You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Abraham kuyper' category.
How Shall We Then Live: Concluding Remarks on Predestinarianism and Christian Living from Kuyper’s Lectures
The Calvinistic world-and-life-view is undergirded by one principal theological dogma: God is sovereign over the affairs of men. This dogmatic assertion carries over to the realm of Soteriology. It is in the doctrine of salvation that Calvinism is mostly known. Far from a mere abstract doctrinal proposition, the sovereignty of God in election and predestination furnishes the Kuyperian worldview with plenty of theological ammunition. Since God is the protagonist in the Calvinistic worldview, then He must be preeminent in developing any approach to living the Christian faith.
Kuyper wishes to emphasize that Calvinism is not to be confused with an ethereal doctrine left for the armchair theologian. Rather, as he asserts, “Calvinism has everywhere left…its trace in social and political, in scientific and aesthetic life…”[1] Calvinism belongs to the people, not simply to the magistrates. It is a doctrine oriented around Christian living. It is the beginning and the end of Christianity. It is the beginning because God initiates a work of grace in each of His chosen ones and it is the end because God in His sovereignty carries His own people through life and to ultimate glory. As Kuyper notes:
This all- embracing predestination, the Calvinist places, not in the hand of man, and still less in the hand of a blind natural force, but in the hand of Almighty God, Sovereign Creator and Possessor of heaven and earth.[2]
This sovereignty over all can only serve as a motivating factor in the Christian activity. The Christian is to defend boldly his Apostolic Creed in an immoral society, lest it loses it honor.[3] Calvinism served as an inspiring call to missiological zeal in previous centuries and must continue to encourage and embolden the Church to march forward as Christian soldiers and ambassadors of her King. The great Dutch theologian well understood the consequences of a weak Church when he wrote: “…Christianity that does not prove its worth in practice, degenerates into dry scholasticism and idle talk.”[4]
Let Calvinism and its world-view suffer a million deaths if it is not quickened by the work of the Holy Spirit. In Kuyper’s own words: “Unless God send forth His Spirit, there will be no turn, and fearfully rapid will be the descent of the waters.”[5]
[1] Lectures on Calvinism, pg.192.
[2] Lectures on Calvinism, pg.197.
[3] Lectures on Calvinism, pg. 195. “Such a Church does not dishonor Calvinism, but itself.”
[4] Lectures on Calvinism. Pg. 187.
[5] Lectures on Calvinism, pg. 199.
In light of this comprehensive view of the Christian life, it is natural that another strong feature of Kuyperian thinking is an opposition to “escapism.” The Roman Church had abandoned any interest in a Biblical transformation of culture thus the holy life was equated to a monastic life,[1] since anything outside the Church was considered to be under possession. Kuyper opposed this dualism and emphasized that God is redeeming the world, thus “serving him in the world becomes the inspiring impulse,”[2] and the Church provided the strength to fight worldly temptations. Indeed there was no need to hide within the confines of the Church.
Unlike any other religious expression, only Calvinism urges God’s people to invade the streets of civilization with the message of the triumph of Christ over all things. It is in the people of God, through the Divine Presence, that Calvinism surges as the “required condition for the advancement of human development to a higher stage.”[3]
Strengths and Weaknesses
Richard Mouw once observed that “Calvinists specialized in cleaning up sewers-not only in the spiritual sense, but sometimes also quite literally!”[4] Indeed, Kuyperianism[5] offers the Christian ways to live in a society, rather than merely tolerating it. Ecclesiastical engagement has its limitations and sooner or later, people will begin to ask questions pertinent to their responsibilities at home and at work. This is Kuyper’s greatest strength.
There are certain areas of concern, which would be deemed areas of weakness in Kuyper’s thesis. Absent from Kuyper’s development of Calvin’s ideas is a high view of the sacraments. Kuyper summarizes the role of the Church as a place where God’s people can garner strength to face the evils of the world’s temptations.[6] Indeed, it may not have been in Kuyper’s interest to add positive thoughts on Sacramentology (though he often appears to chastise Rome’s sacerdotalism).[7] Nevertheless, it is hard to conceive of a more nurturing experience for the Christian in the world, than to embrace the fullness of Christ’s New Covenant sign given for His people in bread and wine. In Kuyper’s lecture on Calvinism and Religion,[8] he castigates Roman Catholic priestly intervention, claiming that it interrupts communion with God.[9] Kuyper’s reaction to Rome’s ecclesiastical practices and to a lesser extent Lutheranism seems to have diminished his interest in a Calvinistic view of the Lord’s Supper.
