Of vital significance for the good order of the church of Jesus Christ is the appointment of officers. These, in the name of the Exalted Saviour, represent His triple office and give spiritual direc­tion to the life of His people on earth.

The Church Order clearly recognizes the neces­sity of such leaders and carefully regulates their appointment in a series of articles. In connection with the election of the ministers of the Word and the elders the details of this procedure are very carefully circumscribed. This, however, is not the case when the subject of the election and installation of the deacons is considered. We are informed that the deacons "shall be chosen, approved and installed in the same manner as was stated concerning the Eld­ers" (Art. 24). Yet this brief reference distinguishes three steps of the process by which men are inducted into this holy work.

The Election of the Deacons⤒🔗

No man has the right to assume any office in the church without being lawfully called and appointed. To arrogate such position and power to ourselves is contrary to the spirit of Christ and detrimental to the welfare of His church. All who serve the church in any official capacity must first of all be duly elected according to the rules provided for that purpose.

The Bible is very insistent that the church be­longs unto our Lord and Saviour. Therefore, He provides His people with qualified men upon whom He has laid the responsibility of caring for the church. He calls them by His Holy Spirit and sets them apart for spiritual service. To this end He has been pleased to endow the members of the congregation with a variety of gifts and graces, in order that each may learn to occupy his appointed place and use his gifts for the profit and edification of God's people.

In the days of the Old and New Testaments this calling was often immediate, that is, effectuated without the use of earthly means. Thus we read of the direct calling of prophets, priests and kings in the former and of apostles and prophets in the latter period. But with respect to the permanent officers by whom Christ is pleased to govern and instruct people another method is used. No longer is the call direct and without human mediation. Instead, from the New Testament it is plain that the divine call to the holy offices in the churches was mediated through the apostles and the congregation.

In harmony with this method which God now uses, the Church Order speaks of "regulations for that purpose established by the consistory." These are binding for all our members and congregations, unless rescinded or altered in the lawful way. Several important matters governing the election or appointment of these officers must be referred to and explained here.

1. The Privilege of the Congregation to take part in the Election←↰⤒🔗

We should remember that one of the rights which Christ, through apostolic example, has granted to the believers is the right to cooperate in the election of office-bearers. This right has been received from the Saviour Himself who is the source of all power and authority in His church.

In this respect again we notice a significant difference between the Reformed and Roman Catho­lic views of the relation between clergy and laity. Among the latter the right to appoint anyone to office is always reserved to those who are already in office. The members of the church are regarded as being in a state of spiritual minority or immaturity. They have the sole duty of submitting to the regula­tions imposed by those who hold authority. This follows from the Roman Catholic conception of the church which really only has a place for the clergy. All hierarchical churches to a greater or lesser degree follow this same principle which makes the life of the believers entirely dependent on the clergy. Against this position the Reformed churches reacted with vigor. One of the glories of the Protestant Reforma­tion was its rediscovery and reactivation of the New Testament principle of the office of all believers. The permanent offices in the church take their rise out of this general office of all Christians.

Not much argument is needed to prove this directly from the Bible. Already at the time of the institution of the first permanent office in the New Testament congregation, that of the diaconate, the apostles sought the cooperation of the believers. In Acts 6:2-6 this is clearly expressed,

And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out, therefore, breth­ren, from among you seven men of good report, ... And this saying pleased the whole multi­tude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus a proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands upon them.KJV

Several aspects of this apostolic action deserve careful attention, since they contain abiding principles for the election of the deacons today. First of all, the election took place under the direction and supervision of the apostles, to whom the rule of the church had been committed by Christ. Secondly, this election was effected through the direct activity and cooperation of the whole congregation at a public gathering of the church. And finally, those who were thus selected were publicly set before the apostles and people and inducted into office with the calling upon the name of the Lord and the laying on of the hands of the apostles.

Other passages prove that this procedure was followed not only in the Jerusalem congregation but throughout the churches. In Acts 13:1-3 we read of the call of Paul and Barnabas to the great work of foreign missions. There again under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, while the leaders were ministering to the needs of the congregation and had prayed and fasted, these two were separated publicly to their special work. Also in the choice of an apostle to fill the place left vacant by Judas the eleven sought the cooperation of the other believers (Acts 1:15-26). In 2 Corinthians 8:19 Paul mentions that Titus was chosen by the churches for the purpose of accompa­nying him on his missionary journeys. From all this it is evident that congregational cooperation in one form or another is essential to the proper appoint­ment of the permanent officers in the church, the deacons as well as the others.

