Abraham Kuyper: A Personal Introduction (review)

As far as introductions to neo-Calvinism go, this is the most lucid. Prof Mouw goes beyond the standard “take every square inch” models of Neo-Calvinism and asks us to reflect on what it means to be created for many-ness.

mouw

His chapter on “Filling the Earth” is standard Kuyperian treatment, so I won’t spend much time on it here. His chapter “Celebrating Many-ness” was pure gold. Contrary to state-church claims, the church of Christ doesn’t depend on only one form and that being manifested in a national church. Indeed, we should celebrate a “multiplicity of institutions” (16). Pluriformity means “created complexity” (17). We have to be careful, though. Affirming many-ness without insisting on an integrated whole leads only to the nihilistic void of postmodernism.

This reminds the reader of James KA Smith’s suggestion that in Genesis 1-2 God “creates in plurals.”  This contrasts very nicely with the Greek chain-of-being concept where any movement away from the one is always a diminution from goodness.

Sphere Sovereignty

So what counts as a “creational sphere”? Mouw notes Kuyper wasn’t always clear. In fact, what is a sphere? Let’s call them structures where “interactions take place” and “authority is exercised” (23). Each structure has a “point” and to that point corresponds an authority-pattern (24).

Per Kuyper, Christians must form collective entities within each “sphere.” The many-ness of mediating structures, per Peter Bellah, protects from both individualism and statism. It strengthens social bonds.

The part I particularly enjoyed was the section on neo-Kuyperianism and the Holy Spirit. As a continuationist and a Kuyperian, I’ve often sensed that the two streams could merge quite fruitfully, yet I haven’t really seen how it is to be done. Mouw’s (or Kuyper’s) suggestions were interesting. The Holy Spirit is to prepare creation for God’s glorious future (88-89).

Politics

Indeed, we need a crowded, public square. Not a naked one. A pluralism under secularization but not secularism (110, Mouw quoting James Bratt). Mouw correctly notes how the term “Constantinian” has been so over-used to be useless (113). Kuyper is not a Constantinian (whatever that word means).

Reflections

I am not sure how Kuyper’s correct insights on the antithesis give him any grounds on thinking a secular government will protect the “spheres.” I agree with Kuyper that we should have a “crowded public square,” and perhaps this “crowd” will make it difficult for the government to take away our liberties. Perhaps.

All in all, an outstanding work.

Advertisements

About Ephraim's Arrow

Interests include patristics, the role of the soul in the human person, analytic theology, Reformed Scholasticism
This entry was posted in Book Review, theology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Abraham Kuyper: A Personal Introduction (review)

  1. cal says:

    Ok, so Kuyper argues for a manyness for ecclesiology, and then that Church life is one sphere among many that Christians position themselves in, but this is all for the purposes of a unitary Christian society. Doesn’t the larger society then replace the Church as the unity? Only Roman ecclesiology denies the existence of churches that remain in communion but represent different nations/people-groups/regions etc.

    My opinion is that Kuyper’s theory was something already engines blazing by his day in places like England and a number of German states. I think it’s bad for the Church. But then again, that’s why I’m not Kuyperian.

    Anyway, that’s my 2 cents,
    cal

    Like

    • Jacob BA says:

      That’s a common criticism of Kuyper, but I look at it another way: if you deny a state-church, then you are already committed to some form of many-ness.

      Like

      • cal says:

        The problem isn’t plurality, but the locus. Sphere sovereignty makes the society (however defined) the center in which is the gestalt of all the spheres, of which ecclesiastics is only a part. I want to say the ecclesial realm is the center, with relative disinterest in reforming the social context (even if that’s a potential consequence radiating outwards).

        But anyway, I’ll add this booklet to my list. Thanks for the informal review.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s