AreDeaconsMembersoftheSession?
R.DeanAndersonJr.
ExtractedfromOrdainedServantvol.2,no.4(October1993)
DodeaconsbelongtotheSessionornot?GenerallyspeakinginPresbyteriancircles,the
answerisno.Deaconsholdtheirownmeetings.TheymayadvisetheSessionofelderson
variousmatterswithintheirsphereofoperation,butingeneraltheyareguidedanddirectedby
therulingbodyofelders.
Butthisisnotalwaysthepractice.InmanychurchesofcontinentalReformedpersuasion,
deaconsandelderstogetherformtherulingbodyofthechurch.Sometimesdeaconsare
removedwhendiscussionconcernspastoralmethods,butthetrendinmanychurchestodayis
formoreandmoreinvolvementofthedeaconsinthemattersoftherulingSession.Oneneed
onlylookatthecurrentpractice(andchurchorder)oftheChristianReformedChurchesto
namebutoneexample.
Idon�tknowhowmuchthistrendmightbeevidentinchurchesoftheOrthodox
PresbyterianChurch,butitissurelyanissuethatoughttobeexamined.Whyisitthat
ReformedandPresbyterianchurchesseemtodifferonthispoint?Ofcourse,theonlywaythe
pointcanproperlyberesolvedisbygoingbacktotheWordofGodanddeterminingtherethe
waythatChristwouldhaveHischurchruled.
Yetasapreliminarytothatstudy,Iwouldliketoinvestigateinthisarticlethemorehistorical
question.IsitreallytruethatReformedchurcheshavealwaysdifferedwithPresbyterianson
thispoint?OristhecurrentpracticeinmanyReformedchurchesamoveawayfromtheir
ownheritage?AsIhopetoshow,thecurrenttrendofincludingdeaconsasfullmembersofa
rulingSessionwascertainlynotthepracticeoftheReformedfathers.
AtthegreatSynodofDort1618-1619theArminianschallengedtheReformedfathersby
arguingthatArticle30oftheBelgicConfessionwasinconflictwiththechurchorderand
Scripture,asregardingtheconstitutionoftheSession,andoughttobechanged.The
ReformeddidnotacceptthisinterpretationoftheConfessionandthusdidnotacquiescetothe
demandsoftheArminiansinthisrespect.
Whatlaybehindthisdecision?AndwhathadtheactualrulingsandpracticeoftheReformed
churchesuptothispointintimebeen,withrespecttotheconstitutionoftheSession?Inwhat
followsIhopebrieflytooutlinethedevelopmentsanddecisionsoftheReformedchurchesin
thisrespect,firstlyofthoseinFrance,andthenofthoseinthelowcountries.
OnMay25th,1559,thefirstSynodoftheFrenchReformedchurchesofficiallymetwith
delegatesrepresenting50(outofapossible75)localchurches.AtthisfirstSynodtheFrench
Confession(draftedbyCalvin)wasadopted.SincethisFrenchConfessionwastobetheclose
modelfordeBres�BelgicConfession,itisimportanttonotethattheFrenchConfession
doesnotmakeanyallusionwhatsoevertotheconstitutionofaSession(cf.Art.29).
Calvin(thedraftsman)himselfunderstoodtheSessiontobecomposedofelders(cf.Inst.
