On Education E-Book

Abraham Kuyper

• Herausgeber: Lexham Press
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Serie: Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 841

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019

Beschreibung

Kuyper on the Divine Purpose for EducationAmong Abraham Kuyper's many accomplishments was his founding of the Free University of Amsterdam, where he also served as president and professor of theology. This collection of essays and speeches presents Kuyper's theology and philosophy of education, and his understanding of the divine purpose of scholarship for human culture. Included are convocation addresses given at the Free University, parliamentary speeches, newspaper articles, and other talks and essays on the topic of education. Much of the material deals with issues still being debated today including the roles of the family and state in education, moral instruction, Christian education, and vouchers.

Leseprobe

ON EDUCATION

ABRAHAM

KUYPER

Edited by

Wendy Naylor and Harry Van Dyke

On Education

Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology

Copyright 2019 Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty

Lexham Press, 1313 Commercial St., Bellingham, WA 98225

LexhamPress.com

All rights reserved. You may use brief quotations from this resource in presentations, articles, and books. For all other uses, please write Lexham Press for permission. Email us at [email protected].

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Print ISBN 9781577996774

Digital ISBN 9781683591160

Lexham Editorial: Claire Brubaker, Sarah Awa, Justin Marr

Cover Design: Christine Gerhart

ABRAHAM

KUYPER

Collected Works in Public Theology

GENERAL EDITORS

JORDAN J. BALLOR

MELVIN FLIKKEMA

ABRAHAMKUYPER.COM

CONTENTS

General Editors’ Introduction

Editor’s Introduction

Volume Introduction

Abbreviations

Part One: Entering the School Struggle

The Society “for the Common Good”

Teaching Immortality in the Public School

Part Two: Christian Education and Its Counterfeits

Government Funding or Citizen Initiative?

Iron and Clay

Bound to the Word

Scholarship: Two Convocation Addresses

Part Three: A Pluralistic Program for National Education

Ideas for a National Education System

Grievances against the School Law

Is the Restitution Model Impracticable?

The Remedy

Speeches as a Member of Parliament

Speeches as Prime Minister in Parliament

Part Four: The People’s Voice and Victory

An Appeal to the Nation’s Conscience

The Struggle

The People’s Petition

As Sheep among Wolves

Speech Marking the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Christian Teachers Association

Afterword: Faith, Finances, and Freedom

Appendix: Lemkes’ Wish

Bibliography

About the Contributors

Subject Index

GENERAL EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

In times of great upheaval and uncertainty, it is necessary to look to the past for resources to help us recognize and address our own contemporary challenges. While Scripture is foremost among these foundations, the thoughts and reflections of Christians throughout history also provide us with important guidance. Because of his unique gifts, experiences, and writings, Abraham Kuyper is an exemplary guide in these endeavors.

Kuyper (1837–1920) is a significant figure both in the history of the Netherlands and modern Protestant theology. A prolific intellectual, Kuyper founded a political party and a university, led the formation of a Reformed denomination and the movement to create Reformed elementary schools, and served as the prime minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905. In connection with his work as a builder of institutions, Kuyper was also a prolific author. He wrote theological treatises, biblical and confessional studies, historical works, social and political commentary, and devotional materials.

Believing that Kuyper’s work is a significant and underappreciated resource for Christian public witness, in 2011 a group of scholars interested in Kuyper’s life and work formed the Abraham Kuyper Translation Society. The shared conviction of the society, along with the Acton Institute, Kuyper College, and other Abraham Kuyper scholars, is that Kuyper’s works hold great potential to build intellectual capacity within the church in North America, Europe, and around the world. It is our hope that translation of his works into English will make his insights accessible to those seeking to grow and revitalize communities in the developed world as well as to those in the global south and east who are facing unique challenges and opportunities.

The church today—both locally and globally—needs the tools to construct a compelling and responsible public theology. The aim of this translation project is to provide those tools—we believe that Kuyper’s unique insights can catalyze the development of a winsome and constructive Christian social witness and cultural engagement the world over.

In consultation and collaboration with these institutions and individual scholars, the Abraham Kuyper Translation Society developed this 12-volume translation project, the Collected Works in Public Theology. This multivolume series collects in English translation Kuyper’s writings and speeches from a variety of genres and contexts in his work as a theologian and statesman. In almost all cases, this set contains original works that have never before been translated into English. The series contains multivolume works as well as other volumes, including thematic anthologies.

The series includes a translation of Kuyper’s Our Program (Ons Program), which sets forth Kuyper’s attempt to frame a Christian political vision distinguished from the programs of the nineteenth-century Modernists who took their cues from the French Revolution. It was this document that launched Kuyper’s career as a pastor, theologian, and educator. As James Bratt writes, “This comprehensive Program, which Kuyper crafted in the process of forming the Netherlands’ first mass political party, brought the theology, the political theory, and the organization vision together brilliantly in a coherent set of policies that spoke directly to the needs of his day. For us it sets out the challenge of envisioning what might be an equivalent witness in our own day.”

Also included is Kuyper’s seminal three-volume work De gemeene gratie, or Common Grace, which presents a constructive public theology of cultural engagement rooted in the humanity Christians share with the rest of the world. Kuyper’s presentation of common grace addresses a gap he recognized in the development of Reformed teaching on divine grace. After addressing particular grace and covenant grace in other writings, Kuyper here develops his articulation of a Reformed understanding of God’s gifts that are common to all people after the fall into sin.

The series also contains Kuyper’s three-volume work on the lordship of Christ, Pro Rege. These three volumes apply Kuyper’s principles in Common Grace, providing guidance for how to live in a fallen world under Christ the King. Here the focus is on developing cultural institutions in a way that is consistent with the ordinances of creation that have been maintained and preserved, even if imperfectly so, through common grace.

The remaining volumes are thematic anthologies of Kuyper’s writings and speeches gathered from the course of his long career.

