Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands [1 ed.] 9780192898029, 0192898027

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands ARIE L. MOLENDIJK

1

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Arie L. Molendijk 2022 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2022 Impression: 1 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, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2021942704 ISBN 978–0–19–289802–9 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

Acknowledgements For advice and comments on earlier drafts of chapters of the book I would like to thank the following colleagues and friends: George Harinck, Ed Noort, Marten van der Meulen, Hetty Zock, Peter van Rooden, Jo Spaans, Marcel Sarot, Cees Houtman, and David J. Bos. I am also grateful to Oxford University Press and its editorial staff—especially Tom Perridge, Karen Raith, Jo Spillane, and Katie Bishop—for accepting the book and seeing it through publication, to the manuscript readers for their helpful comments, to Gayathri Venkatesan for the production of the text, and to Jo North for her meticulous copy-editing. This monograph draws on 25 years of research of Dutch religious and theological history in the nineteenth century. In this book I discuss the work of a few significant authors who addressed modern issues such as representative government, autonomous thinking, the rise of critical historical scholarship, and religious pluralism head-on. I make use of parts of earlier articles, which all have been rewritten, focusing on the relation between Protestant theology and modernity. These texts are in order of appearance: ‘De vervluchtiging van het vrijzinnig protestantisme in Nederland’, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 50 (1996) 122–134. Revised German edition: ‘Die Verflüchtigung des freisinnigen Protestantismus in den Niederlanden’, Zeitschrift für Neuere Theologiegeschichte 8 (2001) 58–72. ‘Transforming Theology: The Institutionalization of the Science of Religion in the Netherlands’, in Arie L. Molendijk and Peter Pels, eds., Religion in the Making: The Emergence of the Sciences of Religion (Studies in the History of Religions: Numen Book Series, vol. 80), Leiden: Brill, 1998, pp. 67–95. ‘Abschied vom Christentum. Der Fall Allard Pierson’, in Henri Krop, Arie L. Molendijk, and Hent de Vries, eds., Post-Theism: Reframing the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 141–157. ‘Tegen de tijdgeest. Isaäc da Costa’s Bezwaren (1823), het Réveil en de Verlichting’, in F.G.M. Broeyer and D.Th. Kuiper, eds., Is ‘t waar of niet? Ophefmakende publicaties uit de ‘lange’ negentiende eeuw (Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis van het protestantisme na 1800, vol. XIII), Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2005, pp. 19–37. ‘The Rhetorics and Politics of the Conversion of Isaac da Costa’, in Jan N. Bremmer, Wout J. van Bekkum, and Arie L. Molendijk, eds., Cultures of Conversions, Leuven: Peeters, 2006, pp. 65–82. ‘Versäulung in den Niederlanden: Begriff, Theorie, lieu de mémoire’, in Friedrich Wilhelm Graf and Klaus Große Kracht, eds., Religion und Gesellschaft. Europa im 20.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

vi



Jahrhundert (Industrielle Welt. Schriftenreihe des Arbeitskreises für moderne Sozialgeschichte, vol. 73), Köln: Böhlau, 2007, pp. 307–327. ‘Neo-Calvinist Culture Protestantism: Abraham Kuyper’s Stone Lectures’, Church History and Religious Culture 88 (2008) 235–250. ‘ “A Squeezed-Out Lemon Peel”: Abraham Kuyper on Modernism’, in Leo Kenis and Ernestine van der Wall, eds., Religion and Modernism in the Low Countries 1840–1940: A Comparative Approach, Leuven: Peeters, 2009, pp. 189–203. ‘The Low Countries’, in Grace Davie and Lucian Leustean, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 681–696.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

Contents Notes on Language and Translation

Introduction

ix

1 I. ISAAC DA COSTA

1. Isaac da Costa and the Zeitgeist

13

2. The Conversion of Isaac da Costa

31

II. THEOLOGICAL MODERNISM 3. Allard Pierson’s Farewell to Christianity and His New ‘Agnostic’ Worldview

51

4. Dutch Protestant Modernism

74

5. Abraham Kuyper’s Critique of Theological Modernism

95

III. ABRAHAM KUYPER AND PILLARIZATION 6. Neo-Calvinist Culture Protestantism

111

7. Abraham Kuyper’s Religio-Political Rhetoric

123

8. Pillarization

139 IV. THEOLOGY REVISITED

9. Historical-Critical Analysis of the Bible and the Rise of Science of Religion Conclusion Bibliography Index

155 179 191 215

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

Notes on Language and Translation Unless otherwise indicated translations are my own. I did not try to render the original text in any literal sense, but to convey the meaning of nineteenth-century Dutch in present-day English. I had to take some liberty to transmit the liveliness and particularities of the texts and thus make them palpable for English readers. In the nineteenth-century Netherlands most authors did use initials and not their first names. The Dutch scholar of religion Tiele, for instance, was primarily known at the time as C.P. Tiele and not as Cornelis Petrus Tiele. In publications the names of publishing houses are not always mentioned either. I have tried to retrieve these data, but this was not always possible. The main Protestant church at the time was de Nederlands(ch)e Hervormde Kerk, which I have translated as Dutch Reformed Church. The translation Netherlands Reformed Church may have been more precise, but is less compact and handy.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 7/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

Introduction ‘When the end of the world is near, be sure to make your way to Holland. There everything happens fifty years later!’ Although generally attributed to the German writer and poet Heinrich Heine, this quote cannot actually be found in his writings. However, the idea that the nineteenth century was a somewhat backward period in Dutch history is widespread. The Protestant theologians in the Netherlands at the time were indeed critical of the modern speculative ‘jumps’ made by German idealist philosophers and preferred ‘common good sense’. The work of Friedrich Schleiermacher, who left his mark on nineteenth-century German theology, for instance, was not well received and was criticized as too abstract and extremely difficult.¹ However, Protestant theologians and thinkers (among them a remarkable number of laypeople) did come to terms with modern developments—in new and innovative ways. This book addresses the question of how they met the challenges of the modernizing world around them— intellectually and, to a lesser extent, socio-politically. Intellectual debate in the nineteenth-century Netherlands was dominated by Protestant theologians and intellectuals of various persuasions, with Catholics and Jews still playing a subordinate role in Dutch society. The introduction of a modern constitution, including ministerial responsibility and broader parliamentary representation, in the revolutionary year of 1848 also made it possible to appoint Catholic bishops. In 1853 Pope Pius IX seized this opportunity by installing Joannes Zwijsen as archbishop of Utrecht. The emancipation of Catholics (some 38 per cent of the population during the nineteenth century) happened slowly. Catholic intellectuals could publish in their own journals and periodicals, but most of them found it hard to establish themselves in the broader public domain. A notable exception is the conservative politician, priest, and poet Herman Schaepman (1844–1903), who cooperated closely in parliament with the Protestant leader Abraham Kuyper and made a significant contribution to the emancipation of Dutch Catholicism.² Although the small minority of Jews (some 1.8 per cent of the population) had been granted full civil rights in 1796 and the Jewish elites had often a close relation to the ruling classes, factually they still had ¹ For the influence of Schleiermacher in the Netherlands see P.J. van Leeuwen, De betekenis van Fr. D.E. Schleiermacher voor de theologie in Nederland, Haarlem: Bohn, 1948. ² Jan Bank and Maarten van Buuren, 1900: The Age of Bourgeois Culture (Dutch Culture in a European Perspective, vol. III), Assen and Basingstoke: Van Gorcum and Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 384–388.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0001

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

2

   

not an equal position. Notwithstanding the existence of a Jewish press they lacked a strong public voice.³ In the second half of the nineteenth century the process of modernization really got underway. The Netherlands became a modern nation-state with representative government, industrialism emerged, and the intellectual climate—influenced by a new historical approach to religion and the successes of the natural sciences and positivist and materialist philosophies—became critical of supernatural worldviews. In universities, both the critical examination of the Bible and the comparative study of religions were on the rise. Questions about how to justify Christian propositions were hotly debated. The aim of this monograph is to show how theology was fundamentally transformed and reinvented in the nineteenth century in a variety of ways—in response to the process of modernization. The focus is on intellectual history, but broader social and political transformations will be addressed too. Protestant theologians dealt with various aspects of modernization in different ways. Enlightenment values were fiercely attacked by orthodox Pietists, but embraced by ‘modern’ theologians, who strove for a synthesis of religion on the one hand and the new findings of scholarship (biblical criticism) and the natural sciences (evolutionary theory, anti-supernaturalism) on the other. Moreover, positions were not fixed and theologians had to work hard to maintain their intellectual integrity. The Jew Isaac da Costa converted to Christianity and fulminated against the Zeitgeist. Allard Pierson, who in his youth had been under the spell of Da Costa, resigned from his ministry and adopted an ‘agnostic’ stance. Abraham Kuenen revolutionized the study of the Old Testament, and the Dutch Radical School propagated a radical form of biblical criticism, denying the historicity of Jesus. Furthermore, Dutch theologians made ground-breaking contributions to the emerging science of religion. The most influential Dutch theologian of the modern era was Abraham Kuyper. He forced a decisive break in the broad Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk (Dutch Reformed Church): the Doleantie (Secession) of 1886. Kuyper founded his own church, along with the Neo-Calvinist Free University in Amsterdam and the Anti-Revolutionary Party, the first modern political party in the Netherlands. He was a long-time member of parliament, and served as Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905. He stated that he was reclaiming Calvin’s legacy, but in fact he modernized Dutch theology and Dutch politics in hitherto unprecedented ways. The new segmented social structures—based on differences in religion and worldview—of pillarized Dutch society were to a large extent determined by Kuyper. His

³ Helpful overviews of Dutch (religious) history are given in James C. Kennedy, A Concise History of the Netherlands, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, and Joris van Eijnatten and Fred van Lieburg, Nederlandse Religiegeschiedenis, Hilversum: Verloren, 2005; trans. Niederländische Religionsgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



3

followers and the Catholics, and to a lesser extent the socialists, succeeded in establishing powerful ‘pillars’ (blocs of organizations based on various confessions or worldviews). His polarizing style offended the old liberal elites, who still clung to the ideals of a consensual and homogeneous state and an inclusive, Protestant ‘People’s Church’ (volkskerk). Most studies of Dutch nineteenth-century theology and religious history are concerned with particular ministers and theologians and are biographical in nature.⁴ With the exception of the literature on Abraham Kuyper, whose thinking is heralded in the international Reformed world—especially in the United States— as a paradigm for a new evangelical involvement in public life, almost nothing has been published in English.⁵ This book presents in-depth studies of a small number of significant and influential thinkers who addressed specific modern transformation processes, such as political modernization, the pluralization of worldviews, and the emergence of critical historical scholarship. Various case studies will show how their careers were often deeply marked by these transitions. This is, therefore, not an exhaustive history of Dutch Protestant thought in the nineteenth century, but focuses—as the title of the book suggests—on the relationship between theology and modernity. ‘Modernity’ is, of course, a broad and contested term, as there are many different views and theories of modernization and modernity. It would not be helpful here to give an overview of these theories, which could hardly satisfy the informed reader, as I only need a framework in which to analyse the Dutch situation in the nineteenth century. In this respect I follow the German theologian and historian Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, who argues that for historical purposes modernization in Western Europe can be aptly defined by the following transformation processes: (1) capitalist industrialization, which may lead to class antagonism; (2) political modernization, formation of political parties and the acknowledgement of basic human rights, which may not be violated by the state; (3) the ongoing separation of state and society, the pluralization and differentiation of societal spheres, each following its own rules; (4) the development of individualistic life styles; and (5) the privatization of religion and a concomitant deinstitutionalization of religion, which implies the replacement of old church monopolies by a pluralism of competing groups and individuals who defend and

⁴ The relevant literature is used and discussed in the various chapters. The main collective endeavour of Dutch Protestant church historians in recent times has been the edition of a ‘biographical lexicon’: Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme, 6 vols., Kampen: Kok, 1983–2006: http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/lexiconprotestantisme. ⁵ An exception is the important book by David J. Bos, Servants of the Kingdom: Professionalization among Ministers of the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands Reformed Church, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010, which also has a broad focus.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

4

   

seek to sell their own worldview.⁶ This perspective will serve here as a heuristic frame of reference to identify issues that may also have been at stake in Dutch debates.

Chapter Plan The nine chapters of this book are divided into four parts. Part I focuses on Isaac da Costa, while Part II deals with the phenomenon of theological modernism. Part III centres on Abraham Kuyper and how he laid the foundation for the new pillarized structure of Dutch society. Part IV addresses major developments in Dutch theology and the training system for future ministers in the nineteenth century. Except for Part IV, which consists of one large chapter, each part contains several chapters that highlight various aspects of the modernization of Dutch Protestant theology during the nineteenth century. Because not all readers may be familiar with the thinkers and developments discussed, I have chosen to introduce them briefly rather than enter into a discussion with other—mainly Dutch-language—literature. I will only do so if it helps to clarify controversial issues or the general line of argument. Various chapters analyse crucial texts in some detail; my aim here is to come to a better understanding of both the argument the author is making and the rhetorical performance. Such an analysis is especially important in the case of Kuyper, whose texts often go back to speeches he gave. The book is structured as follows:

Part I. Isaac da Costa Chapter 1: Isaac da Costa and the Zeitgeist Isaac da Costa (1798–1860) was a pivotal figure in Dutch religious history, not only because of his remarkable conversion to Christianity, but first and foremost because of his vehement criticism of modern political, social, and religious ideas. His notorious publication Bezwaren tegen de geest der Eeuw (Objections to the Spirit of the Age, 1823) upset the liberal establishment of his day, including his great-uncle, the British political economist David Ricardo, who thought that his nephew—notwithstanding his excellent abilities—had come to ‘wrong conclusions, on points too which have long divided the world’. The pamphlet involves a fierce critique of Enlightenment values such as human autonomy and

⁶ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, ‘Moderne Modernisierer, modernitätskritische Traditionalisten oder reaktionäre Modernisten?’, in Hubert Wolf, ed., Antimodernismus und Modernismus in der katholischen Kirche. Beiträge zum theologiegeschichtlichen Vorfeld des II. Vatikanums, Paderborn etc.: Schöningh, 1998, pp. 67–106.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



5

representative government. With the claims of free will and the supremacy of reason, modern man, according to Da Costa, would rather be a ‘godless and spiritless animal’ than dependent on God. As the chapter also addresses Da Costa’s criticisms of academic theology in Groningen and Leiden, it sketches a relevant part of Dutch academic theology at the time.

Chapter 2: The Conversion of Isaac da Costa In 1822 Isaac da Costa converted to Christianity, together with his wife Hanna Belmonte (1800–1867) and his friend the physician Abraham Capadose (1795–1874), who is well known for his battle against vaccination. Da Costa presented his conversion as a quest for personal truth, which individuals have to appropriate for themselves. His own conversion narrative ultimately resolved the dialectics between free personal conversion and the outer personal and sociopolitical circumstances and constraints (the death of his father, the emancipation of the Jews in the Netherlands) in favour of the authenticity of the individual decision. From a structural point of view his choice of the ‘religion of my fathers’ was also a conversion to modernity. After his conversion Da Costa became a public figure in the Netherlands and he played a leading role in the early nineteenth-century Dutch revival movement, the Réveil.

Part II. Theological Modernism Chapter 3: Allard Pierson’s Farewell to Christianity and His New ‘Agnostic’ Worldview According to an obituary written by a colleague, Allard Pierson (1831–1896) had epitomized Dutch intellectual history for almost forty years. Like Pierson, the writer had started his career as a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church but resigned when he could no longer come to terms with his religious doubts. After his resignation, Pierson still obtained a teaching position at the theological faculty in Heidelberg, but he ended his career as a professor of art history in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, he remained fascinated by religion and especially the religion of his childhood. His admiration for the Réveil milieu and its sincere and intense piety seems to have been barely diminished by his criticism of its theological presuppositions. This longing for a distant past may explain his lasting attempts to come to terms with the religion of his youth. It took a great effort to arrive at his new ‘agnostic’, humanistic worldview, which broke radically with the supernatural and with infallibility. Chapter 4: Dutch Protestant Modernism ‘Modernism’ is not to be confused with the term ‘modernity’ and the process of modernization discussed above, but it is also a contentious notion. It has a more

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

6

   

restricted sense and is used in different domains in a variety of ways. In the arts and philosophy, the term generally refers to innovative movements and individuals, although who actually belongs to the avant-garde is a matter of dispute. It is frequently used to characterize modern culture as opposed to religion. Yet it may apply to the religious and theological sphere too, indicating new theologies and the critical interpretation of the Bible, which demythologizes Scripture. Theologians of different Christian backgrounds took part in this endeavour. The most prominent Catholic modernist was Alfred Loisy, who was the main target of the condemnation of the modernist movement in the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (1907). In the present book the term is primarily used to refer to the Protestant movement that aimed at a synthesis of liberal Protestantism and modern culture. The chapter presents an overview of the various meanings of the term, in both a general and a religious and theological sense. Alongside terminological issues, the main protagonists are introduced, debates within Dutch modernism are analysed, and a brief description of the movement is presented. Finally, the chapter gives an explanation of the decline of liberal Protestantism in the Netherlands in the twentieth century, by referring to the Dutch system of pillarization. The liberal idea that Protestant religion was an integrative force in Dutch society was severely frustrated in a situation where their counterparts organized themselves into separate confessional organizations that came to dominate the public sphere. Confronted with radical social differentiation and segmentation, the liberal Protestant ideal proved to be unrealistic and even counterproductive.

Chapter 5: Abraham Kuyper’s Critique of Theological Modernism It will come as no surprise that theological modernism and Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) did not get along. In a popular address of 1871 Kuyper famously spoke of modernism as ‘a fata morgana in the Christian domain’. It was Kuyper who made the term ‘modernism’ (modernisme) current at the time. His argument was more along the lines of philosophy of religion than of dogmatic theology. In fact, Kuyper compared worldviews and argued for the superiority of his own system of thought, which was allegedly geared to reality, whereas modernism to him represented a dishonourable compromise with the spirit of the times, based on a superficial understanding of reality. The rhetorical power of the 1871 speech lies predominantly in the suggestion that modernism (although a necessary phase in the course of history) would perish and ‘we’ would prevail. The speech turns on the double meaning of ‘real’ and ‘realism’. Kuyper argued that by making a compromise with the predominant ‘realism’ of the nineteenth century, modernists actually bypassed reality: no real God, no real prayer, no real sin, and no real church. Because this chapter is closely connected to debates in the preceding chapter, I have included it in Part II (Theological Modernism), rather than in Part III about Kuyper.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



7

Part III. Abraham Kuyper and Pillarization Chapter 6: Neo-Calvinist Culture Protestantism Kuyper reinterpreted Calvinism as a combination of the richness of its tradition with an endorsement of modern principles and ways of life (except for gambling, theatre-going, and dancing). Yet the acceptance of the modern way of life did not mean secularism; on the contrary, according to Kuyper Calvinism in itself was a modern principle, which—against the prevailing powers of a secularizing modernity—could permeate society as a whole. The chapter argues that Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinist worldview was a pre-eminently modern invention in its own right, and thus signified a major break with traditional Calvinism, notwithstanding elements of continuity. A somewhat similar programme of reconciliation of religion and modernity was pursued at the time by liberal Protestants (Kulturprotestanten) in Germany, who contrary to Kuyper accepted the fact that cultural domains such as politics and the economy followed their own nonreligious rules.⁷ ‘Culture Protestantism’ (Kulturprotestantismus) was originally used as a synonym for liberal Protestantism and liberal theology; the term acquired a negative connotation in the work of dialectical theologians such as Karl Barth.⁸ Chapter 7: Abraham Kuyper’s Religio-Political Rhetoric Even Kuyper’s critics acknowledge his great powers of oratory. Kuyper’s rhetoric had a strong romantic flavour of artistic inspiration and aimed at a vivid representation of reality. His stalwart defence of Calvinism against modernism (here taken by Kuyper as the predominant secular worldview) drew from personal experience and from the struggles in Dutch history, resulting in strong opinions couched in both military and organic metaphors. His mastery of the psychology of mass communication (Gustave le Bon) served his political goals rather well. Kuyper was aware of the importance of modern media such as rallies, journals, and pamphlets (which had a broad circulation at the time) and reflected on how to make good use of modern forms of communication. Kuyper’s rhetorical mastery not only empowered and energized his constituency, but also led to divisions in Dutch society that are still visible in the present day and are now termed ‘pillarization’.

⁷ Gangolf Hübinger, Kulturprotestantismus und Politik. Zum Verhältnis von Liberalismus und Protestantismus im wilhelminischen Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ⁸ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, ‘Kulturprotestantismus. Zur Begriffsgeschichte einer theologiepolitischen Chiffre’, Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 28 (1986) 214–268.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

8

   

Chapter 8: Pillarization The following definition of ‘pillar’ captures the Dutch situation rather nicely: ‘A pillar is . . . defined as a subsystem in society that links political power, social organization and individual behaviour and which is aimed to promote – in competition as well as in cooperation with other social and political groups – goals inspired by a common ideology shared by its members for whom the pillar and its ideology is the main locus of social identification.’⁹ But how exactly do the several pillars relate to each other? Does the metaphor not suggest a false symmetry and uniformity? It has been a matter of debate whether the social democrats and the liberals could be aptly described as ‘pillars’. Various motives and aspects have played a role here. Important is the aspect of the emancipation of underprivileged groups, either in religious (Catholics and orthodox Protestants) or social respect (labourers). The defence against secularizing tendencies—in particular against the ‘neutral’ state and its monopoly on schools—has been mentioned too. Political scientists have pointed to the wish of the elites to control the lower classes and to establish political stability in a pluralist society. Although pillarization was at its height between 1917 and 1968, confessional mobilization and organization had already started in the 1870s. The lens of ‘pillarization’ offers an important perspective by which to understand the specific process of modernization that characterized Dutch society from the late nineteenth century until well into the twentieth century.

Part IV. Theology Revisited Chapter 9: Historical-Critical Analysis of the Bible and the Rise of the Science of Religion The main intellectual developments discussed in the final chapter of the book are the rise of the historical-critical study of the Bible and the science of religion in the Netherlands in the last half of the nineteenth century. Both developments concern the historization of the field of theology itself, the use of historical and comparative methods to study religions. The influence of the natural sciences and Darwinism on theology was not particularly strong in the Netherlands. The first section addresses the ground-breaking work of the Old Testament scholar Abraham Kuenen, especially in relation to the publications of Julius Wellhausen and William Robertson Smith. The letters they exchanged will be used to show in some detail how Kuenen’s books were received in Germany and Britain. The second section is devoted to the Dutch Radical School, which emerged at the end of the nineteenth century. Allard Pierson, Abraham Dirk Loman, Willem ⁹ Eric H. Bax, Modernization and Cleavage in Dutch Society: A Study of Long Term Economic and Social Change, Aldershot: Avebury, 1990, p. 104.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



9

Christiaan van Manen, and Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga were sceptical (to put it mildly) about attempts to reconstruct the life of the ‘historical Jesus’ (Leben-Jesu-Forschung), most of them denying the authenticity of all Pauline letters and very much doubting the historicity of Jesus. The third section focuses on the new 1876 Higher Education Act, which introduced history of religions and philosophy of religion (often considered to be the two main branches of the ‘science of religion’) as part of the theological curriculum. The fourth section briefly introduces the work of two Dutch pioneers of the science of religion and their views on theology in relation to it. Cornelis Petrus Tiele hoped for a complete transformation of theology into a science of religion that could fulfil the tasks of theology in a scholarly fashion, whereas Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye and later Gerardus van der Leeuw aimed at a new phenomenology of religion that would remodel the study of religion, including Christianity. Tiele’s and La Saussaye’s basic insights and approaches will be discussed in a contextualized way, and not—as happens too often in the historiography of religious studies—as almost disembodied abstract tools and methods for research. As each chapter has a concluding section, the Conclusion will not summarize the results of the research, but is more general in character. I will try to connect some of the threads of the book, and reflect upon the ways in which Dutch Protestant thinkers perceived and dealt with the complexities of their changing world. The ‘Dutch case’ will be further placed in an international, mostly Western European context, and the continued current presence of issues that are addressed in the book will be briefly touched upon. Unlike presumably Heinrich Heine, I will not indulge in apocalyptic speculation, but end with the conclusion that Dutch Protestant theologians did not shy away from the issues at stake and even contributed to the modernization of Dutch society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

PART I

ISAAC DA COSTA

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

1 Isaac da Costa and the Zeitgeist Isaac da Costa (1798–1860) is a pivotal figure in the history of the Netherlands, being a vocal spokesman of the Réveil (Revival), as the Dutch Pietist revival movement is mostly referred to. He was an outspoken critic of the liberal establishment, whose pamphlet against the Zeitgeist (1823) stirred one of the greatest intellectual controversies of the time. The year before its publication Da Costa had converted to Christianity. The way in which he framed his conversion story, which also sheds light on the position of Jews in the new Dutch nation-state, will be the subject of the next chapter. Here, I will focus on Da Costa’s criticism of modern Dutch society; in his view, the Christian point of view was deeply at odds with the achievements of the modern world. The outline of the chapter is as follows. First, some remarks are made about the perception of nineteenth-century Dutch theology. After a short sketch of Da Costa’s life and work I will turn to the controversial pamphlet Bezwaren tegen de geest der Eeuw (Objections to the Spirit of the Age, 1823), which will be analysed in some detail. Next, reactions to the pamphlet will be discussed, and the controversy is further contextualized by a discussion of Da Costa’s later views and debates concerning church and theology in which he was involved. Finally, Isaac da Costa’s role in Dutch religious history will be positioned between the orthodox Protestant Réveil movement and the Enlightenment.

Nineteenth-Century Dutch Theology The Dutch nineteenth century did not have a great reputation. The German orientalist and Pietist theologian Friedrich August Gottreu Tholuck (1799–1877), who visited the Netherlands in 1825, wrote to a friend that if he had had to spend a year here he would be ‘dead, completely dead’. He allegedly met only drowsy and sleepy people.¹ Tholuck sensed complacency and a lack of piety in the Dutch. Generally, historians do not assess late eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century Dutch theology favourably either. According to a

¹ Leopold Witte, Das Leben Friedrich August Gotttreu Tholuck’s, vol. I, Bielefeld and Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing, 1884, p. 387; cf. M.E. Kluit, Het Protestantse Réveil in Nederland en daarbuiten. 1815–1865, Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1970, pp. 66, 116.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0002

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

14

   

prominent author, theologians at the time were lost in a ‘deep supernatural sleep’.² Liberal theologians thought it would be easy to reach a synthesis between reason and revelation. It was even claimed that the Bible was ‘the most liberal of liberal books’,³ and the praeceptor Hollandiae, the philosopher Philip Willem van Heusde (1778–1839),⁴ who was also influential among theologians, rejected the ‘phantasies’ and ‘oracles’ of the German idealists.⁵ What was needed—another contemporary stated—was simplicity, common sense, and above all good principles that are not contrary to ‘our religion’.⁶ The systematic theologian Karel Hendrik Roessingh (1884–1925), whose work on the history of Dutch theology is still important, even contended that until 1825 major cultural-historical developments completely passed by Holland, and Dutch theology in particular. His main issue with the liberals was their claim of coping with the modern insights of the Enlightenment, without really going into the issues at stake. Roessingh was annoyed by what he saw as their half-heartedness: neither the Christian tradition nor the new perspectives were taken seriously. Roessingh’s criticism may be exaggerated and shaped by his own systematic interests (new research has shown a more nuanced picture),⁷ but it is true that the consequences of Enlightenment philosophy and its turn to the human subject (people were expected to think for themselves) were underestimated by many theologians and thinkers at the time. It is certain that Isaac da Costa did not belong to this group and was very much aware of what was at stake. ² Hendrik Berkhof, 200 Jahre Theologie. Ein Reisebericht, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985, p. 106; cf. Albert de Lange, De verhouding tussen dogmatiek en godsdienstwetenschap binnen de theologie. Een onderzoek naar de ontwikkeling van het theologiebegrip van J.H. Gunning Jr. (1829–1905), Kampen: Mondiss, 1987, p. 29; Karel Hendrik Roessingh, De Moderne Theologie in Nederland. Hare Voorbereiding en eerste Periode (1914), in Roessingh, Verzamelde Werken, vol. I, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1926, pp. 24–28. ³ K.H. Roessingh, Het modernisme in Nederland (1922), in Roessingh, Verzamelde Werken, vol. IV, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1927, pp. 231–385, here p. 256 (quoting S. Wiselius). ⁴ Cf. Jasper Vree, De Groninger Godgeleerden. De oorsprongen en de eerste periode van hun optreden, Kampen: Kok, 1984; Arie L. Molendijk, ‘ “That Most Important Science”: The Study of Church History in the Netherlands in the Nineteenth Century’, Dutch Review of Church History 84 (2004) 358–387. ⁵ Quoted in Taco Roorda, ‘Over den tegenwoordigen toestand der Philosophie in Nederland; een brief aan Prof. Dr. J.H. Fichte’, Godgeleerde Bijdragen 18 (1844) 719–764, here pp. 727–728. The translations are my own and I have taken some liberty to convey the meaning of the texts to the modern reader. I did not try to present a literal translation nor to imitate the nineteenth-century Dutch particularities. ⁶ Roorda, ‘Over den tegenwoordigen toestand’, pp. 725–726. ⁷ Margeret C. Jacob and Wijnand W. Mijnhardt, eds., The Dutch Republic in the Eighteenth Century: Decline, Enlightenment, and Revolution, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992; special issue Geschiedenis van de wijsbegeerte in Nederland 5 (1994); W.W. Mijnhardt, ‘De Verlichting in Nederland’, in F. Grijzenhout, W.W. Mijnhardt, and N.C.F. van Sas, eds., Voor vaderland en vrijheid, Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1987, pp. 53–79. Mijnhardt, ‘The Dutch Enlightenment: Humanism, Nationalism, and Decline’, in Jacob and Mijnhardt, eds., The Dutch Republic, pp. 197–223, stresses the importance of the rejection of radical criticism of religion (pp. 214–215), whereas Jonathan Israel in his many publications focusing on the work of Spinoza claims that the socalled Radical Enlightenment had its roots in the Netherlands. For a general overview of Dutch history around 1800 see Joost Kloek and Wijnand Mijnhardt, 1800: Blueprints of a National Community, Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004, chapter 12.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

15

Isaac da Costa Isaac da Costa was born into a prosperous Amsterdam Jewish family.⁸ His father Daniel da Costa (1761–1822) was a successful businessman who worked in the wine trade. Through his mother Rebecca Ricardo (1772–1841) Isaac was related to the well-known political economist David Ricardo (1722–1823). His father exercised various duties in the Portuguese congregation, and Isaac recalled a visit to the synagogue where at the age of five he was said to have recited the fifth chapter of the book of Habakkuk in Hebrew.⁹ Daniel was a cultivated man, who had an extensive library, and corresponded with his only son in French. On closer inspection, the idea found in older literature that Isaac da Costa was raised in a strong conservative milieu seems implausible. One of his teachers was Mozes Lemans (1785–1823), a Freemason who belonged to the Jewish Enlightenment circle.¹⁰ Da Costa had contacts with various literary societies, and at the age of fourteen he became a member of Concordia crescimus.¹¹ Here he recited his early verses with considerable success. In his long poem about the ‘redemption of the Netherlands’ of 1814 Da Costa celebrated the liberation of the country from the tyranny of Napoleon.¹² Through his teacher Lemans he came into contact with the Jewish literary society Tot Nut en Beschaving (For Benefit and Civilization), where he met for the first time the famous poet, enfant terrible, and devout Pietist Willem Bilderdijk (1756–1831),¹³ who was to become one of his teachers. Regarding his education and literary activities the conclusion must be drawn that Da Costa was open to emancipatory and Enlightenment ideas.¹⁴ Mainly due to the influence of Bilderdijk and his circle, Da Costa converted to Christianity. Together with his wife Hanna Belmonte (1800–1867) and his friend Abraham Capadose (1795–1874), famous for his struggle against vaccination,¹⁵ he

⁸ Ulrich Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’. Erweckungsprediger des 19. Jahrhunderts. Sechs Porträts, München: Beck, 1991, pp. 86–114, 191–194; M.E. Kluit, Het Réveil in Nederland 1817–1854, Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1936; M.E. Kluit, ‘Mr. Isaäc da Costa. De mens in zijn tijd’, in Isaäc da Costa. Op 28 april 1960, honderd jaar na zijn overlijden, herdacht, Nijkerk: G.F. Callenbach, 1961, pp. 9–38; L. Knappert, ‘Costa, Isaäc da’, in P.C. Molhuysen, P.J., Blok, and K.H. Kossmann, eds., Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, vol. VI, Leiden: Sijthoff, 1924, cols. 336–348; J. Meijer, Isaac da Costa’s weg naar het christendom. Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der joodsche problematiek in Nederland (PhD thesis, Amsterdam, 1941); cf. Evelien Gans, Jaap en Ischa Meijer. Een joodse geschiedenis 1912–1956, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2008, pp. 159–171. ⁹ Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, p. 28; Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’, p. 90. ¹⁰ Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, pp. 32–37. ¹¹ Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, p. 39. ¹² Da Costa, ‘De verlossing van Nederland’ (1814), in: Kompleete Dichtwerken (1861), ed. J.P. Hasebroek, third edition, Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff [1876], pp. 4–10. ¹³ Joris van Eijnatten, Hogere sferen. De ideeënwereld van Willem Bilderdijk (1756–1831), Hilversum: Verloren, 1998; Rick Honings and Peter van Zonneveld, De gefnuikte arend. Het leven van Willem Bilderdijk (1756–1831), Amsterdam: Prometheus & Bert Bakker, 2013. ¹⁴ Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’, p. 92. ¹⁵ David Kalmijn, Abraham Capadose, ’s Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1955; J. Verhave and J.P. Verhave, ‘De vaccinatiekwestie in het Reveil’, in J. van den Berg, P.L. Schram, and S.L. Verheus, eds., Aspecten van het Reveil, Kampen: Kok, 1980, pp. 230–255; Jan Peter Verhave, ‘De profeet en het

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

16

   

was baptized in the Leiden Pieterskerk on 20 October 1822.¹⁶ After a short career as a lawyer Da Costa did not fulfil any public office; he had inherited money from his parents and was paid by the audiences he addressed. Many of his speeches on religious and aesthetic topics were published, and he entertained a large correspondence as well.¹⁷ He was well known for his poetry and his religious works, which ensured him a wide readership. People must have been particularly fascinated by his rhetorical talent. He organized religious meetings including Bible study (réunions) at home and spoke to various groups in the evening. The student of theology Nicolaas Beets (1814–1903), who was later to capture the spirit of the bourgeois era in his bestselling novel Camera Obscura, described such a meeting. In January 1836 he saw Da Costa for the first time:¹⁸ We were let into a spacious room, the parlour suite with wide-open porte brisée. Both rooms were tastefully, even abundantly decorated. In the parlour there was a life-size portrait of a man, probably not a member of the Da Costa family, considering his more Nordic appearance. In the suite there were various watercolours, Rubens’ Descent from the Cross, and a John the Baptist with Lamb. The listeners sat for the most part at long tables with green cloth and stationery; other people sat on the window-sills or on sofas. I estimated their number at some thirty. [ . . . ] The whole seemed extremely fashionable, even elegant. At the head of the long tables that were pulled together was Da Costa, smartly dressed in black. Da Costa is a small man. His face is pale, ravaged by smallpox, and not beautiful, but still it captures your attention. The Jewish traits have to a large extent disappeared, but not completely, and they may be evoked in certain circumstances, especially as he speaks with contempt. His eyes are dark brown and lively. His hair is short, black and stiff. When we entered he had already begun. [ . . . ] He speaks very loud, or to be more precisely at a very high pitch.

Beest. Dr. Abraham Capadose en zijn Bestrijding der vaccine (1823)’, in F.G.M. Broeyer and D.Th. Kuiper, eds., Is ‘t waar of niet? Ophefmakende publicaties uit de ‘lange’ negentiende eeuw (Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis van het protestantisme na 1800, vol. XIII), Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005, pp. 39–63. ¹⁶ The sermon was published as L. Egeling, Leerrede over Romeinen XI vers 5 door L. Egeling, bij de gelegenheid van de bediening des doops aan drie, tot onze Heer bekeerde, Israëlieten, Leiden: Du Saar, Mozes & Cijfveer, 1822; cf. Judith Frishman, Dat hun geloof opregt gelove, hun keus de keus des harten zij (Inaugural Address) [Leiden, 1997]; Judith Frishman, ‘The Belmonte Women and their Conversion to Christianity. “Heil U, geachte Vrouw, uit Abrahams zaad gesproten” ’, Studia Rosenthaliana 32 (1998) 198–201. On this occasion Da Costa dedicated a poem to Egeling; see Knappert, ‘Da Costa’, col. 339: ‘O, zegen d’achtbre hand die ‘t zoenbloed van uw zoon / Neerdroppelde op ons hoofd als vruchtbren lenteregen’ (‘Bless the honourable hand that let drop the blood of atonement on our heads as a fruitful spring rain’). After the publication of Da Costa’s Bezwaren Egeling would break off relations with him. ¹⁷ For a bibliography see Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’, pp. 191–194. ¹⁸ Nicolaas Beets, Het dagboek van de student Nicolaas Beets 1833–1836, ed. Peter van Zonneveld, ’sGravenhage: Nederlands Letterkundig Museum en Documentatiecentrum, 1983, pp. 222–223. The italicized French and English words are taken from the original.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

17

There is something screaming and screechy in his presentation, which in the beginning makes an unattractive impression, but in the end exerts an extremely persuasive power and evokes interest. [ . . . ] People who imagine Da Costa as the zealous separatist, as the runaway fanatic, armed and fulfilled with texts and formulas, as so many depict him, or as the penitential prophet, which he is in his poetry, will be astonished when they see and hear him in those well-furnished rooms, speaking in the phrases of someone who moves in the most civilized circles, and keeps abreast of the usance du monde until the present day.

The prejudice against Jews, and Da Costa in particular, is palpable, and is reinforced by Beets’ sketch of how civilized and fashionable the event actually was. That seems to be quite a surprise to Beets, who phrases his own experience in terms of an opposition between a fanatic and prophetic type of religion and a most civilized modernity, which was somehow overcome by Da Costa’s impressive performance in a very fashionable environment. The fragment also shows the fascinating figure Da Costa was, and how he attracted audiences. His publications probably contributed even more to his national fame, which reached its first peak in 1823.

Against the Spirit of the Times At the beginning of April 1823 Da Costa let a friend know that he was working on a booklet ‘against the illusory enlightenment of the nineteenth century’.¹⁹ Four months later, on 7 August 1823 to be precise, Bezwaren tegen de geest der Eeuw was published. The first edition comprised 500 copies and was sold out within a few days; another three editions appeared in the same year. The pamphlet evoked many reactions.²⁰ The Minister of Justice feared that ‘this foolish and stupid writing of that ape of Bilderdijk’s’ could even provoke more interest if legal proceedings against him were started.²¹ Only a few people were able to appreciate Da Costa’s frontal attack on the common societal order and its constitutive values. We should not limit Da Costa’s indictment to the nineteenth century: he actually criticized the Enlightenment as such.²² This does not mean that his anger was not stirred up by actual events. A prime example is the great celebration ¹⁹ W.G.C. Byvanck, De jeugd van Isaäc da Costa (1798–1825), 2 vols., Leiden: Van Doesburgh, 1894–1896, vol. II, p. 242 (letter from 4 April 1823). ²⁰ D.P. Oosterbaan, ‘Rondom Da Costa’s “bezwaren” ’, Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde 11 (1937) 1–53; G.M. den Hartogh, ‘Rondom Da Costa’s “bezwaren” en hun ontvangst’, Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 59 (1959) 37–52; Kluit, Het Protestantse Reveil in Nederland, pp. 145–152; A. Kagchelland and M. Kagchelland, Van dompers en verlichten. Een onderzoek naar de confrontatie tussen het vroege protestantse Réveil en de Verlichting in Nederland (1815–1826), Delft: Eburon, 2009. ²¹ Oosterbaan, ‘Rondom Da Costa’s “bezwaren” ’, p. 23. ²² Cf. Da Costa, Bezwaren tegen den geest der Eeuw, Leiden: L. Herdingh, 1823, p. 35, passim.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

18

   

of the invention of book printing in Haarlem in the summer of 1823. For those involved it was beyond doubt that this invention had been made by Jan Laurenszoon Koster (also spelled Coster) from Haarlem, and not by Johann Gutenberg from Mainz. One of the speakers on this occasion had taken the trouble to add a footnote to his published lecture in which he denied Gutenberg’s claim to fame, but more generally Koster’s competitor was kept under wraps. The festivities in Haarlem were no less than a national event. They took place in the main church in Haarlem, St. Bavo, where poets and orators emphasized the darkness of the Middle Ages, in order to make the light of knowledge provided by book printing shine even more brightly. A memorial plate was unveiled, and many festivities such as meals, games, fireworks, and exhibitions were organized. Almost 3,000 people and reading societies from the seven provinces of the Netherlands signed up for the big commemorative volume published in the following year.²³ Keynote speaker was Johannes Henricus van der Palm (1763–1840), professor of rhetoric and minister at the University of Leiden, and the most famous Dutch orator of his age.²⁴ The interest in his celebratory speech, which would as matter of course appear in the commemorative book, was so great that it was published as a separate booklet as well. The profits went to the poor of the city of Haarlem. In his speech, Van der Palm stated that the free press and freedom of religion are intimately connected. Only if both liberties have been achieved can religion be fully expressed. In the Netherlands religion and civic virtue, freedom and the wellbeing of the people were happily united, so that it should not come as a surprise that the noble art of printing was invented on Dutch soil.²⁵ In a letter to Bilderdijk, Da Costa spoke about ‘the programme of the heathen festivities to honour Koster’.²⁶ In his Bezwaren he refers to the celebrations as the ‘idolatrous service of self-esteem and pride’. The ‘worship’ of Koster in the St. Bavo church in Haarlem implied the desecration of a space dedicated to God.²⁷ On the subject of the Middle Ages Da Costa, who was influenced by Romantic writers, also differed from his enlightened contemporaries: ‘People speak about the barbarism of the Middle Ages, while carefully suppressing or deforming all traits of greatness, nobleness and piety, which have excelled in this era.’ Just compare this kind barbarism with that of the French Jacobins! The

²³ Vincent Loosjes, ed., Gedenkschriften wegens het vierde eeuwgetijde van de uitvinding der boekdrukkunst door Lourens Janszoon Koster van stadswege gevierd te Haarlem den 10 en 11 Julij 1823, Haarlem: Loosjes, 1824. ²⁴ Henk te Velde, ‘ “De eeuw van Van der Palm!”. Publieke welsprekendheid en de politieke cultuur van de Restauratie in Nederland’, BMGN. Low Countries Historical Review 135/1 (2020) 3–30, p. 1. ²⁵ J.H. van der Palm, Redevoering op het vierde eeuwfeest van den uitvinding der boekdrukkunst, Haarlem: Loosjes, 1823. ²⁶ Den Hartogh, ‘Rondom Da Costa’s “bezwaren” ’, p. 37. The date of this letter is not indicated. ²⁷ Da Costa, Bezwaren, pp. 86–87; cf. A. de Groot, Leven en arbeid van J.H. van der Palm, Wageningen: Veenman, 1960, p. 153.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

19

medieval monasteries, Da Costa continues, have offered the finest examples of self-sacrifice and love for the sick, the wounded, and the destitute.²⁸ Da Costa criticizes particularly the liberal glorification of what modern man had allegedly achieved. Van der Palm’s eulogy of reason as ‘the most divine in us’ had annoyed Da Costa. Essentially, the Bezwaren are one great indictment of the ideal of human autonomy, and a plea for people to believe again and regain the faith of their Christian ancestors. It is mainly a polemic. Although Da Costa unfolds some positive ideas as well, criticism prevails. He knew that he belonged to a minority, but because the matter at stake (i.e., the loss of faith) was so fundamental, he had to make his convictions public. The sense of urgency is palpable in the exhortative character of the booklet. The preface sounds like some sort of prayer: ‘The name of the Lord be praised! Amen’. The pamphlet has a dual structure. Human free will and divine providence are contrasted with each other and put in chronological order. At the moment, humans have built a throne for themselves. The spirit of our times has convinced people of the importance of their own free will and decisive judgement. They prefer to be ‘godless and spiritless animals’ instead of dependent upon God.²⁹ These modern ideas are miles away from those of our ‘forefathers’.³⁰ Da Costa refers to Holy Scripture, Martin Luther, and the National Synod of Dordrecht (1618–19) to underpin the meaning of the old biblical truth to which the Dutch people should return. Such a change of mind cannot be accomplished by human beings; that would imply an overestimation of human possibilities and underestimation of God’s power. This, again, means that Da Costa did not see the current situation as hopeless. On the contrary, the dramatic circumstances reinforced his belief that God’s intervention was near.³¹ The Bezwaren, however, do not deal only with religion or—more precisely— religious decay. The book contains a concise, but thematically broad analysis of culture. In ten short sections the following themes are addressed: religion, morality, tolerance and humanity, liberal arts, scholarship, political theory, birth (class differences), public opinion, education, and freedom plus enlightenment. These ten sketches are bracketed by an introduction and an epilogue, which summarizes the exhortations. I will discuss some of Da Costa’s basic convictions.³² ²⁸ Da Costa, Bezwaren, pp. 24–26. ²⁹ Da Costa, Bezwaren, p. 8. ³⁰ The term voorvader (ancestor, forefather) is often used by Da Costa to evoke a contrast with the godless present; Da Costa, Bezwaren, pp. vi, 38, 47, 63, 76. ³¹ Da Costa, Bezwaren, p. 90: ‘Wy weten het, dat hoe akeliger de uitzichten zijn, hoe hulpeloozer de toestand der zaken naar de wegen van den kortzichtigen mensch, zoo veel te zekerder, zoo veel te nader de bystand is van Hem, die Zijne Kerk door de poorten der helle niet zal laten overweldigen’. ³² Summaries in Oosterbaan, ‘Rondom Da Costa’s “bezwaren” ’; Den Hartogh, ‘Rondom Da Costa’s “bezwaren” ’; Ulrich Gäbler, ‘Zum theologischen Gehalt von Isaäc da Costas “Einreden wider den Zeitgeist” 1823’, in Ulrich Gäbler and Peter Schram, eds., Erweckung am Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, Amsterdam: Centrale huisdrukkerij Vrije Universiteit, 1986, pp. 223–245; J.A. Bornewasser, ‘Roomse bezwaren tegen Da Costa’s Bezwaren’, in Bornewasser, Kerkelijk verleden in een wereldlijke context, Amsterdam: Van Soeren & De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1989, pp. 345–356.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

20

   

Ulrich Gäbler has pointed to the central character of Da Costa’s concept of divine providence, which in his (Da Costa’s) view has two important aspects. On the one hand, God provides a well-designed world order; on the other, God saves the world by leading it back to this original order. In Da Costa’s thinking these interventions do not question the original ‘grand design’, but are established within the order as God has founded it.³³ This conviction is the fundament of Da Costa’s hope that God will again intervene in history. These very real eschatological expectations explain his criticism of the spirit of the age. ‘We are in this world to obey, not to govern’.³⁴ Furthermore, Gäbler emphasizes that this concept of divine providence differs clearly from the classic Calvinist concept, and also suggests that the entire booklet has no more than a slight Christian varnish.³⁵ One can only concur with the first objection, but I would propose a measure of restraint in questioning its Christian character only because the Bezwaren lack Christological argumentation. Probably there are more ‘Christian’ documents that fail to meet this criterion. Would this suspicion also be raised if one did not know about Da Costa’s conversion? Three doctrines seem to form the nucleus of his theology: the teachings of the Trinity (especially the divinity of Christ), original sin, and salvation.³⁶ One can find these at various places in the book.³⁷ Furthermore, Da Costa explicitly rejects deism and Socinianism.³⁸ If one does not question the Christian character of Da Costa’s later work, there is in my opinion not much reason to do so here. Besides, the Bezwaren are not a full-blown dogmatic treatise, but involve a theologically motivated critique of culture. Which ideas and persons were particularly reproachable or abhorrent according to Da Costa? German and French Enlightenment philosophy had apparently done much harm.³⁹ Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and foremost Immanuel Kant were subject of his criticism; the idea of an autonomous human subject he rejected out of hand.⁴⁰ German neologists and the French encyclopaedists such as Voltaire were subjected to scathing criticism. Their writings—Voltaire’s Candide, Denis Diderot’s Jacques le Fataliste, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions, and even the fables of La Fontaine—Da Costa says, are blasphemous and lead to immoral behaviour. The French Revolution, symbolized

³³ Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’, p. 102. ³⁴ Da Costa, Bezwaren, p. 93. ³⁵ Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’, p. 103; Gäbler, ‘Zum theologischen Gehalt’, p. 231. ³⁶ Da Costa, ‘Inleiding’, in Brieven van Mr. Willem Bilderdijk, vol. IV, Rotterdam: W. Messchert, 1837, p. xv; Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, Brieven van Mr. Isaac da Costa, vol. I (1830–1849), Amsterdam: Höveker & Zoon, 1872, p. 79. ³⁷ Da Costa, Bezwaren, pp. 6–7. ³⁸ Da Costa, Bezwaren, pp. 2, 9. In autobiographical texts Da Costa several times points out that before his conversion to Christianity he had been attracted to deism, if only briefly. ³⁹ That does not mean that British thinkers are spared; see for instance Da Costa’s criticism of Robert Owen (1771–1858), Da Costa, Bezwaren, p. 21. ⁴⁰ Da Costa, Bezwaren, p. 10.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

21

by the city of Paris, ‘contemporary Babel’,⁴¹ the ‘Vatican of reason’, ⁴² stood for everything Da Costa rejected. It will be clear that the Bezwaren do not provide a carefully constructed argument, but are quintessentially a pamphlet, a call to arms. In Da Costa’s view primary education is a good example of the devastating consequences of the spirit of the age. Here he refers to the educational reformers Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1826) and Joseph Lancaster (1778–1838), whose work is not further detailed. Da Costa does not mention that the Quaker Lancaster had started an elementary school in one of the poorest districts of London, which was open to children of all denominations. Neither is there mention of the introduction of the monitorial system, which meant that older children had to help the younger ones under the supervision of teachers.⁴³ Instead of discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the new system of peer tutoring which was designed to save costs, Da Costa points to the disastrous consequences of modern education in the most general terms. He has two main complaints: first, it propels in extreme ways the ambition and envy of simpleminded and innocent children, and second, they learn too many unnecessary and questionable things. By extreme stimulation these children are made into devils of two kinds: devils of pride and devils of ambition. Every farmer’s son who has been taught ‘to repeat that the world revolves around the sun’ feels himself superior to his simple parents. It would have been just as useful if he had learned the Ptolemaic system by heart. Besides, by introducing the principles of reward and punishment the children are given the impression that society as such is organized this way, and hence they are not raised according to their social position.⁴⁴ In Da Costa’s view the country does not need teachers who explain to their pupils the illusory ideals of equality and freedom, but teachers who tell them that they should be satisfied with their position in society as ordained by God.⁴⁵ On the basis of this conviction Da Costa is also against the abolition of slavery and the introduction of meritocratic and democratic principles. Theories of natural law and contrat social were absolutely false: society cannot be built on principles of human autonomy and the exercise of an allegedly free will. Children do not make contracts with their parents, and according to Da Costa the same is true for the relationship between citizen and state. Is it a result of a contract that the seasons follow one another?⁴⁶ The answer to this rhetorical question is evident to Da Costa: it is beyond doubt that the people have to obey their monarch, who in the last resort only answers to God. The guarantee of freedom and justice can

⁴¹ Bilderdijk, Brieven, vol. IV, p. 25. ⁴² Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’, p. 170. ⁴³ Joseph Lancaster, Improvements in Education, as it Respects the Industrious Classes of the Community (1803), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014; cf. Lancaster, Een eenig schoolmeester onder duizend kinderen in eene school. Eene bijdrage tot verbetering der leerwijze en school-orde in de lagere volksscholen, Haarlem: Loosjes, 1811. ⁴⁴ Da Costa, Bezwaren, pp. 74–75. ⁴⁵ Da Costa, Bezwaren, pp. 72 and 42. ⁴⁶ Da Costa, Bezwaren, pp. 44–46.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

22

   

never be found in a ‘piece of paper’, but only in the conscience of the sovereign before his God. Therefore, the king is not bound to his oath on the constitution, at the moment he deems that the preservation of his royal authority or his obligation as a Christian ruler require this.⁴⁷

Reactions It is not hard to imagine how Isaac da Costa’s statements were received by liberal opinion. His constitutional remarks raised vehement rebukes. One of the more moderate respondents wrote that he only concurred with Da Costa on the point of respect for the Bible.⁴⁸ Da Costa was accused of conceit and arrogance, and the distance with his opponents seemed unbridgeable. In his travel diary his uncle David Ricardo has captured his impressions of his first meeting with his nephew in July 1822: I thought him a young man of excellent abilities, who had reflected and read a good deal – he expressed his opinions in French with great fluency and eloquence – he would have shone in a public assembly if his voice were better, there is something in his voice not pleasing. He has lived a great deal by himself, which I think has been of great disadvantage to him, for he delivers his opinions as if it were impossible he should ever change them, and as if there were no chance that he may have come to wrong conclusions, on points too which have long divided the world. In politics he is almost an advocate for absolute government; he has not any correct notions of representative government, nor of the securities for freedom. On these points his views are quite crude, – he has read on these subjects, but he has not read enough. I have recommended one or two books to him but I do not think he will read them.⁴⁹

Viewed from a liberal stance Da Costa’s ideas were simply contrary to common sense.⁵⁰ There was no longer a shared basis for an exchange of arguments. The debate about the Bezwaren has a strong polemical character; his opponents do not hesitate to vilify Da Costa. The tone deteriorated even further when Bilderdijk entered the debate to defend his friend against the ‘barking dogs’, who were not able to appreciate the ‘mellow and, at his young age, becoming ⁴⁷ Da Costa, Bezwaren, pp. 59, 52. ⁴⁸ N.G. van Kampen, Verdediging van het goede der negentiende eeuw tegen de bezwaren van den heer Mr. I. da Costa, Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1823, p. iv. ⁴⁹ D. Ricardo, ‘Journal of a Tour on the Continent 1822’, in P. Sraffa and M.H. Dobb, eds., The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, vol. X, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955, pp. 177–352, here pp. 207–208. ⁵⁰ Van Kampen, Verdediging, had chosen the following biblical text as a motto: ‘He who is estranged seeks pretexts to break out against sound judgement’ (Proverbs 18:1).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

23

tone’ that Da Costa had used.⁵¹ Gerbrand Bruining then spoke a ‘few serious words’ with Bilderdijk to ‘challenge the baboon’s smirking’ by which he joined his ‘Portuguese pupil’, whose ancestors probably never dreamt of the fact that their remote descendant would use the money that they had earned by hard labour in the tolerant Netherlands to set the country on fire.⁵² The reference to Da Costa’s Jewish descent was an ideal way to ridicule him as a unthankful stranger in the country that had welcomed his ancestors with open arms. My impression is that his political views gave even more offence than his theological opinions. In this context it is neither possible nor useful to give an overview of the whole controversy. In the centennial edition of 1923 the editor counted twenty-four reactions,⁵³ whereas Jacob Jetzes Kalma’s 1985 bibliography lists some hundred titles, contributions of Roman Catholic provenance not included.⁵⁴ An anonymous reviewer in a moderate Catholic journal suggested that the developments criticized by Da Costa were actually the result of the Reformation.⁵⁵ Joachim George le Sage ten Broek, who had converted to Catholicism, took the opportunity to take Da Costa under his protection against criticism.⁵⁶ Were not the teachings of the Synod of Dordrecht (1618–19) still valid? Why did so many people take offence? Le Sage ten Broek pretended not to understand the commotion, but the fierce polemics show clearly that Da Costa had hit a nerve in the enlightened Netherlands. How deep the controversy went is also reflected by the ensuing discussion about vaccination. This had been only briefly mentioned in the Bezwaren, but was put on the agenda by Da Costa’s friend Abraham Capadose. In November 1823,

⁵¹ Bilderdijk, De bezwaren tegen den geest der eeuw van Mr. I. da Costa, toegelicht, Leiden: L. Herdingh en Zoon, 1823, pp. 2 and 4. ⁵² Gerbrand Bruining, Een hartig Woordje aan Mr. W. Bilderdijk, over deszelfs dusgenoemde Toelichting, van Mr. I. Da Costa’s Bezwaren tegen den geest der eeuw, Leiden: J.W. Dauw Lem, 1823, p. 6. My summary is unfortunately a weak paraphrase of Bruining’s elaborate insults. ‘Rep nu uw voorbeeldig scherp gebit tegen het mijne, dat onder een immer zittend leven wel eenigszins verstompt is, maar echter het bavianengegrijns durft tarten, waarmee gij uwe Portugeesche kweekelingetjes accompagneert, wier jammerlijk vervolgde voorouders gewis nimmer droomden, dat hunne naneefjes zich op de penninkjes, welke zij in het verdraagzame Nederland ongemoeid vergaarden, onmiddellijk na een knaphandig afzweren van hun voorouderlijk geloof, derwijze verheffen zouden, dat zij het land, waar hun geslacht zoveel heul vond, in vuur en vlam durfden zetten.’ ⁵³ J.C. Rullmann, ed., Isaäcs da Costa’s bezwaren tegen den geest der eeuw. Na honderd jaar opnieuw uitgegeven, Amsterdam: W. Kirchner, 1923, pp. xxii–xxiv. ⁵⁴ Rondom Is. da Costa’s Bezwaren tegen den geest der eeuw. Bibliografie, compiled by J.J. Kalma, Leeuwarden 1985. The only copy is held by the Provincial Library of Friesland. My thanks go to Jacob van Sluis for making it available to me. Kalma’s bibliography runs till 1982, including almost 40 titles from the beginning (1823–1824), as well as later discussions of the Bezwaren. For an extensive overview see Kagchelland and Kagchelland, Van Dompers en Verlichten, pp. 251–371. Although they discuss Catholic reactions as well, it is not clear to me, if they claim to be exhaustive. Their discussion stays close to the texts. ⁵⁵ Quoted in Bornewasser, ‘Roomse bezwaren’, p. 349, who refers to De Katholijke. Letterkundig tijdschrift voor roomsch-catholijken. ⁵⁶ Bornewasser, ‘Roomse bezwaren’, pp. 351–352.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

24

   

this medical doctor published his first diatribe against vaccination,⁵⁷ and over a period of six years he would write no fewer than seven books and brochures about this subject. The vaccination against cowpox had recently been discovered by Edward Jenner (1749–1823), and was seen by opponents as going against nature (in any case as far as the method of administering is concerned) and as a threat against the human soul and morality.⁵⁸ One of the main objections was that it was a preventative that made a healthy person ill. The word of Jesus that it is the sick, not the healthy, who need a doctor was crucial in the discussion. From a religious perspective the key issue was whether or not vaccination was compatible with the belief in divine providence. Initially Da Costa had been convinced by Capadose, but after his son Jacques had died of the smallpox he changed his mind and became a moderate advocate of vaccination. Even then Capadose continued to try and convince Da Costa, as he thought it was wrong to view vaccination as an adiaphoron.⁵⁹ On later occasions Da Costa did not express himself as radically as in the Bezwaren; as far as slavery and democracy were concerned he struck a more moderate tone.⁶⁰ Nevertheless he did not regret his pamphlet, because fundamentally his ‘deepest convictions’ had not changed. He remained convinced that there is a battle between God’s plan and the desires of our time, between a superficial, worldly enlightenment and a divine enlightenment, between a purely moral and rational understanding of Christianity and a purified soul-searching form of faith that is directly mediated by the word of the biblical God, a battle that cannot be won by human intervention.⁶¹ According to Da Costa, his later switch to a less radical position consisted in the fact that he no longer expected the cure of all evil from a return to the old conditions, but from progressing to a new future willed and prepared by God.⁶²

Later Controversies It will not come as a surprise that Da Costa was also rather critical of academic theology, which he saw as false, dishonest, immoral, and above all unholy, because it ridicules its ultimate subject. In his opinion it proceeds without faith, as it dares ⁵⁷ Abraham Capadose, Bestrijding der Vaccine of de Vaccine aan de Beginselen der Godsdienst, der Rede en der ware Geneeskunst getoetst, Amsterdam: Sulpke, 1823. ⁵⁸ Verhave and Verhave, ‘De vaccinatiekwestie in het Réveil’, p. 250. Capadose’s uncle and adoptive father Immanuel Capadose (1759–1826), personal physician to King Louis Napoleon, had openly declared that Jenner was of greater importance to Europe than Louis Napoleon; cf. Ricardo, ‘Journal of a Tour’, p. 211. ⁵⁹ Cf. also Kalmijn, Capadose. ⁶⁰ Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’, p. 104; Kluit, ‘Mr. Isaäc da Costa’, pp. 32–34. ⁶¹ Da Costa, Rekenschap van gevoelens bij gelegenheid van den strijd over het adres aan de hervormde gemeente in Nederland, second edition, Amsterdam: G. van Peursem, 1843, p. 3. ⁶² Da Costa, Rekenschap, p. 6; cf. p. 51.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

25

to oppose biblical Christianity. Theologians interpreted the Bible in ways that were incompatible with its original meaning, and falsely pretended for instance that pantheism could pass for the old religion.⁶³ Da Costa primarily targeted theologians from the universities of Leiden and Groningen. He was so disappointed in them that he publicly argued to close these public theological faculties, and took the initiative for a ‘theological seminary for national and international evangelization’.⁶⁴ In 1847 Da Costa wrote a series of articles on the ‘Groningen School [of Theology]’, which were later published as a separate book. As usual his treatment is characterized by dramatic and polemical statements: the Groningen School ignores and disowns the basics of the Gospel.⁶⁵ However, the leader of the Groningen theologians, Petrus Hofstede de Groot (1802–1886), sympathized with the Réveil movement and urged his colleagues not to overlook the similarities between the two groups.⁶⁶ Distinguishing themselves from rationalism and supernaturalism, the Groningen theologians argued for a non-dogmatic faith based on the principle of divine love. Focusing on the faith of the individual they considered divine revelation to be not so much about doctrine, but about the person of Christ. They did not consider sin a radical breach in the relationship between God and humankind: Christ has come to this earth to educate and sanctify humanity. The Groningen theologians rejected the classical doctrine of atonement. Hofstede de Groot emphasized the importance of a heartfelt piety, which is experienced in the inner life of the faithful. The Groningen theologians also spoke about the necessity of conversion and being born again. If we leave doctrinal niceties aside, the impression could arise that both groups shared similar ideas or at least similar forms of piety. The Dutch Réveil has been characterized as an ‘orthodoxy of piety’, a description not completely beside the point. For the adherents of the Réveil, however, the Groningen School represented a form of subjectivism.⁶⁷ The Groningen conceptualization of religion as a natural disposition that can be more or less developed implies according to their critics that they deny that the atonement by Christ is crucial for salvation. Moreover, Da Costa

⁶³ Da Costa, Nalezing van Mr. Isaac da Costa op zijnen Paulus. Eene schriftbeschouwing, Amsterdam: H. Höveker, 1850, pp. 11–14. ⁶⁴ F.R.J. Knetsch, ‘J.H. Scholten (1811–1885) en Isaac da Costa (1798–1860). Voorlopige verkenning van een polemiek’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis van de negentiende eeuw 16 (1983) 5–17, here p. 8. ⁶⁵ Da Costa, ‘Eenige opmerkingen omtrent het onderscheidend karakter der Groningsche godgeleerde school naar aanleiding van het Latijnsche handboek over christelijke dogmatiek en apologetiek, uitgegeven anno 1845 door de Hoogleeraren Pareau en Hofstede de Groot’, De Vereeniging. Christelijke Stemmen 1 (1847) 414–427, 491–499, 545–562, 626–634, 775–788. Separately published under the same title: Eenige opmerkingen omtrent . . . , Amsterdam: Höveker, 1847. My quotes are from the original edition. ⁶⁶ Jan van den Berg, ‘P. Hofstede de Groot en het Reveil’, in Van den Berg et al., eds., Aspecten, pp. 11–34. ⁶⁷ Da Costa, ‘Eenige opmerkingen’, p. 419.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

26

   

claimed that they held the authority of Scripture in contempt. Although he himself wrote that the knowledge of the word of God has to be inwardly appropriated, he added at the same moment that the inner teachings of the Holy Spirit are in complete accordance with the actual, external word of God. In his view, the Groningen idea of a ‘mystical subjectivism’ denies the objective foundations of the Christian faith.⁶⁸ The debate was certainly not a purely intellectual one. In 1842—five years before Da Costa fulminated against the Groningen theologians—seven prominent representatives of the Réveil, led by Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801–1876), had asked the National Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church to condemn the teachings of the Groningen School. The indictment concentrated on two points: the alleged denial of the atonement ‘by the blood of the Cross’, and the denial of the infallibility of Holy Scripture.⁶⁹ Hofstede de Groot defended himself by saying that the attempt to bind the divine truth to human assertions and creeds had a Catholic character. Da Costa had not signed the petition to the Synod. In the 1850s Da Costa attacked the Leiden faculty, which he saw as the leading theology at the time. In academic theology the Groningen School no longer had much influence, perhaps only in primary education, as Da Costa wrote in a deprecatory tone.⁷⁰ In the Leiden faculty at the time the Old Testament scholar Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891) and the systematic theologian Johan Hendrik Scholten (1811–1885) were the most prominent scholars. Scholten’s multi-volume De leer der Hervormde Kerk (Dogmatics of the Reformed Church, 1848–1850) was the handbook for what was called ‘modern theology’, which advocated a critical study of the Bible. In the modern view the Bible can no longer be the sole source of truth. Sometimes it looked as if the testimony of the Holy Spirit was almost identical with the exercise of reason in moral and religious respect. Da Costa had himself studied the new views, but against David Friedrich Strauss’ ‘mythological’ explanation he stuck to the historicity of the Bible.⁷¹ In a rather complex debate Scholten and Da Costa exchanged many harsh reproaches, without reaching anything that looked like mutual understanding.⁷² Scholten presented his own liberal point of view as deeply rooted in the Reformed tradition and accused Da Costa of having forsaken this tradition. Da Costa, on the other hand, detected strong pantheistic inclinations in the work of his opponent.⁷³ For Da Costa it was ⁶⁸ Da Costa, ‘Eenige opmerkingen’, pp. 783, 787. ⁶⁹ Quoted in Van den Berg, ‘P. Hofstede de Groot en het Réveil’, pp. 13–14. ⁷⁰ Da Costa, Wat er door de theologische faculteit te Leyden al zoo geleerd en geleverd wordt. Eene stem der smart en des beklags, Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh, 1857, p. 8. ⁷¹ H.W. Obbink, David Friedrich Strauss, in Nederlandse reacties op zijn theologie in de negentiende eeuw, Utrecht: Elinkwijk, 1973, pp. 51–61. ⁷² Da Costa, Nalezing van Mr. Isaac da Costa op zijnen Paulus; Da Costa, Wat er door de theologische faculteit te Leyden; Da Costa, Brief van Mr. Is. da Costa aan den hoogleraar J.H. Scholten in antwoord op zijne teregtwijzing, Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh, 1857; J.H. Scholten, Antwoord aan Mr. Is. da Costa, Leiden: P. Engels, 1852; Scholten, Teregtwijzing van Mr. Isaac da Costa, Leiden: P. Engels, 1857. ⁷³ Da Costa, Wat er door de theologische faculteit te Leyden, pp. 27–30.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

27

evident that if one does not bow before the authority of Christ and the Bible one cannot claim to be a Christian. Scholten’s attempt to overcome the struggle between philosophy and theology was therefore doomed to fail.⁷⁴ Notwithstanding his fierce attacks on the prevailing theology and church of the time, Da Costa retained his ideal of a broad People’s Church, and rejected separatism out of hand.⁷⁵ Although the separatist movement of the Afscheiding (Secession, 1834) had rightfully pointed to the wrongs in the Dutch Reformed Church, to Da Costa these issues do not justify founding a new church or leaving the existing one. He is not prepared to give up the idea of a national Reformed Church, as for Da Costa and many of the Réveil people there was a close connection between the Reformed Church and the Dutch nation—something that was true for most Dutch Protestants at the time.⁷⁶ The fact that the Netherlands had a large minority of Catholics (almost 40 per cent of the population over the whole nineteenth century) did not change this perception.⁷⁷ What was troubling the representatives of the Réveil was the laxity of the Dutch Reformed Church. It did not take action against heterodox opinions, because the Reformed Synod declared it did not want to intervene in dogmatic matters. The struggle focused ultimately on the binding character of the classic Reformed creeds. In 1816 a new formulary had been drawn up for future ministers, which did not imply a strict adherence to the teachings of the church: a possible interpretation was that ministers subscribed to the teachings ‘[only] as far as [italics mine] they corresponded to the Holy Word of God’. The Réveil wanted to rule out this subjectivist interpretation; future ministers had to literally subscribe to the basic creeds of the Dutch Reformed Church (as laid down by the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618–19), which were supposed to express the core of Reformed thought. In this respect Da Costa differed from his friends, because he rejected the swearing-in of future ministers on the basis of creeds of faith. This would mean that the fundamental difference between the forms of the church and the word of God was neglected. The self-sufficiency of Holy Scripture had to be maintained above the creeds of faith.⁷⁸ Moreover, Da Costa objected to the restorative character of the whole venture, as he was in favour of a new, ‘fresh’ confession.⁷⁹

⁷⁴ Da Costa, Brief van Mr. Is. da Costa, pp. 37–39. ⁷⁵ Cf. Kluit, Het Réveil in Nederland, pp. 218–219. ⁷⁶ Peter van Rooden, Religieuze Regimes. Over godsdienst en maatschappij in Nederland, 1570–1990, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1996, p. 29. ⁷⁷ Hans Knippenberg, De religieuze kaart van Nederland. Omvang en geografische spreiding van de godsdienstige gezindten vanaf de Reformatie tot heden, Assen and Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992, pp. 169–170. ⁷⁸ D. Nauta, De verbindende kracht van de belijdenisschriften. Verhandeling over de formulierkwestie in de negentiende eeuw in Nederland, Kampen: Kok, 1969, p. 31; cf. pp. 24–25, 37–38. ⁷⁹ Da Costa, Rekenschap, p. 51.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

28

   

Concluding Remarks In this concluding section I will offer some general remarks about the position of the Réveil movement and Da Costa’s Bezwaren tegen de geest der Eeuw in Dutch religious and cultural history during the first half of the nineteenth century. The pamphlet is a passionate outcry against everything Da Costa thought wrong in Dutch society. The text is steeped in a sense of deep crisis, understood within a history of salvation. Da Costa’s conviction that the situation is at its worst enhances his belief that the end of time and the second coming of Christ is near. In the events of the French Revolution Da Costa saw the fulfilment of biblical prophecies. The Austrian historian Ulrich Gäbler has argued that this prophetic or ‘chiliastic’ motive is characteristic of the Pietist movement of the early nineteenth century.⁸⁰ Another important characteristic of the movement is the ‘individual’ motive. In accordance with their belief that God acts in history, Pietists also saw signs of God in their personal life. The importance of personal piety and religious experience was emphasized. Thus the individual believers were involved, who had to internally appropriate their religion themselves. A third important element in understanding the role of Pietism is the more general phenomenon of what is called ‘association’, a term indicating that independent citizens and Christians organized themselves in associations intended to contribute to the general or religious welfare of the nation. This third element brings us to the difficult question concerning the relationship between the Pietist movement, including the Réveil (Pietist revival movement), on the one hand, and the Enlightenment on the other. I here use the term Enlightenment to refer not only to an intellectual, but also to a social transition, especially the emergence of a sphere of public debate and public organization that influenced and even shaped society.⁸¹ Research has shown that in this case it is not wise to construe mere oppositions. The representatives of the Dutch Réveil were not only involved in various associations for home mission and mission overseas, but also founded societies of their own which served the same purpose.⁸² Da Costa himself was somewhat reticent in this respect; he was more the type of the charismatic religious genius with strong spiritualistic inclinations. But he certainly profited from the rapidly expanding literary market, which stimulated the spread

⁸⁰ Gäbler, ‘ “Erweckung”. Historische Einordnung und theologische Charakterisierung’, in Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’, pp. 161–186; Gäbler, ‘Enkele kenmerken van het Europese en Amerikaanse Réveil’, Dokumentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 33 (1990) 2–16. ⁸¹ The classical monograph is Jürgen Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (1962), Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1990, translated as The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989. ⁸² Kluit, Het Réveil in Nederland; Kluit, Het Protestantse Réveil in Nederland; Gäbler, ‘Auferstehungszeit’, pp. 98–100.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

29

of his ideas. Although he did not stop criticizing public opinion, he was no doubt one of the opinion leaders at the time. Da Costa had been raised in a well-to-do bourgeois merchant milieu. Many members of the Réveil had similar backgrounds, and earned their money as merchants or in independent professions. Da Costa had means of his own and received gifts from rich friends and lecture audiences. Many members of the Réveil came from aristocratic circles, which explains their sympathy for the monarchy. Thus, the visitors to the réunions had quite different backgrounds than the poor souls that convened in Pietist conventicles and were part of the separatist Afscheiding movement of 1834. Da Costa and his friends were not inclined to found a separate church community, but were proud members of what in their opinion was the national Dutch church. What they had in common with their liberal opponents was the conviction that the Netherlands was a Protestant nation, including a National Reformed Church. The close connection between fatherland and Protestantism should not be put in jeopardy by foundations of competing church communities. A key difference with the liberal Protestants is that the members of the Réveil called for a return to the basic Christian teachings of the ‘forefathers’. Their appeal to a divine revelation that goes beyond human reason implied the rejection of the rational argumentation for political rule and the theory of the social contract. Thus the Réveil rejected the common theological underpinning of the traditional claims to power of the sovereign (monarch).⁸³ As in Germany, there was in the Netherlands at the time a tendency to politicize inner-Protestant controversies between orthodox critics of the Enlightenment and its modern advocates.⁸⁴ Both parties stuck to the general validity of the Christian (Protestant) faith, but there was no consensus at all about how this validity was to be established. In this way the Réveil sowed the seeds of later developments, during which the religious and theological differences could no longer be integrated into one mainline People’s Church. Da Costa was not the man to engage in party struggles within the church. He was a loner, who was able to express his own convictions forcefully and did not compromise easily. He brought differences of opinion with his fellow fighters such as Groen van Prinsterer out into the open—from a strategic point of view not a smart thing to do. One could even venture the hypothesis that the future of the Dutch Reformed Church was not Da Costa’s prime interest, as the struggle to ascertain Christian principles within the Dutch nation was at the forefront in his writings. Although Da Costa nuanced some of his early criticisms in later life, he

⁸³ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, ‘Protestantische Theologie und die Formierung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft’, in Graf, ed., Profile des neuzeitlichen Protestantismus, vol. I, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1990, pp. 11–54, here p. 28. ⁸⁴ Graf, ‘Protestantische Theologie’, pp. 25–26.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

30

   

stuck to his conviction that human sovereignty can never be the foundation of society and state while the ultimate rule and power is with God.⁸⁵ It is evident that Da Costa’s life and work cannot be understood without reference to the Enlightenment. He opposed crucial modern values such as human autonomy and representative government. According to his uncle David Ricardo he was ‘almost an advocate for absolute government’. In Da Costa’s view the Dutch king represented divine authority, which could overrule the constitution; the latter no more than a ‘piece of paper’. In matters political and religious he was a conservative thinker who defended class distinctions and thought that common people did not need an education that taught them the allegedly illusory ideas of equality and freedom. In these respects Da Costa can be called an antimodern thinker and theologian (although as a lawyer he had had no formal theological training). Thus he also opposed modern forms of theology, be it Jan Hendrik Scholten’s pantheism or David Friedrich Strauss’ mythological reading of the Bible. In another sense, however, Pietism and the Dutch Réveil, of which Da Costa is one of the main representatives, involved a subjective form of piety, which is certainly not anti-modern. The idea that individuals have to appropriate their religion themselves may have a long history, but was then not the ideal for the ordinary believer, whereas Pietism made the idea of personal salvation and being born again mainstream. Although Pietist theology was or claimed to be orthodox, the focus on the individual is in its core anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment. This quintessential modern mindset—scholars have argued—has contributed to the rise of separatist religious groups.⁸⁶ One could also argue that Da Costa’s influence has been greatly enhanced by the emergence of a public sphere that opened the door to debate and the free circulation of ideas. In various respects Da Costa was a modern phenomenon. And he certainly was not one of the drowsy and sleepy people whom Tholuck had met during his trip to the Netherlands in 1825.

