This is the fourth and final instalment of a series on the Klaas Schilder Reader from Lexham Press, if you would like to catch up, click this footnote1 for a rundown of what we’ve covered thus far. Just a quick reminder that while Lexham Press has provided me with a copy of the reader at no cost, all opinions are my own.

The Advent of War

It’s an odd feeling knowing that while I’m sitting writing this article, war has once again broken out on this continent, and Christians and Non-Christians on both sides are dealing with the consequences. Not only that, but in our inter-connected world, it’s easy for anyone to chip in and give their opinion on the situation at hand. Two common responses I’ve seen are:

1. Switch off, ignore the issue, wait until it ends or comes closer.

2. Be quick to speak up with closed ears.

As Christians, we have no excuse to keep our ears closed, but our primary source of information and encouragement at this time shouldn’t be social media or the news, but the word of God. Brett McCracken’s Wisdom Pyramid is meant to speak to life in general, but it’s particularly pertinent to the issue of determining and discerning which information to listen to and how we listen to it. In the book—and the talks which formed the basis for it—McCracken sets out to convince the reader to grow in wisdom by consuming knowledge from the following sources in the following order:

• The Bible

• The Church

• Nature

• Books

• Beauty

• The Internet/Social Media

I don’t know what your natural tendencies are when it comes to this list, whether you naturally gravitate to what’s new, or you’d rather focus on the world around us, but it’s prudent to be judicious in our weighing of sources. It’s important also not to take each at face value either, we must be sure to, within each category, search out the most useful sources. There are heretical Bible translations, false churches, corrupted nature, baseless books, and false visions of beauty, and I know this is hard to believe, but please try:

Not everything you read on Twitter is true.

I’m sorry, someone had to say it.

With that said, Klaas Schilder wrote the articles we’ll be talking about today during the advent of the Second World War, during the German Occupation. While others in his own camp were capitulating to the Nazi regime, Schilder had recently been apprehended and arrested, before being released upon the condition that he did not publish any further articles. My favourite short story of all time, Schachnovelle, deals with a similar issue, but on the Austrian side of the war. In the book, we meet Dr B, a former captive of the Nazi regime, not in a concentration camp, but in solitary confinement with nothing but “a table, a door, a bed, a wash-basin, a chair, a window, [and the] walls.” He’s regularly questioned and has to toe the line telling them enough to survive, but not so much that others might die because of the looseness of his lips. In the book, he eventually comes across a book and steals it away but is heartbroken to find that it contains nothing but famous chess games. Before long he begins to play these games out with rolled-up bits of bread, but just as quickly finds himself having run out of plays. He’s left with no choice but to become both players.

“From that moment on, as I began to try and play against myself, I began—unconsciously—to challenge myself. Both halves of me…had to fight one another, to fulfil his own desires, each fought impatiently to win…when one side triumphed over the other’s mistake, my other ‘me’ would react with bitterness over his blunder.”

Stefan Zweig, Schachnovelle (Translation my own)

This image of what it’s like to live under occupation, confinement, and torture, to defend both oneself and one’s country proves to be mentally excruciating for Dr B. I’m saying this before we begin because it’s easy to judge a situation unfairly when we have no experience of it. Schilder is a man of his moment as much as any other of his time, and though he didn’t give in to the Germans, he would have certainly fought this fight within his own mind. To fight for oneself, and one’s church, we all hope we’d choose the latter if pressed, but documents like these prove that many of us—maybe even you or I—will need rebuking and reminding if and when the time comes.

Share

Anti-Revolutionary

When reading these articles, it’s worth recalling Schilder’s influences, and the reason he’s writing, as well as some of the ways he is not writing. It could be easy to assume bitterness or malice but having digested them, I don’t think we can read that into his work here. What inspires Schilder isn’t vengeance, it’s rootedness in the scriptures and in the church. Though we’ve discussed his previous disagreements with other Neo-Calvinists, he was still a card-carrying member of that theological camp and its involvement in the anti-revolutionary party2. To put it simply, Schilder isn't drumming up anarchy against the German occupation, rather he's trying to feed the roots of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands rather than see them torn up and laid to waste. Though he's certainly no fan of the Nazis, which is a good thing, his argument isn't principally against them but for orthodoxy.

