Rev. Lanning and to whom it may concern,

To begin, I apologize for the length of this question, but context is absolutely necessary for the reader. In my reading of our church history regarding Church Order Article 31, I came across the report of the CRC Synod of 1926 which came up with a recommendation regarding whether a Classis has the right to depose a consistory. The report, translated in late 1958 and early 1959 issues of the Standard Bearer by Rev. Vanden Berg, stated that “a Classis has the competency to depose from office a consistory that makes itself unworthy”.¹

Now, I have read through Rev. Ophoff’s understanding of Classis rights and responsibilities in contrast with the CRC’s report to the Synod of 1926. He states the following in one of the many articles he wrote on the topic,

Thus, according to this article, no Consistory may say to a number of other Consistories, “Thou shalt,” or, “Thou shalt not,” which means that according to this article the character of the jurisdiction of one Consistory over others, and of one Minister over others and of one Elder or Deacon over other Elders and Deacons is advisory and not mandatory.²

And the following in the same article, “The statement of Art. 79, “the Consistory shall depose officebearers,” certainly is equivalent to the statement, “Classis (Synod) shall not depose officebearers.””

Understandably, Classis has the right and obligation to advise and help congregations that have corrupt office bearers, but the obligation is not, according to Rev. Ophoff, to depose.

As I read through both positions, something came to mind. The CRC Synod report attempted to support its position by building up Classis’ power with regard to Article 31. The position, which is the PRC’s position according to its Synod of 2004, is that the protestant must protest and appeal Classis/Synod decisions that offend them by protesting while submitting to the decision in question. What seems to be the case with such a position is that Classis and Synod have a binding power that binds even unscriptural decisions upon the church until the Classis and Synod revoke the decision.

Some will disagree with this assessment and say that protesting and appealing is abiding by the “unless” of Article 31, while they also say that there is a proper way to address this disagreement with a decision and the word until comes into play by saying the decision is binding and settled until the decision is validated by the assemblies. Such a position was the Rev. Vanden Berg’s,³ but there is no essential difference in principle between his and the PRC position because there is still an obligation to submit to the assemblies’ decisions for a time and that is the commonality that is being focused upon.

To justify this position, reference is often made to an argument that the only other solution is to allow the believer to decide what is and is not binding upon them based on what THEY feel is scriptural. I notice with this argument that such an argument makes scripture to be a subjective document upon which there can be varying viewpoints. This argument, then, makes the claim that a Classis or Synod has the power to make the decision no longer binding and settled, but not what God convicts upon the conscience of the believer.

Now, this argument adds by transcending the advice of the multitude of counsellors, saying that they have consciences too that made them make the decisions that they did. Such a position was Rev. C. Hanko’s.⁴ While that is a legitimate position to take on certain topics, when it comes to judging what is and is not scriptural, the fact that some men made decisions in unity and others do not agree does not mean a decision is or is not scriptural or mean that that decision ought to or ought not to be obeyed and submitted to. The only standard can be the holy scriptures.

Proceeding, my previous point about making scripture into a subjective document returns because in contrast, the Classis and Synod are then made the absolute standards in certain cases. So when the Report of the CRC Synod understands that a Classis has the duty to depose an unfaithful consistory, then it takes a view that Classis has the power to strip office-bearers of their position because Classis is absolutely right and has the power to do so. Such a position seems righteous on the face of it in that it is removing wicked men from being damaging to the church, yet it does not take into account when a Classis is wrong and does not question whether God has given an ecclesiastical body that power.

I should briefly note two points. I am not making the claim that Classis cannot advise deposition, but always it is the consistory’s responsibility to carry out what it determines is right and scriptural after hearing Classis’ advice. Additionally, I am not saying that a Classis is helpless when a Consistory is unfaithful: the Classis can vote to remove the Consistory from enjoying fellowship with the federation of churches; the Classis can vote to not accept her delegates to the Classis; finally, the Classis can call the faithful congregation out of the Consistory to reconstitute a new church. These notes will hopefully provide more explanation to the discussion.