⁸⁵ Da Costa, Het Oogenblik. Een woord over het ontwerp van grondwetsherziening, Amsterdam: Höveker, 1848. ⁸⁶ Gäbler, ‘ “Erweckung’ ”, p. 178.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

2 The Conversion of Isaac Da Costa Notwithstanding his fierce critique of Enlightenment values such as human autonomy and representative government, Isaac da Costa was not just a conservative thinker who longed for a return to authoritarianism and absolute government. There is a Sturm und Drang element in the way he expressed himself and in a particular sense, he was an exponent of the ‘turn to the subject’ in modern history, stressing as he did the importance of inner experience. The Réveil, the Pietist revival movement, in which Da Costa played a leading role, looked for inner conversion to establish personal salvation. Da Costa’s announcement of his conversion to Christianity was a public event in the Netherlands and even abroad. Together with his wife Hanna Belmonte (1800–1867) and his friend Abraham Capadose (1795–1874), Da Costa was baptized in the Leiden Pieterskerk on 20 October 1822. Religious conversion often comes to us as narrative and autobiography.¹ Here it is important to keep in mind that as the narrative is organized around the conversion, it anticipates another conversion, ‘the conversion of life into a textual self-representation’.² The textual self-representation—the structure and content of Da Costa’s conversion narratives, which all have an autobiographical character— will be explored in the first part of this chapter. I will then put Da Costa’s narratives into context, by relating them both to personal circumstances he did not mention in his accounts and to the new position of the Jews in the Netherlands, who in principle had just been granted full civil rights. The conclusion will present a new interpretation of this celebrity conversion and how it was framed by Da Costa.

Conversion Narratives Isaac da Costa narrated his conversion three times, in accounts that were all written decades after the event. Characteristically, two of these accounts are given in texts dealing with his spiritual mentor, the famous Dutch poet and ¹ Bruce Hindmarsh, ‘Religious Conversion as Narrative and Autobiography’, in Lewis R. Rambo and Charles E. Farhadian, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 343–368. ² Geoffrey Galt Harpham, ‘Conversion and the Language of Autobiography’, in James Olney, ed., Studies in Autobiography, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 42–50, p. 42.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0003

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

32

   

reactionary enfant terrible Willem Bilderdijk (1756–1831).³ In both his edition of the fourth volume of Bilderdijk’s correspondence and his biography of his beloved teacher and friend, Da Costa described his own religious development in some detail.⁴ The third untitled narrative was originally published in 1845 in an English periodical, The Voice of Israel. The Dutch original was published soon after under the title ‘Uit het leven van Mr. Is. da Costa’ [From the Life of Da Costa, LL.M.]. This short text of some ten pages was first published in a foreign medium, which shows that there was an international audience for this type of story. The Voice of Israel was a magazine aimed at ‘enlightened Jews who believe in Jesus Christ as their Messiah’, and its editor had insisted that Da Costa should write the piece, evidently with a view to boosting the morale of this group. The untitled piece was prefaced by a kind of (unsigned) editorial,⁵ which clearly opposed the view that: it is only ignorant and uneducated Jews who embrace Christianity. Absurd as this assertion is, it is so often repeated that it passes current with many, who have neither opportunity nor inclination to inquire into its truth. Through the kindness of our beloved brother, who has yielded to our urgent entreaties, not only to give us an account of his conversion, but to give it with his name, we are enabled to show our dear brethren of the house of Israel, that one of the master-minds of the day, one who is not only the greatest poet that Holland has produced, but is equally renowned as a philosopher, a theologian, and a politician; this man brought up in hatred and contempt of Christianity, has been brought by the force of truth, and the power of Divine grace, to be a humble disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.

After pointing to Da Costa’s greatness, the editorial ends with an exhortatory question: ‘O brethren! Ought ye not to enquire whether ye be not rejecting the truth of God, to your own condemnation?’ An unauthorized German translation appeared a short time later, initiated by the converted Jew and German missionary Jacob August Hausmeister (1806–1860), whose introduction refers to the booklet that Da Costa’s friend ³ Rick Honings and Peter van Zonneveld, De gefnuikte arend. Het leven van Willem Bilderdijk (1756–1831), Amsterdam: Prometheus and Bert Bakker, 2013. ⁴ Da Costa, ‘Inleiding’ [Introduction], in Brieven van Mr. Willem Bilderdijk, vol. IV, Rotterdam: W. Messchert, 1837, pp. v–xxiii; Da Costa, De mensch en de dichter Willem Bilderdijk. Eene bijdrage tot de kennis van zijn leven, karakter, en schriften, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1859. Bilderdijk’s role is also evident from Da Costa’s many poems; cf. [Da Costa], Da Costa’s kompleete dichtwerken, ed. J.P. Hasebroek (1861), third edition, Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff, s.d. [1876], pp. 329–333 (‘Aan Bilderdijk’, p. 363 (‘God met ons’). ⁵ Isaac da Costa, [untitled], in The Voice of Israel, Saturday, 1 February 1845, pp. 87–88 (three columns per page); cf. Jacob Meijer, Isaac da Costa’s weg naar het christendom. Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der joodsche problematiek in Nederland (PhD. thesis, Amsterdam, 1941), p. 101, note 15, who points to the fact that Da Costa kept a reprint of the English text, including corrections.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

33

Abraham Capadose had published about his own conversion.⁶ Hausmeister also wanted to downplay the argument that only poor and ignorant Jews had themselves baptized.⁷ The Dutch original was published soon afterwards in the magazine De Tijd; the editorial stated a desire to prevent a Dutch translation of the ‘inaccurate’ German text,⁸ which, nevertheless, appeared as a booklet in the same year.⁹ The publication history of this text show a marked international—or at least European—interest in conversion stories. The publication in De Tijd was authorized by Da Costa himself and gives the most reliable text. I will rely on this version, occasionally using the English translation, which will be corrected if necessary. The general form of the text ‘Uit het leven van Mr. Is. da Costa’¹⁰ is that of a first-person narrative. In the beginning, however, Da Costa directly addresses the reader and, more particularly, the editor: ‘You press me, dear brother, to tell about my conversion to Christianity and how I became a disciple of Christ’, and ‘I cannot resist your request and conceal from you how the God of my fathers has wrought in my soul’.¹¹ Da Costa goes on to state that he wishes to join his testimony to that of ‘my brethren’, who try to teach others by making known the ‘ways by which the Lord had led them in His wisdom and benevolence’. The story ends with a eulogy, thanking and praising God for the many evidences of his unspeakable mercy. Seen from Da Costa’s theological point of view, the process of conversion occurs between God and man, with God working in man’s soul.¹² Thus, the locus of conversion is the inner self. However, the actual narrative, in which Da Costa seeks to explain his transition to Christianity, focuses almost exclusively on his own early biography. Da Costa begins his tale by referring to a series of events in days long gone. His family had come from the Iberian Peninsula—which, as we will see later, was extremely important to him—and he notes that several of his ancestors had become Roman Catholics. Initially, they had converted because they were forced to, but later some of them remained Christian out of ‘conviction and sincerity of heart’. This was not an isolated phenomenon, Da Costa emphasizes, as there were ⁶ [Abraham Capadose], Conversion de M. le Docteur Capadose, Israélite Portugais, publiée par la Société des amis d’Israël de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel: Imprimerie de Petitpierre, 1837; Bekeering van Doctor A. Capadose, Portugeesch Israëliet, uitgegeven door het Genootschap der Vrienden van Israël te Neufchâtel, uit het Frans vertaald door M.J. Chevallier, Amsterdam: G. van Peursem, 1837. ⁷ Da Costa, Een en ander uit het leven van Dr. da Costa door hem zelven beschreven, Naar de Hoogduitsche vertaling Amsterdam: W. de Grebber, 1845, Voorrede, [p. 6]; Da Costa, Einiges aus dem Leben des Doctor Da Costa in Amsterdam, übers. von J. Aug. Hausmeister, Heidelberg: Winter, 1845. ⁸ [Da Costa], ‘Uit het leven van Mr. Is. da Costa’, in De Tijd. Merkwaardigheden der letterkunde en geschiedenis van den dag, voor de beschaafde wereld 1 (1845), second part, pp. 276–281, p. 276. ⁹ [Da Costa], Een en ander uit het leven van Dr. da Costa. ¹⁰ The ‘Mr’ in the title refers to Da Costa’s doctor’s degree in law. The article in The Voice of Israel has no heading. ¹¹ I have tried to give a faithful rendering of the meaning of the text and not to translate this somewhat archaic Dutch literally. ¹² On another occasion Da Costa explicitly limited the use of the word ‘conversion’ to the activity of God; cf. Da Costa, De mensch en de dichter Willem Bilderdijk, p. 282.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

34

   

more instances of Jews in all sincerity becoming members of the Catholic Church. He thus frames conversion not as a phenomenon brought about by outside force or external necessity, but as the authentic decision of a free person. It is remarkable that the text does not betray any form of anti-Catholicism; even Da Costa’s own conversion is depicted first and foremost as a conversion to Christianity and not to Protestantism in particular. ‘From a human point of view’, Da Costa’s relatives would have remained within the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church were it not for the fact that one of them, who held high office within the church of Oporto, was so severely tormented by doubts about Christianity that he left his office and the country in order to return to the ‘Synagogue of his ancestors’. Also mentioned in this context is the terrible fate of his ancient forebear Uriel da Costa (c.1591–c.1641), who ‘swayed back and forth between doubt and unbelief ’ and finally committed suicide. The moment of doubt and the questioning of religious belief are highlighted. For two centuries, Isaac da Costa continues, his family ‘belonged to the Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue in Amsterdam and enjoyed all the privileges which Holland has given to my people in its exile and affliction’. Without any further explanation, he goes on to say how much his father (like most Jews) was attached to the House of Orange and was, therefore, opposed to the French takeover of the Netherlands in 1795. His father allegedly engendered the same sentiments in his son. According to Isaac, his father was not a strict orthodox Jew, although he showed respect for the religious practices and customs of his people, whereas his mother was more attached to the ideas and practices of ‘Rabbinic Jewry’.¹³ It is clear even from this brief description that Da Costa saw religion and nationality, and even ethnicity, as being somehow related. By far the bulk of the text is devoted to his own personal Werdegang. From his early youth onwards, he had ‘a religious instinct, a vague desire to know and serve God’, while at the same time his heart was filled with doubt. He writes that he ‘trembled’ before the vicious mockery and ridicule of eighteenth-century philosophy but that this did not lead to complete unbelief. Though he read Plato and Moses Mendelssohn, their arguments could not warm his heart. Finally, he devised a deistic system (concerning the essence of the deity, world government, and the immortality of the soul), mixed with Rabbinic and Mosaic elements, which are not further explained. Notwithstanding all this intellectual effort, Da Costa felt that his heart was caught up in worldly vanities and that ‘sin had supreme rule in the daily intercourse of life’. This kind of rhetoric calls, of course, for a counterpoint, and indeed the next sentence points to God’s providence, which allegedly brought together two important circumstances.

¹³ The English version conceptualizes this as ‘modern Judaism’, which is probably an incorrect translation.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

35

The first was that his father destined him for a career in jurisprudence, a field— it is stressed—that was not open to Jews until 1795. To this end he attended the Latin school and later took lessons from a professor in history and literature. Da Costa does not mention his name but it was David Jacob van Lennep (1774–1853), who taught at the Amsterdam Athenaeum and defended the authenticity of the Mosaic writings against ‘the sophisms and fallacies of Voltaire’. ‘I began to believe in the divine nature of the Old Testament’, Da Costa writes, and he became convinced that there was ‘a revealed religion, that the Bible had divine authority and that this was a historical fact’. Thus, Da Costa argues here that his father’s wish for him to become a lawyer indirectly led to his revindication of religious revelation. As a kind of corollary, Da Costa mentions the fact that his study of biblical history had also prompted him to delve into the history of his own people, especially during their time in Spain and Portugal. In this history, Da Costa continues, he noticed something he could not explain, unless he considered the Jews to be a people who were at one and the same time both highly privileged and punished extremely harshly. This insight gave him a premonition of a religion that is the ‘fulfilment of the true divine Judaism’.¹⁴ The second circumstance that Da Costa mentions is also of a non-religious nature: his gift for poetry. As a young poet, he was introduced to the ‘greatest of our Dutch contemporary poets, the celebrated Bilderdijk’. Da Costa does not fail to mention that he was introduced by a learned scholar of Hebrew and, he added, ‘a man of my people’, again stressing his Jewish background. This scholar was his teacher and friend Mozes Lemans (1785–1832), who was a member of a literary society dominated by enlightened Jews who had elected Bilderdijk as an honorary member. On another occasion, Da Costa pointed explicitly to the irony of this situation in which these enlightened Jews’ admiration for Bilderdijk was conducive to his own path to conversion.¹⁵ The tone becomes more dramatic the moment Bilderdijk is introduced: Misunderstood, persecuted, banished (in 1795), harassed by all sorts of misfortunes, [Bilderdijk] had found from his youth, strength and consolation in the gospel of Christ. Attached in heart to the truths of the confession of the Reformed Church, he had moreover early perceived the glorious future, announced by the prophets to the ancient people of God: its conversion to the Messiah, whom they crucified.

Da Costa became strongly attached to Bilderdijk, and he wrote that through Bilderdijk he came to see ‘the light, which led me to the Christian faith’. ¹⁴ The text is not completely clear here but other interpretations do not make sense; cf. [Da Costa], ‘Uit het leven van Mr. Is. da Costa’, pp. 278–279. ¹⁵ Da Costa, De mensch en de dichter Willem Bilderdijk, p. 279.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

36

   

Da Costa stressed that Bilderdijk did not try to proselytize his young pupil but rather spoke of the Old Testament, and ‘especially he tried to make me feel that the true Christian shares in the hopes of Israel in regard to a glorious reign of the Messiah upon the throne of David’. On the occasion of Da Costa’s obtaining his doctoral degree in law in 1818, Bilderdijk wrote that ‘a sincere Jew is a Christian in hope’.¹⁶ Da Costa also claimed that Bilderdijk taught him that the ancient Jews acknowledged a plurality of persons in the ineffable unity of God. Indeed, it is a fact that Bilderdijk held the Jews in high esteem and accorded them an important role in the history of salvation.¹⁷ Da Costa then describes his conversion in terms that suggest an immediate experience: Then did my eyes perceive the first rays of divine light. I began reading the New Testament; I read those unspeakably sublime and blessed words: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh’ (John 1). I began to feel an abhorrence of sin, for which the Saviour had himself manifested in the flesh and suffered the death of the cross. I perceived the fulfilment of Bible passages, such as the prophecies of Isaiah (11, 53, 61) and Psalms 22 and 110 and many other texts.

The actual conversion is told here as a predominantly textual experience. By reading specific biblical texts, the Gospel is perceived as the fulfilment of the Old Testament. This insight changed his life, Da Costa continues: ‘I adored – I believed – and gradually this faith operated upon my conscience and my daily life’. In the two other accounts of his conversion, Da Costa uses the traditional metaphor of the scales that fell from his eyes ‘on an unforgettable day in October 1820’ to describe his insight that Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, was the Saviour of the world.¹⁸ Such metaphors, however, do not dominate the discourse, and to some extent they even appear to be relics from older conversion narratives. Notwithstanding the decisive moment described here, Da Costa portrays his conversion as a gradual process and even as a life-time task. Religion was no longer merely a sublime speculation, or a great national interest; I found that I must become the property of Jesus Christ, that I must live through

¹⁶ Bilderdijk, ‘Den Heere Izaäk da Costa bij zijne bevordering tot doctor in de rechten’, in Bilderdijk, Krekelzangen, vol. III, Rotterdam: Immerzeel, 1823, pp. 43–48; the poem is also added to the dissertation itself: Da Costa, Specimen inaugurale juridicum, exhibens observata quaedam de condictionibus, Leiden: Cijfveer, 1818. ¹⁷ Joris van Eijnatten, Hogere sferen. De ideeënwereld van Willem Bilderdijk (1756–1831), Hilversum: Verloren, 1998, pp. 639–643. ¹⁸ Da Costa, ‘Inleiding’, p. xv; Da Costa, De mensch en de dichter Willem Bilderdijk, p. 283.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

37

Him and for Him [door hem en voor hem]. More than twenty years have elapsed since that period [of his conversion], and – when I look back – then I have to be ashamed of myself before God and men, that I fell short of this holy calling.

Although Da Costa does not fail to refer to important dogmas (the Trinity, sin, incarnation, and reconciliation), experiential and practical moments are clearly given more emphasis in the narrative. Being the ‘property of Christ’ implies that the believer has to glorify God in word and deed. Evidently, this kind of belief is far from the deistic speculations of earlier days, and from his earlier inclination to conceive of religion primarily in national terms. Da Costa goes on to describe the next step in his personal history, when he ‘opened his heart’ to Abraham Capadose and how their conversations increasingly turned to questions of divine truth and man’s salvation. They were also joined by ‘a third person’, his cousin Hanna Belmonte, who became eventually his wife, and whose thoughts were in accord with his own. By a ‘remarkable providence of the Lord and a special train of family circumstances’, she had been brought up in a Christian school where she had taken part in religious instruction, become acquainted with the Heidelberg catechism ‘and heard the blessed name of Jesus before I did’. ‘From the time I imparted to her what was passing in my own mind, she became to me a beloved sister in Christ, as well as a faithful companion in the trials of life, and in the search after eternal life through faith in our great Lord and Saviour.’ This sentence captures their joint baptism in Leiden on 20 October 1822.¹⁹ Next, the conversion of another three members of Da Costa’s family is related rather extensively. Da Costa tells his readers that his sister-in-law, who married the son of a well-known Walloon minister (M.J. Chevalier), was a very pious woman, devoted entirely to her Lord and Saviour, who had taken her in her confinement. Another member of the family, who is not identified, even studied theology but died before he could assume his ministry. Da Costa intersperses his narrative with references to learning. All converts read the Scriptures, receive religious instruction, and some study theology and prepare to become a ‘teacher’ of the church. The final part of the text dealing with the three family conversions not only shows the importance of and need for concentrated study characteristic of the Réveil movement, but also enables the author to stress the contingencies of life and therefore the importance of the redeeming ‘blood of Christ’. The final eulogy represents the ultimate framework of these six conversions in one short

¹⁹ On this joint conversion, see Judith Frishman, Dat hun geloof opregt gelove, hun keus de keus des harten zij (inaugural lecture Leiden 1997); Frishman, ‘The Belmonte Women and their Conversion to Christianity. “Heil U, geachte Vrouw, uit Abrahams zaad gesproten” ’, Studia Rosenthaliana 32 (1998) 198–201.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

38

   

sentence: ‘To God, the most holy, be thanksgiving and praise for the proofs of his unspeakable mercies in life and in death and throughout all eternity. Amen’. It is beyond any doubt that this text is a conversion narrative. The editorials to both the English and the Dutch editions emphasize this point and Da Costa describes in some detail his transition to Christianity against the background of his Jewish upbringing. In this way, the text met the expectations of the readership of The Voice of Israel, who must have found comfort in the story of this famous, well-educated Dutch Jew. The conversion—the word is used only once at the beginning of Da Costa’s narrative—is depicted in terms of his personal development. The persuasiveness of the text lies predominantly in its narrative autobiographical structure; no attempt is made for instance to argue for the superiority of Christianity. Da Costa simply narrated how he came to believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. Bilderdijk’s role in Da Costa’s inner transformation is highlighted but it is clearly not the only important element. To understand how Da Costa constructed this particular narrative, it is helpful to take a look at the two other short accounts of his conversion. They are part of texts about Willem Bilderdijk and pay special attention to his contribution. In his hagiographic biography of Bilderdijk, Da Costa speaks about the Israelite Society of Welfare and Civilization (Tot Nut en Beschaving),²⁰ which held Bilderdijk in such high esteem. As mentioned above, Da Costa was introduced to the famous poet by his teacher Lemans at a meeting of the Society. Referring to a young man (‘an insignificant lad’), a son of the people of Israel, Da Costa devotes six pages to his friendship with Bilderdijk, without making it explicit that he is describing his own relationship with the ‘old man’ (den Grijzaart). Although Da Costa claims that this first meeting with Bilderdijk had nothing to do with his later religious quest, he also writes that he had a premonition that Bilderdijk would be decisive for his later inner development. Da Costa emphasizes that Bilderdijk did not proselytize, but he makes no secret of the fact that Bilderdijk’s poetry, especially the poem about the Fall of the First World (Ondergang der Eerste Wereld), had a lasting impact on his own view of life. The personality and teachings of the ‘old man’ no doubt paved the way for his later conversion.²¹ In his introduction to the edition of the letters that Bilderdijk had written to him, Da Costa tells the story in more detail but along the same established lines. One new element is a reference to the ‘chaos of confusion between the [Da Costa’s] youthful ebullient passions and the need for higher things’.²² In this context, he mentions that a specific line of a Bilderdijk poem about Christ as the

²⁰ Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, p. 35, points out that it was not a strictly Israelite society. ²¹ Da Costa, De mensch en de dichter Willem Bilderdijk, pp. 276–283. ²² Da Costa, ‘Inleiding’, p. xiii; cf. Da Costa, De mensch en de dichter Willem Bilderdijk, p. 277.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

39

reflection of God’s glory had struck him like a ‘ray of light in the darkness’.²³ Da Costa states that it took some time before he fully understood the main tenets of Christian belief, but that he finally realized that Jesus Christ was also the saviour of the Jews. Of course, he told Bilderdijk about his change of heart. Besides Bilderdijk, he entrusted this secret to his fiancée and to his close friend Abraham Capadose. These three ‘descendants of Israel’ continued their study of religion and the Bible, and came to the conclusion that they had to join the Dutch Reformed Church.²⁴ Despite several new elements (Bilderdijk’s poems and Da Costa’s own troublesome condition), the general drift of the three narratives is the same. They all narrate Da Costa’s upbringing, his Jewish background, his parents and teachers, Bilderdijk’s special role, the close intertwining of his reflections on his Jewish roots and his conversion to Christianity, and the fact that various relatives also converted. The stories are very much about Da Costa’s biography and his finding a new identity that combined Jewish and Christian elements. The story stops at the moment when he finds his new identity, although he could have concluded by referring to his own religious activities, such as the many réunions he organized in his own house. On the whole, I detect little religious zeal to convert others, so little in fact that on one occasion Da Costa felt more or less obliged to say that he did not disapprove of proselytizing.²⁵ His own conversion is presented as the result of a personal quest, in which Da Costa finally finds peace in his inner relationship with the Christian God.

Contexts The above section has focused on how Da Costa narrated his conversion. I will now relate these narratives to Da Costa’s family situation and to the socio-political circumstances of Jews in the Netherlands at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Did Da Costa present a complete picture of his conversion or did he ‘hide’ elements that he did not want to make public? And what is the wider social context that may have influenced his decision? According to his narratives, Da Costa’s conversion took place in the autumn of 1820. He had since become engaged to his cousin Hanna Belmonte and they married at the Amsterdam Town Hall on 5 July 1822, the day after Da Costa had defended his literary PhD thesis. Six days later they married ‘before the Rabbi’, as Hanna put it in her diary.²⁶ Da Costa’s father had died in February 1822 and was

²³ Da Costa, ‘Inleiding’, p. xiv. ²⁴ Da Costa, ‘Inleiding’, p. xvii. ²⁵ Da Costa, De mensch en de dichter Willem Bilderdijk, p. 282. ²⁶ Hanna da Costa-Belmonte, Dagboekje van Hanna da Costa-Belmonte, ed. O.W. Dubois, Heereveen: Jongbloed, 2000, p. 30.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

40

   

buried according to Jewish custom, much to Abraham Capadose’s discontent. Isaac’s Christian friend Willem de Clercq (1795–1844), however, described the Jewish ceremonies sympathetically and stated that Da Costa ‘acknowledged in the Jewish prayers, said at the deathbed of his father, the true spirit of Christianity’.²⁷ Thus, even until shortly after his father’s death Da Costa lived the life of a cryptoChristian. Earlier on, in August 1821, De Clercq wrote in his diary that Da Costa had confided in him, asking that, if De Clercq survived him and if ‘providence would not give him the opportunity to be open about his feelings’, De Clercq should make Da Costa’s conversion publicly known, ‘but only after the death of his [Da Costa’s] parents’.²⁸ Here we touch upon the social aspect of conversion, which Da Costa completely omits in the various accounts he gives of his own conversion. There is not even a hint that the religious sensibilities of his parents, his father in particular, might have influenced the moment he made his conversion public. We know—as did Da Costa—how difficult it was for Capadose to confess his new religion to his family and especially to his uncle Immanuel Capadose, who had no children of his own and who had more or less adopted his nephew, to whom he would leave a large sum of money at his death.²⁹ Conversion is also very much about social affiliations and, according to the sociologists Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, people attempt to conserve their social capital when making religious choices. The authors even claim that ‘conversion is seldom about seeking or embracing an ideology; it is about bringing one’s religious behaviour into alignment with that of one’s friends and family members’.³⁰ This is clearly contradicted by the examples of Da Costa and Capadose, with the latter risking serious family and financial troubles by confessing his new belief. Their conversions were hard decisions to make, involving not only benefits, but also costs, in both social and emotional respects. This brings us to the psychological aspects of conversion. It is evident from his own accounts that Da Costa traversed a long road before he was baptized. In his youth, he was a celebrated poet and played an active part in the social life of Concordia Crescimus, the enlightened Sephardic literary society that he joined at the age of fourteen. Soon after

²⁷ Willem de Clercq, Willem de Clercq naar zijn dagboek, vol. I, ed. A. Pierson and De Clerqs jongste kleindochter [youngest granddaughter], Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1888, p. 213. ²⁸ De Clercq, Willem de Clercq naar zijn dagboek, vol. I, p. 190 (emphasis in the original); cf. p. 213. ²⁹ Capadose, Bekeering, p. 54; cf. David Kalmijn, Abraham Capadose, ’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1955, pp. 33–34; cf. [Isaac da Costa], Noble Families Among the Sephardic Jews, by Isaac da Costa, LL.D., with Some Account of the Capadose Family (including their Conversion to Christianity), by Bertram Brewster, and An Excursus on Their Jewish History, by Cecil Roth (with over 40 full-page illustrations), London: Oxford University Press, 1936, esp. pp. 173–180. Da Costa’s text is a translation of Da Costa, Israël en de volken. Overzicht van de geschiedenis der joden tot op onzen tijd, Haarlem: F. Bohn, 1849, book III. For Da Costa’s opinion of his uncle Immanuel Capadose, see Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, p. 18; for a genealogical table, see p. 163. ³⁰ Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000, p. 117.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

41

becoming a member, he recited his poem ‘Praise of Poetry’ (Lof der dichtkunst) and in the year 1814–1815, he gave no fewer than sixteen speeches and declamations. In August 1815, he gave a speech on the acceptance of the chairmanship of Concordia. By the age of twenty, he had finished his studies in Leiden and settled in Amsterdam to practise law. In sum: Isaac da Costa was a gifted and somewhat precocious young man, an only child who appeared to meet his father’s expectations.³¹ However, it seems that Da Costa’s luck then turned. His love for Capadose’s sister was rejected and he was not happy in his early days as a lawyer. He complained about supposed discrimination at the Assize Court (being given only minor cases to defend) and the tone of his letters to friends betrays a degree of depression. He often hinted at his own death and his friends frequently noticed that he was not happy. He no longer went to the theatre, he stopped reading newspapers, and he indulged in semi-fantastic speculations about his putative highborn ancestry.³² Without trying to argue for a specific case of psychopathology, this seems to add up to a late-adolescent identity crisis, which somehow ‘triggered’ the course that eventually led to his conversion. Bilderdijk, whom Da Costa portrayed as an old and wise fatherly friend, played a very important role in this respect. To understand how Da Costa framed his religious and national identity, it is imperative to take a closer look at his milieu and the contemporary socio-political circumstances in general. A crucial question here is the extent to which he was raised in a more or less orthodox, or at least orthoprax, Jewish milieu. This is hard to determine but, as far as I can judge, the influence of enlightened circles in which the young Isaac moved must not be underestimated. My view is shaped by Jaap Meyer’s somewhat atypical but well-researched dissertation on Da Costa’s transition to Christianity, which describes in some detail the enlightened milieu in which young Da Costa achieved his first artistic successes.³³ In 1941, because of the impending measures to exclude Jews from academic life, Meyer had to finish his PhD thesis in a hurry, which explains some of its lacunae.³⁴ I will not recount the entire process uncovered by Meijer’s research, but will highlight some important moments.

³¹ Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, pp. 24–25, qualifies the remark reported by De Clercq, that Daniel da Costa had said he had always predicted that his son would be no good. ³² Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, pp. 60–64. ³³ Cf. Jaap Meijer, Martelgang of Circelgang. Isaac da Costa als joods romanticus, Paramaribo: no publisher indicated, 1954. See also Irene Zwiep’s contribution in J.C.H. Blom, D. Wertheim, H. Berg, and B. Wallet, eds., Geschiedenis van de joden in Nederland, Amsterdam: Balans, 2017. ³⁴ The famous Dutch journalist Ischa Meijer (1943–1995) was the son of Jaap Meijer; cf. Ischa Meijer, Brief aan mijn moeder, Den Haag: Bert Bakker, 1974, p. 53; cf. Evelien Gans, Jaap en Ischa Meijer. Een joodse geschiedenis (1912–1956), Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2008, pp. 160–168.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

42

   

Da Costa’s father was one of the leaders (parnassim) of the Sephardic synagogue, and Isaac probably attained his bar mitzvah in 1811.³⁵ The descriptions Da Costa gave later of the celebration of the Sabbath and the Jewish holy feasts in his parental home are highly sympathetic. It is clear that his father was an open-minded man, who read a great deal and attached considerable importance to a good education for his only child. Isaac therefore came into contact with teachers of a markedly enlightened persuasion, such as Mozes Lemans. At a rather young age, he read the French philosophes and felt attracted to deistic ideas. It even seems probable that he felt some admiration for Napoleon but—as he himself said—he was cured of his idealization ‘by the horror of French tyranny’.³⁶ The French occupation of the Netherlands is generally seen as a watershed in the history of the Dutch Jews, who received full civil rights in 1796. In the words of the historian Ivo Schöffer: The separation of State and Church made the Jewish community, which up till then had been a closed group with its own separate rights and duties, nothing more than a church organization of which all concerned could be considered to be voluntary members with the possibility therefore to leave the Church and in this way perhaps escape the specific position and characteristics of belonging to the Jewish minority.³⁷

Although the parnassim lost some of their rights, such as the right to collect taxes on the occasion of Jewish marriages and burials, they successfully defended their group identity.³⁸ Nevertheless, the Jews were forced to rethink and renegotiate their position under the new circumstances. The question was how to forge their new identity as Dutch citizens of Jewish descent and religion. Before the Batavian Revolution of 1795, national (or ethnic) and religious identity could be readily linked because the Jews were a more or less closed community without full civil rights. The new situation forced them to also redefine their Jewishness.³⁹ Given that the Dutch nation was considered Protestant in character at the beginning of ³⁵ Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, pp. 26–28. ³⁶ Quoted by Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, p. 45. ³⁷ Ivo Schöffer, ‘The Jews in the Netherlands: The Position of a Minority Through Three Centuries’, Studia Rosenthaliana 15 (1981) 85–100, here p. 92; cf. J. Michman, ‘Gothische torens op een Corinthisch gebouw. De doorvoering van de emancipatie van de Joden in Nederland’, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 89 (1976) 493–517; R.G. Fuks-Mansveld, ‘Verlichting en emancipatie omstreeks 1750-1814’, in Blom et al., eds., Geschiedenis van de Joden in Nederland, pp. 177–203. Bart T. Wallet and Irene E. Zwiep, ‘Locals: Jews in the Early Modern Republic’, in Jonathan Karp and Adam Sutcliffe, eds., Cambridge History of Early Modern Judaism 1500–1814, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 894–922. See also the contributions of Wallet and Zwiep in Blom et al., eds., Geschiedenis van de joden in Nederland. ³⁸ Menachim Eljakiem Bolle, De opheffing van de autonomie der Kehilloth (Joodse gemeenten) in Nederland in 1796 (PhD thesis, Amsterdam, 1960). The English summary gives a short overview of the main events (pp. 201–207). ³⁹ F. van Cleef-Hiegentlich, ‘De transformatie van het Nederlandse Jodendom’, De Gids 148 (1985) 232–242, here p. 236.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

43

the nineteenth century, this was no easy task.⁴⁰ Against this background, the interpretation of Jewish conversion to Christianity in terms of assimilation is not implausible.⁴¹ How did Da Costa try to establish his identity within this multi-faceted situation? It is hard to trace Da Costa’s entire journey and therefore to test the hypothesis that, influenced by Enlightenment ideas, he gave up the idea of the unity of a Jewish people and religion, felt increasingly Dutch and finally went over to Calvinism.⁴² His pathway was probably a bit more complicated than this thesis suggests. There are, in my view, some decisive moments in his life and work that help to explain the road he travelled. With regard to the elements mentioned in this hypothesis, the first one we note is that while being a member of the Concordia literary society, Da Costa developed a kind of Dutch patriotism, to which he testified in his poems, the most famous perhaps being ‘The Redemption of the Netherlands’ (De bevrijding van Nederland). This fitted the assimilatory tendencies of the Jews in this enlightened society. Second, one has to take the influence of Bilderdijk into account. On various occasions, Da Costa referred to the fact that Bilderdijk paved the way for his conversion by pointing to the messianic expectations of the Jewish religion. From Bilderdijk’s writings, it is evident that he accorded a very special position to the Jewish people in the history of salvation. There is no reason to doubt Da Costa’s testimony in this respect. A third factor is Da Costa’s immense interest in the history of the Jewish people. From the early 1820s on, he planned to write a book on this subject, which appeared—with a delay of some twenty-five years—under the title Israel and the Nations in 1849.⁴³ The national existence of Israel was hugely important to Da Costa, even after Israel was no longer a nation in the political sense of the word. Moreover, he stressed the superiority of the Sephardic Jews (over the Ashkenazim), who were directly descended, in his view, from the tribe of Judah and who had emigrated to the Iberian Peninsula after the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem. He had already pointed to this memorable event in his literary dissertation: ‘Prima Judaeorum in Hispaniam migratio videtur ante conditum templum Hierosolymitanum secundum locum habuisse’.⁴⁴ A natural

⁴⁰ Peter van Rooden, Religieuze Regimes. Over godsdienst en maatschappij in Nederland, 1570–1990 Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1996. ⁴¹ Schöffer, ‘The Jews in the Netherlands’, p. 93. ⁴² Ulrich Gäbler,‘Auferstehungszeit’. Erweckungsprediger des 19. Jahrhunderts. Sechs Porträts, München: Beck, 1991, p. 92 (with reference to Schöffer’s article mentioned above). ⁴³ Da Costa, Israël en de volken. ⁴⁴ Da Costa, Specimen academicum inaugurale, exhibens positiones quasdam ad philosophiam theoreticam pertinentes, Leiden: Cijfveer, 1821, in a thesis added to the dissertation; cf. H.G. Hubbeling, ‘De literaire dissertatie van Isaäc da Costa’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse kerkgeschiedenis van de negentiende eeuw 17 (1983) 13–25.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

44

   

consequence of this was that the Sephardic Jews were exempted from the reproach of having taken part in the crucifixion of Jesus. Later, Da Costa spoke of his ‘national pride’ in this respect: ‘In the midst of the contempt and dislike of the world for the name of Jew, I had ever glorified in it.’⁴⁵ He tried to demonstrate that his ancestors were noblemen, and even considered the possibility of having his noble ancestry officially recognized by the Dutch government.⁴⁶ Fourth, these speculations about his own Jewish background were connected to his turning to Christianity. Bilderdijk’s messianic interpretation of Jewish religion and the special role accorded to the Sephardic Jews were important in this respect. Da Costa wanted to prove that God and Christ were somehow hidden in the Talmud.⁴⁷ Studying the history of his own people, he perceived something so extraordinary that it seemed quite inexplicable ‘unless we view the Jews as the subjects . . . of a special election of God, and of an enormous crime on the part of the elect people’.⁴⁸ Fifth, regarding Da Costa’s chiliastic expectations, it is probably not too farfetched to say that these were transferred from the Jewish to the Dutch people. He liked to talk about the ‘God of the Netherlands’, but considered it blasphemous to speak about the ‘God of France or England’. ‘Wonderful is the relation [of God] to our little Holland: like Judah under the Old Covenant . . . . Lately I was very much impressed by the listing of the manifold occasions, where God had directly interfered on behalf of our country. After the history of ancient Israel, there is no history more poetical, magnificent and divine than ours.’⁴⁹ Strongly influenced by Willem Bilderdijk’s personality and thinking, Da Costa reframed reflections about his Jewish heritage into his own blend of Pietist Protestantism, in which national Dutch and religious elements were closely connected. He was convinced that Holland was the new Israel—an idea that had already been propagated by orthodox Protestant groups in the Netherlands. Da Costa’s conversion was the result of a long intellectual journey, during which he tried to establish his new identity as a Christian Jew in the new Kingdom of the Netherlands. A personal crisis after his love for his friend Capadose’s sister was rejected may have played into this, just as personal considerations about his Jewish relatives probably determined the moment that he made his conversion public and was baptized in the Leiden Pieterskerk in October 1822, eight months after his father was buried in accordance with Jewish custom.

⁴⁵ Da Costa, ‘Uit het leven van da Costa’, p. 278 (English version, p. 88, 1st column). ⁴⁶ Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, pp. 68–72. ⁴⁷ Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, p. 82. ⁴⁸ Da Costa, ‘Uit het leven van da Costa’, p. 278 (English version, p. 88, 1st column). ⁴⁹ Da Costa to Bilderdijk (7 October 1823 and 17 September 1824); quoted in Gerard Brom, Romantiek en katholicisme in Nederland, vol. I, Groningen and Den Haag: Wolters, 1926, p. 71. Bilderdijk was of the same opinion in this respect; cf. Bilderdijk, Brieven, part IV, p. 114: ‘Ik geloof met U, dat Holland thands en in zijn verval, ‘t middelpunt van ‘t ware christendom worden moet’ (22 [15] June 1823).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

45

Interpretations Stories about conversion trajectories often concentrate on the crucial period in which the conversion took shape (the Pauline paradigm), relating only in passing the preceding and later developments.⁵⁰ Isaac da Costa, however, went into some detail to connect his personal history as a Sephardic Jew to his becoming a Dutch Christian. He tried to bridge the gap, so to speak, by stressing the messianic expectations of the Jewish religion. It would be false, however, to interpret Da Costa’s conversion in strictly religious terms alone, as he himself was so much involved in speculations about national Jewish history. He made huge efforts to research the history of the Sephardic Jews and his own ancestors in the Iberian Peninsula, thus taking pride in being a Jew of noble birth. Da Costa claimed that some of his ancestors had converted to Christianity but were still seen as Jews. Analytically, therefore, Da Costa made a distinction between religious and ethnic (national) identity, but it was almost impossible to separate the two identities because they were so closely intertwined. Da Costa interpreted religious history in national terms, and vice versa. Ultimately, the Jews were special because they were the elected people and this explains, to some degree at least, why Da Costa again established a close link between his new religion and the Dutch people as he turned to Christianity. This is not to say that there were no other factors involved. Indeed, the Netherlands had a long theological and religious tradition of defining Calvinism in national terms.⁵¹ Bilderdijk did not hesitate to establish this connection. Moreover, the separation of State and Church in 1795 did not mean that the Dutch nation was conceived as a fully secular state. The Netherlands was seen as Protestant (in the broad sense of the word) and the Protestants were actually privileged (at least compared to Catholics and Jews). The fact that Jews received civil rights in 1796 put them under pressure to re-establish their identity, which up till then was that of a separate group with its own religious and ethnic (national) characteristics. Isaac da Costa’s search for his own Sephardic past could be understood against this background. If, however, assimilation had been the main issue here, one would have expected him to opt for the mainstream within Dutch Protestantism. The ‘choice’ of Bilderdijk and the Réveil in general, especially in its radical version, was not the best or the easiest way to integrate into the Dutch nation. Indeed, as Da Costa himself noted, there was a certain irony in the fact that the admiration felt by the enlightened Society of Welfare and Civilization for Bilderdijk led to Da Costa’s

⁵⁰ Monika Wohlrab-Sahr, Konversion zum Islam in Deutschland und den USA, Frankfurt a.M.: Campus Verlag, 1998. ⁵¹ Joris van Eijnatten, ‘God, Nederland en Oranje’: Dutch Calvinism and the Search for the Social Centre, Kampen: Kok, 1993.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

46

   

first acquaintance with the poet, and ultimately to his conversion to Bilderdijk’s brand of Calvinism. Da Costa came under Bilderdijk’s influence at the very time that he was re-establishing his own identity and even possibly undergoing some sort of identity crisis triggered by personal and professional distress.⁵² As the editor of the Voice of Israel pointed out, Isaac da Costa’s conversion was rather unusual, in that he had already established himself as a respected poet and was seen as a young man of great ability. After his conversion, he wrote many more poems and religious tracts, gave lectures on various historical, aesthetic, and religious subjects and went on to become a renowned lay preacher. The accounts of the réunions at his house show the degree to which even relative outsiders were fascinated by him.⁵³ Da Costa was very much perceived as a Jew by his contemporaries, but that did not alter the fact that he was held in high esteem as a Christian leader and writer. As far as I can see, his conversion narrative did not become a paradigm for other Jews. His publications do not betray great missionary zeal and he preached mainly to the converted, that is to say, to his fellow Christians of Gentile descent. Yet it would be incorrect to see Da Costa’s conversion in terms of trading one orthodoxy for another. Enlightenment ideas must have had a rather strong influence on the young Da Costa. The fierce attack on these ideas in the pamphlet Against the Spirit of the Age is not the logical outcome of his upbringing but rather its high-spirited reversal, which celebrated his new-found identity. The motif of a personal quest, including the element of free decision, predominates in the narrative of his own conversion. This did not of course preclude the conviction that God was ultimately the one who worked this great deed. In this sense, the structure of the story seems to betray the ideas in the pamphlet discussed in the previous chapter, which criticize man’s alleged free will and emphasize his dependence on God. Da Costa stressed time and again that Bilderdijk did not try to proselytize him, and he presented his conversion as travelling a long biographical road. Essentially, it was a story about a learned quest for personal truth, which the individual has to appropriate for oneself. Therefore, the story of his conversion is principally about himself and not about God. Of course, God and Christ were of ultimate importance to Da Costa, but the conversion story centres on his personal identity. In a letter to his friend Willem van Hogendorp (1795–1838) on 6 July 1821, Da Costa used four epithets to characterize himself: oriental, nobleman, poet, and pupil of

⁵² A psycho-historical interpretation would no doubt focus on these elements and the role of Bilderdijk as a father figure for Da Costa. ⁵³ Nicolaas Beets, Het dagboek van de student Nicolaas Beets 1833–1836, ed. Peter van Zonneveld, ’sGravenhage: Nederlands Letterkundig Museum, 1983, pp. 222–223, has captured such a meeting in his diary; see the previous chapter in this book.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

     

47

Bilderdijk.⁵⁴ Da Costa told a very modern story about a doubtless complex identity. He solved his late adolescent identity crisis by relating his Jewish descent to the religion of Bilderdijk. In his own words: ‘I remained (no, I first truly became) an Israelite at the moment that I – through the grace of the God and Saviour of my fathers – confessed to be a Christian’.⁵⁵ The narrative ultimately resolves the dialectics between free personal conversion and external personal and sociopolitical circumstances and constraints (the death of his father, the emancipation of the Jews) in favour of the authenticity of an individual decision. In this sense, the choice of the ‘religion of my fathers’ is—from a structural point of view—also a conversion to modernity. Notwithstanding the emphasis on the inner religious life, this type of religion also had a clear societal impact, as Da Costa’s vehement critique of Enlightenment values shows. Yet even in cases where this seems absent, conversion can ultimately only exist because the supposedly inner transformation is made public. Thus, Da Costa was not just an old-fashioned conservative in religious and political matters; he was a modern religious leader in his use of various media, culminating in the way he ‘publicized’ his conversion. His life and work are a prime example of the modern turn to the subject, also in matters of religion.

⁵⁴ Meijer, Da Costa’s weg, p. 81: ‘Oosterling, Edelman, Dichter, en kwekeling van Bilderdijk’. ⁵⁵ Da Costa, Israel en de volken, p. ix.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

PART II

T H E O L O G I CAL M ODE RNISM

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

3 Allard Pierson’s Farewell to Christianity and His New ‘Agnostic’ Worldview According to an obituary written by a colleague, Allard Pierson (1831–1896) had epitomized Dutch intellectual history for almost forty years. Like Pierson, the writer had started his career as a minister in the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk (Dutch Reformed Church) but resigned when he could no longer come to terms with his religious doubts, ultimately becoming a university professor.¹ This similar trajectory may have been a coincidence, but it reflects the remarkable fact that many young Protestant ministers left the church of their youth and pursued new careers as journalists, hommes de lettres, teachers or professors in the humanities.² This was part of a broader trend of theological proponents seeking employment elsewhere. Between 1850 and 1872 one quarter of the proponents did not end up as a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church.³ Until the 1880s, public and to a certain degree even artistic life in the Netherlands was dominated by theologians and former theologians,⁴ with Pierson no doubt one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his time, commenting on theological, ecclesiastical, social, political, literary, and artistic developments in various national journals and newspapers. He also wrote learned monographs, as well as novels and poems, pamphlets and an amazing number of articles, some of which were collected after his death in eight volumes.⁵ The sum of his published work is estimated to comprise some 16,000 pages. This chapter will explore Pierson’s religious background and his growing religious and intellectual concerns about the faith of his youth. I will briefly discuss his resignation as a minister in 1865, and the passionate debate that was triggered by this step about the strengths and weaknesses of modern theology. From 1865 onwards, Pierson attempted to formulate an alternative worldview, which he would ultimately present in a monograph that met much criticism. I will first discuss the basics of this worldview and then address various criticisms of the book. As we will see, Pierson’s religious and intellectual trajectory is in many ¹ A.G. van Hamel, ‘Allard Pierson. 8 April 1831 – 27 Mei 1896’, De Gids 60/3 (1896) i–xxii, p. ii. ² David J. Bos, Servants of the Kingdom: Professionalization among Ministers of the NineteenthCentury Netherlands Reformed Church, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010, pp. 293–294. ³ Bos, Servants of the Kingdom, p. 303. ⁴ Bos, Servants of the Kingdom, pp. 240–242. ⁵ Allard Pierson, Uit de verspreide geschriften van Allard Pierson, 8 vols., Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1902–1908.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0004

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

52

   

respects extraordinary, but it also shows how the relationship and the tension between the Christian religion—in its Pietist and modern forms—and modern intellectual life was perceived and addressed at the time.

Allard Pierson Allard Pierson was born into a wealthy Pietistic family. He was the oldest son of Jan Lodewijk Gregory Pierson (1806–1873), a successful merchant and stockbroker, and Ida Oyens (1808–1860), a devoted Pietist, philanthropist, and author of various pious books for children.⁶ They lived in a huge house on one of Amsterdam’s main canals, moving to a country house in Haarlem in the summer. A family of entrepreneurs and bankers, today the Pierson name is still known in connection with one of the largest private banking companies in the Netherlands.⁷ His mother exerted a huge influence on Allard in his youth. She told him edifying religious stories, and at a later age they would summarize sermons that they had attended together in church.⁸ Thus, Pierson must have been a pious and serious boy. In an early letter to Adriaan Gildemeester (1828–1901), he counters the doubts of his close friend by saying how he had just ‘rejoiced, savoured and tasted that the Lord is good’ (probably during a Sunday sermon), arguing that Christendom is basically not dogma but ‘a state of the soul (not of reason), in which one moves, breathes and lives’.⁹ He was mocked by his schoolmates for his ‘bigotry’. Allard studied theology in Utrecht, which had a reputation for orthodoxy, and became a minister in Louvain (Belgium) before accepting a call to the Frenchspeaking Walloon congregation in Rotterdam in 1857. However, it gradually became increasingly difficult for him to intellectually justify his faith. ‘So far’, he wrote in 1859, attempts to formulate a theory that fulfils both the requirements of ⁶ Marcel Barnard, ‘Allard Pierson (1831–1896). Schoonheid is de blos van ‘t Ware’, in J.C.H. Blom, P.H.D Leupen, P. de Rooy, T.J. Veen, and L. Kooijmans, eds., Een brandpunt van geleerdheid in de hoofdstad. De Universiteit van Amsterdam rond 1900 in vijftien portretten, Hilversum: Verloren, 1992, pp. 247–266, p. 251. A good bibliography is still a desideratum. A helpful overview is Karsien Hendrik Boersema, Allard Pierson. Eene Cultuur-Historische Studie (PhD thesis, Groningen), ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1924, pp. 482–494. Boersema provides also a list of manuscripts of Pierson, which are kept in the Reveil Archive of the Library of the University of Amsterdam. ⁷ See www.abnamro.nl/meespierson. ⁸ Boersema, Allard Pierson, p. 23. ⁹ Pierson to Gildemeester, 29 November 1846, quoted after W. Balke, ‘Allard Pierson in de klem tussen geloof en wetenschap’, De Negentiende Eeuw 21/1 (1997) 51–81, p. 56 (‘ik heb veel genoten, ja gesavoureerd en gesmaakt dat de Heere goed is’). I will keep the number of notes to a minimum. Most of the secondary literature is in Dutch, but I will try to provide as many references to English (and German) texts as possible. Pierson is not translated into English; only a few texts have been translated into German. Translations of Dutch texts are my own. Although Pierson has a fresh style, his language is sometimes quite old-fashioned and steeped in Pietistic argot, which makes it hard to translate. I did not try to imitate the original in any literal sense of the word, but wanted to transmit the liveliness and some of the particularities of the original. Also, in paraphrasing, I had to take some liberty to make the texts understandable for English readers.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

53

logic and those of ‘our religious consciousness’ had failed.¹⁰ His scepticism concerning a supernatural reality grew stronger and he speculated about a future in which religion would be considered to be ‘beautiful poetry and nothing more’.¹¹ On 1 March 1865, he resigned, explaining his decision by saying that he needed more time for his scholarly work. Many of his parishioners and colleagues were surprised by this step and speculated about its ‘real’ causes. Consequently, Pierson published his famous and controversial ‘Letter to his last congregation’, in which he claimed that the church had become too narrow for him and that the principle of humanity was more valuable than that of a necessarily exclusive church.¹² These confessions led to fierce debates, especially among modernist believers and teachers, for whom Pierson had been an important spokesperson.¹³ In 1865, Pierson moved to Heidelberg with his wife Pauline Gildemeester (the sister of his childhood friend Adriaan) and children, where from 1869 he would teach at the theology faculty. His somewhat rusty German was apparently no major obstacle to lecturing on the history of theology. He also taught his own children classical and modern literature, and travelled widely. In 1868, he went to the south of France, in 1870 to Italy, in 1871 to Paris, in 1872 to Vienna, and in 1873 to England. Among the publications he prepared in Heidelberg, the large four-volume history of Roman Catholicism stands out.¹⁴ In 1874, the family returned to the Netherlands and settled in Utrecht. In his monograph, Eene Levensbeschouwing (‘A Worldview’), from 1875, Pierson made a fascinating attempt to outline an ethical theory which acknowledges a plurality of worldviews and is strongly based on human autonomy and responsibility.¹⁵ This point of view and his professed agnosticism in religious matters made it difficult to obtain a professorship in the Netherlands at the time. Although Pierson did not need the money, he was apparently not completely happy with his position as an independent scholar, essayist, and intellectual. Thus he must have been extremely pleased when he was offered the first professorship in aesthetics, art history, and modern languages in the Netherlands. On 25 October 1877, he gave his inaugural address on the scope and method of art history at the newly founded

¹⁰ Pierson, ‘Scholten’s Monisme’, De Gids 12/1 (1859) 749–798, here p. 797. ¹¹ Pierson, ‘Godgeleerdheid en Onderwijs’, De Tijdspiegel 1865, part I, 424–436, pp. 435–436. ¹² Pierson, Dr. Pierson aan zijn laatste gemeente, Arnhem: D.A. Thieme, 1865, p. 35. ¹³ J. Trapman, ‘Allard Pierson en zijn afscheid van de kerk’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 19 (1996) 15–27. ¹⁴ Pierson, Geschiedenis van het Roomsch-Katholicisme tot op het Concilie van Trente, 4 vols., Haarlem: Kruseman, 1868–1872; P.G.J.M. (Peter) Raedts, ‘Veroordeeld tot vrijheid. Pierson en het katholicisme’, De Negentiende Eeuw 21 (1997) 5–15; Hidde van der Veen, ‘Achter de Duitse horizon. Piersons verblijf in Heidelberg (1865–1874)’, De Negentiende Eeuw 21 (1997) 17–28. ¹⁵ Pierson, Eene levensbeschouwing, Haarlem: Kruseman & Tjeenk Willink, 1875. The literal translation of the book title is Life View (View of Life).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

54

   

University of Amsterdam.¹⁶ The present-day museum of the University, which was initially funded by the Pierson family, carries his name.¹⁷

Pietism and Empiricism Pierson never disavowed his Pietistic upbringing. On the contrary, after his farewell to the Rotterdam parish in 1865 he co-edited one of the great documents of nineteenth-century Dutch Pietistic history—the diaries of Willem de Clerq— and published subtle empathetic sketches of the leaders of the Dutch Réveil, such as Willem Bilderdijk, Isaac da Costa, and O.G. Heldring.¹⁸ Notwithstanding extremely critical remarks concerning the devastating influence of Pietism on sensitive children—as he himself had been¹⁹—he did not lose sympathy for the old-fashioned religion. For him, it somehow remained the norm of genuine religious life. However, after his break with the Dutch Reformed Church, he grew increasingly critical of modernist religion, which he saw as a pale reflection of the deeply felt piety of his youth. In one of his later publications, Pierson recalled a key event from his youth that shows rather clearly the issue at stake. It was not the genuineness of Pietistic faith that was doubted, but its intellectual accountability. The text is about the empiricist philosopher, Cornelis Willem Opzoomer (1821–1892), one of the leading lights of the modernist movement.²⁰ Pierson wrote that at the age of fifteen he had secretly read Opzoomer’s famous Utrecht inaugural address without understanding much, but his attraction to Opzoomer determined Pierson’s decision to study in Utrecht. It was not easy to convince his parents, Pierson stated, but finally his father agreed, as he assured him that his faith had nothing to fear from this new philosophy. The letters to his father and Adriaan Gildemeester reveal Allard’s struggle to defend his view that unconditional trust in Christianity was a sufficient foundation for his orthodox beliefs.²¹

¹⁶ Barnard, ‘Allard Pierson (1831–1896). Schoonheid’, pp. 252–254. ¹⁷ See www.allardpierson.nl: ‘The Allard Pierson is the museum and knowledge institute for the heritage collections of the University of Amsterdam’. ¹⁸ Willem de Clercq naar zijn dagboek, ed. A. Pierson [and De Clercq’s youngest granddaughter] (1870–1873), 2 vols., Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1888; Pierson, Oudere tijdgenoten (1888), fourth edition, Amsterdam: Bolland, 1982. ¹⁹ Pierson, Oudere tijdgenoten, p. 76: ‘However beautiful and intense, Pietism is not made for children, and those who raise their children in this direction take on a heavy responsibility. The best is jeopardized (although with the best intentions), yes, much is damaged forever, if not broken.’ Because of its almost exclusive focus on the question of being converted (‘reborn’) or not, Pierson detected a lack of moral education in Pietistic circles; cf. Pierson, Intimis (1861), fifth edition, ’s-Gravenhage: Stemberg, 1881, pp. 40–1. ²⁰ Henri Krop, ‘Natuurwetenschap en theologie in de negentiende eeuw. De filosofische achtergrond van de moderne theologie’, Theoretische Geschiedenis 21 (1994) 16–31. ²¹ Balke, ‘Allard Pierson in de klem tussen geloof en wetenschap’, pp. 57–58.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

55

Another key event recalled by Pierson took place in the winter of 1847/48, when, as a young boy, he witnessed Opzoomer’s meeting with Isaac da Costa in the concert hall ‘Felix Meritis’ on the Keizersgracht in Amsterdam.²² In his recollection of some forty-five years later, Pierson pointed to the huge differences between the two men: between the Germanic Opzoomer, with his blue eyes, and the ‘Oriental’ Da Costa, with his black eyes. The quiet and confident young philosopher versus the agitated and emotional poet who understood everything as a miracle—as God’s merciful act. Pierson describes how a tense and almost electrified Da Costa spoke to Opzoomer. A storm seemed to be raging in Da Costa’s soul, Pierson continues: the listeners were beyond the banalities of the ordinary world, as Da Costa repeated the word spoken by Jesus to Nicodemus: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the Kingdom of God’ (RSV, John 3:3).²³ Pierson did not recall Opzoomer’s answer, but pondered Da Costa’s intervention. Someone else might have said: ‘Professor, the supernatural birth of Jesus Christ is true’, but not so Da Costa. He opposed principle against principle, worldview against worldview, asking: Do you expect everything from humankind, or do you believe in God, who reveals himself ‘in the reborn human heart’?²⁴ After such a long period of forty-five years, Pierson’s fascination with Da Costa is still palpable. He related further that a small group, including Da Costa—who was a friend of the Pierson household—went to their home, where the ladies wanted to hear more about the event (it had been an evening for gentlemen only). Da Costa was more than willing to ‘pour out his heart’, and Pierson painted the conflict as that between faith and reason, stating that an ‘atmosphere of piety does not stimulate the desire to look for the natural explanation of things’.²⁵ Later on, Pierson stated that attending Opzoomer’s lectures made him feel extremely sad. ‘I had brought along vast spiritual capital’, but now he felt that he would have to start all over again. While this ‘spiritual treasure’ consisted of many bank notes, he wondered whether it would ever be possible to convert them into coins: ‘I had a dogmatic theology, a worldview, a view of history, even an aesthetics . . . but did I obtain these by experience?’²⁶ Opzoomer’s work inspired him to attend lectures in the natural sciences as well, but they also failed to help him reconcile his faith with the prevailing empirical approach, which was based on observation.²⁷ Immediately after completing his Latin dissertation in 1854, he published his first book in Dutch, in which he argued that the existence of God can be proven neither by a priori reasoning nor by reference to the authority of the Bible. One can only appeal to the feeling of ²² Allard Pierson, ‘Over Opzoomer’, De Gids 57/1 (1893), part I, 413–440. On Da Costa, see the previous chapters. ²³ Pierson, ‘Over Opzoomer’, p. 417. ²⁴ Pierson, ‘Over Opzoomer’, p. 417. ²⁵ Pierson, ‘Over Opzoomer’, p. 418. ²⁶ Pierson, ‘Over Opzoomer’, p. 419. ²⁷ Pierson, ‘Over Opzoomer’, p. 420.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

56

   

being dependent on a higher power.²⁸ Five years later, he wrote to Da Costa that he was attempting to live with the ‘paradox of an irreligious science and a faithful heart’ and that Opzoomer had taught him this ‘double bookkeeping’.²⁹ However, he found this was by no means easy. Pierson wrestled with sceptical questions about what we can know about God, his relationship to the world and the way he governs the world. ‘Not much’, he had to admit. ‘We are in doubt, but not desperate, unsure but not worried; our whole life is dominated by the sincere conviction that there is a mysterious world of the infinite.’³⁰ For Pierson, our critical sense threatens to destroy our religious representations; everything becomes a symbol. He expressed his conviction that any rational account of the divine essence leads to insurmountable problems,³¹ and believed that we need an education sentimentale, an aesthetic education of children as well as of older people that conveys the meaning of words beyond a literal understanding. He thought that only human imagination could transcend science and scholarship and provide an inkling of a higher truth.³² At the time that Pierson expressed this point of view, he was still working as a minister. These issues were, therefore, not only theoretical, but also practical in nature. As a modernist theologian, he spoke about biblical criticism and openly expressed his own doubts. In one of his last sermons, held in Rotterdam on 4 December 1864—addressing Hebrews 11:6 (‘God rewards those who seek Him’)—he criticized the ‘poor’, ‘cold’, ‘sterile’ character of much modernist belief and asked whether religious desire might have created its own world. Are we not victims of our own illusions? Ultimately, he denied this, but did not give a convincing reason. He merely said that one needs courage to affirm God’s reality: ‘The bird discovers his food, the child finds the breast of his mother, and the human spirit does not look in vain for his God.’³³ With the benefit of hindsight one could easily gain the impression that Pierson is primarily attempting to convince himself in this sermon. In a certain sense this is true. Three months before this service he had written to his father that he had plans to abdicate his ministership. The main reason he mentioned was that ²⁸ Balke, ‘Allard Pierson in de klem tussen geloof en wetenschap’, p. 61, referring to Pierson, Bespiegeling, gezag en ervaring, Utrecht: Kemink, 1855. ²⁹ Balke, ‘Allard Pierson in de klem tussen geloof en wetenschap’, p. 62 (Pierson to Da Costa, 6 December 1860). ³⁰ Pierson, Rigting en leven, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1863, p. 94. ³¹ Pierson, Rigting en leven, pp. 241–242. ³² Pierson, Rigting en leven, pp. 258–260. ³³ Pierson, ‘ “Dieu est le Rémunérateur de ceux qui le cherchent” ’ (4 December [1864]), in J. Trapman, ed., Allard Pierson. Tussen religieus gevoel en kritisch denken. Vijf Franse preken, Hilversum: Verloren, 2014, pp. 83–93, p. 89: ‘Je vous le demande, mes frères, ce besoin de croire que nous ne sommes pas destinés à être les victimes de nos illusions, serait-ce encore la plus grande illusion de toutes, cette opiniâtreté que nous mettons à croire que nous n’avons point été créés pour un monde vain et creux, serait-il la plus absurde de nos vanités? Est-ce folie que de se refuser à folie? Vous le sentez bien, il n’y a qu’une issue à ces questions. Ce que nous avons appelés prétention et audace n’est qu’une affirmation parfaitement légitime de la meilleure partie de notre être. L’oiseau découvre sa nourriture, l’enfant trouve le sein de sa mère, et l’âme humaine ne cherche pas en vain son Dieu!’

