|
NOTES
on the CHURCH ORDER Prof. Herman Hanko |
The following material is not intended to be an exhaustive
commentary on the Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches. Nor is it intended to be a detailed study of
“Kybernetics,” the principles of church government. Its purpose is far more modest. It is intended to be a brief summation of the
central principles of each article of the Church Order, to be used by the
students in preparation for classroom work and lectures. Other commentaries on the Church Order are
readily available to the student and can be used with these notes for more
detailed discussion of the Church Order proper.
The best in the English language is The Church Order Commentary
by VanDellen and Monsma. After this
volume was published, the Christian Reformed Church has revised extensively its
Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church, substantially identical with our
own. Other works will be mentioned in
the following notes.
While the
notes in this volume deal with an explanation of the body of the Church Order,
brief discussions will be included of various principles underlying the
articles. Strictly speaking, these
principles belong to the special science of “Kybernetics,” but are included
here in the explanation of the articles inasmuch as this is the form in which
the material will be presented in the classroom.
The footnotes to be found in the Church Order of the Protestant
Reformed Churches at the bottom of various articles are decisions taken by the
ecclesiastical assemblies of our churches pertaining to the articles to which
they are appended. The following notes
will include some discussion of these footnotes. The student is urged to consult the printed
Acts to learn more concerning these decisions — especially their history.
The name assigned to this discipline prior to the Reformation
was “Canon Right” or “Canon Law.” As a
distinct science, this subject had its origin in the twelfth century with the
Pope Gratian. He gathered all the ecclesiastical
legislation of councils and papal decretals together into a systematic and
organized body of canon law. Pope John
XXII, in the fourteenth century, revised and re-edited the material and brought
it up to date. The
The name has not been used in Protestant circles. The objections against it are:
1) It is too broad a term,
especially because it includes civil legislation.
2) It has the obnoxious
connotations of Romish hierarchy.
3) Dr. A. Kuyper later used the
term to designate the science of the study of Scripture, for the word “canon”
is used to define Scripture as the rule of faith and life.
After the Reformation, various other names came into use. Kilner used the name “Framework of the
Church.” “Church Government” is a name
commonly in use. Some holding to the
Presbyterian form of church government called the science “Presbyterianism.” Rev. Ophoff, in his notes on church polity,
prefers the name “Church Right.” The
word “right” in the name means both “authority” and “the objective norm of
right and wrong.”
The most commonly used name, however, is “Church Polity.” This is the name we shall be using. The name was first used by Wilhelmus Zepperus,
who called this science Politiae Ecclesiae. He was the first Protestant theologian to
make a special study of church government.
Voetius used the name in a slightly altered form: Politica Ecclesiastica. The name was used by such men as Richard
Hoover, William Cunningham, Charles Hodge, George Lamb, and others.
The name comes from the Latin politia. This word means: a) Pertaining to the state or commonwealth;
b) Administration of civil affairs; c) Citizenship with its rights, privileges,
and obligations. The word, in both the
Latin and the Greek, was applied also to the church. It refers to the church from the viewpoint of
her institutional life. Hence church
polity is the science of church government.
There are two sub-branches to this science. There is first of all “kybernetics,” derived
from the Greek word kuberna'n and meaning “to rule.” This branch deals specifically with the principles
of church government. The other branch
deals with the rules and regulations according to which the church lives in her
institutional life. It is this branch
which properly is called “Church Polity.”
1. The Congregational
form of
church government
This
form of church government is sometimes also called Independentism. Its fundamental principle is that the local
congregation is completely independent from other churches. In government it is strictly democratic, all
the male members having the right to vote, with no power of veto in the
clergy. This vote of the members admits
and dismisses members and passes censure.
The permanent officebearers are the pastors and deacons. Local churches stand in very loose relation
to other congregations, with no broader gatherings except to decide matters of
general welfare. The decisions of these
gatherings are only declarative.
2. Erastianism
Although
there is some doubt about the origin of this view, it is named after
Erastus. Thomas Erastus was born at
From
these views developed the system of Erastianism, which regards the church as a
society which owes its existence and form to laws enacted by the civil
magistrates. The civil magistrates alone
have authority in all matters of doctrine and discipline within the
church. These magistrates govern, excommunicate,
and rule in the church, although the actual execution of the state’s decisions
is left to officers in the church.
3. The Romish system
The
Romish system is closely tied to Roman Catholic theology. The visible church needs a visible
sacrifice. The sacrifice needs a
priest. The priest needs divine
consecration to office. He receives this
internal consecration from God through the external consecration of the
church. Thus ecclesiastical ordination
originates with Christ and is continued in uninterrupted succession from the
apostles through the bishops. The pope
is the chief of the bishops, with jurisdiction over all. He is an absolute monarch, an infallible
voice of Christ. The laity have no voice
in church government at all.
4. The
Episcopalian system
This
system is closely related to the hierarchical system of Roman Catholicism. There are three orders of officebearers in
the church: bishops, priests, and
deacons. The superior order is in the
succession of the apostles, with the rights of ordination and
jurisdiction. These superior officebearers
are called Episcopoi and are overseers of all members of the church and the
lower clergy. The bishops are the ruling
body.
5. The
Reformed system
We
shall give here only the main features, for other principles will be discussed
in connection with our explanation of the articles of the Church Order.
The
chief principle of the Reformed system of church government is the autonomy of
the local congregation. The local
congregation is, in itself, a complete manifestation of the body of
Christ. Within this local congregation
is the office of believers first of all, who have the anointing of Christ and
who function as prophets, priests, and kings in God’s church. Secondly, within that congregation are the
special offices of ministers, elders, and deacons. These latter are called by Christ through the
church to their offices; and it is through them that Christ rules His church. These special offices stand in unique
relation to the office of believers.
While we shall return to this point, it is important to notice now that
while Christ rules the congregation through the special offices in the church,
the office of believers comes to expression in that the believers take part in
all the affairs of the church.
These
autonomous congregations unite together into a federation of churches. This federation of churches is not something
optional for the local congregation; the local congregation is obligated to
belong to such a federation by the solemn injunction of Christ to express the
unity of the body of Christ in the institutional form of the church. The saints together are called to express
their unity of a common life. They are
called to stand together in the battle of faith. They are called to express that unity in a common
confession. They are called to labor
together in the works of the kingdom.
Within
this federation of churches, each congregation remains autonomous. Individual differences must be submerged to
make the unity a reality. And the
broader assemblies have powers, clearly defined by the Church Order, which must
be exercised. But these powers are given
to the broader assemblies by the local congregations. And the local congregations alone may perform
the true work of the church: the
preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, the exercise of
Christian discipline.
It
is the Reformed system of church polity which is founded upon Scripture and to
which we are committed.
There is a “historical-comparative” view of church government
which denies that the establishment of churches by the apostles with their
rules and regulations has normative and authoritative value for the church
today. The position of those who
maintain this view is that the form the institute of the church takes in any
given time, and the rules governing her institutional life, must be determined
by the circumstances unique to her age.
Consequently, there is nothing definitive in Scripture concerning this
subject, and the church order of a denomination may and ought to vary.
We proceed from the basis, first of all, that Scripture is
authoritative in all its parts and is the rule of faith and life. While this is certainly true for the
individual child of God, it is equally true for the church in her institutional
form. The establishment of the churches
in the apostolic era and the rules laid down governing their institutional life
were rules having normative value. This
part of Scripture is also the revelation of the will of God for His
church. It is essential to maintain
this, for the alternative is a complete destruction of church polity.
The authority of the Church Order is the same as the authority
of any creed. That is, in the first
place, the authority of the Church Order is derived from Scripture. It has binding authority because it expresses
what the church believes to be the Word of God.
Its authority is found in the fact that it expresses the truth of
Scripture. And that authority is binding
as long as it is not shown to be in conflict with Scripture. Nevertheless, because it has no authority of
its own, its principles must constantly be subjected to the scrutiny of the Word
of God and tested by Scripture. But as
long as they are not changed, they must be observed.
Nor can a change be effected in them by an individual member or
even by an individual congregation. The
Church Order can be changed only by the entire federation of churches; and,
ideally, inasmuch as the Church Order is the common possession of the entire
Reformed church world, only by the whole Reformed church acting in concert.
We must, however, make a distinction in the kind of articles
found in the Church Order. Some articles
are based directly upon principles of church government taken from
Scripture. Others are indirectly deduced
from scriptural teachings. And yet
others are made with a view to circumstances in which the church finds herself
at a certain given time. While the first
two express the basic ideas of Reformed church polity, the last are concerned,
not with principle matters, but with the practical life of the church. These articles are formulated by the church
using the sanctified wisdom given her of Christ. They can be changed as the needs of the
church dictate. These articles concern
themselves with such things as the number of classical meetings per year, etc.
John Calvin began the work of enunciating the principles of
Reformed church polity in his reformation in
If we turn now to the
The Church Order did not arise mechanically in the churches —
the churches coming together and, in an abstract manner, formulating the principles
which are embodied in our Church Order.
Rather, the rules which we now possess arose organically out of the life
of the churches. The organization of the
Reformed churches in the
Further organization was soon necessary. Many refugees from the fierce persecutions in
The first synod was held at
While the regulations adopted at
The following is a list of
the important synods:
1)
2) Middelburg — 1581
3) Den Haag — 1586
4)
The greatest difficulty arose in the
The Afscheiding in 1834 was a return to the Church Order of
Dordrecht. This came about only after
considerable struggle and suffering.
Again in 1886 a group of people under the leadership of Dr. A. Kuyper, known
as the Doleantie, left the state church to return to the old Church
Order. These two groups of churches were
brought together into one denomination in 1892 under the Church Order of
Dordrecht. This situation continues till
the present.
Since that time various revisions have been made in the Church
Order. This was done in the
We include here a list of fathers who contributed substantially
to the development and understanding of Reformed Church polity.
1) Gysbertus Voetius. He wrote Politica Ecclesiastica, which
appeared in the years 1663-1676. This
work is generally recognized as the giant in the development of the basic principles
of Reformed church polity. It is almost
impossible to obtain, both in its abridged and unabridged editions.
2) Dr. J.J. Pruis. His Het Kerkrecht de Ned. Hervormde Kerk
was published in
3) Dr. G.J. Vos. De Tegenwoordige Inrichting der Vanderlandsche
Kerk was published in
4) Dr. J.E. Slotemaker de
Bruine. He wrote Nederlandsch Hervormd
Kerkrecht in 1924.
5) Dr. A. Kuyper. He wrote Tractaat van de Reformatie der
Kerken in 1883.
6) Prof. Dr. F.L. Rutgers. He worked from 1880 to 1910 in this field and
is recognized as an authority. He wrote
many works on the subject, including:
a)
De Rechtsbevoegdheid Onzer
Plaatselijke Kerken. This was co-authored with Mr.
