Sermons often do not age well. Assuming the exegesis of Scripture is faithful, the preacher’s context has nonetheless changed. Thus, it is typically ill-advised to take a sermon preached years-past and simply re-present it with the expectation that it will apply equally well in a different place and time for different people. If this is true for sermons pastors preach over the course of their own ministries, how much truer for a sermon preached more than one hundred and fifty years ago? And yet, Abraham Kuyper’s 1870 sermon, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy: False and True Preservation,” retains a contemporary ring worthy of renewed interest, especially for American Christians.1
Kuyper’s sermon, of course, has a specific context of its own. This was his final sermon preached at the church he pastored in Utrecht as he was departing for a church in Amsterdam. His brief three years in Utrecht had proved increasingly difficult, not due to typical pastoral problems that had turned personal but to broader cultural matters and differences as to how they should be approached. According to James Bratt, Utrecht was the “capital of national ‘God and Country’ conservatism” within the Netherlands of the late nineteenth century.2 Kuyper was initially seen as an ally in that conservative cause, leading to his call there. However, Kuyper identified a confusion between the priorities of the church and the preservation of cultural power, leading to a parting of ways. The conservatives in Kuyper’s context valued the institution of the church foremost for its social influence. Kuyper argues this disregards the true essence of the church, as distinct from other social institutions, with the result of diminishing the church’s deeper impact on society.
Perceiving the church as an instrument of a conservative social agenda resonates in our day. Those on the right and those on the left may reduce the church to a mere cultural force, as either a friend or a foe to its own agenda. Contemporary caricatures of so-called Christian nationalism abound, favorably promoted by some while fearfully portrayed by others. Of course, Kuyper’s historical context is different from our own. We should not expect a direct correlation between his time and ours regarding matters related to the church or the culture. However, there are points of comparison. And more importantly, as Kuyper addresses the issues of his own day, he provides a theological vision for the church that countered the social constructs of both the conservative and progressive causes of his time, which may serve us in our own.
The Problem of the Church: The Primary Problem of the Day
In his departing sermon at Utrecht, Kuyper claimed that “the problem of the church” is “the primary problem of the day.”3 Even more strongly, Kuyper states that “the problem of the church is none other than the problem of Christianity itself.”4 This conviction is evident across Kuyper’s writings, from his first published work to his final articles.5 Some of the problems Kuyper addresses are unique to the Netherlands in the nineteenth century. They concern the status of a national church with a complex history between “Christianity and Dutchness” where “church and nation were tightly interwoven.”6 The entangled relationship between church and state had implications for church oversight, church property, church membership, and the calling and paying of church pastors. While Kuyper spoke to these various problems, he believed that the problem itself was more substantial, which concerns the church’s core identity in God’s redemptive purpose, and how that identity must in turn determine its relationship to the world.
The church’s form cannot be derived from worldly power structures but must arise from its own life in relation to Christ.
Kuyper is well-known for distinguishing the church’s essence from its form, typically using the category of organism to describe the essence of the church and institution to address its form.7 Kuyper criticizes those conservatives who valued the church for its cultural capital and institutional weight while neglecting the vitality of the church which is found in its essence as the living body of Christ.8 This vitality gives the church its true power and influence in the world. Kuyper characterizes the conservatives of his day as “committed to externality” and “infatuated with the surface of things.”9 However, the church is “a unique organism and requires a unique institution.”10 The church’s form cannot be derived from worldly power structures but must arise from its own life in relation to Christ. Essence and form, organism and institution, must not be torn asunder.
Kuyper’s distinction between the church as organism and the church as institution has been the source of much discussion.11 According to Bratt, Kuyper’s “theory moved from his earlier institute-organism distinction to an institute-organism opposition.”12 Earlier, as evident in his departing sermon at Utrecht and his inaugural sermon at Amsterdam, the inseparable relationship between organism and institution is prioritized. Kuyper uses the analogy of a snake’s protective skin, which is “a result of the vitality of the life which manifests itself at every point on its surface.”13 This external feature is both dependent on and essential to the living organism as the institutional church is to its organic life. He also uses the example of a river and its banks: the flowing waters analogous to the vital life of the church and the banks that carry its current similar to the church’s institutional form, preventing its flow from dispersing and halting its course.14 As Kuyper says, “From the organism the institution is born, but also through the institution the organism is fed.”15 Both are essential and function together.