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

57

he had come to the conclusion that his own thought about the true purpose of humanity was at odds with the existence of an exclusive church which represented the supernatural.³⁴ At the same time, he expressed his doubts in a letter to the modernist theologian and Old Testament scholar Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891), whose critical work on the Pentateuch Pierson was translating into French.³⁵ Later on, in February 1865, he confessed to Kuenen that he was tempted to say more than he could justify in the pulpit, and found that ‘in the long run, this is unbearable’.³⁶ At that time, Pierson had already decided to leave his Rotterdam parish, hoping to achieve his goals—also his religious goals—in society at large. Rotterdam was by no means a bad place for this, he wrote to his parish, as the ‘big ideal of humanity’ had already materialized in the forms of the hospital, the institute for the deaf and dumb, the institute for the poor and deprived, and in ‘your flourishing schools’. He claimed that ‘these are the true shrines of a renewed society, which relieves suffering, counters hardship, prevents vice, and refuses ignorance’.³⁷

A Debate about Modern Religion Pierson’s farewell to his congregation led to a vehement exchange of pamphlets, with Pierson doing much to explain and nuance his position.³⁸ In his ‘Letter to his last congregation’, published on 7 October 1865, Pierson addressed the congregation directly, writing that he had found little ecclesial awareness in his parishioners.³⁹ He claimed that they rarely took Holy Communion, preferred marriages to be celebrated at home (making it a domestic and not an ecclesial affair), and more generally expected their ministers to be ordinary human beings who would bring a civilizing and humanizing message. Pierson’s line of argument is clear: it is not just his private opinion that the Christian humanist principles of the modern theologians and believers would lead to the disappearance of the church—daily Church praxis proved the same. In his account, Pierson focused on the institution of the church and its claim to be exclusive. He wrote that he could no longer believe that the church or the churches represented the unique road to salvation. A shared humanity is to be ³⁴ Pierson to his father, 5 September 1864, quoted in Boersema, Allard Pierson, p. 111. ³⁵ Trapman, ‘Inleiding’, in Tussen religieus gevoel en kritisch denken, pp. 28–29 (Pierson to Kuenen, 2 September 1864). Ernest Renan wrote a complimentary preface to the first volume of the translation. Kuenen, Histoire critique des livres de l’Ancien Testament, 2 vols, Paris: C. Lévy, 1866–1879; see also the section about Kuenen in Chapter 9 in this volume. ³⁶ Trapman, ‘Inleiding’, p. 29 (Pierson to Kuenen, 19 February 1865). ³⁷ Pierson, Dr. Pierson aan zijn laatste gemeente, p. 40. ³⁸ Molendijk, ‘Abschied vom Christentum. Der Fall Allard Pierson’, in Henri Krop, Arie L. Molendijk, and Hent de Vries, eds., Post-Theism: Reframing the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 141–157. ³⁹ Pierson, Dr. Pierson aan zijn laatste gemeente, p. 37.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

58

   

preferred above a shared Christianity. The whole idea of supernatural revelation was unfounded according to Pierson. He thought that we could only rely on human capacities, even in religious matters, and this meant that the best human beings could achieve was a certain degree of probability, but never certainty. This critical point of view, the acknowledgement of the ‘undismissable [inalienable, onverwerpelijk] right to doubt’, as Pierson called it, meant that he could no longer justify remaining a minister. The idea of giving prayer in public each week made him shudder, and administering baptism without being able to make sense of the baptismal formula was even worse for him.⁴⁰ Pierson wrote that the ideal of humanity that he proclaimed made the distinction between world and church, between profane and sacred, obsolete; the idea of a plurality of churches also became absurd. The first public response came from Pierson’s immediate colleague, Albert Réville (1826–1906), who at the time was also a minister in the French-speaking Dutch Reformed congregation of Rotterdam. In 1880, he became professor of the history of religions at the Collège de France and, in 1886, he was appointed the inaugural president of the famous fifth section, ‘Religious Studies’, of the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris. The tone of the debate became increasingly sharp, as the tenability of the stance of the modernists was called into question within the circle of the modern theologians themselves. As a motto for his written response, which had the title Nous maintiendrons (‘We are staying’ [in the church]), Réville had chosen ‘non pas abolir, mais accomplir’ (not to abolish, but to accomplish).⁴¹ Although Réville welcomed criticism, he also emphasized that criticism did not necessarily mean destruction. One should not confuse oneself to the point that the cure for migraine becomes decapitation.⁴² Similarly to many of his fellow modernists, Réville had the strong conviction that it would not be difficult to reconcile Protestant religion and the findings of modern scholarship.⁴³ The tone had changed. How did Pierson react? His response, ‘The Modern Persuasion and the Christian Church’, which amounts to some 75 pages,⁴⁴ summarized his argument as follows. The denial of supernatural revelation has as its consequence that any religious teaching has a human and, therefore, fallible character. From this point of view, the foundation of a church that by definition excludes those who do not subscribe to its dogma, is nonsense. Pierson thus ⁴⁰ Pierson, Dr. Pierson aan zijn laatste gemeente, pp. 16–21. ⁴¹ Albert Réville, Nous maintiendrons. Lettre au dr. A. Pierson à l’occasion de ses adieux à sa dernière église (Arnhem: Thieme, 1865), facsimile edition by J.P. Heering, Amsterdam: Éditions de la Bibliothèque Wallone, 1996; translated as Wij blijven, Arnhem: Thieme, 1865. ⁴² Réville, Nous maintiendrons, p. 20. ⁴³ Réville, Notre foi et notre droit. Un dernier mot en résponse à M. le Dr. Pierson, Arnhem: Thieme, 1866, pp. 18–19. ⁴⁴ Pierson, De moderne richting en de kristelijke kerk (Antwoord aan Dr. A. Réville op diens brief getiteld: ‘Nous maintiendrons’), Arnhem: Thieme, 1866 (December).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

59

rejected the foundation of supernaturalism; that is, the existence of a personal, transcendent God.⁴⁵ To this religious point of view, Pierson opposed his own ‘naturalistic’ or ‘anti-supernatural’ philosophical conviction of a universal causality; in this way, outlining the alternatives. Pierson further argued that religion should not be confused with poetry or sentimentality (the emotion one may have when impressed by a landscape or a work of art). God is not the same as the Absolu adorable or an ideal, because there is no reciprocity: one can love the ideal, but the ideal does not love me. Religion is exclusively defined by Pierson as the ‘consciousness (as it reveals itself in practice) of a reciprocal, personal and moral relationship between Creator and creature’.⁴⁶ This narrow definition may correspond nicely with Pietist notions of the Christian religion, but will never convince modern theologians. Pierson made this point even more explicit, as he argued that the anti-supernaturalist worldview—in his view, that which prevailed among modern theologians—implied a rupture with traditional Christian faith. He considered that this should be acknowledged by modern theologians, and they should not attempt to reform a church that was built on a supernatural foundation. Modern theologians should thus accept the consequences and leave the church. Réville responded almost immediately and denied that he had confused God and the ideal. In his view, Pierson had defended an old-fashioned Catholic ecclesiology that had already been overthrown by the Reformation. In turn, Réville’s response gave Pierson’s friend Conrad Busken Huet (1826–1886), who had resigned as a minister in 1862, the opportunity to demonstrate his polemical talent. With superb irony, Huet demolished Réville’s claim that there was substantial continuity between the old and modern Christian religion that some people had trouble understanding.⁴⁷ Huet concluded that the nineteenth century had taught us that theology is the science (wetenschap) of the unknown; modern theology—the most antiquated pursuit one can imagine, according to Huet—was no more than a formula that renders itself superfluous at the same moment it makes its object superfluous.⁴⁸ This damaging polemic was simply not acceptable to many modern theologians at the time. Thus, it did not come as a real surprise that a prominent representative of the latter, Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891), took aim at Huet. As mentioned, Kuenen was a famous Old Testament scholar, who also taught ethics at the Leiden theology faculty. He described Huet’s picture of modern theology as insolent and

⁴⁵ Pierson, De moderne richting, pp. 40 and 50. ⁴⁶ Pierson, De moderne richting, p. 42, footnote; cf. Pierson, Schoonheidszin en levenswijsheid, Arnhem: Thieme, 1868. ⁴⁷ Réville, Notre foi et notre droit, p. 30: ‘C’est une chose étrange que la peine qu’ont certains esprits à saisir la continuité substantielle des choses à travers le changement des accidents’. ⁴⁸ Conrad Busken Huet, Ongevraagd advies. In de zaak van Pierson tegen Réville c.s., Haarlem: Van Asperen van der Velde, 1866 (March), p. 82.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

60

   

impertinent. To call it a caricature, he claimed, would be to accord it too much respect, as the resemblance with the original was much too shallow.⁴⁹ According to Kuenen, the elementary mistake was to take supernaturalism for religion as such. While he conceded that the confession of the Dutch Reformed Church was thoroughly supernatural, this did not imply that reform was not possible.⁵⁰ The debate shows how deep the rift between former and current modern theologians went. In 1865, Pierson and his family moved to Rohrbach, near Heidelberg, where he rented the Rohrbacher Schlösschen (‘little castle’) for a reasonable price.⁵¹ There, he wrote another work that does not really belong to the debate sketched above, but remains important to an understanding of his theological position. It was a response to a booklet by the leader of Dutch Protestant modernism, the systematic theologian from Leiden, Jan Hendrik Scholten (1811–1885).⁵² In this brochure, Scholten had not mentioned Pierson by name; however, Pierson took the opportunity to address the more principled question about the plausibility of the modernist point of view as such. In this work, ‘God’s Miraculous Power and Our Spiritual Life’, Pierson argued that a supernatural stance implies acknowledgement of the fact that God may intervene in the world. The denial of the possibility of miraculous intervention is considered to be an important characteristic of modern theology. Pierson asked whether modern theologians had indeed overcome supernaturalism in this respect. As an example, he presented the case of a modern minister who, in 1866, had objected to a proposal by the government to organize an official day of prayer against cholera. The modern minister thought such prayer was nonreligious. However, Pierson suggested that after the publication of his letter to the editor, the same minister had probably said a prayer for pure hearts or a clean conscience. To pray for a healthy body was thus considered to be an expression of a supernatural point of view, whereas a prayer for a pure conscience was thought to be compatible with the modernist stance. For Pierson, however, philosophically speaking there was no difference at all.⁵³ In this context, Pierson called for respect of the rules of logic.⁵⁴ Either you believe that God can answer a prayer, in the sense that God can make someone ⁴⁹ Abraham Kuenen, Het goed recht der modernen, Leiden: Van Doesburgh, 1866 (May), pp. 9 and 16. ⁵⁰ Kuenen, Het goed recht der modernen, p. 30. ⁵¹ D.A. de Graaf, Het leven van Allard Pierson, Groningen: Wolters, 1962, p. 109; cf. Van der Veen, ‘Achter de Duitse horizon’. ⁵² J.H. Scholten, Supranaturalisme in verband met Bijbel, Christendom en Protestantisme, Leiden: Engels, 1867; Pierson, Gods wondermacht en ons geestelijk leven, Arnhem: Thieme, 1867. The discussion was continued in the following publications: J.H. Scholten, ‘Pierson’s jongste brochure’ [= Gods wondermacht], De Tijdspiegel 1867, part I, pp. 607–630; Pierson, ‘Prof. Scholten nader ingelicht’, De Nederlandsche Spectator 1867, pp. 203–212, esp. pp. 211–212. ⁵³ Pierson, Gods wondermacht en ons geestelijk leven, p. 42. ⁵⁴ Pierson, Gods wondermacht en ons geestelijk leven, p. 58.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

61

repent, which makes you an ethical supernaturalist, or you equate God’s work in the world with the immanent laws of nature, in which case prayer loses its meaning. The conclusion is that either the modern theologian is not modern (he is still a supernaturalist) or he is actually not a Christian: ‘No Christian piety without supernaturalism’.⁵⁵ In this way, Pierson seems to have said farewell, not only to the church of his upbringing, but to Christian belief as well. From this empiricist point of view, the core of Christianity was no longer tenable.

A Worldview In Heidelberg, Pierson attended the lectures of the physicist Hermann Helmholtz (1821–1894). Retrospectively, he claimed that these lectures had helped him to overcome his old positivism and to acknowledge an independent ethical sphere.⁵⁶ Helmholtz’s physiological critique of sensual perception opened up the space for a form of idealism, and this was a personal turning point for Pierson.⁵⁷ The philosophical details need not concern us here, but it is important to note, however, that this new insight did not mean a return to his old faith. On the contrary, it led to an exploration of other moral sources. In 1875, in his monograph A Worldview, Pierson defended his new position that ‘honestly breaks with [the ideas of] the supernatural and infallibility and nonetheless gives a raison d’être for moral life’.⁵⁸ The title of the book already indicates that Pierson was aware of the fact that his own ethics represented one particular point of view among others. The entire discourse of a ‘worldview’ presupposes a plurality of convictions and ideas about the human condition which are historically grounded. Pierson paid a lot of attention to other ‘worldviews’, especially those that had an impact on him. The book thus has a rather personal character, taking his own experience as a starting point for reflection. Any specific view should not be accepted on the basis of authority or revelation, but must be personally acquired and interiorized. Moreover, he explained that the book was the result of a long period of personal

⁵⁵ Pierson, Gods wondermacht en ons geestelijk leven, p. 37. ⁵⁶ Cf. Pierson, Over Alexandre Vinet. Met een schrijven aan den heer J. Stemberg als voorrede, Arnhem: Thieme, 1871, pp. 6–7. The preface sketches Pierson’s philosophical and intellectual development in the last years. On the history of positivism in Belgium and the Netherlands see Kaat Wils, De omweg van de wetenschap. Het positivisme en de Belgische en Nederlandse intellectuele cultuur 1845–1914, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005, pp. 218–219 (on Pierson). ⁵⁷ Pierson explained this ‘turn’ briefly in a letter to his brother, N.G. Pierson (April 1871?), Briefwisseling van Nicolaas Gerard Pierson 1839–1909, ed. J.G.S.J. van Maarseveen, vol. I (1854–1884), Amsterdam: De Nederlandsche Bank, 1990, pp. 481–485. For a more extensive account, see Pierson, ‘Een keerpunt in de wijsgerige ontwikkeling’, De Gids 53/2 (1871), 455–487. ⁵⁸ Pierson, Eene levensbeschouwing, p. 443. In the following I will refer to this book in the main text by placing the page number between brackets.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

62

   

inquiry, and confessed that it had also taken him a long time to overcome his ‘halfheartedness’ (30) and leave behind all forms of supernaturalism. Pierson also specified who he had in mind as readers. Generally speaking, he aimed at ‘seekers’ (31), people who were not searching for new definitive truths, but were interested in how an inquisitive mind, for whom the Christian tradition is no longer convincing, argues for a moral point of view. All human capacities, such as reason, sensitivity, feeling, and inner life (gemoed, Gemüt), must cooperate to further the happiness and wellbeing of humanity. According to Pierson, the idea of humaneness presupposes that people share the same human nature, weaknesses, and opportunities to improve life (62), and humaneness is a virtue in this sense. The significance of humaneness is very much furthered, Pierson argued, if one no longer maintains the idea that one possesses an absolute and infallible truth (62). Thus, to a great extent, the entire book is a conversation with his own past. The structure of the 448-page book is clear and simple. First, Pierson explains his ‘philosophical assumptions’; second, he discusses the conditions of the formation of ideals; third, he gives an overview of the relevant historical ideals; and, finally, he examines how human personality should be developed to realize his humanist ideals. Pierson’s philosophical, or perhaps more precisely, epistemological assumptions, involve three main principles: (1) knowledge must be based on perception and life experience; (2) in most cases, the best we can achieve is a high degree of probability; (3) what lies beyond perception and experience is unknown territory (65–66), in relation to which we simply do not know and cannot pronounce judgement. When claims cannot be proven, you must refrain from judgement. In addition to the opposition between faith and disbelief, Pierson opts for what he called the ‘abstentionist’ position (82). Pierson discerned three conditions that were necessary to formulate ideals and put them into practice. One needs: (1) a clear and acute perception of the world; (2) great sensitivity and sensibility; and (3) the power of imagination trained in the best schools of religious and philosophical thought (129). These capabilities are by no means easy to develop. Ignorance and force of habit obscure our view of reality and our awareness of the suffering of our fellow human beings. Pierson had no high hopes for human reason and will in these matters. In general, he thought they were weak, with error, passion, irrational preferences, and aversion paramount. Moreover, he considered passion to be the worst enemy of virtue, as it entails neither pity nor respect and destroys everything (149). The fact that Pierson rejected the idea of original sin did not imply that he had become a rationalist optimist instead. Although he considered knowledge and self-knowledge to be preconditions to ‘making’ ideals (Pierson’s preferred term in this context), the cultivation of the inner life and the perception of the suffering and the imperfection of the world were also found to be crucial. Ideals are considered by him to be born out of the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

63

awareness of suffering—‘out of compassion’ would best formulate Pierson’s intention today. He claimed that indifference and half-heartedness must be avoided and sensitivity cultivated. To address suffering, however, we need ‘imagination’, which, in his sense of the term, involves the analytic and synthetic work of reason and is thus by no means an irrational capacity (123). In this view, ideals are not created out of nothing but constructed out of existing materials or ideas: ‘The limits of our imagination are thus the limits of our empirical world and our capacity to associate and disassociate ideas’ (123–124). Pierson also thought that the most important schools for the formation of ideals are religions. One of the most interesting outcomes of his extensive discussion of the history of Western religions and their contribution to ideals is the ‘revelation of the “I” ’ in Protestantism. In modern terms, he was interested in the contribution of Protestantism to the rise of individualism. According to Pierson, this ‘courageous’ ‘German individualism’ (300) leads to yet another ideal. If a human being intrinsically relates to the Infinite as a human being, and if this relation forms the core of all human beings, the conclusion must be that in this crucial respect all human beings are equal. This again ‘implies an equality that is so great, so impressive, that differences in other respects pale compared to this; thus – in other words – individualism has turned into humanism’ (301). The value of the humanist ideal lies in the ‘secularization of humankind’ (303). It goes beyond theological and ecclesiastical divisions, which implies, in Pierson’s view, the end of all forms of clericalism. Therefore, it is argued, the sovereign state should come to rule the people without any recourse to churches or theology. The modern state should not only be the institution that protects and ensures the safety of its citizens, according to Pierson, but it should also represent the humanist principle of the ‘development of humanity’ (318). This means—among other things—non-religious (nondenominational) education, civil marriage, and public universities that incorporate freedom of education and research. Pierson is explicit about the fact that freedom of religion cannot be absolute, and while freedom of religious and other opinion must be guaranteed, in contentious cases, religious behaviour needs to be regulated by the state. This means that while one may defend the idea that prayer heals people, this does not imply that contagious diseases may be allowed to spread (the issue of vaccination was still controversial at the time). In addition, one may be against war or the theatre, but that does not mean that one may refuse to pay taxes that support these activities (325). Moreover, for Pierson, religious and denominational divisions require the sovereignty of the state, which protects minorities from persecution. Pierson argued that many people at the time did not see the dangers of clerical power and the threat it posed to a truly humane society. He hoped that people would eventually change through his efforts and warm to the ideals that he presented in A Worldview. He focused very much on the individual person as

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

64

   

someone who could undertake action and improve the world. Personally, he also had a keen sense of exploitation—for instance, the many hours children had to work in the mining industry—and he was even accused of being a socialist. However, he did not pay much attention to the structural causes of poverty, nor did he look very much to the state as an agent in battling misery. For Pierson, the state is basically an institution that balances and counteracts ecclesiastical power—predominantly in the public domain. Although he was very much aware of private initiatives by many associations working to improve conditions in society, his focus was on the individual and the cultivation of his or her personality. The formation of ideals and a powerful sense of initiative presupposed a wellrounded personality. Here, Pierson discerned four requirements: (1) need (feeling of a need), (2) judgement, (3) imagination, and (4) effort of will. As soon as a sense of need (‘a feeling of pleasantness or unpleasantness’) arises, one can speak of a personality in Pierson’s view. The awareness of a need directly entails a person being able to judge things. Imagination is needed to articulate the ways in which a situation could be improved. However, even if these three conditions are fulfilled, we cannot be certain that something will change unless there is a clear effort of will. Thus, improvement is not self-evident. Pointing to complaining hypochondriacs, to over-critical apathetic people, impractical reformers and the feebleminded, Pierson argued that we have a long way to go (339). What is self-evident, according to Pierson, is the enormous amount of physical and moral misery in the world. What could not be denied either is that thus far in human history there had been only limited effort to alleviate these miseries. In Pierson’s view, the only goal in human life is to contribute to the reduction of all this suffering and misfortune (343). A key part of the development of a personality is thus the cultivation of a sense that there is real suffering in the world: the claim ‘it is not that bad’ (372) basically reveals a lack of judgement. Pierson seeks the remedy for human inertia in character building, with modesty, vigour, cheerfulness and even gaiety being needed. Confronted with a tendency towards depression and a deep awareness of the imperfection of the world, Pierson spoke of the obligation to be joyful, and recommended ways to enhance this state of mind and accompanying behaviour. He considered sociability, art, and especially music to be most helpful in this respect, while the colours, smells, and perfumes of nature might also stimulate our joy in living. According to Pierson, judgement is necessary to discern the precise and often various causes of our unpleasant sensations. He claims that there is no panacea, and that only rigorous scholarly training will help us identify the causes of various kinds of misery. Furthermore, we must be able to imagine the world as it should be, in such a way that it could satisfy us (405). In this respect, he considered that the study of history may help us to imagine new possibilities and to cultivate a mode of flexibility enabling us to question ‘obvious’ conditions. This is the only

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

65

way to combat restorative tendencies and voices that tell us ‘this isn’t possible’. Finally, he thought the cultivation of willpower to be key. Talent is not enough, methodological practice is needed, as well as asceticism, planning, and hard work. Moral behaviour has to be taught and learned, Pierson wrote, as inspiration is only one thing, with habitus—morality in the sense of habits—tremendously important (420). In this respect, he considered that general conscription and compulsory education might also be helpful to discipline people. A Worldview is both a practical and a very personal book. Pierson gives all kinds of advice about how to live life without recourse to supernatural or other rigid belief systems. He thought that to contribute to a better world, it is not only necessary to set realistic goals, but also to limit one’s efforts in time and place. The task that one sets oneself may simply be too big and the time schedule too narrow. In Pierson’s view, concerns about a lack of time indicate that the planning is wrong. He even advises physical exercise to keep one’s spirits up (423). The personal character of the book is also revealed in the ways the author is present in the text and how he specifically addresses his audience (the ‘seekers’). His starting point, he explained again at the end of his book, was the insufficiency of the old religion. This problem did not arise as a result of moral or intellectual insufficiencies, but originated in the old religion’s principle of infallibility (of the pope or Scripture). Allegedly, the modern theologians and believers had their own form of infallibility: the infallibility of nature. This conviction entails the idea that everything is the result of the work of absolute power, wisdom, and love, and is therefore perfect (436f.). Most modernists will not have liked or even understood this characterization of their work. However, Pierson argued again that the principle of infallibility (whether it was acknowledged or not) explains why Christians were not especially inclined to work hard for the improvement of the world. Pierson observed ironically that for Christians there were apparently no practical needs that required alleviation (439). For him, personally, this must have been a ponderous argument for his own point of view. The moral outrage is sometimes palpable in such dry remarks. In line with his focus on the moral subject, Pierson sketched the intellectual and moral constitution he preferred for those who shape their worldview according to the principles of his book. Such people will be aware of the limits of their knowledge and not live in the illusion that they possess infallible truth through supernatural revelation; they have an eye open for new knowledge and always practise their capacity for judgement. Their insufficient knowledge will not make them impatient in the wrong sense, and they will heed objections to their worldview and be imbued with the idea that they may have made a mistake. For Pierson, a deep sense of truth and logic will make such people resistant to evaluating things on the basis of desires and needs. Moreover, they will have to live without readily available sources of comfort and empowerment (446–448). The list of the personal

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

66

   

qualities of adherents to this new worldview may perhaps seem modest at first sight, but it is basically pervaded by a sense of superiority. The worldview is founded on experience and scholarship, and those who attempt to live their lives according to these principles will not be easily deluded, but will be determined to follow a difficult path to improve the world. It is further argued that this high ideal of the moral practitioner with a sceptical mindset does not lead to full-blown scepticism or pessimism. Pierson refuted these positions by pointing to the fact that pessimism presupposes a criterion or ideal about how the world should look. This ideal must be correct (otherwise it is a self-refuting philosophy), and in that case the world will not be as bleak as a pessimist would presume. Without denying that the world can be a bad place, with a great deal of suffering, the pessimist must have a norm that can be used as a basis for improvement (96–98). Pierson himself was not an optimist, and A Worldview is not a guidebook that provides information about an ideal world. The book sketches the conditions which must be fulfilled to start the immense task of improving the world in a scientific manner. Impediments must be set aside before the journey can begin. In this respect, the way the book ends is utterly revealing. Pierson sketches a man without illusions, who refuses to pass judgement on the basis of his feelings.⁵⁹ After this decision, he is absorbed in himself and ponders his deed, ‘because a deed it was’ (446). Then, Dante’s Beatrice appears, ‘a strong beauty’, who takes his hand and leads him ‘to the lonely top of a hill’ (446). There are valleys on both sides, with the valley to the left illuminated by artificial light: Bacchants are dancing around an altar near the flowing river Lethe. To the right, a Gothic cathedral rises, with a pious crowd in procession behind a priest. At the moment the wanderer is weighing the options, Beatrice tells him ‘here, at my left, the realm of pleasure, there at my right, you see the realm of the need for pleasure’ (447). Christianity— including its belief in an afterlife—is depicted by Pierson as another form of hedonism—a comparison that must have offended many of his readers. ‘Those who follow me’, Beatrice continues, ‘must be strong’. ‘They don’t enjoy, because they sacrifice the present for the future’. ‘Driven by a sombre figure, who is called the suffering of the world, they toil on a dry heath, and try to make it fruitful, according to the designs handed to them by my twin sister Poetry’ (447). The question posed by the workers, about whether this project will succeed, is met ‘with a delightful smile’ (448). To heighten the drama even more, the writer speaks about the efforts that will be needed, the possible death of those who try so hard, only to be consoled by the idea that the task for those who will come after them will possibly be less demanding.

⁵⁹ Women do not have the necessary depth of feeling and understanding that men have (pp. 272–273).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

67

This vision may not be very alluring to most readers today, but the lonely wanderer has made his decision to follow Beatrice, ‘and feels himself urged and stimulated to suffer, to work and to love’ (448). ‘Arbeit und Liebe’, as Sigmund Freud had noted, work (meaningful activity) and love (relationships), are also today for many people the two main sources of meaning. The ascetic moment of suffering mentioned by Pierson is harder to accept in contemporary times. In general, Pierson would, of course, have agreed that suffering should be alleviated and if possible avoided, but the idea that hard work may imply suffering is still clearly present in his thinking. Pleasure is not a key value for him, while today the emphasis on pleasure and fun seems overwhelming. In the course of time, ascetic forms of behaviour have been relegated to the fringes of society, perhaps with the exception of endurance sports such as long-distance cycling and running.

Criticism A Worldview was not met with unconditional approval. A semi-public exchange took place at the meeting of the Assembly of Modern Theologians in Amsterdam in April 1876, with the discussion introduced by the leader of the modernists, Abraham Kuenen, under the title ‘Idealistic Worldview and Religious Belief ’. In a retrospective paper, Kuenen wrote that the differences went deeper than expected. The expectation that the ‘ethical moderns’—who went so far as to proclaim a ‘religion without metaphysics’—would agree with Pierson in several respects was not fulfilled.⁶⁰ On the contrary, one of the most radical representatives of this wing of modernists, A.G. van Hamel, published a critical, if not deprecatory review of the book.⁶¹ We do not know much about this meeting,⁶² but in his obituary of Pierson, Van Hamel expressed his appreciation of the event, recalling that Pierson, smoking one cigar after another, defended himself against the many attacks: omnes contra unum. His calmness was misinterpreted, Van Hamel wrote, by many of the younger theologians, who took this as a sign of indifference. However, now they regret that they did not take the book more seriously at the time.⁶³ Three years after the event, Van Hamel also resigned as a Protestant minister, and his remarks in the obituary seem to retract somewhat his earlier critical review.

⁶⁰ Kuenen, Gedachtenisrede in de vergadering van moderne theologen (1866–1890), Leiden: Van Doesburgh, 1891, pp. 29 and 57; Pierson, Een levensbeschouwing, preface. ⁶¹ Van Hamel, ‘Een woord op zijn pas?’ (June 1876) in Los en vast (ed. J. de Vries), Leiden, 1876, pp. 162–221. ⁶² S.A. Naber, Allard Pierson Herdacht, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1897, p. 142. ⁶³ Van Hamel, ‘Allard Pierson’, p. xv; cf. Hans Trapman, ‘Atheistic Christianity: The Case of Anton Gerard van Hamel (1842–1907)’, in Leo Kenis and Ernestine van der Wall, eds., Religious Modernism in the Low Countries: A Comparative Approach, Leuven: Peeters, 2013, pp. 131–145.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

68

   

In a review in the journal Theologisch Tijdschrift (Theological Journal), Abraham Kuenen spent more than forty pages listing the book’s shortcomings and misperceptions. Pierson was given the opportunity to respond in the same journal edition, writing some sixty pages of ‘marginal comments’ which clearly expressed his irritation. These comments were immediately followed by a rejoinder by Kuenen of almost thirty pages.⁶⁴ The tone was bitter and the two friends drifted apart.⁶⁵ Kuenen claimed that Pierson had an ‘undiluted contempt for all theologians without exception’, to which Pierson responded that no one would pay so much attention to something they despised. He claimed Kuenen’s remark only showed ‘ignorance and shallowness’.⁶⁶ In his rejoinder, Kuenen argued that his own criticism was useful, as it induced Pierson to clarify the differences between their points of view. Kuenen went to some lengths to explain why he had not been more sympathetic (as there were sufficient points of agreement) and had instead written such a harsh review. He confessed that he had been put off by the artificiality and the ‘inner untruthfulness’ of the book.⁶⁷ He claimed that he had expected to find some part of the author’s life history in it, which was probably a veiled way of saying that Pierson should have treated the modernist position he had departed from with more respect. Kuenen took the moral high ground again, explaining that the editors (including himself) of the journal had hoped that Pierson had not used his talent to ridicule others so frequently, but they did not want to ‘restrict the guest friend in his self-defence’.⁶⁸ How obliging the editors had been! Pierson had a sharp pen and it is easy to understand that Kuenen and his coeditors were not happy with this contribution. Moreover, Pierson’s irony could bite. For example, he wrote that he would have been better able to appreciate Kuenen’s concerns ‘if the religion, by which he [Kuenen] wanted to save the world, had not looked so pale and consumptive [teeringachtig]’. The question then arises: Is it worthwhile? Imagine a theatre, where plays are staged. The director places himself among the audience before the closed curtains and starts to incite admiration and enthusiasm . . . . That is the way Kuenen is firing us up to be humble and to worship, but the curtain is not lifted and he does not tell us what or whom we should actually worship.⁶⁹

⁶⁴ A. Kuenen, ‘Ideaalvorming’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 10 (1876) 316–361; Pierson, ‘Kantteekeningen op Prof. Kuenen’s “Ideaalvorming” ’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 10 (1876) 404–468; Kuenen, ‘Dupliek’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 10 (1876) 469–497. ⁶⁵ Naber, Allard Pierson Herdacht, p. 143. ⁶⁶ Kuenen, ‘Ideaalvorming’, p. 317; Pierson, ‘Kantteekeningen’, pp. 404–405. ⁶⁷ Kuenen, ‘Dupliek’, p. 471. ⁶⁸ Kuenen, ‘Dupliek’, pp. 472–473. ⁶⁹ Pierson, ‘Kantteekeningen’, p. 463.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

69

Thus, for Pierson, Kuenen’s concepts were indeterminate; his argument all pomp and show. Because of the verbosity and polemical tone of both antagonists it is not easy to identify the substance of the controversy. One major bone of contention seems to be Pierson’s attempt to outline a worldview without any recourse to the supernatural; to a world beyond this world. Kuenen even accuses Pierson of ‘materialistic monism’, which seems to be an odd choice of words, as Pierson aims to outline ideals necessary to improve the world. Kuenen feared that the ‘puffed up I’ could easily turn an individual against their educators.⁷⁰ A second major objection expressed by Kuenen is that Pierson has no criterion or standard for moral behaviour, with his ideals arising from pleasant or unpleasant sensations (experiences). Thus, he asks: How do we know that these are the right ideals, and how do we determine an order of merit between these ideals?⁷¹ Pierson responded that this objection is based on a misunderstanding, as he had clearly stated that each ideal is ‘the child of a specific class of sensations [perceptions] and of analytic and synthetic reason’.⁷² Judgement is thus included, and Pierson added that neither indifference nor egoism can be part of the formation of ideals. Kuenen is not convinced by these arguments and doubts whether the ideals are necessarily pursued.⁷³ According to him, they do not have an obliging character. Kuenen has a point here, as Pierson describes the formation and pursuit of ideals in a rather formal way, without specifying the content of these ideals. Perhaps his ideals could be summarized in rather general terms, such as the struggle against suffering and misery and perhaps the pursuit of happiness as well, but this does not amount to a material ethics. Pierson continues, repeating that Kuenen had misjudged the deep ethical character of what he had called the ‘sensitivity and sensibility of the inner life’.⁷⁴ His assumption is that we do care for suffering people but, at the same time, he admits that this sensibility cannot be taken for granted and has to be cultivated. Pierson articulated the difference between Kuenen’s and his own position as follows: ‘According to Professor Kuenen, human beings are moral because they know they have a duty. In my view, human beings know they have a duty because they are moral.’⁷⁵ Pierson had warned in his book against the ‘fetishism of dogma’, claiming that doctrines do not produce moral sensibility; rather it is the other way around.⁷⁶

⁷⁰ Kuenen, ‘Ideaalvorming’, pp. 356–357. ⁷¹ Kuenen, ‘Ideaalvorming’, p. 335. ⁷² Pierson, ‘Kantteekeningen’, p. 421: Pierson, Eene levensbeschouwing, p. 70. ⁷³ Kuenen, ‘Dupliek’, p. 484. ⁷⁴ Pierson, ‘Kantteekeningen’, p. 426. This is rather free rendering of the original ‘aantrekkelijkheid van gemoed’. ‘Gemoed’ has the same root as the German ‘Gemüt’, which could also be translated as ‘heart’ or even ‘mind’ (in a non-rationalistic interpretation). ⁷⁵ Pierson, ‘Kantteekeningen’, p. 430. ⁷⁶ Pierson, ‘Kantteekeningen’, p. 455: Pierson, Eene levensbeschouwing, pp. 47–48.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

70

   

This deeply felt conviction is also evident from Pierson’s critique of the Kantian categorical imperative. Although he is far from defending the view that human beings are basically good, he does believe that they are capable of doing some good. Pierson illustrates this point with the example of a banker who returns money entrusted to him out of respect for the categorical imperative, when in fact he was very much inclined to keep it: ‘Of course, in this case, I think to myself: thank God the man felt the powerful bond of the “Du sollst” [thou shalt] so strongly.’ However, he adds that next time he will entrust his money to someone who does not need the categorical imperative, but remains honest as a matter of course.⁷⁷ For Kuenen, this depiction of the categorical imperative as nothing more than an externally derived obligation is not reasonable, and he argues that morality is founded on the sense of duty.⁷⁸ Nevertheless, there is a real difference between a Kantian approach and one inspired by Aristotle, who starts from an idea of the ‘good life’ as the key to ethical thought. A more sympathetic review was written by Conrad Busken Huet, who was working as an independent journalist at the time.⁷⁹ He was not shocked at all, and even claimed that Pierson’s book was not so different from theological treatises.⁸⁰ He suggested that the book may be of use to a small group of civilized young people, but personally he did not need a new worldview. After the collapse of authoritative accounts of the ‘big mysteries of life’, he said he could do without such things: ‘If I can do without theodicy to ensure my inner peace, then I can a fortiori do without Pierson’s half a dozen rules of life; or rather, I can do without Pierson, and will find the necessary rules of life in the Book of Proverbs, or in some popular ethics.’⁸¹ Although both Pierson and Busken Huet considered a break with authoritarian religion necessary, they were still attracted by the power of the old religion in some way. Against the new wisdom—however well-constructed and convincing the arguments might be—the faithful, such as Da Costa, will uphold the foolishness of belief, and both Huet and Pierson almost reluctantly acknowledged that the faithful may have a point here. Huet, for example, claims that by breaking with the great mysteries of life, Pierson’s book suffers from a certain degree of triviality and even crudeness.⁸² Pierson must have had the same conviction deep down, and from a psychological point of view, this explains Pierson’s harsh criticism of the ⁷⁷ Pierson, ‘Over Ethika’, De Gids 59/4 (1895) 245–263, here pp. 260–261. ⁷⁸ Kuenen, ‘Dupliek’, p. 485. ⁷⁹ For a discussion of the relationship between Pierson and Busken Huet see C.G.N. de Vooys, Allard Pierson naast en tegenover Conrad Busken Huet, Groningen and Batavia: Allard Pierson Stichting, 1941. ⁸⁰ Cf. Busken Huet, ‘[Review of Pierson, Eene Levensbeschouwing]’ (1876), in Busken Huet, Litterarische Fantasien en Kritieken, vol. XVI, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1912, pp. 164–174, pp. 167–168. For an excellent biography see Olf Praamstra, Busken Huet. Een biografie, Amsterdam: SUN, 2007. ⁸¹ Busken Huet, ‘[Review of Pierson, Eene Levensbeschouwing]’, pp. 173–174. ⁸² Busken Huet, ‘[Review of Pierson, Eene Levensbeschouwing]’, p. 174.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

71

‘pale and consumptive’ character of modernist religion. In Huet’s review, this criticism is thrown back at Pierson. The sense of loss is evident, and for the remainder of his life Pierson would write only respectful and empathetic portraits of the members of the Dutch Réveil movement.⁸³

‘The Melancholic Privilege of Thinking’ ‘The melancholic privilege of thinking’⁸⁴ led Allard Pierson to an ongoing critique of religion. This first led to his resignation as a minister and ultimately to an integral rebuttal of the intellectual assumptions underlying the Pietism of his youth. He thought that the idea of other-worldliness must be left behind and that the only thing that can and must be done is to attempt to reduce misery and poverty. In this last respect, Christianity had utterly failed in his view, as it had promoted a quietist attitude.⁸⁵ ‘Let things take their own course’, was a wellknown saying in Pietistic circles. Pierson, however, did not mention the substantive involvement of Christians in charitable work and societies, including members of the Réveil. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Pietists deemed spiritual renewal (‘being reborn’) to be more important than the struggle against exploitation and suffering. The ‘modernist’ compromise between faith and intellect that Pierson had attempted to achieve during his ministry ultimately did not convince him. An ‘atheistic form of religion’ was too shallow and led him to a melancholic pondering of the sincere faith and piety of people such as Da Costa.⁸⁶ For religion had to be more than ethics. One may expect that Pierson would have had a favourable view of the German systematic theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher, who famously described himself as a Pietist of a higher order. But he was remarkably critical of him, characterizing him in a preface to a popular book as a pious, but heterodox man.⁸⁷ In a more serious publication, Pierson stated that an absolute feeling of dependence as defended by Schleiermacher could not exist and that such a feeling could never prove the existence of an infinite power.⁸⁸ This seems a rather simplistic reading of Schleiermacher, which neglects the transcendental dimension of his thought. ⁸³ Pierson, Oudere tijdgenoten. ⁸⁴ Pierson, ‘Scholten’s Monisme’ (1859), p. 798. ⁸⁵ Pierson, Eene levensbeschouwing, pp. 345–347. ⁸⁶ Pierson, ‘Ter Uitvaart. Professor Oosterzee’s inleiding tot zijne dogmatiek en Prof. Doedes’ Leer van God getoetst’, De Gids 40/3 (1876), 185–249, 434–500, here p. 498. The review is a devastating critique of two Dutch dogmatic treatises which, according to Pierson, betrayed the old orthodoxy and made modern philosophers very impatient (499). ⁸⁷ Allard Pierson, ‘Voorrede voor de vertaling van Friedrich Schleiermacher, een beeld van zijn leven en een bloemlezing uit zijne werken’, ed. Elisa Maier, 1863, in Verspreide Geschriften, third series, part II (1860–1865), ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1907, pp. 229–233, here pp. 230 and 232. ⁸⁸ Boersema, Allard Pierson, p. 392. Christiaan Sepp, Proeve eener pragmatische geschiedenis der theologie in Nederland, sedert het laatst der vorige eeuw tot op onzen tijd (1787–1858), second edition, Amsterdam: J.C. Sepp, 1860, pp. 56–58.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

72

   

Although Schleiermacher’s work was translated into Dutch, generally speaking his books were not well received in the nineteenth century. The translation of the Glaubenslehre (The Doctrine of the Christian Faith) had to be simplified and annotated to make it understandable to a Dutch audience. A favourable reviewer claimed that one had to free Schleiermacher’s dogmatic opus magnum of its philosophical and dialectical robe to introduce it in Holland.⁸⁹ No doubt Pierson was one of the most critical minds in Dutch intellectual life in the second half of the nineteenth century, and it is fair to say that the main object of his criticism was theology. He did not cease criticizing theological authors, even after he became a professor of the arts in 1877. He remained fascinated by religion, and especially the religion of his childhood, which led to a tension in his thinking. His admiration for the Réveil milieu and the intensity of its faith seemed to be little diminished by his severe criticism of its theological presuppositions. This opposition may to some extent explain the great length of his struggle and the various ways he attempted to come to terms with the religion of his youth. Another factor was the evolution of his own philosophical principles—an issue that was only touched on in this chapter. It took a great deal of effort to arrive at his new humanist worldview and break with the supernatural and the notion of infallibility. It is characteristic of Pierson that he once said that it was not God, but the longing for God which is the reality that imposes itself on people.⁹⁰ His critical stance ultimately resulted in an abstentionist or agnostic point of view, and he emphasized the limits of what people could know. In November 1875, he wrote to a German colleague that it was time to stop speaking about things we do not know, and that the time had come to ‘organize the party of the “know-nothings” – opposed to all forms of infallibility’.⁹¹ Pierson was probably too much of an Einzelgänger to found a party, and did not join the Dutch humanist association ‘The Dawn’ (De Dageraad). His type of agnosticism was— as he famously wrote—permeated by a strong artistic sense.⁹² Artistic sensibility, however, is not only an aesthetic capacity in the narrow sense of the word, but represented for Pierson the faculty of imagination as such, which is necessary to the formation of ideals that can help to make the world a better place. Thus, Pierson did not replace religion with art. His last publication was entitled ‘On Ethics’, and not only defended an Aristotelian position, but ended—as did his book A Worldview—with a vision of a transformation of ⁸⁹ P.J. van Leeuwen, De betekenis van Fr. D.E. Schleiermacher voor de theologie in Nederland, Haarlem: Bohn, 1948, p. 38. ⁹⁰ Pierson, De moderne richting en de kristelijke kerk, p. 74. ⁹¹ Naber, Pierson herdacht, p. 72 (Pierson to H.J. Holtzmann, 10 November 1875): ‘Guerre à mort allem diesem herkömmlichen Unsinn, allem Sprechen über Dinge, von denen wir nichts wissen. Es ist an der Zeit, die grosse Partei der Know-nothings zu organisieren, dem und allem Unfehlbaren gegenüber’. ⁹² Pierson, ‘Over Opzoomer’, p. 440: ‘dat van kunstzin doortrokken agnosticisme waarin wij . . . ons terugtrekken’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  ’   ‘  ’ 

73

religious sentiment into a passion for what is good and pure. He thought that if the human heart could be unlocked in this way, a new future for ethics would be possible in an age that was, in his view, perplexed by rationalism.⁹³ Pierson’s trajectory is very personal and one should be extremely cautious about drawing any general conclusions on the basis of such an extraordinary life. For some time Pierson sought a compromise between the religion of his youth and contemporary intellectual thought in modern theology and Christianity, but he finally concluded that this type of religion was too insipid to be seen as a continuation of the ‘real’ religion of his childhood. In the late 1860s and early 1870s, Pierson’s ‘craving for reality’⁹⁴ turned him into a compassionate thinker with a deep concern for human misery and suffering. Although his universalistic ideal of alleviating misery may have been inspired by his Christian upbringing, Pierson himself was critical of the exclusive character of the Christian church. His universalism, which aimed to include all people and to end various forms of exclusion, is a modern, emancipatory ideal. Pierson’s craving for the real may also have led him to reject new interpretations of religion. Ultimately, the religion of his childhood defined religion as such. In this respect, there is not a great difference between Pierson and Isaac da Costa, both of whom thought that religion should not be reduced to an ethics or an aesthetics. In this sense, Pierson remained old school, while his trajectory was modern. He searched for a form of Christian belief compatible with the spirit of the modern age, but his departure from Christian belief was based on an understanding of religion that few contemporary liberal theologians would call modern. For him, the standard and ultimate criterion of religion—referred to in the jargon of late nineteenth-century philosophy and theology—remained the ‘supernatural’, underpinning Christianity, in which a God behind the scenes could work his miracles.

⁹³ Pierson, ‘Over Ethika’, p. 263.

⁹⁴ Pierson, Rigting en leven, pp. 6 and 10.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

4 Dutch Protestant Modernism The overall question in this chapter is how we should understand Dutch Protestant modernism. Rather than describe the history of the movement, which would demand a separate study, I will focus on several issues and questions that help to clarify the specific character of Dutch Protestant modernism. First, I will address the manifold meanings and usages of the concept of ‘modernism’ in general and describe the variety of phenomena to which the term may refer. This overview will provide the background against which Christian, and more specifically Protestant, modernism can be understood. It is important to avoid confusion in this respect. For example, the terms ‘modern’ and ‘liberal’ can be used interchangeably in Dutch, but not always. Thus, one has to bear in mind that the term ‘liberal’ (vrijzinnig) became prevalent around 1900, while ‘modern theology’ and ‘modernism’ were mainly used to refer to theological and religious developments in the second half of the nineteenth century. Second, I will outline the emergence of theological modernism in an international perspective. This is followed, third, by a short digression about how modernism was perceived and framed by Abraham Kuyper, one of the first authors to write about the phenomenon. Fourth, I will outline the use of the term ‘modernism’ in Dutch religious history and introduce the main protagonists of nineteenth-century Dutch Protestant modernism. Fifth, I will discuss its fundamental characteristics and show how it was perceived by contemporary observers. Sixth, the decline of Dutch liberal Protestantism in the twentieth century will be explained. Although this discussion goes beyond the timeframe of the book, it is a good way to contextualize the movement still further and to gain a deeper understanding of its basic features, including its institutional weakness.

Varieties of Modernism Modernism is a vague and contested concept. Surveying the literature in fields such as philosophy, theology, religious studies, sociology, the arts (including painting, sculpture, literature, and architecture), and intellectual debates in general, one forms the impression that the term ‘modern’ and its derivatives could be used to describe almost any ‘new’ development. The meaning of the term varies according to the professional background of the intellectual discussing the subject. In a more specific sense, it refers to reform movements in the arts, architecture,

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0005

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

75

music, dance, and in particular literature during the second half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. Although the names of Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud are often mentioned in this context, most of the studies about modernism deal with writers (such as Arthur Rimbaud, Henrik Ibsen, Franz Kafka, and T.S. Eliot), composers (from Gustav Mahler to Claude Debussy), architects (from Le Corbusier to Mies van der Rohe), and painters (from Paul Cézanne and Edouard Manet to Piet Mondrian) from that period.¹ In his monumental book on modernism, the intellectual historian Peter Gay extends the period even further: he starts with Charles Baudelaire’s 1857 collection of poetry Les Fleurs du mal (The Flowers of Evil) and even includes Andy Warhol in his discussion. According to Gay, all modernists shared two defining attributes: a commitment to a principled self-scrutiny and ‘the lure of heresy that impelled their actions as they confronted conventional sensibilities’.² Both criteria have a rather general character, and Gay also refers to older introspective thinkers from Plato to St. Augustine, Montaigne to Shakespeare, Pascal to Rousseau. Even Denis Diderot and Immanuel Kant, in their advocacy of human autonomy, qualify in his view as protomodernists. The second criterion is perhaps more convincing, as many modernists broke with convention and sought to express themselves in new ways. Gay’s use of the notion ‘heresy’ may betray a somewhat anti-religious stance, which is also evident in his characterization of T.S. Eliot as an ‘anti-modern modernist’, who found his ‘inner peace’ in High Anglicanism.³ Contrary to what Gay suggests, a principled self-scrutiny was also typical of certain forms of (modern) Christian belief.⁴ Religion is thus not necessarily an antimodern phenomenon. The definition and delineation of modernism are contested. Although various artists were critical of the state of their art, it is much less clear what kind of renewal they had in mind. One could suggest that these critics claimed that naive forms of representation had to be abandoned and that subjective and even subconscious realities had to be expressed. But is this true for all modernists? ¹ It is not helpful to take ‘modernism’ as an equivalent of ‘modernity’ and to discuss ‘the modern’ and theories of modernization under this heading. Modernism is best seen as a movement or as various strands in late-modern culture in the broadest sense of the word. For a short general introduction see Peter Childs, Modernism, London and New York: Routledge, 2000. ² Peter Gay, Modernism: The Lure of Heresy. From Baudelaire to Beckett and Beyond, New York and London: W.W. Norton, 2008, 3. Roger Griffin, Modernism and Fascism. The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and Hitler, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, pp. 16–17, calls modernism the ‘generic term for a wide variety of countervailing palingenetic reactions to the anarchy and cultural delay allegedly resulting from the radical transformation of traditional institutions, social structures, and belief systems under the impact of Western modernization’. ³ Gay, Modernism, p. 397. ⁴ Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, and for more specific examples see David Hempton, Methodism: Empire of the Spirit, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005 and Heath W. Carter and Laura Rominger Porter, eds., Turning Points in the History of American Evangelism, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

76

   

What can be maintained, however, is that they were rather articulate about wanting something new. Dissatisfaction with the prevailing arts practice was palpable. Gustave Flaubert’s hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom he depicted as greedy, stupid, and philistine, fits this picture well.⁵ Yet the existence of a bourgeois class that accumulated wealth was a necessary condition for the rise of modernist art. Wealthy citizens used their means to cultivate high culture in their homes and to establish public cultural institutions, from museums to concert halls. The commercialization of culture and the availability of inexpensive reproductive techniques also contributed to the success of modernism. It was the prosperity of an industrializing and urbanizing world that made it happen.⁶ The interconnectedness between capitalism, the bourgeoisie, and modernist art does not imply a favourable appreciation of the new avant-garde. On the contrary, the term ‘modernist’ seems to have had a rather negative connotation. One of the more pessimistic voices was that of the British art critic John Ruskin. He discerned three phases in the development of the arts, which he called classicalism, medievalism, and modernism. Interestingly, this division is elucidated in religioushistorical terms: ‘I say that Classicalism began, wherever civilisation began, with Pagan Faith. Mediaevalism began, and continued, wherever civilisation began and continued to confess Christ. And, lastly, Modernism began and continues, wherever civilisation began and continues to deny Christ’ (1853).⁷ ‘Modernism’ had already been used earlier to mark modern culture as anti-Christian. The history of the term goes back at least to church reformer Martin Luther, who spoke of modernisti from whom one could not learn anything.⁸ One of the most famous disputes in early modern literary history was the late seventeenth-century Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes. The ‘Ancients’ saw classical Greek and Roman authors as the model for excellence, whereas the ‘Moderns’ challenged the supremacy of classical literature and explored new forms of expression. The appreciation of modern forms and insights was also characteristic of theological and Protestant ‘modernism’ in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the subject of the next section.

⁵ Gay, Modernism, p. 6. ⁶ Gay, Modernism, p. 18. ⁷ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, ‘Moderne Modernisierer, modernitätskritische Traditionalisten oder reaktionäre Modernisten? Kritische Erwägungen zu Deutungsmustern der Modernismusforschung’, in Hubert Wolf, ed., Antimodernismus und Modernismus in der katholischen Kirche. Beiträge zum theologiegeschichtlichen Vorfeld des II. Vatikanums, Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998, pp. 67–106, here pp. 73–74; John Ruskin, ‘Lectures on Architecture and Painting’ (1853), in E.T. Cook and Alexander Weddenburn, eds., The Works of John Ruskin, vol. 12, London: George Allen, 1904, pp. 7–164, p. 139; cf. p. 142 (emphasis in the original). ⁸ Graf, ‘Moderne Modernisierer’, p. 71.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

77

Theological Modernism In the history of Western Christianity, the term modernism (French and Dutch: modernisme) is used to refer to a theological current, or even movement, that stood for the critical appropriation of the Christian tradition. David Friedrich Strauss’ bestselling book Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (1835–1836) is often mentioned as the beginning of theological modernism. The book purported to uncover alleged ‘mythical’ elements in the New Testament stories about Jesus Christ, and this assumption led to much outcry. The most influential Dutch theologian at the time, the Groningen professor Petrus Hofstede de Groot, tried to prevent a Dutch translation of this ‘miscarriage of the century’, because in his view the book was only of use to professional theologians. They had to know its contents, ‘just as the physician has to understand the insane in order to locate and heal their ailment’. After the translation appeared in 1842, the book was boycotted by the booksellers’ association, which bought up the entire edition and finally had it destroyed in 1858.⁹ This patriarchal and essentially condescending approach was probably typical of the Dutch elites at the time, but in countries such as Germany and England the publication of Strauss’ The Life of Jesus was doubtless a key moment in the history of the popularization of the new approach, which no longer took biblical claims at face value. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the critical study of the Scriptures was also introduced and accepted in the Netherlands. Theologians and orientalists such as Ernest Renan, Abraham Kuenen, Conrad Busken Huet, Allard Pierson, Alfred Loisy, and George Tyrrell critically researched their own religious tradition, looking for a ‘modern’ form of belief. Modern believers rejected a literal understanding of the Bible and had severe doubts about the credibility of biblical miracles. Within the Roman Catholic tradition the term ‘modernism’ has a more specific meaning and refers to several ‘modernist’ theological views that were condemned by Pope Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (1907). It was followed in 1910 by the introduction of the antimodernist oath, to be sworn by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. Modernism was thus defined as a heretical system within Catholicism, which broadly speaking comprised immanent philosophy, subjectivism, and rationalistic criticism of the Bible, as well as reformist thinking that was seen as a threat to the ecclesial tradition. Catchwords were irrationalism and psychologism and the most visible targets of condemnation were the French theologian Alfred Loisy (1857–1940) and the British Jesuit ⁹ Jasper Vree, De Groninger Godgeleerden. De oorsprong en de eerste periode van hun optreden (1820–1843), Kampen: Kok, 1984, pp. 197–198; Hendrik Willem Obbink, David Friedrich Strauss in Nederlandse reacties op zijn theologie in de negentiende eeuw, Utrecht: Elinkwijk, 1973, pp. 32–33.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

78

   

George Tyrrell (1861–1909).¹⁰ Tyrrell was denied burial in a Catholic cemetery and both men were excommunicated. The opponents of Catholic modernism criticized not only the new historical approach to the Bible and new systematic theologies, but also the social and political modernism that materialized in Christian unions and political parties that were independent of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Catholic modernism was not significant in the Netherlands.¹¹ Catholic modernism was no longer highly visible after 1914 but continued to play a role in the formation of liberal Catholic identities. Notwithstanding all the differences between the various theologians, the term modernism has a rather well-defined connotation in the history of Roman Catholic theology. Its meaning is broader and vaguer in the Protestant world. This is especially true of the use of the term in England and the United States. Historians sometimes try to delineate specific phenomena, such as the struggle between fundamentalists and modernists that started in the United States in the 1910s and reached a high point with the Scopes Trial in 1925, challenging the new Tennessee anti-evolution law. But they tend to treat the liberal or modern tradition in a general way, with some even claiming that attempts to differentiate between liberals and modernists are bound to fail.¹² Yet there is still a tendency to use the term ‘liberal’ for older traditions, whereas ‘modernism’ is used to refer to developments that started in the late nineteenth century. When this ‘modernist’ tradition exactly began is hard to tell. In his publications on American modernism, William R. Hutchinson first suggests the 1870s and 1910s as possible starting points and ends by claiming that the liberalism of 1900 differed significantly from that of other times and places. By then the ‘mark of modernism . . . was clearly upon it’.¹³ In his magisterial study The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism, Hutchinson states that when ‘modernism’ finally became a common term in the early twentieth century, it generally meant three things: ‘first and most visibly, it

¹⁰ Claus Arnold, Kleine Geschichte des Modernismus, Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 2007; cf. R. Schaeffler, Art. Modernismus, in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (ed. Joachim Ritter et al.), vol. VI, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984, cols. 62–66; Thomas Michael Loome, Liberal Catholicism, Reform Catholicism, Modernism: A Contribution to a New Orientation in Modernist Research, Mainz: Matthias Grünewald Verlag, 1979; Darrell Jodock, ed., Catholicism Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and Anti-Modernism in Historical Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Annelies Lannoy, Alfred Loisy and the Making of the History of Religions: A Study of the Development of Comparative Religion in the Early 20th Century, Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2020. ¹¹ Ward de Pril, ‘The Early Reception of Ernest Renan’s Vie de Jésus (1863) in Belgium and the Netherlands’, in Leo Kenis and Ernestine van der Wall, eds., Religion and Modernism in the Low Countries 1840–1940: A Comparative Approach, Leuven: Peeters, 2009, pp. 65–84, here pp. 75–77. ¹² William R. Hutchinson, American Protestant Thought: The Liberal Era, New York: Harper & Row, 1968, p. 6; Hutchinson, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism, Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1976, pp. 7–9. ¹³ Hutchinson, American Protestant Thought, p. 6.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

79

meant the conscious, intended adaptation of religious ideas to modern culture’.¹⁴ The conscious striving for modernity is a defining characteristic. Older liberals could directly rest their case for theological change on appeals to Scripture, or timeless reason, or even intuition, and the accompanying attitude to contemporary culture, towards modernity ‘was almost as likely to be negative as it was to be affirming or celebratory’.¹⁵ Hutchinson maintains, however, that two other characteristics of modernism should not be overlooked: the idea of the immanence of God in nature and human nature, and its tendency towards a general humanistic optimism, which was grounded in the belief that society is moving toward the realization of the Kingdom of God. The liberal Social Gospel movement that addressed issues of social justice is a prime example of the optimism of American modernists, which no doubt exceeded that of their European counterparts, who often concentrated on theoretical issues of belief, such as the new critical interpretation of the Bible, thereby neglecting to their own detriment pressing social issues. In Great Britain, the term modernism is used to refer to a movement in the Church of England. In 1922, C.W. Emmet from Oxford claimed that ‘modernism’ had become the ‘popular designation of what was formerly called the broad, or liberal, school in the Anglican church’.¹⁶ Emmet maintained that the term was first applied to Catholic modernism, but that its use in the 1920s was no longer restricted to Catholicism. ‘Modernism’ now denoted the movement in the Anglican church and in other churches, ‘which believes that religion needs to be interpreted afresh to the modern man’. Modernists claimed that services and doctrinal statements were in need of revision and they welcomed the results of historical criticism. Emmet did not see the ‘essence of modernism’ in ‘its conclusions, but in the way they are reached and the temper in which they are held’. Modernists agreed that one could no longer appeal to the authority of the Bible or the creeds and that the church ‘must be brave enough to suffer a great variety of opinions within its walls’.¹⁷ In the British context the term ‘modernism’ referred more specifically to Anglican modernism or ‘Modern Churchmen’, who defended the critical study of the Bible and did not believe in the miraculous. In institutional terms, the origins lie in the foundation of the Churchmen’s Union for the Advancement of Liberal Religious Thought in 1898. From 1928 to 1986, this society was known by the name of the Churchmen’s Union. The organization published the journal The Modern Churchmen and organized conferences. At their conference at Girton

¹⁴ Hutchinson, The Modernist Impulse, p. 6. ¹⁵ Hutchinson, The Modernist Impulse, p. 4. ¹⁶ C.W. Emmet, ‘The Modernist Movement in the Church of England’, The Journal of Religion 2/6 (1922) 561–576, p. 562. ¹⁷ Emmet, ‘The Modernist Movement’, p. 563.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

80

   

College Cambridge in 1921, they openly espoused the name ‘Modernists’.¹⁸ The turn to the individual’s consciousness as a point of reference is aptly expressed by the words of William R. Inge (1860–1954), who was dean of the Union from 1924 to 1934: ‘We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that both the old seats of authority, the infallible Church and the infallible book, are fiercely assailed, and that our faith needs reinforcements. These can only come from the depths of the religious consciousness itself.’¹⁹ The first major occurrence of the term ‘modernism’²⁰ in a specific theological context is found in the work of the Dutch Neo-Calvinist theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper, who published a devastating critique of theological modernism in 1871. One year later, the pamphlet was translated into German, which introduced the term to the German-speaking world.²¹ The first Catholic author known to have used the term ‘modernism’ was the Louvain economist and lawyer Charles Périn (1815–1905), who claimed in 1888 that modernism wanted to eliminate God from the public realm.²² This is similar to what John Ruskin had said thirty years earlier.²³ The term was also used in this more general sense by the Catholic ‘modernist’ George Tyrrell in 1900. He was apparently unaware of the work of Kuyper and Périn, and it has been claimed that the term ‘modernism’ was not important to Tyrrell, who was a self-confessed ‘liberal Catholic’.²⁴ The question of whether or not the term ‘modernist’ travelled from Protestant usage in the late nineteenth century to the Catholic ‘modernist crisis’ in the beginning of the twentieth cannot be definitively answered at present. It seems improbable, but evidence of a connection may be found in the future.

¹⁸ Alan M.G. Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism (The Hulsean Lectures 1979–80), London: SPCK, 1984, pp. 7–10. Stephenson first states that the Girton conference took place in 1919, but the rest of the book shows that he must be speaking about the influential meeting in 1921. ¹⁹ Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism, p. 73. William R. Inge, English Mysticism (The Bampton Lectures 1899), London: Methuen, 1899, pp. 329–30. ²⁰ In the ‘Dutch Modernism’ section below, I discuss some earlier uses of ‘modernisme’ and related terms in the Netherlands that were far less influential than Kuyper’s booklet. ²¹ Abraham Kuyper, Het modernisme: een fata morgana op christelijk gebied. Lezing, Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh, 1871. English translation: ‘A fata morgana’, The Methodist Review 88 (1906) 185–203, pp. 355–378; new abridged translation by John Vriend: ‘Modernism: A Fata Morgana in the Christian Domain’, in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 87–124. German translation: Die moderne Theologie (Der Modernismus). Eine fata morgana auf christlichem Gebiet. Aus dem Holländischen übersetzt als Gegenstück zu unsern Schweizerischen Zuständen. Mit einem Vorwort von Prof. Dr. C. Joh. Riggenbach, Zürich: Höhr, 1872. On the history of the term see Graf, ‘Moderne Modernisierer’, p. 73; Schaeffler, ‘Modernismus’; Claus Arnold et al., ‘Modernismus’, in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, vol. V, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, cols. 1385–1389; Loome, Liberal Catholicism, pp. 29–32; Jean Rivière, ‘Pour l’histoire du terme “modernisme” ’, Revue des Sciences Religieuses 8/3 (1928) 398–421. ²² Charles Périn, Le modernisme dans l’église d’après des lettres inédits de la Mennais, Paris: Lecoffre, 1881, p. 5: ‘L’essence du modernisme c’est la prétention d’éliminer Dieu de toute vie sociale’. ²³ Ruskin, ‘Lectures on Architecture and Painting’ (1853), p. 142. ²⁴ Loome, Liberal Catholicism, p. 33.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

81

To summarize, the term ‘modernism’ and its derivatives were used in a variety of contexts. Even setting aside its usage in the arts, sociology, and philosophy, its range of meaning in the context of Western Christianity was rather broad. British liberals could pronounce harsh judgements on continental modernists and even the theologies of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner have been treated under this label.²⁵ On the other hand, almost all the Catholic and Protestant modernists that I surveyed above shared the idea that religion had to be reformed under modern conditions and that a synthesis between Christian religion and modernity— including modern theological scholarship—should be pursued. ‘Modernism’ acquired its most prominent meaning in the Roman Catholic church, as Pope Pius X condemned the Catholic ‘modernists’ in 1907. Yet religious modernism was an international phenomenon, both in Protestant and Catholic milieus, which emerged in the 1860s and was most influential in the beginning of the twentieth century.²⁶ The role of Dutch theology in these developments is not to be underestimated, as the following will show.

Abraham Kuyper’s View of the Beginnings of Modernism Abraham Kuyper was not only one of the first authors to use the term ‘modernism’ in relation to specific theological developments, he also published an entire treatise on this ‘folly’ in 1871. It is therefore important to know which phenomena he actually meant by this term. Although the booklet Het Modernisme: een fata morgana op christelijk gebied (Modernism: A Fata Morgana in the Christian Domain) merits a discussion in its own right,²⁷ as it succinctly shows Kuyper’s approach and the basic tenets of his theology, I will focus here on the target of his attack. Interestingly, Kuyper claimed that ‘some fifteen years ago, when modernism, still rarely called by that name, offered the first fruits of its mind’ (92/12),²⁸ it attracted ‘the most rigorous Reformed of the old school’. These stout Reformed Protestants, he stressed, were dissatisfied not only with the ‘old liberals’, who claimed an easy synthesis between old-time religion and the modern spirit of the times, but also with two other groups: (1) the Groningen school of Petrus Hofstede de Groot, who defended an undogmatic and evangelical form of Protestantism,

²⁵ Cornelius van Til, The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner, Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. ²⁶ Comparative studies are rare, but see the still important work of the Groningen church historian Johannes Lindeboom, Geschiedenis van het Vrijzinnig Protestantisme, 3 vols., Assen: Van Gorcum, 1929–1935, and Ernestine van der Wall, The Enemy Within: Religion, Science, and Modernism (Uhlenbeck Lecture, vol. XXV), Wassenaar: NIAS, 2007. ²⁷ See Chapter 5 in this volume. ²⁸ The numbers refer to the English and Dutch texts respectively (see footnote 21). Any emphasis is always taken from the original text. Where I refer to only one page number, this particular sentence or passage is missing in the English translation.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

82

   

and (2) the ‘quasi-confessionals’ (half-Confessionelen). In Kuyper’s view, the Confessional Association, which was founded in 1864 to counter modernism, did not appear to be properly adhering to the basic creeds (confessions) of the Dutch Reformed Church, the main Protestant church to which some 50 per cent of the population belonged at the time. How is this curious phenomenon—that the orthodox reformed were attracted to modernism at the very beginning—to be understood? First, Kuyper explains, one has to recall that the ‘virginal modernism of that time still wrapped itself completely in the folds of the old biblical dress’ (93/13). Second, in their early deterministic phase the modernists spoke of the prominence of God’s sovereign grace and humanity’s deep dependence on God: ‘Don’t you understand that the old-Reformed pinched themselves for joy when free will was again chased out the church door and God’s predestination was glorified?’ (93/13). Here, Kuyper probably had in mind Joannes Henricus Scholten, who had defended a deterministic point of view in his book De vrije wil (The Free Will, 1859). Real autonomy, Scholten argued, meant that the human will was subordinated to God’s will. Kuyper might also have been referring to the first, 1848 edition of Scholten’s Leer der Hervormde Kerk (Doctrine of the [Dutch] Reformed Church), which is sometimes considered to be the starting point of Dutch modernism. The book involves a radical reinterpretation of the old reformed teachings, proclaims the end of supernaturalism, and argues that human nature—and not Scripture or authority—was the fundament of religion. In Kuyper’s personal recollection, modernism perhaps started in the second half of the 1850s when he was a student at the ‘modernist’ Leiden theological faculty, where Scholten’s influence was deeply felt.²⁹ In the second part of the pamphlet, Kuyper explained in a teleological fashion that modernism was meant to appear at this time. In Kuyper’s view one cannot maintain that if only the theologian Allard Pierson (1831–1896) or the philosopher Cornelis Willem Opzoomer (1821–1892) had remained silent, we would not have had modernism in the Netherlands (17/96). A look abroad would suffice to see that it was an international phenomenon. The names of Friedrich Christian Baur (1792–1860), David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874), Theodore Parker (1810–1860), Ernest Renan (1823–1874), and John Colenso (1814–1883) are sufficient proof of this ‘heresy’, which according to Kuyper aimed to rob Christianity of its absolute character and relegated the idea of atonement to the periphery (98/19). Furthermore, the modernist inclination towards the comparative study of religions (which sees no principal difference between Christianity ²⁹ Cf. K.H. Roessingh, De moderne theologie in Nederland. Hare voorbereiding en eerste periode, Groningen: Van der Kamp, 1914, pp. 117–120. The work of Allard Pierson, whom Kuyper visited in Heidelberg before completing his manuscript, also influenced Kuyper’s view of modernism; cf. Jasper Vree, Kuyper in de kiem. De precalvinistische periode van Abraham Kuyper 1848–1874, Hilversum: Verloren, 2006, p. 337.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

83

and other religions)³⁰ made it vulnerable to the objection that, like paganism, it constructed ‘the truth from within the human mind’ (100/22). The appeal to human authority was only one of the many weaknesses of modernism according to Kuyper, who gave an extensive rebuttal of the modernist points of view. He did not discuss particular modernist authors or texts in detail, but framed modernism as a general threat. The theologians he mentioned all advocated a critical study of the Bible and detected mythical elements in Scripture, especially in the stories about Jesus. Scholten, Opzoomer, and Pierson were indeed outspoken representatives of Dutch Protestant modernism. However, Kuyper aimed at a broad audience in this pamphlet and was not very specific about which form of modernism and which modernists he found most dangerous. In the next chapter, I will analyse the structure of the booklet in more detail and show how Kuyper used his critique of modernism to clarify his own theological point of view.

Dutch Modernism For a long time, the Dutch term ‘modernisme’ operated almost exclusively in a theological and religious context. ‘Modern theology’ and ‘modern school or movement (richting)’ had more or less the same connotation.³¹ From the 1860s onwards, the terms were often used critically by opponents to distinguish the truth of the Bible or the true faith from deviant worldviews such as modernism, socialism, and radicalism. The first public mention of the specific term ‘modernism’ was in De Bazuin (The Trumpet), the weekly of a small, strictly orthodox reformed church. In its issue of Friday, 25 September 1863, the anonymous author referred to two booklets that rejected ‘modern naturalism’, arguing that the supernatural character of biblical revelation was essential to the Christian faith.³² The reason for this contribution was the publication of the Dutch translation of Ernest Renan’s Vie de Jésus (Life of Jesus), which in the author’s view showed how ³⁰ Cf. Kuyper, Fata morgana, note 13. On the rise of the comparative study of religion, see Chapter 9 in this volume. ³¹ The term ‘modern theology’ was first used in 1858 in a critical pamphlet written by the orthodox minister D.Th. Huet, Wenken opzigtelijk moderne theologie, ’s-Gravenhage: Van ‘t Haaff, 1858; cf. Tom-Eric Krijger, A Second Reformation: Liberal Protestantism in Dutch Religious, Social and Political Life, 1870–1940, PhD thesis, Groningen, 2017. One of the earliest titles to mention ‘moderne richting’ or ‘rigting’ is Allard Pierson, De oorsprong der moderne rigting, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1862. ‘Moderne richting’ and ‘modernisme’ have a somewhat broader meaning, as they are used to refer to a specific strand in Dutch Protestantism (and not just to a theological school). The terms were adopted by ‘modernists’ themselves. ³² De Bazuin. Stemmen uit de Christelijke Afgescheidene Gereformeerde Kerk in Nederland 11/39 (1863), [p. 3], 25 September 1863. J.J. van Oosterzee, Hoe moet het moderne naturalisme bestreden worden?, Utrecht: Kemink, 1863; D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Hoe moet het moderne naturalisme bestreden worden? Een woord over deze vraag naar aanleiding van Prof. van Oosterzee’s jongste geschrift over Leven van Jezus van Ernest Renan, Rotterdam: Tassemeijer, 1863.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

84

   

dangerous it was to concentrate on the ‘ethical’ and purely ‘religious’ aspects of revelation. The article clearly preferred supernatural scriptural revelation over subjective faith. Renan’s book was extremely controversial in France and Italy and was listed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum two months after its publication on 24 June 1863. Although the book, which appeared in Dutch in the same year, was also criticized in the Netherlands, it did not stir up much controversy, probably due to the fact that biblical criticism had already been introduced in the Netherlands.³³ The Leiden Old Testament scholar Abraham Kuenen had claimed that the Pentateuch (the ‘five books of Moses’) was written after the Babylonian exile and should be dated much later than was commonly accepted. Doubts were voiced as to whether the Bible was directly inspired by God and contained reliable stories about what actually happened in history.³⁴ The critical approach to the Bible in theological faculties also reached a general, educated audience when the modernist minister Conrad Busken Huet published his Brieven over den Bijbel (Letters on the Bible) in 1857 and 1858. It was Huet’s explicit intention to bridge the gap between academic theology and church members. Huet claimed that his book was nothing more than a popular exposition of the fruits of biblical criticism over the past fifty years.³⁵ In the fictitious letters a young man named Reinout, a professional stockbroker, explained to his younger sister Machteld the new insights from biblical scholarship. He tried to dispel her concerns by saying that something may be true, even if it did not actually happen. Would the story of the prodigal son be less meaningful if it is not history, but ‘merely’ a parable?³⁶ Reinout concluded his modern interpretation of a gamut of Bible passages with the statement that the entire Holy Scripture is purely human work, ‘inspired by human faith, perfected by human art, preserved by human care, understood by every true human heart and acknowledged as the voice of the heart, as the voice of human piety, human suffering, human happiness: such is the human work the Bible is to me’.³⁷ What was particularly offensive to many of Huet’s contemporaries was that he had brought the issues of modern theology out into the open. It was rumoured that his name was even whispered in military circles and by young ladies in

³³ Ernest Renan, Het leven van Jezus, Haarlem: Loosjes, 1863; De Pril, ‘The Early Reception of Ernest Renan’s Vie de Jésus (1863)’. ³⁴ See also Chapter 9 in this volume. ³⁵ Cf. Busken Huet, Brieven over den Bijbel (1858), second revised edition, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1863, p. x. ³⁶ Huet, Brieven over den Bijbel (1863), p. 58. David J. Bos, Servants of the Kingdom: Professionalization among Ministers of the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands Reformed Church, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010, p. 272. ³⁷ Huet, Brieven over den Bijbel (1863), p. 360.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

85

literary salons.³⁸ Whereas in Germany, the birthplace of modern biblical criticism, the new approach was taken up first and foremost by theologians, in the Netherlands these issues became a topic of public discussion.³⁹ According to his publisher, the first instalments of his Letters on the Bible were met with repugnance and Huet was seen as ‘the Strauss and Voltaire of the Netherlands in one’.⁴⁰ Huet had made the mistake, according to one of his colleagues, of telling ordinary Christians about what was taught in theology departments and what many ministers at the time thought. This made him the ‘scapegoat for liberal theology’.⁴¹ Although he was allowed to remain in his Walloon parish in Haarlem, he was no longer approached by other congregations and resigned from his ministry in 1862 to become a literary critic and journalist.⁴² Modernists aimed at a synthesis between Christian faith and modern culture but came to different conclusions.⁴³ Opzoomer, for example, rejected all forms of supernaturalism and respected Jesus as one of the important ‘guides on the large road of the life of humanity’.⁴⁴ In his view, rational thinking would lead to knowledge of God. The Leiden systematic theologian Joannes Hendrik Scholten was not so sure about this. Although he equated the testimony of the Holy Spirit with the testimony of reason, he also wrote that in order to know the moral attributes of God one needs a pure heart, which is mediated by ‘the spirit of Christ, who purifies the heart’.⁴⁵ Thus, Scholten claimed that philosophy must be enlightened by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, whereas Opzoomer defended a rationalist philosophy of religion and spoke about the unity of the divine and the human. Against Opzoomer’s monism Scholten stated that any philosophers who consider Christianity as ‘the temporary and imperfect revelation of the eternal idea of truth’ have placed themselves outside the Christian tradition.⁴⁶ Other modernists, such as Pierson and Huet, eventually came to the conclusion ³⁸ David J. Bos, ‘ “Doch christenen zijn nu eenmaal geen koeien””: Over Vragen en antwoorden. Brieven over den Bijbel (1857–1858) van C. Busken Huet’, in F.G.M. Broeyer and D.Th. Kuiper, eds., Is ‘t waar of niet? Ophefmakende publicaties uit de ‘lange’ negentiende eeuw, Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005, pp. 153–191, here p. 153, referring to an obituary. ³⁹ Mirjam Buitenwerf-van der Molen, God van vooruitgang. De popularisering van het moderntheologische gedachtengoed in Nederland (1857–1880), Hilversum: Verloren, 2007. ⁴⁰ Bos, Servants of the Kingdom, p. 271 and Bos, ‘ “Doch christenen zijn nu eenmaal geen koeien” ’, pp. 151–152. ⁴¹ E.J.P. Jorissen, Vlucht of volharding. De moderne theologie en hare volgelingen van het standpunt der Nederlandsch-Hervormde kerk, Groningen: Wolters, 1865, pp. 13–14. ⁴² Bos, ‘ “Doch christenen zijn nu eenmaal geen koeien” ’, pp. 178–9 and Olf Praamstra, Busken Huet. Een biografie, Amsterdam: SUN, 2007, pp. 241–293. ⁴³ Besides the work of Roessingh, see the following overviews of the history of modernism: J. Herderscheê, De modern-godsdienstige richting in Nederland, Amsterdam: Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1904; B. Klein Wassink and Th.M. van Leeuwen, eds., Tussen Geest en Tijdgeest. Denken en doen van vrijzinnig protestanten in de afgelopen honderd jaar, Utrecht: De Ploeg, 1989; Eldred C. Vanderlaan, Protestant Modernism in Holland, London: Oxford University Press, 1924. ⁴⁴ Roessingh, De Moderne Theologie in Nederland (1914), quoted after the reprint in his collected works, Verzamelde Werken (= VW), vol. I, pp. 3–182, here p. 82. ⁴⁵ Roessingh, De Moderne Theologie in Nederland, VW, vol. I, here p. 85. ⁴⁶ Roessingh, De Moderne Theologie in Nederland, VW, vol. I, here p. 93.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

86

   

that they had to give up their ministry because they could no longer reconcile the Christian tradition and modern thought. In 1871, Opzoomer became the first chair of the Nederlandsche Protestantenbond (NPB; the Dutch Association of Protestants). The aim of the new organization was ‘the preservation and promotion of evangelical freedom in the various Protestant church denominations’.⁴⁷ In his opening speech at the first annual meeting of the NPB, held in Utrecht on 31 October 1871, Opzoomer stated that it was key to uphold the true spirit of the Reformation, which was threatened by confessional church parties. His specific target was no doubt the Confessional Association that had been founded in 1864 to maintain the dogma of the church and combat unbelief, ‘which demonstrates itself nowadays in the denial of the supernatural in Christianity’.⁴⁸ This organization evidently took aim at the modernists, whereas the NPB was convinced that a second reformation was imperative and they named their weekly De Hervorming (The Reformation) accordingly. The modernist movement not only defended the modernist position and interests within the various Protestant churches and denominations that were involved; it was also an important force in the Dutch intellectual debate. They fiercely discussed their standpoints in theological and non-theological journals such as De Gids (The Guide),⁴⁹ and the early meetings of the ‘Assembly of Modern Theologians’ (1866–1970s) and the NPB were extensively covered by the media.

