⤒🔗

Our Responsibility for the Community←⤒🔗

We have discussed the catholicity of the church (see Article 27 BC). We have seen the church in its totality. It has become clear to us that it is world-wide and that it spans the ages. At the same time, it is not far away from us. On the contrary, it is present at this very day in the large or small local congregation: the local catholic church. The pledge of the Spirit is the guarantee of the fullness of the church. We look forward to this in great anticipation.

Next, we want to pay attention to the contents of B.C. article 28. It deals with our personal responsibility toward the one, catholic church of Christ. That responsibility toward the church coincides with our responsibility for ourselves in the presence of God: it concerns our salvation which Christ wants to grant us precisely in his congregation. The calling comes to us to,

• keep the unity of the church;

• subject ourselves to its teaching and discipline;

• bend the neck under the yoke of Christ;

• serve the building up of the brothers, according to the talents that have been given to us as members of one body.

Thus, also here union and communion – with Christ and with each other is at stake.¹ This union and communion are placed over against

• staying apart or separating from the “holy assembly” of article 27 in order to “be by himself”; and

• the refusal to join the church by letting oneself be hindered by those who “do not belong to the church.”

Over against this refusal this article places “the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate from those who do not belong to the church.” This separation serves the maintenance of the unity and the functioning of the community of the church of Christ. Apparently, there are two threats:

• individualism; and

• being bound to people who are actually foreign to the church.

Both weaknesses demonstrate how much the church is being assailed in this world. After all, no church member is immune to these weaknesses. We want to have a close look at both weaknesses.

The Call to Union←⤒🔗

The warning against staying apart and against snobbish complacency (“content to be by himself”) is directed against religious individualism, as it especially came to the fore in spiritualist (Anabaptist) circles. According to the general view there, it is probably good for an ordinary person to join a congregation. Enlightened spirits, however, have a source of “spiritual” life in themselves.

When we read this first sentence of article 28 against the backdrop of Calvin's Institutes (IV.i.5-6; IV.iii.1-2), we discover an interesting example of such religious complacency. Calvin turns against people who appeal to their ability to read the Bible individually, and who turn this into an argument to neglect the meetings of the congregation and to despise the service of the office bearers. Such behavior arouses Calvin's indignation. After all, we must remain in the school of the Holy Spirit all of our lives, and therefore we do not have the right to look down on being taught by ordinary people. Going to church is also a matter of humility – before God and before the people. Calvin disqualifies a separatist attitude as pride, arrogance, and jealousy. He counters it with the care of God who, in His goodness, has given the preaching of the Word to bring us to the salvation of Christ and to keep us in it (with reference to Romans 10:17; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 4:6).

Also elsewhere, Calvin more than once deals with this arrogance of these “home readers.”² He even brings up this matter in his Catechism of 1545. In question and answer 304, 305, and 308, Calvin states:

But must we then not be industrious and employ all diligence in reading, listening, and meditating (God's Word) in order to make progress in this?
Most certainly; when everyone trains himself at home by daily reading, and then also especially all together diligently attend the meetings where the doctrine of salvation is explained in the gathering of the believers.

Do you deny, therefore, that it is sufficient when every one reads by himself, unless all come together communally to listen to the same doctrine?
It is necessary to come together when the freedom is there, that is to say, when the possibility is given.

But is it not sufficient for a Christian that he has been taught once by his teacher, or must he follow this path throughout his life?
To begin means little if you do not persevere. For we must be students of Christ to the end, or rather, without end. After all, he has entrusted this office to the servants of the church that they might teach us in his place and his Name.

Due to the invention of the printing press, the age of the Reformation placed the Bible in many people's hands. Doubtless, the Reformers have encouraged private Bible literature to support the knowledge of faith. But they resisted an attitude of snobbish individualism, by which a person alienates himself from the meetings of God's congregation. A listening congregation emerges under the preaching. Private literature can easily become an instrument of individualism. In warning against this, Calvin expressed an insight which is not obsolete even today.³ When a person functions as a member of the church, this calls for unity with the congregation under the Word, around the baptismal font, and at the Lord's table. How else shall we maintain the unity, build up brothers, and bend under the yoke of Christ?