IV:xi:6),andthiswasalsothepracticeofthechurchesinGeneva.[1]
HoweverthefirstFrenchSynodalsopublishedachurchorder(the “Discipline
ecclesiastique”)whichreadinArt.20:
TheeldersanddeaconsarethesenateofthechurchofwhichtheministersoftheWordshall
takethechair.[2]
SowhiletheConfessiondidnotstateitexplicitly,theunderstandingoftheFrenchReformed
churchesregardingtheconstitutionoftheSessionwasatfirstdifferentfromCalvin(andalso
fromtheDutchtradition),astheFrenchwereinanumberofothermatters!Deddensinfact
showsthattheFrenchconceptionofthetaskofadeaconwasheavilyinfluencedbyRoman
Catholicism(e.g.,inmatterspertainingtoassistancewithpreachingandsacraments,their
understandingwasidenticaltotherelationbetweenbishopanddeaconincontemporary
RomanCatholicism).[3]Thisallchangedwiththe7thSynodofLaRochelle(1571)underthe
verycapabledirectionofthechairman,Bees,fromGeneva.Herethechurchorderwas
modifiedstating:
TheministersandeldersformtheSession,whereintheministersshallpreside,
andthedeaconsmayassistwhenevertheSessiondeemssuchappropriate.[4]
TheSynodofNimes1572howeverstatedmorefully:
TheministersoftheWordofGod,togetherwiththeelders,constitutethe
consistoryofthechurch,overwhichtheministersmustpreside.Andthedeacons
mayandmustbepresentattheassemblyofthecouncil,inordertobeableto
serve(theconsistory)withtheiradvice,justaswehaveuptillnowusedthem
withsuccessinthegovernmentofthechurchandsincetheywerecalledtothe
taskofelders.Andinthefuturethedeacons,joinedwiththepastorsandelders
shallhavethedirectionofthechurch.[5]
HereweseethattheFrenchinclusionofthedeaconswiththeconsistorywasNOTbecause
theyviewedtheofficeofdeaconasarulingoffice,butbecausetheyviewedtheirdeaconsas
calledatthesametimetobeassistantelders.Heretheywereevidentlyabletogivesome
“afterthefact”justificationoftheiractualpractice,whileatthesametimebeingcarefulnotto
blur(theologically)theScripturaldistinctionbetweentheofficeofelderandthatofdeacon.
Nevertheless,thisSynodstilldidnotpermitdeaconstotakepartindiscussionofdiscipline
cases.[6]
InturningtotheReformedchurchesinthelowcountries,wecomefirsttotheBelgic
ConfessionofGuidodeBres,publishedin1561.Aswehavesaid,thiswasveryclosely
modeledontheFrenchConfessionof1559,yetthewordingwithrespecttotheofficesofthe
churchisslightlydifferent.
InArt.30itisstated:
Wijgeloven...daterookOpzienersenDiakenen(molten)Zion,ommetdeherders
toZionawlsevenroad(Lat.quasisenates)derKirk.[Webelieve...thatthere
(must)alsobeoverseersanddeacons,whotogetherwiththepastorsformasort
ofaCouncilofthechurch][7]
Rutgers,thewellknownexpertinchurchpolityoflatelastcentury,notingthe“awls”(and
Latin“Quasi”)pointsoutthattheconfessionatthispointismerelymakingacomparison
betweentheofficersofthechurch,andthesenatorsonatowncouncil.Nochurchpolitical
pointismaderegardingthepropercompositionofaSession.
Thegeneraltaskofeachofficeismerelycircumscribed(whichareadingofthecomplete
articleshowsclearly).[8]ThiswasalsotheexplanationcurrentatthetimeoftheSynodof
Dort.TheexplanationwaschallengedsomeyearslaterbytheEnglishmanSeldon(anErastian
delegatetotheWestminsterAssembly)whoallegedthattheSynodofDorthadchangedthe
meaningoftheConfessionbyintroducingtheword“quasi”(“asif”)intheLatintranslation.
Voetius(Pol.Eccl.ParsIII,Lib.ITract.ICap.VII,p.62ff)(adelegatetotheSynodofDort
1618-19)howevertookSeldontotask,showingthatinalltheversionsoftheConfessionprior
totheSynodofDort161819,thetextread“awlsevenRaedtderKercke”(“asifacouncilof
thechurch”),thusintentionallydistinguishingtheofficersandauthorityofthechurchfrom
thatofthestate.[9]
Thus,wemayconcludethat,liketheFrenchConfession,theBelgicConfessiondidnotmake
anydefinitivestatementontheconstitutionoftheSession.
