For the Truth, A booklet written in 1953 by Rev. J. Tamminga, (1907-1984) at the time of writing, minister of the Free Reformed Church of Chatham, Ontario.
The St. Thomas consistory then writes to the classis:
St. Thomas, May 1, 1953
To the classis of the Old Christian Reformed Church
C/o the calling church Hamilton
Mr. J. Hamstra,
R.R.1, Copetown ON
Esteemed Brothers,
With sadness we are compelled to inform you of the following:
After the classis meeting of April 22, 1953 we have reviewed the entire course of events, well known to you, and we have finally come to the following conclusions:
a) That we, as we have informed you in our letter of appeal, consider the classis meeting of January 14, 1953 unlawful. The decisions regarding young immigrant congregations we therefore also consider as being unlawful. The objections raised by the Chatham church we also share. We are convinced that both the material and formal aspect of this decision is contrary to church order.
b) That for this reason, at the meeting of the classis held on April 22, 1953, we could do no other than answer that could not and were not allowed to submit to your decision. We are no revolutionaries as if we would not be subject to a major assembly. We are of the opinion that we are bound to comply with all decisions of classis as long as these are in harmony with scripture and church order. Since we were and are of the opinion that your decision is not according to church order and also does not agree with the scriptural view of an independent church, and because you have rejected our (and the Chatham) appeal at this meeting, maintaining your decision, we may do no other than inform you that we cannot accept your decision.
c) Based on the above, we are unable to recognize and accept your decision to depose this consistory, and will continue to consider this body the lawfully chosen consistory of St. Thomas and appointed by the King of the Church himself. For this reason it is our obligation and charge to remain in that service to Him who has appointed us.
d) That, since it is no longer possible to appeal to a major assembly, to our great sorrow, there is only one possibility left, and that is to take the decision to withdraw from the Old Christian Reformed Church, of which we give you notice by this letter. With great emphasis we advise that this painful decision is taken with considerable reluctance. We would much rather have continued in unity and peace with you as brothers of the same house, but we are unable to perceive that this is now possible.
e) That the responsibility for this sad rupture is wholly attributable to the actions of the classis, since we have neither wanted nor sought to part ways with you.
The consistory of the Old Christian Reformed Church of St. Thomas
J. Pennings, chairman
A. Pol, clerk
A few days after St. Thomas had withdrawn, the consistory of the Chatham congregation met and decided to also withdraw from Old Christian Reformed Church. As in St. Thomas, also in Chatham the congregation was wholly informed, and has unanimously endorsed the decision of her consistory to leave the Old Christian Reformed Church.
The consistory sent the following advice to the classis:
Chatham, May 7, 1953
Classis of the Old Christian Reformed Church
C/o the calling church Hamilton
Mr. J. Hamstra,
R.R.1, Copetown ON
Esteemed Brothers,
With deep sorrow we are compelled to inform you that our consistory has felt compelled to remove this church from the Old Christian Reformed Church denomination.
This was a very difficult decision for us, since we would have greatly preferred to remain in the denomination and continued together with you in brotherly love and unity of spirit.
Considering the events of the recent past, we have no alternative but to do what we have done.
We are convinced, that the decision we have taken was forced upon us, even though this decision is a very painful one. We much would have preferred another solution to the difficulties.
We openly and sincerely announce, that it is our opinion that the decisions of the classis are the cause of our predicament. We have not in any way sought or caused the rift that is now between us. You are aware of the objections that we had and have against your decision of January 14, 1953 regarding the care of young immigrant congregations and of you sustaining this decision on April 22, 1953.
Our consistory has appealed and protested and detailed the reasons both by letter and verbally at your meetings, so that we do not wish to re-iterate this at this time. Because we are unable to accept your judgments in this matter as being contrary to scripture and church order, and also because there is no possibility of appeal to a major assembly, we have come to the above decision.
In addition to the above, we cannot recognize or approve the deposing of the consistory of the St. Thomas church.
With deep sorrow we ask how it is possible for the classis to come to this terrible act. Actually the matter is clear: It is the dreadful consequence of a wrong decision. This teaches us where wrong decisions necessarily will lead.
Office bearers who have no wrong intentions and do nothing but faithfully labour in Gods Kingdom and diligently fulfill their holy calling in their congregation, are deposed.
That the consistory of St. Thomas honestly declared not to be able to submit to your decision, is no revelation of a revolutionary spirit. The St. Thomas consistory has all along indicated why (based of church order) it may not acquiesce to this decision.
The consistory of the St. Thomas church stands, in her rejection of this decision, solidly on the foundation of our church order, while the classis has deviated from church order.
That they cannot accept your decision is not a revolt, but their responsibility. In that the consistory of Chatham stands shoulder to shoulder with St. Thomas.
We could write much more, but it seems that such is superfluous. We hope and pray that you will recognize the error of your ways. The King of the Church have mercy on you and us.
With brotherly greetings, on behalf of the consistory of the old Christian Reformed Church,
J. Tamminga, chairman,
H. Flootman, clerk.
After the congregations of Chatham and St. Thomas had left the Old.C.R.C. also in Hamilton a number of families left the Hamilton Old C.R.C. and formed a new group.
Under leadership of the Chatham consistory this group was instituted as a new church. Together these three churches now form a new denomination: The Free Christian Reformed Church.
In conclusion some notes:
In the report of the classis meeting of April 22, 1953 in the Gospel Banner you will find the decision regarding the care of young immigrant congregations. If you compare that decision in the Gospel Banner to my report you will find some remarkable differences.
To avoid misunderstandings, I wish to state that I have been referring to the decision adopted by the classis of January 14, 1953, while the Gospel Banner provides a later version, because an amendment was proposed by the delegates of Smithville at the meeting of April 22, 1953. This amendment was proposed and adopted after the delegates from Chatham and St. Thomas had left the meeting of April 22, 1953.
Whether this was of any substance or provided any improvement, I will leave to the reader to judge. It is not my intent to write about occurrences after we parted ways. The intention was to simply correct what the Gospel Banner distorted. My purpose was to clearly have the truth be told, so that all would know what really took place.
J. Tamminga,
94 Raleigh St.
Chatham, Ontario, Canada.
Note from translator:
The Free Christian Reformed Church and the Old Christian Reformed Church later resolved their differences and merged, and were after some time joined by the Free Reformed Church of Clifton, N.J., USA.
The name of the denomination then was:
The Old Christian Reformed Church and The Free Christian Reformed Church and The Free Reformed Church.
Rather a mouthful!
The new Hamilton congregation instituted shortly after the above ocurences on June 24, 1953 by Chatham is the present Hamilton church. The previous Hamilton church is now known as the Dundas church (instituted in 1950).
Synod 1974 adopted the name: Free Reformed Church for the entire denomination.
You can follow further developments after this (1953) booklet, on this same web site under the heading:
HISTORY OF THE FREE REFORMED CHURCHES.
CVD
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Saturday, July 7, 2007
FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 5 Classis Deposes St. Thomas Consistory
For the Truth, A booklet written in 1953 by Rev. J. Tamminga, (1907-1984) at the time of writing, minister of the Free Reformed Church of Chatham, Ontario.
The next scheduled (spring) classis meeting was set for April 22, 1953 in Hamilton. The Gospel Banner reported that two items of incoming correspondence were received. This is incorrect. There were three items.
1) a letter from Artesia, suggesting strongly to invoke ecclesiastical measures against St. Thomas, because they had not complied with the decision of classis. (the opinion prevailed that church discipline should be applied to the St. Thomas consistory)
2) Appeal from Chatham
3) Appeal from St. Thomas
It begs the question why the letter from Artesia, suggesting to invoke ecclesiastical measures, was not on the agenda. Considering that the Gospel Banner report was quite lengthy, it is not clear why this was not reported, especially because this letter was seriously considered.
