A Response to: “The Kuyperian Vision for culture: what it is, and how is it doing? by J. Hommes

Posted on August 18, 2009 by dsnoke |2 Comments

I heartily welcome your essay on Kuyperian thought and practice and have enjoyed the discussion it has already created on this important topic. Like you, I have embraced Kuyperian ideas in the past, and would in many ways still consider myself Kuyperian in many ways. I grew up on the mission field (in Japan) where other models of the relationship between Christianity and culture were offered that I found unsatisfactory. Thus, particularly at Calvin College, I found the Kuyperian vision challenging and refreshing. But, I share some of your concerns for the direction in which some of the self-professed heirs of Kuyper are going or have gone. The focus on worldly success as opposed to a Christian witness, the relative lack of focus on evangelism, the temptation to accommodate to the world and not be distinctively Christian, the lack of focus on persecution and opposition are all legitimate concerns. Certainly these are not concerns merely for “Kuyperians,” but to a certain degree are concerns of all Christians. So, in general, I agree that, like Martin Luther’s drunken peasant on a horse, we tend to go from one extreme to the other. Thus, we need a balance in our views toward Christian culture. Though I am in agreement with many of your concerns, I would like to respond to some of the assertions in your essay:

1. First of all, I think it is misplaced to put the blame for these concerns on Kuyper. One of the reasons I haven’t responded to the essay until now is that I was re-reading passages of Kuyper’s writings. As a historian, I feel uncomfortable writing about someone like Kuyper without examining his life and writings. In general, I do not find him in his writings to be guilty of what he (or his successors) are accused of in your essay. I realize that you wrote that “much of this cannot be laid at the feet of Kuyper himself, who might shudder at what some of his followers have done.” If this is so, then I question the propriety of calling it “Kuyperian” at all. Though I heartily agree that the culture and society of the Netherlands and the Reformed Church in the Netherlands are in a sorry spiritual state today, I don’t think they can truly claim to be the heirs of Kuyper. The notion that modern Japan was influenced by Kuyper is, as far as I can tell, mistaken, though Japanese Christianity was very influenced by Modernism and by the Social Gospel movement. Though certainly the Christian Reformed Church and other Dutch-heritage churches might be in need of reform, renewal, and critique, I think they have been more influential than you assert. Just ask the members of the Christian Reformed Church of Nigeria, or the Christians in Japan who 20 years later are still worshipping in the church that my parents planted. Or ask the thousands of students who were influenced by the Christian schools, colleges and seminaries of this Dutch tradition. And, even if your assertion could be true, how could this be adequately assessed? How are we to judge by the criteria“more influential in society”—by the number of Supreme Court justices? In some ways, isn’t this somewhat similar to “focusing on worldly success” in that we focus on “success at influencing the world”? I recognize the need to assess the impact of “Kuyperian” ideas, but I think that your judgment and assessment in this case is too narrow.

2. I think that the designation of the opposing view to the Kuyperian as the “city on a hill” view is also problematic. As you acknowledge, this view is close to fundamentalism in many respects. But even John Winthrop’s use of the phrase in the 1630s is broader than your designation here. And, in Kuyper’s work, Common Grace he has a whole chapter entitled “City on a Hill” (Vol. II, #36) in which he talks about the Church in light of this phrase. I am not saying that you cannot invent a new classification, but I think it is problematic to do so without thoroughly examining the way in which this image has been used in the church by some of the very figures you are dealing with. Interestingly, Kuyper was condemned and expelled by the Synod of the Hague in 1886 for allegedly advocating “sectarianism” because he referred to the church as a “little flock” in the midst of the world (which they interpreted as narrow and sectarian).