A.F. de Savornin Lobman.
b) Het Kerkverband. 1882.
c)
Acta van de Nederlandsche Synoden
der Zestiende Eeuw. 1889.
d) De Geldigheid van de Oude
Kerkenordeningen der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kerken. 1890.
e)
He Kerkrecht in Zoover her
de Kerk met her Recht in Verband Brengt. 1894.
f)
De Beteekenis van de Gemeenteleden
als Zoodanig, Volgens de beginselen, die Calvijn heeft Ontwikkend en
Toegepast.… 1906.
g)
Advice to various
consistories and persons in regard to concrete cases in his Kerkelijke
Adviezen.
7) Prof. H.H. Kuyper. His writings appeared particularly in De
Heraut. Two of his books are De
Opleiding tot den Dienst des Woords hij de Gereformeerden and De Verkiezing
tot het Ambt.
8) Dr. H. Bouwman. His books include Het Ambt Der Diakenen
(1907), De Kerkelijke Tucht naar het Gereformeerde Kerkrecht (1912), and
Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, published in two volumes in 1928.
9) Joh. Jansen. His works are De Kerkenordening van de Gereformeerde
Kerken in Nederland (1917), De Kerkelijke Tucht (1915) and Korte
Verklaring van de Kerkenordening (1925).
10)
Various works on church
polity appeared in connection with the Schilder controversy in the
11)
Monsma and VanDellen. Their Church Order Commentary has become
somewhat of a classic in this country.
12)
J. Schaver. The Polity of the Churches, in two
volumes.
13)
H. Hoeksema. Various writings in the Standard Bearer
and in The History of the Protestant Reformed Churches. These writings deal chiefly with the church
political aspects of the controversy in 1924.
14)
G.M. Ophoff. Writings in the Standard Bearer and in
class notes.
For the
maintenance of good order in the
This article is an introductory article, introducing the entire
Church Order and setting forth the main content and divisions of the Church
Order. It presupposes that good order is
necessary in the
The purpose of the Church Order is the maintenance of good
order in the
The article speaks of the “
All this implies that the Church Order must be based upon the
Word of God. The church must walk in the
way of God’s will, which is revealed to the church. This revelation is contained in the Scriptures. Yet the Scriptures are not a law-book for the
church, in which every rule and regulation is spelled out. But the principles are to be found in God’s
Word. And the church, under the guidance
of the Spirit, discovers these principles and applies them specifically to her
calling. This must be maintained over
against the so-called inner light churches, which were strong at the time the
Church Order was written, and over against the total disregard for the
authority of Scripture (or any kind of authority) manifested in our own day.
This article lists the four main divisions of the Church Order.
1) Offices in the church. This subject is treated in Articles 2-28.
2) Assemblies. Treated in Articles 29-52.
3) Public Worship. Treated in Articles 53-70.
4) Christian discipline. Treated in Articles 71-86.
These four divisions are also the four requirements necessary
to maintain good order in the church.
The offices referred to are the offices instituted by
Christ. The Dutch has diensten,
which emphasizes the idea of “service” or “ministering.”
The assemblies are the ecclesiastical assemblies, including
Consistories, Classes, Provincial Synods, and General Synods.
The supervision of public worship is also essential to good order in the church. For it is only in this way that purity of doctrine and of the sacraments is maintained.
Christian
discipline deals with the discipline of church members, including censure and
excommunication and the discipline of
officebearers, including suspension and deposition from office.
The offices are of three kinds: of the ministers of the Word, of the elders, and of the deacons.
While with this article the Church Order begins a discussion of offices in the church, Article 2 is really an introductory article. It is important to notice that the whole subject of offices is treated first, even before a treatment of ecclesiastical assemblies. This emphasizes the fact that the government of the church resides fundamentally in the office. It is in the idea of the office, especially that of elder, that our church government has its chief characteristic.
The main idea of the office is that Christ is the Head and King
of His church and that He Himself rules over His church by His Word and
Spirit. He is the chief and only Office
Bearer (cf. Matt. 28:18; I Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:20-22; etc.). No man, church, or group of churches may
subject themselves to any other yoke than the yoke of Christ. Christ’s word is law within the church. This position of authority which Christ
occupies is His because of His work on behalf of His people given to Him from
all eternity. He shed His blood for His
saints, died for them, earned for them the full salvation of God. He is their Head, who, through His Word and
Spirit, now works to make this full salvation their possession. As such He is the “Shepherd and Bishop of
your souls” (I Pet. 2: 25).
Christ exercises His authority in the church through men. He does this because His church is here upon
earth and He is at God’s right hand in heaven.
First of all, Christ causes His people to share in His anointing and
establishes in the church the office of believers (cf. Lord’s Day XII). But institutionally, this same office of
believers is manifested and comes to expression in the particular offices in
the church. But the authority of these
special offices in the church is derived from Christ; not from the congregation.
There were, in the early church, the extraordinary offices of
apostle and prophet. These offices were
limited to the period of direct revelation and became unnecessary with the
closing of the Canon of Scripture.
The regular offices in the church include the offices of
minister, elder, and deacon. The
authority of these offices differs. The
prophetic office, which has the authority to teach, is to be found in the
office of minister. The royal office,
with its authority to rule, is found in the office of elder. And the priestly office, with its authority
to dispense the mercy of Christ, is found in the office of deacon.
The original
article, changed in 2000, spoke of four offices. This point of the article was incorporated
under the influence of Calvin’s exegesis of Ephesians 4:11. But usually the office of professor of
theology is considered to be a part of the office of the ministry. And this is undoubtedly correct. Hence there are three offices established by
Christ in the church, reflecting the threefold office of Christ. The implication of this position is that the
training of students for the ministry is the work of the church institute. Our churches have followed this and have
placed the Seminary under the control and direction of the church. This is the clear teaching of II Timothy 2:1,
2. Hence, a teacher in the Seminary must
be an ordained
minister of the gospel (cf. Art. 5 of the Constitution of the
No one, though he be a professor of theology, elder, or deacon, shall be permitted to enter upon the ministry of the Word and the sacraments without having been lawfully called thereunto. And when anyone acts contrary thereto, and after being frequently admonished does not desist, the classis shall judge whether he is to be declared a schismatic or is to be punished in some other way.
While Articles 3 and 4 both speak of the calling of ministers
who have not previously been in office, Article 3 speaks of the necessity of
being lawfully called to this office.
The article is very old, dealing with a problem which appeared
early in the Reformed churches. Soon
after the Reformation came to the
Already in 1563
the churches of
While the idea of the lawful call is discussed in detail in
Article 4, it is evident that the article speaks here of an objective call to
the ministry. It is necessary to
maintain the objective call to preserve decency and order in the church and to
avoid all dangers of subjectivism. It is
not merely a question of ability or learning (note the reference to a professor
of theology) which fits one for the office.
It is rather a question of authority and the right to preach. This authority can be given by Christ
alone. Christ must call. But this calling of Christ does not come subjectively
by means of some inner voice. It comes
objectively through Christ’s own church.
It is this objective call which clothes one with authority to work in
the office of minister and to preach in Christ’s name and authority.
This is clearly the teaching of Scripture. The necessity of the lawful call is found in
such Scripture passages as Romans 10:14, 15; Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 4:11, 12;
Matthew 9:38; Acts 20:28; Hebrews 5:4.
There are also examples in Scripture of this lawful calling coming
through the church (cf., e.g., Acts 13:1-4; I Tim. 4:14; Tit. 1:5).
The article makes a point of insisting that one must be called
to the specific office of minister, even though he functions in another
office. This is because each office in
the church is separate. This does not
imply that there is difference in rank between officebearers. But it does emphasize that there is
difference of kind and function.
The article defines the method of treating violators of this principle. They must be declared schismatic publicly in
the churches. Or some milder form of
discipline may be
administered. The classis is to judge in
the matter. However, this does not alter
the
principle that the consistory must admonish and perform the actual work of discipline.
The lawful calling of those who have not been previously in office consists:
First, in the ELECTION by the consistory and the deacons, after preceding prayers, with due observance of the regulations established by the consistory for this purpose, and of the ecclesiastical ordinance that only those can for the first time be called to the ministry of the Word who have been declared eligible by the churches according to the rule in this matter; and furthermore with the advice of classis or of the counselor appointed for this purpose by the classis.
Secondly, in the EXAMINATION both of doctrine and life, which shall be conducted by the classis to which the call must be submitted for approval, and which shall take place in the presence of three delegates of synod from the nearest classis.
Thirdly, in the APPROBATION by the members of the calling church, when, the name of the minister having been announced for two successive Sundays, no lawful objection arises; which approbation, however, is not required in case the election takes place with the cooperation of the congregation by choosing out of a nomination previously made.
Finally, in the public ORDINATION in the presence of the congregation, which shall take place with appropriate stipulations and interrogations, admonitions and prayers, and imposition of hands by the officiating minister (and by other ministers who are present) agreeably to the form for that purpose.
A. The election of a minister of the Word shall be conducted in the following manner:
1. The consistory shall make a nomination consisting usually of a trio of eligible ministers or candidates.
2. The nomination shall be submitted to the approbation of the congregation and unto that end publicly announced to her on two successive Sundays.
3. From the nomination the male members assembled on a congregational meeting which has been announced on two successive Sundays shall elect by secret ballot. The majority of votes cast shall be decisive. No members under censure nor adult baptized members have the right to vote. Blank votes must be subtracted from the total votes cast in order to determine how many votes a candidate must receive to have the majority which is required to his election.
B. Advice to classis and counselor. The following usage obtains:
1. That a counselor shall be designated for a vacant congregation to serve her with advice in case of difficulty, and to represent the classis in the process of the election.
2. That the nomination made by the consistory be submitted to the counselor for approval, who must see to it that the nomination does not conflict with the ecclesiastical regulations pertaining thereto. Further, that without this approbation being obtained the election cannot proceed.
3. That the congregational meeting upon which the election takes place shall be presided over, if at all possible, by the counselor. Likewise, the calling issued by the consistory, the composition of the call-letter, and the signing thereof by all the consistory members shall be under his supervision.
4. That also the counselor himself shall sign the call-letter as token of his approbation in name of the classis.
C. Peremptoir examination of candidates:
1. Examination shall be conducted in:
a. Dogmatics.
b. Practical qualifications, among which the following:
1) Personal spirituality.
2. Motives for seeking the office of minister.
3) Evidence of insight into pastoral practical labors.
c. Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, treating specifically of:
1) The nature of Holy Scripture.
2) The contents of Holy Scripture.
d. Knowledge of the confessions:
1) Meaning and purpose of the confessions.
2) The contents of the confessions.
3) The application of the confessions to our life.
e. Controversy.
f. Specimen of preaching:
1) Preaching before the congregation in the presence of classis.
2) Critical discussion of the sermon preached.
2. Further usage prevailing is as follows:
a. Voting by secret ballot regarding his admittance.
b. In case of a favorable outcome the applicant shall sign the formula of subscription.
c. Finally, that he be provided with written proof signed by president and clerk, wherein classis declares that it judges him qualified for the ministry of the Word.
