On Charity and Justice (Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology)

Abraham Kuyper, Jordan J. Ballor, Melvin Flikkema

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN: 9781577996736
• eBook ISBN: 9781683595960
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

"In this anthology of articles and reflections, Kuyper articulates a Christian vision for engaging with society. Though his analysis was intended for his late-nineteenth-century Dutch context, his thoughts remain strikingly relevant for Christians living in the modern world. For Kuyper, God's law preserved civil justice, making humane life possible. However, the law itself could not save society-only the gospel can transform the heart. But the gospel is for all of life. Kuyper elaborated a social Christian approach to politics, resulting in a distinct perspective on property, human dignity, democracy, and justice"--

IS ERROR A PUNISHABLE OFFENSE?

TEXT INTRODUCTION

“Is Error a Punishable Offense?” [Is Dwaling Strafbaar?] was published as a series of sixteen leading articles in Kuyper’s daily De Standaard from May 25 through June 18, 1874. They mostly appeared on consecutive days and were never reprinted. The publication occurred simultaneously with that of “Calvinism: Source and Stronghold of Our Constitutional Liberties,” a public lecture he had been giving in various settings since November 1873; the preface dates from May 20, and the brochure appeared in June. In both discourses he develops an alternative theory about the origin of the fundamental liberties: not the French Revolution, but early modern Calvinism was the birthplace of all modern freedoms. The content of the new series is in keeping with the former, with a notable difference: “Calvinism” is now completely absent. The term antirevolutionary is used instead, coined by Groen van Prinsterer (1801–76), with whom Kuyper still maintains close contact; it also serves Kuyper’s political aims better with the readers he addresses here. Kuyper was elected to the Second Chamber in January 1874, and the series can be partially read as a political manifesto. It can also be seen as an answer to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859); Mill’s individualism (denounced by Kuyper in the Second Chamber) excludes any positive appreciation. Kuyper does quote extensively from James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (London, 1873), which contains an extensive criticism of Mill’s position. Kuyper’s own antirevolutionary hero is John Milton, and especially his Areopagitica (1644), whom Kuyper encountered while reading the collected work of Edmund Burke in 1873.

SOURCE: Abraham Kuyper, “Is Dwaling Strafbaar?,” De Standaard, no. 660, May 25/26, 1874–no. 680, June 18, 1874. Translated by John Kok. Edited and annotated by Johan Snel.

I

Is one free to err as long as it does not result in culpable activities? May the strong arm of the state counter erroneous ideas only when they give rise to actual infractions? Are false notions, as long as they remain just thoughts and words, inviolable and not to be infringed on; such that only whenever they are acted upon, those activities, but never these false notions themselves, can be prosecuted in court?

Many communists teach that “property is robbery.” That teaching is erroneous. But people preach, teach, and propagate it nevertheless. The respect that many have for property rights shrinks as a result, which leads in turn to burglary, theft, forgery, fraudulent bankruptcies, the abuse of trust, and swindle.

Is one free to propagate that false doctrine? Must the state watch, with the sword of justice in its sheath, and wait for the bitter fruit that this pernicious seed may engender before prosecuting and punishing the theft or racket that results—pursuing the misguided children rather than the spiritual father of these crimes?

Or how about a different claim: “The people are sovereign, given the rights of man,” say some.

That declaration is not true. This mistaken notion undermines people’s respect for the legitimate authority of the government, which, in turn, gives rise to resistance, mutiny, and rebellion. It is at that level that this fundamental fallacy bears its fruit. So where do we go from here? Are people free to spread this false notion without hindrance, forcing the criminal courts to stand idly by until the toxic fruits of this absurd doctrine manifest themselves in public rebellion and an uproar on the streets?

We deliberately choose two exclusively political examples. Disseminating or suppressing these false claims is less an issue within the church as it is beyond it; but propaganda for both positions is currently distributed everywhere with impunity.

Nevertheless, it must be said from the outset that similar dynamics are at play when it comes to deviations within the church regarding what it teaches.

