Groen van Prinsterer: A Dutch statesman who confessed the Gospel of Christ 6

Groen van Prinster as a champion of a state governed by biblical principles 2

As a member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament Groen van Prinsterer spoke again and again in favour of the Protestant character of Dutch society. He saw the principles of the revolution as a threat, not only to the Gospel, but also to the constitutional state, gover­ned by law and right. The ideology of absolute equality transforms the nations into ungovernable masses and spiritless individu­als. When this ideology becomes the pattern for the govern­ment, this will lead to an absolute, totalitarian state, which imposes this ideology on her subjects. But Groen van Prin­sterer declared that a constitutional state could only exist and flourish in the sphere of the Gospel.

As against the totali­ta­rian, absolute state Groen van Prinsterer maintained the special significance of church, school and family who all have their own sphere and rights. This thought was later on elabo­rated by his spiritual pupil in politics dr. Abraham Kuyper in his doctrine of ‘sovereignty in its own sphere’. The original ideal of Groen van Prinsterer was that the Protestant character of the Netherlands was acknowledged in the constitution. Later in he accepted the neutral state as a space in which the various religious and ideological persuasions can unfold them­selves. He emphasized in this context that the neutrality of the state ought in this case to be a real neutrality and not a choosing for the ideological principles of the French Revolution making in this way that principles a new kind of state religion.

For Groen van Prinsterer the neutrality of that the state was nothing more than an emergency solution, not the ideal one. That distin-guished him from Kuyper who was a champion of ‘a free church in a free sta­te’ from principle. The reason was that Groen van Prinsterer was deeply convinced that finally it is also for the state not possible to be strictly neutral. In the last analysis neutrality is impossible in the church, in science and in the state. For Groen van Prin­sterer it was God’s revela­tion in the Bible that has given its defini­te stamp to the histo­ry, not just of the Netherlands, but also of Europe and North-America as the root of the constitutional, lawful state. I remind you of his motto: ‘It is written, it has happe­ned.’

For Groen van Prinsterer it was clear that when loosened from these roots the leaves and flo­wers of the constitutional state will wither. Just as a person cannot be neutral, a government cannot be neutral. A so-called neu­tral state will very easily become an anti-Christian state. The policy of a government will somehow be defined by some prin­ciples. Groen van Prinsterer opposes the principles of the French Revolution, viz. freedom, equality and fraternity to the contents of  God’s revelation, the Gospel of God’s grace in Christ.

We could also say that Groen van Prinsterer opposed the ideology of the French Revolution to theocracy rightly under-stood? Theocracy understood as the fact that God reigns and that his revelation is the foundation of all real free­dom, also in society at large. The government whatever form she has (a republic, democracy, monarchy or a mix of them) ought to acknowledge God’s commandments as the principles to order society and so recognize God as King.

Groen van Prinsterer is not only of actual significance for the Netherlands. In America also Christians begin to discover signi-ficance. The American constitution is in fact an amalgam of the principles of the Puritans, with their emphasis on the divine right that is always superior to the position of sovereign, and the principles of the French Revolution.
The separation in the constitution between one national church and government has been interpre­ted in the course of time more and more as an absolute separa­tion between religion in general and Christian faith in particular and government. By this the state is factu­ally surrendered to an anti-Christian ideology. Neutrality is a myth. Several Ameri­can Christians who plead for recognition of a certain bond between government and religion are listening with deep interest to Groen van Prin­ste­rer’s words.

In the light of both the Word of God and the history of the Nether-lands Groen van Prinsterer’s political ideal was a state governed by the principles of historic Protestantism which at the same time gave full religious freedom to all different persuasions. He accepted the neutral state as makeshift contrivance emphasizing that the state must than be really neutral and not choosing for the ideological principles of the French Revolution but giving within the bounds of the constitution all freedom to develop themselves on all areas of life to the different persuasions.
Protestants Christians had to use this free development to form Christian institutions and especially free, Christian schools to permeate the nation with historic Protestantism and so win it back for God and his Word. The Christian school as a school with the Bible in distinction with the public school as a school without the Bible became for Groen one of the most important means for the preservation and disseminating of the gospel of Jesus Christ also with regard to its relevance for the structuring of the society. The Christian school with the Bible ought to become the rule and the public school without the Bible the exception.

