THE CHRISTIAN AND THE WORLD When at the beginning of the summer vacation Prof, Radius called, me on the telephone to ask if I would prepare something for this faculty-Board Conference on the subject of the Christian's relation to the world, I first was very inclined to beg off, Already I had con- structed a plan of work which could have taken all my available vaca- tion hours, After a moment's reflection, however, I accepted, on the condition that I might approach the topic in a way that would enable me to adjust the preparation for the paper to some of the work I already contemplated doing. That was the agreement, and only later did I see that the topic had been enlarged by the addition of the modifying, explicative phrase! A Statement of Principles Since to this enlargement I had been no party, I chose to ignore it. Largely, because it is so high-sounding. Do not, therefore, expect from this effort a statement of principles. One principle, if it can be nicely got hold of and securely held to, will satisfy me tremendously, and, I dare say, you too. Moreover, it is a mark of good method, I have learned, rather than to deal hurriedly and superficially with a wide range of interrelated topics, to attempt to come to grips in a whole- hearted way with a more limited number. In this spirit I went to work on the topic generally described as The Christian and the World. Phrased thus the topic may be said to contain an ambiguity. For by "world" we can mean (1) this temporal life, including the activities we call worship (the proper) or, in other words, the whole range of cultural human pursuits, caul (2) these cultural pursuits as they have been informed and gi v en direction by the religious disobedience of Adam and his post erity. Actually, however, it is this very ambiguity which constitutes oar problem, and the solution, as we shall see in what follows, lies just exactly in distinguishing properly the two meanings of world". So leaked at, the phrasing of our topic suggests just what we - .'ant to: 1c)1 the solution to which we aspire, but the problem with which we start, It is noteworthy that, while the problem of the relation of the Church to the World. of culture has tormented Christians unremittingly_ through all the Christian centuries : it has yet taken the Church such a long time to develop a theoretical account of that relation. The practical necessity of relating to g herself t the world 'round about her• pressed on the Church, of course, from the very moment that the truth : of divine revelation once again 17 preached and believed outside Isreal. How tremendously difficult of solution was the problem of determining that relation can be seen in the wide diversity of answers that were: ivon to it by the second-century Apologists, by the anti-gnostic Fathers and by the ?lathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. On the side of a rad ical rejection of the world of culture stands, for example, the Syrian Tatian, who, in his address to the Greeks ( ), contemptuously and in strong and e ven abusive language rejects Hellenic .vulture for the Old 'Testament, which he describes e; 'the barbarians' dogmata ), and even desires that Christianity remain a virile barbarous faith.
Transcript
THE CHRISTIAN AND THE WORLD
When at the beginning of the summer vacation Prof, Radius called,me on the telephone to ask if I would prepare something for thisfaculty-Board Conference on the subject of the Christian's relation tothe world, I first was very inclined to beg off, Already I had con-structed a plan of work which could have taken all my available vaca-tion hours, After a moment's reflection, however, I accepted, on thecondition that I might approach the topic in a way that would enableme to adjust the preparation for the paper to some of the work Ialready contemplated doing. That was the agreement, and only laterdid I see that the topic had been enlarged by the addition of themodifying, explicative phrase! A Statement of Principles Since tothis enlargement I had been no party, I chose to ignore it. Largely,because it is so high-sounding. Do not, therefore, expect from thiseffort a statement of principles. One principle, if it can be nicelygot hold of and securely held to, will satisfy me tremendously, and,I dare say, you too. Moreover, it is a mark of good method, I havelearned, rather than to deal hurriedly and superficially with a widerange of interrelated topics, to attempt to come to grips in a whole-hearted way with a more limited number. In this spirit I went towork on the topic generally described as The Christian and the World.
Phrased thus the topic may be said to contain an ambiguity. Forby "world" we can mean (1) this temporal life, including the activitieswe call worship (the proper) or, in other words, the whole rangeof cultural human pursuits, caul (2) these cultural pursuits as they have been informed and gi v en direction by the religious disobedience of Adam and his posterity. Actually, however, it is this very ambiguitywhich constitutes oar problem, and the solution, as we shall see inwhat follows, lies just exactly in distinguishing properly the twomeanings of world". So leaked at, the phrasing of our topic suggestsjust what we -.'ant to: 1c)1 the solution to which we aspire, butthe problem with which we start,
It is noteworthy that, while the problem of the relation of theChurch to the World. of culture has tormented Christians unremittingly_through all the Christian centuries : it has yet taken the Church sucha long time to develop a theoretical account of that relation. Thepractical necessity of relating tog herself t the world 'round about her•pressed on the Church, of course, from the very moment that the truth :
of divine revelation once again 17 preached and believed outsideIsreal. How tremendously difficult of solution was the problem ofdetermining that relation can be seen in the wide diversity of answersthat were: ivon to it by the second-century Apologists, by theanti-gnostic Fathers and by the ?lathers of the fourth and fifth centuries.
On the side of a radical rejection of the world of culturestands, for example, the Syrian Tatian, who, in his address to theGreeks ( ), contemptuously and in strong and e ven abusivelanguage rejects Hellenic .vulture for the Old 'Testament, which hedescribes e; 'the barbarians' dogmata ), andeven desires that Christianity remain a virile barbarous faith.
With him is to classed the great father of Latin Christianliterature, Tertullian. Of him Pierre de Labriolle says that he"scarcely ever passes over an opportunity to dig still deeper theditch separating the world from the Church, He proclaims that allthe doctrina saecularis .litteraturae is foolishness in the eyes ofGod, and the Christian must reject it, 'What is there in common,'he cries, 'between. Athens and Jerusalem, between the Academe andthe Church?"'
Under 2 this train of reasoning more or lessunfavorable to the Greco -Latin learning, there layan element of rough 'out formidable logic. Whatgood to make any endeavor at conciliation, orpretence of coquetting with a civilization whereinthe true faith found so few points of contact, andso many occasions for becoming impaired or brokenup? To live up -- rightly, to expiate one'sfaults to keep oneself 3n the road_ to the eternalFatherland without too many deviations -- was notthis the. essential duty of a Christian? Whyaggravate a task already so difficult by minglingwith it the study of writers brought up on poly-theism, with no care for any moral law, who wel-comed all undisciplined curiosities of the spirit,all carnal weaknesses. and whose contradictoryspeculations disclosed uncertainties deadly to thestability of the established faith? By readingthe Scriptures, were there not revealed thereinmore than one counsel susceptible of justifyingthe energetic prejudices already suggested byexperience and even by good sense? The questionthen was no other -than resolutely to take noaccount of that 'wisdom of the world'in orderto attach. oneself to that which was the wholeduty of man during his terrestrial pilgrimage.11
Thus far de Labriolle. he has written we might paraphrasein language presently current among by saying that these particu-lar early Christians put too much emphasis on the antithesis at theexpense of common grace, That is to say, they misconceived theantithesis. Many will wonder if it Is wholly coincidental that boththese men fell away from the orthodox church and ended their
1. Pierre de Labriolle, History and Literature of Christianityfrom Tertullian to Boethius translated from the French by HerbertWilson, London and. New York, 192 h Page le,
2, Idem, p. 2O
* which the Apostle Paul had called 'foolishness',
days in heretical movements: Tatian in Encratitism, of which hepossibly was the founder, the Tertullian in Montanism.
To have achieved the absolute break with the world of culturethat they professed to want, these intransigents, as de Labriollecalls them, would have had to press their absolute principles tothe utmost and to have applied them in all their vigor. But, thatsame writer keenly observes; "life has its necessary requirementsand reactions, wherein our preconceived notions, however ardentlyheld they may have been, are brought up against their own limitations,with which they are constrained to make some attempt at composition.To have entirely rejected Greco-Latin learning might have been a boldand imposing attitude to have taken, but can we truly imagine thatit could have brought about and realized its work of making a com-plete breach and destroying it?" To put do Labriolle's thoughtonce again. into words of our own choosing, Does the nature of reali-ty itself allow the absolute break which these men's standpointseemed to encourage? That is, is not the theory in conflict withthe existing reality, and therefore false theory?
Telling here, perhaps, are a couple of facts connected withthese two men whom we have singled out to illustrate one type ofanswer given to the question of the Christian's relation to theworld. First, Tatian's "elaborate style", to quote the words ofWerner Jaeger,4 "is not in agreement with his antipathy to Greekculture. His language shows the strong influence of Greekrhetoric in every line and proves that his practice was not quiteas (sic:) uncompromising as his theory," And the same kind ofremark could be made, and has been about not only the style ofTertullian but also his extensive learning, betraying, as it doesat every point, his thorough acquaintance with all the classicalwriters. Indeed, as de Labriolle has pointed out,5 Tertullian,when it came right down to it, "recognized that to forbid Christiansto become acquainted with profane learning was to reduce them to anintellectual and practical helplessness well nigh complete."
The point we are discussing is that while it has taken theChurch so long to arrive at an adequate theory, of its relation tothe world, the practical need of discovering the proper relationwas there from the beginning. We said that the difficulty ofdetermining exactly what the relation should be was evident in thegreat diversity in the answers that came to be given to the prob-lem. We have discussed the answer given by men such as Tatian andTertullian, and we have found it to be extreme. We saw that neitherman could maintain his theory in practice,
3. Idem, p. 21
Werner Jaeger, Humanism and Theology, (The Aquinas Lecture,1943), Milwaukee. 1943. p, 70, note 16,
5, de Labriolle, cit, p, 24. He cites the following twopassages: De Idolol. X, "...cum instrumentum sit ad omnen vitamlitteratura"; De Cor. VIII (Oehler, I ; 436). "(Litteras) necessariasconfitebor et commerciis rerun of nostris ergo. Deum studiis."
-3-
At the other extremity of the gamut of opinion stands a man likeJustin Martyr, Reared in the thought-world of Stoicism, with itsWorld-Reason or World-Logos and, in man, the logos spermatikos orseed-reason, this wandering Hellenistic philosopher, after his con-version, sought how he might bring his newly found faith to those oldassociates of his unbelieving years. The answer he found in the firstchapter of John's gospel. By an illegitimate appeal to John 1:9 --"That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh intothe world." -- he could say, in effect, to his old associates inpaganism: "See here, you talk abstractly of your World-Logos and ofthe logos spermatikos in each individual. Now it is just that, butwith far greater clarity, that Christianity teaches, Christ is theWorld-logos, and the logos spermatikos in the individual is whatJohn means when he says that the light lighteth every man. That youwho call yourselves Stoics--he refers especially to the Roman StoicMusonius--that Herakleitos, that Sokrates could know enough to speakof the logos was itself the result of our Christ's having illuminatedyou, them and all men,"
What is Justin doing here? He is reducing the meaning of theScripture to that of the pagan philosophers in order to ease thetransition of his old comrades from their paganism to the Christianfaith, He attempts to show the essential unity of truth in Greekphilosophy and in the divine revelation. The antithesis betweentrue prophecy (God's Word in S cripture) and false prophecy (themessages of the various philosophers) is concealed behind an assumedmere difference of degree of clarity of insight. Christianity seesclearly what the Greek philosophers were but half blindly graspingafter. Prof, Vollenhoven, in his 1933 publication Het Calvinisme en de Reformatie van do Wijsbegeerte, writes of Justin: 6
"Preceding not from revelation but from the reason,and with the late Stan accepting the freedom of thewill and applying that consistently with respectto the work cf redemption, he--i.e. Justin--furtheridentified the Logos of the true God with the sub-jectivistic and antimaterialistic logos of that(Stoic) school; following Sextus Empiricus hethought that he found tracer of the logos of thelate Stoa also in Sokrates and Herakleitos, andin this connection he speaks of 'logos spermatikos'and (thus) saw in the speculations of the philoso-phers mentioned 'germs' or 'seeds' of the Truth ofGod: You can see: here everything is present thatcharacterizes this movement up to the present mom-ent: in the field of physics an anti -materialisticenergetics a in Herakleitos, with respect to thehigher (human fun ctions a Christianized subjec-tivism, and...listen carefully such a total mis-conception of ,common grace that this is changed from a goodness of God into being an activity of men, more specifically, of heathen, and thus thedifference between true and false prophecy becomesrelativized."
6, p. 119 f.
-4--
Of this same line of thought de Labriolle says, "There were somewho went so far as to admit that very nearly all of the truth wasscattered throughout the pagan philosophical systems, but that nothoughtful mind had embraced it in its integrity, because none of themknew of the master idea which dominates life and which gives it its`sense and end. It was only necessary then to reconstitute again bythe light of revelation these scattered morsels of truth and bringthem back to unity." In a footnote de Labriolle says, "This is thetheory of Lactantius who in this respect is in line with Just,Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria and hinicus Felix."7
Here we have the second type of early Christian answer to theproblem of the relation of the Christian to the world, to culture.
might say that this answer would make too much of, i.e. would mis-conceive, common graoe.
What we ought to see is that neither group. could let go utterlyof the world and culture in which it found itself. Both Justin andTatian, though with somewhat different intent, .had taken shelterbehind a fancy conceived previously by the Alexandrine Jews (Philo),according to which Greek culture, or parts of it had been derivedfrom the Hebrews, Justin had .declared that certain Platonic doc-trines were derived from Moses, But Tatian went further, exclaimingthat the "wisdom of the Greek sophists" was a "plagiarism drawn bymisunderstanding and conceit from its Old Testament source"(Lietzmann). Justin accepted Hellenic culture, simply clothing itin a loose Biblical dress, Tatian, though by asserting it to be aplagiarism. from the Old Testament he was tacitly admitting thatthat culture was not a pure lie, nevertheless felt the evilspiritual direction present in it. The great mass of Christianbelievers in the first centuries, it• seems ) were more inclined toagree with Tatian. Clement complains that such was the case in hisday even in the enlightened city of scholarship, Alexandria.
We have seen that the difficulty of our problem caused even theinexorable Tertullian, as de Labriolle calls him, to vacillate.Such vacillation was not, however, peculiar to him; it sometimesapproached being duplicity, as in the case of Jerome. You are allprobably acquainted with the famous 'dream of Jerome', which Jeromehimself relates in one of .his letters. As he tells the story he wason his way to Jerusalem-and the desert, whore he intended to live anascetic life, With him he had his books, procured before leavingRome. 'And here is what he writes:
"Miserable man that I am: I was fasting and thenI began to read Cicero; after many nights spentin watching, after many tears, which the remem-brance of my faults of not so long ago drew forthfrom the depths of my heart, I took Plautus in myhands, If by chance on recollecting myself, I
7. Op. Cit., p. 2L and note 2
started reading the Prophets, their unadornedstyle awoke in me feelings of repulsion. My eyes,blinded, saw no longer the light, and it was noton my eyes that I laid the blame, it was on heaven.
"While the old serpent thus misused me, aviolent fever penetrated the marrow of my worn-out body towards the middle of Lent, and, withoutany respite, in an incredible manner, it so consumed my poor members that I had scarcely anyflesh left on my bones. Already people werethinking of my funeral. Ply body felt quite frozen;a remnant of vital heat no longer palpitated savein the lukewarmness of my poor breast.
"Suddenly, I felt myself ravished away inecstasy and transported before the tribunal of theJudge, Such a dazzling light emanated from thosepresent that, crouched on the ground, I dared notlift my eyes, On being asked my profession, Ireplied, 'I am a Christian.' Whereupon, he whopresided said, 'Thou art a Ciceronian and no Christian;where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also.'"
At last the sore-tried Jerome uttered the following oath:"Lord, if ever it happens to me to possess or to read profane books,I shall have denied Thee."
It so happens that years later this same Jerome, in answer toa correspondent in Rome, who had asked him "why he strewed here andthere in his writings examples taken from profane literature, thussoiling the whiteness of the Church with pagan horrors", asserts his"absolute right to make use of the Greco-Latin literature in theinterests and honor of the faith" (de Labriolle).
"If we are perplexed to know", writes do Labriolle, 8 "howSt. Jerome reconciled in his mind this doctrine with the somewhatformal obligations whereof his dream of Cicero has furnished thetestimony, St. Jerome himself removes this difficulty when heretorts that after all a dream is only a dream and engages us tonothing." That would seem to me to approach, as I said, duplicity.Nevertheless, I must agree with de Labriolle that it is open to nodoubt "that the scruplo which he thus vividly portrayed in his dreamwas for him, as for so many other lettered Christians of the firstcenturies, the cause of very real and very grievous anguish."
In the wrestling of these early Christians with the problem ofthe Christian's relation to the world of culture, two elements haveappeared: (1) there is widespread awareness of an evil principlepresent in that world; but (2) there is unwillingness and a vaguely
8. Idem, p.26.
-6-
sensed inability to cut oneself off entirely from that world. Some-times this second element led to a dangerously naive acceptance ofmuch of the world of ancient culture.
Towards the end of the fourth century a kind of compromiseworking arrangement came to be widely accepted. This practical "s01-ution" is found, first, in a celebrated tract of Basil of Caesareawhich sometimes goes by the title (To the Youth),but Which, as to content, might better be entitled "On the RightWay of Drawing Profit from the Profane Authors". I shall employde Labriolle's description of its essential argument.
"Basil9 considers that all was not tainted from the moral pointof view in even this profane literature so much decried at the time;that the poets, orators and historians knew how to give praise andwhat is good and that they provide an abundance of precepts andexamples capable of bringing an enobling influence into the soul ofa young man. Only he insists on a proper selection in order thatthe suspectportions may be eliminated. Under reserve of thispreliminary expurgation Basil is of the opinion that there is greatadvantage in young people having dealings with profane letters;they will supply them with the beginnings of a formation of characterwhich they will later on complete by the study of the Holy Books;they will accustom their eyes, when still young, the better to sup-port the dazzling splendor of the teachings of Scripture. They are,in short, for the young Christian of the fourth century, what hadbeen in former days the learning of the Egyptians to Hoses, and toDaniel, that ofthe Chaldeans. Their value consists in being apreparation and setting out on a still higher task, which is, inits special bearing, the understanding of the Old and Now Testa-ments."
A little later Jerome sums up his views in a comparison (Iquote from de Labriolle): ...Just as in the Book of Deuteronomy(xxi.l2) God ordains that before marriage with a captive her headand eyebrows must be shaved and her nails cut in order to renderher worthy of the bed of her husband, so likewise the Christian whohas been seduced by the beauty of the saepientia saecularis mustmake a beginning by cleansing it of all that it holds of death,idolatry, voluptuousness, error, and passion, and when thus purifiedand suitably ,Prepared it will become worthy for the service of God."prepared,
Augustine speaks in a similar vein in his De Doctina Christiana.According to him--again shall rely upon de Labriolle's summary1 0--"in profane learning there are elements so evidently sullied bysuperstition that no upright man should think of making experimentsin it: astrology, for example. There are others, such as history,
9. Idem, p, 25,
10. Idem, p, 27,
natural history, astronomy, dialectics, rhetoric, etc., which, pro-vided that they the guarded against the depravities and abuses towhich they gave rise, are worthy of study and should render thegreatest service in cennection with exegesis and oral commentaryon the Scriptures.
With these men we have reached what we may call the classicalpatristic solution to our problems. The commonness of their view-point is indicated by their use of the same allegorical simile. Likethe Jews in their flight from Egypt, these Fathers argued, Christian-ity must carry away the gold and silver vessels of her enemies andemploy them for her own uses,
Note that the standpoint here adopted is still no theoreticalaccounting of the Christian's relation to the world of culture. Noris it the result of such theory. It is, rather, immediate reaction,pressed from these Christians by the exigencies of their life inthe Roman Empire. Yeu will recall that I spoke of it as a workingarrangement. To these men it must have seemed a correct standpoint :
because it was felt es a necessary one. But that is not yet torender an account of its "necessity", The lack is recognized, ineffect, by de Labriolle, who says of Basil's discourse: "Truthto tell, we do not see the subject developed with the fulness andprecision we might have hoped frem it, Basil -brings to his dis-cussion less of method than of agreeable bonhomie and aboundinghumanism." To which we may add, that a theoretical account wouldhave to explain hew there Gould be any precious jewels in Egypt atall,and just what in Egypt was jewels and what something lessvaluable, how great the relative purity of the jewels was, and again-,a problem obscured by the figure employed—how it was possible togather up the jewels without getting Egypt itself to boot. Suchcritical reflection was conspicuously absent from the patristic"solution."
Yet it is this essentially uncritical modus vivendi of thepatres which forms the nucleus (pi' scholastic thought on our problem.Two of the chief distinguishing features of scholasticism are foundalready here. First to be noted is the ancillary position assignedby these men to cultural pursuits, These are to be, it would seem,but the handmaid of theological studies -- the ancilla theologiae of scholastic conception though the term seems first to have beenused by .Peter Damiani in a different sense. Does this conceptionnot - carry with it the implication that the possibility of an inde-pendent service of God in the cultural fields of study is denied?And may it not be that such a conclusion is but the direct consequenceof a lack of :cellection upon the cultural problem itself?