The Call to Separation←⤒🔗

A second threat to the proper functioning as church under the Word lies in being bound to those who “do not belong to the Church.” Who are these people? Here we come across a distinction (“in the church, but not of the church”) which already occurs in Augustine (around AD 400).⁴ The background to this distinction lies in the conviction that the church on earth is a “mixed body” (corpus permixtum). This means: there are weeds among the wheat; or, with a different metaphor: there are wolves in the sheepfold of Christ.

In the age of the Reformation people were acutely aware of this difficult reality. Precisely against the perfectionist drive of the fanatic Anabaptists, the Reformers asked attention for this reality. There are people in the church who do not belong there at all. This matter has been brought up with regular reference to 1 John 2:19.⁵ One can think here of Luther. Already before 1517 he spoke about this harsh reality in his lectures on the Psalms (1513-16).⁶ Many years later, in his polemics with the “papists,” he used similar language.⁷

In connection with “those who do not belong to the Church” we can think of the hypocrites (see B.C. art. 29). The hypocrisy in the church was a great concern for the Reformers, and they have expressed this concern, on more than one occasion. Also in our confession, this concern comes through (see Lord's Days 30 and 31). Yet, this category cannot be meant in B.C. article 28. One cannot separate from hypocrites as long as the hypocrisy has not been unmasked.

In sixteenth-century literature, “not belonging to the Church” is also applied to the “papists,” who have let go of the doctrine of the church, have disrupted the order of the church, and have distorted the worship service with their man-made ceremonies. Article 28 is typically a word which is spoken during a process of Reformation. Many true believers, particularly in France, did not yet dare to free themselves from the hierarchy of Rome. After all, such an act could have serious consequences for these people's personal lives. Article 28 also conveys this atmosphere: physical punishment or the death penalty could be expected. Shortly after 1561, history would prove the truth of these words, also in the life of Guido de Brès himself.

This explains that many sought refuge in hiding places. In secrecy they worshiped God according to the Reformed doctrine, but before the public's eye they remained members of the Roman Catholic church. At that time this attitude was called (pseudo-) Nicodemism (according to John 3:1-2).⁸ Thus, the “duty of all believers” to “separate from those who do not belong to the Church” presupposes a situation in which people who are not really members of the church have acquired such a dominating position that by their influence the church of Christ has become a false church, while the holy church of God is transferring to a congregation where the Word of God has been restored in its dominion. That is the background of this passage: “to join this assembly wherever God has established it.”

Whoever does not move then, is, in fact, moving nevertheless: from now on he will live in a house which has been deserted by the principal occupant, the Holy Spirit.⁹ According to article 29, no one has the right to separate from the true church. That is precisely the reason why everyone has the duty to break with a fellowship which is dominated by “strangers” (in the sense of John 10:5), and which prevents people from functioning as true believers in the church of Christ.

In this way, article 28 is a confession in which God's command is recognized as a beneficial commandment. This commandment is able to protect us against the religious individualist and to cure us from the understandable hesitations of the believer who is beset by temptations. Article 28 is a document of spiritual courage to be and to remain a member of the church! “Therefore do not throw away your confidence” – not in days of persecution either (Hebrews 10:35a)!¹⁰

The Effect of BC Article 28←⤒🔗

We discussed article 28 of the Belgic Confession: the duty to join the church. This duty is so serious that, if need be, one will have to break with “those who do not belong to the Church” – if, at least, one does not want to break with the church of Christ. We came across the word “separation,” or “secession”: separation with a view to remaining in the catholic church. For no one is allowed to separate from that church.

