Our Program E-Book

Abraham Kuyper

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

Seitenzahl: 826

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

What are the political and social implications of the gospel?In Our Program, Abraham Kuyper presents a Christian alternative to the secular politics of his day. At that time, the church and state were closely tied, with one usually controlling the other. But Kuyper's political framework showed how the church and state could engage with each other while remaining separate. His insights, though specific to his time and place, remain highly relevant to Christians involved in the political sphere today.This new translation of Our Program, created in partnership with the Kuyper Translation Society and the Acton Institute, is part of a major series of new translations of Kuyper's most important writings. The Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology marks a historic moment in Kuyper studies, aimed at deepening and enriching the church's development of public theology.

Leseprobe

OUR PROGRAM

A CHRISTIAN POLITICAL MANIFESTO

ABRAHAM

KUYPER

Translated and edited by Harry Van Dyke

ACTON INSTITUTE

FOR THE STUDY OF RELIGION AND LIBERTY

Our Program: A Christian Political Manifesto

Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology

Copyright 2015 Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & 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].

Originally published as Ons Program. Tweede druk (2nd ed.) © Amsterdam: J. H. Kruyt, 1880. First published unabridged in 1879.

This translation previously published in 2013 as Guidance for Christian Engagement in Government by Christian’s Library Press, an imprint of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty, 98 E. Fulton Street Grand Rapids, MI, 49503.

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.

ISBN 978-1-57-799655-2

Translator and Editor: Harry Van Dyke

Acton Editorial: Nienke Wolters, Paul J. Brinkerhoff, Timothy J. Beals, and Stephen J. Grabill

Lexham Editorial: Brannon Ellis, Lynnea Fraser, Scott Hausman, Justin Marr, Jesse Meyers, Abigail Stocker, Joel Wilcox

Cover Design: Christine Gerhart

ABRAHAM

KUYPER

Collected Works in Public Theology

GENERAL EDITORS

JORDAN J. BALLOR

MELVIN FLIKKEMA

ABRAHAMKUYPER.COM

CONTENTS

General Editors’ Introduction

Translator and Editor’s Introduction

Chapter One: Our Movement

Chapter Two: Authority

Chapter Three: The Ordinances of God

Chapter Four: Government

Chapter Five: No Secular State

Chapter Six: “By the Grace of God”

Chapter Seven: Forms of Government

Chapter Eight: Our Constitution

Chapter Nine: Popular Influence

Chapter Ten: Budget Refusal

Chapter Eleven: Decentralization

Chapter Twelve: Our States and Councils

Chapter Thirteen: Education

Chapter Fourteen: The Justice System

Chapter Fifteen: Public Decency

Chapter Sixteen: Public Hygiene

Chapter Seventeen: Finance

Chapter Eighteen: National Defense

Chapter Nineteen: Overseas Possessions

Chapter Twenty: The Social Question

Chapter Twenty-One: Church and State

Chapter Twenty-Two: Party Policy

Conclusion

Appendix: Detailed Table of Contents

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 Abraham Kuyper 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 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 Dr. Rimmer and Ruth DeVries and the J. C. Huizenga family, 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

TRANSLATOR AND EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

The text that follows is a translation of the book “Ons Program”, written by Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) and first published in 1879. In it Kuyper offered a running commentary on the draft program adopted and published on January 1, 1878, by a provisional central committee located in Amsterdam. This committee offered advice during election time and served as a national clearinghouse both for locals of the Anti-School Law League and for antirevolutionary voters’ clubs active in their respective electoral districts throughout the Netherlands. The draft program was originally prepared by Kuyper himself and only slightly amended after consulting law professors De Geer van Jutphaas of Utrecht and Gratema of Groningen as well as Alexander de Savornin Lohman, a prominent attorney in ’s-Hertogenbosch.1

Kuyper’s draft also gained the public endorsement of prominent pastors of the Secession Church and was praised in the weekly De Bazuin of that denomination’s Theological School in Kampen.

PURPOSE

The Program was intended to serve as a common basis for participating in general elections. In April 1878 Dr. Kuyper began to publish a commentary in installments in his daily De Standaard, the newspaper he founded in 1872. In March of the following year it appeared in book form under the title “Ons Program” (“Our Program”), now divided over twenty-two chapters in 328 numbered sections.2

Its author stated in the preface that the commentary had a twofold purpose: to serve antirevolutionaries as a guide for promotional activities and to prepare them for the formal establishment of an Anti-Revolutionary Party.

Kuyper’s wider aim with the publication was “to show likeminded citizens that our political creed is sound, consistent, and wholesome,” and in addition, “to make it easier for those of other minds to understand our aspirations and intentions.”

THAT CURIOUS NAME

One of the principal ideas to be developed in the commentary immediately explains the curious name of this political movement: to be antirevolutionary was to be uncompromisingly opposed to “modernity”—that is, to the ideology embodied in the French Revolution and the public philosophy we have since come to know as secular humanism. Kuyper reminded his readers that on almost every important question in society and politics the antirevolutionary movement stood opposed to both liberals and conservatives. Both camps, he explained, based themselves—consciously or unconsciously, enthusiastically or half-heartedly—on the fundamental worldview that was spawned by “the Revolution.” Thus, in this commentary the term “the Revolution” stands for the enduring values and assumptions that had inspired the French Revolution, to be sharply distinguished from the passing upheavals in France of 1789, 1830, and 1848.