D. Candidates:
1. To the final theological school examination there has been added a praeparatoir examination, which is conducted by the synod.
2. Candidates may not be called within one month after this praeparatoir examination.
3. For the consideration of calls received, the candidate is allowed the time of six weeks.
4. In case the candidate should not give satisfaction in the peremptoir examination, and the congregation nevertheless continues to desire him, he shall at the following classis be given opportunity for reexamination in those branches in which he appeared unsatisfactory.
(Adopted by Classis of June 6, 7, 1934; Synod of 1944, Arts. 66, 67.)
The lawful calling of those not previously in office is carefully
defined by the Church Order. The
reference is once again to the objective call of the church. This is not intended to deny the fact that
there is also an internal call. In
brief, the internal call consists in a subjective love for the ministry and
desire to preach the gospel. It includes
the awareness of the ministry as a way of self-denial and a willingness to walk
that way. There must be present a certain
amount of natural ability. And the Lord
must open the way for the long years of study and preparation necessary to
enter upon that office. This internal
call is necessary to set a man on the course that leads eventually to the
ministry and to give him the assurance that he is called.
But the external call is essential to the calling, and without
it the internal call means nothing. The
external call is the objective call of Christ Himself. It is this call which gives to one the right
to preach the gospel in Christ’s name.
It is only when this call places one in the office that his preaching
will be the means of grace — the power of God unto salvation.
The lawful calling consists of four elements.
1) There is first of all “election.”
Various methods of election have been tried in the past. The article proposes a different method from
the method in use in our churches outlined in “A” of the footnote. The article speaks of election by the consistory
and the deacons. The footnote proposes a
method according to which the consistory nominates and the congregation chooses
from the nomination. The method which we
follow is preferable. On the one hand,
it maintains the very important element, emphasized by the article, of the
final authority of the consistory. This
authority is retained and its rule in matters of election preserved when the
consistory controls the nomination. This
is scripturally necessary (cf. Acts 6:5; Acts 14:25; I Tim. 5:22; Tit.
1:5). But, on the other hand, it recognizes
that the office of believers is also important.
The church is not a spiritual minor, but has come to majority. While the office of believers is expressed
through the special offices, this office of believers functions directly in the
election of a minister of the Word.
This, too, has scriptural basis (cf. Acts 1:25; Acts 6:1-6; II Cor.
8:19).
This election must be
according to the regulations adopted by the consistory. These regulations are the rules of order governing
elections, which have no direct scriptural basis, but which are adopted by the
consistory so that elections are conducted decently and in good order. They may be varied from time to time if necessary. These rules, adopted in part by our churches
as a whole, are found under “A” of the footnote.
The article also
speaks of the “ecclesiastical ordinance” that only those may be called “who
have been declared eligible by the churches, according to the rule in this
matter; and furthermore with the advice of classis or of the counselor appointed
for this purpose by the classis.” The
article includes this provision because within a federation of churches, a
minister, in a certain sense (cf. following articles), belongs to the denomination
as a whole. He does not hold his office
in the denomination at large, but he does preach throughout the churches. Hence, the classis has a voice in the
matter. The rules governing this aspect
of the election are found under “B” of the footnote.
The election must be
after preceding prayers. Originally this
article read: “after prayers and
fasting.” The reason was that it was
very difficult to find a minister qualified for the office when there was no approval
of candidates by synod or classis. Later
a prayer service was considered sufficient, and the requirement of fasting was
dropped. We have interpreted this to
mean prayers prior to the meeting.
2) Secondly, the lawful calling consists in “examination.” Examination is a part of the “lawful call”
because it becomes an indication of the qualifications of a minister, without
which he cannot enter upon the ministry of the Word. In our system, examination by the classis follows
approbation and does not precede it as proposed by the Church Order. We also have a praeparatoir examination,
conducted by the synod (cf. “D” of the footnote). This is intended to determine whether a man
is sufficiently prepared, particularly with respect to knowledge, for the ministry
in the churches.
The peremptior, or
“decisive,” examination is conducted by the classis. This must be held at a classical session
because a minister serves within the churches at large and they all must have a
voice in the matter. The synodical delegates
must be present to represent the other classis or classes. They must also give their approval, without
which ordination cannot proceed.
3) Thirdly, the lawful call includes “approbation.” In our system, approbation is observed by
means of nomination and election. It has
not the emphasis as in the system proposed by the Church Order. It is nevertheless necessary because the lawful
call includes participation by the congregation. They must have a voice in the matter. It is through the whole church that Christ
calls His servants. In this way hierarchy
is also avoided.
It
is in this connection that the footnote under “B” makes provision for a counselor
representing the classis. He presides at
the time of election to see to it that the proper rules are observed.
4) Finally, the lawful call includes “ordination.” This ordination must take place according to
the Form adopted by the churches for this purpose. In this way all the churches have a uniform
practice, and this confession must be used in the congregation in order that
the people of God may be instructed in the truth and implications of the office
of the ministry of the Word.
Ordination takes place with
the laying on of hands. This signifies
not some mystical and extraordinary grant of the Holy Spirit, but rather the
gift of the Spirit of Christ to qualify and ordain to serve as a minister of
Christ. Such an ordained man is lawfully
called and, hence, invested with the authority to preach. This ceremony need not be repeated, because a
minister is called to the office for life (cf. Art. 12).
Ministers already in the ministry of the Word, who are called to another congregation, shall likewise be called in the aforesaid manner by the consistory and the deacons, with observance of the regulations made for the purpose by the consistory and of the general ecclesiastical ordinances for the eligibility of those who have served outside of the Protestant Reformed Churches and for the repeated calling of the same minister during the same vacancy; further, with the advice of the classis or of the counselor appointed by the classis, and with the approval of the classis or of the delegates appointed by the classis, to whom the ministers called show good ecclesiastical testimonials of doctrine and life, with the approval of the members of the calling congregation, as stated in Article 4; whereupon the minister called shall be installed with appropriate stipulations and prayers agreeably to the form for this purpose.
A. Consistories of vacant churches shall not place on nomination names of such ministers who have not yet served their present congregation two years, unless there be preponderant considerations; and a counselor who deems it his calling to approve in the name of classis such a nomination shall be required to give an account of his reasons to classis.
B. A minister shall not be called more than once within a year by the same vacant church without advice of classis.
C. In case of difference of opinion between a counselor and a consistory regarding the legality of a call, the consistory shall not proceed without the consent of classis.
D. When a minister shall accept a call to another congregation before he has served his present congregation two full years, the congregation to which he moves shall repay one-half of the moving expenses incurred at the time of securing him by the congregation he is vacating.
E. The “Procedure” appended to Article 9 is understood to fulfill the “general ecclesiastical ordinance for the eligibility of those who have served outside of the Protestant Reformed Churches.”
(Adopted by Classis of June 6, 7, 1934; Synod of 1944, Arts. 66, 67; Synod of 1993, Art. 36.)
The article deals with the calling of ministers already in
office who are called to another congregation.
The article presupposes that a call to a given congregation at the time
of ordination is not necessarily a permanent calling for a minister. He may go to another congregation.
The lawful calling of a minister already in the ministry is
basically the same as the calling defined in Article 4. There are two exceptions. The first is that the examination by the
classis is eliminated and replaced by the need for a minister to show “good
ecclesiastical testimonials of doctrine and life.” These must be approved by the classis or by
the classical deputies. The second
exception is that ordination is replaced by installation because a minister is
ordained to the office for life. But he
is installed in different congregations because he holds his office only in
connection with the local congregation.
There are many regulations spelled out in the article and in
the attached footnote. The regulations made
by the Church Order itself include:
1) This calling must be done
with observance to the regulations made by the consistory.
2) Regulations for the calling
of ministers from other denominations.
Our churches have no specific regulations for this. But a colloquium doctum would have to
be conducted. There is an indirect
reference to this in the Constitution of the Committee for Correspondence (cf.
Preamble).
There are also regulations for the repeated calling of the same minister during the same vacancy. The rule is found in B of the footnote. This rule is good because a congregation may set its heart upon one minister and bother him constantly with repeated calls. But further: if God has not called a minister elsewhere at a particular time, it is not likely that this situation will change suddenly.
The calling must take place with the advice of the classis and
the counselor (cf. footnote to Art. 4, B).
Good ecclesiastical testimonials are needed. There is an adopted form for this purpose. This is not a mere formality which can be safely ignored. It is an important safeguard within the fellowship of the churches.
There are a few other regulations included in the footnote.
1) A minister must, under
normal circumstances, remain within the same congregation for at least two
years. There are several reasons for
this ruling. It prevents a minister who
is inclined to move about, perhaps especially in time of trouble, from placing
an undue financial burden upon a congregation.
But there is also an important principle involved. A minister cannot effectively work in a congregation
in a time period of less than two years.
This is under normal circumstances.
The time element is a matter of discretion, as the footnote recognizes,
when it adds: “unless there be
preponderant considerations.” A certain
climate, for example, may become physically harmful to a minister.
2) Differences of opinion between
the counselor and the consistory must be settled at classis.
3) The minister who does move
in less than two years cannot obligate his congregation to pay his full moving
costs when he moved into the congregation he is leaving. The congregation to which he is going must
pay one-half of the original moving expenses.
This is not a principle, but a matter of sanctified wisdom.
No minister shall be at liberty to serve in institutions of mercy or otherwise, unless he be previously admitted in accordance with the preceding articles, and he shall, no less than others, be subject to the Church Order.
The article deals with cases of ministers serving elsewhere
than in a local congregation. Our
version is slightly different from the Dutch version. The Dutch article makes reference here to
ministers who served as court preachers or ministers who privately served nobles,
etc. This was very common practice in
the
There are various principles involved in the regulation set
forth in Article 6. These principles are
closely related to each other.
First of all,
the authority of a minister to preach does not reside in himself, but resides
in the
the local congregation. It is from this
congregation that the calling proceeds, and it is only in connection with this
congregation that a man retains his office.
It follows therefore, in the third place, that a minister who labors in
some such special calling must be lawfully called according to the regulations
of Articles 3 through 5. Further, he
must labor only under the authority and supervision of a local congregation. It is in this way that the church preaches
through him, that he performs official labors, and that his work is a means of
grace.
This does not refer to teaching in a school, even Bible. This would be the case if the schools our
children attend were parochial. But they
are parental, and the obligation to instruct in them rests not upon the church
but upon the parents.
No one shall be called to the ministry of the Word without his being stationed in a particular place, except he be sent to do church extension work.
This article arose out of the problem of itinerant preachers who were not (and sometimes refused to be) connected with a local congregation. Certain decisions were made against this practice as early as 1574. In 1581 the Synod of Middelburg spoke of the necessity of exceptions which would be approved by classis or synod. In 1586 the Synod of ’s Gravenhage made provisions for work of this nature to be done among congregations scattered because of persecution, and made provisions for mission work.
Our
churches have no problem in this respect.