In1568alargegatheringofofficebearersfromthelowcountriestookplacetoprepareforthe
firstSynodoftheReformedchurchesthere.ThisConventofBezel(asitwascalled)also
draftedachurchorderinwhichitwasclearlystatedthatdeaconswerenotapartofthe
Session(cf.Cap.2&3;Cap.4:1,3,S,7,9,10ff).
YetthefirstSynodinEmden1571(whichwashighlyinfluencedbytheFrenchwhosent
delegates)statedthatdeaconswereapartoftheSession![10]
AttheSynodofDort1574thisconfusionwasclearedupwithadeclarationdeclaringthe
intentofthedecisionoftheSynodofEmden:
InexplanationofthearticlesoftheSynodofEmden:TheministersoftheWord,
eldersanddeaconsformaConsistorysuchthattheministersandeldersshall
assembletogetheralone,andalsothedeaconsshallassembleseparatelyinorder
tohandletheirrespectivebusiness.Howeverinplaceswheretherearefewelders
thedeaconsmaybeallowedtoattend(theeldersmeeting)atthepleasureofthe
Consistory.Thedeaconsmustattendwhenevertheyarecalledtodosobythe
Consistory.[11]
ThiswayofputtingthingswascontinuedbythevarioussuccessiveSynodsinthelow
countries.
ThustheSynodofMiddelburg1581stated:
ThereshallbeaSession(kerkeraad)inallchurches,consistingofMinistersofthe
WordandElders.[12]
InanswertoaparticularquestionastowhetherthedeaconsmaybeallowedtoattendSession
meetingswheretherearefewelders,theSynodsaid:
ItispermittedaslongastheSessionrequeststheircounselandhelp.Inaddition
theymayalsoordinarilyattendSessionso(longas)theyservebothoffices,that
ofelderandthatofdeacon.[13]
HereagainweseethataswiththeFrenchchurches,whendeaconswereallowedtoattend
Sessionmeetings,theywereconsideredtobefunctioningnotasdeacons,butaselders.Inthe
Dutchtradition,thedeacons'attendancetendedtoberestrictedtocaseswheretherewerevery
fewelders.Itshouldalsobenotedthatthedeaconswereaddedforcounselandassistance,but
nowhereisitsaidthattheytherebybecamepartoftheSessionproper.Theideawasto
includethemforthesakeofextrawisdomindiscussion.Thewordingisinfactsocautious
thatitseemsverydoubtfulthattheyeverhadvotingrights(evenincasesoffewelders).This
isconfirmedbythelaterobjectionoftheArminianstotheBelgicConfession,forpartoftheir
objectionwasthattheBelgicConfessionseemed(tothem)tosuggestthatdeaconscouldhave
suchvotingrights(apracticeunheardof!).
TheSynodofs'Gravenhage1586continuedthesameline,andaddedthewordingthatwasto
becomestandardinReformedchurchesforcenturies:
AndwherethenumberofEldersisverysmall,thedeaconsshallbetakenup
alongwiththeSession.[14]
Againthewordingiscautious,anddoesnotactuallysaythatinsuchinstancesthedeacons
formapartoftheSessionitself.ThiswordingwasonlyslightlychangedbytheSynodofDort
1618-1619,whichstatedthat“thedeaconsMAYbetakenupalongwiththeSession.”Aswe
havenoted,atthisSynodtheArminiansarguedthattheBelgicConfessiongavedeacons
votingrightsonSession.[15]
HowevertheSynodlefttheConfessionasis,understandingtherelevantclausenottobe
speakingoftheconstitutionofaSession(seeabove).Thereforeitdidnotseeany
contradictionbetweentheConfession(Art.30)andtheChurchorder.