 

Groen van Prinsterer: A Dutch statesman who confessed the Gospel of Christ 5

Groen van Prinsterer as a champion a state governed by biblical principles 1

Groen van Prinsterer has been a member of Parliament –the so called Second Chamber the Dutch equivalent of House of Commons or House of Representatives- from 1849 till 1857 (a short interval excepted), and again from 1862 till 1866. There Groen van Prinsterer confessed the significance of the Gospel for all society, as opposed to the principles of the French Revolution. In the 19th century there were not yet political parties as we have them now. But there were two main currents: conservatives and liberals. But for Groen van Prinsterer the differences between them were not fundamental.

When the deepest principles were taken into account, Groen van Prinsterer saw a certain connec­tion between liberalism and socialism. All these currents were connected by their proceeding from autonomous man. In certain aspects Groen van Prinsterer was nearest to the conservati­ves. But their refusal of the principles of the Revolution was more from opportunistic motives, than from good principles, as he saw it.

Only by the light of God’s revelation, and by living in that light can we really hold fast to the essential an immuta­ble norms and values for the organisation of society. So we must interpret Groen van Prinsterer’s saying: ‘in our isolated position lies our strength.’ He meant an isolation as Daniel and his three friends in Babel; being in Babel doing with all the talents God gave you your work in Babel but being at the same time a citizen of the new Jerusalem. A Christian intermingles with other people and tries to win them for Christ but realises always that he sees all things in a completely other perspective: the perspective of God’s revelation.

So, Groen van Prinsterer was an advocate of an isolated position in a spiritual sense. He wanted to the meaning and consequences of biblical revelation, not just for personal and ecclesias­tical life, but also for society at large. Groen van Prinste­rer is the father of the formation of Protestant-Christi­an political parties in the Netherlands. For him the formation of Protestant- Christian institutions however was not an aim as such, but a means to win back to whole nation to God and his Word. Against the principles of the Revolution he emphasised the authority of God and his infallible Word.

The French Revolution had started with the declaration of the human rights, and acknowledging God’s rights could only conquer that position. From the history of the Netherlands Groen van Prinsterer pleaded for the Protes­t­ant character of the Dutch nation. Therefore he could also speak about the anti-revolutionary or Christian-historical persuasion. A Christian ought to reject the principles of the French Revolution. The Bible must be his only rule for faith and practice, his guide for all areas of life. A Christian ought also to think along historical lines. 

Groen van Prinsterer: A Dutch statesman who confessed the Gospel of Christ 4

Groen van Prinsterer and his significance for church and state

Groen van Prinsterer always remained a member of the national Dutch Reformed Church. After his return from Brussels to The Hague he visited the Walloon Reformed Church, a French speaking congregation belonging to the national church where the rev. Secretan was the minis­ter, just like Merle d’ Aubigné a man of the Reveil-movement, or the Reformed Church were the orthodox-Reformed rev. Molenaar prea­ched.

Although Groen could not follow the people that had separa­ted from the Dutch Reformed Church, he felt himself inwardly united with them. In this connection he distinguished between the national church as a community of true believers, and between the national church as an institution.
The people that had left ‘the insti­tution’ belonged, as Groen van Prinsterer saw it, still to the national Dutch Reformed Church as a community of true believers. To say it in other words: for Groen van Prinsterer the unity of the church both nationally and worldwide was first of all a unity of faith and not a unity in structures.

In this context he used to speak about ‘the Reformed persua­sion or party’ which united dissenters and orthodox and evangelical Christians in the Dutch Reformed Church and ultimately of true believers during the centuries and all over the world. The Reformed persuasion was for Groen van Prinsterer an expression to indicate the unity in the faith of the free grace of God revealed in Christ and applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit.

In the nineteenth century Dutch society Groen van Prinsterer was an advocate for the rights of the people of the Reformed persuasion in the church, the school and society. He looked forward to the restoration of the Reformed Church as ‘the soul of the nati­on’, in order that the dissenters could return to her.
His ideal was that in the Dutch constitution the Protestant character of the Dutch nation should be explicitly acknowledged. In a fierce way he turned himself against the harsh measures, which the government had taken against the dissenters. In 1837 he wrote his The measures against the Dissenters compared with constitutional law.

The government prohibited the meetings of the dissenters because they were seen as ‘a new religi­ous sect’, which could not claim religious freedom as stipula­ted by the const­itution which only guaranteed freedom for the existing religious persuasions.
But Groen van Prinsterer declared: ‘but the dissenters are no new religious sects, as they are members of the Reformed persuasion. It is very well known that they are Reformed, Reformed pre-eminently. Perhaps they are disloyal to the church as an institution, but surely they are loyal members of the Reformed persuasion, of the real church. The confession, which is the expression of the common faith, is the mark of this persuasion. The dissenters do not leave the Reformed confession, but they keep closely to it, they embrace it, if I may say it that way.’

