01.02.03. Development of Church Polity in the Netherlands
Chapter 3.
Development of Church Polity in the Netherlands The concept of church government gleaned by Bucer and Calvin from the pages of Holy Scripture found fertile soil in the reformed churches of Scotland, France and the Netherlands. Historical developments in France in the years after the Great Reformation virtually snuffed out the Reformed Churches in that country. Reformed church polity on the European continent, therefore, came to its own in the developments in the Netherlands. It is to this country, then, that we ought to turn to see continental reformed church polity in practice. Here is the seedbed for the Church Order of Dort.
1. Background History In 1561, Guido deBres completed his Belgic Confession. In Articles 30-32 he made confession of what he learned from God’s Word about the basic principles of church government. Says deBres: "We believe that this true Church must be governed according to the Spiritual order which our Lord has taught us in His Word. There should be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and to administer the sacraments; there should also be elders and deacons who, together with the pastors, form the council of the Church. By these means they preserve the true religion" (Article 30). DeBres went on to confess what God revealed in His Word about how office-bearers receive their office. "We believe that ministers of God’s Word 53 elders, and deacons ought to he chosen to their offices by lawful election of the Church, with prayer and in good order, as stipulated by the Word of God" (Article 31). Again: "We believe that, although it is useful and good for those who govern the Church to establish a certain order to maintain the body of the Church, they must at all times watch that they do not deviate from what Christ, our only Master, has commanded" (Article 32). As we read and consider this material, we need to bear in mind that such church government as deBres envisaged was directly contrary to the expressed wishes of the authorities of the day. By official decree it was not the congregation but the government who determined who would serve as priest in a town; reformed ministers were not permitted to preach or teach, public worship was not permitted, elders could not bring home visits. So serious was the government in enforcing this rule that deBres himself, as preacher of the Gospel, was compelled to do his work secretly; he laboured in his congregation under a fictitious name, never appearing in public as a preacher of the gospel. Yet in that environment, deBres saw need to confess what God revealed on the point of church government - and to teach it to his congregations also.
It is a point that needs emphasising. Is church government an unimportant matter’? DeBres obviously did not think so. In his Confession, deBres did not hesitate to confess God’s wish for all men in relation to the governing authorities. Writes deBres, "Moreover, everyone - no matter of what quality, condition, or rank - ought to be subject to the civil officers, pay taxes, hold them in honour and respect, and obey them in all things which do not disagree with the Word of God" (Article 36). But on the matter of church government, deBres himself saw need to disobey the authorities.
He knew of the risks involved. After he had penned his Confession, he wrote an introductory address to accompany the copy of the Confession he sent to King Philip II. In that address he said that he and those with him would "offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their bodies to fire, " rather than deny the truth expressed in this confession - including Articles 30-32. This example from church history underlines that twenty-first century heirs to deBres’ confession do well also to ensure that the "Church ... be governed according to the Spiritual order which our Lord has taught us in His Word" - irrespective of the cost. This point is driven home to us the more when we consider the effects of the persecution that broke out in greater intensity in following years. Due to the king’s efforts to destroy the reformed faith in the Netherlands, hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee. They went to France, to 54 Germany, and to England, and formed refugee congregations in foreign cities as Wezel (Germany), Emden (Germany) and London (England).
One would expect that in such circumstances those who persevered in the reformed faith would be happy to cling to such ’essentials’ as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and leave the matter of church government for a better day. But this was not the case! Here we see the power of faith at work. If Christ is King, they confessed, the government of Christ’s church must agree with His revelation in holy Writ. That is why the brethren, despite the risks presented by persecution, made it their business to meet together in order to develop Scripturally justifiable church government that could be put in place when the Lord granted freedom from persecution. It is a point most worth noting: the fathers did not consider ecclesiastical assemblies, i. e. classes or synods, to be a ’pain in the neck’ or a necessary evil. Even in time of persecution they considered such assemblies to be essential to the life of the church of Jesus Christ, so essential that they risked their lives to develop reformed church polity. The fathers knew it: the churches needed each other so very, very much.
