Over at the Chronicle of Higher Ed, columnist Jacques Berlinerblau recently wrote about Rick Santorum, “Anathematizer in Chief.” His column included the following comments:
The opposite of the Civic Republican model is a kind of scowling Puritan-inflected worldview. The Debbie-Downer of church-state accommodations, this model decries a sinful America, whoremongeringly headed down the path to perdition. Unless, of course, proper prayerful steps are taken.
The Puritan-inflected approaches are saturated in the gloomiest strains of Calvinist theology and have little compunction about calling (all) other theologies “phony.” The default mode of this public theology is divisiveness. Think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pastors Parsley and Hagee (who nearly blew out John McCain’s Faith and Values operation in 2008), Robert Jeffress (who Mormon-baited in support of Rick Perry a few months back), and so many more.
Whether or not Berlinerblau’s characterization of Santorum is accurate or not is beside the point for our purposes here. I’m not interested in attacking or defending any candidates in this space. But I was struck by Berlinerblau’s description of Santorum’s politics as a “scowling Puritan-inflected worldview…saturated in the gloomiest strains of Calvinist theology…the default mode of this public theology is divisiveness.”
I found it amusing that Berlinerblau categorized Falwell, Robertson, Parsley, Hagee, et al as Calvinist, when the theology each of them espouses is pretty far from that. Berlinerblau did note the irony of Santorum, a staunch Catholic, advocating what he takes to be a Calvinist posture.
I’ve observed that many people who value religion’s voice (specifically Christianity’s voice) in the public square have been reflexively defensive of critiques like this. But it’s worth stating that there are other ways that Christians can make their voice heard in the public square, without resorting to overly privatized expressions of faith on the one hand, or theocratic demagoguery on the other hand. In fact, this third way finds it’s best expression from within the Calvinist theology that Berlinerblau is so averse to, in the form of Abraham Kuyper, (1837-1920) the pastor-theologian, university founder, newspaper editor, and prime minister of the Netherlands.
I recently attended the Jubilee Conference, a highly Kuyperian experience for college students. Woven throughout the many sessions in the weekend was an affirmation of the goodness of creation, and the doctrine of “Common Grace.” Though common grace is not sufficient for salvation, it nonetheless means that God’s goodness is evident in the life and work of unbelievers. The doctrine of common grace allows Christians to affirm and celebrate what is good and true, even if it comes from an unbeliever. It’s also humbling, and should lead to gracious talk. When differences must be stated (and they certainly must be), they can be stated clearly and firmly, but also winsomely. Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw (also a Jubilee speaker this year) is an excellent example of this, and has been fostering discussions across the political and religious spectrums for decades. He’s the author of an excellent little introduction to the thought of Kuyper. Kuyper himself was in favor of a diverse, “structurally pluralistic” society, and a public square where every group (Christian and otherwise) was free to advocate for their positions.
Contrary to the theocratic tendencies of some Christians, Kuyper was not interested in control or coercion. He argued that if Christians truly believed in the lordship of Christ “their testimony would not only draw others into the kingdom of God but also protect society at large from tyranny. Kuyper’s doctrine of sphere sovereignty, which distinguishes society from the state, protects “social spheres” such as the family, business, science, and art from the encroachment of politics, and frees the church to proclaim the gospel without state regulation.” 1 Kuyper believed society worked best when both the church and the state stayed within the spheres of their authority and competence.
Kuyper’s model for Christian engagement in public life is more than a century old, but is still relevant and refreshing to the common political debates of our day. If more people heeded it, we would have less shouting and more good conversation and things getting done. We need more modern Abraham Kuypers!
For a good introduction to the ongoing impact of Kuyper’s thought, check out Friend of Kuyper. Also, pick up Richard Mouw’s book on Kuyper, as well has his book on civility.
