Authority in question : analysis of a polemical controversy on religion in the Netherlands, 1948-1998 Breevaart, Johannes Otto van de Citation Breevaart, J. O. van de. (2005, October 31). Authority in question : analysis of a polemical controversy on religion in the Netherlands, 1948-1998. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/4317 Version: Corrected Publisher’s Version Licence agreement concerning inclusion of License: doctoral thesis in the Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/4317 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). Authority in Question Analysis of a Polemical Controversy on Religion in the Netherlands, 1948-1998 ISBN 90 5972 089 X Uitgeverij Eburon Postbus 2867 2601 CW Delft tel.: 015-2131484 / fax: 015-2146888 [email protected] / www.eburon.nl Cover design: Geert de Koning © 2005 H. van de Breevaart. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor. © 2005 H. van de Breevaart. Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand, of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm of op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen, of op enig andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de rechthebbende. Authority in Question Analysis of a Polemical Controversy on Religion in the Nether- lands, 1948-1998 Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Dr.D.D.Breimer, hoogleraar in de faculteit der Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen en die der Geneeskunde, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op maandag 31 oktober 2005 klokke 14.15 uur door Johannes Otto van de Breevaart geboren te Hendrik-Ido-Ambacht in 1971 Leiden 2005 Promotiecommissie Promotores: Prof. Dr P.S. van Koningsveld Prof. Dr G.A. Wiegers (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen) Referent: Dr K.D. Jenner Overige leden: Prof. Dr H.L. Beck (Universiteit van Tilburg) Prof. Dr W.B. Drees ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Whatever its strict methodic rules and claims for objectivity, I believe that scientific research always begins with highly personal preoccupations. There is much hard- and software available to academics and employed as tools for ordering materials and developing theories, but people may wonder what personal preoccupations led me to start this project and—whatever the boredom and backlash which those like us meet with along the way—how I remained focused on a topic so distant from the experi- ence of everyday life, indeed a topic which so few would find interesting, except a few academic diehards and, alas, some family and friends. Was it ‘religion’, the topic of the controversy, that interested me? To be sure, re- ligion interests me. I consider religion and its continuing relevance for the future of our civilization a topic of utmost importance. However, I did not expect to find an easy answer to the problem. It is difficult to determine whether religion is ‘good’, or ‘bad’ or ‘evil,’ let alone the fact that there is still no universal agreement on what exactly we mean by the term ‘religion’—e.g. what belongs to its essence and what is mere manifestation or function. For my part, the various answers to the problem of religion given in the course of the controversy surrounding Simon Vestdijk’s De toekomst der religie were less than satisfying. Without a doubt, some interesting people were involved in the controversy. Rather than Vestdijk, it was Sierksma who fascinated me the most. Born and bred in a lower middle-class and Calvinist environment, Sierksma studied Theology in the late 1930s. Yet, though he surely belonged to the class of believers, he began to ques- tion the very concept of religion, wondering why people believe in religious phe- nomena in the first place. Gradually, his attention shifted from mere questioning to developing theories by which religion could possibly be understood. A few back- ground similarities, whether social or intellectual, caught my attention. The first thing that struck me was his extremely interesting and challenging approach to religious phenomena. Even in the early 1990s, when I started to study Religious Studies at Leiden University, the old-fashioned classification schemes of Theo van Baaren and Lammert Leertouwer were still being used as a common introduction to the study of religions.1 Though it was a required part of the curriculum at the Faculty of Theol- ogy (what did I expect?), I found this approach disappointing. I must admit that for this reason I did not attend the course, nor did I read their book—except the first few pages on the definition of religion. Instead, I set out in search of alternatives. To my surprise, hardly twenty years before, at the same Faculty at which I was studying now, Sierksma had pointed in directions that, to me, seemed far more promising than 1 Cf. Van Baaren & Leertouwer 1980. 5 anything that had been done up to that point. Rather than allowing theologians a monopoly on the subject, he preferred to involve other disciplines such as History, Psychology and Sociology in the study of religious phenomena. This is evident in the controversy dealt with in the present thesis. However, although Sierksma’s answers were far more satisfying than those of his opponents, this was not a particularly im- portant reason for studying the controversy either. On the one hand, I admired him for his pioneering work in the study of relig- ions. Moreover, I liked his straight, clear and logical style of writing. On the other hand, his fierce attacks on his opponents diverged drastically from the way I would expect those to react who had left the ‘Ur of religion’ and—enlightened by the torch of reason—reached the promised land of Israël. It contrasted sharply with the moder- ate and tolerant attitude of orthodox-Calvinists, who never let themselves become triggered to react to others aggressively or attack the “evil” outside world. The problem which has intrigued me for so long—and which has proved crucial to my interest in the controversy—is why people with reasonable ideas sometimes behave so unreasonably, whereas others who believe in sheer myth often behave so rationally and self-confidently. Vestdijk knew the answer. He loved chatting with those self-confident Calvinists who did not seem to doubt—not even for a minute— the purpose of their lives. This observation has been confirmed by my own experi- ence. I was raised in a strict Calvinist environment. Even though I did not share in the Calvinists’ beliefs, their state of mind and attitude to the world often impressed me as perfectly sane and sanguine. And yet, Vestdijk accused them of being intolerant tyrants who could stand dissention from nobody. Though he went a long way in trying to understand this apparent contradiction, I was not convinced. His friend Sierksma offered me a clear counter-example of someone who did not believe in ‘God’, yet often behaved in the same tyrannical way which Vestdijk criticized Cal- vinists for. Vestdijk’s theory (to which we shall return later on in this study) fails to account for fact. Thus, I felt the need to develop a theory of my own, without pre- judging either Sierksma or any Calvinist. I did this by trying to find a systematic correlation between outward behavior (polemic) and social position (authority). To outsiders, it might be a bit surprising that I was researching a controversy that, though it dealt with religion, was hardly religious in and of itself. And yet, I would like to thank all those within the confines of the Faculty of Theology and the De- partment of the History of Religions and Comparative Religion who allowed me to continue with the project. To my colleagues at the Faculty of Theology, I am espe- cially grateful and I admire their tolerance. I wonder how they are able to breed so many Trojan horses among themselves. Personally, I believe that Theology (taken here to mean the study of ‘God’) should not be confused with the study of religious phenomena, as is done by the (‘neutral’) state curriculum at the Faculty. Surely, the discipline of Religious Studies might serve as an introduction to Theology. Yet, too 6 often it does not, at least not explicitly. To claim a legitimate position within a Fac- ulty of Theology, however, it is obliged to do so. In the end, however, I have to apologize for not having been able to contribute to the Study of Religion, let alone to provide for any progress in Theology. Apart from my colleagues and professors at Leiden University, I want to thank those who took issue with me during regular conferences organized by LISOR and NOSTER. They often forced me not to take things so lightly and to continue searching in areas which I was not familiar with before. Early on, Arie Molendijk offered me some newspaper articles on the issues I was studying, especially the replies by ‘modernist’ theologians to Sierksma. These articles indicated that a fruitful dia- logue between Theology and Science is possible when the former actually belongs to the field of Religious Studies (as Tiele already argued more than hundred years ago). Tony Watling was kind enough to send me his PhD dissertation on the construction of religious identities in the Netherlands—a fine example of empirical research indi- cating how religion accommodates to changing circumstances and new challenges. I am grateful to Damian Pargas for editing and correcting my English.