Against this Reformed position the Roman Catholics and others have raised objections, claim­ing that Titus 1:5 and 1 Timothy 5:22 reserve the right of providing the congregation with officers to the clergy. This is, however, a manifest misinterpreta­tion of these texts, since in both cases Scripture speaks not so much of the actual election to office but rather of the official and public induction into office by the laying on of hands. For this work the other officers naturally are necessary since the appoint­ment of the "Seven" according to Acts 6, which speaks at great length of the procedure, took place under the supervision and guidance of the apostles. In harmony with the Scriptural view of the right of the congregation to have a voice in this matter both elders and deacons are asked publicly at the time of installation,

Do you, bother elders and deacons, feel in your hearts that you are lawfully called of God's church, and consequently of God Himself, to these your respective holy offices?

2. The Relation of the Consistory to the Congregation←↰⤒🔗

 In the light of what has been stated above about the rights of the members of the church to take part in the election of the officers, it may seem very strange that the Church Order specifically mentions that these officers shall be chosen by the judgment of the consistory and the deacons according to the regulations for that purpose established by the consistory (Art. 22). Here it would seem that the election is left entirely to the discretion of the consistory with full power to act. Yet that this is not the case will become evident from a more careful consideration of the historical occasion for this article and the develop­ment of the principles of Reformed church govern­ment through the years.

What must be borne in mind first of all is the Scriptural teaching of the corporate unity of the congregation. The church does not consist of a number of individuals, each with his personal rights and privileges. Rather, the New Testament insists that the church is the body of Christ, of which the individuals severally are members. This organic unity of the church is of tremendous importance for the proper understanding of the nature of church government. At the body has many members and not all members have the same function, so within the church there is a variety within a basic unity. As the body is controlled by the head, so the church is governed by Christ. For the exercise of His spiritual rule Christ has been pleased to ordain, through the apostles, certain officers who represent the church and act on her behalf. This important principle is clearly affirmed by Paul in Ephesians 4:11-12,

And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teach­ers, for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering unto the building up of the body of Christ.

This clearly defines the relation which the officers sustain to the other members of the congregation. They are appointed by Christ Himself, who confers ministerial authority on them. Yet they may never lord it over the Lord's heritage but must remember that their office is that of ministering to the needs of the church. Thus, the church does not exist for the sake of the officers, but the officers have been appointed for the spiritual welfare and edifica­tion of the congregation. Believers may not act as if there were no church council, and likewise the coun­cil of the church may never conduct itself arrogantly by refusing to reckon with the needs of the congrega­tion, as well as its rights in the matter of electing elders and deacons. Here the delicate balance of power arranged by Christ through the apostles must be carefully and conscientiously maintained.

As a result, free and uncontrolled elections of council members, whether elders or deacons or ministers of the Word, have always been opposed in the Reformed churches as inconsistent with the teach­ings of the Bible and the spiritual welfare of the congregation. The sole exception is found at the time when a new congregation is organized, since as yet there is then no consistory representing all the members of the group which can give direction. Yet even here the churches have sought to exercise some measure of official control, since the institution of any new congregation is effected by the permission of the classis which appoints either a committee or, still better, a neighbouring consistory to discharge this work.

From this conception of the relation between consistory and congregation follows the Reformed view of their proper cooperation. The council in the matter of the election of deacons gives leadership to and, thus, represents the congregation. The actual power to rule has been vested in the officers. How­ever, the officers owe their position to the calling of Christ which has been mediated through the believ­ing congregation. Hence there could be no officers without a congregation. Several New Testament passages plainly affirm this. In John 20:21-23 we read that Christ conferred the power of preaching the gospel and exercising Christian discipline to the disciples, a group more comprehensive than the circle of the eleven. The decisions taken by the Jerusalem council were not made by the apostles and elders alone, but we read in that connection of the "whole church" (Acts 15:22). In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul teaches that the work of discipline involves the cooperation of the whole body of believers, even though this was carried out under the supervision of the officers. These officers are bound to Christ, so that if in any given situation the council manifestly no longer submits to the word of Christ, the congre­gation may no longer submit to such unfaithful and disobedient leaders. In the proper ecclesiastical way, with the help of neighbouring churches or the classis, the members are then to elect others in the place of those who have become unworthy.

