URCNA Synod Escondido 2024: The Synod on Synodality

While the URCNA was gathering for synod in Escondido, California (June 17 – 21, 2024), the Roman Catholic Church was also meeting in synod, the so-called “Synod on Synodality.” These two synods don’t have a lot in common… the Roman Catholic synod has already lasted three years! Yet, without irony, URCNA Synod Escondido 2024 could likewise bear the title, “The Synod on Synodality.” 

I say this because one of the highlights of Synod Escondido was a discussion about how the churches should be represented at synod. Overture 6 proposed that the URCNA move to a classically delegated synod, wherein each classis would select twelve delegates, six elders and six ministers. Currently, synod is made up of two delegates from each church. Among other things, this proposal would result in a smaller gathering (96 vs. 240 delegates), savings in cost, and greater flexibility in which churches could host the gathering.

This discussion of this overture — ultimately defeated — gave birth to a rather profound conversation about the character of synod, and of our federation, and the important function that synod serves in knitting us together as a body of Christ. In my opinion, the most moving part of synod was when a number of elders rose and spoke about how meaningful synod is to them, and the contribution they make. It became clear that our current synod serves as a training ground of sorts, where first time delegates — including many elders and young ministers — learn about the common interests of our churches and grow in appreciation for our united labors. Almost a third of delegates in Escondido were attending their first synod.

Likewise significant was a discussion that resolved some lingering disagreement over the manner in which individual members of URCNA churches can appeal decisions with which they disagree. This debate was triggered in part by the adoption of a new Appendix 7 to the church order in 2018. Synod agreed to affirm the traditional understanding that individuals may appeal decisions of their own consistories when they are wronged (CO Article 31). However, synod rejected the view that every individual has a right to appeal any consistory or classis anywhere in the URCNA. Synod instead affirmed the view that assemblies, not individuals, are best equipped to evaluate the decisions of other assemblies and appeal if necessary (CO Article 29). Synod affirmed that every individual member may play an important role in this process: 

If an individual member alleges error(s) in a decision of a consistory, classis, or synod regarding a matter pertaining to the churches in common, he shall bring the matter to his consistory, urging it to appeal the decision of synod the assembly in question (Newly revised Appendix 7, 4.c).

While this issue inspired some passion among proponents on both sides, the discussion reflected the high degree of civility and charity that characterized all the proceedings at this synod. It was beautiful to see brothers contending for the truth, expressing distinct visions, yet also speaking from a common love for the unity we share in our federation.

Seemingly far more prosaic, but promising far reaching consequences, was the formation of a committee to explore the establishment of a URCNA Building Loan Fund. Such loan funds currently exist in a number of sister NAPARC churches, where they enable individuals and churches to invest their savings (with a market rate of return) in a fund that provides capital to sister churches for the purchase, construction, and expansion of their properties.

As usual, Wednesday evening’s presentations from foreign and domestic missionaries was once again a highlight of synod. It was encouraging to hear directly from many of our missionaries, to see the fruit the Lord has granted their labors, and to be reminded that God calls the church into a wide range of unique circumstances in which we may bear witness to the Good News of Jesus Christ. On an important and practical note, Synod also decided to create a new part-time position to serve as a domestic Missions Clerk, selecting elder Paul Lawton of Salem URC of Bowmanville, Ontario.

Synod also created a new Synodical Organizing Committee (The SOC?), to provide organizational assistance for consistories which convene future meetings of synod. The formation of this committee reflected a desire to bring greater order and efficiency to the planning of synod, and to assist churches in finding the most suitable and convenient venues for synodical gatherings. Interestingly enough, even this somewhat mundane logistical discussion raised interesting issues related to the very nature and being of our assemblies, thus Synod Escondido was to the end concerned with its own “synodality.”

One informal proposal floated over lunch in the dining hall was a future “Synod at Sea,” during which meetings would be conducted on a cruise ship, potentially lowering costs and attracting greater family participation. Perhaps the new Synodical Organizing Committee can report back on that when synod next meets in Western Canada — or Glacier Bay.

An edited version of this article appeared in Christian Renewal magazine.

Discipleship and Discipline: The Most Distinctive Mark

This article was originally published in two parts in Christian Renewal magazine, December 2019.