Another weakness in Kuyperian or Neo-Calvinistic thought refers to its understanding of Old Covenant revelation. Kuyperianism does not believe in an immediate application of civil penalties in modern society. In fact, some Kuyperians, like many other evangelicals, find the idea of Old Testament civil application immoral.[10] Instead they opt for a Democracy, where pluralism is embraced. Kuyper was concerned that if one religion ruled, the Church would become tyrannical. Thus, government was to rule not according to God’s revealed word in Scripture, but God’s revelation in nature. Pluralism-the refusal to accept any religion as the ultimate standard-was the ultimate consequence for denying an explicitly Christian society.[11] On the other hand, and ironically, Kuyper argues for certain Christian principles to be established in a society.[12] Kuyper does affirm that “all ethical study is based on the Law of Sinai,”[13] but never develops the application of the Moral Law to a society. This is a great weakness in Kuyper’s thought. If Kuyper had followed Puritan thinking more closely, perhaps the idea of a pluralistic society would have vanished from his writings. Pluralism is diametrically opposed to the exclusive message of Christianity. Van Til argued that epistemologically one begins either autonomously or theonomically. This same principle applies to ethics. A society either derives its ethical standards from Biblical Law or some variation of Natural Law. Though Kuyper dismissed Natural Law as an epistemic foundation, nevertheless, he implicitly leaves the door open in the area of ethics, since he did not connect the Law of Sinai with its corresponding laws-civil/judicial laws.[14] This is made clear in Kuyper’s outrage over the death of Michael Servetus in the 16th century. According to Kuyper, Servetus’s death was unwarranted. The blame is in the “unanimous and uniform advice of Calvin and his epigonies, who demanded intervention of the government in the matter of religion.”[15] Kuyper seems opposed to state intervention in religious matters, but again, what can be considered non-religious in a society? There may be a legitimate dispute over what form of government is best-whether federalism, where certain issues such as capital punishment are left to the individual states or if this authority rested in the Federal government alone–but the question of whether the state may interfere in public blasphemy or other forms of open rebellion is an issue addressed clearly in the Older Covenant.[16] The killing of a man, who openly blasphemed the Trinity and mocked the Orthodox Faith, is certainly justifiable in Biblical terms and thus to be punished by death. Kuyper further notes disapprovingly of Servetus’ death when he writes:
Notwithstanding all this, I not only deplore that one stake, but I unconditionally disapprove of it; yet not as if it were the expression of a special characteristic of Calvinism, but on the contrary as the fatal after-effect of a system, grey with age, in which Calvinism found its existence, under which it had grown up, and from which it had yet been able entirely to liberate itself.[17]
Kuyper sees the death of Servetus as a lasting bad seed from the Calvinistic tree that needs to be purged. Calvin tried in vain to persuade Servetus to recant of his heresies; in the end, Calvin was unable to change Servetus’ mind.[18] Finally, it seems plausible to make one more critique of Kuyper’s ideology: Though honorable in his intentions, Kuyper failed to see the vast implications of Biblical Revelation for modern society. In Oliver Woods’ article: Abraham Kuyper: God’s Renaissance Man, he observes the following:
Kuyper’s commitment to pluralism betrayed his poetic dedication to affirm God’s holy statutes in church and state, in home and school. The third article of the Anti-Revolutionary Party platform, Ons Program, exposes the frailty of the tactics Kuyper employed for achieving this end: ‘…the authority of the state is bound by God’s ordinances, not directly…but only via the consciences of persons in positions of authority.’ It should be self-evident that such a tactic explicitly removes civil authority from the Word of God and posits it in the vacillating conscience of the civil magistrate.[19]
The conscience of the civil magistrate is unstable in all its ways. When the government submits to some general guidelines of pluralism and libertarianism, the future of such enterprise guarantees the demise of the state and its turning over to the very systems Kuyper opposed-Humanism and Modernism.
[1] Ibid. 29.
[2] Ibid. 30.
[3] Ibid. 38.
[4] Mouw’s Musings. Blog Page. http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=26
Richard Mouw is president of Fuller Theological Seminary. He also makes a few distinctions between Kuyperianism and John Yoder’s Anabaptist theology of life. He recently delivered several lectures at The Abraham Kuyper Consultation at Princeton 2007.
