REC Home*** Theological Forum Theological Forum Vol. XXIII, No. 1, March 1995
ABRAHAM KUYPER, APARTHEID AND REFORMED CHURCHES IN SOUTH AFRICA IN THEIR SUPPORT OF APARTHEID
Prof P J StraussTOPIC IN A PROBLEM AREA
The last word in the scientific debate regarding the possible relationship between the viewpoints of the versatile Dutch theologian, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), and apartheid in South Africa has long not been spoken. As often as (white) reformed churches in South Africa's historical support of apartheid is mentioned, the possibility arises that the name of Kuyper will also be mentioned during the debate (for some of the latest examples cf. Smit 1992:88).
Two divergent viewpoints exist regarding the precise relationship between Kuyper and the arguments on which these reformed thinkers based their support of apartheid.
On the one hand, some supporters of apartheid were (are?) of the opinion that a thorough study of Kuyper's viewpoints in respect of race and nations - within the framework of his cosmology - leaves one with no other option than support of "pluriform" or separate development in South Africa (cf. Potgieter 1956:7,11; DRC 1966:90, 93-95. 112, 114; Van Wyk 1978:18). Certain severe critics of the policy of apartheid acknowledge this claim te be true. Thus Verkuyl is of the opinion that theologians who set out to establish a Biblical "bulwark" for a policy of political and economic "exploitation", quite correctly find a starting-point for their arguments in Kuyper's theory of the ordinances of creation (1968:31). Viljoen attributes a Christian-national ideology and collective awareness of vocation, which he believes to detect in the Afrikaner in his support of apartheid, to Kuyper's concept of common grace (1980:45).
On the other hand, other critics of apartheid maintain that the theoretical constructs of Kuyper are misused or misinterpreted in their application for the purpose of establishing a basis for arguments in favour of the policy of apartheid (De Gruchy 1984:107; Kuiper 1986:64,67; Smit 1989:54). In a study focusing on Kuyper's famous Stone lectures in the year 1898, De Gruchy comes to the conclusion that Kuyper was of the opinion that Calvinism is in essence democratic - exactly the opposite of what the proponents of apartheid practised (1984:108; cf. also Kuiper 1986:53,67). And although carefully phrased, Smit also inclines towards the same interpretation. According to him, Kuyper did not propagate apartheid, but upliftment (1989:54).
What further complicates the debate is the fact that certain participants tend to neglect or totally negate the following essential aspects:
_ An evaluation of Kuyper's statements within their historical context and within the broad setting of his theological-philosophical system of thought. Conclusions are often drawn on the basis of only a few selected citations from or publications by Kuyper ór on the basis of certain existing perceptions of his work. De Gruchy (1984), for instance, neglects to pay attention to the historical context of Kuyper's well-known Stone lectures in 1898, as well as to his broader theological-philosophical system of thought; Kuiper (1986) mainly focuses on the Stone lectures, and that is as far as the matter goes for him; and De Gruchy (1979) and Viljoen (1980) show no evidence of having consulted a single work of Kuyper's themselves!
_ The presence of apparent internal contradictions - as opposed to immanent tension within his system of thought - on the part of Kuyper himself (cf. Kuiper 1986:53). Contradictions which can possibly be blamed on his rhetorical style of writing, the fragmentary nature of his often long series of articles (two of his great works, De Gemeene Gratie [1902] and Pro Rege [1911-1912, both consisting of three volumes, were based on series of articles in the reformed journal De Heraut [Velema 1989:591]), and a tendency to flatter his audiences for strategic reasons (cf. Kuiper 1986:71 on the Stone lectures delivered in front of a Presbyterian American audience in 1898). Apparent contradictions is how Van Ruler describes it, for "in wezen blijft Kuyper zigzelf steeds gelijk" ("In essence Kuyper remains true to himself", s.a.:92). These contradictions are clearly reflected in the cautious and analytic nature of Smit's (1989) article.
_ The conviction harboured by Kuyper himself that he operated in the continuum of the thoughts of Calvin - in order to broaden and extend its principles and purge it of alien influences. He therefore also did not hesitate to refer to himself as a Neo-Calvinist (Ridderbos 1947:315). In this process he throughout attempted to judge matters on the basis of an almost constantly consistent, fundamental framework. Kuyper's (1930:32) famous axiom applies in this respect.
"...geen enkel stuk van onze denkwereld is hermetisch te scheiden van de andere delen; en geen duimbreed is er op heel's erf van ons menschelijk leven, waarvan de Christus, die aller Soverein is, niet roept: 'Mijn!'"
_ Kuyper's own application of his points of departure to the race and nation situation in what is currently known as South Africa. Kuyper himself uses the latter name in accordance with the mode of his time, usually links the concepts "nations", "peoples" and "states", and uses them without distinction (cf. s.a. [a] ii:43,121). His use of the term "race" will be discussed later.
