| |
The Radical Life and Thought of Abraham Kuyper
by Matt Swanson
Coalition for Christian Outreach
 Abraham
Kuyper (1837-1920), the founder of a school of thought known as neo-Calvinism or
Kuyperianism, was an extraordinary man. Kuyper worked as a pastor, theologian,
newspaper editor, and politician in the Netherlands, where he ran two
newspapers, organized the Netherlands' first political party, started the Free
University of Amsterdam, and served as Prime Minister. His action had a
tremendous impact on the political and social landscape of the Netherlands for
the next century, and his writings have shaped a school of thought that has
influenced many in not only the Netherlands, but in Europe and North America. He
was also a prophet of the first order, calling all of society to a radical
vision of faithfulness to its Creator. Though some of Kuyper's thought is
inconsistent and some is downright objectionable, the example of the way he
lived his life and the core of his theology are very empowering for the church
of our time as a model of how to live in the world and transform it for the
Kingdom of God.
I. His Life
Kuyper was born October 29, 1837, the third child of a State
Church minister in Maassluis in the Netherlands. As a boy, Kuyper loved the sea
and developed a passion for reading newspapers, which would later lead to his
engagement in politics. In 1855, at age 18, Kuyper entered the University of
Leiden to study "letters and theology." There he studied under the foremost
Dutch liberal theologian, J.H. Scholten, and abandoned his orthodox faith for a
modernist theology. "To Kuyper's mind, orthodoxy, in particular the Reformed
Confession, became a strangely outmoded thing, a historical but pitiable relic
of a bygone day, while his professor's bold thought system shone brilliantly as
the theology of the future." Though he would not remain in the liberal camp for
long, this prolonged study of liberal theology would lead him to become
liberalism's greatest critic in the Netherlands.
Kuyper was not converted to Reformed Christianity until he was
pastor of his first congregation, in the village of Beesd. Kuyper was led to
faith by a small group of "stubborn, old-fashioned Calvinists," who at first
were very resistant to their young liberal pastor. But later in life, Kuyper
described his relationship with these people thus:
I did not set myself against them, and I still thank my God
that I made the choice I did. Their unwavering persistence has been a blessing
for my heart. . . In their simple language, they brought me to that absolute
conviction in which alone my soul can find rest—the adoration and exaltation of
a God who works all things, both to do and to will, according to his good
pleasure.
From this point on, Kuyper's career was a whirlwind of activity
and accomplishment. Kuyper pastored influential churches in Utrecht and
Amsterdam, before leaving the pastorate for Parliament in 1874. "In 1871, he
became editor-in-chief of the weekly paper De Heraut, and in 1872 of the
daily De Standaard." In 1880, Kuyper founded the Free University of
Amsterdam, to be a University that would educate and produce scholarship from a
thoroughly Calvinist perspective. He was elected Prime Minister of the
Netherlands in 1901, and served in that capacity until 1905, after which he
continued to serve in Parliament. Throughout his career he wrote voluminously,
in his two newspapers, and in several theological books.
II. His Thought
A. Calvinism as Worldview
Kuyper was adamant that Calvinism be understood as a
comprehensive worldview. Many who were both inside and outside Calvinism saw it
as merely a doctrinal and ecclesiological position, but Kuyper argues that it
much more. As he puts it, "Calvinism made its appearance, not merely to create a
different Church-form, but an entirely different form for human life, to furnish
human society with a different method of existence, and to populate the world of
the human heart with different ideals and conceptions." Calvinism provides a
coherent way of understanding our relationships to God, to humanity, and to the
world.
First, as opposed to all competing worldviews, Calvinism saw the
relationship between God and humanity as being direct and immediate. Calvinism
"proclaims the exalted thought that, although standing in high majesty above the
creature, God enters into immediate fellowship with the creature,
as God the Holy Spirit." God is not to be identified with the world and
therefore with humanity, as in pantheism, nor as isolated from humanity, as in
Islam. God is transcendent, yet he communicates directly with His people, and in
fact lives in them through the Holy Spirit.
Second, Calvinism proclaims equality among humans, because all
are made in the image of God.
If Calvinism places our entire human life immediately
before God, then it follows that all men or women, rich or poor, weak or strong,
dull or talented, as creatures of God, and as lost sinners, have no claim
whatsoever to lord over one another, and that we stand as equals before God, and
consequently equal as man to man. Therefore, democracy grew up out of Calvinism
not in a revolutionary way, but organically, as people started to live in
service and not in envy. In this conception, authority is given by God, not to
rule other people, but for the sake of serving and building up others. He
contrasts this idea of democracy with that of the French Revolution: "The
difference between it and the wild dream of equality of the French Revolution is
that while in Paris, it was one action in concert against God, here all, rich
and poor, were on their knees before God, consumed with a common zeal for
the glory of His Name."
