Those who are already ordained ministers within the federation may be called to another congregation in a manner consistent with the above rules, without the examination or the laying on of hands. Any minister receiving a call shall consult with his current council regarding that call. He may accept the call only with their consent. (Church Order of the URCNA, Article 7)

Although the evidence is anecdotal, councils and consistories in the URCNA have frequently expressed to me their concerns with the calling process in the federation. Often the concerns expressed focus on the language in Article 7 of the church order, which has the heading, “Calling a Minister Within the Federation.” According to Article 7, an ordained minister in the federation is required, upon receiving a call, to “consult with his current council regarding that call” and “may accept the call only with their consent.”

The provisions of Article 7 prompt a number of questions. What does the requirement for the council’s “consent” to a minister’s acceptance of a call entail? Does this requirement give the council an unbridled authority to refuse their minister the right to accept a lawful call from another church? May either the council or the minister legitimately appeal to the stipulations of this article to prevent other churches from even considering a minister for a call? Could this article be used in a way that violates the spirit of Article 65 of the church order, which declares that “no church shall in any way lord it over other churches, and no office-bearers shall lord it over other office-bearers”? If the council’s authority to refuse a minister’s acceptance of a call is unbounded, would that allow the council’s office bearers to lord it over the minister who wishes, upon the basis of his careful discernment of God’s will, to accept a call he has received? Likewise, if the language of “consent” in this article is not properly circumscribed, could a church lord it over other churches by frustrating their efforts to consider for, and extend a call to, their minister? There are two ways in which this might occur. On the one hand, councils might use the language of “consent” in Article 7 to pre-empt their minister from being considered for a call by another church in the federation. And on the other hand, councils might lord it over other churches by refusing inappropriately to allow their minister to go and help them in their need as a vacant congregation. In this way, the council would be able to nullify the prayer expressed in a congregation’s letter of call, namely, that “the King of His church so impress our call upon your heart and give you light that you may arrive at a decision that pleases Him and, if possible mutually gratifies us” (emphasis mine).

These are only some of the questions that arise upon considering the language of “consent” in Article 7. As is often true in matters of church polity or government, it would be relatively easy to imagine a variety of cases that illustrate the need to understand as clearly as possible what this article requires councils and ministers to do when a minister is being considered for a call or obliged to give an answer to the call he has received. For this reason, it is critically important that the stipulations of this article be understood in the light of its historical origin and subsequent application in the history of the Reformed churches. Before offering my summary observations about Article 7, therefore, I want to trace briefly this history in order to ascertain how the language of “consent” has been understood among Reformed churches who share this provision in their church orders.

The Origin of Article 7: The Church Order of Dort

The presence of Article 7 in the URCNA Church Order is historically linked to the form of government that was adopted by the Synod of Dort (1618–1619). Like many other denominations whose historical roots lie in the Netherlands, the URCNA’s church order is a modified version of the Dort Church Order, which was adopted for use in the Reformed churches in the Netherlands. Article 10 of the Dort Church Order reads as follows:

A Minister, once lawfully called, may not leave the congregation which unconditionally received him, to accept a call elsewhere, without the consent of the Consistory and the Deacons, (and those who previously held the office of elder and deacon, together with the magistrate), nor without the knowledge of the Classis; likewise no other church shall be permitted to receive him until he has presented a legal certificate of dismission from the church and the Classis where he served.1

   

According to Van Dellen and Monsma, two respected commentators on the polity of the Reformed churches, Article 10 of the Dort Church Order was written to address the problem of “itinerant, self-appointed preachers” who “would leave their Church when they grew tired of it and when they saw fit, without consent of the Consistory or Classis.”2 Accordingly, the aim of the article was to regulate the practice of ministers in taking a call to serve another church, requiring that they do so only after consulting with and receiving the consent of the consistory and diaconate (council). Because this was the original intent of the article, it is not surprising that in the early period of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, the language of “consent” was understood to serve as a constraint upon the practice of many ministers who acted unilaterally in moving from one church to another. During the subsequent history of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, however, it was recognized that this constraint could easily be abused by councils in an unduly authoritarian manner. Councils could appeal to this article to prevent ministers from accepting a call, even though there were no weighty reasons to do so.3 In recognition of this potential abuse of Article 10, its stipulations were increasingly interpreted to require open and respectful communication between a minister and a council in the event of the minister receiving a call. Rather than viewing the article as primarily a constraint upon the unilateral actions of ministers, the churches viewed it as provision for an orderly, open, and responsible process for the way ministers and councils dealt with the calling of ministers within their communion.