The anthology On Charity and Justice includes a fresh and complete translation of Kuyper’s “The Problem of Poverty,” the landmark speech Kuyper gave at the opening of the First Christian Social Congress in Amsterdam in 1891. This important work was first translated into English in 1950 by Dirk Jellema; in 1991, a new edition by James Skillen was issued. This volume also contains other writings and speeches on subjects including charity, justice, wealth, and poverty.

The anthology On Islam contains English translations of significant pieces that Abraham Kuyper wrote about Islam, gathered from his reflections on a lengthy tour of the Mediterranean world. Kuyper’s insights illustrate an instructive model for observing another faith and its cultural ramifications from an informed Christian perspective.

The anthology On the Church includes selections from Kuyper’s doctrinal dissertation on the theologies of Reformation theologians John Calvin and John a Lasco. It also includes various treatises and sermons, such as “Rooted and Grounded,” “Twofold Fatherland,” and “Address on Missions.”

The anthology On Business and Economics contains various meditations Kuyper wrote about the evils of the love of money as well as pieces that provide Kuyper’s thoughts on stewardship, human trafficking, free trade, tariffs, child labor, work on the Sabbath, and business.

Finally, the anthology On Education includes Kuyper’s important essay “Bound to the Word,” which discusses what it means to be ruled by the word of God in the entire world of human thought. Numerous other pieces are also included, resulting in a substantial English volume of Kuyper’s thoughts on Christian education.

Collectively, this 12-volume series will, as Richard Mouw puts it, “give us a much-needed opportunity to absorb the insights of Abraham Kuyper about God’s marvelous designs for human cultural life.”

The Abraham Kuyper Translation Society along with the Acton Institute and Kuyper College gratefully acknowledge the Andreas Center for Reformed Scholarship and Service at Dordt College; Calvin College; Calvin Theological Seminary; Fuller Theological Seminary; Mid-America Reformed Seminary; Redeemer University College; Princeton Theological Seminary; and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Their financial support and partnership made these translations possible. The society is also grateful for the generous financial support of the J. C. Huizenga family and Dr. Rimmer and Ruth DeVries, which has enabled the translation and publication of these volumes.

This series is dedicated to Dr. Rimmer DeVries in recognition of his life’s pursuits and enduring legacy as a cultural leader, economist, visionary, and faithful follower of Christ who reflects well the Kuyperian vision of Christ’s lordship over all spheres of society.

Jordan J. Ballor

Melvin Flikkema

Grand Rapids, MI

August 2015

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

God has so ordained that at the present time our four million fellow-citizens are divided into three almost equal parts: Rationalists, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics. We accept this fact. And we maintain that in a people comprised of such a mixture, the state may not use its supremacy to favor one part of the nation over another. All spiritual compulsion by the state is an affront to the honor of the spiritual life and, as an offense to civil liberty, is hateful and abominable.

—ABRAHAM KUYPER, Niet de Vrijheidsboom maar het kruis

Abraham Kuyper accomplished much over the course of his lifetime, but perhaps his most lasting contribution to Dutch society was a radical restructuring of the Dutch school system according to the principle of religious liberty.1 Over a span of almost fifty years (1869–1917), he and his Antirevolutionary Party2 worked diligently to establish the right of all parents to provide their children with a quality education in accordance with their deepest convictions and values. In 1917, as a culmination of these efforts, the Dutch constitution was amended to guarantee this right, and in 1920, the year Kuyper died, a new education bill was passed which put that amendment into practice.

One hundred years later, the Dutch school system continues to grant complete funding (per child) to all elementary and high schools, whether they be religiously oriented (and privately managed) or not. If a school that reflects a specific belief system does not exist in a geographic area, like-minded parents are encouraged to form a nonprofit association to be governed by an elected board according to bylaws which clearly articulate their worldview. There are government regulations concerning the minimum number of students required, the setting of teacher salaries, and the minimum standards of academic achievement to be demonstrated, to name just a few. But these regulations are forbidden by the constitution from touching on the particular belief system which underlies the curriculum and culture of the school.

In 1920, when this amendment was first put into practice, three different kinds of publicly funded schools emerged: Catholic, Calvinist, and “neutralist” (so called because they believed that knowledge and education could and should be value neutral). Over the course of many decades that list has expanded to include Islamic, Orthodox Jewish, Liberal Jewish, Hindu, Pietistic Calvinist, “Liberated” Calvinist, evangelical, generally Protestant, and generally Christian schools as well as schools inspired by particular pedagogues such as Montessori and Rudolph Steiner. The important exceptions to this panoply of worldviews include those worldviews which advocate violence or which find their identity in class, race, language, political ideology, or gender. Schools are forbidden to advocate violent jihad, for instance, or to espouse white supremacy. There are no elementary schools to which only the wealthy have access. All schools teach exclusively in the Dutch language.3 And there are no schools oriented exclusively to those of Turkish, Moroccan, Dutch, or any other descent. In effect, the Dutch constitution has been interpreted to mean that religious or philosophical beliefs about the nature of the world, of humanity, and of the existence of God constitute the core of human experience and community, rather than other aspects of human life such as class, gender, ethnicity, and race. This insight may rightly be considered the fruit of Kuyper’s social thought and political work.

In later decades of the twentieth century a system of funding was developed which granted more government resources for the education of immigrant children and children from lower socioeconomic levels who face significant linguistic and cultural challenges. The principle remains to provide sufficiently for the educational needs of all children according to the religious, philosophical, or pedagogical preferences of their parents.