An Appraisal of Modernism The various points of view within theological modernism and how they evolved over time need not be addressed here, as this would lead to a rather complex—and perhaps even tedious—narrative about theological niceties. Rather than present a ‘reasoned catalogue of diverse opinions’,⁵⁰ I want to discuss how modernism was perceived at the time. What were the leading ideas, according to the main protagonists? One of the first balanced assessments was given by the Leiden systematic theologian Karel Hendrik Roessingh (1886–1925). He studied in Leiden and Marburg with the liberal theologian Martin Rade, wrote a brilliant dissertation about the history of Dutch modernism and was appointed as theology professor in Leiden in 1916. He was deeply steeped in German philosophy and theology and was a great admirer of the German liberal theologian Ernst ⁴⁷ Krijger, A Second Reformation, p. 68 (translation slightly adapted). ⁴⁸ C.M. Luteijn, Honderd jaar confessionele vereniging 1864–1964, Wageningen: Veenman, 1964, p. 12. ⁴⁹ Remieg Aerts, Letterheren. Liberale cultuur in de negentiende eeuw. Het tijdschrift ‘De Gids’, Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1997, pp. 238–253 and 457–463. ⁵⁰ Roessingh, Het Modernisme in Nederland (1922), an enlarged edition is reprinted in Roessingh, Verzamelde Werken [= VW], 4 vols., Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1926–27, vol. IV, pp. 231–385, here p. 231.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

87

Troeltsch, whom he hosted in his house when Troeltsch visited the Netherlands in 1919 to lecture at the universities of Utrecht, Leiden, Amsterdam, and Groningen.⁵¹ Roessingh was a productive and influential theologian who engaged strongly with the liberal Protestant movement in the Netherlands and internationally. On 11 April 1923 Roessingh spoke at the annual meeting of modern theologians about the ‘Unity and Organization of Liberal Protestantism’. They convened in Amsterdam in the building of the Free Congregation, which had been founded in 1878 by two former Protestant ministers, the Hugenholtz brothers, to further ‘religious moral life’ in general. The Free Congregation was not exclusively Christian,⁵² as the texts used in their meetings ranged from the Ancient Greeks and Romans to Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East, as well as excerpts from authors such as Shakespeare, Goethe, Schiller, Tolstoy, Diderot, Ernest Renan, William Wordsworth, Alfred Tennyson, George Eliot, Conrad Busken Huet, Allard Pierson, Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. In his speech, Roessingh looked back at sixty years of modernism and concluded that there was no way back. ‘All bridges are broken’—the only way was to move forwards. Through deeper piety, through intellectual mastery of the scholarly and philosophical situation of the times, through moral courage and power, Roessingh claimed, the preaching of God must acquire a lively content, be engaging, redemptive and bring people together.⁵³ This was by no means an easy task, he acknowledged, especially in the Netherlands, where systematic liberal theologians were not very familiar with international developments, as represented, for example, in the work of Ernst Troeltsch. Roessingh criticized the lack of purpose in Dutch modernism. ‘Modernism does not have a sociology. We don’t know what to do with society.’⁵⁴ In the past, he argued, we knew that we had to abolish slavery, but nowadays modernists don’t even have a clue how to handle the issue of war and pacifism. He also criticized the utter lack of unity and organization. What is our common purpose? ‘Am I unfair, when I say two things: the empty word “freedom” and the negation of the old ⁵¹ Arie L. Molendijk, ‘Ernst Troeltschs holländische Reisen. Eine Skizze – Im Anhang: drei Briefe Troeltschs an Karel Hendrik Roessingh’, Mitteilungen der Ernst-Troeltsch-Gesellschaft 6 (1991) 24–39. ⁵² E.H. Cossee, ‘De stichting van de Vrije Gemeente, haar voorgeschiedenis en uitwerking’, in: J.D. Snel, P.H.A.M. Abels, G.N.M. Vis, and J. Bakker, eds., En God bleef toch in Mokum. Amsterdamse kerkgeschiedenis in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw, Delft: Eburon, 2000, pp. 99–116. ⁵³ Roessingh, ‘Eenheid en Organisatie van het Vrijzinnig Protestantisme’, De Hervorming (1923) 138–141, pp. 146–147 and 154–156, reprinted in Roessingh, VW, vol. II, pp. 437–449, p. 438: ‘Nooit kan het modernisme meer terug; alle bruggen zijn afgebroken, het kan alleen maar vooruit; dat wil zeggen: door dieper innerlijkheid van Godsbeleven, door volkomen intellectueele beheersching van de wetenschappelijk-wijsgeerige situatie, door moreele durf en kracht er zich aan geven, dat de Godsverkondiging in het kader van den nieuwen tijd, den tijd na Aufklärung, Bijbelkritiek, natuurwetenschap, Kant en Marx, inhoud krijgt, levend wordt, pakkend, verlossend, samenbindend’; cf. M. C. van Mourik Broekman, ‘Verslag: “De moderne theologenvergadering”‘, De Hervorming (1923) 115–116. ⁵⁴ Roessingh, ‘Eenheid en Organisatie’, p. 442.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

88

   

orthodoxy?’⁵⁵ The endless discussion about the ‘principles’ of modernism, he argued, would not help in this respect. And indeed, the dynamics of an individualist, anti-authoritarian kind of faith did not square well with a strong organization. In Dutch historiography, authors often recall the image of liberal Protestants as a bunch of frogs in a wheelbarrow.⁵⁶ Roessingh also pointed to the confusion about the terms used to refer to liberal Protestantism.⁵⁷ The word ‘liberal’ (liberaal), which is common in many languages (liberale Theologie, liberal Protestantism, théologie liberale), was hardly used in the Netherlands in a religious context. Until recently, the terms used were either ‘modern’ (modern) or ‘free-thinking’ (vrijzinnig), which has a clear religious connotation in the Netherlands and does not refer to (atheist) humanism (as it does in Belgium). Sometimes ‘modern’ and ‘vrijzinnig’ were used alternately as near equivalents.⁵⁸ In the twentieth century the term ‘modern’ was gradually replaced by ‘free-thinking’. Modernisme was then considered to be a thing of the past, whereas vrijzinnigheid denotes liberal Protestantism in the twentieth century. The term ‘liberale Theologie’ has come into use only recently, probably because ‘vrijzinnig(heid)’ smacks too much of bygone times and a declining current in the Dutch religious landscape.⁵⁹ But to return to the time period of this chapter: vrijzinnig meant an inclination towards freedom and could also be translated as being of liberal persuasion—in a political as well as religious sense. The Vrijzinnig Democratische Bond (Liberal Democratic Union) was established in 1901 and merged with the Labour Party after the Second World War. Previously, in the nineteenth century, the term had been used to refer to progressive, liberal political groups.⁶⁰ Like the term ‘liberal theology’ in Germany, vrijzinnigheid may have had its origin in a polemical use by its opponents. The famous Protestant minister and poet Nicolaas Beets wrote in the 1840s: ‘Oh, you heroes of liberalism (vrijzinnigheid), of large-mindedness, of the unprejudiced consideration of things divine and human . . . how do you promise us freedom, where you yourselves are servants of turpitude [vice]’.⁶¹ At the end of the nineteenth century, the term was frequently used by the liberal Protestants

⁵⁵ Roessingh, ‘Eenheid en Organisatie’, p. 445. ⁵⁶ A.C. Zijderveld, ‘Vrij zinnig eigenzinnig: De cultuur en traditie van de VPRO’, in J.H.J. van den Heuvel, et al., eds., Een vrij zinnige verhouding: De VPRO en Nederland 1926–1986, Baarn: Ambo, 1986, pp. 147–180, here p. 149. ⁵⁷ K.H. Roessingh, ‘Vrijzinnigheid’ (1923), in VW, vol. IV, pp. 403–407. ⁵⁸ An example is the following speech by Henricus Höveker, Bevordert het apostolisch christendom bijgeloof? Bedenkingen tegen Een woord tot alle vrijzinnigen, onder de leden der Ned. Herv. Gem. te Amsterdam, door eenigen van hare predikanten, Amsterdam: Höveker en Zoon, 1871. ⁵⁹ Rick Benjamins, Jan Offringa, and Wouter Hendrik Slob, eds., Liberaal Christendom. Ervaren, doen, denken, Vught: Skandalon, 2016. ⁶⁰ See the entries ‘vrijzinnig’ and ‘vrijzinnigheid’ in Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, vol. XXIII, Leiden: Nijhoff, 1987, pp. 826–829. ⁶¹ N. Beets, ‘Vrijheid (Joh. 8:36)’, in Beets, Stichtelijke Uren [vol. I], Haarlem: F. Bohn, 1848, pp. 125–132, here p. 129 (emphasis in the original).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

89

themselves, as the names of two periodicals show.⁶² In this religious sense, the term vrijzinnig probably emerged in the conflicts within Dutch Protestantism around 1850—in opposition to the term ‘rechtzinnig’ (orthodox). Some historians of liberal Protestantism have pointed to pre-modern movements and great individuals from a more distant past to create a grand tradition for Dutch ‘modernism’ or liberal Protestantism in general. The devotio moderna, Wessel Gansfort, Erasmus, and Coornhert have been mentioned as specifically Dutch exponents of renewal in the Christian tradition. This tradition—it is claimed—is more important than the Calvinist tradition, which is sometimes even depicted as a foreign element in Dutch religious history.⁶³ For Roessingh, however, modernism was a modern phenomenon. After the beginning of the nineteenth century and especially following the introduction of a modern constitution in 1848, he argued, Christianity no longer dominated state and society. Roessingh stated that the separation of State and Church, the view of the church (es) as a human phenomenon, and the freedom of scholarship and the rise of the critical study of the Bible had fundamentally changed the position of Christianity in the modern Western world.⁶⁴ Roessingh dated the start of a modern form of Protestantism in the Netherlands to the 1850s and 1860s. According to him, the old liberals and the Groningen theologians believed in an easy synthesis of the old faith and the new predicament and did not seriously address the issues at stake. In his view, Dutch theological modernism started with Scholten, Abraham Kuenen, and Cornelis Petrus Tiele. Anti-supernaturalism was a favourite term at the time to define the new current in Dutch Protestantism: modernism implied the end of biblical authority and the belief in miracles. Roessingh identified the following characteristics of modernism and vrijzinnigheid alike: 1. acceptance of the critical approach to the Bible 2. an openness to culture and modern philosophy 3. the freedom from traditional dogma, and—correspondingly—

⁶² De Protestant: Godsdienstig Weekblad in vrijzinnigen geest (ed. I. Hooykaas et al.) 1 (1883) en Teekenen des Tijds: Tweemaandelijksch Tijdschrift in vrijzinnig godsdienstigen geest (ed. C.J. Niemeijer et al.) 1 (1899). ⁶³ Peter van Rooden, ‘Het Nederlands protestantisme en zijn vaderland’, in J.M.M. de Valk, ed., Nationale identiteit in Europees perspectief (Annalen van het Thijmgenootschap, vol. 81, no. 3), Baarn: Ambo, 1993, pp. 95–115, here p. 102; J.C.H. Blom and C.J. Misset, ‘ “Een onvervalschte Nederlandsche geest”: Enkele historiografische kanttekeningen bij het concept van een nationaal-gereformeerde richting’, in E.K. Grootes and J. den Haan, eds., Geschiedenis godsdienst letterkunde. Festschrift S.B. J. Zilverberg, Roden: Nehalennia, 1989, pp. 221–232. ⁶⁴ Roessingh, Het Modernisme in Nederland (1922), VW, vol. IV, pp. 234–235.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

90

    4. the disappearance of the old view of the church, which was replaced by the idea that the church was an organization of like-minded people without external obligations.⁶⁵

The last characteristic may be contested and is perhaps not an essential element of Protestant liberalism, but Roessingh still felt that it was important. He himself clearly saw the weaknesses of a spiritualized concept of the church, but he also noted that an earlier generation had perceived this as a liberation from old coercive bonds. This latter tendency we find in an article that the Leiden church historian and philosopher of religion L.W.E. Rauwenhoff published in the first issue of the modern academic theological journal Theologisch Tijdschrift (1867). Here he claimed that the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, the main Dutch Reformed Church at the time, had estranged many of its members and that its non-religious functions had been taken over by society. According to Rauwenhoff, the obvious new form of religious community was one in which like-minded people would join forces and freely appoint someone as their preacher and leader in religious matters.⁶⁶ This was meant to be a correction of the view of the German liberal theologian Richard Rothe that the church as a whole would somehow be preserved (aufgehoben) in the state. An even more outspoken example of anti-church sentiment is the following advertisement in De Hervorming (The Reformation), the weekly of the Dutch Association of Protestants.⁶⁷ ‘Modern ministers and like-minded parochial church councils who are inclined to withdraw partly or completely from the authority of higher church administration in spiritual matters, are urgently called upon to report to the editors of this paper in order to confer with others who have already taken this decision.’⁶⁸ However, this call to leave the church did not appeal to many Dutch liberal Protestants and they stayed within the Dutch Reformed Church and other smaller liberal-minded denominations. The whole idea that the Protestant fatherland no longer needed a special public church might be considered to be the ultimate consequence of a triumphalist liberal Protestantism.

⁶⁵ Roessingh, ‘Het vrijzinnig protestantisme te midden der geestelijke stromingen’ (1923), VW, vol. IV, pp. 395–402. ⁶⁶ L.W.E. Rauwenhoff, ‘De Kerk’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 1 (1867) 1–37, here pp. 20 and 33. ⁶⁷ De Hervorming 1 (1873), first issue: ‘Nieuwjaarsgroet’; H.Y. Groenewegen, ‘De wetenschap en het vrijzinnig protestantisme’, De Gids 60 (1896) 40–61, here pp. 54–55. One did not hesitate to draw a parallel between Luther and the NPB; cf. Beschrijving van den eersten Nederlandschen Protestantendag, gehouden te Utrecht 30 October 1873, onder leiding van Prof. Mr. C.W. Opzoomer, Eere-Voorzitter, Rotterdam: NPB, 1873. ⁶⁸ De Hervorming 1877, issue 47, quoted in Roessingh, Het Modernisme in Nederland [VW IV], p. 341.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

91

The Decline of Liberal Protestantism Liberal Protestantism and the Dutch Reformed Church, where the liberals had their stronghold, lost their leading position in Dutch society due to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinists, and the socialists. Their identification with the nation and the establishment was counterproductive during the process of pillarization.⁶⁹ Between 1880 and 1970 the Dutch Reformed Church lost more than 50 per cent of its membership, whereas the percentage of Roman Catholics and Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinists—the so-called Gereformeerde Kerken (Reformed Churches)—who seceded from the Dutch Reformed Church in 1886 remained more or less stable. Although ‘pillarization’ is not exactly a precise term to refer to the differentiation of organizations on the basis of religion (denomination) and worldview, it is evident that a system of more or less closed subcultures emerged around 1900. One can hold different views as to whether or not the neutral or liberal (in the political sense of the word) pillar is really based on a particular worldview, but it cannot be denied that the Neo-Calvinists, Roman Catholics, socialists and to a certain extent also the liberals started their own organizations, such as unions, sporting clubs, libraries, political parties, radio and television networks, farmers’ associations, and musical societies. A Catholic author gave the following characterization: The way in which the others, the Protestants, the socialists and the liberals judged us only reinforced the fact that the group and the sense of being special were internally strengthened. Then it was better to stay “inside”, within our own strong organizations, in our own party, union, journals and radio network, within our own women’s association and sporting clubs . . . Dependence on the parish clergy was sometimes huge, especially if they acted together with local regents, shopkeepers or employers.⁷⁰

The relevant question here is how the liberal Protestants reacted to the emancipation and pillarization of competing groups. Because both liberals and liberal Protestants thought that they represented the common good and tried to integrate differences of opinion and worldview in an overarching whole, they were rather ⁶⁹ Peter van Rooden, ‘Secularization, Dechristianization and Rechristianization in the Netherlands’, in Hartmut Lehmann, ed., Säkularisierung, Dechristianisierung, Rechristianisierung im neuzeitlichen Europa. Bilanz und Perspektiven der Forschung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997, pp. 131–153. ⁷⁰ W. Goddijn, Roomsen dat waren wij, Hilversum: Gooi en Sticht, 1978, pp. 85–86, quoted in Ernest Zahn, Regenten, rebellen en reformatoren: een visie op Nederland en de Nederlanders, second edition, Amsterdam: Contact, 1991, pp. 174–175 (original edition: Das unbekannte Holland: Regenten, Rebellen und Reformatoren, Berlin: Siedler, 1984). See Chapter 8 in this volume for a full treatment of this phenomenon.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

92

   

reticent in this respect. Their self-understanding did not allow them to consider themselves as a pillar alongside other pillars. A good example is the domain of radio and later television, where the liberal Protestants founded the Vrijzinnig Protestantse Radio Omroep (V.P.R.O.: Liberal Protestant Broadcasting Company). From the very beginning, however, they did not feel entirely comfortable with the new situation. The mission of liberal Protestantism was to pervade society as a whole, and the V.P.R.O. decided not to target their constituency alone. Practically speaking, founding the V.P.R.O. may have been unavoidable, but the liberal Protestants were not wholeheartedly committed to it. A national broadcasting company—like the BBC in Great Britain—held more appeal for them.⁷¹ It therefore came as no surprise in the 1960s that the V.P.R.O. was the first broadcasting company to lose its religious identity. Referring to the traditional tolerance of liberal Protestantism and its orientation towards modern culture and philosophy, the revolutionary generation of 1968 in the V.P.R.O. transformed it into a left-leaning elitist broadcasting company. Even this development has been claimed to represent some sort of continuity. One commentator called the revolution of 1968 only a minor change in the history of the broadcasting company. ‘A younger generation of fools came to the helm, and that was that. God moved a little to the background, but that was his own fault. For the rest, most things remained the same: the spiritual was deemed higher than the material, art was appreciated more than commerce, and humanness and compassion were valued above all.’⁷² It is not impossible to understand the transformation in these terms, but it still meant the end of a traditional liberal Protestant organization. The liberal Protestant minister and sociologist of religion Piet Smits defended the opposite view: ‘Just as one cannot transform a temperance society into a brewery, one cannot transform the V.P.R.O. into something “totally new” that breaks away from the historically grown intellectual climate, or is even opposed to this climate.’⁷³ The liberal Protestants’ conviction that they represented the common good, the nation, and the public Dutch Reformed Church, was not a good starting point in the process of pillarization, where different groups with particular ideologies fought for particular institutions and organizations that articulated their own interests. It would be wrong, however, to attribute the demise of liberal Protestantism to strictly external factors. In a society that was growing more pluralist and where ‘ordinary people’ were given a vote within the church

⁷¹ J.H.C. Blom, ‘ “Het geloof van de radio op Vrijdagavond”: Aspecten van de geschiedenis van de Vrijzinnig Protestantse Radio Omroep 1926–1968’, in Van den Heuvel, et al., eds., Een vrij zinnige verhouding, pp. 73–146, here p. 90. ⁷² Tieke Spelberg, ‘Zaterdag’, in VPRO-Gids, 1986, number 21, p. 24, quoted in Zijderveld, ‘Vrij zinnig eigenzinnig’, p. 151. ⁷³ P. Smits, ‘Het euvel van denken in blokken’, Vrije Geluiden 42 (1969), number 27, p. 37, quoted in Zijderveld, ‘Vrij zinnig eigenzinnig’, p. 151.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

  

93

(1867) and the political system, the conviction of being able to represent everybody was old-fashioned and had a strong paternalistic flavour to it. Liberal Protestants themselves have pointed to their neglect of what was called the ‘social question’. For too long, social issues were addressed in terms of charity, and only a few liberals saw the need for social reform and supported the Labour party. The discourse was simply too ‘top-down’ and elitist to attract the workers. It has been argued that the liberal Protestants had a strong sense of (bourgeois) class and that their discourse was ‘imbued with class-consciousness’.⁷⁴ They lacked appeal among the working class and they also lost contact with the intellectual and artistic elite of the country. Therefore, it was not only the optimism of the early modernists and their critical—seemingly destructive—message, but also a sense of superiority that constituted the weakness of liberal Protestantism in the Netherlands. The individualist character of their religiosity, their conviction of being able to integrate diversity of opinion into a greater whole was a huge disadvantage in a society that institutionalized pluralism in powerful pillars. The various theories about pillarization will be addressed in a separate chapter. The above analysis has already shown that the basic conviction that (liberal Protestant) religion could be an integrative force in Dutch society had been severely frustrated by the process of pillarization. Non-liberals organized themselves into separate confessional organizations, whereas the liberal Protestants were reluctant to do the same. Confronted with radical social differentiation and segmentation, the liberal Protestant ideal of integration proved to be unrealistic and even counterproductive. Moreover, it has become clear today that their discourse was too elitist to attract members of the groups that emancipated themselves in the emerging pillars. There was simply not enough common ground, as the mainly bourgeois liberal Protestants failed to connect with the working class on the one hand and the intellectual and artistic elites on the other hand. The ideal of educating and civilizing the common people had worked to a certain degree in the nineteenth century, but was no longer viable in the twentieth century.

Conclusion In the nineteenth century the modernists had hoped to spread their ideas and to reform the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk from the inside. Although some of them cherished the idea of assembling free-thinking religious people in the Dutch Association of Protestants, most liberals stayed within the Dutch Reformed Church and other—ideologically similar—smaller churches. After the ⁷⁴ Krijger, A Second Reformation, p. 29. Krijger characterizes the language of the liberal Protestants as ‘a discourse of a spiritual aristocracy of tutors’ (pp. 28 and 638).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

94

   

introduction of a qualified male vote in the Dutch Reformed Church in 1867, which was supported by the liberal wing, it turned out that the liberals would remain a minority. Theological liberalism made some impact in the twentieth century, as the critical study of the Bible has been accepted by a majority of Protestants, but today the Dutch Reformed Church is still not principally an open, flexible church that heartily welcomes Protestants and Christians of all kinds. It has become very much an inward-looking institution that emphasizes the unity of confession and the unique place of Christ in world history, whereas liberal Protestants were and are much more inclined to accept or at least tolerate believers and the views of other religious traditions, and even be inspired by them, as the inspirational textbooks of the Hugenholtz brothers already showed. American modernism and liberal Protestantism were characterized much more by a socially and politically progressive agenda than their European counterparts. The core aim of Dutch modernism at least was not to contribute to the emancipation of people and underprivileged groups, but to educate and enlighten them. Social issues and the exploitation of workers were not at the forefront of their thinking. Instead, Dutch liberal Protestants wanted a new Reformation to update and reinterpret the old faith under modern conditions. Critical thinking— including a critical study of the Bible—was deemed crucial to liberate Protestantism from the old bonds of authority. Initially, in the second half of the nineteenth century, modernists had been rather optimistic about the possibilities for theological and ecclesial reform, but orthodoxy proved to be stronger and more resistant to renewal than they had expected. Growing divisions within modernism and later liberal Protestantism also played a role here. The popular image of Dutch liberal Protestants as a bunch of frogs in a wheelbarrow may be exaggerated, but their emphasis on individual thinking and personal appropriation of the Christian faith were conducive to neither a shared frame of thinking nor a strong organization.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

5 Abraham Kuyper’s Critique of Theological Modernism In this and the following chapters, I will discuss important elements of Kuyper’s life and work, which show how he modernized Dutch theology, society, and politics and how he used rhetorical ploys to persuade people. The next chapter (Chapter 6) will analyse Kuyper’s innovative reinterpretation of Calvinism (Neo-Calvinism),¹ which he framed as an utterly modern principle that should permeate society as a whole, fighting against the prevailing secular spirit of the age. Chapter 7 focuses on Kuyper’s rhetorical strategy and use of images and metaphors, and examines how both his mythopoetics and his apt use of the psychology of mass communication were instrumental in achieving his political objectives. Chapter 8 addresses the phenomenon of ‘pillarization’ (the politicodenominational segregation) of Dutch society, which was to a great extent forged by Kuyper. The present chapter deals with Kuyper’s view of theological and religious modernism, in particular his 1871 Fata Morgana address, which was his most extensive treatment and criticism of the phenomenon. I will discuss various aspects by following the structure of the Fata Morgana pamphlet, but first I will introduce the man and his work, including a discussion of a small selection of the literature about ‘Abraham the Great’.

Abraham Kuyper: The Man and His Work Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) was the most influential Dutch politician and theologian of the modern era. His strong engagement in church affairs led to a decisive break in Dutch Protestantism, which was finally healed by the 2004 reunification of the churches that had been split in the Doleantie (Secession) of 1886. Kuyper founded his own newspaper, along with the Neo-Calvinist Free University in Amsterdam and the Anti-Revolutionary Party, the first modern political party in the Netherlands. These are all good examples of the beginnings of Dutch pillarization. He was a long-time member of parliament and served as Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905. His polarizing style was entirely new in Dutch

¹ On the term ‘Neo-Calvinism’, see the introduction to Chapter 6 in this volume.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0006

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

96

   

politics and was an affront to the old elites who still clung to the ideals of a consensual and homogeneous state and an inclusive Protestant People’s Church. His immense energy and capacity for work led to various nervous breakdowns, which were cured by long trips and stays abroad. Kuyper’s inclination for polemics (also directed against friends) seemed almost boundless and Jeroen Koch’s biography does indeed show that wherever Kuyper appeared, quarrels and arguments were sure to follow.² Kuyper remains a controversial figure up to the present day. A leading Dutch Neo-Calvinist historian has claimed that Koch (who does not belong to this tradition) treats Calvinism in the same way that enlightened Westerners in the nineteenth century laughed at the idolatries of the indigenous peoples of the colonies. This is somewhat overstated, but it is true that Koch depicts Kuyper as a machinating opportunist who would do anything to achieve his goals. In this regard, the biography by James D. Bratt, a historian at Calvin College in Grand Rapids and the foremost American expert on Kuyper, is much more respectful, as he portrays the master from an insider’s perspective.³ Although Bratt criticizes Kuyper several times (for instance, calling him a great man, albeit not a nice one), he presents Kuyper too much as the author of a coherent oeuvre, without taking sufficient account of the various contexts of Kuyper’s pronouncements. To defend this image of coherence, Bratt has to allow for Kuyper’s loose use of concepts and apparent contradictions in his publications, whereas it would have been more apt to say that Kuyper was a volatile thinker who used all possible means to persuade his various audiences. In addition to these major biographies, there is a considerable volume of literature about Kuyper.⁴ To mark the centennial of the Stone Lectures on Calvinism that Kuyper gave in Princeton in 1898, a meticulously researched book on these lectures appeared, as well as an English anthology of Kuyper’s writings.⁵ At the same time, conferences were organized in Princeton, Grand Rapids, and Amsterdam, with the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU Amsterdam) organizing a conference entitled ‘Christianity and Culture: The Heritage of Abraham Kuyper on Different Continents’.⁶ Interest in Kuyper in the United States is not solely historical, as some regard his work as a charter for

² Jeroen Koch, Abraham Kuyper. Een biografie, Amsterdam: Boom, 2006. ³ James D. Bratt, Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. ⁴ Overviews are given by C.H.W. van den Berg, ‘Kuyper, Abraham’, in Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse protestantisme, vol. IV, Kampen: Kok, 1998, pp. 276–283 and Adriaan Breukelaar, ‘Kuyper, Abraham’, in F.W. Bautz and T. Bautz, eds., Biographisches-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, [vol. IV], s.l. 1992, pp. 846–851. Parts of the Kuyper archive are available online: https://sources.neocalvinism.org/archive/ (accessed 8 April 2021). ⁵ Peter S. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998 and James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. ⁶ Cornelis van der Kooi and Jan de Bruijn, eds., Kuyper Reconsidered: Aspects of his Life and Work (VU Studies on Protestant History, vol. III), Amsterdam: VU Publishing House, 1999.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

 ’    

97

North American evangelicals engaged in the cultural battles of today.⁷ Much work is being done at his own university in Amsterdam (VU Amsterdam) in particular, as well as at Princeton Theological Seminary, to stimulate research and disseminate knowledge about the great man. The Kuyper Centre at Princeton Theological Seminary started the annual Kuyper Conference in 1998 (presently hosted by Calvin University and Seminary, Grand Rapids) and has published The Kuyper Center Review since 2010. In the Netherlands, the historian George Harinck has edited a selection of Kuyper’s letters and made two television series about Kuyper’s journey to the United States and his voyage around the Mediterranean Sea. Specialized studies addressing the academic community have been published for many years and Kuyper’s steadily growing influence in the Reformed world has given rise to an emerging international market for mainly English-language publications.⁸ One international volume even explores Kuyper’s legacy for contemporary Christian ecotheology.⁹ However, the interest in Kuyper is not confined to those who are directly inspired by his vision. Kuyper also played an important role in the historiography of occidental ascetic Protestantism (which was given a strong impetus by scholars such as Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch at the beginning of the twentieth century), as a representative of a fundamental transformation of Calvinism.¹⁰ These German scholars admired Kuyper to some extent and were even influenced by his work, framing a strong contrast between the transforming powers of Calvinism and the weak nature of their own Lutheranism. It is no coincidence that Troeltsch, in his distinguished study of the social teachings of Christian groups, cites the same quotation from Kuyper twice: Lutheranism remained ecclesiastical and theological; it is only Calvinism which both inside and outside the Church has left its mark upon all forms of human life. No one speaks of Lutheranism as the creation of a distinctive way of living; even

⁷ John Bolt, A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper’s American Public Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001, back flap. ⁸ A good example of serious scholarship is John Halsey Wood Jr., Going Dutch in the Modern Age: Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss the extensive corpus of secondary literature about Kuyper. ⁹ Ernst M. Conradie, ed., Creation and Salvation: Dialogue on Abraham Kuyper’s Legacy for Contemporary Ecotheology, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011. ¹⁰ Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912, pp. 607, 666, 731, 738–739, 769, 785, 790, 792; Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen (1912) [Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. IX], ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf in Zusammenarbeit mit Daphne Bielefeld, Eva Hanke, Johannes Heider, Fotios Komotoglou und Hannelore Loidl-Emberger, 3 vols., Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2021; Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Die Wirtschaft und die gesellschaftlichen Ordnungen und Mächte. Nachlaß, vol. II: Religiöse Gemeinschaften, ed. Hans G. Kippenberg, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, pp. 366–367.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

98

    the name is scarcely mentioned, whereas all who know history agree more and more in calling Calvinism the creator of a distinctive world of human life.¹¹

Intellectually and politically, Kuyper has been a major force in Dutch history.

The Fata Morgana Pamphlet: An All-Out Attack Theological modernism and Abraham Kuyper do not sit together easily. Kuyper famously spoke of modernism as a Fata Morgana in the Christian domain and did not spare this—in his view—transient, if not ephemeral, phenomenon in his critique. Kuyper gave his Fata Morgana speech on various occasions, most prominently on 14 April 1871 at the Odeon theatre in Amsterdam, the city where he had just started working as a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church.¹² The text appeared four months later in August of that year, after he had journeyed to Switzerland to recover from exhaustion.¹³ Kuyper added sixty endnotes (covering twenty pages of small print), which provide some bibliographical information and, more importantly, a running commentary on and further explanation of the main text. In October 1872, a German translation was released, and some thirty-five years later, an English translation appeared in the Methodist Review.¹⁴ Although the terms ‘modern theology’ and ‘modern school’ (moderne theologie/richting) were already being used in Dutch at the time, Kuyper’s address was one of the first texts with modernism (modernisme) in the title.¹⁵ Attacking modern theology and even calling it an illusion or Fata Morgana were nothing new in the history of Dutch Protestantism,¹⁶ but the vehemence of ¹¹ Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, London and New York: George Allen and Macmillan, 1931, p. 931 (note 414a), p. 946 (note 431), quoting Kuyper’s book on Calvinism, which had also been translated into German. ¹² Jasper Vree, Kuyper in de kiem. De precalvinistische periode van Abraham Kuyper 1848–1874, Hilversum: Verloren, 2006, p. 336. ¹³ Abraham Kuyper, Het modernisme: een fata morgana op christelijk gebied. Lezing, Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh, 1871. ¹⁴ Die moderne Theologie (der Modernismus), eine Fata Morgana auf christlichem Gebiet, Zürich: s. n., 1872 (1872.16); ‘A Fata Morgana’, The Methodist Review 88 (1906) 185–203, 355–378 (1906.04: trans. John H. de Vries). I am using the new translation by John Vriend, ‘Modernism: A Fata Morgana in the Christian Domain’, in Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, pp. 88–124, which has dropped one-sixth of the original text (including many notes), but has added quite a few, illuminative, notes. References to the endnotes are to the Dutch original, unless otherwise indicated. It is a good translation, but still does not fully capture Kuyper’s expressive language, which even at the time was somewhat archaic. Numbers between brackets (e.g., 1872.16) refer to Tjitze Kuipers and Barend Meijer, Abraham Kuyper: An Annotated Bibliography 1857–2010, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010; online: https://sources.neocalvinism.org/kuyper/. ¹⁵ Mirjam Buitenwerf-van der Molen, God van vooruitgang. De popularisering van het moderntheologische gedachtengoed in Nederland (1857–1880), Hilversum: Verloren, 2007, p. 14; see also Chapter 4 in this volume. ¹⁶ J.C. Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, 3 vols., ’s-Gravenhage: J. Bootsma, 1923–1940, vol. I, pp. 126–127.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

 ’    

99

Kuyper’s charge certainly was. As one contemporary reviewer observed, Kuyper had produced a whole armoury of weapons to make his case, and had driven out the stuffy atmosphere of mid-century Dutch theology by letting in the cold, fresh morning air. Although the reviewer welcomed this ‘freshness’, he also hoped that the cold would be somewhat tempered in the near future by the warmth of the rising sun.¹⁷ Even Kuyper’s supporters could be critical of the vehemence with which he defended his stance and criticized his opponents. The beginning of Kuyper’s speech evokes the image of a struggle of a magnitude surpassing human imagination. Somewhere ‘up there’ a battle is raging, and Kuyper casts himself as the director of this drama, giving his audience a glimpse of what is going on: Were it possible to pull aside the curtain that hides the world of spirits from our view, I am convinced a conflict so intense, so volcanic, so sweeping in its reach would present itself to our mind’s eye that the bitterest war ever waged on earth would look, by comparison, like child’s play. The collision of forces that really matter is occurring not here but up there, above us. In our struggles here below we experience only the after-shocks of that massive collision. (88/5)¹⁸

What we see here is beyond ordinary human comprehension, Kuyper argues, but he is still able to give his listeners an impression of this spiritual, cosmic struggle that affects our own predicament: from all corners of the world, the ‘battle of spirits rushes in upon you’. ‘The most firmly laid foundations are being battered, our deepest and dearest principles uprooted. It almost seems as if the shrieks of the French Revolution in 1793 were but the [wild] prelude to the mighty battle march now being played’ (89/5).¹⁹ The mention of the French Revolution (more particularly, the ensuing terror) is the first indication of what ‘we’ have to fight against. It is Kuyper’s conviction that the ‘tactic of looking on may not any longer be ours’ (89/5). His listeners and readers must have been impressed by the fortitude with which their leader faced these matters. By recalling in extenso an episode from the British House of Commons that took place on 6 May 1791, Kuyper demonstrates that refraining from intervening in this struggle is no longer a viable option. In Kuyper’s almost melodramatic portrayal of the event, the Whig leader Charles James Fox (1749–1806) stood up in parliament against his old friend, Edmund Burke (1729–1797). Against Burke’s

¹⁷ Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, vol. I, p. 132: Ph.J. Hoedemaker, ‘[Review]’, De Vereeniging. Christelijke Stemmen 26 (1871) 233–244. ¹⁸ The numbers refer to the English and Dutch texts, respectively. Any emphasis is always taken from the original text. If I refer to only one page number, this particular sentence or passage is missing in the English translation. ¹⁹ Between brackets, I occasionally add expressions that are missing from the somewhat sober English translation.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

100

   

denunciation of the French Revolution in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Fox made a fierce plea for its principles. ‘This was too much for Burke’ (6). He stood up and not only refuted Fox’s standpoint, but broke ‘in front of the whole of England the tender tie of friendship that had connected them for almost thirty years’ (7). Burke allegedly said: ‘I have indeed made a great sacrifice; I have done my duty, though I have lost a friend’ (7 and note 1). Kuyper comments that he would not, of course, dare to compare himself with Burke, but claims at the same time that such a deed engraves itself in the heart of every man of character: ‘As soon as principles gain ground that are contrary to your deepest convictions, then resistance is your duty and acquiescence a sin. Then, at the price of the finest peace, you must attack those principles, stigmatizing them before the eyes of friend and foe alike with all the ardor of your faith’ (89/7). Kuyper thus sends a strong message to the audience, even before the precise target of his lecture is explicitly mentioned. Principles must prevail over friendship. Along these lines, modernism is described as the theory within which the polemic against Christianity has created its most coherent system. And systems, no doubt, are there to be contested and refuted. We do not want to cover up such deep and important differences. ‘The honeymoon of spiritual impassivity is over . . . . Courage has returned to our blood and lustre to the pallid eye. We again dare to consider it natural to engage the opponent in unsparing combat’ (90/8). The logic that Kuyper draws upon is that the system requires defence against an opponent who defies Christ as presented in the Scriptures. That requires courage, but is it not only natural to defend your intellectual and religious property against enemies?

A Fata Morgana: Characteristics After a learned explanation of the term ‘Fata Morgana’,²⁰ Kuyper stated the three characteristics that he needed for his critical discussion of modernism: (1) the Fata Morgana is fabulously beautiful, (2) it follows a fixed law, and (3) it lacks all reality. He started with the first issue of why modernism was attractive, especially to the educated classes, whom he believed to have a distorted image in which orthodox believers memorized skeletal primers (vragenboekjes), ‘rootless little fungi next to [the] oak trees’ (94/15) of the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechism. It was the longing for a deeper, more connected view of things that made modernism attractive, ‘making its fingers play upon the vibrant strings of life’ (94/15). At the same time, Kuyper’s next, seemingly appreciative comment makes it perfectly clear that modernism is only a surrogate that can at best pave

²⁰ Vree, Kuyper, p. 336.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

 ’    

101

the way for a richer, more authentic, truly biblical form of Christianity: ‘Even the reflection of a weeping willow on the surface of a stream [which is given by modernist theology, ALM] is a thousand times more beautiful than the choppedoff trunk of an oak tree which lies contemptibly by the side of the road’ (94–95/ 15). It is unclear exactly what Kuyper was referring to in the second part of this comparison, but it is evident that the real oak trees of the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechism are much to be preferred above modernist reflections on the surface of a stream. Second, Kuyper tries to discern the factors that gave rise to this particular heresy in the nineteenth century. He claims that modernism had to appear in the nineteenth century ‘by a fixed law of necessity’ (96/17), as it reacted against the typical nineteenth-century form of realism, which was brought about by the following four factors: (1) the demise of (German) idealist philosophy; (2) the emphasis on ‘real’ issues such as capital and labour in political thought after the French Revolution; (3) the glorification of the power of nature in the natural sciences; and (4) the uninspiring and artificial language of the official church. Modernism ‘tried to react’ (101/25) against these blunt materialistic and hedonist forces, but was ultimately unsuccessful.²¹ Kuyper explains that modernism’s strategy to seek a compromise with the Zeitgeist was doomed to fail because true Christianity is radically opposed to the spirit of the times. If only the modernists had let themselves be led by the ‘realism of Scripture’, by the ‘divine realism that is expressed in the incarnation of the Word’ (102/25–26),²² but they did not. They bent their knee to the Zeitgeist and hoped that they would attain their ideals in return; but, of course, this could not and would not happen if you were to accept the diametrically opposed principles of the ‘realists’. What was needed, in Kuyper’s view, was a higher form of realism, as was present in Christianity. Kuyper characterizes the modernists’ middle-of-the-road strategy as follows: [Modernism] admitted that one must not live too much for heaven but first of all for this earth. It granted that the study of nature is still to lead the way into the Kingdom of the Spirit. It conceded that this world should never yield in a conflict with the other, and that hence there can be no such thing as miracle . . . . Indeed, in the end it agreed that if there were to be knowledge of God, it had to be explained in terms of humanity as it is, and if there were to be Christianity, it must renounce its claim to being ‘the only true religion’ so as to live henceforth

²¹ Cf. Kuyper, Fata morgana, note 20. ²² Here, Kuyper refers to the Roman Catholic, mystic theologian Franz von Baader (1765–1841), who was known in the Netherlands through the work of the ethical theologians Johannes Hermanus Gunning (1829–1905) and Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye (1818–1874), Gunning’s teacher and father of Pierre Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye, whose work will be addressed in Chapter 9 of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

102

   

on the same level with the other religions which it had previously shunned as idolatry. (103/26–27)

Kuyper believed that the failure of modernism lay in the fact that it was based on human authority and ultimately did not acknowledge the ‘much higher and much more firmly established reality’ (103/27) of the Kingdom of God. The fundamental objection to modernism was that it lacked the moral power to acknowledge the specific reality of spiritual phenomena, and too readily harmonized matter and spirit (on the basis of the then dominant empirical method).

Devoid of Reality The speech continues with a critique of theological modernism as being devoid of reality (the third issue addressed here) and develops the theme of the ‘realness’ of the Christian belief in more detail. Who, Kuyper asks, upon seeing modernism being borne swiftly on its current, does not recall the line from the German Sturm und Drang poet Gottfried August Bürger (in his poem ‘Leonore’): ‘Hurrah, the swift ride of the dead, / But does it not fill you, my dear, with dread?’ (104/29).²³ Modernism has barely emerged and already it ‘demands alteration and renovation’ (105/30): Kuyper claims that modernism had already entered its fourth conservative, church-oriented phase in nearly fifteen years. A couple more pages are devoted to showing how poor and unimaginative modernism actually is. Next, Kuyper attacks the more specific views of theological modernism. With respect to the field of religion (as Kuyper calls it), the first charge is that their God is an abstraction and does not actually exist. The modernists adore ‘something they not infrequently call “God” ’ (107/34), but there is no guarantee at all that there really is a living God that corresponds to this idea. Second, the modernists redefine the meaning of prayer in an unacceptable way, by saying that it is merely an outpouring of the soul and not a petitioning that is heard by ‘listening ears above’ (109/37). If they only mean ‘a dialogue with your own soul, a process of self-discovery in sacred silence’ (110/38), then, they should stop using the word ‘prayer’ for this. Third, somewhat enigmatically, Kuyper argues that the modernists must deny the reality of divine government as they restrict their knowledge of God to what can be known from nature and history, and these show us not only beauty and justice, but cruelty and injustice as well. Turning to the sphere of morality, Kuyper argues first that the moderns’ denial of the fact that human beings were specially created by God leads to insurmountable problems. The modernist idea that man has a double nature (physical and ²³ Translated by the English Pre-Raphaelite painter and poet Dante Gabriel Rossetti when he was sixteen; cf. Bratt, ed., Kuyper, p. 104, note 21.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

 ’    

103

spiritual/moral) is extremely troublesome. If we abandon the notion of a human being’s organic coherence, he argues, we get a ‘composition of animal and spirit’, which can never lead to the idea of a true essence.²⁴ The second charge raised by Kuyper is perhaps more to the point: modernists do not know anything about real sin, which is reduced to ‘an inner restlessness, a never slumbering self-reproach, a sense of being relentlessly pursued by the moral ideal’ (112/40). Third, their moral ideal is something they strive for but, as they themselves admit, will not attain, whereas Kuyper’s ideal is what makes a human being blessed and happy. ‘[T]hen the ideal may not be an empty demand but the full treasury from which one, as John [1:16] puts it, receives grace upon grace’ (112/41). Finally, the perspective is reversed, as Kuyper claims that ultimately, we do not pursue the ideal, but the ideal pursues us.²⁵ After discussing modernist religion and morality, Kuyper casts a cursory glance at modern theology and makes three allegations. First, modernism adapts the ‘facts’ to its own ideas, as it denies what the Scripture says to be true. Second, the criticism of the modernists was powerless, as ‘it broke all connection with life’ (114/44) by severing the ‘natural affinity’ between the subject and the object of study. They are happy for you to assess the world of colours even if you have no affinity for colour. In this context, Kuyper refers to the views of his Leiden professor Scholten, who later completely revised his original point of view concerning the authenticity of the fourth gospel, claiming that it contained not a single word by John. According to Kuyper, the principle of ‘free inquiry or examination’, to which his Leiden teachers adhered, can actually be used in a quite different sense. He likens the modernist to a child who examines toys by breaking them apart, whereas Kuyper would compare himself to the merchant in pearls who freely examines his collection by separating the true ones from the false. Third, the dogmas of the modernists ‘are merely the transcript of ideas currently in vogue, transferred from the marketplace of unexamined life into the church of Jesus and sanctioned by present-day authority’ (116/45). Public opinion has thus taken the place of the witness of the Holy Spirit.²⁶ Concerning modernist ecclesiology, Kuyper starts with the remark that their church simply lacks every essential attribute of a church, and goes on to discuss various issues that were on the agenda at the time. Of course, one can turn the church into its opposite, ‘like an association of teetotallers that eventually undertakes to run a distillery’ (117/47), but this is not how a church was traditionally defined. Being a church should imply some kind of boundary that ‘may not be determined arbitrarily but must flow from its very nature. It therefore may not remain what it is now: an association held together by accident, in which

²⁴ Cf. Kuyper, Fata morgana, note 46. ²⁵ Cf. Kuyper, Fata morgana, note 49 (trans. p. 113, n. 31). ²⁶ Cf. Kuyper, Fata morgana, note 53 (trans. p. 116, n. 36).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

104

   

qualification for membership is only a given of the past or of inertia’ (118/48). What is needed is a confession, and the idea of a confessional church is evidently an orthodox idea and not a modernist one, according to Kuyper.

Craving the Real Thing The entire speech hinges on the opposition between unreal (‘them’) and real (‘us’). At first glance, the modernists may appear to base their ideas on real data, but on closer inspection these turn out to be a mere superficial reality, whereas ‘our’ faith is based on the reality of Christ. Wherever he looked, Kuyper concludes, ‘the bottom of reality sank away beneath us’: no real God, no real prayer, no real sin, no real history, nor a real church (118/48). Notwithstanding his devastating criticism, Kuyper could also frame modernism as a blessing in disguise, because it forces ‘us’ to reassemble our own forces. In this sense, it ‘saved’ orthodoxy, but only ‘as at times a sick person is saved by the injection of poison or, if you please, as a crushing enemy assault alone can sometimes revive a nation’s will to live’ (119/49). By comparing modernism with the ‘evil’ of another heresy, ‘Arianism’, Kuyper at first evokes a sense of unease and anxiety in his audience, but in the end he reassures them: sometimes we have to wait a while, but, finally, the victory will be ours. Reality will prevail against the never-ending doubt of the modern theologian. In a daring comparison, Kuyper evokes a scene from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s play about the laurel-crowned Italian singer Torquato Tasso, who is consumed by his love for Leonore von Este, the illustrious daughter of the king of Italy. When she rejects him, he answers: ‘There is no spectral mental image / hovering before my face . . . With my own eyes have I seen it: the archetype of all virtue, all beauty’. Thus, Tasso, too, asks for ‘a manifestation of his ideal in the flesh’. Of course, Kuyper adds, this is foolish, idolatrous even, but surely Tasso was not chasing hollow ideals. The final paragraph of the lecture is crafted masterfully. Goethe is compared to ‘another poet, endowed with an infinitely richer mind’ (123/55): John, the son of Zebedee, who testifies ‘not in play but with a supreme degree of holy earnestness and clear-eyed sobriety’: What we have seen with our eyes, What we have looked at and touched with our hands, Concerning the Word of life— Therein, and therein alone, lies our power. (1 John 1:1)

This ‘jubilant music’ is sung not only by us, but also by the modernists, and for the first time in the lecture, Kuyper addresses the modernists directly. ‘You

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

 ’    

105

Modernists sing it with us’ (124/55).²⁷ After the evocation of an—in fact, imaginary—communion or at least nearness, the description of the inescapable division between ‘them’ and ‘us’ must have been very effective in the ears of his constituency: ‘So far then we walk together, but here we also part company, never to meet again. For while you have the ideal but no more than the ideal, the church of Christ confesses an ideal that was reality from all eternity and has been manifested in the flesh’ (124/55). The incarnation is decisive for the Christian church. ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us’. This incarnate reality trumps that of the modernist in every sense of the word, as Christ is on ‘our’ side. Kuyper’s device of the opposition between the superficial modernist ideas and ideals (‘them’) and the ‘real Christian stuff ’ (‘us’) must have electrified his constituency, who were highly impressed by the might and erudition of their leader, who interspersed his speech with learned quotes from various sources, possibly in the original language. The speech was not primarily meant to convince his opponents, but his reproach that the modernists’ beliefs were only a bleak reflection of the old-time religion may have struck a chord with some of them, as Pierson’s attack on Abraham Kuenen showed.²⁸ Most, however, must have felt that Kuyper was distorting the modernist position to such an extent that it became unrecognizable. How could Kuyper, who had studied in Leiden with Scholten and Kuenen, come to such conclusions and ignore the results of modern theological scholarship? Later in his career, especially in the Stone Lectures that will be discussed in the next chapter, Kuyper will give a clearer exposition of his own ideas and thus try to refute his opponents in a more systematic way.

After the Fata Morgana Speech Kuyper came back to the issue of theological modernism several times, always in a triumphant and even denunciatory way, mostly with an explicit reference to the Fata Morgana speech of 1871. In May 1895, he published the piece ‘Fata Morgana’ in his weekly The Herald (De Heraut), commenting on a recent meeting of the assembly of modern theologians, which, according to Kuyper, used to be quite some event, but nowadays had the air of a gathering of traders who were slowly preparing to liquidate their businesses. Modern theology was on the decline, whereas Calvinist theology was on the rise, claimed Kuyper. The modernists were good at criticizing, but were not able to build a stable dogmatic structure.

²⁷ The Dutch text has: ‘zing het ons na’ (repeat it after us). ²⁸ See Chapter 3 (section ‘Criticism’) in this volume.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

106

   

In Kuyper’s view, the modernist denial of a special revelation meant that the movement was doomed to dissolve.²⁹ Five years later, he referred to another gathering of modern theologians, this time in the small Dutch town of Hoorn, to argue again that modernism was on its way out. Kuyper claimed that one of the participants had himself defended the thesis that modernism was largely out of touch with the lives of ordinary people. Indeed, as an ecclesiastical movement that satisfied religious needs ‘modernism came . . . and went’.³⁰ In an issue of his own daily De Standaard, published in June 1903, Kuyper referred to modernism as a ‘squeezed-out lemon peel’, a metaphor that gained some currency.³¹ Questions have been raised about the intended target of the Fata Morgana speech. In a review of the publicized address, Philippus Jacobus Hoedemaker (1839–1910), an old ally of Kuyper who would later break with him, conceded that much of what Kuyper said did indeed apply to modern theology, but not to Protestant modernism as such.³² In his response, Kuyper referred Hoedemaker to a specific passage in his speech, which he felt made it abundantly clear that this had been his intention.³³ Apparently, Hoedemaker wanted to salvage some of the skin of his more liberal fellow Christians, whereas he agreed with Kuyper’s critique of modern theology. Kuyper’s main target was indeed, as he claimed, modern theology, but it is equally clear that he was deeply convinced that such a lifeless theology could not inspire people. This raises the broader question of the exact scope of the term ‘modern theology’. It is probably not always possible to distinguish between the use of the term to refer to modern theology on the one hand, and to modernism as a movement in contemporary Dutch Protestantism on the other. However, it is important to note that we can find another more general usage of the term ‘modernism’ in Kuyper’s oeuvre. In his book about Kuyper’s Stone Lectures (1898), Peter Heslam made a neat distinction between the more specific ²⁹ Kuyper, ‘Fata Morgana’ (Amsterdam, 3 May 1895), De Heraut, Sunday, 5 May 1895, no. 906 [p. 2, cols. 3–4]. ³⁰ Kuyper, Abraham, [editorial], De Heraut, Sunday, 9 December 1900, no. 1197 [p. 4, cols. 1–2] (emphasis in the original), and Kuyper, ‘Fata Morgana’ (Amsterdam, 9 November 1900), De Heraut, Sunday, 11 November 1900, no. 1193 [p. 2, cols. 2–3]. For more comments on the modernists and their cold rationality that is not connected to the piety of ordinary believers, see: De Heraut, Sunday, 15 March 1903, no. 1315 [p. 2, cols. 3–4], De Heraut, Sunday, 7 June 1908, no. 1588 [p. 2, cols. 2–3], De Heraut, Sunday, 21 June 1908, no. 1590 [p. 2, cols. 2–3], De Heraut, Sunday, 16 May 1909, no. 1637 [p. 2, cols. 2–3], and De Heraut, Sunday, 23 May 1909, no. 1638 [p. 2, cols. 2–3]. The last two pieces discuss an article by the modernist Old Testament scholar B.D. Eerdmans. See also De Heraut, Sunday, 14 April 1918, no. 2099 [p. 2, col. 4–p. 3, col. 1], which summarizes K.H. Roessingh’s speech about the ‘turnaround of modernism’ (‘De kentering van het modernisme’). ³¹ Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, vol. I, p. 138; cf. Roessingh, Het modernisme in Nederland, Haarlem: Bohn, 1922, p. 2. Rullman explicitly refers to De Standaard (June 1903), but I did not find this quote there. ³² Hoedemaker, ‘[Review]’, p. 239 [Rullmann, vol. 1, pp. 132–133]. ³³ Kuyper, ‘Uit de Pers’, De Heraut, Sunday, 6 October 1871, no. 40 [pp. 3–4, col. 5–1] [Rullmann, vol. I, pp. 133–134]. Kuyper referred to note 24 on page 66 of his speech.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

 ’    

107

theological use of the term (especially in Kuyper’s Fata Morgana speech), and its broader use in the Stone Lectures (1898),³⁴ where modernism stands for the spirit of the times as diametrically opposed to Christianity, and more particularly to Calvinism. And indeed, in Kuyper’s Stone Lectures, the notion does not primarily refer to a theological position but rather to a much wider phenomenon, which in his view had spread and undermined the Christian faith since the French Revolution.³⁵

Conclusion As one of Kuyper’s early critics, Conrad Busken Huet, had already noted, the Fata Morgana speech has a ‘worldly’ character, or as James Bratt put it: Kuyper met modernism on its own grounds.³⁶ The speech is not a confession of faith (Huet), but it sketches the rise of theological modernism and outlines its shortcomings. The address may be long-winded and verbose (Huet), but it also contains some brilliant rhetoric, and unites some arguments against modernism nicely (if somewhat loosely). Here, we see Kuyper’s approach in nuce, of comparing worldviews or systems of thought (Weltanschauungen)³⁷ and thus arguing for the superiority of his own position. The next chapter will explore this approach in more detail. In essence, however, the speech is above all an example of Kuyper’s rhetoric and hardly gives a fair representation of the views of the modernists. He simply claims that his own view is perfectly geared to reality, whereas he depicts theological modernism as a foul compromise with the spirit of the times, based on a superficial understanding of reality. He adopted this approach in many of his pamphlets and speeches, which may have convinced his followers, but must have been much less effective in convincing his opponents. Modernists were probably repelled by Kuyper’s antagonistic rhetoric and the fact that he did not seem to take the results of modern theological scholarship seriously. By all means possible, Kuyper tried to show that theological modernism was a delusion that would wither away in the not-too-distant future. Although arguments do play a role (i.e., that the modernists wrongly argued from a human point of view and denied the importance of special revelation), the rhetorical power of

³⁴ Abraham Kuyper, Het Calvinisme—zes Stone-lezingen in october 1898 te Princeton (N.-J.) gehouden, Amsterdam and Pretoria: Höveker, s.a. [1899]; A. Kuyper, Calvinism. Six Stone Lectures, New York: Fleming H. Revell, s.a. [1899]. ³⁵ Kuyper, De verflauwing der grenzen, Amsterdam: Wormser, 1892, trans. ‘The Blurring of the Boundaries’, Bratt, ed., Kuyper, pp. 363–402, here p. 395. ³⁶ Busken Huet, ‘[Review]’, De Gids 1871; reprinted in: Litterarische fantasien en kritieken, vol. XV, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1912, pp. 162–170; Bratt, Kuyper, p. 88. ³⁷ David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002; see also Chapter 6 in this volume.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

108

   

the speech lies predominantly in the suggestion that modernism (although a necessary phase in the course of history) will decline and ‘we’ will prevail. The speech hinges on the double meaning of ‘real’ and ‘realism’. Although the modernists aimed to comply with and hence seek a compromise with the predominant ‘realism’ of the nineteenth century, they actually bypass reality: they had no real God, no real prayer, no real sin, and no real church. ‘We found the names and shadows of all these but no rootedness in real being’ (118–119/48). ‘They’ construct ideas, whereas ‘we’ are rooted in what could be called true reality, a reality of a higher kind, which is given to us in Christ. The ‘deeper minds’ among the modernists would readily grant the importance of the ‘word become flesh, reconciling and risen again’, but still deny that this ‘true and beautiful idea became a reality in Jesus of Nazareth’ (124, notes 43 and 60). Kuyper also found this longing for a higher reality in the many (Romantic) poets he quoted. Behind the danger of theological modernism, there lurked another, still more powerful, danger: modernism in the broad sense of the word, characterized by Kuyper in his Stone Lectures as the ultimate force that Christianity in its highest form (that is, Calvinism) had to resist. These two worldviews were in mortal combat, according to Kuyper. This change in what Kuyper identified as the danger of ‘modernism’ (almost turning it into an all-encompassing term for everything he was opposed to) coincided with his leaving the field of theology and church and moving on to challenge the existing political, social, and cultural order.³⁸ Now, in a grandiose move, Calvinism had to play its major role and claim its place against the anti-Christian forces of modern times. But that is another story that will be addressed in the next chapter. Modernism in this broader sense was—even in Kuyper’s view—by no means ‘a squeezed-out lemon peel’.

³⁸ Cf. Kuyper, Parlementaire Redevoeringen, vol. IV, Amsterdam: s.n., s.a. [1905], pp. 50–55, p. 51: ‘De antithese tussschen de Christelijke en de moderne levensopvatting laat de moderne theologie mijlen ver achter zich’. (The antithesis between the Christian and modern world views leaves modern theology miles behind it.) One could also argue that Kuyper’s broad concept of the church as an organism enabled him to engage in political and societal activities while remaining faithful to his theological calling; cf. Vree, Kuyper, p. 7.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

PART III

ABRAHAM KUYPER AND PILLARIZATION

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

6 Neo-Calvinist Culture Protestantism This chapter addresses Kuyper’s reinterpretation of Calvinism, which allegedly combines the richness of that tradition with an endorsement of modern principles and ways of life. A somewhat similar programme of reconciliation of religion and modernity was pursued at the time by liberal Protestants in Germany—a current which is often referred to by the term Kulturprotestantismus (Culture Protestantism).¹ They acknowledged the fact that cultural domains such as politics and the economy followed their own rules, whereas for Kuyper the acceptance of the modern way of life did not mean secularism. He claimed that Calvinism in itself was a modern principle, which—against the prevailing powers of a secularizing modernity—could permeate society as a whole. Kuyper’s later mature thinking was based on the idea that Calvinism was not just a confession or a denomination, but a comprehensive philosophy and worldview in its own right. Therefore, it would be a gross misunderstanding to construe a mere antithesis between this Weltanschauung and the modern world. On the contrary, Kuyper maintained that Calvinism made a distinct contribution to the emergence of such modern institutions and values as democracy and human rights. The main question in this chapter is rather simple: how did Kuyper construe this synthesis between Neo-Calvinism and modernity? The notion of Neo-Calvinism was, as far as I can see, not primarily used by Kuyper himself, but was introduced to demarcate his thinking from that of traditional Calvinism.² The way that I use the term ‘modernity’ is not to be confused with Kuyper’s highly polemical use of the term ‘modernism’ (which has been addressed in the previous chapter), but presupposes modern sociological theories about modernity that begin with the work of Max Weber, Ernst Troeltsch, and Georg Simmel. Modernization can then be defined by ¹ Gangolf Hübinger, Kulturprotestantismus und Politik. Zum Verhältnis von Liberalismus und Protestantismus im wilhelminischen Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ² See, for instance, Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912, p. 761; Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, 2 vols., London and New York: George Allen and Macmillan, 1931, vol. II, p. 673: Neo-Calvinism differs from early Calvinism ‘in the development of the Free Church system and in religious toleration’. Later, Kuyper used Troeltsch’s positive assessment of his own work and of the importance of NeoCalvinism (including the term) in his Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde, vol. I, Kampen: Kok, 1916, pp. 621–622. On the earliest use of the Dutch word neocalvinist see George Harinck, ‘Herman Bavinck and the Neo-Calvinist Concept of the French Revolution’, in James Eglinton and George Harinck, eds., Neocalvinism and the French Revolution, London: T&T Clark, 2014, pp. 13–30, here p. 21, which refers to an obscure review article in Geloof en Vrijheid 21 (1887) 555–90, p. 577.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0007

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

112

   

transformation processes, such as capitalist industrialization, political modernization (formation of political parties and the acknowledgement of basic human rights), the ongoing separation between state and society, the pluralization and differentiation of societal spheres, each following its own rules, and the individualization and privatization of religion, which implies the replacement of old church monopolies by a pluralism of competing groups and individuals who try to sell their own worldview.³ In this sense I use an external perspective to defend my thesis that Kuyper’s rejection of a particular—secular—form of modernity did not imply a rejection of modern life as such. In the course of this chapter the various ways in which Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinism can be called ‘modern’ (which is, of course, a broad, fuzzy concept) will be further clarified.⁴ I will highlight Kuyper’s overall programme, focusing on his book Calvinism, which appeared in 1899 in both Dutch and English.⁵ This book stems from the Stone Lectures delivered by Kuyper in Princeton in 1898, on which occasion he also received an honorary doctorate in law from Princeton University. His host deplored the fact that Kuyper made many changes to the English text, much to its detriment.⁶ Because Kuyper always explained his views in a strongly contextual way, it is almost impossible to pinpoint his final position. Nonetheless, these six lectures surely convey a concise and excellent impression of his views. As the book has been translated into many languages, it is probably also the most influential statement of what Kuyper was aiming at.

A Comparative Study of Worldviews Kuyper’s book on Calvinism contains six chapters of about forty-five pages each, all of which probably go back directly to the lectures that he had given in Princeton. In a letter to his wife he complained about the fact that the lectures

³ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, ‘Moderne Modernisierer, modernitätskritische Traditionalisten oder reaktionäre Modernisten?’, in Hubert Wolf, ed., Antimodernismus und Modernismus in der katholischen Kirche. Beiträge zum theologiegeschichtlichen Vorfeld des II. Vatikanums, Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998, pp. 67–106. ⁴ Cf. James D. Bratt, ‘Abraham Kuyper. Puritan, Victorian, Modern’, in Luis E. Lugo, ed., Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyper’s Legacy for the Twenty-First Century, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 3–21. ⁵ The previous chapter contains a short introduction to Kuyper’s life and work in general. ⁶ Abraham Kuyper, Het Calvinisme. Zes Stone-lezingen in october 1898 te Princeton (N.-J.) gehouden, Amsterdam and Pretoria: Höveker & Wormser, s.a. [1899]; Kuyper, Calvinism. Six Stone-Lectures, New York: Höveker & Wormser, s.a. [1899]). Kuyper’s host in Princeton, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, who held the chair in Didactic and Polemic Theology, went to great lengths to get the translation of the Dutch chapters ready at a very short notice, and deplored the fact that the text ‘was much altered by Dr. Kuyper himself with a view of bettering the English, but with the effect of waning it sadly’, quoted in Peter S. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 12–13. I have not improved on the English translation.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

-  

113

lasted about two hours, but—in a move that is typical of the man—he claimed at the same time that this made him aware of his success.⁷ In the first chapter Kuyper contrasted the historically cultivated Europe with the fresher, more dynamic America, where the ‘train of life’ moved at a faster pace. In the next four chapters he dealt with the relationship between Calvinism on the one hand and religion, politics, science, and art on the other. The sixth and last lecture on Calvinism and the future started with a succinct summary of what had been achieved so far: Calvinism did not stop at a church-order, but expanded in a life-system, and did not exhaust its energy in a dogmatical construction, but created a life and worldview, and such a one as was, and still is, able to fit itself to the needs of every stage of human development, in every department of life. It raised our Christian religion to its highest spiritual splendour; . . . it proved to be the guardian angel of science; it emancipated art; it propagated a political scheme, which gave birth to constitutional government, both in Europe and America; . . . it put a thorough Christian Stamp upon home-life and family-ties.⁸

Thus, Calvinism is framed as an independent worldview which is of tremendous importance—also compared to other worldviews—for the emergence of modern institutions and cultural developments in general. At first glance, there can be no doubt as to its bright future, but on closer inspection this is not so evident, for Kuyper in fact portrays world history as a mighty struggle between the Christian and the modern element. In his view, the turning point was reached in 1789: at that time ‘the storm of Modernism has . . . arisen with violent intensity’ (3/2).⁹ Modernism, to Kuyper, was not primarily a theological position, but referred to a much wider phenomenon, which had ‘spread like a cancer’ since the French Revolution and undermined Christian faith.¹⁰ It is not sufficient, Kuyper argues, to oppose the Christian principle against the ni Dieu ni maître of Modernism. As Christianity finds its highest and purest expression in Calvinism, the best opportunity for defence lies there. For Kuyper, Calvinism in the sense of a comprehensive worldview was simply the best and most powerful form of Christianity. ⁷ Abraham Kuyper, Ik voel steeds meer dat ik hier zijn moest. Amerikaanse brieven van Abraham Kuyper aan zijn vrouw en kinderen, ed. George Harinck and Margriet Urbanus, Amsterdam: Historisch Documentatiecentrum voor het Nederlands Protestantisme, 2004, p. 50 (letter of 14 October 1898). ⁸ Kuyper, Calvinism, p. 231 (emphasis in the original); cf. Calvinisme, p. 168. The English text differs here to a considerable extent from the Dutch text, which Kuyper may have rewritten for the Dutch book publication. ⁹ The numbers in the text refer to the English and Dutch editions of the Stone Lectures. ¹⁰ Kuyper’s view of Modernism contains three elements according to Peter Heslam: the French Revolution, (German) Pantheism, and (Darwinistic) Evolutionism; cf. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview, pp. 96–111, here p. 97: ‘Throughout his journalistic and political career, Kuyper made more frequent reference to the French Revolution than to any other historical event, including the Reformation. This was in large part due to the intellectual legacy of Groen van Prinsterer, who emphasized the antithesis between Christian Faith and the unbelief of the French Revolution.’

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

114

   

The superiority of Calvinism is demonstrated by comparison with other ‘great complexes of human life’ (12/8) with respect to their various views on God, man, and the world. According to Kuyper, the immediate relationship between God and man was typical of Calvinism, whereas the clergy played a mediating role in Catholicism and Lutheranism. This conviction also implies that Calvinism did not allow one to discriminate or mark distinctions between human beings, unless, of course, these were ordained by God. ‘Hence Calvinism condemns not merely all open slavery and systems of caste, but also all covert slavery of woman and of the poor; . . . it tolerates no aristocracy save such as is able, either in person or in family, by the grace of God, to exhibit superiority of character or talent, and to show that it does not claim this superiority for self-aggrandizement or ambitious pride, but for the sake of spending it in the service of God’ (27/19). Here Kuyper is extremely critical of Modernism, which allegedly levelled out all differences between people and ‘cannot rest until it has made woman man and man woman, and . . . kills life by placing it under the ban of uniformity’ (26/19). Without making it explicit, the conclusion is evident: whereas Modernism implies compulsory homogeneity, Calvinism sets people free. Implicit in this whole discussion is a certain view of true modernism and modernity: it was about freedom and plurality, which was guaranteed by Calvinism and not by an inherently oppressive Modernism. The affirmative and emancipatory character of Calvinism is further articulated by means of the doctrine of common grace (gemeene gratie) ‘by which God, maintaining the life of the world, relaxes the curse which rests upon it, arrests its process of corruption, and thus allows the untrammelled development of our life in which to glorify Himself as Creator’ (30–31/22).¹¹ This doctrine legitimizes the emancipation of and in various domains of life such as the arts, economy or welfare, whereas Kuyper’s understanding of the church in terms of the congregation of believers opens up the possibility for emancipation and even a schism in church affairs. In sociological terms: Calvinism is compatible with modern processes of differentiation and has also stimulated such emancipating developments. Contrary to the Anabaptists, true Calvinists do not reject the world, but engage themselves in it. ‘[T]he curse should no longer rest upon the world itself, but upon that which is sinful in it, and instead of monastic flight from the world the duty is now emphasized of serving God in the world, in every position of life’ (31/23). In the same vein as Max Weber would employ later in his Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, by showing the economic impact of the Puritan work ethic,

¹¹ In Kuyper’s thought there is a place for natural theology; cf. Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology. Its Principles, trans. J. Hendrik de Vries, New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1898, p. 309: ‘Natural theology is and always will be the natural pair of legs on which we must walk, while special revelation is the pair of crutches, which render help, as long as the weakened or broken legs refuse us their service.’

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

-  

115

Kuyper stresses (and, of course, overemphasizes) the enormous contribution of Calvinism to modern, economic, societal, and cultural developments in general. Calvinism has taken a course westward and has now—Kuyper tells his American audience—reached the United States. His entire world-historical construct is based on a comparative framework, which sees ‘Paganism’, ‘Islamism’, and ‘Romanism’ as three phases in a development which has (nearly) reached its end, whereas Modernism and Calvinism are considered to be the ultimate competing powers at that very moment. Progress in history is to a large extent traced back to Calvinism, whereas Modernism is depicted as a new form of Paganism and, thereby, as a complex of human life that has no future. Although the results are diametrically opposed, the way Kuyper proceeded shows a structural parallel to contemporary attempts by liberal theologians and scholars of religion who tried to demonstrate the superiority of their own point of view by comparing world religions.¹² In contradistinction to most of his liberal counterparts, Kuyper’s argument is expressed in strong, dynamic metaphors, which give the developments he outlines an aura of inevitability. For instance, he describes history as a kind of survival of the fittest, in which Calvinism has a good chance of winning the battle. In this context, Kuyper refers to the phenomenon of the ‘commingling of blood as . . . the physical basis of all higher human development’ (37/28). Looking at the crossing of different breeds in the animal and plant worlds, he argues that it is ‘not difficult to perceive that the union of natural powers, divided among different tribes, must be productive of a higher development’ (39/29). Whereas, according to Kuyper, the ‘commingling of blood’ still played a subordinate role in ancient times, nowadays it was a crucial phenomenon in Calvinist areas and especially in America. Additionally, it is important to note that Kuyper viewed Calvinism as springing spontaneously from ordinary people, which gave it an enormous power, as proven by the victory of the Dutch over the Spanish occupation in the seventeenth-century struggle for liberation. At the end of the first lecture Kuyper quotes the Dutch liberal historian Robert Fruin, saying: ‘wherever Protestantism has had to establish itself at the point of the sword, it was Calvinism that gained the day’.¹³ If even his opponents admitted this fact, how true must it be!

