Is this allowed?

By: C.A. Teunis

 

Is this allowed?
A number of questions and our confessing.

 

A publication
A publication from General Synod concerning Mariënberg (de Ark)[1] was published in De Bazuin, no. 25, 27 December 2017.
The synod dealt with all the appeals and all were defeated.

 

Is this allowed?
Publishing the following without any evidence:

  1. The consistory should have corrected certain mistakes concerning submission and discipline.
  2. All attempts by classis failed due to the refusal by consistory.
  3. The consistory accused classis of hierarchy.
  4. The consistory continually appealed to the Church Order and Church Polity.
  5. A spirit of independentism[2] has taken control of the consistory.
  6. The independentism went together with a form of dominion of the consistory.
  7. The consistory has led the congregation on a sectarian[3] path.
  8. The consistory consists of erring brothers.

 

Is this allowed?
Publishing a change in a person’s social status:

  1. This dominion has led to the suspension and deposition of its own minister.

 

Is this allowed?
Claiming that the suspension and dismissal:

  1. Are unauthorized and unjustified, and
  2. Are entirely beyond all regulations recorded in the Church Order[4].

 

We confess:

  • Lord’s Day – 6th commandment: We are not to dishonour our neighbour.
  • Lord’s Day – 8th commandment: We must promote our neighbour’s good wherever we can and may.
  • Lord’s Day – 9th commandment: We must not condemn or join in condemning anyone rashly and unheard. We must do what we can to defend and promote our neighbour’s honour and reputation.

 

Explanations

[1] It is the synod’s task to deal only with matters that cannot be finished in minor assemblies, Art. 30 CO. This means: dealing of appeals, and decisions to be made on this.

[2] Independentism is a wrong form of independence.

[3] Sectarianism is heretical, it is deviation from the Reformed doctrine.

[4] Because of the arisen situation in the congregation of Groningen-Zuid, the General Synod of 1964-1965 was of the opinion that the consistory was entitled to exercise its “own responsibility” towards the great Shepherd of the sheep, and to proceed to suspend its own minister, Rev. A. van der Ziel, without the help of the neighbouring church.
The General Synod declared that this suspension was not unlawful, although it did not follow the letter of Art. 79 of the CO (Art.71, Book of Praise 1984).
The purpose of Art. 79 (71) is the protection of the flock.
See the article ‘Suspension of the minister in “own responsibility” by the consistory’ on this website.

image_pdfimage_print