2. The Convent of Wezel 1568. In the midst of the persecution, a group of reformed brethren from the Netherlands met together in Wezel, Germany. (In Wezel there was freedom of religion, though spies of the Dutch authorities no doubt were everywhere). This particular meeting was called ’The Convent of Wezel’. (The word ’convent’ means to convene, to meet). It was not a classis or a synod, for it was not made up of delegates from the churches. Rather, this meeting was the private initiative of interested persons who set as their agenda the preparation of an official synod. They understood that in order to get a synod organised there first had to be a federation of churches. So they set out together to lay down some principles as to how a federation of churches ought to function. In attendance were refugees from the Netherlands who had found shelter in the cities of Wezel (Germany), Emden (Germany), and London. Though driven from their homeland, they were motivated by love for God and His church to lay the groundwork for Scripturally based church government in the Netherlands. To establish reformed church government these brethren saw no need to ’re-invent the wheel’. Calvin had already dealt with the matter in Geneva and wrote a Church Order entitled Ecclesiastical Ordinances. The brothers in Wezel used these Ordinances as a blueprint for their work. However, rather than just accept these Ecclesiastical Ordinances on the merit of Calvin’s authorship 55 (Reformed as he was in his thinking), the brothers saw it as their responsibility before God to examine whether Calvin’s work could be improved in any way. So they developed Calvin’s work further. This action in itself is interesting in relation to Reformed Church Polity. Important as Calvin’s contribution (and Bucer’s too) is to reformed church government, ’Reformed’ is not so much ’Calvinistic’ as ’Scriptural’, and therefore always needs to consider the question, "what does God want of us?" The brothers in Wezel, therefore, made improvements to Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances. In as much as we stand here at the cradle of Dutch church polity, we may consider Wezel’s changes to be essential principles of continental reformed church government.
2.1 Principle 1: No Lording over Others
Present at the Convent of Wezel was a gentleman belonging to the refugee church in London, by name of Hermannus Moded. Moded had been sent by the church in London to Geneva to seek advice in a matter of difficulty in that congregation. The matter of difficulty related to the minister; Rev Godfried vanWingen of the London church was an inflexibly dominant character. The brothers present at the Convent of Wezel read Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:8 : "But you, do not be called ’Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren." (The word ’teacher’ in the above quote denotes a leader or master.) The implication was surely that in a church of Jesus Christ there is no room for domineering; a minister is not to lord over another minister, nor a minister over a consistory, nor a consistory over another consistory, nor an elder over another elder, etc. Rather, all office-bearers have a place directly under Christ, and so the one office-bearer needs to respect the other. Those present at the Convent of Wezel recognised this to be a Scriptural principle basic to healthy church life, and so penned as Article One for their Church Order: "No church shall in any way lord it over other churches, no office-bearer over other office-bearers." Reformed church polity serves to protect congregations and consistories from domineering individuals.
Over the years, this stipulation has been moved from the beginning of the Church Order to the end. This was not done because the article was considered to be of minor importance. Rather, it was moved to a place at the end because this is where it fits best in view of the overall structure of the Church Order. (In the Church Order of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia it is Article 80.) It remains a fact that no lording over others is very much a fundamental principle characterising reformed church polity. 56.
2.2 Principle 2: The Need for Ecclesiastical Assemblies A second principle that Wezel underlined was that the churches need to meet regularly. In Chapter 1, Paragraph 3.3 we have already examined the doctrinal basis for churches federating together and interacting with each other within a federation of churches. There is, however, also a practical justification for federating together and interacting in a bond. It is a point of fact that regular interaction between the churches by means of assemblies serves to prevent both hierarchy and independentism. Rev vanWingen’s congregation in London was rather isolated from the other churches, and such isolation can give a minister opportunity to lord it over his consistory. If churches in a federation seldom or never meet with each other, there is also a very real tendency for each to go its own way in matters such as liturgy, policies in relation to church discipline, beliefs, etc. Seeing that Churches of one federation embrace one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, it follows that this one God should be served in one way. The relevant article adopted by the Convent of Wezel reads as follows: "since ... it shall be most beneficial to achieve and maintain uniform agreement in doctrine as well as in regulating ceremonies and discipline, we consider that, as much as possible, frequent meetings of neighbouring churches ought to be organised. So that each arising item can be discussed at such meetings, we consider that all efforts must be made to divide the various Dutch provinces into fixed classes. In this way each church will know with whom she must interact and consult about the more important matters which, by her judgment, affect the common interest."
