“Shall two walk together, except they have agreed?” (Amos 3:3 ASV).

“No church shall in any way lord it over another church, and no office-bearer shall lord it over another office-bearer” (Art. 95 Church Order).

Varieties of Churc h Polity

In his excellent Systematic Theology, Prof. L. Berkhof reviewed a number of systems of church government in the section entitled “The Doctrine of the Church.” The variety of these systems is amazing, especially to those of us who in practice have experienced only the presbyterian (or synodical) system current among the Reformed denominations in North America and the Netherlands. It is easy for us to assume that the system to which we are accustomed is the only possible way to establish and govern the church, but history shows that Christians have regulated the churches by a number of strikingly different polities:

Quakers and other such introspective and mystical groups reject all forms ofchurch government. In their system there are no distinct offices and no ordination; rather everyone can do what is right in his own eyes.

The episcopal system, on the other hand, puts the power of church government into the hands of bishops, who are regarded as successors of the apostles. The Roman Catholic denomination is an extreme example of this system in which the local congregation and the individual member have no voice, representation, or power. It is a rule from the top down. Because such “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” the episcopal system has been the cause of much abuse of power throughout church history.

The congregational system holds that each church, or congregation, is complete and inherently independent. If a number of congregations desire to band together for fellowship or to engage in joint tasks, such as missions or education, such councils or conferences as they might form for these purposes are strictly advisory, and have no binding power whatsoever. In its extreme form, congregationalism turns officers into mere appointees to carry out the wishes of the congregation‘s members.

The Presbyterian System

Most all of the Reformed Churches in North America today hold to the presbyterian system. In this system the power of church government is committed to the officers who are selected to direct the life of the local congregations. “The power of the church resides primarily in the governing body of the local church” (L. Berkhof Systematic Theology, p. 584). The Church Order seems to recognize this point when it declares: “the authority of consistories (is) original, that of the major assemblies being delegated” (Art. 27). There are major assemblies in a presbyterian system . Power is delegated to these assemblies in certain areas, such as church order, confessions, appeals in matters of discipline, liturgy, missions, and education. The decisions of major assemblies have authority and are binding, in theory at least, upon all the local churches. Prof. Berkhof makes this observation: “They cease to be binding only when they are shown to be contrary to the Word of God” (Ibid., p. 592).

     

Its Past Functioning

In times past the presbyterian system has served the Reformed Churches well, although there have been certain lapses in our adherence to this system for good and ill. The greatest of our Reformed Synods, the National Synod of Dordrecht 1618–1619 was not a truly presbyterian synod. It was a National Synod called together by the power of the civil government, the Staten Generaal of the Netherlands. Even though such governmental influence in the life of the church is contrary to the presbyterian system, the Synod of Dort has been a great and lasting blessing to the Reformed Churches in establishing our confessions. We must also admit that before modern meddling, begun in 1905 by the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (who else?) and followed eventually by our synod (what else is new?), our Belgic Confession originally read:

Their office (the civil government) is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship, that the kingdom of anti–christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted (Art. 36). So historically, we must state that even confessionally the Reformed Churches have never held to all aspects of a presbyterian system.

Through the presbyterian system, however, as a denomination, the C.R.C. has been able to establish and support a fine program of missions and world relief, an equitable pension plan for our retired clergy, and an academically excellent educational institution in Calvin College and Seminary. No congregation acting alone could ever have accomplished such things. We must give credit where credit is due.

Emerging Objections

Recent synodical decisions have also demonstrated convincingly the ills and weaknesses of our present system. The decision to abandon our stand against the worldliness of films and dancing affects adversely the discipline of those local churches and many Christian homes who do not want to compromise with this world’s standards. The decisions to allow women “deacons,” regardless of how clearly so many classes and congregations in their protests and appeals showed this to be contrary to Scripture, will affect the life of the church in a negative way for years to come.

A presbyterian system tends to concentrate power at the top. When the whole church is doctrinally sound and committed to the faith of our fathers without exception, this concentration of power may not show itself as a problem. Trouble begins when a politically astute minority in the church can maneuver themselves into positions of power and trust. With authority top-heavy in our present system, this minority, once in control, can begin to undermine the doctrine and life of the church. At least they can, if we remain blindly committed to the presbyterian system. If we view every decision of a major assembly as our marching orders, no questions asked, we soon shall find ourselves marching down the broad road that leads to destruction.

A pertinent question, then, is: Need we be so committed to the presbyterian (or synodical) system of church government? Another question follows: If we answer “No” to question number one, would the church collapse in ruins around us?