Third, with regard to the world, Calvinism calls people to
thoughtful, active engagement, because the world and all that is in it are
God's. Whereas salvation and the church deal with particular grace, the world is
the sphere of common grace, "by which God, maintaining the life of the world,
relaxes the curse which rests upon it, arrests its process of corruption, and
thus allows the untrammelled development of our life in which to glorify Himself
as Creator." Because of this common grace, Kuyper concludes that "the life of
the world is to be honoured in its independence, and that we must, in every
domain, discover the treasures and develop the potencies hidden by God in nature
and in human life." Monastic withdrawal from the world is not a viable option
for the Calvinist.
B. Calvinistic
Religion
Kuyper asserts four major points in presenting his concept of
Calvinistic religion. First, true religion is for the glory of God, not for the
sake of humanity; second, true religion is direct from God, mediated only by the
God-man Christ; third, true religion is comprehensive and universal, covering
every area of life in the world; and fourth, true religion is soteriological,
having to do with humanity in a fallen state, needing God's intervention. For
the purpose of this study, the first and third of these points will be
highlighted.
For Kuyper, Calvinist religion is superior to all others because
it understands that everything and everyone exist for the glory of God. God does
not exist for the sake of His people, to help and to bless. Rather, God grants
human beings, and the rest of creation, existence for the sake of glorifying His
Name.
Man is the instrument and means, God alone is here the
goal, the point of departure and the point of arrival, the fountain, from which
the waters flow, and at the same time, the ocean into which they finally return.
. . Our watchword must be, -'Seek first the kingdom of God,' and after that
think of your own need. . . And therefore our prayer remains the deepest
expression of all religious life.
God does bless and help His people, but these are only fruits of
true religion, not the purpose. The purpose is God's glory alone.
The third of Kuyper's assertions about Calvinist religion is
that it is universal.
If everything that is, exists for the sake of God, then it
follows that the whole creation must give glory to God. The sun, moon, and stars
in the firmament, the birds of the air, the whole of Nature around us, but,
above all, man himself, who, priestlike, must consecrate to God the whole of
creation, and all life thriving in it. . . Wherever man may stand, whatever he
may do, to whatever he may apply his hand, in agriculture, in commerce, and in
industry, constantly standing before the face of his God, he is employed in the
service of his God, he has strictly to obey his God, and above all, he has to
aim at the glory of his God.
Not only is true religion universal in sphere, it can be limited
to no group of people. Though the church alone receives salvation, all of
humanity is dealt with by God in common grace.
For not only did God create all men, not only is He all for
all men, but His grace also extends itself, not only as a special grace, to the
elect, but also as a common grace (gratia communis) to all mankind. To be sure,
there is a concentration of religious light and life in the Church but then in
the walls of this church there are wide open windows, and through these spacious
windows the light of the Eternal has to radiate over the whole world. . . And
even he who does not yet imbibe the higher light, or maybe shuts his eyes to it,
is nevertheless admonished, with equal emphasis, and in all things, to give
glory to the name of the Lord.
C. Antithesis
Another important idea for Kuyper is the idea of an antithesis
of consciousness that divides Christians and non-Christians. He writes
. . . we, of course, have to acknowledge two kinds of human
consciousness: that of the regenerate and the unregenerate; and these two cannot
be identical. . . If, therefore, it be true that man's own consciousness is his
primumverum, and hence must be also the starting-point for every scientist, then
the logical conclusion is that it is an impossibility that both should agree,
and that every endeavor to make them agree must be doomed to failure.
Kuyper is arguing here that no way of knowing
is religiously neutral. Therefore, because a Christian and a non-Christian start
from completely different pre-suppositions (or should, at least), the
conclusions they come to about things they observe in the world will be
different.
Thus, Kuyper argues, Christians ought not to assume that a
Christian worldview is compatible with non-Christian schools of thought in
science, education, and politics. In fact, Christians ought to create their own
political parties (as Kuyper did), universities (which Kuyper also did), and
schools to educate children. A distinctively Christian science should be
developed, which is consistent with Christian presuppositions and principle.
Heslam writes concerning this matter,
In both his Lectures and his Encyclopaedie Kuyper's
argument for the religious foundations of science laid the necessary basis for
the central thesis in his theory of science: that all science is divided in two
according to the twofold division of human consciousness—between the regenerate
and the unregenerate—and because of this development of an independent and
comprehensive science based on Christian principles is an absolute necessity.
