Systematic theology determined church polity, and that had an influence on church history. Thus, the Church Order of Dordt (1618/19) was for centuries the standard of church polity within the Reformed Church in the Netherlands until it was replaced by the General Regulation (1816). Because this church played a major role in the development of the reformed churches in South Africa, the assumption was that the mainline churches in South Africa closely followed the example of the Netherlands. This article aimed to evaluate the development within the mainline churches in South Africa regarding three aspects: the delegation by a church council to broader (major) assemblies; the naming of the presbytery as a circle; and finally, the composition regarding a synodical commission. A comparison was made between the densely populated Netherlands and the scantily populated South Africa. For a comprehensive view, both demographical and geographical differences, as well as political and historical developments were considered. The outcome clearly showed that church polity cannot be applied in the same manner in different locations. The majority Reformed Churches in South Africa (the Dutch Reformed Church – the whole family of churches); the Netherdutch Reformed Church of Africa (Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika) followed the same route. The only exception was the Reformed Churches in South Africa (Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid-Afrika).
This paper contributes to a new appreciation for these three aspects as still being regarded as true church polity, but in a ‘decolonised’ way from the Dutch situation during the first half of the 19th century.
The
The government of the Netherlands chartered the VOC to rule on their behalf in whichever part of the world they might settle and trade. They were also entrusted with the religious affairs of their subjects, wherever they may be. The VOC thus ruled the Cape Colony for a century and a half (until 1795), followed by British rule for a brief period (until 1803). The Netherlands again ruled between 1803 and 1806 as the Batavian Republic. Although this governing period lasted only three years, it had a major impact on church polity. The commissioner-general at the time, J.A.U. de Mist, drafted and subsequently made his Church Order official. Within the field of church polity, this Church Order of De Mist (CODM) played a significant role for many decades because the British government, which again governed the Cape Colony for several decades since 1806, did not make any new rules concerning the church in the Cape Colony.
Following this brief introduction, one must first take cognisance of the church situation in the Netherlands before comparing certain aspects thereof to those in South Africa.
The VOC’s head office was in Amsterdam. Therefore, to comply with their religious obligations as prescribed by their charter, the VOC made extensive use of the Classis of Amsterdam to fulfil a key role in the Cape Colony, as this Classis was entrusted with overseeing religious affairs, including all church polity matters. The Classis assisted in many ways – also in finding appropriate religious workers. The polity issues were mainly dealt with by correspondence and occasionally by visiting ministers
During the 17th century, the Reformed Church in the Netherlands was well organised. Developing from church meetings of note, like the Convent of Wesel (1568) and Emden (1571), church polity was neatly formulated at the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619) in the Church Order of Dordt (COD) (Koffemans
The Netherlands was densely populated, and the Reformed Church functioned efficiently within this well-formulated church polity. Regulations were clearly defined. Although no general synod was held in the Netherlands since 1618–1619, the different provincial synods – 10 in total – met on an annual basis. The many classes – at least 43 – met either bimonthly or at least quarterly (Pont
The boundaries of a classis in the 17th century were determined by two factors: the means of transport (horse or oxen) and the density of the population of the believers. The proximity of any congregation to the central congregation was decisive: no congregation must be more than half a day’s travel from this central congregation (Van den Broeke
Furthermore, when implementing this definition for the boundaries of a classis (the 43 in total), one must also take note of the multitude of congregations in the Netherlands. It is no surprise that a classis consisted of dozens of congregations – even up to 41, as in the case of Classis Leeuwarden of provincial synod Vriesland, with 41 congregations in 1816; in 1852, the total was 45, and in 1951 it rose to 49 congregations (Van den Broeke
It was the duty of every church council to delegate representatives to the meeting of the classis. The classis was responsible for a wide variety of matters – amongst other responsibilities, to also examine candidates for the ministry.