It is perhaps a silly question to ask what is the most distinctive among the three marks of the true church that are set forth in Article 29 of the Belgic Confession.

After all, we are not living in a golden age of preaching, and the sacramental theology of the Belgic confession has rarely held sway in the Reformed churches, much less broad protestant Christianity. The pure preaching of the gospel and the pure administration of the sacraments are surely distinctive marks in our day. 

Yet I think I can make a case that church discipline may be the most distinctive, and perhaps the most overlooked, of the three marks. It may also be the most poorly understood, even among members of Reformed churches that are formally committed to its practice. 

Discipline and Discipleship

Recently, I’ve had a reason to think long and hard about church discipline here at our church in Washington, DC, and I’d like to spend a few columns sharing those thoughts with you. 

No, I haven’t been thinking about church discipline because we are in the middle of a messy discipline case or have a greater than usual need for “correcting faults” at the moment. Rather, I’ve been thinking about discipline as I wrestle with the challenge of recruiting, training, and retaining church officers at our church in DC, particularly elders. As I’ve reflected on the role of elders and their necessity in a Reformed church, I keep coming back to the mark of discipline.

Like virtually every small church I know, Washington DC has struggled to ordain a sufficient number of men to serve as elders. We organized with a single elder in 2016, and in 2018, when this elder moved away, we were able to ordain three new elders. That lasted less than eighteen months, and now two more elders are moving away. The standard challenge of a small Reformed congregation is exacerbated in an urban context. With very few stable residents, and few older retired men, and very few members who grew up in a Reformed church, the challenge is severe. 

So why does it matter? Why do we need elders, anyway? If elders are just a governing board for the church, as a non-profit board, why can’t anyone serve in this capacity? 

Well, one answer to that question is the Reformed conviction that “church discipline” is a mark of the true church. 

One of our elders put it best when he noted that the shepherding role of elders is ultimately much more powerful when it functions in a proactive, formative fashion, encouraging and nurturing praiseworthy behavior. This is far more effective than punishing errant behavior, responding to faults among God’s people in a reactive and corrective fashion. As the old adage goes, you catch more flies with honey, and as every parent knows, positive feedback that praises good behavior is a far more effective manner of formation than negative feedback that seeks to correct faults. Like water flowing over a rock, positive encouragement shapes God’s people gradually, consistently, and effectively over time. 

Another way to say this is that discipleship — walking daily with God’s people — is the positive side of discipline. Discipline and discipleship are thus two sides of the same coin, the one positive and the other negative. The close relationship between these two concepts is reflected conveniently in the close relationship of the two words. 

Now, in saying this I’m sure I’m not saying anything in the least novel or radical. Any elder worth his salt would say that this is obviously the case. However, it is a basic point that isn’t very often taught and explained to God’s people, which is unfortunate. While discussing church discipline in a recent officer training session, someone mentioned that they typically thought of discipline as the bad or negative mark. And anything that is perceived as being negative will naturally not attract our attention or our affection. 

What church wants to be known as the discipline church? None, really. But, in contrast, what if you said that you were a church that took discipleship seriously? That committed serious efforts and training to this positive, pastoral, and formative practice?

The Nature of the Relationship Between Discipline and Discipleship

When we understand that discipline and discipleship go hand in hand — that the one is the positive expression and the other the negative expression of the same reality — this opens up new perspectives on the distinctively Reformed understanding of the work of the elder in the true church.

Positive discipleship as a daily practice is the essential building block of faithful church discipline. You see this when you consider what Matthew 18 teaches about church discipline. The familiar steps of discipline emphasize the importance of discipleship: First, take your offense directly to your brother; second, take trusted, neutral witnesses to confront your brother; third (and only third), tell it to the church. 

When “church discipline” is understood merely as the formal, churchly matter of step three, it is overwhelming in a negative, and often a punitive, matter. By the time it has gotten to that stage, the sinner has been confronted with the ugliness of his sin on at least two occasions. He’s dug in his heels over his offensive behavior, which was serious enough in the first place to deserve a loving rebuke. 

