⤒🔗

The Practical Meaning of Belgic Confession Article 29←⤒🔗

We have seen that in their dogmatic considerations H. Bavinck and A. Kuyper remove the sharp edge from BC article 28 at the point where they start to speak in terms of “pluriformity.” In line with such ideas of pluriformity, BC article 29 is deprived of its practical meaning. Bavinck makes “true church” and “false church” into terms that represent the theoretical extremes of a continuum demonstrating, from right to left, a decline in the purity of the church. All churches are more or less pure, or impure. The terms “true” and “false” (which as extreme positions holding together the system) can, in fact, nowhere be found as actual, realized possibilities. They are only functioning in the thought patterns of the theologian due to a certain urge to systematize.¹ A person who thinks that he is able to use these notions in the practice of daily church life, is immediately marked as a “simplistic person” or as someone who can only think in “black and white” terms.²

This all boils down to the fact that since Bavinck the two notions of article 29 (“true” and “false”) served as ornaments or as a notional tool to hold together a system of “less pure” and “more pure” churches. For daily practise this meant that BC article 29 was replaced by a system of thought which was determined by notions like “less pure” and “more pure” churches.³

Thus, courage was definitely needed to come with a plea for the original text of BC article 29 and to argue for the practical reintroduction of the distinction true-false in the twentieth century! K. Schilder did not hesitate to plead this case. His confessional integrity encouraged him to confront the Reformed churches (and no less the Dutch Reformed Church [NHK] and the Christian Reformed [“Christelijk Gereformeerd”] Churches) with their own confession.

It is perfectly clear that the renewed appreciation of the old text determined the thinking of many, especially in the Reformed churches that liberated themselves in 1944/45. Sometimes one even gets the impression, from personal and public discussions, that the Reformed confession concerning the church is limited to the reference to the “true” and “false” church, along with the accompanying characteristics. Without a doubt, this is a morbid symptom, indicating a disease, a case of hypertrophy (i.e., an enlargement due to excessive nutrition).

Let us start off by taking note of the fact that article 29 is a confession which wants to support article 28. Recently, we called article 28 a confession that is characteristic for a period of transition. It must give God's children support for their decisions which were inescapable due to the breakthrough of the Reformation of the church. They had the calling “to separate from those who do not belong to the Church” and to join the assembly of Christ's church “wherever God has established it.” This is the arduous, risky journey which article 28 urges us to undertake.

This is the framework of article 29: it sharpens one's vision and puts down some road signs. It does not want to give a theoretical account, but wants to give concrete assistance. In the midst of all sorts of confusion, it wants to serve as our pilot. It is our conviction that BC article 29 is an aid in realizing the calling of article 28 and in this way wants to bring (or perhaps keep or return) us to the catholic church of BC article 27.

After all, article 29 addresses believers who must, time and again, choose in their lives. They must make this choice in the midst of the struggles and tumults of their own times. The Roman Catholic Church came with threats and murder, and the radical slogans of the Anabaptist groups called for battle throughout the nations of Europe. In this situation, article 29 wants to offer assistance from the Bible (“to discern … from the Word of God what is the true Church”). That is the practical meaning of this article, no less and no more.

“Characteristics” and “Marks” of the Church←⤒🔗

In order to help someone else find the right way in the midst of confusion and many risks it is necessary to put up a number of directions and danger signals. BC article 29 does that by placing some clear points of recognition. We call these “marks” (of the true church and of those belonging to the church). It seems useful to give a clear account of the words used in this connection.

We will begin with the expression “true church.” The word “true,” as such, does not add anything to the notion of “church.” The word “true” places a clear accent and is as such a significant element of the argument. People use a magnifying glass in order to sharpen their vision and to make their observations more precise. But this does not change the object under the magnifying glass. In the same way, the expression “true” church wants to make our observation more precise. What if we should make a mistake and go off on the wrong track!

The word “true” does not add anything to the notion of “church,” but it does add an element to the argument in the service of the observer/scout: there is no appearance, cheating, forgery, deception, fraud, or pseudo-church. In a case where people look for “the pure Word of God” and regard “Jesus Christ as the only Head,” there the claim of being “church of Christ” can rightly be maintained! Just as a “true dollar” has no more value than a dollar, so it is also with the church and the “true” church (and the true brother, the true prophet, the true faith, etc.): it does not increase in value, but this is how the purpose of our searching and the joy of our finding is expressed. We only make use of the word “true” in situations where a choice must be made and it is critical to distinguish between “true” and “false.” Fortunately, there are not money forgers around every day. Therefore, we also don't always have to speak about “true” church when we mean church of Christ. Once someone has found or rediscovered the church (BC art. 28), he lives from that time on in the community which has the characteristics of the church.

What do we understand by the “characteristics” of the church? These are the qualities of the church which Christ, its Head, has given it: its apostolicity, its catholicity, its unity, and its holiness. The believers do not give the church these characteristics, but the church receives them because of the communion with Christ. We may also say: these characteristics give a description of the mystery of the church. At first sight, one cannot discern these qualities of the church; they are only unwrapped by him who lets himself be initiated by the Spirit of Christ into the mystery of the church.