Continuing, to prevent having hierarchy in the church, balances have been put in place to make the Classis have an advisory role and not one where it can mandate anything it wants. Cases that a Classis can enter into are these: what the congregations request as a need for the churches in general; what cannot be finished at minor assemblies; and what is appealed from minor assemblies. This range of areas does give Classis a wide area that it can speak to, but it does not give the power to say, “You must!”; Instead, it gives the authority to Classis itself the right only to advise the Consistory to go this way or that and if it is biblical advice, then that is as good as scripture telling the Consistory “you must!” But the Classis cannot say the “you must”, forcing the consistory to do this or that. All of this does not remove from the power that a Classis has to tell a consistory that it must obey the truth, and it does not remove the obligation of the Consistory to obey but it balances a major assembly’s power with that of the scriptures, the consistory’s God-given power, and the office of the believer.

All the above is a much-needed context. The fathers of the PRC seemed to have definitive stances on these topics of article 31 and the deposition of office-bearers and consistories after dealing with being expelled from the CRC and seeing the Liberated Churches expelled out of their mother church for the same reasons, but it seems to me that the PRC in 2004 deviated from Rev. Hoeksema and Rev. Ophoff on these topics. I admit that I have much more learning to do on these topics and I may have missed a very important aspect of this debate or even misinterpreted our forefathers. So to conclude this letter, my questions are as follows:

1-Does the RPC still abide by the PRC Synod of 2004’s explanation of Church Order Article 31?

2-Do the editors have a strict interpretation of article 31 in which there is no addition of the word “until” in any aspect of it whatsoever?

3-Is there a legitimate argument for submitting to ecclesiastical decisions that oppose the Word of God, while an aggrieved one protests and appeals (apart from cases in which office-bearers has sworn an oath to uphold the Three Forms of Unity and changes doctrinally to opposed/change them- see the Declaration of Principles)? Note that I do NOT ask this question: Is there a legitimate argument for submitting to ecclesiastical decisions that an aggrieved one feels opposes the Word of God, while an aggrieved one protests and appeals? I do not ask this question because it gets into that subjective view of the scriptures, which is not beneficial.

4-Is there a legitimate case to be made for a Classis deposing a Consistory that has become unfaithful? 

Again, apologies for the long letter, but I hope it is beneficial to the reader and provides a clear context for why I write concerning this topic. This context I hope you see as relevant when considering Synod 2004 and what potentially the RPC still holds to as well and where the RPC will go in the future with regard to the above topics. I understand that the editors do not have a strictly denominational paper and cannot speak for the denomination as a whole, but seeing as all the editors are now RPC perhaps they could clarify where they personally stand. Thank you for your writing!

Yours in Christ’s service,

Derrick Span

REPLY

Thank you for your thoughtful letter on this important subject. I appreciate your efforts to bring out the differing opinions on the subject in the Protestant Reformed Churches but most of all your direct questions at the end.

Before answering the questions, I want to call attention to a couple of issues that I think will help clarify both what you are developing in the body of your letter and your questions at the end.

The first issue is the autonomy of the local congregation and, more specifically, the autonomy of the consistory as those officebearers who are called by Christ to care for his church as manifested in the local congregation. One can speak more particularly of the office of elder. Do the elders rule over the flock as those appointed by Christ or not? Do they rule at the behest of or on behalf of the broader assemblies of the denomination or on behalf of the denomination itself? This first issue can be called the material principle of Reformed church government. It is the essence of Presbyterianism, and that in clear contrast to the hierarchy or collegialism of Episcopalian government or the Roman Catholic papacy.

The second issue can be called the formal principle because it provides the ground for the Presbyterian form of government over against the hierarchical. This second issue is scripture alone. Reformed church government, the autonomy of the local congregation derived from the rule of the office of elder, is the teaching of scripture. At the same time, as stated by article 32 of the Belgic Confession, those ruling the church must see to it that all of their rule may not bind the consciences of those over whom they rule.

These two issues taken together mean that article 31 of the Church Order must have the words “unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God” (Confessions and Church Order, 390).

Before getting to your questions, let me issue a couple of caveats.

The first is that I do not intend to speak in behalf of my fellow editors or in behalf of the denomination of the Reformed Protestant Churches. I believe my fellow editors and I are largely in agreement, but I do not intend to speak for them in the particulars. Much less do I want to speak in behalf of the Reformed Protestant denomination. I wish decisions of Reformed Protestant consistories and meetings of Reformed Protestant classes not to be bound by the sentiments of this editor! Let the word of God alone rule!

