A third sign of hierarchy in the church is that priority is given to formal, ecclesiastical unity over the true, spiritual unity of the truth of God’s word. The familiar phrase peace and unity is established as the goal of the church’s work. Will decisions taken by consistories and councils and classes and synods serve the peace and unity of the churches? Then they are good decisions. Is this peace and unity disturbed by persons or issues? Then those persons and issues must be stopped. Dissent, even perceived dissent, is evil because it attacks peace and unity. Peace and unity is also the measure of a church’s and a denomination’s well-being. When church visitors report that the churches they visited are in a state of peace and unity, then classes rejoice upon hearing such reports. Peace and unity becomes the watchword. The truth may be compromised. Apostasy may be the trend. But as long as everybody is in happy agreement with the compromise and apostasy, the condition of the churches is good.

What is highly revealing about the presence of hierarchy with this third sign is how dissent is treated. There comes to be one great, heinous sin with which individuals can be charged. This one dominant sin is sure to arouse great wrath and anger in the churches and on the parts of consistories, classes, and synods. This sin is worse than heresy, abuse, drunkenness, and adultery. While these other sins will be treated with a great deal of patience and long-suffering, this sin will not. While these other sins will be treated gently and sometimes haphazardly, this sin will meet with consistent, unrelenting force. The sin of schism is well-nigh the unpardonable sin. It demands immediate consequences. Patience, long-suffering, and forbearance will only allow the damage to grow. Thus sentence must be passed immediately.

The charge of schism will be accompanied with the charge of slander but not with the charge of false doctrine, error, or heresy. The schismatic has said bad things about others in the church; even worse, he has said them about prominent leaders in the church; and worst of all, he has said them about the deliberative assemblies. The higher the assembly, the worse the offense. The schismatic will also be painted as a “radical.” His great sin is that he has not “gone with the flow.” He has not followed the multitude in its pursuit of peace and unity in the churches. The only reason that the schismatic dared to stand against the stream must be that he is a radical. There can be for him no listening ear, lest one partake of his “sin”—the terrible sin of schism. As quickly as humanly possible, he must be uprooted and cast out for the sake of the church’s peace and unity.

With this third sign hierarchy manifests itself especially in the specific attention that such cases of schism receive in the broader assemblies. Broader assemblies will not do their proper work in treating these sins of schism. They will not rest content with the work of minor assemblies. Minor assemblies will have done their work. The minor assemblies will have done the work of actual discipline, whether of members or of officebearers. They will have made their decisions upon the grounds that they have written. But when appeals to that work come to the broader assemblies, the broader assemblies cannot simply deny such appeals. When the broader assemblies are required to approve the deposition of an officebearer charged with schism, they cannot merely state their approval and move on. The broader assemblies must do far more. Unable to recognize the autonomy of the local congregation and the rule by the consistory as executing the office of elder, the broader assemblies find it necessary to add their supposed weight to the issue. As if the consistory has not the authority to act of itself, classes and synods must add their own authority to make the decision stick. In this very practical way, hierarchy is demonstrated. Broader assemblies decide and act as if they possess their own, higher authority than the consistory.

This third sign of hierarchy is also related to implicit faith. True faith, according to its nature, must know and see the only rule for true unity in the church of Jesus Christ. True faith must see the church’s resting for all her peace and unity on the only true foundation, the word of God (Eph. 2:20). Moreover, for the sake of this true peace and unity, faith must follow and promote that word of God alone, especially where hierarchy departs from it. When true faith, for its seeking and maintaining of the truth, is assaulted as schismatic and slanderous and driven out of the church, implicit faith readily takes its place.

Considering these signs of hierarchy in the church, it becomes clear that hierarchy and implicit faith are necessary to one another. They develop mutually. While hierarchy arrogates power to itself away from the word of God, implicit faith welcomes the arrogation. Implicit faith prefers to trust in men and the institutions of men rather than in the word of God. Implicit faith finds it far easier to conform to outward superficial standards imposed by hierarchical assemblies than to have the word of God that so directly addresses the heart. Implicit faith prefers fear of men and respect of persons over the fear of God.

The preference for implicit faith is also true of church assemblies in their operations. If the assemblies truly trusted the word of God and that word in the mouth of the king of the church, Jesus Christ, they could not have taken the decisions they have. They would trust in the word to do its proper work, according to its own authority. They would trust the specific form of government given in the word of God, rule by the local consistory according to that word of God. They would trust that the church has its health and strength in having the word of God alone rule in the church. They would not feel the need to add their weight, as if the opinions of more, greater, or better men could possibly add to the authority of God’s word. How grievous it is, then, when church assemblies turn from the wisdom of the word of God to their own devices! Delegates attempting to bring the truth of God’s word to bear on doctrinal debates are set aside. Protests and appeals that are grounded in God’s word and the Reformed confessions are not sustained because their weight is judged insufficient to overturn the decisions of the assemblies of men. The reputations of men and of ecclesiastical assemblies are more highly valued than the rule of Christ over his church by his word and Spirit.

