Article 81 of the Church Order¹ ⤒🔗

Christian censure is held according to Article 81 of the Church Order (hereafter: CO): “The ministers, elders, and deacons shall mutually exercise Christian censure and shall exhort and kindly admonish one another with regard to the execution of their office.”

About the Term←↰⤒🔗

Christian censure is also known by its Latin form as “censura morum.” “Morum” comes from “mores” (learning): one’s walk of life, behaviour, mannerisms, and morals. The aim of this censure according to Article 81 of the Church Order is to pay mutual regard to the execution of the offices. This is not aimed at an investigation and assessment of the behaviour (in doctrine and life) of the office-bearers — although these “mores” certainly do not fall outside this discipline. For the above-mentioned reason, Dr. H. Bouwman (Reformed Church Law, Volume 2, page 671) proposed to speak of “Christian censure.” Rev. H. Bouma prefers “internal Christian censure,” with which he sought to do justice to the word “mutual” in this article. (Dienst, Volume 18, number 4, page 92.)

He had some objection to the term that Prof. J. Kamphuis proposed at the time, namely, “censura fraterna”; the latter formulation would not show sufficient distinction between official and fraternal admonition. Rev. H. Bouma notes, “In our ecclesiastical language we make a sharp distinction between fraternal and official admonition,” and he refers to the Heidelberg Catechism, q/a 85 on “church discipline.” The term “mutual Christian censure” is most in keeping with the CO.

A Bit of History←↰⤒🔗

As a church orderly provision, the matter was first discussed in the articles of the Convent of Wesel, chapter VIII, paragraph 13, in which the censure was assigned to the classis, because in many places there was as yet no consistory. The practice was that the brothers left the meeting in turn after all had taken an oath of silence, both with regard to the criticism to be issued and the name of the “critic.” When after deliberation reason was found for exhortation, this took place after arrival. The great prudence and caution in the mutual dealing with the office of the other is noticeable here. In my opinion the apostolic rule of 1 Timothy 5:19, “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses,” is here also applied to the office-bearers among themselves.

The CO of 1578, Article 66, stipulated that censure should be practiced before the celebration of the holy supper, and that the censure would address “both doctrine as well as our walk of life, and the office-bearers will accept the Christian admonitions in love” (Exposition on the Church Order, F.L. Rutgers, Lectures on Reformed Church Law, Volume IV, page125).

The Synod of Middelburg 1581 left out the provision that the admonition should be done and accepted in love. Rutgers notes, “This could not be classified as a legal provision.” The synod of The Hague 1586 removed the provision that it should be done before the celebration of the holy supper. Rutgers: “The omission of the element of time was certainly done in order to leave it in the freedom of the consistory, because the determination of a set time for one church involves something entirely different than for another church.”

Especially in combined churches, people sometimes celebrated the holy supper less than four times per year. After the Synod of The Hague, the article remained as it now stands, apart from some linguistic changes. I have not been able to find out how the practice of this censure has been in the following centuries. “No objections”?

Christian Censure and the Connection to the Lord’s Supper←↰⤒🔗

The question is whether Dordrecht (1578) with its provision about set times intended more than to ensure a regulated censure. In any case, Rutgers does not point out that a direct link has been made in history between the mutual Christian censure and the fact of proclaiming together the death of the Lord.

An objection against the celebration of the holy supper by (one of the) fellow office-bearers ought to be dealt with earlier, either in the way of Matthew 18, or via articles about discipline in the Church Order. Prof. J. Kamphuis writes in The Reformation, 45^th edition, number 18, page 140, “Primarily Article 81 of the Church Order is not about whether the office-bearers can proclaim the death of the Lord together, but whether each of them in their own position in faithful service with all the gifts they have received manifests the life of Jesus to the congregation (see 2 Corinthians 4:7-15).” He adds, “It is not necessary for this to be linked to the celebration of the holy supper. This connection has even caused damage to the purpose of the provision in Art. 81 CO.” H. Bouma supports this opinion in Dienst (see above).

