Rev. Cammenga is pastor of Southwest Protestant Reformed Church in Grandville, Michigan.

“Where in a church there are more ministers than one, also those not delegated according to the foregoing article shall have the right to attend classis with advisory vote. “ 

Church Order, Article 42.

Article 41 prescribed that every church shall be represented at classis by two delegates, a minister and an elder: “The classical meetings shall consist of neighboring churches that respectively delegate, with proper credentials, a minister and an elder….”

For practical reasons the churches have agreed that each congregation shall be represented at classis by two brethren, a minister and an elder, or, if the church is vacant, by two elders. This provides for an equal number of ministers and elders at classis.

Article 42 addresses itself to the situation of a church that has more than one minister. In this case he (they) maybe sent to classis and shall be given advisory vote, that is, the right to speak on the issues before the assembly. But they shall not be given decisive vote. Only one minister from each congregation shall be the official delegate from that congregation to the classis.

The History of Article 42

The history of Article 42 indicates that there has been difference of opinion in the Reformed churches and divergence of practice with respect to the status of additional ministers sent by a consistory to the classical meetings. In fact, the rule laid down in Article 42 has not always been followed in the Reformed churches. Article 42 actually represents a return to an earlier practice that for some time had been abandoned.

The Synod of Dordt, 1578, had decided that each congregation should be represented at classis by one minister and one elder. Ministers not delegated were granted the privilege of advisory vote, as were the elders of the church where classis was meeting.

The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, was overtured to grant decisive vote at the classical meetings to all of the ministers who attended. The Synod rejected this overture. The practice remained unchanged – one minister, one elder.

The Synod of South Holland, 1597, again considered the matter and decided to refer the question to the next General Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. But there was no General Synod until the Synod of Dordt, 1618-’19. In the meantime, each classis used its own judgment, with difference of practice from classis to classis.

The Synod of Dordt, 1618-’19, decided to grant all the ministers attending classis decisive vote: “In any place where there are more than one minister they shall all together be allowed to appear in classis and have a vote, except in matters that concern their persons or churches in particular.” The Synod accommodated itself to the prevailing practice of the day.

The churches of the Secession of 1834 were critical of this change made by Dordt and returned to the earlier practice of the churches.

In the Dutch revision of the Church Order in 1905 and in the revision of the Church Order by the Christian Reformed Church in 1914, Article 42 was revised and cast in the form in which we have it today. There was a conscious return to the earlier practice of the Reformed churches. Each congregation was to delegate to classis one minister and one elder, and they alone were to have decisive vote.

Historical Situation

Although Article 42 in its present form is undoubtedly correct in principle, we must take into account the situation in the Netherlands that caused many to favor decisive vote being given to all ministers attending classis.

That situation was the peculiar situation that each church was made up of all the inhabitants of the particular city in which that church was found – one city, one church. The size of a church, therefore, was determined by the geographic boundaries of the city. Although there might be many different church buildings in a city, and many different ministers, there was one church in that city and one consistory.

We are told that in 1769 the Church of Amsterdam had over 50,000 members, 11 church buildings, and 30 ministers. And still it was the one church of Amsterdam, even though numerically it was much larger than a small country church of a few hundred members. Naturally, it was deemed unfair to these large congregations, with many more members and several ministers, that they should be represented at classis by only one minister and one elder.

The Principle of Article 42

There can be no question that the revision of Dordt, 1618-’19, was a mistake. It conflicted with the Church Order itself. It was a contradiction of Article 41 which clearly stated that each congregation shall be represented by one minister and one elder. It was a contradiction of Article 84: “No church shall in any way lord it over other churches, no minister over other ministers, no elder or deacon over other elders or deacons.” Obviously a large church, with several minister delegates at classis, was in a position to lord it over the smaller churches represented by only one minister.

Not only does the present revision of Article 42 correct this discrepancy, but it is established on solid biblical and church political principles.

First, the principle on which Article 42 rests is that our classes are composed of churches. Churches are represented at classis. Article 41 expresses this: “The classical meetings shall consist of neighboring churches …” A classis is not made up of individuals. A classis is not made up of officebearers: ministers and elders. But classis is the federation of the churches that make up the classis.

In the second place, the principle behind Article 42 is that each congregation is a self-governing manifestation of the body of Christ. As such, each congregation stands on equal footing with every other congregation. A larger congregation is not more of a church than a smaller congregation. Every congregation, therefore, deserves equal representation at classis.

Advisory Vote

Even though decisive vote is given only to the two delegates sent by each consistory, Article 42 gives advisory vote – the right of the floor – to the other ministers of a congregation who may attend classis: “. . . also those not delegated according to the foregoing article (i.e., Article 41) shall have the right to attend classis with advisory vote.”

Here a concession is made to those larger congregations who do have more than one minister. Yet this is more than merely a concession. This is practical wisdom for a classis, for in the multitude of counselors there is safety.

Who are included in those who may be given advisory vote under Article 42? Other ministers than the one delegated by the consistory in congregations where there is more than one minister. Retired ministers and missionaries of a congregation, as well as professors of theology, would also be included.

No formal decision ought to be taken by a classis to grant the right of advisory vote to other ministers from a congregation attending the sessions of classis. Article 42 gives them this right. A classis cannot give them what they already have.

W.W.J. VanOene offers this judgment with respect to the granting of advisory vote:

Herewith let it be stated that one’s right to attend classis in an advisory capacity applies only in case it is a classis where “his” church is represented. If he moves to another classical district . . . he has no more rights at a classis in that area than any other church member there except that, being an officebearer, he may stay and listen to the discussions when non-officebearers are requested to leave because a matter has to be discussed in closed session (with Common Consent, p. 212).

Open or Closed Sessions

In our Protestant Reformed Churches we customarily distinguish between “open session” and “closed session.”

An “open session” is a session of classis or synod that is open to the public. Any member of the church may attend and witness the proceedings. However, he may not in any way participate in or interfere with the proceedings.

“Closed session” restricts the meeting to delegates and presently serving officebearers. All non-officebearers are excused from the meeting. Closed session is declared when personal matters are discussed, when advice is sought in discipline cases, or for other reasons classis or synod deem it necessary to observe a certain degree of confidentiality.

Besides open and closed session, some Reformed churches implement from time to time “restricted sessions.” A restricted session is limited to delegates only. Even non-delegated officebearers who would be permitted to stay in closed session must leave. Certain Reformed churches resort to restricted session, for example, when discussing appointments to the denominational seminary.

Generally the rule ought to be followed in the broader assemblies that if at all possible matters ought to be treated in open session. This prevents all suspicion and distrust of decisions made behind closed doors. And this promotes denominational consciousness of the activities of the broader assemblies.