The Polity and Practice of the CRCNA Though Article 7 in the URCNA Church Order finds its historical roots in the Dort Church Order, the more immediate background and occasion for its inclusion lies in the polity and practice of the CRCNA. A proper understanding of the article requires, accordingly, some reflection on the interpretation and application of similar articles in the church orders of the CRC, especially the 1934 Church Order and the revised 1965 Church Order. These church orders provided an obvious point of departure for the committee that prepared the earliest version of the URCNA’s form of government.

Article 10 of the 1934 Church Order of the CRCNA is very similar to the original article of the Dort Church Order.

A Minister, once lawfully called, may not leave the congregation with which he is connected, to accept a call elsewhere, without the consent of the Consistory, together with the Deacons, and knowledge on the part of the Classis; likewise no other Church may receive him until he has presented a proper certificate of dismission from the Church and the Classis where he served.

The only significant difference between this article and the original version of Dort is the deletion of any reference to the role of the civil magistrate, a deletion that is also reflected in Article 7 of the URCNA Church Order. The article includes the stipulation that the classis be informed of the council’s consent, a stipulation that was not retained in Article 7 of the URC’s Church Order. The deletion of this provision in the URC’s Church Order may reflect its more “consistorial” or “congregational” tenor.4

In their commentary on the 1934 Church Order, Article 10, Van Dellen and Monsma offer several helpful comments on its provisions. In the first place, the article makes clear that a minister’s decision to take a call and leave his present charge is not a unilateral one. Though the minister is not obliged to ask his council for permission to be considered for and receive a call, he must not accept the call without consulting with his council. If a minister receives a call and, upon prayerful consideration and discernment of God’s will, decides that he should accept it, he is obliged to confer respectfully with his council before doing so. Only after receiving the council’s consent may a minister accept a call. The council’s deliberation, however, should be governed only by appropriate motives and in the awareness that a decision not to consent must be based upon the most weighty grounds. As they put it, “In their considerations the Elders and deacons may not be governed by personal favor or antipathy, but only by the facts at hand. The glory of God through the coming of His Kingdom should control them also in this case.”5 The point Van Dellen and Monsma especially emphasize is that the council may not abuse its authority in refusing consent, when their reasons for doing so are not born out of a desire to exercise inappropriate control over the minister or to retain his services out of a selfish motive (we like our minister and therefore will not permit him to leave). In the event of an irreconcilable difference between the council and minister on the question of consent, they rightly note that the case should be presented to the classis for disposition.6

When the CRC revised its church order in 1965, two changes were introduced into the article (now Article 14.a). First, the revised article now stipulates that the “consistory” must give its consent to the minister’s acceptance of a call, the deacons being excluded for the first time. And second, the stipulation that the consistory’s consent be approved by classis is removed. In their revised commentary on the CRC’s 1965 Church Order, Van Dellen and Monsma reiterate their comments on the 1934 Church Order, Article 10. Interestingly, even though the new article removes any mention of the approval of classis, Van Dellen and Monsma repeat their earlier observation that, in the event of a disagreement between consistory and minister, the matter should be referred to the classis for resolution. The assumption behind this observation is that a consistory may have refused consent for reasons that are insufficiently weighty and demeaning to the office of the minister whose service in the denomination is not to be unduly restricted by an over-reaching consistory.

Since further changes to the CRC’s church order in more recent decades are not relevant to an interpretation of Article 7 in the URCNA Church Order, I will not comment further on how the matter is presently stated or interpreted in the practice of the CRC. However, in his commentary on a more recent version of the CRC’s Church Order in 2010, Henry De Moor, professor of church polity at Calvin Theological Seminary, offers a helpful summary of the traditional understanding of the question of consent.