3. Though Kuyper does talk about the Kingdom of God, he usually discusses it in reference to the Church. He did reject what he calls the error whereby “people focus on their own salvation instead of the glory of God.” Kuyper asserts that “The Reformed confession—which maintains that all things, also in this world, aim at the Christ, that his Body is the key component, and that in this sense one can say the church of Christ forms the center of history” (Common Grace). Kuyper discusses the importance of special grace and common grace as both originating from God as Creator and both giving glory to God. I think one of the clear differences between the views of Kuyper (and his heirs) and some other views is a focus on God as Creator as well as Redeemer. Kuyper certainly views the Kingdom of God as extending beyond the Church, but he makes a distinction between what he calls the church as institute (or institution) and the church as organism. He criticizes the “national churches” for focusing only on the church as an institution and not recognizing the importance of the active faith of Christians, which shines both through the institution of the church and through what he calls the “extra-institutional influence” of Christianity in society. Kuyper is somewhat vague about the dividing line between the influence of the Church on society and this broader Christian influence. Even his metaphor here (of a lamp or light) contributes to this. He clearly asserts that the light shines out from the church to illuminate all areas and “that illumination will be stronger and more penetrating as the lamp of the gospel is allowed to shine more brightly and clearly in the church institute” (Common Grace) But, then he writes that there is “another circle whose circumference is determined by the length of the ray that shines out from the church institute over the life of people and nation” (Common Grace). Certainly at points Kuyper can be faulted for being a bit vague at points and making claims that could be misinterpreted. In particularly statements—such as “The church as organism may even manifest itself where all personal faith is missing but where nevertheless some of the golden glow of eternal life is reflected on the ordinary facades of the great edifice of human life”—may be poetic, but can be interpreted in different ways. But overall Kuyper does not neglect the special grace of the gospel, and he clearly shows that common grace is greatly influenced by the church and by the “lamp of the gospel.” (Common Grace)

4. Certainly, when Kuyper talks about the Kingdom of God, he includes more than saving souls. But his view of the Kingdom of God and common grace is more complex. A critique one could make of Kuyper is his somewhat triumphal eschatology and connecting this with the progress of the Christian West. In this way, he is very much a man of the 19^th century who did not live through the world wars and events of the 20^th century. Though he certainly acknowledged the strength of non-Christian Western ideas, his general view seemed to be that the expansion of the West around the world would help to spread the light of the gospel and of God’s common grace. Any society, in his view that has been influenced by the light and leaven of Christianity (“a leaven which keeps working and affects all relationships of life…[and] extends to the whole of society.” Common Grace) is far superior to societies such as China and Japan who have not had that light or leaven for centuries. For Kuyper the progress of knowledge and “science” is part of God’s common grace. But, even here Kuyper is more nuanced. He maintains a distinction between two “operations” of common grace—one that aims at the interior, and one at the exterior. Kuyper writes, “The former is operative wherever civic virtue, a sense of domesticity, natural love, the practice of human virtue, the improvement of the public conscience, integrity, mutual loyalty among people, and a feeling for piety leaven life. The latter is in evidence when human power over nature increases, when invention upon invention enriches life, when international communication is improved, the arts flourish, the sciences increase our understanding, the conveniences and joys of life multiply, all expressions of life become more vital and radiant…and the general image of life becomes more winsome” (Common Grace). He goes on to assert that the enrichment of the exterior life will often go hand-in-hand with an impoverishment of the interior—a prescient statement given our society today but one that I think many would find very un-Kuyperian.

5. The notion of the Kuyperian “world view” as one that proposes a philosophy but doesn’t challenge the theory or data (or style or technique for art) is a very astute critique of much of what passes for Christian scholarship and art today by some of the professed heirs of Kuyper. But, I do not think that Kuyper deserves this charge. Though certainly, as you wrote, he loved “science” and the academic world, but he also critiqued many ideas at many levels. Take Darwinism, for one. Kuyper writes “It is impossible to bridge the gulf between the dogma of the Trinity and the pseudo-dogma of Evolution. The Christian religion and the theory of evolution are two mutually exclusive systems. They are antipodes that can be neither reconciled nor compared. Undoubtedly, negative biblical criticism already undermined belief in confessional certitudes among many, but the Modernist theologians at least remained idealists who respected the authority of Jesus’ ethical utterances…But the Evolution-theory respected, spared nothing…If the theory of evolution is true, then all that humanity has thus far imagined, thought, pondered, and believed is a lie” (Evolution). His writings show no hesitation to challenge anything that he views as contrary to the truth of Christianity. In fact, he seems to exemplify in some of his writings what you call an “anti or subversive approach” as well as “awareness, with skepticism.”