Kuyper’s later writings, however, portray a problematic relationship between the church as an organism and as an institution, which has led to criticism.16 Yet it should be recalled that Kuyper initially develops the distinction in seeking to solve “the problem of the church,” in response to those who merely valued the institution of the church in relation to its relative usefulness in addressing wider social concerns while neglecting its life-giving essence. While Kuyper was also critical of modernism, as will be noted below, the more immediate threat to the life of the church he believed to be conservatism, at which he takes aim as he departs Utrecht.
The Spirit of Conservatism Contrasted with the Vital Life of the Church
The text for Kuyper’s sermon is taken from Revelation 3:11, “Hold fast to what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.” The verse is well-suited for Kuyper’s careful critique. The exhortation to “hold fast to what you have” commends, even commands, a type of conservatism. Careful preservation is required. Christianity possesses a conservative impulse. After all, Kuyper says, “Christianity came to save.”17 This stands in contrast to a revolutionary impulse: “Revolution demolishes and destroys.”18 Those who embrace revolution, Kuyper says, “rave about a better world.”19 We might think of the progressive spirit of our own day, both outside and inside the church, which seeks to deconstruct all that is part of the past and put something new in its place. Kuyper, though, says this is not the approach of Christianity, which resurrects the existing body to new life. The gospel does not destroy and replace but redeems and renews.
If the vitality of the church is derived from past forms rather than Christ’s present work, a dangerous sort of conservatism may have taken hold.
This conserving impulse of Christianity, however, may attract the church toward a type of conservatism that is opposed to genuine orthodoxy. Christianity and conservatism are both concerned with preservation, but they differ in what they aim to preserve. Whereas Christianity holds fast to the principle of life that is found in Christ alone, mere conservatism aims to preserve the life it currently possesses in the present age. “To be conservative in that sense,” says Kuyper, “is to block Christianity from pursuing its goal,”20 which is not the life we’ve presently attained, but an increasingly renewed life, through persevering faith in Christ. According to Kuyper, false conservatism fails to recognize the overwhelming impact of sin and therefore “seeks to dam up the stream of life, swears by the status quo, and resists the surgery needed to save the sick.”21 Conservatism, like progressivism, is uninterested in a gospel that redeems and renews. Instead, it seeks safety in maintaining its social status rather than pursuing a salvation that counters sin and calls us to new life.
In the conflict with the revolutionary threat of progressives, the church may be tempted to make an alliance with a form of conservatism that is contrary to the renewing work of Christ. Kuyper warns that “many are joining our ranks whose goal is not, as is ours, the victory of Christianity but merely the triumph of conservatism.”22 These may be identified through their strategies. Conservatism that is counter to Christianity is satisfied to repristinate both church and culture based on a prior age. “If only we could have lived then!”23 If the vitality of the church is derived from past forms rather than Christ’s present work, a dangerous sort of conservatism may have taken hold. Lacking the ability to repristinate, conservatism aims to preserve “that which is still left of the legacy.”24 Or if all else fails, content itself with the ever-diminishing features that remain.25 The strategy of conservatism is to hold tight, but this inevitably ends in disappointment. “‘Always flow and never reverse yourself’ is the high decree that the Creator himself laid down for the stream of time.”26 In contrast to these conservative strategies, Kuyper says one must “first seek to have for yourself the life your fathers had,” and, “Then articulate that life in your own language as they did in theirs.”27
As noted above, Kuyper’s critique of conservatism does not place him within the progressive camp of his day. A year after his Utrecht sermon critiquing conservatives, he delivered a lecture exposing the ephemeral nature of modernism, referring to it as a “Fata Morgana,” an image that appears on the horizon that has no true substance of its own but is a reflection of a distant object through the refraction of light.28 Its transient existence depends on the presence of something else. Modernism has this character. Its existence depends on the truth that Christianity alone provides. However, though conservatism and modernism appear diametrically opposed, Kuyper argues that the conservatism he critiques helps create the atmospheric conditions for modernism. According to Kuyper, such apparitions appear in “times of spiritual aridity in which no fresh breeze could blow through the heart of the nation,” claiming that when “the spiritual atmosphere has the right kind of ferment, then heresy is bound to appear.”29 Surprisingly, status quo conservatism, which aims to repristinate the past, shares the blame for modernism as an inevitable response. In fact, Kuyper believed modernism was a blessing for this very reason, awakening the church from its conservative slumber. Kuyper says that “without the Modernists we would still be groaning under the leaden weight of an all-killing Conservatism,” and for this reason, “Modernism has saved orthodoxy in the church of Jesus.”30\
The church must labor to preserve and defend the historic facts on which the Christian faith depends, including Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection, as recorded in God’s word.