The traditional calling process in the CRCNA is that a minister entertains a call from another congregation, spends time in information gathering, and in fervent prayer, and then decides at the end of three weeks of deliberation whether to stay or move on. . . . The council that currently has supervision must be involved in the deliberative process. And the question is not how well the pastor is liked or appreciated, but whether local circumstances are such that the minster is free or not free to move on. Perhaps the pastor’s presence continues to be essential to the ministry in which the community is engaged. Even after the pastor has made a decision to leave, the council may withhold its consent, though it must certainly have very weighty reasons for doing so. Pastors are not “free agents” who inform the new calling church of their decision even before the current council has been consulted or informed.7

In my estimation, De Moor’s summary of the article articulates well what we have seen in the course of this short overview of the historical origin and interpretation of the issue of consent.

The URCNA and Article 7

Though it would be instructive to consider how the issue of “consent” is addressed in the church orders of sister denominations to the URC (especially, the Canadian Reformed Churches), I will conclude this overview with a comment on the one instance where Article 7 was officially deliberated upon by an assembly of the URC.8

Shortly after the formation of the URC, an overture from Classis West was brought to Synod St. Catharines in 1997. The overture (#6) asked the synod to change the original wording of Article 7 as it was adopted at the first synod of the URC in 1996. The original wording of Article 7 (“He [the minister] shall consider a call only with consent of his current council”) left the impression that a minister needed the consent of his council even to consider a call from another church. Hence, the overture specifically asked that this sentence be replaced with the following: “Any minister receiving a call shall consult with his current council regarding that call. He may accept the call only with their consent.”9 Among the grounds for the proposed change, the overture noted that the original wording “would be unjust both for the minister and for the church which is extending the call.” In the estimation of Classis West, the original language of Article 7 could be used to prevent ministers from being called by a church or then considering the call extended before the council gave its consent.

Remarkably, Synod St. Catharines acceded to the proposed change from Classis West, even though its advisory committee recommended that the original wording be left unchanged. In their advice to the synod, the advisory committee had argued that “permission for a minister to even consider a call from another consistory is necessary at the beginning of the process, since the freedom to accept such a call requires the freedom first to consider it.”10 By acceding to the overture and rejecting the advice of its advisory committee, Synod St. Catharines sought to prevent a misuse of Article 7. In the judgment of synod, Article 7 requires the consent of a minister’s council after a minister has received a call from another congregation and is inclined to accept it. Article 7 does not limit the freedom of churches to consider a minister for a call or to extend a call. Nor does it limit the freedom of a minister to consider a call and seek to discern whether he should accept it. The consent of a minister’s council is to be sought after a call is extended and the minister desires to accept it. By its decision, Synod St. Catharines resisted the use of Article 7 to pre-empt the calling process by an inappropriate appeal to the language of consent in Article 7.

Concluding Observations

In the light of my review of the origin, history, and interpretation of the language of “consent” in Article 7 of the URCNA, I would like to offer several concluding observations.

First, Article 7 does not require or even encourage a minister to ask his council for consent to be considered for a call by another congregation of the federation. Likewise, Article 7 does not forbid a council from considering a minister for a call until he has received his council’s permission to do so. The assumption of Article 7 is that all ministers of the federation are liable to be considered for a call from another congregation, and that all congregations have the freedom to extend a call to them. It is inappropriate, therefore, for a minister to appeal to the language of “consent” in Article 7 to avoid the inconvenience and discomfort that may attend the calling process, particularly when a call is extended. It is also inappropriate for a council to appeal to the language of “consent” in Article 7 to prevent their minister from being considered for a call to another church. The consent required in Article 7 is to be sought only after a call has been extended to a minister and the minister-elect is inclined to accept the call.