This procedure follows from the Scriptural position that in the election of officers the members of the church have a voice. The Church Order, be it rather indirectly and by implications, recognizes this in so far as the matter of elections requires not only the leadership of the ministers of the Word and the elders but also the cooperation of the deacons with the two other types of officers (Art. 22). Of course, this work is not done by the deacons in their capacity as deacons, since diaconal work does not include the duty of ruling the congregation. Rather, this task is laid upon the diaconate in addition to its regular God-given tasks, in order that the rights and liberties of the congregation may be better safe­guarded. Our Reformed fathers were acutely aware of the dangers of hierarchy in the consistory. There­fore, they added this provision as one more check to maintain Scriptural order in the churches. Too long had they felt the galling yoke under which they had groaned in the Roman Catholic Church, where all power had been usurped by the clergy at the expense of the spiritual maturity of the members of the church. In the Reformed churches this principle was not always practiced in the same way.¹

In the French Reformed churches the elders and deacons united to elect new members to the council of the church. Only at the time of the initial organi­zation of the church did the congregation receive the right to cast its vote directly. However, even in those churches the names of the men elected by the full council were submitted to the congregation for ap­proval. Only after an opportunity was given to register objections were those who had been elected publicly installed in office.

Quite different was the procedure followed in the Reformed refugee congregation in London under John á Lasco. There the elders and deacons were elected by the congregation. Yet this method was carefully circumscribed, in order that full justice might be done to the authority of the consistory. Before the election, the consistory appointed a day of general fasting and prayer at which time the Scrip­tural teaching of the basis and functions of the offices were explained to the people and the Lord's Supper was celebrated. Before the next Lord's Day the congregation received opportunity to cast the vote. During the following week the council met to elect out of the number chosen those who had received the highest number of votes and seemed the most qualified in their estimation. The results of this consistorial action were again announced to the people. If no objections were raised, these men were solemnly installed in their offices by the laying on of hands of the whole presbytery. Thus, although the congregation had a more direct voice in the matter of election than in the French churches, the leadership and final decision were in the hands of the consis­tory.

The Dutch churches introduced yet another method which was largely a combination of the other two. However, this was not consistently prac­ticed at first.

The Convent of Wesel (1569), which was not able to adopt an authoritative church order because it did not officially represent all the Dutch churches, ex­pressed as its opinion that the officers should be chosen by the consistory with the help of the civil magistrates, if they were godly men, or if this could not be done, then with the cooperation of the mem­bers of the congregation. The Synod of Emden (1571) discussed the subject again and ruled that the consis­tory should elect the officers and then seek the approbation of the members by permitting fifteen days to pass before the brethren elected were pub­licly installed. In this interim period anyone had the right to register valid objections. This method was also accepted by the later synods.

However, objections were raised against this position on the grounds that the Belgic Confession (Art. 31) plainly affirmed,

We believe that the ministers of God's Word, the elders, and the deacons ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the Church, with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of God teaches.

Undoubtedly, the Form for the Ordination of Elders and Deacons alludes to this posi­tion in the first question which it asks of the brethren about to be installed.

The position of the fathers must be judged in the light of our knowledge of the historical circumstances. Although many of the people were but shortly before liberated from the Romish hierarchy, the fathers did not insist on a large measure of consistorial control in order to dictate to the people or minimize the office of all believers. Rather, at that time there was a danger that the Reformed concep­tion of the church would be undermined by the principles of the Independents who were strong in England and many of whom sought refuge in the Netherlands. While the Roman Catholic Church had elevated the clergy above the people, the Inde­pendents were in danger of elevating the people above the officers. Then the latter became merely the servants of the former, an executive committee charged with the function of performing the will of the majority in the church. Against this misconcep­tion the Reformed leaders reacted as strongly as against the Romish usurpation of power by the clergy. Although the officers were never to lord it over Christ's flock, yet their calling and authority were received from the Head of the church to whom they were directly answerable. Only in this way, they felt, could they preserve the true unity of consis­tory and congregation and do full justice to both their responsibilities and the rights of the members of the church.