Although he obliquely refers to Africa and the "Boers" in certain other works of his, this application to the situation in South Africa mainly occurs in two publications, namely his Plancius speech of 1884 and De crisis in Zuid-Afrika published in 1900. The first-mentioned constitutes part of a speech delivered in Amsterdam before the labour union Patrimonium on 11 March 1884 and is directed at the Transvaal Deputation to the London Convention. The latter first appeared in the French journal Revue des deux Mondes and was later translated into Dutch, English, German and Swedish. The young queen of the Netherlands, Wilhelmina, also expressed her agreement with this work in April 1900 (Strauss 1983:80).
The problem of the relationship between Kuyper, apartheid and the reformed churches in South Africa can be summarised as follows: Kuyper is interpreted in different ways, often quoted or used without reference to his historical, personal and theological- philosophical context, and with very little attention to his own standpoint in respect of the apartheid of his time.
For this reason the present study focuses on Kuyper's own viewpoints on the convictions harboured in respect of, and the conduct of Afrikaners towards Blacks and Coloureds during the last years of the previous century; on an interpretation of this viewpoint on the basis of his own frame of reference and background; and on the way in which members of the reformed churches in South Africa employed Kuyper's line of thought to establish a basis for their support of apartheid. With regard to the latter aspect, the emphasis falls on the decisions of the synods of the two denominations probably influenced most by Kuyper, namely the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) and the "Doppers" or Reformed (Gereformeerde) Churches in South Africa (RCSA), as the latter have been called since 1985 (RCSA 1985:477).
KUYPER AND THE "APARTHEID" OF HIS TIME
In his Plancius speech Kuyper refers to the Boers of the Transvaal as fellow tribesmen and kindred spirits of the anti-revolutionary or reformed people of the Netherlands with a "hooge taak en heilige roeping ... in Afrika" ("a holy calling ...in Africa"). He regarded the Boers as pioneers of the Christian civilisation in Southern and Central Africa. According to him, they were called upon to become the instrument through which the blessings of God would ultimately reach the nations that were still bowed ("gebogen") down under the curse of Ham (1884:22). In this process the people of the Transvaal were not called upon to apply false humanitarian concepts in respect of blacks by preaching too much freedom - in the European sense of the word - to them. This would be suicidal. The Boers were practising true Christian politics by accepting the black people as they were and gradually ("allengs") raising them from their lowly position, ultimately to become the equals of the whites in some distant future ("om hem eens met u gelijk te maken") (1884:21).
Kuyper therefore identifies the gist of the problem of race relations in South Africa as a difference within a society-embracing (more about this concept of Kuyper's soon) Christian civilisation. He propagates comprehensive upliftment and development, but seems to postpone general "democracy" or political freedom for Black and Coloured people to a distant future. And, important in view of the later standpoint of members of reformed churches in South Africa, Kuyper does not refer to the typical race and national differences (in the sense of a Kuyperian pluriformity) as a legitimate fundamental principle which can be employed in defence of a policy of separate development.
Sixteen years later, in De crisis in Zuid-Afrika (1900) in which he acts as a European advocate for the case of the Republics of the Orange Free State and Transvaal, Kuyper continues to pursue this approach.
In developing his viewpoint that the Boers were the bearers of the Christian (respectively Calvinistic) civilisation, he quotes the historian Theal in order to demonstrate the uncivilised state of the Black and Coloured people. Britain's policy of equalisation, especially as propagated by the political trail-blazer missionaries of the London Missionary Society (1990-20) is thus refuted.
According to Kuyper, the "high life" civilisation of the highest echelons in London was of a higher level than anything comparable among the Boers, but from an ethical point of view ("uit een zedelijk oogpunt") the latter did nog have to take a back seat to any European "natie" (1900:42-43). As Calvinistic Christians, the Boers, in contrast to the English missionaries, were not sentimental, but practical. They therefore realised that the Black and Coloured people were of a lower race ("een lager ras") and that it would be foolish to treat them as equals in family, social and political life. According to Kuyper (1990:16) this insight also led the Boers to their severe condemnation of the mixture of races as a kind of incest ("een soort van bloedschande").
Kuyper employs the civilisation or development argument (upliftment according to Smit?) within the framework of his understanding of the life and world view forces operative in South Africa, therefore also in 1900, as the sole basis of his justification of the "apartheid" practised by the Boers of his day.
This approach of Kuyper's, seen against the background of our problem as stated, immediately gives rise to a number of very interesting questions. The first of these is: How did Kuyper arrive at this point of view? Does it fit the broad framework of his theological-philosophical thought, or is another motivation involved? Moreover, is this approach situation-specific or generally valid - and therefore applicable to all similar times and situations? Furthermore, was Kuyper a racist in a qualified sense of the word, with a race-orientated standpoint in respect of civilisation development, or to what may the traces of a sense of cultural superiority which manifest themselves in his line of thought be ascribed?