A program of educational liberty was first articulated by Kuyper in a series of newspaper articles published in the newspaper The Standard during the 1870s. Kuyper himself also presented this principle and program in his first speech in Parliament in 1874. He drew an analogy with the Netherlands’ system of canals and dikes, which were federally funded but locally managed according to the specific needs of each locality. In the same way, he argued, Protestants, Catholics, and neutralists should each be able to design and manage their own schools with an equal share of state support. His speech was vehemently opposed by both government and school leadership. What possible reason was there for separate, “sectarian” schools when neutral state schools were increasingly available for no charge? Why should we interrupt our progress toward a national and rational system of schooling, which wisely kept all religion outside of the schools’ purview? Why should we fan the flames of religious dissension by actually allowing fanatics to have separate schools? They were unable to see religious schooling as anything other than backward and dangerous. They sought to preserve national unity in the only way they understood at the time, which was to insist that all Dutch children attend state-run elementary schools, which offered nonsectarian neutral education.

Kuyper, having expected this rejection, was not discouraged by it. His eyes were not closed to the political reality; most Christians (both Catholic and Calvinist) were not wealthy and therefore lacked suffrage. What was needed was a radical change of public opinion, and that would take time. Kuyper urged his constituency to put their hope in the sovereign God, to whom their cause was dear and for whom nothing was impossible. He also urged them to appeal to the nation’s conscience. Was the Netherlands, which for centuries had been a haven for persecuted religious minorities, now going to crush the hope of Christian minorities? Was the Netherlands, which proudly stood for equal treatment under the law, now going to accept a system in which only the wealthy could provide their children with a Christian education?

The primary purpose of this introduction is to present a summary of Kuyper’s multifaceted rationale for his educational program, a rationale rooted in a commitment to religious liberty and developed over the course of many decades. It is hoped that this presentation of the thought and faith behind Kuyper’s work will help the reader to better understand the documents included herein. But first, a short history of the Dutch educational system is in order.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

For centuries after the Reformation, the Netherlands was known for the intensity with which its citizens held to their religious beliefs, as well as for their acceptance of religious minorities (as long as they also accepted a religiously plural society). Shortly after the Reformation, Spain (which governed the Netherlands) cracked down harshly on the open proclamation and practice of Protestant beliefs. In submission to Prince William the Silent, Dutch Protestants rose up in resistance to this persecution; thus began the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648), which eventually resulted in the political independence of the Netherlands with a Calvinist church as the state church. While there were, of course, privileges and status that went with membership in the Dutch Reformed Church, Catholics, Independent Protestants, and Jews did not fear for their lives, and enjoyed the freedom to practice their faith freely, if not always publicly. By the nineteenth century, however, many Calvinist leaders had lost the life and joy of the gospel, and were therefore ill-equipped to discern and reject the influence of the French Revolution, which swept through the leadership of much of Dutch society even before Napoleon’s invasion in 1795. The school leaders were busy creating a centralized school system (based on the French model) with the goal of civilizing and unifying the Dutch citizenry. As part of this effort, certain churches and schools began to teach a new interpretation of Christianity summed up in the phrase “Christianity above doctrine.” Many Protestants were impressed; the emphasis on God’s love for all humankind instead of on arid doctrine must have felt like a breath of fresh air. Catholics, however, were not so impressed. Whether doctrinal or not, the schools were still under Protestant leadership, and it was still illegal to establish independent schools. Seeing no way forward, many of them joined the movement to secede and in 1830 succeeded in breaking away from the Netherlands to form Belgium.

It was not until a pietistic revival known as the Réveil swept through much of northern Europe, including the Netherlands, that many Protestants reembraced their orthodox Calvinist roots and began to resist the increasing influence of deistic rationalism in public institutions. A conflict developed between the Dutch Reformed leadership and a growing portion of its laypeople, who saw the new “Christianity above doctrine” as a new title for deism. Eventually, in 1834, a group of orthodox believers seceded from the national church and sought the right to also establish their own schools. That this attempt was repeatedly denied led Groen van Prinsterer (1801–76), a member of Parliament and the historian for the Royal House of Orange, to proclaim in 1840:

Parents, who with or without sufficient grounds, are sincerely convinced that the direction of the existing schools is unchristian, must not be prevented, either legally or indirectly [i.e., from lack of funds], from providing their children such an education as they consider God to require of them. The coercion, I will say it plainly, is unbearable and must come to an end.4

Eventually the constitutional revision of 1848 did grant parents the legal right to establish and maintain schools independent of both church and the state. Unfortunately, this new legal liberty came at a time when the Netherlands suffered an economic depression so severe that the liberty which was now legally granted was not substantively available to more than the wealthy. In 1857 the constitution was again revised; it called on all state schools to nurture children “into all Christian and civic virtues.” However, lest anyone think that these new neutral schools were Christian, Prime Minister Justinus van der Brugghen (1804–63) assured Parliament that under his new school law:

All doctrinal and dogmatic components, everything, in a word, that belongs to the concept of Christianity, that belongs to its truths, facts, its history, must remain removed from the public school.… Everyone, Protestant, Roman Catholics, and Israelites, can be assured that nothing will be shared with their children that is offensive, that is in conflict with their “religious convictions.”5

With such plain talk, the new deism no longer fooled either orthodox Calvinists or Catholics who were offended by the state’s disregard for their deepest interests. And so the school struggle intensified. Some Catholics moved to Belgium, where there were Catholic schools. Some Calvinists immigrated to North America, where there was property to own at affordable prices and complete freedom to establish their own schools. Those who could not move either kept their children home from schools or started their own schools at tremendous sacrifice. The offense to their conscience by the state continued to be deeply felt.

By the second half of the nineteenth century the Netherlands encompassed three major subgroups of people with distinct and intensely held convictions: Calvinists, Catholics, and what Kuyper called Rationalists (what we might call secular, but which included Jews and those Christians who accepted deistic theology). Not surprisingly, this made the formation of a unified national school system a challenge, and in that attempt, there were two primary strategies.

