Abraham Kuyper: An Influential and Overlooked Political Theorist

David W. Hall (dhall@capo.org)

Abraham Kuyper: An Influential and Overlooked Political Theorist

One of the most ignored but influential politicians of this century is a relatively unknown Dutch Prime Minister. Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was a writer, a minister, an educator, and founder of the Free University in Amsterdam. 

A recent symposium at Princeton Theological Seminary, along with another centennial planned for October, are commemorating Kuyper’s contribution. Knowingly or not, Kuyper is the partron saint of the 20th century evangelical resurgence in politics. Leaders ranging from Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop to John Whitehead and Jack Kemp to James Dobson and Ralph Reed occasionally acknowledge his tutelage. 

His shadow is still large, and his thought promises to extend into the coming century as a dominant force as well. 

Centennial celebrations of Kuyper’s 1898 Stone Lectures at Princeton, however, have received no political attention--a classic symptom of myopia. 

In those lectures, Kuyper argued that political authorities cannot claim absolute loyalty, the state is not omni-competent, and humans never possess power over others in any other way than permitted by God. Limited government and limited exercise of power are hallmarks of Kuyperian thought. 

The Prime Minister also said, “No political scheme has ever become dominant which was not founded in a specific religious or anti-religious conception.” 

At the heart of this thought was a simple idea: politics are not neutral but wedded to ultimate issues. Thus, political ideas should be judged in the context of their religious root. For Kuyper, who became Prime Minister of Holland in 1900, two main trunks contributed to modern politics: a humanistic strain stemming from the French Revolution and a religious branch, going all the way back to the time of the Reformation and Calvin (who according to Bancroft generated “fanatics for liberty”). One of those two ultimate roots, said Kuyper, would dominate politics. The fruit would be equally discernible. 

All observers and politicians, according to Kuyper, operate from a world view, or at least a loosely organized set of commitments or beliefs. 

Kuyper believed  that all politicians, teachers, or scientists interpreted things in light of their own beliefs, interests, goals, and views. Facts are neither neutral in relationship to theory, nor do they interpret themselves. Facts -- and which facts are important -- are always interpreted by subjective interpreters. Kuyper spoke of “the fact of sin” which should be acknowledged lest we think politicians are bias-free. 

Earlier, Kuyper argued that the old bugaboo, “sin,” affected both rulers and the ruled. “Hence,” said Kuyper, “resistance, insurrection, and mutinies will not end, unless a righteous constitution bridles the abuse of authority . . . and offers the people a natural protection against despotism and ambitious schemes.” That spurned theology of sin explains much political reality. 

The heart of interpreting politics, elections, or any event of history is to factor in this ultimate principle: some people see God's invisible hand as having a role; others do not. Each viewer seeks alternative explanations. And to some, the facts never point to God. 

Kuyper reminds, however, that all theories that begin with naturalistic premises deny the insights of believers. The born again person indeed sees things differently, and assigns different causes for historical events. This converted perspective “exerts an absolutely dominating influence upon our view of science.” Indeed, the most likely explanation for the inability to see God's hand acting in our national life may stem from anti-religious bias. It should not surprise us, therefore, that radically different explanations are given. 

Kuyper was ahead of his time in noting that human assumptions will be powerful and all-dominating. Kuyper’s descendents are honest enough to admit that their starting-point for analysis is the distrust of explanations that categorically rule out the activity of God. In place of secular explanations, believers’ views dominate their “whole person, and all of life about you. It . . . exerts an influence not merely in your religious, but equally in your ethical, aesthetical, and intellectual life.” As much as anything else, this may also explain evangelicals’ zeal to secular contemporaries. 

Not only will motives [for explanation] be affected by spiritual outlook, but also observation itself. Of this inescapable bias, Kuyper explains that the non-Christian and the Christian will differ in interpretation of necessity as the “circumstances cause each individual investigator to become one-sided.” 

For Kuyper, there were divergent political science explanations for the same event. These two streams of interpretation differ because of a spiritual viewpoint adopted by the person. 

Kuyper believed that his faith required certain political elements. He believed that the reality of sin necessitated government and its limiting activity. He advocated constitutionalism and smaller government, and he called for each non-government sphere to do its own tasks, without creating dependency on politicians or government. 

His thought is still influential, worthy of commemoration, and provides a beginning explanation for the differences among citizens that flow from their beginning assumptions.