Smit is of the opinion that it is not the true Kuyper speaking here. The elements of cultural chauvinism are not typical of the thetical thinker of De Gemeene Gratie, Pro Rege and Het Calvinisme, but must be ascribed to Kuyper's desire to encourage the distressed Boers (1989:51). In effect, Kuyper would, in this respect, therefore be engaged in the kind of "flattery" of his readers referred to by D. Kuiper. In his turn, D. Kuiper (1986:64) believes that Kuyper, as far as his viewpoint in De crisis are concerned, "failed" in respect of his own convictions regarding the concept of "race". "Circumstance claimed a victory over doctrine" (1986:74). According to him, Kuyper's attitude should rather be explained from the perspective of his situation as spiritual and political leader of the Calvinistic minority in the Netherlands. On the occasion of his inauguration as prime minister (1901-1905), which more or less coincided with a meeting between the Transvaal president, Paul Kruger, and Queen Wilhelmina, Kuyper was able to employ the "issue" of the war in South Africa to unite the people of the Netherlands - at least on this point. In addition he was able to propagate the message that Calvinism also had its bright side (1986:75). Smit and D. Kuiper therefore attempt to locate the motive for Kuyper's attitude outside the text of De crisis in Zuid-Afrika (1992:9,10).
In addition to the fact that both Smit and D. Kuiper are selective in their choice of sources for defining Kuyper's broad frame of though, their theories are based on dubious historical ground. Smit shows no evidence of being aware of the fact that Kuyper primarily directed De crisis at Eoropean readers - which explains why the work was soon translated into Dutch, English, German and Swedish. In fact, it would appear that, as late as 1920, De crisis was not very widely known among the Boers (Lubbe and Britz 1992:186). What renders D. Kuiper's theory speculative is the fact that Kuyper wrote De crisis as far back as January 1900 (1900:62), while he was only elected prime minister on 1 August 1901 (Lubbe and Britz 1992:184). It is therefore not easy to accept that he was able to visualise his election and the above- mentioned meeting, which would mainly result from the course of the Anglo-Boer War after January 1900, more than 18 months before the event.
A study of Kuyper's most important works seems to confirm Van Ruler's contention that Kuyper, following his conversion to the reformed faith, remained true to himself in the broad outline of his thought over the years - from his "Eenvormigheid, de vloek van het moderne leven", written as a 31 year old minister in 1869, to his "Antirevolutionaire staatkunde..." written in 1916 in the twilight of his life as a Christian politician (Strauss 1984:89). The validity of this statement is also confirmed by Velema (1989:67) who, although phrasing it somewhat differently, together with Augustyn posits a shift of emphasis in the focal point of Kuyper's thought round about 1885. An extra-textual explanation for Kuyper's viewpoints in his Plancius speech and De crisis would therefore only be dominant - it would otherwise indeed be subsidiary - if it were true that he utters a different sound here than in his other greater works. In the interpretation of the latter, his broad objectives, the dating of the works and their historical context must of course also be taken into account.
KUYPER'S TWO KINDS OF GRACE: THE FRAMEWORK OF THOUGHT FOR HIS STANDPOINT
For a profile of Kuyper's standpoint regarding differences in respect of cultural and civilisation development between races and nations, as well as his viewpoints on race, peoples and nations in general, we need to proceed from his doctrine regarding special (particular) and common (natural) grace ("gemeene gratie"). This distinction between two kinds of grace flows through his whole theological-philosophical system of thought and is especially worked out in fine detail in a series of articles in De Heraut between 1895 and 1901 (Velema 1989:63). These articles therefore hail from more or less the same period as De crisis.
According to Kuyper, common grace allows for the development of the hidden forces inherent in creation after the Fall. It is however not supernatural, but natural. It works within creation in the same way as the regenerative ability of the human body which causes wounds to heal and nature to repair itself (s.a.[a]i:257; s.a.[a]:ii:218; s.a.[a]:iii:107-110). This recovery is however not effected in a completely independent manner by common grace itself. God always has to lend a helping hand in the form of a kind of "intervening grace", which consists of guidance and control of the forces of nature. Grace ("gratie") is not rooted in man himself, but is conferred upon him (s.a.[a]:iii:78-79). Thus the "gemeene gratie" is responsible for the development and unfolding of the "scheppingspotenties" (natural potential) inherent in the human race and opens the way for the "collectieve voltooiing" (collective completion) of the image of God in human culture (Van Ruler s.a.:33).
What common and special special grace have in common is the fact that they both originate from the same God. The first has an external, tempering influence on the sins of the world - in the same way as a cold bath of water may lower the temperature of somebody suffering from typhus, while the latter provides the internal medicine for the disease (Kuyper s.a.[a]:ii:25). The first prevents "hell on earth", creates the possibility for the the church to be founded, and renders mankind receptive to the gospel, while the latter leads the institute of the church to rebirth (Van Ruler s.a.:13,51). Thus natural grace provides the terrain or platform on which special grace, a supplement to or nearer explication thereof, is enacted (Kuyper s.a.[a]:ii:349).