The conservative impulse of orthodox Christianity preserves the essence of the church rather than non-essential aspects in its various historical manifestations. The essence of the church is the principle of life that is present in Christ alone, expressed corporately in its own historical context.31 Therefore, according to Kuyper, the church must labor to preserve and defend the historic facts on which the Christian faith depends, including Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection, as recorded in God’s word.32 Rather than embodying ideals, these essential realities give shape to our present lives through his Spirit. The church is not to live as a vestige from a past age with an excessive “attachment to tradition” but instead “seeks to preserve what is in terms of what it will become in Christ, that is resurrected from the dead.”33 The true conservatism of orthodox Christianity looks not only to the past but longs for the future: “It looks at what is, not as it now exhibits itself, but as it will one day in eternity unfold its true glory.”34 In this way, the Christian church alone answers the desires of both conservatism and progressivism which they can never themselves satisfy. And when the church lives according to these convictions concerning the past, the present, and the future, it will then impact the surrounding culture with the “vitality flowing from [an] orthodoxy that arouses others to jealousy.”35 Kuyper claims “that the reign of orthodoxy builds up the church” but also “causes the leaven of Christianity to ferment in the life of the city.”36
Attending to Kuyper’s Sermon in Today’s Church
Kuyper exhorts the church, “Hold fast to what you have, so that no one may seize your crown” (Rev. 3:11). And yet this call to hold fast must be distinguished from mere conservative attempts to hold tight to a social status amidst the changing power structures of the world. Several consequences resulting from Kuyper’s distinction between conservatism and orthodoxy, “terms which are often confused,”37 may be considered regarding how the church should reflect on its relationship to the surrounding culture.
First, the church must provide a full and fair critique consistent with Christian convictions. Kuyper notes the strong temptation to simply choose sides, especially when conservatism “has consistently proved inclined to protect a firm religious outlook against skepticism.”38 A danger, however, is that the church plays second-chair in support of a cultural agenda that diminishes its full voice in speaking to the heart of the matter evident in the affairs of our day. Kuyper is an equal critic of both conservative and progressive sides in his own context. He pointedly exposes their flaws and failures, rooted in their refusal to accept the deeper nature of sin and the necessity of the sovereign saving grace of God to which the conflicts of every age witness. Kuyper’s sermon also models how the church must be self-critical, aware of a dangerous attachment to tradition which is “more tangible than the everlasting which lies ahead.”39 The church must be reminded of its pilgrim status in this age and not place its hope in worldly alliances. While seeking the welfare of the city (Jer. 29:7), we should never confuse it with our home (Jer. 29:10–14).
Second, the church must contend foremost for the matters of first importance, which Kuyper identifies as the principle of life found in Christ and manifest in his body on earth, the church. The essence of the church must be maintained above all, grounded in the saving grace of God which “does not arise from this earth, but instead breaks in upon the earth.”40 This does not mean that the institutional form of the church is insignificant. It too must be governed according to Scripture as a matter of faith. However, aspects of the church’s outward form, expressed in various traditions, are coincident with the church’s historical context. Contention over such matters creates a party spirit within the church which mimics worldly divisions. The church must guard against this, for as Kuyper asks, “Can there be inner piety as long as on both sides . . . the fiercest partisanship sweeps everyone away with its current?”41 The world should witness something better in the church.