Schilder is focused on the truth, not the enemy.

That needs to be really clear in order for us to understand these articles and the heart behind them, because if we miss that then we could end up taking his tone and his temper without the spirit which fed them. Having spent four weeks writing about Schilder I can't say that he always presents himself in the most winsome way possible, but what is consistently clear is his love for the Scriptures and unwillingness to budge from them.

Subscribe now

Adolphus Venator

“Heil Hitler.”

Imagine hearing this all day, every day, week after week, for years.

You’re walking down the road, you see a high-ranking officer, with a raised hand, and once again, you hear, “Heil Hitler.”

“Heil Jesus,” you reply, “Heil Jesus.”

When we are in relative peace saying “Hail Jesus” or “Hail King Jesus” is true and to an extent it is countercultural but it's unlikely that we’ll be arrested for it. In a situation in which one man has made god in his own image—and thereby deified himself—however, this is quite possibly one of the most polemic statements one could make. If you were to do so it's unlikely you're doing it just to spit in Hitler's face, but rather because you trust and believe in the lordship of Christ. While not being allowed to publish under his own name, Schilder adopted the pseudonym Adolphus Venator in order to provide himself some degree of safety.

The name means, in essence, Hilter’s Hunter3.

Advent

I’ll end with this point, but before I do, please don’t just read these articles, whether this is the first of this series that you’ve read, or the fourth, because they are not designed to be descriptions but introductions. My intention in writing “Book Reviews'“ is never to encourage you to read, but help inform how and why you read. It’s important I say that because while that’s true, there’s a reason I’ve spent four weeks writing about a book I could easily have spent one week on. I could have said, “go pick the book up now, it’s great because of these reasons,” but I truly believe that newer and older readers alike would do well to go and grab this book and begin delving into an important moment in theological history, one I believe has been largely lost to time and memory. Our historical knowledge of the early 20th century can cloud our minds and trick us into believing that we know all we need to about that time, but given how similar the last iteration of our culture was to Kuyper and Bavinck's day, we’d do well to consider what came after in Schilder’s.

Here’s my final point.

Schilder didn’t hunt Hitler by stalking him like prey, but by casting himself on the one who was already victorious. The war had begun, but Schilder looked to the later advent, the second coming of the King. It was in the shadow of his wings he found comfort and the weapons he provides for us:

In this occupied land, they will not place the matter in their own hands, but in God’s hands. To the extent they pray, they will want to see weapons used in this time, but only those weapons that we know from Revelation 11, namely, the weapons of prayer. We realize that others think such weapons blunt and laugh at them. At any rate, people who think so will deem these weapons completely harmless.

Klaas Schilder, The Klaas Schilder Reader: The Essential Theological Writings, eds. George Harinck, Marinus De Jong, and Richard Mouw, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 515.

Hitler fell, time passed, we’ve experienced more peace and war since then, and yet through it all, Jesus is still victorious.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Adsum Try Ravenhill

1

The Raven's Writing Desk

Klaas Schilder - Schism in the Name of Unity?

Otto von Bismark When I lived in Germany, I would often visit the Deutsches Historisches …

Read more

4 years ago · 4 likes · Adsum Try Ravenhill

The Raven's Writing Desk

Klaas Schilder - Wise as a Serpent

Thanks so much to everyone who shared last week’s article—the first in this series—your support is much appreciated and I hope this week’s article will bless you once again. Before I begin, just a reminder that though Lexham Press provided me with this copy at no cost, I am under no obligation to write anything other than my own thoughts and opinions. W…

Read more

4 years ago · 3 likes · Adsum Try Ravenhill

The Raven's Writing Desk

Klaas Schilder and Karl Barth

This is the third in a four-part series based on the Klaas Schilder Reader from Lexham Press, which covers decades of his life, works, and theology, many of which have been translated into English for the very first time for this publication. In Part I, we looked at Schilder’s lectures in America…