The appeal of Chatham was dealt with first and rejected, maintaining the decision of the previous classis.
This decision at the same time disposed of the appeal of St. Thomas. You can understand how the St. Thomas delegates would now feel, since they were no longer allowed to call a pastor. Calling according to the Church Order had become impossible. The God given responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the church had been abrogated. The consistory had been declared incompetent.
The house needed to be “set in order” did it not?
They could now only come with the request for a home missionary. Since the financial position of the church was not such that they could call, the pastor would have to live in poverty. The call would also have to be done by another church on behalf of St. Thomas who would then send a man as a home missionary to St. Thomas.
There would of course be discussion, the consistory would be allowed some input, but they would not be allowed to call themselves.
Any self respecting consistory, stronger, any consistory who wanted to work in compliance with church order, would have acted the way the St. Thomas consistory did.
The next item to be dealt with was the letter from Artesia, which promoted church discipline, since St. Thomas did not heed the classis decision.
The Gospel Banner reports this as follows:
“The classis decides, that, if St. Thomas continues to ignore the decisions of the major assembly, she will be dealt with ecclesiastically forthwith.”
This is an absolute lie. How can this paper publish this? How do they dare to publish such a terrible untruth? Is it then permitted to lash out at the church? Is the 9th commandment not applicable to the Gospel Banner?
This is what really happened: when the letter from Artesia was discussed, it was clear that Artesia was right in saying that action was required, since St. Thomas had not kept the decision of classis January 14, 1953.
It was discussed, how far should we go? Three possibilities were considered:
Sharp disapproval of the actions of the consistory and a firm admonishment to heed the major assembly,
Temporary removal from office
Deposition from office.
To come to a correct decision, the consistory of St. Thomas was first asked if they would comply with the decisions of classis. When the consistory answered that, for the reasons outlined earlier, they could impossibly comply, the classis decided to depose the entire consistory from office.
This is the naked truth, which the Gospel Banner would not tell you. The decision was not, as they are trying to make you believe, that this would happen sometime in the future, if the consistory continued non compliance as the Gospel Banner stated:
“The classis decides, that, if St. Thomas continues to ignore the decisions of the major assembly, she will be dealt with ecclesiastically forthwith.”
But this was decided at the very same meeting. The whole consistory was deposed.
I will not enter into the question whether or not the classis had the right to do this. I only want to report this sad fact. The brothers from St. Thomas left the meeting as non – office bearers.
Chatham did not acquiesce or consent to this. That it was impossible to continue meeting with them one can understand.
A few days after the April 22, 1953 spring classis meeting the St. Thomas consistory met again and decided the following:
a) to continue functioning as the lawful consistory of the St. Thomas congregation, because the deposition was based on an unlawful decision, and thus itself is unlawful,
b) to remove the church from the Old Christian Reformed denomination, because, to their regret, there is no other course of action. Appeal to a major assembly is not possible, since there is no major assembly.
The St. Thomas congregation unanimously endorsed the actions and position of the consistory.
The next scheduled (spring) classis meeting was set for April 22, 1953 in Hamilton. The Gospel Banner reported that two items of incoming correspondence were received. This is incorrect. There were three items.
1) a letter from Artesia, suggesting strongly to invoke ecclesiastical measures against St. Thomas, because they had not complied with the decision of classis. (the opinion prevailed that church discipline should be applied to the St. Thomas consistory)
2) Appeal from Chatham
3) Appeal from St. Thomas
It begs the question why the letter from Artesia, suggesting to invoke ecclesiastical measures, was not on the agenda. Considering that the Gospel Banner report was quite lengthy, it is not clear why this was not reported, especially because this letter was seriously considered.
The appeal of Chatham was dealt with first and rejected, maintaining the decision of the previous classis.
This decision at the same time disposed of the appeal of St. Thomas. You can understand how the St. Thomas delegates would now feel, since they were no longer allowed to call a pastor. Calling according to the Church Order had become impossible. The God given responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the church had been abrogated. The consistory had been declared incompetent.
The house needed to be “set in order” did it not?
They could now only come with the request for a home missionary. Since the financial position of the church was not such that they could call, the pastor would have to live in poverty. The call would also have to be done by another church on behalf of St. Thomas who would then send a man as a home missionary to St. Thomas.
There would of course be discussion, the consistory would be allowed some input, but they would not be allowed to call themselves.
Any self respecting consistory, stronger, any consistory who wanted to work in compliance with church order, would have acted the way the St. Thomas consistory did.
The next item to be dealt with was the letter from Artesia, which promoted church discipline, since St. Thomas did not heed the classis decision.
The Gospel Banner reports this as follows:
“The classis decides, that, if St. Thomas continues to ignore the decisions of the major assembly, she will be dealt with ecclesiastically forthwith.”
This is an absolute lie. How can this paper publish this? How do they dare to publish such a terrible untruth? Is it then permitted to lash out at the church? Is the 9th commandment not applicable to the Gospel Banner?
This is what really happened: when the letter from Artesia was discussed, it was clear that Artesia was right in saying that action was required, since St. Thomas had not kept the decision of classis January 14, 1953.
It was discussed, how far should we go? Three possibilities were considered:
Sharp disapproval of the actions of the consistory and a firm admonishment to heed the major assembly,
Temporary removal from office
Deposition from office.
To come to a correct decision, the consistory of St. Thomas was first asked if they would comply with the decisions of classis. When the consistory answered that, for the reasons outlined earlier, they could impossibly comply, the classis decided to depose the entire consistory from office.
This is the naked truth, which the Gospel Banner would not tell you. The decision was not, as they are trying to make you believe, that this would happen sometime in the future, if the consistory continued non compliance as the Gospel Banner stated:
“The classis decides, that, if St. Thomas continues to ignore the decisions of the major assembly, she will be dealt with ecclesiastically forthwith.”
But this was decided at the very same meeting. The whole consistory was deposed.
I will not enter into the question whether or not the classis had the right to do this. I only want to report this sad fact. The brothers from St. Thomas left the meeting as non – office bearers.
Chatham did not acquiesce or consent to this. That it was impossible to continue meeting with them one can understand.
A few days after the April 22, 1953 spring classis meeting the St. Thomas consistory met again and decided the following:
a) to continue functioning as the lawful consistory of the St. Thomas congregation, because the deposition was based on an unlawful decision, and thus itself is unlawful,
b) to remove the church from the Old Christian Reformed denomination, because, to their regret, there is no other course of action. Appeal to a major assembly is not possible, since there is no major assembly.
The St. Thomas congregation unanimously endorsed the actions and position of the consistory.
Friday, July 6, 2007
FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 4 Response from St. Thomas and Chatham
For the Truth, A booklet written in 1953 by Rev. J. Tamminga, (1907-1984) at the time of writing, minister of the Free Reformed Church of Chatham, Ontario.
After the classis meeting the consistory of the Chatham church spent several meetings to intensively discuss the actions of the last classis meeting. The consistory of St. Thomas did the same. Independent of each other, both consistories decided to appeal the decision of classis of January 14, 1953.
The consistory of St. Thomas sent the following appeal to the calling church for the next classis meeting:
January 1953
To the classis of the Old Christian Reformed Church
Esteemed Brethern,
We have received your letter of January 26, 1953, advising us of the decisions of the extra classis of January 14, 1953. Our consistory has discussed your letter and decisions, but cannot accept your decisions, because they are contrary to Article 4 of church order, which in accordance with the synodical decision of 1925 reads as follows:
A) We do not observe “Handopening”* according to the original intent because it does not accord with Reformed Church order.
B) No congregation can be forced to ask permission from the classis before calling a pastor, because the Reformed Church order attributes the right to call to the local church.