[5] I am using “Kuyperianism” and “Calvinism” as synonymous terms, unless otherwise noticed.
[6] To my limited knowledge, Kuyper did not develop a robust view of the Church in any of his writings. For instance, Kuyper spoke little, if at all, concerning the role of the Sacraments in preparing Christians to face the onslaught of the world’s philosophies.
[7] Professor Frame argues: “Kuyper seems to have thought of the church as one among a number of equal agencies, including family, state, university, etc. I don’t think he gave adequate attention to the centrality of the church in biblical theology.” (Personal correspondence).
[8] Kuyper, 49.
[9] Ibid. 49.
[10] Professors from Calvin College and Seminary are little concerned about the application of Biblical Revelation to modern society. They are more interested in applying natural law than revealed law. Neo-Calvinists think it is immoral to apply Biblical law because we no longer live in a theocracy such as Israel did.
[11] It appears that Kuyper confused the rule of God in society (theocracy) with the rule of the Church (ecclesiocracy). No advocate of Theonomy embraces the latter. The ideal Biblical picture is that Church and State work side by side submitting to one Lord.
[12] In his third lecture, Kuyper speaks about the duty of a government to stop blasphemy from taking place. However, what is his Biblical basis for this? You cannot establish this much from Romans 13. Why did he not make the next move and ground it in Biblical case laws? Professor Frame answers these questions in the following manner: Kuyper’s exclusion of blasphemy was on the ground that God is the foundation of the state. So K. thought that to exclude blasphemy was not to impose the theology of any sect on the state. He resisted imposing other biblical teachings on the state, because he thought that (apart from the Urim and Thummim) the state was not competent to decide what theology was right. (Personal correspondence)
[13] Kuyper, 72.
[14] Though Professor Frame disagrees with some theonomic authors, he has done the most superb exegetical job in combining Kuyperianism with a robust view of Biblical law. Also, for an excellent and fair treatment of Theonomy’s theses, see Vern Poythress’ The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Poythress offers a 50 page critique of Greg Bahnsen’s theonomic theses. He gives particular attention the exegesis of Matthew 5:17. Whether he succeeds is another question. In my assessment, once one accepts the idea of the application of Biblical Law, he has by default become theonomic in his viewpoint, though there may be varying nuances. Perhaps my former professor Dr. Mark Ross distinguishes best when divides the theonomic camp into soft and hard Theonomy. If this distinction stands, then Frame and Poythress would be soft; Bahnsen and Rushdoony would be hard. I would find myself in the latter camp most of the time.
[15] Kuyper, 99.
[16] Deuteronomy 21:18-2. The example of the disobedient son is portrayed as a public death penalty. One may argue that this was not a state-level execution, since the local community and the parents were involved in this execution. But the principle is that God has authorized the state (however defined) to use the sword accordingly (Romans 13).
[17] Kuyper, 100.
[18] There is a false notion that Calvin ruled Geneva with an iron fist. This is erroneous. Calvin did not ultimately make decisions of life and death. This was left to the city rulers. It was by their hand that Servetus was put to death, though Calvin never tried to stop it.
[19] Woods, Oliver. Online. July/August 2002. The Christian Statesman.
Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism is a vociferous call to cultural engagement. These lectures are not only a call to activism, but they also summarize Kuyper’s distinctive position, a new direction for Reformed thought that James Bratt[1] calls “Neo-Calvinism.”[2] Thus, the Lectures on Calvinism– delivered at Princeton in 1898–is Kuyper’s “whole vision in brief compass.”[3] In this presentation, the author wishes to provide an analysis of Kuyper’s first lecture entitled: Calvinism a Life-System.[4]
Calvinism a Life-System
Kuyper was an ardent opponent of modernism. He defined modernism thusly: “Modernism is bound to build a world of its own from the data of the natural man, and to construct man himself from the data of nature.”[5] Modernism seeks to undermine a distinctly Christian worldview by denying God’s revelation. It was Kuyper’s concern that those who bow down before Jesus as Lord, would seek to construct a Biblical worldview that would save the “Christian heritage.”[6] This is the struggle of civilization: to preserve the Christian view of life over all autonomous attempts to challenge it.