A Time to Consider Alternatives

As to the first question, we have already seen that historically the great Synod of Dort was contrary to the pure understanding of the presbyterian system, since it was called by and its decisions enforced by the civil government. Prof. L. Berkhof, although he defended the presbyterian system, nevertheless had to admit:

Scriptu re does not contain an explicit command to the effect that the local churches of a district must form an organic union. Neither does it furnish us with an example of such a union. In fact, it represents the local churches as individual entities without any external bond of union (Op. cit., p. 590).

Perhaps the time has come to rethink this issue. We need not shrink from such a step. Certainly our form of church government is very important. We must change it only with great care, but cautious change can be helpful. Calvin notes: “We know that church organization admits, nay requires, according to the varying conditions of the time, various changes (Institutes, IV, vii , 15). Our present system needs unanimity and conformity in order to function well. The prophet asked: “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” The fact is that within the C.R.C., and in a number of other Reformed denominations too, there is no longer unanimity. There are those who do not want to conform to the faith of our fathers, who gladly throw the confessions out and dance their way into the open arms of worldliness. There are others who have no intention of conforming to recent decisions of major assemblies which they believe are contrary to Scripture and the confessions. What can be done?

We could not, of course, accept the episcopal system. It is unwarranted Biblically and concentrates power far too much. We could not accept the Quaker non-system. That is ecclesiastical anarchy. We could not accept an extreme congregational system that takes authority away from the elders and deacons in Consistory and vests it instead in the congregational meeting.

A Modified Congregationalism

We need to rethink a modified congregational system. It has to be modified, because we know that authority in the church rests not with the members, nor in a hierarchy , nor in a synod, but in the elders and deacons who are called by the Lord through their lawful election by the congregation. We cannot emasculate the offices of elder and deacon. Then, too, it would be a shame and a sin to abandon the work of missions and world relief, education, and other activities that can only be done together, since they are far beyond the scope of a local congregation’s ability.

A congregational system would provide a way for a local church to honorably disassociate itself from unacceptable moral pronouncements, compromises with worldliness, doctrinal revisions, and lax discipline on the part of others beyond their range of influence. Congregationalism would allow a local church to preserve the marks of the true church and a distinctive Christian way of life without interference from any major assembly, in which vital issues are so frequently decided by the barest of majorities in a manner that does not inspire confidence in such decisions.

The fact is that the C.R.C. has been moving more and more towards congregationalism in the past few years. In Classis Toronto, for example, one local congregation has allowed women to hold office for years; they want no minister, and allow unordained persons to “administer the sacraments.” So far they have utterly ignored any and all classical admonitions to set their house in proper order. For years already the synod has allowed local congregations to set different policies on the issue of the baptism of adopted children, and more recently on the issue of women “deacons.” There is a wide variety of supplementary hymnals and song sheets in many pew racks, which shows that congregational policy on songs at worship varies considerably. These moves toward congregationalism, though, have been haphazard and have occurred more by default than by anything else.

It might well be worth a substantial investment of time and effort to rethink congregationalism. This system has been used for generations by churches holding to the Reformed faith in England. With certain modifications it could be used in complete harmony with Scripture’s teachings on church government. It could be a useful tool in avoiding yet another schism in the Reformed family.

Consider the following virtues of a modified congregational system:

1. It promotes the original authority of the Consistory of the local church. This is in complete accord with historic Reformed thought. Christ has given His authority and the care of His church to elders and deacons, not to boards, commissions, interim committees, and bureaucracies. We already recognize that the authority of major assemblies is merely delegated. Those who first delegated it can take it back again.

2. It allows cooperation between local churches. This is necessary if our denominational programs of missions, relief, etc. are to continue. These joint efforts are certainly worth continuing. Yet, we want to avoid all notions that support of denominational programs can be coerced. Quotas are not taxes. Individual congregations must be good and careful stewards of their resources. Congregationalism recognizes this. It encourages local churches to cooperate and participate, but it forces no one’s conscience. 3. It could break the oligarchical power of boards, committees, and the church bureaucracy. Without a passive multitude to manipulate, these presently entrenched powers would find themselves as generals without an army. The day the money fountain dries up will be the day they finally listen humbly and attentively to Consistories and members, who under the present system have in reality no voice.

4. It ensures that the marks of the true church will be the responsibility of the local Consistory. Decisions made by others beyond our power to influence will not automatically become policy of local congregations, contrary to local wishes. Mistakes made by others will not discredit or besmirch the good name of local churches who stand fast on the Word of God.

It is high time that our system ofchurch government was investigated. We may well find that our present system is more of a hindrance than a help, and we may find that the time has come to rethink congregationalism as an appropriate response to the ecclesiastical situation in the Reformed Churches in these closing years of the twentieth century.

Gregg V. Martin is the pastor of the Second Christian Reformed Church of Toronto.