Neither in the article itself nor in its history is there any identification of a material connection between this censure and the holy supper. The term “external censure” — used among us for the exercise of discipline that is meant to watch over the table of the Lord — also applies no doubt to the office-bearers; it is not specifically addressed to them by the censura morum. Obviously there is no objection to the rule that mutual Christian censure should be held during the meeting before the Lord’s supper is celebrated. There is also something appealing in this: that the office-bearers test themselves in regard to their service in their offices. Yet I do believe that Professor Kamphuis’s remark should be taken to heart, that the coupling of this censure with the celebration of the sacrament has even caused damage to the intention of the article. Rev. H. Bouma suggests in the article in Dienst to practice censure during every meeting of the consistory. The advantage would be that the church council (with the deacons) constantly reflects on what the LORD is asking of them: an ongoing critical “evaluation” of the service of the office-bearers. The mutual admonition receives the sense of mutual commitment to serve. Rev. Bouma says that this is necessary in every council meeting and he wants the censure to take place on the basis of the forms for ordination: “To this end he (the minister) will confront the brothers about the points of their official service, in which case one of the brothers will apply this also to the chairman where a minister will have to be replaced by an elder; in vacant churches a deacon will have to address the elders” (Dienst, see above).

Prof. Kamphuis proposes to use brotherly censure according to Article 81 four times a year. The chairman will read the article and ask if one of the brothers wants to raise an issue. The frequency with which this censure is held is important, but it is not the main point. The main issue is that it is done well!

The Purpose of the Article←↰⤒🔗

The intention of the article has been shown a few times in what has been said already. In The Hague 1586 they omitted the earlier provision that censure deals with doctrine and life. Rutgers says, “This of course does not imply that in mutual Christian censure there is no mention of doctrine and life. If there is something to be said about the doctrine and life of a minister of the Word, an elder, or a deacon, and a fellow servant knows this, it may not be omitted. It did not even have to be mentioned, because it goes without saying! Wisdom and love will find the right words and ways. As long as it is clear that in this mutual supervision the central point is the well being of the church, and that the honour of God is being sought.”

The rule applies here “that one not only complains about others, but that one also accepts criticisms and admonitions; that one does not only supervise others, but that one also is open to supervision by others” (Rutgers, page 129). The intention of this censure is “love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5).

The gain of the new text of Article 81 is also the word “to encourage” (that is., in the Dutch version). Such encouragement begins with noting what is good in the service of the other office-bearer, to help him progress in his ministry.

After all, it does not always have to be that heavy. Sometimes you are already “disarmed” by the way someone asks his questions. This may cause people to be on edge. An elder who considered that my third point in the sermon was far too short and insufficiently elaborated, asked the question in the following way: “Pastor, do you have principled objections to the third point?”

An Extensive Provision?←↰⤒🔗

From the reflection on the mutual Christian censure in the church where I serve, the need arose to provide some structure to this censure. A brother elder, brother K. Nolles, was prepared at the time to make a proposal about this to the church council. This resulted in an arrangement whereby five times a year the censure was practiced on the basis of a number of questions (which do not always need to be dealt with explicitly). This elaborated arrangement can be found below.

Allow me to say right away that there are some objections to this regulation and that a revision is in progress. The questions and objections revolve around the issue of whether a number of matters in the regulation belong to the meetings of the consistory (without the deacons). For example, I can mention the extensive attention for the ministry of the Word. The supervision of this is explicitly assigned to the elders. Nevertheless, upon request, I am presenting this arrangement here, to contribute something in the forming of opinions about the censure according to Article 81 of the Church Order.

1. Mutual Christian Censure at the Start of the Meeting Season (August/September)←⤒🔗

A. The Minister←↰⤒🔗

His work in the congregation, that is, pastoral work in general. What does the minister do in terms of home visits, visits to the sick, homebound seniors? How are these visits made? Duration of the visits? Are older people being visited? Is attention paid to special cases, happy or sad events, difficult cases?

Does the congregation appreciate the pastoral work?

B. Elders←↰⤒🔗

The Home Visit←↰⤒🔗

Regularity; preparation. How is the visit organized (prayer, Bible reading)?

How long does the visit last? How often is it done? Do the elders say a lot or a little?

Do the special needs of the family receive attention?

Does one know the family well? Is one aware of the family’s past? Of losses suffered by the family? Is one aware of the social situation? Of the place that the husband and wife occupy in the family. Is there attention for the youth that are present? Are you aware of study or work, and the difficulties involved? Are the youth involved in the conversation? Is there possibly a conversation with the parents alone? Will a young person who is a professing member be visited separately?

C. Deacons←↰⤒🔗

Visiting the homes←↰⤒🔗

What is the purpose of it? Is this goal achieved? How is the visit set up? Much of what is mentioned above with “elders” is also applicable here.

