 'pernicious' to church life and contrary to the Bible. They called for 'distinctive' or 'separating' preaching. A distinction needed to be made between 'true beatific faith' and 'non-salubrious faith'. In this way, preaching functions as a 'key to the kingdom of heaven'.
48. With some justification, the doctrinal statements are therefore sometimes jokingly called 'the fourth confessional scripture'. It does indicate the weight of these doctrinal statements.
49. They also declare their commitment to the Church Order, though not under penalty of suspension.
50. Acta 1998, p. 119 (art. 230).
51. This list of utterly intolerable sins in ministers is taken almost verbatim from Calvin, who had included it in the Geneva Church Order 1541.
52. Within our churches, the possibility of dismissing an entire council of churches via the route of Article 30 of the OCR has been discussed twice. Once it actually came to dismissal and once it could be avoided because there was still a substantive settlement between the church council and the classis. On both occasions, the then professor of church law advised on this matter.
53. Already Voetius was of the opinion that in serious situations a broader assembly should be able to intervene if the situation in a local congregation with a thwarting church council runs completely off the Reformed rails: 'If the greater part of the people, indeed all and every one, including the church council, are hopelessly corrupted, and consequently deserve to be excommunicated (then there are four ways open): 'Then, namely, either locally and in an ordinary meeting by delegates of synod or classe a decree of excommunication must be formally proclaimed ...' Source: http://www.kerkrecht.nl/content/lonkhuyzen-j-van1926-iv, p. 49.
54. D. Quant, Note on credentials, p. 4 (internal note dep. church order and church law, Sept. 2019)
55. D. Quant, Ambtelijk Contact, 1 May 2007.
56. As discussed earlier, there are many more churches that fail to comply with binding GS decisions, e.g. on liturgy, confession of truth, one service per Sunday, frequency of Holy Communion celebrations, reaffirmation of ministers and periodic financial payments. Are all these church councils guilty of perjury or a similar offence?
57. Brotherly exhort, because 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 with it, you are patient, you know about waiting. The cause of the unity of the churches is more than worth it: after all, it is about the peace bestowed by blood? Exhortation is done with an appeal to the "mercies of God", Rom. 12:1. So also on that pitch. So that admonishing may and will take time. Sometimes there seems to be something of an impatience in the churches on this point: 'it must end now!' That is not the style of the Kingdom.
58. Digibron, A. de Reuver 1995, Calvin and the unity of the church (4).