Doctrinal controversy has been used by the Lord through­out history in order to lead the church into a more mature understanding and confession of the truth. According to what we read in the Clarion (e.g. Dec. 1986) of the Canadian Reformed Churches, there has been some discussion among colleagues of this denomination relating to the doctrine of the church. The exact issues of this disagreement are not immediately perceivable and it would be unwise to rush into a superficial assessment or hasty judgment of it. Nor is it my purpose to provide an analysis of this matter. I simply want to point out the present value of such discussions and pass on to our readers some thoughts on the matter of pluriformity by a professor of theology who, during his life, served our sister churches in the Netherlands: Rev. J. J. Vander Schuit.

The present doctrinal discussions regarding the nature of the "true church" and the pluriformity of the church can be very beneficial to the whole Reformed community. The principles relating to this issue are very much on the mind of many concerned Christians in (or on their way out of) Reformed churches. Questions of conscience are being asked: "May I join this church? May I leave my church? May I attend elsewhere? May our congregation stay in this denomination? What are the marks of the true church? What are the marks of Biblical secession? How far may we go in attending ecumenical synods or boycotting such synods?"

When facing such questions some people have finally asked in frustration, "Why are there so many churches anyway? Is the church not supposed to be the ONE?" Well there you have it. That tension, that imperfection in the church, which we all have at times struggled with, is just what we mean by the pluriformity of the church.

Pluriformity Described⤒🔗

It may be helpful in this discussion to consider the following translation (for which I must take the blame) of some relevant paragraphs of the "Dogmatics Dictations" of Prof. J. J. VanderSchuit (Apeldoorn, 1947, pp. 287-289). Under the title "Pluriformity" this section of notes starts with a description of what is usually meant by this term:

By pluriformity we mean that the church of Christ manifests itself in this world in more than one church affiliation. (Plurality: is the recognition of those which are legitimate churches.) As far as our country is concerned, pluriformity means that the church of Reformed confession is not exclusively present in one church group and that the manifestation of the body of Christ is found in more than one church group.

The concept of pluriformity takes account of reality, which is not completely in accordance with the ideal, nor with the confession (uniform). The ideal is still that the church would manifest herself in her unity, according to the word of Christ:

"Father, I will that they be one ... that the world may know that thou has sent me."John 17:22, 23
The confessional stance which holds up the ideal, is not based on the perspective of pluriformity, but on that of uniformity.  Throughout the teaching of uniformity there always is an aspect which, before the tribunal of the confessions, cannot be justified.

Pluriformity Reluctantly Acknowledged←⤒🔗

The professor goes on to stress that pluriformity is one of the sad realities of life:

We must begin by acknowledging that the whole teaching of pluriformity has developed as a result of the pressures of real life situations. This has led to a loss of the sense of unity. The sinful factor has done very much damage here. That is why, above all, the principle of uniformity must be our ideal, for it is to this unify that we are directed and called by the one truth which we must all confess, the one and the same Word, the one Christ who must rule us all, and the one and the same Spirit who must enlighten us all.

It is this high-ideal perspective which our Reformed fathers have adopted and have expressed in the confessions, and the cold reality of pluriformity is in conflict with it.

With these qualifications we will acknowledge the idea of pluriformity in the Reformed community. The concept however does not imply the notion that every church group has an equal right of existence.

Pluriformity Exalted←⤒🔗

Vander Schuit disagreed sharply with the position which Dr. A. Kuyper took on this doctrine:

The view of Kuyper departs principally from this concept  of pluriformity. He very much exalts pluriformity ... In his De Gemeene Gratie ("Common Grace", III, p. 234) he writes:

Different ways of thinking manifest themselves in the world of the spirits and from this flow differences in emphasis, in understanding, in spiritual needs, and these differences also tend to have their effect on church life. New distinctions arise which extend across national borders and produce a bond with many in foreign countries just as they separate you from many in your own country. All these differences do not impoverish the church but enrich her. Just as generally, in the totality of the creation and throughout history, in and through this pluriformity, the full revelation of the manifold wisdom of God is displayed. The infinite cannot adequately reveal and express itself in a finite form. So it is expressed in a multiplicity of forms, each complementing the other and in the totality alone is there fulness.

... In his Encyclopaedia he writes (p. 622) about a narrow-minded, churchistic (sectarian) perspective, which would rather lock up theology into one church seminary, a measure which would restore the Romish passion for uniformity, but without the counter‑balance which Rome still offers in her worldwide organization and her different orders.Kuyper agrees that the concept of pluriformity cannot be found in the teaching of Luther or Calvin. But his thesis that uniformity is the fruit of the Byzantine spirit of Constantine's day and of the papal concept we seriously doubt and as a primary argument for the teaching of pluriformity this must be immediately dismissed.