When the church council delegated members to the classis, and the classis on their part chose delegates to represent the classis at the provincial synod, and the provincial synod determined who would represent them at the general synod, this was called ‘staggered representation’ (Afrikaans,
According to the COD, every congregation sent representatives to the classis (Article 41), however numerous. This was not the case with the General Regulation of 1816 (GR1816). Now the classis was regarded as a management consisting of a commission of moderators, namely a praeses, assessor, a scribe and two and three or four commissioned ministers, as well as only one elder (GR1816, Article 55).
While the COD stipulated that the provincial synod should convene, consisting of four or five classes, and each classis should be represented by two ministers and two elders, this was also altered by GR1816. Article 31 stipulated that the provincial management should consist of one minister per classis and only one elder for all the different classes. They were to meet three times a year (Article 39).
The general synod was required to be attended by a representative (one minister) of each of the 10 provincial managements (Article 17).
Delegation to broader assemblies: The Netherlands.
Although Bouwman stated that the ideal should certainly be that all church members of all the congregations must be present at a synod (
In the Netherlands, most provincial synods adopted the COD formally. Even those provincial synods that did not adopt the COD mostly functioned on this basis until 1816 when the GR1816 was forced upon the Reformed Church by the government of the Netherlands.
The role of the classis is well known and well defined. However, to understand the later development in South Africa, attention must be given to the lesser-known concept of a circle.
Within a well-functioning classis, there was a separate entity with no governing responsibilities called a ‘circle’. Although the COD does not mention the name ‘circle’ at all, the concept had been well known in the Netherlands ever since the 17th century (Van den Broeke
Given that a classis consisted of at least a few dozen congregations, it was standard practice that a classis was subdivided into circles for these nongoverning responsibilities. The Classis of Utrecht, for example, with their 26 congregations, named their four circles as
The circle was not characteristic of a church assembly but was merely regarded as an informal meeting of ministers to oversee the required Sunday services (preaching) that were being conducted in the different congregations and particularly in a vacancy. The concept of the circle was moulded on the
The circle normally met on a weekly or biweekly basis. Since it had no governing function, it was initially not formally described in any church order. It was eventually neatly defined in the GR1816, where it stated in Article 81 that the circle should meet as often as it deemed necessary [
The GR1816 in the Netherlands (Articles 3, 31, 49, 53 [Pont
[
Article 52(d) states that this subdivision into circles is instituted for local conditions and especially to see that the necessary services are conducted in vacant congregations (Pont
The main responsibility of the circle was to guarantee that the Sunday service was conducted regularly in every congregation (taking the situation of shortage of pastors and other vacancies into account). An interesting stipulation was that the praeses of the circle where a vacancy had occurred because of the death of the minister had to inform the wife of the deceased of her responsibility towards the minister who was assigned to preach on the Sunday. As she had the use of the parsonage as well as remuneration for a year after the death of her husband, she was therefore responsible for the transport, accommodation and remuneration of the minister (Van den Broeke
In his explanation of the meaning of the circle, Pont points to the lack of management responsibilities and typifies the circle as morally religious (
It is particularly important to state that GR1816 brought extensive changes to the situation in the Netherlands. Provincial synods no longer functioned as synods – there was only a General Assembly that met on an annual basis. Two permanent members, one representative of the eight different provincial synods and one elder on a rotational basis of the provincial synods were appointed (Royaards
The COD had no place for a synodical commission. Although the general synod was envisaged, it did not convene for almost two centuries since 1619. The church councils, classes and provincial synods functioned well.
The Dutch government took the initiative to write a new church order. The GR1816 established a general synod that convened once a year. There were no more provincial synods, only provincial church managements (
At the end of 1830, the church had a general synod that convened every year. Furthermore, there was a small nine-member general synodical commission representing 10 provincial synods (managements) and a total of 43 classes from all the provinces. They met twice a year. It is important to stress that the general synodical commission was in no way representative of even a quarter of the 43 classes. In reality, they were not even representative of the 10 provincial synods (managements).
