In this issue Rev. Harry G. Arnold presents the fifth in his series of articles under the heading, For Elders and Deacons. Because more than 3500 consistory members have been added to the list of those now receiving THE OUTLOOK, this series is timely and should prove to be interesting and profitable for them as well as for all others who ought to be informed about these important offices in the church.
Rev. Arnold is pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Lansing, Illinois. A discussion of his articles at elders’ and deacons’ meetings should be helpful for all those who have been called to serve.
Most of our elders and deacons are familiar with the term censura morum.. However, from my observations as a church visitor to various churches, l dare say that not too many of our office-bearers could spell the word correctly. I have often witnessed its spelling in church minute books as “seosure morem.” Doubtless it is more than just the spelling of the word which confuses some. It is probable that its meaning also escapes many.
The words censura morum are Latin for “an examination of conduct.” This examination is conducted by the office-bearers among themselves. Our former Church Order referred to this exercise as “Christian” censure (Article 81). Our present Church Order calls this exercise among office-bearers “mutual” censure (Article 36b). It is actually a form of consistorial discipline which, as Article 36b of the Church Order states, “concerns the performance of the official duties of the office-bearers.” This article will concern itself with the origin of this practice as well as its purpose and value for the church of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Origin of the Practice – The origin of mutual censure within our particular Reformed tradition of church government can be traced back to the Synod of Dort in 1578 (cf. Monsma, Revised Church Order Commentary, p. 153). That synod ruled that mutual censure should concern “doctrine as well as life.” Rev. Monsma also informs us that “nothing was said about the execution of the office held. But Synod of ‘s Gravenhage (1586), Article 74, altered the reading of the article. It deleted the provision that the investigation should concern ‘doctrine as well as life,’ and provided that the investigation should concern ‘the discharge of their office.’ Thus Article 36b reads in essence today” (Ibid.).
No one should ever imagine that the principles and practices set forth in our Church Order were innovations without precedent in the history of the church. The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands had the example of Calvin’s Genevan Church to follow as well as the example of the early church. The Ecclesiastical Ordinances which regulated the order of the Genevan church had an article which read as follows:
For the effective maintenance of this discipline, every three months the ministers are to give special attention to see whether there is anything open to criticism among themselves, so that, as is right, it may be remedied (Philip E. Hughes, The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin, p. 40).
The above article was intended to assure that ministerial discipline would be carried out effectively so that the Word of God would not be brought into “dishonour and scorn by the evil fame of ministers” (Ibid., p. 38).
Our Reformed fathers also had the example of the early church when they framed our Church Order. Calvin tells us in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that, in addition to congregational discipline, which applies particularly to the clergy” (IV, xii, 22). Calvin tells us where this form of discipline was found and what purpose it served. He writes:
It is contained in the canons that the ancient bishops imposed upon themselves and their order. Penalties were also added to sanction the authority of the canons so that none might violate them with impunity. For this purpose the government of his own clergy was committed to each bishop, that he should rule them according to the canons and keep them to their duty. For this purpose annual visitations and synods were established to admonish anyone negligent in office and, if anyone sinned, to punish him according to his offense (Ibid.).
The above evidence establishes clearly that both the early church and the Reformation church always practiced ministerial discipline. The warrant for such practice in the church of all ages has been the example of the apostles themselves. The apostle Peter had to justify his action of entering the house of a gentile, Cornelius, when “they that were of the circumcision contended with him” at Jerusalem (Acts 11:2f.). This was a form of criticism which was intended to keep the ministry of the Word on track. The same is true of the instance where the apostle Paul openly “resisted” the apostle Peter “to the face, because he stood condemned.” Peter, you will recall, had withdrawn from the dinner table where gentiles sat because he feared “them that were of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:11f.).
It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the origin of mutual censure, in one form or another, can be traced to the apostolic practice. In fact, one might even presume to say that our Lord set the precedent for the development of this practice when He chided His apostles for their failure to wash one another’s feet. His object lesson in washing their feet was, as He Himself stated: “I have given you an example, that ye also should do as I have done to you” (John 13:15).
Purpose and Value of the Practice – The purpose of mutual censure is explicitly stated, while its value for the church is merely implied, in article 36b of our Church Order which reads:
The consistory, at least four times per year, shall exercise mutual censure which concerns the performance of the official duties of the officebearers.
As was indicated above, the church has always had some form of ministerial discipline. In churches with the hierarchical system of church government, this discipline is administered by the higher officers exercising supervision over the lower ones. The ministerial discipline of the early church, cited above from Calvin, was of this type. Even the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of Calvin’s Genevan Church, which made provision for mutual censure, related it only to the ministerial office. However, in the Reformed system of church government the equality of the offices has been stressed. Consequently, our Church Order states that these offices “differ from each other only in mandate and task, not in dignity and honor” (Article 2). Therefore, the office-bearers (ministers, elders, and deacons) supervise each other. This is the purpose of mutual censure, namely, to assure that each office is functioning as intended by Christ. Mutual censure “concerns the performance of the official duties of the office-bearers.” This means that the purpose of any criticism offered to any other office-bearer at the time of mutual censure is to assure the effective functioning of that person in his particular office.
This purpose of mutual censure is achieved only if the manner of conducting mutual censure is more than merely perfunctory. It is possible to conduct mutual censure in such a way as merely to fulfill a Church Order requirement. However, if each officebearer seriously seeks to offer helpful criticism of the others, without engaging in picayune prejudices, then the office-bearer will perform better service to the congregation. The purpose of mutual censure is achieved and its effectiveness enhanced when each office-bearer zeroes in on the question: Are the ministers, elders, and deacons performing their official duties in accord with Scripture and the Church Order?
The value of such mutual censure call hardly be overstated. When carried out properly, mutual censure provides the church with a permanent means of official discipline. The consistory is charged to watch over the flock of God. But the question is: Who watches over the consistory? The answer to that question, in part at least, is that the office-bearers keep watch over each other. The extension of that official care and watchfulness relates consequently to the classis and Article 41 of our Church Order. While that is not our focus of attention in this article, we do get a glimpse of the way in which Reformed church polity provides for effective watchful care over the office-bearers in the church.
The value of such mutual censure, in brief, is the health of the whole congregation of Jesus Christ. It is to that end that these familiar words are invoked at the installation of elders and deacons:
The Almighty God and Father replenish you all with His grace, that you may faithfully and fruitfully discharge your respective offices. AMEN.