Read more

4 years ago · 5 likes · Adsum Try Ravenhill

This is the third in a four-part series based on the Klaas Schilder Reader from Lexham Press, which covers decades of his life, works, and theology, many of which have been translated into English for the very first time for this publication. In Part I, we looked at Schilder’s lectures in America and last week we talked about why Schilder might seem more on the nose than other theologians and what it looks like to be respectfully critical of one’s own camp. This week is in some ways an expansion upon last week’s theme, looking at Schilder’s criticisms and warnings about the Barthian leanings of some within the reformed camp in his time. Before I begin, just a reminder that though Lexham Press provided me with this copy at no cost, I am under no obligation to write anything other than my own thoughts and opinions.

Lessons from History

“That was very long ago, but it still has a good lesson to teach us.”

Klaas Schilder, Schilder Reader: The Essential Theological Writings

Part of the way into one of these essays I was struck by how applicable it was to certain divisions and theological positions today. It was then that I read this line. I’ve talked before at length—throughout multiple reviews of various different books, both new and old—about the importance of learning from the past to be prepared for the present. I even said the following in the last instalment of this series:

“Whatever we are going through and whatever is ahead might surprise us, but it will never surprise God or the men and women who have run this race ahead of us. There is no such thing as an untravelled path in the life of the church or the Christian, there are only well-worn tracks.”

With that said, when reading texts like this one, which is arguing against a particular person or school of thought which is either not as prominent now, or has been long since forgotten, it’s useful to bring a couple of tools with us into the book, both to take apart what’s complicated, as well as to help us build up our own positions.

Subscribe now

Lost in Translation

When I used to work in translation, there were times when the subject would say something which either wasn't translatable or was otherwise said in a way which I then had to purposely obfuscate in order to keep the conversation civil. On other occasions, it was simply that a better way of saying the same thing existed in German or English, in which case I opted to use that phrase or word for clarity's sake. The same can be true when we are reading historical documents, in which a particular word or phrase is used to describe a theological camp, a church denomination, or even a heresy. For that reason, when we are reading these documents or books it's useful to go in assuming that you’ll have to do some measure of cultural translation in order that what is being said will be applicable today.

There are terms used throughout these essays and letters which will only be familiar to a very particular group of people, they are generally explained, which is helpful, but if you were to quote them to, or at, someone—even in the right context—they’d be unlikely to have any kind of effect. To take it a step further it may even be that without doing this translation early on in your reading, you'll handicap yourself from being able to get as much of the text as possible. My recommendation, in this case, is to read the editor’s notes, make your own notes and be fastidious about making everything as clear as you possibly can post to yourself and also for others.

Prominent Figures

When speaking about the musical Hamilton Lin-Manuel Miranda has often talked about his decision to use different kinds of music to represent different groups of people. He spoke about why he included references to modern-day rappers and hip-hop icons saying:

“They write so brilliantly that they transcend their circumstances and they change the world literally through their power of their pen and their delivery and their oratory. That’s the fundamental idea in it. That’s why it’s such a love letter to hip hop…”

There’s a mutual respect Miranda feels for both the founding fathers and his musical heroes which led to his masterpiece, and that’s something we could learn from here. So often when I hear people talk about history, especially when it comes to those who don’t read broadly, they come out with questions or statements like:

• How on earth could they have done that?

• I never would have trusted him!

• There’s no way that would happen today

• Thank goodness we live in the 21st century

The more of history I read, the more I’m convinced that we just recycling the same arguements and tendencies over and again and that we’ll continue to do so until the second advent. There’s a reason why Ian Kershaw was able to write a two volume biography of Hitler, and that’s because so many people have been wrecked by the question, “How could he have done what he did, and why did people follow him?” They ask that question not just out of a fascination with history, but also because of a hope that it will never happen again.

Though we should always be cautious about comparing people to the worst figures or even the best figures in history, it our own private study it can be helpful to take time to compare and contrast figures from history with those in the world today so as to cement in our minds the relatability of the texts we’re reading. Always start with yourself, not your own opponents, what similarities, temptations, or even previous ways of thinking do you share with the various parties?