The first shift away from the original aristocratic method in the Dutch churches was taken by the Synod of Dort (1574), which permitted consistories to present to the congregation a list of twice as many nominees for the offices as there were vacancies to be filled. This policy seems to have been adopted from the French refugee congregation in London minis­tered to by Valerandus Polanus, who had borrowed it from the Strassburg congregation to which John Calvin had ministered for a time. This method was also followed by John Knox, introduced by him in the Scotch churches and according to Voetius also followed by the churches "under the cross" in south­ern Netherlands. The next general synod of the Dutch churches, the Synod of Dort (1578), did not prescribe a rule but left the proper procedure to the discretion of the consistories.

Not until the new redaction of the Church Order, adopted by the Dutch churches in 1905, was the method permitting freer expression on the part of the congregation officially incorporated. Thus the article reads,

In pursuance of these regulations (viz., the ones adopted by each consistory) every church shall be at liberty, according to its circum­stances, to give the members an opportunity to direct attention to suitable persons, in order that the Consistory may thereupon either present to the con­gregation for election as many Elders as are needed, ... or present a double number to the congre­gation and thereupon install the one-half chosen by it.

This method is also employed at the time of election to the ministry of mercy.

From this it is evident that the Reformed churches have always permitted a variety of customs and usages in the appointment to office, as long as these did not violate any Biblical principles. Indeed, the consistory must give leadership and makes the nec­essary provisions for induction into office. But in one form or another the congregation cooperates in this work which is of such importance to its spiritual growth and welfare.

The most common custom in our churches is that of having the consistory prepare nominations of twice the number needed to fill the vacancies. In some churches this is also preceded by giving the members an opportunity to present a list of sug­gested candidates for the offices before the consistory actually makes the nominations. The nominees are announced to the congregation on two succes­sive Lord's Days, in order that any valid objections may be registered and properly dealt with. On the appointed day the congregation assembles together with the consistory and after invoking the Lord's blessing proceeds to the election. Thereupon the consistory again meets and formally decides who have been duly elected and announces these names to the members for final approbation before they are officially installed.

3. The Right to Vote in the Churches←↰⤒🔗

This brings up the vital matter of franchise in the church of Christ. Who among the members have the right to take part in these elections and transact other business which is legally presented to the congregational meeting?

That this question is by no means superfluous follows from the Reformed conception of membership in the church of Christ. Basically, the church consists of those who are in gracious covenant with God, that is, of believers and their seed.²

Thus the children of professing Christians, as well as their parents, are members of the congregation. This needs emphasis in our country, where so many have adopted an individualistic and atomistic conception of church membership. Yet the Reformed churches have always recognized the impropriety of extend­ing to these children all the rights and privileges of membership. This follows from the very nature of their relation to the church. They are as yet spiritu­ally immature. First of all, they must be nurtured in the Christian faith and godliness, make profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and then the rights and privileges are extended to them. This lays upon them the duty of assuming the obligations and responsibilities of membership as well, something that may not be expected of immature members. Thus the Reformed churches have always insisted that only those who have made profession of their faith have the right to exercise the privilege and duty of voting.

This rules out at once those members who have reached adulthood but for one reason or another have not professed faith. Since they have not as­sumed the duties, they also have no right to the special privileges. Voting at congregational meet­ings does not depend on the physical age of the members. In some of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands the rule has been in force that no member younger than twenty-four years of age might exer­cise these voting rights, even though he may have publicly professed his faith in Christ. This is, of course, an erroneous position and cannot be de­fended on Scriptural grounds. For if anyone is sufficiently mature spiritually to profess faith and partake of the Lord's Supper and even assume the responsibility of the spiritual nurture of his children at the time of baptism, then surely he is also capable of taking an active part in the election of the elders and deacons.

Naturally, those who are under ecclesiastical censure have no right to a voice at congregational meetings. By their unchristian doctrine or conduct they are subject to consistorial admonition and dis­cipline. As a result they have lost some of the rights which they enjoyed as members of the church. Just as they are to refrain from the use of the sacraments until they manifest repentance and amendment of life, so too they lose the right to express themselves at the meeting of the congregation and help in the transaction of ecclesiastical business.