No further identification of “the Revolution” was needed. Readers knew that Kuyper was referring to the Revolution of the previous century, that is, to the intellectual and spiritual transformation which during the Age of Reason had ushered in a whole new way of seeing the world and shaping life and society throughout Western Europe.

Antirevolutionaries stood for a broad alternative to the secular, rationalist worldview, the set of beliefs that had issued in humanity’s proud declaration of independence during the Enlightenment. This secular worldview, with all its political and moral implications, had been put into practice in the great Revolution of 1789, and a century later seemed to be a permanent feature of public life, adapted to the times but basically unchallenged. To those beliefs, to that worldview and that practice, the journalists and the readers of De Standaard could only be opposed root and branch.

THE PREFACE

Kuyper’s five-page preface that appeared in the published book is mainly of interest today because of the disclaimers it contains. First, the author wrote (and I paraphrase in the first person): My commentary is scarcely exhaustive. At this point in time, no one should expect an erudite and scholarly treatise on the political philosophy underlying the antirevolutionary movement. Even if that were available, the nature of the present work is intended first of all to be popular and practical, and thus it avoids concepts and definitions from political and legal philosophy.

Furthermore, (Kuyper explained), I could not hope to strive after completeness: too many details lack consensus among us and beg for more study in the future. Like every political movement, the antirevolutionary “party” has always had its right and left wing: one tendency sides more with a strong state, and the other relies more on a free society.

The right wing at this time on the Continent was conservative and favored a more interventionist state, whereas the left wing was more progressive and championed individual freedom and private initiative. Kuyper wanted to be reckoned among the left, but he assured readers that he welcomed principled and constructive criticism from the right.

Finally, the preface cautioned that this work ought not to be regarded as a definitive statement, as though it were the “only orthodox” interpretation of the Program. The author would not want to be accused of such foolish and laughable arrogance. Take this commentary, he wrote, as my own personal contribution to staking out our place in politics. I alone am responsible for it, so feel free to agree or disagree with it.

That said, Kuyper was careful to mention that the late Groen van Prinsterer (d. 1876) expressed his overall agreement “in outline and substance” with a sketch of the same ideas that are here given much more extensive treatment. Kuyper did not identify the “sketch” further, but one can be quite certain that he was referring to a rather lengthy memorandum, dated February 4, 1874, which he submitted to Groen for approval and which summarized his intended line of conduct and legislative goals should he be elected to the lower house (a distinct possibility at the time). For Kuyper to be able to boast of having the stamp of approval imprinted on his ideas by the revered pioneer of the antirevolutionary movement would certainly help him recruit endorsers and fend off detractors.

THE INTRODUCTION

Following the preface and before offering his commentary on each of the twenty-one articles in the Program (originally listed first altogether and then piecemeal as chapter epigraphs), Kuyper wrote a helpful six-page introduction, covering §§ 1–4. Here he explained the difference between various forms of what might pass for programs of a political party.

There are first of all “campaign manifestos,” which are retired once the elections have been held. Then there are more formal “government platforms,” which the party, if it wins the elections, will incorporate in the Speech from the Throne. An intermediate form is a “program of action.” A fourth form is the kind of program that the present work is a commentary on, a “program of principles,” one that aims to nurture and develop political awareness and involvement on the basis of deeply held beliefs about the nature of the world, the character of human society, and the task of government. Articulating such foundational principles as the basis for organizing a political party made it necessary to identify the root cause of one’s discontent and to offer an honest appraisal of the historical past from which one now had to move forward. In addition, Kuyper explained, such a program should begin to develop “secondary” principles that logically derive from the foundational ones.

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK

Beginning then with § 5 and continuing through to § 84, Kuyper’s commentary on the opening seven articles of the Program laid the groundwork for the thoroughgoing alternative that state and society clearly needed. As he set out to explain what an antirevolutionary party should affirm as its political philosophy, Kuyper began by assuming that his country was a Christian nation. At the same time he was careful to put “Christian” in quotation marks. The modifier “Christian,” besides denoting people’s subjective faith and membership in a church, can also be used as a political concept, meaning that Christian traditions and Christian values can be ingrained in the life of a nation apart from any church connection. He made a clear separation between church and state, in effect endorsing the slogan gaining ground in Europe at the time: “a free church in a free state,” with the proviso that the two should engage in correspondence with one another on a regular basis. Thus he rejected both the secular state and the theocratic state.

While he managed to include many of the usual issues when Christians engage in politics and aspire to the seats of power, he did so on the grounds of natural theology, referring to the Epistle to the Romans about the works of the law that are engraved in the hearts even of the Gentiles. (Over time, Kuyperians would begin to speak of general revelation that impinges on all mankind and is heeded in greater or lesser degrees thanks to common grace.) Every government, asserted Kuyper, of whatever kind or conviction, will heed the truths manifest in reality itself if it knows what is good for it and good for its subjects. Thus he argued, for example, that Sunday observance is not just beneficial for Christians but for the whole nation. Similarly, maintaining law and order, upholding capital punishment, administering the oath, curtailing prostitution, and the like, are all policies that recommend themselves to the state and its citizens upon thoughtful reflection and commonsense realism.

After elucidating the first seven articles in eight chapters (article 4 received two chapters), the rest of the commentary discussed the remaining fourteen articles of the Program.3 In bold strokes, alternated by detailed proposals based on precise calculations, Kuyper sketched the implications of the fundamental starting points. With patience and deliberation, in piecemeal steps, he developed, each time from first principles, what the “antirevolutionary principle” demanded for the country’s constitutional arrangement and the various government departments.

The work “Our Program” illustrates how Kuyper became the emancipator of the then still disenfranchised middle and lower classes in his country by first of all becoming their teacher and educator. He set forth what his people ought to believe and understand on the basis of Scripture, sound reason, and common sense. He reminded them that they are Dutch Calvinists, offspring and heirs of the freedom fighters against Spanish tyranny in the sixteenth century. But he concluded, wisely and perhaps not redundantly, that in their day and age they should not strive for a “Calvinist utopia” but rather for a pluralist state, one in which all groups enjoy a level playing field as they try to enlist support for their vision of a just society.

THE DUTCH PARLIAMENT

For a better understanding of some of the sections, notably §§ 93–109 and 319–324, the reader may welcome a brief note about the main features of the parliamentary system in which the Anti-Revolutionary Party hoped to be involved.

Only partly modeled on the Westminster system of the United Kingdom, the Dutch system had a distinctly dualistic character. The parliament of the Netherlands, composed of a legislature of an upper and a lower house of elected representative and called the “States General,” was and still is strictly separated from the government, which consists of the Council of Ministers or cabinet.

Cabinet ministers may be chosen from among the elected members of parliament or from nonmembers (extra-parliamentarians) considered especially suited for certain government departments or ministries. If a party (or an informal group of like-minded parliamentarians, as in the days when Kuyper’s Program was published) wins a majority or plurality of seats and forms the government, it contributes members to the cabinet who then give up their seats to sit behind the government table. The number of seats thus vacated is replenished through by-elections, or, since 1920, by other members on a party’s national slate of candidates. The government does not vote on the bills and budgets that it tables in parliament. If the lower house votes down a bill, the act may signal a growing lack of confidence in the sitting government. If the lower house votes down the annual budget, the government has lost the confidence of the house and “falls,” whereupon the Crown issues a writ for new elections to be held.

In theory, the government rules for the benefit of the whole nation, not in the interest of a party. Should a party ride roughshod over the rights and religious beliefs of the minority—as antirevolutionaries claimed the liberals were time and again guilty of, notably with regard to the question of primary education—then spokesmen like Kuyper did not hesitate to speak of “partisan government” and “party tyranny.” The hopeful ray in this somber scene during the last quarter of the nineteenth century was that the silenced majority in the country, including the antirevolutionaries, belonged to the lower middle class and the working class. They by and large still attended church, Reformed or Roman Catholic, and were shut out from the political process due to the limited franchise based on the census, or amount of taxes paid annually. Thus, any enlargement of the voter base by expanding the franchise would only work in favor of these classes and strengthen informed participation by Christians in the political process.

As is to be expected after a century and a half, quite a few, if not many, of Kuyper’s notions, suggestions, and concrete proposals would be unworkable today. The value of his musings, dreams, and reasoned alternatives lies in the backdrop against which he approached the whole area of practical politics—his biblical common sense, fair-mindedness, indignation at patent injustices, zeal for genuine liberty, and freshness of ideas.

EDITING METHOD

My translation follows the second edition of 1880. The first edition of 1879 was almost three times as large because each chapter was followed by an extensive appendix containing articles from various sources in which the author had earlier enlarged further on the topic at hand. These were removed in the following year from what the publisher styled a “second printing” that was intended to put a cheaper “popular edition” on the market. It is this work that is here presented in translation. The items deleted from the first edition were of local, contemporary interest, but are now dated and too detailed to be of much use today. Other printings of “Ons Program” followed in 1892, 1898, and 1907, bringing the total number of copies printed at 5,350. All printings are virtually identical; I have noted the few variants in the footnotes. Brief editorial notes have been added throughout in order to identify persons, schools of thought, or events mentioned in the original that might be unfamiliar to contemporary readers. Although few in number, Kuyper’s original footnotes have been retained, brought up to contemporary bibliographic standards, and clearly marked as Note by the author.

Other stylistic alterations have been made for ease of reading and for the sake of appearance. Italics are used less frequently in the translation than appear in the original. The original text, being newspaper articles, is replete with separate paragraphs; without eliminating all of them, I have sometimes fused shorter or even one-sentence paragraphs to keep related thoughts together, but I have retained most paragraph divisions to reflect their original provenance.

Now and then I have omitted an adverbial or adjectival phrase in order to keep a sentence from being overloaded; in all cases, however, the context ensures that nothing is lost of Kuyper’s argument and very little of his colorful prose. Use of square brackets to enclose material added to clarify the translation of the original has been kept to a minimum.

As for word choice, I have tried to reflect the semipopular journalism that Kuyper practices here. One of his key terms, “levens en wereldbeschouwing,” I have rendered by the single word worldview.

