Truth and Diversity*

CHAPTER 2 Truth and Diversity*

Rather we confess that the unity of the body of Christ very much transcends our confessional boundaries. The charismata which are also theologically revealed outside of our own territory can therefore offer what we lack, and only complacent narrow-mindedness can refuse to profit by this. A. Kuyper

Introduction

Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) is one of the most remarkable men in the history of Reformed Christianity. As a professor of dogmatics, founder of a political party, newspaper and university (the VU University Amsterdam) and prime minister he was a seminal thinker in the history of modern Calvinism. He dominated the religious and political life of the Netherlands for nearly half a century, and his ideas continue to inspire an international school of thought. His theology left a deep imprint on Dutch immigrant communities in the United States, Canada, South Africa and Australia, but his influence was not just limited to these communities. In Hungary, Transylvania (the northern part of Romania), Indonesia and South Korea are up to now many theologians inspired by him. In Seoul (South Korea) and at Princeton Theological Seminary (USA) are flourishing Kuyper centers.1

* From: C. van der Kooi and J. de Bruijn, eds, Kuyper Reconsidered: Aspects of his Life and Work (VU Studies on Protestant History 3) (Amsterdam: VU University Press 1999), pp. 111–122 (‘Kuyper’s Concept of the Pluriformity of the Church’). Paper presented at the conference on ‘Christianity and Culture: The Heritage of Abraham Kuyper on Different Cultures’, held at the VU University Amsterdam, 9–11 June 1998, under the auspices of the faculty of theology and philosophy and the Historical Documentation Centre for Dutch Protestantism on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Kuyper’s Stone-Lectures, delivered in October, 1898, at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton (USA). 1 Cf. P.S. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids-Cambridge: Eerdmans 1998). See for the translation of many influen- tial texts of Kuyper, J.D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader (Grand Rapids- Cambridge: Eerdmans 1998) and for an extended biography, Idem, Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 2013). See for a brief introduction in his thoughts also, R.J. Mouw, Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction (Grand

In this contribution I shall deal with Kuyper’s concept of the pluriformity of the church against the background of his disputation with the Roman Catholic apologist Th.F. Bensdorp (1860–1917).2 My thesis is that two motives are partic- ularly important for the development of Kuyper’s doctrine of the pluriformity of the church. First, he recognizes the destructive character of unrestrained individualism frequently leading to a schism. Hence, he is strongly opposed to narrow-minded sectarianism (the antisectarian motive). Second, he is also fully aware of the fact that this opposition to narrow-mindedness results in a certain large-heartedness which has not only internal, but also external con- sequences. Hence, although it may sound rather anachronistic, we may, as a subsequent step, indeed also speak of an ecumenical motive. Here however, we have to defend himself against the critique of his Roman Catholic oppo- nent Bensdorp. Bensdorp main point was: Does the recognition of elements of truth in other churches necessarily imply a relativizing of one’s own truth? My analysis of the Bensdorp-Kuyper debate will show that only the integration of biblical hermeneutics within a comprehensive ecclesiology can solve the dissensus between the antagonists Kuyper and Bensdorp.

Bensdorp’s Disputation with Kuyper

In 1901 Bensdorp began his debate with Kuyper with an article entitled ‘A fun- damental misconception of Dr. A. Kuyper or a desperate plea.’3 On the Roman Catholic side Bensdorp was considered as the winner of this debate. When many years afterwards the whole debate was once more published in the

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). See further on Kuyper’s influence in the States and his contested influence in South Africa, a.O., N. Wolterstorff, ‘Abraham Kuyper’s Model of a Democratic Polity for Societies with a Religiously Diverse Citizenry’; G. Harinck, ‘A Triumphal Procession? The Reception of Kuyper in the USA (1900–1940)’; P.J. Strauss, ‘Abraham Kuyper and Pro- Apartheid Theologians in South Africa: The Former Misused by the Latter?’; B.J. van der Walt, ‘Christian Religion and Society: The Heritage of Abraham Kuyper for (South) Africa’ and J.C. Adonis, ‘The Role of Abraham Kuyper in South Africa: A Critical Historical Evaluation’, in: C. van der Kooi and J. de Bruijn, eds, Kuyper Reconsidered, respectively pp. 190–205; pp. 273–282; pp. 218–227; pp. 228–237 and pp. 259–272. 2 For a previous, less extended assessment of this dispute, see M.E. Brinkman, ‘Kuypers plu- riformiteitsleer en de waarheidsvraag. Een konfrontatie met de kritiek van Th.F. Bensdorp’, Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 78 (1978), pp. 115–127. 3 De Katholiek CXIX (1901) p. 205ff. and p. 365ff.