D. Sphere
Sovereignty
The starting point for Kuyper's idea of sphere sovereignty lies
in the absolute Sovereignty of God. In the lecture, Sphere Sovereignty,
delivered to the student body of the Free University, Kuyper utters the phrase
for which he is most famous: "there is not a single inch in the whole domain of
our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry:
'Mine!'" Jesus Christ is Lord over all things.
God delegates this sovereignty to humanity, but not to any one
person or institution. There is a distinct sovereignty over each sphere of life:
family, education, business, agriculture, etc. And each of these spheres has a
person or institution to which that sovereignty is delegated. For example, in
the realm of education, the school is sovereign, and in the realm of justice,
the state is delegated authority. "This perfect Sovereignty of the sinless
Messiah at the same time directly denies and challenges all absolute Sovereignty
among sinful men on earth, and does so by dividing life into separate
spheres, each with its own sovereignty."
The result is, among other things, a repudiation of the absolute
power of the state, which was commonly recognized in much of European society at
that time. It also limits the amount of power that any sinful individual or
group will ever be able to hold. In this conception, no sphere has a right to
impinge on another sphere. For example, when the state oversteps its bounds and
exercises inappropriate authority over the church, the church is corrupted,
because the church is not free to develop as God designed it, as the
congregation of believers. Likewise, the church may not exercise undue authority
over the state, science, or the arts, because these spheres are not then free to
develop according to the law of God that determines their nature.
III. Weaknesses
Though there is much that is good and admirable in the thought
of Kuyper, there are definitely weaknesses and areas of inconsistency. The first
and most glaring is his racist schema in which his idea of the commingling of
the blood is essential. It was Kuyper's assertion that as the blood of
different races are combined through intermarriage, the human race grows into
superior forms of life. Therefore, races who have stayed isolated from other
peoples are the most primitive, and those that have commingled the most are the
most highly developed.
. . . the history of our race does not aim at the
improvement of any single tribe, but at the development of mankind as a whole,
and therefore needs this commingling of blood in order to attain its end. . . In
Babylon this commingling of blood was of small significance; it gains in
importance with the Greeks and the Romans; it goes further under Islamism; is
dominant under Romanism; but only among Calvinistic nations does it reach its
highest perfection.
In Kuyper's defense, this scheme is not like many of the racist
schemes of the 19th and 20th Centuries, which were used to assert the right of
one group to dominate and destroy another. Kuyper uses this idea in an effort to
give historical credibility to his argument that Calvinism is the highest form
of human life. Unfortunately, it is not only dubious history, but it is
demeaning to everyone who is not Dutch, English, Scottish, or American. In the
end, it undermines the credibility of his argument.
This is unfortunately a mistake into which Kuyper often falls.
For example, Kuyper is very naďve in his assertion that America was founded on
Calvinistic principles. "For Kuyper, the American Revolution and the French
Revolution are poles apart; in the Thirteen Colonies there had been a
recognition of God's sovereignty, while in Paris there had been an outright
rejection of it." In Kuyper's third Lecture on Calvinism, he uses the fact that
several of the founding documents of the United States have explicit language
about the authority of the Creator in them. Kuyper ignores, however, that the
majority of the Founding Fathers of the United States were deists, and that this
language is very much in line with their convictions, rather than with
Calvinistic faith. So again, Kuyper, in trying to strengthen his case for the
superiority of Calvinism by using historical evidence, actually undermines his
argument because of his inaccurate portrayal of history. He would have been much
better off just arguing that Calvinism is true because it is more faithful to
the Scriptures.
An important inconsistency in Kuyper's thought is created by the
tension between the ideas of common grace and the antithesis. As mentioned
above, Kuyper called for a distinctively Christian science on the basis of the
antithesis between Christian and non-Christian worldviews. However, in dealing
with art, Kuyper leaned much more heavily in the direction of emphasizing common
grace. "Aesthetic genius, if I may so call it, had been implanted by God Himself
in the Greek, and only by hailing again, amid loud rejoicings, the fundamental
laws of art, which Greek genius had discovered, could art justify her claim to
an independent sphere." The Greeks, according to Kuyper, had discovered God's
fundamental law for art, and as such were the foundation upon which all art,
Christian or non-Christian should be built. This conclusion is clearly
inconsistent with Kuyper's view of science. He does not make it at all clear why
science needed to be built on a Christian foundation, but art did not.