Dutch currency references are prefixed with a florin (ƒ) to indicate the basic monetary unit of the Netherlands (replaced by the euro in 2002) or include the word “guilder(s),” which is the English translation of the Dutch gulden, from Old Dutch for “golden.” British currency in pound sterling (£) also appears in a few places. Distance, area, and weight are usually given in U.S. customary units and metric equivalents.

References to titles, offices, and names of organizations such as governmental bodies or political organizations and movements were sometimes capitalized and other times lowercased in the original, though not consistently. Thus for consistency a principled “down” style was applied so that many of these terms are now lowercased in keeping with standard editorial conventions. All references to “liberals” and a “liberal party,” and similarly to “antirevolutionaries” and an “antirevolutionary party,” are spelled lowercase to indicate that they were not organized groups but schools of political thought and currents of opinion in the country, the antirevolutionary current being the one that Kuyper wanted to gather into a well-constructed organization. When he succeeded in establishing the Anti-Revolutionary Party shortly after publishing “Ons Program,” he had in effect become the founder of the very first modern political party in his country.

A special word of thanks is due to George, Hans, and Rimmer as well as to my patient editors Nienke Wolters, Paul Brinkerhoff, Tim Beals, and Stephen Grabill. My gratitude also goes to the Stichting Doctor Abraham Kuyperfonds for their generous financial support of this volume.

Harry Van Dyke

Spring 2013

CHAPTER ONE

OUR MOVEMENT1

The antirevolutionary or Christian-historical movement represents, insofar as it pertains to our country, the keynote of our national character as this received its stamp around 1572 under the leadership of Orange and the influence of the Reformation, and wishes to develop this in accordance with the altered circumstances of our nation in a form that satisfies the needs of our time.2

ARTICLE 1

I. OUR NAME

§ 5 ANTIREVOLUTIONARY3

Our movement has two names: either antirevolutionary or Christian-historical, depending on whether you focus on what we oppose or on what we wish to promote.

Our movement’s first name, given its origin, is “antirevolutionary.” It took its rise from opposing something offensive, something that clashed with what is just and sacred.

We are therefore at heart a militant party, unhappy with the status quo and ready to critique it, fight it, and change it.

What we oppose is “the Revolution,” by which we mean the political and social system embodied in the French Revolution. Contrary to what is imputed to us, we do not oppose each and every popular uprising. We recognize that national leaders are sometimes called upon to put an end to destructive tyrannies, and so we honor, for example, the Dutch Revolt against Spain, the Glorious Revolution under William III, the American war of independence from Britain, and our overthrow of the Napoleonic regime in 1813.

Those events, after all, do not represent destruction but restoration, not the overthrow of a nation’s laws but their reaffirmation, and thus not a forsaking of God but a return to him.

What we combat, on principle and without compromise, is the attempt to totally change how a person thinks and how he lives, to change his head and his heart, his home and his country—to create a state of affairs the very opposite of what has always been believed, cherished, and confessed, and so to lead us to a complete emancipation from the sovereign claims of Almighty God.

The French Revolution was the first and most brazen attempt of this kind. Thus, like Edmund Burke, we do not hesitate to focus our attack on this monstrous Revolution. To forestall any misunderstanding, I ask only of my readers, be they adherents or opponents, to bear in mind that the enduring power of an idea is different from its fleeting expression in that one event.

As an idea, the Revolution turns everything topsy-turvy, such that what was at the bottom rises to the top and what was at the very top now moves to the bottom. In this way it severs the ties that bind us to God and his Word, in order to subject both to human criticism. Once you undermine the family by replacing it with self-chosen (often sinful) relationships, once you embrace a whole new set of ideas, rearrange your notions of morality, allow your heart to follow a new direction—once you do this the Encyclopedists will be followed by the Jacobins, the theory by the practice, because “the new humanity” requires a new world. What the philosophers, whose guilt is greater, did to your minds and hearts with pen and compass and scalpel (and would like even more boldly to do to your children) will be carried out by the heroes of the barricades with dagger, torch, and crowbar.

§ 6 CHRISTIAN-HISTORICAL

But it is not enough to know what you are against. To wage war with prospects of victory, our people needed to become aware of the sacred stronghold for the sake of which we entered the fray. To indicate that, we called ourselves Christian-historical. The ideology of the Revolution, after all, is anti-Christian in its starting point and therefore much worse than the worldview of paganism.

That is why the Christian banner had to be lifted high again. Not only did it announce an Evangelical program, but it also affirmed specifically that the battered condition in which the eighteenth century had handed Europe over to the age that followed, was not the fault of Christian principles having failed us but of our failure to live up to those principles.

We condemn outright the abuses that were customary in 1789, though there was exaggeration in the way revolutionaries depicted them. We fully agree that things could not go on that way. And even in the unholy and shameful upheaval that brought all the dregs of human passions to the surface, we revere God’s guiding hand in delivering Europe from those abuses.

But when revolutionaries now tell us: “Everything used to be Christian, so your religion was responsible for those abuses, and abandoning the Christian religion and switching to our humanist beliefs is the only permanent remedy”—then everything in us protests against such calumny. On the contrary, after comparing the historical record with the demands of the gospel, we contend that this godless tyranny, this level of infamy to which men had sunk, this whole situation so unworthy of humanity, would never have come about if the nations of Europe had not time and again put the candle of the gospel under a bushel.