Another subject of debate in the Reformed churches is that of extending the franchise to women who are professing members of the congregation. In the Dutch churches this privilege has been withheld since the very beginning of their history. In fact, only within comparatively recent years has the Reformed (Hervormde) Church extended this right to them, and the Reformed (Gereformeerde) Churches in the Netherlands have the matter under advisement. A somewhat similar situation prevails among the Reformed churches in America. While in the Re­formed Church of America women who are mem­bers in good and regular standing may take part in congregational meetings, in the Christian Reformed Church this subject is at present being studied.

Until the churches, together in synodical ses­sion, take a decision in this matter, all our congrega­tions should abide by the present unwritten rule of permitting only male members in good and regular standing to vote. To change the custom at this time would both prejudice the issue now being discussed and cause dissension in the churches, especially since some might extend the franchise to them while others would continue to withhold it.³

In some localities it was considered proper in times past to refuse the right to vote to those who were supported by the diaconate. That this is en­tirely contrary to the spirit of Christ and the principles of the Church Order surely need not be argued at length. To receive such aid is no shame, especially since this assistance is given by Christ Himself through the ministers of mercy. As long as such a person is sound in doctrine and godly in life, thus manifesting himself as a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ, he has a right to all the privileges of church membership. To deprive him of these would be tantamount to placing him under a cloud and mak­ing public the fact he is receiving a measure of help.

The Approbation of Deacons←⤒🔗

After the deacons have been duly elected by the consistory and congregation in accordance with the regulations adopted for this purpose, one more step must be taken before these elected brethren may be publicly installed. The Church Order speaks un­equivocally of the approval of the whole congrega­tion.

The necessity of this should be apparent to all. Nothing is of greater importance to the well-being of the congregation than having faithful and exem­plary office-bearers, deacons as well as ministers of the Word and elders. By means of their leadership and example Christ causes His church to flourish and grow. Therefore, it is essential that those who are to be clothed with positions of such responsibil­ity and authority shall be men of good report. To insure this in the largest possible measure the Church Order specifies that after the election the men chosen shall be approved.

Any objections brought against duly elected office bearers must be carefully weighed. This implies that those who present them offer a reasonable measure of proof to substantiate their charges. Ordinarily, such a person should first of all follow the rule of Matthew 18.⁴ Only if a person refuses to be reconciled should the matter engage the attention of the consistory. If the charges are substantiated and are weighty enough to warrant consistorial disciplinary action, his installation should be post­poned. In this matter the consistory must exercise extreme caution. Two dangers threaten the well­being of the church in these situations. First of all, the consistory may never neglect or ignore substanti­ated objections, no matter how trivial they may seem at first glance. At all costs the good order and peace of the church must be promoted lest the church of Christ suffer and the blessing of God be removed. On the other hand, the consistory must not lend a ready ear to all kinds of personal prejudices.

As to the method by which such approbation is secured, the consistory may satisfy itself with silent consent. When the proper announcements have been made and no one has appeared at the consis­tory to allege anything against the elected brethren, the consistory may rightly assume that the congre­gation is fully satisfied with the choice which has been made. Thus the way is officially open to pro­ceed with the installation.

The Installation of the Deacons←⤒🔗

The installation takes place in the public worship of the congregation after the proper announcements have been made.

The nature of this ceremony has occasioned much dispute in the Christian churches. The Roman Catholics, who regard ordination as a sacrament, have emphasized the solemnity of this occasion. By means of this rite the person to be ordained is said to receive the grace necessary to discharge his task. Thus, he is permanently dis­tinguished from the laity and receives a place among the clergy. The effect of ordination is to impress on the recipient the indelible mark or character requisite to assuming office. It confers the power of offering sacrifice in the church for both the living and the dead.

The Reformed churches have unequivocally rejected this conception of ordination as a sacrament as unscriptural. Nor do they think of it as conferring any special measure of grace on the elected officers. In fact, most of these churches prefer to speak of installation in preference to ordination, which term they then reserve only for the public induction into office by the ministers of the Word the first time they assume leadership in the churches. Thus ministers are ordained but once in their lives, since they are called and set apart to this service for the entirety of their lives.

