Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:02:35.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abraham Kuyper's Attack on Liberalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Dirk Jellema
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), a self-styled “Christian Democrat” who dominated two generations of Dutch political history, has received passing mention rather than scholarly examination outside the Netherlands. Ernst Troeltsch, speaking of Kuyper's theological work, called him a key figure in the development of modern Calvinistic thought. And Michael Fogarty mentions Kuyper's influence in building “one of the most successful, and in many ways the most instructive political, economic and social movements to be found anywhere in the Christian world.” But, apart from such brief notes, there is little. We propose in this article to sketch Kuyper's career and summarize the ideas with which he attacked Liberalism.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , October 1957 , pp. 472 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Troeltsch, Ernst, Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (New York, 1949), pp. 655, 660, 676Google Scholar, and Fogarty, Michael, Christian Democracy in Western Europe, 1820–1953 (Notre Dame, 1957), pp. xv, 301–2Google Scholar, et al. In English, see Kroef, J. Vander, “Abraham Kuyper and the Rise of Neo-Calvinism in the Netherlands,” Church History, XVII (1948), 316–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar, stressing Kuyper and the “Calvinist Renaissance” of the late nineteenth century Netherlands. There are brief accounts in Landheer, B. (ed.), The Netherlands (Berkeley, 1944)Google Scholar, and in the more popular Barnouw, A., Holland Under Queen Wilhelmina (New York, 1923).Google Scholar The best biography in Dutch is that of Kasteel, P., Abraham Kuyper (Louvain, 1938)Google Scholar; see also Diepenhorst, P. A., Dr. A. Kuyper (Haarlem, 1931)Google Scholar; Rullman, J. C., Abraham Kuyper (Kampen, 1928)Google Scholar; Winckel, W. F. A., Leven en arbeid van Dr. A. Kuyper (Amsterdam, 1919).Google Scholar A listing and summary of Kuyper's formidable output of writings is given by Rullman, J. C., Kuyper-bibliografie (3 vols., Kampen, 1929–1940).Google Scholar Two of Kuyper's works dealing with political and social issues have been translated: Het Calvinisme (1898)Google Scholar as Calvinism (Grand Rapids, 1943)Google Scholar and Het sociale vraagstuk en de Christelijke religie (1891)Google Scholar as Christianity and the Class Struggle (Grand Rapids, 1950).Google Scholar

2 For Bilderdijk, see Romein, Jan, Erflaters van onze beschaving (Amsterdam, 1947), III, 170–207.Google Scholar Groen's main work was his 1847 Ongeloof en revolutie (Amsterdam, 1947).Google Scholar For his career, see Diepenhorst, P. A., Groen Van Prinsterer (Kampen, 1932)Google Scholar; cf. also Van Paasen, Pierre, That Day Alone (New York, 1948), p. 208.Google Scholar It is interesting to compare Groen, in 1850Google Scholar (cited by Kuyper, , Class Struggle, p. 16)Google Scholar and The Communist Manifesto. Groen: “It is this freedom, this unchecked competition, this removal as much as possible of the natural relationship of foreman and workman, which is tearing away the social bonds; it is this which ends in the tyranny of the rich and the rule of the bankers.” The Communist Manifesto: “The bourgeoisie, whenever it got the upper hand, put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations, pitilessly tore asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors’ and left remaining no other bond between man and man than naked selfinterest and callous cash payment.”

3 Rullman, , op. cit., p. 77.Google Scholar Kuyper's speeches are collected in his Kamaradviesen uit de jaren 1874 en 1875 (Amsterdam, 1890).Google Scholar

4 Kasteel, , op. cit., pp. 86–91.Google Scholar Within five days, 305,000 Calvinist and 164,000 Catholic signatures were obtained.

5 For Schaepman, see Romein, , op. cit., IV, 178–209Google Scholar, and Brom, G., Schaepman (Amsterdam, 1936).Google Scholar

6 The speech stressed the “sovereignty of the social spheres,” and appeared as Souvereiniteit in eigen kring (Amsterdam 1880).Google Scholar Kuyper for some years taught dogmatics, Hebrew, homiletics, linguistics and Dutch literature at the University — all in his “spare time.”

7 This was the “Doleantie,” and the “doleerende kerken” or “protesting churches” soon joined (1892)Google Scholar with the “Afgescheidenen” (separatists) of 1834. This earlier group of seceders from the state church had stemmed from the Reveil, and were evangelistic and pietistic as well as Calvinist; Kuyper at first had many reservations about joining them (see his Separatie en Doleantie, Amsterdam, 1890Google Scholar; also Kasteel, , op. cit., 60–66).Google Scholar The Gereformeerde Kerk formed from the union has some 700,000 members in the Netherlands today.

8 For Mackay, Baron (1838–1909)Google Scholar, see De Gaay Fortman, B.'s essay in De Pater, J. C. H., ed., Christendom en historie (Kampen, 1931), pp. 202–267Google Scholar; also Suttorp, L. C., A. F. de Savornin Lohman (The Hague, 1948), pp. 222–229.Google Scholar The name originally comes from a Scotch soldier who headed a regiment in the Eighty Years War against Spain, and who settled in the Netherlands.

9 For Kuyper's support of the Socialist (later Anarchist) leader Domela Nieuwenhuis (1846–1919), see Romein, , op. cit., p. 224.Google ScholarKeuchenius, L. W. C. (1822–1893)Google Scholar, a leader of the Antirevolutionary “left wing,” was the only man to shake Domela's hand when he took his seat in the Lower House. For the gradually widening breach between Kuyper and Lohman, which also involved Keuchenius, see especially Kasteel, , op. cit., pp. 106–121, 158–160, 169–173Google Scholar; also Suttorp, , op. cit., pp. 52–67.Google Scholar

10 Kuyper, , Maranatha (Amsterdam, 1891)Google Scholar for the speech to the party. The other speech opened the Christian Social Congress of 1891, co-sponsored by the party and Patrimonium, the Calvinist labor movement; Het sociale vraagstuk … (see footnote 1). Fogarty, , op. cit., p. 301Google Scholar, praises this speech as “a statement of Christian social principles and policy worthy of the year which also saw the appearance of Rerum Novarum.” For “Christian Socialism,” see pp. 40–41 of the English translation of the speech.

11 Benoist, Charles, “La réforme électorate et les parties politiques aux Pays Bas,” Revue des Deux Mondes, CXXII (1894), 388–404Google Scholar; the quotation is from p. 404. For Kuyper's furious energy, Rullman, P., op. cit., 232Google Scholar; cf. Romein, , op. cit., pp. 149–151Google Scholar. The Coalition was undoubtedly helped by the suffrage extension of 1896, and also by Socialist support in run—off elections when no candidate in a district had a majority.

12 Kuyper was accused of wanting to overthrow the monarchy; cf. footnotes 3 and 31; cf. Vandenbosch, Amry, The Government of the Netherlands (Lexington, 1947), p. 40Google Scholar for Kuyper's occasional dissatisfaction with some aspects of the monarchy. For the railroad strike and the threatened general strike of 1903, see Ruter, A. J. C., De spoorwegstaking van 1903 (Leiden, 1936), especially pp. 350–521Google Scholar. It is difficult to see what else Kuyper could have done under the circumstances; see the views of the Socialist Romein, , op. cit., p. 175.Google Scholar

13 There was some talk of Kuyper as prime minister in 1909, but for various reasons this did not happen. He was too old; the Liberals charged him with earlier misuse of his office as prime minister by giving state medals to party contributors; and, perhaps most important, “the lion was getting older, and the whelps wanted their independence” (Kasteel, , op. cit., p. 325Google Scholar; cf. Romein, , op. cit., p. 175)Google Scholar. The younger men in the party supported Heemskerk. For Talma, whose social thought was formed by Kuyper and by the English Christian Socialists, see Vellinga, J. M., Talma's sociale arbeid (Hoorn, 1941)Google Scholar. For later development of Kuyper and Talma's “corporative” ideas, see Fogarty, , op. cit., pp. 58–60Google Scholar (re publieke bedrijfsorganisaties).

14 Thus Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde (Amsterdam, 1918)Google Scholar is in many respects (organization, style, etc.) an expanded version of Ons Program (Amsterdam, 1879).Google Scholar

15 For Kuyper's theological ideas as they affected his view of culture and society, see Ridderbos, S. J., De theologische cultuurbeschouwing van Abraham Kuyper (Kampen, 1947), especially pp. 230–252Google Scholar. Kuyper's acute sense of the ramifications of ideological bias is noted (with approval) by Romein, , op. cit., p. 160Google Scholar; cf. Winckel, , op. cit., pp. 245–260Google Scholar. His sense of interrelationship between different aspects of Weltanschauungen (which sometimes led him astray) is shown, for example, in his attempt to collate the idea of the mass state with German pantheism (Kasteel, , op. cit., p. 282)Google Scholar, or his attack on Darwinian evolutionary theory as an application of Manchester economics to biology (in Evolutie, Amsterdam, 1899Google Scholar; Hugo De Vries, the Dutch anti-Darwinian evolutionist, regarded this as one of the ablest attacks on Darwin; see Rullman, , Kuyper-bibliografie, III, 203).Google Scholar

16 Kuyper, , Calvinism (1898), pp. 87, 178Google Scholar. Similar quotations could easily be multiplied.

17 Kuyper, , Class Struggle (1891), pp. 36–38Google Scholar. Cf. Ons Program (1879), No. 281Google Scholar; both Liberalism and Socialism are derived from the Enlightenment.