To teach that “there is no God,” that “original sin is a fiction,” that “there will be no judgment day,” that “the state of perdition is an invention of priestly cunning,” that “the Bible is a book like any other book,” that “morality and, hence, one’s conscience are independent of faith” are equally instances of peddling utterly alarming fallacies, which warp the crossbeams of the social order, call into question the moral makeup of life, and are the underlying cause of the crimes and injustices that break out among the people.

The claims that “property is theft” and that “the people are sovereign” are merely derived convictions. The root also of these erroneous notions lies in the denial of God and his commandments. In fact, these misconceptions are innocent compared to the fundamental fallacy, which became the mother of all sins and whose formulation cannot take place anywhere other than at the level of the church.

The question whether one may hold to erroneous ideas as long as they do not transition into punishable offences holds therefore also for religious fallacies as well. It is a matter of principle, and thus to be extended to every area of life in which the power of thoughts and the influence of words sway the temperament of the human heart and human relationships.

Whether one answers this question positively or negatively changes what you hold to be the case regarding: the church itself; the relationship between church and state; the limits of the state’s power; the freedom of the press; the freedom of conscience and worship; the freedom of expression and association; yes indeed, regarding all the duties and activities of the state. The importance of this question is undeniable. Only if those with whom you engage give you an unequivocal answer to that question will you know where they are coming from.

The weight of this question is not merely limited to the state and society; it reaches to beyond the grave.

One might remember the question raised by Macaulay in his essay “Gladstone on Church and State” [1839]:

All the reasons which lead us to think that parents are peculiarly fitted to conduct the education of their children, and that education is a principal end of the parental relation, lead us to think, that parents ought to be allowed to use punishment, if necessary, for the purpose of forcing children, who are incapable of judging for themselves, to receive religious instruction and to attend religious worship. Why, then, is this prerogative of punishment, so eminently paternal, to be withheld from a paternal government?… What reason can [Gladstone] give for hanging a murderer, and suffering a heresiarch to escape without even a pecuniary mulct? Is the heresiarch a less pernicious member of society than the murderer? Is not the loss of one soul a greater evil than the extinction of many lives?1

If the Son of God expressly assures us: “He who does not believe the Son shall not see life” [John 3:36 NKJV], may a Christian society then tolerate that the next generation—unharmed and with impunity—will be against every belief in Jesus?

We are not putting this side of the problem in the foreground. We would prefer to stick to its political import. We only want to point out that the question—whose solution we will want to test—is not limited to matters of the state but has to do with the whole person; not only with his timebound existence, but also with his eternal being.

Those, including some of our contemporaries, who have wandered so far away that they cannot even imagine the possibility of a judgment day will not be interested in what we have to say.

We, on the other hand, who cannot imagine that there would not be a judgment, and who definitely reckon with the reality of “eternal salvation,” may not close our eyes to that side of the question either. The government, too, is God’s servant. It does not lie outside God’s plan for the salvation of sinners but serves as an instrument to that end.

II

The enlightened circles of our century do not pay much heed to deviations and consider them sooner as useful than as pernicious. They do not even know error in other than a metaphorical sense. That false notions are punishable offenses is out the question.

This should not surprise us. For someone to stray presupposes that there is a way, a clearly marked trail; that there is a discernable truth from which one deviates; and that immediately returning to the true way is what justice requires and what self-preservation demands of those who wander from it. How could our century, which denies that there is such a way and dismisses the pretense of absolute truth as madness, ever condemn something as erroneous? Without a path there is no straying from it; without absolute truth there are no absolute errors opposed to it.

People can err with sums, confuse dates in history, mishandle a commercial transaction, make mistakes in calculating weighable and measurable data; but these sorts of mistakes, miscues, and identifiable corrigenda have nothing in common with the moral concept “to err.”