The repression by the government of the dissenters was for Groen van Prinsterer the evidence that the so-called liberals were in fact very intolerant. The tolerance about which they spoke was only applied to those who held the views of the French Revolution.
So Groen van Prin­sterer could speak of the intolerance of the tolerant. Among other points, it is here that we perceive how very timely Groen van Prinsterer’s thoug­hts are. Everywhere in western society there are forces active that wish to impose to the whole of society their ideology of absolute equality.

By this ideology the differences between marriage and ‘other forms of living together’, and between the different positions of man and women in marriage, church and society are wiped out. When this ideology is not accepted they speak in a very misleading way of intolerance. Everyone who does not accept the ideology is considered as intolerant and sometimes it is suggested that they reject the ideology, must be compelled to be tolerant.

 

 

Groen van Prinsterer: A Dutch statesman who confessed the Gospel of Christ 1

Introduction

When one would ask me which two Dutchmen from the 19th centu­ry impressed me most, my answer would be, without any hesitation: Kohlbrugge and Groen van Prinsterer. Kohlbrugge a preacher of the Gospel, and comforter of the mournful; and Groen van Prinsterer especially a confessor of the Gospel in society. As to their characters, they differed very much from each other. They did not think in the same way in every respect. But their actions were stamped by what Groen van Prinsterer called ‘the Reformed persuasion’, that is the persuasion that the triune God is the God of complete salvation and that Bible as God’s infallible and inerrant Word is the only rule of faith and practice.

Kohlbrugge was rather a difficult man in social intercourse. He was a bit peculiar in his doings, and very much attached to his own views. On the other side Groen van Prinsterer was named by some of his con­tem­poraries ‘the noble Groen van Prinsterer’. He had a somewhat reserved but also very amiable character.

According to my opinion Kohlbrug­ge was superior to Groen van Prinsterer in his radical under­standing of the notions of law and Gospel. But Groen van Prinsterer sur­passes Kohlbrugge in his under­stan­ding and his resistance of the spirit of his time. In this Groen van Prin­sterer is both deeper and more sober. But as a matter of fact, this comparison is not quite justified, and perhaps out of place.

Groen van Prinsterer and Kohlbrugge both re­ceived from God their own specific tasks: Kohlbrugge as a theologian and preacher of the Gospel; and Groen van Prinste­rer as a jurist and a confessor of Christ, both in the church and in the state. Both men, with their own personal and speci­al gifts and insights have been useful in God’s kingdom.

As a theological student the first book by Groen van Prinsterer I read was his Unbe­lief and Revolution.  Without any doubt this is his main work. It has its origins in a number of lectures which he held for a small circle of interested friends in the winter of 1845-1846. His style of writing is not easy. But it struck me immediately in Groen van Prinsterer how very much to the point his expressions are. Everywhere in his writings we find very original and clear thoughts, by which he typifies the Gospel as against the spirit of his time.

The motto of the French Revolution was: freedom, equality and brotherhood.  But the French Revolution preached, as Groen van Printerer saw it, a kind of freedom that was not Christian freedom, an equality that was no Christian equality, and a fraternity that was not Christian brotherhood. Christian freedom is not freedom from the authority of God and His Word, but just a freedom to serve the Lord. Real freedom can only flourish within the bounds of the Lord’s commandments.

Christian equality is an equality before God both in condemnation and in pardon by God’s free grace through the blood of Jesus Christ and not an equality that destroys all distinctions in society. The real brotherhood is not based on vague principles that will never really unite men in lasting way, but the Christian brotherhood is based on the blood of Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit and so surpasses distinctions that are based one race, place in culture, intellect, wealth and so on. It makes men of different states in society com-passionate towards each other.

Groen van Prinsterer was deeply convinced of the destructive character of the principles of the French Revolution for church and society. The French Revolution sought to annihilate the notion of God and His Word as the source of all authority. Against the principles of the French Revolution testified of God’s revelation as the only solution not only for the church both also for society at large. The true church is the church that proclaims the Gospel of redemption by penal substitution.

According to Groen van Prinster European society will disintegrate into a chaos when it is not longer governed by the principles of God’s revelation for society. He foresaw the peoples of the European countries would become order less masses. In our time we can see the fulfilment of this prophetic insights of Groen van Prinsterer; insights based on a knowledge of God’s Word and its meaning for church and society. For Groen van Prinsterer the only hope for Europe was the return to the living God who can only be known in a saving way through His Word. His device was: ‘Against the Revolution the Gospel.’