Second, Article 7 reminds ministers that they are not free agents or itinerant, self-appointed pastors who can come and go as they please. According to Article 7, when ministers receive, consider, and find themselves inclined to receive a call, they should inform their council, explain their inclination, and seek the council’s approval or consent. Such approval or consent does not require the council to be pleased with a minister’s decision to accept a call. Indeed, they may well find the prospect rather displeasing! Rather, it requires that the council “acquiesce” to the pastor’s decision and grant him the freedom to do what he believes is the Lord’s will. Though ministers are free to receive and consider a call, they are not free to accept a call without the council’s consent. Third, Article 7 does not stand alone in the church order and may not be interpreted without regard to the important principle set forth in Article 65, which forbids office bearers from lording it over other office bearers and churches lording it over other churches. In the case of a minister who has received a call that he is inclined to accept, Article 65 reminds councils that their consent may not be withheld in a way that lords it over the minister’s conscience and treats him as though he were exclusively their servant. To do so would also risk the council’s lording it over another church’s freedom to extend a call to their minister. The office of the minister is demeaned, and the principle enunciated in Article 65 is violated, when the council fails to honor a minister’s freedom and right to receive and accept a call from another church. The churches of the federation are also treated disrespectfully when the council acts as though their minister is their private servant, and not a minister whose gifts may be used fruitfully in another charge.

And fourth, Article 7 does acknowledge that a council has the right to refuse consent to their minister’s acceptance of a call. But the historic practice of the Reformed churches makes clear that this may occur only in an exceptional case where there are weighty reasons for this refusal. The council may refuse to consent only when it believes that there is a pressing need for their minister’s continued service. Though Article 7 does not mention the need for classical involvement in the event of an irreconcilable difference between the council and minister, the historic practice of the Reformed churches suggests that a minister retains the right of appeal to the next broader assembly, classis, for adjudication. I do not know of any instance where such an appeal has been made in the URCNA. But, were it to occur, it would be a good test of the URCNA’s adherence to a standard practice in the history of the Reformed churches.

1. Paradigms in Polity: Classic Readings in Reformed and Presbyterian Church Government, ed. David W. Hall and Joseph H. Hall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 178.

2. The Church Order Commentary, Being a Brief Explanation of the Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1941), 49. It should be noted that this commentary was Van Dellen and Monsma’s exposition of the 1934 edition of the CRCNA’s Church Order and is not to be confused with the better-known sequel, The Revised Church Order Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), which was an exposition of the revised CRCNA Church Order of 1965.

3. For a description of the way Article 10 was interpreted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, see K. de Gier, Explanation of the Church Order of Dordt in Questions and Answers (Grand Rapids: Netherlands Reformed Book and Publication Committee, 2000), 22. De Gier argues that a subtle shift occurred from the earlier to the later period, when the problem of ministerial malpractice was not as pressing as the problem of council’s placing a “burden . . . upon the conscience of a pious servant [minister].”

4. It is instructive to observe that the URCNA Church Order does not have a number of provisions and supplements that regulated the calling process in the CRCNA. These provisions and supplements included, for example, the requirement that a vacant church have a church counselor to advise and ensure that the church order and its supplements be honored; that a minister be ordinarily given at least three weeks to consider a call; that a minister may not be called a second time within a year by the same church without classical approval; that a church be reimbursed by the calling church for a portion of his earlier moving expenses if its minister takes a call to another church within a specified period of time.

5. The Church Order Commentary (1941), 50.

6. “If ever the Elders and Deacons feel that they should not give consent, and when a frank and mutual discussion fails to change the mind of a Minister as well as that of the Elders and Deacons, then the case goes to Classis for disposal” (The Church Order Commentary [1941], 50).

7. Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary (Grand Rapids: Faith Alive, 2010), 53.

8. Order of the Canadian Reformed Churches is Article 9, which reads: “A minister, once lawfully called, shall not leave the Church to which he is bound to take up the ministry elsewhere without the consent of the consistory with the deacons and the approval of classis. On the other hand, no Church shall receive him unless he has presented a proper certificate of release from the Church and the classis where he served, or of the Church only, if he remains with the same classis.” The comparable article of the “Proposed Joint Church Order” for the union of the URCNA and the CaRCs is Article 6, which reads: “A minister within the federation shall be called in a lawful manner by the consistory with the deacons. Any minister receiving a call shall consult with his current consistory with the deacons regarding that call. He may accept the call only with their consent.” The PJCO follows the pattern of Article 7 by removing any reference to the approval of classis.

9. Acts of Synod 1996, 1997, 1999 (United Reformed Churches in North America), 92.

10. Acts of Synod 1996, 1997, 1999, 49.

Cornelis P. Venema is president of Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, IN. He is a contributing editor of The Outlook.