I recently finished reading James Bratt's 2013 work - Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat. I cannot recommend it enough. It was an excellent work, well done, and at times even something of a page turner. While some American readers might struggle at times with the dynamics of 19th century European politics, enough is explained that I think most will be able to persevere through it.
Regardless of what one thinks of Kuyper (1837-1920), all would agree his level of energy and output, his vision and zeal are astonishing. The man was a force of nature. Father to a large family and briefly a pastor, Kuyper founded a breakaway Dutch Reformed denomination, as well as a national newspaper in which he both wrote and served as editor. He was a prolific author, and founder of both a university and a political party - the latter of which led him to serve a term as prime minister of the Netherlands (1901-1905). Well traveled, his influence was also felt as far afield as South Africa and the United States. It's safe to say Kuyper led a full and eventful life.
Bratt does a good job explaining the context of Dutch Reformed denominationalism, as well as the theological spectrum within the Netherlands at the time, even while touching on the various philosophical currents swirling about Europe. The epoch continues to fascinate as it's a time of sweeping transition with regard to economics, technology, and politics. A new culture is emerging, the modern world we all know so well. And yet Kuyper was one of those people who grew up in the previous culture, a world in which Waterloo was still fresh in people's minds. And yet over the course of his life Kuyper would witness the advent of the railroad, electricity, flight, as well as the horrors of World War I.
Considered the father of Neo-Calvinism, Kuyper presents a number of theological difficulties for many Evangelicals and Calvinists alike. A case can be made that he exhibited hyper-Calvinist tendencies in some of his thinking, especially with regard to his supralapsarianism (a respected minority position within the Calvinist tradition) as well as his ideas regarding eternal justification and presumptive regeneration - once again the idea of covenant being read through the lens of election, a common characteristic within hyper-Calvinist systems. While the way some theologians parse out the ordo salutis is rightly doubted, the Kuyperian schema takes this to another level with his notions of self-conversion due to regeneration already being a reality, and the necessity of repeated conversions which again are sharply distinct from the compartmentalized systemic-driven idea of regeneration.
Bratt describes him as something of a rationalist supernaturalist and he clearly believed in the validity if not the supremacy of systematic thought and a kind of scientific approach to theology something also seen with the theologians of Old Princeton - and yet coming from a very different philosophical milieu.
Aside from some odd and original (if confused) ecclesiological framings which tend to confuse the identity of the Church and the culture, Kuyper like many theologians of that epoch was not very solid on the question of evolution. The notion was not abhorrent to him and like the Hodges one wonders if he wasn't overwhelmed by the 'scientific' arguments. And yet what troubled him more than the notion of transformationalism was the materialist assumptions that seemed to dominate Darwinism and a great deal of the epistemology of the time. Beyond this, as with many thinkers at the time, Darwinism reinforced certain (now discredited and denied) notions about civilisation and Kuyper certainly expresses these Social Darwinist tendencies - especially with regard to Dutch policy in the East Indies and the Boers in South Africa.
Kuyper will at times also seem utterly alien to many readers and thinkers within the Anglo-American sphere as it's pretty clear that he was thinking more in terms of Continental Idealism than in the Empiricist and Analytic tradition that came to dominate in both Britain and America. Kuyper's philosophical underpinnings were most definitely at odds with the Common Sense Realism of Princeton and yet despite this his 1898 Stone Lectures were well received. One wonders if the more astute minds at Princeton picked up on the Hegelian undercurrents and historicism in Kuyper's thought and it seems clear he left some listeners a bit confused at times. And Kuyper is not always coherent. Bratt doesn't shy away from Kuyper's abundant inconsistencies and often dubious and unsustainable historical interpretations.
As many readers will know, in just another generation many aspects of this way of thinking would re-emerge in the person of Cornelius Van Til and today the term 'worldview' is thrown about even though few embrace the idealist-coherentist philosophical assumptions that underpin it and even fewer seem to realize how it flies in the face of the empiricism which is still embraced and taken for granted by most Anglo-American Evangelicals. And without understanding, they fail to realize that much of what they develop in the name of worldview is not the result of applied exegesis but philosophical extrapolation - an extension of the 'logic' of faith as Kuyper would have it.