2. October / November.←⤒🔗

A. The minister←↰⤒🔗

The task of preaching←↰⤒🔗

Does the sermon provide evidence of study? Does the minister have sufficient opportunity for study in terms of study space, literature and time? Can he perform this preparatory work undisturbed?

Free topic (usually the morning sermons)←↰⤒🔗

Is the text choice evenly distributed over the Bible? (Old and New Testament.) Is there a clear, responsible exegesis? What is the relationship between more historical and more dogmatic topics? Is the sermon Christocentric? Is it directed to practical issues, that is, does the hearer receive something to work with in everyday life? Does it give comfort, encouragement, teaching, and admonition? Is the doctrinal element presented too much or too little? Is there attention for the youth? Is the sermon too difficult or too easy? Is attention being paid to such specific groups as the elderly, studying or working young people, nurses, those serving in the military, and the like?

Are certain topical subjects sufficiently addressed (dangers in science, the environment (literally and spiritually), worldly entertainment, consumerism in society, and so on)? Are errors and heresies being dealt with? Is the sermon well presented? What about the subdivision of points? Is the sermon constructed in a clear and logical manner? (Much of what is mentioned here can also be discussed at the next censura morum. To address all of this at once is not desirable.)

B. Elders←↰⤒🔗

In general←↰⤒🔗

Is the work distributed well, also between ward partners? Are the mutual relationships good? Is there sufficient contact with the deacons?

Are special assignments provided by the consistory executed properly? (Committee work, reports, classis meetings, and so on)

Are the people in the ward well known? Is there sufficient contact with the pastor about the ward? Is the pastor sufficiently supported in his pastoral work? Is there oversight of the doctrine and life of the brothers? Do they build themselves up in the service of God?

C. Deacons←↰⤒🔗

In general←↰⤒🔗

In general matters, is there a proper division of wards? Do the deacons receive sufficient assistance in difficult cases? Is there sufficient contact with the ward elders and with the pastor? Are the functions well distributed, and is the assigned task properly fulfilled?

3. December / January←⤒🔗

The minister←↰⤒🔗

Catechism preaching←↰⤒🔗

Much of what has been mentioned earlier under the “free topic” may also serve as a focus for catechism preaching. Even more attention is to be paid to this: is the preaching mainly doctrinal in nature, is it instructive, is it focused on practical application? It should be remembered that where the emphasis should be placed depends to a large extent on the treatment of the specific Lord’s Day. Is there attention for other confessional writings?

Liturgy←↰⤒🔗

The entire order of the service. What about the prayer before and after the sermon? Is there too much or too little singing? Is attention paid to children and toddlers in the choice of the psalms and hymns to be sung? Ratio of psalms and hymns. Are the songs quoted in advance and is this desirable or not? What about the choice of songs after the votum, after the reading of the law or confession of faith, songs used as an amen to the sermon, and as closing song?

What is the evaluation of the baptismal service, the celebration of the supper, and the ways that wedding ceremonies are conducted?

Elders←↰⤒🔗

Special visits, district visits←↰⤒🔗

Do you also visit the families outside of the home visit?

Does attention get paid to happy and sad events in families?

Are sick people visited, as well as older people, single persons, those who are lonely, youth living independently, and so on?

What does one do in difficult cases?

How are new families being received?

If necessary, are contacts established with other authorities or institutions in certain cases? Which procedure is followed? (Contact with the minister and/or a deacon.)

Deacons←↰⤒🔗

Diaconal labour←↰⤒🔗

How does one get informed of any financial need? Is there attention for social issues that are not specifically financial concerns?

How do the deacons deal with social legislation?

Is other help sought in special cases? When and why?

How is the reporting of the district deacons dealt with at the diaconal meeting?

Is there satisfaction with the diaconal interest in the congregation, also apparent from collections and contributions?

4. February / March←⤒🔗

The minister←↰⤒🔗

Catechesis interactions with the youth of the church←↰⤒🔗

Method used in catechization; is this closely monitored?

Current topics: regularly or casually?

Is the explanation clear and is material being assigned? How is it checked?

What is the setup of pre-confession instruction? (In this discussion, the reporting of the elders who visited the catechism classes can take place at the same time.)

How is the interaction with the youth? Is it confidential, distant? Is there attention for special youth problems? In general, how is contact made and maintained with the young people?

