Thanks for this, Ben. The ideal is relatively easy to state, immensely more difficult to practice and pursue. I’m working on a series on Calvin that is inherently critical, because I’m responding to criticisms of the “myth” that Calvin was a tyrant. I’m palpably aware of the impulse to focus on all the bad (esp b/c it seems so imbalanced in reformed studies of Calvin) and ignore all the good. My main idea is that it’s all really complex, and so we should avoid oversimplifying. If that’s true of an individual, it’s exponentially more true of a tradition.
Thanks for the interaction, Aaron. I have seen the first post in your series, and I look forward to engaging with it more when it's complete or when a couple more come out. I likely will not listen to the podcast you mentioned any time soon as I have little time or attention span for audio (I learn and retain best from reading).
I have spent most of my time in the Reformed space in circles where the Reformed tradition is all good (conferences, seminary, etc.) or all bad (when I was in an atheist club for 3 yrs, the many exvangelical peers and former parishioners I've had). I generally do not engage in those circles anymore. I'm more interested in conversations with people who can see the value of a framework to operate out of, who want to be honest about sins and errors that have contaminated that framework, and who also want to bring forward the best of that framework to answer new challenges.
Yes, to your last sentence - how much more true of a tradition.
I think it's important to understand a tradition as a problem-space where there people are working on theoretical and practical problems, with various people proposing and disagreeing about how to solve those problems, and doing so all from a sense of love and gratitude about the resources which the tradition has supplied. Love involves criticism, but starts with a graceful acceptance. I think this approach of tradition as a problem-space, conversation, and set of resources shifts things away from adherence to formulas and mitigates against a mindset of preserving some fossilized and unitary understanding of the tradition. Every tradition is inherently multiple and full of tensions, and we can creatively play with these in a spirit of both criticism and fidelity.
Thank you for an intriguing read. Without fully understanding the author's definition of appropriation or adaptation, it's difficult to determine whether I agree with his comment about taking one's tradition and adapting its features to one's situation. From a Christian perspective, those terms give me pause. It almost sounds too much like eisegesis, where the interpreter projects their own ideas, biases, or preferences onto the text. Perhaps that wasn't the author's intent, but many in the religious community see a disturbing pattern: efforts to contextualize faith to a broken world often modify the message so much that it becomes unrecognizable.
There's no doubt that Kuyper was an influential thinker and scholar. However, I think the concern with Kuyper's theology is his fixation on modernism. He was so focused on cultural engagement that he likely would have supported a state-church, despite the historical consequences for religious freedom, often leading to persecution (e.g., English Roman Catholicism in the 16th century and the Church of England in the 17th and 18th centuries). Kuyper was also comfortable with religious pluralism and sectionalism. His almost obsessive devotion to Calvinism "alienated those closest to him"[1], which Joustra describes as "unusual"[2]. Today, many would classify Kuyper as a hyper-Calvinist due to his supralapsarian views. He was certainly a sensational figure, but it's hard to fault him. I see Kuyper as a passionate believer, and sometimes that zeal can spill over.
----
[1] Jessica R. Joustra and Robert J. Joustra, ed. Calvinism for a Secular Age: A Twenty-First-Century Reading of Abraham Kuyper's Stone Lectures (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022), 20), ProQuest Ebook Central.
Thanks for your thorough engagement. I offer a few brief responses below.
1) Claiming a danger of eisegesis does not work here. Eisegesis describes one's interpretation of Scripture, not of received theological tradition. Every Christian who claims a theological tradition is constantly doing the work of appropriation, whether on more significant concerns, such as rejecting the racism inherent in various stages of the Reformed tradition, or on more modest issues, such as reinterpreting confessional statements regarding Sabbath.
2) Claiming that Kuyper would support a state church is a myth at best and a dangerous error to suggest at worst. Kuyper regularly disputed the idea of a state church in places like Our Program and the Stone Lectures. One example will suffice: "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.'" (Our Program, 9). There are many reasons to be critical of Kuyper, but this is not one of them.
3) Your claim that his devotion to Calvinism "alienated those closest to him" is taken out of context of R. Joustra's chapter. In context, Joustra was describing Kuyper's strong personality. His Calvinistic beliefs are not mentioned anywhere near this quote. Similarly, his "unusual" love for Calvinism is contrasted by Joustra with more mild-mannered modern Calvinists who try to fit in and appear non-threatening. It seems you are using these quotes in ways the author did not intend to paint a dishonest picture of Kuyper. That is not helpful or wise.
Wow, Ben. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I thought you would appreciate an engaging response to your post, and have a good discussion. In many ways your response reflects the influence of Kuyper. Rash, abrupt, and overly critical. Since you do not seem to want your readers to express their own opinions, I'll go ahead and unsubscribe.
The quote and metaphor about "staying in the pool" brought to mind the not-to-distant past when public pools were segregated. I think we face a challenge inviting our neighbors to join us in the pool by saying the water is cleaner when it wasn't dirty water that kept them out. But maybe I'm stretching that metaphor way beyond its intent.
I don’t think it’s a stretch metaphorically though it is likely beyond original intent. Bacote has also used the metaphor of “beautiful melodies” that you discover have been played in discordant keys.