Third, rather than pining after a former age, the church must cultivate the life of faith in its own cultural moment. This includes providing principled and persuasive analysis related to the issues of the day. Faith is not a private matter. However, rather than pursuing power, the church should have a posture of service. As he criticizes the wedding of church and state in prior eras, Kuyper concludes, “Precisely because the church wanted to dominate, it did not dominate the nations, and only if it is willing once again to serve will it win back its dominion.”42 The church’s influence increases through compassionate service coupled with compelling speech. According to Kuyper, “The church must especially battle against sin.”43 However, sin and its effects must not be considered merely at the individual level. The consequences are far reaching as expressed in the curse following Adam and Eve’s fall. “Above all,” says Kuyper, “let our church not ignore the great social issues of promiscuity, overpopulation, labor, and poverty.”44 Although some of these may appear on progressive agendas, they are not to be neglected for that reason. Cultivating the life of faith considers the wide reach of Christ’s gracious Lordship, far as the curse is found, yet with a hope that anticipates his return. May it be said one day that “the shapers of the popular mind increasingly realized that with the revival of the faith the church again had to be reckoned with.”45
Conclusion
We may quibble with aspects of Kuyper’s analysis, whether features of his church schema or facets of his cultural critique. However, the dangers he notes are relevant to our own day. There are ways in which “the problem of the church” remains “the primary problem of our day,” even “the problem of Christianity itself.” The church in every age must guard against aligning itself with worldly alternatives to Christ’s purpose for his church, which is grounded in his saving work. In their visions of the past, their proposed solutions for the present, as well as their hopes for the future, both conservatism and progressivism merely parody aspects of the salvation that Christ himself has secured, and in so doing they pervert his gospel. The most significant challenge the church faces in every age does not arise from the world but in whether our response to this world is faithful to the Lord.
1. Abraham Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy: False and True Preservation,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 65–85.
2. James D. Bratt, Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), xxvii.
3. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 67.
4. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 69.
5. Henry Zwaanstra, “Abraham Kuyper’s Conception of the Church,” Calvin Theological Journal 9, no. 2 (1974): 149.
6. John Halsey Wood, Going Dutch in the Modern Age: Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Nineteenth Century Netherlands (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 14.
7. In his sermon, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” Kuyper uses the language of essence and form though not organism and institution. He introduces the latter terms in his inaugural sermon at Amsterdam, preached soon after, titled, “Rooted and Grounded,” published in Abraham Kuyper, On the Church, ed. John Halsey Wood and Andrew M. McGinnis (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 44–73.
8. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 67.
9. Kuyper, “Rooted and Grounded,” 63.
10. Kuyper, “Rooted and Grounded,” 60.
11. See Bratt, Abraham Kuyper, 184–86; Henry Zwaanstra, “Abraham Kuyper’s Conception of the Church,” 149–81; Daniel Strange, “Rooted and Grounded? The Legitimacy of Abraham Kuyper’s Distinction Between Church as Institute and Church as Organism,” Themelios 40, no. 3 (2015): 429–44.
12. Bratt, Abraham Kuyper, 186.
13. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 82.
14. Kuyper, “Rooted and Grounded,” 57.
15. Kuyper, “Rooted and Grounded,” 56.
16. See, for instance, Zwaanstra, “Abraham Kuyper’s Conception of the Church,” 180.
17. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 69.
18. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 70.
19. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 70.
20. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 71.
21. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 71.
22. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 72.
23. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 73.
24. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 74.
25. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 76.
26. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 73–74.
27. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 74.
28. Abraham Kuyper, “Modernism: A Fata Morgana in the Christian Domain,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 87-124.
29. Kuyper, “Modernism: A Fata Morgana,” 97, 99.
30. Kuyper, “Modernism: A Fata Morgana,” 119.
31. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 81.
32. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 79.
33. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 72, 80.
34. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 80.
35. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 84.
36. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 84.
37. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 69.
38. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 72.
39. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 72.
40. Kuyper, “Rooted and Grounded,” 53.
41. Kuyper, “Rooted and Grounded,” 65.
42. Kuyper, “Rooted and Grounded,” 66.
43. Kuyper, “Rooted and Grounded,” 69.
44. Kuyper, “Rooted and Grounded,” 69.
45. Kuyper, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 67.