As Christians we follow our Lord. That is what we, after so many centuries, have in common with the first disciples. At the beginning of this following is a command from the Lord Jesus. He says to Peter and Andrew, “Come follow me.” About James and John, we read that the Lord called them. Levi received the short command: “Follow me.” The circle of followers is formed at the command of Christ. We may say with certainty that this command is fundamental for the church. But the question is whether this fundamental information still has a place in our thinking about the church. 

Fundamental ⤒🔗

The command to follow was not only fundamental for the Lord’s twelve disciples. That becomes soon clear when we look a little bit further than the circle of disciples. Then we find, among other things, the command God gave to Abraham: “Go from your country and your kindred” (Genesis 12). That command, as command, fits what Scripture says about Abraham’s reaction, that he went, in obedience, to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance (Hebrews 11). In the history of the Bible, we regularly read that the life of God’s children was guided by orders and commands from God. Moses received the command to go to Pharaoh. All his objections were not good enough to prevent him from going. Saul received the command to destroy Amalek and he was judged for his disobedience to that command. Of David we repeatedly read that he asked the Lord to understand what God’s will was.

The parables also speak in clear language about the Lord Jesus. In them we often clearly recognize him as the master who gives his commands. And the figure of the slave is evidently a good image for his followers. It is thus not surprising that the apostles, and even the Lord’s brothers, James and Jude, present themselves as servants of God or of Christ. And Paul portrays himself as an example to the brothers and sisters in Corinth, when he writes: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). He writes to the church of Ephesus: “Therefore be imitators of God” (Ephesians 5:1). He says this as a command that fits the relationship between the Lord and his church. He is the Lord, and the servants follow his commands. And this following can be costly for us. After the Lord had said with what death Peter would glorify God, he repeated to Peter: “Follow me!” (John 21:19)! Not even the prospect of martyrdom undoes the command to follow! This is how far Christian compliance goes. The church is therefore presented as the 144,000 “who follow the Lamb wherever he goes” (Revelation 14:4).

Sometimes people contrast the following of Christ and obedience to the commandments, saying that following should be the most important thing in our life, and our life should not be based so much around God’s commandments. Undoubtedly, it is true that there are more fundamental things for our life than God’s commandments. When Christ called his disciples, he did not only give a command; he also promised that he would make them fishers of men. With the command, Abraham received the promise of land and offspring. These promises are the invitation, the power source, the encouragement, the motivation, and the reward. So it is also the promise of the gospel that calls us to follow the Lord. That is clear. But it is also clear that these promises will only be fulfilled for those who follow the commands obediently. In this way, as we say in the Canons of Dort, the promise of the gospel is also proclaimed “with the command to repent and believe” (Chapter II, Article 5). In light of all this, it is not difficult to recognize that it is strange to make a dichotomy between a life of following and a life of obeying the commandments. Do we not hear the command to follow again and again? There is no distinction between them. This command is fundamental for the church.

Lost?←⤒🔗

Did we not gradually lose that awareness about the church in our thinking? You hear only a little bit about that when we talk about our church affiliation and choice. You notice that there are a multitude of motives that bring God’s children to choose a church.

People can change from one church to another out of dissatisfaction with how things are going in the church or because of the prevailing culture in the church. That step can be made because of bad experiences with brothers and sisters. Irritation about church structures can be the motive for a move to another church. Another is attracted by the small scale of a congregation that provides more enthusiasm. The choice can also be made because of a marriage with someone who belongs to another church. It can also be a difference in doctrine — for instance about the baptism of children — that causes people to go elsewhere. An enthusiastic minister can attract people. The recognition of spiritual experience can also be a motive. To a large extent, there can be an attraction to a church’s sense of tradition. You also sometimes notice a modern need for the experience, which leads people to exchange the one church for another. Of course, this summary is not complete. But what matters to me is that, with all those motives people might have to choose a church, you never really hear the question “What does the Lord want me to do?” or “Do I make my choice in accordance with his commands?” In my experience, people think that it is strange when you mention this approach. Obviously, they have never thought about it this way. 

We can then, I think, safely say that we have lost something together. That is a loss that we have experienced for about the last ten to fifteen years (at the time of writing). Before that time, we did include the command of Christ in our choice of a church. How do you handle, with respect to the church, the norms he has given? For a long time, we did benefit from the teachings of K. Schilder.

