Many current developments in our churches highlight our need to rediscover and practice the principle that Reformed church government is representative. The Bible clearly teaches that the Lord entrusted governing authority in His church to elders who act collectively in local consistories and through representatives in broader assemblies, classes and synods. Thus these assemblies, as our Church Order states (Art. 27) exercise “the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ; the authority of consistories being original, that o f major assemblies being delegated.”
An increasing number of denominational problems are clearly traceable to the breakdown of this system in our practice because elders and consistories do not exercise and sometimes do not even realize the authority entrusted to them, and because their delegates to various positions feel free to act independently and are not required to account for their actions. Thus we have the phenomenon, as I pointed out in our June issue (“A Capsizing Church Government” p. 10) of increasingly powerful “executives” who are really being held accountable to no one –a state of affairs which must multiply problems for the churches.
A prominent delegate at our last synod recently pointed out that major, closely contested decisions of our last synod were a direct result of delegates plainly voting contrary to the convictions of the classes which they represented. “Delegates from conservative classes did us in.”
May consistories or classes compel their delegates to vote the convictions of those they represent if those convictions are contrary to their own? The answer usually given to that common question is “No.” Our assemblies are supposed to be deliberative and out of their discussions they are supposed to try to reach responsible agreement. But if our representative system of church government is going to work consistories and classes must make a deliberate effort to send delegates whom they know will express and if necessary fight for their conscientious convictions, not undercut them. And when the assembly is past, consistories and classes must ask their representatives for a responsible account of what they have done on behalf of those they represent. At the next classes meetings will such accounting be demanded and given? And in coming assemblies, consistories and classes must determine the convictions of those whom they delegate to represent them before electing them . If our denominational machinery is ever to get back “on track” we will have to work more carefully than we have been doing for responsible representation in our church government.