According to Kuyper, common grace operates in the non-ecclesiastic fields of society, whereas special grace is exclusively confined to the organised church. Only within these walls burns the lamp of the Christian religion. Its light however shines forth through the windows and illuminates all the aspects of human society (s.a.[a]:ii:272- 275). This light, as disseminated by the reborn, constitutes the influence of the church on society - expressed by Kuyper by means of the concept of the "church as organism" (s.a.[a]:ii:259-260; s.a.:[a]:iii:425; Velema 1989:67). And although special grace finds its starting-point or precondition ("die holte vir sy voet" [resting place for its feet] - Velema 1989:64) in natural grace, it effects its fruition and completion or optimal development (s.a.[a]:i:220). The workings of natural grace are therefore impossible without God, but it nevertheless occupies its own territory, maintains a relative independence: God in fact only guides and controls it. Whereas the church falls within the sphere of special grace and has its course set by the Bible, the non-ecclesiastic spheres of life fall within the domain of natural grace in which the influence of natural forces plays an important role.
According to Kuyper, common grace, as distinguished from special grace, operates in two ways in communities or nations (he usually uses these concepts in a political sense) which have not been affected or noticeably affected by the gospel: generally and at the lowest level, as in Africa, and in a special manner, as in countries such as Mexico, Peru, India, Japan and China, where isolated yet advanced development does occur (s.a.[a]:ii:177-181). An even higher level of development is encountered amongst the christianised common grace ("gekerstende gemeene gratie"). This occurs in social systems where special grace dominates, without the people within the social order being necessarily reborn, as around the Mediterranean Sea. The highest level of development is only achieved through the workings of special grace in the hearts and lives of people - the real Christian of European-American civilisation (s.a.[a]:ii:668-672;iii:304).
KUYPER AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: HISTORICAL AND ORGANIC
In searching for a key in the teachings of Kuyper to explain the origins of his type of social development, we arrive at two answers: on the one hand it can be merely observed historically, but it can also be explained on the basis of an organic principle inherent in creation. In respect of the latter, Kuyper calls human life "een oneindig saamgesteld organisme" (an infinitely complicated organism) (1930:10). Societies and social structures develop organically because normal life develops or grows out of life itself ("zichzelf opwassen" - "uit het leven zelf opkomen") (s.a.[a]:iii:91). Seen in relation to the relative independence of natural grace (in respect of God) and the biotical nature of the concept "organic", which renders it subject to natural laws, we discover an essential cosmic principle in Kuyper's system of thought which corresponds with the point of departure of the Idealism. Especially in De crisis, Kuyper also employs the term "organic" to describe historical growth (1900:37). As far as this is concerned, it is significant that Velema refers to a dialectic relationship between common and special grace in Kuyper's teachings: "Deze verbinding is exponent van Kuypers Idealistische schering met een Gereformeerde inslag" (This relationship is exponent of Kuyper's Idealistic wrap with a Reformed woof,) (1989:69; cf. also Kuiper 1986:72).
According to Kuyper, the human race, according to the principles of creation, is one mighty organism which merely developed organically, through natural descent, from one blood and spirit, body and soul (1912:229,231,232,237-239,256). This organic coherence will achieve its consummation in the kingdom of heaven, but in the mean time the events at Babel have effected a change in the ruling of God in this world. By means of the confusion of tongues described in Genesis 11, God has effected a psychological miracle which succeeded in establishing the underlyning differences between nations and peoples as a given in the consciousness of the human race. From this consciousness springs the distinct organic "origine en type" of each people and nation, each of which then follows a distinctive course, with its own "stroomwet" mission and place on earth (s.a.[b]:45,66,67). During an earlier phase, Kuyper referred to the family as the primary organ of society from which the spirit ("geest") of the people (that is a particular society, such as that of the Netherlands) develops organically (1870:33).
The national idealistic foundation (national spirit attained through an organic-biotic growth process as vital principle) in these convictions of Kuyper's is therefore abundantly clear. In view of his exposition of the workings of "gemeene gratie", it nevertheless remains a question as to what he regards as the basic reason for the differences between nations: do they find their origin in natural forces ("scheppingspotenties") or in the events at Babel? In both instances he seems to assign a static, closed fundamental character to the existence of "volkeren en natien" - with each nation either being the result of natural potential or of its own "stroomwet". This implies that it may be quite forbidden for a nation to cease to exist, for instance through being absorbed into the "stroomwet" of another nation.
Applied to the situation in South Africa, this idealistic motive in the thoughts of Kuyper proves to be in conflict with his own philosophy of civilisation. On the one hand, the latter includes the possibility that the civilised white Calvinists, following a process of civilisation development - at least within the political domain - might ultimately lead the Blacks and Coloureds to a status equal to their own. For, as soon as Kuyper's understanding of differences in respect of civilisation has been bridged, the fundamental reasons for political apartheid disappear. On the other hand, an idealistic or static viewpoint in respect of the differences between nations at the very least provides the proponents of permanent apartheid with a startingpoint from which they can proceed to justify their views. In this respect D. Kuiper refers to inconsistencies and conflict within Kuyper's system of thought which have been employed by reformed thinkers in South Africa within their own context to justify their support of apartheid (1986:53).