Nevertheless, here, too, several important principles are involved. These principles are the same as those
underlying Article 6. There may not be
ordination of “ministers at large” by classis or synods. This was an early practice in some provinces
of the
The exception to this is mission work, although this is not an
exception to the principles involved but only to the stipulation of the
article: “No one shall be called … except
he be stationed in a particular place.”
The
article refers to all mission work, including church extension work. The original article read: “Except he be sent to gather churches here
and there” (cf. Constitution of the Domestic Mission Committee).
But if a minister is called to do mission work he must even then be called
according to the provisions of Articles 3-5 and must be sent by the local
congregation through its consistory. In
this way he is called and sent by Christ and labors under the supervision of
authorized officebearers.
Persons
who have not pursued the regular course of study in preparation for the
ministry of the Word, and have therefore not been declared eligible according
to Article 4, shall not be admitted to the ministry unless there is assurance
of their exceptional gifts, godliness, humility, modesty, common sense, and discretion,
as also gifts of public address. When
such persons present themselves for the ministry, the classis (if the synod approve)
shall first examine them, and further deal with them as it shall deem
edifying, according to the general regulations of the churches.
The
Reformed churches have always insisted on a trained ministry. This is to be traced directly back to the
Calvin Reformation. Soon after the Reformation
was established in
The principles underlying this article are these. In the first place, while formal education is
highly desirable, it is not essential.
God may call to the office of the ministry whomever He pleases. Education is not an indispensable
prerequisite but a matter of Christian discretion. In the second place, men with exceptional
gifts may be endowed with these gifts from the Lord in preparation for the call
to the ministry. However, it is
important to notice that not the gifts themselves are exceptional, but the
measure in which one possesses them.
These gifts are enumerated in the article.
Godliness is essentially the fear of the Lord.
Humility, while a part of godliness, is the grace to forget
oneself and set one’s desires exclusively upon the glory of God.
Modesty means, strictly speaking, virtuous in the moral and
ethical sense of the Word.
Common sense is very closely related to the Dutch word verstand,
i.e., the intellectual ability and spiritual wisdom to apply the knowledge of
the Word of God to the specific problems of life.
Discretion is the spiritual ability to discern between the
truth and the lie, between right and wrong.
Gifts of public address do not refer so much to mere oratorical
ability as to the ability to make the truth clear and understandable to the
sheep and lambs of God’s flock.
The article does not mean to dispense with all training. It refers only to the regular course of study
which the churches as a whole have set up as being, in their opinion, adequate
for the preparation for the ministry.
Such persons who seek the ministry under this article must have some
training and must be examined by the classis.
The procedure then is as follows:
1) There must be some assurance
of these gifts on the part of the individual, who himself must take the initiative.
2) He would, under ordinary
circumstances, apply through his own consistory for examination by the classis. His own consistory must equally be assured of
the presence of these gifts. In case of
disagreement, the individual would have the right to go to classis by way of appeal.
3) The classis, with the
approval of the synod, must then examine such a man to determine for itself
whether these gifts mentioned in the article are present.
At this point the article simply speaks of further dealing with such a person “as it shall deem edifying according to the general regulations of the churches.” These regulations would probably include the following steps:
1) There would be a certain
period of probation, during which time the aspirant receives further instruction
and brings a word of edification under the supervision of other ministers in
the churches.
2) Another examination would be
held similar to the praeparatoir examination.
3) The aspirant would be
declared eligible for a call. Having received
and accepted a call, he would submit to a peremptoir examination. This would be done by the classis with the synodical
delegates present.
Preachers without fixed charge, or others who have left some sect, shall not be admitted to the ministry of the church until they have been declared eligible, after careful examination by the classis, with the approval of synod.
Procedure for admission of ministers from other denominations:
A. A minister from another denomination desiring entrance into the ministry of the Protestant Reformed Churches under Article 9 of the Church Order shall apply to the Protestant Reformed classis nearest to which he resides.
1. The minister making application shall have publicly resigned his ministry and his membership in his former congregation and denomination and become a member of a local Protestant Reformed Church.
2. The minister making application shall meet with and seek the advice of a nearby Protestant Reformed consistory.
a. The consistory shall interview the minister sufficiently to make recommendations to the classis concerning the applicant’s qualifications for the ministry in the Protestant Reformed Churches and to determine whether they would be willing to hold his ministerial credentials until he accepts a call, should classis approve his examination and declare him eligible for a call.
b. The advice of the consistory shall be forwarded to the Classical Committee along with the applicant’s formal request for entrance into the ministry of the Protestant Reformed Churches.
3. The minister making application shall furnish the following documentation:
a. A declaration of his reasons for desiring entrance into the ministry of the Protestant Reformed Churches and an account of his background in the ministry.
b. A testimonial from the consistory or session under which he previously labored concerning his purity of doctrine and sanctity of life. If this is not possible because his leaving makes him a persona non grata, the classis shall make investigation of the applicant’s previous labors.
c. A diploma, or statement of credits, from an accredited college and recognized seminary, to show the scholastic attainment of the applicant.
d. A statement of health from a physician.
B. Classis shall act upon the applicant’s request, with the concurring advice of the Synodical Deputies, taking into consideration the following:
1. All the documents listed under A, 3 above are found to be in good order.
2. The need for ministers in the Protestant Reformed denomination at the time of the application.
C. If the applicant’s request is approved, classis shall set a date for convening another classis for the purpose of examining the applicant, and shall instruct the Classical Committee to draw up an examination schedule. The examination shall commence with a specimen sermon, which sermon must be approved by classis and the Synodical Deputies before classis shall proceed to the rest of the examination. The examination shall follow the regular adopted schedule for the classical examination of candidates for the ministry (cf. Article 4) with two additions: Protestant Reformed distinctives, and Knowledge of the Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches. In addition, the applicant must express a willingness to abide by any past decisions of the Protestant Reformed synods concerning doctrine and practice.
D. After classis approves his examination, with the concurrence of the Synodical Deputies, the classis shall declare the applicant eligible to receive a call into the ministry of the Word and sacraments in the Protestant Reformed Churches, without further need of examination.
E. The newly accepted minister shall be required to sign the Formula of Subscription before the meeting of classis adjourns and shall be presented with a classical diploma.
F. His eligibility for a call shall be announced to the churches.
G. Until the newly approved minister accepts a call, his ministerial credentials shall be held by a Protestant Reformed consistory appointed by classis.
1. This consistory shall supervise the interim labors of the minister and shall see to the needs of his financial support. Financial assistance may be sought from sister congregations, if this is deemed necessary.
2. If the minister does not receive a call after three years, he, with the advice of his consistory, shall request Classis to renew his eligibility.
(Adopted by Synod of 1993, Art. 36; Synod of 1994, Art. 55.)
The original article is slightly different from our present
form. It reads: “Novices, priests, monks, and others that
have left some sect, shall not be admitted to the service (ministry) of the
church except with great carefulness and due consideration, and after they also
have first been proved for a time.”
The present form of the article is, regrettably, weaker than
the original. For one thing, the loss of
the word “novice” is not good. The idea
is thoroughly scriptural (cf. I Tim. 3:6) and guards against the danger of admitting
someone who seeks the office on the basis of enthusiasm for the cause. Secondly, there should be a period of proving,
as the original article required. The
office of the ministry is a very high office and should not be easily and
quickly filled without careful consideration.
While, as churches, we have seldom faced the problem, the office should
be diligently protected.
The history of this article is to be traced to the Reformation
in the
“Preachers without a fixed charge” are ministers who possess no
congregation of their own. In our own
time an example of such would be ministers who come to this land from the
have left some sect” the article refers to men who have left another church or
sect and have joined our church and desire to enter the ministry.
The article stipulates that worthy applicants must surely be
admitted, while unworthy applicants must be barred. To determine whether they are worthy, the
classis must conduct a colloquium doctum, or regular examination. Their ordination into the ministry cannot
take place without the approval of synod.
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 dismissal from the church and the classis where he served.
A. When a minister accepts a call he shall ask of the consistory dismissing him to grant him a fitting testimonial bearing witness of faithful service performed, according to Article 5 of the Church Order, and expressing acquiescence in his departure, according to Article 10 of the Church Order. This testimonial shall be sent to the Classical Committee for examination and approval; thereupon it shall be delivered to the counselor who, upon finding it in good order, shall only thereupon proceed with the installation.
B. A minister who moves to another congregation becomes the charge of that congregation (for salary, etc.) immediately after he has preached his farewell to the congregation he is leaving (unless other arrangements have been made, e.g., for the taking of a vacation).
(Adopted by Classis of June 6, 7, 1934; Synod of 1944, Arts. 66, 67.) (Cf. Ministerial Certificate of Dismissal and Testimonial, pp. 118, 119.)
This article, as well as Articles 3, 4, and 7, was adopted
because of evils perpetrated by itinerant and self-appointed preachers. Some of these preachers, after wearying of
service in one congregation, would without notice or permission leave in search
of “greener pastures.” Their motives
were often personal and wholly carnal.
It is against this evil that the article was written.
There was a time when this article provided for what were
called “conditional calls.” This was
especially because of persecution but also because of lack of training for
ministers. A minister might be forced to
flee from his flock to save his life when persecution broke out in his
area. Another congregation, not
subjected to persecution, would call him conditionally, i.e., with the
understanding that, should things improve in his original congregation, he
would be free to return. Or again, some
ministers were not very well educated. A
congregation would call such a minister conditionally, i.e., with the understanding
that if he proved incompetent, he could be released. As the situation stabilized, these
conditional calls were dropped.
This article has been variously interpreted from time to
time. In the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries the article was interpreted in such a way that the power to decide a
call rested almost entirely with the consistory. Ministers were sometimes even held in
congregations against their own wills.
Then again, especially lately, the article has been interpreted in such
a way that the minister is almost solely responsible for determining a
call. The consent of the consistory is
little more than a formality.
The principles are clear.
In the first place, the bond which unites a minister with his
congregation is by the appointment of Christ Himself and is a sacred tie. This tie cannot be lightly broken. Both the minister and the consistory must be
very sure that Christ Himself has broken it.
Secondly, the office of the ministry is under the supervision
of the consistory. They are responsible
for the well-being of the congregation.
And they must have a voice in the matter.
Thirdly, it is the responsibility of the minister himself to
determine before the face of God when his work is finished in one place and
when God summons him to labor elsewhere.
Hence, the active and decisive part of the decision rests with the minister. But the consistory must exercise an advisory
and consenting role.
It might be well to point out in passing that such a call is
not determined on the basis of some “inner light” or special sign from
God. It is rather to be determined by a
prayerful and careful consideration of all the circumstances involved in such a
decision. God reveals His will through
the objective circumstances both of the congregation a
minister is serving and of the congregation which has called him.
The classis must have a voice in the matter since the minister
is a part of the classis.
The procedure to be followed in leaving a congregation to take
up work elsewhere includes the following steps:
1) The minister receives a
call.