In the first half of the last century, Schilder found a church world where there was hardly any awareness of church norms anymore. From Lord’s Day 21 he showed that the church is the construction of God, since it is the Son of God who gathers, defends, and preserves his church. By the grace of God, we, as his followers, may help in building it. But that can only be done when our building activity corresponds with what God does. That is why, in our church activities, it must be about obedience to Christ. In this regard, it is not different with the church from what it is with other matters in our lives in which we serve the Lord. In other words, Schilder did his best for a living and active norm awareness for the church. With that he caused unrest in a church culture that was stuck in the pluriformity of A. Kuyper. They did not thank him for it. Yet he did nothing else than to return to the ABCs of being a Christian and of following Christ. After all, that ABC is clear: Follow me! That command from Christ creates the church.

Do we, after so many years, have to conclude that this norm awareness had an important place among us, but that it can now only be found in a few places?

Factors of Our Surroundings←⤒🔗

This begs the question of how it is that this awareness has disappeared. Undoubtedly, there is much to say about that—more than we can say here. The battle for every believer to live in obedience to Christ is decided at the bottom of our heart. I cannot judge that. In the meantime, there are a number of factors in our surroundings that influence this struggle and make it difficult to be victorious. To mention a few:

• In the first place, there is “ecclesiastical twilight peace.” There are churches who have acknowledged each other as true church, or who stand close to each other in terms of their confessions, without coming to real peace, namely, the ecclesiastical unity Christ commands. That situation nurtures the idea that differences in churches do not really matter and that it is not important to what church you belong.
   
• Attention for believers outside one’s own church community and an undifferentiated criticism of your own church’s past have hollowed out church norm awareness.
   
• The resulting emptiness is easily filled with a strong influence of the old “evangelical” thinking. The choice for a church is disconnected from following Christ. The most important thing is that a sinner believes in Christ. Which church you choose is of secondary importance. The evangelical movement was never much in favour of the church’s thinking that being a church comes from obedience to Christ. It is rather about the question of where — in which congregation — you experience your own faith best.
   
• We live in a post-modern society. In this society, it is difficult to accept that there are norms that apply to everyone. Modern people judge each for themselves what is good and what is not. This individualism undermines normativity. The place of God’s norms is replaced by the questions “What feels good?” or “What makes us feel good?” What “feels good” soon becomes our norm.
   
• Undoubtedly, more causes can be mentioned. But we should not forget the resistance that exists in everyone’s heart to submitting to Christ’s command. Couldn’t that be the main reason?

Under the influence of all these factors in our surroundings it is not easy to uphold the norms God has revealed. We experience that the road to follow Christ in obedience is not easy nowadays. It is not surprising that the church’s normativity suffers. In the meantime it is important to make sure that we do not wander from God’s Word and forget our own confession about the church. 

Far from Scripture←⤒🔗

Without a normative question about the church, we distance ourselves from God’s Word. We see that when we think of what Paul wrote about the church in his letter to the church of Ephesus.

Above all we see that he speaks about the unity of the congregation. It flows from God’s election (Ephesians 1). Her unity is founded in the sacrifice of Christ (Ephesians 2). She is realized through the preaching of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2 and 3). The apostle connects that to his intercession for the congregation (3:14). He prays for the strengthening of the Holy Spirit, so that Christ may dwell in the hearts of the believers through faith. As a result of that they will be “rooted and grounded in love… with all the saints,” being able to comprehend the dimensions of Christ’s love, which surpasses knowledge (3:17-19). The indwelling of Christ in our heart works itself out in “together with all the saints.” You do not believe individually; you do that together with everyone. The church is the communion of saints. 

After this intercession follows the application Paul makes. What he says about the connection between Christ and “together with all the saints” is the foundation for a concrete ecclesiastical line of conduct that he, by way of admonition, binds the faithful on their heart.

Our lives must be worthy of the calling to which we have been called (Ephesians 4:1). It has to conform to the gospel through which Christ has called us away from our unbelief. Here we also notice that the church starts with Christ’s calling, who must be followed. With this calling it is fitting that we are humble, gentle, patient, bearing with one another in love (4:2). In these Christian virtues we easily recognize the stature of our Lord. We follow him. But of course, these virtues only make sense when we actually interact with people. The apostle obviously thinks about a congregation that is a real community.