In the second place, -- and this feature is most intimatelytied up with the first --, a in scholasticism, so here the body ofthe cultural product accepted as it stands, and only certain
11. Idem, p.
(3-
obvious conflicts with Christian doctrine and a Christian sense ofpiety are to. be excinded. Again, no radical reformation of the cul-tural product itself, as Prof, Vollenhoven pleads for in his bookwith the suggestive title, Het Calvinisme en de. Reformatie van deWijsbegeerte. Is this not the basic fault in the method by whichThomas of Aquino later adapted Aristotle's thought to the faith ofthe Church? For to accept the great part of the cultural productis equivalent to affirming that that culture is fundamentally good,that it displays general integrity or.soundness, and therefore canbe transported mechanically, as it were, into the larger Christianframework. Although a more critical position is taken by Augustinein his De Civitate Dei -- in just a moment I shall have something to_say about it -- in general, subsequent developments in the historyof the Church worked to bolster this position of the Fathers, andonly t1 revival of the Augustinian view of man at the time of theReformation .would make possible a more critical consideration ofthe cultural problem. Before that time the line of developmentlies over the Synod of Orange (529), which, though it condemned bothPelagianism and semi Pelagianism, yet, by abandoning the doctrine ofa double predestination and exchanging the doctrine of the ir-resistible grace of divine predestination for that of the sacra-mental grace of baptism, abetted the Church's drift, in practice,to the very semi-Pelagianism it condemned, In time, this tendencyled to the (anthropological) teaching that, while 'natural' gracewas preserved, 'supernatural' grace was lost by the Fall, but was,in redemption,. again added to 'natural' grace as a donum super-additum. We begin to recognize here the form of the Roman view ofthe doctrine of the image of God, where the Scriptural notion - ofgrace has been supplanted, more or less, by that of the Greek
To this view of things the distinction of theologianaturalis and theologia supranaturalis could attack itself withoutmuch trouble. In this way, the scholastic scheme of nature andgrace came to provide a congenial theological framework for theuncritical appropriation of the great part of antique culture.Which is far from saying, of course, that such treatment of culturalgood's had been accounted for by an immenent criticism of the prob-lem posed by the world of culture,
The conclusion t ,) which we now appear to have arrived is this,that neither patristic age nor in the ago of scholasticismdid there arise arching like a theoretical accounting for theChristian's relation (in some sense or other, and more or less feltto be necessary) to `,11c) cultural world about him: where a positiverelation was recognized it was naively assumed, and the negativeposition was equally direct.
This same lack of critical reflection has always characterizedthe attitude of the Roman Catholic Church toward this problem.Witness, for example, the form of statement in a letter which PopeLeo XIII wrote to Cardinal Parocchi in 1885: 12
12. Cited in E.K. Rand, Founders of the Middle Aires, p. 68.
_9„
"Perceiving, then, the usefulness of the literatureof Greece and Rome, the Catholic Church, whichhas always fostered whatsoever things are honest,whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever thingsare of good report, has always given to the studyof the humanities the favor that it deserves,and in promoting it, has expended no slight por-tion ef its best endeavor,"
We may reasonably ask ourselves whether it would ever be pos-sible, within the Roman Church, apart from a radical reconstructionof her whole position. to core: te a properly critical theory of theChristian's relation to the world.
Earlier I intimated that it would require a return to the Augus-tinian view of man, of sir and grace, before the Christian's relationto the world could become a problem demanding theoretical explica-tion. But what then of Augustine himself: Did not the very man who,at the end of his life, had learned so much about how the Scriptures.would have themselves understood and who attempted to interprettheir view of grace and of direction in human life in his delineationof the two civitatos, did not this Augustine come himself to somedeeper appreciation of the problem that is posed for the Christianby the existence of a world of culture that has been inherited frompaganism?
To answer that question we must turn to his monumental work,the De Civitate Del, In this work Augustine undertook, as you allknow, to describe the nature and the history of two cities, the twocities that, te quote Augustine himself, "have been formed by twoloves: the earthly the love of self, even to the contempt ofGod; the heavenly by the love of God even to the contempt of self.'(Bk. XIV ch. 28). As one might expect, the antithetical relationis very much. in the foreground throughout. Nevertheless, there area number of passages that deal with the commonness, to the citizensof both cities, of this earthly life, (Bk. 1 ch. 8; V 18; XIX 17).In such passages mention is made of the geodness, long-suffering,patience and condescension of God. And yet no conscious effort ismade to come to close grips with the subject, We might say that muchof the. Biblical material that later was to be put to such good useis cited here, but has not been claimed for theory. Further, withthe eyes directed mainly to the antithetical relation, it provesdifficult to come adequate appraisal of the fact of culturaldevelopment. I am thinking ef the treatment Augustine gives to thequestion, how God could prosper the Romans te the point of givingthem such conspicuous enlargement of their empire. The most rele-vant passages aro V 11•12 and XIX 24-26, What Augustine says amountsto the following, The Romans loved honor, and praise, and glory.For love of praise they consulted well (censoles) for their countrysuppressing the desire of wealth and many other vices. Now they whorestrain baser lusts, not by the power of the Holy Spirit obtainedby the faith of piety, or by the love of intelligible beauty (notethe Platonism) but by desire ofe prise.— are not indeed yet
-10-
holy, but only less base. But so far as regards human and temporalglory, the lives of these ancient Romans were reckoned sufficiently worthy (emphasis mine). Augustine admonishes his reader: "Butlet us avail ourselves even in this things the kindness of God (emphasis mine). Let us consider how great things they despised,how great things they endured, what lusts they subdued for the sakeof human glory, who merited that glory, as it were, in reward forsuch virtues." It is clear how far short Augustine falls here inhis appreciation of the forces at work in the creation of the RomanEmpire.
What I am trying to get at is summed up neatly by Whitney Oatesin his introduction to the Random House edition of Augustine(pp. XXXIV f.). He is dealing there with the discussion in the famousnineteenth book, and cites from it a fairly long passage which endsthus: "For, in general (i.e. not only in the case of Rome), thecity of the ungodly ; which did not obey the command of God that itshould offer no sacrifice save to Him alone, and which, therefore,could not give to the soul its proper command over the body, notto reason its just authority over the vices, is void of true justice " (italics mine). Then Oates himself continues:
"With this definition before him, St. Augus-tine goes on to argue that without true religionthere can be no true virtues, along with theimplication that no society or state can be trulyjust without a proper orientation towards God.Yet the Roman state, particularly in the earlierstages of its development, remains most impres-sive to St. Augustine. He sees that - its successarose from the devotion to a certain
kind of justice (italics mine, and that the peace which itproduced from time to time was indeed a peace of a certain sort (italics mine). Because a degreeof justice and virtue dick exist, he can explainwhy the Roman state endured for so long a time,but also he can understand why with all itsstrength it began to disintegrate. The entireattitude is summed 1.17) in the well known Augustinianobservation that the Roman virtues were but 'splen-did vioes'. So long as Ronan justice, for example,was motivated by national pride, or a desirefor imperial power or glory, it could only be aspurious virtue, majestic, powerful, splendidindeed, but it inevitably falls short of being atrue virtue, and becomes - 'vicious because it hasnot been inspired by the love of God.'"
You probably see what I am driving at. Beginning from theantithetical position of the heavenly kingdom, Augustine can onlyapproach the "virtues" of the heathen from the point of view oftheir falling short of spiritual good. This is fine, except thatit leaves him in an embarrassing Position to explain how God can
honor such less-than-good. Cates said, you will recall, that"because a degree of justice and virtue existed, (Augustine)can explain why the Roman state endured for so long a time," buthow critical has Augustine been of these concepts "justice" andVirtue."- These are to him, considered from the spiritual point ofview of the heavenly kingdom, no more than vices, are they not?Has Augustine any other vantagepoint from which to consider theRoman virtues? How can there be even a degree of justice? Inother words, how is it possible that the ungodly can have a city,at all?
Truly the Augustinian view of man, ef sin and grace, farsurpasses the semi-humanism of many a Church Father, but just thatconception of total depravity must yet lead to the discovery inScripture of an explanation for the cultural accomplishments ofunregenerate man, the very conceptien is in danger of beingswallowed up by the humanistic dragon. With respect to the prob-lem of culture Augustine is still on the naive level of the otherpatres, yet he represents the moment in the thought of an indi-vidual which just precedes the breaking forth of a new insight.
That higher insight was the accomplishment of Calvin. WhereasLuther clung to the idea of a lower earthly sphere in which man iscapable of doing much good, "Calvin's logical mind", as HermanKuiper tells as in his doctoral dissertation, Calvin on Common Grace, 13 "could not nut up with this dualism. On the other hand,his deep insight into the terrible consequences of sin did not allowhim to admit that fallen man., when left wholly to himself, couldproduce any good in any domain whatsoever; and, on the other hand,he found it impossible to subscribe to the view of Zwingli, whovirtually surrendered the ab s oluteness of Christianity by teachingthat at least cer tain Heathen philosophers who remained utterstrangers to the Gospel of Christ participated in God's savinggrace. Calvin found the solution for the problem how we must accountfor the good in unregenerate men in the concept of common grace.He was the first theologian who made a clear-cut distinction betweencommon and saving grace, between the operations of the Spirit ofGod which are common to mankind at large and the sanctifying workof the same Spirit which is limited to God's elect"
In the present paper I de not propose to examine the natureof the data to be found n Calvin You will recall that our inten-tion here is to sow how long took the Church to come to atheoretical accounting of the problem of culture. For this occasion,therefore, it will suffice to point out what the structure of thedissertation of E. Kuiper also .evidences, that Calvin's thoughts oncommon grace--the term itself is not even used by him in a tech-nical sense!-- 14 are developed only incidentally; nowhere do they
13. p. 2.
14. S. J. Ridderbos, De Theologische Cultuurbescheuwing vanAbraham Kuyper, Kok, 1347, P: 18 cf. H. Kuiper, op. cit. p. 177.
form a separate topic. 15 Abraham Kuyper is not guilty of minimizingthe importance of Calvin's insight, but rather is simply reducinghis accomplishment to its real proportions when he calls what he
hejudges to be the clearest statement of the idea in t Institutes II iii 3 "the root of the doctrine of common grace." 1° (italicsmine.) Into theological soil a new root had been planted. It wasnot yet clear how wide the brances would extend or what fruits forthe restoring and refreshment of the Kingdom of God would appear.But the root was there.
