Synod’s Authority & Confessional Status

by Cedric Parsels

Introduction

A few days from now, delegates from all over the United States and Canada will assemble at Calvin University to begin the work of Synod 2023. And they have a lot of important work to do. Their chief task, however, will be to determine how to respond to Synod 2022’s declaration that its confessional interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism has confessional status. Will the delegates essentially ratify that decision or will they overturn it in one way or another? How they come down on that question is likely to determine the Christian Reformed Church’s (CRC’s) trajectory for at least a generation.

In working toward a decision on this issue, one of the questions that Synod 2023 will have to consider is whether Synod 2022 had the authority to do what it did. Do synodical interpretations of the confessions have confessional status? Both at Synod 2022 and now in nine overtures to Synod 2023, many have vigorously argued that the answer is: No (Agenda for Synod 2023, Overtures 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 32). 

To make their argument, the overtures to Synod 2023 appeal to a 1975 Report, entitled, “Synodical Decisions and the Confessions.” According to this report, “No synodical decision involving doctrinal or ethical pronouncements [including a confessional interpretation] is to be considered on par with the confessions” (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 598).  From this, the Report goes on to conclude that,  “subscription to [or “full agreement with”] synodical decisions is not required [of officebearers]” (Ibid., p. 601-602). And, therefore, the above-mentioned overtures argue, Synod 2022’s decision was out of order. Synod 2022 did not have the authority to do what it did. Synod’s confessional interpretations do not have confessional status.     

On its face, this argument is quite compelling. Nevertheless, it has a couple of fatal flaws. Before coming to those flaws, however, some readers may find it helpful to have a summary of the 1975 Report. So, in section one, I will provide a brief sketch of the report. Then, in section 2, I will expose the fatal flaws that undermine the arguments based on the 1975 Report.  

Section 1: The 1975 Report

According to the 1975 Report, there are three levels of doctrinal authority in the CRC. First and foremost, come the Scriptures (Acts of Synod 1975, Art. 46, p.596). Scripture alone – as God’s Word – is the infallible rule “for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith” (Belgic Conf., Art. 5, 7). 

Next in order of authority come our confessions. In the CRC, we believe that our confessions are “a true interpretation of [God’s] Word” (Acts of Synod 1975, Art. 46, p.596; cf., Church Order, Art. 1.a). And it is for this reason that “full agreement with the confessions is expected from all members of the church and subscription to the confessions is required of all officebearers…” (Acts of Synod 1975, Art. 46, p.601; cf., Church Order, Art. 5).  Nevertheless, we acknowledge that our confessions are not Scripture. They are not infallible. And so, if it becomes necessary, we have a process (i.e., the gravamen process) for changing our confessions.

Finally, according to the 1975 Report, the lowest level of doctrinal authority is occupied by synodical decisions. “The authority of synodical decisions is subordinate to the confessions and the Scriptures…” (Acts of Synod 1975, p.601). The 1975 Report draws this conclusion from Church Order, Article 29, which states that, “The decisions of the assemblies shall be considered settled and binding unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order.” The 1975 Report argues that, when Article 29 refers to “the Word of God,” it is referring not only to Scripture, but also to the confessions as “a true interpretation of this Word” (Church Order, Art. 1; cf., Rules for Synodical Procedure (2022), p.21). And so, the Report concludes that, per Article 29, all synodical decisions (including confessional interpretations) are subject not only to Scripture, but also to the confessions. 

From this, the 1975 Report draws two important practical implications. First, since all synodical decisions are subject to the teaching of the confessions, synodical decisions themselves cannot have confessional status. And, second, because synodical decisions cannot have confessional status, members cannot be expected to fully agree with them and officebearers cannot be required to subscribe to them (Acts of Synod 1975, p. 601-602). 

The 1975 Report’s understanding of synodical decisions and their relationship to the confessions is simple and straight forward. And perhaps that is why it has such wide appeal. Nevertheless, as I have said, it has a couple of fatal flaws. 