¹² A good example is C.P. Tiele’s Gifford Lectures, given at the University of Edinburgh in 1896 and 1898. ¹³ Robert Fruin, Tien jaren uit den Tachtigjarigen Oorlog 1588–1598 (Leiden, 1857, p. 151), 6th edition, Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1904, p. 217.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

116

   

The Cultural Impact of Calvinism The frame of comparative analysis of worldviews is most conspicuous in the first and last (sixth) chapters of the Stone Lectures. In between, Kuyper outlined the essentials (chapter 2) and the impact of Calvinism (chapters 3–5). In the second chapter about ‘Calvinism and religion’, he stated that Calvinism belonged to the genus of religion (or worldview) and he characterized it by addressing questions such as: ‘Does this religion exist for the sake of God, or for Man?’ and ‘Can it remain partial in its operations or has it to embrace the whole of our personal being and existence?’ (49/37). Although he criticized modern philosophy of religion, without specifying which philosophers he had in mind, he did share at least some of their assumptions. Kuyper obviously did not share the same opinions as these (liberal) philosophers and theologians, but like them, he argued on the basis of human subjectivity. For Kuyper, however, human subjectivity was not founded in the autonomous self, but in a consciousness of guilt and sin: ‘In this spiritual experience of sin, in this empirical consideration of the misery of life, in this lofty impression of the holiness of God, and in this staunchness of his convictions, which led him to follow his conclusions to the bitter end, the Calvinist found the roots of the necessity first of Regeneration, for real existence, and secondly, the necessity of Revelation, for clear consciousness’ (66–67/48). This a good example of Kuyper’s modern line of argumentation, turning to a specific Christian form of subjectivity. The second chapter states Kuyper’s ecclesiastical and moral views. He rejects the idea of a church as a Heilsanstalt (institute of grace) and is very critical of the idea of a national or people’s church. ‘A national Church, i.e., a church comprising only one nation, and that nation entirely, is a Heathen, or at most, a Jewish conception’ (80/57). Notwithstanding ‘much unholy rivalry’, it is evident for Kuyper that the multiformity of denominations ‘has been much more favourable to the growth and prosperity of religious life than the compulsory uniformity in which others sought the very basis of their strength’ (79/56). Crucial here is the acceptance of a plurality of worldviews and churches and the competition between them. With regard to morality and ethics, Kuyper claims that the whole of human moral life is ultimately founded in God, which is expressed in the doctrine of the ‘ordinances of God’ (87/61) that rule over every area of human conduct. These ordinances are essentially the same as the general moral commandments: for ‘can we imagine that at one time God willed to rule things in a certain moral order, but that now, in Christ, He wills to rule it otherwise?’ (89/62). Of course, Kuyper wished to outline the distinctive elements of Calvinism, but it is clear from the way he presents this type of religion that it sat well with the conditions of the modern era. Although he is critical of dancing, card playing, and theatre-going, the Calvinist ‘ordinances’ barely differed from common moral

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

-  

117

rules. The teaching of common grace allowed for an active engagement in worldly affairs (apart from the three exceptions just mentioned) and Kuyper’s concept of church (in terms of competing denominations) was very appropriate to the Dutch situation, where thanks to Kuyper himself—among others—a market of competing churches emerged. In the long run this made the old, liberal idea of an encompassing national, Protestant church obsolete. In chapters 3 to 5 of the book, Kuyper turns to a discussion of the importance and influence of Calvinism in the fields of politics, scholarship (sciences and humanities), and the arts. His first move is crucial: the fact that these areas had emancipated themselves from the influence of institutionalized religion (the churches) did not imply in the least that they were neutral with regard to religion or worldview. On the contrary, he argues that these were conflicted fields, where various worldviews competed. For example, Kuyper claims that, opposed to a modernist concept of the state that denies the existence of God, there is a Calvinist view based on the principle of the sovereignty of God. This last doctrine implies that in the fields of politics, society, and the organization of religion, there can only be a subordinate sovereignty. Because in the realm of politics the direct government of God is broken down by sin, it is substituted by human government ‘as a mechanical remedy’ (108/76). Kuyper viewed this form of government and state formation as something artificial, whereas realms such as the family and scholarship were organically formed, which means that the state had to be reticent in these matters. Here we find the well-known, Neo-Calvinist doctrine of (people’s) ‘sovereignty in its own circles’ (souvereiniteit in eigen kring), translated in the English edition as ‘sovereignty in the sphere of society’ (116). This principle means ‘that the family, the business, science, art and so forth are all social spheres, which do not owe their existence to the State, and which do not derive the law of their life from the superiority of the state, but obey a high authority within their own bosom; an authority which rules, by the grace of God, just as the sovereignty of the State does’ (116/82). This is the Neo-Calvinist version of the subsidiarity principle. This principle served Kuyper rather well in claiming freedom from direct state intervention in societal realms which could be better run by individual citizens and social organizations. Although a normative claim, it was also historically substantiated. In the Stone Lectures he focused on the realms of politics, scholarship, and the arts, and although he mentioned the economy, where Calvinism had indeed been rather successful, he somewhat surprisingly did not really address the economic domain. In the political realm Kuyper contrasted the Calvinist freedom of conscience with the revolutionary freedom of the guillotine. He claimed that Calvinism contributed to the advancement of the sciences as well. After the Middle Ages, with its emphasis on life after death, the Calvinist doctrine of common grace ‘threw open again to science the vast field of the cosmos’ (154/110). Did not Calvin compare the Scriptures to a pair of spectacles, ‘enabling

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

118

   

us to decipher again the divine Thoughts, written by God’s Hand in the book of Nature, which had become obliterated in consequence of the curse?’ (158/113). In this view, common grace arrests the total depravity effected by sin (162/116) and makes the created world a legitimate object of study. After arguing that Calvinism has stimulated free scholarship, Kuyper notes that this freedom can lead to conflict and differences of opinion. The biggest conflict is that between ‘those who cling to the confession of the Triune God and His Word, and those who seek the solution of the world-problem in Deism, Pantheism and Naturalism’ (173/124). This was not the struggle between faith and science, which Kuyper claimed simply did not exist. In his view, science was based on strong presuppositions: faith in our self-consciousness, in the accurate working of our senses, in something universal hidden behind the special phenomena, ‘and especially . . . in the principles, from which we proceed’ (173/124). Essentially, there is a fundamental conflict between the ‘normalists’, who reckon only with natural data and explanations, and the ‘abnormalists’, who accept the possibility of miracles and ‘maintain inexorably the conception of man as an independent species, because in him alone is reflected the image of God’ (175/125). In the last resort, he argues, we have to acknowledge the existence of two diametrically opposed kinds of human consciousness, ‘that of the regenerate [“born-again”, ALM] and the unregenerate’ (183/130). In Kuyper’s view, the problem is that the normalists urge their conviction upon the abnormalists. They wish ‘to wrest from us the very thing, which, in our selfconsciousness, is the highest and holiest gift, for which a continual stream of gratitude wells up from our hearts to God’ (184/131). By presenting modern scholarship as also being based on a particular faith, the entire problem boils down to a struggle of faiths, in which one group tries to enforce its point of view, thereby neglecting the freedom of its opponents. Thus, the normalists are depicted as tyrants, whereas ‘we’ only defend our freedom and respect our adversaries. This change of perspective enables an extremely powerful rhetoric: ‘That they, from their standpoint pull down everything that is holy in your estimation, is unavoidable. [ . . . ] [T]he energy and the thoroughness of our antagonists must be felt by every Christian scholar as a sharp incentive himself also to go back to his own principles in his thinking, to renew all scientific investigation on the lines of these principles, and to glut the press with the burden of his cogent studies’ (185/132). This conviction implies a radical reform of universities, which Kuyper felt was fortunately already under way. He argued that the curse of uniformity had to be broken in the field of scholarship and science as well. True freedom of scholarship would only be established if one acknowledges the fact that ‘normal science’ is also based on a principle of faith. We must have systems in science, coherence in instruction, unity in education. [ . . . ] The final result, therefore, will be, thanks to Calvinism, which has opened for us the way, that liberty of science will also triumph at last; first by

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

-  

119

guaranteeing full power to every leading life system, to reap a scientific harvest from its own principle; – and secondly, by refusing the scientific name to whatsoever investigator dare not unroll [I guess, the intended meaning is: ‘every investigator who dares not unroll’, ALM] the colours of his own banner, and does not show emblazoned on his escutcheon in letters of gold the very principle, for which he lives, and from which his conclusions derive their power. (188/134)

It was on this basis that Kuyper justified the foundation of his own Neo-Calvinist university in Amsterdam in 1880.

The Struggle for a Calvinist Modernity After this exposition of Calvinism’s profound cultural-historical significance and broad influence, Kuyper reaches a new rhetorical climax in the last chapter of Calvinism, by rather unexpectedly striking a pessimistic note. ‘Modern life’ has broken with the Christian tradition and is no longer founded on God and ideals, but on material and instinctual needs. Money, lust, and power are its key values. The danger exists that the democratic principles are replaced by ‘brutal moneypower’ (246/177). As neither Catholicism nor (liberal) Protestantism is the answer to this threatening condition, the long-expected solution is formulated as follows: There is no choice here. Socinianism died an inglorious death; Anabaptism perished in wild revolutionary orgies. Luther never worked out his fundamental thought. And Protestantism taken in a general sense, without further differentiation, is either a purely negative conception without content, or a chameleon-like name which the deniers of the God-man like to adopt as their shield. Only of Calvinism can it be said that it has consistently and logically followed out the lines of the Reformation, has established not only churches but also States, has set its stamp upon social and public life, and has thus, in the full sense of the word, created for the whole life of man a world of thought entirely its own. (261/187–188)

Using a breathtaking, world-historical comparison, Kuyper guides his listeners and readers to the only viable, narrow path of Calvinism. Salvation is not expected from their own small group, but from Calvinism as a world-historical principle: the train of life must once again follow the track of divine commandments (240/ 174). Only Calvinism is able to offer an effective defence of the Christian faith ‘in this hour of sharpest conflict, against renewed Paganism collecting its forces and gaining day by day’ (272–273/195). Calvinism is thus the final station of the history of religious development and at the end of this journey it must fight the devastating Modernism. This antagonism is the basic structural element of the

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

120

   

Stone Lectures, which gives the book a dynamic sweep that carries away and empowers its readers. Kuyper’s comparative, teleological method can be found in much of the philosophical and religious studies literature of his day. In this sense, the book has a modern character and is not a form of classical dogmatics. The references to the Bible illustrate the argument, rather than acting as arguments in themselves. The comparison between religions and worldviews with regard to their notions of God, man, and world is also found in contemporary philosophy of religion. Talking about Calvinism as a worldview is equally modern in that it presupposes a plurality of worldviews that are principally on a par with each other (although the differences between them can, of course, be profound).¹⁴ Just as Adolf von Harnack did in his famous lectures at the University of Berlin discussing the essence of Christianity, Kuyper at Princeton presented Calvinism as the only type of religion that had a future and could successfully confront secular Modernism.¹⁵ Not only was Kuyper’s method modern, so too was his theoretical framework. The basic presupposition of his view of modern history was the ongoing process of differentiation between spheres such as the state, the economy, religion, art, and scholarship. According to Kuyper, Calvinism stimulated this process and as such was a typically modern force. The Calvinist movement also opposed patronizing authority, contributing to the spread of freedom in the world. Kuyper’s presentation can be criticized, of course, but the view that Christianity or—more precisely—specific Christian groups such as the Mennonites or ‘ascetic Protestantism’ contributed to the emergence of the modern world was shared by several authors at the time.¹⁶ Kuyper loved metaphors depicting the struggle for existence and power. To him, Calvinism was essentially a life principle that had to establish itself as the mightiest in the struggle for life.¹⁷ Clearly, Kuyper was impressed by the work of Friedrich Nietzsche. Did not Nietzsche juxtapose the lamb that takes away the sins of the world and the eagle? ‘We are not ill disposed to you, dear lambs; we are even fond of you, for nothing is tastier than tender lamb’.¹⁸ Kuyper saw it as his task to

¹⁴ In older ages true Christian faith was simply opposed to superstition or false beliefs. ¹⁵ Adolf von Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums. Sechzehn Vorlesungen vor Studierenden aller Fakultäten im Wintersemester 1899/1900 an der Universität von Berlin gehalten von Adolf v. Harnack, ed. Claus-Dieter Osthövener, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ¹⁶ Cf. Georg Jellinek, Die Erklärung der Menschen- und Bürgerrechte. Ein Beitrag zur modernen Verfassungsgeschichte (1895), 2nd edition, Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1904 and Ernst Troeltsch, Schriften zur Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die moderne Welt (1906–1913) [Kritische Gesamtausgabe 8], ed. Trutz Rendtorff, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2001. ¹⁷ There exists a tension between Kuyper’s praise of Calvinist freedom and his own authoritarian instincts. See also Chapter 7 in this volume, section ‘Rhetorical Practice and Strategy’. ¹⁸ Quoted after Kuyper, ‘The Blurring of the Boundaries,’ in Kuyper, ed. Bratt, pp. 363–402, p. 366 [= De verflauwing der grenzen, Amsterdam: Wormser, 1892, p. 6], who referred to ‘Dr. Hugo Kaatz’, Die Weltanschauung Nietzsches, 2 vols., Dresden and Leipzig: Pierson, 1892–1893, vol. II, p. 29. In the Dutch text Kuyper misquotes Kaatz (and Nietzsche). Cf. Nietzsche, Zur Genealogie der Moral, I, 13: ‘wir

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

-  

121

make this Calvinist life principle conceptually explicit. It almost appears as though he thought that Calvinism could gain victory only as a reflective principle. In place of the Darwinist principle of selection, Kuyper posited the doctrine of election. He claimed that Calvin had noticed the same problem as Darwin, but Calvin solved it ‘not in the sense of a blind selection stirring in unconscious cells, but honouring the sovereign choice of Him Who created all things visible and invisible’ (271/ 194–195). Kuyper did not shy away from bold comparisons.

Conclusion For Kuyper, societal differentiation did not imply that religion—that is, his blend of resilient Calvinism—would be confined to its own domain. He believed that every societal sphere was determined by principles. The two leading and diametrically opposed powers were Modernism and Calvinism. Calvinism was thus not a purely religious or ecclesiastical principle (distinct from the realms of culture and society), but a principle that pervaded these realms and had to do so in its struggle against the destructive power of Modernism. In a purportedly good democratic fashion, the plurality of formative principles was acknowledged and accepted. If some scholars rejected the ‘abnormal’ science of the Calvinists (which accepted the possibility of miracles and was founded on ‘regenerated’ consciousness), then they were intolerant, whereas ‘we’ accept a variety of universities based on different worldviews. Kuyper critically deconstructs the claim of ‘normal’ science to produce generally valid and intersubjective knowledge as being premised on principles of faith. In contrast with liberal Protestantism or Culture Protestantism (Kulturprotestantismus), Kuyper did not see culture as a more or less independent domain (with its own rules), but as something that has to be formed by different and basically opposed principles. In both cases Protestantism relates in a positive way to society. By energetically rejecting a more or less neutral view of culture, Kuyper initiated a large reform programme that demanded the distribution, or even division, of societal spheres along lines of confessions and worldviews. In this way he fought for his own Calvinist space in a society that was allegedly dominated by modernist principles. This marks a huge difference from liberal cultural Protestants who strived for a synthesis between culture and Christianity and who rejected the societal and ecclesiastical segmentation as propagated by Kuyper. Kuyper’s persuasive force lies not only in his rhetoric, but also in his theory of the origins of modernity. He viewed societal differentiation, the separation

sind ihnen gar nicht gram, diesen guten Lämmern, wir lieben sie sogar: nichts ist schmackhafter als ein zartes Lamm’. In the Stone Lectures (246/177), Kuyper criticized ‘von Nietzsche’ and his allegedly Social Darwinist views as well.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 9/11/2021, SPi

122

   

between church and state, and the democratic principle as socio-political developments that were largely prompted by Calvinism. The modern world, therefore, was not the monopoly of secular modernists, but a place in which pluralism should rule in various spheres of human life. In this view, Calvinism represented a modernity that was more modern than that of the modernists, who falsely claimed hegemony for their own point of view. Further, I have argued that the comparative and teleological way in which he constructed history—with Calvinism on top—is structurally similar to modern liberal theologies and philosophies of religion which do something similar for, say, liberal Protestantism. My aim in this chapter has been to show how persuasively Kuyper depicted Calvinism as representing the modern principle of freedom—certainly in the eyes of his constituency. The question of whether the historical view he presented is correct is another issue. The American reviews of the book convey an impression of both admiration for the sweep of Kuyper’s argument and his forceful rhetoric and bewilderment about some outrageous claims, such as—as one reviewer puts it—that ‘everything good on earth is directly derived from Calvinism’.¹⁹ Not all reviews adopted such a sharp tone, but if one bears in mind that the periodicals in which they were published were generally rather favourable to Kuyper, the criticism is striking.²⁰ Most reviewers also mentioned the ‘numerous typographical errors’ that may even distort the sense of his argument. For all his admiration of Kuyper, the theologian and sociologist Ernst Troeltsch was not convinced either, characterizing Kuyper’s Stone Lectures as follows: ‘This book is not only Kuyper’s government programme, but, consisting of the lectures delivered at the University of Princeton, which is strictly Calvinistic, it constitutes a kind of collective creed of modern orthodox Calvinism. Otherwise in an absolutely unprecedented degree Neo-Calvinism is here read into the primitive Calvinism of Geneva. It is the book of a dogmatist and a politician, and as such it is extremely instructive; as an historical work, however, it is very misleading.’²¹ This judgement may be correct, but it by no means detracts from the fact that ‘Mighty Abraham’ presented a theory of modernity in which religion—or more precisely Calvinism—played a formative role.

¹⁹ An., Review of Kuyper, Calvinism, in: The Methodist Review [Nashville, TN] 50 (1901) 122. The subtitle is A Bimonthly Journal Devoted To Religion and Philosophy, Science and Literature. ²⁰ Henry Collin Minton, Review of Kuyper, Calvinism, in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 11 (1900) 536–539; An., Review of Kuyper, Calvinism, in The Reformed Church Review 4 (1900) 273–277; An., Review of Kuyper, Calvinism, in The Hartford Seminary Record 10 (1899–1900) 265–266; An., Review of Kuyper, Calvinism, in The Methodist Review [New York, NY] 82 (1900) 174; An., Review of Kuyper, Calvinism, in The Methodist Review [Nashville, TN] 50 (1901) 122; William N. Clarke, Review of Kuyper, Calvinism, in The American Journal of Theology 4/3 (1900) 634–635. ²¹ Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, p. 607, note 309; Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, vol. II, p. 879, note 309.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

7 Abraham Kuyper’s Religio-Political Rhetoric Kuyper was the first modern mass politician in Dutch history, whose speeches drew large crowds. His renown in the Netherlands is comparable with that of William Gladstone in England. Even when Kuyper’s style and rhetoric were criticized, the fact that he was a great orator was never really called into question.¹ On the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Neo-Calvinist journal De Standaard (The Measure), which Kuyper founded in 1872, his colleague, the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck stated: ‘And that man did not write to us on paper, he spoke to us and reached out through that word to our understanding and will, our heart and conscience, not satisfied until he knew what he had in us.’² The previous chapter addressed the modern character of Kuyper’s worldview; this chapter focuses on an important aspect of his work as a politician: his vehement rhetoric that stressed the divisions in Dutch society. This approach eventually led to a much more fragmented religious and political landscape in the Netherlands than could be imagined at the time. Kuyper’s antagonistic political style would be misunderstood as just a ‘formal’ thing concerning outward appearance but it had serious socio-political repercussions that were later captured under the term ‘pillarization’ and which are the subject of the next chapter.

Kuyper in Princeton Although outsiders sometimes had difficulties in appreciating Kuyper’s rhetoric, they were nevertheless impressed. For example, Albert Venn Dicey, then Vinerian Professor of English Law at Oxford University, described in a letter to his wife the ceremony at which he and Kuyper received honorary degrees at Princeton University in 1898. Both were asked to say a few words: ¹ Jan Romein, ‘Abraham Kuyper. De klokkenist der kleine luyden’, in Jan and Annie Romein, Erflaters van onze beschaving: Nederlandse gestalten uit zes eeuwen (1938–1940), 7th edition, Amsterdam: Querido—Wereldbibliotheek, 1959, p. 749. ² Herman Bavinck, ‘Feestrede’ [Eulogy], in Gedenkboek opgedragen door het feestcomite aan Prof. Dr. Kuyper, bij zijn vijf en twintigjarig jubileum als hoofdredacteur van ‘De Standaard’ (1872—1 april— 1897), Amsterdam: G.J.C. Herdes, 1897, pp. 38–51, here p. 46; translation (of a few passages) in John Bolt, A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper’s American Public Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001, pp. 64–75, here p. 66.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0008

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

124

   

This led to the most remarkable speech I have heard for a long time. Kuyper spoke. He looked like a Dutchman of the 17th century. He spoke slowly and solemnly. His English was impressive, with here and there a Dutch idiom. He told us he was a Calvinist; that he had been persecuted by the anti-Calvinists – this itself sounded like the language of another age. All the good in America had its root in Calvinism, which was as much a legal and an ethical as a religious creed. The Continental States had sympathized with Spain. Not so the Dutch Calvinists. “We have not forgotten our contest with Spanish tyranny; we fought it for a hundred years. In six weeks you have given Spanish power its coup de grace, but neither England nor the U.S. would have been free but for Dutch heroism. Spain has in all countries and in all ages been a curse to the world. The just shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance.” This was the tone of the whole speech. There was not a word of flattery to America. One felt as if the 17th century had visibly arisen upon us to give the last curse to Spain.³

Dicey’s vivid sketch conveys not only a fine impression of Kuyper’s performance but also a mixture of admiration and bewilderment concerning Kuyper’s world of thought, in which the seventeenth-century Dutch resistance to the Spanish occupation and the manner in which Dutch Calvinism had paved the way for the victory of freedom in the world were seen as realities that pertained directly to the actual political situation at the end of the nineteenth century. Kuyper did not hesitate to put forward strong, even outrageous (from the point of view of outsiders) claims and to use vivid and melodramatic images to enhance his case. A good example of this technique can be found in the Stone Lectures that he delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1898. In the fourth lecture he explains how Calvinism had contributed to the rise of science, and he turns to one ‘glorious page’ from its history to prove this fact: The page from the history of Calvinism, or let us rather say of mankind, matchless in its beauty, to which I refer, is the siege of Leyden, more than three hundred years ago. This siege of Leyden was in fact a struggle between Alva and Prince William about the future course of the history of the world; and the result was that in the end Alva had to withdraw, and that William the Silent was enabled to unfurl the banner of liberty over Europe. Leyden, defended almost exclusively by its own citizens, fought against the best troops of what was looked upon at that time as the finest army in the world. Three months after the commencement of the siege, the supply of food became exhausted. A fearful famine began to rage. The apparently doomed citizens managed to live on dogs

³ Albert Venn Dicey to his wife, 23 October 1898, quoted in Robert S. Rait, ed., Memorials of Albert Venn Dicey: Being Chiefly Letters and Diaries, London: Macmillan and Co, 1925, p. 154. The reference is to the Spanish-American War of 1898.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

 ’ - 

125

and rats. This black famine was soon followed by the black death or the plague, which carried off a third part of the inhabitants . . . . They patiently waited for the coming of the Prince of Orange, to raise the siege, . . . but . . . the prince had to wait for God. The dikes of the province of Holland had been cut through; the country surrounding Leyden was flooded; a fleet lay ready to hasten to Leyden’s aid; but the wind drove the water back, preventing the fleet from passing the shallow pools. God tried his people sorely. At last, however, on the first of October, the wind turned towards the West, and, forcing the waters upward, enabled the fleet to reach the beleaguered city. Then the Spaniards fled in haste to escape the rising tide. On the 3rd of October the fleet entered the port of Leyden, and the siege being raised, Holland and Europe were saved. The population, all but starved to death, could scarcely drag themselves along, yet all to a man, limped as well as they could to the house of prayer. There all fell on their knees and gave thanks to God. But when they tried to utter their gratitude in psalms of praise, they were almost voiceless, for there was no strength left in them, and the tones of their song died away in grateful sobbing and weeping.⁴

This extensive quotation not only demonstrates the huge claims that were made by Kuyper (‘the history of Calvinism, or let us rather say of mankind’), but also shows the dramatic devices that he deployed to tell this tear-jerking history, which could have been taken from a child’s adventure book. Although a tall tale even for Kuyper, it illustrates his typical use of hyperbole, which he employed so often that one is sometimes tempted to think that his words were not meant as hyperbole at all. The story also shows the intimate connection that existed for Kuyper between Dutch military, political, and religious history, with Calvinism being the backbone of Dutch resistance against the Catholic Spanish oppressor. Identities are mostly defined by Kuyper in opposition to outsiders who threaten ‘us’. I will look at Kuyper’s rhetoric in terms of the formal devices, such as hyperbole, that he employs to highlight his points. I will also focus on the images, metaphors, and stories that he uses—in sum, on his ‘mythopoetics’. This term is used by John Bolt, who analyses Kuyper’s public theology from a rhetorical and mythopoetic perspective, ‘turning attention away from seeing him solely through the more customary lens of philosophical and theological ideas’.⁵ Bolt claims that Kuyper ‘effectively captured the political imagination of the Dutch Gereformeerde volk with powerful rhetoric, well-chosen biblical images, and national mythology’.⁶ This seems to me to be a very fruitful approach. Another study that has been important for my own discussion is Jacobus van Weringh’s highly critical ⁴ A. Kuyper, Calvinism. Six Stone-Lectures, New York: Höveker & Wormser, 1899, pp. 143–145. Kuyper ‘improved’ upon the translation that was made by his hosts in Princeton, much to its detriment. Here and throughout I have made some minor corrections to the English text. ⁵ Bolt, A Free Church, p. xviii (emphasis in the original). ⁶ Bolt, A Free Church, p. 43 (emphasis in the original).

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

126

   

book on Kuyper’s view of society.⁷ To some degree it can be argued that he is too critical (he portrays Kuyper as a near-totalitarian dictator), but he rightly draws attention to the antagonistic way in which Kuyper casted his opponents, using military and pugilistic metaphors to show his followers that no compromise would be allowed and that a fierce battle had to be fought. The implications of this ‘style’ should not be underestimated.

Kuyper and the Arts To understand Kuyper’s rhetoric, it is helpful to first take a quick look at his view of art and the artist. From his early years on, art played a major role in his life. In one of his autobiographical texts—Confidentially (1873)—he described how he was moved by the English novel The Heir of Redclyffe, by Charlotte M. Yonge (1823–1901), which he had been given by his fiancée. The tale brings together ‘two diametrically opposed characters’, the strong, haughty Philip de Morville and the sensitive, pious, and ‘rather unattractive’ Guy. Slowly, their roles are reversed, ‘so that the once so extraordinary Philip is disclosed in all his vanity and inner emptiness while Guy excels in a true greatness and inner strength’. Initially, Kuyper thought he felt a purely aesthetic sentiment, but then realized that he was experiencing more than that. Kuyper remembers his overwhelming emotion when Philip repented and ‘fell to his knees before the poor Guy’: ‘Oh, at that moment it seemed as if in the crushed Philip my own heart was devastated, as if each of his words of self-condemnation cut through my soul as a judgment on my own ambitions and character’, and he envied ‘the fortunate repentant’.⁸ Reading The Heir of Redclyffe was the first stage in Kuyper’s conversion history, as he relates in Confidentially. Even if most scholars do not see self-critique, let alone self-condemnation, as a key element in Kuyper’s life, he clearly had the capacity to be moved and transformed by such literary stories. Kuyper must have read a good deal of literature, since his speeches are full of quotes from Romantic poets. Art represents for him a sense of vividness and a longing for the real. In cold and irreligious times ‘the warmth of devotion to art has kept alive many higher aspirations of the soul’.⁹ Art sides with religion against intellectualism. One of Kuyper’s main objections to theological modernism was that it was intellectual and out of touch with the piety of ordinary people. Intellectual art is not art, he believed, and he fervently claimed that art is no ‘fringe that is attached to the garment, and no amusement that is added to life’.¹⁰

⁷ Jacobus van Weringh, Het maatschappijbeeld van Abraham Kuyper, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967. ⁸ Kuyper, ‘Confidentially’ (1873), in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 46–61, here p. 53. ⁹ Kuyper, Calvinism, p. 191. ¹⁰ Kuyper, Calvinism, pp. 202–203.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

 ’ - 

127

Art represents a sphere in its own right. In the Stone Lectures, Kuyper discerns four spheres (the intellectual, ethical, religious, and aesthetic life) and emphatically states, in a vitalist fashion: ‘Art . . . is no side-shoot on a principal branch, but an independent branch that grows from the trunk of our life itself, even though it is far more nearly allied to Religion than to our thinking or to our ethical being.’¹¹ The clear distinction that Kuyper makes between the various spheres of society and how they may be related to each other represents a point of view that is also found in modern sociology. Still, much of his work betrays an idealist outlook, as the political and economic domain receive less attention. It is also evident that Kuyper inclined towards a Romantic view of art and the artist, valuing the spontaneity of artistic expression and stressing the role of genius. In his speech on ‘our instinctive life’, he claims that all ‘genuine artistic expression arises spontaneously from the soul of the artist’. Art schools and training may have their place, but they are at most of secondary importance: ‘Art can be ennobled by reflection, but art born of reflection is a monstrosity.’¹² Interestingly, Kuyper also presents in this context his ideas of what a gifted orator, whose power is rooted in the instinctive, can achieve: Simply compare the genuinely gifted public speaker with one who publicly reads what he has to say from a manuscript. The latter, after quiet reflection, has entrusted his thoughts to paper, line by line, and now communicates line upon line to the ears of his listeners, as if by telephone. But the really eloquent man, the born public speaker, takes up his position before the gathering, feels the contact between his spirit and that of his audience, and opens the tap. Almost automatically the words begin to flow, the thoughts leap out, the images frolic – psychological art in action. This is even more true of the genius. He does not plod and pick away at things; he does not split hairs or prime the pump, but senses within himself a fountain ready to flow. By spiritual X-ray vision he sees through doors and walls and virtually without effort grasps the pearl for which others grope in vain.¹³

A mechanical recitation is clearly not Kuyper’s rhetorical ideal The eloquent speaker is able to sense or to intuit their audience and communicates directly with them, whereas the real genius seems to have almost magical qualities (‘X-ray vision’) and is able to make contact with an inner source that starts to flow. Evidently, the rhetorical gift is presented here as purely intuitive, as being able to connect with the audience’s inner selves and thus succeed in moving them. Such

¹¹ Kuyper, Calvinism, pp. 201–202. ¹² Kuyper, ‘Our Instinctive Life’ (1908), in Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, pp. 256–277, here p. 260. ¹³ Kuyper, ‘Our Instinctive Life’, p. 260.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

128

   

gifts and talents are not equally distributed among people and, in consequence, Kuyper did not shy away from elitism and the idea of strong leadership, a leader being to some extent an artist in their own right. In the next section we will take a closer look at one particular occasion that presents a powerful example of Kuyper’s capacity for oratory.

Performance On the evening of 1 April 1897, some five thousand men and women gathered in the Amsterdam Palace of Popular Industry to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Abraham Kuyper’s editorship of the Neo-Calvinist daily De Standaard. A commemorative volume documented the preparations, the history of the newspaper, and the evening itself (including speeches by Herman Bavinck and Kuyper). Over two hundred pages, amounting to more than two-thirds of the book, contained ‘impressions’ of the event from the Dutch press, photographs of Kuyper, and a final word of thanks by Kuyper as printed in the following day’s edition of De Standaard.¹⁴ After Bavinck’s speech, the assembly sang a wellknown hymn composed by Isaac da Costa, which expressed the feelings of the orator and the assembled guests rather well: They shall not get it, Our old Netherlands! Through all the trials [of the just] It remains our father’s trust. [Gods en der Vadren pand] They shall not get it, The gods of this age! God has not liberated it for us, To provide a legacy for them.¹⁵

The launching of the journal on 1 April 1872 again clearly linked Kuyper’s NeoCalvinist movement to Dutch national history, as it was the three-hundredth anniversary of the Sea Beggars’ capture of the port of Den Briel, another key event in the Dutch struggle against the Spaniards. And it is evident that according to Kuyper the Dutch were still struggling against the spirit of the times, against nonCalvinists who falsely claimed God for their cause. After a gift was presented and the first verse of the national anthem was sung, ‘Dr Kuyper’ took the stand ‘amidst breathless silence’ and addressed the crowd ¹⁴ Cf. Jan de Bruijn, Abraham Kuyper. Een Beeldbiografie, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2008, pp. 228–229. ¹⁵ Quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, p. 67.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

 ’ - 

129

with the typical epithet ‘men, brethren’ (mannenbroeders). He quoted Da Costa’s verse to the effect that the sweet wine of adoration makes a man drunk, saying that it takes a lot of self-restraint to remain sober when surrounded by so much loyalty and love. Somewhat tongue in cheek, he recalled the rumour of Kuyper idolatry, and, although he had not noticed this phenomenon ‘among you’, he confessed that he had had some fears concerning that evening. As soon as he had seen the programme, however, he was convinced that the entire event was to thank and honour God and not to glorify a human being. Indeed, Calvinists were all instruments in the hands of God, and he thanked the men and women, the elderly and the young, who supported that cause. Newspapers were by no means an invention of evil, Kuyper claimed, but instruments that fulfilled at least two tasks. They provided information quickly, and—equally or even more importantly—they were a good means for bringing about unity, especially at these times when the spirit of individualism was growing stronger. De Standaard (like newspapers in general) had created what Kuyper preferred to call ‘the return to the standpoint of the ancient prophets’.¹⁶ This rephrasing of things, suggesting somewhat esoterically that ‘we Calvinists’ have our own common bond, is one of Kuyper’s many rhetorical devices. De Standaard provided guidance and created a community of opinion. In Kuyper’s view, however, this did not mean that he steered or manipulated readers. On the contrary, as suggested in the image of an orator connecting easily with the spirit of their listeners, he claimed that the newspaper’s content was inspired by the people. Kuyper strongly rejected the claim that his readers were puppets on a string. To those who believe such fairy tales, he said: ‘Try it yourselves, to make puppets out of our Calvinists!’ Whereupon, according to report, there was ‘loud laughter’.¹⁷ Later in the speech Kuyper stated that if he was able to achieve something, it was because he was trying to voice the feelings and convictions of his audience, and he was able to succeed ‘because your life was my life and one breathing of the soul was common to us both’.¹⁸ This suggestion of an almost mystical unity between Kuyper and his followers, which downplayed his own role to the absolute minimum, was followed by long applause. In real life, of course, Kuyper did not refrain from using power to achieve his goals. This intimation of a deep connection between the great man and his constituency must have been the oratorical high point of the speech. Kuyper was very well aware of recent insights into the psychology of the masses (he refers to the work of Gustave le Bon),¹⁹ and he must have known that suggesting that he and the crowd were one and that he was only voicing their intimate feelings and thoughts could ¹⁶ Quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, p. 64. ¹⁷ Quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, p. 66. ¹⁸ Quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, p. 67. ¹⁹ Kuyper, ‘Our Instinctive Life’, p. 264, referring to Gustave le Bon, La psychologie des foules, Paris: Alcan, 1895; cf. Henk te Velde, Stijlen van leiderschap. Persoon en politiek van Thorbecke to Den Uyl, Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 2002, pp. 90–91.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

130

   

feed their sense of identification when applauding him as leader. The rhetorical logic erased the boundaries between speaker and audience, permitting him—in the sentence that immediately followed this outburst of enthusiasm—to ask: ‘What did this newspaper mean for me?’²⁰ It turned out to be no more than a device that he used to achieve his goal. He wanted to make ‘my whole people and fatherland happy again’ by ‘seducing’ them back to the ‘ordinances of God’.²¹ He then started to tell the story of his own life, which proved to be the story of the rise of the Dutch Neo-Calvinists. Making politics personal and using one’s own biography politically is not a twentieth-century invention. It would be interesting to trace his life story in this speech and to compare it with his other autobiographical narratives in more detail, but here I will only address a few highlights in Kuyper’s constructions of his own career. Essentially, it is the story of a self-willed, perhaps somewhat lonely child (against his father’s will, he read newspapers at the age of ten), who, after many twists and turns, matured to become the leader of the orthodox Protestants in the Netherlands. An approved way to obtain credibility is to establish lineage to respectable forebears, such as the well-known conservative Christian poets Willem Bilderdijk and Isaac da Costa, and, above all, the politician and historian Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer, who was famous for his trenchant critique of the ideas of the French Revolution. This critique was a keystone of Kuyper’s own worldview and a reason why his movement—including the political party he founded—was termed ‘antirevolutionary’. Before moving to Utrecht in 1869, Kuyper claimed to have been enlightened by the simple, pious people of his first parish in Beesd. In Utrecht he hoped to defend the stronghold of the Dutch Jerusalem, supported by fellow orthodox companions. But he found only officers (professors and ministers) and soldiers who distrusted one another; there was a complete lack of unity. This was not an option for an army that saw itself as ‘the phalanx of the living God’.²² Kuyper tried to bring these men together on the basis of Holy Scripture, but—with a few exceptions—this was ‘impossible’ (emphasized in the original). This was a turning point in his life, after which, ‘perhaps a bit over-bold’, he became a franctireur (literally: ‘free-shooting’ member of a militia) and waged the battle at his own risk. Kuyper changed tactics and was no longer on the defensive (no more apologetics), but decided to attack. He started throwing ‘handgrenade after hand-grenade’, first at modern theologians and then at modern life itself as it appeared within liberalism and conservatism alike.²³ ‘Now I was at the point where Luther was when he exclaimed: “Das Wort sie sollen lassen stehen” (The Word it shall stand forever).’ But something was lacking: the ‘termite of ²⁰ Quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, p. 67 (my emphasis). ²¹ Quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, p. 67. ²² Quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, p. 70. ²³ Kuyper, ‘Modernism: A Fata Morgana in the Christian Domain’, in Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, pp. 87–124; Kuyper, ‘Uniformity. The Curse of Modern Life’ (1869), in Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, pp. 19–44. See Chapter 5 in this volume.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

 ’ - 

131

false philosophy’ had crept across our borders from Germany to undermine our theology. Even if the church had remained Christian, life itself had become dechristianized. But happily, the spirit of Calvin was still alive in the Netherlands, and he taught us that the ordinances of God concern not only religious life but human life as such. The military metaphors and the comparison with no lesser a figure than Luther himself showed that the fight was by no means easy and that it would take someone of character and determination to achieve progress. The comparison with key figures in the history of Dutch orthodox pietism (the Réveil, which may be compared to the English Awakening and American Great Awakening), such as Bilderdijk, Da Costa and Groen, demonstrates two things: first, that Kuyper could sow where these men had ploughed, and second—even more importantly—that they had not succeeded in building a strong organization to establish their noble goals. Kuyper emphasized how difficult it had been for him: many former companions were not there that evening, leaving it unclear as to whether they had died or ‘left’ him. It had therefore been good to be surrounded by like-minded people who helped steer the right course. For even the warmest sympathy is not enough to achieve lasting, stable cooperation if there is not enough adhesion to principles. If necessary, principles must prevail over friendship. Referring to the absolute authority of God, Kuyper claimed that even the smallest deviation from the straight and narrow could be fatal. Those who have deviated are invited to assemble ‘under the one banner for the honour of God and the well-being of His people’.²⁴ At the end of his speech, Kuyper pondered the possibility of his own death (he was fifty-nine at the time) and gave the audience the double reassurance that his powers were not yet exhausted and that if he should die, the furrows were so deeply ploughed and the seeds so good that God would not allow this work to be undone. The struggle may still be fierce, but it is important that ‘we, the people’ (in my words) are united under one banner. In a modern way, Kuyper may have sung the praises of diversity and liberty on other occasions, but this did not mean that there could be various paths leading to the same goal. The implication was that the Anti-Revolutionary Party should stand united around their leader, whose authority was linked to that of God Almighty. Kuyper finished with a text from Da Costa, which he adapted for his own purposes: My life is ruled by but one passion, One higher urge drives [my] will and soul. May breath fail me before I ever allow that sacred urge to fall. ’Tis to affirm God’s holy statutes

²⁴ Quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, p. 75.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

132

    In church and state, in home and school, despite the world’s strong remonstrations, to bless our people with His rule. ’Tis to engrave God’s holy order heard in Creation and the Word, upon the nation’s public conscience, till God is once again its Lord.²⁵

Faced with worldly resistance, the Dutch people must again bend their will to God and his ordinances. This was the powerful, unifying language of a leader who had no intention of yielding. Notwithstanding Kuyper’s outspoken claim to be giving a voice to the people, which resounded with them, the assembly could not miss the final message that he was the man who would ultimately determine the future course. Indeed, this impressive speech shows Kuyper to be an eminently political man, whose main concern was to unite his party under the ‘ordinances’ (another new word introduced by him) of the rulership of God that Kuyper was so eager to explain to his people.

Rhetorical Practice and Strategy How did his contemporaries perceive Kuyper’s rhetorical style? An interesting example is Herman Bavinck’s characterization of Kuyper’s language at the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of De Standaard. Bavinck, who would later teach at the Free University in Amsterdam, claimed that Kuyper had surpassed Bilderdijk, Da Costa, and Groen in ‘vividness of representation, richness of imaginary, in dramatic action, in the power to stir and carry along [the reader]’. ‘[Kuyper’s language] is built up of sentences that are lightly armed and approach the foe deftly and movingly, joyfully and courageously, with song and music, either to attack or defend, advancing or retreating, but always alert, preferring to be found in the heat of the battle’. Bavinck’s statement that Calvinists had a good fighting spirit was met with applause, and the metaphors of struggle and war are abundant in his speech. But he also said: ‘I do not want to deny that in the heat of battle the blows on occasion fell too sharply and that in the haze of gunpowder a clear distinction between friend and foe was not always made.’²⁶ This critical remark was included in Bavinck’s speech merely as a counterpoint to stating how well Kuyper had struggled to defend the holy principles of Calvinism.²⁷ ²⁵ Quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, p. 64. ²⁶ Bavinck, Eulogy, quoted in Bolt, A Free Church, pp. 65–66. ²⁷ Bavinck is an important theologian in his own right, who published a critique of modernism himself: Herman Bavinck, Modernisme en Orthodoxie, Kampen: Kok, 1911; ‘Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, Bavinck Review 7 (2016) 63–114.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

 ’ - 

133

Kuyper made frequent use of military metaphors to energize his constituency. His was not the language of compromise and dialogue, but of struggle and survival. Van Weringh has convincingly argued that Kuyper conceived of the Calvinist movement and its organizations as a hierarchically organized army.²⁸ The existence of an army makes sense only if there is an enemy who threatens ‘us’.²⁹ Kuyper constructed the outside world as dangerous and hostile. Therefore, we must avoid contact with outsiders, even if they are friends or relatives.³⁰ Boundaries must be drawn, and it comes as no surprise that Kuyper wrote one of his fiercest attacks in a speech against the ‘blurring of boundaries’.³¹ Here, he took a shortcut by saying that God created the boundaries. ‘He himself is the ultimate boundary for all his creation, and to erase boundaries is virtually the same as erasing the idea of God.’³² The enemy (the outside world) was seen as a ‘cancer’ or a ‘poison’ that threatened our organism. There was only one remedy, and that was to unite in holy comradeship, to have confidence in one’s own cause and to be enthusiastic ‘for the colors of your own glorious flag which redoubles the strength of any army’.³³ Preparing his troops to attack, Kuyper admitted that the struggle would require ‘frightening sacrifices’. To provide ‘a feel’ of this truly powerful rhetoric, let me give a quotation, which ends with one of Kuyper’s most famous sayings: [This approach] forces you to break with much that is attractive. It frequently cuts off fascinating contact with some of the nobler pagans. You pay a heavy price for it. Much worse, if you are firm and act boldly, it will bring down on you all kinds of family grief and make it very hard to find a lifelong post for yourself and your children. But with Scriptures before me I say: this sacrifice must be made. ‘Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me’ [Matt. 10:37]. Christ did not come to bring peace in a pantheistic sense but to bring division, that is, to draw a line that no one can expunge between those who seize the hem of his garment and those who reject him.³⁴

Although Kuyper rejected the idea that this had anything to do with self-isolation, all the sacrifices that had to be made in the spheres of relationships and work suggest the contrary. How could you be friendly with your arch-enemies?

²⁸ I use the term ‘Calvinist’ here only to refer to Kuyper’s constituency; other terms such as antirevolutionary could be used as well. ²⁹ Van Weringh, Het maatschappijbeeld, pp. 75–85. ³⁰ Van Weringh, Het maatschappijbeeld, p. 85. ³¹ Kuyper, ‘The Blurring of the Boundaries’, in Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, pp. 363–402. ³² Kuyper, ‘The Blurring of the Boundaries’, p. 378. ³³ Kuyper, ‘The Blurring of the Boundaries’, p. 397. ³⁴ Kuyper, ‘The Blurring of the Boundaries’, p. 397 (emphasis in the original). In this speech pantheism functions as a sort of portmanteau for all the evils of the modern world.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

134

   

Given the abounding dangers, ‘radical determination must be insisted upon. Half-measures cannot guarantee the desired results.’³⁵ Boundaries must be enforced. Therefore, we need principles. Kuyper saw world history as a struggle between worldviews, the main battle at the time being the one between modernism (pantheism) and Calvinism (the highest form of Christianity).³⁶ Ultimately, this was a struggle between principles, as these are the basis of unified worldviews or systems of thought. Although Kuyper acknowledged a plurality of opposing worldviews, he did not approve of plurality within a particular worldview, and certainly not in his own party. This does not work within an army. According to Van Weringh, conflicts emerged as soon as the hierarchical structure of these Calvinist organizations was questioned. Diverging opinions were perceived as disobedience. Van Weringh gives strong examples, for instance, the ‘disobedience’ of a clergyman who opposed what Kuyper had published on the Great War (condoning Germany’s occupation of Belgium). Kuyper said that this minister was an officer calling on his men to denounce their general. In his view, this was a breach of martial law, an ‘offence’ (delict) that had to be investigated as soon as possible.³⁷ Kuyper believed in strong organizations. He did not like Pietism and Methodism, because of what he saw as subjectivistic, individualistic, and quietistic tendencies. For him, Scripture, dogma, confession, and principles mattered more than personal religious experience. The fact that organizations and institutions such as churches and political parties were considered as being based on voluntary participation did not necessarily imply that they were organized democratically. In his one-sided but insightful book, Van Weringh sketches Kuyper as an antidemocrat, mainly because of the latter’s rejection of the principle of the sovereignty of the people.³⁸ Kuyper claimed that authority is ultimately based on God and has to be accepted. There is a tension between Kuyper’s framing of Calvinism as a liberating and even democratic force in history and his own authoritative style of leadership. Kuyper’s anti-egalitarianism, his conception of life as an organism, and his appreciative view of the struggle for life suggest that he was more or less a social Darwinist, a view held by Van Weringh. Indeed, it is clear that Kuyper saw himself as a leader who represented the head of the organism and set out the course for his followers. Notwithstanding all this, Kuyper could also be rather critical of such ideas: Since Bismarck introduced it into higher politics, the maxim of the right of the stronger has found almost universal acceptance . . . . And the end can only be that

³⁵ Kuyper, Calvinism, p. 274. ³⁶ For an analysis, see Chapter 6 in this volume. ³⁷ Van Weringh, Het maatschappijbeeld, p. 104. ³⁸ Van Weringh, Het maatschappijbeeld, p. 130.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

 ’ - 

135

once more the sound principles of democracy will be banished, to make room this time not for a new aristocracy of nobler birth and higher ideals, but for the coarse and overbearing kratistocracy of a brutal money-power . . . . And while the Christ in divine compassion showed heart-winning sympathy with the weak, modern life in this respect also takes the precisely opposite ground that the weak must be supplanted by the strong.³⁹

Here Christ’s compassion is opposed to the modernist ‘right of the stronger’, which is apparently rejected here. The question of whether and to what extent Kuyper’s thinking can be described as social Darwinist is not easy to answer and would require a more extensive investigation than can be conducted in these pages. The answer will also depend on one’s understanding of social Darwinism and the interpretation of seemingly conflicting texts. In his address on evolution, for instance, Kuyper opposed not only Darwin’s idea of the origin of man but also the celebration of power as such. ‘Over against Nietzsche’s Evolution-law that the stronger must tread upon the weaker we cling to the Christ of God who seeks the lost and has mercy on the weak.’⁴⁰ Yet Kuyper was very conscious of the fact that unity was necessary to obtain and maintain power. He liked organic metaphors that showed this unity developing from life itself, and he also claimed that no rank or class should dominate the process. Nevertheless a central committee has to provide leadership, and at crucial moments (such as campaigns) there must be agreement. Looking at Kuyper’s political career, it is evident that he did not shy away from conflicts and tried to impose his will to a degree that was repugnant to many of his close collaborators.⁴¹ No doubt, Kuyper was the undisputed leader of the Dutch Neo-Calvinist movement who energized crowds with his stump speeches. On one occasion, he described how unity was established by joint meetings and speeches: For a party to be able to carry its platform forward energetically, it needs above all to be powerfully conscious of its unity. It must have the means – as the psychology of the crowd demands – to convert sober realism into enthusiasm, cool calculation into holy passion. That is the purpose served by our local meetings and especially our party convention . . . . Someone who joins the battle in an isolated village, with only a couple of sympathizers, easily feels weak, dejected, and abandoned. But bring the solitaries out of their hideouts and to a great gathering.

³⁹ Kuyper, Calvinism, p. 246. ⁴⁰ Abraham Kuyper, ‘Evolution’ (1899), in Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, pp. 405–440, here p. 439. ⁴¹ Jeroen Koch, Abraham Kuyper: Een biografie, Amsterdam: Boom, 2006.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

136

   

Unite not just the fashionable and high class but representatives of all ranks, the notables along with the simple, the wise alongside the learned, the small and the great, and set them all aglow with the sense that they are in fact a mirror image of the whole country. Then faint-heartedness gives way to a sense of power. Good cheer, real animation, and high spirits arise. And if the circle swells (as among us) into a group of two thousand, their gathering amidst the tensions of an election will leave so fundamental and overwhelming an impression that the delegates return home not just encouraged but prepared to make any sacrifice, and exuding their enthusiasm to all who stayed at home.⁴²

In sum, rhetoric was an integral part of the work of the mass politician Abraham Kuyper. By way of modern media such as stump speeches, brochures, and newspapers, he mobilized people and built a homogeneous group. He preferred energizing, military metaphors of struggle against mighty opponents, who were depicted in the bleakest terms, and liked to tell almost mythic stories—moulded by a biblical imaginary—of Dutch history, showing how a small nation could resist a big empire, just as David had defeated Goliath. Kuyper’s religio-political rhetoric was new in Dutch political history and extremely successful in mobilizing his constituency.

A Critical Appraisal Kuyper understood the psychology of the masses and knew how to attune himself to and manipulate them. The legacy of Gustave le Bon’s influential book is controversial, to say the least.⁴³ It is claimed that not only Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler, but also Charles de Gaulle and Theodor Herzl admired it. The mechanisms of attunement that Kuyper describes may strike us—after the experiences of the twentieth century—as a little scary. But that does not make them less real, of course. Kuyper had a keen sense of the instinctive and subconscious mechanisms that play an important part in modern politics, and he made use of these. There is, however, a danger in downplaying the rational aspect of politics and persuasion. If politics is primarily seen in terms of a life-and-death struggle, then one has to defy ‘the enemy’ and compromise is undesirable. In my view, it cannot be denied that Kuyper’s rhetoric contained—to say the least—nasty elements of exclusion and of vilifying opponents. In practice (although this would require more investigation), Kuyper must often have been more conciliatory, in view of the political results he achieved, such as collaborating with the Dutch Catholic party. Yet the entire drift of his rhetoric is extremely militant, decrying ‘opponents’ in the harshest terms.

⁴² Kuyper, ‘Our Instinctive Life’, pp. 276–277.

⁴³ Le Bon, La psychologie des foules.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

 ’ - 

137

He constantly suggested that the enemy was everywhere and ‘we’ must be prepared for any sacrifice to defend our holiest principles. The military metaphors are undergirded by religious language. To erase boundaries is to erase God himself or, to give another famous example: ‘there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: “Mine” ’.⁴⁴ These huge claims led to an extremely antagonistic style. To his credit, one might say, Kuyper was very clear in this respect and consistently constructed the outside world as the ‘hostile other’. Contact with outsiders must be avoided, even if they are friends or relatives.⁴⁵ Principles are more important than friendship. Kuyper’s world of thought has a rather systemic character, in which people seem to play a subordinate role in relation to the higher organization and its goals, which can only be attained through determination and sacrifice. By this dualistic rhetoric and by relating political goals to religious principles, almost everything can be of decisive importance. As Kuyper said, even the smallest deviation from the straight and narrow can be fatal. Confronted with overwhelming dangers, we can only do one thing, and that is to defend ourselves against those who threaten our lives, which means ‘those who disagree with our principles’. (His opponents were not actually attacking and trying to kill Kuyper and his followers.) In a situation of war there is no room for difference of opinion: we must stand united around our leader. It is evident that Kuyper used military imagery not to go to war but to mobilize his followers. He could use such fierce language as there was no real threat that it would lead to an armed conflict. The militant rhetoric was primarily meant for internal use, whereas the emerging structures of pillarization could only function as long as the leaders of the various pillars were on speaking terms and their authority was accepted by their constituencies. Yet Kuyper steered his own course, fought again and again with people who were once his friends, and was not inclined to tolerate opposition. His rhetoric was not only ‘rhetoric’, it also determined his politics. Kuyper’s way of acting and speaking constituted a powerful blend of religio-political history, militant metaphors, autobiographical narrative, and determinative action. His divisive rhetoric was a powerful, modern way to shape his party and to energize his followers. Kuyper was very much aware of what he was doing and he knew how to use the new media such as stump speeches, brochures, and newspapers. In this sense, he was an eminently modern politician and theologian. The militant hyperbole made his supporters feel important and enhanced the

⁴⁴ Kuyper, ‘Sphere Sovereignty’ (1880), in Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, pp. 463–490, here p. 488. ⁴⁵ Van Weringh, Het maatschappijbeeld, p. 85.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

138

   

emancipation of ordinary people, who were convinced that their contribution really mattered. Kuyper’s approach allowed the Neo-Calvinist community and organizations (political party, newspapers, schools and university, unions, sporting clubs, etc.) to emerge. This typically modern phenomenon of ‘pillarization’ is the topic of the next chapter.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

8 Pillarization Although primarily a twentieth-century phenomenon, pillarization originated in the nineteenth century. An analysis of the term’s various connotations and theoretical overtones is helpful in order to better understand the precise nature of Kuyper’s major impact on Dutch religious and socio-political history. As Chapter 4 has shown, the notion is also useful to provide a structural explanation of the demise of Dutch religious modernism. Thus, the lens of ‘pillarization’ offers an important perspective by which to appreciate developments that characterized the late nineteenth-century religio-political landscape of the Netherlands. Pillarization refers to the specific process of modernization of Dutch society. It is also important to acknowledge that it is a controversial and theoretical notion that was only developed in the 1950s. Therefore, this chapter focuses less on the phenomenon of pillarization itself and statistics about various confessional organizations that long dominated Dutch society, and more on different understandings of the pillarization process and its theoretical underpinnings and implications. This theoretical focus gives the chapter a somewhat different character than the rest of the book. For a start, ‘pillarization’ is best conceived as a technical term to denote the politico-denominational segregation of a society. The term verzuiling was coined in the Netherlands and many scholars have argued that Dutch (and to a lesser extent Belgian) society was a prime example of this type of segmentation, or segregation. I will deal with this question later, but for now it is important to bear in mind the deep split that existed within Reformed Protestantism in the Netherlands between Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinists and the majority of more moderate Protestants who disapproved of Kuyper’s Doleantie (Secession) and who remained within the Dutch Reformed Church.¹ New social and religious movements also emerged in other countries in the late nineteenth century, becoming politically influential and creating their own institutions and organizations. ¹ Thus, strictly speaking, there was no single (unified) Protestant pillar, as there were various orthodox Protestant groups with their own organizations and a large number of liberally inclined Protestants who were strongly opposed to the idea of such a pillar. For the purposes of this chapter, however, it is convenient to include the various orthodox groups under one umbrella. For more historical details see Chapters 4 (on Dutch modernism and its decline) and 7 (on Kuyper’s rhetoric); see also Joris van Eijnatten and Fred van Lieburg, Nederlandse Religiegeschiedenis, Hilversum: Verloren, 2005; German translation: Niederländische Religionsgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010; and Annemarie Houkes, Christelijke vaderlanders. Godsdienst, burgerschap en de Nederlandse natie (1850–1900), Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 2009.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0009

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

140

   

Socialists and ultramontane Catholics were influential elsewhere in Europe, but Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinists seem peculiar to the Netherlands. Although Kuyper framed Neo-Calvinism as a world-leading historical power, this movement was closely tied to Dutch national history.² What these three movements had in common is that they were popular, they engaged large numbers of people, and they employed modern mass media such as daily newspapers, the radio, and mass rallies. They all invoked ritual behaviour (Kuyper even introduced a special pronunciation of the name of God) and presented an unmistakable ideology that distinguished them clearly from their antagonists. There are almost as many definitions of pillarization as there are scholars dealing with this complex phenomenon. Notwithstanding the lack of consensus about the exact meaning of the terminology, many sociologists in the 1950s and 1960s spoke about ‘social blocks of organizations’ that were based on different worldviews (or confessions).³ One prominent scholar stressed the fact that pillarization is not the same as denominationalism (the coexistence of various denominations or confessions), as it implies that all walks of life (such as education, hospitals, and sporting clubs) are organized separately according to denomination or worldview.⁴ Although the dramatic stories about children being forbidden to play with neighbourhood children from another denomination may be somewhat exaggerated, there is no denying that walls of separation existed between the various groups in the Netherlands. Recently, other less rigid terms have been suggested, such as ‘heavy communities’,⁵ but I doubt that the old notion of ‘pillars’ will disappear any time soon, given that it has gained such currency. In this chapter, I will primarily discuss what the term ‘pillarization’ means and what its implications are in the Dutch context. Clearly, it has at least been a significant metaphor for identifying the religio-social structure of the Netherlands from the late nineteenth century to the 1960s. But what does the term actually refer to and how is it analytically helpful? I will show that the notion of ‘pillarization’ carries various theoretical overtones, making it difficult to discern what its use exactly entails. First, I will discuss the history of the concept; second, I will give a quick overview of the history of the research; third, I will analyse the theoretical aspects; fourth, I will address pillarization as part of the process of modernization;

² Peter van Rooden, ‘Secularization, Dechristianization and Rechristianization in the Netherlands’, in Hartmut Lehmann, ed., Säkularisierung, Dechristianisierung, Rechristianisierung im neuzeitlichen Europa. Bilanz und Perspektiven der Forschung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997, pp. 131–153. ³ J.P. Kruijt and W. Goddijn, ‘Verzuiling en Ontzuiling als sociologisch proces’, in A.N.J. den Hollander, E.W. Hofstee, J.J.A. van Doorn, and E.V.W. Vercruysse, eds., Drift en Koers. Een halve eeuw sociale verandering in Nederland, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1961, pp. 227–263. ⁴ Kruijt, ‘Volksgemeenschap en Verzuiling’, Socialisme en Democratie 13 (1956) 121–126, p. 122. ⁵ Peter van Dam, Staat van verzuiling. Over een Nederlandse mythe, Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 2011.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



141

and finally, I will place the phenomenon into a broader European perspective and make some concluding remarks.

History of the Concept The modern religio-political concept of pillars and pillarization goes back to the mid-1930s, when the Dutch government insisted on a need for various ‘pillars’— social democratic, Catholic, Protestant, and ‘general’ (or even ‘liberal’)—to support the unemployed during the economic crisis.⁶ Civil servants apparently tried to organize the many associations and organizations involved in the fight against unemployment on the basis of different worldviews. It was difficult to link the ‘general’ or ‘liberal’ organizations, as they did not see themselves as a particular group but claimed to represent the general interest.⁷ The liberal leaders (and modernist theologians alike) aimed to contribute to the emancipation and interests of the people in general,⁸ whereas the leaders of the other pillars organized their own constituencies on the basis of their various ideologies. The implied segmentation in this system did not square with the old liberal ideal of national unity and indeed the idea of pillarization suggests that the separated pillars together support the national roof.⁹ The modern notion of ‘pillar’ was thus documented in the 1930s. About the history of the term ‘pillarization’ we know even less. It was much used in the 1950s and a database of Dutch newspapers shows a sharp rise from eight mentions in the period 1951–1953 to 121 in 1954 and 203 in 1955, after which the curve declined slightly.¹⁰ Many contributions were critical of the process. The first occurrence in the sense that concerns us here is an article in the Amsterdam newspaper Het ⁶ Jaap Talsma, ‘Verantwoording’, in J.C.H. Blom and J. Talsma, eds., De verzuiling voorbij. Godsdienst, stand en natie in de lange negentiende eeuw, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2000, pp. ix–xi, here p. ix; cf. Piet de Rooij, ‘Zes studies over verzuiling’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 10 (1995) 380–389, pp. 385–386. In the evening edition of the Catholic journal De Tijd from 29 April 1938, C.P.J. Bannenberg referred to the four ‘pillars that rest on the four world (life) views (levensbeschouwingen) of the Dutch people’; cf. J.C.H. Blom, ‘Onderzoek naar verzuiling in Nederland. Status quaestionis en wenselijke ontwikkeling’, in J.C.H. Blom and C. J. Misset, eds., Broeders sluit U aan. Aspecten van verzuiling in zeven Hollandse gemeenten, Den Haag: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1985, pp. 10–29, at p. 10. The ‘pillar’ metaphor can, however, be found in earlier texts. The Minister for the Catholic Worship, Jacobus Arnoldus Mutsaerts, wrote in September 1853 that ‘Catholic unity, i.e. the pillar, will not fall’; quoted after J.H.J.M. Witlox, Studiën over het herstel der hiërarchie in 1853, Tilburg: [no publishing house indicated], 1928, p. 72. Piet de Rooij, Republiek van rivaliteiten. Nederland sinds 1813, Amsterdam: Mets & Schilt, 2002, pp. 71–72, refers incorrectly to J. Smits, the chief editor of the journal De Tijd, as the author of this quotation. ⁷ In fact, they also defended their own interests of course, but it is important to note in this context that liberals did not want a pillar of their own. ⁸ See Chapter 4 in this volume. ⁹ Hilda Verwey-Jonker, ‘De emancipatie-bewegingen’, in Hollander et al., eds., Drift en Koers. Een halve eeuw sociale verandering in Nederland, pp. 105–125, p. 123; Ivo Schöffer, ‘Verzuiling, een specifiek Nederlands probleem’, Sociologische Gids 3 (1956) 121–127, p. 121. ¹⁰ See delpher.nl.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

142

   

Parool from 8 October 1951, which referred to a speech by the liberal Protestant minister and main ideologue of the Labour Party, Willem Banning, who described his work as a protest against ‘pillarization’. The rise in frequency in the years 1954–1955 may be related to the famous pastoral letter of the Dutch bishops from 1 May 1954, in which they called upon their flock to organize themselves in their own circles and not to vote for Labour, which at that time was also trying to attract Christian workers.¹¹ In 1956 the main Dutch sociological journal published various articles on this subject and a year later the Labour Party journal devoted a special issue to pillarization. The concept had a negative connotation from the very beginning. As a motto for his contribution, the young sociologist J.J.A. van Doorn chose a quotation from the well-known theologian and scholar of religion Gerardus van der Leeuw, who had exclaimed soon after the Second World War: ‘Did we not exchange one type of totalitarianism for another?’¹² Van Doorn noted that the negative overtones of the notion hindered an objective treatment of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, he defined pillarization in pejorative terms as a system of social control in which ideal values tended to be overtaken by the organization and organizational control was ideologically justified.¹³ The special issue of the Labour Party journal spoke about one of the ‘most urgent issues’ of our time. At that time Labour was not in favour of a social democratic pillar and had founded working groups of various confessions and worldviews (Protestant, Catholic, and humanist) within the party. The internal reproduction of the pillars within the party was intended to lead to their dissolution. Protestant social democrats in particular fought against the pillarization system. This programme was called the break-through and was designed to enable Labour to play its role as a party that overcame confessional differences. Instead of segregation, Labour wanted the integration of people, and particularly workers, who had different personal worldviews and religious backgrounds. In this respect they had the same difficulty with the system as the liberals. Various contributors to the special issue interpreted the foundation of the Labour Party in 1946 as a rejection of the whole idea of pillarization.¹⁴ ¹¹ A.F. Manning, ‘Uit de voorgeschiedenis van het mandement van 1954’, in Jaarboek Katholiek Documentatie Centrum 1971, Nijmegen, 1972, pp. 138–146; J. Hinke, ‘Bisschoppelijk mandement 1954 in pers en politiek mei 1954—februari 1955’, in Jaarboek Katholiek Documentatie Centrum 1979, Nijmegen, 1979, pp. 73–116. ¹² J.J.A. van Doorn, ‘Verzuiling. Een eigentijds system van sociale controle’, Sociologische Gids 3 (1956) 41–49. Gerardus van der Leeuw, ‘Het cultureel aspect van de confessionele splitsing in de Kerk van Christus’, Wending 2 (1947/48) 647–659, p. 659 (specifically aimed at the Roman Catholic Church); cf. Arie L. Molendijk, ‘Au fond. The Phenomenology of Gerardus van der Leeuw’, Journal for the History of Modern Theology 25 (2018) 51–68. ¹³ Van Doorn, ‘Verzuiling’, p. 42. ¹⁴ Hilda Verwey-Jonker, ‘De psychologie van de verzuiling’, Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1957) 30–39; Willem Banning, ‘De nieuwe weg’, Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1957) 73–79; see also Banning’s extremely critical article: ‘Verzuiling’, in Willem Banning, Om Mens en Menselijkheid in Maatschappij

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



143

Overview of the Research One of the early and most influential scholars, the sociologist J.P. Kruijt, distinguished three ‘circles’ or strata which—taken together—were characteristic of pillarization.¹⁵ First, there is a plurality of churches (denominationalism); second, there are institutions with educational and charitable roles, such as schools and hospitals; and third, there are many types of organizations and institutions that undertake societal activities (on a religious basis), such as unions, sporting clubs, libraries, political parties, radio and television networks, farmers’ associations, and musical societies. Kruijt regarded this third circle as crucial and he argued that the level of participation in these organizations in the Netherlands was much higher than in countries such as Britain, Austria, and Switzerland. Only Belgium was somewhat similar to the Netherlands, as it had ‘two mighty blocks of organizations, the socialist and the Catholic’.¹⁶ For Catholics and orthodox Protestants in the Netherlands in the 1950s, the degree of participation in primary schools, unions, membership of a broadcasting corporation and political choice was estimated at about 90 per cent.¹⁷ If participation had been 100 per cent, the only opportunity to meet members of other pillars would be at work, in the army, when shopping (insofar as this was not pillarized), and on the street. The depillarization process started in the 1970s. Again, it is very difficult to establish reliable numbers, but one study of regional pillarization shows a drop of some 80 per cent between 1925 and 1988.¹⁸ Although at present there are still institutions such as schools that have a confessional stamp, the social segmentation of various groups on the basis of different worldviews (or confessions) has come to an end, with the possible exception of some smaller orthodox Protestant groups.¹⁹ An attempt in the 1990s to establish an Islamic pillar has failed.²⁰ The peak of pillarization was in the 1950s and some sociologists have confined the phenomenon to the period between 1917 and 1968. In this view, it started with en Politiek, Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1960, pp. 165–179. On Banning and his crucial role in the establishment of the Labour Party, see Arie L. Molendijk, ‘Willem Banning and the Reform of Socialism in the Netherlands’, Contemporary European History 29 (2020) 139–154. ¹⁵ J.P. Kruijt, ‘Sociologische beschouwingen over zuilen en verzuiling’, Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1957) 11–29. ¹⁶ Kruijt, ‘Sociologische beschouwingen’, p. 17. ¹⁷ Tables in Kruijt and Goddijn, ‘Verzuiling en Ontzuiling’, pp. 237–239; Harry Post, Pillarization: An Analysis of Dutch and Belgian Society, Aldershot: Avebury, 1989, pp. 181–183. ¹⁸ Paul Pennings, Verzuiling en ontzuiling. De lokale verschillen. Opbouw, instandhouding en neergang van plaatselijke zuilen in verschillende delen van Nederland na 1880, Kampen: Kok, 1991, pp. 200–203. Pennings also argues that the degree of pillarization on a regional level was lower than the numbers suggested by Kruijt and Goddijn. ¹⁹ C.S.L. Janse, Bewaar het pand. De spanning tussen assimilatie en persistentie bij de emancipatie van de bevindelijk gereformeerden, Houten: Den Hertog, 1985. ²⁰ Arie L. Molendijk, ‘The Low Countries’, in Grace Davie and Lucian Leustean, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, on Islam in Dutch society.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

144

   

the ‘pacification’ in 1917, which not only gave the vote to all male adults (women were given the same right in 1919), but also put confessional schools on the same footing as state schools, which meant that these too were fully funded with taxpayers’ money. In this view, the 1968 revolt is considered as marking the beginning of the end of pillarization, as the revolt basically targeted authoritarian structures that were an integral part of the system. Historical research, however, has shown that confessional mobilization and organization began in the 1870s. A point of controversy is whether long-existing confessional differences were articulated in organizational terms, or whether leaders more or less forged these opposing blocs through skilful agitation.²¹ It is probably best not to overstate this opposition, but to acknowledge that confessional differences did exist before the process of pillarization actually began and that men like Kuyper greatly magnified these pre-existing differences and indeed created these confessional institutions, including a large propaganda machine. In his influential book The Politics of Accommodation (1968), the DutchAmerican political scientist Arend Lijphart brought the idea of pillarization to international attention. He referred to Benjamin Disraeli’s ‘somewhat exaggerated’ characterization of nineteenth-century England as two separated nations of the rich and the poor to explain the situation in the Netherlands. In his 1845 novel Sybil, or The Two Nations, Disraeli dealt with the awful conditions in which the working classes lived and summarized the opposition between the two groups as follows: ‘[N]ations (among) whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by different food, are ordered by different manners.’²² According to Lijphart, these words apply ‘excellently’ to the Dutch pillars as well. Again, one may add, a ‘somewhat exaggerated’ characterization. The key question in Lijphart’s book was how a deeply segmented country such as the Netherlands could be one of the most successful and stable democracies in the world. If the gulf between the various groups was so great, political cooperation would seem almost impossible. Here, Lijphart pointed to two key factors: first, the Dutch shared a basic sense of patriotism and, second, the pillars made it possible to overcome class distinctions, as people from very different social backgrounds could meet each other within pillarized organizations. The principal ²¹ Peter van Rooden, Religieuze Regimes. Over godsdienst en maatschappij in Nederland, 1570–1999, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1996; Peter van Rooden, ‘Studies naar locale verzuiling als toegang tot de geschiedenis van de constructie van religieuze verschillen in Nederland’, Theoretische Geschiedenis 20 (1993) 439–454, p. 452; J.E. Ellemers, [review article] ‘Studies over verzuiling. De stand van zaken aan het eind van de jaren negentig’, Sociologische Gids 45 (1998) 426–439. ²² Arend Lijphart, Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de Nederlandse politiek, Amsterdam: De Bussy, 1968, p. 63; Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968, p. 58, without the quotation and only a general reference to Disraeli.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



145

explanation for Dutch success, however, was in Lijphart’s view the ‘pacification policy’ of the various elites who worked pragmatically together and solved conflicts. Thus, the docility of the ‘masses’, the cooperation between the pillarized elites and the ‘spirit of accommodation’ guaranteed the miracle of stable democracy in the Netherlands.²³ The publication of Lijphart’s book in 1968 more or less marked the end of this successful model. Critics have argued that his core idea of elites that ruled the country reveals a democratic deficit and that the book thus unintentionally supported the reform programme of the 1968 generation.²⁴ Since the 1980s the phenomenon has not only been studied by sociologists and political scientists, but also by human geographers and historians. Historians started a research programme on local pillarization, assuming that the concept was vague and contested but nevertheless referred to real phenomena that had to be analysed and explained. The programme leader, Amsterdam historian Hans Blom, argued for an open approach and defined pillarization tentatively as the degree to which people intentionally undertake socio-cultural and political activities within their own circles, which are characterized by their confession or worldview.²⁵ Local studies of various Dutch towns showed a large variety of forms of ‘pillarization’; the only comparative study conveyed the impression that the two towns in question had little in common.²⁶ A reviewer of the six books that came out of this research programme suggested a need for more precise distinctions between the various phases of the process and for extreme care in theorizing the concept, claiming that the degree of pillarization is very difficult to measure.²⁷ Blom himself spoke of the ‘devastating’ impact of the entire programme and concluded that ‘pillarization’ can at most be used as a metaphor to refer to the division of Dutch society into four different ideological groups: Catholics,

²³ M.P.C.M. van Schendelen, ‘The Views of Arend Lijphart and Collected Criticisms’, Acta Politica 19 (1984) 19–55; cf. Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (1977), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980, p. 25: ‘Consociational democracy can be defined in terms of four characteristics. The first and most important element is government by a grand coalition of the political leaders of all significant segments of the plural society . . . . [the three other elements are] (1) the mutual veto or “concurrent majority” rule, which serves as an additional protection of vital minority interests, (2) proportionality as the principal standard of political representation, civil service appointments, and allocation of public funds, and (3) a high degree of autonomy for each segment to run its own internal affairs.’ ²⁴ Hans Daalder, ‘On the Origins of the Consociational Democracy Model’, Acta Politica 19 (1984) 97–116, p. 113: ‘Perhaps one reason for the attraction of the Lijphart model in the Netherlands has been that it seemed to legitimate [sic] the reform programme of those who wanted the Netherlands to be new and different, more “democratic”, away from consociational practices on the road to clear choices and causes’; cf. Daalder, ‘Consociationalism: Center and Periphery in the Netherlands’, in Per Torsvik, ed., Mobilization, Center-Periphery Structures and Nation-Building, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1981, pp. 181–240. ²⁵ Blom, ‘Onderzoek naar verzuiling in Nederland’, p. 17. ²⁶ Jan van Miert, Wars van clubgeest en partijzucht. Liberalen, natie en verzuiling, Tiel en Winschoten 1850–1920, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994. ²⁷ De Rooij, ‘Zes studies’, pp. 383–386.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

146

   

Protestants (of various kinds), social democrats, and liberals. This division manifested itself in various ways and was the result of dissimilar, but nevertheless connected processes.²⁸ This sounds somewhat vague, and one almost gets the impression that the nitty-gritty work of historical research, which concentrated on ‘pillarization’ in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, is not the best way to understand the essentially national process of pillarization that had its peak in the 1950s. The human geographers Hans Knippenberg and Herman van der Wusten do not share the scepticism of these historians about the usefulness of the concept and they define pillarization as a process of ethnicization on the basis of religious difference.²⁹ Here, ‘ethnicization’ means that a cultural characteristic defines the sharp distinction between groups. In this view, pillarization is a specific form of ethnicization and segmentation, in which there is a structure of connected organizations. This structure is embedded in a political context, which ‘in its purest form’ includes a political party.³⁰ This approach sees pillarization primarily as a phenomenon that has to be understood on the national level. It does not confine the idea to Dutch society, as such processes take place in other plural societies as well. Although Knippenberg and Van der Wusten build on older sociological research, their approach broadens the concept somewhat. Pillarization is not—to put it as concisely and poignantly as possible—primarily about closed blocs, in which people spend their entire lives, but refers to ethnically characterized complexes of connected organizations.

