Confession of Faith: Article XXXI

The previous article of the Confession of Faith spoke about spiritual polity, or form of government. We have seen that it is not a kind of worldly government, such as we have in our cities. It pleases the Lord to govern His church by spiritual overseers. In the world, if you want to have a certain job in the government, you study and then apply for it. But in the church of God it is entirely different. We must emphasize this difference, for this article speaks about ministers, elders, and deacons as the spiritual government. They are, and ought to be, chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election of the church. The article says, “Therefore every one must take heed, not to intrude himself,” not to bring himself in, not to force himself in, “by indecent means, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him.”

This is different from the world. There you do not wait until they call you. In general it is the other way around. You apply for and seek that position. But it is not so in the church of God. We read in several places about the spiritual overseers. The Lord says, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” And He says in Acts 20:28, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers.”

So it is a work of God to make a person an office-bearer. However, he is chosen by men, by people. In Acts 6:3 we read also of the choosing of deacons, “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” And of the appointing of elders we read in Acts 14:23, “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” So it is clear that this choosing takes place by means of man.

No one may have an office without being called by God. And then we should distinguish between two kinds of callings: first, an internal call, and secondly, an external call. We need both. Arnoldus of Rotterdam says, “In order to have an inward calling there must be an inward desire which God works in the heart, a desire to do the work for which one is prepared by God and equipped, out of the love toward God in Christ for the best of His church.” Then it is the Lord who wins the heart over, who conquers the heart and grants the gifts and qualifications. This He does in two ways. He does it in a mediate way, for ministers by their being taught in a theological school, being instructed and prepared; and for elders and deacons by their reading and searching the Scriptures and the works of the fathers. But there is also a qualification which takes place immediately; that is the qualification by the unction of the Holy Spirit. We need both.

In the past the Lord has also called people from behind the plow in the field, without any education, to be men of wisdom on the pulpit, and He has sometimes given them a very extraordinary measure of the Holy Spirit; but the ordinary way is that the Lord uses means. Our fathers have emphasized that, and we should not be wiser than they. A minister has to prepare for his sermon, for his speaking. Also office-bearers may be taught; they have to seek instruction continually. Even then, however, we might still be missing the unction of the Holy Spirit. And that is what the Lord also gives to those whom He places in His vineyard, to the one in a greater measure than to the other.

Three ways of calling

The external calling takes place by the members, under the leading of the office-bearers. There are three ways to elect office-bearers:

a. The so-called aristocratic way.

b. The democratic way.

c. A combination of the above two ways, the aristocratic/democratic way.

The French churches in the time of the Reformation used the aristocratic way, which means that the consistory elects the office-bearers. Those members who are chosen by the consistory are presented to the membership for approbation. The members can either approve or bring in objections.

The democratic way was used only by a church of refugees in London under the leading of á Lasco. This democratic way means that the congregation makes a list of nominations by a free vote. This list is given to the consistory, who in turn elects from that list the elders and deacons deemed necessary for the congregation.

The third method is the aristocratic/democratic way, which was practiced in the Scottish churches, as indicated in the Scottish church order, as well as in the churches in the southern Netherlands. This method implies that the consistory nominates twice as many people as positions and then brings the names to the congregration. The congregation elects the office-bearers and thus also has the right of approbation. In our churches we use this third method of election. There are situations where the first method can be used — for instance, when the name of an office-bearer who will be sent out with a special task is presented to the members for approbation. This is, however, quite unusual. We almost always practice the third method of election.

The election of ministers, or the calling of ministers, takes place by means of the consistory. Our church order says, “After having heard the congregation.” Today this means bringing it to a vote by the members. In this way the consistory knows the preference of the congregation when a duo is presented. The consistory then presents the call to the minister on behalf of the congregation. It is the Lord, however—indeed, it is Christ Himself—who chooses His servants through the vote of the members under the leadership of the consistory.

We read in Rev. De Gier’s explanation, “The Reformed churches, following Calvin, who is called the father of the Presbyterian church view, warned that the consistory should not be considered as a board of a society which executes its power with the permission of the members and is accountable unto them, but as men which rule in the name of Christ, to whom they must give an account.” Therefore the Church Order of 1618-19 states that the leading of, and the decision by, election is in the hands of the consistory. Why did our fathers emphasize that so much?

Two dangers

We have already mentioned that there are two dangers in regard to church government. There is the danger of hierarchy, that is, that the members are not involved in the election at all. Even the aristocratic method of election is not the way which we prefer, because then the members may only say, “Yes” or “No.” Therefore we use the aristocratic/democratic way, in which the membership is fully involved, but in which the Reformed principle of church structure is fully maintained. Thus we also reject the views of the Independents. The Independents taught that the election of officebearers takes place by the members alone, immediately, and not from a duo or from candidates presented by the consistory. They also did not want to recognize any authority of major assemblies, of classes or synods. They brought the office back to a kind of board of a society which is accountable to the members of that society.

Our fathers were very much afraid of going into the direction of Independentism, but they were also afraid of hierarchy.

The government

Luther and Zwingli went in the other direction. They gave all the power and authority for calling and election to the government. It was the government which had the say in the appointment of ministers to certain places and which also had the power to reject them. That influence of the government was evident even in the Reformed churches of the Reformation, in the Calvinist churches of the Netherlands. In the times of our beloved forefathers — I think of Wilhelmus a Brakel — it happened, for instance, that the city government, the mayor and his assistants, and the city board, had a right to undo a certain calling by a church. They could say they had objections to a certain person and that they did not want him in that city. There were at times real struggles for the church to maintain or to attain its own right of electing, voting, and calling its office-bearers. The government always tried to have an influence in those appointments. Luther and Zwingli agreed with this position of the government. In their view, a minister should just shepherd and preach, and the government should be left to the state.

This is, however, absolutely against Scripture, for then we mix two areas, two entities, together. We believe that each has its own area in which to reign. The government has a task regarding the church — to protect the church and to take care of the outward prosperity of the church — but it may not reign within the church. Yet that often happened; even in the last century King William I used his authority to commission the government officials to compose new regulations for the state church; and so the king really became the head of the church. This is against this article. Calvin also warned against this.

— to be continued —

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen