My research this quarter led me to explore the intersection of the Neo-Calvinist Abraham Kuyper with Bonhoeffer. Here’s the beginning of my paper…
Abraham Kuyper and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are two very different historical and theological figures. Kuyper (1837-1920) was the son of a Dutch Reformed minister and spent his lifetime building and advocating a Calvinistic worldview in the Netherlands. Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was born into the old Prussian aristocracy and chose the life of a Lutheran pastor, theologian, and resistance fighter against the Nazi regime. Kuyper died after a long and successful career; he founded several institutions, including the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, the Free University, the Anti-Revolutionary Party (the first modern, organized popular political party in the Netherlands), and the daily and weekly newspapers De Standaard and De Heraut, and at the height of his career he was elected the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Bonhoeffer died at the young age of 39; he was killed in a Nazi concentration camp for his role in the Valkyrie assassination attempt on Hitler. His short life was incredibly productive, though, and some of his theological writings on discipleship, ethics, and the nature of the church have become spiritual classics. Kuyper would have never known of Bonhoeffer, and Bonhoeffer’s interaction with Reformed writings seem to lack any direct connection to Kuyper.[1]
For all their differences, however, Kuyper and Bonhoeffer hold striking similarities, especially in their commitment to Christian engagement with the world. While they employed different methods, emphasized different dogmas, and advocated for different outcomes, Kuyper and Bonhoeffer were really after the same thing. They both were convinced that the nature of the Christian faith demanded clear and direct action in and with the public arena. As a result, they both sought to build a theology that could make sense of and meaningfully engage with the pressing issues in their respective historical circumstances. Kuyper looked to the roots of the Reformed faith in Calvin and worked to construct a theology that was both faithful to its foundations and relevant for the time. Bonhoeffer, too, sought to refine and re-imagine the Lutheran theological tradition in order to articulate a biblical way forward in the midst of Nazi Germany. Their different historical contexts nevertheless led them to a strikingly similar conviction: Christian disciples are called to bear essential witness to the reality of Jesus Christ in the world. Kuyper and Bonhoeffer are thus excellent resources for exploring the very public nature of Christian discipleship.
Personal discipleship demands public engagement because the reality of life in Christ is public, in that it infuses all aspects of life.[2] Kuyper and Bonhoeffer construct theologies of discipleship that speak to the mandate of Christian involvement in and for the world. Their conclusions are both general and specific; they interact with the world from a set of theological convictions and yet allow their unique situation to inform the outworking of that theology. As such, this paper will explore the specific historical context and theological implications of concepts from select writings from Kuyper and Bonhoeffer. Investigations of Kuyper’s writings on sphere sovereignty, common grace, and worldview coupled with Bonhoeffer’s work on church/state authority, Christological ethics, and divine mandates (which culminate in Christonomy) will provide a compelling notion of public discipleship. Kuyper and Bonhoeffer both construct a theology of engagement that operates from and witnesses to the gracious reality of Jesus Christ in the world.
[1] John De Gruchy gives an example of Reformed influence on Bonhoeffer by making the case that Bonhoeffer found himself outside his Lutheran heritage and embracing notions of the Reformed tradition in the decision to participate in the conspiracy against Hitler. Cf. John De Gruchy, Bonhoeffer and South Africa: Theology in Dialogue (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1984), 98ff.
[2] Note that the use of “public” throughout the paper is not limited to “politics,” but rather signifies a theological orientation to all aspects of our interconnected society and life, including occupations, societies, economics, family, etc.
