I. What is being confessed in this article?⤒🔗

This article, along with the next article, articulate how the church ought to be governed:

1. Our starting point is the belief that our Lord himself has taught us in his Word how the church should be governed, namely, by a form of government that is called spiritual, as distinct from civil or secular forms of government.
2. This means that there must be ministers to preach God’s Word and to administer the sacraments; but also elders and deacons to jointly form a senate or church council.
3. In this way they are taking care of the following, according to their particular office:
   • that the pure religion is maintained and pure doctrine is not obstructed;
   • that those who cross the line would be punished and restrained in a way that is again called spiritual, in other words, distinct from the way in which government punishes its subjects;
   • that the poor and those who are in difficulties will be helped and comforted, each according to need.
4. This is the way to keep matters going well and orderly in the church, provided that suitable, trustworthy men are elected, in accordance with Paul’s rules in his letters to Timothy and Titus.

II. The ecclesiastical form of government is based on Scripture←⤒🔗

1. How should the Church be governed?
   This is preceded by another question, namely whether we are allowed to decide for ourselves how the church is governed, or whether the Bible gives us the answer. Practice appears to want to teach us that people can decide for themselves about this, because there are about as many forms of government as there are denominations and sects. The Salvation Army has its officers; many sects boast that with them all may speak; the Roman Catholics have their hierarchical clergy with the pope at the top; there is a difference of opinion about the authority of a consistory compared to, for example, a synod; and so on.
   This great variety seems to indicate that the form of government of the church is a non-binding matter.
2. Indeed, especially since the last century, people have wanted to show that the way in which the church should be governed cannot be derived from the Bible. There were mainly two arguments for this:
   a. How the church is to be organized and administered is only a matter of utility. We simply have to look at what is most profitable at a given time and not commit ourselves to one single form of governance. For comparison, we can think of the different forms of government: There are republics and there are kingdoms, and both are possible. So it would be with the form of government of the church. Whether a bishop should be at the head; or a synod; or whether the consistory should be given the highest authority— these matters should be decided in terms of efficiency.
   b. According to the New Testament, the apostles provided leadership. There was no permanent church organization at that time. We do not even know exactly how the churches were governed at that time and so we can not copy it for our present time. It is impossible to say that this is how it was then and so that is how we will do it today. The situation was too unclear, and there was a high degree of fluidity.
3. If point 2b, above, is correct, then everything ends right there, and we will have to come up with our own form of government.
   But this claim is incorrect. However, we do admit that a certain development was taking place during the time of the New Testament. That could not possibly be otherwise. First there were the apostles, assisted by the evangelists; there were prophets as well. But after those somewhat turbulent and unique early days, the churches entered calmer waters. It was then that their organization also took shape. We already find the final result of this development in the later period of the New Testament. For example, the (first) letter from Paul gave instructions to Timothy, as noted at the conclusion of this article. This letter was written towards the end of Paul’s life. In it he gives all kinds of indications that are of the utmost importance in the subsequent exit of the apostles.
   This also applies to the letter to Titus. In both of these so-called pastoral epistles, Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes very purposefully about the organization of the church for the centuries to come.
   And therefore, “We believe that this true church must be governed according to the spiritual order which our Lord has taught us in his Word.”
4. In this article the word "spiritual" occurs twice, namely when it concerns the "spiritual order" and when there is talk of "spiritual discipline."
   This indicates that the order of the church and its discipline are very special. "Spiritual" is opposed to "worldly." The church is to be governed, but very differently from the state. It must punish, but very differently than the state does.
   Unfortunately, church history teaches us how easily a secular government can overpower the church. Just think of the pope’s power and authority, as if he were a head of state, and how his church punished heretics and caused them to be punished.
   It is therefore of vital importance for the church to choose the form of organization “which our Lord has taught us in his Word.” It seems very plausible to us that by "our Lord" is meant our Lord Jesus, because this deals with the government of the church of which he himself is the Head and because it is he who gives the office-bearers to his church, according to Ephesians 4:11.