C) A congregation that wants to call a pastor and is not able to pay the entire salary, can simply apply to classis for assistance. If the classis refuses, then the congregation still has the right to call the minister.
D) Even though we would never speak of “handopening”* we would advise the congregations, particularly those who are calling for the first time, to do this after receiving advice of the church counselor and of the classis. (Synod 1925)
We have decided to continue the work of calling a minister.
With brotherly greetings,
The consistory of the Old Christian Reformed Church of St. Thomas
J. Pennings, chairman
A. Pol, clerk
The consistory of Chatham submitted the following appeal:
To the calling Church Grand Rapids
C/o Mr. Frank Vanden Bout
149 Fuller Ave S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI
USA
Esteemed Brethern,
We inform you that we received on January 23rd in good order, the proposal proposed by the church of Grand Rapids and adopted by classis of January 14, 1953 regarding young immigrant congregations.
Our consistory has discussed this proposal, which has in the meanwhile become a decided policy of classis, in two meetings of the consistory.
The result of our discussion is that our consistory has determined, regarding the decision and the actions leading to the decision, to place the following objections before the consistory of the calling church and with this letter wish to appeal the whole procedure followed:
1) Formal objections
Having seen the classis’ agenda sent out by the calling church, you are well aware of the fact that the proposal submitted by Grand Rapids was not included on the agenda or with the agenda. There was no mention of a proposal anywhere.
This also applies to the proposal sent in by Artesia. What could be the reason for the non – mentioning we do not know. We can only determine what took place.
Several consistories, ours, and some others, were kept completely ignorant of what Grand Rapids and Artesia were going to propose. In this manner our consistory and others were not able, prior to the classis meeting of January 14, 1953, to review and discuss the proposals that would be presented.
This manner of proceeding is incorrect from a church orderly point of view. Article 30 of church order specifies: In these assemblies ecclesiastical matters only shall be transacted and that in an ecclesiastical manner. This ecclesiastical manner of acting does not consist of giving direction based on legalities, but on benevolent and godly leadership, and does not have a compelling and forcing, but a reasoned and guiding character. (Church Order commentary Joh. Jansen)
If this is to be the case, the calling church is to take care that the agenda will be received approximately 14 days prior to the meeting of the classis (this is the customary rule) containing specific mention of all business to be transacted.
The consistories need to be able to review, discuss and decide all items on the agenda, so that they will be well prepared for the decision making process at classis. (Bouwman-Reformed Church Order, Vol.II).
In no respect was this the case with the recent classical decision. By surprise the proposals of Grand Rapids and Artesia were put on the table and discussed and acted upon.
Substantive objections
Our objections do not only regard the formal aspect, but much more the substantial aspect, e.g. the content of the decision.
The doctrine of the independence of the local church prevails in our church order. The local church is to conducts her affairs independently, in accordance with the Word of God, the confessions, and the church order.
Of course the denomination is of importance, and should certainly be considered, but not in such a way, that one or several churches would be allowed to lord it over another church.
The principle of the independence of the local church has now been trampled underfoot by the decisions of the classis of January 14, 1953, because the congregations are no longer at liberty to call a pastor. No congregation will from now on be able to call, without first having provided a financial accounting to the committee of the USA churches, and the committee will need to provide a report to classis regarding the financial capabilities of the church. Subsequent to that the classis will have to provide its approval before any church will be allowed to call a pastor.
This is in flagrant contradiction with the spirit of our church order which is based on scripture and confessions, and places this authority solely in the hands of the local consistory.
No church can, or may be forced to obtain consent prior to issuing a call, because our church order places that legal authority squarely and exclusively in the hand of the local church. (See article 4 and 5 of Church Order).
When Aricle 5 C.O.D.speaks of “approbation of the classis”, this does not mean that this takes place prior to, but that classis, subsequent to the call, must examine the credentials, and if they are in order, accept them.
When article 4 C.O.D. speaks of the “advice of the by classis appointed counselor” then we understand
a) that classis, functioning as combined meeting of the churches, certainly does have involvement in the work of calling a pastor.
b) That this involvement has the character of providing advice, and not of providing a rule for behaviour.
As result of your decision, the churches in the denomination are denied their lawful right to call a pastor, if they have not first sought the approval the financial committee of the USA churches and the classis.
This is absolutely unjustifiable. Each consistory is entitled to this decision exclusively.
The above reasons have led the consistory to come to the following pronouncement:
a) that your decision is not in accordance with Scripture and Church Order
b) that this decision cannot be respected by us, in accordance with article 31 C.O.D., we will be unable to comply with it,
c) to advise you of this by sending this letter to the calling church, who is requested to place this on the agenda of classis,
d) to call the church to repent from her errors.
We pray that the Holy Spirit may lead you in your deliberations, and sign with brotherly greetings,
On behalf of the consistory of the Old Christian Reformed Church
J. Tamminga, chairman
H. Flootman, clerk
Verbally we have conveyed an additional practical objection to the classis, e.g. the objection that the decision lacks the possibility of practical execution.
If you have calmly read and considered what I have conveyed about the home missionary decision, you will immediately understand that reality is far different than the stories in the Gospel Banner try to make us believe.
Especially the Church of St. Thomas was in a predicament, because the lawful right of this church to call a pastor in accordance with church order, had been stripped away by classis. First the Financial committee and thereafter the classis would have to approve whether or not she was capable of calling.
St. Thomas had great difficulty accepting this.
Several consistory meetings were held to discuss this, and a meeting was called with the congregation to discuss this. Their final conclusion was that they would continue in harmony with church order, and could not accept this infringement.
Of course, the calling of a pastor continued. They could not have the care of, and work in the congregation halted in order to comply with an authoritarian and un-church-orderly ruling.
And so they called Rev. J.P. Geels of Rotterdam, who declined for the call.
Handopening* a Dutch term
In the Netherlands, before 1816, the state paid ministers salaries, since the Reformed Church was a state church. The state also approved each pastoral call, and not the congregation.
Handopening, initially, was the request from a church to the state, and later to the classis, to provide on behalf of the state (in the state run church) funding and approval of the call.
As indicated above, the Synod of the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk (Free Reformed Church) in the Netherlands, decided in 1925 with respect to Handopening: No congregation can be forced to ask permission from the classis before calling a pastor, because the Reformed Church order attributes the right to call to the local church.
After the classis meeting the consistory of the Chatham church spent several meetings to intensively discuss the actions of the last classis meeting. The consistory of St. Thomas did the same. Independent of each other, both consistories decided to appeal the decision of classis of January 14, 1953.
The consistory of St. Thomas sent the following appeal to the calling church for the next classis meeting:
January 1953
To the classis of the Old Christian Reformed Church
Esteemed Brethern,
We have received your letter of January 26, 1953, advising us of the decisions of the extra classis of January 14, 1953. Our consistory has discussed your letter and decisions, but cannot accept your decisions, because they are contrary to Article 4 of church order, which in accordance with the synodical decision of 1925 reads as follows:
A) We do not observe “Handopening”* according to the original intent because it does not accord with Reformed Church order.
B) No congregation can be forced to ask permission from the classis before calling a pastor, because the Reformed Church order attributes the right to call to the local church.
C) A congregation that wants to call a pastor and is not able to pay the entire salary, can simply apply to classis for assistance. If the classis refuses, then the congregation still has the right to call the minister.
D) Even though we would never speak of “handopening”* we would advise the congregations, particularly those who are calling for the first time, to do this after receiving advice of the church counselor and of the classis. (Synod 1925)
We have decided to continue the work of calling a minister.