Theories about Pillarization and Depillarization Given the contested definition of pillarization, it hardly comes as a surprise that attempts to explain the pillarization process also differ considerably. Hans Blom has listed several aspects and dimensions of theorizing, which may be connected in various ways in different contexts.³¹ First, there is the motive of emancipating disadvantaged groups, either religious (Catholics and orthodox Protestants) or social (workers or the lower middle class). Second, the motive of defence and protection against secularizing tendencies, especially the allegedly neutral state. The main success here was the ‘pacification’ of 1917, which introduced the public ²⁸ Blom, ‘Vernietigende kracht en nieuwe vergezichten. Het onderzoeksproject verzuiling op lokaal niveau geëvalueerd’, in Blom and Talsma, eds., De verzuiling voorbij, pp. 203–236, here pp. 233 and 236. ²⁹ Hans Knippenberg and Herman van der Wusten, ‘De zuilen, hun lokale manifestaties en hun restanten in vergelijkend perspectief ’, in Corrie van Eijl, Lex Heerma van Voss, and Piet de Rooij, eds., Sociaal Nederland. Contouren van de twintigste eeuw, Amsterdam: Aksant, 2001, pp. 129–150 and 238–241, p. 130; Van Rooden, ‘Studies naar locale verzuiling’, p. 447. ³⁰ Knippenberg and Van der Wusten, ‘De zuilen’, p. 137. ³¹ Blom, ‘Onderzoek naar verzuiling in Nederland’, pp. 13–15.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



147

funding of confessional schools. Third, often connected with the protection thesis, is the element of social control of the people by the elites, which also helped to mitigate class differences. Fourth, there are scholars (such as Lijphart) who focus on the question of political stability in a pluralistic society and the relationship between elites and the common people. The issue of the growth in political participation and involvement can also be understood from this perspective. Finally, the relationship between the various subcultures and the state is an important topic, with the pillars supposedly supporting the ‘roof ’ of the nation. Blom’s survey concluded that there are ‘many approaches, many points of departure, and many interpretations’.³² This is a truism; so we still need a more systematic classification of theories of pillarization, which I borrow from the work of Paul Pennings. He divides the theories into three groups: 1. theories of emancipation and protection that refer principally to only one pillar (and focus on the actors’ motives) 2. theories of social control that explain the emergence of the whole system by the actions of elites (and focus on how elites and institutions actually behaved and manoeuvred) 3. theories that describe and explain pillarization by reference to processes of modernization and the unification of the nation (and focus on the social context in which the actors operated).³³ Given the huge variety of studies from different disciplines, this division is, of course, open to criticism.³⁴ It is not a completely unequivocal division, as the work of Lijphart, for example, could be placed in both the second and third categories (although it fits the second better). The third group is not precisely characterized and apparently has to cater for all the theories that do not fit the first two categories. It is not my intention here to simply criticize these divisions or choose between them, but to look at what the various perspectives have to offer. In the emancipation and control theories, interests are important. The emancipation thesis is primarily concerned with general social interests and to a lesser extent religious emancipation. Abraham Kuyper, as we saw above, fought for the social position of his lower middle-class followers. Theories of protection implied that the identity of one’s own pillar had to be strengthened. This concerned not only religious interests, but also protecting the pillar against threats from outside. For example, Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinists had to be protected against the antireligious socialist workers’ movement. The protection thesis is mainly applied to the

³² Blom, ‘Onderzoek naar verzuiling in Nederland’, p. 14. ³³ Pennings, Verzuiling en ontzuiling, p. 2. ³⁴ One example is Dirk Jan Wolffram, Bezwaarden en Verlichten. Verzuiling in een Gelderse provinciestad. Harderwijk 1850–1925, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1993, pp. 250–251.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

148

   

Catholic pillar,³⁵ which was supposed to be more reactive and self-contained, whereas the social democrats and Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinists polemicized more strongly and were more open to the outside world. Both types of theory have been heavily criticized. The pillarization of the socialist workers could be explained by reference to class interests, but is this also true of the confessional pillars, which were much more socially mixed? Another question is who were actually emancipated within the pillars that were organized in a top-down fashion? These are legitimate considerations, but there is no denying that the process of pillarization led to many people being engaged in the political, social, and ecclesial domains. The authoritarian structure of the pillars did, of course, preclude the full emancipation of men, women, and minority groups. The elite theories focus on the leading role of the elites—both internally (internal coordination) and externally (cooperating with the leaders of the other pillars). Here the idea emerged that the pillars together supported the national roof—an idea that was not always so clear to their respective constituencies. In this context, scholars have stressed the willingness at the top to cooperate. Yet to mobilize their constituencies, the leaders also had to differentiate themselves from other—opposing—groups. In this view the social oppositions were to a certain extent created by the leaders, who mobilized and disciplined their people. It has been established that the elites created polarizations to ensure their own power within their group.³⁶ Thus, pillarization is understood as a process of control and discipline. The advantage of elite and control theories is that they are applicable to all pillars and thus explain the process of pillarization better than emancipation and protection theories, which have limited and varying application to the various blocs.

Pillarization and Modernization The correlation between pillarization and modernization seems obvious, as pillarization ipso facto means the emergence of modern organizations and overarching forms of cooperation between them. Pillarization also helped integrate relatively marginal groups and regions into the Dutch nation, which industrialized rather late in the nineteenth century. It has been argued that pillarization as a modern form of social control emerged out of the confrontation between late industrialization and modernization on the one hand and the tradition of power ³⁵ Hans Righart, De katholieke zuil in Europa. Het ontstaan van verzuiling onder katholieken in Oostenrijk, Zwitserland, België en Nederland, Meppel: Boom, 1986, pp. 30–33. ³⁶ Ilja Scholten, ‘Does Consociationalism Exist? A Critique of the Dutch Experience’, in Richard Rose, ed., Electoral Participation: A Comparative Analysis, Beverly Hills and London: Sage, 1980, pp. 329–354, esp. pp. 339–341.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



149

distribution among the old elites on the other.³⁷ This thesis sounds plausible but is hard to test because it is couched in such general terms. In any case, it is clear that religious convictions played a fundamental role in the process of pillarization. Because the elites stressed the differences in worldview and confession and founded a whole gamut of organizations based on these oppositions, a segmented or pillarized form of integration came about. Thus, disadvantaged religious groups such as Catholics and orthodox Protestants were integrated into the larger whole of the Netherlands and regional boundaries and social differences were overcome.³⁸ The vagueness of the concept of modernization makes it difficult to come to a general conclusion about the relationship between modernization and pillarization. Although pillarization is definitely a modern phenomenon, the theory of protection argues that the confessional pillars were founded to protect people against secularizing influences. Could it be argued that the form is modern, whereas the ideology is not? This conclusion would be too rash. The entire system has a modern pluralistic character, which implies the acknowledgement of a plurality of worldviews. Furthermore, the process of pillarization suggested the emancipation of disadvantaged groups through engagement as voters and citizens in a network of societal organizations. To further clarify the issues at play here, it may be helpful to look briefly at the process of depillarization that started in the 1970s. The rise of the welfare state made people less dependent on pillarized organizations. Increased affluence, mobility, and communication (especially the introduction of television) caused the barriers between the pillars to crumble. The crisis of authority is another important factor that undermined the power of the pillars, which had a top-down structure. Strong emancipation movements and the establishment of gay and LGBT rights, for which the Netherlands is well known today, only developed in the course of the depillarization process. Educational practices changed fundamentally as the old mechanisms of social control were seen as unacceptable. The old elite modus operandi was condemned as patriarchal by the young revolutionaries of the late 1960s and 1970s.³⁹ This points to the latent tension between

³⁷ Erik H. Bax, Modernization and Cleavage in Dutch Society: A Study of Long Term Economic and Social Change, Aldershot: Avebury, 1990; Siep Stuurman, Verzuiling, Kapitalisme en Patriarchaat. Aspecten van de ontwikkeling van de moderne staat in Nederland, Nijmegen: SUN, 1983; Janneke Adema, ‘Verzuiling als metafoor voor modernisering’, in Madelon de Keizer and Sophie Tates, eds., Moderniteit. Modernisme en massacultuur in Nederland 1914–1940 (Vijftiende jaarboek van het Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie), Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 2004, pp. 265–283. ³⁸ Hans Knippenberg and Ben de Pater, De eenwording van Nederland. Schaalvergroting en integratie sinds 1800 (1988), 2nd revised edition, Nijmegen: SUN, 1990. ³⁹ For the role of elites in the depillarization process, see James C. Kennedy, Nieuw Babylon in aanbouw. Nederland in de jaren zestig, Amsterdam: Boom, 1995; Kennedy, A Concise History of the Netherlands, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 388–449; Hugh McLeod, The Religious Crisis of the 1960s, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

150

   

emancipation (of members) and control (by elites) in the pillarization process, which later became more explicit and which helps to explain its demise.

An International Perspective I have focused thus far on pillarization in the Netherlands, but one might ask whether it would not be useful to place the phenomenon in a somewhat wider international perspective. A broader, and in my view particularly fruitful, approach is suggested by the Belgian sociologist Staf Hellemans. Typologically, he distinguishes three meanings of what pillarization entails. First, he identifies the organizational pillarization of a section of the population; second, there are cases of a complete segmentation of society with more or less closed subcultures; and third, he uses the term to refer to the political pacification of these subcultures within a consociational democracy.⁴⁰ According to Hellemans, we find only one pillar in France—a communist pillar, whereas in Italy, the Catholic milieu founded its own network of organizations (including a political party) alongside the communist pillar. Hellemans singles out the Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria as examples of countries where pillarization had been the dominant form of segmentation and where the political elites of the subcultures cooperated closely and peacefully.⁴¹ Hugh McLeod points to Germany as a very good example of the ‘formation of highly organised subculture(s)’ in the late nineteenth century, where the Catholics and Social Democrats in particular developed extensive networks of organizations with a ‘strong sense of group solidarity’.⁴² Hellemans also places pillarization in the broader context of emerging social movements in the nineteenth century. These movements tried to mobilize people on a national scale; to that end, they created organizations that could lead to pillarized subcultures. After 1870, large numbers of people in Europe gradually became involved in supra-local networks and activities—economically (in workers’ associations), politically (by extending the right to vote), and culturally (in the development of primary and secondary education). Hellemans explains the prominence of Catholic and socialist pillars through their orientation towards the collective, whereas liberals and Protestants emphasized the autonomy of the individual. Here, he distinguishes between primary pillars and secondary pillars, which were forced to adapt to the new structure to maintain their position. This

⁴⁰ Staf Hellemans, ‘Zuilen en verzuiling in Europa’ (Pillars and Pillarization in Europe), in Uwe Becker, ed., Nederlandse politiek in historisch en vergelijkend perspectief (Dutch Politics in a Historical and Comparative Perspective), Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1993, pp. 121–150, p. 122. ⁴¹ Staf Hellemans, ‘Pillarization (“Verzuiling”): On Organized “Self-Contained Worlds” in the Modern World’, The American Sociologist 51/2 (2020) 124–147. ⁴² Hugh McLeod, Secularization in Western Europe, 1848–1913, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000, p. 208.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



151

explains why the Dutch liberal modernists, who essentially saw themselves as representing the general common interest, had a hard time adjusting to the new polarized situation.

Concluding Remarks The above account shows how diverse the concepts and theories of pillarization are. The term ‘pillarization’ refers to a constellation in which religion (confession, worldview), state, and society are related to each other in a particular way, but the question of just how they relate cannot be easily settled. At least to some extent, this is no doubt due to the various scholarly perspectives and approaches. Another factor—as far as the Netherlands is concerned—is that pillarization forms part of the national memory. Some people still have nostalgic memories of a period when representatives of different social classes could easily meet, whereas nowadays there is a ‘pillarization’ on the basis of income and education. Most people, however, are happy to have left this time of ‘petty’ differentiation and authoritarian policies firmly behind. ‘Pillarization’ has become a lieu de mémoire in modern Dutch history. It is both a contested and a cherished notion. An important characteristic of Dutch pillarization is the strength of the system that forced even reluctant groups to establish a pillar. The liberals were not in favour but nevertheless developed their own pillar. The Labour Party’s wish to address the Dutch people in general and not a particular (labour) constituency was not enough to bring the system down. The different points of view of the various groups also largely explain the differing degrees of pillarization. The liberals reluctantly created their own organizations, which formed a relatively weak pillar, which is sometimes called the liberal milieu. The socialists were much more tightly organized than the liberals and were part of an international movement. The Catholics and Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinists had the strongest networks, which powerfully shaped the identities of their members. Their lives were lived within the pillar. This heterogeneity raises the question of whether or not the term suggests a false symmetry and uniformity and may also explain why it is so hard to develop a general theory on pillarization. A further basic characteristic of Dutch pillarization is its pluralistic character. In this respect the following characterization captures the Dutch situation rather well: ‘A pillar is . . . defined as a subsystem in society that links political power, social organization and individual behaviour and which is aimed to promote—in competition as well as in cooperation with other social and political groups—goals inspired by a common ideology shared by its members for whom the pillar and its ideology is the main locus of social identification.’⁴³ A social distance exists ⁴³ Bax, Modernization and Cleavage in Dutch Society, p. 104.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

152

   

between the members of the various pillars, which are characterized by large networks of connected organizations, whereas peaceful coexistence is guaranteed by the elites who negotiate with each other and try to reach compromise. The degree of consensus that was reached in this consociational democracy is remarkable. The ensuing period of depillarization has brought Dutch society greater freedom, but not necessarily greater stability. This chapter has shown again how modern Abraham Kuyper was and how difficult the position of liberals and modernists was, ideologically and politically. The modernist and liberal strategy to unite all Protestants under one integrated banner was counterproductive, as Kuyper articulated religious and societal differences between various denominations. In this way his Neo-Calvinists (together with the Catholics and socialists) almost forced their liberal opponents against their better instincts to build organizations of their own, which inevitably had a weaker ideological foundation. Not only did Kuyper’s ideology have a modern character (as shown in Chapter 6), but the entire organizational structure that he created modernized Dutch politics and society. Pillarization was fundamentally a plural system, which enabled the emancipation of groups that were lagging behind in Dutch society. And at the same time the groups were controlled by strong leaders who pacified differences they themselves had articulated within a consociational democracy with a strong authoritarian character. This tension between emancipation and control would ultimately lead to the demise of the system, as strong emancipatory tendencies became dominant in the Netherlands in the 1960s and 1970s.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

PART IV

THEOLOGY REVISITED

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

9 Historical-Critical Analysis of the Bible and the Rise of Science of Religion The two most significant theological developments in the second half of the nineteenth century in the Netherlands were the rise of the critical study of biblical texts, and the emergence of the comparative study of religion as a separate discipline, which in Dutch was called Godsdienstwetenschap (‘science of religion’; German: Religionswissenschaft). Both developments show the ongoing historization of the field, which was happening in other countries as well.¹ Famously, in Germany the systematic theologian Ernst Troeltsch argued that it was imperative to apply historical methods in modern theology and leave the authoritative dogmatic method behind us.² These new ideas and approaches were a major factor in the reform of the theological training programme at Dutch universities in 1876. Since then students first enrolled in the more scholarly state programme (with professors appointed by the state), before they switched to the ‘practical’ ecclesial field of dogmatic and practical theology, taught by professors appointed by the Dutch Reformed Church. In a roundabout way, the modernist theological perspective became visible in the reorganization of academic theology at the state universities. To some extent, these are all interrelated phenomena, which is the reason to discuss them in one chapter. These themes will be dealt with in exemplary case studies. First, I will analyse the contribution of Abraham Kuenen to the rise of the critical study of the Bible. At the time Kuenen was the most prominent Dutch Old Testament scholar, whose books were translated into English, German, and French. He assigned an entirely new date to the Pentateuch (‘the books of Moses’), and so revolutionized the study of the history of ancient Israel. His correspondence with his colleagues Julius Wellhausen and William Robertson Smith will be used to put Kuenen’s contribution into a wider, international perspective. Second, I will discuss the Dutch Radical School, whose members questioned the authenticity of the Pauline epistles and doubted the feasibility of giving a reliable account of the life of Jesus. Third, the reform of the theological curriculum at Dutch universities will be discussed.

¹ Thomas Albert Howard, Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. ² Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology’ (1900), in Troeltsch, Religion in History, trans. James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bensen, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991, pp. 11–32.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0010

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

156

   

Was it about adding the new discipline of ‘science of religion’ to the teaching programme, or was a complete reform of the course programme at stake? Finally, in a fourth section I will briefly introduce the work of two Dutch ‘pioneers’ of science of religion: Cornelis Petrus Tiele and Pierre Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye. Usually science of religion was divided into two subdisciplines: ‘history of religions’ and ‘philosophy of religion’. What was the aim of ‘comparative religion’, as the field was also called in the English-speaking world? In the conclusion, I will try to pull the various threads together.

Abraham Kuenen and the Study of the Old Testament Some of the Dutch nineteenth-century theologians were well known in Europe. There is a story about a visitor from Holland who came to a meeting of a group within the Anglican High Church, and was immediately suspected to be one of those ‘damned Dutch’, who had spoilt the country by importing Abraham Kuenen and Schiedam gin.³ Kuenen’s work was generally more appreciated by liberal theologians. In his outstanding book on the modern history of theology in Germany and Great Britain, the German Protestant theologian Otto Pfleiderer made one exception and included a discussion of the ‘critical labours’ of Kuenen, ‘which have had a decided influence on the progress of German theology’.⁴ Kuenen’s principal significance lies in his contribution to a historical appraisal of the various books of the Hebrew Bible and the reversal of its historical order as assumed until then. He demonstrated that the Prophets are generally spoken an older source than the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). This insight involved a new approach to the historiography of ancient Israel, starting with the relatively historically well-attested prophetic sources of the eighth century BCE. It was from there that Kuenen tried to reconstruct the earlier history of Israel. Pfleiderer compared this approach with that of Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), the head of the Tübingen School, who started with a discussion of the letters of Paul and then argued back to the earlier state of Christianity.⁵ The principle that the books of the Bible were to be studied as profane literature had, of course, been embraced earlier by the likes of Johann

³ K.H. Roessingh, Het Modernisme in Nederland (1922), an enlarged edition is reprinted in Roessingh, Verzamelde Werken [= VW], 4 vols., Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1926–1927, vol. IV, pp. 231–385, here p. 347. ⁴ Otto Pfleiderer, The Development of Theology in Germany since Kant, and its Progress in Great Britain since 1825, London and New York: Swan Sonnenschein and Macmillan, 1890, p. ix. ⁵ Pfleiderer, The Development of Theology, p. 261.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

157

Salomo Semler, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, and Johann Gottfried Herder.⁶ David Friedrich Strauss, however, went a step further in his Life of Jesus (1835), claiming that the miracles in the New Testament were later mythical additions that had no basis in actual history. In the preface to the book, Strauss made the following programmatic statement: The exegesis of the ancient church set out from the double presupposition: first, that the gospels contained a history, and secondly, that this history was a supernatural one. Rationalism rejected the latter of these presuppositions, but only to cling the more tenaciously to the former, maintaining that these books present unadulterated, though only natural, history. Science cannot rest satisfied with this half-measure: the first presupposition must also be relinquished, and the inquiry must first be made whether in fact, and to what extent, the ground on which we stand in the gospels is historical.⁷

Thus, the radical anti-supernatural viewpoint of the Tübingen School was put forward by Strauss. Baur claimed the right of a purely historical interpretation, which meant that ‘there could be no supernatural or miraculous events in history, because the supernatural realm (if it exists) lies outside history and is therefore unknowable’.⁸ Kuenen endorsed this point of view and strongly criticized supernatural and Christological interpretations of the Old Testament. Given his importance Abraham Kuenen figures prominently in two chapters of this book. His role in the Dutch modernist movement and his general contribution to a new understanding of the Bible have already been discussed in the chapter on modernism. Here I want to outline his contribution to the study of the Old Testament and the history of ancient Israel. I will not go into the details, but focus on the underlying presuppositions and major results of the new approach. A thorough analysis of the development of the study of the Old Testament in the second half of the nineteenth century would require a rather

⁶ Two important recent books on the critical study of the Bible in seventeenth-century Holland are Dirk van Miert, The Emancipation of Biblical Philology in the Dutch Republic, 1590–1670, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, and Jetze Touber, Spinoza and Biblical Philology in the Dutch Republic, 1660–1710, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. ⁷ David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1848, 1892, 1898), translated from the fourth German edition by George Eliot, London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1902, p. xxix (from the preface to the first German edition [1835]). The edition must be a reprint of the first translation that the future novelist had published in 1848, which was based on the fourth edition of the German work of 1840; cf. Pfleiderer, The Development of Theology, p. 213 (different translation). ⁸ Horton Harris, The Tübingen School, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975, p. 251. F.C. Baur, Das Christenthum und die christliche Kirche der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Tübingen: Fues, 1853, pp. iv–v: ‘Mein Standpunkt ist mit Einem Worte der rein geschichtliche, auf welchem es einzig darum zu thun ist, das geschichtlich Gegebene, so weit es überhaupt möglich ist, in seiner reinen Objectivität aufzufassen.’

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

158

   

technical exposition of how exactly scholars analysed the various sources in the books of the Hebrew Bible.⁹ Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891) studied Oriental languages with Theodoor Juynboll and theology with Jan Hendrik Scholten in Leiden. His dissertation, supervised by Juynboll, was an edition of the Arabic translation of chapters 1–32 of the book of Genesis of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In 1855 he became full professor of theology and taught a variety of disciplines such as ethics, the encyclopaedia of theology, hermeneutics and text criticism of the New Testament, and the Old Testament.¹⁰ His most important works concern this last field and were translated into major European languages. In the early 1860s Kuenen published the three volumes of his historico-critical examination of the origin and the composition of the books of the Old Testament.¹¹ The first part was translated into English by John William Colenso, the Anglican bishop of Natal in South Africa, and appeared in 1865 under the title The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined.¹² Colenso’s translation, together with his own extensive notes, was the first presentation of Kuenen’s work to a British audience. Kuenen retrospectively called the point of view he had taken in his earlier monumental study ‘a humiliating proof of the tyranny which the opinions we have once accepted often exercise over us’.¹³ The radical change of mind to which Kuenen refers here concerns the date of the so-called Grundschrift or Book of Origins, which was supposed to be the oldest layer of the Pentateuch and was split into narrative and law. In 1866 Kuenen arrived at the new insight that this could not be true and dated the Pentateuch much later. Thus, he rejected the then current theory of the German scholar Karl Heinrich Graf, who had explained the striking similarities between the priestly laws and the narratives in the Grundschrift by claiming that this was the result of imitation, centuries later.¹⁴ Graf accepted Kuenen’s correction, and so both law and narrative were attributed ⁹ Magne Sæbo, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. III/1 (The Nineteenth Century—A Century of Modernism and Historicism), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013, esp. Rudolf Smend, ‘The Work of Abraham Kuenen and Julius Wellhausen’, pp. 424–453 (ch. 15); cf. Cornelis Houtman, Der Pentateuch. Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994, pp. 98–114. ¹⁰ P.B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij, eds., Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891): His Major Contributions to the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden: Brill, 1993; C. Houtman, ‘Kuenen, Abraham’, in Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme, vol. IV. Kampen: Kok, 1998, pp. 270–274: http://www.biografischportaal.nl/persoon/07683744. ¹¹ Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols., Leiden: Engels, 1861–1865. ¹² Abraham Kuenen, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, trans. J.W. Colenso, London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, 1865. ¹³ Abraham Kuenen, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols, second, completely revised edition, Amsterdam: Van Looy, 1885–1892; Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch, trans. P.H. Wicksteed, London: Macmillan, 1886, p. xiv. The term Hexateuch refers to the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. ¹⁴ I have borrowed formulations from Smend, ‘The Work of Kuenen and Wellhausen’, p. 432.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

159

to the period after the Babylonian Exile (586–538 BCE). Actually, it was Colenso who had urged Kuenen to reconsider the early date of parts of the Grundschrift (the narratives), and thus was instrumental in revising the so-called ‘Graf hypothesis’, which, according to many historians, after its revision had better be called the ‘Graf-Kuenen hypothesis’.¹⁵ Kuenen’s History of Israel (1869–1870) was based on this new chronology.¹⁶ The author argues that it is not until the eighth century BCE that so-called ‘ethical monotheism’ can be historically established, with the prophets Amos and Hosea who preached a righteous, holy, and almighty God. Before this period the history of Israel is nebulous and characterized by polytheism. In a letter to his uncle of 13 November 1875, the Unitarian scholar of comparative religion Joseph Estlin Carpenter recorded his new allegiance to Kuenen’s position: ‘The glorified notion [which previous scholars had entertained] of the Mosaic age breaks down beneath Kuenen’s analysis, and instead of seeing the nation [of Israel] reach at once to the heights of moral and spiritual development and then enter on a long decline against which the prophets contended in vain, we find people gradually emerging from lower into loftier conceptions without any violent breaks of moral continuity.’¹⁷ Thus, Kuenen’s work better fits the evolutionist paradigm of religious history that was dominant at the time. Before Kuenen’s Religion of Israel appeared on the British book market, curiously enough another work inspired by him had been translated into English.¹⁸ This was The Bible for Young People, written by the theologians Hendricus Oort and Isaäc Hooykaas with Kuenen’s assistance.¹⁹ The translation was done by a young Unitarian minister, Philip Henry Wicksteed (1844–1927), better known for his later work in the field of economics. In the late 1860s Wicksteed had become the editor of a manual for Sunday School teachers and wrote papers for the instruction of young people in biblical history. After taking lessons in Dutch from a Jewish tobacconist in Manchester, he read Kuenen’s work and found his ¹⁵ Smend, ‘The Work of Kuenen and Wellhausen’, p. 432. On the relation between Colenso and Kuenen see the fascinating contribution by J.W. Rogerson, ‘British Responses to Kuenen’s Pentateuch Studies’, in Dirksen and Van der Kooij, eds., Kuenen, pp. 91–104; cf. Cornelis Houtman, ‘Colenso as Seen by Kuenen, and as Known from Colenso’s Letters to Kuenen’, in Jonathan A. Draper, ed., The Eye of the Storm: Bishop John William Colenso and the Crisis of Biblical Inspiration, London and New York: T&T Clark, 2003, pp. 76–103. ¹⁶ Kuenen, De godsdienst van Israël tot den Ondergang van den Joodschen Staat, 2 vols., Haarlem: A. C. Kruseman, 1869–1870; Kuenen, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, 2 vols., trans. Alfred Heath May, London: Williams & Norgate, 1874–1875. ¹⁷ Rogerson, ‘British Responses to Kuenen’s Pentateuch Studies’, p. 102, who refers to C.H. Herford, Joseph Estlin Carpenter: A Memorial Volume, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929, p. 42. ¹⁸ This whole paragraph is based on Rogerson, ‘British Responses to Kuenen’s Pentateuch Studies’, pp. 98–100, where the story is told in full. I have also used some of his formulations, without putting these between quotation marks. ¹⁹ H. Oort and I. Hooykaas, with the assistance of A. Kuenen, The Bible for Young People, trans. P. H. Wicksteed, vol. I, Manchester: Manchester District Sunday School Association, 1873; H. Oort and I. Hooykaas, met medewerking van A. Kuenen, De Bijbel voor Jongelieden, 7 vols, Harlingen: J.F. V. Behrns, 1871–1875.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

160

   

account of the development of Old Testament religion much more convincing than that of Heinrich Ewald, who was very influential in Britain at the time.²⁰ The historian of Old Testament studies John William Rogerson is astonished at how radical The Bible for Young People was. The Patriarchs are described as polytheists, and of their narratives it is said that ‘it needs no proof that stories in which a deity goes about with men, holds conversations with them, and even eats in their tents, do not give us accurate accounts of real events’.²¹ Of Moses, the young readers are told, we know very little, except for the fact that he introduced the name Yahweh to refer to God, gave a short form of the Ten Commandments, and regarded the ark as the sacred object in which Yahweh dwells. This—as Rogerson emphasizes—is rather remarkable, if we consider that at the time Britain was still strongly influenced by ‘moderately-critical’ work based on Ewald. Lecturing in Aberdeen in 1876, the young William Robertson Smith condemned the radicalism of Kuenen and the ‘Leiden School’.²² Smith wrote that is absurd to ask for ‘scientific fellowship where there are radically opposite aims’. Whereas Kuenen and his colleagues saw no principal difference between Christianity and other religions, Robertson Smith was committed to the uniqueness of the Christian belief.²³ Later both scholars became friends and Kuenen supported Smith during his first heresy trial before the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland.²⁴ Robertson Smith also played a part in finding a British publisher for the translation of the second, completely revised edition of Kuenen’s HistoricoCritical Inquiry, the first volume of which appeared in English in 1886.²⁵ The translation was done again by Wicksteed, who had made Kuenen’s personal acquaintance during several visits to Leiden.²⁶ Wicksteed’s third daughter Dora married Kuenen’s eldest son Johannes in 1907. The praise that Wicksteed in his obituary lavished on Kuenen’s work and personality seems almost extravagant, ²⁰ Georg Heinrich August (Heinrich) Ewald, The History of Israel, trans. Russell Martineau and Joseph Estlin Carpenter, 8 vols., 4th edition, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1883. Ewald, Einleitung in die Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 8 vols., Göttingen: Dieterische Buchhandlung, 1843–1859, 3rd edition 1864–1868; cf. Sæbo, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, pp. 329–337. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley’s influential study: Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, 3 vols., London: John Murray, 1863–1876, was based on Ewald (cf. vol. I, p. xiv). ²¹ Oort and Hooykaas, The Bible for Young People, vol. I, p. 129, quoted after Rogerson, ‘British Responses to Kuenen’s Pentateuch Studies’, p. 100. This paragraph is based on Rogerson’s article. ²² Rogerson, ‘British Responses to Kuenen’s Pentateuch Studies’, p. 100. ²³ Rogerson, ‘British Responses to Kuenen’s Pentateuch Studies’, p. 103, who refers to Lectures and Essays of William Robertson Smith, ed. J. Sutherland Black and George William Chrystal, London: A. and C. Black, 1912, pp. 252 and 349–366. ²⁴ Rogerson, ‘British Responses to Kuenen’s Pentateuch Studies’, p. 103; Cornelis Houtman, ‘Abraham Kuenen and William Robertson Smith: Their Correspondence’, Dutch Review of Church History 80/2 (2000) 221–240, pp. 233–234 (including relevant passages from Kuenen’s letters); William Robertson Smith, Selected Letters, ed. Bernhard Maier, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019; Bernhard Maier, William Robertson Smith: His Life, his Work and his Times, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ²⁵ Smith to Kuenen, 29 May 1884, in Selected Letters, p. 331; Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry. ²⁶ P.H. Wicksteed, ‘[Obituary] Abraham Kuenen’, The Jewish Quarterly Review 4/4 (1892) 571–605.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

161

but is corroborated by Julius Wellhausen’s remark to Robertson Smith after he had visited Kuenen in Leiden: ‘The man is even more significant than his books’.²⁷ Kuenen’s book seems to have been somewhat overshadowed in Britain by Wellhausen’s Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, which had appeared in English just a year before Kuenen’s Inquiry.²⁸ In his preface to Wellhausen’s book, Robertson Smith points to the rather different treatments in the two studies:²⁹ More recently Professor Kuenen of Leyden, whose discussions of the more complicated questions of Pentateuch analysis are perhaps the finest things that modern criticism can show, has brought out the second edition of the first volume of his Onderzoek, and when this appears in English, as it is soon to do, our Hebrew students will have in their hands an admirable manual of what I may call the anatomy of the Pentateuch, in which they can follow from chapter to chapter the process by which the Pentateuch grew to its present form. But for the mass of Bible-readers such detailed analysis will always be too difficult. What every one can understand and ought to try to master, is the broad historical aspect of the matter. And this the present volume [by Wellhausen] sets forth in a way that must be full of interest to every one who has tasted the intense pleasure of following institutions and ideas in their growth, and who has faith enough to see the hand of God as clearly in a long providential development as in a sudden miracle.

The original Dutch version of Onderzoek consists of three volumes, comprising more than 1,300 pages. Not many people will have studied the volumes in full, but the appreciation of the precision and amount of work invested in it are palpable in most discussions of the book. Wellhausen’s own ideal was the work of the German historian and Nobel Prize winner for literature Theodor Mommsen, who had a great talent for exposition and portrayal.³⁰ Wellhausen himself is indeed a pleasure to read—and in this respect an exception among Old Testament scholars. He was not greatly impressed by Kuenen’s powers of synthesis, but as ‘an analytical scholar—and

²⁷ Wellhausen to Robertson Smith, 12 October 1878, in Wellhausen, Briefe, ed. Rudolf Smend, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, p. 52; cf. Maier, William Robertson Smith, pp. 177–178. ²⁸ Rogerson, ‘British Responses to Kuenen’s Pentateuch Studies’, p. 100; Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 2nd edition, Berlin: Reimer, 1883; Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1885. ²⁹ Robertson Smith, ‘Preface’, in Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, pp. viii–ix. ³⁰ Wellhausen to Kuenen, 5 August 1874, in Wellhausen, Briefe, pp. 48–49.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

162

   

as a human being—he is unsurpassed’.³¹ In his review of the second edition of Onderzoek, Wellhausen gave a stinging analysis of its strengths and weaknesses: He does not provide a grouped survey of learned traditions and hypotheses, but develops his own views, though with detailed justification and conscientious respect for other opinions, in a splendid objective discussion with friend and foe. He renders and demands an account for everything; nothing for him is so certain that he does not investigate it; he has the reasons to hand even for what one is generally accustomed to treat as a matter of course. He is thereby always prepared to withdraw or correct his own earlier opinions (even if no one has disputed them), or to tone down the certainty of their tone. [ . . . ] He [the reader] is led beyond the doxa to recognition of the reasons for knowing or not-knowing; he is made independent of authorities, and is yet excellently provided with an orientation in the learned literature. At the same time, the book is not easy reading. The systematic stringency of the arrangement tears the material apart, inevitable leads to interweavings and repetitions, and adversely affects the overall view. [ . . . ] The attempt to squeeze the immense plenitude of the material into the smallest space has perhaps gone too far. But such deficiencies are the necessary result of the constraints imposed on the introduction by the textbook form; and it is with pleasure that we pay the necessary prize.³²

Wellhausen praised Kuenen’s painstaking text analyses but was less interested in the many niceties that Kuenen addressed, and happily accepted Kuenen’s corrections of his own work, which in his view concurred with his own intuitions. Jokingly he admitted: ‘In this sense I concede everything to him [Kuenen], even those things which he has not said yet.’³³ Although Kuenen was strongly inclined to meticulous empirical research, he did not refrain from giving a more general outline of religious history. The clearest example of his work in the comparative study of religion are the Hibbert Lectures he gave in London and Oxford in 1882 about National Religions and Universal Religions,³⁴ but the interest in more general comparative and philosophical questions is already evident in his History of Israel. The methodological exposition here is pervaded by a sense of intellectual and religious progress. Our widening scope,

³¹ Wellhausen to Adolf Jülicher, 8 November 1880, in Wellhausen, Briefe, p. 78: ‘als Analytiker— und als Mensch—ist er unübertroffen’. ³² Wellhausen, Review Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments hinsichtlich ihrer Entstehung und Sammlung, trans. Th. Weber, Leipzig: O. Schulze, 1885–1887 [volume I], Deutsche Literaturzeitung 8 (1887) 1105–1106; translated in Smend, ‘The Work of Kuenen and Wellhausen’, p. 429. ³³ Wellhausen to Adolf Jülicher, 8 November 1880, in Wellhausen, Briefe, p. 78: ‘ich gebe ihm in dieser Hinsicht Alles zu, selbst was er noch gar nicht gesagt hat’. ³⁴ Abraham Kuenen, National Religions and Universal Religions, trans. P.H. Wicksteed, London: Scribner, 1882; Kuenen, Volksgodsdienst en Wereldgodsdienst, Leiden: Van Doesburgh, 1882.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

163

Kuenen argues, implies that we no longer see our own standpoint in absolute terms: ‘Israel is no more the pivot on which the development of the whole world turns, than the planet which we inhabit is the centre of the universe. In short, we have outgrown the belief of our ancestors.’ Kuenen claims that in the modern era it would be an absurdity to believe that God’s activity was confined to a single people. In all forms of religion we have learned to ‘revere and admire the never resting and all-embracing activity of God’s Spirit in humanity’.³⁵ Of course, various religions claim that they are founded on a ‘supernatural origin’, but that does not imply that the ‘description of those forms of religion must start from that belief ’.³⁶ In Kuenen’s view the various types of progress—religious, moral, and scientific—are somehow connected to each other. ‘The old religions have been examined and traced out in detail. That which formally was included in a general condemnation, is now revealed to us in its rich diversity, and often in its great excellence. The pure sources from which knowledge of religions may be derived have been disclosed by the untiring labour of European scholars.’³⁷ This formulation seems to suggest that we had to wait for modern nineteenth-century Western scholarship to unearth the hidden treasures of religions. It is hard to avoid the impression that, although the new approach did indeed show the richness of non-Christian religions, in the end the results were primarily used by scholars such as Kuenen to construe an evolutionary scheme with Christianity at the very top.³⁸ Kuenen is primarily remembered as a great Old Testament scholar, but he was more than that. He represents a new historical and comparative approach in the study of religion, which defined itself over against the old theology (based on special revelation). The emergence of science of religion in the Netherlands led not only to the inclusion of other ‘world religions’ in the study of religion, but also to a new methodological awareness in a more general sense. Comparative and historical methods were introduced in various ‘theological’ disciplines—in science of religion in the proper sense of the word, as well as in the study of holy Scriptures and religious history (including that of Christianity). Kuenen’s own work was not limited to theology. He contributed to Islamic studies and presided over the Oriental Congress held in Leiden in 1883. Moreover, he was a member of a large number of committees and societies, and supervised the new Leiden translation of the Bible, which was based on the new critical methods. The Old Testament was finished in 1901 and it would take another

³⁵ Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, vol. I, p. 9. ³⁶ Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, vol. I, p. 6. ³⁷ Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, vol. I, p. 10. ³⁸ Cf. Kuenen, National Religions. See also Arie L. Molendijk, The Emergence of the Science of Religion in the Netherlands, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005, pp. 64–67.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

164

   

decade before the translation of the New Testament was ready.³⁹ In many ways Kuenen furthered the modernist aim to reform theology and to overcome oppositions between the Christian worldview and modern developments in the sciences and the humanities, which called the old supernatural faith into question. In Chapter 4 I have discussed his contribution to the modernist movement in the Netherlands; here I have made an attempt to show the impact of his scholarly work, which was focused on the study of the Old Testament, but also contributed significantly to the comparative study of religion.

The Dutch Radical School The historico-critical approach was also applied to the New Testament and led to remarkable results, at least in the Netherlands. At the end of the nineteenth century the so-called Dutch Radical School emerged, which was sceptical—to put it mildly—about attempts to reconstruct the life of the ‘historical Jesus’ (Leben-Jesu-Forschung). Scholars such as Allard Pierson, Abraham Dirk Loman, Willem Christiaan van Manen, and Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga basically denied the authenticity of the letters of Paul and at least doubted the historicity of Jesus. Similar ideas were propagated in Switzerland by Rudolf Steck, who taught New Testament exegesis at the University of Bern, and later in Germany by Arthur Drews, author of the controversial book The Christ Myth.⁴⁰ Generally such opinions were not well received, and Kuenen, for instance, was very critical of this approach. On the other hand there still exists a website, until recently maintained by the Berlin pastor Hermann Detering (1953–2018), which honours the old Dutch radicals.⁴¹ As the main forerunner of the Dutch Radical School the German Hegelian philosopher and historian Bruno Bauer is often mentioned.⁴² Bauer criticized religion and famously said that ‘the Christ of the Gospel history, thought of as a really historic figure, would be a figure at which ³⁹ Cornelis Houtman, ‘De Leidse en de Utrechtse vertaling’, in A.W.G. Jaake and E.W. Tuinstra, eds., Om een verstaanbare bijbel. Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen na de Statenbijbel, Haarlem and Brussels: Nederlands en Belgisch Bijbelgenootschap, 1990, pp. 201–224. ⁴⁰ Rudolf Steck, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht. Nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptschriften, Berlin: Reimers, 1888; Arthur Drews, Die Christusmythe, 2 vols., Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1909–1911; Drews, The Christ Myth, trans. C. Delisle Burns, London: T.F. Unwin, 1910; cf. George S. Williamson, ‘The Christ Myth Debate: Radical Theology and Public Life in Germany, 1909–1913’, Church History 86/3 (2017) 728–764. ⁴¹ http://radikalkritik.de/a-survey-g-a-van-den-bergh-van-eysinga (accessed 8 October 2020). ⁴² Albert Schweitzer, Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911, pp. 92–105 (including a discussion of the Dutch contributions); Schweitzer, Paul and his Interpreters: A Critical History, trans. W. Montgomery, London: A. and C. Black, 1912, pp. 117–136; G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Die holländische radikale Kritik des Neuen Testaments, Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1912, pp. viii–xii; Gerhardus Hartdorff, Historie of Historisering? Een onderzoek naar de visie van G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga op de wordingsgeschiedenis van het Christendom, Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1950, pp. 7–8.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

165

humanity would shudder, a figure which could only inspire dismay and horror’.⁴³ In his Quest of the Historical Jesus, which takes stock of the Leben Jesu research, Albert Schweitzer states that Bauer’s ‘Criticism of the Gospel History’ is ‘worth a good dozen Lives of Jesus, because his work, as we are only now coming to recognise, after half a century, is the ablest and most complete collection of the difficulties of the Life of Jesus which is anywhere to be found’.⁴⁴ Even if one views Bauer’s work as one-sided and containing indefensible statements, Schweitzer argues, it is still worth taking seriously. In the Netherlands the critical approach to the New Testament started with Allard Pierson’s 1878 essay on the Sermon on the Mount, which he considered to be a late Jewish text attributed to Jesus. The Gospels, he said, did not provide reliable information about Jesus’ life and teaching.⁴⁵ Later Pierson co-authored a book in which the Pauline authorship of the letters of Paul was denied, and doubt was cast on the historical existence of the apostle.⁴⁶ Abraham Dirk Loman (1823–1897) was at first critical of Pierson, but slowly converted to a radical point of view and no longer considered Jesus to be a historical person. In 1881, in a famous public lecture on early Christianity, Loman proclaimed that the figure of Jesus symbolized ‘ideals of the Jewish nation’, stemming from the second century CE.⁴⁷ Jesus’ resurrection was in his view nothing more than the clear illustration of the change of mind among Jesus’ followers. The later apparitions are to be taken as revelations of a universal religion.⁴⁸ Willem Christiaan van Manen (1842–1905) was not immediately convinced of the viability of the new radical approach either. In 1885 he became professor of Ancient Christian Literature (and the exegesis of the New Testament) in Leiden. Van Manen took his teaching and research remit very seriously, and claimed that the modern study of the New Testament was simply part of ancient Christian

⁴³ Bruno Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes, vol. III, Braunschweig: Friedrich Otto, 1842, p. 315: ‘Der evangelische Christus, als eine wirkliche, geschichtliche Erscheinung gedacht, wäre eine Erscheinung, vor welcher die Menschheit grauen müsste, eine Gestalt, die nur Schrecken und Entsetzen einflössen könnte’. ⁴⁴ Albert Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jeus Forschung (1906), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1913, p. 161; Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. W. Montgomery, London: A. and C. Black, 1911, p. 159. ⁴⁵ Allard Pierson, De Bergrede en andere synoptische fragmenten. Een historisch-kritisch onderzoek met een inleiding over enkele leemten in de methode van de kritiek der evangeliën, Amsterdam: Van Kampen, 1878, p. 120. ⁴⁶ Allard Pierson and S.A. Naber, Verisimilia: laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt, Amsterdam: Van Kampen, 1886. ⁴⁷ Lindeboom, Geschiedenis van het Vrijzinnig Protestantisme, 3 vols., Assen: Van Gorcum, 1929–1935, vol. III, p. 15; Loman, ‘Het oudste Christendom’, Stemmen uit de Vrije Gemeente 5 (1882) 1–19. ⁴⁸ A. de Groot, ‘Loman, Abraham Dirk’, in Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme, vol. I, Kampen: Kok, 1978, pp. 137–9: http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/ retroboeken/blnp/#source=1&page=138&accessor=accessor_index; Loman, ‘De oorsprong van het geloof aan de opstanding van Jezus’, De Gids 52/1 and 52/2 (1888) 502–545, 86–135.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

166

   

literature and had no special status of its own.⁴⁹ In 1889 he arrived at the conclusion that the Pauline letters are pseudepigraphical writings.⁵⁰ The second volume of his trilogy on Paul was translated into German,⁵¹ and he contributed substantial articles on Paul, ancient Christian literature, the Epistle to the Philippians, and the Epistle to the Romans to T.K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black’s Encyclopaedia Biblica.⁵² After reading the article on Paul, a British author wrote that Van Manen ‘must be regarded as the Copernicus of New Testament criticism’. Placing the Pauline writings in the second century enables us, this admirer stated, to present a consistent history of the emergence of Christianity.⁵³ Van Manen’s pupil Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga wrote the history of the Dutch Radical School, also paying attention to its international reception.⁵⁴ The book was published in 1912 with the German publishing house Eugen Diederichs, a major player in the spreading of a critique of bourgeois culture in the late Wilhelmine Empire and the Weimar Republic. The study of the Umwelt of early Christianity had convinced Van den Bergh van Eysinga that Jesus was not a deified human being, but a humanized god. He argued that Jesus is fundamentally ‘the historization of an idea’. In the annual meeting of modern theologians in 1893, it had been proclaimed that we cannot know anything about a historical Jesus, not even the crucifixion, his name, or the fact of his existence.⁵⁵ Even if most attending modern theologians did not accept this farreaching statement, the idea that modern Christian faith can be easily built on the historical knowledge of the life and teachings of an exemplary Jesus was shaken. Thus, the historical approach could yield results that were not satisfactory from a religious point of view.

⁴⁹ W.C. van Manen, De leerstoel der Oud-Christelijke Letterkunde (inaugural address Leiden), Groningen: Wolters, 1885. ⁵⁰ Eduard Verhoef, ‘Manen, Willem Christiaan van’, in Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme, vol. IV, Kampen: Kok, 1998, pp. 322–324: http://resources.huygens. knaw.nl/retroboeken/blnp/#source=4&page=323&size=800&accessor=accessor_index&view=imagePane. ⁵¹ Van Manen, Paulus, 3 vols, Leiden: Brill, 1890–1896; Die Unechtheit des Römerbriefes, trans. G. Schläger, Leipzig: G. Strübigs Verlag, 1906. ⁵² Eduard Verhoef, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen: Kok, 1994, pp. 62–63 and 74. Encyclopaedia Biblica. A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archeology, Geography and Natural History of the Bible, ed. T.K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, 4 vols., London: Macmillan, 1899–1903, esp. vols. III and IV. ⁵³ Thomas Whittaker, The Origins of Christianity. With an Outline of Van Manen’s Analysis of the Pauline Literature, London: Watts & Co, 1904, pp. x–xi. ⁵⁴ Bergh van Eysinga, Die holländische radikale Kritik des Neuen Testaments. ⁵⁵ Lindeboom, Geschiedenis van het Vrijzinnig Protestantisme, vol. III, p. 16.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

167

Theology and/or Science of Religion: The Higher Education Act of 1876 The introduction of the historico-critical approach fundamentally changed the field of theology in the Netherlands.⁵⁶ The developments sketched in the preceding sections testify to this transformation. Another important factor in this respect was the introduction of two new disciplines, ‘history of religion’ and ‘philosophy of religion’ (often considered to be the two main parts of the overarching discipline called ‘science of religion’), in the Dutch university system. Some historians see this as a breakthrough, by which a ‘scientific’ approach was institutionalized within theology. Other historians are much more sceptical and emphasize the theological constraints under which scholars such as Cornelis Petrus Tiele and Pierre Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye still worked.⁵⁷ Here one has to avoid the pitfall of a teleological interpretation, which stresses the antagonism between science of religion and theology and overlooks how intimately the two were linked together.⁵⁸ Therefore, I will examine the process of the institutionalization of science of religion in the Netherlands by sketching the actual road that led to the Higher Education Act of 1876.⁵⁹ A first draft of the law was presented by the Home Secretary on 25 February 1868, after which several other proposals followed. However, it was not until 8 March 1876 that the final parliamentary discussion began, which would eventually take a month. In the meantime, at least five petitions concerning the theological faculties, mainly from the senates of the universities of Utrecht and Leiden, reached parliament. Theological education was a major concern at that time, and the Dutch parliament debated this topic extensively. The seventy-five members of the so-called ‘Second Chamber’ had been elected by a minority of the Dutch population, i.e., those who had the right to vote on the basis of property and income (general male suffrage was introduced in 1917; two years later women were allowed to vote as well). This wealthy and well-educated elite was particularly interested in higher education, which at least to some extent explains the long duration of the debate. The outcome of their discussions concerning the ⁵⁶ This section is based on Molendijk, Emergence of the Science of Religion, chapter 3. ⁵⁷ Cf. K.-H. Kohl, ‘Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft’, in Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, vol. I, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988, pp. 217–262; Jan G. Platvoet, ‘Close Harmonies: The Science of Religion in Dutch Duplex Ordo Theology, 1860–1960’, Numen 45 (1998) 115–162. ⁵⁸ Cf. Sigurd Hjelde, Die Religionswissenschaft und das Christentum. Eine historische Untersuchung über das Verhältnis von Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, Leiden: Brill, 1994; Hjelde, ‘The Science of Religion and Theology. The Question of Their Interrelationship’, in Arie L. Molendijk and Peter Pels, eds., Religion in the Making: The Emergence of the Sciences of Religion, Leiden: Brill, 1998, pp. 99–127. ⁵⁹ Cf. O.J. de Jong, ‘De wetgever van 1876 en de theologie’, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 48 (1967–1968) 313–332; G.A. Meuleman, De Godgeleerdheid volgens de Wet op het Hoger Onderwijs van 1876, Amsterdam: VU, 1982; Albert de Lange, ‘ “Staatsrechtelijk geknutsel”. De regeling van de predikantsopleiding in Nederland door de overheid in de negentiende eeuw’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 54 (2001) 28–58.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

168

   

theological faculties bore the character of a compromise, as was generally recognized. ‘A sour fruit of political patchwork’,⁶⁰ said Abraham Kuyper, who disagreed strongly with the new situation and was to found a confessional university of his own in 1880. The main problem that confronted government and parliament was the fact that the state, under the old regime of the Act of 1815, was directly involved in the training of ministers of the main Protestant church in the Netherlands.⁶¹ Formally, the Dutch Reformed Church (Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk) had no say in the academic training of its ministers, because the full responsibility for that lay with the Dutch state. This situation was perceived more and more as being in conflict with the constitutional separation of church and state, especially after the introduction of the liberal constitution in 1848. There were various attempts at reform, but it took several years before the Home Secretary J. Heemskerk Azn. (1818–1897),⁶² who belonged to the Remonstrants (the old Arminians; a small, but relatively influential upper-class Protestant church), put forward a bill on higher education in 1868. The new university would have no more than four faculties, and the money formerly expended on the theological faculties would be earmarked for the Dutch Reformed Church, which would enable it to establish its own seminaries. In addition, as Heemskerk explained, every Dutch citizen and every approved association and religious denomination was free to open a special school for higher education. The minister probably had in mind the ‘seminaries’ of several small Protestant denominations in Amsterdam, which were independent but made use of the facilities of the Athenaeum, the predecessor of the municipal university, established with the Act of 1876. Heemskerk’s proposal did not meet with general approval, as it failed to appreciate the complex and to some extent subterranean links between the Dutch state and the Dutch Reformed Church. At first sight, the separation of church and state in 1796 had put an end to social and political discrimination based on religious difference. The Dutch state only acknowledged citizens, not various corporate religious groups, but this did not imply that the Netherlands was perceived as a secular nation. As the former established church, the Dutch Reformed Church (together with some small Protestant churches) was thought to play a role in the religious and moral education of the citizens. The Dutch Reformed Church was not supposed to mark differences (i.e., between religious groups), but to represent an integrating force in the nation.⁶³ On the one hand, the ⁶⁰ Abraham Kuyper, Is er aan de publieke universiteit ten onzent plaats voor een faculteit der theologie?, Amsterdam (no publisher indicated), 1890, p. 19. ⁶¹ Verordening omtrent het onderwijs, 1815, art. 56 (cf. Bijvoegsel tot het Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, Tweede deel 1815, Dordrecht 1817). Catholic seminaries and those of the Remonstrants, the Mennonites, and the Lutherans, were also funded by the state (Arts. 58, 59). ⁶² Cf. J.J. Huizinga, J. Heemskerk Azn. 1818–1897. Conservatief zonder partij, Harlingen, 1973 (private publication). ⁶³ This homogenization process resulted in a sometimes virulent anti-Catholicism.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

169

religious identity of the Netherlands was framed in non-denominational, broadly Protestant terms, but on the other hand it could not be denied that the Dutch Reformed Church had a major contribution to make to this identity. Because of the link between Protestant religion and the Dutch state, the clearcut solution that Heemskerk offered ultimately proved not convincing. In its 1868 petition to parliament, the Leiden theological faculty explicitly referred to the threat theological seminaries could pose to the state: seminaries could easily develop into breeding grounds for mysticism, fanaticism, and intolerance. It was argued that, notwithstanding the separation of church and state, there would always be a close link between religion and the state. Only a genuinely scholarly theology, embedded within the university, could provide an antidote against religious separatism and atheism.⁶⁴ Furthermore, the Leiden faculty pointed to the ‘odd’ consequence of the ministerial proposal that Islam, the ‘Vedas’, and the ‘Talmud’ would be studied within the universities: Christianity would then be excluded from these subjects worthy of academic treatment. The abolition of the theological faculties would mean a ‘mutilation’ of university education.⁶⁵ In the parliamentary debate another argument was adduced in favour of the theological faculties, namely, the interests of several Protestant churches in the academic training of their ministers. It was thought unwise to push the separation of church and state too far, but there was no consensus on this point. At least twenty-seven members of parliament (Catholics, representatives of dissenting Protestant denominations, and Conservatives) were against state faculties of theology. Another heterogeneous group seems to have been in favour of the status quo. A third faction, consisting of almost thirty Liberals, wanted instead to transform the theological faculties into faculties of science of religion. This proposal received thirty-two votes, and was consequently rejected. The last motion put to the vote was to retain the old name. Twenty-eight Liberals were willing to pay this price to save the theological faculties, and the vote in favour of the ‘faculty of theology’ was carried by a majority of forty-three against thirty.⁶⁶ It is difficult to detect and distinguish the precise character of the various standpoints in parliament. The Home Secretary was quick to point to an apparent confusion: Did terms such as ‘theology’ and ‘science of religion’ designate different contents? Or was the latter word just a terminological invention to sell old goods? Or was something different implied? According to the Home Secretary the term ‘science of religion’ was simply too narrow to capture the whole of theology. He did not deny the importance of the field, but thought the subject could not make ⁶⁴ [J.H. Scholten et al.], De Theologische Faculteit aan de Nederlandsche Hoogescholen, naar aanleiding van het bij de Tweede Kamer ingediende Ontwerp van Wet op het Hooger Onderwijs, door de Godgeleerde Faculteit aan ‘s Rijks Hoogeschool te Leiden, Leiden: Engels, 1868, pp. 22–23. ⁶⁵ [Scholten et al.], De Theologische Faculteit, pp. 9 and 32. ⁶⁶ Dutch: ‘Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid’; cf. De Jong, ‘De wetgever van 1876 en de theologie’, pp. 321–324.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

170

   

up a separate faculty. How many students would be attracted to such a truncated faculty?⁶⁷ This point of view was also taken by the member of parliament Van Naamen van Eemnes, who had close ties with the more orthodox Utrecht Theological Faculty, where the dogmatician Jacobus Isaac Doedes advocated a concept of theology as concerned with God—and not so much with religion.⁶⁸ In parliament the renaming and restructuring of the theological faculties was defended by A. Moens, a former student of the Leiden theologians Scholten and Kuenen. As representatives of a liberal theology they favoured free theological inquiry, which was in no way to be restricted by church interests. In this view the primary subject of theology was not God, but (Christian) religion, and the plea for a faculty of science of religion is to be seen in this light. The name was chosen, first of all, out of the desire to exclude anything reminiscent of ecclesial interests or dogmas. Moens claimed that science of religion dealt with everything that counted as religion.⁶⁹ The subdiscipline of philosophy of religion had to evaluate the truth claims of various religions. Religious truth was to be sought beyond denominational differences. Therefore, those theological disciplines that were thought to be too closely linked to the Dutch Reformed Church had to be eliminated from the new curriculum. Although ‘science of religion’ was not accepted by parliament as the name of the reconstituted faculties, the disciplines of ‘history of religions in general’ and ‘philosophy of religion’ were introduced in the new list of theological disciplines. Heemskerk’s proposal to include dogmatic and practical theology (when parliament insisted on theological state faculties, the Home Secretary stipulated that a complete theological programme had to be guaranteed) was not accepted. The Dutch Reformed Church was given the opportunity to set up state-funded church professorships at the universities in these fields,⁷⁰ an opportunity that was seized with both hands. Thus, a dual structure emerged (the so-called duplex ordo), in which ordinary state-appointed professors worked next to extraordinary churchappointed professors. The controversy surrounding science of religion was essentially about the proper way of doing theology and about the design of the theological faculties as a whole, not about the introduction of a new field of research. The proposal to introduce ‘history of religions in general’ and ‘philosophy of religion’ as separate ⁶⁷ B.J.L. de Geer van Jutfaas, ed., De Wet op het Hooger Onderwijs. Uit de gewisselde stukken en de gehouden Beraadslagingen toegelicht, Utrecht: Bijleveld, 1877, p. 160; cf. Meuleman, De Godgeleerdheid, p. 16, n. 72. Heemskerk referred to the Utrecht theologian Doedes, who defended a restricted view on science of religion; cf. J.I. Doedes, Encyclopedie der Christelijke Theologie, Utrecht: Kemink, 1876, pp. 97–102. In the ongoing discussions since 1868 it had also been suggested to locate science of religion within the Faculty of Liberal Arts (Letteren). ⁶⁸ Meuleman, De Godgeleerdheid, pp. 13–15. ⁶⁹ Quoted in Meuleman, De Godgeleerdheid, p. 11. ⁷⁰ Act of 1876, Arts. 104–106. For a French translation of the Act, see D.J. Steyn Parvé, Organisation de l’Instruction Primaire, Secondaire et Supérieure dans le Royaume des Pays-Bas, Leiden: Sijthoff, 1878, Appendix, pp. lv–lxxxvii.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

171

disciplines was accepted without much discussion; by the Act of 1876 they were simply included in the theological curriculum. As far as I can see, there was no substantial resistance against this renewal. As early as the summer of 1873 the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church had discussed the proposal to require future ministers to attend courses in philosophy and history of religion. On 1 February 1874 the new regulation for church examinations was issued.⁷¹ Tiele in Leiden and Doedes in Utrecht taught historia religionum from the academic year 1873–1874 onwards. The question as to what extent ‘powerful secularising influences’ were at work in this development, as claimed by Eric J. Sharpe,⁷² is rather difficult to answer. It is true that the close relationship between the state theological faculties and the Dutch Reformed Church was loosened. The idea to adopt to some degree the German system of separate Protestant and Catholic professorships (albeit, unlike the situation in Germany, in one and the same faculty) was not followed.⁷³ Some sort of deconfessionalization did take place. However, this does not necessarily imply that the proponents of the theology-as-science-of-religion programme wanted to cut the link between church and state in a supra-confessional (= liberal Protestant) sense. The usefulness of ‘secularization’ as a concept to describe some sort of linear development of religion in the Netherlands in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is limited. Because the outcome of the debates in parliament took on the character of a compromise, the Act of 1876 can be interpreted in various ways.⁷⁴ Although the renewed theological faculties were not given the name ‘faculty of science of religion’ (as some members of parliament had wished), I am still inclined to see the outcome to a large extent as a victory for the liberal Protestant view on theology. Looking at the disciplines listed in Article 42 of the new bill, we note that the emphasis is on (Judeo-Christian) religion and on a historical approach.⁷⁵ The new law stipulated that dogmatic and practical theology should be taught in a

⁷¹ ‘Reglement op het examen ter toelating tot de Evangelie-bediening in de Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk’ (1 February 1874), in H.M.C. van Oosterzee, ed., Reglementen voor de Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk, 4th edition, Schiedam: Roelants, 1874, pp. 86–96, here p. 87. For the minutes of the Synod, see Handelingen van de Algemeene Synode der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk ten jare 1873, ‘s-Gravenhage: Algemeene Landsdrukkerij, 1873, pp. 205–215. ⁷² Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion: A History (1975), London: Duckworth, 1986, p. 121. ⁷³ The proposal was made by the Conservative MP Wintgens; cf. de Geer van Jutfaas, ed., De Wet op het Hooger Onderwijs, p. 156. ⁷⁴ Cf. Meuleman, De Godgeleerdheid. ⁷⁵ Only one discipline (out of ten) is explicitly concerned with God, but in a historical way: the History of the Doctrine about God. The other disciplines not already mentioned include: Encyclopaedia of Theology, History of Israelite Religion, History of Christianity, Literature of Israel and Early Christianity, Exegesis of the Old and New Testament, History of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, and Ethics; cf. Arie L. Molendijk, ‘De beoefening van de theologie in Nederland aan openbare instellingen voor hoger onderwijs’, in H.J. Adriaanse, ed., Tweestromenland. Over wijsgerige en belijdende theologie, Leuven: Peeters, 2001, pp. 31–52, and Molendijk, ‘The Study of Religion in the Netherlands’, NTT: Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion 71 (2017) 2–18.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

172

   

separate curriculum by church-appointed professors who were not proper members of the theological faculty. To a large extent theology was redefined by historical and comparative methods.

