The “Spirit”
or the “Text” of the Church Order
1.
INTRODUCTION
On his
website, officebearers.com, Rev. Karlo Janssen discusses ways of reading and
understanding the Church Order (CO). He notes two kinds of legal framework that
can influence the way we interpret and apply it. Both are found in Western
European nations: civil law and common law.
Janssen writes,
In civil law, law is developed through statutes adopted through the
legislative process or through regulations issued by the executive arm of
government.
In common law, law is developed by judges through court decisions.
Common law is also known as case law or precedent. The common law system is
practised by most jurisdictions that are historically connected to England.
Civil law is practised in most other regions…[1]
In both systems both the legislation and the application of law have
authority. The difference relates to the weight of authority attributed to
legislation and application. Under civil law, the legislator has the higher
authority. Under common law, the judiciary (courts) has the higher authority.
However,
this is not completely accurate. Rather, in the British Parliamentary tradition,
it is Parliament that makes the laws, the executive that administers the laws,
and the judiciary that interprets but does not make or administer the laws. When the courts take on the role of making the
law, we call it “judicial activism.” We
saw that in Canada, for example, when parliament defined marriage as a union
between one man and one woman, but the courts redefined marriage as a union
between two persons and allowed same-sex marriage to be protected by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The courts reinterpreted the Charter, discovering
new rights by the spirit or the newly discovered intent of the Charter.
The
Church Order regulates our intra-federational relationships. The churches, by
common accord, have agreed to be governed by the CO. By way of this common accord,
the churches entered a covenant. And as we know so well, every covenant has two
parts: promise and obligation. Our obligation as churches and office bearers is
to diligently observe the CO (CO 76); our promise is to refrain from “lording
it over” other churches and office bearers (CO 74). It is, therefore, essential
to understand what CO Article 76 means when it says that the assemblies and
office bearers “shall endeavour diligently to observe the Church Order,” which
was adopted by common accord by the churches. Do we promise to observe the
plain reading of the text of the CO, or are we bound by every synod’s new
insight into the spirit of the CO, or by a recently discovered intent of the CO?
Does our promise to diligently observe the Church Order include novel interpretations
based on a perceived principle?
This article
will review several cases where, on appeal, our General Synods (GS) have rejected
“judicial activism” and subsequently reversed decisions based on “the spirit” of
the CO or on a newly discovered “intent.” From these decisions, we can
formulate several axioms (or fundamental rules) which must govern our reading
and application of the CO. and will guard against synodical overreach.
2.
SYNOD DECISIONS
2.1 GS Dunnville 2016 - Article 87
2.1.1
History
GS Carman
2013 sustained several appeals against the decision of GS Burlington 2010 which
judged the matter of “women’s voting” to be a “local matter.” After reviewing
many arguments from the Scriptures, for and against, as well as arguments from
the CO, GS Burlington 2010 in Article 176 adopted the following in
Recommendation 4.3.
That any arrangement for the election of office bearers that goes beyond
what has been agreed upon by the churches in Article 3 CO is a matter of the
local regulations adopted for that purpose by the consistory with the deacons.
This
decision quotes CO Article 3, paragraph 2. GS Burlington 2010 thus found
its authority in the adopted order and judged that whether women cast a ballot
in the election of office-bearers was not a matter for the churches in common
to regulate but left it in the freedom of the local church. By recognizing this
freedom, the churches avoided the tyranny of synodically enforced uniformity of
practice.
However,
GS Carman 2013, sustained several appeals against the decision of GS Burlington
2010. In granting those appeals in Article 110, GS Carman 2013 asserted that
the commonly accepted practice had authority with respect to women
participating in the election of office bearers. This synod called upon
repeated statements recorded in the Acts of previous synods that the matter was
federational and needed to be decided by the churches in common. It made this
ruling even though it noted that none of the cited references recorded in the
Acts gave grounds for this assertion! Nevertheless, it was on this basis that
GS Carman 2013 argued that this long-standing practice “had
authority.” The Synod argued the following in its Consideration 3.3.
None of the synodical pronouncements mentioned above have explained why
the churches have considered this matter as belonging to the churches in
common. But over the years, this was the commonly accepted practice. This
practice has the more authority because churches repeatedly stated that the
matter was federational.
Based on
the argument that “practice has authority,” GS Carman 2013 adopted under
its Recommendations:
That
Synod decide:
4.1. That Synod Burlington 2010 erred on church political grounds in its
decision to leave the matter of women’s voting in the freedom of the churches;
4.3. That the churches should return to the voting practice as it
officially was before 2010, namely, male communicant members only voting.
By
adopting these recommendations, GS Carman 2013 granted “practice” to have
“authority’ in the churches (4.1). The synod thus limited the freedom of the
local church that the CO recognized (4.1) and directed the churches to
uniformity of practice (4.3). In adopting recommendation 4.3, this Synod
clearly overstepped the boundaries of its authority when it instructed the
churches on what they should do!