In the four centuries which have passed since the writing and adopting of the confession, this part of the Belgic Confession has produced radical effects in the course of ecclesiastical life. The formulation of the text offers a legitimation of the break with the church of Rome. A serious appeal is sounded in the direction of Reformed minded people. They may not hide their love for God's commandment, but – in the words of answer 94 Heidelberg Catechism – they should love, fear, and honor God in such a way that they would forsake all creatures rather than do the least thing against His will in this important matter. When we have an eye for this historical context, article 28 turns into a touching document of godliness and trust.

But this article also has a more general meaning. Let us come as close to home as possible: in 1944, the author of the Act of Liberation or Return appealed also to this article in order to justify the casting off of the “synodical yoke” for the sake of the unhindered progress of the service of Word and sacraments.¹¹ Even though this Act has not received official ecclesiastical status, as a chief witness it clarifies the atmosphere in which the Liberation took place.

When one reads this Act he soon notices that the word choice and line of argument follows the Act of Secession or Return from 1834. In this year, the congregation of Ulrum separated from the Dutch Reformed Church (NHK), with an appeal to B.C. articles 29 and 28: “wherefore the undersigned declare herewith that, in accordance with the office of all believers, they secede from those who do not belong to the church and thus no longer want to have communion with the Dutch Reformed Church, until it returns to the true service of the Lord.” Thus, the Secession of 1834 takes its name from article 28. In this way, this article played a significant role in the formation of the institution of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN). That institution partly finds its origin in a separation or secession from the false church with a view to the continuation of the catholic church of Christ. This explains the promise and assurance that they want to exercise communion with all truly Reformed members and will unite with every assembly which is based on God's infallible Word, in whatever place God has united it.

The Interpretation of Herman Bavinck and its Consequences←⤒🔗

History teaches us that also within the Reformed churches doubts have arisen more than once with regard to the point of the relation between separation and catholicity. Instead of speaking of subservience to catholicity, people have, in connection with the application of B.C. article 28, spoken of conflict with or obscuring of the catholicity of the church.

We have in mind the famous speech of Herman Bavinck on The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church (Dec 18, 1888).¹² In this speech, Bavinck actually removes article 27 (the “one catholic church”) from under the division between Rome and the Reformation. According to Bavinck, the Reformation ushered in another ecclesiology:

Unity and catholicity now lack concrete organization but serve as the hidden foundation of all Christendom.

The church, outside of which there is no salvation, was detached from all formal institutions and located in the invisible realm of mystical union with Christ (238).

With Bavinck, the events in the sixteenth century almost receive the status of an additional divine revelation. When article 27 says that we “believe and profess,” this apparently does not just rest on the Word of God, but also finds support in the historical development. In any case, Bavinck makes his interpretation of article 27 dependent on his understanding of history. He broke the unity of B.C. articles 2732 by referring the “catholicity” of article 27 to an “invisible” church, the mystical union with Christ. Article 28 would then deal with the visible manifestation of the church, while article 29 portrays two extremes: the false church and the true church. Bavinck notes in this connection that these two never present themselves, and never have presented themselves, “in an absolute sense” in the history of the church.¹³ This evolution in interpretation is, in Bavinck's judgement, an inescapable development – even though it has its drawbacks; it is a reason for humility.

Bavinck's conviction is accompanied by a number of considerations which at least introduce a certain tension with regard to ecclesiastical faithfulness. On the one hand, he reminds us of the warnings of people like Calvin and Voetius against arbitrary separations. After all, there are degrees of purity within the true church, and this fact must bridle our short-temperedness. On the other hand, he does not want to deny anyone's freedom to separate from the church. Also if one does not consider “his” church to be a false church, it is allowed to leave this church and join another one. That is even one's duty if one considers the other church “more pure.” Yet, this does not nullify the fact that one must remain in one's own church as long as this church does not hinder us to be faithful according to our own confession.¹⁴

It will be clear to the reader that, in his thinking, Bavinck really does not know what to do anymore with the confession of B.C. article 27-29. It is equally clear that in his “solutions” he very closely approaches the typically nineteenth-century constructions of Abraham Kuyper (pluriformity, etc.).¹⁵

In his speech of 1888, Bavinck does not mince words with regard to his aversion against a separatist mentality (247). He even makes the statement that the Reformation of the sixteenth century also has a “church-dissolving” element (249), and that “heresy” has become a “fluid notion” among Protestants (241). Meanwhile, “catholicity” is completely separated from any particular way of being church, and is transformed into a characteristic of the culture of Christianity.