Relieving oneself of hierarchy and rejecting implicit faith ought to be easy. It ought to be as easy as saying no to all of it, a no that is as loud and vigorous as it must be liberating and joyful. How hard can it be to shake off the yoke of bondage? How hard can it be to turn from the unbelief of implicit faith to the simplicity of complete faith in the only savior, Jesus Christ, whose cross alone brings true freedom to serve the Lord in joyful gratitude? How difficult can it be to throw off the oppressive yoke of tyrannical hierarchy for the sake of joyful, Spirit-led submission to the word of God alone?

As it turns out, very hard. It is the struggle of the old man against the new, the flesh against the Spirit. It is the struggle of blind pride against deep humility. The work of church reformation is hard. It is hard because it truly is spiritual in character.

It is hard because Satan would have the church make only a foolish exchange. The tempter would have God’s people to think that to end hierarchy means only to exchange one denomination for another and to suppose that all is finished. Or to exchange a hierarchy that is easily detected in classes and synods for one that is merely of a consistory or a classis instead. Or to exchange a hierarchy of broader assemblies (collegialism) for a hierarchy that is merely of leadership (oligarchy). Or to exchange rule by some identifiable men for rule by other men.

Another approach Satan can take is to encourage the deception that hierarchy must end when hierarchical men are either broken in repentance or are removed from their positions of control and influence in churches. The deceiver would have every officebearer forget that within him lies every ingredient to be a proud, hierarchical, unbelieving, and idolatrous tyrant. Satan would have that officebearer forget that scripture is not only addressing others with passages such as 1 Peter 5:2–3, and that in the light of verses 5–9, but is also addressing that officebearer. Every officebearer must remember that his proud depravity has desired and learned very well the lessons in tyranny to which he has been exposed. Even that which his new man has learned to hate and abhor is what his old man loves and seeks to restore.

However, the work of church reformation against all hierarchical tendencies is assisted when the subject of implicit faith is brought to the foreground. Implicit faith goes more deeply than hierarchy to the root of the issue. Implicit faith also ties in to the Protestant Reformation, to help understand what true reformation is all about. Implicit faith also lays emphasis where it belongs: not just on the problem but also on the solution and the solution as spiritual. Implicit faith also puts into sharp focus the proper role of the believer, the role that is so fundamental to the breaking down of all hierarchical tendencies. The proper role of the believer, when understood and applied, must lead to the only proper rule in the whole church: the holy scriptures as apprehended by every believer as the only rule for faith and life, including all the government of the church.

The above honor given to the rule of holy scripture and faith in holy scripture must destroy not only hierarchy; but this honor must also destroy all coercion (bullying and threatening), all psychological manipulation (unlawful, subliminal control that is destructive of true faith), and all deceitful abuse of God’s word. This honor must protect the believer’s freedom clearly and consciously to follow the word of God alone. Where officebearers in the execution of their offices, singly or jointly in deliberative assemblies, work hard to honor and maintain this freedom, members in the office of believer will be delighted to walk in this freedom. God’s people will be joined together in the true unity of the Spirit to serve their God, with the church’s authority assisting them according to its calling in that same word of God.

One of the greatest instruments that stands against hierarchy and the doctrine of implicit faith is the Church Order of the Synod of Dordt.

That the Church Order is such a great instrument may not seem very evident. From the way the Church Order has been used in recent history, exactly the opposite seems true. It certainly is true that it has been quoted so many times for the purpose of denying legitimate protests. It has been incorporated into many ecclesiastical decisions that have been oppressive in churches. How many times have not article 31 and article 46 been quoted for the purpose of declaring protests illegal? How much have Church Order articles been authoritatively quoted on the floor of the ecclesiastical assemblies in order to turn delegates against appeals that were biblically sound and confessionally based? Based on the history of its abuse and not its use, it is easy to understand why God’s people view the Church Order of Dordt with suspicion. However, it should be no surprise that hierarchy would go out of its way to wrest so violently to its own purpose that which speaks out so clearly against it. The strong man must first be bound! It is also apparent that hierarchical authority would eagerly abuse the Church Order as a cloak to carry out its devices. Hierarchy will pay lip service to the Church Order to bolster its vain claim that all its work cannot be hierarchical at all. Who would dare even to suggest such a thing to the experts in church polity?!!!

