By Arjan de Visser
Professor of Ministry and Mission at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary in Hamilton, Ontario ajdevisser@crts.ca
Way back in 1986, when I was still a seminary student in Kampen, The Netherlands, I attended a symposium at the Free University in Amsterdam. The main speaker was Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent Roman Catholic theologian at that time. Within his own church, Schillebeeckx was a controversial figure who was summoned to the headquarters in Rome several times during his lifetime to explain and defend his views. One of his main critics, interestingly, was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope Benedict XVI.
The Free University, always eager to provide a platform to free thinking theologians, thought it was a great idea to get Schillebeeckx to give a series of lectures on the theme “Jesus in our Western culture.” I remember the Flemish theologian laying out his view of salvation as something that must happen in this world, not in the next world. Christians should be earthly-minded, not heavenly-minded. At one point, Schillebeeckx’s theological emphasis came together in a powerful and rather startling statement when he exclaimed: “Extra mundum nulla salus” (translation: outside the world there is no salvation)!
It was a clever play on words and perhaps a little mischievous as well. Schillebeeckx used the well-known doctrinal adage extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation), changed one word (church – world), and so signaled a radical rethinking of various key theological concepts. Salvation, for example, would be no longer defined in terms of forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God but rather in terms of wholeness of human life, emancipation, liberation from oppressive structures, and social justice.
Schillebeeckx also presented a different understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ. In his view, Jesus Christ did not really have to die for our salvation. The death of Jesus was rather inconsequential. His main role was to show with his life what God’s intentions are with this world and with mankind. Understandably, the role of the church needed to be redefined as well. The message of Schillebeeckx was that the church should focus on doing good in the world rather than on saving souls from the world.
Listening to Schillebeeckx was a difficult experience. On the one hand, I respected him because of his deep concern for those suffering in this world and his desire that Christians should make a difference. On the other hand, I was appalled by his redefinition of key theological concepts, such as his view of salvation and his understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Schilder
I was reminded of my Schillebeeckx experience recently as I was reading the dissertation by Marinus de Jong on Klaas Schilder. This excellent study was published last year and is available for download from the TU Kampen website.[i] The title is: The Church is the Means, the World is the End: The Development of Klaas Schilder’s Thought on the Relationship between the Church and the World.
As the subtitle indicates, De Jong describes the development of Schilder’s views regarding the relationship between the church and the world. He does so by placing the development of Schilder’s thought in historical and biographical context, taking the reader through four phases in Schilder’s life: his early years (1890-1925), his development as a theologian leading up to his appointment as a professor of dogmatics in Kampen (1925-1934), his involvement in the tensions within the Reformed Churches leading up to the Liberation (1934-1944), and the final years when Schilder was the leader of the Reformed Churches Liberated (1944-1952).
I found it fascinating to read about the development of Schilder’s thought. It helped me to understand and appreciate my own vrijgemaakte background better. When I think back of the teaching I enjoyed during my years as a teenager in catechism class, the kind of preaching and teaching I heard in those years, the kind of views my parents and others instilled in me, De Jong’s dissertation confirms that Schilder was a major influence.
I’m thinking here of concepts such as the cultural mandate of Christians in the world, complemented with the awareness that there is an antithesis between the church and the world. Schilder was not as optimistic as Abraham Kuyper about the results of Christian activity in the world, but he did maintain that Christians ought to be active in various spheres of life, such as politics, arts, and education. The church was supposed to be the hub of the various spheres of life Christians are involved in. As a result, we were brought up with the idea that a small minority of faithful believers can have a significant impact on the world.
A central feature
I found De Jong’s description of the various aspects of Schilder’s thought insightful, but there is one important aspect in the dissertation that did not convince me. It is the very idea that is expressed in the title: “The church is the means, the world is the end.” This statement is repeated at various points in the book and it is clearly something De Jong wants to get across as a major discovery of his research. To quote one example, he claims that in Schilder’s thought “the church, as Christ’s body, finds its fulfillment in restoring God’s attention for his creation through the human cultural mandate. The church is the means, the world is the end.”[ii] I found it interesting that in a footnote De Jong expresses his amazement that no other Schilder scholar (he mentions Batteau, Dee, and others) has noticed “this central feature” of Schilder’s ecclesiology. I remain skeptical. If De Jong is the only one who has seen this supposedly central feature in Schilder’s theology, it might be an indication that it’s not really there!
There is a difference between saying that the church is “the hub” of Christian activity in the world and saying that the church is “the means” and the world “the end.” The first statement points to the all-important role the church has to play to motivate its members to Christian activity in the world. Without a doubt, Schilder would agree. The second statement, however, could be understood to mean that the church is merely an instrument and that the world is really the ultimate goal of the Lord’s plan of salvation. I do not think that Schilder would say this. He would certainly agree that the church has cosmic relevance, but he would object to the idea that the church is merely an instrument.
The church was really important in Schilder’s thinking. He emphasized that Christ bought the church with his precious blood and that the church is the beloved bride, the wife of the Lamb (Rev 21). He worked hard to promote the idea that the church is a dynamic entity, always being opposed, but always being gathered and preserved by her Lord. He often quoted the words of the Catechism that the Son of God is gathering for himself, from the beginning of the world to its end, a church chosen to everlasting life (LD 21). He loved to quote from John 17, the chapter about Christ as High Priest praying for “the people whom you gave me out of the world” (John 17:6). With all this in mind, I cannot imagine Schilder agreeing with the title of De Jong’s dissertation. I think Schilder would have said that the church is both the means and the purpose of God’s plan of salvation.
Implications
Despite the critical comments in the previous paragraphs, I enjoyed reading De Jong’s dissertation, and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the theological roots of the Canadian Reformed Churches. I also recommend it because of the discussions that are happening among us with respect to the missional calling of the church in the present circumstances. Let me make three brief comments in application.
First, since it is the purpose of our Lord Jesus Christ to gather a church for himself, a church chosen to everlasting life, there is no place for coldness or indifference with respect to our missionary calling as churches. The call to evangelism and missionary effort needs to be heard continually and we need to grow in mission-mindedness.
Second, in our time it is quite popular to say that “the church exists for the world.” With some regularity I see the statement of William Temple being quoted: “The church is the only institution that exists primarily for the benefit of those who are not its members.” While we can appreciate the missionary zeal underlying such comments, it is not balanced. Biblically speaking, the church exists for three purposes: for the edification of its members, for evangelizing the nations, and for the glory of God. In my estimation, one of the challenges for our churches is going to be how to become more missional without losing the focus on the edification of the members.
Third, in our time it is quite common to have high expectations regarding the impact Christians can have on the world. People speak about “transforming the culture” or “redeeming the city.” Again, we can appreciate the zeal to be a blessing to the world. But we can learn from Schilder that we should not be too optimistic about the prospects of changing the society. More importantly, we should watch out for the opposite effect: that instead of the church impacting the world, the world might have an impact on the church. Let’s not underestimate the power of sin and worldliness! We are to be in the world but not of the world (John 17:14-16). The enmity between the seed of the woman and the serpent continues to be a reality (Gen 3:15).