And yet the real legacy and realm of influence for Kuyper comes in terms of his framing of Common Grace - the idea that God employs or bestows non-redemptive grace within the context of culture in order to not just restrain sin but to promote civilisation. Kuyper takes this much further and argues for the transformation and redemption of culture - in other words it becomes part of the Kingdom of God and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. For Kuyper, the switch from pastor to parliamentarian was fairly seamless as both tasks were viewed in terms of equal importance and value in terms of the Kingdom of Christ. The culture is (at least in practical terms) every bit as important as is the mission of the Church. His arguments and appeals simply assume the validity of cultural sacralism and thus Christendom and yet is faced with a great dilemma in light of its seeming collapse - a dilemma that would resonate with American Evangelicals a generation after his death.
Today all the buzz is about the end of Christian America and the era of post-Christendom. Well in fin de siecle Holland, that reality already existed and Kuyper was trying to deal with it and formulate a way forward. This author rejects the assumptions at work considering the notions of Christendom and reckons the idea of a Christian nation as being prima facie invalid. And yet, coming out of the Reformed tradition and that of the Belgic Confession, one could argue that such thinking was intrinsic to one such as Kuyper. It was in his genes and to think differently would have required him turning his back on his whole tradition.
Rome was also wrestling with these questions. The old Throne and Altar order had been dispensed with and a new society was emerging and with it a whole new economic order that would have profound effects on how people lived, spent their time, ordered their families, and interacted with their communities. The old village culture and its patterns of life was on its way out and a new urban culture was emerging - the likes of which had never been seen before. Technology was also changing things, as well as politics and the power of the state in questions of war. As formal Christianity waned it was being replaced by a new order and piety - a new religion, that of nationalism. The Church would be overwhelmed by this and I would argue Kuyper was no exception. Rome resisted for a time given its internationalist character but slowly but surely it too succumbed to this new religion. Over time a hybrid would emerge and this heretical and idolatrous construct absolutely dominates in places like the United States. It is extremely difficult to avoid it and I would argue (in part) that Kuyper's myopia on this point has contributed to this unacceptable state of affairs.
To be fair, all of these cultural shifts and changes were overwhelming and while thinkers wrestled with these questions, it was impossible to keep up with or to cover all the questions involved. Catholic Social Teaching attempted to do this and Kuyper was more or less trying to produce a similar system but one for Protestants living in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Kuyper felt the burden of these questions as the dynamics were very different depending on the context. Bratt is helpful in teasing out these nuances and explains how Kuyper wrestled with things like the role of women and how it differed in the Netherlands as opposed to America. And then at the same time there were deep questions over culture and race being wrestled with in a place like South Africa that were unique. Kuyper certainly supported the Boers in their war with Britain and his thought profoundly influenced the architects of nationalist-racialist Apartheid and yet at the same time Kuyper would (it would seem) have condemned their conclusions and application of his thought. Once again, the broad and sweeping spectrum of Kuyper's thought often proved impossible to reconcile with itself.
His notions of Sphere Sovereignty at times overlap with Catholic subsidiarity and yet once again even Bratt admits there's very little Biblical evidence for these notions. Kuyper's notion (which is in some ways quite at odd with some of the more robust expressions of American Christian politicking) is that a safe place needs to be carved out for Christians or more specifically Calvinists. But as always with Kuyper this is confused as it essentially contradicts the Cultural Mandate/Dominionist notions he also promotes - the language of every square inch belonging to Christ. Sometimes it's as if he's just arguing for a place at the table like some of the more tepid expressions of contemporary Evangelicalism. Other times he wants a preferential pluralism - toleration for other expressions of the faith, but for the Dutch Reformed to be granted a priority and position of favour. And yet he also promotes the nation and its interests and when weaving them in with Christianity he sows the seeds for the kind of Christian supremacism seen in the colonies as well as the more robust and radicalised expressions within today's Evangelicalism. He is in some respects the father of all these factions. On the one hand he is a champion of the Reformed tradition but on the other hand he deviates from it. Whether he was truly an original thinker or just something of a confused mess is still a valid debate.