To summarise the situation in the Netherlands, since the General Synod of Dordt 1618–1619, the eight provincial synods (eventually 10) met regularly; 43 classes, each with at least two to three dozen congregations not more than half a day’s travel from the main congregation, also functioned well. This was altered in 1816 with only a general synod, provincial meetings, classes functioning and circles to attend mainly to the normal Sunday church services.
Having established this, it is now necessary to focus on the situation in South Africa.
Commander Jan van Riebeeck came to South Africa in 1652 and the first congregation, Cape Town, was established in 1665. In this frontier situation, the first Christian settlers were slowly expanding into a country where roving indigenous inhabitants practised their own religions. Some inhabitants were introduced to Christianity and were converted over time.
Geographically, the whole of the Netherlands would fit at least 10 times into the Cape Colony and about 35 times into the whole of South Africa: according to the CIA World Factbook, the land area of the Netherlands is 41 543 square km compared to the 1 219 090 square km of South Africa.
The circumstances in South Africa, however, were totally different as compared to the Netherlands. In the Cape Colony, the countryside stretched far and wide, with great distances between congregations. It was scantily populated, with small communities and inadequate transport. Moorrees correctly concludes that distances indeed played a significant role in the slow development of the church (Moorrees
It is therefore no surprise that in this situation, the establishment of congregations was a drawn-out process. During the first century and a half, congregations were slowly formed as the population expanded into this vast area: Cape Town (1665); 21 years later, Stellenbosch (1686); then Paarl (1691); after nearly half a century, Tulbagh (1743); Malmesbury (Swartland) (1745); after another half a century, Graaff-Reinet (1792) and Swellendam (1798). In the 19th century (up to 1824), congregations were formed in Caledon (1811), George (1813), Uitenhage (1817), Cradock (1818), Somerset (currently Somerset West) (1819), Beaufort (1820) and Worcester (1821). A total of 14 congregations were established from 1665 to 1824.
In the first century and a half, there could not have been any representation of a church council because there were no real means of accomplishing that. The slow development of the church must also be attributed to the fact that the church was also subservient to the state, and the government had to first seek the help of the Classis of Amsterdam regarding church polity matters.
Extraordinary in this situation is the fact that even when there were only five congregations, they felt the need to come together for useful deliberation. This could only have succeeded if both the government and the Dutch mother church approved. When this approval was granted, the Combined Church Assembly (
Except for this short experience, it took nearly 160 years before the first synod was held in 1824 – and this could only succeed by way of the 14 congregations sending delegates to synod. As no presbyteries existed at that stage, the 14 congregations sent delegates. Remarkably, this manner of delegating eventually became standard practice in the most Reformed denominations in the country. This way of representing the church council was regarded as being a
This first synod could convene because of the provisional Church Order of Commissioner J.A.U. de Mist. This church order (CODM) would, for decades, play a particularly significant role in the DRC. This CODM was called ‘provisional’ because it was never formally adopted by the Batavian Government before 1806, when the English again took over (Dreyer
Although the CODM in Article 46 made provision for the possibility that a General Church assembly could meet (Dreyer
When this GR1824 was adopted by the Synod, a few documents were influential thereto: the Church Order of Dordt of 1619 (COD), the Church Order of De Mist (1804) (CODM) and the General Regulation of 1816 (
Except for the aforementioned documents, there were two exceptional documents (each containing several propositions) regarding church polity matters that synod had to apply their mind to – both from Dr G. Thom and the Church Council of Caledon, namely ‘Fundamental Regulations’ and ‘Temporary Propositions and Regulations’ (Coertzen
The Proposed Fundamental Regulations harbours certain definite church polity recommendations. The second recommendation requests the establishment of presbyteries. In the original document it reads: ‘That the Colony be divided into presbyteries (Classes) and to which the numbers of the different Churches can appeal from the Consistories, if they consider themselves aggrieved’ (Dreyer
It is important to take note of the influence of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in this first synod. Not only did Lord Charles Somerset, the governor for the British government, played a leading role in the settlement of the British settlers in the Eastern Cape (1820), but also he was keenly aware of the shortage of Dutch ministers for the vacant congregations. He therefore requested Rev. George Thom (the minister at Caledon – previously from the London Missionary Society) to recruit ministers of Calvinist background in Scotland to serve in the Cape. Thom succeeded in his mission by recruiting several ministers from the Evangelical party in the church. Thus, of the 13 ministers attending synod, no fewer than five were from Scottish background (amongst them Andrew Murray). A resolution to take up formal relations with the Church of Scotland was even discussed by Synod but not adopted (Moorrees
The Synod adopted this General Regulation for the governance of the DRC in South Africa in November 1824 (GR1824) and further stated that the governance of the Reformed Church was being exercised by congregations, presbyteries and synod (Dreyer
The Synod divided the 14 congregations into three presbyteries – called circles – namely, the first, second and third circle (later renamed the circles of Cape Town, Swellendam and Graaff-Reinet) (Dreyer
Delegation to broader assemblies: South Africa.