2) The article does not require
that he ask for permission from his consistory to consider a call, although
this is implied in the necessity of discussing the call with the consistory
whose advice he seeks. Strictly
speaking, he seeks the consent of the consistory only when he has decided to
accept the call. He must inform the
consistory of this, together with his grounds.
Mutual consultation is implied, and room is left open for appeal if
there is disagreement.
3) The minister is granted a
proper certificate of dismission by his consistory, which is approved by the
classis or the Classical Committee.
4) This certificate is sent to
the counselor of the congregation whose call he has accepted. The counselor, if everything is in order,
makes preparations for installation.
5) The minister becomes the
responsibility of the new congregation after he has preached his farewell sermon.
On the other hand, the consistory, as representing the congregation, shall also be bound to provide for the proper support of its ministers, and shall not dismiss them from service without the knowledge and approbation of the classis and of the delegates of the synod.
The fact that this article is introduced by the words “On the
other hand” indicates that there is a close connection between it and Article
10. The point is that Article 10 speaks
of the duty of a minister to his congregation, while this article speaks of the
duty of the congregation, through its consistory, to its minister.
The article speaks of the one obligation of financial support
and lays down a certain regulation with respect to dismissal from service. The second part of the article clearly
implies that the obligation of a congregation is much more than financial. Christ calls a minister through the congregation
to labor in that flock. The minister is
bound by sacred ties to the congregation calling him. The congregation is solemnly enjoined to
receive a minister as a gift of Christ — a gift which must be received with
gratitude. Hence the congregation must
act towards her minister as a servant of Christ, an obligation mentioned also
in the Form for Ordination.
But as far as the financial support of a minister is concerned,
this also rests upon the congregation.
It has not been at all uncommon for a congregation to abandon her minister
and refuse him adequate financial support in an evil effort to get rid of him
when they were wearied by him.
There are scriptural grounds for this obligation. In the old dispensation, provision was made
for the priests and Levites (cf. Lev. 6:14-18; Num. 18:8-32; Deut.
12:11-19). The same is true of the New
Testament, where this obligation is explicitly mentioned (cf. Matt. 10:8-10; I
Cor. 9:7-18; II Cor. 11:7-12; Gal. 6:6).
The call letter also speaks of and promises proper support and defines
this as being sufficient to free a minister from all worldly cares.
There are several rules which are implied in this article. In the first place, it definitely makes the
congregation responsible for the support of the minister. Occasionally objections have been raised
against this principle and other methods used.
Sometimes the support of the minister is left to free will gifts. But these are wrong.
In the second place, the article does not make rules defining
the amount of support a minister is to receive.
This is not the purpose of the Church Order, nor would this be possible. The Church Order speaks of “proper” support;
in each individual case the Church Order cannot determine what this is.
In the third place, neither a classis nor a synod may determine
this proper support. This belongs to the
province of the consistory. The church
visitors of the classis inquire into the matter. They may admonish a consistory and even
report back to classis so that classis is given opportunity to advise a
consistory if necessary. But beyond
this, neither classis nor synod may go.
But in the fourth place, the consistory must provide proper
support. Never should it be necessary
for a minister to beg for additional money.
Fifthly, the Church Order does not define how this money shall be obtained by the consistory. Various ways have been tried: free-will gifts, pew rentals, budgets, drives, etc. In general, the best way is the most systematic way.
And finally, the minister ought not to labor in a secular
vocation. The work of the ministry is a
full-time task, and the minister ought not to be distracted from this work by
any secular vocation (cf. Art. 12).
While the last part of the article is negative, it speaks of
the possibility of dismissal from service.
In general, it ought to be noticed that this is to be distinguished from
emeritation (spoken of in Article 13) and suspension and deposition (spoken of
in Arts. 79 and 80). Emeritation refers
to the time when a minister lays aside the active duties of his office because
of illness or old age or for some other reason while retaining the office
itself. Suspension and deposition is dismissal
from the office, in distinction from dismissal from service, of which this
article speaks.
There are various reasons why such dismissal may become
necessary. Among these reasons are to be
found incompatibility between a minister and a congregation, which does not
involve sin; trouble in a congregation which makes a minister’s work ineffective;
inability or unwillingness on the part of a congregation to support its minister;
a particular climate detrimental to the health of a minister, etc.
In case dismissal becomes necessary, the procedure to be
followed is:
1) The congregation through the
consistory relieves the minister of all active duties in the congregation.
2) This can be done only with
the knowledge and approbation of the classis and the delegates from synod.
This stipulation is required in order that an impartial body may judge and
because the minister belongs to the churches in common.
3) He is granted license to
preach in other congregations and is made eligible for a call.
4) While he is waiting for a
call, he remains a member of the congregation which has dismissed him and holds
his office in that congregation. This
remains true until he receives a call elsewhere. That congregation also remains responsible
for his support. It stands to reason
that this can be only a temporary measure.
In case he should not, after a definite period of time, receive a call
elsewhere, his ministerial status should be terminated and a congregation would
no longer be responsible for his support.
Inasmuch as a minister of the Word, once lawfully called as described above, is bound to the service of the church for life, he is not allowed to enter upon a secular vocation except for such weighty reasons as shall receive the approval of the classis.
The article discusses the possibility of a minister leaving his
office altogether. It is, therefore, to
be distinguished from Article 10, which speaks of the consistory dismissing a
minister from service within that congregation although the minister retains
his office (cf. Art. 13, which speaks of emeritation).
There is an important principle underlying this article. On the one hand, the Reformed churches did
not agree with the Romish position on the matter of the office. The Romish church taught (and teaches) that
an officebearer can never be separated from his office, even if he should
commit a gross sin. This is a direct
conclusion from the position of the Romish church that ordination, or Holy
Orders, is a sacrament. Our fathers
maintained that it was possible for an officebearer to lose his office.
On the other hand, however, the Reformed churches took the
position that a minister, once lawfully called, is bound to the service of the
church for life. While it is possible
for him to lose his office, under all normal circumstances he retains his
office till he dies. There were good
reasons for taking this position, even though this principle is not directly
taught in Scripture. For one thing,
there are many examples in Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments, of
men who functioned in their offices for life.
This was true of the prophets, of the apostles, and of such men as
Timothy, Titus, James the brother of the Lord, and others. In the second place, this would seem to follow
from the fact that the office of the minister demands of him his complete love
for the church and the Word of God, his entire devotion to the cause of Christ,
his continuous perseverance in the work, and his wholehearted separation to the
calling. These things are implied in
such passages as John 21:15-17; II Corinthians 5:14; John 9:4; Luke 9:62; I
Corinthians 9:16, 17; II Timothy 4:1-5, 10; Romans 1:1; Acts 15:26. Besides this, as Rev. Ophoff writes: “It follows from the nature of matters that
the teaching ministry is called for life.
The office of ministers of the gospel comes only through long and
persistent searching of the Scriptures.
The Word of God is deep and inexhaustible…” (cf. mimeographed notes on
Church Right). From all these considerations
we may well conclude that our fathers had a correct understanding of the office
of minister when they penned this article.
Nevertheless, the possibility is taken into account that a
minister must leave his office to enter on a
secular vocation. The word
“secular” is not a happy translation.
Originally the Dutch reads: “een
andere staat des levens.” Hence the
idea is not simply that the minister enters upon some non-religious kind of
work, but that he enters on a different vocation from the ministry. This
would surely include such vocations as lawyers, doctors, politicians, factory
workers; but it would also include the vocation of Bible teacher, editor of a
religious periodical, president or teacher in a Bible college, etc.
To leave the office of ministry for a secular vocation is an exception to the rule. There must be “weighty reasons” for doing so. Such weighty reasons could conceivably be failure to receive a call after dismissal according to Article 11, inability to function in the office during times of persecution, failure of a congregation to support its minister, awareness on the part of a minister of his lack of spiritual qualifications, etc. But such action as this, and the reason why a minister pursues such a course of conduct, must receive the approval of the classis. Originally the article included the words “and the delegates from Synod” after the word “classis.” It would have been well if this were retained.
If a minister would nevertheless resign from office without the
approval of his consistory and of the classis, he would become guilty of
faithless desertion of office and would become worthy of suspension and
deposition according to the provisions of Article 80.
Ministers who by reason of age, sickness, or otherwise are rendered incapable of performing the duties of their office shall nevertheless retain the honor and title of a minister, and the churches which they have served shall provide honorably for them in their need (likewise for the orphans and widows of ministers) out of the common fund of the churches, according to the general ecclesiastical ordinances in this matter.
A. In the case of ministers who through no fault of their own have been deprived of a congregation, it is both possible and mandatory that, pending the reception of a call to another congregation, such ministers be temporarily declared emeriti.
Procedure:
1. The minister who through no fault of his own has been left without a fixed charge may apply to a consistory of the classis in which he resides for emeritation, and such consistory may declare him emeritus.
2. This shall not be done, however, without the approbation of the classis and of the deputies of the synod.
Responsibility for Support:
1. Since the minister becomes emeritus not of his own congregation but of a congregation he has not served, the obligation to support him and to provide honorably for him “in [his] need” shall not rest upon the local congregation but upon the churches in common, and he is to be supported out of the common Emeritus Fund of the churches.
2. In such cases, if the abandoning church has been subsidized from the Needy Churches Fund, the amount of such subsidy shall be transferred to the Emeritus Fund, pending the next meeting of synod.
B. If an emeritus minister transfers his membership to another congregation in the denomination, his ministerial credentials are also to be transferred to that congregation. This transfer is to be made in the following manner: The consistory of the church which the emeritus minister served last formally requests the consistory of the church which the emeritus minister wishes to join to exercise supervision over him.
(Adopted by Synod of 1956, Art. 177, Suppl. XVIII; Synod of 1995, Art. 62, Suppl. XXI.)
This article deals with the emeritation of ministers. The term “emeritus,” while not appearing in this article, has come to be used generally to refer to a minister retired from active service. The term comes from the Latin and means literally “out of merit.” It refers to the fact that a minister has, because of his faithful service to the church, earned the right both to the title and honor of a minister when he retires from active service as well as to the support of the church. This principle has always been maintained by Reformed churches and surely is the implicit teaching of Scripture. A minister does not have the opportunity to provide for his future in his lifetime and is, according to Article 12, bound to the service of the church for life. Hence the churches who support him during his active ministry have the obligation to care for his needs when he can no longer serve the church.
This article teaches two different ideas: the status of ministers emeriti and the support
of ministers emeriti.
As far as their status is concerned, the article teaches that a
retiring minister retains the honor and title of his office. He retires from his active duties in the
congregation which has last called him.
The article presupposes, of course, that at his retirement he is a
member of the congregation in good standing and has labored faithfully in his
calling. Such a minister remains in
office even when he does not perform the duties of the office. His legal status is that of minister in the
congregation which he has last served.
He continues to possess the rights and privileges of a minister: the right and privilege to preach the Word,
administer the sacraments, and perform other official functions in the church.