In his other works, as in his Plancius speech and De crisis, Kuyper also typifies and explains the Boers and their history - within the context of Africa - exclusively on the basis of his philosophy of civilisation. For him the concept of civilisation and development constitutes the key to the understanding of the question of race relations in South Africa.
KUYPER, CIVILISATION AND SOUTH AFRICA
As far as the development of Africa is concerned - remember that Kuyper is speaking at the end of the last century - he refers to the occurrence of cannibalism, very little in the line of literature, people who live almost naked in huts and a lack of development in the political and scientific fields, as well as in art. In contrast to this, the workings of Christianity, and more specifically Calvinism (special grace as well as christianised common grace) dominated to such an extent in the West - and also in the colonised edge of Africa where the Boers found themselves - that it led to a higher and richer level of social development. (s.a.[a]:ii:668-669; 1943:41). In his Stone lectures in the United States in 1898 he extols the Boers' "heroism of old Calvinism" in the battle of Amajuba during the Transvaal War (1881) and also on the occasion of their effective blocking of the Jameson raid (1896). What is more: "If Calvinism had not been passed on from our fathers to their African descendants, no free republic would have arisen in the South of the Dark Continent" (1943:30). More or less at the same time, Kuyper stated that the Great Trek of Afrikaner Boers (1835-1838) from the then Cape Colony had been inspired ("gewekt") by God and had proved decisive for the future of Africa, and even for that of the world (s.a.[a]:i:306). And this, from the viewpoint of Kuyper, could only be true because he regarded the Boers as heralds of the special grace of God and bearers of Christian civilisation in their part of the world.
From a life and world view perspective, Kuyper places the Trek within the same frame of reference when he states in De crisis that the Boers in fact departed from a modern Egypt (1990:14). During the same period he also approvingly refers to the family head or Boer patriarch in the assembly of burghers as a prime example of his conviction that a nation develops organically from the family and can therefore also employ a decentralised government of elders (s.a.[a]:iii:89,90). As in his Plancius speech of 1884, he continues to see the Boers as fellow tribesmen and kindred spirits, civilised fellowmen of the people of the Netherlands who, according to Kuyper, are uitgesproken van het Gereformeerde type" (outspokenly Reformed) (s.a.[a]:ii:667; [a]:iii:519). Kuyper also ascribes the European migration of nations which inter alia led to the establishment of the Dutch nation, to the intervention of God. It was the Higher Hand ("Hooger Hand") that inspired the spirit ("geest") of these nations to act in this way (1912-339). Precisely as a result of the application of his organic or collective principle - his national-romantic warp - Kuyper is able to refer sweepingly and glowingly, almost sentimentally, to the Boer and his Dutch fellow tribesman ("stamgenoot"). In opposition to this viewpoint, the Dutch historian, G.J. Schutte, for instance proceeds to demonstrate that, as far back as the days of Kuyper, the members of the Reformed churches or Calvinists already led a largely separate existence as a small subdivision ("smaldeel") of the total population (1986:196) of the Netherlands. The existence of revolutionary liberal political convictions among some of the Boers is also a well-established fact (Van Schoor and Van Rooyen 1960:122).
From this same point of departure of civilisation, Kuyper also proceeds to involve the descendants of the three sons of Noah, and by implication the blacks of South Africa - whom he regards as the children of Ham. Diverging from what he previously said about the African civilisation and the workings of common grace, Kuyper somewhere else states that this civilisation, as that of the children of Ham, lacks both natural and special grace. In his view they are located at the very lowest level of human development - in this respect he refers to the Zulus by name (s.a.[a]:iii:304,305) - and should therefore be subservient to both the children of Japheth (who have at least benefitted from common grace) and the descendants of Shem (who have received both common and special grace (s.a.[b]:40)! According to Kuyper, the children of Ham can never attain significance ("nimmer tot betekenis komen...") (s.a.[a]:i:303) - the result of the curse under which they are bowed down ("gebogen liggen") according to the Plancius speech. He also holds firmly to the conviction that nations should be afforded freedom and rights that fit their level of development (s.a.[a]:iii:79) - and any form of democracy for the Black and Coloured people of Africa would therefore not have received his support.
KUYPER REMAINS TRUE TO HIMSELF IN RESPECT OF APARTHEID
In his Plancius speech and De crisis Kuyper therefore holds firmly to the same line of thought in respect of nations, peoples and civilisation as elsewhere in his works. His convictions in respect of the first-mentioned correspond with his statements in respect of the development of human society in the comprehensive sense of the word, and the workings of common and special grace - as theological-philosophical frame of reference. Even the concretisation of his examples in respect of race and nation in South Africa towards the end of the previous century is echoed in his other works.