Even Kuyper's Confessionalism would seem somewhat in doubt - at least by the standards such questions are reckoned in our day. He believes in the authority of Scripture but also in historical development. Theology must be alive and dynamic. Frozen systems ossify and once again his Hegelianism comes into focus. Theology is constantly interacting with its context and while he might say we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before, it would be folly to simply rest on past static expressions of the faith. Likewise, theology is contextual and as such it's difficult to apply or express it in universal terms. This would be highly problematic to conservative ears in the 21st century. And yet for Kuyper, the application of God's Word to society was a project each society would have to undertake for itself. Each situation was different and each society in a different place of development. One need not agree with Kuyper to nevertheless admit it's an interesting concept but it would also mean that South African theologians of Apartheid could take his ideas in one direction, and American Dominionists in another. Sadly in all cases, these ideas represent a departure from the New Testament.
And again returning to the question of worldview - the same rules applied and so a 'Biblical Worldview' might manifest itself in different ways depending on the context. This is not the universal understanding that today's Evangelicals would resonate with and yet for Kuyper worldview could not be separated from historicist philosophical contextualisation. Such an understanding does not substantiate the kind of absolutist ideals and language (or confidence) that so dominates the American sphere and its political projects - let alone the universal claims so many Americans (Christian or otherwise) are keen to assert when it comes to their idealism. They expect their ideas to seamlessly transfer into other contexts be it Russia, China, Latin America, or Africa. Kuyper would not agree and it must be granted on this point that he's been repeatedly proven correct.
After attending some Keswick-style meetings in the UK, Kuyper would pen a work on the Holy Spirit. His critique of the holiness/higher life spirituality was devastating. He makes many excellent points and yet in reaction to this he develops a comprehensive doctrine of the Spirit's work. In many ways this is the genesis of his ideas about Common Grace and how he deals with questions such as the Magisterial Reformation's doctrine of Vocation. Ever driven by cultural concerns and the perceived crisis of his age, he takes this doctrine much further and unites nature and grace in a kind of monolith - one that is very much in favour today among the Dominionist factions of Evangelical and Confessional Protestantism. And yet the student of the New Testament must recoil at his notions of the unbeliever playing a role in redemption, in building the Kingdom, and having a calling or vocation within it. The 'virtues of the heathen' (as he would have it) generate a knowledge that is combined with Christian knowledge and wisdom and these two working in tandem build Christian civilisation which is the Kingdom of God on Earth. This synthesis or in reality syncretism of knowledge is the fraud that today is passed off as 'Biblical Worldview'. It is in fact anti-Biblical in its nature. Kuyper at least is honest in his celebration of 'Cainite culture' in the Genesis account - a passage and set of concepts that many have still not wrestled with properly - or honestly we might say.
Civilisation is the goal it would seem and Kuyper is willing to admit that through common grace and the gifts granted to both the Church and the world, the West via this Christian hybrid (as Christendom needs to be called) achieved supremacy in the world. The crimes of the Western empires are given a pass by Kuyper as he equates Kultur with 'Christian' and bourgeoisie Victorian values with Christianity.
This entire train of thought is utterly alien to the New Testament but methodologically and epistemologically this unfolding and evolving cultural theology is actually in keeping with some of Kuyper's ideas about doctrine, tradition, and the development of thought. His notions of redeeming 'all fields of life' and 'every domain' are music to the ears of modern Evangelicalism and that movement's misplaced desire to have standing and influence within society - and increasingly to control it. Kuyper tries to temper this with his notion of antithesis but once again his glaring inconsistencies come to the fore.
For Kuyper salvation transcends the Church and is about 'renewing the cosmos', and while he formally rejected the idea of this being accomplished in this age, on a practical level he was motivated by nothing less than a triumphalist postmillennial zeal. The 'cultural mandate' was not affected by the Fall and as such Kuyper strongly believes in the possibilities of progress and technology. So did most American Evangelicals until the 1990's when different and more cynical narratives started to take over. Once again Bratt is most correct in pointing out that Kuyper's thinking on these points is far more an echo of Hegel than Scripture.