It is possible that, for one reason or another, a minister
takes up residence elsewhere and transfers his membership to another
congregation. But even should he do
this, he retains his office in the congregation he has last served. Preferably, therefore, if circumstances
permit, he should also remain in that congregation.
He is always subject to the supervision and discipline of the
consistory where he holds his emeritation.
In case his conduct warrants such action, this consistory can still
suspend and depose him from office. In
the event this happens, his status as emeritus minister ceases.
The article mentions two reasons for emeritation: age or sickness. If he retires because of age, his emeritation
will be permanent. If he retires because
of sickness, it is possible that his emeritation be for a time only.
The article also adds to the reasons for emeritation: “or otherwise.” This refers to emeritation because of
inability to labor due to a serious accident, or emeritation to grant time to a
minister for further study. It has also
been interpreted to include cases where a minister retains his office while he
does not actively function in a particular congregation. Two examples of this are professors of theology
and ministers deprived of a congregation through no fault of their own.
The procedure to obtain emeritation is described in the
“Constitution of the Emeritus Committee.”
The Constitution apparently provides for the minister himself to take
the initiative in seeking the status of emeritus minister. Under normal circumstances this would be
proper procedure. But there are circumstances
when a consistory itself would have to take the initiative. This would happen, e.g., when a minister is unable
to function in his office but refuses to recognize the fact.
Normally, after a minister requests emeritation, the consistory
passes upon the question. If emeritation
is granted, this decision is subject to the approval of classis and synod. The matter of emeritation is handled by an
Emeritus Committee of the synod.
Provisions are made for the care of a minister during the interim
between ecclesiastical assemblies.
Secondly, the article discusses the support of such ministers
who receive their emeritation.
In general, the article speaks of support “in their need.” It is possible that a minister be emeritus
but that he receives no support, as, e.g., professors of theology. Further, this support is not a matter of benevolence
but of legal right. This is emphasized
by the Constitution, which confer.
The article requires that this support be “honorable.” It must not be a grudging or stingy support, but it must be sufficient for a minister to live decently and honorably. This support must also be given to the widows and orphans of ministers.
The article also speaks of the responsibility for support: “The church which they have last served shall
provide honorably for them in their need … out of the common fund of the
churches.” The article therefore, teaches
that the responsibility of support rests upon the local church, while this support
itself comes “out of the common fund of the churches.” The Constitution has interpreted this to mean
that the local church is responsible for the support of an emeritus minister
and may only draw from the common fund of the churches when it is unable to provide
for such support itself. There are
reasons why a change in this procedure might be advisable. In the first place, a minister has served all
the churches, and one could argue that his support when emeritus should rest
upon all the churches. In the second
place, a church might be hesitant to call a minister when he nears retirement
age because it would be responsible for supporting him. But even if this procedure were changed, the
local congregation retains the responsibility, and support must come through
this consistory to the minister.
The article adds that this support must be “according to the
general ecclesiastical ordinances in this matter.” This refers to the Constitution of the Emeritus
Committee and any other rules which may, over the course of the years, be drawn
up. For details, confer the Constitution
and the footnote added to this article.
If any minister, for the aforesaid or any other reason, is compelled to discontinue his service for a time, which shall not take place without the advice of the consistory, he shall nevertheless at all times be and remain subject to the call of the congregation.
Article 14, which speaks of a leave of absence, continues the
general subject of discontinuance of service of a minister. But, in distinction from the other articles,
this refers to a temporary release from the duties of the office.
Once again, this article has its origin in the practice of
ministers of the churches of the Reformation to labor here and there and to
leave a congregation without following an orderly procedure.
The article does not speak of emeritation or of permanent
dismissal from office. It rather speaks
of a temporary release from the service of the church during which the minister
retains his status: “… is compelled to
discontinue his service for a time.”
Thus a definite time is referred to.
This may be a stipulated time (which is preferable) or a time the length
of which is required by the nature of his absence. The release from the duties of office ceases
therefore when the time is expired. The
length of time ought to be a matter of definite understanding between a
minister and his consistory.
There are various reasons for such a release. The article itself merely says: “for the aforesaid or any other reason.” By the word “aforesaid” the article is not
speaking of emeritation however; the meaning must be that a minister receives
release from a portion of his duties because of old age or release from all his
duties on a temporary basis because of illness.
But there is added the phrase, “any other reason.” It is quite possible that this originally
referred to persecution, when a minister was forced to flee. But there may be other reasons. These would include leave of absence for
further studies, leave to work on a Bible translation, leave to travel as a delegate
to a foreign country, leave to inspect a mission field, etc.
The article uses the strong word “compelled”: “If any minister is compelled to discontinue his service….” This ought to be interpreted to mean that a temporary leave from the duties of the congregation would serve the good of the church where the minister labors for the good of the churches as a whole.
The minister’s status is that of a legal minister of the Word in the congregation to which he belongs. He remains subject to the call of the congregation. They are responsible for his support. He is responsible to them in his work and is under their discipline and supervision. This is true also as far as his work during his leave is concerned. He must return again to his congregation when his leave expires. It is possible that, during his absence, the congregation calls another minister. In that case he is made eligible for a call after his leave. He may also consider a call during his leave. But all this is by mutual consent. The principle is that the tie between a minister and his congregation remains in force and a minister continues to hold his office in the local church.
The procedure to secure such a release is as follows: The minister seeks the advice of the consistory. This advice must first be granted before a minister
can leave. The advice is granted only
when the reasons for the leave are satisfactory and conditions in the
congregation warrant such a leave. If
conditions should warrant a return even before the leave has expired, the
minister would be under the obligation to return. If there is disagreement, this must be
resolved by classis.
No one shall be permitted, neglecting the ministry of his church or being without a fixed charge, to preach indiscriminately without the consent and authority of synod or classis. Likewise, no one shall be permitted to preach or administer the sacraments in another church without the consent of the consistory of that church.
In case any one of our candidates has not received a call after three years and still desires that his candidacy remain in effect, he shall address himself to synod, who shall treat his case as may be proper.
(Adopted by Classis of June 6, 7, 1934; Synod of 1944, Arts. 66, 67.)
The evils against which this article is directed are identical with those mentioned in connection with Article 9. In the early history of the Reformed church, Anabaptists, priests who left the Romish church, and even common laymen took it upon themselves to preach. These and others often abandoned congregations where they did preach for awhile and went elsewhere. Sometimes they would be accepted by another congregation; sometimes they would simply force themselves on another congregation; sometimes they would organize a new congregation and begin to preach in it. They preached indiscriminately wherever the opportunity presented itself.
Thus this article follows from others. It follows from Article 4 which speaks of the
lawful call. It follows from Article 7,
which establishes the principle of the need to be stationed in a particular
place. It follows from Article 9, which
speaks of preachers without a fixed charge.
While all these articles refer to the same general evil prevalent in the
Reformed churches, it must be remembered that the times when the Reformed
churches were formed were sometimes chaotic, both because of persecution and because
of the fact that sound principles of church government had not yet been completely
developed.
We
have mentioned before that the office of a minister resides within a congregation,
and a minister can hold this office only within a given congregation. The reasons for this are evident. In the first place, the minister can never
possess his office on his own, separated from the
However, this article is based upon another very important
principle, closely related to the one defined above. That is the principle of supervision of the
preaching. The preaching must be under
the supervision of the synod and classis as far as admission into the ministry
is concerned. But the more definite supervision
of the preaching is the work of the consistory.
They must have the oversight of the Word and doctrine. This principle must be maintained. Christ calls to the office by the
congregation through the consistory. The
authority to preach, therefore, comes from Christ, through the congregation functioning
through its consistory. And the
supervision of the Word and sacraments, in obedience to Christ, is the work of
the consistory alone.
With these principles in mind, we can turn to the article.
In the first place, two kinds of preachers are referred
to: those neglecting the ministry of
their church, and those without a fixed charge.
In the strict sense of the word, these men were not really ministers at
all, since a man without a fixed charge cannot hold an office. They were vagabond ministers or
self-appointed ministers. But the
article can also refer to those who are dismissed from service under the
regulations of Article 11. The same principles
hold for them.
The evil
referred to is preaching indiscriminately.
The Dutch spoke of “preaching here and there.” These men would preach wherever they could
get an audience. But this indiscriminate
preaching refers also to ministers of one congregation preaching in established
churches without the consent of the consistory.
The setup in the
the rule over a certain territory marked by definite territorial boundaries —
which boundaries included several congregations. Over these congregations one consistory would
have the rule. This article forbids a
minister from preaching in another territory without the consent of the
consistory. But in this country, where
we have no such boundaries, the rule still applies. It has reference to a minister intruding upon
another congregation without consistorial consent.
The consent of the synod or classis is mentioned particularly with reference to the general supervision which both these ecclesiastical bodies have over men who are entering the ministry for the first time.
To this article is appended a footnote which deals with
candidates who receive no call. Their
candidacy expires after three years. If
the term of the candidacy is to be extended, the procedure is: the candidate must himself take the
initiative in seeking such an extension.
Should he fail, his candidacy automatically expires. If he does desire to obtain an extension, he
must address this request to synod, with which body the final decision rests.
The office of the minister is to continue in prayer and in the ministry of the Word, to dispense the sacraments, to watch over his brethren, the elders and deacons, as well as the congregation, and finally, with the elders, to exercise church discipline and to see to it that everything is done decently and in good order.
In speaking of the duties of a minister of the gospel, the article uses the expression: “The office of the ministry.” It must be understood that the article is not using the term “office” in this connection in the technical sense of the word as referring specifically to a position of authority under Christ. Rather, the term refers to the task and assignment of the office. But it must not be forgotten that the peculiar task of the office follows from the nature of the office which the minister holds. His work is unique because of the position he occupies in his office.
In general, concerning these duties, the Church Order does not
mean to be exhaustive in listing the duties of a minister. There are other duties referred to in the
Formula of Subscription, the call letter, and the Form for the Ordination of
Ministers. But the Church Order speaks
of the fundamental duties of a minister from which the other duties follow.
The duties mentioned specifically in the article include his
duties as a minister and as an elder.
The duties which he must perform as a minister are as follows:
1) To continue in prayer. It is possible that this article refers in
this clause to a minister’s private prayers, which are so very essential to his
work. Nevertheless, it may also refer to
the minister’s calling to lead the congregation in prayer at public worship, to
pray with others and especially with those of his flock who need prayer (cf.
Acts 6:4; James 5:14, 15).
2) To continue in the ministry
of the Word. This, of course, is the
heart of the minister’s office. All
other tasks which he performs are either related to this task or are incidental
to it. He may have to perform administrative
work; he may write articles or books; there may be other work which he must
perform. But this is all incidental to
and must never stand in the way of his supreme calling to preach the gospel. This is a principle matter, for this is
specifically his authoritative work in which he exercises the authority of
Christ. He is a prophet, the mouthpiece
of Christ, called to proclaim Christ’s Word authoritatively. Never must anything else interfere with this
task. Nor must he be tempted from this
calling to play the role of psychologist, marriage counselor, doctor,
sociologist, or any other work. He must,
in the words of the article, continue in preaching. He has the one calling to bring the Word of
God. To do this he must regularly occupy
the pulpit and preach the gospel from Sabbath to Sabbath. But he must also diligently study the Word,
filling himself with it and preparing himself to proclaim and expound it.