With brotherly greetings,
The consistory of the Old Christian Reformed Church of St. Thomas
J. Pennings, chairman
A. Pol, clerk
The consistory of Chatham submitted the following appeal:
To the calling Church Grand Rapids
C/o Mr. Frank Vanden Bout
149 Fuller Ave S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI
USA
Esteemed Brethern,
We inform you that we received on January 23rd in good order, the proposal proposed by the church of Grand Rapids and adopted by classis of January 14, 1953 regarding young immigrant congregations.
Our consistory has discussed this proposal, which has in the meanwhile become a decided policy of classis, in two meetings of the consistory.
The result of our discussion is that our consistory has determined, regarding the decision and the actions leading to the decision, to place the following objections before the consistory of the calling church and with this letter wish to appeal the whole procedure followed:
1) Formal objections
Having seen the classis’ agenda sent out by the calling church, you are well aware of the fact that the proposal submitted by Grand Rapids was not included on the agenda or with the agenda. There was no mention of a proposal anywhere.
This also applies to the proposal sent in by Artesia. What could be the reason for the non – mentioning we do not know. We can only determine what took place.
Several consistories, ours, and some others, were kept completely ignorant of what Grand Rapids and Artesia were going to propose. In this manner our consistory and others were not able, prior to the classis meeting of January 14, 1953, to review and discuss the proposals that would be presented.
This manner of proceeding is incorrect from a church orderly point of view. Article 30 of church order specifies: In these assemblies ecclesiastical matters only shall be transacted and that in an ecclesiastical manner. This ecclesiastical manner of acting does not consist of giving direction based on legalities, but on benevolent and godly leadership, and does not have a compelling and forcing, but a reasoned and guiding character. (Church Order commentary Joh. Jansen)
If this is to be the case, the calling church is to take care that the agenda will be received approximately 14 days prior to the meeting of the classis (this is the customary rule) containing specific mention of all business to be transacted.
The consistories need to be able to review, discuss and decide all items on the agenda, so that they will be well prepared for the decision making process at classis. (Bouwman-Reformed Church Order, Vol.II).
In no respect was this the case with the recent classical decision. By surprise the proposals of Grand Rapids and Artesia were put on the table and discussed and acted upon.
Substantive objections
Our objections do not only regard the formal aspect, but much more the substantial aspect, e.g. the content of the decision.
The doctrine of the independence of the local church prevails in our church order. The local church is to conducts her affairs independently, in accordance with the Word of God, the confessions, and the church order.
Of course the denomination is of importance, and should certainly be considered, but not in such a way, that one or several churches would be allowed to lord it over another church.
The principle of the independence of the local church has now been trampled underfoot by the decisions of the classis of January 14, 1953, because the congregations are no longer at liberty to call a pastor. No congregation will from now on be able to call, without first having provided a financial accounting to the committee of the USA churches, and the committee will need to provide a report to classis regarding the financial capabilities of the church. Subsequent to that the classis will have to provide its approval before any church will be allowed to call a pastor.
This is in flagrant contradiction with the spirit of our church order which is based on scripture and confessions, and places this authority solely in the hands of the local consistory.
No church can, or may be forced to obtain consent prior to issuing a call, because our church order places that legal authority squarely and exclusively in the hand of the local church. (See article 4 and 5 of Church Order).
When Aricle 5 C.O.D.speaks of “approbation of the classis”, this does not mean that this takes place prior to, but that classis, subsequent to the call, must examine the credentials, and if they are in order, accept them.
When article 4 C.O.D. speaks of the “advice of the by classis appointed counselor” then we understand
a) that classis, functioning as combined meeting of the churches, certainly does have involvement in the work of calling a pastor.
b) That this involvement has the character of providing advice, and not of providing a rule for behaviour.
As result of your decision, the churches in the denomination are denied their lawful right to call a pastor, if they have not first sought the approval the financial committee of the USA churches and the classis.
This is absolutely unjustifiable. Each consistory is entitled to this decision exclusively.
The above reasons have led the consistory to come to the following pronouncement:
a) that your decision is not in accordance with Scripture and Church Order
b) that this decision cannot be respected by us, in accordance with article 31 C.O.D., we will be unable to comply with it,
c) to advise you of this by sending this letter to the calling church, who is requested to place this on the agenda of classis,
d) to call the church to repent from her errors.
We pray that the Holy Spirit may lead you in your deliberations, and sign with brotherly greetings,
On behalf of the consistory of the Old Christian Reformed Church
J. Tamminga, chairman
H. Flootman, clerk
Verbally we have conveyed an additional practical objection to the classis, e.g. the objection that the decision lacks the possibility of practical execution.
If you have calmly read and considered what I have conveyed about the home missionary decision, you will immediately understand that reality is far different than the stories in the Gospel Banner try to make us believe.
Especially the Church of St. Thomas was in a predicament, because the lawful right of this church to call a pastor in accordance with church order, had been stripped away by classis. First the Financial committee and thereafter the classis would have to approve whether or not she was capable of calling.
St. Thomas had great difficulty accepting this.
Several consistory meetings were held to discuss this, and a meeting was called with the congregation to discuss this. Their final conclusion was that they would continue in harmony with church order, and could not accept this infringement.
Of course, the calling of a pastor continued. They could not have the care of, and work in the congregation halted in order to comply with an authoritarian and un-church-orderly ruling.
And so they called Rev. J.P. Geels of Rotterdam, who declined for the call.
Handopening* a Dutch term
In the Netherlands, before 1816, the state paid ministers salaries, since the Reformed Church was a state church. The state also approved each pastoral call, and not the congregation.
Handopening, initially, was the request from a church to the state, and later to the classis, to provide on behalf of the state (in the state run church) funding and approval of the call.
As indicated above, the Synod of the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk (Free Reformed Church) in the Netherlands, decided in 1925 with respect to Handopening: No congregation can be forced to ask permission from the classis before calling a pastor, because the Reformed Church order attributes the right to call to the local church.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 3 Two Surprising Proposals
For the Truth, A booklet written in 1953 by Rev. J. Tamminga, (1907-1984) at the time of writing, minister of the Free Reformed Church of Chatham, Ontario.
These are the circumstances which surrounded the calling of the classis meeting which was held on January 14, 1953 in Hamilton. As first item of business the churches of Chatham and St. Thomas protested the manner in which the meeting was called, and indicated that the meeting was not a legal meeting. Grounds for this was the fact that at the time of the meeting of the consistory of the calling church of Grand Rapids, only two requests, and not the required three requests were received. The consistory of Grand Rapids decided at that meeting not to call an extra classis meeting.
This makes it obvious that the matter was pushed through at the consistory level, even contradicting the earlier decision. The Grand Rapids consistory met on January 5, 1953 to decide that the meeting should be held after all, while at that time the letters inviting the congregations of Chatham and St. Thomas had already been received by them.
Having heard these objections, the classis decides with a majority of votes to consider its meeting lawful, and the meeting continues.
Chatham and St. Thomas continue to protest, and ask that their protest be included in the minutes. They decide to remain in the meeting, under protest. The matter of the call is discussed. Much discussion was not possible, since Rev. Velema had, in the meanwhile, declined the call of St. Thomas. The classis expressed its pliancy in the matter. Nonetheless the consistory was sharply criticized for issuing this call. The first item was now finished.
A second item was now introduced. It was a proposal from the Grand Rapids consistory regarding the care of young immigrant congregations.
The content of the proposal is:
1) That immigrant congregations in Canada will from now on be served by home missionaries, sent by the congregations in the U.S.A., until such time, when these will be able to adequately support their own pastor.
2) That the financial committee, to which the care of home missionaries is entrusted, will of course consist of members of the U.S.A. churches and she is to issue advice to the classis if a young immigration church is able to support its own pastor.
