Emanation ex nihilo

“Evolution and the Reformation of Biology” is a somewhat peculiar work written by Hebden Taylor, a Reformed missionary and reverend within the Anglican Communion. Theologically, he saw himself as following in the footsteps of Dutch Neo-Calvinists Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd. His book against Darwin's theory of evolution is published by Craig Press, which also carries works by Christian Reconstructionists Rousas Rushdoony and Gary North.

The first part of the book contains the usual young earth creationist (YEC) arguments against evolution and modern geology. Taylor frequently references “The Genesis Flood” by Henry Morris and John C Whitcomb. He explicitly says that God created the universe with the appearance of age!

The second part is an exposition of Dooyeweerd's hard-to-understand Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea, which Taylor sees as an alternative to the materialism underlying Darwin's “apostate science”. However, Dooyeweerd's ideas doesn't strike me as creationist in the strict YEC sense. They sound more akin to Neo-Platonism, with God “creating” (or emanating?) a long series of “modalities” and “radical types” in a descending hierarchy. The “types” (archetypes or Ideas?) created by God seem to unfold their inner potentialities in a progressive sequence within time. This is compatible with old earth creationism (OEC), but also with a “hard” teleological form of theistic evolution.

As far as I understand, Herman Dooyeweerd wasn't a creationist sensu stricto. This makes me wonder why Taylor chose this particular (and peculiar) philosopher to begin with? (Kuyper also accepted evolution, as long as humans were somehow kept out of it.) J Glenn Friesen has suggested, in his tome “Neo-Calvinism and Christian Theosophy”, that Dooyweerd was heavily inspired by the Hermetism of Franz von Baader. If true, it would raise a lot of questions about the Calvinist “orthodoxy” of Dooyeweerd. Not that I mind – I'm more sympathetic to Neo-Platonism, Hermetism and even evolutionism than to Calvinism (“Neo” or otherwise). Many of Dooyeweerd's arguments against reductionism sound correct, albeit expressed in an arcane language probably made even worse by bad translations. However, they are not arguments against “evolution” as such, but against Darwinism in the more narrow sense (think Dawkins).

Perhaps Taylor should have stopped at “The Genesis Flood”…

The problem with Christian Democracy

“The Problem of Poverty” is an annotated version of a famous speech given by the Dutch churchman and politician Abraham Kuyper in 1891. The first English translation wasn't published until 1950 under the slightly menacing title “Christianity and the Class Struggle”. This is a new translation published in 1991 - exactly a century after the speech was originally given.

In the United States, Kuyper is mostly known for the “Lectures on Calvinism”, and he has been turned into an icon of sorts by some Christian fundamentalists. In reality, Kuyper was a moderate, his theologically orthodox and politically “anti-revolutionary” rhetoric being a cover for a conservative Christian accommodation to modernity. Historians consider his movement an early form of Christian Democracy. Thus, Kuyper was probably closer in spirit to Edmund Burke than to Rousas Rushdoony! Personally, I still find the man too conservative, so I would have voted for “the other guy”, but that's me…

The speech entitled “The Problem of Poverty” was given by Kuyper at the Christian Social Congress in 1891. Although Kuyper was a Calvinist, he explicitly acknowledges Pope Leo XIII's famous social encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, also issued in 1891. He even states that Catholics have made more in the social field than Calvinists. The speech is also surprisingly non-confrontational towards Social Democracy, with Kuyper making a distinction between Social Democrats and anarchists (but also between Social Democrats and “state socialists”). By contrast, Leo XIII condemns all forms of socialism and probably wouldn't make irenic nods to Protestants. Kuyper's moderation reflects the political realities of the Netherlands, a stable parliamentary democracy in which Calvinists, Catholics, Liberals and Social Democrats attempted to co-exist with each other.