2.1.2
Appeals
GS
Dunnville 2016, in Article 87, received numerous appeals with arguments from
Scripture and from church polity. In its observations and considerations, this
GS interacted with the many arguments set forth by the appellants. GS Dunnville
2016 judged that GS Carman 2013 erred in its decision to sustain the appeals
against GS Burlington 2010’s decision to leave the matter of women's voting in
the freedom of the local church.
GS
Dunnville 2016 adopted the following recommendations:
That
Synod decide:
5.1 GS Carman 2013 erred in that it did not prove that GS Burlington
2010 Article 176 Rec. 4.3 was in conflict with Scripture (CO 31);
5.2 GS Carman 2013 erred in that it did not prove that GS Burlington
2010 Article 176 Rec. 4.3 was in conflict with the Church Order (CO 31);
5.3 GS Carman 2013 erred in overturning the decision of GS Burlington
2010, which adopted in Article 176 Recommendation 4.3:
That any arrangement for the election of office bearers that goes beyond
what has been agreed upon by the churches in Article 3 CO is a matter of the
local regulations, adopted for that purpose by the consistory with the deacons.
2.1.3 Conclusion
Synod
Dunnville 2016 judged that GS Carman 2013 erred in its decision, which was
based substantially on its argument that “practice has authority.” GS Dunville
2016 agreed with the decision of GS Burlington 2010 and defended the freedom of
the local church by arguing instead from the authority of the Word of God and
the CO. By reaffirming the decision of GS Burlington 2010, GS Dunnville 2016
judged that where there was no explicit regulation in the CO, the churches had
the freedom and competence as well as the authority and responsibility to draft
their own regulations. From this, we can form our first axiom.
We affirm that the Church Order regulates matters that affect the
churches in common. Where there is no explicit regulation, the churches have
the responsibility and authority to draft their own regulations independently.
We will not concede that responsibility and authority where there is no
explicit regulation directing the churches to a shared responsibility.
GS
Dunnville 2016 also rightly called on CO 31. Only Scripture and the CO are the
touchstones of authority and authenticity, not past practices nor repeated
statements of synods. We bind no one to more than the Word of God (and then
Article 76 adds) and their own word. We are bound by God’s Word, and we bind
ourselves to our promise to endeavour diligently to observe the articles of the
adopted order (CO 76). With the Belgic Confession, we testify against the
tyranny of those who would bind the consciences of others to the traditions of
the church. We confess in the Belgic Confession Article 7 that:
We may not consider any writings of men… of equal value with the divine
Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or
antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or
statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God.
Nor do we
hold to custom or past practice, or multitude, or history, or great men, or
synods, or decrees and judgments above the word we have given in the CO. With
GS Dunnville 2016 and Burlington 2010, we defend the responsibility and
independence, as well as the competence and authority of the local church,
within the bond of churches, to draft and adopt regulations for the life of the
congregation, even if those regulations do not reflect common practices in the
churches or are not modelled after long-standing traditions. Only the Word of
God and our own word to observe the adopted CO, bind our consciences. This is
the heartbeat or the life-breath of Reformed Church Polity clearly expressed in
CO 31: unless directed by the Word of God or plainly set forth in the literal
reading of the adopted CO, we bind no one's conscience.
We can
form our second Axiom from GS Dunnville 2016’s decision:
We affirm that the Word of God binds us and that we bind ourselves to
the common consent given in CO 76. (See also CO 31). We did not agree to
bind ourselves to follow the traditions of men or to slavishly uphold common
practices of a plurality of the churches.
2.2 Carman 2013 Article 48
2.2.1 History
When the
churches mandated the Standing Committee for the Book of Praise to
revise the metrical psalms, the committee issued several bundles of unbound
revisions to the churches. Many churches began to use the revised versions in
worship services immediately, prior to their adoption by a GS, as regulated by
CO 55.
2.2.2
Appeals
Synod
Carman 2013, in Article 48, sustained an appeal against a decision of GS
Burlington 2010 Article 171 concerning this use of revised psalms in worship
services. In its decision, GS Burlington 2010 denied an appeal against a
decision of RSW 2009. In consideration 3.2 of GS Burlington 2010, we read:
The diligent observation of the articles of the CO (Article 76)
frequently requires that their provisions be interpreted, and their true intent
discerned, so that they can be properly applied. In principle, therefore, it
was not wrong for RSW 2009 to speak about “the intent” of Article 55.
Further,
we can read in consideration 3.5:
The issue, therefore, is not simply “What does the article say?” It is
rather, “How should the churches apply Article 55…?” It was proper, therefore,
for RSW 2009 to use the historical practice of the churches in that regard in
order to come to a conclusion about [the] appeal.
