A Review of the Report on Church Structure – Vision 21

A. Background

Synod of 1983 agreed with Classis Hudson that it would be in order to “study the organizational structure of the Christian Reformed Church, including all denominational boards and agencies.”

Synod referred the matter to the Synodical Interim Committee. This body appointed a special “structure committee.” Late in 1986, a copy of this committee’s report was sent to all CRC consistories. They are encouraged to submit their reactions to the Synodical Interim Committee by January 10, 1987, with opportunity to submit overtures to synod by March 15.

B. An Attractive Proposal?

A cursory reading of this report could make one an enthusiastic supporter of Vision 21. Some “with-it” managerial language is used; and the structure proposed for the denomination would bring some genuine corporate concepts into our “ancient” standards for church authority and leadership.

Even a non-business person would be impressed by concepts like: Unified programs – Unified long-range planning – Coordination requires authority – Minimal administrative structures Delegation of responsibility – Evaluation of Board/staff members – Creativity within boundaries – Cost savings projections, and the like.

Many of these are reasonable, some admirable, but many are already in place. And what price would the CRC pay for all this business-like efficiency? We will reflect on that question after first outlining briefly what is being proposed by Vision 21.

C. The Plan

The structure committee proposes:

1. “Creation of an Executive Board of Synod as a church-wide executive administrative arm of synod, directly accountable to synod” (17 members).

2. “Assignment of all denominational agencies, committees and programs to one of four operating boards:

a. Financial Affairs/Support Services (14 members)

b. Publication/Church Education (14 members)

c. Ministries ( 44 members)

d. Higher Education (44 members)

Mandate: Executive Board

Here is a somewhat abbreviated outline of the mandate to be given the Executive Board:

1. Supervision of:

• the implementation of policies and programs • the Boards and General Secretary (Stated Clerk)

2 . Appointment of:

• college and seminary professors • Banner editor • financial coordinator • study committees

3. In addition:

• provide synods with issues affecting the life of the CRC • provide synod with five-year denominational plan • evaluate all agency budgets • propose nominations for General Secretary and agency heads

Membership of the Executive Board

• 17 members, eight clergy and nine non-clergy representation to be regional, recommendation by Executive Board, synodical appointment • Compensation: all members serve without compensation

Tasks: Operating Boards

1. Financial affairs/support services: responsible for a variety of services –loan fund , pension fund, etc .

2. Publication/Church Education: all CRC publications

3. Ministries: Chaplains Committee; Home Missions; World Mission; Back to God Hour; CRWRC; Ministerial Information Service; Pastor-Church Relations; SCORR; Education Assistance to Churches Abroad.

4. Higher Education: Calvin College and Seminary

D. Evaluation

How shall we estimate the worth of this venturesome proposal? We have already alluded to its recommendation of apparently more efficient procedures for the CRC. It lays claim, also, to saving denominational funds through such efficiencies. Certain problems, however, arise.

E. Some Principle Problems

One serious objection to the structure proposal is its violation of a fundamental principle of Reformed Church polity. As reflected in the Church Order, our polity provides for a finely tuned balance, developed over many centuries of experience, between local consistories and broader assemblies. “Original” authority is vested in the local consistory; “delegated” authority is conferred upon broader bodies (classes and synods). This delicate balance ,of authority is the cornerstone of our Reformed polity, and has serious implications for those structural changes which Vision 21 has in view. What happens to that balance in Vision 21? The structure committee makes a gesture toward the principle by saying, “The local congregation possesses ‘original’ authority.”

In the provisions of the proposed structure this concept is practically dismantled. It therefore does not matter a great deal, except to the integrity of the report, that this statement is erroneous. But, for the record: original authority is vested in the local consistory, not congregation! Just how does this report dismantle the Reformed concept of a balanced authority?

Notice, first, that the Reformed polity guarantees a balance of authority in two ways:

1. The delegated authority of the major assemblies is conveyed from the local consistory by way of properly credentialed delegates. Without delegates, no broader assemblies are possible; and upon final adjournment of these assemblies, this delegated authority returns again to the local consistories. This has always been the hedge against hierarchical tyranny in the Reformed churches.