My second caveat is that consistories in their deliberations must recognize differences among the decisions they take. Many different kinds of decisions are taken. Consistories must wisely consider how to deal with a decision if a protest is submitted against it. Sometimes a decision will be best deferred in its execution if it is protested. Another decision ought not be deferred, especially if there would be no consequences if it were found to be erroneous. Still another decision might be highly provoking when understood in the light of a protest. It ought to give any Reformed deliberative assembly pause to hear one or more of its officebearers or members say, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), rather than rushing to charges of slander and schism. How do consistories best honor the office of believer when receiving protests as the exercise of that office?

That having been said, the answers to your questions are the following:

First, Synod 2004 of the Protestant Reformed Churches took the following decision:

Article 31 declares that whatever is decided by a major assembly by majority vote, relative to an appeal, must be considered settled and binding—“unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with the articles of the Church Order.” The implication here is that one may indeed attempt to demonstrate to an ecclesiastical assembly that its decision conflicts with the Word of God or the Church Order, but during the process of protest and appeal he must submit to the decision by which he is aggrieved.⁵

By no stretch of the imagination can “unless” be twisted into until, as this decision by its “implication” does. The term “unless” used by article 31 of the Church Order does not have a temporal reference but a logical. It does not pose a time frame but grants an exception.

Though excluded by article 31, there are still two things that can be said about such a temporal reference as “unless.” The first is that, completely apart from the consideration of article 31, the word of God requires submission to those whom Christ has placed in authority in the church, the elders.

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. (Heb. 13:17)

The fifth commandment also requires this submission, as explained in Lord’s Day 39 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

The second thing that can be said is that it is incumbent upon Reformed deliberative assemblies to make abundantly clear that their decisions indeed are the expressions of Christ’s rule over his church by his word. If the deliberative assemblies cannot make it abundantly clear, the delegates should ask themselves whether they should take a decision at all.

An important question to ask about the decision of Synod 2004 is whether or not this decision is itself “settled and binding.” This decision is quoted in the green binder entitled The Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches. However, it is found in the section beginning on page 106, which section is labeled “Explanation of the rules for Protests, Appeals, and Overtures.” Is this “explanation” itself a rule, or is it an explanation of the rules? In addition, there is this sentence on the same page: “A concise explanation of the ecclesiastical rules involved is the burden of what follows.” This sentence also indicates that what is presented is not itself a rule but an explanation.

It should also be noted that the issue raised in the quotation has been one of longstanding debate not only in the Protestant Reformed Churches but in those other denominations holding to the same Church Order of Dordrecht. If the Protestant Reformed Churches want to consider their “implication” of article 31 as settled and binding, they certainly have the right to do so by a majority vote of a synod. But in my judgment the Reformed Protestant Churches must maintain article 31 as written in the Church Order of Dordt without any such “implication.”

To answer your second question: yes. In addition to the above, let me emphasize your point that to introduce the temporal reference until into article 31 wildly distorts the nature of the article. Far beyond making a decision of a deliberative assembly objective, the word until actually makes that decision absolute. Or, in a paradoxical way, absolutely conditional. A decision would thus be absolutely settled and binding until such a time that the same deliberative assembly would have proved to itself that such a decision was contrary to scripture.

Third, yes, but the particular circumstances must be taken into consideration. Whether yes or no largely depends on whether the decision prohibits the officebearer or member from faithfully carrying out the duties of his office to which Christ has called him. I can appreciate your distinction between objective and subjective. But the “settled and binding” side will tend to argue that the particular grievance is subjective, while the aggrieved will counter that it is objective. In such cases it behooves a consistory to be considerate of the office of believer and the necessity of honoring the believer’s conscience before his God.

Fourth, my answer here is absolute. No! It is absolute with the absoluteness of Rev. Herman Hoeksema, with all his abhorrence of it as “collegialism,” both in his book The History of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America and in the Declaration of Principles. It should also be noted that Van Dellen and Monsma grant exceptions in particular cases (reflecting on the events subsequent to the Synod of 1924 and trying to justify them). However, they also stress that such instances are contrary to the nature of Reformed church government.⁶ The deposition of officebearers is the exercise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which authority Christ has given only to the local congregation and which keys are exercised by its officebearers alone. Just as a classis or a synod cannot excommunicate a member, neither can these assemblies depose officebearers.