We contend that to stray onto the slippery paths of the philosophy of humanity will not stop the flood of iniquity. Instead, that would make it wash over us even more frightfully and before long confront us with such calamities that the blood-red luster of 1789 and 1793 will pale by comparison.

We contend, after consulting our beliefs, examining our personal lives, and listening to the past, that there is no other cure to be found for Europe’s malady than under the auspices of the Man of Sorrows.

If “Christian” therefore stands opposite “humanity,” the addition “historical” indicates that our situation cannot be created by us at will. It is the product of a past that, independent of our will and apart from our input, is fashioned by him in whom we live and move and have our being.

Whoever respects the rights of history places himself under a law and acknowledges that his will is bound by the will of former generations and is tied to the interests of the generations to come. In short, with the hallmark of history on our labors, the crown that we took for ourselves is laid down again and, alongside our forefathers and surrounded by our present adherents, we go on our knees in order to give glory, not to the creature, who is nothing, but to him whose holy footsteps you hear rustling through the pages of history.

§ 7 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO

From this short exposition it is clear that “antirevolutionary” and “Christian-historical” are words of almost identical meaning. It betrays a lack of familiarity with the meaning of these terms when people give out that they are willing to be called “Christian-historical” but not “antirevolutionary.”

Granted, there is more durable content in a label that states positively what you are for, than in a term that merely indicates what you are against. Also, the terms Christian4 and historical sound more familiar and positive and speak more to your inner life than the cold foreign term antirevolutionary. In addition, the label “Christian-historical” would remain relevant even if the Revolution were vanquished and the term “antirevolutionary” had outlived itself.

The reason why we often prefer the name “antirevolutionary,” as one can readily see, is that it is more energetic and more compelling. When someone tells you, “I am an antirevolutionary” you know at once where you are at with him, whereas “Christian-historical” still leaves you wondering.

Let’s make no secret of it: it takes more courage to be an antirevolutionary.

Oh yes, our day and age will let you have your label “Christian-historical,” provided nothing further is specified about it. You can be Christian-historical without any consequences to speak of. With nothing but that title you will even be admitted to the circle of full-blooded radicals as a person open to change.

But when you declare yourself an antirevolutionary—that is, when you consciously and stoutly oppose the prevailing ideas and trends in legal thought; when you carry forward your Christian and historical convictions onto the political and social domains and consider it an honor to belong to that group in society that is targeted for oppression if not destruction—then your opposition provokes resistance and you are in for a political fight to the death.

II. THE KEYNOTE OF OUR NATIONAL CHARACTER

§ 8 THREE BASIC TYPES OF NATIONALITY

Three national types vie for dominance in the bosom of our nation: the Roman Catholic type, whose image and ideal lie in the Middle Ages; the Revolutionary type, whose ideal and type are found in the model states of the French or German doctrinaires;5 and in between these two the Puritan type, which is represented by our movement and whose flowering coincides with the glory days of the Dutch Republic.

Each of these three types have always displayed the same national character, but each time with a different keynote, depending on the principle animating it and the aims pursued by it.

The old Netherlandic people stayed the same; the nation was never uprooted. Yet in the sixteenth century and again toward the end of the eighteenth century, this people underwent a remarkable transformation and renewal in its character and qualities, a change that, depending on your sympathies, you will either praise as having rejuvenated and ennobled the nation or else denounce as having perverted and degenerated it.

The weakest type to develop was the Catholic one. During the years that Rome flourished, any political and cultural unity in the Low Countries burgeoned only briefly and proved incapable of inspiring a comprehensive national sense through a single national will.6

Of greater influence was the liberal keynote that was imposed upon our national character after the revolution of 1795, when national unity was consolidated as never before and the systematic breakup of our liberties and privileges began in earnest, following foreign examples. It had greater influence in part because already during the Dutch Republic a powerful group had wanted to enter upon a course that could now be taken unhindered under French auspices. The influence was greater above all since Roman Catholics, in a natural reaction to the anti-Catholic nature of our former republic, initially aided the revolutionaries.

But the type to develop most richly, to blossom most abundantly, to ripen to nationality most fully, was the Puritan Christian type that our people took on during the Republic. The Catholic type had been impressed only briefly on the newly formed nation. The Revolutionary type has been operative for only eighty years. The Puritan type, by contrast, has had two full centuries to unfold its splendor.

The age in which that keynote came to dominate was the heroic age of our nation, or if you will, that mysterious moment when all the hidden treasures of our nationality suddenly burst to life and everything seemed to have become great, causing the nation to outdo itself, even as mutual trust and confidence redoubled the effect of the nation’s strength.

It is a matter of record that at that time the Netherlands was at its peak, was most itself in every field and every domain of human endeavor, of learning, and of life. All Europe acknowledges that we were then the most refined and the most richly organized region of the whole continent.

And the memory of that former greatness is still so overpowering that our “revolutionaries,” rather embarrassed by the traditions of their own forefathers (the terrorists of the French Revolution), preferably parade in garb stolen from the wardrobe of our history and act as if a Marnix of old and a Kappeyne of today resemble each other like two drops of water.7

§ 9 REVIVAL OF THE REFORMED TYPE

Toward the end of the eighteenth century the Puritan type was removed from our emblem. At first, admittedly, the attack on this national type seemed to have succeeded all too well, especially after the annexation of the southern provinces of North Brabant and Limburg.8 There were those who believed that the vibrant life of earlier days was totally choked and crushed and could never again become a national movement. But events soon proved that they had cried victory too soon.