On the one side were people who had embraced deistic rationalism; they sought to open the eyes and minds of children and parents to a worldview in which religious faith was irrelevant to learning and nurture. Many leaders throughout society held to this view primarily because they had been educated in universities which for over half a century had thoroughly advocated deism. Some saw it as a temporary way to placate the masses. Others were well intentioned, believing that this was the only way to promote the modernization and unity of the nation. In either case, they were determined to brook no argument. Any opposition to their views was deemed ignorant, dangerous, and evidence of why such a system was so urgently needed.

On the other side was the political platform of the Antirevolutionary Party, published first in 1879, which proclaimed in its twelfth article that the Antirevolutionary Party

desires that the state (unless compelled by lack of vitality among the citizens) abandon the premise that government is called upon to provide education; that it prevent government schools, if need be, from being misused for propaganda for religious or antireligious ideas; and so extend to all citizens, irrespective of their religious or pedagogical views, equal rights also in the matter of education.6

Supporters of the Antirevolutionary Party educational agenda simply wanted the substantive right to educate their children according to their deepest convictions and were prepared to grant everyone else that right as well. Although they consisted of roughly two-thirds of the nation’s citizens, they formed a very small part of Parliament. Most Orthodox Calvinists and Catholics were among the “little people” who lacked suffrage, higher education, and the rhetorical skill to voice their views in public contexts. Many of them were wage laborers whose days were full with providing a very basic living, but they believed that the state schools would do their children harm and were ready to resist. For that enterprise they needed a leader, and it fell to Abraham Kuyper to be that for them.

It is certainly true that Abraham Kuyper was only one of the key leaders in what came to be called the school struggle. But just as Martin Luther King Jr. is known as the voice and inspiration of the civil rights movement, so also was Kuyper recognized as the inspiration and leading proponent of educational liberty in the Netherlands. Through his many articles, speeches, and editorials, he sought to awaken Christians to the fact that their core belief in the sovereignty of God was diametrically opposed by the deism taught in state schools. He called Christians across the land to exit state schools and set up their own schools at tremendous sacrifice. He helped to formulate a thoroughly pluralistic national educational policy which granted orthodox Christians the same rights as their deistic neighbors. He urged parents to pray that laws would be changed. He appealed to the moral conscience of his opponents and taught his constituency to do the same. When faced with new threats to the survival of free schools (including school improvement laws with unfunded mandates), he insisted that justice would eventually triumph over such immoral laws. Together with Herman Schaepman (1844–1903), leader of the Catholic party, he organized a national petition to the king in 1878, which, in simple but powerful language, pled their case for the right and ability to educate their children in the way their conscience required. It was carefully monitored and signed by 469,869 parents, far surpassing the number of actual voters in the Netherlands, which totaled 127,000. The king refused.

Against all odds, they endured. Kuyper’s ability to respectfully and rationally communicate with those who opposed him began to have effect, and many in the conservative party began to understand that remove the key principle at stake was religious liberty. Finally, in 1889, an education bill was passed, which provided a small amount of financial aid to religious schools. Although Kuyper had advocated that government aid be granted to parents on the basis of need, he nevertheless rejoiced that the principle of educational liberty was recognized for the first time. In the years to come, Kuyper worked hard to see that amount of support increased. As a journalist, as a party leader, as a university professor, and eventually as prime minister, Kuyper worked hard for a pluralistic school system rooted in the highest law of the land; eventually he saw the day that educational liberty was guaranteed by a constitutional amendment.

My purpose in the rest of this introduction is to present an overview of Kuyper’s multifaceted rationale for a pluralistic educational program.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE

Kuyper argued that the Dutch school struggle was first and foremost about extending the freedom of conscience heralded in the Dutch constitution to parents who desired an education for their children in keeping with their religion. Very early on, he realized that no one type of schooling could ever meet the needs of parents from a variety of educational beliefs. He insisted that the state was neither called nor equipped to discern, much less enforce, religious truth. As such, the only way to guarantee liberty of conscience to all parents was to allow for a variety of schools, each with an equal claim (per child) on the resources of the state. As the economy of the Netherlands changed and took fathers away from the home during the day, schools ended up taking on a greater degree of children’s nurture and upbringing. It thus became more and more urgent that the strong arm of the state not be used to impose on children a worldview which violated the conscience of their parents.

And nothing was so grievous as when the state in our land for a long time claimed the right to set up the school for all children, and to force the parents to send their children to a school whose spirit and direction opposed the spirit of their family and were in open battle with their convictions.7

He was met with powerful resistance at first, largely because the concept of schools which were independent of both church and state was new, and many thought he was proposing a return to church-led schools.8 He continued to argue his case as clearly and as carefully as he could so that the nature of what his party proposed could be clearly understood before it was debated. When he met with continued and increased opposition to a pluriform educational program, he began to think that either his opponents could not recognize the subjectivity of their own religious commitments, or they refused to do so in the quest to hold on to power. As Kuyper understood it, there were only two principled ways to resolve the school struggle: either through force or through liberty. Either the state would insist on granting parents of only one worldview all public educational resources, or it would grant parents of all major worldview perspectives an equal proportion of those resources. To do the first was to infringe on the conscience of a majority of the population. To do the second was to protect the rights of parents to an education for their children in accordance with their deepest values. Although Kuyper was accused of wanting to establish a theocracy, the reality was that the Antirevolutionary Party insisted that no worldview receive a monopoly on state resources. As their platform clearly stated, it sought to prevent a situation in which the government could use schools to propagandize either for or against any religion:

To that end we ask only for one thing: that freedom of conscience, both direct and indirect, be completely restored.… We do not want the government to hand over unbelief handcuffed and chained as though for a spiritual execution. We prefer that the power of the gospel overcome that demon in free combat with comparable weapons. Only this we do not want: that the government arm unbelief to force us, half-armed and handicapped by an assortment of laws, into an unequal struggle with so powerful an enemy. Yet that has happened and is happening still. It happens in all areas of popular education, on the higher as well as the lower levels, by means of the power of money, forced examinations, and official hierarchy.9

