An old error


There has always been a lot of talk and a lot of thinking about the church. In all times. Also today, yes, especially today. The call for unity of all protestant churches is strongly increasing. Just think of the National Synod of the Netherlands that has already been held twice. Or, closer to home, the question of how to view, for example, the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken (the Christian Reformed Churches [known in North America as the Free Reformed Churches]). Or, the Hersteld Hervormde Kerk, the HHK (the seceded part of the conservative flank in the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk (Dutch Reformed (state) Church) that did not wish to merge with the Reformed Church (synodical) and the Evangelical-Lutheran Church to form the Protestant Church of the Nederlands (PKN) in May 2004). Or even closer to home: the Gereformeerde Kerken vrijgemaakt (the liberated Reformed Churches (RCN)). Or the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, (the GKN, who separated from The Reformed Churches restored (RCNr)) and initially formed a provisional bond of churches). What about the claim ‘lawful church of Christ’? To which church should we give that title and which church group are we to consider as ‘unlawful’, a church of which we cannot rightly say that Christ calls and gathers there?

Good sermons, peace and quiet

For this is what it’s all about: where does Christ call us? Not: where do we feel at home? Or: where do we find peace and quiet? Or: where does reformed preaching still occur? If those are our most important considerations, then there is a big chance that the outcome will not be good for us. Then we will likely go astray. Then we do not first and foremost listen to Christ, listen to the head of the Church, but we put our own wishes on a par with, or even above the calling of the Lord of the Church.

You hear things like that often nowadays.

Why do you now attend the Hersteld Hervormde Kerk? Well, in the local HHK, the preaching is very reformed. There we can listen safely, in contrast to our local RCN congregation.

 

Why do you not join The Reformed Churches restored (RCNr)?

Well, you have had a lot of arguing amongst yourselves. And they say you are harsh and in-tolerant … I don’t want that anymore. I’m looking for peace and quiet.

Why do you attend a congregation of the Gerefor-meerde Bond (conservative flank) in the PKN?

There they still have room for scriptural preaching. You still find the Word there. Therefore I can attend there, for where the Word is, that’s where the Church is … That congregation, that’s where things are still normal and plainly reformed. The way it used to be …

Local

People then also look in particular to a local church. That such a local church may be part of a church community that as a whole, has departed from Scripture … that such a local church despises the exercising of discipline to avoid bringing its sister-churches into a crisis, by not calling to reformation … It is not considered important. As if a local church is solely responsible for itself! And not responsible for the deeds and errors of those with whom they have, in the name of the LORD, bound themselves!

Erring

Such thinking about the Church has ancient roots. Very ancient roots. Already in the days of the Great Reformation there were discussions about the Church. And, fortunately, errors were rejected. On Biblical grounds.

Our Three Forms of Unity very clearly describe the Biblical doctrine. Not what we think, feel or want is determinative. Nor is that one particular mark of good scriptural preaching determinative. Scriptural preaching without exercising of discipline and without proper administration of the sacraments, in the heart of the matter, becomes deception and hypocrisy. Even without realizing it. Even if the intentions are good. In the true, the lawful proclamation of God’s Word, in complete submission to Scripture, works of faith are included, as are exercising of discipline and works of reformation.

‘But be doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the Word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself goes away and immediately forgets what kind of man he was’. (James 1:22-24, NKJV)

Whoever, when engaged with the question of where the Lord Christ calls, is fixated on that one point, that somewhere there is still a group of believers ? in an otherwise unlawful church, that somewhere there is still a minister who preaches Scripturally ? in a church where on a broad front the truth of God’s Word has been let go of, is in danger of becoming that man mentioned in James. He does not know where he is and who he is anymore. He is erring.

Kuyper

As already mentioned, such ideas about the church are very old. Even if there are only a few believers, then that is still where the church is. If there is still proper preaching, then that is still where the church is.

