From the churches and classes, Deputaten kerkorde en kerkrecht (church order and church law experts) have been asked for advice in response to the decisions of the General Synod (GS) regarding women and ministry. Deputies also received signals that there is confusion in the churches about how to act at the classis. As it is part of deputies' duties to promote knowledge and the correct application of church law (...), they sent a letter to all church assemblies with the questions and answers below.
Have the decisions of the last GS on women and ministry already come into effect or have they been suspended because of the revision petitions filed?
The Integral Revision and Appeal Regulations (IRRA) state at 4.5: 'A revision application against a primary decision has suspensive effect until the application has been decided.' Suspensive effect means that the decision cannot yet be implemented because revision requests have been submitted. The next synod must then first assess whether arguments have been introduced that were not or insufficiently weighed in the earlier decision, as a result of which the decision should have been different. Revision requests have since been submitted to the calling church of the next synod. Thus, the effect of the decision of the last held GS on women and ministry has been suspended until the next General Synod will have decided on it.
But is this a primary decision? Surely the GS already took a decision on women and ministry in 1998?
Yes, there is a primary decision here. Article 1.3 of the IRRA contains the definition of a primary decision: 'A primary decision is the original decision of an ecclesiastical assembly, which is the subject of the revision or appeal proceedings.' That is indeed the case here. The decision on women and ministry is an original decision, taken in response to instructions and not in response to an appeal or revision request. Moreover, it is not merely a repetition of the 1998 decision, but contains elements that go beyond that decision.
Do the previous 1998 GS decisions on women and ministry still apply?
Yes. The 1998 GS decisions apply in full. What was decided then regarding women and ministry has been Church law since 2001, when the revision requests around that decision were declared settled. Only the 2019-2022 GS decisions on women and ministry are now suspended.
Is it possible to admonish congregations that confirmed female ministers?
That depends on what is meant by exhortation. As written above, from the moment revision petitions are filed against the decision around woman and office, there is suspensive effect. At the same time, suspending the operation of the 2019-22 decision automatically reverts to the pre-2022 situation, which is the validity of the 1998 decision. That is, it is not possible in the CGK to confirm female ministers. If churches nevertheless do so, there is every reason to call those churches to account for this violation of the joint Church Order, and to admonish them accordingly. That admonition is not dependent on suspensive effect of the 2019-22 decision.
Is admonition in a disciplinary sense warranted?
Admonition is a term in which a lot resonates. It is a word with deep Biblical overtones and as a result, ecclesiastically, exhortation and discipline are aligned. Now, it can come to the point where a church council needs to be admonished in this sweeping way that discipline is ultimately exercised over ministers. Under church law as it applies in the CGK, it is possible (unlike in many other Reformed churches) in extreme cases for a classis to suspend and dismiss ministers of a local church. However, it will then have to be clear that a church council is leading the congregation down a road that leads outside the Kingdom of God. In matters so fundamental, a classis can intervene with discipline in extreme cases. Whether admonition in that far-reaching sense of the word can also be applied to church councils that confirm female ministers has not yet been pronounced by a GS. The decision of the last GS on women and ministry seems to give hints to that, for example by speaking of a "sin against love" and saying that a "persistent deviation from church decisions on points where the common understanding of Scripture is at stake is in itself reason for censure of ministers". But these are now pre-eminent statements that go far beyond what was said in 1998 and fall under the suspensive effect that revision requests have. So this cannot be relied upon as a rationale for admonishing church councils in this sense at this time.
Is it canonically possible for church councils that deviate from the Church Order to be admitted to the classic meetings only as observers?
No. The Church Order provides no basis for this. Even church councils that deviate from synodal decisions continue to fully occupy their place in the churches. Incidentally, it has previously been pointed out by deputies in the memo 'The church, the church body and the acceptance of credentials' (2019) that declaring churches of the church body to be observers, e.g. by refusing to accept their credentials/credentials at the classis meeting, is not church law.