Sidenote: I won’t give examples because I feel that would probably distract from whats central in this article, plus, I want you to find your own examples not just steal mine.

The Theory not the Person

What about the way that still there writes in these essays and letters is that in 90% of cases he goes after the theory or theology and not the person in fact what was interesting about this section of the book is that though it's entitled, “Karl Barth” each letter is directed towards a different party. Each are Barthian in thier thinking, but it’s clear that Schilder isn’t interested in just taking down a theological opponent. Throughout each text he seeks to explain the failures of Barthianism, and it’s distinctive difference from calvinism/reformedom, by accurately representing them and then taking them on at their strongest.

He also—it seems to me—does his best to establish what is praise-worthy about Barth, though it’s not done with anything like the tact and genuine respect we would expect from Bavinck. Here’s one example:

“With all due respect for the contribution Barth did make in his context, and in full recognition of the fact that he has had many good things to say against that hideous religious eroticism, against the beatification of the biological, emotional, and erotic elements of an arrogant humanity, and in the awareness that he is the one who posed the question of the paradox in religion in the clearest terms—nevertheless, we have to say that it is not only the arrogance of the human race he touches upon, but also the condescending love of God. For God does not just cast lightning bolts down upon this horizontal world.”

Klaas Schilder, Schilder Reader: The Essential Theological Writings

What does that mean for reading this section of the book? Honestly, I think I’m at least as angry as Schilder about some of the things going on in my own theological camps today, or outside of them in the name of Jesus or the church. As someone writing publicly, I have to watch myself diligently so as to make sure that my heart is in the right place, that I’m being as gracious as I can, and when I can’t to just keep my tongue in my mouth. The best piece of advice I can give you going into this section is this:

Unless you can tweet/say/write that at least as tactfully as Schilder did, it might be best you don’t.

No Escape

“That is where the theology of the cross [theologia crucis] is, not specifically of Golgotha’s cross, but rather the cross of the theologians. The theologian should not desire to escape from under that cross. If he does, he lapses immediately into the theology of glory [theologia gloriae], the theology of the false glory, as if he knows all and has conquered God.”

With that said, whilst reading these polemics is important to help us dismatle the incorrect theology of our own time, I must revisit a point I made in the first section.

First things first, check yourself.

You don’t own God, nor are you the sole proprietor of the ultimate understanding of the word, in fact, you’re actually wrong about some things. Me too. Whether it’s this book, a tiny handbook on prayer, a three-volume Systematic Theology, or even this article, do so under the shadow of the cross. For the Christian there is no escape from it, and while to the sinner it might inspire fear, to saints it should be the brightest light we could hope for, illumating those truths in the words we read which are of paramount importance and will not just endow us with knowledge, but help us to grow in wisdom. The point of reading books like this is not to be the most well-read scholar/theologian, but to carry out the chief end of man all the better.

Quest. 1. What is the chief end of man?

Answ. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,a and to enjoy him for ever.

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition, (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 387.

I have an article coming soon which will explain better how to do this and why, but here’s the TL;DR version:

1. Be rooted in the word

2. Pray

3. Humble yourself before, during, and after you read anything

That’s a good place to start.

Grace and Peace,

Adsum Try Ravenhill

Thanks so much to everyone who shared last week’s article—the first in this series—your support is much appreciated and I hope this week’s article will bless you once again. Before I begin, just a reminder that though Lexham Press provided me with this copy at no cost, I am under no obligation to write anything other than my own thoughts and opinions. With that said, if you haven’t read last week’s article, you won’t need to have done so to understand this one, but I would still recommend going back and reading that one for more context on who Schilder is and the context within which he was writing.

Wise as a Serpent

“…Schilder stresses that it is of utmost importance for the church to remain the church of Christ. This implies for Schilder first of all…that the church is a church of the Word. This is what Schilder calls the ‘objective’ element in his ecclesiology. Without an objective connection to the Word of God, the church is no longer [the] church of Christ and in fact no longer church at all.”