Ordination is the solemn and public covenant­ing between the elected officers and the congrega­tion in the presence of God. At that time the former are inducted into the duties and assume the authority of their respective offices, while the latter pledges her loyalty and submission to them. All officers in the church receive their position in the way of lawful election. By means of it the call of God is openly attested to and confirmed, since God works medi­ately to provide His church with the necessary lead­ers. They should, therefore, possess a measure of ability as well as a desire for the work. Then they will recognize in the election by the congregation the proof of their call.

Calling (together with election) and installation may not be identified. The latter is the public testimony to and seal on the former. At that time the elected candidates publicly declare that they believe themselves appointed by God to their offices, reaf­firm their faith in the teachings of the Scripture as accepted by the church, and promise to discharge their tasks to the best of their ability in submission to the Word.

Our Form speaks of "ordination" in connection with the public installation of elders and deacons. Some objections have been raised to this. However, we believe that these rest on a misunderstanding of the Reformed view of ordination. To ordain means basically to set in order, arrange or prepare. It is the public attestation to the setting apart of certain individuals to specific positions in the church. Thus, the minister of the Word is ordained but once in his life, when he assumes his first charge, but is installed whenever he takes charge of another congregation. In the case of elders and dea­cons, since their office is re­stricted to a certain length of time, they are both ordained and installed every time they are elected to their respective positions. We should insist that all these men are publicly set apart to the holy offices and by that very token are recog­nized as the servants of Christ on our behalf and clothed with authority from Him.

The propriety of the laying on of hands in the case of both elders and deacons has occasioned difference of opinion and debate in the Reformed churches.

It cannot be denied that we read of it often in the New Testament, also in reference to elders and deacons. However, since the ceremony was so easily misunderstood because of its associations with the Romish conceptions of ordination, the Reformed churches have generally ordained and installed elders and deacons without the imposition of hands.

Many Reformed leaders, however, have argued in favour of continuing this rite in the churches. Calvin thought that it was proper and profitable, in order that the people might become more aware of the unusual significance of these offices and that those who were thus ordained might have a visible token that they had devoted themselves to the cause of God and His church. Walaeus in the days of the Synod of Dort (1618-19) praised it highly and com­mended its use to the churches in connection with the ordination of elders and deacons. Jacobus Koelman regarded its neglect by the churches of his day as definitely sinful, since it was in use in the apostolic churches. Most leaders, however, agreed that it was not essential to the ordination and even argued against its use on the ground that it might lead to superstition. This position was also adopted by the Synod of Emden (1571) and the Synod of Dort (1574)⁵ and has been maintained by such leading men as Voetius, de Moor and others.

We never read that Jesus employed the laying on of hands, when He appointed His disciples. Instead it was used in connection with the miracles of heal­ing and with the conferring of the gift of the Holy Spirit upon His people. The apostles used it when the "Seven" were set apart to their ministry. From Paul's epistle to Timothy we may conclude that it was generally practiced in the early churches. Yet nowhere is it thought of as automatically conferring the gifts and qualifications necessary to holding office. These should be present in a measure before the election. Hence the use of this rite is not to be regarded as obligatory on the churches.

The Tenure of Office of the Deacons←⤒🔗

Of far greater significance for the proper under­standing of the nature and function of the diaconate than the imposition of hands, is the matter of the length of their service.

Together with the elders they are elected in the Reformed churches for a specified time, usually two or three years. This is regulated by the Church Order,

The Elders and Deacons shall serve two or more years according to local regulations, and a propor­tionate number shall retire each year. The retiring officers shall be succeeded by others unless the circumstances and profit of any Church, in the exe­cution of articles 22 and 24, render a re-election advisable.Art. 27

Here something new has been introduced at the time of the Reformation. According to the New Testament it would seem that all officers were elected for life. Nowhere does the Bible even allude to the possibility of a limited tenure of office.

The first rule relative to this was made under Calvin's leadership in the church at Geneva. There, at least formally, the election of such church officials as elders and deacons was made by the civil magis­trates. These men were also retired after one year of service. Hence new elders and deacons were ap­pointed annually for the churches. In the Ordinances of 1541 this was made regulative for the Genevan church. However, the officers might be continued in office, if they had served well. Each year they had to appear before the magistrates who investigated this matter.