Therefore, when Vision 21 proposes a permanently functioning Executive Board, acting for the denomination, the concept of a limited delegated authority is destroyed. The authority remains lodged in the Executive Committee rather than returning to the local consistories.

2. By the concept of “original” authority, Reformed polity locates the right to originate issues for synodical agendas in the local consistory by way of overture.

But, Vision 21 stipulates that this right is to be shared (and in practice will be taken over by) the proposed Executive Board.

From both points of view, it is clear that the new structure would violate a basic principle of Reformed polity. It may be asked if Vision 21 can be called truly “Reformed” at all.

F. Responsibility and Authority

Guideline number seven of the report reads as follows:

“Synod should delegate responsibility and authority.”

This again betrays an insensitivity to Reformed polity.

It is not possible for a synod to delegate its responsibilities. Being responsible is a non-transferrable state. What responsibilities a synod has, these it retains in terms of the “delegated” authority derived from local consistories.

Therefore, our Church Order makes this carefully worded stipulation: “The assemblies may delegate to committees the execution of their decisions. . . . They shall give every committee a well defined mandate, and shall require of them regular and complete reports of their work” (Art. 33a).

This is far removed from the proposed assignment to the Executive Board of authority to supervise and operate almost all denominational Boards and Committees, as well as to a great extent replacing the work of the advisory committees.

It is to be assumed, of course, that the Church Order can be changed to fit the structure proposals. Probably the committee has this in mind. But if so, we should be provided with a well-founded theological and ecclesiological rationale to justify such fundamental changes in the system which has served the Reformed churches for four centuries.

G. Practical Objections

Certain important practical effects of the committee proposals should be kept in mind:

1. While Vision 21 claims to provide unification and coordination of denominational effort, it would destroy the modest beginnings decided upon by Synods ’85 and ’86 for coordinating and unifying World Mission and World Relief into World Ministries. Giving this decision time to work would be an excellent opportunity to see if we can walk before we attempt to run. 2. The committee’s objections to synodical overload can easily be projected for the proposed Board of Ministries which is assigned five major agencies and five synodical committees. 3. Nowhere in Vision 21 is there sufficient provision for administrative staff to implement the extensive coordination prescribed in the proposal. 4. The contemplated concentration of power in an Executive Board of seventeen is an idea which even in non-ecclesiastical structures has been tried and found wanting. 5. The enormous claims for savings appear unrealistic, in light of the fact that:

a. Our present agency staff are usually quite lean and productive.

b. The data provided are too soft; for example, on page 21 it is said that the Board of Ministries will meet three times per year, which in computing financial outlays the Board is scheduled to meet once per year.

G. Alternatives

This entire proposal arose out of the notion that “many boards and many agencies have grown without benefit of a coordinated plan.” This growth could be considered an unmitigated blessing. At issue should be the question of how effective our ministries are, and how faithfully they are performing their tasks in the light of God ‘s Word and our Confessions and Church Order.

A five-year plan could be a futile exercise in dealing with a living organism like the Church.

If our synods are truly overloaded, a Board of Miscellaneous Ministries might be the answer to the proliferation of agencies and committees directly responsible to synod.

If we wish more continuity in synodical decision making, why not urge consistories and classes to appoint standing committees for major assembly matters and then delegate these members to more than one assembly meeting?

If we become burdened with too many agencies and committees, we should assign a “sun set” for each of these bodies as called into being, so that they would automatically expire unless clear justification for their reappointment is evident.

If more coordination is needed, the way will be shown by the creation of the Board of World Ministries which will be evaluated in 1988/89. If found satisfactory, then this is the approach to follow. If found wanting, then is the time to draw from the experience directions in which to proceed.

Finally, local consistories must take greater interest in the affairs of the denomination , or we will risk losing our tradition of church government to some such proposal as this.

Gerard Berghoef is a member of First CRC, Grand Haven Michigan, Co-Author with Dr. L. DeKoster of the Elders and Deacons Handbooks, a member of World Mission and Relief Commission (1982–1986, now discharged} and operates his own consulting business.