The Reformers' teaching of uniformity was rooted rather in Christ and in the unity which is confessed in accordance with the word of the Apostle: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing..." (1 Cor. 1:10)."

From Pluriformity to Plurality←⤒🔗

Such a view of pluriformity leads one to the unreformed position of plurality. Prof. Vander Schuit explains how this was true in the case of Kuyper's teaching:

Kuyper is subsequently so broad in his teaching of uniformity that he also places the Roman Catholic, Greek (Orthodox) and all the other churches in the east next to thee Lutheran and Reformed churches. Thus for Kuyper the one true church is split into different churches: Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Coptic, Baptists, Reformed, etc., etc. and they are all called churches of Christ.

The difference between these churches is then no longer assessed in terms of truth ("vera") but in terms of purity ("pura"). Hence the concept of a "false church" is completely lost in this view ... Kuypers idea of pluriformity accepts e.g. the Roman Catholic church as a true church of Christ!...

Kuyper states that he agreed with Calvin that among the Roman Catholic churches there were still proper churches of Christ ... (But) it is an exaggeration to say that Calvin would recognize Roman Catholic Churches as churches of Christ. Kuyper may be claiming this in order to impose his pluriformity teaching upon Calvin, but it is foreign to Calvin himself.

It must be agreed that Calvin says (Institutes, IV-2-12), that there are churches which still remain under the tyranny of the pope, but what does Calvin mean then? He means that there still are believers, that there still are children of God also in the Roman Catholic church. It is even more explainable when we remember that Calvin looks at the church from three points of view, i.e., 1.) the church universal: 2.) the body of the elect and; 3.) the body of the elect who have been effectually called. P.V.I. Here he must be thinking of the body of the elect.

That this must be his intention appears from his conclusion:

To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that some marks of the church remain — especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the devil's wiles nor human depravity can destroy. But on the other hand, because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church. (Institutes, IV-2-12, p.1053).

Toward Biblical Uniformity←⤒🔗

From the above doctrinal observations, we see how important it is to be Biblically balanced on these matters. If we do not we may fall into one of two temptations: compromising the gospel for unity or feeling comfortably separated from fellow Christians.

On the one hand, many churches have so valued mere outward unity that they have, for example, by joining the World Council of Churches, yoked themselves with those who either preach "another gospel", trust in another Christ or even worship other gods. (Cf. Gal. 1:8, 9; Mat. 24:24; Ex. 20:3). Churches have betrayed their confessional allegiance to essential doctrines of the gospel for the sake of denominational reunions. Being Reformed implies that be­lievers are not only to join the true church "wheresoever God hath established it" but also to "separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the church". (Belg. Conf. No. 28)

On the other hand, we must continue to lament the dividedness of those who do belong to the body of Christ. For the sake of peace and unity in the church we need to grow in knowledge and love to be tolerant of those differences which are indifferent (see Rom. 14; Col. 3:11) and which may never be the occasion for divisions. We need also to grow in boldness and holy zeal for the Lord so that we refuse to compromise even one inch in that which is essential to the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:8, 9). Let us study the Scriptures prayerfully that we may know the difference between things essential and things indifferent and that we may in good conscience either accommodate or stand firm as God would want us to do.

The spiritual, confessional and the institutional unity of the church all need to be nurtured. One may not be stressed at the cost of another. 1.) The church of Christ is a spiritual body and we are exhorted to "endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3). 2.) The church is founded upon, and continues in, the confession of the doctrine of the apostles (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20) and thus we must strive as believers and churches to be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement" (1 Cor. 1:10). 3.) The Lord also ordained that the church be a visible institution with an identifiable membership, stated assemblies, office-bearers and the administration of the word and sacraments. As much as is geographically and peacefully possible, the church is called to make her unity visible to the world by gathering "with one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1, 44). How we need to be united first in "prayer and supplication" for the outpouring of the reviving power of the Spirit of Pentecost!

Only out of a Spirit-worked unity will there flow a united witness which will convince the world that Jesus indeed is the Christ. It is understandable that the world mocks at the needless disunity of the professing church. (see John 13:35) "That they all may be one ... that the world may believe that Thou has sent me" (John 17:21). May Jesus' prayer be the pattern for our prayers and labours regarding the church.