Naturally, the speech does contain Kuyper's distinct ideas on a number of issues. The French revolution is the root of all evil in the modern world by its godlessness, materialism and disrespect of traditional authority. Kuyper spins his “anti-revolutionary” philosophy in a socialistic direction, stating that the French revolution also represents the rule of Mammon and the untrammeled free market, which hurts the workers and the poor. To Kuyper, “socialism” (he actually uses that term) means an organic society based on the patriarchal family and Christian values. Kuyper also expresses his support for “sphere sovereignty”, in effect a form of decentralization. Kuyperian organic society hence looks different than the Bourbon version overthrown by the French revolutionaries.

Surprisingly for a speech on the problem of poverty given by a politician (or not so surprisingly, if you're cynical), Kuyper makes very few concrete policy proposals. He does mention the need to balance capital and labor through a Labor Code, opposes state hand-outs to the poor above an absolute minimum, and calls for more Christian charity. Often, he sounds like the hypocritical “pie in the sky” friar we all love to hate, saying that there's nothing undignified about being poor, exhorting the rich to cut back on their conspicuous consumption, etc. All good and well…until you start wondering what the preacher intends to actually *do* about it all. (As prime minister, Kuyper became notorious for breaking a railway strike!) At one point, Kuyper calls for “colonization”, something the editor interprets as support for the Dutch colonial empire, while I take it to mean that the unemployed city dwellers should reclaim idle land for agriculture. Maybe it means both? Kuyper and G K Chesterton might have been an interesting pair of brothers.

I don't think “The Problem of Poverty” is particularly interesting, in and of itself. It's important as an example of how some Christian and conservative leaders responded to the social dislocation caused by the industrial revolution and free trade policies. As already mentioned, it's probably a historically significant text for Christian Democracy. The European workers, however, weren't convinced and usually gave their support to the Social Democrats Kuyper wanted to outflank…

The theologians formerly known as Neo-Calvinists

Neo-Calvinism is the name given to a Dutch theological tradition centered on Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). Apart from being a theologian and Church leader, Kuyper was also a politician. He founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party (a Christian Democratic party) and briefly served as the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Two other prominent Neo-Calvinists were Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer and Herman Bavinck.

If this sounds interesting, I wouldn't recommend starting with “Neo-Calvinism and the French Revolution”, a collection of articles about almost everything except Neo-Calvinism's view of said revolution! Reading it, I sometimes wondered whether the editors are trying to untie themselves from a contract with Warner Brothers Records, by swiftly releasing anything they can get their hands on? A bit like The Artist Formerly Known As Prince…

One contributor tries to claim Kuyper for pro-Muslim multi-culturalism, another attempts a “Kuyperan” reading of Kieslowski's “Three Colours” trilogy. Still another claims that Bavinck may have had Platonic and mystical leanings. Interesting, but what on earth has this got to do with Jacobins and Girondists? There is an admittedly interesting article on French revolutionary fashion, and a peculiar piece on theology and linguistics (think Tower of Babel and Pentecost). There is also an entertaining article on small “testimonial” political parties in the modern Netherlands, which insist on super-Christian politics in this most liberal of nations.

Ultimately, however, I don't think anyone is much wiser after reading this volume, recently published in paperback. If anyone wants to read up on Neo-Calvinism and the French Revolution, it seems that Groen's and Kuyper's own writings are a better start (and finish) than this curious potpourri…

The Anti-Fundamentalist Party

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was a Dutch politician, Church leader, theologian and university lecturer. For a few years, he was the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Theologically, Kuyper is often designated as a Neo-Calvinist, to emphasize both the roots of his religious convictions and their distinct applications to modern realities. Politically, Kuyper could be described as a Christian Democrat. He headed the so-called Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP), a confessional political party which represented the “orthodox” Calvinists. Rightly or wrongly, Kuyper is often considered to be the main inspiration behind “pillarization”, the peculiar form of pluralism which became dominant in the Netherlands after his death. Under this system, each political and religious group (such as Calvinists, Catholics or Socialists) formed its own distinct community, organized “vertically”, the Netherlands in effect being a federation of such “pillars”. After a long period of uncritical adulation, Kuyper's legacy have come under increasing scrutiny, sometimes to the point of painting the man in wholly dark terms, even turning him into a putative founding father of South African apartheid. Meanwhile, Kuyper has been turned into a fundamentalist icon by certain extreme Christian groups in the United States, making his legacy almost as pluriform as Dutch pillarization…

So much for an introduction.