3) That only the classis has the right, after having examined the financial capabilities of the immigrant congregation, to provide approval to allow the congregation to call a pastor from the U.S.A. or the Netherlands.
Earlier I have already noted that this proposal was not on the agenda, and that neither the consistory of Chatham or St. Thomas knew about it. (Some of the other consistories did not know about it either)
The consistories were not able to review or discuss it.
Rev. Zijderveld, had an envelope with him, and removing the contents, he surprised the meeting with this proposal. He read it, and gave it into discussion. The church of Artesia had also prepared a similar proposal, and this also was not on the agenda and was another surprise.
This makes it abundantly clear that Grand Rapids had contact with Artesia prior to the meeting. Also Hamilton also appeared to know about it. The consistories of Chatham and St. Thomas protested this manner of conduct at a classis meeting. We were of the opinion that the chairman did not have the authority to introduce items, while not lawfully on the table. The consistories were denied the opportunity to review the matter. It was the chairman’s duty to lay these items aside at this time.
The delegates from Smithville proposed to defer these items to the next meeting in the spring, so that all consistories would have prior knowledge and be able to discuss the matter. This was not accepted by the chairman. The proposals were to be acted upon at this meeting. “We need to address the emergency and get our house in order.”
It remained unclear what emergency would be prevailing, and what needed to be put in order. Neither Chatham nor St. Thomas knew of any emergencies. On the contrary, there was peace and harmony in our churches. Why then speak of an emergency? Or was it that the consistory of St. Thomas independently called a pastor and did not allow interference from other churches? Was that wrong? I believe that this is entirely according to our church order. One of the principal doctrines of Reformed Church order is the autonomy of the local church. A major assembly may not infringe on this liberty.
The proposal was acted upon. It was adopted with 6 votes in favour. (and 4 voices against.) The delegates of Chatham and St. Thomas did not vote because they believed that the proposal was not lawfully on the table.
Rev. Zijderveld attempted to find a precedent (Handopening*)for his actions in Dutch church history, but it did not apply to our situation.
Since it was considered necessary to “get our house in order” the consistories of the young immigrant congregations were now obliged to submit their calling activities to a financial committee in the U.S.A. and after that, also the classis would sit in judgment. This would give them total control.
An attempt was made to justify this regulation by comparing it to the situation in the C.R.C. The arrangement there is very different. Firstly, there it is not the case that one or a few churches lord it over another, but that a synodical committee, appointed by the entire church, involving members from Canada as well as the U.S.A., will respond to the requests of groups and send out home missionaries. The C.R.C. has very many such small groups requiring assistance, so that the committee can send help and redirect their substantial staff as requested, to places where the need is the greatest. Due to available manpower, a choice can be made by the church to obtain suitable assistance. The churches there are not dependent on a single person.
This would not be the case in our situation. Suppose this proposal would be worthy of acceptance. We do not have any personnel. In practice it is untenable.
The question how the classis would put the newly adopted policy into practice received no answer. No one had thought about that aspect.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 2 What really happened
For the Truth, A booklet written in 1953 by Rev. J. Tamminga, (1907-1984) at the time of writing, minister of the Free Reformed Church of Chatham, Ontario.
Every reader of these articles published in “The Gospel Banner” who is not informed about the complete developments, will immediately have the impression that the breach between our churches is caused by the fact that two churches do not want home missionaries and the remaining do. And that, when classis maintained its position, Chatham and St. Thomas stubbornly persisted, and then left and caused the rift.
I have received the allegation that “I have left without presenting lawful objections” and also that “It is unbelievably sad when a minister leaves his church for only a practical matter such as the appointment of home missionaries.” I strongly protest these statements as being in conflict with the truth.
The conflict was not about the possible appointment of home missionaries as such, and it is not true that
“I just left the meeting” and it is also not true that our churches have withdrawn from the denomination without presenting principled objections.
Everyone who is familiar with the sequence of events knows, and so does the author of these articles in “The Gospel Banner” that the problems that came about and ended in separation, were caused by the authoritarian approach of the classis, which, in the opinion of the dissenting churches, ignored the basic principles of church order: the independence of the local church and consistory.
I will relate the events leading up to these classis meetings, and this will make clear that the facts of the matter are entirely different than presented by “The Gospel Banner”.
Around the 1st of January 1953 the difficulties started.
In the beginning of 1952 Rev. J.H. Velema, minister in Zwolle, the Netherlands, was called by the church at St. Thomas, Ontario. Three congregations, Artesia, Hamilton** and Smithville, had serious objections to this call. They asked the calling church for classis, the Grand Rapids congregation, to call an extra meeting of classis, to discuss measures that could be taken with respect to the call of St. Thomas. The objections they had were the following: Some years ago Rev. Velema had voiced some questions about the Old Christian Reformed Church (Old C.R.C.) in an article in the publication of the classis Amersfoort . In this article it became clear that the writer, at that time, was not entirely favourable towards the church life in the Old C.R.C. This was also clear from his position taken at the Dutch Synod of 1950. Some here said that since Rev. Velema was in conflict with the Old C.R.C. he would be unable to labour with fruit in this denomination. To be honest, I also did not agree with some of his remarks. I would have liked it if he would have phrased his remarks in different terms. At the same time I would ad that, at a later time, he in many respects changed his opinion, and even served as deputy for correspondence with foreign churches, and assisted in granting approval for the institution of the Chatham and St. Thomas churches, and worked for the official recognition of the Old C.R.C. as sister church, which illustrates that he certainly did not “live in conflict” with the Old C.R.C.
Further, it was also apparent that he had real interest for the immigrant churches, in the fact that he considered the call to St. Thomas very seriously for a period of time, and did not immediately decline.
I would like to state, that the classis of the Old C.R.C. at the time of the article wrote to both the classis Amersfoort and the classis Zwolle under which he later resorted. They received no response from Zwolle because that letter never arrived, and Amersfoort responded that they should contact him directly, because he was responsible for his own writings. This was a reasonable reply.
Most remarkably, even though classis Amersfoort advised to contact him directly, the classis of the Old C.R.C. never made any effort to contact him directly. If there was any remaining issue with him, this was never resolved because he was never approached. Why not write to him directly? Holy Scripture and church order both point in this direction. But this was not done.
They continued to see Rev. Velema as being in conflict with the churches. Three churches requested an urgent special meeting. It is not likely that Artesia, in California, knew anything about this matter, but must have been hastily briefed, and thus joined with Hamilton and Smithville in requesting this extra classis meeting. In reality there was a real problem. In December of 1952 there were only two written requests for an extra classis meeting, and not three as required by church order. (At a later time I was assured that there was only one request on the table.)
The Grand Rapids consistory decides to not call an extra classis meeting. They did not want to meddle in the affairs of another church. Also they did not know all of the details surrounding this call. A few days after the consistory meeting, the third official request did arrive, and the chairman of the Grand Rapids consistory pushed the matter forward, and the consistory reversed its former decision.
I receive a letter dated December 31, 1952 about this planned extra classis meeting to be held on January 14, 1953, with as subject for the agenda: the call of St. Thomas to Rev. J.H. Velema. A letter of invitation is also sent to the St. Thomas church, while this letter is dated one day earlier, December 30, 1952. These dates are very significant, when we note the date of the meeting (below) on which the calling church prepared the agenda and sent invitations.
Developments become even more unusual. I dare say much worse, and I will quote a sentence from the letter of invitation to the meeting, addressed to the St. Thomas consistory:
By order of the protesting churches we advise you, that first a classis meeting must be held to remove this obstacle, (meant is the call to Rev. J.H. Velema) so that peace and unity will prevail between us as brothers, before you will be allowed to take any further steps in ecclesiastical matters.
