Abraham Kuyper the Transformationalist?

By Andrew Compton

How often in discussions about the relationship between the church and the culture do we hear appeals made to Abraham Kuyper? In my experience, he is lauded as the key to the whole discussion; he is the thinker who, if only we would listen to what he said, we too would become transformationalists.

Yet what is often not noted by those of transformationalist persuasion is that Kuyper had a very sophisticated approach to the church and the culture which stemmed from his key distinction between special and common grace and was also rooted in his idiosyncratic understanding of the church as both institution and organism. Though many of us who are “two kingdoms” in our approach do indeed have much with which to quibble in Kuyper’s writings, if we translate his expression “church as institute” as “the visible church” and “church as organism” as “individual Christian citizens,” then suddenly we find that Kuyper’s views are not quite as antithetical to “two kingdom” thought as is often supposed and, conversely, is not quite as supportive to “transformationalism” as is often assumed.

Here’s some quotes:

We believe there are two circles. First the circle of confessors, the objective church, the circle of the covenant. According to the Heidelberg Catechism, Baptism is extended solely to this first circle – that baptized children may be “distinguished from the children of unbelievers” (Q/A 74). The Lord’s Supper is administered only within that circle, and solely within that circle can a “gathering of believers” be honored. Only the church that coincides with this circle can therefore possess the marks of the “true church” which are “the pure preaching of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline both as to confession and the conduct of life” (Belgic Confession, art. XXIX).

“Common Grace” in Centennial Reader, pg. 194

Note that only the church as institute bears the marks of “the true church.” When dealing with the church as organism, something he does in the following paragraph, Kuyper is careful to show that it is only in the church as institute that the lamp of the Christian religion burns. He believes that the rays of that lamp, however, shine out the church windows via the church as organism or, to put it in better “two kingdom” terms, Christianity never comes to bear directly on society via the visible church; it only comes to bear directly (if we can even call it that) via individual Christian citizens, living as good citizens out of gratitude for God’s redemptive work in their lives.

One more quote to show that Kuyper wants desperately to protect the church as institute from any involvement in the civil sphere (something Kuyper believes results in state-church tyranny):

We can exert power for good, therefore, only if we are prepared to drum it into our heads that the church of Christ can never exert influence on civil society directly, only indirectly. Therefore its goal must remain (1) to assure the church full freedom of action and full authority to maintain its own unique character; (2) to avert any attempt to introduce pagan concepts and ideas into the country’s laws, public institutions, and public opinion in place of Christian ones; and (3) to continually expand the dominance of nobler and purer ideas in civil society by the courageous action of its members in every area of life. In a nutshell: what we want is a strong confessional church but not a confessional civil society nor a confessional state.

“Common Grace” in Centennial Reader, pg. 197

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this doesn’t mean that Abraham Kuyper and Darryl Hart are really saying the very same thing, but it does mean that we must be careful in citing Kuyper as the pristine example of transformationalist thought. His thought was complex. His views on the church were unique. Let’s let Kuyper be Kuyper. Let’s work hard to not put words into his mouth.

Ad Fontes!