It is intriguing that the fathers at Wezel expressed desirability for the churches to meet together "frequently". In fact, the articles of the Church Order they adopted specify that churches in a local area ought to meet as often as once every three months; such frequent meetings would promote "uniform agreement in doctrine as well as in regulating ceremonies and discipline," and so counter hierarchy and independentism. We need to note that this goal was expressed in an environment of persecution, and in a time when distances were generally covered by foot. Contrast that to the context of church life today: we enjoy freedom of religion and have the conveniences of road and air travel available to us. Here is incentive for churches to make it their business to meet together regularly. We in the Free Reformed Churches of Australia were in time past too small to institute classes, and as a result saw each other only once every two years at synod. The fruit is evident: there is a spirit of independentism among the churches 57 and the differences between the churches of the federation are real. That is why the decision of the latest Synod of the FRCA to form classes is to be welcomed enthusiastically. More face to face contacts with churches of the classis about the needs and developments of the local congregations can only be beneficial.
We need to notice too that the fathers did not leave it up to the individual churches to decide with whom each might meet and talk and so cross-fertilise. "Fixed classes", said the fathers, ought to be formed, so that "each church will know with whom she must interact and consult." The churches had one Lord, one faith, one hope, and so each church must feel comfortable to speak with the neighbouring church - even if there were differences in emphases. In this way, too, uniformity "in doctrine as well as in regulating ceremonies and discipline" would be achieved and maintained. This principle of Reformed Church Polity receives an echo in the Church Order itself. Concerning classes the churches have agreed to the following:
FRCA: Article 41 - Classis (CanRC: Article 44)
Neighbouring churches shall come together in a classis. . . . Classes shall be held at least once every three months. . . .
3. From Wezel to Emden
Marnix of St Aldegonde, a man of royal blood with a respected standing in government circles, laboured to free the Netherlands from the Spaniards. This man was Reformed in his thinking, and Scriptural in his love for the Lord and the brethren. He longed for the day that the Netherlands would, by the grace of God, be free of Spanish oppression, and understood that the churches had to be ready for that event. By his judgment, it was imperative that there be adequate preachers of the gospel available to make the most of the window of opportunity that would arise in the day of freedom. But to train capable men required the combined effort of the churches. Similarly, Marnix was convinced that since there is one Lord and one faith, the people of the land needed to be united in their belief and consequently the churches should also be unified in doctrine, church discipline, liturgy and ceremonies. In order to achieve this, Marnix saw that it was of paramount importance that the churches meet and discuss together - a Synod was required. Yet no Synod could occur as long as the churches were not federated together in some way. Marnix, therefore, did what he could to encourage the growth of a federation of churches. 58. At this time already, though, two lines of thinking existed with regard to church polity. On the one hand there was a group of liberally minded people who favoured Erastian (government-centred) church polity. This group (they became the eventual supporters of Arminian theology) saw no need for churches to form federations. Rather, if guidance was required by a church, it should seek help from the secular government. On the other hand there was also a desire for Reformed (elder-centred) church polity. Marnix was convinced that the Reformed line was the correct direction for the churches to take. To that end he encouraged the convening of a synod in Emden.
4. The Synod of Emden 1571. The first General Synod of all the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands was held in the German town of Emden, in 1571. This synod was held outside of Holland because persecution was still a very real thing. However, despite the dangers of meeting together, the fathers did so in obedience lo the Lord and in recognition of their need for each other. The churches sent delegates to Emden to meet together in order to assist each other as churches and to defend themselves against heresy. There they officially formed a federation of churches.