THE ROLE OF CORE BELIEFS IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE

Kuyper argued that it was impossible to teach and learn outside a worldview which tied facts together into meaning. Human beings are creatures who naturally seek not isolated facts but the meaning which explains those facts. Instead of believing that reason was and should be the foundation for belief, Kuyper believed that subjective core belief was the root of experience and reason. Different worldviews were exactly that: different ways of interpreting the facts of our life according to the core beliefs by which we live. Two worldviews could be equally logical and consider all the available data and still arrive at different understandings. Kuyper himself was in university when he first began to formulate this understanding. A professor of his had drastically changed his argument, not on the basis of any new data, nor because of any flaw in his previous research, but solely because he had experienced a change of worldview and interpreted matters differently.10

This started Kuyper on a journey of thought which eventually led to his development of a theory of knowledge which was far ahead of his time. His claim that deep-seated belief (which all humans have) informs and guides the intellectual process was a surprisingly postmodern understanding of the nature of knowledge, with one significant difference. Many postmodernists claim that no objective truth exists, that all knowledge is humanly constructed, and that all we have are conflicting narratives in a power struggle for official status. Kuyper, on the other hand, believed that there was objective truth, and while human knowledge is always imperfect, he believed that the Calvinist worldview offered a much better understanding of the nature of reality than others. Of course, he understood that rationalists, Catholics, and those of the Jewish or Islamic faith felt the same way about their own worldview. There simply was no autonomous temporal power qualified to determine which worldview was, in fact, the closest to reality.11 Not wanting to leave the matter of religion in schools to the vicissitudes of a political maneuvering, he argued that the only equitable solution was for the state to support schools operating from a variety of worldviews.

TAKING EDUCATION OUT OF POLITICS

On December 7, 1874, Kuyper gave his first speech in Parliament, in which he argued that “It should have been possible to provide our nation, too, with a school system that was not subject to partisan politics. Education in my opinion is not first of all a political issue but a social issue.”12 No political party (that represented people of similar worldviews) should have the power to decide the manner in which all the nation’s children would be educated. Kuyper developed a social theory called “sphere sovereignty,” in which he argued that each sphere of society had its own roots in the nature of humankind, and as such could only develop freely when it was free from intrusive control from another sphere.13 While the spheres of the home, arts, state, schools, business, church, and science were certainly interdependent, they also needed to develop from their own root and according to their own insights and authority in order for society to flourish to its maximum capacity. Thus, says Kuyper,

In a Calvinistic sense we understand hereby, that the family, the business, science, art and so forth are all social spheres which do not owe their existence to the state and which do not derive the law of their life from the state, but obey a high authority within their own bosom; an authority which rules, by the grace of God, just as the sovereignty of the state does.… These different developments of social life have nothing above themselves but God, and the State cannot intrude here and has nothing to command in their domain. As you feel at once, this is the deeply interesting question of our civil liberties.14

While the state, of course, had the important role of protecting individuals from abuses within each sphere, it must never take on itself the task of deciding which core beliefs would pervade the school, nor ever dictate the content, style, and pedagogy of schools. Those were matters best left to those whose life and calling were entwined in the life of schools:

Education is a distinct public interest. Education touches on one of the most complicated and intricate questions, one that involves every issue, including the deepest issues that invite humanity’s search for knowledge—issues of anthropology and psychology, religion and sociology, pedagogy and morality, in short, issues that encroach upon every branch of social life. Now it seems to me that such an element of cultural life has the right in every respect to an absolutely independent organization; always in the sense that education should function in the spirit of what the British call a body corporate.15

There must be laws which granted all worldviews the right to develop their own parent-governed schools, with minimum state standards, to be sure, but independent of politics. The way in which schools operate, and especially the beliefs which informed their perspectives and curriculum, should not depend on which party had the most power at any one time. Under the current constitution, he argued, one party or perspective “can devote the entire, immense power of the state’s authority in order to indoctrinate the nation with its principles by means of the school. That is not fair.”16 People with minority worldviews must be assured that “such an unbearable tyranny will never happen.” Therefore, “the power of the majority with the bonds of justice.”17

In arguing that the school no longer be controlled by the state, he was well aware that in the past, it had been the Dutch Reformed Church which had intruded on the school and made it into a force for teaching true religion to the nation’s children. He believed that the Netherlands was now at a historical point in which the guardianship of church and state was no longer needed and had, in fact, become harmful to the wholesome development of schooling and of young people:

The nurturing of children is born by three factors: first by domestic nurture, secondly by ecclesiastical teaching, and thirdly, by the influence of society. The first factor belongs to the family, the second to the domain of the church, and only the last stands in the soil of society.… That the school is a phenomenon in the life of society was not understood in earlier times.… Only when the normal elementary school grows from her own root can she flourish in freedom and become what she must be.18

THE UNITY OF THE CHILD

Kuyper argued that the child is an organic unity whose healthy development requires that the nurture he receives in home, school, and church spring from the same core beliefs. Only in this way could the child develop strength of character. Later in life, of course, children were free to change their religious views, and the strength of character they had developed in the service of one religion could be used to serve in another. Kuyper himself had been converted from a very general form of Protestantism to Calvinism as a minister in his first parish.19 But to teach and nurture children with conflicting norms, beliefs, and authority was to foster a debilitating skepticism and eventual malaise which undermined the development of conviction, character, and responsibility:

Life itself requires that both the personal formation and the academic learning happen at the same time. Both are so interconnected; and thus not only the family, but also the school is called to help complete the general formation of the child as a unity. The child is not divided into compartments; an intellectual compartment, a moral compartment, a religious compartment, a compartment of character, and a compartment for practical skills. The child is one, and must be formed in this unity. Otherwise the left will tear down what the right has built up and there develops in the child the hopeless and unnerving confusion which prevents the development of all firmness of character.