This gives rise to the question as to whether Kuyper, in the above-mentioned two publications, still intentionally holds firmly to his fundamental axiom that Christ is sovereign to all thought. The answer is to be found in the trend of his argument: Christian civilisation and the Calvinistic way of life, or acknowledgement of the sovereignty of Christ is at stake.
This point of departure also determines his Euro-centrical, cultural superiority - in the case of Kuyper a vaguely defined historic-biotic based concept in which special grace also plays a role. In some of his typifications of civilisation he proves to be a typical European of the nineteenth century. It is therefore also not to be wondered at that other theologians of the day in the Netherlands found themselves at one with Kuyper or uttered similar statements about Christianity and civilisation (cf. C. Spoelstra, J.W. Gunning and B. ten Kate, Strauss 1983:80,502: cf. Kuiper 1886:74). Moreover it is a well-established fact that colonial Europe did not act democratically in its colonies and that the Dutch in Dutch East India (Indonesia) at this stage were also opposed to the introduction of equality. Even the Dutch "Zendingbode" of 24 November 1899 referred to equality as a threat to Christianity and all Christians involved (Strauss 1983:80). In fact, D. Kuiper proves that Dutch people shares Kuyper"s convictions up to approximately 1960 (1986:74).
Did Kuyper then propose a race-based difference in respect of civilisation? The answer to this question is undoubtedly negative. In his speech of 1884 he in fact foresees the possibility that the Boers will eventually lead the Blacks and Coloureds to equality - a process which, within his frame of reference, at least presupposes equality in respect of civilisation. In addition there is a certain greyness in Kuyper's line of thought concerning the consept of "race". In one instance he refers to differences of blood and race as a matter based in Divine Providence. According to him, it has its origins in the events at Babel and each race now has an own unique calling in the service of the whole of mankind (1912:337). It would appear as if, in this instance, he employs the term "race" in a physical-biotic sence of the word. Nevertheless he refers to the development of racial hatred between the Boer and the British in De crisis as being the result of the Anglo-Boer War (1900:61). It is therefore quite possible that he does not use the term "een lager ras" for Blacks and Coloureds in the sense of a concept determined by natural law, but rather by differences in respect of civilisation development. Were civilisation determined by natural laws, race or organically, it would have been taboo for anybody outside the civilised race - a form of racism which renders the quality of one's humanity dependent on the physical-biotic aspects of one's life, one's physical appearance.
Kuyper does, however, indeed regard the principle of civilisation development, which he applies to the apartheid of his time, as generally valid. Therefore he was able, in his Stone lectures in front of an audience of people from the Calvinistic sphere of influence, to state that Calvinism, in its workings within society, expresses itself "in the democratic interpretation of life" (1943:27). De Gruchy is therefore correct in maintaining that Kuyper teaches that Calvinism is democratic (1984:108). The difference is that Kuyper attempts to confine democracy to a Calvinistically orientated society - a precondition which in his view cannot be met within the context of Africa.
By this time it should be clear that extra-textual motives for Kuyper's stance, both in his Plancius speech and De crisis can only be supplementary and not dominant. In the case of both these documents, Kuyper was not a merely sympathetic occasional orator who attempted to play to the gallery. He was also qualitief pro-Boer, because the latter standpoint fitted his convictions and frame of thought.
This brings us to the question as to how the RCSA and the DRC applied Kuyper's line of thought as justification for their support of apartheid. In an attempt to find an answer to this question we shall naturally have to focus on the decisions of ecclesiastic assemblies such as synods.
KUYPER FOLLOWED BY REFORMED MEMBERS OF THE RCSA
The first significant influence of Kuyper's on reformed people in South Africa can be traced back to S.J. du Toit during the last quarter of the nineteenth century (Botha 1982:21). This controversial minister of the church, founder of the Afrikaner Bond party in the Cape Colony in 1879 (D'Assonville 1993:30) and protagonist of the Afrikaans language attempted to apply Kuyper's Neo-Calvinism to the South African ecclesiastic and politial circumstances. In particular Du Toit's resistance to certain phenomena in the DRC bears evidence of a strong influence of Kuyper's ecclesiastic thought (cf. Oberholster 1956). In 1882 Du Toit submitted a programme of principles, derived from the programme of Kuyper's Antirevolutionary Party in the Netherlands, to the Afrikaner Bond. On 6 June 1882 he informed Kuyper in a letter of what he had done: "Ons program heb ik gewijzigd, ook voor Zuid-Afrika het `onze' gemaakt..." (I have changed our programme, made it `ours', also for South Africa...). One month later, in another letter to Kuyper, he refers to "onze Gereformeerde, antirevolutionaire beginselen ..." (our Reformed, antirevolutionary principles) (Botha 1982:27). Partly due to Du Toit's efforts in the ecclesiastic field, eight Reformed Churches (or congregations) "under the cross" were founded in South Africa between 1897 and 1911. Most of these churches were eventually integrated with congregations of the RCSA (Oberholster 1956:232-300). Du Toit's activities towards the RCSA. constituted one of the means through which Kuyper's influence affected the RCSA (Botha 1982:21). It is then also not to be wondered at that his son J.D. (Totius) became a communicant of the Reformed Church of Burgersdorp and received his theological training at the Theological Seminary of the RCSA (D'Assonville 1993:52-53).