On the contrary, no sooner did the faith of our fathers surface again in the Réveil,9 the Scheiding,10 and the reaction to theological modernism, than it became evident that the old sympathies were back and people longed for the social and political ideas from days of yore.

Indeed, our party is not a “school party,” destined to disappear again once the education question is off the table. Nor are we a group of the “orthodox” party whose political sympathies are yet to be born and who exist only as a church party.

On the contrary, our party’s strength lies precisely in the fact that we know ourselves to be heirs of a political program that once aroused the admiration of Europe, made the Netherlands a world power, and if developed in accordance with our times still has promise for the future.

Groen11 therefore understood very well that his strength lay as much in our national history as in our school system, and that the [Christian day] schools, which he provisionally named “Christian-national” schools,12 could flourish only if they were grafted onto the root of this Puritan history.

§ 10 THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTER OF THE REFORMED TYPE

The Puritan type of our national character was formed during the revolt against Spain, after being prepared by the ferment of the Protestant Reformation. Thus it came into being as early as 1520, became self-conscious in 1568, and was the first in 1572 to scuttle the ships and burn the bridges behind it, marking the irrevocable changeover of the nation to a new direction in life. It traveled the moral high road by putting the entire life of the nation in the service of one sacred, lofty cause. It has rightly been said that in our country the church was not established within a state, but inversely, that the Republic of the United Netherlands was set up as a protective wall around an already existing church and therefore as part and parcel of that church.

Consequently, the mission of our republic was to use its armies and fleets and its commercial influence to protect the free course of the gospel throughout Europe and other continents and to safeguard the free course of the gospel at home in accordance with freedom of conscience for everyone.

The inspiring ideal of our nation at that time was civil liberty, not as a goal in itself but as the vehicle and consequence of that much higher liberty that is owed to men’s conscience.

And so people knew what they lived for; they knew the purpose of their existence. They believed, they prayed, they gave thanks. And blessings were plentiful: the country enjoyed prosperity, happiness, and peace.

William of Orange was the spiritual father from whom this type grew and who preserved it from those excesses of the left and of the right that led similar efforts in Westminster and New England to such totally different outcomes.

Orange represented more than the small number of heroes who lived up to the reputation of that noble house. In the nation’s eyes, a Prince of Orange represented a mystery, a star of hope that was safe to follow, a precious treasure because he was so evidently provided by the Lord.

The motto Hac nitimur, hanc tuemur13—leaning on the power of God in his holy Word and deeming liberty a priceless good—was a marvelous and meaningful expression. When struck on coins it was a cautionary reminder for a trading nation that this treasure of Orange was to be deemed of greater value than all the spices from the Orient.

§ 11 THE UNFOLDING OF THIS TYPE IN THE ANTIREVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT

The antirevolutionary party indeed adopts an exalted standpoint when it declares that it represents “the keynote of our national character as this received its stamp around 1572 under the leadership of Orange and the influence of the Reformation.” Yet this stance becomes practical only when it adds at once that it “wishes to develop this in accordance with the altered circumstances of our nation in a form that satisfies the needs of our time.”

We refuse to join the revolutionaries in sliding toward their godlike power state. We refuse no less to join Rome in returning to the Middle Ages. And against their united or separate attempt to eradicate the Puritan type from our national character, we shall continue to defend the latter tooth and nail.

Yet not by repristination.

We wish to recover nothing from the past that has proved unusable, nothing that we have outgrown or that no longer fits our circumstances. None of us dreams of visiting the museum of antiquities to bring back the old, clumsy, rusty state machine that had begun to creak on all sides.14

We also accept the fact, without mental reservations, that North Brabant and Limburg are now parts of our country and will be constitutive elements of our future nationality.

And, to put to rest once for all: we ourselves react more strongly than anyone to the idea of re-establishing a Reformed state church. On the contrary, we demand the strictest application of the principle that the state shall not itself promote “the saving faith.”

But the chief goal that is nonnegotiable for us is this: (1) Our country as a state shall not be placed in a hostile position over against the living God. (2) Our country shall not go back and exchange the Puritan political principles for the Catholic ones. (3) Our country shall not surrender its native institutions in favor of models from abroad.

That was the threefold goal for which our fathers, under the leadership of Orange, fought against Rome and Spain and equally against the Arminians and the States.15 That same threefold goal we are committed to pursue for our time. To forestall any misunderstanding, we hasten to add that the manner in which our fathers tried to realize that goal can no longer be fully ours.

What we must pursue today is to gain acceptance for those political ideas that will enable our citizens, endowed with equal duties and equal rights, be they Catholic, Puritan, or Revolutionary, to contribute, each in their own way and for their part and in their measure, to the formation of a higher national type that will restore the unity of our national consciousness.

III. OUR MOVEMENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES

§ 12 IN CATHOLIC COUNTRIES

Our Program states correctly that the antirevolutionary party represents the Puritanism of the sixteenth and seventeenth century “insofar as it pertains to our country” and that it cannot be tied to such a narrow definition beyond our borders.