From this comes the requirement that there be agreement between the nurture in the school and the nurture in the home, and that they fit together. The school must not only build on the foundations that have been laid in the home, but also stay connected with the nurture that continues to happen in the home.20

Kuyper argued that an educational system which either ignored religion or imposed a particular religion on children contrary to their experience at home violated not only the conscience of the parents, but also a fundamental pedagogical norm. In Kuyper’s view, the public school

has attempted to establish next to, and eventually in opposition to the domestic nurturing of the baptized child, another nurture and in this she sinned against the pedagogical principle that all nurture will go wrong if it lacks a unity of root principle, and in such a way fails to clarify and enlighten the consciousness of the child, but confuses and troubles it.21

Kuyper was so convinced of this norm that he could speak of the rights of a child being violated when he was denied a unified upbringing:

It is not only the right of the parents, but also the right of the child that is injured here. The child was helpless. It could not defend itself. His nurture and education was controlled by a power that he could not withstand.… The child has a moral right to be raised in a consistent manner, in one direction, according to firm principles, because otherwise it will not be strengthened but weakened, not enlightened but brought into confusion, and morally undermined.22

SOUND PEDAGOGY

Kuyper knew that childhood is a time in which children learn how to learn. He believed that early childhood is the best time for natural habits of inquiry, questioning, exploration, evaluation, and synthesis. The doctrine of common grace was essential to Kuyper’s thought and political action, and a full development of it is far beyond the scope of this chapter. Suffice it to say that he believed that God granted his common grace to all humankind so that sin was leashed in and development of human life continued. Although he believed that God granted his special grace (salvation from sin) only to Christians, he took seriously the sayings of Jesus that God causes his sun to rise on the righteous as well as the unrighteous (Matt 5:45). By this he in no way believed that only Christians were moral and good people. Quite the contrary, he knew that sometimes it was those who lacked the Christian faith who far exceeded Christians as outstanding examples of courage and love. This he explained as God’s common grace.

Kuyper also taught that each sphere of society needed to learn the ways in which God’s common grace maintained and developed life within that sphere. In the realm of learning and education, he believed that God had granted humankind a natural curiosity about life and the ability to observe, question, experience, and discover new aspects of the way this world operates. While the knowledge which bore fruit within a secular (or other) worldview often needed to be reinterpreted in order to more accurately reflect the nature of God’s world, it was still valuable knowledge and essential to the development of humankind. He believed that schools should foster a child’s natural curiosity and instincts to explore, consider, and learn. He fervently opposed the method currently used in many state schools of imposing abstractions which had little if any connection to the child’s realm of experience.

The connection between his pedagogical views and his pluralist educational views was as follows. Kuyper believed that children experience core beliefs and natural curiosity in a unified remove and inseparable way. To identify these types of learning as separate was possible for adults but not for children. Therefore, in order for children to develop their common-grace instincts of learning, they needed to be in schools which fostered and extended the core beliefs which they experienced at home. While separate religious schools certainly did not guarantee a pedagogy which fostered curiosity, a “neutral” school which wanted to appeal to a child’s primary experience (as in the thought of John Dewey) was hindered by the fact that each child was immersed in a different kind of primary experience (which reflected the faith the child experienced at home). Kuyper believed that primary experience was intertwined with and embedded in the root of communal core belief: “Learning is our glory, provided it is not detached from the instinctive foundation of our existence, thus to degenerate into abstraction.”23

Likewise it was the attempted divorce of core beliefs from a child’s innate inclinations which was artificial. One simply could not respect and foster a child’s innate and natural inclinations to learn outside a shared and communal worldview. Because many of the state schools were designed to teach that reason was autonomous and independent of religion to children whose basic experience was decidedly religious, they tended to resort to abstractions which suppressed a child’s appeal to his own experience. In this way, the state schools were a corrosive force which worked not only against the child’s unified development but against all reliance on experience as in any way revelatory.

Identifying this perspective historically, Kuyper writes,

But the French Revolution … ignores the importance of the human heart and bypasses it. It neglects moral liberty and concentrates only on the head, for the civilized people, and for the uneducated people, the violence of the hand. Their spiritual fathers are not moral characters but philosophers. They have attempted to establish their power in sinful intellectualism through education and academic knowledge, not in the moral ideal.24

And on the pervasiveness of this perspective in modern society, he observes,

Proponents of government schools are often called intellectualists. With what right is obvious. There is a general complaint that throughout our school system … familiarity with factoids has replaced genuine knowledge and mature wisdom for life.… Almost every teacher complains, and every informed observer admits, that superficial polymaths are steadily increasing among the boys, but among the men “in robes and togas” spinelessness and dullness are rampant.25

Kuyper called the state schools the “sectarian schools of the Modernists”26 and claimed that the advancement of the so-called neutral schools coincided with the increase in rampant intellectual corruption in the schools. They often hired teachers whose primary recommendation was their mastery of revolutionary ideology. Many teachers were ill-equipped to really connect with children’s hearts and so proceeded to fill their students’ heads with abstractions. They ended up teaching a little bit about everything instead of dealing with anything in great depth. Thus his referral to young “polymaths” filled with pseudo-knowledge and lacking humility:

The result has been that the teachers without pedagogical talent have created a void in the schools that is now simply being filled by mechanical drill and rote learning. Talented teachers, on the other hand, have tended to concentrate on those subjects that are less restricted by the straitjacket of neutrality. Superintendents, inspectors, members of parliament, and ministers keep raising their demands for expanding the school curriculum. In this way, along a threefold path, as the bitter fruit of a false principle, a cancer has insinuated itself into our educational system that we have branded with the not too strong label of intellectualism.27

PARENTAL RIGHTS

During the early and middle part of the nineteenth century, the view that children belonged first and foremost to the state was spreading among many school leaders at both the national and municipal level. Children were considered to be individuals who stood in direct relation to the state without the mediation of the family. Of course, the family took care of children’s physical care, but the mind of the child must be formed by the state. It can be quite difficult to imagine the power of this doctrine and the fierce opposition it encountered among poor and religious families. Many parents felt an instinctive horror at the prospect of sending their children to a school where a powerful state would teach them how to think and believe. It is no wonder that some parents kept their children at home rather than submit to what they believed to be indoctrination.