This Christian world-view, according to Abraham Kuyper, is Calvinism. In contrast to Romanism and Arminianism,[7] Calvinism embodies the “Christian idea more purely and accurately.”[8] In Calvinism, man needs Divine Guidance and lives in the Divine Presence.[9] Any attempt to revive society or culture outside of a theocentric framework will end in futility. Further, Calvinism offers an answer to the post-modern dilemma of relativism. Kuyper’s prophetic voice saw Nietzsche’s de-emphasis on the objective as a sign of the times. Nietzsche deprived the sciences from any spiritual foundation, thus arguing that there is no constancy in values. This foundationless worldview led inevitably to nihilism. Current post-modern thought borrows heavily from Nietzsche’s philosophical denial of absolute truth. Kuyper responds to this Nietzschean post-modern thought by asserting that man cannot understand reality in a world relegated to autonomous or subjective thinking.[10] Only Christianity can make sense of reality. As Van Til rightly observes in so far as “…the believer and the non-believer, are epistemologically self-conscious and as such engaged in the interpretative enterprise, they cannot be said to have any fact in common.”[11]
The 16th century experienced a revival of Biblical thought. The vast abuse of Roman Catholicism awoke the general public to ask “What doth the Lord say?” in contrast to “What does Rome require?” Hence, through the works of the feisty German monk, Martin Luther, a Reformation was under way. Luther challenged Romanism in many ways, but reserved his main critique for the theological and ecclesiastical realm. Thus, Luther challenged Rome’s view of the Eucharist, the Magistrate, and Soteriology.[12] The 16th century Reformation was not confined merely to Luther’s critique. Calvin–after Luther–also challenged Rome’s dogma. However, unlike Luther, Calvin’s challenge went beyond the ecclesiastical and theological. Kuyper boldly asserts that: “Calvinism is the highest form of development reached by the religious and political principle in the 16th century.”[13] Kuyper notes further that “… Calvinism put its impress in and outside the Church upon every department of human life.”[14] Herein lays a crucial virtue of Calvinism in the Reformation era: Calvinism taught the people of God how to live in and outside the Church. In stark opposition to Rome, which emphasized man’s ability to come to God, [15]Calvinism taught that “the whole of a man’s life is to be lived as in the Divine Presence.”[16] This Divine Presence enabled the Christian to live in submission to God. The Divine Presence is that “hidden force,” which Calvin referred to as the work of the Spirit. It is through this presence that the Christian depends on to live a holy life before the world in all that he does. Calvinism, thus, embraces an all encompassing worldview. It is both divine and human; a perfect harmony made in heaven. In one of Kuyper’s most quoted examples of the magnitude of Christ’s Lordship he writes: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”[17]
[1] Bratt, James. Dutch Calvinism in Modern America. Wipf and Stock; original Eerdmans (1984). Also see Bratt’s A Centennial Reader.[2] Pork, Cornelis. Neo-Calvinism. Online. November, 1995. First appeared in the Reformed Theological Journal.http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?76
Cornelis Pork contrasts Neo-Calvinism with Classical Calvinism by asserting that Neo-Calvinists have externalized the internal religion of Martin Luther. In Neo-Calvinistic thought there is a greater interest in cultural engagement, unlike in Lutheran thought. In the words of J. Aalders: “Kuyper with his lop-sided emphasis on culture and social involvement has contributed greatly to what he calls the externalisation of the doctrines of grace.” My response is that Aalders’ understanding of Kuyper is misguided. Kuyper, too, cared deeply about Christian piety, though he believed piety had been used as an excuse for cultural retreat. Among Kuyper’s classic works on Christian Piety is: “To Be Near Unto God.” In contrast, Classical Calvinism was much more concerned about the internal cry of the soul. If this distinction has any credit, than Classical Calvinism is much more Lutheran than Calvinistic.
[3] Bratt, James, ed. Abraham Kuyper, A Centennial Reader. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998. pg.1.
[4] Though Calvinism a Life-System will be the main focus, I will also draw on other lectures and resources to enrich this brief study.
[5] Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 11
[6] Ibid. 11.
[7] The Arminian thought– no matter in what religion it was found-sought to uphold man’s knowledge above God’s. This is a crucial point in the apologetic endeavor. The question that must be answered is “How does man know God?” The Thomistic tradition exalted man’s knowledge. Aquinas believed-like Aristotle-that human knowledge is like a blank tablet. Humanity is to write upon that tablet on the basis of his knowledge and intellectual prowess. Calvinistic thought, on the other hand, believes that the human heart is in need of regeneration. The human heart indeed cannot have true knowledge of God apart from a work of divine grace.
[8] Lectures on Calvinism, pg. 17.
[9] See page 25 of Lectures on Calvinism for a lengthier discussion of the Divine Presence.