18 Kuyper, , Class Struggle, p. 25Google Scholar; Calvinism, pp. 173, 178.Google Scholar

19 Kuyper, , Class Struggle, p. 25Google Scholar; Van Paasen, , op. cit., p. 212Google Scholar. Cf. Souvereiniteit (1880)Google Scholar for a fuller comparison with Rome.

20 Kuyper, , Class Struggle, pp. 35–40Google Scholar; Ons Program, No. 294.

21 Kuyper, , Kamaradviesen, p. 192Google Scholar. The same speech praises Von Ketteler in Germany, and the Christian Socialists in England.

22 Kuyper's views on sphere-sovereignty appear in most of his major works; see especially Souvereiniteit in eigen kring (1880)Google Scholar. The best critical treatment is perhaps that of Dengerink, J. D., Critische-historische onderzoek naar de sociologische ontwikkeling van het beginsel der ‘souvereiniteit in eigen kring’ in de 19e en 20e eeuw (Kampen, 1948), pp. 94–161.Google Scholar

23 Kuyper gives various listings of the social spheres, which differ somewhat in detail; see, for example, Ons Program, ch. IV; Souvereiniteit; Antirevolutionaire Staathunde, I:262–265.Google Scholar

24 Ons Program, No. 279; Calvinism, pp. 90–99Google Scholar; Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde, II, 340–354, etc.Google Scholar

25 State support for religious schools was finally accepted wholeheartedly under the extra-parliamentary government of Cort Van Der Linden (1913–1917); see Verberne, L. G. J., Nieuwste Geschiedenis (Amsterdam, 1938Google Scholar; Vol. IV of Brugmans, H., ed., Geschiedenis van Nederland), 333–335Google Scholar. This was part of a “deal” which also put through universal male suffrage on an individual basis.

26 Kuyper, , Class Struggle, p. 36Google Scholar; De Gemeene Grade (3 vols., Leiden, 1902–1905), I, 440–442Google Scholar; cf. Christus en de sociale nooden (Amsterdam, 1895).Google Scholar

27 Kasteel, , op. cit., pp. 204–240Google Scholar; Winckel, , op. cit., pp. 186–220Google Scholar; etc. Cf. Kuyper, 's Proeve van pensionsregeling voor werkleiden en huns gelijken (Amsterdam, 1895)Google Scholar for insurance plans. Cf. footnote 13. For Kuyper's role in the Calvinist labor movement, see, for example, Rüter, , op. cit., pp. 150–155.Google Scholar

28 Vandenbosch, Amry, The Dutch East Indies (Berkeley, 1944), pp. 63–73Google Scholar; Furnivall, J. S., Netherlands India: A Study of Plural Economy (New York, 1944), pp. 174–175, 229–255Google Scholar; Kasteel, , op. cit., pp. 298–316.Google Scholar

29 See Class Struggle: Pensionsregeling, pp. 14–17Google Scholar; etc. For personalism, horizontal social groups, etc., in other Christian Democratic movements, see Fogarty, , op. cit., pp. 27–48Google Scholar. For Kuyper's stress on Christ's human as well as divine nature, see Ridderbos, , op. cit., pp. 132–138.Google Scholar

30 VanderKroef, , op. cit., p. 30Google Scholar, for the quotation. For the later fortunes of the party, see Brugmans, , op. cit.Google Scholar, also Gossses, I. H. and Japikse, N., Handboek tot de staatkundige geschiedenis van Nederland (The Hague, 1947), pp. 892 ff.Google Scholar

31 Romein, , op. cit., p. 177.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., p. 157; Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde, II, 246Google Scholar for the quotations. For the varying evaluations, Wilkens, H. W., The Netherlands (London, 1907), p. 66Google Scholar, and Domela's 1907 letter to Kuyper, given by Kasteel, , op. cit., pp. 143–147.Google Scholar