In
sustaining the appeal against GS Burlington 2010, GS Carman 2013 Art 48, argued
in Consideration 3.1
It is important that the churches maintain what has been agreed upon in
the CO and not move away from the literal reading of its articles by
distinguishing between the plain or literal reading and the intent or spirit of
the CO. The literal reading expresses the intent of the articles.
In the
adopted recommendations of GS Carman 2013, we find
That Synod decide that Synod Burlington 2010 erred when approving
Regional Synod West 2009’s distinction between the literal reading and the
intent of the CO in the application of Article 55.
2.2.3
Conclusion
GS
Burlington 2010 denied appeals of the RSW 2009 decision. GS Burlington 2010
made a distinction between “What does the article say?” and “How should the
churches apply Article 55?” In its attempt to discern the implied intent of the
CO, GS Burlington 2010 accepted the decision of RSW 2009 when it interpreted CO
Article 55 in light of past practices of the churches. However, the principle
of Reformed Church Polity being upheld by GS Carman 2013 Is that only the Word
of God and the CO need to be consulted to judge a matter. Past practices,
policies, and opinions do not define the intent of the CO. Churches are not
bound by historical practice (Axiom 2). The literal reading expresses the
intent of the articles.
This then
forms our third axiom.
We affirm that the literal reading of the CO expresses the intent of the
articles. We reject subjective arguments based on the perceived “spirit of the
CO,” or discovered “principles,” or the presumed “intent of the CO.”
2.3. GS Guelph 2022 Article 142
2.3.1
History
On Good
Friday 2019, the Flamborough-Redemption consistory invited the congregation to
a commemoration service. The consistory did not call the congregation to a
worship service. Classis Central Ontario June 2019 denied an appeal concerning
this matter and affirmed that:
Redemption Church, by inviting members and visitors to a ‘commemorative
service’ (and not calling them to an official worship service) on Good Friday,
fulfilled the obligations of articles 52, 53, & 55 of the Church Order.
Subsequently,
RSE 2019 sustained an appeal against the decision of classis. It gave as one of
its reasons (in its Consideration 4) that the churches must read CO Article 53
in conjunction with CO Article 52.
2.3.2
Appeal
Flamborough-Redemption
appealed this decision to GS Guelph 2022. The GS sustained the appeal in
Article 142 and gave as Grounds in 4.1 that:
RSE 2019, in Consideration 4, is unconvincing in arguing that the
churches must read CO Art. 53 in conjunction with CO Art. 52. Distinct articles
in the CO are distinct for a reason. If the intent of the CO is to require that
the consistory shall call the congregation together for worship on the Lord’s
Day and on other days that commemorate events surrounding the life and ministry
of Christ, then one article would be sufficient. Nevertheless, there are two
articles which are distinct. There are common elements such as a reference to
the consistory; however, where the one specifies “shall call,” the other does
not. Where one says “worship,” the other says “commemorate.” Where one uses the
phrase “in the manner decided upon by the consistory,” the other does not.
RSE
2019 Article 10 interpreted Article 53 through the lens of Article 52. This
made it possible for the regional synod to import conclusions not warranted by
the Articles of the CO. Just because there are common elements in some Articles
of the CO does not mean that one must be used to interpret the other.
2.3.3. Conclusion
This
synod judged that we should not read into an article of the CO something regulated
by another article. Distinct articles in the CO are distinct for a reason,
leading us to our fourth Axiom.
We affirm that the articles are separated as individual articles for a
reason. We will not read something regulated by one article into another article.
3.
Four Axioms
The GSs have consistently granted appeals against
decisions that placed tradition or past practice as a rule to interpret the CO.
The synods have also rejected attempts to interpret the spirit of the CO or attempts
to discover the intent of the CO. From these decisions, we have formulated the
following four axioms.
1. We affirm that the Church Order regulates matters that affect the
churches in common. Where there is no explicit regulation, the churches have
the responsibility and authority to draft their own regulations independently.
We will not concede that responsibility and authority where there is no
explicit regulation directing the churches to a shared responsibility.
2. We affirm that the Word of God binds us and that we bind ourselves to
the common consent given in CO 76. (See also CO 31). We did not agree to
bind ourselves to follow the traditions of men or to slavishly uphold common
practices of a plurality of the churches.
3. We affirm that the literal reading of the CO expresses the intent of
the articles. We reject subjective arguments based on the perceived “spirit of
the CO,” or discovered “principles,” or the presumed “intent of the CO.”
4. We affirm that the articles are separated as individual articles for
a reason. We will not read something regulated by one article into another article.
When our
broader assemblies judge matters within the framework of these four axioms, the
churches will not be tempted to “lord it over” others and will ensure a
peaceful relationship between the various churches in the federation.
[1] Civil law
finds its roots in the Napoleonic Code and forms the present-day legal framework
in most Western continental European countries, including the Netherlands.