One would expect that at this first official meeting of the churches, the churches would busy themselves immediately with matters pertaining to church polity. It is striking that instead their first item of business was that each delegate (and in them each church) made a point of expressing agreement with the Belgic Confession. Notice: to date the Belgic Confession had been accepted by various churches on their own accord, but not by the churches altogether - since the churches had not yet met together. The fathers recognised the need for a confession, not just for churches individually, but also for the bond of churches. After all, what essentially binds churches together? It is the one faith which God has worked in the hearts of His people, faith in the one Gospel of salvation through the one Saviour Jesus Christ. This unity of faith required expression before a Church Order could be finalised. And a Church Order in turn could not be remote from the Confession of the Churches, but had to be built upon that Confession.
After the churches together expressed their one common faith as formulated in the Belgic Confession, the fathers moved on to develop a model for Church life. The Synod of Emden built on the work done in Wezel, as well as the experiences and decisions of the French churches. The French churches, we should know, had not suffered much persecution during the 59 1560s, and so had opportunity at a number of synods to develop a church order. This concept was the best Church Order the Synod of Emden could find, and so it was used as a basis and model for Emden’s Church Order. As the Convent of Wezel had done some years earlier, the Synod of Emden too made it her business to modify this model. By so doing, the Synod of Emden spelt out further principles of Reformed Church Government. For example, an article about no lording over others (not found in the French Church Order) received pride of place in Emden’s Order. A second article notated the need for agreement with the common confession. Further, Emden changed the repeated use of the word ’church’ in the French Church Order to the plural ’churches’ - thus providing a Scriptural corrective to the widespread idea that the local churches were but chapters of the one big. real church. The Synod of Emden also adopted another article, which reads, "These articles, which regard the lawful order of the church, have been adopted with common accord. If the interest of the churches demands such, they may and ought to he changed, augmented or diminished. However no consistory or classis shall he permitted to do so, hut they shall endeavour diligently to observe the provisions of this Church Order as long as they have not been changed by synod." This article too points up how the fathers treasured Reformed thinking. Churches promise to accept decisions of Synod not because some higher body made them, but rather because the churches themselves in Synod made the decisions "with common accord", ie, together.
5. The Synod of Dort 1618-1619. In the years after the Synod of Emden, the Lord granted relief in the Netherlands from persecution. As a result, church life could freely develop, and it did too. After the Synod of Emden the churches met together in Synod various times on Dutch soil. Many of these synods contributed in some way to the development of reformed church government. Of importance for the development of the Church Order are the provincial Synod of Dort in 1574, the national synod of Dort in 1578, the synod of Middelburg in 1581, and the synod of The Hague of 1586. These Synods, each in their own way, built farther on the work done by Wezel and Emden. Essentially, though, the Church Order stayed much the same over the years as that adopted by the Synod of Emden. In 1618 the churches met together again in the city of Dort. After this Synod of Dort had dealt with the heresies of Arminianism, a number of sessions 60 were spent polishing up the Church Order that had developed so far. The version adopted by the churches in this Synod is known as the Church Order of Dort, and is the basis for Reformed Church Orders around the world today. Appendix 1 supplies an English translation of the original Church Order of Dort. The Free Reformed Churches of Australia adopted this edition from Dort, and over the span of years made alterations to it to suit the needs of Australian churches. Appendix 2 contains the Church Order of the FRCA, as adopted in 1994. The Canadian Reformed Churches also adopted the Church Order of Dort, and made amendments to suit the circumstances (see Appendix 3). In principle, though, these Church Orders are the equivalent of the Church Order of Dort - and hence are rooted in the work done in Wezel and in Emden. 61.
2 J. Kamphuis. Zo Vonden Wij Elkaar (Groningen: De Vuurbaak. n. d.) pg 24. quoted in Acts of the 1996 Synod of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia, pg 204.
3 The text of this article is now Article 81 of the Church Order of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia and Article 76 of the Canadian Reformed Church Order.