In 1898, Kuyper visited Princeton in the United States and gave a celebrated series of speeches, known as “Lectures on Calvinism”. Peter Heslam's book is a commentary to and exegesis of these lectures, but also deal more broadly with Kuyper's life and legacy. If you just want to read one book on Abraham Kuyper and Neo-Calvinism, this might very well be that book. I first heard of Kuyper when I was reading literature on creationism. The Dutch theologian is often regarded as the founder of the “presuppositionalist school of apologetics”, today mostly associated with Creation Ministries International or Christian Reconstructionism. If Heslam's book proves anything, it is that Kuyper wasn't a fundamentalist nor a theocrat. Behind the militant rhetoric about “the antithesis”, “anti-revolution”, God's sovereignty over all aspects of life, and calls for a specific kind of Christian science, Kuyper was actually a theological and political moderate. The best comparison would be to Edmund Burke or even to modern European Christian Democracy.

Kuyper and his Anti-Revolutionary Party were opposed to the ideals of the French Revolution (hence the curious name), but their alternative was not Throne and Altar conservatism. Rather, Kuyper's project was to make Calvinism relevant to the modern world, more specifically the late 19th century Western world. In effect, he called for a different kind of modernity than the secular-unitary version associated with 1789. The ARP supported universal male suffrage. As a confessional party of Calvinists who had broken away from the “official” Reformed Church, the ARP demanded the separation of Church and state. The ARP cooperated with the Catholics, Kuyper regarding “Rerum Novarum” (Leo XIII's famous social encyclical) as a great document. Kuyper had no problems with the Dutch, Glorious or American revolutions, since he perceived these to have been inspired by Calvinism. In the United States, he supported the Republican Party (which he associated with Alexander Hamilton) against the Democratic Party (which he associated with Thomas Jefferson).

One of Kuyper's main objections to the French Revolution was its advocacy of a strong, unitary state. Since this state would be secular, the independence or even existence of Christian groups came under threat. Kuyper's solution was not a Genevan theocracy, however, but a consistent pluralism and diversity, both in Church and society at large. This would enable Calvinists to form their own educational and social institutions, while making co-existence with other groups possible. Kuyper placed heavy emphasis on the concept of “common grace” to explain how God ruled the entire world, including the unbelieving/unsaved individuals, communities and states. Even Kuyper's Christian science turns out to be less extreme than expected, since he emphasized that regenerate and unregenerate scientists might come to the same conclusions about the material world. It's not even clear whether Kuyper was a creationist! Judging by Heslam's book, he would have been classified as a theistic evolutionist in today's America. Kuyper opposed “evolutionism” as a worldview, but not necessarily the theory of evolution itself (a somewhat unstable position).

That Kuyper engaged with the modern world, rather than simply preaching a return to good ol' Geneva or Salem, can also be seen in his attempts to develop a Calvinist aesthetic, his frequent references to the works of Eduard von Hartmann (the leading German philosopher of the late 19th century), his Dutch nationalism and his “organic” conception of the structure of the cosmos, which probably owed quite a deal to the German Romantics he usually criticized. Even Kuyper's complex blend of optimism and pessimism towards the fate of Western civilization feels very modern. On a somewhat different note, it's intriguing that Kuyper while attacking “Puseyism” and “symbolism” nevertheless supported the Liturgical Movement in the Netherlands.

Heslam, described by the back matter as a curate at the Church of England in Huntingdon who frequently publish in scholarly journals, should be commended for writing this book, which is both easy to read and surprisingly comprehensive at the same time. Apart from proving that Kuyper wasn't Jonathan Sarfati's or Rousas Rushdoony's grand daddy, this volume contains a few surprises, such as B B Warfield's reactions to Kuyper's lectures, or Kuyper's comments on the heliotropic development of civilizations…

Five stars.