By way of contrast, Kuyper and the Antirevolutionary Party believed that children belong first and foremost to their parents, whose duty and right it is to nurture and educate them in accordance with their own deepest beliefs. While the state has an interest in the education of its citizenry, it does not have the responsibility to manage or direct that education:

The father is the only lawful person, called by nature and called to this task, to determine the choice of school for his child. To this we must hold fast. This is the prime truth in the whole schools issue. If there is any axiom in the area of education, this is it.28

… The parental rights must be seen as a sovereign right in this sense, that it is not delegated by any other authority, that it is inherent in fatherhood and motherhood, and that it is given directly from God to the father and mother.29

Kuyper also argued that the healthy upbringing of a child reckoned with what was already within the child, which could be more clearly discerned by parents than by anyone else. The spirit of the parents was, he argued, usually also the spirit of the child. By this he meant that the “direction” of a child’s heart (his own core beliefs, whether understood yet or not) was usually in harmony with that of his parents. There was an intergenerational harmony which was important to acknowledge and respect for the best kind of learning to occur. A secular school was simply incapable of educating baptized children in harmony with the root of their being:

The moral and religious nurture of the child can only succeed when we begin by seeking out the inclinations and tendencies within the child and bring those to consciousness. And this we can only measure according to what is in us. Just as a mother nurses her infant at her breast, so also with this nurture, our own consciousness must teach us what consciousness is in our child.… It must be our own awareness and life that we give as food to our children. This concerns the principled continuity of the generations. That which you find strange, you cannot give to your child.… The provision of this need can only be given when the treasure of moral and religious life that is in the heart of the father, is transferred to the heart of the child.30

Last, Kuyper argued for parental rights in education because he understood the state insistence on controlling the direction of the schools to be an unjustifiable use of state force in an effort to shore up its positions of power. That was the heart of the entrenched resistance to freedom of education, he insisted. If parents were allowed to establish their own schools and enabled to send their children to them, then liberals stood to lose control, not only of schooling, but also in Parliament, in the universities, in the media, and even in the churches. Four years before the culmination of the school struggle with passage of the constitutional amendment, Kuyper continued to communicate what he understood the heart of the struggle had been. The radicalized liberals, he says,

were not content to raise their own children as full-blooded liberals, so long as the children of their neighbor (who exceeded the number of their own children by ten percent) were raised in an opposite manner. And therefore, their state-school had to reach over the entire land, and they required that their school have far more power. Only [… by means of] the liberal state-school in which they set the tone and inspired all the people with that tone, was their position in our land safe.… How must the child be nurtured? The answer to that question determines the lot of all of our people in the future. Now we say that you must ask God that question and that he says in his Word that the parents are the first ones responsible for the children.… But the new-modern culture workers don’t want to hear anything of this parental right. They are directed by a heathen wisdom as with Plato. The child is the responsibility of the state, he believes, and not of the parents. You must entrust the nurture of your child to the teachers that they choose.… They are as afraid of true freedom as they are of death.… Therefore, as the old saying goes: “Stay away from our children!”31

Interestingly, Kuyper also claimed that the parental rights were also limited by the nature of schooling. On November 30, 1896, Kuyper wrote an interesting article in which he emphasized that the antirevolutionary motto “The school belongs to the parents,” should not be understood as granting parents the right to sovereignty within the school. The school was an independent sphere in which educators exercised their calling under God and in submission to the worldview mandated by the board. Parents had the fundamental right to establish schools according to their worldview and to freely choose among these schools, but in most cases it was not their calling to determine the specifics of curriculum. The curriculum needed to be designed by those who had spent years developing discernment for how best to teach from the life of their shared, communal core beliefs. There were issues of pedagogy which were crucial to a quality education, as I have mentioned above. In most cases, those people were the teachers, not the parents. Thus, although he believed schools should be set up by parents according to the rules for nonprofit foundations, he did not consider the schools to be subject to parents in all matters. Educators were accountable to parents for the worldview they taught but not for the way in which they did that. The school was a separate sphere that was directly accountable to God. He expressed his disappointment that in some free schools parents considered the teachers to be appointed underlings and refused to grant them the respect and authority that befit their calling.32

CHURCH RIGHTS

Humanly speaking, the continuance of the church of Christ universal (the communion of all those in every country and in every time who have placed their trust in Christ alone) requires that each new generation imbibe the spiritual, moral, and intellectual lifeblood of Christianity. It was each church’s right, therefore, to require all parents to raise their children as Christians in thought, word, and deed. In Catholic and Calvinist churches, this responsibility is expressed in the sacrament of infant baptism. Calvinist doctrine taught that the baptism of infants was the public recognition that this child of the covenant was set apart to glorify God as a member of his church. Before an infant was baptized in the Reformed churches, parents were visited by the minister or elder in order to ascertain whether they were serious about raising their children in the faith. In the baptism ceremony the parents made a binding vow to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, a vow considered as holy as the marriage vow. Kuyper argued that the fulfillment of those vows necessitated that parents provide their children with a distinctly Christian education.