Johannes Marinus de Jong - The Church is the Means, the World is the End

The more I read of Schilder, the more I’m convinced that he clung to the word of God for dear life whilst all the world was a storm around him. He could have, like many around him, let go and allow the storm to take him, but against all odds, he stayed put. With that said, the storm certainly affected him. We’ll look at this in more detail in the fourth and final article of this series, but it’s worth remembering that Schilder was left battered by:

• The unintended consequences of Neo-Calvinism in the late 1800s and early 1900s

• The Nazi Party and subsequent second world war

• Schism in the Church as well as ex-communication

• Failed attempts at ecumenism which had led, in his mind at least, to capitulation to the culture/s of the world.

It seems to me that these experiences, as well as a strict love of the word, left him as wise as a serpent, though perhaps not as innocent as a dove. I don’t say that disparagingly though, given the circumstances, I could only hope to have come out as well as Schilder did.

The articles included in the section on the church span thirty years from 1918-1948, it’s, therefore, all the more impressive that the word was kept central in each of these articles. Though diagnosing a variety of maladies facing the church at the time, Schilder's heart that the church should be, as de Jong says, “[The] church of Christ,… church of the Word”, is clear and ever-present.

Given the storm currently going on in the world around us, it’s to be expected that some of the same issues facing Schilder at the time, face us once again in the church today. This isn’t unusual when reading historical/theological works, but rather a constant experience for anyone studying church history. Early in 2020, for instance, I read through the journal of my great-great-grandfather—who was a Minister around the same time Schilder was born—he was at seminary when the Russian Flu hit, and his response influenced my own when our own pandemic took over. Whatever we are going through and whatever is ahead might surprise us, but it will never surprise God or the men and women who have run this race ahead of us. There is no such thing as an untravelled path in the life of the church or the Christian, there are only well-worn tracks.

Following in Schilders Footsteps

Throughout this series, we’ll explore some ways to get the most out of each section of the Klaas Schilder reader, as is normal for the ‘reviews’ I write. I’m almost never interested in convincing you to read a book, my hope instead is that if you pick it up and read it, you do so well and take not just knowledge away with you, but wisdom.

This week in particular though I feel it would be good to lay out some general guidelines to help readers understand how to follow in the footsteps of those who have run our race before us.

“Therefore, since we also have such a large cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us lay aside every hindrance and the sin that so easily ensnares us. Let us run with endurance the race that lies before us, keeping our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. For the joy that lay before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Christian Standard Bible, (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2020), Heb 12:1–2.

In Hebrews 12 we’re encouraged to cast our eyes on two things:

1. The large cloud of witnesses surrounding us

2. Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith

To that end, when we read a book like this, and especially chapters/articles concerning the Church, we should do so with these two objects in mind. To do so well we need to be aware of a few things, but above everything else, we need to keep in mind that one of these parties ran his race perfectly, with no sin, and nothing we can disagree with, the other did not. Though the men and women who have gone before us are meant to encourage us on, to help guide us—and in cases to post-humously correct, rebuke, and train us—they were not perfect. If you begin to read a biography of any saint which seems to say otherwise, lay it aside, that will not help you. We must be principally aware that as much as we’d love for the church to have been perfect once upon a time and that if we just got back to that time then everything would be okay, no such time exists.

With that in mind, imagine for a second that you’re training for a 5k race, today is the first day of training and you’ve turned up to the park ready to go. As you begin to run someone flags you down and says, “Hiya, look I’m no expert, but I started running last year and I wish I’d learned this tip earlier. I hope that helps, have a great day.”

Do you take the advice? Do you at least trust that the person might know more than you do?

Don’t get me wrong, they may well be wrong, perhaps you try running only on your heels and realise they were a fool! The reality is though that most of the time we’d do well to at least approach the advice with a pinch of humility, and to read as though we don’t know best all of the time.

