The New Testament
The New Testament uses the word “church” to designate either a local congregation or a fellowship of local churches in a certain area. Therefore, on the one hand, we may regard the local congregation as a manifestation of the body of Christ. Christ Himself is present there with the fullness of His grace and power. It is there, under the preaching of the Gospel, that sins are forgiven and sinners are convicted, converted and comforted. It is in the local church that God’s people grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are guided by the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, we can say that local congregations need each other. Even though the Lord’s saving work is experienced in the local congregation, an individual congregation does not posses salvation independently from others or by itself. Salvation is a matter of “all the saints.” We therefore are convinced that it is right for Christian congregations to associate and unite under a common government.

The tension between the local congregation and the churches that make up a federation is the same dynamic that exists in the life of every Christian. In Christ, every believer is perfect, but the perfection he has in Christ is also the goal for which he keeps striving. That is also how it is with the church. The Lord Jesus Christ is present with the fullness of His salvation in a local congregation. But salvation is present only in part because the local congregation does not yet enjoy salvation in communion with all saints. This is related to knowing only “in part” as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians13: 9. One day the knowing “in part … shall be done away” with (1 Cor.13: 10). Then the tension between “church” and “churches” will also be done away with. Then everything will be reduced to the simplicity of perfection.

The Pendulum Movement
Until that time there will continue to be tension between a local congregation and the federation of churches, in more way than one. I wish to point to one facet of that, because this tension sometimes is resolved in a sort of pendulum movement, as is evident from church history. The one side of the pendulum swings to artificial unity that comes by way of denominational government from the top down. It is imposed by hierarchical church government and is not founded on confessional unity. The other side of the pendulum often swings to independence of the local church at the expense of unity with a federation of churches. In some church federations local churches practise a so-called right of ratification. That is, when a synod makes a certain decision, the consistories are only bound by this decision when they ratify it. Such a method makes every decision of a broader assembly debatable.

To be sure, independentism as an overreaction to denominationalism is understandable. It reacts against the usurpation of power by a denominational “higher body” and goes beyond ratification. A denominational “higher body,” however, may react against the pendulum swing toward the independentistic right of ratification. Sometimes churches that secede from a denomination ruled by a powerful synod or synodical standing committees swing so far to the right that they reject the Church Order and the authority of broader assemblies.

A Middle Way
Independentism is a trend in history where the full weight is placed on the autonomy of the local church and the local church functions independently of a church federation. The congregation is fully autonomous. It may have a relationship with a fellowship of churches, but that relationship is not an essential part of being a church. That is not all that independentism entails, however. It does not only concern the relationship between the local church and other churches, but also the impacts on the relationship between the congregation and the consistory. It is also possible for the congregation to take a stand independently of the consistory. Independentism is representative of a view that impinges on the exercise of authority in the church. It is seen as lying in the assembly of the believers.

Hierarchical rule does precisely the opposite. This tendency, which surfaces repeatedly throughout church history, exists where persons place themselves above the inheritance of the Lord. This is the case in the Roman Catholic Church. The clergy is distinguished from the laity by possessing an innate, inherent authority. That is what gives the clergy the right to exercise infallible authority over the inheritance of the Lord. The Reformation rejected this hierarchical rule clearly and definitely. But has this leaven been cast out altogether? Can a synod not display hierarchical tendencies or--take note!--can a consistory not lord it over the heritage of the Lord?

Is the Reformed point of view then simply some sort of safe middle path between hierarchy and independentism? No; those who take the middle of the road run the real risk of being so occupied with their own position that they will never reach the goal. Middle-of-the-roaders run a real risk of ending up in an ecclesiastically neurotic position. The Reformed view of the church and federation of churches is not a safe middle of the road position. Rather, it is the way of the Word.

In both independentism and a hierarchical system authority is tied to a man or to a body of men who occupy a position in the church, or to men who are assembled at synod. The Reformed position precisely rejects such a view. It rejects all authority of men and desires only to bow completely under the authority of the Word, that is, under the authority of Him who speaks that Word through His Spirit. The Lord is enthroned as the King of His church and He proclaims His will in His Word.

That is why Reformed church government always seeks to keep open the way to the Word of God. It is the royal way and the way that is distinctly different from the middle of the road. It is a wholesome way and it is the only way. Where the Word of the King is, there is the rule of the King. Everyone who fears God will want to bow in obedience to that Word because it sets us free… The truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

The Way of the Holy Spirit
Because the Reformed relationship is between church and the Word, it also is the way of the Holy Spirit. This is so fundamentally Reformed that anyone who forgets this falls into tyranny. This viewpoint elicits courage because it gives one person alone the courage to stand up to a consistory, and if need be, to a synod. The Reformation is unthinkable apart from this fundamental point. The courage of Luther is rooted in it and so was Calvin’s. His immovable stand was rooted in God’s Word, which makes a person courageous.

This viewpoint not only makes a person courageous, but even more, it makes one humble. The Holy Spirit does not just give only one person an understanding of His will. Rather, He gives His gifts to everyone. The Lord makes His ways known to believers when they consult with each other and they together, prayerfully seek His will according to God’s Word. The source that impelled people to speak out about the authority of synods in the days of the Reformation is found in the extraordinary light shed on the work of the Holy Spirit. One can also say that it is by faith in the presence of Christ Himself. It is significant that this is the primary motif in the synodical letters of invitation that have been preserved from the days of the Reformation. Where two or three are gathered together in the Name of Christ, there the Lord Himself is present (cf.Matt.18:20), and there we may pray for His guidance, trusting that He will not leave Himself without a witness.

Therefore, the pluriformity of the gifts of the Holy Spirit also has significant theological implications for churches when they gather in broader assemblies.

ENDNOTES
1. This is the first of a two part series of articles largely translated from publications by Prof. Dr. W. van't Spijker, "Aspecten van het Kerkverband," Ambtelijk Contact (March 1973 and April 1973). This translation was done and is printed here with permission of the author.