In 1973 the CRC Synod adopted a number of “Guidelines for Understanding the Nature of Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination” (Acts of Synod 1973, pp. 62–64). These “Guidelines” were printed in the April issue of THE OUTLOOK. Synod also decided at that time to appoint a new committee to study the implications of those “Guidelines,” especially as they relate to “layworkers in evangelism” and to report to Synod 1974. The report of that committee appears on pages 360–365 of the 1974 Agenda for Synod.
The above explains the background of Rev. Cecil W. Tuininga’s article on “Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination.” Rev. Tuininga is pastor of the College Avenue CRC of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Report 44 in the Acts of Synod 1973 (pp. 635–716 ) has been presented to the churches for further study. The report presents us with 80 pages of carefully worked-out material.
The committee must he commended for the thorough work it put into this report, the diligent study that went into it. But neither of these guarantees that such a report is therefore correct. For that reason we are requested to study it, to see if the committee is correct or leading us astray. The whole CRC church is called to be fully involved in this question, for it has implications that can have serious effects in our ecclesiastical life.
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
Two articles in THE OUTLOOK of April 1974 dealt with various aspects of this report. I will try to avoid repeating what has been so well written and address myself to but one phase of the report which I believe is important and has received scant attention, the calling to office.
The report does mention this under “The Official Character of Preaching.” It says, “Reformed theology rightly holds that Christ is the only head of the church and that all authority in the church is His. The church, however, has a role in transmitting this authority. This is reflected in the question found, with a minor variation, in the forms for ordination of ministers, elders, and deacons: ‘Do you feel in your heart that you are lawfully called of God’s church, and therefore of God Himself, to this holy office?’” Little is said about this in the report. The important question, as I see it, is this, if God calls men to office through a congregation, is it God or the congregation who decides which offices are to be filled in the church?
A DEPARTURE FROM HISTORIC REFORMED STAND
Our forefathers were convinced that God not only calls men to office through the congregation, but that God has also made clear which offices are to serve the churches. With one voice they said, “We believe that this true Church must be governed by that spiritual polity which our Lord has taught us in His Word; namely, that there must be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and to administer the sacraments; also ciders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, form the council of the church . . .” ( Belgic Confession, Article 30). In other words, they declared that God’s Word tells us that in the church there must be three offices, not more: those of ministers, elders, and deacons.
The committee struggled with this question and concluded that it is time for the church to reevaluate its teachings and practices on this important matter. From its study they also conclude that the congregation is the determining and calling body, that office entails service, and little if any authority. A congregation then must always be evaluating which offices serve it best, or even whether some offices should be discontinued. The committee readily admits that these conclusions are at variance with our historic Reformed stand in this matter.
EMINENT SCHOLARS SPEAK
Some notable important statements have been made by eminent scholars in the past on this question. Dr. H. Bavink in his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Vol. IV, p. 416) writes (I translate C.T.): “. . . the church is not a society that has been called into being by the will of man, but it is instituted by Christ. All authority, which resides in a congregation, is given to her by Christ; not as a right but as a gift. The congregation is not a democracy, in which the people for themselves. Christ rules in the church, and the choice of the congregation has no other meaning than that it recognizes the gifts and appoints the persons whom Christ has appointed to office. Hence the congregation does choose, but its choice stands under the leading of those who are already in office, that of apostles, evangelists, etc., Acts 1:25; 6:2; 14:23; Titus 1:5, . . . .” These texts indicate that the apostles, as office-bearers called by God, recognized the function of the church under God, but that the ultimate choice rested with the Lord through the choices made by the congregation.
Professor K. Dijk, in the book, Christus De Heiland, writing on the subject “Het Koningschap Van Christus,” makes the following pertinent remarks (I freely translate –C.T.): “. . . He, Who gave His life for His Church, making her His possession, works out in her His decrees in her life, in all her manifestations, thus also in her structure [kerkvorm], and He wants her to obey His ordinances; this Church is not organized or governed according to the notions of man but according to the regulations [ordeningen] of Christ and the ground rule of her King. In the second place, following from this principle, that Christ is our King in the Church, in the special holy sphere of His rule He is sovereign and will not and cannot share it; in His Church He does not tolerate any human command [zeggenschap] alongside of Him, of whatever kind that may be . . . and no supremacy of a congregation in her majority, as if a Church were a society {the congregational concept]; only Christ’s rule counts and His Gospel decides” (p. 174).
In his commentary on the Belgic Confession, Dr. J. C .Feenstra writes, “Christ Himself is our Chief Prophet, our only Highpriest and our eternal King. He has ordained the offices. The prophetic office he has given to ministers of the Word, the shepherds and teachers, who proclaim God’s Word. The office of King to elders, who rule well. The office of Priest to the deacons, who extend aid to the needy . . . . The office-bearers are servants, SLAVES of Christ, subject to Him in all things. They are not servants of the congregation, as is sometimes thought by some members of the congregation. No, they are the servants, slaves of Christ and SERVANTS OF THE CONGREGATION, who have an official calling and are clothed with authority by Christ . . . . In the apostleship the three officers were combined. These were the ministers of the Word, the providers for the poor and the rulers of the Church. Later this was changed. When the apostles could no longer properly fulfill their calling, deacons were chosen, that they should provide for the poor . . . . The calling of the ministers of the Word is also to administer the sacraments according to the institution of Christ. The shepherds and teachers have been called by Christ to administer the Word and Sacraments and to rule the congregation. See Romans 12:7, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11, 11 and the form for ordination for Shepherds and Teachers” (pp. 391–394).