My final piece of advice is to look out for both the subjects which are back in vogue and those which aren’t. That should cover everything I know, but it’s worth at least taking a second to think about before just drifting through the pages. If the subject is back—probably on Twitter— then why? If it’s not, are there hints of it, has it been debated in the last decade/two decades? Having a good idea of what’s been before, even if it’s not hot off the press right now is incredibly helpful. A great example from a book I reviewed recently mentioned C.S Lewis’ views on war. The author, having written the book at the start of the pandemic, mentioned that the views may be applicable to that situation, but oddly enough, mere days before the book was released Russia declared war on Ukraine. What hadn’t been even a glimmer of a talking point one year was incredibly relatable the next. We don’t know what’s ahead, church history does.

Here are a couple of examples from the Reader for you to be looking out for.

Tolerance

“…We are—if I may put it a bit crudely—in deep trouble. We are in the middle of a Babel-like confusion of tongues. Each of us has been assigned work in his own sphere. And so we began to work separately of each other. We became more and more individualistic, or snobbish, or sectarian… we identify things according to the latest fashion. And therefore we call our confusion of tongues tolerance.”

Klaas Schilder, The Klaas Schilder Reader: The Essential Theological Writings, eds. George Harinck, Marinus De Jong, and Richard Mouw, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 255.

This could have been written yesterday.

Tolerance in Schilder’s day was, of course, centred around other subjects than the ones we are currently seeing doled out, but the core issue remains the same.

“You do you.”

“Each to their own.”

“This is my truth.”

Throughout the articles, this same theme pops up, though under a variety of names. It’s worth taking the time, therefore, to look out for the arguments Schilder makes against this issue, and to find out which of them might still apply today.

Pluriformity

“That I had good reason to challenge making the church “static” is clear. I already stated my objection to the pluriformity theories of some in 1932 …It was this: people first remove the actual aspect of Christ’s continuing act of gathering from the concept of the church. Then they make “the church” into a society of people with certain religious qualities. After that they go round to search everywhere for persons with those qualities, and say: “See, there is a church. You can apply our list of marks to it with greater or lesser comprehensiveness.””

Klaas Schilder, The Klaas Schilder Reader: The Essential Theological Writings, eds. George Harinck, Marinus De Jong, and Richard Mouw, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 332.

Perhaps I’m simply unaware of it, but I don’t think the issue of “Which church tradition is correct?”1 is being debated among the orthodox denominations. In fact, partly due to organisations like the Gospel Coalition, I would say we’re about as united as we could be in a lot of ways. With that being said, knowing what causes a denominational split, and beyond that, what can go wrong after a schism will be necessary again at some point in the future—though I pray that I’m wrong.

This issue is just one example of many throughout the historical record which thought they might seem trivial now, were an issue once for a reason. From heresies to persecution, division to all-out war, we need to know what’s come before to know what’s ahead.

“Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” is often said and often ignored, but we as Christians have no excuses on this front. We need the cloud of witnesses, and if we choose to ignore them, we do so at our peril. We should be thankful that the record of the church’s past victories and failures has been preserved for us, and either we listen, look to Jesus as our final example, and we grow in wisdom, or we believe that we’re already the ultimate source of wisdom and we need no help from our forefathers. There is no middle ground.

Back to the Future

Next week we will be looking at Schilder’s work on Karl Barth, I’ll be honest now and say that if there’s one section I’m not looking forward to covering, it’s this one. I’m quite happy to admit that it’s a daunting task. Frankly, I gave myself four weeks for a series. I could easily have spent a whole year, on, but I digress. I would love to have your feedback on the series so far, so if you could drop a comment that would be hugely appreciated.

Leave a comment

I’m mentioning next weeks article, however, to say that I am no expert on Barth and that if what you read is lacking nuance you would otherwise have hoped for, please do get in touch and send me a “letter to the editor” style email which will make up for any of my failings. I would be incredibly share them.

That’s all for today, I hope this has been helpful and if you haven’t already, go pick up the Klaas Schilder Reader from Lexham Press and if you haven’t already, check out last week’s article!

The Raven's Writing Desk

Klaas Schilder - Schism in the Name of Unity?