Kuyper, in the same place, points out that not only the root ofthe doctrine is found in Calvin, but also the explanation why itconstitutes such an indispensible part of the Reformed confession."It didn't arise", he writes there, "out of philosophical invention,but out of the confession of the mortal character of sin... Butapparently this (confession) did not square with reality. Therewas in the sinful world, also outside the church, so much that wasbeautiful, so much to be respected, so much that provoked to envy.This placed (the formulators of the Reformed confession) beforethe dilemma; either to deny all this good, against their betterknowledge, and thus to err with the Anabaptists; or to view man asnot so deeply fallen and thus to stray into the Arminian heresy.And placed before that choice, the Reformed confession has refusedto travel either of those roads. We might not close our eyes tothe good and beautiful outside the Church among believers, in theworld. This good was there and that had to be acknowledged. Andjust as little might the least bit be detracted from the totaldepravity of sinful nature. But herein lay the solution of theapparent contradiction; that also outside the Church, among theheathen, in the midst of the World, grace was at work, grace noteternal, nor unto salvation, but temporal and for the stemming ofthe destruction that lurked in sin,"
The fundamental importance of t_ answer of Calvin's to thequestion of how culture is possible in a world of totally depravedman will be recognized. wherever a sorious investigation is under-taken into what Calvin has written. A recent illustration of thisis afforded by Prof. Berkouwers discussion of natural law in 'hisbook De Algemene Operbaring, 17 where it is pointed out how differ-ent Calvin's conception of natural law is from that of the schoolmen.While their theory is grounded in the rational nature of man, which,according to Rome, must always--with the necessity that attaches tobeing--strive after the good, nothing of that is found in the former,
1.5. The fullest expression in the Institutes is found inII iii 3, but compare II ii 15-16.
16. De Gemene Gratic I (1902), P. 7. Hereafter this workwill be cited as G.G.
17. Pp. 157-181, esp. 166-174. Hy quotations are from168-173.
-13-
Calvin sees as central the cerruption of human nature directedagainst the good will of Ged in hostillity and disobedience. "ForCalvin the natural man does not live from what remains of real,ontological l8 goodness within the ordinances of God, but he moveswithin the witnessing force and the evidence of the divinely ordained'good as Revelation of His holy will. The predominating aspect inCalvin is not the goodness of human nature, but the goodness of the law and the ordinances of God. Calvin's doctrine of common gracedoes not arise out of the inclination to remove anything from thecorruption of human nature, but out of the certitude that this 19total corruption is taught by the Scripture. (Two pages earlierwe read:) The total depravity of man is indeed present, accordingto Calvin, but that is, for him, not equivalent to the absence ofall God's gifts to human nature. For Calvin is convinced that mancan manifest his total depravity with his gifts and in the functionof the these gifts. profound view of sin is the background ofCalvin's thought: one could say, a total-existential view, whichis religious in character in is governed by the question of theattitude of the heart of man tewards God. The absence of the true,religious obedience of man towards God does not exclude that man,with the gifts left to him, functions in the world, where he isstill assigned a place, (Going back to p. 170, we read:) We findourselves here in the area of the activity of God in preservingand governing. Therein the possibility of the connectionbetween so-called "natural law" and ... cnrruptic naturaeIt is indeed a strange thin[, that in the radical aversion of humanlife from God and His holy will, in its inability to subject itselfto the law of God (the "natural" man!), there is nevertheless still:present a championing of right and justice, a punishing of evil anda rewarding of geod, a valuing of community with one another and oflimits set for man in that community, a seeking of truth and science.Every man stirs and moves within the superior power of the works ofGod and of the preservation of his blessing—bestowing law...andin his actions, in his conscience, in his judgement with regard toothers in his protest against complete anarchy he manifests thesuperior power of the and the law of God... To acknowledgethis "---here Berkouwer comes te the heart of the matter---" -doesnot therefore involve an optimistic estimate of man. For this man,in the total direction r.) -1' his existence, is turned away . from God, and moreover can also in his concrete deeds progress continuallyfarther along the road,_ of manifest degeneration, In Romans 2Paul is not speaking o a constant quality of the heathen (thedoing. of that which Ls contained the law), The process of sin
18. I should prefer to use the word "ontic" here instead of"ontological": reference is made to (a supposed) real something(ont-ic), not to 2, theory, be reality (onto-log-ical).
19, Here (footnote 116 on p 170) Berkouwer refers to Calvin'sview as expresser in already cited, viz. Institutes II iii 3, and points out that kuyper, in laying the basisfor common grace, attached to this whole picture.
can also burst forth that there remain only minimal remnants of thepower to distinguish. The eye of man can be increasingly darkenedwith respect to the goodness of God's ordinances, so that he finallyhas an eye only for the "law" that is pleasing to himself and thatprotects his own life. Life can develop as Paul predicts it forthe last days, viz. in almost complete and uncompromising oppositionto what the law of God still makes valuable in life. These aredays in which man will even be without natural love. Therein canbe manifested the judgment of God, as it already was revealed inthe divine 11giving over", of which Paul makes mention in Romans l...This proves that one cannot describe the history of humanity"--wemight add, or of human cultures--"from the point of view of human'nature' and its 'natural' light'. The relation between the generalRevelation of God, common restraining grace and human life is nota static one, but a dynamic relation, which is completely and utterlytied up with the development of history and with the process of sin.One will never be able to write about general Revelation and aboutcommon grace without also paying attention to that judgment of Godwhich is already manifest in history."
I have devoted considerable time to Prof. Berkouwer's analysisin order, by following closely one instance of Calvin's treatment ofcultural questions, to set in a clear light the radical novelty ofCalvin's explanation of culture, How superior his explanation iswill appear to one who compares what has just been written with theembarrassment Augustine faced in attempting to explain the enlarge-ment and the long life of the Roman state.. Note particularly theoneness of Calvin's approach to culture with his whole presenta-tion: the centrality of God, theocentricity. There is no longerany need for the vacillation of a Tertullian or the near- duplicityof a Jerome.
In thus following Berkouwer's account we have been enjoying onecound say, a foretaste of the admirable faithfulness which, as laterdevelopments were to show, marks Calvin's solution of the problemof culture and of the Christian's relation to the world. I said,a foretaste. For in Calvin's day, unfortunately, it never gotbeyond that. We must not forget that what Berkouwer has here givenus is the result of later scientific (theological) reflection uponCalvin's utterances, Calvin's own writings are more prophetic,more religious than scientific. The germs of later theory liescattered throughout his writings, but they would have to be fer-tilized by the hovering over them of the scientific mind, beforetheir inherent worth and their eminent practicability could beshown.
In the arcana of God's all-wise providence three frustrating,three debilitating centuries were to elapse before men were to seethe fruition of Calvin's work as it relates to the problem of culture. Perhaps partly because Calvin did not, with sufficient clar-ity of statement and fulness of presentation, distinguish, in histreatment of such cultural subjects as natural law, his own wholly
Biblical view from the traditional (Greco-Roman, scholastic) one
-15-
which was everywhere present in the learned world of his day.Berkouwer himself makes the remark, ²° "The term 'natural law' willalways and again get us on a wrong track, because it naturallycreates the impression that everything arises out of the nature ofman, whom one then begins automatically to shield against the con-fession of total depravity,
However that may be, in general it is true that the Reformationleaders, in failing to come to grips with the problem of culture inits broadest scope, made a considerable contribution, humanlyspeaking, to their own undoing. Years ago there appeared in thepages of the Princeton Theological Review an article by August Langentitled "The Reformation and Natural Law" which, with thee otherstudies, was shortly thereafter republished in bock form,²¹ as acontribution the clebration of the four hundredth anniversary ofthe birth of John Calvin. Although in his article Lang addresseshimself directly to the problem of natural law, his concern is withthe whole cultural questien. Permit me to quote him.
"Students of recent history have long been agreedthat the close of the seventeenth century, theconclusion of the religious wars, marks the
beginning of a new epoch in Church history...Thepeculiarity of the new period, is, expressed in
one word, what is called...'modernism', or 'themodern spirit,' But if the division is a real one,there arises the question, embarrassing to everyevangelical Christian, How is the modern spirit,which, since the seventeenth century...has beenunfolding itself with ever increasing vigor,related to the gospel of the Reformation? Howcould the age of the Reformation with its con-flicts of faith bo followed so suddenly by an agewhose views about historical criticism and naturalscience, about politics and social life, are inpart directly opposed to the Reformation concep-tion of the world? What forces of the Gospel had a part in the develepment ef the new way of thinking? What other, unevangelical, tendenciesintruded themselves, and therefore, because theyarose, for example, in Catholicism (and hence in -false belief) Or in an unbelieving and thereforepernicious development of civilization, must becombatted and Eliminated? 22
After thus showing the wide range of his interest, Lang expressesthe desire to make a contribution by "examining the relation between
20.Op. cit., p, 171,
21. Calvin and the Reformation, Revell, 1909, pp. 56-98. Myquotations are from the article as published in this book.
22. Op. cit., p. 57
-16-
the Reformation and Natural Law", and he motivates his choice oftopic by pointing out that "natural law was one of the principalhistorical factors in the formation of the modern spirit...itbecame also the starting point for 'natural theology' , the broadreligious basis of the religion of the "Enlightenment". "How", heasks, "could this natural law spring up on the ground of the Refor-mation take such deep root and put forth such wide-spreading branches?"Later²³ he asks the more specific question, "how did it happen thatit was precisely decided Calvinists who, first among the men of even-gelical faith, and so early as the sixteenth century, not merely devel-oped natural law theoretically, but at the same time,' as politicalpublicists, made it a weapon in the conflicts of the time?"
We cannot take the time here to enter into the absorbing detailsof Mr. Lang's argument. In another place I have attempted to relatethe baleful influence that Melanchten, the praeceptor Germaniae, hadupon the cultural outlook of the Reformation party. The conclusionsof Lang are in harmonywith what I there presented. This is hisfinal result: 24
"The Reformation at its very beginning found itselfin the presence of problems and exigencies of inde-finite range, first of all, conflicts of purelyreligious and theological character--doctrinal,liturgical, and constitutional conflicts. What anamount of spiritual strength was consumed even bythese conflicts: How much there was which wentwrong: What unrest, what losses these conflictsproduced: And yet the problems which then appearedcould be settled by reference to the fundamentalreligious principle of Protestantism, and on thewhole were in fact settled in a truly Protestantway. Muchmore difficult and dangerous, however,was a second adjustment* to the general ethical,political, and social problems, to science and art.This adjustment, I say, was unavoidable, for ifProtestantism, over against the medieval-Catholicworld, involves a new world-view, then there mustnecessarily be a Protestant science of politics, aProtestant philosophy and science, a Protestantart...For such an adjustment, however, in the verynature of things, time is required; it cannot beaccomplished by one man or by one generation. Itwas indeed, a thankworthy undertaking, when Calvinin his Institutio did not entirely ignore politics,but the results were of such kind that they did notgive satisfaction even negatively, on the questionof the obedience of subjects and the right of