[10] In this case I do not wish to minimize some of the positive emphasis of post-modernity-however one wishes to define that concept. Rather, I speak of secularistic post-modernity.
[11] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 5.
[12] Undoubtedly, Luther challenged much more; nevertheless, three elements form the center of Luther’s criticism.
[13] Kuyper, pg.14.
[14] Kuyper, pg. 23
[15] This ability came mainly through ecclesiastical mediation. Tetzel claimed that if the people would give to Rome, they would then diminish their time in Purgatory.
[16] Kuyper, pg. 25.
[17] Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 488. Quote from Kuyper’s inaugural address at the dedication of the Free University of Amsterdam.
Here are some great quotes from my study of Kuyper’s first lecture entitled: Calvinism A Life System.
11 -Two life systems are wrestling with one another, in mortal combat. Modernism is bound to build a world of its own from the data of the natural man, and to construct man himself from the data of nature; while on the other hand, all those who reverently bend the knee to Christ and worship Him as the Son of the Living God, and God himself, are bent upon saving the ‘Christian Heritage.’ (Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 11) Read the rest of this entry »
Do not fear, Futato is not a fundamentalist! In the middle of one of his lectures in Hebrew exegesis he made this striking comment about a conversation he had with a friend. The friend mentioned to him that the difference between Reformed Theology and Fundamentalism is that Reformed theology begins with creation and Fundamentalism begins with the fall. If that is the case, Futato remarked, then many Reformed people are Fundamentalists.
For those who did not understand the profundity of this remark, allow me to explain. The strength of the Reformed tradition, stressed most powerfully by Abraham Kuyper, is that Reformed theology understands the dignity of man. In the words of Richard Pratt, we are “Designed for Dignity.” The continual stress of some pastors concerning the depravity of man is misaligned with the chronology of Redemptive history. Man, particularly redeemed man, is created for dignity; a dignity given to Him by God himself when He breathed life into a dead corpse.
Covenant members are not to be addressed (though there is an appropriate time for this) on the basis of their old humanity (their continual sins and hatred of God) but on their new humanity (their gift of perseverance and joy to worship their Creator). Consider the Apostle Paul’s address to the less than spiritual Corinthians. He begins his letter by addressing them not as rotten sinners, but those united to Christ and in fellowship with God’s son. Fundamentalism stresses the depravity and sinful nature so strongly that it leads to a message of sadness –inconsistent with the gospel of redemption. Reformed thinkers who dwell on their sinfulness, and forget their new status, lose sight of the powerful resemblance we have with our heavenly Father.
Fundamentalism is alive and well in Reformed churches. The lack of emphasis on dominion (part of the Creation mandate; Genesis 1) and the new creation (II Corinthians 5:17) while stressing the sinfulness and inability to live righteously brings about an impotent gospel. We are called to address our people where God began–Creation–not where we were–lost in sin. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
7:08Am One of the advantages of rising at 5:30AM is the enjoyment of beginning a new day ahead of over 70% of the population. A fresh start and a fresh walk in the empty streets. I have some Kuyper and Van Til reading to do after work this morning.Here is a glorious reference from my sermon’s text yesterday: And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
In his lecture entitled Calvinism a Life-System, Abraham Kuyper argues that
Two life systems are wrestling with one another, in mortal combat. Modernism is bound to build a world of its own from the data of the natural man, and to construct man himself from the data of nature; while on the other hand, all those who reverently bend the knee to Christ and worship Him as the Son of the Living God, and God himself, are bent upon saving the ‘Christian Heritage.’ (Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 11)
This “Christian Heritage” Kuyper spoke so strongly about was nothing more than Calvinism. It was Calvinism that had liberated European countries and that brought about prosperity to the United States (Ibid. pg. 14). In order to preserve the Christian Heritage, Kuyper would call the church to abandon any modernist approach to life and embrace the all-encompassing worldview of Calvinism. There were only two options: those who follow man’s ways and those who bend their knee to Christ’s ways. As Cornelius Van Til once said: “There is only autonomy or Theonomy.” (Page. 134 of Christian Theistic Ethics; many thanks to John Muether for the reference)
Kuyperian thought teaches that Calvinism “claims to embody the Christian idea more purely and accurately” (Lectures on Calvinism, 17) than other religious manifestations. Instead of placing the Christian religion alongside other religions such as Paganism and Islamism, Kuyper sees that Calvinism itself embodies true Christianity for it provides an entire life-system; a life-system that seeks to furnish human society with a different method of existence, and to populate the world of the human heart with different ideals and conceptions (pg. 17).