In other countries the antirevolutionary party determines its relations on the one hand according to the position taken with respect to the Revolution, and on the other according to the felicitous or less felicitous manner in which the confession of the gospel was brought into agreement with the defense of freedom of conscience.

This last point needs to be added in this last quarter of the nineteenth century, lest by steering clear of the Revolution we should fall into the hands of Rome.

As is well known, after 1815 it indeed seemed for a long time that all Christian elements in Europe, whether they still remained in the Catholic church or flourished in the churches of the Reformation, could make common cause against the godless drive of the Revolution.

The spokesmen for Rome took up a very moderate position. They mostly emphasized the Christian faith and pushed the specifically Romish element to the background. In a very engaging manner they approached you with open arms, inviting you to do battle together for Throne and Altar. Their political writers did what was necessary to achieve success in this reconciliation. Their sincere and winning ways persuaded the old Protestant leaders to see benefit in closing ranks and recommending a new approach to politics.

Dedicated to pushing back the Revolution and granting equal status to both confessions, this approach—called “antirevolutionary” in Germany and “legitimism” in France—seemed to offer a basis for a modern reconstruction of the Christian state. Stahl, and even more Gerlach, were the talented advocates of this splendid illusion.16

Following the reaction of 1813, a number of confessors of Christ also in our country were infected by this naïve theory, and in some backward regions of the country one can still point to traces of the political paralysis inflicted on its blind followers. Precisely for this reason it cannot be praised enough in Groen that he never just imitated Edmund Burke or Gentz, Haller or Leo,17 or even Stahl and Von Gerlach, but increasingly pressed toward the more Puritan standpoint, the standpoint on which one extends the hand to the Catholic Christian yet opposes the ultramontane element in his politics.18

In other countries, however, men did not sober up until Rome dropped her mask and everyone could see how the Jesuits, even as Catholics and Protestants were beginning to form a united front, quietly and imperceptibly, behind our backs, were aiming at our destruction and using us to have Rome brazenly triumph in the end.

§ 13 AGAINST THE MAY LAWS

Accordingly, almost nowhere do orthodox Protestants and Catholics travel together anymore. Everyone knows this about France. In Germany one leading paper has written off the Evangelical party as a “lemon sucked dry” and another paper never even considered a merger with Rome. Since the death of Von Gerlach we can safely say that as a result of Rome’s untrustworthiness there are no proponents left of a political prospect that, however appealing, brought nothing but cruel disappointment for our German friends.

That said, the rise of ultramontanism may have caused us to stop believing in one big worldwide Antirevolutionary Party composed of Catholics and Protestants, yet one should not infer from this that we are indifferent to every effort undertaken by Rome. On the contrary, in her struggle against the terribly unjust May Laws, the Center Party in Germany has our fullest sympathy.19 Rome’s exertions, both in Germany and in France, against secular public education and secular socialism remind us of our own long-standing efforts. The introduction of free universities in France, though initiated by Rome, has our warm approval. And even when a somewhat rigid and too virile ultramontanism in the republics of South America tries to bring healing in a situation of chronic civil war, the endeavor probably has ulterior motives yet we applaud what is commendable in it.

But nowhere do we recognize kindred spirits in the ultramontane party. We were never one, we are not one, and we shall never be one. And should there be instances, such as those mentioned above, when we choose for Rome against the Revolution, there are other cases, no less important, when we would favor liberalism over Rome. In both cases, meanwhile, we would be navigating our own vessel between a rock and a hard place rather than acting from affinity and principle.

§ 14 IN PROTESTANT COUNTRIES

We recognize only two types of political parties as like-minded with ours: (1) those that flourish in countries where the French Revolution never infiltrated; (2) those that oppose this Revolution within their borders on the basis of the Word of God.

To the first category belong the political parties in Britain and the United States. In neither country was society unhinged in order to replace it with a new one after the French model. In both countries government still stands on the foundation of God’s Word and the historic rights that have roots in the nation’s past. The only exception is the Radical group in England, especially the Birmingham club.20

If asked whether our sympathies in British politics then lie with the Tories or the Whigs, one can already infer from our “leftist trend” (as it has been called) that we lean toward the Whigs. We admit that, to the degree that different countries can be compared, the domestic politics of Forster and Gladstone has virtually the same intentions as what antirevolutionaries aim at in the Netherlands. This explains why one of our conservative dailies could write recently that a liberal like Gladstone in no way resembles a Dutch liberal and that the real Puritans in Britain almost to a man support Forster.21

In America it stands to reason that we side with the Republicans against the Democrats. The Republicans are the spiritual offspring of the old Pilgrim Fathers, the heroes of the Anti-Slavery War, the adversaries of Catholicism, and the spokesmen of that true civic spirit that arose especially in New England.

As for the second category, with respect to Germany it should be kept in mind that not the Kreuzzeitung but the Reichsbote with its much purer tone is the paper of our sympathies. By this we do not at all deny that the Kreuzzeitung has stoutly revenged itself for its moral lapse brought on by Bismarck’s reckless action of 1866. Still, we are sorry to say that this return to better paths was never resolute and energetic enough to enable it to compete with the Reichsbote. Germany’s antirevolutionary party, particularly since the “Christian socialists” have taken the bull by the horns, has been moving on firmer ground and is gradually freeing itself from the bad repute of the Junker party.22

As far as Catholic countries are concerned, they leave us almost cold—especially now that in France even a Broglie23 has been chased from the scene as a “conspirator” and a Gambetta,24 now master of the situation, looks like the calmest man in the world. Little can again be expected from the colorless constitutionalists, and the legitimists have forfeited their honor by allying with the republicans. He who loves France and fears God turns his eyes away from this sorry spectacle of human self-abasement and dreams nostalgically of what France might have been if only she had not listened to the Sorbonne but instead to the man from Geneva.

