This is the fourth in my planned series of articles on Abraham Kuyper's sixth lecture, Calvinism and the Future. Three days ago, I shared Kuyper's critique of modern theology and its reliance on altruism and mysticism, arguing that while such movements attempt to address moral decay, they ultimately lack the transformative power of the Gospel. Kuyper also cautiously acknowledges the Roman Catholic Church's role in combating secularism, suggesting that despite doctrinal differences, both Protestants and Catholics can unite against shared challenges in the modern era.

Nevertheless, despite Kuyper’s acknowledgment of the positive contributions of Catholicism, he doubts that the future lies with Rome. He believes Rome’s influence is fading, citing the economic, political, and religious struggles in Roman Catholic regions like South America and Southern Europe. These failures, he argues, show Rome’s inability to lead moral renewal in a declining era.

Turning his attention to the Protestants, Kuyper saw two tendencies, which he describes as the “practical” and the “mystical” (p. 187).

The Practical Tendency

The practical tendency is demonstrated through mission and philanthropy. Kuyper appreciates this tendency among Protestants. A faith that has no evidence in practice deteriorates into pointless talk and tedious scholasticism. For him, such a practical tendency has threefold advantages: it serves as a rallying cause for all Christians, brings relief to the suffering masses, and aids peace-making efforts among non-Christians.

However, to limit Christianity to practicality is a big mistake in the eyes of Kuyper. Such confinement has setbacks. One of them is vulnerability to modern criticism. The loss of confidence in the authority of Scriptures and the idea that Christianity can maintain its existence without maintaining its cherished dogma became popular.

Moreover, when it comes to philanthropy, if Protestants are humble enough to accept it, both Rome and the unbelieving world surpass us.

The Mystical Tendency

Similar to practical tendency, Kuyper commends the mystical tendency, for it warms the heart. It corrects those who are articulate in doctrine and those champions in social action, but remain foreigners to the depths of faith. A Christianity that takes the mystical element for granted becomes frigid and hardened. Kuyper rejoices to witness the mystical wind hovering over the church, making her life “truer, deeper, and richer” (p. 188). He then quoted the classic threefold offices of man under God:

God created hand, head, and heart; the hand for the deed, the head for the world, the heart for mysticism. King in deed, prophet in profession, and priest in heart, shall man in this threefold office stand before God (ibid.).

Nonetheless, although Kuyper applauds the mystical tendency among Protestants, he saw it lacking in power to reverse the moral crisis of our time. Its very nature is to escape from the world, and as such it lacks the influence to effect positive change. And if there is something we can learn from history, “all one-sided mysticism has always become morbid and has ultimately degenerated into a mysticism of the flesh, astounding the world with its moral infamy” (p. 189). Kuyper then made a comparison between mystics and those men who ruled the minds of men:

Not Bernard of Clairvaux but Thomas Aquinas, not Thomas a Kempis but Martin Luther, have ruled the spirits of men (p. ibid.).

Source

The Need for a Christian Worldview

If both the practical and the mystical tendencies are incapable of addressing the moral crisis of our time, what then do we need? In responding to this question, Kuyper found in Calvinism the necessary worldview that can address the modern dilemma. He accused both the practical and mystical Christians of self-deception if they think that they can reverse the moral decline without embracing the basic principles provided by God’s revelation that formed a Christian worldview. All prior brands of Protestantism failed, whether they were Socinians, Anabaptists, Lutherans, or Protestantism in general. Both the practical and mystical sides of Christianity, as well as the manifold types of Protestantism, are ill-equipped to confront the challenges of modernism except for Calvinism. And that is why Kuyper is calling for a return to Calvinism:

Now this is not obtained by either Christian works or mysticism, but only by going back, our hearts full of mystical warmth and our personal faith manifesting itself in abundant fruit, to that turning-point in history, and in the development of humanity which was reached in the Reformation. And this is equivalent to a return to Calvinism. There is no choice here. Socinianism died an inglorious death; Anabaptism perished in wild revolutionary orgies. Luther never worked out his fundamental thought. And Protestantism, taken in a general sense, without further differentiation, is either a purely negative conception without content, . . . Only of Calvinism can it be said that it has consistently and logically followed out the lines of the Reformation, has established not only Churches but also States, has set its stamp upon social and public life, and has thus, in the full sense of the word, created for the whole life of man a world of thought entirely its own (p. 190).

It is unusual to conclude this article by mentioning a difficult but very relevant topic. In ending his comparison between Calvinism and Lutheranism, Kuyper mentioned an idea related to statism. The reason why I would like to include it even in this closing part is that Francis Schaeffer, a reformed philosopher, identified statism as the “biggest concern for the future of the church in America.” Even though Kuyper used a different term, the essence of statism remains the same. He used the word “Caesarism” as an offshoot of the mistake of Martin Luther in “recognizing the sovereign of the land as the head of the established church” (p. 190). Yes, Calvin, too, was accused of fathering interventionism, another term almost used synonymously with statism. However, Kuyper clarified in his third lecture, Calvinism and Politics, that government intervention in matters of religion is not a discovery of Calvin but has been considered a universal orthodoxy since the time of Constantine the Great. And besides, Kuyper rejects this interventionist policy in favor of religious liberty and claims that Calvin was not able to liberate himself from such universal conviction. Setting aside such criticism, Kuyper emphasized that Protestants can only find in Calvinism the fundamental principle that supplies the needed worldview in waging war against Caesarism.

Grace and peace!

Posted Using INLEO