Any further commentary on the last sentence is unnecessary. Have you ever heard such language between sister congregations? This is pure dictatorship. A consistory is commanded to cease all activities relating to calling a pastor on behalf of several other churches prior to a meeting. Church order has been abandoned.
Hierarchie prevails.
On Januari 5, 1953 another consistory meeting is held in Grand Rapids and the matter of an extra classis meeting is discussed. The agenda is now readied and sent to all churches. The earliest date a church could receive the agenda would be on the 8th of January 1953. The agenda has only one item of business on it.
Incoming correspondence:
Three consistories of the denomination are grieved about the call which the church of St. Thomas has issued to Rev. J.H. Velema of Zwolle, the Netherlands. They request a classical inquiry into this matter, since Rev. Velema lives in conflict with our churches. They also request good care for our immigrant congregations.
Take careful note of what the agenda specifies. It is clear that there is absolutely no mention of the proposal that will be introduced standing the meeting by the chairman. I want to categorically state that no notice of any kind was given of any instruction or proposal to either the St. Thomas consistory or the Chatham consistory, nor to an other consistory. They had no opportunity to review and debate the proposal. They were kept in the dark.
**(when Hamilton is mentioned in this document the present FRC of Dundas is meant. The Hamilton church was later called the Dundas FRC. At the end of this paper you will see that the present Hamilton FRC was instituted on June 24, 1953, and came into existence subsequent to the history described in this booklet. (note by CVD))
Thursday, June 28, 2007
FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 1 A Wrong Report
For the Truth, A booklet written in 1953 by Rev. J. Tamminga, (1907-1984) at the time of writing, minister of the Free Reformed Church of Chatham, Ontario.
A note about this booklet.
Sinful people make up our denomination, and it is by the grace of God that we are sustained. This shows in our history. Mistakes are made and goals are pursued that are based on tradition, or the opinions of man. Although there are rough spots in our history, we should take note of them and learn from them. The past contains important lessons for the future. I translated this booklet with the intention that we would be aware of important junctions in our past. Many questions find an answer in this booklet.
Did you know that our church was once called the “Old Christian Reformed Church?
Did you know that a church split took place surrounding the St. Thomas FRC, creating a new denomination called Free Christian Reformed Church?
Do you know what other congregations were involved?
Do you know why such a thing happened?
Did you know that the entire consistory of the St. Thomas Church was deposed (removed from office) by the classis?
Do you know what led to their deposition?
Do you know what happened after that?
Did you know that a new FRC was started in Hamilton because of this split?
Did you know that the differences were later resolved?
Read on, and you will know.
CVD
Rev. Tamminga writes:
You will know that the churches of Chatham and St. Thomas have decided to retract from the Old Christian Reformed denomination. We can assure you, that the decision tot leave was not taken lightly, but it was the only way we could continue to function as churches. We were forced to take this decision.
We really did not want to publicize these matters, rather, we would have preferred to have maintained silence and calmly followed our course. It is sad that there is distance between those who should be walking together. We need each other. Correspondence flying back and forth between parties only aggravates our separation. We are deeply grieved about this situation.
Since the publication of the Old Christian Reformed Church “The Gospel Banner” has seen fit to inform her readership, it is no longer responsible to maintain silence. In its issue of June 1953 a report of the classis meeting of April 22, 1953 is presented, containing the heading “CHURCH SCHISM”. With great amazement and great sadness I have read this report. With great amazement, because the question continues to occupy me: why would anyone want to publicize, in this manner, the rupture in a church?
With deep sadness, because I conclude, that the disagreement which culminated in a parting, was so one sidedly reported that it severely twists the truth, and even contains outright lies. Both articles are so inaccurate that I believe they sin against the 9th commandment. It grieves me to have to write this, but I can do no other.
That “The Gospel Banner” reports the position taken by the classis and reports its own perspective on this matter is understandable. It is the privilege of each party to make clear their side. It is obvious that the article “Church Schism” was written by Rev. Zijderveld, and it is also likely that he is the author of the classis report, and if he is not, as editor of the magazine he is responsible for the publication of this report.
I am saying, it is certainly his privilege to publish his opinion on the matter. No one would dispute that. But it is his Christian duty to report truthfully in publishing both sides of the conflict, and in a balanced manner publish the objections and positions of the other side. If this is not done, and certain facts are omitted or distorted, then the truth is not served. Half truths are lies.
It is my sincere conviction that this is what has happened in both mentioned articles. This is the reason why I feel compelled to distribute this booklet.
To do justice to the matter published in “The Gospel Banner” and to inform those who do not subscribe to this publication, I will quote those sections of the classis report that relate to this matter, as well as the article “Church Schism” in full.
The classis report quotes:
“Incoming correspondence:
Appeals from Chatham and St. Thomas. The delegates of these congregations cannot agree with the decisions of the previous classis meeting to call home missionaries for the young immigrant congregations in Canada. They are of the opinion that this type of care for the new congregations and groups in Canada is unbiblical and contrary to church order. For this reason they have submitted appeals to the classis.
It is indicated that other denominations in Canada, e.g. the Christian Reformed Church, have been taught by experience that the practice of sending home missionaries to fledgling congregations and small groups of believers is beneficial.
The classis pronounces that the decision to from now on call home missionaries is for the wellbeing of these groups and congregations. The care of the young immigrant congregations was already discussed earlier at the classis meeting of September 24, 1952, and has now been brought to our table by Smithville.
The representatives of St. Thomas are spoken to, because they have completely ignored the decision of the classis. They are asked if they, in the future, will submit to the decisions of the major assembly (classis).
They answer that they will never submit to the classical decisions regarding home missionaries, because they consider this decision to be in conflict with the scriptures and church order.
The classis pronounces that, if St. Thomas continues to disregard the classical decisions, they will immediately be dealt with according to church order.
Following this the delegates of the church of St. Thomas leave the meeting. The delegates from the Chatham church follow their example, because they do not agree with the decisions of the classis.”
End of the quotation from the classis report.
Rev. Tamminga has (together with the churches of Chatham and St. Thomas) torn these churches out of our denomination. He shouldered the responsibility to lead two churches in schism out of the denomination, without having lawful grounds.
Rev. Tamminga and the congregations he is leading are objecting, because our classis decided , that in the future young immigrant congregations in Canada will be served by home missionaries, until such time that they are able to look after their own finances. Rev. Tamminga said at the classis meeting that the appointment of home missionaries is unscriptural and un-church orderly. He declared that he did not have the least objection to the preaching in the Old Christian Reformed Church, but because of the adoption of the above decision no longer wanted to be associated with the denomination.
It is unbelievably sad when a minister leaves his church for only a practical matter such as the appointment of home missionaries. No one in the Old Christian Reformed Church has forced Rev. Tamminga to leave, he voluntarily took this step.
We lament very much that he has so superficially torn the church and attempts to begin a new denomination. It is our desire that he will return straightway from the path he has chosen.
The Lord himself cares for His church, and this is a consolation for all His poor and upright people. The Lord himself judges all our actions, particularly when we receive a place in the church, each shall, before God, give an account of his actions. Let us pray for the peace of Jerusalem and the unity of God’s Church.”
End of quote from “The Gospel Banner”.
Friday, June 1, 2007
CHURCH PLANTING AND CHURCH ORDER
A subject which seems to have broad interest in our churches at this time is the founding of new congregations. This is a relatively new development for our denomination, and it is a good one. It means that the churches are seeing their calling to preach the Gospel in all places and are seizing opportunities where they present themselves. At the same time, many questions are being asked regarding this new development. The questions which live in our midst are not new and have been dealt with before by the churches. In this article I will attempt to bring the history and practice of Reformed Church Order and polity to your attention. It most areas it provides clear and unambiguous direction. The purpose of this article is to share information with you on the following matters.