6. Lastly, I think that the strength of the Kuyperian approach is that it focuses on the glory of God. The focus on excellence (in all areas of culture) as giving glory to God is a focus that I see as an idea of the Protestant Reformers, not one unique to Kuyper (which I’m sure you would agree with). I think that Kuyper is at pains to assert that Christ is concerned with and should be a real part of every sphere of our lives and our society. I think that the example of Henry Martyn is interesting because I find it hard to imagine that Kuyper would have discouraged him (had he been there) from going to the mission field and translating the gospel for a people who had not received the light of special revelation. On the other hand, if Martyn had decided to remain in academia, I think Kuyper would have encouraged him to glorify God in that field as well. I think we can never truly know the full impact of our lives no matter where God has put us. I often think of the story Os Guinness tells of his great-grandmother who, despairing of raising her children alone after the death of her husband, was going to throw herself into the river when she saw a farmer diligently plowing his fields, oblivious to everything but this duty God had given him. That farmer would never know the impact he had on her life, in convicting her of God’s calling to her to do her best to raise these children God had given her. Though the issue of choosing our path is important in God’s kingdom, I think the more important issue is not what we do but who and what we are where God has placed us.

7. I agree that many in the church—Kuyperian or non-Kuyperian—have such a low view of heaven. In this way, we in the wealthy materialistic West have much to learn from many of the Christians in poorer countries who may understand the joy and expectation of heaven better than I ever will. When people start talking about whether our achievements and cultural works will endure in the life to come, I wonder if they have any notion of what perfection is. That God can be glorified by any of our fallen works is an amazing thing in itself. But, I think the best artists and scientists acknowledge that our world is fallen and imperfect. In particular, artists—like novelist John Steinbeck in Grapes of Wrath—acknowledge that the world is messed up. But, we can acknowledge the traces of good in the Creation even as we see its fallenness. The refreshing thing about Kuyper is that he talks about the unity of God’s creation—something that has been greatly changed by the Fall, but is not entirely gone. Kuyper asserts that the connections in this world are not made by us, but we find them in God’s creation and we can begin to repair and build connections between the disparate elements of humanity. But, finding these “connections” is hard work, and perhaps the heirs of Kuyper (myself included) can be faulted for laziness and for opting for an easy way out that is usually accommodation and conformity to the world. I agree that we can be more subversive as Christians, but, the legalism and narrow worldview of much of fundamentalism is not the way to go. With Kuyperianism, one can look at The Grapes of Wrath and see past the profanity, socialistic apologetic, and despair to the art of the narrative and for the desire for mercy, justice and brotherhood of humanity. Perhaps what I like most about Kuyper is the focus that Kuyper has that the most important thing is the glory of God. When I hear others (and myself if I’m honest) saying, “I can do_________ and still be a Christian” I think that it might be a rationalization or an accommodation to the world, but I also think that it shows that we do not have a good view of the glory of God. Certainly God is more glorified by work well done than by shoddy work. Certainly God gave us gifts like music, art, and sports and when we use those gifts we are enjoying God’s creation and the gifts that he has given us. But, God is glorified through persecution, suffering and sacrifice—a broken and contrite heart. And, one only has to read the beatitudes to see that the things God’s values and ideas for happiness are much different than the standards of the world.

So, what am I trying to say in this rambling response? Though I am not saying Kuyper’s writings are completely without fault in these charges, I do think that he is closer to the balanced view that you propose in your essay. I hope this was helpful, and I would like to hear your response to some of my point. Thanks for your thoughts on this very important topic.

---