“We fortify ourselves in opposition to God when we view this world as our sphere and this earth as our domain. God has his heaven, and we have this earth, and a bartering ensues in which, after death, God allocates to us a piece of his heaven--while we, in exchange, give God during our earthly life a piece of this earthly life, as it were. And then, of course, a somewhat businesslike mind-set governs in this sacred realm as well, by which we attempt to purchase as large a piece of heaven as possible by sacrificing as small a piece of this earthly life as possible.”—Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace Vol. II
It is quite common in modern Reformed circles to talk blithely of "Kuyperianism." The term is rarely defined, but seems to mean the opposite of a stark spiritual/material dualism, where heaven is God's pure spiritual domain and the earth belongs to the Devil and his angels (meaning a Christian need not bother himself with it overmuch). We might summarize it as the mindset of "this world is not my home, I'm just a-passin' through" of many old gospel songs. In this view, a Christian is a stranger with his mind on purely spiritual concerns, and what is going on in this realm of sin and trouble need not concern him. But Kuyperians instead claim the Christian
does have earthly concerns--usually concentrated in the political and economic realms. While this is a fine definition, there is a lot more to true Kuyperianism than an integrated orthopraxy.
The name is coined from Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), a Dutch pastor who managed to do more in his eighty-seven years than any one man had a right to do (start a political party, found and edit a major newspaper, manage a nationwide church split, found a university, be elected prime minister, write theological bestsellers...the list could go on). In America, he is best known for his Lectures on Calvinism, originally six talks given as part of Princeton's Stone Lectures in 1898; as well as for his famous quote,
"Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'"
Kuyper was one of the leading voices of what is often called Neo-Calvinism, a movement that opposed Modernism--the rationalism and secularism that flowed over Europe in the wake of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic conquests. He saw Calvinism as not simply a particular Reformed response to the papacy or a special emphasis on soteriology, but as a total system or "worldview." This system would allow Christians to oppose the totalizing claims of modern life with an equally totalizing (but far more justly balanced) response.
He is particularly well-known today for his response to the exaltation of the principle of popular sovereignty. Europe had rallied to the idea that the voice of the people, not the monarch, holds ultimate sway in any government system. Whatever the people decide goes. Hegel divinized that process as the dialectical "voice of history" and it is, of course, a key component of political battles in our day. Therefore, if what ever the people says goes, and the voice of the people is the government, then there is no appeal beyond government fiat. Kuyper refused to accept this view of the state's all-encompassing authority. Instead, he divided various governments into "spheres"--primarily civil, ecclesiastical, and family. Each sphere has unique authorities and penalties, and were separated and founded by God; but they overlap in practical ways in day-to-day life. Dividing them is where it gets tricky, because every individual belongs to different spheres.
So how do we know what to do? One of the common answers has been the classical concept of "natural law." However, with the rise of Darwinian evolution and materialism, this term often got freighted with the idea that the rules for life somehow existed outside of God, or at least of any Christian revelation. Kuyper, leaning on the traditional Reformed view of covenant, instead formulated the concept of "common grace." Grace here might be best defined as "God's unmerited favor." While particular grace saved the individual, and covenantal grace saved the elect, common grace saved all of mankind after the sin of Adam, when it rightly should have died in his transgression. Without this general or "common" grace, the last two would have no opportunity to work.
Here, then, are three touchstones of grace. One is entirely personal, a white stone, engraved with a name known only to God and to you. This is wholly particular grace. The second one is the touchstone of the covenant grace, a blessed gift you enjoy in common with all God's children. The third is the touchstone of a general human grace, coming to you because you are among the children of humanity, yours together with not only all God's children but in common with all the children of humanity. (Common Grace, Vol. I, pg. 5, italics original)
It is important to note that Kuyper saw common grace as in no way salvific, as he was occasionally accused of doing (and went to particular pains to refute). He saw it instead as a way to distinguish God's forbearance against sin:
The notion of "general" grace is so easily misused, as if by it were meant saving grace, and that is absolutely not the case. The only grace that is saving in the absolute sense is particular, personal grace, and even covenant grace receives this title of honor only with certain qualifications. Nevertheless, even though covenant grace in certain instances is saving in terms of its nature when significance, this may never be ascribed to general grace.... In itself general grace carries no saving seed within itself and is therefore of an entirely different nature from particular grace or covenant grace. Since this is often lost from view when speaking about general grace, to prevent misunderstanding and confusion it seemed more judicious to revive in our title the otherwise somewhat antiquated expression, and to render the phrase communis gratia, used formerly by Latin-speaking theologians, as "common grace." (Vol. I, pg. 6)
He treated the subject at length in articles in the newspaper he founded and ran, De Heraut. The finished articles were then organized and collected into three volumes: Volume I covered the biblical theology of the doctrine, what Kuyper called its "origin and operation;" (Vol. I preface, xxxviii) Volume II offered a doctrinal, systematic presentation; Volume III gave practical out workings of the doctrine in everyday Dutch life (from cowpox vaccines to education to Sabbath laws). The entire set was published in book form in 1902. It has been freshly translated into English in a fine set available from Lexham Press.
In our day of debates over general equity theonomy, Christian nationalism, or the effectiveness of the Constitution, the most valuable and easily accessible volume will be the third on practical concerns. In spite of the intervening time and ocean, most of his topics remain highly relevant to American Christians today. I mused while reading it that the history of America might have looked quite different if this work had been translated when it came out, instead of a hundred and ten years later--we might have been far more skeptical of government education, for one. But it is never too late to do the reading! Kuyper is brilliant, and even when you disagree with him, he forces you to think through an issue.
Thanks to the Abraham Kuyper Translation Society, there is much more of Kuyper available in our day than the Lectures on Calvinism. If you've got the time and the inclination, I highly recommend you dive deeper into the work and life of this irrepressible Dutchman.
