A previous discussion came to mind when reading Rev. E. Kampen’s article, “A Question of Admissibility: Who has the right to address the broader assemblies?” (Clarion March 8, 1996). Rev. Kampen’s position, which he wished to bring into discussion, is that ‘broader assemblies are assemblies of the churches and not individuals.’ Consequently, he suggests that ‘Broader assemblies should only accept submissions from individual members who complain and can prove that they have been wronged. They should declare inadmissible any submission from individuals about issues with which they personally have nothing to do...’ (p.106). This position is contrary to that historically held in the Reformed churches.

Most recently the late Rev. J.D. Wielenga (Clarion Sept. 11, 1987) defended the view that the right of appeal is given with the responsibility of all the members of the churches to see to it that the churches are governed by the pure Word of God. Prof. K. Deddens (Clarion Jan. 20, 1989, p.35) maintains the same position. He wrote: “Now the question is, is an appeal to a broader assembly inadmissible when it comes from someone who is not personally wronged? Not really! If there is injury, injustice, wrong in the church, everybody must have the right to appeal with regard to that evil.” Prof. S. Greijdanus (quoted by Dr. Deddens) also highlighted that the freedom of each member must be honoured in the Church. This freedom or right according to the Church Order Article 30, to directly approach a broader assembly in an ecclesiastical manner about matters that pertain to the churches in common has been a proper biblical position held by many for many years. To correct a wrong is an obligation, consistent with 1 Corinthians 12: “The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you...” We are one body, if one member suffers, all suffer together.

There is ample precedent to suggest that personal submissions, and of course submissions by consistories, dealing with not only an appeal of a decision of a previous General Synod but also submissions dealing with topics that belong to “its Churches in common” should be declared admissible. My own experience (in 1989, 1992) has been that this does not create, due to practical concerns, a “chaos” as Rev. Kampen suggests. On the contrary, issues such as our contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church are clarified and elucidated for the delegates by the variety of submissions. The volume of submissions and their quality may differ but help a delegate in his understanding of the issue. Submissions by individual members or a consistory making an overture have certainly not been experienced by everyone as “practically a problem” (as Rev. Kampen suggests) at General Synod or elsewhere. I cannot perceive of any “practical” reasons to declare submissions from individual members inadmissible. The authors, Ds. H. Meulink and Ds. I. de Wolff (Short Commentary on the Church Order, 1967, p. 76ff), with reference to Dr. H. Bouwman an expert on Church Order, intimate a position based upon Article 30 that is opposite the conclusion reached by Rev. Kampen. Not only personal appeals but all submissions dealing with matters such as the “Psalms and Hymns,” “training for the ministry” and “churches abroad” may be placed on the agenda of a General Synod.

The Church Order, as suggested by Dr. F. L. Rutgers, pronounces principles. Restrictive rules for admissibility limit those principles. The expert on Church Order, during the time of the “Doleantie,” stressed that for each of us, being members of a federation of churches brings with it certain obligations. He highlights that God’s Word has more authority than all the authority of ecclesiastical assemblies (see Clarion Jan. 20, 1989, p.33). Each of us should not only read the Acts of General Synod (thankfully we do all get a copy) but also have access to the various Synod Committee Reports. Direct access to broader assemblies, by individuals as well as by consistories in an ecclesiastical manner, presupposes an obligation and general principle which should not be removed. Each of us, not just the assemblies (consistory, classis, regional synod and general synod), has the obligation, by common accord, to maintain good order and decency. The Church Order, which was written for all members of the church, and the broader assemblies of the churches, pertain to all members.

As indicated by Dr. K. Deddens and Rev. G. Van Rongen in Decently and in Good Order (p. 13ff) generally speaking our Church Order is based on the “Spiritual Order” which we are taught in the Scriptures. With an open Bible, we need to examine decisions by broader assemblies and maintain general principles. We must not appeal to a broader assembly too rashly or change precedent too easily. Rev. Kampen’s further conclusions suggest a need for additional specific regulations and rules:

1. Consistories should be diligent in keeping up to date with developments in the life of the churches, listening to concerns expressed by the members. Decisions are either accepted or defended, or effort should be made to have decisions changed.

2. Every member who feels compelled to say something about decisions of broader assemblies should address his or her consistory. If the member convinces the consistory, then the consistory can put the matter on the table of the broader assemblies.

3. If a consistory refuses to take up one’s cause, there is the route of appeal, although it must be proven that one has been wronged by the consistory’s decision not to take up the cause.

These conclusions will raise many practical questions about the need for detailed specific rules and regulations. Some denominations have thick “law books.” How do we determine whether a consistory is diligent? Who determines whether someone has been personally wronged? How convinced does a consistory need to be? Why should the consistory act as a screening house? Why not pass on the submissions of individuals to General Synod without comment? Will an individual’s submission dealing with a General Synod Standing Committee report already on the agenda of General Synod only be put on the agenda of a General Synod if one or more consistories agree?

I suggest we simply leave Articles 30 and 31 of the Church Order as general principles and live with existing precedent which has served us well for many years.