Church Planting and Church Order
by C.A. VanDoodewaard
1. The Church and the Church Order
The church order is a body of rules for the maintenance of good order in the churches. The authority of church order is based upon the Biblical demand of submission to duly appointed government. That church government is of very great import to the church goes with out saying. A church that is not governed according to the Word of God will not remain true to the Word of God. Impurity in church government fosters impurity in doctrine.
The church order should not be considered a legalistic document or a book of laws in the civil sense of the meaning of law. The church order consists of rules and regulations mutually agreed upon, by common consent. It does not force and compel. The church order is not superimposed upon the churches, demanding unreasonable and legalistic obedience.
We may never let go of the fact that the Church Order is founded on Scriptural principles. Although we know that the church as institution cannot be equated with the invisible church which is a congregation of the elect, it is, nevertheless, necessary that the church in its adherence to God's Word in confession, practice, activities, government and discipline, displays that it is the body of Christ. For this reason it is necessary that the church orderly principles laid down in the church order are honoured by the churches.
These principles were not only recognized in our continental Reformed churches, but were equally valid in the English churches of the Reformation. Especially the Church of Scotland emphasized strongly that the churches adhere to church order. "Therefore this power and policie of the Kirk sould leane upon the Word immediatie, as the onlie ground thereof, and sould be take from the pure fountaines of the scriptures, the kirk hearing the voyce of Christ the onlie spirituall king, and being rewlit be his lawes." In its further explanation the Scottish "Kirk" takes great care to prove that the order is Scriptural in all points.
The church order guides and directs so that all things may be done "decently and in good order," as the Bible enjoins. The church order is based solidly on Scriptural principles and historic facts.
2. How Many Members are Required for the Institution of a New Congregation?
The Church Order doesn't specify a definite figure. Some say twenty to twenty-five families are sufficient to institute a church; others say twelve professing male members. The churches have never set a definite figure, and wisely so. When prospects for growth and expansion are favourable, a very small number of families and individuals are sufficient to organize themselves into a separate congregation.
3. How Many Consistory Members are Required to Start a New Congregation?
Generally, the minimum should be three. This means one minister and one elder and one deacon, or two elders and one deacon.
4. Who can Start a New Congregation, and How Should this be Done?
One very important church order principle which underlies church formation is that a new church can only be started by individual members. The church order clearly recognizes the right of individual believers to start a church. They do not have to apply to a consistory. Their application for recognition and for beginning the institution of a congregation should be directed to classis (in our case synod).
What is the proper procedure? All professing members of Reformed persuasion who desire a Free Reformed Church in a new locality where presently no Free Reformed Church exists and who wish to join this proposed new church, sign a petition addressed to classis (synod), requesting the approval and assistance of classis (synod).
Why does church order require this? Why does this group of individuals not approach their own or a neighbouring consistory for help, but instead, is directed by church order to petition the classis (synod)? This is because the institution of a new church is the responsibility of believers. A new church is not formed from above, by a consistory, by a classis or by a synod, as in the Roman Catholic church, but can only be formed by a group of individual believers. In the Reformed churches, groups of believers, although too small to be fully organized, do constitute a church.
It is possible that classis (synod) agrees immediately with the petitioning brothers and sisters, and will right away appoint a consistory to take care of the institution of a church. More often this request will come to classis in a very elementary stage during the development of the group. Then a neighbouring consistory is appointed to help and assist.
This appointment is based on church order which specifies that classis (synod) shall designate a consistory to care for the group. Thus the new group is supported by the love and care of the church through the ministrations of a neighbouring consistory.
For a group to become a congregation, the offices have to be instituted. These special offices (elder, deacon and pastor) are derived from the office of believer. Becoming a congregation is a vital action of the church, because the church, wherever it manifests itself, has the duty to form a local congregation. This is not merely an option, but it is a requisite.
5. Who has Authority?
Reformed church order holds that each local congregation is a manifestation of Christ's church. No matter how small, each local congregation is independent and autonomous. The apostles sent letters to the individual churches and installed office bearers in each congregation, irrespective of size.
Calvin teaches that in principle all original authority belongs to the local congregation--the believers. Dr. H. Bouwman, an eminent scholar on the subject of church order, says that in connection with these (Calvinistic) principles the Reformed church teaches that the members themselves form the church. He posits further that when a congregation is to be organized and the offices have not yet been instituted, the members of the congregation will act, with the assistance of neighbouring church(es), in accordance with the office of all believers, to install members into the offices.
There is an original right of the believers to form their own congregation. The offices themselves emerge out of the congregation. Voetius says in relation to this that the church is an assembly of believers.
We see, therefore, that a new, local church formation does not take place from above, but from below, by the members themselves. It is clear that the institution of the offices springs forth from the office of all believers, but will usually not be exercised, except with the assistance of classis. Exceptions are churches in isolation, which may institute offices themselves without the assistance of classis, because there are no other churches available to help. Mission churches may be examples of this exception.
6. What is the Duty of Classis (Synod)?
"The classis [synod] has a duty to assist, so that the institution of these churches will become a fact" (Synod 1586). This pronouncement was not meant to convey that classis has the power to install a new consistory, but that the classis (synod) should give assistance and administer supervision, so that the institution of churches and offices occurs according to church order.
This does not mean that normally a new church can be instituted without the help of a neighbouring consistory. In normal circumstances it cannot and it is not desirable. Church order stipulates that the members who wish to start a new congregation approach classis (synod), which will then appoint a consistory to assist these members who are under the supervision of classis (synod). It is the task of classis (synod) to help these members institute a new congregation, even under adverse conditions. The classis recognizes this new beginning as a sister congregation, even in its formative stage. That is why the supervision of the developing congregation is formally not with the neighbouring consistory, but with the classis (synod).
The criteria for the institution of a new church by classis (synod) are the following, according to Bouwman, an esteemed Reformed church order authority:
1) whether the initiative has arisen with the believers themselves;
2) whether there is the urgent desire among these believers to have their own local church, distinct from other congregations;
3) whether the formation of a new church is in the best interest of these believers;
4) whether there are brothers available who can serve in the offices.
Why does the church order prescribe classis (synod) approval? As a matter of good policy, as a matter of common consent and wisdom, and not as a matter of superior authority. If Synod decides against the organization of a new church, then the matter must wait. The petitioning group cannot proceed against the advice of classis (synod).
A classis (synod) can never decide to organize a church without a request to do so from the brothers and sisters concerned. Notice that it is not the consistory of the neighbouring church which controls or requests this, but the believers themselves. Reformed church polity seeks, under Christ, to do full justice to the rights of every believer.
Major assemblies may never infringe upon the rights of local churches. If no local church exists, the right of individual believers to establish a new church is primary and precedes the rights of existing area churches.
Classis (synod) will help the members until institution, but when the offices have been instituted, they will withdraw their involvement. In areas where there is potential for the institution of a congregation, the classis (synod) should encourage individual believers to take the necessary steps for church organization.
7. What is the Duty of the Advising Consistory?
The consistory alone possesses the authority of Christ to preach the Gospel, to administer the sacraments and to administer Christian discipline. It is entrusted with the rule of Christ's sheep. It alone has authority in the church and it is the only assembly vested with direct authority from Christ. The sphere of its authority extends to the spiritual life and gathering of the church through the preaching of the Gospel. The only power and authority of the church is the persuasive power and authority of the Word of God. Therefore, the consistory, not classis or synod, has the authority to preach the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to exercise discipline. A consistory calls a synod to meet as an assembly, evidence of the principle of the authority of the consistory.But seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no church at all, or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting salvation. Our indulgence ought to extend much farther in tolerating imperfection of conduct. For there always have been persons who, imbued with a false persuasion of absolute holiness, as if they already become a kind of aerial spirits, spurn the society of all in whom they see that something human still remains. Thinking there is no church where there is not complete purity and integrity of conduct, they, through hatred of wickedness, withdraw from the genuine church, while they think they are shunning the company of the ungodly. If the Lord declares that the church will labour under the defect of being burdened with a multitude of wicked until the day of judgment, it is vain to look for a church which is altogether free of defects.