Section 2: The Fatal Flaws

The first fatal flaw in those arguments attempting to use the 1975 Report to overthrow Synod 2022’s decision regarding confessional status has to do with our Rules for Synodical Procedure, i.e., the rules governing synod.¹ According to the Rules, “A succeeding synod may alter the stand of a previous synod; it may reach a conclusion which is at variance with a conclusion reached by an earlier synod. In such cases the most recent decision invalidates all previous decisions in conflict with it” (Rules for Synodical Procedure 2022, I.2, p.23). In other words, Synod 2022 was not bound by the 1975 precedent. And, thus, there was nothing illicit about Synod 2022’s acting contrary to the 1975 precedent. Synod is like the United States Supreme Court in this regard. While it should take precedents seriously, it is not ultimately bound to maintain them, especially if a previous court or, in this case, a previous synod got it wrong.

On that note, we can turn to the second fatal flaw in those arguments attempting to use the 1975 Report as leverage to overthrow Synod 2022’s decision on confessional status. For, not only does Synod 2022 have precedence over any report adopted by Synod 1975, but the 1975 Report itself is also mistaken in its approach to synodical decisions. We can see this clearly by asking a question of the 1975 Report that seems, in hindsight, at least, to be obvious, namely: who decides which doctrines are contained in the confessions? Our Church Order says that officebearers are required to affirm “all the doctrines contained in our confessions” (Suppl., C.O., Art.5.A.1). But what if there is controversy over whether a doctrine is contained in the confessions? In those  cases, who decides what an officebearer is required to believe? 

 The 1975 Report neither raises nor answers this question. Synod 1976, however, saw the problem and resolved it. According to Synod 1976, “no one is free to decide for oneself or for the church what i s and what is not a doctrine confessed in the standards. In the event that such a question should arise, the decision of the assemblies of the church shall be sought and acquiesced in” (Acts of Synod 1976, p.69; Suppl., C.O., Art. 5.A.3). In other words, the answer to the question of “who decides” is, ultimately: Synod. And, how is Synod going to clarify which doctrines are contained in the confessions and, therefore, required of all officebearers to believe? You guessed it: by confessional interpretation. So, contrary to the 1975 Report, Synod 1976 decided that there are some “synodical decisions involving doctrinal or ethical pronouncements” that we must consider “on a par with the confessions” (Acts of Synod 1975, p.598), namely, confessional interpretations.

  Put simply, Synod 1975’s mistake was a failure to distinguish between (A) synodical decisions that define and/or clarify the content of our standards and (B) synodical decisions that involve an application of those standards.² Without this distinction our confessional structure simply will not work. For, without this distinction, we will have no way to settle disputes over which doctrines are contained in the confessions and which are not. Synod 1976 – with the help of our ecumenical partners – realized this and adopted the relevant changes to our church order (cf., Suppl., C.O., Art. 5.A.3).

Conclusion

The two fatal flaws identified in the last section thoroughly undermine at least some of the grounds in the nine overtures mentioned earlier. The fact of the matter is that Synod 2022 had the authority to declare that its confessional interpretation has confessional status just as Synod 2023 has the authority to ratify that decision.

Of course, what I have argued here does not mean that every question about how confessional interpretation works in the CRC has been settled. Nevertheless, without going into all the details, there is much wisdom in the way that synods prior to the 1970’s approached these matters. Perhaps a taskforce, such as the one proposed in Overture 73, could mine those precedents to bring much needed clarification to the way confessionalism works or, at least, ought to work in the CRC.    

---

Footnotes

¹ I would like to thank the Rev. Josh Christoffel’s for making me aware of this point.  

² Admittedly, the line between a synodical interpretation and a synodical application will at times be vague. The categories sometimes overlap. But, unless we are going to go the route of some postmodernists and claim that our confessions have no inherent meaning, we are going to have to agree that there is some distinction between an interpretation/clarification of the confessions and their application.