But properly understood, “church discipline” also includes the first two steps. Church discipline includes the first faithful act of going and telling a brother his fault, keeping matters “between you and him alone.” This act is premised upon a relationship, upon the faithful daily prayer and practice of forgiving debts as they have been forgiven. This requires a vital and trusting relationship between two members of the body of Christ — be they friends, spouses, parent and child, or mere acquaintances. Church discipline requires eschewing gossip and griping. It requires courage to confront. It requires daily practice of repentance, daily confession of sin.

This first step of discipline — telling your brother his fault — is closer to our idea of discipleship, than our traditional concept of “discipline.” Think about it in terms of frequency. Church discipline, in this sense, should occur daily in your church, not once a year or once a decade. When church discipline is understood holistically, including the first step with the third, it becomes a mark of the church that should be on display each and every day. 

Elders, Discipleship, and Discipline

So where do the elders fit in with this first step of discipline? 

First of all, this first step of discipline requires the presence of the gospel, and the elders are the front line in assuring that the gospel is the heart of the church’s pulpit ministry. Believers can only confess and confront one another with their sins when they have a healthy sense that God justifies the wicked, that they are sinners saved by grace. Every preacher, even the best preacher, needs the regular oversight and accountability of faithful elders. Reminding him when he hits the mark, warning him when he veers off into moralism or topical preaching that obscures Christ and him crucified. When our preaching reminds us all daily that we are “simultaneously sinners and saints,” we will be more inclined to hear and receive the loving rebuke in joy. Elders must take seriously their role in ensuring the pure preaching of the word. 

Second, this preached word needs to be subjectively applied in the church, which is a related but distinct task to overseeing the objective content of the word. Elders are the key eyes and ears of the body of Christ, as they engage in relationships with God’s people. Ask any pastor, it can be very difficult to get a clear read on how effective your preaching is: “Great sermon, pastor!” Faithful elders, however, can discern through conversation exactly what pulpit message is cutting through the haze and being received by God’s people. They can only do this when they have established vibrant, discipling relationships with the flock under their care. Not only does this provide feedback to the preacher in his pulpit ministry, it allows the elder to himself magnify and apply the message to the flock. 

The third aspect of the Elder’s role in discipline is hospitality. You are only going to feel free to confront, and to confess, your sins to a brother when a close and intimate relationship has been established. It is necessary that believers come to know one another as family, as brothers and sisters in the Lord. And that bond is ultimately forged in the radical practice of Christian hospitality.

Rosaria Butterfield describes Christian hospitality as making space for outsiders and insiders alike to enter into a uniquely Christian community, to be vulnerable, and to share our burdens with one another. I do not mean by this to exclude the pastor from the practice and modeling of hospitality, but as a simple matter of scale, the elders are required to extend and model this ministry throughout the body of the church. Thus, all faithful under-shepherds become the hands and feet of our Lord, modeling the loving, caring relationships in the church that are willing to cut through the superficial relationships of our entertainment age. This happens over the breaking of bread and through the shedding of tears. It is largely in the practice of hospitality that the preached word is embodied and carried and applied in the life of the church. 

Think again of the subject of frequency we addressed above. When we think only of the third, or extreme, phase of discipline, it is an infrequent and occasional practice in the church. How important can that be to the daily life of the church? But when we incorporate the first phase of discipline, it is a regular practice of the church. It is in the elders that the congregation sees mature believers receiving the preached word and putting it into practice in their daily life. The pastor, a preacher, cannot daily model that receiving and enacting behavior. 

The Most Distinctive Mark

How faithfully is the first step of discipline — daily confrontation, confession, and forgiveness — practiced in Presbyterian and Reformed churches? How distinctive is this discipline, when it is faithfully practiced? How self-consciously do our elders understand the nature of their task as the hands and feet of the Lord, receiving God’s gospel word, putting it into practice, and through Christian hospitality and discipleship creating the space for repentance and forgiveness?

In my view, this is a radically overlooked, and under-appreciated mark of the church. But connecting discipline with discipleship, and teasing out the elder’s role in this work, is really only the first step in restore discipline to its rightful place alongside word and sacrament. 