The Beginnings of Dutch Science of Religion: Cornelis Petrus Tiele and Pierre Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye Although the parliamentary debates about science of religion concentrated on the restructuring of theological education in toto, the disciplines of ‘history of religions’ and ‘philosophy of religion’ were officially introduced by the new Act on Higher Education into the theological curriculum.⁷⁶ The universities of Leiden and Amsterdam founded new chairs in ‘comparative religion’ in 1877, and the first occupants—Cornelis Petrus Tiele and Pierre Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye—became internationally respected and influential scholars who shaped the field by the handbooks they wrote and edited. Together with the first professorships in Switzerland in the 1870s and the foundation of the Religious Studies section at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris in 1886, this development in the Netherlands is generally seen as a first and important step in the establishment of an autonomous science of religion. Thus, this section is about godsdienstwetenschap in the narrow sense of the word, whereas the proponents of a complete transformation of theology into science of religion understood the notion in the broad sense of the word, comprising all disciplines that were based on historical and comparative research. In this view biblical studies and church history (renamed as ‘history of Christianity’) were also considered to be part of a broadly conceived science of religion. Science of religion in the strict sense was seen at the time as a new comparative (and historical) way of looking at religions worldwide. Information about foreign cultures and religions had been collected well before the nineteenth century. The following comment by Tiele is revealing in this respect: ‘There were huge collections, containing descriptions of all the religions in the world, so far as they were known, laboriously compiled, but without any critical acumen, and without the least suspicion that unbiblical religions are not mere curiosities.’⁷⁷ The new way of looking at these religions implied that they possessed value in themselves and were worthy of scientific investigation. In this way, foreign religions became meaningful to Western scholars and their own religious convictions. In time, all religions,

⁷⁶ This section is based on Molendijk, Emergence of the Science of Religion, chapter 4. ⁷⁷ C.P. Tiele, ‘Religions’, in The Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, vol. XX, Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1886, pp. 358–371, here p. 358.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

173

including Christianity, were incorporated within one comprehensive comparative framework.⁷⁸ Liberal theologians hoped that science of religion would fulfil most of the tasks of the old theology and show the superiority of Christian religion. On the basis of an evolutionary scheme, Tiele was even tempted to speculate about the development of liberal Protestantism into a universal religion of mankind. Admittedly, this was a rather extreme point of view, but the idea that science of religion should judge the value of various religions was shared by many scholars at the time. Chantepie de la Saussaye, to take another example, who certainly was no modernist and whose expectations with respect to the new endeavour were much more modest, saw history of religion and philosophy of religion as two intimately connected parts of the overarching science of religion. He stated in the introduction of his famous manual: ‘The unity of religion in the variety of its forms is what is presupposed by the science of religion’.⁷⁹ The belief that an interrelated study of religions would contribute to the understanding of religion as such was widely spread. Both Tiele and Chantepie de la Saussaye were held in high esteem internationally at the time. William Robertson Smith, the editor of the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, asked Tiele to supply the entry on ‘Religions’. Tiele also contributed several items to the Encyclopaedia Biblica (edited by Cheyne and Sutherland Black). He wrote two volumes on Babylonian-Assyrian history for a German handbook on ancient history.⁸⁰ He contributed to the Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, the Zeitschrift für Religionsgeschichte, the Historische Zeitschrift, the Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie, the Theologischer Jahresbericht (he compiled the review articles on history of religions during the years 1897–1898), and the Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, the first specialized journal in the field. He was the only foreigner on the board of the Revue de l’Histoire des Religions. Nevertheless, the bulk of Tiele’s publications appeared in Dutch. Tiele’s first major contribution to the emerging science of religion was his book The Religion of Zoroaster.⁸¹ His Outlines of the History of Religion (1877), originally published in Dutch in 1876, went through five editions until 1892, and the German translation, revised and enlarged by the Swedish scholar Nathan ⁷⁸ On the place of the study of Christianity within science of religion, see Hjelde, Die Religionswissenschaft und das Christentum. ⁷⁹ P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 2 vols., Freiburg i.B.: J.C.B. Mohr (Siebeck), 1887–1889, vol. I, p. 6; Manual of the Science of Religion, translation of the first volume by Beatrice S. Colyer-Fergusson (née Max Müller), London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1891, p. 9. ⁸⁰ For more bibliographical information, see J.D.J. (Jacques) Waardenburg, Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion: Aims, Methods and Theories of Research, 2 vols., The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 1973–74, vol. II, pp. 282–286; J.H. de Ridder, ‘Lijst van geschriften van Dr. C.P. Tiele’, in J. Kalff Jr., ed., Mannen en vrouwen van beteekenis in onze dagen. Levensschetsen en portretten, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1900, pp. 358–364. ⁸¹ Tiele, De Godsdienst van Zarathustra van haar ontstaan in Baktrië tot den val van het OudPerzische Rijk, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1864.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

174

   

Söderblom (1866–1931)⁸² after Tiele’s death, was one of the most influential handbooks in German-speaking countries until the Second World War. This compendium has explicitly been construed as a ‘history of religion’ (singular) rather than a ‘history of religions’. In the Gifford Lectures, which Tiele gave in Edinburgh in 1896 and 1898, religion is primarily seen as a human phenomenon that sprouts from the human mind: ‘I mean those manifestations of the human mind in words, deeds, customs, and institutions which testify to man’s belief in the superhuman, and serve to bring him into relation with it.’⁸³ The object of research is not the superhuman itself, but ‘religion based on belief in the superhuman’.⁸⁴ In this way metaphysical questions are excluded: in the science of religion, religion is to be studied as a human, historical and psychological phenomenon. Chantepie de la Saussaye became Professor of History of Religions at the University of Amsterdam in 1878, at the age of thirty. In 1883 he published Four Sketches on Kong-tse, Lao-tse, Zoroaster, and the Buddha.⁸⁵ He earned international recognition with his manual Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, which went through four editions and was (partly) translated into French and English.⁸⁶ In his later career La Saussaye published only a few smaller articles and one more extensive volume on Teutonic religion. This book was written for an American series, but he also published a shortened Dutch version in 1900. He considered a historical overview of ‘Teutonic heathenism’ of importance for the ‘civilised reader’.⁸⁷ In fact, much of his writing was meant for a broader audience. La Saussaye was engaged in various fields and was not a specialist in history of religions pur sang. His manual was to a large extent based on secondary literature—he even characterized it on one occasion as ‘second-hand’.⁸⁸ This does not mean that his work was not appreciated by his colleagues. At the first international conference on the science of religion, held in Stockholm in 1897, he was one of the keynote speakers.⁸⁹ When the International Congress of Historians

⁸² On Söderblom see Bengt Sundkler, Nathan Söderblom: His Life and Work, Lund: Gleerup, 1968, pp. 48–51 and 65–66, and Eric J. Sharpe, Nathan Söderblom and the Study of Religion, Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1990. ⁸³ C.P. Tiele, Elements of the Science of Religion, Part I: Morphological, Part II: Ontological, Edinburgh and London: Blackwood, 1897–1899, vol. I, p. 4. ⁸⁴ Tiele, Elements, vol. I, p. 5. ⁸⁵ P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Vier schetsen uit de godsdienstgeschiedenis, Utrecht: C.H.E. Breijer, 1883. ⁸⁶ Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte. ⁸⁷ P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Geschiedenis van den godsdienst der Germanen voor hun overgang tot het Christendom, Haarlem: Bohn, 1900, p. v; The Religion of the Teutons (Handbooks on the History of Religions, 3), translated from the Dutch by Bert J. Vos, Boston: Ginn, 1902. ⁸⁸ K. Kuiper, ‘Levensbericht van Pierre Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye, 9 April 1848–20 April 1920’, in Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (1920–1921) 103–128, here p. 113. ⁸⁹ P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Die vergleichende Religionsforschung und der religiöse Glaube, Vortrag gehalten auf dem ersten religionswissenschaftlichen Kongresse in Stockholm am 31. August 1897, Freiburg i.B.: Mohr Siebeck, 1898; reprinted in Chantepie de la Saussaye, Portretten en Kritieken,

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

175

of Religion convened for the first time in the Netherlands in 1912, it was obvious that La Saussaye should be its chairman.⁹⁰ In the 1870s and 1880s Chantepie de la Saussaye’s expectations concerning the new field were still rather high, and he saw no obvious contrast between the old theology and the new science of religion. La Saussaye stuck to his conviction that by studying religions we can gain knowledge of religion as such. In any case it is erroneous to oppose Christianity, as the revealed religion, to the so-called ‘natural’ religions. The Christian religion is the ‘fulfilment’, ‘the full expression of what is known elsewhere in a less complete manner’.⁹¹ La Saussaye’s most far-reaching statement in this respect was ‘Because I acknowledge the truth in Christianity, it is impossible for me to conceive of any religion as vain.’⁹² Even if science of religion can open up the treasures of religion only partly, the thirty-year-old La Saussaye hoped that the new endeavour would enable the Christian believer ‘to express his faith in a purified, rational, civilised and, thus, fruitful way’.⁹³ Tiele must have agreed with these words from the bottom of his heart.⁹⁴ Later in his career Chantepie de la Saussaye grew more sceptical. In his obituary of Tiele he even stated that the science of religion did not ‘yield as much fruit as one had hoped for’.⁹⁵

Conclusion This chapter has focused on how academic theology—or more precisely predominantly liberal theologians at the universities—tried to come to terms with more exacting historical approaches. The rise of the critical study of the Bible and the science of religion show how theology was modernized in an unprecedented way. The same is true for church history or the history of Christianity as the field was renamed by the Higher Education Act of 1876.⁹⁶ The historical and comparative approach implied that Christianity was seen as on a par with other religions. Orthodox theologians considered this idea a threat to traditional theology and the Haarlem: Bohn, 1909, pp. 337–367. On this congress see Björn Skogar, ‘Neoprotestantism in Stockholm in 1897’, in Sigurd Hjelde, ed., Man, Meaning & History. Hundred Years of History of Religions in Norway. The Heritage of W. Brede Kristensen, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000, pp. 57–70. ⁹⁰ Cf. Actes du IVe Congrès International d’Histoire des Religions, tenu à Leide du 9–13e septembre 1912, Leiden: Brill, 1913. ⁹¹ Chantepie de la Saussaye, Het belang van de studie der godsdiensten voor de kennis van het christendom (inaugural address Amsterdam), Groningen: Noordhoff, 1878, p. 26. ⁹² Chantepie de la Saussaye, Het belang, p. 29. ⁹³ Chantepie de la Saussaye, Het belang, p. 32. ⁹⁴ Cf. C.P. Tiele, review of Chantepie de la Saussaye, Het belang van de studie der godsdiensten, Theologisch Tijdschrift 13 (1879) 418–423. ⁹⁵ P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, ‘Cornelis Petrus Tiele’, in: Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (1902) 125–154; reprinted in Portretten en Kritieken, pp. 82–120, here p. 97. ⁹⁶ Arie L. Molendijk, ‘ “That Most Important Science”: The Study of Church History in the Netherlands in the Nineteenth Century’, Dutch Review of Church History/Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 84 (2004) 358–387.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

176

   

special and unique character of Christian faith. Most Dutch liberal theologians, however, had no great worries in this respect, but their German counterparts were more sensitive to this concern. The German New Testament scholar and liberal theologian Wilhelm Bousset, for one, observed that historical research was in danger ‘of placing Christianity in the flux of development’, and ‘thereby neutralizing and relativizing everything’.⁹⁷ Bousset’s close friend the systematic theologian Ernst Troeltsch famously stated that if one applied the historical method to the study of the Bible and church history, it becomes ‘a leaven, transforming everything and ultimately exploding the very form of earlier theological methods’.⁹⁸ Reforming theology in this regard means a fundamental change in the course of scholarly history and may be described somewhat anachronistically as a ‘paradigm shift’. Later, in the twentieth century, theologians such as Karl Barth decried nineteenth-century ‘historicism’ as a dead end in theology and called for a dialectical turn.⁹⁹ But at the time, it was especially liberal theologians who also understood the historical approach as an opportunity to better understand the unique character of the Christian faith, which was not to be sought in antiquated dogmas, but in living piety. Although the high expectations entertained in the last decades of the nineteenth century gradually diminished, science of religion as an academic discipline was still considered to be a significant field of inquiry in the Netherlands. With the work of William Brede Kristensen (1867–1953) and especially Gerardus van der Leeuw (1890–1950), whose opus magnum about the Phenomenology of Religion appeared in German, French, and English, the phenomenological approach to religion became dominant in the Netherlands.¹⁰⁰ The old optimism about what could be achieved and the accompanying vision of civilizing progress were fundamentally shaken by the Great War (1914–1918). However, they were not completely eradicated; still the idea of a global world, in which the Western nations had to take the lead, was nurtured. In the ongoing process of colonization governmental and administrative control were intensified. This included a missionary offensive, aimed at the education and, if possible, conversion of the ‘natives’.¹⁰¹ Scholars such as the Arabist and influential government adviser ⁹⁷ Wilhelm Bousset, ‘Die Religionsgeschichte und das Neue Testament’, Theologische Rundschau 7 (1904) 265–277, 311–318, 353–365, here pp. 364–365, quoted in Mark D. Chapman, Ernst Troeltsch and Liberal Theology: Religion and Cultural Synthesis in Wilhelmine Germany, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 13. ⁹⁸ Troeltsch, ‘Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology’, p. 12. ⁹⁹ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, ‘Die “antihistoristische Revolution” in der protestantischen Theologie der zwanziger Jahre’, in Jan Rohls and Günther Wenz, eds., Vernunft des Glaubens. Festschrift Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988, pp. 377–405. ¹⁰⁰ Gerardus van der Leeuw, Phänomenologie der Religion, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933; Religion in Essence and Manifestation. A Study in Phenomenology, trans. J.E. Turner, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1938. ¹⁰¹ Cf. M. Kuitenbrouwer, Nederland en de opkomst van het moderne imperialisme. Koloniën en buitenlandse politiek 1870–1902, Amsterdam and Dieren: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1985.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

- 

177

Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje (1857–1936) helped to formulate an ‘ethical colonial policy’, which was supposed to end brute exploitation of people and natural resources and to introduce better living conditions for the inhabitants of the Netherlands East Indies (present-day Indonesia).¹⁰² This does not mean, of course, that these objectives were achieved. The precise connection between the Dutch study of religion as described above and colonialism, however, is hard to determine. In the beginning the focus was on the ancient religions of the Middle East and Mediterranean, which were deemed important for a better understanding of Judaism and early Christianity and the biblical texts in particular. In my view, the relationship between oriental studies (including the study of religion) and colonialism is much clearer than that between colonialism and the rise of a separate science of religion.¹⁰³ For instance, the 1883 International Congress of Orientalists in Leiden, originally scheduled for 1884, was brought forward a year so that it could coincide with the International Colonial Exhibition in Amsterdam in 1883. In his opening speech, Abraham Kuenen claimed that the reason for convening this congress in a small country such as the Netherlands was, without doubt, the fact that it possessed colonies. In his view the Western mission civilatrice also concerns the ‘conquest of the colonies in favour of science’.¹⁰⁴ Switching from this global perspective to the question of what the introduction of ‘science of religion’ meant in the context of Dutch academia, the most important thing to be noted is that the fierce discussions in the Dutch parliament were not about the introduction of a new discipline, but centred on the transformation of the traditional faculty of theology as such. The advocates of this renewal belonged to the liberal wing of Dutch Protestantism, which had its intellectual stronghold at the University of Leiden. They believed in an unbiased, nonconfessional study of religion, which in the end would prove the superiority of their own liberal Protestantism. Fundamental to their view was the conviction that liberal Protestantism, although historically located in and linked to the Dutch Reformed Church, was of general importance and could be a civilizing force in Dutch society. In an important sense, the theology-as-science-of-religion programme can be considered the scholarly counterpart of the Protestant feeling of superiority: the programme would guarantee that theology acquired a scientific footing. The opponents of this stance, among them the Home Secretary, had a ¹⁰² Willem Otterspeer, ‘The Ethical Imperative’, in Otterspeer, ed., Leiden Oriental Connections 1850–1940, Leiden: Brill, 1989, pp. 204–229. ¹⁰³ The most discussed book, of course, is that by Edward W. Said, Orientalism (reprinted with a new afterword; original edition 1978), London: Penguin, 1995. ¹⁰⁴ M.J. de Goeje, Actes du Sixième Congrès International des Orientalistes, vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 1884, pp. 44–45 (from Kuenen’s opening speech): ‘J’ai cependant en vue en premier lieu une autre obligation, qui se trouve étroitement liée à cette tâche civilatrice, c’est le devoir de conquérir les colonies au profit de la science’ (italics original). For a broader discussion, see Molendijk, The Emergence of the Science of Religion, chapter 8.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

178

   

much more restricted view regarding the possibilities of science of religion: according to them, its subject matter was religion. As such, science of religion covered, at best, only part of traditional theology, which in this view is concerned with the divine. The rise of science of religion and the historical approach to Holy Scriptures in the second half of the nineteenth century was an international affair. Dutch scholars such as Kuenen, Tiele, and Chantepie de la Saussaye had their work translated into English and German, published authoritative handbooks, spoke at international conferences, and were part of an international ‘republic of letters’. They exchanged ideas with colleagues abroad, such as Robertson Smith, père et fils Réville, Wellhausen, and Friedrich Max Müller, whose lectures on the science of religion were already translated into Dutch in 1871. Although many of the early Dutch pioneers of religious studies did indeed compare religious phenomena (a task mostly assigned to the ‘philosophy of religion’ part of ‘science of religion’), the main task was the study of non-Christian religions, especially those ancient religions that were relevant to a better understanding of ancient Judaism and early Christianity. In the beginning the focus was very strongly on sacred texts, but the ultimate aim was to present a general history of religions and religious phenomena. In this sense the rise of the science of religion is part of the ‘historical turn’ in theology. A scholar such as Abraham Kuenen not only carried out meticulous research into Old Testament texts and tried to establish exact dates of the various books, but also wrote a ‘History of Israel’. Tiele’s book on Zoroastrianism also presents a religious history. Thus, these studies follow the same line, and seen from this perspective ‘comparativists’ and historians of religion—or religions—are in the same basket. Ernst Troeltsch for one suggested to use the term ‘history of religion’ (Religionsgeschichte) ‘to designate those scholars who had given up the last remnant of a core of supernaturally revealed truths in the Bible, and who work exclusively with the universally valid methods of psychology and history’.¹⁰⁵ If the term ‘psychology’ is replaced by ‘social sciences’, including some philosophy, this statement is appropriate to summarize this fundamental change in the study of religion too. Comparison implies history, and hence comparativism was even equated with the historical approach at the time.¹⁰⁶ Thus, the emergence of science of religion and the historical-critical study of the Bible were closely related phenomena, which implied a new—historical and comparative—approach in the study of religion.

¹⁰⁵ Ernst Troeltsch, ‘The Dogmatics of the History-of-Religions School’ (1913), in Troeltsch, Religion in History, pp. 87–108, here p. 90. ¹⁰⁶ Arie L. Molendijk, Friedrich Max Müller and the Sacred Books of the East, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 127–142.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

Conclusion ‘There are strong reasons why religions and religiosity should occupy center stage in a global history of the nineteenth century.’¹ Many contemporaries and scholars have seen the nineteenth century as the age when science and secular thought overcame religious belief and when religion was consequently marginalized. This is not an apt characterization, as the era actually saw a triumphal re-emergence and expansion of religion.² It was an important force that shaped personal lives, collective identities, intellectual debates, and political struggles. Notwithstanding evident processes of secularization, ‘only very exceptionally in the nineteenth century did religion become what sociological theory calls a functionally differentiated subsystem, alongside other systems such as law, politics, or the economy, and hence a reasonably distinct sphere’.³ In his Stone Lectures given in Princeton in 1898, the Dutch theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper had already argued in the same vein. Here he provided a justification for his programme of a pluralist society, in which opposing worldview groups could get their fair share, including their own political party, education system, and media. Rather than summarizing the preceding chapters, this Conclusion aims at addressing overarching themes such as religious pluralism, theological scholarship, the historization of knowledge, the impact of naturalistic approaches on theology, and the ways in which the various Dutch Protestant theologians discussed in this book dealt with the process of modernization. Their work will be put further into perspective by providing more international context as well.

Religious Pluralism and Pillarization Religious developments in the nineteenth century in the West are better captured in terms of the emergence of a strong form of religious pluralism than by grand narratives of the decline of religion or the abstract battle between faith and science. In his eminent book on secularization in Western Europe between 1848 and 1914, Hugh McLeod has put forward the thesis that ‘trends towards secularisation have ¹ Jürgen Osterhammel, The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2014, p. 873. ² C.A. Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World 1780–1914, Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 2004, p. 325. ³ Osterhammel, The Transformation of the World, p. 873.

Protestant Theology and Modernity in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands. Arie L. Molendijk, Oxford University Press. © Arie L. Molendijk 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192898029.003.0011

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

180

   

to be seen in the context of intense religious competition, whether between rival branches of Christianity or between religious and secular views of the world’.⁴ The nineteenth century has even been termed the ‘second confessional age’ (after the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries) because of the revival of religion and the strengthening of confessional divisions, which penetrated politics, society, and everyday culture. Although church attendance did indeed decline in various places, the nineteenth century generally saw a significant rise in pilgrimage, the production of religious literature, and, most important of all, religious associations and organizations that furthered participation (external and internal missions) and common welfare causes, combating poverty and other social illnesses such as alcohol abuse and child labour.⁵ The Netherlands was no exception to these trends. A great number of people were engaged in religious organizations and activities and began to participate in public debates and politics. To a large extent, Abraham Kuyper provided here the theoretical underpinnings of a process that would later be called pillarization (the politico-denominational segregation of a society). Each of the four main ideological groups (Protestants, Catholics, Socialists, and Liberals)⁶ should get its fair slice of the national cake. Kuyper therefore formed an allegiance with the Catholics to establish public funding of Christian schools, a goal that was reached in 1917 together with the introduction of national male suffrage (women were given the right to vote two years later). The development of strictly defined confessional subcultures was a broader Western European phenomenon, but seems to have been pushed to extreme forms in the Netherlands during the 1950s.⁷ In 1956, about 90 per cent of Catholics and orthodox Protestants behaved along ideological lines when it came to voting, membership of unions or broadcasting corporations, and the primary school education of their children. The formation of ideological blocs, however, had started earlier, in the late nineteenth century. Socialists and ultramontane Catholics were important elsewhere in Europe, too, but Kuyper’s NeoCalvinists are peculiar to the Netherlands (notwithstanding the fact that he framed Neo-Calvinism as a world-leading historical power). Dutch pillarization implied a fundamentally plural system that enabled the emancipation of groups that lagged behind in Dutch society. Notwithstanding strong authoritarian

⁴ Hugh McLeod, Secularisation in Western Europe, 1848–1914, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000, p. 28. ⁵ Olaf Blaschke, ‘Das 19. Jahrhundert. Ein zweites konfessionelles Zeitalter?’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 26 (2000) 38–75; Olaf Blaschke, ‘Abschied von der Säkularisierungslegende’, zeitenblicke 5/1 (2006) (http://www.zeitenblicke.de/2006/1/Blaschke/index_html/fedoradocument_view), which presents a large volume of data. Blaschke has been criticized for focusing too much on Germany and German Catholicism: A.J. Steinhoff, ‘A Second Confessional Age? Reflections on Religion in the Long Nineteenth Century’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 30 (2004) 549–570. ⁶ The situation was in fact rather more complicated; see the introduction to Chapter 8. ⁷ McLeod, Secularization in Western Europe, p. 224.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



181

tendencies that would eventually lead to depillarization in the 1960s and 1970s, this process implied a modernization of Dutch society. The process of confessionalization and pluralization of worldviews was thus highly characteristic of the Netherlands. Contrary to more religiously homogeneous countries, the strong opposition between confessions and worldview groups in the Netherlands more or less forced people to take a stance.⁸ This also explains the relatively large number of atheists or ‘freethinkers’ who gathered around the magazine De Dageraad (The Dawn).⁹ Although Allard Pierson (1831–1896) did not join this group, his intellectual trajectory—including his resignation as a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1865 and his consequent turn to an ‘agnostic’ worldview as well as the vehement polemics surrounding this step— shows the intensity of theological and intellectual debate at the time. In a confessionally divided situation, the modern theologians whose spokesman Pierson had been took his resignation and public critique of the modernist stance almost as a kind of betrayal. His development was stamped by his upbringing in a Pietist family and his early admiration of Isaac da Costa and in this respect is not typical of other modern theologians, who—like Pierson—pursued a career outside the church as journalists, teachers, or professors.

Abraham Kuyper and Modernism Notwithstanding observations that the Netherlands lagged behind major European countries, the religious and intellectual landscape was changing at a fast pace in Holland too. At the end of the nineteenth century it was abundantly clear that the old liberal ideals of a homogeneous Protestant nation and a broad People’s Church (volkskerk) had been shattered, initiated by Abraham Kuyper’s secession of 1886 (Doleantie), which would lead to the foundation of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands in 1892.¹⁰ Moreover, Kuyper founded the first modern political party (Anti-Revolutionaire Partij) in 1879, a NeoCalvinist university in 1880, and propagated his ideas through his own print media. He revolutionized the Netherlands, intellectually and politically, by mobilizing orthodox Protestant dissatisfaction with the liberal establishment. In

⁸ This is not to deny that the various confessional and worldview groups were not attractive to their followers. ⁹ Oene Noordenbos, Het atheïsme in Nederland in de negentiende eeuw. Een kritisch overzicht, Rotterdam: W.L. & J. Brusse’s Uitgeversmaatschappij, 1931; Hans Knippenberg, De religieuze kaart van Nederland. Omvang en geografische spreiding van de godsdienstige gezindten vanaf de Reformatie tot heden, Assen and Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992, p. 228. ¹⁰ An earlier influential secession had already taken place in 1834 and part of this group went with Kuyper in 1892; for a concise overview of these events, see John Halsey Wood, Jr., Going Dutch in the Modern Age: Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 6–19.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

182

   

brilliant speeches and brochures, Kuyper attacked what he saw as the lukewarm and un-Calvinist views of the modernists and in particular their intellectual spokesmen, who allegedly betrayed the supernatural faith of the ‘old fathers’ of the Reformed tradition, which Kuyper claimed to restore. Whilst calling for a return to the old Reformed faith, Kuyper actually modernized the Calvinist tradition in an unprecedented way. This was acknowledged by the likes of Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch, who deplored the weakness of their own Lutheran tradition, and to some extent even followed Kuyper’s own interpretation of Calvinism as a powerful confession that had changed the world. Although Weber’s idea of the ‘Protestant ethic’ as a game-changer in the development of a new capitalist mindset and modern capitalism in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Britain and Holland has been heavily criticized,¹¹ Weber and Troeltsch correctly considered Kuyper’s thinking to be a reinvention of Calvinism through the introduction of the system of Free Church and religious toleration. Kuyper accepted the idea of religious and ideological pluralism and argued for the superiority of Neo-Calvinism by comparing it to other worldviews. In this respect, Kuyper did not differ from his modernist opponents, who argued for the superiority of their spiritualized blend of liberal Protestantism. Primarily, theological modernists aimed at a reformation of the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk (Dutch Reformed Church or Netherlands Reformed Church)¹² from the inside. Although some of them assembled in the Nederlandsche Protestantenbond (Dutch Protestant Association), which was founded in 1870 and established freethinking congregations of their own, most liberals stayed within the Dutch Reformed Church and other—ideologically kindred—smaller churches. After the introduction of a qualified male vote in the Dutch Reformed Church in 1867, which was supported by the liberal wing, it turned out that the liberal Protestants would remain a minority, now under much more pressure from orthodox church members. The ideal of an inclusive People’s Church that tolerated a broad range of Christian believers was not achieved and would be shattered over the course of time. The term ‘modernism’ has many meanings and denotations, as almost any ‘new’ development could be described by the term ‘modern’ and its derivatives. In a more specific sense, modernism refers to reforming movements in the arts, architecture, music, dance, and in particular literature during the second half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. But the term is also used in theological contexts, referring again to a variety of phenomena. In the history of Western Christianity, it points to the critical appropriation of the Christian ¹¹ Hartmut Lehmann and Guenther Roth, eds., Weber’s Protestant Ethic: Origins, Evidence, Contexts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; cf. Peter Ghosh, Max Weber and The Protestant Ethic. Twin Histories, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. ¹² Both translations are used. Netherlands Reformed Church is no doubt the more correct translation, but I personally prefer Dutch Reformed Church because it is handier and more compact.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



183

tradition. David Friedrich Strauss’ bestselling book Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (1835–1836) is often mentioned as the beginning of theological modernism. Within the Roman Catholic tradition, ‘modernism’ specifically refers to several ‘modernist’ theological views that were condemned by Pope Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (1907), whereby modernism was defined as a heretical system within Catholicism. The catchwords here were ‘irrationalism’ and ‘psychologism’ and the most visible targets of condemnation were the French theologian Alfred Loisy (1857–1940) and to a lesser degree the British Jesuit George Tyrrell (1861–1909). Much more so than their European counterparts, American theological modernism and liberal Protestantism were characterized by a socially and politically progressive agenda. The Social Gospel movement emerged in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century and famous Protestant liberal pastors such as Josiah Strong, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch promoted social justice as a core element of the Christian faith. Dutch modernists, however, did not contribute much to the emancipation of underprivileged groups, but wished to educate and enlighten them.¹³ Social issues and the exploitation of workers were not at the forefront of their thinking. Instead, Dutch liberal Protestants wanted a new Reformation to update and reinterpret the old faith, including confessional creeds, in a modern fashion. In the late nineteenth century there was a huge sense of optimism that the old faith could indeed be reformed and that a liberal Christian, spiritualized form of religion and piety would spread across the world. A similar spirit held sway over large parts of the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. The key objective of this international religious conference was to gather ‘the representatives of all faiths’ and to present ‘to the world, at the [World] Exposition of 1893, the religious harmonies and unities in humanity, and also in showing forth the moral and spiritual agencies which are at the root of human progress’.¹⁴ This huge event did not go unnoticed in the Netherlands. Frederik Willem Nicolaas Hugenholtz (1839–1900), who was the pastor of the liberal Dutch-speaking congregation in Grand Rapids (Michigan), was the delegate of the Dutch Protestant Association and published an appreciative account of the World’s Parliament.¹⁵ The Dutch scholar of religion Cornelis ¹³ Later, some Dutch liberal Protestants promoted Christian Socialism and went on to join the Socialist Workers’ Movement, one of the most prominent representatives being Willem Banning (1888–1971); cf. Arie L. Molendijk, ‘Willem Banning and the Reform of Socialism in the Netherlands’, Contemporary European History 29 (2020) 139–154. An earlier example is the Lutheran theologian Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis (1846–1919), who resigned as a minister in 1879 and devoted the rest of his life to the socialist cause; cf. Jan Willem Stutje, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis. Een romantische revolutionair, Antwerpen/Gent and Amsterdam: Houtekiet/Amsab— Atlas, 2012. ¹⁴ John Henry Barrows, ed., The World’s Parliament of Religions, 2 vols., London: The Parliament Publishing Company, 1893, vol. I, p. 10. ¹⁵ Frederik Willem Nicolaas Hugenholtz, Het parlement der godsdiensten (1893), 2nd edition, Rotterdam: Van Nijgh & Van Ditmar, 1893.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

184

   

Petrus Tiele contributed a paper to the scientific section of the conference. The Parliament was held in the Art Institute of Chicago at Lake Michigan and the meetings drew large audiences. The participants felt united and were convinced of the ultimate meaning of ‘religion’—however defined—as a force against indulgence in consumerism and materialism.¹⁶ The liberal Protestant ideal of the need to reform had a strong religious and often experiential dimension, which can been addressed by pointing to the process of spiritualization. Dogma and institutions were no longer deemed very important and the focus shifted to piety and the subjective dimension of religion in general. Under the guidance of their ministers, of course, believers were invited to find out for themselves what mattered most and could draw inspiration from a variety of sources, including Oriental traditions. Two Protestant ministers, Philip Reinhard Hugenholtz (1821–1889) and Petrus Hermannus Hugenholtz (1834–1911), left the Dutch Reformed Church and founded a Free Congregation in Amsterdam in 1878, which was not exclusively Christian. In their meetings they also used texts ranging from the ancient Greeks and Romans to Friedrich Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East, as well as excerpts from modern authors such as Goethe, Tolstoy, George Eliot, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. The rise of theosophy in the Netherlands (the Theosophical Society’s first Lodge Post Nubila Lux was established in The Hague in 1881) is also an indication of the renewed interest in Eastern wisdom. Although that movement attracted only a small number of people, famous artists such as Piet Mondrian were deeply influenced by theosophical thought.¹⁷ Eastern religions were taken more seriously and had to be studied in their own right. The modernists were also known for the scholarly examination of their own Christian tradition, which is probably most evident in the scholarship of the Bible.

Modern Scholarship and Dissemination Dutch theologians carried out major scholarly work in the fields of biblical scholarship and the emerging science of religion and disseminated their findings among a wider audience. The Leiden modern theologian Abraham Kuenen was one of the most outstanding Dutch scholars of the second half of the nineteenth century. He demonstrated that the oldest sources of the Old Testament were the Prophets and not, as previously assumed, the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). This led to a completely new view of the history of ancient Israel: not

¹⁶ Arie L. Molendijk, ‘ “To Unite Religion against all Irreligion”: The 1893 World Parliament of Religions’, Journal for the History of Modern Theology 18 (2011) 228–250. ¹⁷ Marty Bax, Het Web der Schepping. Theosofie en Kunst in Nederland van Lauweriks tot Mondriaan, Amsterdam: SUN, 2006.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



185

until the eighth century BCE could ‘ethical monotheism’ be historically established, with the prophets Amos and Hosea who preached a righteous, holy, and almighty God. Before that period the history of Israel was nebulous and characterized by polytheism. The new insights were also communicated to young children in The Bible for Young People, which portrayed the Patriarchs as polytheists: ‘[I]t needs no proof that stories in which a deity goes about with men, holds conversations with them, and even eats in their tents, do not give us accurate accounts of real events.’¹⁸ Already in the late 1850s, the modernist minister Conrad Busken Huet had published his popular Brieven over den Bijbel (Letters on the Bible). In these fictitious letters, a young professional stockbroker named Reinout (a representative of the new middle class) explains to his younger sister Machteld the new insights of biblical scholarship. He tries to dispel her worries by saying that something may be true, even if it did not actually happen. Would the story of the prodigal son be less meaningful because it is not history, but ‘merely’ a parable?¹⁹ Another example of critical scholarship in the Netherlands is the Dutch Radical School that emerged in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. New Testament scholars, such as Allard Pierson, Abraham Dirk Loman, and Willem Christiaan van Manen, denied the authenticity of Paul’s letters and doubted or even denied the historicity of Jesus. Although their views were severely criticized, it was evident to contemporaries that the rigid application of the historical-critical method could have serious implications—from both a religious and a scholarly point of view. Although similar radical ideas were propagated in Switzerland and later in Germany by Arthur Drews, author of the widely read and controversial book The Christ Myth,²⁰ these did not have a wide impact. However, early Dutch scholars of comparative religion, or science of religion as it was called in the Netherlands at the time, were influential and internationally respected. The two foremost early representatives of the new discipline, Cornelis Petrus Tiele and Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye, had their work translated into English, French, and German, and more recently even into Turkish and Japanese. They published authoritative handbooks, spoke at international conferences, and were part of an international ‘republic of letters’. They exchanged ideas with colleagues abroad, such as William Robertson Smith, père et fils Réville, Julius Wellhausen, and Friedrich Max Müller, whose lectures on the science of religion were translated into Dutch in 1871. The 1876 Higher Education Act enabled the establishment of new chairs in the science of religion at the universities of Leiden and Amsterdam. At the time the field included both history of religions and ¹⁸ H. Oort and I. Hooykaas, with the assistance of A. Kuenen, The Bible for Young People, trans. P.H. Wicksteed, vol. I, Manchester: Manchester District Sunday School Association, 1873, p. 129. ¹⁹ Cf. Conrad Busken Huet, Brieven over den Bijbel (1858), 2nd revised edition, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1863, p. 58. ²⁰ Arthur Drews, The Christ Myth (1909), trans. C. Delisle Burns, London: T.F. Unwin, 1910.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

186

   

philosophy of religion; the first edition of Chantepie de la Saussaye’s Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte (1887–1889) had a general systematic chapter as well as a ‘phenomenological’ section. Together with the first professorships in Switzerland in the 1870s and the foundation of the Religious Studies section at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris in 1886, these developments in the Netherlands are generally seen as a breakthrough in the establishment of an autonomous science of religion (Religionswissenschaft). The rise of the critical study of the Bible and science of religion were the most conspicuous scholarly developments in Dutch theology in the second half of the nineteenth century. They implied a radical modernization of theology and of the training programme for future Protestant ministers, which was fundamentally revised by the new 1876 Higher Education Act. Methodologically speaking, a historical way of thinking was taking hold of the field. The then current wideranging comparative approach, which many present-day scholars dismiss as speculative, was considered to be fully compatible with the historical method. Both the critical study of the Bible and science of religion can be seen as part of the historical turn in theology and the humanities in general.

Historization and Historicism in an International Perspective In other countries, too, modern theologians favoured and practised a thoroughly historical approach. In this context the term ‘historicism’ is often used to refer not only to meticulous historical research based on the sources and to annotated ‘critical’ editions of important documents, but also to the historicization of the history of humanity. The idea of historical laws was then often replaced by the principle of historical individuality and individual development. The distinction between the nomothetic natural sciences and the idiographic humanities, between the search for scientific laws and the study of individual or even unique historical phenomena, introduced by the Neo-Kantian philosopher Wilhelm Windelband, can be understood against this background. The liberal systematic theologian of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule (History of Religion School), Ernst Troeltsch, defended the introduction of the historical approach into theology and explicitly denied the viability of the dogmatic approach, which he regarded as a relic of former times. He famously stated that if one applied the historical method to the study of the Bible and church history, it becomes ‘a leaven, transforming everything and ultimately exploding the very form of earlier theological methods’.²¹ More generally, he acknowledged the fact ²¹ Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology’ (1900), in Troeltsch, Religion in History, trans. James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bensen, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991, pp. 11–32, here p. 12.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



187

that the historicization of our knowledge dissolves law, morality, the arts, and religion in the flow of historical development. Contemporaries spoke about the ‘crisis of historicism’, and thinkers like Franz Overbeck and Friedrich Nietzsche emphasized the relativity of history and denied claims that the study of history could lead to results that were significant for the establishment of values and normative ideas.²² To overcome the crisis, Troeltsch considered it necessary to rethink the issue of normativity and the relationship between history and philosophy in general.²³ Later, he was heavily criticized by Karl Barth and other proponents of dialectical theology, who thought history was a dead end, for his attempt to develop a critical historicism of a higher order that avoided relativism. They argued that theology had to move beyond historicism and acknowledge the fact that revelation was not captured by historical methods. The history of salvation (Heilgeschichte) is thus something completely different from factual history, which is studied using empirical methods. Their view of theology was part of a broader anti-historical and anti-historicist revolution in German cultural life in the first decades of the twentieth century.²⁴ In the Netherlands the crisis was not felt as deeply, but here too, doubts grew about what the work of modern theologians such as Troeltsch and Adolf von Harnack could bring in theological terms. From the 1920s onward, Barth’s influence increased, even in liberal Dutch theological circles.²⁵

Impact of the Natural Sciences on Theology The emphasis so far on the historicization of knowledge does not imply that the natural sciences played no role in intellectual and theological debates in the nineteenth century. Although radical materialism was indeed a rare phenomenon in the Netherlands, positivism and empiricism deeply influenced Cornelis Willem Opzoomer and Allard Pierson in the 1850s and 1870s.²⁶ The Protestant modernists’ rejection of miracles may be largely explained by a naturalistic point of view that was prominent at the time. In such a view, God too was bound by the rules of nature. But in 1870 Pierson was happy to state that he had found a new ²² Zachary Purvis, Theology and the University in Nineteenth-Century Germany, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 220–221. ²³ Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Die Krisis des Historismus’ (1922), in Troeltsch, Schriften zur Politik und Kulturphilosophie (1918–1923) [Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. XV], ed. Gangolf Hübinger, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2002, pp. 433–455, p. 454. ²⁴ Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, ‘Die “antihistoristische Revolution” in der protestantischen Theologie der zwanziger Jahre’, in Jan Rohls and Günther Wenz, eds., Vernunft des Glaubens. Festschrift Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988, pp. 377–405. ²⁵ Susanne Hennecke, Karl Barth in den Niederlanden, vol. I: Theologische, kulturelle und politische Rezeptionen (1919–1960), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. ²⁶ H.A. (Henri) Krop, ‘Natuurwetenschap en theologie in de negentiende eeuw. De filosofische achtergrond van de moderne theologie’, Theoretische Geschiedenis 21 (1994) 16–31.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

188

   

philosophical position that was not deterministic. In her standard work on positivism in Belgium and the Netherlands, Kaat Wils claims that positivism had almost disappeared as a coherent philosophy or worldview in the Netherlands shortly after 1880.²⁷ Nor was the impact of Darwinism on Dutch theology very strong. That is not to deny that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), which appeared in a Dutch translation in 1860, created quite a stir. Orthodox Protestants, of course, rejected the book and the idea that Jesus had ‘descended in a straight line from a chimpanzee or Orang-utan’.²⁸ Against this view, a modernist such as Cornelis Willem Opzoomer stated that evolutionary theories explained life on earth better than belief in a God who had created the various species separately. However, the ‘father’ of Dutch modernism, Jan Hendrik Scholten, thought that it did not make much difference whether one believed Darwin’s theory to be true or not. He had a blind spot for the incompatibility between the causal explanation of evolution by natural selection and Paley’s explanation of evolution by design.²⁹ In any case, the emerging historical-critical approach did much more damage to the credibility of traditional Christian dogma, such as the inspiration of the Bible and its historical accuracy, than naturalistic theories such as Darwinism.

Individual Theologians and Modernization The prominent nineteenth-century theologians who have figured in this book all formulated their position with a view to the changing world around them. Some were fundamentally affirmative about new cultural and political developments (Protestant modernist theologians), others were downright critical (Isaac da Costa), while Abraham Kuyper developed a new, modern, and competing worldview vis-àvis the dominant liberal stance. Nevertheless, in a variety of ways, all protagonists addressed the challenges of the slowly but steadily modernizing Dutch society in the nineteenth century and can be called modern thinkers in their own right.

²⁷ Kaat Wils, De omweg van de wetenschap. Het positivisme en de Belgische en Nederlandse intellectuele cultuur, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005, p. 389. ²⁸ Ernestine G.E. van der Wall, Het oude en het nieuwe geloof. Discussies rond 1900, Leiden: Universiteit Leiden Press, 1999, p. 12, referring to L. Tinholt’s review of ‘Poulain. Wat is een Christendom zonder leerstellingen?’, Stemmen voor Waarheid en Vrede 1 (1864) 251; cf. J. G. Hegeman, ‘Darwin en onze voorouders. Nederlandse reacties op de evolutieleer van 1860–1875. Een terreinverkenning’, in H.A.M. Snelders and K. van Berkel, eds., Natuurwetenschappen van Renaissance tot Darwin, Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1981, pp. 212–245, here pp. 234–235. ²⁹ Bart Leeuwenburgh and Janneke van der Heide, ‘Darwin on Dutch Soil: The Early Reception of his Ideas in the Netherlands’, in Eve-Marie Engels and Thomas F. Glick, eds., The Reception of Charles Darwin in Europe, London and New York: Continuum, 2008, pp. 175–187, here p. 178; for a more extensive discussion see Bart Leeuwenburgh, Darwin in domineesland. Een reconstructie van de wijze waarop geleerde Nederlanders Darwins evolutietheorie filosofisch beoordeelden, 1859–1877, PhD Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, [Rotterdam, 2009].

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi



189

Even Isaac da Costa, who fulminated against the spirit of the times, rejecting parliamentary democracy and defending slavery, was a modern opinion leader with a clear presence in the public domain. He became an important spokesman for the Dutch Pietist movement, the Réveil, which founded organizations of their own to missionize and to promote religious and moral welfare. This is a typical trait of a modern society, favouring private initiative, which could only come to fruition after the formal separation between state and church. Da Costa’s announcement of his conversion to Christianity in 1822 was a public event in the Netherlands and abroad. His conversion narrative, which was also published in English and German, was presented as a long journey, a learned quest for personal truth, which individuals have to appropriate for themselves. Notwithstanding the central importance of God and Christ for Da Costa, the conversion story centres on his personal identity. Thus, his narrative exemplifies the modern turn to the (religious) subject, which means a potential threat to (ecclesial) authority. The emphasis on individual appropriation sowed the seeds of conflicting opinions and, eventually, struggle and secession, the latter phenomenon being well-known in Dutch church history. The major transformation in this respect came much later, in the 1960s and 1970s, when antiauthoritarian and emancipatory movements gained influence in Western societies and the mainstream churches began to crumble. Still, up to the present day, Pietist groups have adhered to orthodox convictions, but even there—notwithstanding major collisions—the emancipation of women and gay people is gradually progressing. The modernization of Dutch society is thus a fact that could not be ignored by nineteenth-century theologians—even if some of them opposed parliamentary democracy, meritocratic and emancipatory ideals, or processes of differentiation that undermined the ideal of a national Protestant church and a homogeneous Dutch nation. Notwithstanding its anti-liberal origin, the system of pillarization modernized the Netherlands by energizing and emancipating various religious groups. Scholarly developments could not be ignored either. Up to the present day, orthodox theologians have struggled, harmonizing their faith with evolutionary theory.³⁰ Over the course of the twentieth century, however, historical scholarship has generally been accepted and is currently being applied in almost all academic theological training programmes in the Netherlands. The nineteenth-century theologians and developments represent a different era, during which the varieties of Christian religion still dominated social structures and public debates. But the great efforts to modernize the Christian faith did not ultimately succeed. Two-thirds of Dutch people presently say that they do not belong to a church.³¹ Many theological faculties have been closed down and the

³⁰ Gijsbert van den Brink, Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020. ³¹ Arie L. Molendijk, ‘The Low Countries’, in Grace Davie and Lucian Leustean, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

190

   

entire field has been marginalized and is hardly perceived as a worthy intellectual interlocutor.³² This tendency is not of course confined to the Netherlands. Yet the situation of Dutch academic theology is rather troubling and harrowing at present, as well as hard to explain. Some claim that modernism has led to the evaporation of Christian faith, others that the dominance of orthodoxy has brought about an inward-looking mentality, obsessed with its own identity. Thus, theological debates are furthered that are meaningless to a general audience, which—if interested in religious matters at all—prefers to read inspirational books and to practise self-improvement and self-awareness. This so-called spiritual revolution³³—the turn to the religious subject, who forms his or her own religion and spirituality—has its roots in older thought. The 1893 Chicago World’s Parliament of Religions is a good example and, in the Netherlands, the Hugenholtz brothers’ Free Congregation sought their inspiration in various sources, ranging from Western high literature to Oriental wisdom. Although religion and religiosity still occupy an important position in the presentday globalized world, the same is not true any longer of the old mainstream Protestant churches and their theologies. The secularized Netherlands is a prime example of this turnaround. The melancholic privilege—as Allard Pierson phrased it—of writing a book about vibrant nineteenth-century Dutch Protestant religion and theology does not of course alter this fact. If modernity and modernization are indeed aptly characterized by the structural legitimation of permanent change by human intervention, there will always be a price because change implies the destruction of whatever came before. As well as losses, the emancipation of various groups has also brought gains. Hegel famously declared freedom to be the essence of the Reformation: ‘man is determined by himself to be free’.³⁴ From this point of view, Dutch liberal Protestants continued an important Protestant tradition, naming their weekly De Hervorming (The Reformation). This is not to claim the future for the liberals. Although ideas such as the historical approach to the Bible and ideals of emancipation have become mainstream, organized liberal Protestantism nowadays represents only a tiny fraction of Christians in the Netherlands. The religious field is very diverse at present, and it is hard to make predictions. One thing is probably certain: that the image of the Netherlands as a tolerant nation that handles religious pluralism with ease and grace can no longer be upheld.

³² Arie L. Molendijk, ‘The Study of Religion in the Netherlands’, NTT: Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion 71 (2017) 2–18. ³³ The classic text here is Paul Heelas and Linda Woodhead et al., The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. ³⁴ Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte (1822/23), in Werke, vol. XII, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1970, p. 497: ‘der Mensch ist durch sich selbst bestimmt, frei zu sein’.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

Bibliography Adema, Janneke, ‘Verzuiling als metafoor voor modernisering’, in Madelon de Keizer and Sophie Tates, eds., Moderniteit. Modernisme en massacultuur in Nederland 1914–1940 (Vijftiende jaarboek van het Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie), Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 2004, pp. 265–283. Aerts, Remieg, Letterheren. Liberale cultuur in de negentiende eeuw. Het tijdschrift ‘De Gids’, Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1997. Arnold, Claus, Kleine Geschichte des Modernismus, Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 2007. Arnold, Claus et al., ‘Modernismus’, in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, vol. V, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, cols. 1385–1389. Augustijn, C., ‘Bavinck ter Vergadering van de Moderne Theologen 1912’, in Augustijn et al., eds., In rapport met de tijd. 100 jaar theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit, Kampen: Kok, 1980, pp. 88–110. Balke, W., ‘Allard Pierson in de klem tussen geloof en wetenschap’, De Negentiende Eeuw 21/1 (1997) 51–81. Bank, Jan and Maarten van Buuren, 1900: The Age of Bourgeois Culture (Dutch Culture in a European Perspective, vol. III), Assen and Basingstoke: Van Gorcum and Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Banning, Willem, ‘De nieuwe weg’, Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1957) 73–79. Banning, Willem, ‘Verzuiling’, in Banning, Om mens en menselijkheid in maatschappij en politiek, Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1960, pp. 165–179. Barnard, Marcel, ‘Allard Pierson (1831–1896). Schoonheid is de blos van ‘t Ware’, in J.C. H. Blom, P.H.D Leupen, P. de Rooy, T.J. Veen, and L. Kooijmans, eds., Een brandpunt van geleerdheid in de hoofdstad. De Universiteit van Amsterdam rond 1900 in vijftien portretten, Hilversum: Verloren, 1992, pp. 247–266. Barnard, Marcel, ‘Twee luide stemmen in mijn eigen gemoed’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 19 (1996) 4–15. Barrows, John Henry, ed., The World’s Parliament of Religions, 2 vols., London: The Parliament Publishing Company, 1893. Bauer, Bruno, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes, vol. III, Braunschweig: Friedrich Otto, 1842. Baur, Ferdinand Christian, Das Christenthum und die christliche Kirche der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Tübingen: Fues, 1853. Bavinck, Herman, ‘Feestrede’ (Eulogy), in Gedenkboek opgedragen door het feestcomite aan Prof. Dr. Kuyper, bij zijn vijf en twintigjarig jubileum als hoofdredacteur van ‘De Standaard’ (1872—1 april—1897), Amsterdam: G.J.C. Herdes, 1897, pp. 38–51; translation of a few passages in John Bolt, A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper’s American Public Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001, pp. 64–75. Bavinck, Herman, Modernisme en orthodoxie, Kampen: Kok, 1911. Bavinck, Herman, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en orthodoxie: A Translation’, Bavinck Review 7 (2016) 63–114.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

192



Bax, Erik H., Modernization and Cleavage in Dutch Society: A Study of Long Term Economic and Social Change (Groningen, 1988), Aldershot: Avebury, 1990. Bax, Marty, Het Web der Schepping. Theosofie en Kunst in Nederland van Lauweriks tot Mondriaan, Amsterdam: SUN, 2006. Bayly, C.A., The Birth of the Modern World 1780–1914, Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Beets, Nicolaas, ‘Vrijheid (Joh. 8:36)’, in Beets, Stichtelijke Uren [vol. I], Haarlem: F. Bohn, 1848, pp. 125–132. Beets, Nicolaas, Het dagboek van de student Nicolaas Beets 1833–1836, ed. Peter van Zonneveld, ’s-Gravenhage: Nederlands Letterkundig Museum en Documentatiecentrum, 1983. Benjamins, Rick, Jan Offringa, and Wouter Hendrik Slob, eds., Liberaal Christendom. Ervaren, doen, denken, Vught: Skandalon, 2016. Benrath, Gustav Adolf, ‘Erweckung/Erweckungsbewegungen. I. Historisch’, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. X, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982, pp. 205–220. Berg, C.H.W. van den, ‘Kuyper, Abraham’, in Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse protestantisme, vol. IV, Kampen: Kok, 1998, pp. 276–283. Berg, J. van den, ‘P. Hofstede de Groot en het Reveil’, in J. van den Berg, P.L. Schram, and S. L. Verheus, eds., Aspecten van het Reveil, Kampen: Kok, 1980, pp. 11–34. Berg, J. van den, ‘Dutch Revival Movements in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: Some Considerations with Regard to Possible Roots and Connections’, in Ulrich Gäbler and Peter Schram, eds., Erweckung am Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts (Referate einer Tagung an der freien Universität Amsterdam 26.—29. März 1985), Amsterdam: Centrale huisdrukkerij Vrije Universiteit, 1986, pp. 205–222. Berg, J. van den, P.L. Schram, and S.L. Verheus, eds., Aspecten van het Reveil, Kampen: Kok, 1980. Bergh van Eysinga, G.A. van den, Die holländische radikale Kritik des Neuen Testaments, Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1912. Bergh van Eysinga, G.A. van den, ‘1866–1940. Gedachtenisrede in de vergadering van moderne theologen, 2 april 1940’, Nieuw Theologisch Tijdschrift 29 (1940) 101–123. Berkhof, Hendrik, 200 Jahre Theologie. Ein Reisebericht, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985. Bilderdijk, Willem, De bezwaren tegen den geest der eeuw van Mr. I. da Costa, toegelicht, Leiden: L. Herdingh en Zoon, 1823. Bilderdijk, Willem, ‘Den Heere Izaäk da Costa bij zijne bevordering tot doctor in de rechten’, in Bilderdijk, Krekelzangen, vol. III, Rotterdam: Immerzeel, 1823, pp. 43–48. Bilderdijk, Willem, Brieven, vol. IV [Letters to Da Costa], Rotterdam: Messchert, 1837. Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme, 6 vols., Kampen: Kok, 1983–2006: http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/lexiconprotestantisme. Blaschke, Olaf, ‘Das 19. Jahrhundert. Ein zweites konfessionelles Zeitalter?’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 26 (2000) 38–75. Blaschke, Olaf, ‘Abschied von der Säkularisierungslegende’, zeitenblicke 5/1 (2006): http:// www.zeitenblicke.de/2006/1/Blaschke/index_html/fedoradocument_view. Blom, J.C.H. (Hans), ‘Onderzoek naar verzuiling in Nederland. Status quaestionis en wenselijke ontwikkeling’, in J.C.H. Blom and C.J. Misset, eds., Broeders sluit U aan. Aspecten van verzuiling in zeven Hollandse gemeenten, Den Haag: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1985, pp. 10–29. Blom, J.H.C., ‘ “Het geloof van de radio op Vrijdagavond”: Aspecten van de geschiedenis van de Vrijzinnig Protestantse Radio Omroep 1926–1968’, in J.H.J. van den Heuvel et al.,

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



193

eds., Een vrij zinnige verhouding. De VPRO en Nederland 1926–1986, Baarn: Ambo, 1986, pp. 73–146. Blom, Hans, ‘Vernietigende kracht en nieuwe vergezichten. Het onderzoeksproject verzuiling op lokaal niveau geëvalueerd’, in J.C.H. Blom and J. Talsma, eds., De verzuiling voorbij. Godsdienst, stand en natie in de lange negentiende eeuw, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2000, pp. 203–236. Blom, J.C.H. and C.J. Misset, ‘ “Een onvervalschte Nederlandsche geest”: Enkele historiografische kanttekeningen bij het concept van een nationaal-gereformeerde richting’, in E.K. Grootes and J. den Haan, eds., Geschiedenis godsdienst letterkunde. Festschrift S.B.J. Zilverberg, Roden: Nehalennia, 1989, pp. 221–232. Blom, J.C.H., D. Wertheim, H. Berg, and B. Wallet, eds., Geschiedenis van de joden in Nederland, Amsterdam: Balans, 2017. Boersema, Karsien Hendrik, Allard Pierson. Eene Cultuur-Historische Studie (PhD thesis, Groningen), ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1924. Bolle, Menachim Eljakiem, De opheffing van de autonomie der Kehilloth (Joodse gemeenten) in Nederland in 1796 (PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1960). Bolt, John, A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper’s American Public Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Bon, Gustave le, La psychologie des foules, Paris: Alcan, 1895. Bornewasser, J.A., Kerkelijk verleden in een wereldlijke context, Amsterdam: Van Soeren & De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1989. Bornewasser, J.A., ‘Hoe conservatief was het Réveil?’, in Bornewasser, Kerkelijk verleden in een wereldlijke context, Amsterdam: Van Soeren & De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1989, pp. 327–344. Bornewasser, J.A., ‘Roomse bezwaren tegen Da Costa’s Bezwaren’, in Bornewasser, Kerkelijk verleden in een wereldlijke context, Amsterdam: Van Soeren & De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1989, pp. 345–356. Bos, David, In dienst van het Koninkrijk. Beroepsontwikkeling van hervormde predikanten in negentiende-eeuws Nederland, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1999. Bos, David J., ‘ “Doch christenen zijn nu eenmaal geen koeien”: Over Vragen en antwoorden. Brieven over den Bijbel (1857–1858) van Cd. Busken Huet’, in F.G.M. Broeyer and D.Th. Kuiper, eds., Is ‘t waar of niet? Ophefmakende publicaties uit de ‘lange’ negentiende eeuw, Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005, pp. 153–191. Bos, David J., Servants of the Kingdom: Professionalization among Ministers of the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands Reformed Church, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010 (shortened translation of Bos, In dienst van het Koninkrijk). Bos, David J., ‘ “When Creed and Morals Rot . . . ”: Orthodoxies Versus Liberalisms in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands Reformed Church’, in Bob Becking, ed., Orthodoxy, Liberalism, and Adaptation: Essays on Ways of Worldmaking in Times of Change from Biblical, Historical and Systematic Perspectives, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011, pp. 115–147. Bousset, Wilhelm, ‘Die Religionsgeschichte und das Neue Testament’, Theologische Rundschau 7 (1904) 265–277, 311–318, 353–365. Bratt, James D., ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Bratt, James D., ‘Abraham Kuyper: Puritan, Victorian, Modern’, in Luis E. Lugo, ed., Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyper’s Legacy for the Twenty-First Century, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 3–21.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

194



Bratt, James D., Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. Breukelaar, Adriaan, ‘Kuyper, Abraham’, in F.W. Bautz and T. Bautz, eds., BiographischesBibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, [vol. IV], s.l. 1992, pp. 846–851. Brink, Gijsbert van den, Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020. Brom, Gerard, Romantiek en katholicisme in Nederland, part I (The Arts), Groningen and Den Haag: J.B. Wolters, 1926. Bruijn, Jan de, Abraham Kuyper. Een Beeldbiografie, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2008. Bruining, Gerbrand, Een hartig woordje aan Mr. W. Bilderdijk, over deszelfs dusgenoemde Toelichting, van Mr. I. Da Costa’s Bezwaren tegen den geest der eeuw, Leiden: J.W. Dauw Lem, 1823. Buitendijk, W.J.C., ‘De jonge Da Costa. Romanticus in de Biedermeiertijd’, in J. van den Berg, P.L. Schram, and S.L. Verheus, eds., Aspecten van het Reveil, Kampen: Kok, 1980, pp. 53–73. Buitenwerf-van der Molen, Mirjam, God van vooruitgang. De popularisering van het modern-theologische gedachtegoed in Nederland (1857–1880), Hilversum: Verloren, 2007. Byvanck, W.G.C., De jeugd van Isaäc da Costa (1798–1825), 2 vols., Leiden: Van Doesburgh, 1894–1896. Capadose, Abraham, Bestrijding der Vaccine of de Vaccine aan de Beginselen der Godsdienst, der Rede en der ware Geneeskunst getoetst, Amsterdam: Sulpke, 1823. [Capadose, Abraham], Bekeering van Doctor A. Capadose, Portugeesch Israëliet, uitgegeven door het Genootschap der Vrienden van Israël te Neufchâtel, uit het Frans vertaald door M.J. Chevallier, Amsterdam: G. van Peursem, 1837. [Capadose, Abraham], Conversion de M. le Docteur Capadose, Israélite Portugais, publiée par la Société des amis d’Israël de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel: Imprimerie de Petitpierre, 1837. Capadose, Abraham, Hernieuwde waarschuwing tegen de vaccine, ’s-Gravenhage: H.J. Gerritsen, 1864. Carter, Heath W. and Laura Rominger Porter, eds., Turning Points in the History of American Evangelism, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Daniël, Hoe moet het moderne naturalisme bestreden worden? Een woord over deze vraag naar aanleiding van Prof. van Oosterzee’s jongste geschrift over Leven van Jezus van Ernest Renan, Rotterdam: Tassemeijer, 1863. Chantepie de la Saussaye, P.D. (Pierre Daniël), Het belang van de studie der godsdiensten voor de kennis van het christendom (inaugural address Amsterdam), Groningen: Noordhoff, 1878. Chantepie de la Saussaye, P.D. (Pierre Daniël), Vier schetsen uit de godsdienstgeschiedenis, Utrecht: C.H.E. Breijer, 1883. Chantepie de la Saussaye, P.D. (Pierre Daniël), Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, 2 vols., Freiburg i.B.: J.C.B. Mohr (Siebeck), 1887–1889; Manual of the Science of Religion, translation of the first volume by Beatrice S. Colyer-Fergusson (née Max Müller), London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1891. Chantepie de la Saussaye, P.D. (Pierre Daniël), Die vergleichende Religionsforschung und der religiöse Glaube, Vortrag gehalten auf dem ersten religionswissenschaftlichen Kongresse in Stockholm am 31. August 1897, Freiburg i.B.: Mohr Siebeck, 1898; reprinted in Chantepie de la Saussaye, Portretten en Kritieken, Haarlem: Bohn, 1909, pp. 337–367. Chantepie de la Saussaye, P.D. (Pierre Daniël), Geschiedenis van den godsdienst der Germanen voor hun overgang tot het Christendom, Haarlem: Bohn, 1900; The Religion

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



195

of the Teutons (Handbooks on the History of Religions, vol. III), translated from the Dutch by Bert J. Vos, Boston: Ginn, 1902. Chantepie de la Saussaye, P.D. (Pierre Daniël), ‘Cornelis Petrus Tiele’, in Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (1902) 125–154; reprinted in Chantepie de la Saussaye, Portretten en Kritieken, Haarlem: Bohn, 1909, pp. 82–120. Chapman, Mark D., Ernst Troeltsch and Liberal Theology: Religion and Cultural Synthesis in Wilhelmine Germany, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Childs, Peter, Modernism, London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Cleef-Hiegentlich, F. van, ‘De transformatie van het Nederlandse Jodendom’, De Gids 148 (1985) 232–242. Clercq, Willem de, Willem de Clercq naar zijn dagboek, vol. I, ed. A. Pierson and De Clerqs jongste kleindochter [youngest granddaughter], Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1888. Conradie, Ernst M., ed., Creation and Salvation: Dialogue on Abraham Kuyper’s Legacy for Contemporary Ecotheology, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011. Cossee, E.H. (Eric), ‘De stichting van de Vrije Gemeente, haar voorgeschiedenis en uitwerking’, in J.D. Snel, P.H.A.M. Abels, G.N.M. Vis, and J. Bakker, eds., En God bleef toch in in Mokum. Amsterdamse kerkgeschiedenis in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw, Delft: Eburon, 2000, pp. 99–116. Da Costa, Isaac, Specimen inaugurale juridicum, exhibens observata quaedam de condictionibus, Leiden: Cijfveer, 1818. Da Costa, Isaac, Specimen academicum inaugurale, exhibens positiones quasdam ad philosophiam theoreticam pertinentes, Leiden: Cijfveer, 1821. Da Costa, Isaac, Bezwaren tegen den geest der Eeuw, Leiden: L. Herdingh, 1823. Da Costa, Isaac, ‘Inleiding’ [Introduction], in Brieven van Mr. Willem Bilderdijk, vol. IV, Rotterdam: W. Messchert, 1837, pp. v–xxiii. Da Costa, Isaac, Rekenschap van gevoelens bij gelegenheid van den strijd over het adres aan de hervormde gemeente in Nederland (1843), 2nd edition, Amsterdam: G. van Peursem, 1843. Da Costa, Isaac, Een en ander uit het leven van Dr. da Costa, Amsterdam: De Grebber, 1845. Da Costa, Isaac, Einiges aus dem Leben des Doctor Da Costa in Amsterdam, übers. von J. Aug. Hausmeister, Heidelberg: Winter, 1845. Da Costa, Isaac, ‘Uit het leven van Mr. Is. da Costa’, De Tijd. Merkwaardigheden der letterkunde en geschiedenis van den dag, voor de beschaafde wereld 1 (1845), second part, pp. 276–281. English translation: Da Costa, [untitled], The Voice of Israel, Saturday, 1 February 1845, pp. 87–88. Da Costa, Isaac, ‘Eenige opmerkingen omtrent het onderscheidend karakter der Groningsche godgeleerde school naar aanleiding van het Latijnsche handboek over christelijke dogmatiek en apologetiek, uitgegeven anno 1845 door de Hoogleeraren Pareau en Hofstede de Groot’, De Vereeniging. Christelijke Stemmen 1 (1847) 414–427, 491–499, 545–562, 626–634, 775–788. Separate edition: Eenige opmerkingen omtrent . . . , Amsterdam: Höveker, 1847. Da Costa, Isaac, Het Oogenblik. Een woord over het ontwerp van grondwetsherziening, Amsterdam: Höveker, 1848. Da Costa, Isaac, Israël en de volken. Overzicht van de geschiedenis der joden tot op onzen tijd, Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1849. Da Costa, Isaac, Nalezing van Mr. Isaac da Costa op zijnen Paulus. Eene schriftbeschouwing, Amsterdam: H. Höveker, 1850. Da Costa, Isaac, Brief van Mr. Is. da Costa aan den hoogleraar J.H. Scholten in antwoord op zijne teregtwijzing, Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh, 1857.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

196



Da Costa, Isaac, Wat er door de theologische faculteit te Leyden al zoo geleerd en geleverd wordt. Eene stem der smart en des beklags, Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh, 1857. Da Costa, Isaac, De mensch en de dichter Willem Bilderdijk. Eene bijdrage tot de kennis van zijn leven, karakter, en schriften, Haarlem: A.C. Kruseman, 1859. Da Costa, Isaac, Kompleete Dichtwerken (1861), ed. J.P. Hasebroek, 3rd edition, Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff, [1876]. [Da Costa, Isaac], Noble Families Among the Sephardic Jews, by Isaac da Costa, LL.D., with Some Account of the Capadose Family (including their Conversion to Christianity), by Bertram Brewster, and An Excursus on Their Jewish History, by Cecil Roth (with over 40 full-page illustrations), London: Oxford University Press, 1936. Da Costa-Belmonte, Hanna, Dagboekje van Hanna da Costa-Belmonte, ed. O.W. Dubois, Heereveen: Groen, 2000. Daalder, Hans, ‘Consociationalism: Center and Periphery in the Netherlands’, in Per Torsvik, ed., Mobilization, Center-Periphery Structures and Nation-Building, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1981, pp. 181–240. Daalder, Hans, ‘On the Origins of the Consociational Democracy Model’, Acta Politica 19 (1984) 97–116. Dam, Peter van, Staat van verzuiling. Over een Nederlandse mythe, Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 2011. Dirksen, P.D. (Piet) and A. (Arie) van der Kooij, eds., Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891): His Major Contributions to the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden: Brill, 2003. Doedes, J.I., Encyclopedie der Christelijke Theologie, Utrecht: Kemink, 1876. Domela Nieuwenhuis, F., Mijn afscheid van de kerk. Twee Toespraken (1879), 8th edition, Den Haag: Bevelander, 1912. Doorn, J.J.A. van, ‘Verzuiling. Een eigentijds system van sociale controle’, Sociologische Gids 3 (1956) 41–49. Drews, Arthur, Die Christusmythe, 2 vols., Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1909–1911; Drews, The Christ Myth, trans. C. Delisle Burns, London: T.F. Unwin, 1910 (translation of vol. I). Driel, C.M. van, Dienaar van twee heren. Het strijdbaar leven van theoloog-politicus B.D. Eerdmans (1868–1948), Kampen: Kok, 2005. Dubois, O.W., Een vriendschap in Réveilkring. De omgang tussen Isaäc da Costa en Willem de Clerq (1820–1844), Heerenveen: J.J. Groen, 1997. Egeling, L., Leerrede over Romeinen XI vers 5 door L. Egeling, bij de gelegenheid van de bediening des doops aan drie, tot onze Heer bekeerde, Israëlieten, Leiden: Du Saar, Mozes & Cijfveer, 1822. Eijnatten, Joris van, ‘God, Nederland en Oranje’: Dutch Calvinism and the Search for the Social Centre, Kampen: Kok, 1993. Eijnatten, Joris van, Hogere sferen. De ideeënwereld van Willem Bilderdijk (1756–1831), Hilversum: Verloren, 1998. Eijnatten, Joris van and Fred van Lieburg, Nederlandse Religiegeschiedenis, Hilversum: Verloren, 2005; Niederländische Religionsgeschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010. Ellemers, J.E., [review article] ‘Studies over verzuiling. De stand van zaken aan het eind van de jaren negentig’, Sociologische Gids 45 (1998) 426–439. Emmet, C.W., ‘The Modernist Movement in the Church of England’, Journal of Religion 2/6 (1922) 561–576. Encyclopaedia Biblica. A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archeology, Geography and Natural History of the Bible, ed. T.K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, 4 vols., London: Macmillan, 1899–1903.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



197

Enschedé, Ch., Laurens Jansz. Coster de uitvinder van de boekdrukkunst, Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1904. Ewald, Georg Heinrich August (Heinrich), The History of Israel, trans. Russell Martineau and Joseph Estlin Carpenter, 8 vols., 4th edition, London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1883; Ewald, Einleitung in die Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 8 vols., Göttingen: Dieterische Buchhandlung, 1843–1859, 3rd edition 1864–1868. Frishman, Judith, Dat hun geloof opregt gelove, hun keus de keus des harten zij (Inaugural Address Leiden 1997) [Leiden, 1997]. Frishman, Judith, ‘The Belmonte Women and their Conversion to Christianity. “Heil U, geachte Vrouw, uit Abrahams zaad gesproten” ’, Studia Rosenthaliana 32 (1998) 198–201. Fruin, Robert, Tien jaren uit den Tachtigjarigen Oorlog 1588–1598 (Leiden, 1857), 6th edition, Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1904. Fuks-Mansveld, R.G., ‘Verlichting en emancipatie omstreeks 1750–1814’, in J.C.H. Blom, D. Wertheim, H. Berg, and B. Wallet, eds., Geschiedenis van de Joden in Nederland, Amsterdam: Balans, 1995, pp. 177–203. Gäbler, Ulrich, ‘Zum theologischen Gehalt von Isaäc da Costas “Einreden wider den Zeitgeist” 1823’, in Ulrich Gäbler and Peter Schram, eds., Erweckung am Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, Amsterdam: Centrale huisdrukkerij Vrije Universiteit, 1986, pp. 223–245. Gäbler, Ulrich, ‘Enkele kenmerken van het Europese en Amerikaanse Réveil’, Dokumentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 33 (1990) 2–16. Gäbler, Ulrich, ‘Auferstehungszeit’. Erweckungsprediger des 19. Jahrhunderts. Sechs Porträts, München: Beck, 1991. Gäbler, Ulrich and Peter Schram, eds., Erweckung am Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, Amsterdam: Centrale huisdrukkerij Vrije Universiteit, 1986. Gans, Evelien, Jaap en Ischa Meijer. Een joodse geschiedenis 1912–1956, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2008. Gay, Peter, Modernism: The Lure of Heresy. From Baudelaire to Beckett and Beyond, New York and London: W.W. Norton, 2008. Geer van Jutfaas, B.J.L. de, ed., De Wet op het Hooger Onderwijs. Uit de gewisselde stukken en de gehouden Beraadslagingen toegelicht, Utrecht: Bijleveld, 1877. Ghosh, Peter, Max Weber and the Protestant Ethic: Twin Histories, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Goddijn, W. (Walter), Roomsen dat waren wij, Hilversum: Gooi en Sticht, 1978. Goeje, M.J. de, Actes du Sixième Congrès International des Orientalistes, vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 1884. Graaf, D.A. de, Het leven van Allard Pierson, Groningen: J.B. Wolters, 1962. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Kulturprotestantismus. Zur Begriffsgeschichte einer theologiepolitischen Chiffre’, Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 28 (1986) 214–268. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Die “antihistoristische Revolution” in der protestantischen Theologie der zwanziger Jahre’, in Jan Rohls and Günther Wenz, eds., Vernunft des Glaubens. Festschrift Wolfhart Pannenberg, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988, pp. 377–405. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Protestantische Theologie und die Formierung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft’, in Graf, ed., Profile des neuzeitlichen Protestantismus, vol. I, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1990, pp. 11–54. Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, ‘Moderne Modernisierer, modernitätskritische Traditionalisten oder reaktionäre Modernisten?. Kritische Erwägungen zu Deutungsmustern der

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

198



Modernismusforschung’, in Hubert Wolf, ed., Antimodernismus und Modernismus in der katholischen Kirche. Beiträge zum theologiegeschichtlichen Vorfeld des II. Vatikanums, Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998, pp. 67–106. Griffin, Roger, Modernism and Fascism: The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and Hitler, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Grijzenhout, F., et al., eds., ‘Voor vaderland en vrijheid’, Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1987. Groen van Prinsterer, Guillaume, Brieven van Mr. Isaac da Costa, vol. I (1830–1849), Amsterdam: Höveker & Zoon, 1872. Groen van Prinsterer, Guillaume, Brieven van Mr. Isaac da Costa, vol. III (1856–1860), Amsterdam: Höveker & Zoon, 1876. Groenewegen, H.Y., ‘De wetenschap en het vrijzinnig protestantisme’, De Gids 60 (1896) 40–61. Groot, Aart de, Leven en arbeid van J.H. van der Palm, Wageningen: Veenman, 1960. Groot, Aart de, ‘Loman, Abraham Dirk’, in Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme, vol. I, Kampen: Kok, 1978, pp. 137–9: http://resources. huygens.knaw.nl/retroboeken/blnp/#source=1&page=138&accessor=accessor_index. Groot, K., Die Erweckungsbewegung in Deutschland und ihr literarischer Niederschlag als Gegenstück zu dem holländischen Réveil, Wageningen: H. Veenman & Zonen, 1932. Habermas, Jürgen, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (1962), Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1990. Habermas, Jürgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989. Haitsma, J., Isaäc Da Costa (1798–1860), Leiden: J.J. Groen, 1993. Hamel, A.G. van, ‘Een woord op zijn pas?’, in Los en vast (ed. J. de Vries), Leiden, 1876, pp. 162–221. Hamel, A.G. van,‘Allard Pierson. 8 April 1831 – 27 Mei 1896’, De Gids 60/3 (1896) i–xxii. Harinck, George, ‘Herman Bavinck and the Neo-Calvinist Concept of the French Revolution’, in James Eglinton and Harinck, eds., Neocalvinism and the French Revolution, London: T&T Clark, 2014, pp. 13–30. Harnack, Adolf von, Das Wesen des Christentums. Sechzehn Vorlesungen vor Studierenden aller Fakultäten im Wintersemester 1899/1900 an der Universität von Berlin gehalten von Adolf v. Harnack, ed. Claus-Dieter Osthövener, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Harpham, Geoffrey Galt, ‘Conversion and the Language of Autobiography’, in James Olney, ed., Studies in Autobiography, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 42–50. Harris, Horton, The Tübingen School, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Hartdorff, Gerhardus, Historie of Historisering? Een onderzoek naar de visie van G.A. van den Bergh Eysinga op de wordingsgeschiedenis van het Christendom, Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1950. Hartogh, G.M. den, ‘Rondom Da Costa’s “bezwaren” en hun ontvangst’, Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 59 (1959) 37–52. Heelas, Paul and Linda Woodhead, et al., The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte (1822/ 23), in Werke, vol. XII, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1970. Hegeman, J.G., ‘Darwin en onze voorouders. Nederlandse reacties op de evolutieleer van 1860-1875. Een terreinverkenning’, in H.A.M. Snelders and K. van Berkel, eds.,

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



199

Natuurwetenschappen van Renaissance tot Darwin, Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1981, pp. 212–245. Hellemans, Staf, ‘Zuilen en verzuiling in Europa’ (Pillars and Pillarization in Europe), in Uwe Becker, ed., Nederlandse politiek in historisch en vergelijkend perspectief (Dutch Politics in a Historical and Comparative Perspective), Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1993, pp. 121–150. Hellemans, Staf, ‘Pillarization (“Verzuiling”): On Organized “Self-Contained Worlds” in the Modern World’, The American Sociologist 51/2 (2020) 124–147. Hempton, David, Methodism: Empire of the Spirit, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005. Hennecke, Susanne, Karl Barth in den Niederlanden, vol. I: Theologische, kulturelle und politische Rezeptionen (1919–1960), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Herderscheê, J., De modern-godsdienstige richting in Nederland, Amsterdam: Van Holkema & Warendorf, 1904. Herford, C.H., Joseph Estlin Carpenter: A Memorial Volume, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929. Heslam, Peter S., Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Hindmarsh, Bruce, ‘Religious Conversion as Narrative and Autobiography’, in Lewis R. Rambo and Charles E. Farhadian, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 343–368. Hinke, J., ‘Bisschoppelijk mandement 1954 in pers en politiek mei 1954 – februari 1955’, in Jaarboek Katholiek Documentatie Centrum 1979, Nijmegen, 1979, pp. 73–116. Hjelde, Sigurd, Die Religionswissenschaft und das Christentum. Eine historische Untersuchung über das Verhältnis von Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, Leiden: Brill, 1994. Hjelde, Sigurd, ‘The Science of Religion and Theology: The Question of Their Interrelationship’, in Arie L. Molendijk and Peter Pels, eds., Religion in the Making: The Emergence of the Sciences of Religion, Leiden: Brill, 1998, pp. 99–127. Hoedemaker, Ph.J., ‘[Review]’, De Vereeniging. Christelijke Stemmen 26 (1871) 233–244. Honings, Rick and Peter van Zonneveld, De gefnuikte arend. Het leven van Willem Bilderdijk (1756–1831), Amsterdam: Prometheus and Bert Bakker, 2013. Houkes, Annemarie, Christelijke vaderlanders. Godsdienst, burgerschap en de Nederlandse natie (1850–1900), Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 2009. Houtman, Cornelis, ‘De Leidse en de Utrechtse vertaling’, in A.W.G. Jaake and E.W. Tuinstra, eds., Om een verstaanbare bijbel. Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen na de Statenbijbel, Haarlem and Brussels: Nederlands en Belgisch Bijbelgenootschap, 1990, pp. 201–224. Houtman, Cornelis, Der Pentateuch. Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. Houtman, Cornelis, ‘Kuenen, Abraham’, in Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme, vol. IV, Kampen: Kok, 1998, pp. 270–274: http://www. biografischportaal.nl/persoon/07683744. Houtman, Cornelis, ‘Abraham Kuenen and William Robertson Smith: Their Correspondence’, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis/Dutch Review of Church History 80/2 (2000) 221–240. Houtman, Cornelis, ‘Colenso as Seen by Kuenen, and as Known from Colenso’s Letters to Kuenen’, in Jonathan A. Draper, ed., The Eye of the Storm: Bishop John William Colenso

