https://g3min.org/book-review-the-puritans-in-africa-by-w-de-klerk/
Cantrell offers some insightful commentary regarding Afrikaner Theology and how it devolved into Apartheid. I'm not sure I buy the True/False Calvinism distinction though. First, there's the issue and question of Calvinism which is broad and difficult to define. Second, there is the Dutch Calvinist legacy and its heavy emphasis on an integrated culture - seen particularly in the thought of Abraham Kuyper.
Calvinism lost its way early on with its embrace of Magisterial Reformation, the sword and the coin. Though often celebrated today, Calvinism would become associated with the bourgeoisie and its values. Unfortunately those very values of security, respectability, and the civic engagement they entail are not Christian, and are not in keeping with New Testament teaching.
But even this is an oversimplification as Calvinism took on different hues in places like Britain, the Netherlands, France, Hungary, and Germany. In some venues it was associated with cultural sophistication. In others it was about a battle for the Established religion - and then later pious dissent. In some situations it became very violent even to the point of sponsoring assassinations and other such subversive schemes. Elsewhere it became a vehicle for national identity and nationalism. In others it took on a more individualist and near quietist turn. All of these would be transformed to some extent by the rise of Western Classical Liberalism leading some to become revolutionaries, others to sponsor the welfare state, and others to preserve the culture as defined by race. So it was for the Dutch, Huguenot, and German Reformed South Africans. And it would be remiss not to consider their hardline stance in light of their repeated defeats at the hands of the British and a desire to retain their non-Anglo-Saxon identity. This does not legitimize their record but it sheds light on it.
Of course DeKlerk's Four Warnings applies just as equally to a nation like the United States and the misguided Evangelical project that seeks to romanticise its past and transform its present into what is effectively an expression of God's Kingdom - the nation-based font of a new global Christendom.
DeKlerk is spot on when he speaks of the Divine Right of Nations as stemming from the same error as the Divine Right of Kings - a teaching so despised and objectionable to the Puritans and other Calvinists. The doctrine is in substance the same. The only difference is found in the form.
The article takes a strange turn at this point and we must remember that Cantrell is a MacArthurite and thus a Calvinistic Dispensationalist. Unfortunately this clouds his judgments regarding True and False Calvinism. The record of historical theology is abundantly clear - Dispensationalism and Calvinism are incompatible and Calvinism is not merely a soteriology but a larger system. As such, Cantrell is quick to blame Amillennialism, paedobaptism, and Covenant Theology - sadly undermining his central premise and degrading his credibility as an interpreter. His statements regarding paedobaptism and presumptive regeneration only demonstrate that he doesn't understand where most Confessional people are at on these issue. Few embrace Kuyper's presumptive regeneration and even fewer believe in true sacramental efficacy.
Nevertheless, despite these fairly glaring problems, he still has a lot of good to say. The fact that G3 publishes his work should also raise an eyebrow given the organisation's claims to represent historic Calvinism.
What irks this writer is the fact that it's someone like Cantrell who is willing to take this on. Generally speaking most Confessionally Reformed authors are reticent to wade into the question of South Africa and the origins of its great errors. This is further compounded by the existence within American Reformed circles of a substantial Confederate wing that tacitly agrees with South Africa's stance. FN Lee (1934-2011) who was British but with South African, Australian and American ties was one of the few thinkers willing to openly endorse Afrikaner Calvinism and its racism. The fact that he was something of a blow-hard and braggart and definitely on the fringe in terms of some of his ideas has not helped or encouraged other authors to take on the topic.
DeKlerk is correct in identifying nationalist Christianity as blasphemous - unfortunately Cantrell's mentor John MacArthur does not understand this as he has embraced some of the worst forms of Right-wing ideology and nationalist idolatry - including blanket endorsements of police and military forces. MacArthur's theology is riddled with internal contradictions as witnessed in his efforts to combat the proponents of social gospel, even while he files lawsuits against the state and endorses the Wall Street system. He fails to understand that his validation of the status quo is effectively making a statement about the moral (and Christian) status of society, and his embrace of active and pro-active resistance and reaction is founded on exactly the same kind of theologized sociology.
To be fair, Cantrell is not necessarily endorsing the words and deeds of MacArthur but his statements suggest he is still (to some extent) following his lead and looking to him as a doctrinal authority. This is problematic. I think DeKlerk is closer to the mark. That said, I haven't read DeKlerk's work but after reading this I'm likely to pick it up at some point.
The Tower of Babel discussion warrants a moment of further reflection. If one (such as Abraham Kuyper) wants to say the gospel has universal and cultural application, then Pentecost certainly erases the distinctions of Babel, and Acts 10 only further emphasizes this reality. One could say (for the sake of argument) that in cultural terms not all are sufficiently trained in the outworkings of the gospel - which would mean culture and civilization. Such people need schooling. And yet, as the Afrikaners, American Southerners, and so many others have made abundantly clear - even if these people of darker races become educated, cultured, and learn how to dress, speak, sit at a table, and engage in the world of ideas, it doesn't matter. They will not be accepted on the same terms.
One of the only nations in the West that defies this tendency is Revolutionary France. It absolutized its revolutionary culture and a person regardless of race will be accepted if they become French and embrace French values. This is not so in Germany, Britain, America, Italy, Hungary, or South Africa.
This is not to endorse revolutionary France but rather to condemn the conduct and false Christian ideology that emerged in post-Reformation Europe. It's an indictment that France's revolutionary and Enlightenment humanism resulted in an ideology that is (it could be argued) in some sense closer to the Christian ideal than the ethno-nationalist constructs of late and post-Christendom.
I'm not sure I agree with either DeKlerk or Cantrell on the question of Kuyper. With Calvin, the issue is more difficult as he did not live long enough to see real European interaction with the cultures of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The idea that Calvin was opposed to tyranny is on the one hand ridiculous given the authoritarian (and even totalitarian) nature of Geneva during his tenure. But Calvin was not always consistent either and while in some respects he stands head and shoulders above those who came after him - he still made many glaring mistakes in his application of Scripture and approach to theology.
As far as Kuyper, some biographers (such as Bratt) suggest his take was more nuanced. Bratt admits that Kuyper would most likely not have supported Apartheid but his own dubious views on race and even just the fact that he supported the Boers suggests that he was not free from all taint. Cantrell suggests Kuyper's theology was 'abused' - I'm not so sure. Rather, I think since Kuyper's theology is aberrant and erroneous and as such it is especially subject to manipulation. Kuyper opened up a can of worms allowing other forces and interests to build off the foundation he established. He cannot be fully blamed any more than Nietzsche or Hegel can be blamed for fascism or communism. However Kuyper was not as distant - his own rhetoric (and policies) regarding Dutch colonialism for example (and its racist brutality) reveals something of how he pursued such questions. He is not free from taint or even blame. Just as many of the British defended Dyer's butchery at Amritsar, Kuyper did not balk in his justification of Dutch massacres in Indonesia.
Again, I'm left a little baffled regarding Cantrell's statements connected to 'True Calvinism'. Livingstone was not a Calvinist. There are problems with Andrew Murray and his theology, and certainly some basic (and profound) theological issues that cloud any claim to 'True' Calvinism.
Cantrell offered some helpful insight but his lens proves problematic. I am far more interested in DeKlerk and as a result intend to investigate his writings.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.