Because the children have received the holy baptism, the church has the duty to make sure that the educational requirements for baptism be fulfilled and to make sure that the child’s education is not one-sided by teaching only in common grace, but also does justice to the ties of the child to particular grace.33

Baptism and school belong together for by far the larger portion of our people, and you have heard what an anti-Christian and anti-national stamp countless of unbelieving and socialist teachers try to press upon the heart of the child. That may, that must not so remain.34

In this respect Kuyper also argued that the church had a valid right to correct and discipline parents who neglected their duty to raise their children in a Christian worldview. He was also quick to acknowledge that such authority was limited to the parents’ continued submission to the church themselves:

The church obligates the father by means of very positive, clearly defined promises, made in the presence of witnesses, that he will raise the child, to her satisfaction, in her doctrine, thus in her whole approach to life and the world. We must certainly concede, to ease the conscience, that such promises are binding only for as long as the father remains a member of that church.35

PREPARATION FOR FUTURE SERVICE TO SOCIETY

Kuyper believed that schools which recognized and articulated their core beliefs would better prepare young people for the task of influencing society for the common good. He argued that all Christians were called to be salt and light (Matt 5:13–16) in society, people who influenced the nation toward high standards of morality, the preservation of their constitutional liberties, the development of enterprise, the arts, and scholarship, as well as influencing their neighbors through their love. He was grieved that there were so few Christian schools, but he was equally grieved when Christian schools neglected the wisdom of common grace and focused exclusively on religious training, leaving their students ill-equipped for influential participation in society.

Voters, do not forget, that this great evil still survives, that the masses, especially in the large cities, still attend a school without God or prayer, while it is precisely in the large cities where the strongest influence goes out over all the land, and in which, through the press, the power of money and concentration of intellect, the fate of our land is decided.36

If only these Christians had clearly seen that the treasures of common grace come also from God, they would never have fallen into the false idea that they could ignore the formation in common grace in order to focus exclusively on formation in special grace. Precisely in this way (that they lost sight of the value of common grace), they themselves are to blame for falling so far behind the general development of unbelievers and, even worse, that the leadership in this general development was taken away from them and is now very one-sidedly dominated by unbelievers.37

Kuyper lamented that in response to the disrespect and mockery Christians had faced from those who resisted educational liberty, many Christians had receded into their own circles and neglected to pray or think in terms of common grace or the common good. He called on Christians to have thicker skins and to design schools which prepared children to be servants of God in every facet of society and at every level of society, schools in which

our children, from their youth up, learn to reverence God’s wonderful common grace at work in the gradual development of the various levels of society, and feel themselves called to participate in this wonderful work of God each in their own way. Then thanksgiving, rather than pride, comes into the heart, a sense of calling instead of self-exaltation, and the development of the nation can proceed well. Then that which is “Christian” will no longer be considered in opposition to “development” but the Christian circles will also realize that participating in the higher development of the nation is a calling from God, because only when that development has its root in the Christian religion can it lead to true civilization. Not only, “How do I help my children through the world?” but also the other question: “How can I help the world through my child?” shall then give direction and guidance to education.38

At the same time, he called on teachers to foster humble attitudes among their students, not only in their personal lives, but also in their attitudes toward those of other faiths. They needed to understand that by God’s common grace, those in other faith communities had much to teach Christians. While young people needed to learn to embrace their own experience and perspective and learn to communicate it to others, they also needed to learn to respect and listen to those with other worldviews. Not only because humility was a quality which Christ modeled and commanded, but also people of other religions often have knowledge and insight which Christians lack, and which Christians need in order to grow as people and as disciples of Christ. Kuyper insisted that children not be allowed to be haughty and content to live in isolation from others. They must be spurred not only to communicate across faith traditions, but also to listen. In this way, differences in political or social views across religions would be less easily attributed to moral failings than to different starting points. This, too, was crucial to a well-functioning democracy.

FREE INITIATIVE AND CIVIL SOCIETY

Kuyper believed that a system of free schools would strengthen civil society and foster national development in a number of ways. First, it provided a training ground for parents in the exercise of free initiative and independence, thereby restoring habits and dispositions that had decreased over the past century. Because this was an area of life very dear to parents, it was an ideal first step toward regaining the sense of liberty and resilience that was so essential to a strong civil society.

It is always and again the family that resists the uniformity [of modern society] with the rich blessing of an endlessly and richly nuanced life. We are not a line of poplars planted in a row, but form a luxurious park with endless variation and it is precisely the calling of the family and, within the family, of the bond between parents and children, to bring this rich differentiation to its right.39

Such differentiation and respect for the home was not only valuable in its own right, Kuyper argued, but was also essential to the ongoing development of the nation.

The struggle for Christian education against the uniform elementary schools was also a struggle for the preservation of our national development. Without continual nurture, our national life will collapse, and it is not the neutral school, but only the school of a particular direction that can nurture in harmony with the nurture that occurs in the home.40

Second, he believed that by appealing to children’s subjective experience, the curriculum and the pedagogy of free schools were more likely to foster character and resilience among young people. The artificial abstraction that was prominent in the state schools was destructive of a child’s ability to think and act freely on the grounds of experience. Thus, so-called neutral schools, which sought to please all by separating instruction from a child’s particular religious experience, had hindered thousands of children from developing the mindset, initiative, and skills needed to sustain a strong civil society. A system of free schools, he claimed, was urgently needed in order to restrain the degeneration of civil society in the Netherlands:

For many people, their upbringing has been a curse rather than a blessing. We can go even further and say that if the upbringing is not bad, but nevertheless leads down the wrong path, it can cause an entire nation to sink and degenerate. This danger has also existed in our country, and it is only due to the vigor of the free school that this evil has partially been arrested and can be resisted with hope and good results in the future.41

Kuyper also argued that a system of free schools strengthened civil society by relying heavily on private charity as well as parental sacrifice, thereby fostering the dispositions and habits of love and self-government rather than those of passivity and compulsion.42 An exploration of Kuyper’s views on exactly how government funding and regulation of free schools should be implemented is, unfortunately, outside the scope of this chapter. Suffice it to say that for forty years he stridently opposed a system in which the government would grant complete subsidy to all schools; he was convinced that such a system would gradually erode both the free initiative of parents and the distinctive identity of religious schools. Two principles, he argued, guided this issue, that of equality and that of liberty; and the best way to accommodate both principles was to limit state funding to a certain portion of all costs. Taxes should be decreased so that parents would be able to take initiative in how their children were educated.