Thanks for this, Ben. The ideal is relatively easy to state, immensely more difficult to practice and pursue. I’m working on a series on Calvin that is inherently critical, because I’m responding to criticisms of the “myth” that Calvin was a tyrant. I’m palpably aware of the impulse to focus on all the bad (esp b/c it seems so imbalanced in reformed studies of Calvin) and ignore all the good. My main idea is that it’s all really complex, and so we should avoid oversimplifying. If that’s true of an individual, it’s exponentially more true of a tradition.
Thanks for the interaction, Aaron. I have seen the first post in your series, and I look forward to engaging with it more when it's complete or when a couple more come out. I likely will not listen to the podcast you mentioned any time soon as I have little time or attention span for audio (I learn and retain best from reading).
I have spent most of my time in the Reformed space in circles where the Reformed tradition is all good (conferences, seminary, etc.) or all bad (when I was in an atheist club for 3 yrs, the many exvangelical peers and former parishioners I've had). I generally do not engage in those circles anymore. I'm more interested in conversations with people who can see the value of a framework to operate out of, who want to be honest about sins and errors that have contaminated that framework, and who also want to bring forward the best of that framework to answer new challenges.
Yes, to your last sentence - how much more true of a tradition.
I think it's important to understand a tradition as a problem-space where there people are working on theoretical and practical problems, with various people proposing and disagreeing about how to solve those problems, and doing so all from a sense of love and gratitude about the resources which the tradition has supplied. Love involves criticism, but starts with a graceful acceptance. I think this approach of tradition as a problem-space, conversation, and set of resources shifts things away from adherence to formulas and mitigates against a mindset of preserving some fossilized and unitary understanding of the tradition. Every tradition is inherently multiple and full of tensions, and we can creatively play with these in a spirit of both criticism and fidelity.
I like the language of problem-space, or problem-solving space.
Hi Ben,
Thank you for an intriguing read. Without fully understanding the author's definition of appropriation or adaptation, it's difficult to determine whether I agree with his comment about taking one's tradition and adapting its features to one's situation. From a Christian perspective, those terms give me pause. It almost sounds too much like eisegesis, where the interpreter projects their own ideas, biases, or preferences onto the text. Perhaps that wasn't the author's intent, but many in the religious community see a disturbing pattern: efforts to contextualize faith to a broken world often modify the message so much that it becomes unrecognizable.
There's no doubt that Kuyper was an influential thinker and scholar. However, I think the concern with Kuyper's theology is his fixation on modernism. He was so focused on cultural engagement that he likely would have supported a state-church, despite the historical consequences for religious freedom, often leading to persecution (e.g., English Roman Catholicism in the 16th century and the Church of England in the 17th and 18th centuries). Kuyper was also comfortable with religious pluralism and sectionalism. His almost obsessive devotion to Calvinism "alienated those closest to him"[1], which Joustra describes as "unusual"[2]. Today, many would classify Kuyper as a hyper-Calvinist due to his supralapsarian views. He was certainly a sensational figure, but it's hard to fault him. I see Kuyper as a passionate believer, and sometimes that zeal can spill over.
----
[1] Jessica R. Joustra and Robert J. Joustra, ed. Calvinism for a Secular Age: A Twenty-First-Century Reading of Abraham Kuyper's Stone Lectures (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022), 20), ProQuest Ebook Central.
[2] Joustra's, Calvinism for a Secular Age, 24.
Hello Vito,
Thanks for your thorough engagement. I offer a few brief responses below.
1) Claiming a danger of eisegesis does not work here. Eisegesis describes one's interpretation of Scripture, not of received theological tradition. Every Christian who claims a theological tradition is constantly doing the work of appropriation, whether on more significant concerns, such as rejecting the racism inherent in various stages of the Reformed tradition, or on more modest issues, such as reinterpreting confessional statements regarding Sabbath.
2) Claiming that Kuyper would support a state church is a myth at best and a dangerous error to suggest at worst. Kuyper regularly disputed the idea of a state church in places like Our Program and the Stone Lectures. One example will suffice: "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.'" (Our Program, 9). There are many reasons to be critical of Kuyper, but this is not one of them.
3) Your claim that his devotion to Calvinism "alienated those closest to him" is taken out of context of R. Joustra's chapter. In context, Joustra was describing Kuyper's strong personality. His Calvinistic beliefs are not mentioned anywhere near this quote. Similarly, his "unusual" love for Calvinism is contrasted by Joustra with more mild-mannered modern Calvinists who try to fit in and appear non-threatening. It seems you are using these quotes in ways the author did not intend to paint a dishonest picture of Kuyper. That is not helpful or wise.
Wow, Ben. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I thought you would appreciate an engaging response to your post, and have a good discussion. In many ways your response reflects the influence of Kuyper. Rash, abrupt, and overly critical. Since you do not seem to want your readers to express their own opinions, I'll go ahead and unsubscribe.
The quote and metaphor about "staying in the pool" brought to mind the not-to-distant past when public pools were segregated. I think we face a challenge inviting our neighbors to join us in the pool by saying the water is cleaner when it wasn't dirty water that kept them out. But maybe I'm stretching that metaphor way beyond its intent.
I don’t think it’s a stretch metaphorically though it is likely beyond original intent. Bacote has also used the metaphor of “beautiful melodies” that you discover have been played in discordant keys.