The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of Austria, Italy, Spain, and Belgium. We are keenly aware that the clerical parties in these countries would like to prevent free proclamation of the gospel, while the radicals on that score are favorably disposed towards us. But in these exclusively Catholic countries this is such a minor issue that it would be very superficial to let that determine our sympathies—all the more so after it became clear how badly we would compromise ourselves in the company of atheists from Antwerp who misuse the name “Beggar” and of radicals in Brussels who misuse the name of our Marnix of St. Aldegonde.25

Finally, the fact that we often judge the actions of the Russian government more positively is easily explained from the circumstance that every attempt at converting Russia into a state after the revolutionary model has thus far been resolutely resisted. The conviction that “Russia must seek its own form of government along its own paths without allowing itself to be seduced by foreign utopias” is a thoroughly antirevolutionary idea (although this certainly does not stop us from severely condemning what happened, for example, in Poland).26 Add to that the fact that the Russian Empire, as a patron of the Christian religion, has always opposed Islam both in Europe and in Asia. As well, the person of the czar offers a valuable counterweight to the pope of Rome. Understandably, a mighty empire with such desirable traits has always enjoyed a measure of sympathy on the part of antirevolutionaries. Thus in its present struggle Russia enjoys the moral support of Gladstone and Forster, of the Republicans in America and the antirevolutionary party in Germany. And all who were called “Christian-national” in our country have always, spontaneously and unanimously, sided with Russia.

CHAPTER TWO

AUTHORITY

The party locates the source of sovereign authority not in the will of the people, nor in the law, but solely in God, and therefore it rejects popular sovereignty on the one hand and on the other it honors the sovereignty of Orange that under God’s guidance is rooted in the history of our country and was brought to development by the men of 1813 and confirmed as such in the Constitution.

ARTICLE 2

I. SOVEREIGNTY

§ 17 ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY1

Sovereignty in an absolute sense occurs only when there is an authority that has no other authority over it, that always commands and never obeys, that does not admit of restrictions or allow competition, and that is single and undivided for all that has breath.

I am sovereign in an absolute sense only over that with which I can do what I please. Since as a human being I never possess such unlimited power over anything, it is out of the question that I shall ever possess original sovereignty.

Just because I can draw or write anything at all on the piece of paper in front of me still does not mean that I am a sovereign over that piece of paper. For that paper is hard or soft, fibrous or smooth, of a certain thickness and length, and so on, and I am bound to all these properties. They restrict my power and force me to conform to them. To be sovereign in this case I would personally have to be the maker of that paper, this pen, and that ink, and I would have to make them each time again in order to have them serve my purpose and remove every impediment to my will.

But even if you think that this would be conceivable, I still would not have sovereign power over that piece of paper, since in making it I would find myself bound by the materials and the tools commonly used for the papermaking process, and I would often bump up against the limits of what is possible when I try to introduce still one more improvement or remove one last flaw. I would have to have complete control over those raw materials and those instruments. Assume for a moment that even if that were possible and that in the making of pen and ink I disposed over the same creative freedom, then just to be sovereign in the mechanics of writing I would have to be able to freely determine or alter the laws governing the adhesion of the ink to the nib and the flow of the liquid onto the paper.

§ 18 ONLY POSSIBLE WITH GOD

Transferring this special case to the general situation, we can see that the following is required for wielding absolute sovereignty over any object: (1) that I have this object completely in my possession; (2) that I have made it with my own hands as I saw fit; (3) that calling the necessary raw materials into being depends on my omnipotence; and (4) that it is up to me to set the laws that will govern its action and regulate its relation to other objects.

Now then, since no man, however celebrated, talented, or powerful, will ever have such power at his disposal, it follows that no ruler can ever be truly an absolute sovereign over his people. Similarly, no father can ever really be an absolute sovereign over his family, and no farmer can ever be a truly absolute sovereign over his animals. Thus any ruler who nevertheless arrogates such a right to himself only does so against right, by abusing power and destroying the mental and spiritual development of his people. Any father who exercises such exorbitant powers over his wife and children can only do so in spite of right and fairness and at the price of the more noble aspects of family life. And the madman who lays violent hands on his animals violates a higher law-order and lowers himself to the rank of a brute.

Sovereign authority over nations presupposes sovereign power over the families, and thus over the people that make up these nations. It can therefore reside only with the one who created these people, families, individuals—created them according to his good pleasure, without being bound to anything other than the laws and ordinances that he himself had earlier decreed according to the demands of his own being and for the benefit of people’s flesh and blood as well as their heads and hearts, their tastes and feelings, and their moral and religious development. The possession of their whole person would be his as well as their very existence. From him would be the substance of their material and spiritual being, and from him also the laws that govern the life and development of their entire human personhood.

Who else, pray tell, can this be but the supreme, holy, almighty God?