The great disputes of the sixteenth-century centered primarily on John Calvin and Martin Luther. The two Reformers differed in their understanding of the sacraments, and for the sake of this study, on their view of Christianity and Culture. The Reformational tradition of Martin Luther has focused much of their attention in the two-kingdom perspective. According to Professor John Frame: ((Frame teaches at RTS/Orlando)) “that view states that there are two kingdoms of God, one, as Luther put it, the kingdom of God’s left hand, the other the kingdom of his right hand. The former is secular, the latter sacred. In the former, God rules by law, in the latter, by his word and Spirit.� ((John Frame. The Chalcedon Foundation. Online. Law and Gospel. 4 January, 2002. http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0201/020104frame.php)) In the Lutheran view, the two shall not mix. The sacred kingdom focuses on sacred things like the sacraments and the preaching of the Word; whereas the secular kingdom propagates an antithetical message. Hence, any attempt to sacrilize the secular is in vain. Any idea of a Christian culture is anathema to Lutheranism. On the other hand, the Calvinian (or Calvinistic) worldview denies so strong a dichotomy. Though Calvinistic teaching would heartily emphasize a strong view of the church, nevertheless, Calvinism would also affirm the application of Scriptural principles in all of society, including the civil sphere. As Frame writes: �The biblical view of civil government does not require us to force unbelievers to behave as Christians in every way, but it does call upon us to restrain their (and our!) sin in certain areas. We should be active in society to promote those godly standards.� ((See Law and Gospel)) Though Kuyper praised Luther�s heroic initiative in the Reformation, nevertheless, Kuyper saw Luther�s position as incomplete in terms of applying a full Reformation. Hence, Kuyper writes: �But when the question is put, Who has the clearest insight into the reformatory principle, worked it out most fully, and applied it most broadly, history points to the Thinker of Geneva and not to the hero of Wittenberg? ((Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 22))
Part of R.B. Kuiper’s genius is his ability to communicate profound truth concerning the church in a simple, but yet penetrating style. Kuiper is not only of Dutch origin, but he thinks like the marvelous Dutch scholars that preceded him, such as Abraham Kuyper. As a professor of Practical Theology, Kuiper embraces a sort of boldness in his writings that is not found very often in popular books addressing the church. As Sinclair Ferguson says of Kuiper in his distinguished Scottish accent: “He can certainly get you stirred up.” It is, I believe, his knowledge about the common life of the church, that gives his writings much credibility and substance.
The book covers a range of topics from the theology of the church to the persecution of the church. Kuiper stresses that the glory of the church is fundamental to its very nature. Though at times this glory is compromised in every way, shape, or form, the church remains glorious because God always has a remnant (as in the days of Elijah).
Kuiper’s constant emphasis on the catholicity of the church and his condemnation of sectarianism urges the reader to engage in his passion for true unity in the Spirit. He notes that genuine catholicity is “Biblical Ecumenism.” What is rather peculiar about Kuiper’s treatment of the church is his endorsement of a form of communism in the church of Jerusalem in Acts. This form he argues is diametrically opposed to Marx’s dialectic materialism, but nevertheless a form of communism. He summarizes both positions as follows: “For Unbiblical Communism Thine is Mine; in Biblical Communism Mine is Thine.” This refers to the charitable manifestation of the people in the early church as they reflected the love of Christ to one another through giving to the poor.
The strength of Kuiper’s book is that it carefully summarizes the many facets of the church in concise, but complete thoughts. Though at times I wish he delved more deeply in some subjects, the book accomplishes its goal in communicating a distinctly Reformed view of the church. On the other hand, The Glorious Body of Christ fails in interacting with the benefits of Kingdom growth. Kuiper presupposes certain passages to refer to the deterioration of the influence of the church in culture and at times even assumes its hastening end (pg. 48-49). Paradoxically, Kuiper speaks of culture in every respect being under the lordship of Christ (pg. 276) and at the same time speaks of the fruitlessness of such efforts. This is a constant theme in Dutch theologians (such as Van Til Common Grace).
Kuiper’s book has had a vast influence in Reformed circles in the last 50 years and shall continue to do so. His careful analysis of the evangelical crisis and his worthy remedies for the church serves as an enlightening analysis for the Glorious Body of Christ.
Recent Comments