CHRIST CALLS TO OFFICE
What these men (and many others could be cited) are concerned to spell out is that it is Christ Who calls to office, Who has established the three offices, and these are called to serve and to rule in His Name, that is, according to His jurisdiction. No church is free to go its own way in establishing its own set of rules and its own rulers (rather, servants), which is not entirely in keeping with God’s Word. Through past ages the church has understood this and has ordained the three offices of minister, elder, and deacon, and said without hesitation: This is as God‘s Word tells us.
Even stronger, the Reformed churches, without any question of doubt, have asked, not merely whether those being ordained gave theoretic assent to this teaching, but rather, whether they felt it in their hearts that they were verily called of God. That a congregation has authority is really not a question among us. It is more a question that concerns the relation of the universal office of believers to the special offices.
That office-bearing brings with it authority is evident, for every believer, sharing in Christ’s anointing, is a prophet, priest, and king. Of this Scripture says, “that we in Christ are . . . made (us) unto God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10). It follows that a congregation, comprised as it is of those sharing this universal office of believers, has authority. That a congregation has authority has been taught by many leading men in the past. Dr. A. Kuyper, in his E Voto ( Vol. I, p. 336) speaks of the authority that resides in the congregation. He is concerned to spell out that the special offices are extra, imputed, and temporal, whereas the office of believers belongs to believers because they are united to Christ the Vine, and that this office-bearing is eternal.
Dr. H. Bouwman, in his book, Het Ambt Der Diakone, says that, “From other Scripture passages such as John 20:21, 3; Acts 15:27–29; 41; 5:1-10; I Corinthians 5:3, 11–13 it is clear that Christ gave to the congregation the legislative and juridical power and that the apostles exercised this on behalf of the congregation” (p. 62).
Professor R. B. Kuiper, in his book, The Glorious Body of Christ declares, “A church which gives full recognition to the universal office of believers will insist that its members choose their own officers. For the same reason the membership of the church is governed by its officers, or should be, WITH ITS OWN CONSENT. No human being or group of human beings has the right to force rule upon the membership of the church against its will. No bishop, no archbishop, no metropolitan, no partriarch, no church council, no college of cardinals, no pope may do that. When it is done that amounts to a denial of the universal office of believers” (pp. 134, 135).
The late Professor Martin Monsma, in his booklet, The Congregational Meeting, posits the same thought. He writes, “However, although the Reformed system of church government emphatically maintains that God’s believing people are not minors, but that they are as those who have come to years of majority, have specific rights and duties, yet the Reformed system maintains just as emphatically that it has pleased Christ to institute the special offices in His Church. At the Father‘s right hand, as the Church‘s sovereign Lord, He appoints and authorizes some to preach His Word, some to dispense His mercy, and some to rule His Church. These special officebearers are designated by the choice of the church, and normally under the direction of those already in office. But the authority by which the ministers, elders, and deacons function comes from Christ, and not from the believers over whom they are placed and on whose behalf they labor” (pp. 11, 12).
RELATION OF SPECIAL TO UNIVERSAL OFFICE
The relationship of the authority of the special office to that of the universal office of all believers has in the past been seen as almost a total authority. For example, at a congregational meeting the final say rests with the consistory. Congregational decisions, so it has been averred, can be revoked by a consistory if it deems that best. And since a congregation in its gathering has very little or any authori ty, it was judged that women may vote. If real authority was involved she might not.
Now, if we follow the conclusions of the committee, we will be forced to conclude that women may not vote at a congregational meeting, for that is the real and final authority; but she may be a minister, elder, or deacon, for these offices are only for service, carry little or no authority, and serve only in such offices or capacities as the congregation determines. It alone has the final say.
We can readily understand why Synod referred this report to the churches for study. It makes a fundamental difference for the whole polity of the church how we see the relation of the special to the universal office of believers. Our Reformed fathers were united in their stand that special offices are God-appointed, God-ordained; and, representing Christ in function they carry with them the authority of Christ. This was indeed for service, but a service for the bringing of God’s people to the full stature of manhood in Christ. To that end the Kingship of Christ was to be exercised, the authority of His love maintained.
SUBTLE USE OF WORD STUDIES
A final comment. It is hard to escape the impression that Report 44 is purposely slanted. It is one thing to come to the Scripture to listen to what our God and Father has to say concerning His Church and how He wants it organized and governed to His glory and the perfection of the Bride of Christ. It is quite another thing to go to the Scriptures to seek support for our own prejudiced thoughts on any matter.
Scripture can be made to say almost anything we wish it to say, and word studies can be the most subtle of tools to do it. By means of word studies the simplest truth can be turned into its exact opposite. It depends on who does the study. Impressive word study can have the appearance of really getting to the root of the truth, while actually it is being used to beguile those who have no knowledge of the original languages in which Scripture was written. Appearing in reports to Synod, I believe the majority of delegates are left with no choice but to either accept the conclusions of the experts, or to take God’s Word and to concur with the experts when they are in harmony with it, and to rebuke them when they subtly deviate from it.
I believe the time has come for unlettered believers to stand up to call deviating views to task on the basis of the Scriptures everyone possesses. This is a hard judgment, but I cannot escape it; unless our membership studies God’s Word, comparing Scripture with Scripture, the experts are going to bring us radically away from our Reformed moorings. If this my judgment is wrong I am ready to stand corrected, but J fear greatly the subtle use of word studies by prejudiced leaders. May our God keep us as a denomination true to His Word that every member possesses and is able to use as a guide in all matters of doctrine and life.