When one studies these constructions, he begins to understand two things, at least with regard to Bavinck. First, in his striving for unity between people of the First Secession (afgescheidenen) and the Second Secession (Dolerenden), Bavinck – who, certainly in 1888, was very much involved with this – managed to keep out of the “Stipulation” (Beding) a reference to articles 28 and 29. This reference had been part of the Act of Secession. Apparently, he did not think that such a reference was opportune. Undoubtedly, he thereby sought the hearts of the brothers of the Second Secession. But at the same time it was an expression of uncertainty in his own heart. Despite great esteem for Bavinck's ecclesiastic aims, one can regret that precisely the dogmatician of Kampen had such great hesitations with regard to a central motif in the Act of 1834.¹⁶

A. Kuyper wrote about the doctrine of the church in the Belgic Confession in a more nuanced fashion, more critically, and sharper than H. Bavinck. In his plea for the idea of pluriformity, Kuyper distinguishes various periods in the historical development of the sixteenth century. Already at that time, this development brought, in his view, a separation between the actual conviction and the formulation of the confession. We give one characteristic quotation: “This brought a huge rift between the conviction as it is expressed in the confession, and the conviction which later took shape due to the pressures of life. The confession was still mostly from the first period. The factual change of conviction did not take place until the second period. Meanwhile, in their dogmatic expositions, theologians did not at all reckon with the reality of the situation; instead, by means of old syllogisms they again kept trying to make true the initially accepted contrasts. The result is that our Forms of Unity, as well as our old dogmatic authors, still maintained the idea of the unity of the visible church, while in real life people more and more openly reckoned with the pluriformity of the visible church” (De gemeene gratie, 4th ed., [Kampen: Kok, n.d.], Ill, 234; cf. also p. 271). Some demythologizing regarding this historical picture would not harm!

In the second place, Bavinck – like Kuyper – was of the opinion that articles 27-29 were already out of date in the year in which they were written. Apparently, this always continued to be his conviction. This explains that, many years later, at the synod of Leeuwarden (1920), he made a plea to expand the confession.¹⁷ For, according to him, especially also this section no longer reached the present-day level, and it did not respond to the needs of the time either.

Bavinck's doubts and uncertainties regarding the truth and the timely value of B.C. articles 27-29 still deserve our attention today. This is especially the case since Bavinck's question marks of 1888 have grown into the exclamation marks of the so-called Open Letter of 1966. The fact that the spokesmen from the years of the Liberation referred to article 28 was regarded by the authors of this letter as proof of a festering “liberation belief”: “The Liberation would have been a joining of the one true church which our confession knows in accordance with the Scriptures.” This so-called “liberation belief” is then marked as a “religiously very dangerous ideology.”¹⁸

Meanwhile, Bavinck's opinion that the change in church concept was one of the consequences of the Reformation, is not supported by the actual facts. The choice of the Reformation as a turning point is relatively arbitrary, considering the church history of the Middle Ages.¹⁹ Besides, it is entirely clear that the Reformers regarded the churches of the Reformation as the ancient and true church of Christ, which has not lost, but has instead recovered its characteristic of catholicity in the struggle with Rome. For it is not the bond with the pope in Rome, but the restoration of the doctrine of the Scriptures in preaching, confession, and church government which guarantees the apostolicity, holiness, unity, and catholicity of the church. By all means, read Luther's Wider Hans Worst of 1541!

