“Pastor Peter” whose anonymous epigrams usually decorate the last pages of The Messenger missed the ball the other day. He wrote: “When a congregation, without classical approval, ceases to contribute to a denominational cause, the council of the congregation has lost its right to exercise any discipline over a member who fails to contribute his share of the congregational expenses” (Oct. 1970, pp. 28, 29). This would he correct only if local churches derived their authority via a kind of “chain of command,” to use a military phrase, from the classes and synods. Actually the real relationship between the local consistory and the classis and synod is the exact opposite of what “Pastor Peter”—and many others -seem to be assuming. Our Church Order plainly states at the beginning of its treatment of “The Assemblies of the Church” the fundamental principle of Reformed church government: “Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its own character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ; the authority of consistories being original, that of major assemblies being delegated” (Article 27, a; italics mine).
The Church Order goes on immediately to add: “b. The classis has the same authority over the consistory as the synod has over the classis.” This raises the interesting; question: Just what authority do the classes and synods have over the consistories through whom they derive their own authority? Since the Church Order at this point docs not further qualify this authority we must draw our conclusions regarding the nature and extent of it from other stipulations of the Church Order and from a consideration of the character of classes and synods.
Article 28 states: “These assemblies shall transact ecclesiastical matters only, and…in an ecclesiastical manner,” and “shall deal only with those matters which concern its churches in common or which could not be finished in the minor assemblies.” Article 30 states that “the decisions of the assemblies shall be considered settled and binding unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order.”
We ought to observe further that while consistories continue in office exercising the (“original”) authority and responsibilities the Lord entrusts to the elders in His church, the classes and synods (acting under delegated authority on behalf of the consistories to deal with church matters of common concern to the churches or special problems referred to them) meet for only a few days every year and the rest of time do not exist as continuing bodies. As long as they act responsibly within the limits of the authority the consistories have delegated to them and in accord with the common bond of the Bible, the Confessions, and the Church Order, their decisions are to be considered “settled and binding” on the churches and their members. When, however, they begin to act independently, undertaking to decide or support matters which arc not ecclesiastical, or when they begin to ignore the demands of Scripture, the Confessions of the Church, or the Church Order, they are violating the conditions that hind the churches to them and they forfeit the right to demand compliance with and the support of their decisions by the churches or their membership. When such situations arise it is out of order to condemn the churches or their members who do not submit to their irregular actions as guilty of the sin of mutiny. The fault lies with the irresponsible assemblies which arc becoming false to their trust.
The Biblical example of Peter when confronted by ecclesiastical authorities who in violation of their God-given trust tried to forbid preaching of the gospel is our proper guide. He said: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Such independence of action we ought to observe is not anarchy; it has nothing to do with the modern “civil disobedience” idea promoted even by some church leaders, which operates on the basis of, “If you don’t like n law, break it!” This is simply obedience to God.
The responsibility for exhibiting and promoting such obedience always lies with the consistories of the churches. This is what “Pastor Peter” and many others like him are forgetting. “Pastor Peter” reveals the same insensitivity to the responsibility of consistories in a later comment (Jan. 1971): “Received a letter from a calling church seeking information. However, it also asked for my position on a matter of interpretation of a selected passage. This is a new wrinkle on what was once the smooth fabric of denominational procedure. Has it become necessary to give an exegetical report before being placed on an accepted list? Who is to judge the correctness? Are we moving toward congregationalism?”
Has “Pastor Peter” forgotten the admonition pointedly directed to every elder when he is installed in office to have “particular regard to the doctrine and conduct of the minister of the Word, that the church may be edified and may manifest itself as the pillar and ground of the truth”? When a consistory, taking note of the uncertainty that is obviously arising about the commitment of too many ministers, tries to assure itself that those whom it recommends to the congregation for call are loyal to the gospel that consistory deserves praise, not criticism. And this is not “congregationalism” but simply responsible Reformed church government! A consistory which in today’s world has no concern about the convictions and policy of the preacher who is to lead its congregation is shirking its duty and should wake up to realize what it means to be elders in the Church of Jesus Christ.
