My copy of The Banner arrived today. As I often do, I took a couple of minutes to page through it, skimming those items which caught my eye. I was struck by the first letter in “Voices” (3/30/79 issue) in which the council of one of our churches informs the denomination that it “. . . endorse(s) the presbyterian form of church government and not the congregational form.” Perhaps some will find this statement reassuring. I for one find it disturbing because of the insinuation it contains. Allow me to elaborate.

You will recall that several consistories have used the pages of The Banner to announce to the denomination that they do not consider the action of the 1978 Synod permitting the ordination of women to the office of deacon to be settled and binding. However, this letter from the council of a church in Grand Rapids begins by mimicking the words used by the protesting consistories. It then goes on to endorse Synod’s decision and inform the denomination of the council’s intention to implement that decision. Sandwiched between the endorsement of Synod‘s decision and the statement of intent to implement it is this paragraph:

We have attempted to live within the decisions of our Synod in the past and we shall do so in the future because we endorse the presbyterian form of church government and not the congregational form.

Although I strongly disagree with this council and with Synod‘s decision to permit the ordination of women to the office of deacon, I still respect those who disagree with me. Difference of opinion per se does not bother me. But I am irritated with the insinuation this consistory makes concerning those who, like myself, cannot accept the decision of Synod! This consistory is suggesting t hat those who oppose Synod’s decision to permit ordination of women as deacons are by their opposition endorsing congregational church government instead of presbyterian church government.

I would be willing to shrug off this insinuation were it not for the fact that this charge is becoming fairly common among us lately. Anyone who has the nerve to question the decisions and policies of the denomination had better be prepared to have this accusation leveled at him. This charge of congregationalism is a convenient way of stifling dissent and impugning the motives of those who would call the church to account. But, like most labels, while it is handy, it is also misleading.

Congregational church government recognizes no ecclesiastical authority greater than the local church. Local churches may gather together to consider matters of common concern, but any decisions reached at such gatherings are merely advisory; they have no binding effect on the local church.

Presbyterian church government, by way of contrast, recognizes that, although the local church through its council possesses original authority, the local church delegates authority to the classis and synod to deal with certain matters of concern to the churches in common. Under this system, decisions of classis and synod are considered binding unless contrary to the Word of God. Note well that neither classis nor synod has an absolute authority over the local church.

I ask then, in the light of the above, am I a congregationalist because I question Synod’s decision about women deacons? When I insist on substantial Biblical evidence before I go along with this radical change, am I denying Synod‘s authority? When I request that a hasty decision taken in the midst of general confusion and parliamentary irregularity be reconsidered, do I merit the title “congregationalist?” Since when is it contrary to presbyterian church order to be concerned with the effects of such a decision on t he peace and unity of the church?

Those who oppose Synod’s action to permit ordination of women deacons should not be intimidated by the empty charge that t hey are “congregationalists.” They should rather be disturbed that more and more the denomination is attempting to place its own authority above God’s Word! What form of church government is this? Surely not the presbyterian! Instead, it reminds one of the false Church which “. . . ascribe(s) more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God . . .” (Belgic Confession, Art. XXIX)

It is a curious form of church government which allows Synod to make a decision based on extremely weak and questionable “grounds,” and to then demand that opponents of such a decision accept the burden of proving to Synod that it is contrary to the Word. Any perceptive observer can see what “settled and binding” is coming to mean in t he CRC: a decision is settled and binding IF the liberals approve of it! If that’s what it means to be presbyterian, then perhaps I hold to a different system of church government after all.

John R. Jackson is pastor of The Bethel Christian Reformed Church at Waupun, Wisconsin.