Otto von Bismark When I lived in Germany, I would often visit the Deutsches Historisches …

Read more

4 years ago · 4 likes · Adsum Try Ravenhill

Grace and Peace,

Adsum Try Ravenhill

Otto von Bismark

When I lived in Germany, I would often visit the Deutsches Historisches Museum. Whenever I visited I would take time to stand under a painting by Anton von Werner with the incredibly catchy title:

“THE OPENING OF THE GERMAN REICHSTAG IN THE WHITE HALL OF THE BERLIN SCHLOSS BY KAISER WILHELM II ON JUNE 25, 1888.”

It just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

The central figure in this painting wasn’t Wilhelm II, but Otto von Bismark, a man widely accepted as the catalyst of German unity in the late 1800s and the forerunner of the Third Reich. Bismark wasn’t a diplomat, nor was he a politician vying for peace, he’d united the disparate German nations at the barrel end of a Dreyse-Zündnadelgewehr, arguably the most significant firearm in the world at the time.

Unity isn’t always forged but conquered.

For this reason, though Bismark is the principal character in Werner’s painting, set apart both by position and his unique white uniform, not a single person present has their eyes on him. It’s almost painful to look at, there are around a hundred people represented, all huddled together with little room to move, yet Bismark stands alone, approaching the Kaiser by ascending the stairs, but with one foot still firmly on the ground.

That which he had created was not his to claim.

1940

52 years later, Klaas Schilder—Dutch National and Neo-Calvinist1 theologian—was imprisoned by the Nazis for opposing their war. Though eventually released, Schilder, it seems, was deeply affected by experience and, in the Nazi’s view, the further spread of German Unity.

Over the past decade or so we’ve been blessed to see a resurgence in the prominence of dutch theological work from the 1800s, as well as fresh translations previously unavailable to the English-speaking world. Kuyper and Bavinck are no doubt the most significant names in this roster, with Geerhardus Vos and Groen van Prinsterer playing vital contextual roles. Klaas Schilder takes us further into the 20th century than any of these men, and a new translation and collection by Lexham Press does the hard work of distilling his huge corpus into an essential reader. This volume presents us with his theological rigour, as well as some of his more difficult work—some of which people might consider schismatic2. Over the course of four articles, we’ll cover everything in this reader, what we can gain from reading yet another dead theologian, and look at some of the key ways we can interact well with a work like this one.

An Enemy Who Sticks as Close as a Brother

Neither my brother nor I have kids at the moment, but when we finally do, we have promised one another to be each other’s harshest critics. Alongside this, we have also promised to always say goodbye to one another with the refrain, “I love and respect you.”

These two promises are not in contention with one another, they are in direct correlation. It is because we love one another—and by extension each other’s families—that we will not stand by if the other falls short of the high standard for fatherhood we hope to hold each other to. We both know what it’s like when that standard isn’t upheld, and because of our own experience, the danger that we will fall into that same failing is high. To counteract that, we need an ‘enemy’ in our camp who is as close as a brother, who loves us, who respects us, and whom we trust to oppose and restore us with those two things in mind. Klaas Schilder was such a brother to the church of his time and place, pointing out the faults and failings of his brothers in arms, he hadn’t intended to create Schism but to incite unity. His writings, though polemic, are undoubtedly loving and these first two sections of the reader are a great place to start to begin understanding Schilder’s heart for the Church.

The first two sections of the Klaas Schilder Reader contain his American Lectures in 1939, as well as various essays on culture and common grace written between 1925 and 1939. All of these were written prior to his imprisonment and so are helpful for us to gather information about the man before his direct experience with the war.

With Twitter being what it is, Theological polemicism and difference is not hard to find, but stepping outside our own culture, outside our own time, allows us to evaluate theological critique in a different light. I’ve spoken at length about Bavinck and his unbelievable ability to steelman other viewpoints before dismantling them, all whilst being on good terms with those he critiqued. Though Schilder, in my opinion, doesn’t possess half of his conscientiousness, an argument could be made that he doesn’t need it. Where Bavinck is usually contending with those in other camps, Schilder, in the name of Unity, is seeking to guide and reshape those in his own camp—Neo-Calvinism—even going so far as to critique Kuyper himself.