23. Idem, p. 72.
24. Idem, p. 94 ff.
* which was no less necessary--namely the adjustment
-1 7-
resistance, much less positively. But now thetasks and problems of culture came upon the youngevangelical Church in a storm.. The Reformed...were obliged to fight the hardest battles for exis-tence; thin, after the final victory, they had newstates to found both at home and in the wilderness;above all, they had to settle the question of toler-ance between the different parties that had arisenin their own camp. But the tasks were met by thewill to accomplish them. Calvin had inspired inhis disciples that energy of piety which abhorsall half-way measures, which boldly endeavors tomake all the affairs of life subject to Christ,the Head and Lord...But what was needed..., (the)firm principles about the relation of the Ref ormation to the forces of culture--to the state,science and art--was lacking, and how could it beattained all at once in the midst of all the unrestof the time? Regarded in this way, we believe, theappearance of natural law becomes comprehensible.A doctrine of the state constructed on evangelicalprinciples was net in existence. But such a doc-trine was imperatively demanded by the need of thetime. Men needed to have clearness about the rela-tion of the ruler to the subjects, about the problemof Church and State, about the relation betweendifferent churches in the same country. No won-der that in the lack of a conception of the staterevised in the light of fundamental evangelicalideas, men had recourse to the political theorytaught in the traditional jurisprudence, withoutheeding the fact that that theory had an originforeign to the Reformation and involved tendenciesand consequences which would lead away fromx the
Reformation. These tendencies, of course, becameapparent later in slowly-developing after-effects,and then, especially after the spiritual enervationsustained in the protracted religious wars, theycould not fall gradually to dissipate and destroythe Reformation's basis of faith...Unless allindications are deceptive, the progress of eventswas similar in the case of other cultural ques-tions. The desire for knowledge, the desire foractivity, which was experienced by the individualafter he had been liberated through the Reformation,plunged itself into all problems of the spirituallife of man, became absorbed in the traditionalmanner of their treatment, and was all too quicklysatisfied with solutions which were not in agree-ment with the fundamental ethico-religious factorsof the practical religious life of the Reformation.The reaction did not remain absent. The evangeli-cal life of faith became shallower, instead ofdeepening itself and developing in all directions...
-18-
If it is true that the religious spirit of the Refor-mation in passing through Deism, Rationalism andthe 'Enlightenment', was moving on a downward paththe reason for its deterioration was that the adjust-ment between the Reformation and culture was neitherbrought to a satisfactory conclusion nor even earn-estly enough attempted, Nevertheless, we hope thatsuch an adjustment may yet be accomplished; thebetter it succeeds,..the more completely will thedifficulties of our present religious situationdisappear."
This default on the part of the Calvinists of the Reformationperiod with respect to the cultural question meant that the germinalinsight of Calvin, when it was treated at all by later theologians,acquired the character of a purely theological subject. As the keyto the proper solution of the problem of culture and of the Chris-tian's relation to the world it was utterly lost to view in theEpigonenzeit. Moreover, even as in Galvin, so in these men thedoctrine of common grace never received complete treatment, evenas a dogmatical subject, in one chapter or locus or theology.Kuyper writes of this at the beginning of his Common Grace as fol-lows : 2 5
"And when, in the footsteps of Calvin, the atten-tion especially of the Reformed theologians wasfocused more particularly upon this extremely im-portant subject they did indeed work out its mainfeatures, but without making a separate chapter ofit. For the most part they still treated it underthe 'virtues' of .:1-1e heathen, 'civic righteous-ness', 'naturalknowledge of God' etc., but withoutever bringing all the various parts belonging tothis subject together into one orderly, connecteddiscussion. Even our catechism has no separatetreatment of the subject, whioh, in turn, preventedmy dealing with it in E Veto in a separate seriesof articles,'
So it is that Dr. Abraham Kuyper, looking back over the pasthistory of the Reformed .:arty, can delcare in the Preface to hiscalssic work on this subject:
"No greater harm ever came to the Reformedprinciple than (came to it) through the imperfectdevelopment of the doctrine of Common Grate. Causeof this was the tattle for the preservation of aposition won with difficulty, an unceasing battlewaged both with pen and sword. The mere struggleto get free of the ecclesiastical monopoly of
25. G.G. I, p, 5.
-19-
Rome required in France, in the Netherlands andin Scotland such incredible exertions; added tothat there was for Western Europe the lateralparty of the Anabaptists, for northern and easternEurope the sometimes extremely fierce oppositionfrom the Lutherans, and on our own soil (thus, inthe Netherlands) the Arminian and Erastian distur-bances. In this way Reformed ecclesiastical,political and scientific life, already in the firstdecades after its exceedingly swift rise, was hardput to it, and when the Reformed in the Nether-lands and in Scotland through their brave resis-tance had finally secured for themselves the free-dom to life, their best strength was spent, and•with the newly won comfortable times an opulencecrept in which emasculated them and robbed themof their desire for the ideal. So is to be ex-plained how all dogmatical vigor first concentratedupon interminable polemics and then went to seedin dull rehashing,
"There no question of dogmatical develop-ment after :1650 either in Switzerland, the Nether-lands, or in Scotland. Not a single originaltalent arose gain in the field of dogmatics afterthe first period of florescence, The once so fresh-stream of Reformed thought in theology chokes up, What had :L=t been taken hold of in broadand ample fashion shrinks into narrow, typicallyByzantine investigation and that arid investi-gation lacks even the resilience to retrace itssteps to the root of the Reformed idea. In theirnarrowness men keep at their unraveling work onthe polemics most recently engaged in against theArminians, and scarcely take note of anything ofnew contrasts that are arising, In this mannerthe tie to the s mast -Jas lost and men found them-selves outside the intellectual movement of theirtimes. For that reason there could no .longer beany question of :exercising an influence upon one'stime. It became a closing oneself up on one'snarrow circle, a withdrawing of oneself. from themighty movement of life. Meanwhile the aridityof hairsplitting celled forth within the samecircles a recten of the heart, and the repug-
nence to all such theology nolonger to te hold in check, shattered into sectsof all kids what in the 16th century had been one.
"In situation 5. c hange has now come, atleast within our borders. Historical research intothe Reformed life-principle awakened. and so wasdiscovered the joyful truth that the Reformed, intheir original development had put forward principles
which, when developed broadly and logically,naturally gave rise to an all embracing life- andworld-view possessing more than sufficient elas-ticity to determine in this centruy also our con-scious position in the midst of the presentlyliving generation, What at first appeared tooffer only historical worth now acquired an ut-terly timely significance for the present. Inthis connection the question forced itself to theforeground, how the Christian life as we under-Stood it had to relate itself to the life of theworld in all its expressions and gradations,and in what way our influence on public life,which once had reached so far and since had sopitiably been lost, oould be restored. The an-swer to that question might not arise from a pro-cess of bargaining, but had to be derived fromthe Reformed principle itself, i.e., there had tobe investigated, what creative idea had originally,in both theory and practice, governed for theReformed their relation to the life outsideChristianity. Every anabaptistic sect had iso-lated itself, in contrast with which the Reformedhad chosen as their rule the apostolic idea of"all - things are yours - and ye are Christ's", andhad with full awareness thrown themselves, withuncommon talent and resilience that overcame allobstacles, into the full life of humanity, in themidst of the turbulence of the nations. Thischaracter-trait, very pronounced in the historyof all western Europe, could not be accidental;it had to find its explanation in an all-control-ling fundamental conviction, and so what thatgoverning root-idea was had now to be investi-gated.
"In this inquiry it quickly appeared withunassailable potency that this root-idea lay beforeus in the doctrine of Common Grace, derived directlyfrom the Sovereignty of the Lord, which is andremains the root-conviction for all Reformedthinking, If God is Sovereign, then His dominionmust extend ever all life and cannot be shut upwithin the walls of a church or the circle ofChristians. The world outside of Christianityhas not been abandoned to Satan, not to fallenman, nor to chance, God's Sovereignty is also inthe life of that unbaptized world great and all-controlling, and for that reason Christ's church .
on earth, for that reason the child of God can-not summarily withdraw from that life. If hisGod is working in that world, then his hand mustbe put to the plow in that world, and also therethe Name of the Lord must be glorified.
-21-
"Consequently, what above all had to be donewas to bring once more te life the rich fundamen-tal idea that was embodied in the doctrine ofCommon Grace."
It must by now have become abundantly clear that Kuyper's inter-est in the subject of common grace is much more than the interest ofthe scientific theologian alone. see rising before us the respon-sible veldheer, first after Groen van Prinsterer, of the army ofChristian believers in the Netherlands. Kuyper also is in a veryreal sense a cultuurfilosoof, and in his three-volume work DeGemene Gratie we see the doctrine of common grace developed into atheory of the possibility, legitimacy and the responsibility ofcultural life.26 After nineteen centuries of history the Church ishere for- the first time in possession of a worked-out theoreticalaccounting of the werld of culture and of the Christian's relationto it.
Should my description ef Kuyper's work require any furthersubstantiation, I weuld, in the first place, direct the reader tothe contents of the work itself. There ample proof will be found ofmy contention. In additien, I can point to the title of a book byA.A. Van Ruler, Kuy r's Idea eerier Christelijke Cultuur, and tothe words with which the book begins: (
"It cannot be said to be superfluous to askthe attention of the reader for Kuyper's solutionof the roblem of Christian culture,...since itcontinues largely to govern the situation in theNetherlands in all the questions mentioned. Theway in which we arc aocustomed to put the ques-tions of christian politics, christianwork, christian radio is not conceivable apartfrom Kuyper's doctrine of common grace, the dom-inant in his idea of Christian culture."
There is also the doctoral dissertation of S. J. Ridderbos,with the title, De Theologische Cultuurbeschouwing van AbrahamKuyper. 28 If the qualifying word 'theological' in the title pro-vides difficulty, I may refer the reader to what Ridderbos himselfhas to say about it: 29
26. It is this fact that eminently sets off the work of Kuyperfrom that of Bavinck, Hodge and from the article of Prof. JohnHurry on the subject of Common Grace, which appeared in the L Iest-minster Theological Journal, vol. V.
27. Published by G. F. Callenbach, N.V., Nijkerk (no date).
28. Published by J. H. Kok, N.V., Kampen, 1947.
29. Op. cit., p. 8.
-22-
"We have further limited our subject byspeaking of Abraham Kuyper's theological view ofculture. With this formulation we are serving noticethat not only the historical, but also the specialphilosophical questions are left out of consider-ation by us as much as possible."
Immediately after that Ridderbos suggests the extent to which,in his view, practical cultural considerations were at work toproduce De Gemene Gratie when he writes: } '
"Because Kuyper's mind was as pre-eminentlydirected to the practice of life, it is not sur-prising that he repeatedly applied his generalviews to the various individual areas of culture.One does him perhaps even more justice by sayingthat he pushed onward from the particular prob-lems (the school-question, politics) to the gen-eral (common grace, etc.).