Kuyper on Islam

This is a translation of two excerpts from Abraham Kuyper's “Om de Oude Wereldzee”, originally published in 1908. In the original Dutch, the excerpts are titled “Voorrede” and “Het Raadsel van den Islam”. Kuyper was a Dutch Neo-Calvinist theologian, politician and church leader. He was briefly the prime minister of the Netherlands. Kuyper's two-volume work “Om de Oude Wereldzee” (Around the Ancient Mediterranean Sea) contained his impressions of the Middle East, North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. It was something of a best seller in Holland, probably because little other information in the Dutch language about these areas was available at the time. The excerpts translated here contain Kuyper's more general reflections on Islam, its history and its future. They take the reader far beyond the author's personal travels around Mare Nostrum.

Kuyper 's description of Islam is pretty standard for an educated Christian Westerner of the early 20th century. Islam is fanatical, intolerant, war-prone, sensual, anti-woman, stands on a lower ethical level than Christianity, and recognizes no distinction between religion and politics. His more specifically theological critique argues that Islam, underestimating the sinfulness of humanity, doesn't leave any room for a redeemer or the light of the Holy Spirit. Kuyper is uncomfortable with the fact that Islam replaced Christianity almost everywhere in the Middle East and North Africa. How can the lower replace the higher? How can history go backwards, so to speak?

Kuyper reaches the conclusion that while the Western powers are dominant for now, they have never won the hearts of their Muslim subjects, and never will. Islam will awaken, probably in the form of Pan-Islamism. Only a small minority of the Muslim population will become secularized and Westernized. Christian mission to the Muslims is doomed to failure, since most Muslims will never change their minds. At the time, the predominantly Muslim nation of Indonesia was a Dutch colony, and Kuyper bemoans the lack of missionary progress there. The author never explicitly predicts a global conflict between the Christian (or secular) West and the world of Islam, but this is surely his bottom line.

At the very end of the excerpt, Kuyper writes: “The millions of Christians who came under the rule of the Sultan during the seventh and eighth centuries, have almost all converted to Islam. To the contrary, Muslims who currently are ruled by Christian powers have fully persevered in their faith.” He also says: “But even if Islam for the time being has no chance for world dominion, it will never let go of this ideal. The earthly character of this ideal has put its stamp on all its adherents that can never rise above its contradiction with our culture.”

Kuyper never says what should be done about the mysterious success of Islam, but is confident that somehow it's all part of God's plan. Perhaps the Christians need to be chastised, with Islam being God's method to punish his recalcitrant people? Kuyper never calls Muhammad a fraud, but believes that he had genuine spiritual experiences. He also discusses the Sufis and the Shiites. Apart from its mysticism, another positive trait of Islam is its monotheism. However, being generally on a lower ethical level than Christianity and several centuries behind the West in terms of progress, the overall role played by Islam is nevertheless a negative one. Curiously, “The Mystery of Islam” is translated by a Islamophile and pro-Marxist scholar who nevertheless defines himself as a Kuyperian while constantly “correcting” Kuyper in the notes. This makes for some funny reading!

Unfortunately, the tendencies described by Abraham Kuyper are still present. The Arab Spring, the attempts to introduce Western-style parliamentary systems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rise of Erdogan in Turkey shows that not even democratization and modernization has affected the common people's belief in (usually conservative) Islam. Even Muslim groups which ally with the Western powers are highly conservative on their home turf. A large minority of Muslims goes further and supports outright militant Islamism. Shia Muslim “Persia” (Iran), which Kuyper wrote off as too weak to be of any consequence, plays a central role in today's Muslim world. On the other hand, Christianity might be stronger in Africa than Islam, a development not foreseen by Kuyper. The translator mentions a meeting with a Black South African who was a Kuyperian!

If you like apocalyptic screeds, “The Mystery of Islam” probably contains too little meat, and the text isn't the most exciting read overall either, but it does raise a few disturbing questions about “the clash of civilizations” (and perhaps the current state of Neo-Calvinism). In the end, I give it three stars.