In the remainder of this article, we’ll explore the vital connection between the first step of discipline, and the final or extreme step. Perhaps our weakness in attending to the first phase of discipline explains why the third phase isn’t often practiced in our churches and often doesn’t go well when it is. We’ll also see how the mark of discipline is also properly entailed in the mark of pure sacraments, and how the Lord’s Supper is the manifestation of the church’s discipling and disciplined relationship with her people.  

Private Repentance is Also a Manifestation of Church Discipline

The URCNA Church Order teaches us that Christian discipline is spiritual in nature. When properly exercised; God is glorified, sinners are reconciled with God, neighbor, and church; and the offense is removed from the church of Christ. These are spiritual blessings, wrought by the Holy Spirit through the power of the gospel applied to God’s people through the preached word and the sacraments (Article 51).

Subsequently, we are taught that in the case of private sins, the rule taught in Matthew 18 shall be followed. This passage is well known among believers, but it is worth quoting the key portion in full:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt 18:15 – 17)

I think we tend to think of church discipline as only the final phase of Christ’s instruction when the sin of an obstinate brother is told to the church. In the Reformed tradition, the consistory represents “the church” in this proceeding. Perhaps it might even be the case that we only think church discipline is occurring when someone receives the sanction, i.e., “is disciplined.” But this is too negative a view. We should understand “discipline” to be everything up to and including the sanction, when necessary.

I think a plain reading of both Matthew 18 and our church order should acknowledge that the private interaction between a sinner and his offended brother is a part of church discipline, as well as the case where one or two witnesses are involved. Indeed, it is impossible to reach the ultimate phase of discipline without first working through these first phases. Furthermore, when successful, these first two phases are indeed accomplishing the ultimate goals of discipline: God is glorified, reconciliation takes place, and the offense is removed from the church of Christ. All of this takes place without the consistory even being aware (CO Article 53).

How then might we know it is happening? Well, it is far more likely that we will know when it is not happening, and often it is not. Christ’s instructions for addressing private sins are simple, but that doesn’t mean they are easy. Indeed, this is the fruit of much gospel ministry, when victims of sin respond not in anger but in love, humbly and lovingly seeking repentance. It is a miraculous work of the Spirit every time a sinner receives a reproof in love and repents of his sin. These simple acts — which, given our great sinfulness, should occur frequently — are incredibly difficult. They are fruits of the Spirit… not fruits of our own efforts.

Indeed, in my last column, I pointed out the importance of Elders as faithful under-shepherds in cultivating these regular acts of discipline in the church. Often, I think pastors and elders will need to model and encourage private discipline among their flock. Preaching alone may drive some of this activity, but a great deal more will occur through the faithful guidance of Elders discipling the church in the work of private discipline.

Private Discipline and the Ultimate Phase of Discipline

It should be obvious that a church that regularly practices private discipline among its members will in all likelihood experience the ultimate phase of discipline — excommunication — less frequently. Little sins do give birth to bigger ones. The more aware we are that sin is ever crouching at the door, the more faithful we can be in repenting from it and averting its advance.

Perhaps not as obvious is that church discipline will likely go much better at the consistory level when the preceding steps have faithfully been attended to. It may in fact be the case that more matters are reported to the Consistory if more private confrontation is taking place. The more private sins that are dealt with, the more private sins will eventually make their way before the elders of the church. 

Let’s take an example from church history. We possess the rather copious minutes of the Genevan Consistory during Calvin’s tenure as pastor, and Reformation historians often chuckle at some of the cases that made their way before consistory. For instance, the man named his dog after Calvin. By our standards today, this seems like a rather petty matter, and perhaps it seems a bit invasive that the church should become involved in such a case. But in context, this matter was a rather public offense, meant to humiliate an officer of the church precisely because of how he was exercising the spiritual authority of the pulpit. When conflict like this is tolerated or excused, greater offenses, greater disparagement of the church’s authority are sure to follow. 

Perhaps if we addressed conflict more faithfully, more regularly, even when it seems a bit petty, we could avoid some of the full-flowering of this conflict when it develops? Perhaps faithful discipline, in both the earlier and later phases, could soften hearts and reconcile sinners.

Discipline and the Sacraments

Faithful church discipline — private and public — is crucial to reaping one of the central benefits of the sacraments, namely, their ability to seal the gospel promises unto us.