It is important to remember that the first synod was convened by delegates from the congregations, as no presbyteries existed. The congregations were represented by both a minister (where there was one) and an elder. This became the standard practice and was regarded as being a
In South Africa, distances and the vastness of large parts of the country initially gave rise to a reduced rhythm of meetings after 1824: synods normally met every four or five years and circles annually.
It is therefore noteworthy that the name ‘classis’ was never used in the church in the Cape. Even in the Dutch documents of that time, it was always referred to as a circle. It is unclear why this name was chosen, especially if it be kept in mind that the COD in Articles 41 and 47 (Pont
Therefore, although there is a definite distinction between a classis and a circle, the name circle has deliberately been used since 1824 at the Cape for this major assembly. The question thus remains: why was this name chosen? What was the purpose thereof? Why was the name ‘classis’ not used at all?
It seems that one must agree with Eybers that the ‘circle’ in the DRC was regarded as more or less identical to the classis of the Old Reformed Church. Although the description of the circle in South Africa is not at all the same as that definition in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands (Eybers
The one consequence of church representation in South Africa whereby the church council delegates representatives to both the circle and the synod clearly underlines the so-called autonomy of the congregation.
Although the circle played no role in the appointment of delegates to synod, a certain recognition was given to the circle. This recognition was linked to a rather weird governing commission – the synodical commission.
At the third assembly of the synod in the Cape (in 1829), there was a thorough discussion on a
Initially, there was never any specific mentioning of the work of the synodical commission. It was only at the synodical meeting of 22 November 1842 that a specific matter was referred to the synodical commission (De Handelingen 1842:238). At the following synod – that of 1847 (already with 31 congregations) – a full report by the synodical commission was tabled (De Handelingen 1847:254 vv) and a report was even presented regarding the assignment given by the previous synod (De Handelingen 1847:261). At this session of synod, there were also several discussion points regarding the functioning of the synodical commission (De Handelingen 1847:296).
The process with the establishment of a synodical commission in South Africa had therefore taken quite a different path than that in the Netherlands (Pont
The description in 1842 of the responsibilities of the synodical commission in the church in the Cape clearly stated that the synodical commission would be the highest governing body in the church when the General Assembly was not convened. A Presbyterian principle was also ignored by not assigning any elder to this important governing body (Pont
A positive development was that every circle was at least represented in the synodical commission (which was not the case in the Netherlands). While the DRC disregarded the role of the circle in delegating people to the synod, it had a totally different attitude to delegating people to a synodical commission, perhaps understandably so. Here was a relatively small church with a few dozen congregations, a few circles (presbyteries) and as such, a sort of provincial synod that in reality functioned as a general synod.
Up to the middle of the 19th century, the DRC was the only Reformed Church. Thereafter, the Netherdutch Reformed Church of Africa (Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika) came into existence as well as the Reformed Churches in Africa (Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid-Afrika).