“Schilder, writing a generation after Kuyper, rejected Kuyper’s accounting for human cultural life in common grace…”3

— DENNIS GREESON

If my brother ever comes to me, puts his hand on the table and says, “what do you think you’re playing at?” it’s okay. Why? He is my brother, I love him and he loves me. Where a stranger might need to be more cautious, like Bavinck was, Schilder—a brother—was able to be more on the nose.

With that in mind, there are three main things I would look out for as you read the first two sections of this reader:

1. Which arguments does Klaas Schilder raise which are once again in the limelight?

2. Whether you agree or disagree with his thoughts, what do you appreciate in the way he approaches theological differences?

3. Do you approach theological discussion/arguments with at least as much understanding as Schilder does? If not why?

Leave a comment

Schism

With all of this in mind, it’s worth saying that even with the best of intentions, Schilder’s polemicism still led to Schism. New churches were planted, emigration occurred, and still to this day those churches are wrestling with Schilder’s ecclesiology4. Schilder was no Bismark though, he hadn’t threatened at the end of a theological machine gun, rather he’d brought to the table serious theological critique. Rebuke is not an attack. Schilder was excommunicated, but not because he succeeded in bringing unity, but because he failed.

Reading this book has been eye-opening for me in these three ways:

1. I have been confronted by Schilder’s arguments against my own views.

2. I have been saddened by the fact that these views caused disunity.

3. I am surprised that, given the foul nature of most of the theological division in our discourse today that there isn’t more division.

Schilder’s work reminds me of Matthew Barrett’s Simply Trinity, which was a work meant to bring unity around one of the most important doctrines in Christianity, the Trinity. Though that has certainly happened in certain circles, the response from those he lovingly rebuked has been harsh and divisive, to say the least.

I said earlier in this article that unity isn’t always forged but conquered, but it would be equally true to say that Schism isn’t always intended, but is necessitated. Throughout Church history we’ve seen many cases of this, the reformation, for instance, was originally intended to bring change to the existing Catholic church, but instead, schism, or division, occurred. Schilder loved the Church and sought to reform those elements of Neo-Calvinism which had, in his view, failed to be proven true. Whether or not we agree with him is far less important than the question:

“Would I have disowned Schilder for these views?”

My guess is that after reading this volume your answer will be a resounding no. If that’s the case, it may be time to reevaluate the relationship we have with those we disagree with who are currently in the Church today.5

Why Buy This Book?

When I was sent this book by Lexham Press I didn’t know how long it was, I was a little surprised and wondered what I was getting myself into. I’ve read much longer volumes, but I tend to review shorter more accessible works for this newsletter. I began working on a review anyhow but was soon convinced that this volume needed more time and care than I usually give to a book review. If you’ve been reading my reviews for a while you’ll know that I don’t often recommend books so to speak, instead, I give advice on how to read books should they be relevant to you.
This whole newsletter is centred around two questions:

1. How do I become a better reader?

2. How do I become a better reader of the Bible?

Simple.

With that said, I do think it’s important to build a library—whether physical or digital—of books and volumes from throughout Church history, and this particular time in Church history is one of the least well trafficked times of the last 500 years. Other than Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the early 1900s—and especially the second world war—has been left untouched in favour of secular retellings of wartime narratives. Theology essentially pauses between Kuyper and Lewis for some people.

This volume is a way of bridging that gap, addressing the hurt experienced by those in that period, as well as identifying why unity in the Church is so important even if it’s hard to achieve. In a time when disunity reigns, it’s important to look back on those times which echo our own. War is once again on our doorsteps, the political division is at the highest it’s been in over a generation, and we’re seeing and hearing about huge division within major church denominations. All of these are above us and the truth is there’s not much any of us can do to change them, but we do have a decision to make about how we will respond. I believe this reader will help us to do that.

Over the coming weeks we’ll look at:

• The Church

• Interacting with other Theologians

• Redemption

• and Schilder’s experience and critique of the German Occupation

I sincerely hope you’ll pick up this book, and that throughout the next few weeks, as you read through the different sections, you’ll be able to better understand both the world of the early 1900s, as well as the world of the early 2000s, i.e. the world we live in today.

Grace and Peace,

Adsum Try Ravenhill