We find these four characteristics of the church in the Nicene Creed. The Apostles' Creed speaks of the “holy catholic church.” The Belgic Confession, in article 27, speaks of unity, catholicity, and holiness. In our view, BC article 7 speaks of the apostolicity of the church (cf. also the way in which this is made concrete in the conclusion of BC article 9). These characteristics show us Christ's gifts and, at the same time, Christ's mandates to his congregation.

Finally, we look at the notion of “marks” of the church. Marks are distinguished from characteristics in that they aim at public identification. The heart of the life of the church is communion with Christ. The church is Christ's property and lives in subjection to the testimony delivered by his apostles. The Holy Spirit makes the church understand and experience that communion. We may also call this the mystery of the church.

The heart of the church's life is not immediately visible to everyone. The church appears in its marks: its inner existence begins to unwrap and becomes noticeable before the eyes of the people. In this way, one is able to find the way to church and to make a distinction between true and false. The confession speaks of three marks. We can briefly summarize these marks in the words: pure preaching, scriptural administration of the sacraments, and real discipline. With the aid of these identifying moments one finds the entrance to the church of Christ.⁴

In short, we want to warn against a discussion about “the (three) marks” which does not start from and is not aimed at “the (four) characteristics.” To illustrate the importance of this seemingly minute matter we want to draw attention to an important moment in the great debates about the church. In May 1935, K. Schilder called the “ecumenical will” a “primary mark” of the church (II.248) – a first requirement for every ecclesiastical fellowship. Recently, it has been commented that in this way Schilder expanded the list of marks of BC article 29, and that he really added a fourth mark.⁵

It will be clear that at this point the discussion is derailing. When speaking of a “primary mark” Schilder did not refer to “the first mark” of the three that are mentioned in the confession. Schilder spoke about the characteristic of the catholicity of the church, as it is phrased in the conclusion of article 27 (“is joined and united with heart and will, in one and the same Spirit”) (see I.206, n. 4). While referring to “mark,” Schilder apparently meant “characteristic quality.”

The misunderstanding surrounding the cited expression has two causes: Schilder did not do much with the distinction between characteristics and marks. He hated a “list of marks,” for that was far too static for him.⁶ Smit and Van Genderen are isolating the “primary mark” from the characteristics of the church.

The result is that Van Genderen states with regard to the BC that one “cannot appeal to this confession in defense of the idea that it is also a mark of the church that by its actions it must demonstrate the will to gather all true believing Christians.”⁷

We deplore this sentence and do not consider it in accordance with the beginning and the conclusion of article 27 and with the message of BC article 28.

The Continuing Force of BC Article 29←⤒🔗

Without too much difficulty, we may recognize the contours of the Roman Catholic Church in the picture of the false church in article 29. This makes it particularly remarkable that the confession does not leave it at a description of the Roman Catholic Church. The word “pope” is not mentioned, let alone the word “antichrist.” De Brès has put forward some general aspects that apply to more than just the situation at the end of the sixteenth century. Therefore, one cannot rightly insist that article 29 is dated to such a degree that we can no longer put it to real, timely use in the year 1900 (Kuyper and Bavinck) or 1994.⁸ There are certainly Reformed confessions of the sixteenth century that are more time-bound than the practical and sober formulations of the Belgic Confession.⁹

The Limited Extent of BC Article 29←⤒🔗

We plead for the practical and timely significance of article 29. This does not mean that article 29 is sufficient to map the actual ecclesiastical situation in our country. Article 29 gives sign posts and wants to keep us on, or bring us back to the road of the church. But the article is not intended to qualify all possible and impossible ecclesiastical situations beforehand. It is my conviction that sometimes there is a wrong use of the distinction “true church” – “false church.” We have received that distinction to find the road ourselves in days of crisis, that is to say, days in which we must choose in personal or communal decisive situations. Moreover, with the help of article 29 we can warn ourselves and each other against taking wrong decisions. The article supports us when a course must be set with great precision.

But then it is of utmost importance to judge spiritually “the gifts of the Spirit of God” (2 Corinthians 2:14). For preaching, sacraments, and discipline are instruments of the Spirit. This spiritual way of judging is something different from formally managing and checking off a static “list of marks” (which Schilder mentioned), or talking about the three marks for such a long time that we no longer get around to the characteristics of the church which, at the same time, are also mandates of the church. In such a case we run the risk that, with all our zeal, we spend all our time talking. Discussing church matters left, right, and center, one might not even “strive to enter” (Luke 13:23-24).