In truth, the Church Order of Dordt is a great instrument against hierarchy when the Church Order is properly understood and implemented. The structure itself of the Church Order is anti-hierarchical. First treated are the offices of the church in the local congregation, beside which there are no other offices. These offices are so closely tied to the local congregation that they have their source in the local congregation, including the minister of the word as called by and installed in the local congregation. And all delegates to all the broader assemblies have no place at those assemblies but by the decisions of the local consistories. Where the different assemblies are identified and described in the Church Order, the consistory is first, and the broader assemblies of the classis and synod have no original authority of their own. The authority of the broader assemblies is derived from the consistories, which are voluntarily united in federations represented in classes and synods.

In connection with the above, it is helpful to remember that the three forms of unity, the confessions to which officebearers in Reformed churches subscribe, do not identify the broader assemblies at all. Only in article 30 of the Belgic Confession is mentioned once the word “council,” which is a body comprised of “ministers or pastors” and “elders and deacons.” Their purpose is to govern “this true church…by that spiritual policy which our Lord hath taught us in His Word.” This article concludes: “By this means everything will be carried on in the church with good order and decency, when faithful men are chosen according to the rule prescribed by St. Paul in his epistle to Timothy” (Confessions and Church Order, 64–65; emphasis added.)

In the Church Order there are three specific articles that stand powerfully against hierarchy in the church of Jesus Christ. They are articles 30, 31, and 84.

The most evident article is one of the last in the Church Order, article 84: “No church shall in any way lord it over other churches, no minister over other ministers, no elder or deacon over other elders or deacons” (Confessions and Church Order, 403).

The distinct force of article 84 is that it is the antihierarchical article. The entire article is negative, setting out nothing positive. It does not enjoin or command. It only prohibits. Its entire, prohibitive force is against lording, or tyranny. The article takes up for its subject matter every office in the church and every church. Addressing the relationship of church and churches, of minister and ministers, of elder and elders, of deacon and deacons, the article allows for no ascendancy of authority over others. No church may lord it over other churches. No officebearer may lord it over other officebearers. Not among churches nor even among officebearers in the same consistory.

It is possible to imagine some circumstances where this article of the Church Order could be invoked as a ground for a protest. In recent history there were such circumstances. Editors of the Standard Bearer as a body of officebearers invoked their status as officebearers in the church and insisted that consistories charge other officebearers with the sins of slander and schism. A consistory, invoking its authority as a consistory, insisted that another consistory discipline one of its officebearers. To be sure, article 84 could properly be used as a ground for declaring these insistences unlawful and could be a powerful rebuke against editors and consistory. But these circumstances themselves powerfully and clearly demonstrated a hierarchical system. Those men and that consistory were not ashamed at the very thought of their actions. They were not ashamed to put their thoughts into words and send them out. And those editors and elders, who did so in the confidence that their efforts would be upheld by the broader assemblies of their denomination, were so far from any shame in their lording over others. Even when Classis East treated the matter brought to it by the editors of the Standard Bearer, classis gave no word of rebuke based on article 84. The assembly had learned well its role in the hierarchy of the churches.

In spite of such extreme cases as should demand that article 84 be openly invoked, its real force is that of a sharp check on the hearts of officebearers and the deliberations of consistories. If officebearers are to be Reformed, above all things they must heartily hate all hierarchy. Article 84 must resound in their hearts with a loud amen.

Let the lesson be sharply and clearly learned. When article 84 is considered in the light of the history of the Reformation, the article was not merely against hierarchy in an abstract manner; but it was also established against the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic institution, with the pope at its head. Moreover, the article was established against that papal hierarchy as anti-Christian in its character. Hierarchy is essentially anti-Christian, the rule of men displacing the rule of Christ. Hierarchy demands faith in men. Hierarchy must oppose faith in Christ alone for the sake of implicit faith.

Although article 84 is strictly negative and is negative for a very important reason, its purpose is to clear away hierarchy or lording for the sake of one goal: humble, devoted service. The purpose of the church is never to serve herself but to serve her lord and master, Jesus Christ. The purpose of the officebearer is to bear office in behalf of the one who has called and appointed him to office—Jesus Christ, the king of his church.

In serving Christ, the only king and head of his church, the church as an institution and the officebearer as the servant of Christ also serve the members of the church. To draw the line more directly and clearly, the servants of Christ serve his redeemed people. The sheep of God’s flock do not exist for the undershepherds’ benefit, but the undershepherds exist for the benefit of the sheep. Important to this truth of service are the words of Matthew 20:28: “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Especially important is this verse as a rebuke both to the hierarchical thoughts of the disciples, indicated by the request brought by the mother of James and John, and the indignation of the ten.

Not hierarchy but service!

I will continue, the Lord willing, by considering article 31 of the Church Order.