He also speaks about the “unity of the Spirit” in this way. That unity has to be maintained by “the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). With the “unity of the Spirit” we could think of a unity in “the spiritual,” the invisible, a unity that is spiritually elusive and which you “feel” more than you see it. Then the apostle would think of something like an “invisible church”: invisibly we are one, even if we are visibly divided. But that clearly turns out to be a misunderstanding. After all, what would be the use to urge for unity, if there is not an actual unity? What is the use of a bond of peace if there is not a real interaction with each other? There is bonding through peace. The unity can obviously be disrupted and broken because of dissatisfaction. About the indwelling of Christ in our heart we can say that it is invisible. But through the invisible indwelling the Holy Spirit binds the believers together into a community, that is indeed practiced in the reality of life (“visibly”). So it is “one body and one Spirit.” This unity comes about through the Spirit and is controlled by him. Aren’t the Christian virtues in verse 2 all fruits of the Spirit (Colossians 3)?

Based on this teaching we say that Christ is not “separately” obtainable. We cannot believe in him and share in his salvation without dealing with others who belong to Christ. The church is the communion of saints. And the meaning of this communion is in this: that we, as believers, indeed deal with each other in relations that function in a concrete way and in which people show Christ’s love for each other.

It takes little effort to relate this admonition from Paul with what is said elsewhere in God’s Word: for instance, the teaching about the many gifts and the one Spirit (Ephesians 4:7–15; 1 Corinthians 12:1-11), but also what Paul writes about the body of Christ and the many members of that body (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12:12-31). In short, the teachings of Scripture continuously speak of the communion with Christ and his church—a communion that is really practiced, maintained, and protected. He calls us to this communion when he commands us to follow him. That belongs to the ABCof the church.

In light of this teaching, the following is clear. When we think that we can break with the church without God’s command, we break apart what, according to God’s Word, belongs together. The unity of the congregation is given to us to maintain. In that we have to obey the will of God. This, too, is clear: when the communion of the church, for whatever reason, is broken, then, if we follow Christ, we have to do our very best to restore the unity. Under both circumstances it will be decisive for a follower to do what the Lord wants, since to follow him means that you obey his commands.

Far from the Confession←⤒🔗

This reminds us of our own confessions. Speaking about ecclesiastical obedience is sometimes dismissed as a Reformed specialty. And it is true that this obedience did receive much attention after the Liberation of 1944. But is it therefore a peculiarity of ours? Our confession can heal us thoroughly from this idea. We have already had the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession for ages and they are also accepted by others. From of old, they have been speaking about the obedience toward the church that Christ asks from us.

I point to answer 55 of the Catechism. There, when talking about the communion of saints, it teaches “that believers, all and everyone, as members of Christ, have communion with him and share in all his treasures and gifts,” but also “that everyone is duty-bound to use his gifts readily and cheerfully for the benefit and well-being of the other members.” Note that carefully: that everyone is “duty-bound.” It clearly concerns a command, a must, an order that comes with the bond that binds us to Christ. Doesn’t it also belong to the treasures and gifts, that we are included in the communion of saints?

We read of the same charge in Article 28 of the Belgic Confession. A summary makes that clear:

• “no one ought to withdraw from” this holy assembly of the catholic church;
• “but all and everyone are  obliged to join” it;
• “it is the duty of all believers… to separate from those who do not belong to the church”;
• “all therefore, all who draw away from the church, or fail to join it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.”

This list shows that our confession about the church speaks of God’s call. Our obedience fits in with this call. We cannot dismiss it because of our high rank. It applies to every believer, “no matter what his status or standing may be.” This obedience also goes beyond all the laws of the government, “even though the rulers and edicts of princes were against it, and death or physical punishment may follow.” Do we not hear the Christian testimony here, Peter told us, when he said to the Sanhedrin that we have to obey God more than people (Acts 4). It was the same Peter who, as I mentioned before, received the command to follow Christ, even if it would cause his death through martyrdom. Clearly, this is how strong “everyone’s duty to join the church” is, as it says in the heading of Article 28. 

This confession of the call to ecclesiastical obedience is not our specialty. It is, however, our own confession. What are we really doing with it, when we, as far as our choice for a church is concerned, no longer speak about Christ’s calling, but let all kinds of factors from our own hearts be decisive?

Sense of Norms←⤒🔗

Today the ecclesiastical world looks different from the time when the Catechism and the confessions were written. He who points that out is right. The confessions do not give us a blueprint about the church of today. He is also right, who says that the ecclesiastical world is so complex today. More could be said about this than what can be said in this contribution. But with all the differences and in the midst of all the difficulties, it remains bizarre when a follower of Christ no longer deals with ecclesiastical standards. After all, these are given to us by the Lord himself in his Word, the light on our path. In short, if we have lost the realization that the norms concerning the decisions for the church are from God, it is high time to work on the recovery of that norm awareness. That will be necessary to keep listening to Christ’s command: “Follow me!”