J.D. du Toit became the first Afrikaner to obtain a doctor's degree in theology at Kuyper's Free University (FU) in Amsterdam. He did this under the supervision of Abraham's son, H.H. Kuyper. Totius was an academic teacher at the Theological Seminary of the RCSA from 1911 to 1949 (D'Assonville 1993:100,117,235). During this period he gradually grew to be one of the most influential figures in the RCSA. Some of his statements in Het Kerkblad (RCSA) provide evidence of his admiration of Kuyper. In 1905 (on the occasion of the fall of Kuyper's cabinet in the Netherlands) Totius proposed the application of Kuyper's programme to the situation in South Africa (Venter 1977:25) and almost twenty years later he calls Kuyper the great protagonist of Calvinism of "our time" (Venter 1977:27). In writing about the fundamental principles of Calvinism in 1935, Totius reveals himself to be out and out Kuyperian: in addition to the Bible that must determine everything, and the sovereignty of God, he also posits sovereignty in own domain, as well as special and natural grace (Du Toit J.D. 1935:40-44).
So strong was the influence of Kuyper on the RCSA during the second decade of the twentieth century, that the reformed-controlled Potchefstroom newspaper, Het Westen, called upon its readers in 1911 to follow in the political footsteps of Kuyper (cf. Hexham 1981:176,185). One year later the chairman of the Transvaal Synod of the DRC accused the RCSA of being involved in all kinds of political actions under the influence of Kuyper. In their answer to this accusation, the spokesmen of the RCSA defended this influence (Hexham 1981:68). By 1920 the Neo-Calvinists in the Netherlands approvingly took cognisance of the existence of a school of thought in Potchefstroom which held by Kuyper's doctrine of sovereignty in own domain (Dunbar Moodie 1974:61).
KUYPER FOLLOWED BY REFORMED MEMBERS OF THE DRC
In the DRC Kuyper's influence became a decisive factor at a later date. Two of the identifiable factors which counteracted his influence on the DRC during the late nineteenth century were the controversial nature of S.J. du Toit and the influence of the "ethical-irenically" orientated pietism of the Scotch Calvinists (Botha 1982:21).
Whereas Totius already obtained his doctor's degree at the FU in 1903, the first theological student from the DRC only enrolled at this institution in 1907. After this, the situation however changed dramatically. Up to 1952 60 ministers of the DRC enrolled at the FU (mostly as post-graduate students) as opposed to nine from the RCSA. Of the 20 theological professors who served the DRC during this period, 10 had studied at the FU - all of them after 1907. Moreover the FU, during the first half of the twentieth century, replaced Utrecht as the most popular location for foreign post- graduate study among ministers of the DRC (Odendaal 1957:252).
Although it is reasonable to assume that the DRC students at the FU were not all influenced by Kuyper's line of thought to the same extent (indeed they could have been influenced by other accents in and outside the FU), this stream of students nevertheless indicates a strong leaning towards the Neo-Calvinism in the DRC. This sympathy was stimulated by cooperation between members of the DRC and Neo- Calvinists such as J.D. du Toit and H.G. Stoker in the RCSA in the thirties and forties of this century (Dunbar Moodie 1974:61-65). Totius, for instance, acted as witness in the Du Plessis suit (1928-1932) in the DRC; a suit during which the Neo- Calvinists threw in their lot with the opponents of Du Plessis (National Press s.a.:126 et seq.). In this turn, Stoker, as one of the general editors cooperated with inter alia F.J.M. Potgieter and J.D. Vorster (both confirmed Neo-Calvinists in the DRC) in the preparation of the publications for the Federation of Calvinistic Student Associations in South Africa. Products of the pens of various scholars from the reformed section of the Dutch people, the DRC and the RCSA were used in these publications (cf. Stoker and Potgieter 1935; Strauss 1993:17).
Against this background it is justifiable to refer to a "Calvinistic revival" in the DRC during the thirties (cf. Deist 1990:129). With sharp contemporary historical insight, Stoker and Potgieter, in a publication in 1935, in fact make mention of a marked revival of Calvinism ("herlewende Calvinisme") in South Africa (1935:ix), a movement which they, in true Kuyperian fashion, typified as the most pure (or highest, P.S.) form of Christianity (1935:viii) and which would have a dicisive influence on the DRC up to the nineties of the twentieth century (Strauss 1993:17).