One of our great leaders, who also wrestled with these questions, was Dr. Abraham Kuyper. This learned theologian published extensively about the Church. Moreover, it makes quite a difference if we read something from his early years as minister, or from the years before and after the ‘Doleantie’ (Second Secession). Dr. Kuyper evolved considerably in his way of thinking about the church. From modern and liberal towards reformed. And then, unfortunately, away from that again. We shall see that in the following.

However, in his first congregation, he developed from a liberal young minister to a reformed preacher. Most of us know something of his life, how in the congregation at ‘Beesd’ he had to deal with the ‘conventicles’, also with Pietje Baltus, and how, through the contacts with them, he was put on a different, on a reformed path. He learned to see that in these conventicles, no matter what else you may have to say about them, the old reformed teachings had been preserved. The teachings of the Reformation and of the Synod of Dort, 1618/1619. Also his vision on the Church changed strongly in that period.

 

In the beginning of his ministry, for example, Kuyper was a furious opponent of Calvin’s concepts about the Church. In his opinion, Calvin gave a disproportionate amount of attention to the organization of the Church, to the offices and the ecclesiastical assemblies. To holiness at the cost of love. (Do we recognize such thinking?) To legalistic principals, to judaic, roman ideas. According to him, Calvin took insufficient consideration of the mature, articulate believers in the free church of Christ. But during his years in Beesd he also changed his view on Calvin. He noticed that Calvin’s theology was very similar to what the people of the conventicles pointed out to him about the church.

So Kuyper changed and began to see the Church as the body of Christ and that this body must be visible and is visible.

Rooted and grounded

Yet … Of course we cannot discuss all the develop-ments and all the nuances of Kuyper’s concepts in this article. We will limit ourselves to a few of the matters and will outline them briefly and in our own words.

 

When Kuyper was installed as minister in Amsterdam, he held a sermon with the theme: ‘Rooted and grounded’, words taken from Ephesians 3:17:

‘That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love; …’

(This is how it is written in the King James Version, which was in use at the time.)

Kuyper used those words, those images ? being rooted and grounded ? to make clear how it is with the Church.

 

The first word, rooted, then points to the essence of the Church, to the spiritual roots, to the life in faith, to the work of the Holy Spirit. To the whole body of all believers throughout the ages. Kuyper called that ‘the church as organism’.

 

The second, grounded, then has to do with matters such as the church as edifice, as temple: the organization of the Church, the form in which the Church becomes visible. The offices and the assemblies. This is ‘the Church as institute’.

 

Grounded and rooted, essence and form. Also, and that probably sounds more familiar: invisible and visible Church. Initially Kuyper clearly stated that the two, organism and institute, invisible and visible Church, cannot be separated. They are one. They are in line with each other. After Pentecost, Kuyper claimed, there was first the organism. Three thousand came to faith in one day. From there the institute followed: the tending of the flock by office bearers.

Pulled Apart

Now, that seems to be reformed. Scripture and the confessions also teach that unity. Neither of them make a distinction between that which is visible of the Church and that which is not visible. The body of Christ can be found, can be pointed out.

And yet, the use of such man-made concepts that cannot be found in the Bible, holds a danger. Dr. K Schilder, in his time, explained to his students that he did not attach much value to such concepts and that they could easily be the cause of many errors. He proposed that we should simply and plainly abide by the language of the Bible and the Confessions, that we should not try to fit matters of faith of and about the church into our limited and human scheme of things.

We have much to thank Dr. Kuyper for and we may thankfully remember that. However, Kuyper did not develop his thoughts about the Church in accordance with Scripture. Eventually, in his view the organism and the institute were, as it were, pulled apart. He began to see them as separate, one from the other. They were no longer together.

That was also apparent in his view on the ‘Doleantie’. Kuyper did not want to break with the organism, with the believers in the Dutch Reformed (state) Church, but only with the institute, with the church council and the church regulations; with the unscriptural church government. This was in contrast to the ‘Afgescheidenen’ (the Dissenters) who did not make this difference. For Kuyper, the church as an organism and the church as an institute were actually separate matters. We believe that he indeed started to err in this.