III. What this form of governance looks like←⤒🔗

1. The office of apostle was temporary. Except for Judas, who was actually deposed (Acts 1:20), they had no successors.
   The evangelists acted as helpers to the apostles and thus eventually disappeared with them. The prophets of the early days (see e.g., Acts 21:9-10) also faded away.In his letters to Timothy and Titus, Paul gives instructions on how the church should be governed from now on: not by newly-appointed apostles, evangelists or prophets, but by elders and deacons. Those will be the permanent offices. In this way, the church will be complete; see Philippians 1:1: “...to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons,”
2. The New Testament uses two names interchangeably for the elders. The first is presbyter or elder and thus incorporates the notion of age. This name indicates that the person in question was not so young anymore, because people valued the wisdom of an experienced person.
   The second name is episcopos or overseer. In it we recognize the word bishop. We could indeed say that the elders are bishops. But this then includes all the elders and not just a few as with the Roman Catholics. For, in speaking to the elders of Ephesus, Paul calls them all "episcopes" or bishops as well (Acts 20:17,  28).
   The title of episcopos or overseer designates someone who is called to lead.
3. So all elders are called both presbyters (seniors) and overseers. Meanwhile, the New Testament teaches us that there are two kinds of elders or overseers. Because  Paul writes that double honour is due to the elders who rule well, “especially those who labour in preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17)
   So all the elders had to lead, but a separate group among them was also charged with the work of preaching. Today we give those elders who preach the title of servants of the Word or ministers.
4. Because in the church no one should live uncomfortably under the pressure of sickness, loneliness, or poverty (according to the form for the ordination of deacons), Christ has given deacons. We read about the establishment of this office in Acts:6:1-7, although the title of "deacon" is not yet mentioned there, but the actual task is. After all, they are to ensure that food is served to the poor and that is why their task in Acts 6 was typified as "serving the tables." And "to serve" is the characteristic verb for the deacon, for diaconia means service.
   The deacons are mentioned in Philippians 1:1, next to the elders. Also in 1 Timothy 3:8, they are spoken of in direct connection with the elders. The deacon must meet slightly different requirements than the elder because their offices are different, but one is not higher or lower than the other, unlike  in the Roman Catholic Church, for example, where the deacon has dropped to the level of the priest’s servant.
5. The article states that there should be ministers, elders, and deacons to “form the council of the church.”
   The deacon therefore also belongs to the council.
   The Church Order of the Dort, in use in the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, states that the consistory only "consists of the minister(s) and the elders." According to this church order the consistory will "meet regularly with the deacons," but that they clearly do not belong to the consistory itself.
   It is obvious that there is a duality. It is understandable that some people therefore advocated adapting the church order to correspond to Article 30 of the Belgic Confession, while others have argued for revision of this article to be more in line with the church order.
   Meanwhile, neither the one nor the other has happened. That is not really necessary, either, because there is no real contrast.
    Article 30 of the Belgic Confession speaks about the church being "governed" but apparently means this in a broader sense of the word. After all, in the final paragraph it is said in summary that the point is that “everything in the church is to be done well and in good order." And that includes, of course, the work of the deacons. In that slightly broader sense of the word the deacons also help to rule, that is, to ensure that everything runs smoothly. And in that sense all three types of office-bearers are colleagues of each other and together they form a college or council.
   In the church order, however, the authority needs to be regulated precisely for each kind of office. And then it is rightly assumed that a deacon is not called to rule in the strict sense of leading or governing. And that is why he is not part of the consistory.
   In short, the confession takes "government" and "council" (or "consistory") somewhat more broadly than the church order.
   There is therefore no question that the confession would rate the office of deacon as higher than the church order does.

IV. The task for this form of government←⤒🔗

1. Of the ministers, Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17 that they “labour [literally, "strain themselves”] in preaching and teaching.” In addition to this, our article says that they are to preach God’s Word and administer the sacraments. The latter is, of course, directly connected with their preaching of the Word because the sacraments are its signs and seals.
   The true religion depends on this work. Therefore it is said of the ministers in particular: “By these means they preserve the true religion; they see to it that the true doctrine takes its course.”
2. The elders are also called overseers. This title already indicates that they are to provide leadership and that is consistent with what 1 Timothy 5:17 says of elders "who rule well." This implies according to Acts 20:28 that they are to pay attention to the flock of God. The article only says that by them “evil men are disciplined in a spiritual way and are restrained.” This seems to be a somewhat meagre and negative description of their office. After all, shepherding means more. However, the intention will be to highlight their authority as governing elders in precisely this way.
   See also the form for the ordination of elders for their other duties.
3. Of the deacons it is confessed that by them “the poor and the afflicted are helped and comforted according to their need.” Once again, see also the form for the ordination of deacons.

V. The condition for this form of government to achieve its purpose←⤒🔗

1. The article has set out how the Lord wants his church to be governed. He himself established the offices. That is why we may know for sure that “by these means everything will be done well and in good order."
   There is one more caveat or condition: the persons to be chosen for their respective tasks must be “faithful men," according to the rule given by the apostle Paul in the letter to Timothy. Particular attention will be paid to 1 Timothy 3:2-12. It is true that these instructions are not so much about their fidelity as about suitability. Not everyone who is faithful is therefore fit for office. While faithfulness is the primary condition, it must subsequently become clear whether one is capable. Office bearers must therefore actually meet two distinct requirements. We believe that the earliest rendition, like the French one, intended to clearly distinguish those two conditions by speaking of “being faithful, and according to the rule which Paul provides for it.” So: loyalty and suitability.
2. The requirements described in 1 Timothy 3 for the elders and deacons underline on the one hand the equivalence of , and on the other hand the distinction between, the two offices.
   Their equivalence means that the requirements for both offices largely coincide. Anyone can easily check this for themselves. The requirements for the one office are therefore not lighter or heavier than for the other.
    And yet we also note a distinction, because, for instance, the future elder is especially expected to be "able to teach."

Points to discuss←↰⤒🔗

1. Pastors (or "ministers") are called "shepherd and teacher." That is one office. Is it therefore true that he is only a teacher in the pulpit, and a shepherd when he visits the sick? Explain this in more detail.
2. What may we expect from the home visits by the elders? What is the purpose of these?
3. Why does their form for ordination require the deacons to visit all members of the congregation?
4. What is meant by "synodocracy"? What are “major assemblies,” and what authority do they have? What should a consistory do with decisions made by synods? Refer to Article  31 of the Church Order.
5. What is independentism? Within the one federation, do churches have their independence? Was there already mention of cooperation as churches in the New Testament? See Colossians 4:16, Acts 15.
6. Is it appropriate to ask a social worker for help instead of the ward elder[s] and the pastor?