Kuyper is himself fully aware of the distinctiveness of hiswork and of its eminently practical and cultural point of departure.Here is what he says.31
"Although we have since 1878 (the date atwhich De Heraut began to be published) beenrepeatedly and constantly pointing to this "commongrace", and although we have, with thanksgivingand interest, taken cognizance of the well-docu-mented address on the subject of "De AlgemeneGenade" published by Dr. Bavinck in 1894, upto now this momentous subject has not yet beentreated in its total connection or in any senseexhaustively stated. Thus there remained nothingfor us to do but this tine to blaze our own trail,least of all with the pretension as if herewiththis portion of Dogmatics would be finished forgood; but, inasmuch as this subject cuts so deep into our life and into our contemporary struggles (emphasis mine), inorder to furnish at least afirst specimen of treatment, which can lead laterto a more elaborated and rounded out dogmaticaltreatment."
Obviously, Kuyper was conscious not only of the originality andpressing practical motivation of his conception, but also, as aconsequence, of the tentative character ("first specimen") of hisformulations. Thus he says explicitly in his Preface:
30. Loc. cit.
31. G.G. I p. ) •
-23-
"To a sharp formulation of this doctrine itwill be possible to come enly later, what hadto be done first was, that all the historical anddogmatical material related to this doctrine heassembled and put in order under the sway of the
principle...Completeness and a good arrangementof the material was her the main thing. It hadto appear, of what far-reaching significance forall of life this Reformed ground-conviction was."
We sense here again the practical urgency that Kuyper feltprompting him to carry at his task, That urgent practical need, wehave already seen, was fur en effective influence of the Christianbody of citizens upon such problems as politics, education, social-work, etc, For that, the Church had first to be drawn from the cul-tural isolation into which it had fallen by a gradual process whichI have already described in Kuyper's own language. The thing ofprime importance was te cause Christians to see their responsibilityin the public, the cultural life of the day. And Kuyper reasoned asfollows: if our God concerns himself with that life, then we Chris-tians must get to work, that also there the name of the Lord may beglorified. Kuyper felt net only this urgent need but also its greatrisks. Thus he ends his Preface with the following words:
"Spiritual 3 well as ecclesiastical isolationis anti-Reformed : and only then will this workaccomplish the purpose I had in view, when it has
broken this isolatien, without, which God prevent:ever anyone's being tempted to lose himself inthat world; it must not control him, but he it,in the strength of his God."
The work which Kuyper here offered to the Church is obviouslyof universal validity; its significance and relevancy reach beyondthe borders of his own little country into the whole wide world.Just as the Calvinism of the Refermor had been markedly ecumenical-minded, se Kuyper aspired to bring the Reformed of all nations backfrom the narrow range of conventicle meetings, to which their visionhad deteriorated, to their original glorious_ calling of. reformingthe world after the principle of life revealed in God's word. Hespeaks at the very beginning Di a beginsel, a levensbeginsel (life-principle) that is deeper, of wider rang than mere theologicallife. This principle, from the understanding of it, is theprinciple out ef which Reformed Christians everywhere must live.Thus in his Preface Kuyper states expressly that he is presentinghis book "to the Reformed Churches in all lands." Here in America wewho are Reformed our ;ht not lightly pass by what Kuyper has given,fancying that we are faced with different preblems and differentsituations, Kuyper -new better: the history ef the ReformedChurches with respect to their place in the world had been the sameeverywhere; for causos general in the western world had been atwork. And now the spiritual revival among the Calvinists in theNetherlands was with such. force and providentially under such
propitious human circumstances that from the beginning its talentedleaders found themselves being driven back to the common roots anduniversal principles. In the 16th century it was Geneva to which allwho would be Reformed had to go; today the Netherlands is such a cen-ter. Recognition of this fact is a simple mark of Christian piety,which is ever alert to the providences of Jehovah.
We have now accomplished the first purpose that we set for our-selves when we began; to see the historical place and the historicsignificance of Kuyper's De Gemene Gratie, In it, we saw, the Churchwas for the first time in her entire history in possession of acritical theory of the world of culture and of her relation to it.Surely it is no wonder that the following generation, busying it-self with this tremendous heritage left to it, displayed differencesas to some of the emphases, some questions of exegesis, even somematters of fundamental conception. Had not Kuyper himself fore-seen the necessity of correcting and supplementing his work? Yetin all the subsequent debate it is important not to overlook thefact that all the participants who are Kuyper's geloofsgenoten (com-rades in faith) are agreed with him in his main purpose: 32 thereare none who would follow the path of Anabaptistic and pietisticalwithdrawal from cultural pursuits, nor any who think of allowing ahigher estimate to be put on man fallen. Moreover, all partici-pants to the debate are agreed that we must enter the world of cul-ture essentially in the way Kuyper proposed.
Time no longer will permit us to enter into all the questionssurrounding Kuyper's work De Gemene Gratie that have been debatedwithin the last thirty-five years. However, this last point doesmost assuredly have to be touched upon. I said that all the parti-cipants to the debate are in essential agreement with Kuyper's viewsas to the manner in which Christians are to relate themselves tothe world of culture. But what were his views here? A discussionof this ought not, in my opinion, to be delayed any longer.
For on this question of the how--let us not close our eyes toit--not only do hesitancy and uncertainty characterize the mind ofthe Christian Reformed Church generally, but in the case of certainof her more vocal representatives rather basic disagreement appearsto exist. A case in point is the difference between the view expressedby our esteemed president, Dr. Spoelhof, in his contribution to thevolume God-Centered Living and the view held by the CalvinisticCulture Association as it was expressed in my address Het Hoer Om: Of course, that is but one concrete instance. The disagreement amongus is far more general than that. Always--it may be the questionwhether a Christian has to treat the field of logic differentlyfrom the unbeliever, or whether the necessity exists generally of aradical-Christian reformation of the various sciences, or of the in-terpretation of literature--always, I say, it soon appears that
32. cf. Schilder, Wat is de Bemel? p. 294.
- 2 5-
wholly views entertained our circles. In all thesecases the point at issue is the relation that exists letween common grace and the anti-thesis For example. I have heard several of mycolleagues put s.t this war. "Once we had a generation of studentswith an appreciation for comon grace; now all they seem to know aboutis the antithesis." This remark is followed by another to the effectthat there is in the ration a great danger of losing contactwith the world ef culture. Again a somewhat prominent minister inOur denomination, after he read my address Het Hoer Om: as it ap-peared in the English translation in the periodical Torch and Trum-pet, said te me, "Yeu have taken only one side of Kuyper, that of theEncyclopaedia with its doctrine of common grace." Both these expres-sions of opinion suggest teat the relatien between common grace andthe antithesis is a contrary one It would seem to be the case,therefore, that the tensions a7 long us largely revolve about thequestion of the relation between corm ion grace and antithesis as that relation is determinative of the way in which we throw ourselves into the life of the cultural world.
I find it highly significant that on this peint which is pre-sently troubling us there is no essential difference of opinionamong Kuyper's descendants M the Netherlands. That fact itself,it seems to me, should give es pause. For we have already heardvan Ruler affirm33 that the "way in which we are accustomed to putthe questions of christian politics, christian social-work, chris-tian radio etc is net conceivable apart from Kuyper's doctrine ofcommon grace." It would seem apparent that we have to do herewithtwo irreconcilable interpretations of Kuyper's meaning in his DeGemene Gratie. Thus many who opposed what I said in Het Hoer Om: defended participation in organizations such as Citizens Action withan 'appeal to common grace. 'Last spring the Calvinistic CultureAssociation received e. communication from one of our recent grad-uates, who insisted that he as a true -blue "kuyperian" could not goalong with the Schilder-van Til -Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee approach--whatever that might be!--to oultural problems outlined in the Declar-ation of Principles Work Program ef the C.C.A. We of the asso-ciation found it difficult to repress a smile when only a few weekslater a preminent writer in the Gereformeerd Weekblad, Ds W. J.._Hammes wrote two articles in that organ of the Reformed churches3 4about the cane document, in which he expressed his joy at seeing theprinciples of Kuyper () i.n applied to the American scene.Obviously, somebody misunderstanding something somewhere. Ittherefore becomes imperative that in the short time remaining wetry try to obtain some light on the question, now Kuyper conceived the relation of antithesis and common grace, particularly as that relates to cultural activity_
Prof. van Ruler, a careful student of Kuyper's writings, admitsin his book Kuyper's Christelijke Cultuur, from which Ihave already quoted: 'et first sight it is not clear how the doc-trine of common grace lead to the idea of a Christian culture; one
33. Sec above,
34. The issuer of June 11 and 19, 1953.
-26-
propitious human circumstances that from the beginning its talentedleaders found themselves being driven back to the common roots anduniversal principles. In the 16th century it was Geneva to which allwho would be Reformed had to go; today the Netherlands is such a cen-ter. Recognition of this fact is a simple mark of Christian piety,which is ever alert to the providences of Jehovah.
We have now accomplished the first purpose that we set for our-selves when we began; to see the historical place and the historicsignificance of Kuyper's De Gemene Gratie, In it, we saw, the Churchwas for the first time in her entire history in possession of acritical theory of the world of culture and of her relation to it.Surely it is no wonder that the following generation, busying it-self with this tremendous heritage left to it, displayed differencesas to some of the emphases, some questions of exegesis, even somematters of fundamental conception. Had not Kuyper himself fore-seen the necessity of correcting and supplementing his work? Yetin all the subsequent debate it is important not to overlook thefact that all the participants who are Kuyper's geloofsgenoten (com-rades in faith) are agreed with him in his main purpose: 32 thereare none who would follow the path of Anabaptistic and pietisticalwithdrawal from cultural pursuits, nor any who think of allowing ahigher estimate to be put on man fallen. Moreover, all partici-pants to the debate are agreed that we must enter the world of cul-ture essentially in the way Kuyper proposed.
Time no longer will permit us to enter into all the questionssurrounding Kuyper's work De Gemene Gratie that have been debatedwithin the last thirty-five years. However, this last point doesmost assuredly have to be touched upon. I said that all the parti-cipants to the debate are in essential agreement with Kuyper's viewsas to the manner in which Christians are to relate themselves tothe world of culture. But what were his views here? A discussionof this ought not, in my opinion, to be delayed any longer.
For on the question of the how--let us not close our eyes toit--not only do hesitancy and uncertainty characterize the mind ofthe _: Christian Reformed Church generally, but in the case of certainof her more vocal representatives rather basic disagreement appearsto exist. A case in point is the difference between the view expressedby our esteemed president, Dr. Spoelhof, in his contribution to thevolume God-Centered Living and the view held by the CalvinisticCulture Association as it was expressed in my address Het Roer Om: Of course, that is but one concrete instance. The disagreement amongus is far more general than that. Always--it may be the questionwhether a Christian has to treat the field of logic differentlyfrom the unbeliever, or whether the necessity exists generally of aradical-Christian reformation of the various sciences, or of the in-terpretation of literature--always, I say, it soon appears that
32. cf. Schilder, Wat is de Bemel? p. 29k.