3) To dispense the
sacraments. This is also part of the
minister’s fundamental calling to preach.
For the sacraments are the means of grace added to the preaching as the
gospel for the eyes of God’s people.
Thus this belongs to his official work in which he functions with the
authority of Christ.
There are various duties not mentioned in the article.
1) Teaching catechism. This, too, is part of the preaching of the
Word. It is official ministry of the
gospel to the lambs of God’s flock. It
is the means of grace especially adapted to the seed of the covenant to prepare
them for their place in the church.
2) Sick and family visitation. Here, too, we have part of the minister’s
official work of preaching. But in this
aspect of his work he brings the Word of God privately and applies that Word to
the specific needs of the individual members of the congregation. In this he labors also as pastor.
3) Officiating at
weddings. The Church Order speaks of
this part of his work in another place.
In this particular work he functions as a servant of the state as well
as a minister.
There are also certain duties spoken of in the article which refer to the calling of a minister as elder. It must be remembered that the minister is an elder, although he is a teaching elder. This does not mean that a minister is in a higher or superior office, with authority over his fellow officebearers. He is their equal. But at the same time he is elder as well as minister; pastor as well as teacher.
Because this is true, the duties of a minister as he functions
as an elder are more specifically referred to in Article 23. In this article the following duties are
mentioned:
1) To watch over his
brethren. This refers especially to his
fellow consistory members, although surely implied is the entire
congregation. He is pastor of the whole
flock of Christ. He shepherds the entire
sheepfold including the officebearers.
2) To exercise church
discipline. This work he does in cooperation
with the other elders. It is part of the
government of the church.
3) To see to it that everything
is done decently and in good order. This
must be done within the congregation and the consistory. The rule of decency and good order is Scripture
itself. In this work the minister ought
to be eminently qualified.
VanDellen and Monsma speak of assistants to the minister which
are sometimes used (cf. their Commentary).
While this is possible, a minister ought not easily give up his work and
the specific duties assigned to him.
There is altogether too much of this in our day, even in Reformed
churches. And it must be remembered that
these assistants can never officially preach the Word of the gospel.
Among the ministers of the Word equality shall be maintained with respect to the duties of their office, and also in other matters as far as possible, according to the judgment of the consistory and, if necessary, of the classis; which equality shall also be maintained in the case of the elders and the deacons.
The historical occasion for this article is the deep-seated
fear in which our fathers lived of the horrors of Roman Catholic hierarchy. They detested this evil with all their hearts
and included this article to avoid all possibility of it. That such was the position of our fathers is,
e.g., evident from the fact that in 1581 the Synod of Middelburg received an
overture requesting the appointment of “inspectors and superintendents” to
oversee the churches. This practice was
followed in some congregations. But,
fearing that this would lead to the same hierarchy against which the article
was written, the synod rejected this overture on the grounds that it was “onnoodich
ande zorghelick,” i.e., “unnecessary and dangerous.”
The principle is sound.
Hierarchy of any sort has no place in the
It is well that we define, first of all, the scope of the
article in respect to this matter of equality.
The article does not refer to the equality of the offices. There are three such offices in the
church: the offices of minister, elder,
and deacon. And, while these three
offices are different in kind, they are not higher or lower offices. There is an equality of the office as such. But the article is not referring to this.
Secondly, the article does not speak of equality among
officebearers of various congregations within the denomination. That all officebearers are equal is certainly
in complete harmony with Scripture. But
this is not the point here, as is evident from the reference to “the judgment
of the consistory.”
Finally, the article is not speaking of the various individual differences among officebearers — differences in talents, experience, gifts, zeal, etc.
Rather, the article speaks of equality among those who hold the
same office: ministers among ministers
(where there are more than one in a congregation); elders among elders; deacons
among deacons. And it speaks of equality
in that which is of essential importance to the office, namely authority. All officebearers are of equal authority
within their own office.
The article speaks especially of equality with
respect to the duties of his office.
Each officebearer must share equally in the duties of his office. In preaching, catechizing, sick visitation,
family visitation, etc., the officebearers must exercise equality. The article, however, adds: “and also in other matters as far as
possible.” No doubt this refers to such
matters as honor, salary, houses, etc. There
is to be no subordination of any kind practiced. Even the idea of an “assistant pastor” is out
of keeping with this article. This regulation
does not preclude the possibility of variations in some of these things. One minister with a large family may need a
larger salary than a minister without a family at all. The point is that all must be treated with
equal fairness. Hence the article adds
the words: “as far as possible.” It must be recognized that there are differences
of time, experience, ability, circumstances, age, etc. which have to be taken
into account. Exact equality in all
matters is not always possible. Nor is
it always wise. But the consistory itself
must decide by vote on all these matters.
And provision is made for appeal to classis if there is disagreement.
The office of the professors of theology is to expound the Holy Scriptures and to vindicate sound doctrine against heresies and errors.
The
article goes back historically to the work of Calvin in the
Two duties especially are mentioned.
1) Expound the Holy
Scriptures. The idea is that the
exposition of Holy Scripture lies at the basis of all the subjects taught in
the seminary. Professors are, therefore,
to be students of God’s Word, adept at the original languages of Scripture and
thorough and careful exegetes of Scripture.
They must see to it that this exposition is the basis of all the
teaching.
2) Vindicate sound doctrine
against heresies and errors. It is quite
obvious that these two duties cannot be separated from each other. Exposition of Scripture is necessary to accomplish
the vindication of sound doctrine and will surely result in it. The errors referred to are all the errors of
pagan religions, Roman Catholicism, modernistic religions, sectarian religions;
but also heresies which arise within the church and constitute an immediate
threat to the well-being of the church.
The duties referred to here are the duties of all ministers of
the gospel. But these duties are
mentioned specifically in connection with the work of professors because they
are entrusted with the training of future ministers upon whom this calling will
fall. They must teach the future
ministers of the church to do this work.
Besides, professors provide leadership within the churches in this respect. This is not because of their superior
abilities and superior office; it is rather be-
cause all their time is devoted exclusively to this. Professors must therefore accomplish this in
the classroom, in preaching and speaking, in books and articles, at ecclesiastical
assemblies of the churches in common.
For rules governing the appointment of professors, confer the
Constitution of the
The churches shall exert themselves, as far as necessary, that there may be students supported by them to be trained for the ministry of the Word.
The historical background of this article dates to the Synod of
Emden. That synod made provision for the
support of students who would later be bound to the service of the church which
supported them. This was done especially
when students were sent out of the country to study at such places as
The duty enjoined upon the churches in common is twofold.
1) The chief duty is that the
churches shall exert themselves to provide students for the ministry. From the very beginning of the Reformed
churches there has been a shortage of ministers. But the Church Order, in this article,
recognizes the fact that a congregation without a minister is in an abnormal
situation. Nor is this abnormality alleviated
by classical appointments. A
congregation must, to perform her work, have a pastor of her own. But the duty described in the article is the
duty of the congregations individually.
If the churches are to have ministers, these ministers must come from
the congregations themselves. And,
indeed, upon the individual congregations falls the responsibility of preaching
the gospel — though this responsibility is performed through the offices in the
church.
This exertion must
take place through various means. In the
general training of covenant youth in catechism, preaching, and family visitation
this obligation is brought to the attention of God’s people. The congregations may be admonished through
the preaching to give more attention to this responsibility. The consistories may use the means of
personal encouragement and admonition.
2) Secondly, the duty is placed
upon the churches for the support of the students. The length of education requires considerable
money. And mere money must not be an
obstacle in the pursuit of the calling of the ministry. In our churches this duty is fulfilled by the
churches in common. But this does not
preclude the possibility of support coming from the local congregations to aid
their “sons”; nor even from the classis.
This support must be “as far as necessary.” This reference is both to the need for
ministers and the support given to students.
Support should, if necessary, be given throughout the whole time of
education. Nor need this support be repaid,
since it is support and not a loan. Repayment
need be made only when a student does not enter the ministry. For additional rules, confer the Student Aid
Committee Constitution.
Students who have received permission according to the rule in this matter, and persons who have according to Article 8 been judged competent to be prepared for the ministry of the Word, shall, for their own training, and for the sake of becoming known to the congregations, be allowed to speak a word of edification in the meetings for public worship.
This article has a long history marked by considerable
vacillation on the question of the rightness of student preaching. The article was originally concerned with the
private training of students when the work was left to individual ministers
because there was no seminary. The
Convention of Wezel dealt with the need for students to gain experience in
preaching through the means outlined in this article.
In 1586 the Synod of ’s Gravenhage ruled favorably on the
practice of student preaching. But in
1619 the Synod of Dordrecht forbade the practice. However,
The article refers to the “preaching” of those still studying
in the seminary and of those judged competent to preach under the provisions of
Article 8. Candidates, while not
referred to, are also included. The article
refers, therefore, to those who are not ordained to the office.
All these are permitted to “speak a word of edification.” There is a deliberate distinction made
between this word of edification and the preaching of the gospel. The difference is to be found in the fact
that students may not pronounce the benedictions and may not administer the
sacraments. But the basic difference is
that the “preaching” of the students is not the official ministry of the Word
because these students have not been ordained into office. Thus the idea of the lawful call, of the
office, and of the preaching is guarded.
The question has often risen whether this is a valid
distinction. Many have maintained that
it is not. These point to the following
considerations:
1) There is no difference in
content between preaching and an edifying word.
2) If a student edifies he
surely is instrumental in administering the means of grace.
3) A student is called
officially by the consistory for the particular service in which he preaches.
But it is better and more scriptural to maintain the
distinction.
1) It is certainly true that,
ideally, there is no difference in content.
But this is not the point. An
ordained ambassador has divine credentials, so that he alone can bring the Word
of Christ officially and authoritatively.
2) An edifying word may be a
means of grace, and hopefully it is. But
it is a subordinate means of grace, subordinate to the official preaching in
the same sense in which society discussions and personal Bible reading are a
means of grace.
3) In this day of total
disregard for the official calling, it is important to insist on this aspect of
the office.
The article states reasons why students should be permitted to
speak an edifying word. One reason is
the good of the students; the other reason is the good of the churches. There has been considerable de-
bate also on this point. The objections
which have been raised are:
1) Students come with inferior
sermons and are not always edifying.
2) Churches gain little benefit
from these sermons.
3) The danger is always there
that imperfect exposition and even false doctrine may do considerable harm.
But all these dangers can be avoided if proper supervision is
given to student preaching. This
supervision is, according to Article 13 of the Constitution of the
The advantages of this practice are real. The experience which a student gains is inestimable. The congregations receive supply when they
are vacant. And the congregations come
to know the students and their abilities.
The consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools in which the parents have their children instructed according to the demands of the covenant.