Within the DRC, there developed separate churches for different racial groups. Suffice it to say, they followed the lead of the DRC regarding church governance.
Just to complete the history of South Africa, four provinces (Cape Colony, Natal, Free State and Transvaal) formed the Union of South Africa in 1910. In 1961, the Union of South Africa became a Republic and in 1994, when a full democracy was established, the country was divided into seven provinces.
It is therefore clear that staggered representation did not play any role within the ranks of the DRC. It is, however, commendable that some elements of a staggered representation in the DRC came to light. Since 1994, the Church Order, in Article 33, made provision for an alternative way in which the synod could be constituted. Synod was to decide on the manner of representation as well as the number of delegates per circle (Die Kerkorde
During the further development of the DRC, major changes took place in the cities, but the tradition of small circles was kept. Indeed, a certain pattern was established: a circle would consist of a maximum of eight congregations.
The family of DRCs had strong links with each other, also regarding the implementation of church polity.
The situation remains that a church council sends delegates to both the circle and the synod. Although Article 31.1.3 allows for a synod to decide that delegates can also be selected by the circle, it is not known that any synod implements this. The synods delegate persons to the General Synod on a
The Church Order book of URCSA also contains some regulations which are still only worded in Afrikaans, and therein they always make use of the term ‘circle’ (Church Order URCSA
The presbytery is also referred to as ‘circle’ (
The General Synod (Article 32) is constituted by four members of each regional synod and one minister plus an elder, evangelist or deacon from every circle. Those delegated by the circle need to be there with a letter of credence of that circle (Article 32.3) (Die Hersiende Kerkorde van die NG Kerk in Afrika,
There is very much a shared history between the Afrikaans churches in South Africa. This is especially true for their foundation.
When compared, the Church Order of NRCA differs the most from the classical COD. NRCA assemblies are regarded as assemblies of the services (
There is no staggered representation, as the church council delegates representatives to attend the general church assembly (Ordinance 4.4, p. 50).
The NRCA also makes room for formal assemblies of elders and deacons on different levels in their church order (Kerkorde van die Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk van Afrika,
Of all the South African churches, the Church Order of the Reformed Churches of South Africa (RCSA) is certainly the closest to that of Dordt. It still has only 86 articles, and these articles contain basically the same wording as that of Dordt (Nel,
The RCSA – in line with Dordt – only has four assemblies at present: church council, classis, regional synod, and general synod (Art. 29) (Church Order of the Reformed Churches of South Africa). They adhere to the staggered representation. This, however, was not always the case. The staggered representation was decided on at the National Synod (as it was called then) of 1958, following the recommendations of a study commission which was instituted on practical grounds (Visser: Appendix B: 337). A thorough description regarding the 1958 decision can be found in the report of the Committee for Ecumenical Contact with Churches Abroad (CECCA) of the United Reformed Church of North America (Sikkema:13,14). Since that time there was at times petitions to alter this (Die Kerkblad, Julie 2006:43; Sikkema:14).
This study does not elaborate on the developments that were implemented since 1830 in the many denominations that evolved in the Netherlands. Except for the many denominations, there were also adjustments made in the Reformed (
The focus is on the formative period during the first half of the 19th century in South Africa. It is evident that historical development in another geographical area with a different demographical composition has led to a necessary deviation from the example set by the church in the Netherlands. It clearly illustrates that South African church councils have taken pride in delegating representatives to both the presbytery and the synod. This fact was surely supported by the fact that congregations were spread out over a vast area. The staggered form of delegating therefore never took off.
The naming of the presbytery as circle was generally accepted, the exception being the RCSA that continues with the name classis up to today.
Regarding the role of a synodical commission, a great deviation had also taken place from the initial Netherlands model where not every classis was represented in the synodical commission. In South Africa, it is important that at least every circle should be represented in a synodical commission.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
P.R.d.T. is the sole author of this article.
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.