As far as the Second Helvetic Confession is concerned, simply its title and preface already refute Bavinck's opinion regarding catholicity which, according to him, was now detached from all formal institutions, and which from now on would be the hidden foundation of all Christendom. Article 17 of this confession does not lend itself to an interpretation in the direction of a theory of pluriformity. The confession of catholicity does not somehow diminish the value of the distinction between the true church and the churches that have alienated themselves from it. This true church is the church outside of which “there is no salvation.” Every person ought to maintain communion with it. Bavinck's reference to this confession (238) is irrelevant because it is obviously incomplete. It is only in the time of the Enlightenment (the eighteenth century) that the churches of the Reformation have left or abandoned the name “catholic” to the church of Rome.²⁰

Should anyone have doubts regarding the timely nature of these disputations, a reference to a recent publication may quickly heal him from his doubts. Two years ago, a book has been published under the title Catholicity and Secession: A Dilemma?²¹ It comes mostly from the circle of the Reformed Ecumenical Council (REC). Many of the authors of this international group of people have a direct relation with the Secession of 1834.

Despite the differences in presentation, the message of this book is very clear: separation and catholicity do not go hand in hand. This assertion not only regards the historical event of 1834 as a mishap, but it also crosses out the key passage of article 28 regarding the duty to separate from those who do not belong to the church. H.B. Weijland formulates it very clearly: the reference to articles 28 and 29 in the Act of Secession represents a mistaken appeal to the confession. The Secession was no more than a transfer from a less pure sister church to a more pure church (111f.).

J.H. Kromminga and P.G. Schrotenboer present similar positions. Kromminga states that Reformed confessions have often been misused to justify separation (8). According to Schrotenboer, as Reformed people we have not come to grips with our Secession heritage (13). There is a discrepancy in the Reformed churches between its confession and its history (of the Secession) (175). An introverted, sectarian, separatist mentality has come to the fore in the Reformed world (with reference to H. Bavinck) (183f.).

We are aware that these few comments do not deal with all aspects of this interesting book. Yet, now already we feel the need to make three comments:

• In this book on the catholicity of the church there is not a single page which deals with the authority and the unity of Scripture. In other words: there is talk about the catholicity of the church without a word about its apostolicity. Still, that is precisely where the foundation of the catholicity of the church and its doctrine lies. That is just as certain as the fact that the idea of the plurality of the church and its truth goes back to the image of the multi-faceted character of Holy Scripture.

• When the duty to separate – as it is formulated in article 28 – is regarded as an obstacle to the command of catholicity, the confessional legitimacy of the separation from the Roman Catholic hierarchy falls away; moreover, this means that the way is opened to remodel the “catholicity” into the “plurality” of the church.

• Nowhere in this book is there any reference to the instruction of K. Schilder. It is incomprehensible that his extensive ecumenical arguments over against the idea of pluriformity (which is also opposed in this book) met with no response at all. But more than half a century before these authors appropriated Bavinck's thesis that the “right to separate” is not an article of faith (Bavinck's speech, p. 247), Schilder already taught us that Elijah did not pretend to have a “right” to separate, but that Ahab has carried out the “act” of separation. “The unbelievers in the church are always the separatists” ²² By definition, that separation is “anti-catholic.” But therefore it is the calling of all believers to all the more maintain, in opposition to such separation, the unity of the church in every place where God has established it.

Provisional Conclusion←⤒🔗

For now, we have more than used up the space allotted to us. We are very aware that numerous questions have not been touched upon, let alone that they have been discussed. We hope to have the opportunity to pay attention to this in another series of articles – in due time. This article were meant to read together what it says in B.C. articles 27 and 28: the confession of all who hold to the Reformed religion.

Do we still let this confession speak to us? Or do we continue what has been the practice of many people for more than a century: by mouth they say that they believe and confess that there is one catholic church. Meanwhile, they hide behind opinions, slogans, and vague thought patterns which take away the attention of our faith from the beauty and the seriousness – the gift and the task – of the catholicity of Christ's church. In such a situation, it is good to again appropriate the wise word of K. Schilder, spoken in the direction of the “youngsters” (jongeren): only someone who knows the existing building well has a right to partake in a discussion about remodeling or expansion.