Elders←↰⤒🔗

Visiting of study societies and catechism classes. Are youth associations regularly visited? How is this visit done? What is the purpose and the result? Will the visit be announced in advance? What is being done to improve certain situations that are not desirable? What is being done to encourage participation in the studying and other activities? What is the relationship to the parent association?

Is something being done to ensure care for proper leadership? Is there any consultation with the boards of the societies of the older young people?

Is the minister supported in his catechetical work? What is done in cases of unfaithful catechism and/or study society attendance? What is done for special circumstances such as the disabled and the like?

Deacons←↰⤒🔗

Charity work in general←↰⤒🔗

What support is given to various associations and foundations that appeal to the church community for support? What are the criteria that are applied in these cases?

How do the members of the congregation stimulate this work? Is sufficient use being made of the possibilities for help that are offered (through national organizations, for example, for the mentally disabled, the blind, and so on)?

5. April / May←⤒🔗

The minister←↰⤒🔗

Church Council meetings←↰⤒🔗

Are the meetings well prepared? Is there proper guidance in the discussion? Is the agenda well balanced? Is everyone given the opportunity to speak? Does the chairman have too much or too little dominance?

Are the decisions well formulated and is it ensured that they are properly recorded?

Elders←↰⤒🔗

Church Council meetings←↰⤒🔗

Are people satisfied with the state of affairs in the broader (council; with the deacons) and the narrower (consistory; elders-only) meetings? Are things well discussed? Is there a proper balance between the times spent on the material things in relation to the spiritual well being of the congregation?

How is the relation to the various committees (mission, evangelism, and so on)? Are people satisfied with the state of affairs?

As far as the meeting itself is concerned: do people feel inhibited by the chairman or by others in the conversations? Do some have too much or too little to say? How is the motivation, the presentation? Is too much or too little thought being given to some matters? Are the discussions too business-like (or the opposite)? Are the reports of visitations brought to the consistory deemed to be appropriate?

Deacons←↰⤒🔗

Church council meeting as above with elders←↰⤒🔗

The same issues can be raised about diaconal meetings.

Once again I want to reiterate that this arrangement is certainly not the end of the matter; see my earlier comments above. It is also not the intention of the mutual Christian censure to construct an inventory of what is being done; the questions may sometimes lean in this direction. The question is always, “How do we do the work, are we faithful and are we willing to do the work as well as we are able to, in service to the Lord Christ, the Head of the church?” The arrangement copied above serves as a consideration.

Is it necessary that, in case of lawful absence, one needs to give a declaration in writing in accordance with Article 81 of the Church Order? This custom does illustrate how this article often functions, that is, whether or not one has an objection to proclaiming the death of the Lord Christ together.

Some points that have not been discussed in this article are as follows:←↰⤒🔗

Is it necessary that, in case of lawful absence, one needs to give a declaration in writing in accordance with Article 81 of the Church Order? This custom does illustrate how this article often functions, i.e., whether or not one has an objection to proclaiming the death of the Lord Christ together.

Nor has it been considered whether the regulations concerning church visitation can serve as a guideline for the practical implementation of what is discussed in this article. The advantage would be that the visitation questions become more integrated into the regular church work.

Furthermore, the danger must be recognized that when dealing with a regulation, mutual Christian censure will get bogged down in a (formal or abstract) discussion about the work.

You may also want to vent your heart about the joy and the weight of the work in your office. But we must also allow these expressions to be kept and guarded by Jesus Christ. Everything needs to be directed toward the optimization of the service of the office-bearers, who are weak in themselves, and who are in need of mutual upbuilding in a spiritual manner.

In this article no attention was paid to the possibility of over-extending the function of censure when addressing specific fixed times. This article does also refer to the attitude we have in regard to the work and to each other: Outside of this fixed agenda item, a lot of “censure” can and will be practiced when all things are functioning well. This does not take away from the fact, or rather it underlines the need, that it should be practiced in our meetings: It constantly determines our need for mutual censure.

It has also not been discussed how the brothers should prepare themselves for this point on the agenda. If an arrangement is available (with questions, points needing attention), everyone will need to have a copy.

In conclusion←⤒🔗

One of the “particular questions” dealt with at the Synod of Middelburg (1581) concerned the following:

“Can an elder, admonishing and rebuking one of his fellow servants who has only recently entered into the ministry of the Word, be rightly accused of being domineering?”

The reply to this was, “No, because the other is bound to accept the admonition.”