ThusfromthebeginningoftheReformationthegeneralReformedlinehasbeentolimitthe
constitutionoftheSessiontoeldersonly,andtopermitdeaconsattimestoattend(especially
whenthenumberofeldersisfew)andtogivetheirwisdom,butnottoallowthemanypartin
therulingofthechurch.WhendeaconsattendsuchSessionmeetings,Reformedpolityhas
consistentlyconsideredthemnottobefunctioningintheirofficeasdeacon,buttobe
performingaspecialserviceandassuchfunctioningasanelder.
Itmaybeofinteresttonotethatin1644fourdeaconsfromRotterdamdesiringtobe
consideredpartoftheSession(buttheSessionhavingrefused)appealedtotheclassis(using
asargumenttheSynodofEmden1571).Theclassisdeniedtheappeal,sothebrothers
appealedtothenextnationalsynod(neverheld).AttheSynodofUtrecht1905,therelevant
articleoftheChurchorderwasmodifiedtostate:
AndwherethenumberoftheEldersissmall,theDeaconsmaybetakenup
alongwiththeSessionaccordingtolocalregulation;thewhichshallalways
occurwherethenumberislessthanthree.[16]
GiventheclearhistoryoftheReformedpracticeonthismatter,weaschurchesshouldbe
doublycarefultobesurethatwehavesolidBiblicalgroundsifwechoosetodepartfrom
traditionalReformedchurchpolity.ThechurchesoftheOrthodoxPresbyterianChurch
shouldnotthinkthatthisismerelyaPresbyterianversusacontinentalReformedmatter.Itis
ratheragenerallyReformedposition(session=eldersonly)versusadeparturefrom
Reformedtradition(session=eldersanddeacons).Issuchadeparturereallybiblically
defensible?
Endnotes
[1]A.D.R.Polman,onzeNederlandseGeloofsbelijdenis,Vol.4,p.25.
[2]BekenntnisschriftenundK.o.dernachGottesWortref.Kircheherausg.vonW.Niesel,Munchen1938,p.77.
[3]P.Deddens,DePositivevandeDiakenentenAnacinvandenKerkeraad(1948),p.16.
[4]Ladisc.ref.deFrance,parDyes,Orleans1675,p.144.
[5]D�Huisseau,opcit.pp.144-145.
[6]Polman,opcit.vol.4,p.28.
[7]Notethatthepointsmadeinthefollowingdiscussionaremadewithrespecttotheofficialtextofthe
Confession.TheEnglishtranslationincommonusetodayisverymisleadingatthispoint.
[8]F.L.Rutgers,KerkelijkeAdviezen,vol.1,p.277.
[9]PoliticaEcclesiastica,ParsIII,Lib.ITract.ICap.VII,p.62ff.NotetoothatinasimilarwaytheGenevan
Ecclesiasticalordinancesof1541and1561spokeofthefourofficesforthegovernmentofthechurch(minister,
teacher,elder,deacon)whiledeaconswereatthesametimeexcludedfromtheconsistory.Nocontradiction
betweenterminologyandpracticewasunderstoodbythiswayofspeaking.
[10]F.L.Rutgers(ed.)ActavandeNederlandscheSynodender16eeeuw,s'Gravenhage1889,p.58.
[11]Rutgers(ed.),Acta,p.139.
[12]Rutgers(ed.),Acta,pp.385-386.
[13]Rutgers(ed.),Acta,p.405.
[14]Rutgers(ed.),Acta,p.495.
[15]ActaetScriptasynodaliadordracenaministrorumremonstrantium:I:96f.ItshouldbenotedthattheArminians
atthetimewereattemptingtofindasmanycontradictionsintheConfessionastheycould,forpartoftheirgeneral
platformwasthattheConfessioncouldnotbeheldtobestringentlybindingonallofficebearers.Theirattemptat
thispointtoshowtheConfessiontobeinconflictwiththeChurchorderandpracticeoftheReformedChurches,
wasthusinlinewiththeirgeneralplatform.
[16]P.Deddens,DePositivevandeDiakenentenAnacinvandenKerkeraad(1948),p.15.