My impression from reading a great deal of Kuyper's work is that
many of these inconsistencies arise from the fact that Kuyper was a man whose
life was filled with activity, as he engaged the political and social landscape
of his day. He was not an academic theologian who spent his time carefully and
consistently developing his system of thought. As a politician, much of his
writing was done ad hoc, often in his newspapers, responding to the pressing
needs of the day. Thus, he often tailored his arguments to be as persuasive as
possible in support of the social agenda he was advocating. Thus, he was at
times careless with historical facts, and less than consistent in the
application of his principles. Unfortunately, these weaknesses often cause his
writings to come across as propaganda to some degree, and gave ammunition to his
critics.
IV. Kuyperianism as a Transforming Vision
Despite the aforementioned weaknesses and inconsistencies,
Kuyper is proponent of a worldview that offers the Church a powerful model of
engagement with the world. First of all, the idea of sphere sovereignty is very
useful as a way of limiting the power of corrupt people and institutions, and
provides a helpful guide for action when conflicts arise between different
spheres of life. In debates such as the role of religion in politics, or of
state control of health care, sphere sovereignty can shed helpful light. For
example, because the sovereignty of the church is limited to the sphere of
religious life, the church ought not to have power over the state. The state is
to be seen as God's servant for justice, and as such must make its decisions
apart from coercion by the institution of the church. This does not, however,
disallow thoughtful engagement by Christians in politics based on Christian
presuppositions. Each person who has a role in government must be able to do so
in a way that is consistent with his or her convictions.
Second, Kuyper's insistence that everything belongs to God, and
that we humans are creatures "who, priestlike, must consecrate to God the whole
of creation, and all life thriving in it," gives all of life a purpose that
Christian dualism cannot. No longer must the large majority of Christians
consider the work that they spend most of their life doing as "secular" and
meaningless to God. Rather, all of life is entirely meaningful to God and must
be lived for His glory. Additionally, we are encouraged to think through the way
we do our work from Christian presuppositions, which should radically affect our
everyday life.
A wonderful example of a Christian worldview working out in a
radical way is the work of a man named Robert Lavelle. Mr. Lavelle is a banker
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who decided that the Lordship of Jesus over all
things had to affect the way he did his banking. Rather than running his bank,
Dwelling House Savings and Loan, according to the accepted rules of banking, he
decided that banking that was consistent with a biblical worldview would value
the poor. So instead of lending money to the lowest risk borrowers at the
highest interest rates possible, as is the common practice, he moved into a
troubled urban neighborhood and lends to the highest risk people at the lowest
rates possible. He has empowered numerous people to own homes, and because he
spends time with people, counselling them on how to manage their finances well,
his foreclosure rate is minuscule. And in the process, his work has been a
wonderful force for restoration in a very broken neighborhood.
Kuyper's doctrine of common grace is also very empowering for
Christian engagement in the world, because it eliminates the idea that the world
is an evil place, and that in order to remain holy, Christians must flee from
it. Rather, the world is the sphere of God's common grace, where he allows
Christians and non-Christians alike to do good. Therefore, truth can be found in
the philosophy of non-Christians, beauty can be found in their art, and very
beneficial developments can and have been made by non-Christian science.
However, it does not call for naďve assimilation in the world. The doctrine of
the antithesis balances the idea of common grace, and is instructive for
understanding the radically different conclusions Christians and non-Christians
can come to in all these fields. Thus, there is room for Christians to work
faithfully in a non-Christian workplace, but also for the development of
distinctly Christian schools, businesses, etc.
The wonderful thing about Dr. Kuyper in this regard, is that he
practiced what he preached. He encouraged other Christians to engage the world
in a distinctively Christian fashion because he was convinced that this was the
only way to be faithful to Christ, and he did so not from an ivory tower, but
with his sleeves rolled up, knee deep in this kind of work. All of his work,
from his politics to the founding of the Free University, was founded on the
conviction that God is sovereign, and that He calls His people to join in the
work He is doing in the world. Dr. Kuyper is an authoritative voice because he
lived consistently with what he taught and wrote.
Abraham Kuyper is a prophet and a guide for those who wish to
thoughtfully and faithfully engage the world as Christians. Though his thought
is flawed and inconsistent in ways, the core of his thought is deeply biblical
and empowering for the life of the Christian community. It has the potential to
set us free from the kind of dualism that says that most of life is secular, and
that our only purpose in life is to save people from the soon-to-be-destroyed,
completely corrupt world. And we can be thankful that Dr. Kuyper modeled for us
this kind of thoughtful engagement, in many areas of human endeavor. Let us join
with Dr. Kuyper in his heart's cry to "Let Christ Be King!"
|
