Article 36 of the Church Order reads as follows: "The Classis has the same authority over the Consistory as the Synod has over the Classis." This idea of "authority over consistory" has often raised questions. Is this a valid point? What is the extent of this authority? Should a local church not have the right to accept or reject decisions made by a classis or synod? From the early days of the Reformation people have questioned the issue of the authority of major assemblies and it often was a debated issue. Many denied the very right of existence to major assemblies, such as synods. Sometimes they attributed only a very limited significance to the decisions of these assemblies and regarded their decisions as advisory in character, and never as binding. Let us seek to clarify the matter of the authority of major assemblies by answering a number of pertinent questions.

1. What Are Major Assemblies?⤒🔗

We usually refer to classis and synod as major (or broader) assemblies. In relationship to classis, the consistory is regarded to be a minor assembly. In relationship to synod, classis is considered to be a minor assembly. What does the Church Order mean by the terms "'minor" and "major"? Does it mean that there is a gradation from lower to higher assemblies? Does it mean that a classis has a higher type of authority than a consistory, and that synod has a higher type of authority than a classis? No, for Article 36 states that the major assemblies have "the same authority." Although there is a gradation, the Church Order does not recognize a higher and lower type of authority. All ecclesiastical authority is to be none other than that "of Christ Himself."¹  The words "minor" and "major" refer to the assemblies and not to authority. The words "minor" and "major" are connected with the composition of the assemblies. A consistory consists of all the office bearers of a local church. A classis meeting is composed of churches in a certain region and is constituted by two delegates of each consistory. A synod represents even more churches — all the churches of a federation of churches — and is constituted by way of delegates.

Does this mean that major assemblies have necessarily more wisdom, insight, and knowledge? Not in the sense of more knowledge quantitatively, but, presumably, more in terms of quality of insight. There is the wisdom from one consistory or one classis combined with that of another consistory or classis. This insight, obviously, must spring from the Word of God, the wisdom that is from above expressed in the fear of the Lord.

2. What Is Meant By The Authority Of Major Assemblies?←⤒🔗

What is the nature of the authority of the major assemblies?

This question cannot be separated from the meaning of power and authority in regard to the church. Christ is the King of His church. All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18). Also today He teaches as One having authority (Matt. 7:29). God has appointed Him as the Head of His church (Eph. 1:22). He ministers grace unto righteousness, grace by righteousness, and therefore His justice in the church is the justice of grace. Such grace forgives and heals and is effectuated by Word and Spirit. Grace that does not have an immediate and living relationship with the authority of Christ either becomes hierarchy or democracy in the worst sense of the word.

Hierarchy refers to a group that considers itself better than others and distinguishes itself from common church members, ruling the church by their presumed authority. The Roman Catholic Church practices this rule. Democracy means that those who are strangers to Christ declare they are capable or ruling the church on their own terms. This is a spirit of revolution. In the church there is to be neither hierarchy nor democracy. Christ rules His church by His Word and Spirit. Therefore, only those ecclesiastical assemblies can have real authority that know themselves to be under the authority of Christ. As an assembly they are willing to be guided by the Word of Christ and His Spirit, as He is also willing and is pleased to speak according to the light that He has given brothers who are in fellowship with each other.

Thus, an ecclesiastical assembly is not a board that has inherent authority; it is not the permanent organ of an agency; rather, it is a meeting called for a specific purpose with a specific agenda, bound by the Word and dependent on the Spirit. It meets in order to address concrete questions, seeks an answer in the light of Word and Spirit, comes to a decision and makes a ruling. This ruling means that the Word speaks to the particular situation so that the voice of the King is heard in it and thereby peace is established in the churches. This is the high and ideal position, perhaps too high and ideal for some. We are a people who are used to bureaucracy and by nature more disposed to law than to gospel. It is also particularly demanding on an ecclesiastical assembly, because it needs to exercise self-discipline, soberness, and restraint with respect to making rulings. The history of church polity demonstrates that a simple Church Order that was used in the apostolic church can easily grow into such a large book of canon law that Luther needed both his hands to throw it into the fire.²

3. How Does This Authority Function?←⤒🔗

Some regard that ratification should be an integral part of the church-orderly procedure with respect to the validity of decisions of a major assembly. According to them, the minor assemblies can consider the decisions by a major assembly "settled and binding" only after they have checked them in the light of the Word of God and the Articles of the Church Order. This means that every minor assembly has to repeat the procedure of the broader assembly and thus confirm everything the major assemblies have done.

Not only is this difficult to practice, but it is also to be rejected in principle. This standpoint implies an incipient withdrawal from the bond of fellowship that constitutes mutual trust and respect. It means that the local church is withholding its trust in advance from these assemblies.

The Church Order shows another way. Article 31 allows for the right of appeal. This is different than the procedure of ratification. The right of appeal puts the burden of responsibility on the minor assembly to show from Scripture and/or Church Order how a major assembly has gone wrong. The procedure of Article 31 preserves the basis for mutual love and respect.

There may be times when a broader assembly may not be able to say: "This is what the Lord says." In such a case, it should not pretend that it can do so, because that would lead to the broad­er assembly degenerating into a papal system whereby either the consciences are put in bondage or the brotherhood is aggrieved.

In this light it becomes clear that the fathers of the Reformation had a whole-hearted aversion to human inventions and laws. Major assemblies have only temporary authority. Once the assembly has been adjourned, it has become history. The authority has a servant character, not one of decree. Because it has derived authority only, it serves the churches in general. Thus, broader assemblies may not do violence to the authority of the Anointed One and impose a yoke that none can bear. On the other hand, if the Word of God requires it, let the church not hesitate to say, "Thus saith the Lord!" "The lion has roared, who will not fear?" (Amos 3:8)