The consistory alone possesses the authority of Christ to preach the Gospel, to administer the sacraments and to administer Christian discipline. It is entrusted with the rule of Christ's sheep. It alone has authority in the church and it is the only assembly vested with direct authority from Christ. The sphere of its authority extends to the spiritual life and gathering of the church through the preaching of the Gospel. The only power and authority of the church is the persuasive power and authority of the Word of God. Therefore, the consistory, not classis or synod, has the authority to preach the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to exercise discipline. A consistory calls a synod to meet as an assembly, evidence of the principle of the authority of the consistory.
In organizing the new congregation, the appointed consistory determines the number of office bearers to be chosen and oversees the election of office bearers. It should be noted that the authority to do this is a delegated authority by classis (synod), and does not rest in the consistory. The consistory merely acts as authorized advisor and guide on behalf of classis, and is responsible to give an account to classis for all actions undertaken for the benefit of this sister group.
It is possible that some of the individual members of this developing congregation resort under a neighbouring consistory, (and may continue to resort with it for some time to come). Despite this fact, the consistory does not have control over the new, developing congregation. It has the position of advisor and helper, will respect the autonomy of the developing (sister) church, and support it with sisterly counsel. The developing congregation cannot yet act for itself because it has no offices, but it has been recognized by classis (synod) and is now entitled to the loving care and encouragement of the designated neighbouring consistory.
There is something beautiful in the fact that not just one consistory takes oversight of this new, developing congregation, but that all the churches together, act in concert as classis (synod) and support this new, developing congregation with love and care and take responsibility for its growth and survival until it reaches a level of maturity.
The responsibilities of the advising consistory can also be somewhat of a burden for that consistory. For instance, conducting two extra worship services every Lord's day at another location can be demanding, even though it may be done with joy. The local pastor, if there is one, will be required to preach more often and also reading services may need to be held, placing an additional duty on the elders of the assisting consistory. This extra work load can be lightened by the generous assistance of other pastors of the classis (synod) who are willing to assist this classical (synodical) project.
Church order commentators indicate that this work of advising the group can also be done by a classical committee, rather than by a local consistory. Preference is to be given to do this by a consistory, however.
The consistory will keep a separate membership register for the developing congregation, distinct from its own records, thereby recognizing the separate identity of this group. The group cannot yet act for itself. It has no offices, but it has been recognized by synod and is now entitled to the loving care and encouragement of the neighbouring consistory, which will respect and help it as if it were a sister congregation in need.
8. When Should Regular Worship Services Be Held?
After classical (synodical) recognition of the group, the appointed consistory helps the group to organize worship services and provides office bearers to lead these. It is, of course, impossible to have a normal church life if regular worship services are not held. As a logical first step, in keeping with the request of the members who wish to organize a local, independent manifestation of the body of Christ, two services should be held at the earliest opportunity.
How large should the group be in order to hold two worship services? Most church order commentators suggest that the best approach for the success of the undertaking is to commence two services right away, even if there is only a very small group. The sponsoring consistory should do all it can to promote a regular church life as early as possible in the development of the new congregation. The goal is institution as soon as feasible.
9. What is a Home Mission Station?
Of course, there also is the possibility of calling a home missionary to provide considerable relief for the appointed consistory, and more importantly, provide superior, dedicated encouragement and labour to build the church in the new location. Our Free Reformed Synod of 1987 recognized the need to form new congregations and provided the possibility of home mission stations and missionaries.
10. What About Local Members who do not Wish to Join?
Members who do not want to join, although they live in the same community as the new church, are not compelled to join. They may have lived all their "church life" in another congregation and feel that is where they belong. Church order allows for that and these members may rightfully stay with the church to which they belong. According to church order, new members moving into the area should join the local church, however. Our churches have always been tolerant in these matters and have been considerate of church and family ties.
11. The Unique Character of Every Congregation
Must a congregation be totally identical to the church from which most of its members originated in order to be recognized as a church? Calvin gives his opinion on this subject. The words of the apostle are "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." The best thing, indeed, according go Calvin, is to be perfectly agreed.
Basically, Calvin states (a little rashly, I believe) that we have to be considerate of each other, not wishing to impose that the new church be identical to every other congregation. In Scripture we notice that this diversity of the churches is very visible, for instance in the church of Laodicea as compared with the church of Corinth or Rome. Each church had its own peculiar characteristics and shortcomings. Similarly, a new church will not be identical to any of our existing Free Reformed congregations, but will have its own distinctiveness and characteristics.
12. Concluding Remarks
The task of the church is a glorious one. It is to bring the Gospel to all nations and peoples and places. This means that classis (synod) should not sit and wait until petitioners come to ask for approval and assistance of the churches. Classis (synod) should be active and eager to organize new churches wherever groups of believers belonging to our churches, or desiring to join us, are found to be in need of a church of their own. Every opportunity should be utilized to fulfil this calling. Essential in this all is that we propagate and further the Scriptural and distinctive Free Reformed preaching and teaching and reach out with care and compassion to those around us. They too need the Gospel. Are we doing enough?
Bibliography:
*Bouwman, Dr. G. Gereformeerd Kerkrecht.
*Brink, William; and DeRidder, Richard R. Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government.
*Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion.
*Church Order, Free Reformed Churches.
*Hanko, Professor H. Notes on the Church Order, Protestant Reformed Churches.
*Home Mission Order, Free Reformed Churches.
*Jansen, H.J. Korte Verklaring van de Kerkorde.
*Kerkorde van de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, 1984.
*Rutgers, Dr. F.L. Kerkelijke Adviezen.
*Second Book of Discipline of the Kirk of Scotland.
*VanDellen and Monsma, The Revised Church Order Commentary, Zondervan, 1975;
*Voetius, G. Political Ecclesiastica; English translation.
Footnotes:
(1) VanDellen and Monsma; Preface;
(2) Jansen, Vol. I, page 10;
(3) Second Book of Discipline of the Kirk of Scotland, Ch.I,7.;
(4) Jansen, p.172;
(5) Ibid., p.172;
(6) VanDellen and Monsma, 160:5;
(7) Church Order of the Free Reformed Churches, Art.38;
(8) VanDellen and Monsma, 159:4;
(9) Ibid., 160:5;
(10) Church Order of the Free Reformed Churches, Art.39,
(11) Brink and DeRidder,I, p.173;
(12) Romans 16:5; I Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:14; Acts 14:23;
(13) Calvin, IV 6,9,10;
(14) VanDellen and Monsma, p.102;
(15) Ibid., p.102,
(16) Voetius, I:42;
(17) Jansen, p.172,
(18) VanDellen and Monsma, p.108,
(19) Ibid., p.105,
(20) Church Order, Free Reformed Churches, Art.38/9,
(21) Bouwman, Vol.II, p.108,
(22) Ibid., Vol.II, p.108
(23) VanDellen and Monsma, p.160;
(24) Ibid., p.160:4,
(25) Jansen, p.172,
(26) VanDellen and Monsma, Vol.II, p.109,
(27) Ibid., p.161;
(28) Ibid., p.158/160;
(29) Ibid., p.158,
(30) Ibid., 159:4;
(31) Home Mission Order, Free Reformed Churches, Supplement 18, p.59;
(32) Calvin, II,IV,I,12;
(33) Philippians 3:15;
(34) VanDellen and Monsma, p.160.
published in The Messenger October and December 1994.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)