A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper's American Public Theology

Trinity Journal, Fall 2002 by Yoo, Chul Hee

Bolt points out that American evangelicals are desperately in need of such a public theology. He traces the history of the eclipse of evangelicalism in the late nineteenth century and its consequential evolvement into fundamentalism. However, with their robust resurgence in the second half of the twentieth century, evangelical Christians entered the public square once again. Who will be their inspiration? Bolt suggests Abraham Kuyper. Why? Because it was primarily through the efforts of late twentieth-century neo-Calvinists (George Marsden, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Richard Mouw, etc.) that evangelical intellectual respectability was achieved (p. 129).

Bolt's comparison of Kuyper's views of the Kingdom of God with that of Jonathan Edwards's is particularly insightful. He argues that both Edwards's and Kuyper's eschatological views were unhealthy at points because they came dangerously close to linking God's redemptive plan with America or the Netherlands, which can unwittingly encourage idolatry. The author cautions evangelicals "against basing a public theology too heavily on one's interpretation of how historical realities reflect divine providential purpose" (p. 212).

Bolt also dispels a number of misconceptions about Kuyper's relationship to liberation rhetoric and ontology, theocracy, pluralistic society, and tolerance. He points out that Kuyper employed rhetorical strategies similar to some used by liberation theologians, but argues that Kuyper's social ontology differs significantly from that of liberationist metaphysics. On the one hand Marx's social philosophy is monistic. Kuyper's ontology, however, is pluralistic in that he does not wish to dissolve the various social spheres, but envisions that they co-exist under the sovereignty of God, fulfilling their potential given in creation (p. 300).

In his discussion on theocracy and pluralism, Bolt argues that Kuyper was not a theocrat but a pluralist who lobbied for equal voice for all in the public square. Christians ought to have the right to voice their opinions about civic matters, but that right should not overflow into coercion. Instead it should be used as a means of persuasion. How then can Christians participate in public discourse without being poisoned by sectarian passion? Bolt considers the alliance between some evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews as well as the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). He argues that religious movements that promote a common cause (e.g., ECT), best serve as a model of non-sectarian political voice (p, 392). The author also looks to Kuyper at this point to demonstrate how Christians ought to engage. In the spirit of Kuyper, evangelical political activists should employ symbols, imagery, and language that can speak meaningfully to the void created by a cynical society (p. 400).

Bolt concludes his work by challenging recent proposals by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson who argue that evangelicals have betrayed the gospel ministry through their political activism and heavy-handed maneuvers. The author agrees that bad politics such as demonizing one's opponents has no place in Christian civil discourse. However, one's decision regarding political involvement does not have to be either/or, that is, the gospel ministry or political activism. Christians can and ought to be engaged in both. Bolt contends that Christians must speak in the public square in obedience to their calling, but with charity and hope. A winner-take-all mentality must not dominate in public civic discussions. We must engage, but the success of our endeavors should be left to the Creator, for "there are no guarantees; only a call for obedience" (p. 441).