As long as synods and classes faithfully do their duty as they have promised, within the framework of Scripture, the Confessions, and the Church Order, serious problems are not likely to arise; but, when they begin to violate these conditions of their delegated authority”, then it becomes the right and even the duty of the elders and church members to stand up for what is right. Hopefully, that will lead to reform. If it does not, it may have to lead to withholding of support and if the evils continue unchecked it may lead ultimately to secession. And this is not the way to destroy the Church; this is the way the Lord in the past has saved His gospel and His Church. Our forefathers learned that lesson. We may have to learn it again.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
The Church Order goes on immediately to add: “b. The classis has the same authority over the consistory as the synod has over the classis.” This raises the interesting; question: Just what authority do the classes and synods have over the consistories through whom they derive their own authority? Since the Church Order at this point docs not further qualify this authority we must draw our conclusions regarding the nature and extent of it from other stipulations of the Church Order and from a consideration of the character of classes and synods.
Article 28 states: “These assemblies shall transact ecclesiastical matters only, and…in an ecclesiastical manner,” and “shall deal only with those matters which concern its churches in common or which could not be finished in the minor assemblies.” Article 30 states that “the decisions of the assemblies shall be considered settled and binding unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order.”
We ought to observe further that while consistories continue in office exercising the (“original”) authority and responsibilities the Lord entrusts to the elders in His church, the classes and synods (acting under delegated authority on behalf of the consistories to deal with church matters of common concern to the churches or special problems referred to them) meet for only a few days every year and the rest of time do not exist as continuing bodies. As long as they act responsibly within the limits of the authority the consistories have delegated to them and in accord with the common bond of the Bible, the Confessions, and the Church Order, their decisions are to be considered “settled and binding” on the churches and their members. When, however, they begin to act independently, undertaking to decide or support matters which arc not ecclesiastical, or when they begin to ignore the demands of Scripture, the Confessions of the Church, or the Church Order, they are violating the conditions that hind the churches to them and they forfeit the right to demand compliance with and the support of their decisions by the churches or their membership. When such situations arise it is out of order to condemn the churches or their members who do not submit to their irregular actions as guilty of the sin of mutiny. The fault lies with the irresponsible assemblies which arc becoming false to their trust.
The Biblical example of Peter when confronted by ecclesiastical authorities who in violation of their God-given trust tried to forbid preaching of the gospel is our proper guide. He said: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Such independence of action we ought to observe is not anarchy; it has nothing to do with the modern “civil disobedience” idea promoted even by some church leaders, which operates on the basis of, “If you don’t like n law, break it!” This is simply obedience to God.
The responsibility for exhibiting and promoting such obedience always lies with the consistories of the churches. This is what “Pastor Peter” and many others like him are forgetting. “Pastor Peter” reveals the same insensitivity to the responsibility of consistories in a later comment (Jan. 1971): “Received a letter from a calling church seeking information. However, it also asked for my position on a matter of interpretation of a selected passage. This is a new wrinkle on what was once the smooth fabric of denominational procedure. Has it become necessary to give an exegetical report before being placed on an accepted list? Who is to judge the correctness? Are we moving toward congregationalism?”
Has “Pastor Peter” forgotten the admonition pointedly directed to every elder when he is installed in office to have “particular regard to the doctrine and conduct of the minister of the Word, that the church may be edified and may manifest itself as the pillar and ground of the truth”? When a consistory, taking note of the uncertainty that is obviously arising about the commitment of too many ministers, tries to assure itself that those whom it recommends to the congregation for call are loyal to the gospel that consistory deserves praise, not criticism. And this is not “congregationalism” but simply responsible Reformed church government! A consistory which in today’s world has no concern about the convictions and policy of the preacher who is to lead its congregation is shirking its duty and should wake up to realize what it means to be elders in the Church of Jesus Christ.
As long as synods and classes faithfully do their duty as they have promised, within the framework of Scripture, the Confessions, and the Church Order, serious problems are not likely to arise; but, when they begin to violate these conditions of their delegated authority”, then it becomes the right and even the duty of the elders and church members to stand up for what is right. Hopefully, that will lead to reform. If it does not, it may have to lead to withholding of support and if the evils continue unchecked it may lead ultimately to secession. And this is not the way to destroy the Church; this is the way the Lord in the past has saved His gospel and His Church. Our forefathers learned that lesson. We may have to learn it again.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.