The Dutch churches adopted limited tenure as early as the Convent of Wesel (1568). However, this was done for practical reasons. Mention was made of the dangers to which the officers were subject in the days of persecution. Also because of the heavy demands made by the eldership and the diaconate, their families might suffer, if they were continued in office too long. Hence as a rule they were to be retired after one year. Those who had labored faithfully and were willing to continue in the service of the church could be re-appointed by the consis­tory. The Synod of Emden (1571) suggested a tenure of two years but left the final decision to the local consistories. Later synods reaffirmed this position. A similar practice was in vogue in the French churches, which declared in articles 22 and 23 of their Church Order that elders and deacons were not obliged to serve for the rest of their lives, since their ordination did not imply unlimited tenure.

The Dutch refugee church in London took a contrary position and argued at great length for unlimited tenure to preserve the dignity of the office and promote the welfare of the congregation. Among the reasons given are the following:

1. In the New Testament the minister of the Word, who is also called an elder, served throughout the rest of his life after his ordination.
    
2. Those who served faithfully in a certain office were not retired but rather advanced to another office, that of the ministry of the Word. As examples of this the cases of Philip and Stephen were cited.
    
3. Nowhere does the New Testament speak of lim­ited tenure.
    
4. Paul even insists that widows and deaconesses must not lightly leave their offices; how much more essential for the churches is such faithful­ness on the part of elders and deacons.
    
5. The Levites in the Old Testament, who were but assistants, also served for life.
    
6. Those who serve longer are usually better equipped to govern the churches and care for the needy.
    
7. Periodic retirement prevents an office-bearer from becoming more capable and experienced.
    
8. Such retirement does not provide the church with the most experienced officers.
    
9. If a person knows he will soon be retired from office, he will not discharge his duties as faithfully as he should but leave much of the work to be done by his successor.
    
10. Those who have been rebuked by the officers, when elected to office themselves, may easily misuse their authority to rebuke others without good reason.

Only such who seek to be retired for valid rea­sons, such as removal to another congregation or poor health, should be released from their office.

The Dutch churches in England maintained this policy of the London church even after several of the national synods had decreed limited tenure. Per­haps one of the reasons for this must be found in the influence and example of the Episcopal churches of England with which they came in contact.

It may also be asked whether elders and deacons must be retired after their term of office expired. The Dutch churches have tended to extend the period of service, so that today many churches elect elders and deacons to serve for five or six years.⁶ The present redaction of the Church Order is more flexible on this matter than some of the earlier editions. The possi­bility of continuing the members of council under exceptional circumstances is admitted. But this can never be understood to mean that a council has the right to perpetuate itself in office. The consistory must reckon with the inherent right of the member­ship of the church to express itself publicly on the constituency of the consistory and the diaconate. If then unusual circumstances necessitate the continu­ance in office of an elder or a deacon, this matter must be brought to the attention of the congregation officially, and the members given the right to express themselves on this matter. This can be done in either of two ways: by presenting the names of those whom it desires to have re-elected together with the grounds for this, or by requesting the congregation to approve the decision of the consistory to retain certain of the elders or deacons for a longer period of time. As long as the Church Order clearly specifies a limited tenure, no consistory has the right to set this rule aside arbitrarily. This would be irregular, create dissension and unrest in the congregation, and do violence to the New Testament principle of the spiri­tual maturity of the believers.

If elders and deacons are re-elected, must they be ordained and installed again? Some have argued that this is not necessary. The Presbyterian churches have generally maintained the position that the eldership entails life-long service. Not until 1875 was a system of rotary eldership introduced. At that time the provision was made that such retiring elders were not to be regarded as having been di­vested of their office. Although they have no voice in the session, their advice may and should be asked. Though the Reformed Church in America has recog­nized the principle of limited tenure, it makes provi­sion in its Constitution for what is known as the "Greater Consistory." This body includes all former office-bearers together with those who are in active service. It may be convened for mutual counsel, when unusual circumstances arise in the local church.

The Reformed churches have almost invariably insisted on re-ordination and re-installation every time anyone is re-elected to one of the offices. The only recognized exception occurs when the new term follows immediately upon the expired term. Fundamentally the position is maintained that the elders and deacons are in office only as long as they actually perform the tasks of their office. Thus, officers change in the local congregations frequently, but the office itself is permanent. Each time deacons are elected, they are to be publicly installed in office together with the use of public prayers. And when their term of office expires, neither they nor the congregation should regard them as deacons unless they have again been elected to do this work in the name of Christ.