There is also a different way in which one might get stuck while citing the well-known sentences of BC article 29. Certain people are confident of their own right choice: the choice of the small path of the true church. Next, they use article 29 to disqualify other believers or groups. Apparently, they are of the opinion that De Brès has given us a supply of tags which from now on we can use in every situation, – just to keep matters clear. Let us hastily repent from such simplistic dealings. For we take the distinction “true-false” out of its religious context and ultimately make it subject to our own comfort, the comfort of self-confirmation and self-confidence.

It can hardly be denied that the situation of 1561 was a tumultuous one: much confusion, persecution, and flight. Articles 27-29 reflects that.¹⁰ Still, that situation was clear when compared to our own time. Our country teems with churches, fellowships, congregation, groups, movements, and brotherhoods. It is enough to make one dizzy. It can hardly be asserted that De Brès could foresee such an unimaginable situation. An enormous shift in political and social relations has taken place between his time and ours. Just think of the “separation between church and state,” the “democratization” and “indivualization” of society! No one in the sixteenth century could, even in his worst nightmare, have dreamt that a large number of churches or ecclesiastical fellowships would accept the Reformed confessions as their basis, while at the same time live as separated institutions, year in year out. All of this means that article 29 can really not simply be used to make up an inventory of our deplorable ecclesiastical patchwork.

There are movements and groups in this country who do not in the least desire to be called “church.” They consciously want to be societies in which like minded Christians may experience or express their religion. Their liturgy is a sort of happening, and their doctrine is an assortment of truths (or what looks like it) grouped around certain themes of preference. There are also churches that are not eager to proclaim the good Word of God purely. Sometimes they don't even know anymore what “Word of God” means or where it is to be found. The word “church of Christ” is also not applicable to such gatherings.

But there are also congregations in our country that want to be “church” according to the Reformed confession. They proclaim the Name of Christ over their meetings. When they are really “church of Christ” they will show their catholic character, and they will not hide their longing for unity with those who have received an equally precious faith. After all, there are fellow believers who certainly belong together, but who have ended up in a different place because of all kinds of circumstances that are often historical in nature. Should these churches not desire that unity, then they degenerate because they do not take seriously their own mystery (the characteristic of unity in Christ) and ultimately prefer being a cozy sect over being the catholic church. Whoever accepts article 27 as his confession is able to come to this judgement. We don't even need article 29 for this.

It cannot be maintained in all seriousness that a church which is not ashamed of its catholicity only becomes “church of Christ” at the moment that it unites with us. When it calls for unity, and we do the same, then there is a spiritual unity, which urges both groups of churches to come to institutional unity. At such a moment, therefore, there are two churches beside each other at one place, in one country. By definition, that is not allowed. But it is nevertheless a fact. And precisely because it is, by definition, not allowed, while it still is the case, – precisely therefore these two churches must persist to look for one another, if they are concerned for the glory of Christ's Name.

Help from Westminster?←⤒🔗

In what preceded, we already came across the Westminster Confession. This confession speaks of less pure and more pure churches. Many have in​ the past used this distinction to soften their problems with BC article 29. This detour via Westminster still appears to be a popular one.¹¹

At the decisive moment, however, the moment of each other's recognition, this distinction offers us no help. When the Westminster Confession, in article 25, speaks of the catholic church, it states in paragraphs 4 and 5:

4. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

5. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will.

The distinction “more or less pure” is used with respect to “particular churches.” Here the local churches are meant that are members of the catholic church. This is confirmed by the reference to Revelation 2 and 3 (the letters of Christ to the seven churches in Asia Minor). In these letters, he who knows our works and searches our hearts (“who searches mind and heart,” Revelation 2:23) is speaking. The Lord is able to measure our smaller or greater purity. When he locates impurity he does not say “less pure true church.” He says: “Repent, and if not, I will remove your lampstand” (Revelation 2:4-5, 14-16, 20ff.; 3:1ff., 16).

That is what the Westminster Confession speaks about, precisely over against those who perhaps might like to think that they were the most pure churches. After all, in 1647 there was a federation (somewhat united) which had been talking about the “pure church” for almost three quarters of a century (Puritanism with sometimes sectarian tendencies).¹²

There is nothing new here in the Westminster Confession for people from the Dutch tradition who know their three forms of unity. Just read up on it in the HC (answers 62, 114, 115) and in the BC (arts. 24 and 29 on churches with hypocrites and church members with weaknesses). Also we are aware that preaching and discipline differ from place to place with regard to the manner in which and the extent to which they are “maintained.” Neither is it unknown to us that perfectionism, Donatism, and Labadism could (in past and present) have mastered us just as much as Puritan pietism and its conventicles have threatened the English (and Dutch) churches. Moreover, the danger of becoming false due to schism or heresy is never absent, – also not if people may call themselves “true church.”

Therefore, it is not realistic to offer this pronouncement from Westminster as a replacement of or an addition to the Belgic Confession. For with which instrument shall we measure the “purity” of our local or national partner? And who would think that his purity is more abundant than that of his discussion partner? Therefore, it is unfounded optimism when people expect help from the Westminster Confession to reach “a clear solution to the never ending discussions about the church.”¹³