-25-
wholly diverse are entertained in eur circles. In all these. cases the point at issue is the relation that exists between commongrace and the antithesis For. example, T have heard. several of my :
colleagues put it this way: "Once we had a generation of studentswith an appreciation fer common grace; now all they seem to know aboutis the antithesis," This is followed by another to the effectthat there is in the :Lew situation a great danger of losing contactwith the world of culture. Again a somewhat prominent minister inour denomination, after he read my address Het Hoer Om: as it ap-peared in the English translation in the periodical Torch and Trum-pe t , said to me, "You have taken only one side of Kuyper, that of theEncyclopaedia with Its doctrine of common grace." Both these expres-sions of opinion suggest that the relation between common grace andthe antithesis is a contrary one,. It would seem to be the case,therefore, that the tensions among us largely revolve about thequestion of the relation between common grace and antithesis as that relation is determinative of the way in which we throw ourselvesinto the life of the cultural world,
I find it highly significant that on this point which is pre-sently troubling us there is no essential difference of opinionamong Kuyper's descendants in the Netherlands, That fact itself,it seems to me, should_ give vs pause. For we have already heardvan Ruler affirm that the "way in which we are accustomed to putthe questions of christian politics, christian social -work, chris-tian radie etce is not conceivable apart from. Kuyper's doctrine ofcommon grace," It would soon apparent that we have to do here withtwo irreconcilable interpretations of. Kuyper's meaning in his DeGemene Gratie many Tire opposed what I said in Het Hoer Om: defended participation in organizations such as Citizens Action withan appeal to common grace. Las spring the Calvinistic CultureAssociation received, a communication from one of our recent grad-uates, who insisted 'shat he as a true--blue "kuyperian" could not goalong with ./ -1() Schilder-Van Til--Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee approach--whatever that ni g ht he cultural problems outlined in the Declar-ation of Principies end Work :Program of the C.C.A. We of the asso-ciation found difficult to repress a smile when only a few weekslater a prominent writer en the Gereformeerd Weekblad, Ds W. J.Hommes wrote two articles in that organ of the Reformed churches 34
about the sane document, in once he expressed his joy at seeing theprinciples of Kuyper being applied to the American scene.Obviously, somebody .s misunderstanding something somewhere. Ittherefore becomes imperative that an the short time remaining wetry try to obtain so is light on the question, how Kuyper conceived the relation of antithesis and common grace, particularly as that relates to cultural activity
Prof. van Ruler, a careful student of Kuyper's writings, admitsin his book Kuyper's Idee eener Christelijke Cultuur, from which Ihave already quoted: "At first sight it is not clear how the doc-trine of common grace the idea of a Christian culture; one
33. See above, p, 2F,
34n The issues June 11 and 19, 1953,
-26-
fond of 11:7.72, recourse to his doctrine of palingenesis(regeneration) as the antipode of his views on common grace; thisis however, at the very least, superficial; the lines here do notrun parallel nor in opposite directions either, but intersect, andthat more than once:" )) Just a little later he warns once moreagainst forcing a contrast between particular grace (the doctrine ofpalingenesis) and the doctrine of common ;race. Permit me to citethis significant passage. ,°
"Prof. Haitjema37 once worked out this contrastin a particularly good article that is still veryworth the reading entitled 'The appreciation of Cul-ture in Neo-calvinism' and appearing in Onze Eeuw (Volume XIX, no 10, pp83-108). He picture neo-cal-vinism as a spiritual movement that has its char-acteristic features in its openness to the life ofmodern culture, and then points out that this move-ment had to battle on two fronts. Over againstits own adherents the christian appreciation ofuniversal-human culture had to be supported andelucidated dogmatically. And over against theworld of culture, which in our modern time isalienated from the basic christian convictions, amost emphatic plea had once again to be made forthe cultural significance of the christian reli-gion, more particularly of Calvinism as a life-system.' (p. 91) On the first from Kuyper developedthe doctrine of common -;race, and on the secondfront he maintained the doctrine of regeneration.'To come from the one line to the other a leap isalways necessary...And no wonder, for the one lineof thought, that of common grace, points to aside that is situated over against the other: thatof the necessity of regeneration, even in the lifeof this world' (p. 103). The conclusion to whichthe writer comes is then: 'The inner connectionbetween the element of palengenesis and the doc-trine of common grace he never pointed out' (p. 107).With this description of the layout in Kuyper'sthinking I cannot agree. Undoubtedly, there is anelement of truth in it. In writing about the truthof common grace Kuyper does indeed come now and thento a very broad appreciation of universal-human cul-ture. But that is most assuredly not the reasonwhy he constructed his doctrine of common grace.This neutral appreciation of culture is but one ofthe results, not one of the motives of this doctrine.
35. P. 5.
36. Idem, pp. 11-13.
37. A Dutch Barthian, member of the Rervormde Kerk.
-27-
notto arousehis own fellow-believers out of their culturalindifferences to this broad humanistic appreciationof the cultural process as such. what he wantedto arouse them to, and his reason for requiringthe doctrine of common grace, that was his christianaction in all the spheres of life. Indeed, Kuyper's theories en commen grace were never so construedby his followers. (emphasis mine Prof. Hepp isright when he observes that Prof. Schilder isbeating the culture-unity-ideals on the basis ofthe cemmon grace doctrine. 'Where are the many among us, who turn against a christian cultivationof science, a christian politics, a christian artand all the rest.' (Dr. V. Hepp, De Algemene Genade Kampen, 1937, p. 80).
"In my opinion there is in Kuyper a very realinner connection between the doctrine of particulargrace and the doctrine ef cemmon grace...One can-not make this connection too close, too intimate.Repeatedly Kuyper argues that oommon grace was thepoint 'at which our Reformed confession divergedfrom the Anabaptistic path of separation (mijding).'(De Gemene Gratie II, 349, et passim). In thedoctrine ef particular grace the bond with the uni-versal-human, earthly, temporal life is severed,but---it is restored in common grace. The motiveof the doctrine of common grace lies not inappreciation of culture but in cultural activity.Its purpose is te afford the regenerated believerpossibility of existence, material for work, mean-ingful activity. Even when his life is enlargedin time round about the point of election and re-generation (although this is really a point ofeternity), he yet is not with grace from the sameGod who elected and regenerated him. Grace fromthe same God, albeit not the same grace.. Here lieall the tensions of Kuyper's fundamental concep-tion. In motive and design there is a very closeconnection and a most intimate bond between par-ticular grace and common grace* which obscures theoriginal thought. Then it can appear as though thedoctrine of regeneration and the dectrine of com-mon grace stand opposed to each other as prin-ciples of antithesis and synthosis. Nevertheless,there are only a few passages to which this con-struction can properly appeal, though it must beacknowledged that just in these passages Kuyper'ssoul sings out so lyrically. In general, however,•this original connection of particular grace andcommon grace remains, I think, visible."
Even one who knows only a little about the life of AbrahamKuyper could scarcely mistake Kuyper's meaning on the point, it
But in the elaboration Kuyper often comes to a duality ofgrace, to an absolutizing of common grace
-28-
seems to me. It is well to recall here the judgment of Ridderbos 38that "one does him (Kuyper) even more justice by saying that hepushed onward from the particular problems (the school-question,politics) to the general (common grace etc.)." When Kuyper satdown to write his articles on common grace for De Heraut he hadalready become the great leader of the Anti-revolutionary politicalparty, of which Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer was the spiritualfather. No one ever thought more .antithetically than Groen.Dr. Bruins Slot, the editor of Trouw (a Dutch Christian daily news-paper) in his recent book Bezinning en Uitzicht (Reflection and Out-look) speaking of the necessity for the Christian-in-politics ofdistinguishing carefully the historical development of his time,and showing that that distinguishing must be a spiritual distin-guishing i.e., a distinguishing in the light of God's revelation,whereby the task of the righteous for our life opens up before ourvery eyes, says,39 "So it once happened with Green van Prinsterer...He discovered at a given moment--as if struck by lightening--thedamonic element of decisive significance in the character of the his-torical period in which he lived. This he fixed in his concept ofthe Revolution. And out of that discovery has developed the Chris-tian-historical or anti-revolutionary political movement in theNetherlands." Thus, a discovery of actual antithesis in history hasled to the insight that antithetical organization was a fundamentalnecessity.
Before the appearance of the common grace articles Kuyper hadfurther shown how he felt by pleading for a Christian, preferablyAnti-revolutionary press, by urging the establishment of a FreeUniversity, by his support of Patrimonion and his acceptance of theinvitation to deliver the opening address of the first ChristianSocial Congress.
If, however, one should be inclined to put Kuyper's practice over against his thought on this question, we can also show from his ,0writings what his view was. In Pro Rege, vol. III, the whole ofchapter XIX is devoted to the subject of Christian organization. The y,question naturally arises, Kuyper writes - there, 4) "whether theSubjects of King Jesus can for this purpose (the organization ofsociety) unite themselves with those who reject Him in one and thesame organization, or whether it is the requirement of their con-viction that they organize themselves independently, call into beinga system of Christian associations, and have to accept a consciousdivision between themselves and the others in the social sphere also."Kuyper then remarks that such separate Christian action is alreadya fact in the Netherlands, but that that does not discharge us fromthe task of providing a principle elucidation of the rightfulness of
38. See above, p. 29.
39. P. 9.
40. Pro Rege III, p. 184 f.
-29-
this separation. After dealing at some length with the Scripturalbasis of such separate organization he goes on to say: 41
"There is thus not the least uncertainty on thispoint. In mixing socially danger always lurksfor Christians. One so easily allows the law tobe laid down by society and its worldly form.What society can get away with, Christians too canso easily permit. One floats along on a streamto which one can offer no resistance. And uncon-sciously one exchanges the principle of the Chris-tian life for the unpurified principle of worldlysociety."
Kuyper concludes the chapter with a very telling section, whichI am loathe to admit.
"It' was necessary here deliberately to groundthis system of private, separate organizationsin Scripture, because voices are still constantlybeing raised among us which regard this rule asnow no longer susceptible of complete application...The influence which emanates from all these (non-Christian) organizations is thus without exceptiondestructive for our Christian confession. Onereasons and acts out of principles which are absolutely opposed to ours. If now one allowsoneself to enter into such organizations and ifone mingles in such organizations with those whoare of a wholly other mind, then what they thinkor judge becomes the starting-point of the decisionsthat are to be taken, and one supports by one'smembership what one, on conformity with one'sChristian confession, may not support but must com-bat. In such anarchistic, socialistic or neutral(emphasis mine) associations a spirit is operativewhich never can or may be ours. The leadership insuch organizations falls never to us but alwaysand inflexibly to our opponents. They carry outtheir intention, and whoever of us embarks withthem ends up where they want to land but where wenever may land. Thus our principle settles downat the point of non-activity, loses its positionof influence and is pressed into the corner...mingling with these leaders of another spirit inthe organization itself leads always to a bitterlysad fiasco of the Christian principle and preparesthe way for their victory and for our overthrow...
