(In addition to teaching duties, Dr. Monsma is also serving this year as Administrative Dean of Mid-America Reformed Seminary at Orange City, Iowa.)
A Classic Prerogative
How is a qualified theological student declared a candidate for the ministry, ready for calling by the churches? In the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, one is under the care of the class is from which he comes during his seminary years. This classis (his home classis) examines him and declares him eligible for call from the churches of the denomination. In the Presbyterian Churches of this country, one is monitored by his home presbytery during his seminary years, and his home presbytery also examines him and declares him How is a qualified theological student declared a candidate. In the Reformed Church of America, this preparatory examination to declare a person a candidate is also done by classis. In every case the final examination (in distinction from the initial exam) is given by the classis or presbytery which will ordain the candidate into the ministry.
The Christian Reformed Church Order says, “A major assembly shall deal only with those matters which concern its churches in common or which could not be finished in the minor assemblies” (Article 28). Other Reformed Churches are able to “finish” the matter of declaring candidates in their minor assemblies (classes). This establishes the fact that it can be done in Reformed communions. While it might be argued that declaring a candidate is something that concerns all C.R.C. churches, this is not strictly true, for only those churches with vacancies are concerned with candidates and their availability. Furthermore, on principle grounds, why should Synod attempt to do that which obviously can be done at the classical level? By taking the matter of candidates into its own hands, Synod robs the classes of that which is rightfully theirs and goes contrary at least to the spirit of the Church Order in Article 28.
Relegated to a Synod’s Committee
To compound the problem, the C.R.C. Synod has found the examination of candidates too burdensome to handle. She has therefore placed this task into the hands of one of her “committees,” in this case the Calvin Board of Trustees (This is the term used to describe the Calvin Board in the Acts of Synod, 1977, p. 128).
Reformed church government recognizes three legitimate ecclesiastical gatherings: the consistory, classis, and synod (four if particular synods are added). These bodies appoint committees to assist them in their work but the committees cannot be identified with the bodies that appointed them. For example, a committee cannot admit people to communion, bar them from communion, administer sacraments, call ministers, etc. This is the task ofthe local congregation acting through its consistory. There are also ecclesiastical functions reserved for classes or synods that they cannot delegate to committees. For example, only a classis can depose a minister or admit congregations into its fellowship. Only Synod can establish fraternal relations with other denominations. Committees cannot do such things.
Why then do we commit the very important work of examining prospective candidates to a “committee,” which is not an ecclesiastical body?
A Highly Partisan Body
In the case of this “committee,” the Calvin Board of Trustees, there is an added difficulty. This “committee” has a vested interest in defending the professors and graduates of a particular school: Calvin College and Seminary. It spends most of its working hours supervising the work of that school as well as appointing those who teach there. It and the school enjoy a generally cozy relationship. If the “committee” should find any candidate to be defective, this would reflect poorly on the professors who taught this student, and this in turn would reflect poorly on the “committee” that appointed these professors to teach.
To summarize the argument so far, Synod has taken the work of giving the initial exam of potential candidates away from the classes and put this work into the hands of a “committee” of Synod. But the objectivity of this “committee” is cast into doubt because this “committee” spends most of its time maintaining the school whose graduates it now examines. In 1981 Mr. Clayton Libolt was examined by this “committee” and found to be ready for candidacy. But Synod thought otherwise. Is it possible that Synod’s evaluation was more objective than that of her “committee”? This writer believes it was.
An Antiquated, Illogical Tradition
How did the Christian Reformed Church arrive at the custom she now follows? The C.R.C. of the nineteenth century had its roots in the Afscheiding (Separation) of 1834 in the Netherlands. The Afscheiding people in the Netherlands had founded a seminary at Kampen. They allowed the Board of this seminary to examine the graduates and also declare them candidates for the ministry. This practice was terminated in the Netherlands in 1892 in order that candidates both from the Free University and from Kampen might be treated equally in the newly formed Gereformeerde Kerken of the Netherlands. The early American immigrants simply copied the practice of the Afscheiding Churches in the Netherlands, and their descendants have continued to do it long after the practice was abandoned in the Netherlands. The C.R. Synod examined candidates directly from 1938 to 1961 (except for the war years), and then reverted to examination by the Calvin Board once again.
A Desirable Correction
Are we justified in continuing a practice that may have seemed wise when the Church was small, but is hardly appropriate for a Church of our size and diversity? I think not. In saying this I am not criticizing Calvin Seminary or her Board, but the Synods that have seen fit to give the Calvin Board this added responsibility. Let Synod give the task of conducting the exam for candidacy back to the home classis of every student. We still have a remnant of classical interest in students in that many of them receive classical financial aid from their home classis. Let this interest be strengthened by way of giving to these classes also the prerogative of conducting these initial examinations.
What I am here suggesting was proposed by a Synodical Study Committee already in 1946. At that time a committee of the Revs. J. Beebe, N. J. Monsma, and E. Van Halsema proposed that the examination for declaration of candidacy be done by the various classes. But this report came to Synod on the last day of its session and action on it was postponed. It was never adopted.
In the meantime the Reformed Church in America not only continues the practice of examination by the home classis of the student; at its June 1984, Synod held in New Brunswick, it has even waived the requirement that prospective candidates be certified by the professors of Western or New Brunswick Seminaries. The Reformed Synod made alternative arrangements for the candidacy of students who choose not to study at the denominational seminaries. I suspect that many C.R.C. leaders who would want the Calvin Board to retain strong jurisdiction over all C.R.C. ministerial candidates, also want the C.R.C. to draw closer to the R.C.A. These leaders now must ask whether they wish to draw closer to the R.C.A. in respect to ministerial candidacy as well. The ecumenical outlook proposed by some leaders conflicts with their parochial outlook in regard to seminary training and candidacy.
Next month some comments will be made on the Synodical rule that requires a final year of schooling at Calvin Seminary from all those seeking C.R.C. ordination.