Group

That had major implications for the question concerning the matter of which is a lawful or which is an unlawful church. Kuyper wanted to be very reticent in identifying a church as false. He did not want to relate to the Dutch Reformed (state) Church in this way either. The church government was totally unscriptural and serious errors were proclaimed in many local churches, but … and that is what it is all about, in many local churches there was still good, scriptural preaching. The institute was wrong but in many places the organism could still be found.

Yes, Kuyper taught that if somewhere there was still a small group of believers, even within a large group of unbelievers, then the essence of the Church was still present. No longer the form, but the principle was still there. A church, a local church, a gathering where faithful believers are still present, even if there are no longer any faithful office bearers, still has the essence of the Church. For in that place there is still the possibility to work on reformation. There is still a chance that faithful office bearers may again be installed.

Finally, Kuyper, continuing in this line of reasoning, taught that in almost every institute there is something visible of that organism. Yes, there are limits. The deterioration of the institute can go so far that finally nothing remains of the organism either. But Kuyper, in his time, did not want to indicate that anywhere.

He was also very careful when it comes to the question: when must one break with the church? That had to be delayed as long as possible. He saw much more value in a lengthy silent protest than in openly accusing a church community of becoming a false church.

The churches that came forth from the ‘Doleantie’ were, in his view, churches which had, out of necessity, temporarily organized themselves independently. They had temporarily broken with the institute, but they never did break with the organism of the Dutch Reformed (state) Church.

Close by today

Again we have to be brief, there is so much that can be said about this. But it may be clear that this way of speaking about the church as organism and institute, about an invisible and visible church, about essence and form, detracts from the simple credibility of Scripture and confession:

 

‘… all and everyone are obliged to join it and unite with it, maintaining the unity of the Church. They must submit themselves to its instruction and discipline, bend their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and serve the edification of the brothers and sisters, according to the talents which God has given them as members of the same body.

To observe this more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate from those who do not belong to the Church and to join this assembly wherever God has established it. They should do so even though the rulers and edicts of princes were against it, and death or physical punishment might follow.

All therefore who draw away from the Church or fail to join it act contrary to the ordinance of God’. (Belgic Confession, Article 28).

 

We believe that Kuyper’s old errors are becoming visible again today, not only in PKN circles or in Reformational denominations (Reformatorische kerkgenootsschappen). No, very close by. People who want nothing more than to simply believe, leave their church when unscriptural teachings are permitted and/or embraced. This also applies to seriously concerned brothers and sisters from the RCN. But the path some take, gives reason for serious concern. Some join a local Hersteld Hervormde congregation (HHK). Some join a Christian Reformed Church, for that congregation is ‘really very reformed’. One minister justified his move from the RCN to the PKN on the fact that ‘the Word’ was still there. And there are more examples. Yes, it is very close by. It concerns brothers and sisters with whom we have, until recently, sat in that one Church of Christ. They are seeking a place in a church federation because, in the words of Kuyper, there is still a local circle or group of believers. Because locally there is still a good minister. Because locally there is still room for the Word of God.

An old error

Do we see that this is still the same old error? That, very human, one only looks to where there is still good preaching locally and to the good intentions of the still present believers? Do we see that then maybe one does take into consideration the first mark of the Church, but not the other two? Do we see how, unfortunately, a choice is made in the line of separation between organism and institute? Do we see how brothers and sisters, just as did Kuyper, choose for the organism and ignore the unlawful institute? Or accept it? And thereby finding room for themselves?

At the depth of it, people go where they believe they will find a good place. Whilst the question, the question of faith, for it is a matter of faith, should be: where does Christ call us? Where does He reveal His body? Where do I find all the marks of the Church? We must point out these things to the brothers and sisters who are being called away from a church community that has lost its lawfulness. Make a choice for the Church, and not for a local group!

 

Going back to James: ‘Be doers of the Word and not hearers only’. The danger is so great that brothers and sisters no longer know who they are or where they are; that they are erring.

Our prayer is that the Lord may prevent that.