41. Idem, p. 189.
42. Idem, p. 189-191
-30-
If one disregards this and yet enters into suchcompany, there then arises in - addition the dangerthat evil companionships corrupt good morals. Inthe organizations we are now thinking of materialinterests are always and invariable in the fore-ground; the concern is for more power over againstthe employer and higher wages for one's work. Ofcourse, there is in itself nothing wrong with thefact that everyone stands up for his rights andalso attmepts to improve his material position...But just for that reason the temptation is so greateven for Christians in such organizations to letthe end justify the means, to let material inter-ests prevail over spiritual, and to float alongon a stream which can and may never be ours. Thespirit at work in such principally unbelievingorganizations is so alluring and contagious that
almost none of us, once he enters into such company,can offer resistance to it. One absorbs thisspirit without suspecting it. Especially so be-cause once one is a part of such organizations,one sees one's Christian principle doomed to silence.In separate Christian organizations there is the
- prayer, the guidance of God's Word, mutual admoni-tion, and one comes naturally, on each occasion,byfree spiritual discussion, to test one's attitudeand method on the pronouncements of the Word ofGod."
That was, mind you, Kuyper speaking. Notice that he, at least,did not hesitate to speak of an absolute antithesis in this humanlife. Such utterances could be multiplied many times over.
In our effort to set forth the position of Abraham Kuyper on thematter in which the Christian is to relate himself to the culturalworld, we pointed, first, to what he did, and then, to show the harmonyof his thought and practice, we quoted from a decisive section of hisPro Rego
Nevertheless, a truly persistent opponent might still come withtwo objections to our citing from Pro Rege. The first objection,one more easily dealt with, is that Kuyper's works, in their originalform, were for the most part journalistic pieces, written over theyears for De Heraut, and that one should not expect to find somuch system and unity of thought in them as I am doing. In our par-ticular case one might urge that, while the third volume of De Gemene Gratie appeared in 1904 the first volume of Pro Rege was not pub-lished until 1911. The point of the objection would then be this:on what grounds do you assert opinions expressed by Kuyper in 1911to be the only view Kuyper on the subject, and particularly, the- view of the Kuyper of De Gemene Gratie?
-31-
Ridderbos refers to this objective in his dissertation and says,43"Our answer is toile lee: It became evident to us in the study ofKuyper's works that even in his hastily written weekly articles moresystem is present than one often supposes. Even though in the read-ing one is in danger of losing the thread now and then, and althoughthe writer sometimes appears to involve himself in obvious contra-dictions, upon closer examination everything yet appears to be gov-erned by one noble conception." To this witness I can now add myown. In an oration dating from the year before the Doleantie,this in 1885, and entitled "lJzer en Lem" Kuyper defended the anti-thesis, also in the organizational sense. Again two years later hedeveloped the national significance of this antithetical activity inthe cultural -world in his Tweeërlei Vaderland. The idea is with himearly and late.
The second objection stems from the view I have already, withthe help of van Ruler, attempted to explode, viz. that there is aconflict within Kuyper's thought (and left unreconciled by him)between the two motifs of antithesis and common grace. "Naturally,"this objector would prebably say, "naturally you go to a work likePro Rege for an expression of the antithesis. But that is one thing;the Kuyper of De Gemene Gratie is something else.
Obviously, this objection stands or falls with the interpreta-tion of Kuyper out of which it takes its rise. It is so very impor-tant, however, that some further comment is called for.
It is, in the first place, highly interesting to observe how,towards the end of his life, Kuyper thinks of his work De Gemene Gratie. As an illustration I refer you to the preface of his two-volume Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde, published in 1916. There'he is referring to the fact that, as in earlier periods of history,so also in the nineteenth centruy 11only the Reformed kernel feltthe urgency, the need, the necessity of coming up with an all-em-bracing central world-view; but with one which now, no more thanin. Paul's day, could ripen out of the prevailing science." Clearlyan antithetical context. He then adds this sentence: "The need ofarousing the same striving and purpose once again, and where it provedto be still awake, of directing it, I tried to satisfy to someextent first in Ons Program (an antithetical program for the A. R.Party) and later in Do Gemene Gratie." Listen to that. Here hiswork on common grace is, in an undeniable matter, given its placein all his practical and theoretical efforts at strengthening theantithetical cultural action of the Reformed group in the Nether-lands.
The secret to the interpretation of Kuyper's doctrine of common grace is to be found in seeing rightly the relation between
43. Do Theolog. Cultuurbeschouwin van Abr. Kuyper, p 10.
44. p. XI.
-32-
common grace and particular grace (regeneration, palingenesis, anti-thesis), There goes out from the sphere of special grace a moralinfluence which strengthens, elevates, and secures common grace.Cultural activity can take place in this sinful world thanks to theexistence of a common grace, but particular grace is necessary topreserve that common grace from destruction and to lead it to ful-fillment. Kuyper speaks accordingly of two kinds of development ofcommon grace: l) the general human development, which is borne upby common grace alone and thus (:) ends repeatedly (in the historiesof the several nations) in sin and death, and 2) the development inIsreal, where particular grace came to the aid of common grace. Theformer kind is also spoken of as the "anti-Christian development ofcommon grace In a separate series of articles published underthe title "De Gemene Gratie in Wetenschap en Kunst" Kuyper writes 47of these two directions, "conciliation, which would lead to agreement,is utterly out of the question. There gapes here a cleft over whichno bridge can be thrown. And as long as Christendom does not acceptthis two-ness with full conviction and in all its consequences itwill be punished time after time with the obtrusion of unbelievingscience onto its own premises, with a falsification of its theology,an undermining of its confession, and a weakening of its faith."
In the section of these articles devoted to art (Kunat) Kuypertells us that in art as Art also two kinds of spirit can govern. 48
Here a most significant section occurs dealing pith a matter muchdisputed among us here of late. Kuyper writes:49 "Of course, nomore than in the other spheres of life do these two spirits alwaysstand opposite one another in absolute form...Satan stood oppositeChrist only in the wilderness. But although there is here manifoldgradation in weakened form, yet it is not subject to doubt, that in all this two directions are constantly running; contrary to each other,and that finally even these weakened and watered down expressionsalways and again draw our human life either in the direction of thespirit out of the abyss or in the direction of the spirit from above."On the basis of this passage, and others like it--think of the absoluteopposition of principles in the section of Pro Rege:--perhaps wemight bring to an end one of the little bits of debate among us byagreeing that, while neither of the two antithetical spirits is pre-sent in our human lives in absolute form or degree, yet the direction
45. G.G. 1498 f.
46. Idem, p. 500.
47. p. 42.
48. p. 81.
49. p. 83.
of the two, present to the sure in weakened form, is absolutely anti-thetical. That is, after all, all that anyone in Reformed circlesmeans who speaks of an absolute antithesis. And now it appears that*Ms is saying nothing mere than was said by Kuyper, the man of com-mon grace.
One more quotation. At the beginning of volume III of his DeGemene Gratie Kuyper is discussing the rise of the Christians in theNetherlands of the nineteenth century to responsible cultural acti-vity, whereupon he says:5 0 "This affected a turn, which necessarilyhad to lead to, and so did lead to making us see that we could not getanywhere with the prevailing ideas, with the results of the sciences,and thus also with the construction of principles as they are currentin the non-Christian world. They did not fit our confession. Itwas like mixing iron with clay. Think of Kuyper's antithetical ora-tion of 1885: Thus we found ourselves before a dilemma. We eitherhad to return to the little conventicle-circle and •give up all con-cern with matters of science and art, of land and people, or we werecompelled ourselves to build up our own construction of principles,which accorded with our Reformed confession."
By now it must have become sufficiently clear that far fromcommon grace and antithesis being two irreconcilable elements inKuyper's thinking, both are most intimately related in any concretehuman situation. There is an antithetical development of commongrace that takes place. That is the reasen why, in Kuyper, separateChristian schools and separate organization of society generally isa requirement of faith. As Ridderbos says somewhere in his disser-tation: By a common action we prevent God's cultural purpose inspecial grace from being operative. Thus, all our cultural work toomust be a confessing, a witnessing. To this we may append a remarkof J, A. Diepenhorst in his booklet Algemene Genade en Antithese:51"But with common grace and general revelation one does not have enoughwhen a choice must be made between good and evil. The heathen doknow the state and establish an ordered life under law, but in regardto the bases of state and right they cannot come to certainty. Andjust these foundations are of particular importance for politicalscience...The revolution principle opposes the gospel in the politi-cal sphere in an entirely distinct form. That is sufficient reasonWhy it is wrong that believers and unbelievers, at least those whoreject it, continue to be linked up with each other in common acti-vity. The spirit out of the abyss would make himself master of stateand right. ?roper here is only unrelenting . , unflinching opposition,which does not call the antithesis into existence, but whichacknowledges its existence.
Thus Kuyper's view turns out to be much the same as Calvin's,at least in Berkouwer's interpretation of the latter. And it is in
50. G.G. III p. 6 f.
51. p. 41 f.
-34-
the sense we here described it, biblical. Kuyper himself, in theseries on De Gemene Gratie in Wetenschap in Kunst (p. 27) says:"Holy Scripture says clearly that the wisdom and science which theworld derives from her own principles is directly opposed to the true,substantial science, and as sharply as possible it is establishedthat the difference between that science of the world, which forGod is foolishness, and the true science which for him is valid,arises out of the difference of heart-condition in the investigatingsubject. There are two kinds of men. Scripture calls them "natural"and "spiritual" men.
This is the doctrine of the two ways, as found in Psalm 1 andProverbs 2.
We have seen that in Kuyper in Church first possessed a criticalaccounting of the world of culture and of the Christian's relationto it, and that in that theory, common grace and antithesis, twofalse abstractions when taken alone or absolutized, mingle with eachother in the most intimate fellowship as two elements in the concretelife situation. We have seen that this view demands organizationalantithesis, and that such a consequence has been accepted by all ofKuyper's spiritual descendents in the Netherlands. If in our Chris-tian Reformed circles another view is to be held, propagated orpracticed, we should be told its origin and shown its biblical basis.As Kuyper himself wrote of his own view, "It cannot come from a pro-cess of bargaining, but must be derived from the Reformed principleitself."
The attention of the interested reader should be called notonly to the works of Hepp, Ridderbos, van Ruler, and Diepenhorstmentioned in the text, but also to Schilder, Wat is de Hemel? andespecially to the essay of S. G. De Graaf "Genade on Natuur" in hisChristus en de Wereld (pp. 72-113). Ny lectures on "ScripturalReligion and Political Task" in Christian Perspectives 1962 shouldalso be consulted.