The original article of the Synod of Dordrecht was adopted in
1586 at the Synod of Den Haag. This version
was considerably different from our present version. It read, “Everywhere Consistories shall see
to it, that there are good schoolmasters who shall not only instruct the children
in reading, writing, languages, and the liberal arts, but likewise in godliness
and in the Catechism.”
There were definite reasons why this kind of article was adopted
by the churches in the
But in
This is also correct.
The responsibility for the instruction of the children in the subjects
of the school curriculum rests upon the parents and upon them alone. This instruction is assumed by the parents as
their responsibility when they make their vows of baptism. Indeed, the church is responsible for the instruction
of the seed of the covenant as far as the knowledge of Scripture is concerned
and because this instruction is an official means of grace. But the instruction in the knowledge of God
as He reveals Himself to His people though creation, providence, and history is
a responsibility resting upon covenant parents.
The article assigns to the consistories a certain responsibility with respect to this covenant instruction given in the schools. It does not mean to establish the principle that the responsibility of establishing, maintaining, supporting, and governing Christian schools rest upon the consistories. This would be parochialism and has never been the position of the Reformed churches. But it does mean to entrust consistories with the solemn obligation to point parents to their covenant obligations and admonish parents to fulfill these obligations to the best of their ability. Note the language of the present article: “… in which parents have their children instructed….”
The consistories have this responsibility because the
instruction of children comes under the spiritual supervision of the consistories. The schools which parents establish
must be “good” schools. They must be
good in the spiritual and ethical sense of that word, not merely from a formal
viewpoint. That is, the instruction must
be, in the strictest sense of the word, Christian. The knowledge of God must be taught in every
branch of learning.
This is according to the demands of the covenant. The covenant is God’s gracious bond of
fellowship and friendship established with His elect people through Jesus
Christ. It is a covenant which God wills
shall be continued through the instrumentality of covenant instruction (cf.
Gen. 18:19; Ps. 78:1-8; Prov. 22:6, etc.).
Because this important covenantal obligation rests upon
covenant parents, it is part of their calling as a covenant people in the
world. This calling and its fulfillment
come directly under the supervision of the consistory. Hence the consistory has certain definite
responsibilities in this respect.
Among these responsibilities we may mention the following: The consistory must urge the establishment of
our own schools where there are none, if this is at all possible. The consistory must urge support of these schools
where they exist. The officebearers in
Christ’s church must pay attention to the instruction given by the teachers in
the schools and encourage the teachers in their work as much as possible. They must encourage young people to study in
preparation for a profession of teaching.
They must discipline where there is an obvious failure to perform this
sacred calling. But never, under any
circumstances, must the consistory assume control of the school, the school
board, or the society.
The elders shall be chosen by the judgment of the consistory and the deacons according to the regulations for that purpose established by the consistory. In pursuance of these regulations, every church shall be at liberty, according to its circumstances, to give the members an opportunity to direct attention to suitable persons, in order that the consistory may thereupon either present to the congregation for election as many elders as are needed, that they may, after they are approved by it, unless any obstacle arise, be installed with public prayers and stipulations; or present a double number to the congregation and thereupon install the one-half chosen by it, in the aforesaid manner, agreeably to the form for this purpose.
Nominations and congregational meetings shall be announced upon two successive Sundays.
(Adopted by Classis of June 6, 7, 1934; Synod of 1944, Arts. 66, 67.)
While Article 21 begins a new section of the Church Order and deals with a general responsibility resting upon the consistory as a whole, Article 22 begins a discussion of regulations pertaining to the office of elder.
It was John Calvin, the Reformer of Geneva, who once again
restored the office of elder to its rightful place in the
The office of elder has especially two different names in
Scripture: presbuvtero" and ejpivonopo". Contrary to the position of Roman
Catholicism, these two names designate the same office. They merely look at this one office from two
different points of view. In proof of
this, confer such passages as Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5, 7; I
Timothy 3:1; I Peter 5:1, 2. References
to this office are also found in Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 6, 22. From all these passages it is evident that
this office of elder is a reflection of Christ’s kingly office. This office is therefore the ruling office in
the church. Christ, the perfect
Officebearer, unites in Himself, through His exaltation, the threefold office
of prophet, priest, and king. This is,
in turn, reflected in His church in men who are endowed with the authority
which Christ possesses and which He confers upon men of His choice. As the office of minister reflects the
prophetic office of Christ, and as the office of deacon reflects the high
priestly office of Christ, so also does the office of elder reflect the ruling
office of Christ. The elders, therefore,
constitute the ruling body in the church.
This article speaks specifically of the election of
elders. Concerning this election of
elders, we notice first of all that the consistory and the congregation
cooperate in this work. (For a discussion
of the principle involved here, cf. notes on Art. 4).
In the second place, the election of elders is essentially the
lawful call of elders. That is, it is
the call of Christ Himself to the office.
The requirements for such a lawful call are therefore, as we may expect,
essentially the same as the requirements for the lawful call of ministers.
1) Strictly speaking, the
examination is eliminated. But the
examination is principally performed by the necessity of choosing men who are qualified
for this office. These qualifications
are listed in Scripture in I Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. The election of qualified men is of the
utmost importance and must be carefully observed.
2) Election. There are two methods which can be used, according
to this article, just as in the case of ministers. One method is that according to which the
consistory presents a nomination of twice the number of elders needed, from
which nomination the congregation chooses one-half. The second procedure is one according to
which the consistory submits for approbation as many elders as are needed. It is only when this procedure is followed
that the congregation must be given the opportunity to suggest suitable
persons. But even then, the consistory
holds the decisive vote.
3) Approbation. The approbation will necessarily be different
according to the method of election in use.
If the consistory submits to the approbation of the congregation as many
elders as are needed, then approbation takes place only once. It is done when the congregation approves of
the slate of elders. If the congregation
itself votes from a nomination, then approbation takes place twice. It takes place when the nomination is submitted
to the congregation for approval (cf. the footnote to the article). And it is done again when the slate of
elected elders is submitted for approbation before ordination. This second approbation is required by the
Form for the Ordination of Elders and Deacons, which see. Both approbations are important. The first is necessary to keep unwor-
thy and unqualified men from the important office of elders. The second is important to ensure that the
men to be installed are worthy to be ordained.
4) Installation. According to the article the installation
shall take place with public prayers and stipulations according to the Form for
that purpose. The Form is important
because, on the one hand, it makes for uniformity of practice in all the
churches of the federation; and, on the other hand, it gives instruction as to
the office and admonishes the congregation and the officebearers concerning
their responsibilities.
There are several additional points. The article speaks of local regulations. These local regulations are adopted by each
individual consistory. They may include
rules on such matters as: brothers or
relatives serving on the consistory at the same time; reelection of retiring
officebearers; procedure at congregational meetings dealing with matters of
voting, majorities, counting ballots, etc.
A footnote is added that nominations and congregational
meetings must be announced on two successive Sundays. There are two reasons for this. One is to insure that all the members are
informed of the nomination. The second
is that opportunity may be given to bring objections against the nomination or
against the election.
The office of the elders, in addition to what was said in Article 16 to be their duty in common with the minister of the Word, is to take heed that the ministers, together with their fellow-elders and the deacons, faithfully discharge their office, and both before and after the Lord’s Supper, as time and circumstances may demand, for the edification of the churches, to visit the families of the congregation, in order particularly to comfort and instruct the members, and also to exhort others in respect to the Christian religion.
Article 23 speaks of the duties of elders. The word “office” in the article is used in
the same sense in which it was used in Article 16; i.e., in the sense of task
or duty.
The duties of elders are only briefly described and the article
is not intended to be exhaustive. There
are probably several reasons for this.
1) The Wezelian Convention included
a long list of the duties of elders, but this was shortened considerably by the
Synod of ’s Gravenhage in 1586.
2) The duties of elders are
described in more detail in other places.
They are described in part in Article 16. They are described in other articles of the
Church Order as, e.g., in the articles which deal with Christian
discipline. They are described in the
Form for Installation.
3) The purpose of the Church
Order is to set forth these duties only in a general way so as to distinguish
the office of elder from the office of minister and the office of deacon.
In general, the office of elder is that of government or
supervision. This government is, first
of all, over the congregation. The
elders must see to it that they “exercise church discipline … and that
everything is done decently and in good order.”
This refers to the doctrine and life of all the members of the
congregation. It lays also upon elders
the responsibility for censure and excommunication. Each individual is under the supervision of
the consistory in all his walk and life from a spiritual viewpoint. But the consistory must also supervise the
organic life of the congregation in societies, congregational meetings, etc.
Secondly, the work of the consistory is that of supervision of
their fellow officebearers. The purpose
is to see to it that all the officebearers perform their duties faithfully. The elders must see to it that the deacons,
both collectively and individually, perform the duties of their office in
dispensing the mercies of Christ. The
deacons are not a ruling body. They are
under the supervision of the elders and are accountable to them. The minister is also under the supervision of
the elders. He, too, is subject to their
rule. This is true as far as his
personal life is concerned. He is not
above the consistory in any way. His
doctrine and conversation are subject to the scrutiny of the consistory. But especially his preaching is under their supervision. But the authority of the elders must also be
exercised among themselves. Each
individual elder is under the supervision of the body to which he belongs.
It is important for the well being of the church that the
elders faithfully perform their work.
Each elder has the individual calling to watch over the church and he
must, of necessity, engage in much personal labor. However, he has his authority only in conjunction
with the other elders, so that no individual elder can take unilateral
action. Every decision must be by the
body, and the official action of the elders must be by the consistory as a
whole.
This article calls special attention to the work of family
visitation. It emphasizes very strongly
the need of this work, devoting almost half the article to this subject.
The article requires that this work be conducted “both before
and after the Lord’s Supper.” This
requirement has its historical occasion in the history of the Reformed churches
in the
The article adds: “… as
time and circumstances may demand.” Hence
we, as a general rule, conduct family visitation once per year. But we ought never, on this account, to
minimize its importance. It is a most
wonderful opportunity to bring the Word of God to the individuals in the
The article makes this work the work of the elders, not excluding the pastor. It states the purpose of doing this work as being:
1) The edification of the
church;
2) The comfort and instruction
of the members;
3) The exhortation of others.
This last has caused some
question. Without doubt it refers to
people outside the church. This, too,
has its origin in the early history of the Reformed state church. The consistory in a given area was entrusted
with the responsibility of the spiritual care of all the people within its
boundaries. Hence, this stipulation
scarcely applies any longer as far as its historical intention is concerned. Yet it can be interpreted to refer to the
calling of each consistory to perform the work of the “extension of God’s
kingdom, especially the promotion of missions” (cf. the questions asked at the
time of Church Visitation).
The deacons shall be chosen, approved, and installed in the same manner as was stated concerning the elders.
The office of the deacons, while instituted by the apostles in
the early church, was lost in the Roman Catholic Church. It was reinstated in the churches of the
Reformation which followed John Calvin’s teachings.