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

200



and the Crisis of Biblical Inspiration, London and New York: T&T Clark, 2003, pp. 76–103. Howard, Thomas Albert, Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Hubbeling, H.G., ‘De literaire dissertatie van Isaäc da Costa’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse kerkgeschiedenis van de negentiende eeuw 17 (1983) 13–25. Hübinger, Gangolf, Kulturprotestantismus und Politik. Zum Verhältnis von Liberalismus und Protestantismus im wilhelminischen Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Huet, Conrad Busken, Brieven over den Bijbel (1858), 2nd revised edition, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1863. Huet, Conrad Busken, Ongevraagd advies. In de zaak van Pierson tegen Réville c.s., Haarlem: Van Asperen van der Velde, 1866. Huet, Conrad Busken, ‘[Bespreking van Pierson, Eene Levensbeschouwing]’ (1876), in Busken Huet, Litterarische Fantasien en Kritieken, vol. XVI, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1912, pp. 164–174. Huet, D.Th., Wenken opzigtelijk moderne theologie, ’s-Gravenhage: Van ‘t Haaff, 1858. Hugenholtz, Frederik Willem Nicolaas, Het parlement der godsdiensten (1893), 2nd edition, Rotterdam: Van Nijgh & Van Ditmar, 1893. Hugenholtz, P.H., Jr, Levenslicht uit den Bijbel, Amsterdam: Holkema & Warendorf, 1904. Hugenholtz, P.H., Jr, Levenslicht den nieuweren tijd (1889), 5th enlarged edition, Amsterdam: Holkema & Warendorf, 1910. Huizinga, J.J., J. Heemskerk Azn. 1818–1897. Conservatief zonder partij, Harlingen (no publisher indicated), 1973. Hutchinson, William R., American Protestant Thought: The Liberal Era, New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Hutchinson, William R., The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism, Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1976. Inge, William R., English Mysticism (The Bampton Lectures 1899), London: Methuen, 1899. Jacob, Margaret C. and Wijnand W. Mijnhardt, eds., The Dutch Republic in the Eighteenth Century: Decline, Enlightenment, and Revolution, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992. Janse, C.S.L., Bewaar het pand. De spanning tussen assimilatie en persistentie bij de emancipatie van de bevindelijk gereformeerden, Houten: Den Hertog, 1985. Jellinek, Georg, Die Erklärung der Menschen- und Bürgerrechte. Ein Beitrag zur modernen Verfassungsgeschichte (1895), 2nd edition, Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1904. Jodock, Darrell, ed., Catholicism Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and Anti-Modernism in Historical Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Jong, O.J. (Otto) de, ‘De wetgever van 1876 en de theologie’, Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 48 (1967–1968) 313–332. Jorissen, E.J.P., Vlucht of volharding. De moderne theologie en hare volgelingen van het standpunt der Nederlandsch-Hervormde kerk, Groningen: Wolters, 1865. Kagchelland, A. and M. Kagchelland, Van dompers en verlichten. Een onderzoek naar de confrontatie tussen het vroege protestantse Réveil en de Verlichting in Nederland (1815–1826), Delft: Eburon, 2009. Kalmijn, David, Abraham Capadose, ’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1955. Kampen, N.G. van, Verdediging van het goede der negentiende eeuw tegen de bezwaren van den heer Mr. I. da Costa, Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1823.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



201

Kenis, Leo and Ernestine van der Wall, eds., Religion and Modernism in the Low Countries 1840–1940: A Comparative Approach, Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Kennedy, James C., Nieuw Babylon in aanbouw. Nederland in de jaren zestig, Amsterdam: Boom, 1995. Kennedy, James C., A Concise History of the Netherlands, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Klein Wassink, B. and Th.M. (Marius) van Leeuwen, eds., Tussen geest en tijdgeest. Denken en doen van vrijzinnig protestanten in de afgelopen 100 jaar, Utrecht: De Ploeg, 1989. Kloek, Joost and Wijnand Mijnhardt, 1800: Blueprints of a National Community, Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004. Kluit, M.E., Het Réveil in Nederland 1817–1854, Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1936. Kluit, M.E., ‘Mr. Isaäc da Costa. De mens in zijn tijd’, in Isaäc da Costa. Op 28 april 1960, honderd jaar na zijn overlijden, herdacht, Nijkerk: G.F. Callenbach, 1961, pp. 9–38. Kluit, M.E., Het Protestantse Reveil in Nederland en daarbuiten, 1815–1865, Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1970. Knappert, L., ‘Costa, Isaäc da’, in P.C. Molhuysen, P.J., Blok, and K.H. Kossmann, eds., Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, vol. VI, Leiden: Sijthoff, 1924, cols. 336–348. Knetsch, F.R.J., ‘J.H. Scholten (1811–1885) en Isaac da Costa (1798–1860). Voorlopige verkenning van een polemiek’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis van de negentiende eeuw 16 (1983) 5–17. Knippenberg, Hans, De religieuze kaart van Nederland. Omvang en geografische spreiding van de godsdienstige gezindten vanaf de Reformatie tot heden, Assen and Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992. Knippenberg, Hans and Ben de Pater, De eenwording van Nederland. Schaalvergroting en integratie sinds 1800, 2nd revised edition, Nijmegen: SUN, 1992. Knippenberg, Hans and Herman van der Wusten, ‘De zuilen, hun lokale manifestaties en hun restanten in vergelijkend perspectief ’, in Corrie van Eijl, Lex Heerma van Voss, and Piet de Rooij, eds., Sociaal Nederland. Contouren van de twintigste eeuw, Amsterdam: Aksant, 2001, pp. 129–150. Koch, Jeroen, Abraham Kuyper: Een biografie, Amsterdam: Boom, 2006. Kohl, K.-H., ‘Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft’, in Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, vol. I, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988, pp. 217–262. Kooi, Cornelis van der and Jan de Bruijn, eds., Kuyper Reconsidered: Aspects of his Life and Work (VU Studies on Protestant History, vol. III), Amsterdam: VU Publishing House, 1999. Krijger, Tom-Eric, A Second Reformation: Liberal Protestantism in Dutch Religious, Social and Political Life, 1870–1940 (PhD thesis, Groningen, 2017), republished in a slightly revised edition as: Tom-Eric Krijger, The Eclipse of Liberal Protestantism in the Netherlands: Religious, Social, and International Perspectives on the Dutch Modernist Movement (1870–1940), Leiden: Brill, 2019. Krop, H.A. (Henri), ‘Natuurwetenschap en theologie in de negentiende eeuw. De filosofische achtergrond van de moderne theologie’, Theoretische Geschiedenis 21 (1994) 16–31. Krop, Henri, ‘The Duty to Account: The Legacy of Christianity in Dutch Liberal Protestantism’, in Henri Krop, Arie L. Molendijk, and Hent de Vries, eds., PostTheism: Reframing the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 125–140. Kruijt, J.P., ‘Volksgemeenschap en Verzuiling’, Socialisme en Democratie 13 (1956) 121–126.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

202



Kruijt, J.P., ‘Sociologische beschouwingen over zuilen en verzuiling’, Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1957) 11–29. Kruijt, J.P. and W. Goddijn, ‘Verzuiling en Ontzuiling als sociologisch proces’, in A.N.J. den Hollander, E.W. Hofstee, J.J.A. van Doorn, and E.V.W. Vercruysse, eds., Drift en Koers. Een halve eeuw sociale verandering in Nederland, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1961, pp. 227–263. Kuenen, Abraham, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols., Leiden: Engels, 1861–1865. Kuenen, Abraham, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, trans. J.W. Colenso, London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, 1865. Kuenen, Abraham, Het goed recht der modernen, Leiden: Van Doesburgh, 1866. Kuenen, Abraham, Histoire critique des livres de l’Ancien Testament, 2 vols., trans. Allard Pierson, Paris: C. Lévy, 1866–1879. Kuenen, Abraham, De godsdienst van Israël tot den Ondergang van den Joodschen Staat, 2 vols., Haarlem: A.C. Kruseman, 1869–1870. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, 2 vols., trans. Alfred Heath May, London: Williams & Norgate, 1874–1875. Kuenen, Abraham, ‘Ideaalvorming’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 10 (1876) 316–361. Kuenen, Abraham, ‘Dupliek’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 10 (1876) 469–497. Kuenen, Abraham, National Religions and Universal Religions, trans. P.H. Wicksteed, London: Scribner, 1882. Kuenen, Abraham, Volksgodsdienst en Wereldgodsdienst, Leiden: Van Doesburgh, 1882. Kuenen, Abraham, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols, second, completely revised edition, Amsterdam: Van Looy, 1885–1892. Kuenen, Abraham, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch, trans. P.H. Wicksteed, London: Macmillan, 1886. Translation of Kuenen, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek, vol. I, 1885. Kuenen, Abraham, Gedachtenisrede in de vergadering van moderne theologen (1866–1890), Leiden: Van Doesburgh, 1891. Kuiper, K., ‘Levensbericht van Pierre Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye, 9 April 1848 – 20 April 1920’, Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (1920–1921) 103–128. Kuipers, Tjitze and Barend Meijer, Abraham Kuyper: An Annotated Bibliography 1857–2010, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010: https://sources.neocalvinism.org/kuyper/. Kuitenbrouwer, M., Nederland en de opkomst van het moderne imperialisme. Koloniën en buitenlandse politiek 1870–1902, Amsterdam and Dieren: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1985. Kuyper, Abraham, ‘Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life’ (1869), in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 19–44. Kuyper, Abraham, Het modernisme: een fata morgana op christelijk gebied. Lezing, Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh, 1871. English translation: ‘A fata morgana’, The Methodist Review 88 (1906) 185–203, 355–378; new abridged translation by John Vriend, ‘Modernism: A Fata Morgana in the Christian Domain’, in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 87–124. German translation: Die moderne Theologie (Der Modernismus). Eine fata morgana auf christlichem Gebiet. Aus dem Holländischen übersetzt als Gegenstück zu unsern Schweizerischen Zuständen. Mit einem Vorwort von Prof. Dr. C. Joh. Riggenbach, Zürich: Höhr, 1872.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



203

Kuyper, Abraham, ‘Confidentially’ (1873), in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 46–61. Kuyper, Abraham, ‘Sphere Souvereignty’ (1880), in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 463–490. Kuyper, Abraham, Is er aan de publieke universiteit ten onzent plaats voor een faculteit der theologie?, Amsterdam (no publisher indicated), 1890. Kuyper, Abraham, De verflauwing der grenzen, Amsterdam: Wormser, 1892, trans. ‘The Blurring of the Boundaries’, in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 363–402. Kuyper, Abraham, Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerheid, 3 vols., Amsterdam: Wormser, 1894; partial translation: Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology. Its Principles, trans. J. Hendrik de Vries, New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1898. Kuyper, Abraham, ‘Evolution’ (1899), in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 405–440. Kuyper, Abraham, Het Calvinisme. Zes Stone-lezingen in october 1898 te Princeton (N.-J.) gehouden, Amsterdam and Pretoria: Höveker & Wormser, s.a. [1899]; A. Kuyper, Calvinism. Six Stone-Lectures, New York: Höveker & Wormser, s.a. [1899]) and Kuyper, Calvinism. Six Stone Lectures, New York: Fleming H. Revell, s.a. [1899]. Kuyper, Abraham, ‘Fata Morgana’, De Heraut, Sunday 11 November 1900, no. 1193. Kuyper, Abraham, Parlementaire Redevoeringen, vol. IV, Amsterdam: s.n., s.a. [1905]. Kuyper, Abraham, Bilderdijk in zijne nationale beteekenis, Amsterdam and Pretoria: Höveker & Wormser, 1906. Kuyper, Abraham, ‘Our Instinctive Life’ (1908), in James D. Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 256–277. Kuyper, Abraham, Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde, vol. I, Kampen: Kok, 1916. Kuyper, Abraham, Ik voel steeds meer dat ik hier zijn moest. Amerikaanse brieven van Abraham Kuyper aan zijn vrouw en kinderen, ed. George Harinck and Margriet Urbanus, Amsterdam: Historisch Documentatiecentrum voor het Nederlands Protestantisme, 2004. Lancaster, Joseph, Improvements in Education, as it Respects the Industrious Classes of the Community (1803), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Lancaster, Joseph, Een eenig schoolmeester onder duizend kinderen in eene school. Eene bijdrage tot verbetering der leerwijze en school-orde in de lagere volksscholen, Haarlem: Loosjes, 1811. Lange, Albert de, De verhouding tussen dogmatiek en godsdienstwetenschap binnen de theologie. Een onderzoek naar de ontwikkeling van het theologiebegrip van J.H. Gunning Jr. (1829–1905), Kampen: Mondiss, 1987. Lange, Albert de, ‘ “Staatsrechtelijk geknutsel”. De regeling van de predikantsopleiding in Nederland door de overheid in de negentiende eeuw’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 54 (2001) 28–58. Lange, R.C., De bezwaren tegen den geest der eeuw van Mr. I. Da Costa 1823, s.l., s.a., s.n. Lannoy, Annelies, Alfred Loisy and the Making of the History of Religions: A Study of the Development of Comparative Religion in the Early 20th Century, Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2020. Leeuw, Gerardus van der, Phänomenologie der Religion, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933; Religion in Essence and Manifestation. A Study in Phenomenology, trans. J.E. Turner, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1938. Leeuw, Gerardus van der, ‘Het cultureel aspect van de confessionele splitsing in de Kerk van Christus’, Wending 2 (1947/48) 647–659.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

204



Leeuwen, P.J. (Pieter Jan) van, De betekenis van Fr. E.D. Schleiermacher voor de theologie in Nederland, Haarlem: Bohn, 1948. Leeuwen, P.J. (Pieter Jan) van, ‘Schleiermacher in Nederland’, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 23 (1968/69) 108–121. Leeuwenburgh, Bart, Darwin in domineesland. Een reconstructie van de wijze waarop geleerde Nederlanders Darwins evolutietheorie filosofisch beoordeelden, 1859–1877 (PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 2009). Leeuwenburgh, Bart and Janneke van der Heide, ‘Darwin on Dutch Soil: The Early Reception of his Ideas in the Netherlands’, in Eve-Marie Engels and Thomas F. Glick, eds., The Reception of Charles Darwin in Europe, London and New York: Continuum, 2008, pp. 175–187. Lehmann, Hartmut and Guenther Roth, eds., Weber’s Protestant Ethic: Origins, Evidence, Contexts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Lijphart, Arend, Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de Nederlandse politiek, Amsterdam: De Bussy, 1968; Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (1968), 2nd edition, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975. Lijphart, Arend, Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (1977), New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980. Lindeboom, J. (Johannes), Geschiedenis van het Vrijzinnig Protestantisme, 3 vols., Assen: Van Gorcum, 1929–1935. Loman, A.D. (Abraham Dirk), ‘Het oudste Christendom’, Stemmen uit de Vrije Gemeente 5 (1882) 1–19. Loman, A.D. (Abraham Dirk), ‘De oorsprong van het geloof aan de opstanding van Jezus’, De Gids 52/1 and 52/2 (1888) 502–545, 86–135. Loome, Thomas Michael, Liberal Catholicism, Reform Catholicism, Modernism: A Contribution to a New Orientation in Modernist Research (Tübinger theologische Studien, vol. XIV), Mainz: Matthias Grünewald Verlag, 1979. Loosjes, Vincent, ed., Gedenkschriften wegens het vierde eeuwgetijde van de uitvinding der boekdrukkunst door Lourens Janszoon Koster van stadswege gevierd te Haarlem den 10 en 11 Julij 1823, Haarlem: Loosjes, 1824. Luteijn, C.M. Honderd jaar confessionele vereniging 1864–1964, Wageningen: Veenman, 1964. McLeod, Hugh, Secularization in Western Europe, 1848–1913, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000. McLeod, Hugh, The Religious Crisis of the 1960s, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Maier, Bernhard, William Robertson Smith: His Life, his Work and his Times, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Manen, W.C. (Willem Christiaan) van, De leerstoel der Oud-Christelijke Letterkunde (inaugural address Leiden), Groningen: Wolters, 1885. Manen, W.C. van, Paulus, 3 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1890–1896. Manen, W.C. van, Die Unechtheit des Römerbriefes, trans. G. Schläger, Leipzig: G. Strübigs Verlag, 1906. Manning, A.F., ‘Uit de voorgeschiedenis van het mandement van 1954’, in Jaarboek Katholiek Documentatie Centrum 1971, Nijmegen, 1972, pp. 138–146. Meijer, Ischa, Brief aan mijn moeder, Den Haag: Bert Bakker, 1974. Meijer, Jaap, Martelgang of Circelgang. Isaac da Costa als joods romanticus, Paramaribo: no publisher indicated, 1954.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



205

Meijer, Jacob, Isaac da Costa’s weg naar het christendom. Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der joodsche problematiek in Nederland (PhD thesis, Amsterdam, 1941). Meuleman, G.A., De Godgeleerdheid volgens de Wet op het Hoger Onderwijs van 1876, Amsterdam: VU, 1982. Michman, J.,‘Gothische torens op een Corinthisch gebouw. De doorvoering van de emancipatie van de Joden in Nederland’, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 89 (1976) 493–517. Miert, Dirk van, The Emancipation of Biblical Philology in the Dutch Republic, 1590–1670, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Miert, Jan van, Wars van clubgeest en partijzucht. Liberalen, natie en verzuiling, Tiel en Winschoten 1850–1920, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994. Mijnhardt, W.W., ‘De Verlichting in Nederland’, in F. Grijzenhout, W.W. Mijnhardt, and N.C.F. van Sas, eds., Voor vaderland en vrijheid, Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw, 1987, pp. 53–79. Mijnhardt, W. (Wijnand) W., Tot Heil van ‘t Mensdom. Culturele genootschappen in Nederland, 1750–1815, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988. Mijnhardt, W.W., ‘The Dutch Enlightenment: Humanism, Nationalism, and Decline’, in Margaret C. Jacob and Wijnand W. Mijnhardt, eds., The Dutch Republic in the Eighteenth Century: Decline, Enlightenment, and Revolution, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992, pp. 197–223. Mildt, J. de, Een eenvoudige waarschuwing voor de leerstellingen der moderne theologie, Nijmegen: Erven T.E. Jansen, 1850. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘Ernst Troeltschs holländische Reisen. Eine Skizze – Im Anhang: drei Briefe Troeltschs an Karel Hendrik Roessingh’, Mitteilungen der Ernst-TroeltschGesellschaft 6 (1991) 24–39. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘De vervluchtiging van het vrijzinnig protestantisme in Nederland’, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 50 (1996) 122–134. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘Abschied vom Christentum. Der Fall Allard Pierson’, in Henri Krop, Arie L. Molendijk, and Hent de Vries, eds., Post-Theism: Reframing the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Leuven: Peeters, 2000, pp. 141–157. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘De beoefening van de theologie in Nederland aan openbare instellingen voor hoger onderwijs’, in H.J. Adriaanse, ed., Tweestromenland. Over wijsgerige en belijdende theologie, Leuven: Peeters, 2001, pp. 31–52. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘ “Wider den Zeitgeist”. Die Gedankenwelt von Isaäc da Costa’, in Harm Klueting and Jan Rohls, eds., Reformierte Perspektiven. Vorträge der zweiten Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des Reformierten Protestantismus (Emder Beiträge zum reformierten Protestantismus, vol. IV), Wuppertal: Foedus Verlag, 2001, pp. 79–104. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘ “That Most Important Science”: The Study of Church History in the Netherlands in the Nineteenth Century’, Dutch Review of Church History/Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 84 (2004) 358–387. Molendijk, Arie L., The Emergence of the Science of Religion in the Netherlands, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘Neo-Calvinist Culture Protestantism: Abraham Kuyper’s Stone Lectures’, Church History and Religious Culture 88 (2008) 235–250. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘ “To Unite Religion against all Irreligion”: The 1893 World Parliament of Religions’, Journal for the History of Modern Theology 18 (2011) 228–250. Molendijk, Arie L., Friedrich Max Müller and the Sacred Books of the East, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘The Study of Religion in the Netherlands’, NTT: Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion 71 (2017) 2–18.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

206



Molendijk, Arie L., ‘Au fond: The Phenomenology of Gerardus van der Leeuw’, Journal for the History of Modern Theology 25 (2018) 51–68. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘Willem Banning and the Reform of Socialism in the Netherlands’, Contemporary European History 29 (2020) 139–154. Molendijk, Arie L., ‘The Low Countries’, in Grace Davie and Lucian Leustean, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Molhuysen, P.C., P.J. Blok, and K.H. Kossmann, eds., Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, vol. VI, Leiden: Sijthoff, 1924. Mourik Broekman, M.C. van, ‘Verslag: “De moderne theologenvergadering” ’, De Hervorming (1923) 115–116. Naber, S.A., Allard Pierson Herdacht, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1897. Naugle, David K., Worldview: The History of a Concept, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Nauta, D., De verbindende kracht van de belijdenisschriften. Verhandeling over de formulierkwestie in de negentiende eeuw in Nederland, Kampen: Kok, 1969. Noordenbos, Oene, Het atheïsme in Nederland in de negentiende eeuw. Een kritisch overzicht, Rotterdam: W.L. & J. Brusse’s Uitgeversmaatschappij, 1931, reprinted Nijmegen: SUN, 1976. Obbink, H.W., David Friedrich Strauss in Nederlandse reacties op zijn theologie in de negentiende eeuw, Utrecht: Elinkwijk, 1973. Oort, H. and I. Hooykaas, met medewerking van A. Kuenen, De Bijbel voor Jongelieden, 7 vols., Harlingen: J.F.V. Behrns, 1871–1875; H. Oort and I. Hooykaas, with the assistance of A. Kuenen, The Bible for Young People, trans. P.H. Wicksteed, vol. I, Manchester: Manchester District Sunday School Association, 1873. Oosterbaan, D.P., ‘Rondom Da Costa’s “bezwaren” ’, Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde (driemaandelijksch orgaan van de Dr. Abraham Kuyperstichting ter bevordering van de studie der antirevolutionaire beginselen) 11 (1937) 1–53. Oosterzee, H.M.C. van, ed., Reglementen voor de Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk, 4th edition, Schiedam: Roelants, 1874. Oosterzee, J.J. van, Hoe moet het moderne naturalisme bestreden worden?, Utrecht: Kemink, 1863. Osterhammel, Jürgen, Die Verwandlung der Welt. Eine Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts, München: Beck, 2009; trans. The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2014. Otterspeer, Willem, ‘The Ethical Imperative’, in Otterspeer, ed., Leiden Oriental Connections 1850–1940, Leiden: Brill, 1989, pp. 204–229. Palm, J.H. van der, Redevoering op het vierde eeuwfeest van den uitvinding der boekdrukkunst, Haarlem: Loosjes, 1823; reprinted in Van der Palm, Redevoeringen, Verhandelingen en losse Geschriften, vol. III, Leeuwarden: Suringar, 1854, pp. 132–153. Pennings, Paul, Verzuiling en ontzuiling. De lokale verschillen. Opbouw, instandhouding en neergang van plaatselijke zuilen in verschillende delen van Nederland na 1880, Kampen: Kok, 1991. Périn, Charles, Le modernisme dans l’église d’après des lettres inédits de la Mennais, Paris: Lecoffre, 1881. Pfleiderer, Otto, The Development of Theology in Germany since Kant, and its Progress in Great Britain since 1825, London and New York: Swan Sonnenschein and Macmillan, 1890. Pierson, Allard, Bespiegeling, gezag en ervaring, Utrecht: Kemink, 1855. Pierson, Allard, ‘Scholten’s Monisme’, De Gids 12/1 (1859) 749–798. Pierson, Allard, Intimis (1861), 5th edition, ’s-Gravenhage: Stemberg, 1881.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



207

Pierson, Allard, De oorsprong der moderne rigting, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1862. Pierson, Allard, Rigting en leven, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1863. Pierson, Allard, ‘Voorrede voor de vertaling van Friedrich Schleiermacher, een beeld van zijn leven en een bloemlezing uit zijne werken’, ed. Elisa Maier, 1863, in Verspreide Geschriften, third series, part II (1860–1865), ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1907, pp. 229–233. Pierson, Allard, Dr. Pierson aan zijn laatste gemeente, Arnhem: D.A. Thieme, 1865. Pierson, Allard, ‘Godgeleerdheid en Onderwijs’, De Tijdspiegel 1865, part I, pp. 424–436. Pierson, Allard, De moderne richting en de kristelijke kerk (Antwoord aan Dr. A. Réville op diens brief getiteld: ‘Nous maintiendrons’), Arnhem: D.A. Thieme, 1866. Pierson, Allard, Gods wondermacht en ons geestelijk leven, Arnhem: D.A. Thieme, 1867. Pierson, Allard, ‘Prof. Scholten nader ingelicht’, De Nederlandsche Spectator 1867, pp. 203–212. Pierson, Allard, Schoonheidszin en levenswijsheid, Arnhem: D.A. Thieme, 1868. Pierson, Allard, Geschiedenis van het Roomsch-Katholicisme tot op het Concilie van Trente, 4 vols., Haarlem: Kruseman, 1868–1872. Pierson, Allard, ‘De heerschappij van de bourgeoisie in de Nederlandsch Hervormde Kerk’, De Gids 33 (1869) 441–476. Pierson, Allard, ‘Een keerpunt in de wijsgerige ontwikkeling’, De Gids 53/2 (1871) 455–487. Pierson, Allard, Over Alexandre Vinet. Eene Voorleezing met een schrijven aan den heer J. Sternberg als voorrede, Arnhem 1871; reprinted (without preface) in Uit de verspreide geschriften van Allard Pierson, second series, vol. I, Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1904, pp. 160–191. Pierson, Allard, ‘Isaac da Costa naar zijne brieven’ (1872), in Pierson, Oudere Tijdgenoten (1888), 4th edition, ed. P.L. Schram, Amsterdam: Bolland, 1982, pp. 1–33. Pierson, Allard, ‘Mill over godsdienst’ [re. John Stuart Mill’s Three Essays on Religion (London 1874)], De Gids 38/4 (1874) 458–493. Pierson, Allard, Eene levensbeschouwing, Haarlem: Kruseman & Tjeenk Willink, 1875. Pierson, Allard, ‘Kantteekeningen op Prof. Kuenen’s “Ideaalvorming” ’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 10 (1876) 404–468. Pierson, Allard, ‘Ter Uitvaart. Professor Oosterzee’s inleiding tot zijne dogmatiek en Prof. Doedes’ Leer van God getoetst’, De Gids 40/3 (1876) 185–249, 434–500. Pierson, Allard, De Bergrede en andere synoptische fragmenten. Een historisch-kritisch onderzoek met een inleiding over enkele leemten in de methode van de kritiek der evangeliën, Amsterdam: Van Kampen, 1878. Pierson, Allard, Richting en leven, 2nd revised edition, Deventer: Ter Gunne, 1883. Pierson, Allard, Oudere tijdgenoten (1888), 4th edition, Amsterdam: Bolland, 1982. Pierson, Allard, Willem de Clercq naar zijn dagboek, ed. A. Pierson [and de Clercq’s youngest grand-daughter] (1870–1873), 2 vols., Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1888. Pierson, Allard, ‘Over Opzoomer’, De Gids 57/1 (1893) 413–440. Pierson, Allard, ‘Over Ethika’, De Gids 59/4 (1895) 245–263. Pierson, Allard, ‘Jongere Tijdgenoten’ [Letters of Cd. Busken Huet, 1890], in Uit de verspreide geschriften van Allard Pierson (1882–1890), Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1902, pp. 371–394. Pierson, Allard, ‘Toespraak aan Prof. C.W. Opzoomer’ (Handelsblad 1886), in Pierson, Uit de Verspreide Geschriften (1882–1890), first series, vol. I, ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1902, pp. 292–297. Pierson, Allard, ‘Wetenschap en Kunst’ (Tijdspiegel 1884), in Pierson, Uit de Verspreide Geschriften (1882–1890), first series, vol. I, ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1902, pp. 178–200.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

208



Pierson, Allard, Uit de verspreide geschriften van Allard Pierson, 8 vols., Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1902–1908. Pierson, Allard, Onuitgegeven Manuscripten (niet in de handel [not for sale]), Amsterdam: P.N. van Kampen, 1919. Pierson, Allard, Tussen religieus gevoel en kritisch denken. Vijf Franse preken, ed. Johannes Trapman, Hilversum: Verloren, 2014. Pierson, Allard and S.A. Naber, Versimilia: laceram conditionem Novi Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt, Amsterdam: Van Kampen, 1886. Pierson, N.G., Briefwisseling van Nicolaas Gerard Pierson 1839–1909, ed. J.G.S.J. van Maarseveen, vol. I (1854–1884), Amsterdam: Nederlandsche Bank, 1990. Platvoet, Jan G., ‘Close Harmonies: The Science of Religion in Dutch Duplex Ordo Theology, 1860–1960’, Numen 45 (1998) 115–162. Post, Harry, Pillarization: An Analysis of Dutch and Belgian Society, Aldershot: Avebury, 1989. Praamstra, Olf, Busken Huet. Een biografie, Amsterdam: SUN, 2007. Pril, Ward de, ‘The Early Reception of Ernest Renan’s Vie de Jésus (1863) in Belgium and the Netherlands’, in Leo Kenis and Ernestine van der Wall, eds., Religion and Modernism in the Low Countries 1840–1940: A Comparative Approach, Leuven: Peeters, 2009, pp. 65–84. Purvis, Zachary, Theology and the University in Nineteenth-Century Germany, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Raedts, P.G.J.M. (Peter), ‘Veroordeeld tot vrijheid. Pierson en het katholicisme’, De Negentiende Eeuw 21 (1997) 5–15. Rait, Robert S., ed., Memorials of Albert Venn Dicey: Being Chiefly Letters and Diaries, London: Macmillan and Co, 1925. Rasker, A.J., De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795. Haar geschiedenis en theologie in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw, 2nd revised edition, Kampen: Kok, 1981. Rauwenhoff, L.W.E., ‘De Kerk’, Theologisch Tijdschrift 1 (1867) 1–37. Razzell, Peter, Edward Jenner’s Cowpox Vaccine: The History of a Medical Myth, Sussex: Caliban Books, 1977. Reardon, Bernard M.G., ‘Modernismus’, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. XXII, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993, pp. 129–138. Renan, Ernest, Het leven van Jezus, Haarlem: Loosjes, 1863. Réville, Albert, Nous maintiendrons. Lettre au dr. A. Pierson à l’occasion de ses adieux à sa dernière église (Arnhem: Thieme, 1865), ed. J.P. Heering, Amsterdam: Éditions de la Bibliothèque Wallonne, 1996 (facsimile), translated by J.F.C. Kronenberg as Wij blijven, Arnhem: Thieme, 1865. Réville, Albert, Notre foi et notre droit. Un dernier mot en résponse à M. le Dr. Pierson, Arnhem: Thieme, 1866. Ricardo, David, ‘Journal of a Tour on the Continent 1822’, in Piero Sraffa and Maurice Herbert Dobb, eds., The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, vol. X, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955, pp. 177–352. Ridder, J.H. de, ‘Lijst van geschriften van Dr. C.P. Tiele’, in J. Kalff Jr., ed., Mannen en vrouwen van beteekenis in onze dagen. Levensschetsen en portretten, Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1900, pp. 358–364. Righart, Hans, De katholieke zuil in Europa. Het ontstaan van verzuiling onder katholieken in Oostenrijk, Zwitserland, België en Nederland, Meppel: Boom, 1986. Rivière, Jean, ‘Pour l’histoire du terme “modernisme” ’, Revue des Sciences Religieuses 8/3 (1928) 398–421.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



209

Rivière, Jean, Le modernisme dans l’église. Etude d’histoire religieuse contemporaine, Paris: Letouzay & Ané, 1929. Roessingh, Karel Hendrik, De Moderne Theologie in Nederland. Hare Voorbereiding en eerste Periode (1914), Roessingh, Verzamelde Werken, vol. I, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1926, pp. 1–182. Roessingh, Karel Hendrik, Het modernisme in Nederland, Haarlem: Bohn, 1922; enlarged edition in Roessingh, Verzamelde Werken, vol. IV, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1927, pp. 231–385. Roessingh, Karel Hendrik, ‘Eenheid en organisatie van het Vrijzinnig Protestantisme’, De Hervorming (1923) 138–141, 146–147, 154–156, reprinted in Roessingh, Verzamelde Werken, vol. II, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1926, pp. 437–449. Roessingh, Karel Hendrik, ‘Het vrijzinnig protestantisme te midden der geestelijke stroomingen’ (1923), in Roessingh, Verzamelde Werken, vol. IV, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1927, pp. 395–402. Roessingh, Karel Hendrik, ‘Vrijzinnigheid’ (1923), in Roessingh, Verzamelde Werken, vol. IV, Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1927, pp. 403–407. Roessingh, Karel Hendrik, Verzamelde Werken [= VW], 4 vols., Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1926–1927. Rogerson, J.W., ‘British Responses to Kuenen’s Pentateuch Studies’, in P.D. (Piet) Dirksen and A. (Arie) van der Kooij, eds., Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891): His Major Contributions to the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 91–104. Romein, Jan, ‘Abraham Kuyper. De klokkenist der kleine luyden’, in Jan and Annie Romein, Erflaters van onze beschaving: Nederlandse gestalten uit zes eeuwen (1938–1940), 7th edition, Amsterdam: Querido—Wereldbibliotheek, 1959. Rooden, Peter van, ‘Het Nederlands protestantisme en zijn vaderland’, in J.M.M. de Valk, ed., Nationale identiteit in Europees perspectief (Annalen van het Thijmgenootschap, vol. 81, no. 3), Baarn: Ambo, 1993, pp. 95–115. Rooden, Peter van, ‘Studies naar locale verzuiling als toegang tot de geschiedenis van de constructie van religieuze verschillen in Nederland’, Theoretische Geschiedenis 20 (1993) 439–454. Rooden, Peter van, Religieuze Regimes. Over Godsdienst en maatschappij in Nederland, 1570–1990, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 1996. Rooden, Peter van, ‘Secularization, Dechristianization and Rechristianization in the Netherlands’, in Hartmut Lehmann, ed., Säkularisierung, Dechristianisierung, Rechristianisierung im neuzeitlichen Europa. Bilanz und Perspektiven der Forschung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997, pp. 131–153. Rooij, Piet de, ‘Zes studies over verzuiling’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden 10 (1995) 380–389. Rooij, Piet de, Republiek van rivaliteiten. Nederland sinds 1813, Amsterdam: Mets & Schilt, 2002. Roorda, Taco, ‘Over den tegenwoordigen toestand der Philosophie in Nederland; een brief aan Prof. Dr. J.H. Fichte’, Godgeleerde Bijdragen 18 (1844) 719–764. Rullmann, J.C., ed., Isaäc da Costa’s bezwaren tegen den geest der eeuw. Na honderd jaar opnieuw uitgegeven, Amsterdam: W. Kirchner, 1923. Rullmann, J.C., Kuyper-Bibliografie, 3 vols., ’s-Gravenhage: J. Bootsma, 1923–1940. Ruskin, John, ‘Lectures on Architecture and Painting’ (1853), in E.T. Cook and Alexander Weddenburn, eds., The Works of John Ruskin, vol. XII, London: George Allen, 1904, pp. 7–164.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

210



Sæbo, Magne, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. III/1 (The Nineteenth Century—A Century of Modernism and Historicism), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Said, Edward W., Orientalism (1978), reprinted with a new afterword, London: Penguin, 1995. Sassen, Ferd., Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte in Nederland tot het einde der negentiende eeuw, Amsterdam and Brussels: Elsevier, 1954. Schaeffler, R., ‘Modernismus’, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (ed. Joachim Ritter et al.), vol. VI, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984, cols. 62–66. Schendelen, M.P.C.M. van, ‘The Views of Arend Lijphart and Collected Criticisms’, Acta Politica 19 (1984) 19–55. Schöffer, Ivo, ‘Verzuiling, een specifiek Nederlands probleem’, Sociologische Gids 3 (1956) 121–127. Schöffer, Ivo, ‘The Jews in the Netherlands: The Position of a Minority Through Three Centuries’, Studia Rosenthaliana 15 (1981) 85–100. Scholten, Ilja, ‘Does Consociationalism Exist? A Critique of the Dutch Experience’, in Richard Rose, ed., Electoral Participation: A Comparative Analysis, Beverly Hills and London: Sage, 1980, pp. 329–354. Scholten, J.H. (Johannes Henricus), Antwoord aan Mr. Is. da Costa, Leiden: P. Engels, 1852. Scholten, J.H., Teregtwijzing van Mr. Isaac da Costa, Leiden: P. Engels, 1857. Scholten, J.H., ‘Pierson’s jongste brochure’ [= Gods wondermacht], De Tijdspiegel 1867, part I, pp. 607–630. Scholten, J.H., Supranaturalisme in verband met Bijbel, Christendom en Protestantisme, Leiden: P. Engels, 1867. [Scholten, J.H. et al.], De Theologische Faculteit aan de Nederlandsche Hoogescholen, naar aanleiding van het bij de Tweede Kamer ingediende Ontwerp van Wet op het Hooger Onderwijs, door de Godgeleerde Faculteit aan ‘s Rijks Hoogeschool te Leiden, Leiden: Engels, 1868. Schweitzer, Albert, Geschichte der Leben-Jeus Forschung (1906), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1913. Schweitzer, Albert, Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1911. Schweitzer, Albert, The Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, 2nd edition, London: A. and C. Black, 1911. Schweitzer, Albert, Paul and his Interpreters: A Critical History, trans. W. Montgomery, London: A. and C. Black, 1912. Sepp, Christiaan, Proeve eener pragmatische geschiedenis der theologie in Nederland, sedert het laatst der vorige eeuw tot op onzen tijd (1787–1858), 2nd edition, Amsterdam: J.C. Sepp, 1860. Sharpe, Eric J., Comparative Religion: A History (1975), 2nd edition, London: Duckworth, 1986. Sharpe, Eric J., Nathan Söderblom and the Study of Religion, Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1990. Skogar, Björn, ‘Neoprotestantism in Stockholm in 1897’, in Sigurd Hjelde, ed., Man, Meaning & History. Hundred Years of History of Religions in Norway. The Heritage of W. Brede Kristensen, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000, pp. 57–70. Smend, Rudolf, ‘The Work of Abraham Kuenen and Julius Wellhausen’, in Magne Sæbo, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. III/1 (The

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



211

Nineteenth Century—A Century of Modernism and Historicism), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013, pp. 424–453. Smith, William Robertson, Lectures and Essays of William Robertson Smith, ed. J. Sutherland Black and George William Chrystal, London: A. and C. Black, 1912. Smith, William Robertson, Selected Letters, ed. Bernhard Maier, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, 3 vols., London: John Murray, 1863–1876. Stark, Rodney and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Steck, Rudolf, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht. Nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptschriften, Berlin: Reimers, 1888. Steinhoff, A.J., ‘A Second Confessional Age? Reflections on Religion in the Long Nineteenth Century’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 30 (2004) 549–570. Stephenson, Alan M.G., The Rise and Decline of English Modernism (The Hulsean Lectures 1979–1980), London: SPCK, 1984. Steyn Parvé, D.J., Organisation de l’Instruction Primaire, Secondaire et Supérieure dans le Royaume des Pays-Bas, Leiden: Sijthoff, 1878. Strauss, David Friedrich, Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet, Tübingen: Osiander, 1835–1836, translated from the 4th German edition (1840) by George Eliot (Marian Evans) as The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined, London: Chapman, Brothers, 1846; reprint London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1902. Stutje, Jan Willem, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis. Een romantische revolutionair, Antwerpen, Gent and Amsterdam: Houtekiet/Amsab—Atlas, 2012. Stuurman, Siep, Verzuiling, Kapitalisme en Patriarchaat. Aspecten van de ontwikkeling van de moderne staat in Nederland, Nijmegen: SUN, 1983. Sundkler, Bengt, Nathan Söderblom: His Life and Work, Lund: Gleerup, 1968. Talsma, Jaap, ‘Verantwoording’, in J.C.H. Blom and J. Talsma, eds., De verzuiling voorbij. Godsdienst, stand en natie in de lange negentiende eeuw, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2000, pp. ix–xi. Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Tiele, C.P. (Cornelis Petrus), De Godsdienst van Zarathustra van haar ontstaan in Baktrië tot den val van het Oud-Perzische Rijk, Haarlem: Kruseman, 1864. Tiele, C.P., Review of Chantepie de la Saussaye, Het belang van de studie der godsdiensten (1878), Theologisch Tijdschrift 13 (1879) 418–423. Tiele, C.P., ‘Religions’, in The Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th edition, vol. XX, Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1886, pp. 358–371. Tiele, C.P., Elements of the Science of Religion, 2 vols., Edinburgh and London: Blackwood, 1897–1899. Til, Cornelius van, The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner, Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. Touber, Jetze, Spinoza and Biblical Philology in the Dutch Republic, 1660–1710, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Trapman, J. (Johannes), ‘Allard Pierson en zijn afscheid van de kerk’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 19 (1996) 15–27. Trapman, Hans (Johannes), ‘Anton Gerard van Hamel (1842–1907). Van Waals predikant en voorstander van een “atheïstisch christendom” tot de eerste hoogleraar Frans in Nederland’, De Negentiende Eeuw 31 (2007) 256–272.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

212



Trapman, Hans, ‘Atheistic Christianity: The Case of Anton Gerard van Hamel (1842–1907)’, in Leo Kenis and Ernestine van der Wall, eds., Religious Modernism in the Low Countries: A Comparative Approach, Leuven: Peeters, 2013, pp. 131–145. Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology’ (1900), in Troeltsch, Religion in History, trans. James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bensen, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991, pp. 11–32. Troeltsch, Ernst, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912; Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen (1912) [Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. IX], ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf in Zusammenarbeit mit Daphne Bielefeld, Eva Hanke, Johannes Heider, Fotios Komotoglou und Hannelore Loidl-Emberger, 3 vols., Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2021; Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, London and New York: George Allen and Macmillan, 1931. Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘The Dogmatics of the History-of-Religions School’ (1913), in Troeltsch, Religion in History, trans. James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bensen, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991, pp. 87–108. Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Die Krisis des Historismus’ (1922), in Troeltsch, Schriften zur Politik und Kulturphilosophie (1918–1923) [Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. XV], ed. Gangolf Hübinger, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2002, pp. 433–455. Troeltsch, Ernst, Schriften zur Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die moderne Welt (1906–1913) [Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. VIII], ed. Gangolf Hübinger, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2001. Vanderlaan, Eldred C., Protestant Modernism in Holland, London: Oxford University Press, 1924. Veen, Hidde van der, ‘Achter de Duitse horizon. Piersons verblijf in Heidelberg (1865–1874)’, De Negentiende Eeuw 21 (1997) 17–28. Velde, Henk te, Stijlen van leiderschap. Persoon en politiek van Thorbecke tot Den Uyl, Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, 2002. Velde, Henk te, ‘ “De eeuw van Van der Palm!”: Publieke welsprekendheid en de politieke cultuur van de Restauratie in Nederland’, BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review 135/1 (2020) 3–30. Verhave, J. and J.P. Verhave, ‘De vaccinatiekwestie in het Reveil’, in J. van den Berg, P.L. Schram, and S.L. Verheus, eds., Aspecten van het Reveil (Opstellen ter gelegenheid van het vijftigjarig bestaan van de Stichting Het Reveil-Archief), Kampen: Kok, 1980, pp. 230–255. Verhave, Jan Peter, ‘De profeet en het Beest. Dr. Abraham Capadose en zijn Bestrijding der vaccine (1823)’, in F.G.M. Broeyer and D.Th. Kuiper, eds., Is ‘t waar of niet? Ophefmakende publicaties uit de ‘lange’ negentiende eeuw (Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis van het protestantisme na 1800, vol. XIII), Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2005, pp. 39–63. Verheus, S.L., Honderd jaar vergadering van moderne theologen, s.l. s.a. [1966]. Verhoef, Eduard, W.C. van Manen. Een Hollandse Radicale theoloog, Kampen: Kok, 1994. Verhoef, Eduard, ‘Manen, Willem Christiaan van’, in Biografisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme, vol. IV, Kampen: Kok, 1998, pp. 322–324: http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/retroboeken/blnp/#source=4&page=323&size=800& accessor=accessor_index&view=imagePane. Verwey-Jonker, Hilda, ‘De psychologie van de verzuiling’, Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1957) 30–39.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi



213

Verwey-Jonker, Hilda, ‘De emancipatie-bewegingen’, in A.N.J. den Hollander, E.W. Hofstee, J.J.A. van Doorn, and E.V.W. Vercruysse, eds., Drift en Koers. Een halve eeuw sociale verandering in Nederland, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1961, pp. 105–125. Vooys, C.G.N. de, Allard Pierson naast en tegenover Conrad Busken Huet, Groningen and Batavia: Wolters, 1941. Vree, Jasper, De Groninger Godgeleerden. De oorsprongen en de eerste periode van hun optreden, Kampen: Kok, 1984. Vree, Jasper, Kuyper in de kiem. De precalvinistische periode van Abraham Kuyper 1848–1874, Hilversum: Verloren, 2006. Vries, Simon J. de, Bible and Theology in the Netherlands: Dutch Old Testament Criticism Under Modernist and Conservative Auspices 1850 to World War I, Wageningen: Veenman, 1968. Waardenburg, J.D.J. (Jacques), Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion: Aims, Methods and Theories of Research, 2 vols., The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 1973–1974. Wall, Ernestine G.E. van der, Het oude en het nieuwe geloof. Discussies rond 1900, Leiden: Leiden University Press, 1999. Wall, Ernestine G.E. van der, The Enemy Within: Religion, Science, and Modernism (Uhlenbeck Lecture, vol. XXV), Wassenaar: NIAS, 2007. Wall, Ernestine G.E. van der, ‘Catholic and Protestant (Anti-)Modernisms: A Call for a Comparative Approach’, in Leo Kenis and Ernestine van der Wall, eds., Religion and Modernism in the Low Countries 1840–1940: A Comparative Approach, Leuven: Peeters, 2009, pp. 1–22. Wallet, Bart T. and Irene E. Zwiep, ‘Locals: Jews in the Early Modern Republic’, in Jonathan Karp and Adam Sutcliffe, eds., Cambridge History of Early Modern Judaism 1500–1814, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 894–922. Weber, Max, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Die Wirtschaft und die gesellschaftlichen Ordnungen und Mächte. Nachlaß, Teilband 2: Religiöse Gemeinschaften, ed. Hans G. Kippenberg, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Wellhausen, Julius, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), 2nd edition, Berlin: Reimer, 1883. Wellhausen, Julius, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1885. Wellhausen, Julius, Review Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments hinsichtlich ihrer Entstehung und Sammlung, trans. Th. Weber, Leipzig: O. Schulze, 1885–1887 [vol. I], Deutsche Literaturzeitung 8 (1887) 1105–1106. Wellhausen, Julius, Briefe, ed. Rudolf Smend, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Weringh, Jacobus van, Het maatschappijbeeld van Abraham Kuyper, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967. Werven, D.L. (Diederik Lüch) van, Dutch Readings of George Eliot 1865–1885 (PhD thesis, Utrecht), Zutphen, 2001. Whittaker, Thomas, The Origins of Christianity. With an Outline of Van Manen’s Analysis of the Pauline Literature, London: Watts & Co, 1904. Wicksteed, P.H., ‘[Obituary] Abraham Kuenen’, The Jewish Quarterly Review 4/4 (1892) 571–605. Williamson, George S., ‘The Christ Myth Debate: Radical Theology and Public Life in Germany, 1909–1913’, Church History 86/3 (2017) 728–764. Wils, Kaat, De omweg van de wetenschap. Het positivisme en de Belgische en Nederlandse intellectuele cultuur 1845–1914, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 8/11/2021, SPi

214



Witte, Leopold, Das Leben Friedrich August Gotttreu Tholuck’s, vol. I, Bielefeld and Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing, 1884. Wohlrab-Sahr, Monika, Konversion zum Islam in Deutschland und den USA, Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag, 1998. Wolf, Hubert, ed., Antimodernismus und Modernismus in der katholischen Kirche. Beiträge zum theologiegeschichtlichen Vorfeld des II. Vatikanums, Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998. Wolffram, Dirk Jan, Bezwaarden en Verlichten. Verzuiling in een Gelderse provinciestad. Harderwijk 1850–1925, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1993. Wood, John Halsey, Jr., Going Dutch in the Modern Age: Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Nineteenth-Century Netherlands, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Woud, Auke van der, Een nieuwe wereld. Het ontstaan van het moderne Nederland, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2006. Zahn, Ernest, Regenten, rebellen en reformatoren: een visie op Nederland en de Nederlanders, 2nd edition, Amsterdam: Contact, 1991; original German edition: Das unbekannte Holland: Regenten, Rebellen und Reformatoren, Berlin: Siedler, 1984. Zijderveld, A.C. (Anton), ‘Vrij zinnig eigenzinnig: De cultuur en traditie van de VPRO’, in J.H.J. van den Heuvel et al., Een vrij zinnige verhouding: De VPRO en Nederland 1926–1986, Baarn: Ambo, 1986, pp. 147–180.

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Aberdeen 160 abstentionism 62, 72 aesthetics 55, 73 Afscheiding, see Secession of 1834 agnosticism 53–4, 72 Amsterdam 54, 67, 87, 95–7, 128, 177 Anti-Revolutionary Party (Kuyper) 2–3, 95–6, 131, 181–2 anti-supernatural(ism) 2, 58–9, 89, 157 Aristotle 70 art (the arts) 53–4, 64, 72–6, 113–17, 126–8 history 53–4 asceticism 64–5, 67 Assembly of Modern Theologians (Vergadering van moderne theologen) 67, 86–7, 105–6 association(s) 28, 63–4, 88, 179–80 mission 28–9, 189 atheism 61, 169, 181 atonement 25–6, 82–3 Augustine 75 Austria 143, 150 authority 61–2, 83, 131, 149–50 autonomy (human) 4–5, 19, 21–2, 30, 53, 75, 82, 150–1 Baader, Franz von 101n.22 Banning, Willem 141–2 Barth, Karl 81, 176, 187 battle 5, 24, 96–7, 99, 115, 125–6, 130–2, 134–6 see also struggle Baudelaire, Charles 75 Bauer, Bruno 164–5 Baur, Friedrich Christian 82–3, 156–7 Bavinck, Herman 123, 128, 132 Beets, Nicolaas 16–17, 88–9 Belgium 88, 134, 143, 150 Belmonte, Hanna (wife of Isaac da Costa) 5, 31, 37, 39–40 Bergh van Eysinga, Gustaaf Adolf van den 8–9, 164, 166 Berlin 120 Bern 164 Bezwaren tegen de geest der eeuw (Da Costa) 13, 17–18, 20, 28

Bible for Young People 159–60, 185 Bible 24–5, 27, 83–4, 120, 178 authority of 26–7, 35, 55–6, 79–80 historical-critical study of the 5–6, 77–80, 83–4, 89, 93–4, 156–7, 176, 178 Leiden translation of the 163–4 see also Holy Scripture(s) Bilderdijk, Willem 15–19, 22–3, 31–2, 35–6, 38–9, 41, 43–7, 54, 130–2 Bismarck, Otto von 134–5 Blom, Hans (J.C.H.) 145–7 Bolt, John 125–6 Bon, Gustave le 7, 129–30, 136–7 bourgeoisie 75–6, 93 Bousset, Wilhelm 176 Bratt, James D. 96 Brieven over den Bijbel (Huet) 84–5, 185 Britain (Great) 78–80, 124, 143, 159–61 broadcasting company 91–2, 143 Bruining, Gerbrand 22–3 Brunner, Emil 81 Buddha 174–5 Bürger, Gottfried August 102 Burke, Edmund 99–100 Busken Huet, Conrad see Huet, Conrad Busken Calvin, John 2–3, 117–18, 120–1, 130–1 Calvinism (Kuyper’s Stone Lectures) 112–13, 112n.6, 117–18, 122, 124 Calvinism 7, 43, 45, 89, 97–8, 111–22, 124–5, 129, 134, 182 Capadose, Abraham 5, 15–16, 23–4, 31–3, 37, 39–40 Capadose, Immanuel 40 capitalism 3–4, 76 Carpenter, Joseph Estlin 159 categorical imperative (Kant) 70 Catholics (Roman) 1–2, 27, 33–4, 53, 91, 114, 119, 136–7, 139–40, 143, 150–2, 169, 180–1 Cézanne, Paul 74–5 Chantepie de la Saussaye, Daniël 101n.22 Chantepie de la Saussaye, Pierre Daniël 9, 155–6, 167, 172–5, 178, 185–6

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

216



charity 71, 93, 143 Chevalier, M.J. 37–8 Chicago 183–4, 190 chiliasm 28, 44 Christ, see Jesus Christianity 66, 71 early 165, 177–8 church history (the study of) 172, 175–6, 186–7 church(es) 57–9, 90, 103–4, 116 exclusive 53, 57–8, 73 see also people’s church power of the 63–4 plurality of 57–8 civil rights (1796) 1–2, 42–3, 45 class(es) 1–4, 8, 19, 30, 75–6, 93, 100–1, 135–6, 140, 144–8, 168, 185 Clerq, Willem de 39–40 Colenso, John William 82–3, 158 colonialism 176–7 comparison 114, 120, 178 comparative study of religions 82–3, 175–6 Confessional Association 81–2, 86 constitution 21–2, 30 of 1848 1–2, 168 conversion 31, 35–6, 38, 46–7, 189 social aspects of 40 Coornhert, Dirck 89 Corbusier, Le 74–5 Costa, Daniel da (father of Isaac) 15, 34, 39–40, 42 Costa, Isaac da 2, 4–5, 11, 13–47, 54–5, 71, 73, 128, 131–2, 181, 188–9 Jewish descent 15, 39, 44 marriage 39–40 rhetorical talent 16–17 Costa, Jacques da (son of Isaac) 23–4 Costa, Uriel da 34 critique of 17–22, 47 Dante (Alighieri) 66 Darwin, Charles 87, 188 Darwinism 135, 188 Debussy, Claude 74–5 deism 20, 118 democracy 24, 111, 119, 121, 134, 144–5, 189 consociational 145nn.23, 24, 150, 152 denominationalism 86, 90–1, 95, 111, 116, 140, 143 depillarization 143, 149–50, 180–1 Detering, Hermann 164–5 Dicey, Albert Venn 123–4 Diderot, Denis 20–1, 75, 87 Disraeli, Benjamin 144 Doedes, Jacobus Isaac 169–71

Doleantie, see Secession of 1886 Doorn, J.J.A. van 142 Drews, Arthur 164, 185 Dutch Radical School 2, 164–7, 185 Dutch Reformed Church (Nederlands(ch)e Hervormde Kerk) ix, 26–7, 29–30, 51, 59–60, 81–2, 90, 92–4, 139–40, 155, 168–71, 177–8, 182 ecclesiology 59, 90, 103–4, 116 Edinburgh 173–4 education 63–5 higher 167–8 primary 21 see also schools Egeling, Lucas 16n.16 Eliot, George 87, 184 Eliot, T.S. 74–5 elite(s) 1–3, 8, 77, 93, 95–6, 144–52, 167–8 emancipation 1–2, 8, 47, 91–2, 94, 114–15, 137–8, 141, 146–50, 152, 180–1, 183, 189–91 Emerson, Ralph Waldo 87, 184 Emmet, C.W. 79 Enlightenment 14, 17–18, 28–9, 46 Erasmus, Desiderius 89 ethics 61–2, 69–73 Europe 112–13, 139–40, 150–1, 179–81 evolution (evolutionary theory) 2, 113n.10, 135, 163, 188–9 Ewald, Heinrich 159–60 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb 20–1 Finke, Roger 40 Flaubert, Gustave 75–6 Fontaine, Jean de la 20–1 forefathers 19, 29 Fox, Charles James 99–100 Free Congregation (Vrije Gemeente) 87, 184, 190 freedom 30, 87–9, 114, 118, 120, 122, 124, 151–2, 190–1 French Revolution 20–1, 28, 99–101, 113, 113n.10, 130 Freud, Sigmund 74–5 Fruin, Robert 115 Gäbler, Ulrich 20, 28 Gansfoort, Wessel 89 Gay, Peter 75 Germany 130–1, 150, 164, 185 Gildemeester, Adriaan 52–4 Gildemeester, Pauline 53 Gladden, Washington 183 Gladstone, William 123 Glaubenslehre (Schleiermacher) 71–2

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

 God 21, 35–6, 46–7, 55–6, 59–61, 92, 102, 114–16, 118, 128–9, 131, 169–70 as the Absolu adorable 59 biblical 24 dependent upon 4–5, 19 God’s reality 56 God’s spirit 162–3 immanence of 78–9 Jahweh 160 longing for 72 of the Netherlands 44 ordinances of 116, 129–30, 132 personal 58–9 godsdienstwetenschap, see science of religion Goethe, Johann Wolfgang (von) 87, 104, 184 government absolute 22 divine 102 representative 2, 22 grace (common) 114–18 Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm 3–4 Graf, Karl Heinrich 158–9 Groen van Prinsterer, Guillaume 26, 29–30, 130–2 Groningen School (of theology) 25–7, 81–2 Gunning, Johannes Hermanus 101n.22 Gutenberg, Johann 17–18 Haarlem 18, 52, 84–5 Hamel, A.G. van 67 happiness 62, 69 Harinck, George 97 Harnack, Adolf von 120, 187 Hausmeister, Jacob August 32–3 Hebrews 11:6 56 Heemskerk, J. Azn. 168–70 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 190–1 Heidelberg 53, 60–1 catechism 37, 100–1 Heine, Heinrich 1, 9 Heir of Redclyffe, The (Charlotte Yonge) 126 Heldring, O.G. 54 Hellemans, Staf 150–1 Helmholtz, Hermann 61 Herder, Johann Gottfried 156–7 heresy 75, 82–3, 104 Hervorming, De 86, 90, 190–1 Heslam, Peter 106–7 Heusde, Philip Willem van 13–14 Higher Education Act of 1876 167–72, 185–6 historical method 155, 171–2, 175–6, 186–7, 189 historicism 176, 186–7 History of Israel (Kuenen) 159–60, 162–3 history of religion(s) 9, 155–6, 169–73

217

Hoedemaker, Philippus Jacobus 106 Hofstede de Groot, Petrus 25–6, 77, 81–2 Holy Scripture(s) 19, 26–7, 84, 117–18, 133–4 Holy Spirit 25–6, 85–6, 103 Hoogendorp, Willem van 46–7 Hooykaas, Isaäc 159–60 Huet, Conrad Busken 59–60, 70–1, 77, 84–7, 107, 185 Hugenholtz, Frederik Willem Nicolaas 183–4 Hugenholtz, Peter Hermannus 87, 93–4, 184, 190 Hugenholtz, Philip Reinhard 87, 93–4, 184, 190 humanism (humanist) 57, 63, 88 humanity 62–3, 162–3 ideal of 53, 57 Hutchinson, William R. 78–9 hyperbole 125–6, 137–8 Ibsen, Henrik 74–5 ideal(s) 62–3, 69, 72–3, 102–4 formation of 64 Idealism (German) 1, 101 identity 39, 41, 43–4, 46–7, 92, 189 crisis 41, 47 imagination 62–5, 72–3 incarnation 37, 101, 104–5 individualism (individual) 3–4, 28, 63, 93, 129 infallibility 26, 61, 65, 72, 79–80 Inge, William R. 79–80 Israel 43–4, 162–3 ancient 156–8 Islam 169 Jerusalem 43–4, 130 Jesus (Christ) 26–7, 32, 36–8, 43–4, 55, 76, 85–6, 93–4, 104–5, 108, 116, 134–5, 164–6, 188–9 life of Jesus 155–6 resurrection of 165 Jews 1–2, 33–6, 42–3 history of 43–4 prejudice against 17, 22–3 Sephardic 43–5 John 3:3 51 1 John 1:1 104 Judaism 34n.13, 35, 177–8 Juynboll, Theodoor 158 Kafka, Franz 74–5 Kalma, Jacob Jetzes 23 Kant, Immanuel 20–1, 75 Knippenberg, Hans 146 Koch, Jeroen 96 Koster (Coster), Jan Laurenszoon 17–19 Kristensen, William Brede 176–7

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

218



Kruijt, J.P. 143 Kuenen, Abraham 2, 8–9, 27, 56–7, 59–60, 67–70, 77, 83–4, 89, 105, 155–64, 177–8, 184–5 Kulturprotestanten (Culture Protestants) 7, 111, 121 Kuyper, Abraham 1–4, 6–8, 74, 80–3, 91, 95–108, 111–40, 147–8, 151, 167–8, 179, 181–2, 188–9 his rhetoric 123–38 work on 95–8 Labour Party 88–9, 93, 141–2, 151 see also socialists Lancaster, Joseph 21 Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet, Das (Strauss) 77, 156–7, 182–3 Leemans, Mozes 15, 35 Leer der Hervormde Kerk, De (Scholten) 26–7, 82 Leeuw, Gerardus van der 9, 176–7 Leiden 44, 124–5, 160–1, 163–4, 170–1 Lennep, David Jacob van 35 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim 156–7 Levensbeschouwing, Eene (Pierson) 53, 61, 63–5 liberal (vrijzinnig) 74, 78, 88–9, 151–2 liberals 91, 150–2, 169, 180–1 Lijphart, Arend 144–5, 147 Loisy, Alfred 5–6, 77–8, 182–3 Loman, Abraham Dirk 8–9, 164–5, 185 Louvain (Belgium) 52–3 Luther, Martin 19, 76, 130–1 Lutheranism 97–8, 114, 182 Mahler, Gustav 74–5 Manen, Willem Christiaan van 8–9, 164–6, 185 Manet, Edouard 74–5 Marburg 86–7 McLeod, Hugh 150, 179–80 Mendelssohn, Moses 34 messianism 43, 45 Meyer, Jaap 41 Middle Ages 18–19, 117–18 miracle (miraculous) 60, 73, 121, 157, 187–8 misery 64–5, 69, 73 Modern Churchmen 79–80 modern 74, 88 theology 26–7, 51–2, 59–60, 73–4, 83–5, 83n.31, 98–9, 103, 105–6, 155 modernism 5–6, 74–7, 106–8, 182–3 Catholic 77–9, 182–3 definition of 78–9, 89–90, 101–2 theological 77–81 Modernisme: een fata morgana op christelijk gebied (Kuyper) 81–2, 98–9 modernity 2, 75nn.1, 2, 111, 190–1

modernization 2, 139, 149, 189–91 definition of 3–4, 111–12 Mommsen, Theodor 161–2 Mondrian (Mondriaan), Piet 74–5, 184 monotheism 159 ethical 159, 184–5 Montaigne 75 Moses 160 movements, social 139–40, 150–1 Müller, Friedrich Max 87, 178, 184–6 mysticism (mystical) 25–6, 169 Napoleon 15, 42 nation (Dutch) 27–30, 148–9, 168–9 Protestant 29, 42–3, 181–2 Nederlands(ch)e Hervormde Kerk, see Dutch Reformed Church Nederlandsche Protestantenbond 86, 93–4, 182 Neo-Calvinism (Neo-Calvinists) 91, 111–22, 133, 139–40, 147–8, 151–2, 180–2 New Testament 163–6, 185 newspapers 51, 95–6, 129–30, 139–42 Nietzsche, Friedrich 74–5, 87, 120–1, 135, 184, 186–7 Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) 35–6, 184–5 study of 156–64 Oort, Hendricus 159–60 optimism 66, 78–9, 93–4, 176–7, 183 Opzoomer, Cornelis Willem 54–6, 82–3, 85–6, 187–8 orthodoxy 87–9, 104 Overbeck, Franz 186–7 Oyens, Ida (mother of Allard Pierson) 52 pacifism 87–8 Palm, Johannes Henricus 18–19 pantheism 113n.10, 118, 133–4, 133n.34 Paris 20–1, 58, 172, 185–6 Parker, Theodore 82–3 Pascal, Blaise 75 passion 62 Paul 156–7, 165–6, epistles of 155–6, 164–6, 185 Pennings, Paul 147 Pentateuch 56–7, 83–4, 156, 158–9, 161, 184–5 Samaritan 158 People’s Church (volkskerk) 2–3, 27, 181–2 Périn, Charles 80 personality 64 Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich 21 Pfleiderer, Otto 156–7 philosophy of religion 9, 155–6, 170–3

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

 Pierson aan zijne laatste gemeente (Pierson) 53, 57 Pierson, Allard 2, 5, 8–9, 51–73, 77, 82–3, 87, 105, 164–5, 181, 185, 187–8, 190–1 Pietist upbringing 54–5 Pierson, Jan Lodewijk Gregory (father of Allard) 52 Pietism 2, 30, 71–2, 131, 189 and Enlightenment 28–30 see also Réveil (Dutch) piety 13–14, 18–19, 25–6, 28, 30, 55, 60–1, 71, 84, 87, 126–7, 176, 183–4 pillar(s) 139n.1, 141–2 four 141 pillarization 2–3, 6, 8, 91–3, 137, 139–52, 179–81, 189 definition of 8, 91 and modernization 148–50 theories of 146–8 Pius IX 1–2 Pius X 77–8, 81, 182–3 Plato 34, 75 pleasure (hedonism) 67, 101 pluralism (ideological) 3–4, 93, 111–12, 114, 179–81, 190–1 poetry 59, 66 Politics of Accomodation (Lijphart) 144–5 polytheism 159 Portugal 35, 43–5 positivism 61, 187–8 prayer 60–1, 63 Princeton 96–7, 112–13, 120, 122–4, 155 progress 115, 130–1, 163 prophet(s) 16–17, 129, 159, 163, 176–7, 183–5 Amos 159, 184–5 Hosea 159, 184–5 Isaiah 36 Protestantism 115, 119 ascetic 97, 120 liberal 5–7, 87–9, 91–4, 119, 121–2, 173, 177–8, 182–3, 190–1 providence (divine) 19–20, 23–4, 34, 37, 39–40 psychology of the masses 129–30, 135–7 public sphere 6, 30, 63–4 Rabbinic 34 Rade, Martin 86–7 Rauschenbusch, Walter 183 Rauwenhoff, L.W.E. 90 realism 101, 135–6 reality (real) 104–5, 107–8 craving for 73 devoid of 102, 104 Reformation 59, 86, 94, 119, 183

219

religion 25–6, 52–3, 68, 73, 170, 179, 184 atheistic form of 71 definition of 59, 173–4 freedom of 18, 63 Jewish 43 modernist 70–1 unity of 173 universal 165 ‘without metaphysics’ 68 world 163 Renan, Ernest 77, 82–4, 87 Réveil (Dutch revival movement) 5, 28–9, 131, 189 revelation 29, 57–8, 61–2, 83, 105–6, 116 Romanticism 126–7 Réville, Albert 58–9, 178, 185–6 Réville, Jean 178, 185–6 Ricardo, David 4–5, 15, 22 Ricardo, Rebecca (mother of Isaac da Costa) 15 Rimbaud, Arthur 74–5 Roessingh, Karel Hendrik 14, 86–8 Rogerson, John William 160 Rohe, Mies van der 74–5 Rothe, Richard 90 Rotterdam 52–3, 57–8 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 20–1, 75 Rubens, Peter Paul 16–17 Ruskin, John 76, 80 Sage ten Broek, Joachim George le 23 scepticism (sceptical) 52–3, 56–7, 66 Schaepman, Herman 1–2 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm 20–1 Schiller, Friedrich 87 Schleiermacher, Friedrich 1, 71–2 Schöffer, Ivo 42 Scholten, Jan Hendrik (Jo[h]annes Hendricus) 26–7, 30, 60, 82–3, 85–6, 89, 103, 158, 188 schools 143–4 Schweitzer, Albert 164–5 science of religion (Godsdienstwetenschap) 6, 155–6, 172–3, 175, 177–8, 185–6 science(s) 55–6, 59, 101, 116–19, 121, 179, 186–8 Secession (Afscheiding) of 1834 27, 29 Secession (Doleantie) of 1886 2–3, 95–6, 139–40, 181–2 secularization 63, 171, 179–80 Semler, Johann Salomo 156–7 Shakespeare, William 75, 87 Sharpe, Eric J. 171 Simmel, Georg 111–12 sin 25, 62, 102–4, 117–18 slavery 21–2, 24, 87–8, 114, 189

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 6/11/2021, SPi

220



Smith, William Robertson 8–9, 155–6, 160–1, 173, 178, 185–6 Smits, Piet 92 Snouck Hurgronje, Christiaan 176–7 social contract (contrat social) 21–2, 29 social question 93–4 socialism (socialists) 91, 139–40, 147–8, 150, 180–1 Socianism 20, 119 societies (literary) 71 Concordia crescimus 15, 40–1 Tot Nut en Beschaving 15, 38, 45–6 Söderblom, Nathan 173–4 Spain 31–2, 45, 128 Standaard, De (Kuyper) 123, 128–9 Stark, Rodney 40 state and church 63, 89, 116–18 Steck, Rudolf 164 Stockholm 174–5 Strauss, David Friedrich 26–7, 30, 77, 82–5, 156–7, 182–3 Strong, Josiah 183 struggle 26–7, 29–30, 69, 71, 99, 113, 115, 118, 120–1, 124–5, 128, 131–4, 136–7 subsidiarity principle 117–18 suffering 62–4, 66, 69, 71, 73 supernatural(ism) 58–62, 73, 83–6, 157, 162–4, 178 ethical 60–1 Synod of Dordrecht (1618–1619) 19, 23, 27 Tennyson, Alfred 87 theodicy 70 theology 190 dogmatic 171–2 German 1, 156 and science of religion 167, 169–71, 173, 175–8 theosophy 184 Tholuck, Friedrich August Gottreu 13–14, 30 Tiele, Cornelis Petrus 9, 89, 155–6, 167, 170–5, 178, 183–6

Tolstoy, Leo 87, 184 Troeltsch, Ernst 86–7, 97, 111–12, 122, 155, 176, 182, 186–7 Tyrell, George 77–8, 80, 182–3 United States 78–9, 96–7, 112–13, 115, 183 university 118, 155–6 of Amsterdam 172, 174–5, 185–6 of Groningen 24–5 of Leiden 24–7, 167–9, 172, 177–8, 185–6 of Utrecht 167–8 Utrecht 52–3, 86, 130, 169–71 vaccination 5, 23–4, 63 Vie de Jésus (Renan) 83–4 virtue 18, 62, 104 Voice of Israel 31–2, 38, 46 Voltaire 20–1, 35, 84–5 Vrije Gemeente, see Free Congregation Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 95–7, 119, 132, 181–2 Vrijzinnig Protestantse Radio Omroep 91–2 vrijzinnig, see liberal Warhol, Andy 75 Weber, Max 97, 111–12, 182 Wellhausen, Julius 8–9, 155–6, 160–2, 178, 185–6 Weringh, Jacobus van 125–6, 133–4 Wicksteed, Philip Henry 159–61 will (human) 64–5, 82 Wils, Kaat 187–8 Wordsworth, William 87 Worldview, A (Pierson) 53, 61, 65 worldview 5, 53, 55, 67, 69, 72, 108, 111–12, 120, 130, 134, 148–9, 155 secular 7, 179–80 Wusten, Herman van 146 Yonge, Charlotte M. 126 Zwijsen, Joannes 1–2