To err does not refer to the world we can inch and pinch but has to do with things unseen. Only when one seeks to penetrate behind what is visible to that which lies hidden in the heart of man, in his affections and will, or attempts to think through the coherence that connects the finite and the infinite, does one come to the spiritual motives and factors—to those principles in everyone’s life-and worldview—of which it can be said that they are erroneous.

At that level, “error” in its strict sense is not recognized by the prophets of the age. When everyone is searching and none have found, no one path can be identified and, hence, no one can be said to have strayed from that path. People make assumptions, construct systems, and have their opinions about most everything, but no matter how these opinions may differ, each has its relative right. Some may complain about a lack of clarity, about internal inconsistencies, or at least about being one-sided or backward, but will avoid the conclusion that something is “erroneous.” Every aberrant idea is honored as a new angle on the prism’s spectrum; having to go through all these phases is good for the healthy development of our knowledge; there is nothing more that we can do. When the fixed touchstone was left to the side, gold could no longer be proved to be either fake or real.

People allow themselves only one exception to that rule: they know for sure that “scriptural faith” is undoubtedly erroneous. That we, who still hold fast to the Christ of Scripture, err, is certain. That our standpoint is untenable is a certainty. Room can be found for most anything, except for fanatical narrow-mindedness. Everything must be tolerated, except for us. People see in the age-old faith of Christianity an extremely harmful aberration of which those coming of age today are not worthy and that, in the moral opinion of the world, is a strike against those who are afflicted by it.

That is just the way it is.

In the chorus of seekers, the only unbearable dissonance is the voice of “Eureka!” If the only truths you know are relative, those who speak of the truth strike you as arrogant and conceited. That error is not tolerated because it undermines the very logic of purely relative truths.

For the rest, everyone’s convictions are respected; and not just those whose convictions they are, nor only the forthrightness with which those convictions are professed, but those convictions themselves. Even stirring up such points of contention is considered out of place. Let everyone think about the issues of life as they will. They need to figure that out for themselves. If people are civilized, decent, and agreeable in their manners, they may think and believe what they want.

We strongly reject this view.

To err is a moral evil, because our agreeing with or denial of a truth—not the arguments derived from it, but what it holds to be the case in principle—depends entirely on the moral character of our environment and of our heart.

To deny this is a direct denial of the fact that God has revealed himself.

To do so, one sets a different framework over against God’s revelation, which upends comprehensive concepts, changes the prevailing way of thinking, changes one’s notions of duty and calling, rearranges the moral organization of domestic and social life, and ultimately arrives in a modern world, which, being the opposite of what the Christian world should be, calls the good evil and the evil good.

From that vantage point, to err is indeed entirely culpable.

The counterargument, that one cannot improve matters if one does not see it otherwise, does not make sense. The same holds as well for crime. At the moment, neglected upbringing, deficient education, poor environment, one’s own past, the harassment of others, and mental confusion all contribute to crime. Nevertheless, people consider crime a punishable offense.

The only difference here is that the power of those entitled to condemn error is different from those called on to adjudicate crimes.

Error and crime are both subject to God’s punishment. Already now he is punishing both in one’s conscience and in life’s experiences; both will be disciplined when all things are brought to judgment. “Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” [John 3:36]. There is reconciliation, also for error, through a high priest who “can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward” (Heb 5:2); but this atonem...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Series Title
• Contents
• Editor’s Introduction: Abraham Kuyper and the Social Order: Principles for Christian Liberalism (Matthew J. Tuininga)
• Volume Introduction: Abraham Kuyper: Always Reforming (John Witte Jr.)
• Abbreviations
• Christ and the Needy (1895)
• The Reefs of Democracy (1895)
• Not the Liberty Tree but the Cross!
• Sphere Sovereignty
• Is Error a Punishable Offense?
• Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press
• Celebrating Twenty-Five Years of De Standaard
• The Press as the Apostle of Peace
• The Family, Society, and the State
• You Shall Not Covet
• Our Relationship to the Law
• Bibliography
• About the Contributors
• Subject Index
• Scripture Index
• Old Testament