Our confessions teach that sacraments are “visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible” (Belgic Confession Article 33), they help us understand the promise of the gospel and seal that promise (Heidelberg Catechism 66). In my experience, it’s pretty easy to grasp the “sign” aspect of the sacraments. They are pictures of God’s gospel: the washing away of our sins in baptism by the blood of Christ, the broken body, and the shed blood in the supper portray the work of the cross.

But sealing is another matter. I think the key to understanding the sealing function of the sacraments is their particularity. The preaching of the gospel is general; it is heard far and wide. Anyone can hear it, a passerby on the street (if the church door or windows are open), or a family visitor or guest attending a relative’s baptism. 

In contrast, the sacraments are particular — they literally touch particular individuals. They come in physical contact only with those covenant members who properly receive them from the hands of Christ’s ministers. The sacraments thus discriminate, and the ministers of the church are called upon to apply the discriminatory criteria of Christ our Lord in determining who should receive them. Herein lies the sealing function of the sacraments.

When you receive a sacrament — most frequently the Lord’s Supper, but also one’s own baptism, even if primarily in the recollection of the thing — you are receiving not only the elements themselves but also the pledge and blessing of the church. The sacramental recipient is told through the rite that he is a member of Christ, a member in good standing of the covenant community. 

Do you ever doubt the gospel? Of course. Do you ever doubt that the preached word applies to you? Perhaps. Can it really be true? Can the Father really love me that much, would he, if he knew my darkest sins? 

The sacraments come to us in all their particularity and tell us “this gospel is true of you, this spiritual reality has touched even you.” That is the sealing function of the sacraments. They function like an embossed seal on a birth certificate that ensures that it is an official government document, which proves that this piece of paper has come in contact with a certain government official, namely, the one who wields the seal and has authority to make the document official. Thus, the gospel touches us, is authenticated in us, in the sealing of the sacraments.

That is a beautiful, profound, and comforting truth. God knows the weakness of our faith and gives sacraments as crutches to support it.

Do you see now how the sealing function depends in large part upon the faithful exercise of discipline in the church? The ministers of Christ church administer the sacraments faithfully, and in a trustworthy fashion, only insofar as the church exhibits the mark of discipline. For their application of the sacrament to this sinner to truly seal the sacramental blessing it is necessary that they know that this sinner has been born in a covenant home (in the case of baptism), or has made a credible profession of faith and is living as a repentant sinner in the sure hope the grace of Christ (in the case of the supper).

In other words, for the sacrament to seal, discipline and discipling must be taking place in the church. So in our Reformed understanding, the ordinary fencing of the table is an essential element of a well-disciplined church, and it is important for the sacraments to accomplish their aim. Also, the extreme sanction of discipline — exclusion from the supper and even excommunication — is to the benefit of both the unrepentant sinner and of those who come faithfully to the supper. They thus know the pledge of the church concerning their faith is sincere. We may have healthy disagreements about how we fence the table, but Reformed churches must remain committed to doing so.

Conclusion: The Virtuous Cycle of Word, Sacrament, Discipline

When the promises of the gospel are sacramentally sealed to sinners on a regular basis — and when this sealing function is empowered by the faithful discipline of the church — sinners are in a much better position to regularly confront and repent of sins, both their sins and the sins of other. They know they are sinner-saints, covered by the blood of Jesus, and grow in this confidence. The word preached resonates more strongly. Thus our Lord’s Supper form says, 

“As the Word has promised us God’s favor, so also our heavenly Father has added this confirmation of His unchangeable promise. So come, believing sinners, for the Table is ready. “Taste and see that the Lord is good!” ”

— URCNA Forms and Prayers, “Celebration of the Lord’s Supper: Short Form 1”

The promises proclaimed by the word preached are confirmed by the sacrament and applied in our lives by both private and public discipline. Forgiveness is heard, felt, and experienced. It is given and received, first from God in Christ, and then among the members within his body.

Our flocks should be encouraged to practice discipline by confronting offenses from a brother, by repenting when confronted, and by forgiving one another. This is a mark which they, as much as the officers of the church, must pursue in their daily lives. Would that the Lord would give us the grace to practice this kind of discipline in our churches. Then our churches would truly be distinctively places where the Gospel is known, through this most distinctive mark.