An important observation - with a view to apartheid in South Africa - in respect of Stoker and Potgieter is the almost imperceptible shift from the Kuyperian antithesis between Christian and non-Christian to an antithesis between the Christian- Afrikaner and his opponents in South Africa. For this reason they thanked Dr H. Colijn, prime minister of the Netherlands for the honorary foreword which, according to them, testifies to an interest in Calvinism and "ons volk" (our nation) (1935:ix), and the same publication contains a chapter titled "Ons houding teenoor die naturel" (Our [my italics - P.S.] towards the Natives) (1935:256 et seq.). In this they do not only provide evidence of broad identification with the Neo-Calvinism, accompanied by a renewed revival of Afrikaner nationalism and the idea of apartheid in South Africa during the thirties (cf. De Klerk 1975:90 et seq.), but also of the influence of Kuyper's almost glowing and national-romantic references to the Boers and their Dutch fellow tribesmen. In fact, Colijn's interest was regarded to be in line with the contact between two Calvinistic nations (1935:ix,x).
KUYPER, INDIVIDUALS IN THE RCSA AND APARTHEID
Although apartheid in South Africa dates back to considerably before the time of Kuyper (Van Wyk, J.H. 1993:55), certain individuals and church assemblies in both the RCSA and DRC referred to Kuyper's line of thought in order to justify their support of this policy. In the RCSA P.J.S. de Klerk (in the 1930s), J.D. du Toit (in the 1940s) and his son S. du Toit (in the 1950s) were important trailblazers for Kuyperian synodical decisions in this respect in 1958 and 1961.
According to De Klerk, each nation has its own particular mission (based on it's own law [stroomwet] or inherent potential of creation) in the course of history (s.a.:56), and racial differences are a divine ordinance (cf. Botha 1984:174). Marriages between members of a higher, civilised and christianised race (or nation) and people from a lower race were therefore regarded as being in conflict with the Word of God. The Boers of the Great Trek of 1835 to 1838 opposed such marriages. Through such an act of faith our nation was preserved as a pure Christian race ("is ons volk bewaar as 'n suiwer Christelike ras...") (s.a.:58). De Klerk, a proponent of apartheid in South Africa and former student of the FU (Odendaal 1957:253), therefore identified with the viewpoints of Kuyper both in respect of his attitude towards the differences between nations (even with regard to his respective use of the concempts "race" and "nation") and his philosophy of civilisation. Seen from the context of his South African situation, racial differentiation became the guarantee for a pure or higher Christian civilisation.
Totius developed the same line of thought. In 1943 and in a paper read before the National Congress on the racial policy of the Afrikaner ("Volkskongres oor die rassebeleid van die Afrikaner") in 1944 he stated that the Afrikaners were opposed to miscegenation in South Africa because they were Christians. Mixture of a higher and lower race always occured to the detriment of the former (Venter 1977:367; Du Toit, J. D. 1954:7). For Totius, and in this he believed to proceed from Scripture as a whole, God is the great Divider, and the variety of nations is the result of an ordinance of creation. Human beings dare therefore not attempt to join together what God has divided into pluriformity. God was also the great Divider on the occasion of the confusion of tongues at Babel. Common grace brings into fruition the "law of multiplication" in the history of mankind. Babylonian unification and building of empires are therefore in conflict with the Scriptures. For this reason, and Totius believed to proceed directly from Kuyper, the Great Trek of the Boers constituted an anti-Babylonian act of obedience to the ordinances of God (1954:2- 7). Although phrased somewhat differently in places, Totius exhibits agreement with Kuyper in respect of the pluriformity of creation, his understanding of the effect of the events at Babel, the workings of common grace and his convictions in respect of civilisation. With his viewpoint of God as the great Divider, Totius however became a proponent of a closed system of apartheid and, in this respect, diverged from the viewpoints of Kuyper as a result of his South African context. His son, S. du Toit, identifies with the viewpoints of his father in almost all respects (cf. Du Toit, s 1955.1959).
By means of his paper Totius played a key role in establishing a Biblical-dogmatic foundation for apartheid (Botha 1984:193). It is significant that this document was published at the same time as one by his son in 1955 titled "Die Afrikaanse rassebeleid en die Skrif" (The Afrikaans racial policy and the Scriptures). The connection between the Scriptures, Calvinism, the Afrikaner and apartheid as a particular line within the Neo-Calvinism system of thought in South-Africa is clearly apparent.
KUYPER, THE RCSA AND APARTHEID
Reference to Kuyper's line of thought in support of apartheid in assemblies of the RCSA reached its highwater mark in the decisions of the synods of 1958 and 1961 on, as it was referred to, racial relations in South Africa. These decisions were taken on the basis of reports by a deputation under the chairmanship of S. du Toit and included well-known names from Neo-Calvinistic circles such as L.J. du Plessis, J. H. Coetzee and W.J. Snyman as members (RCSA 1961:43). In 1958 provisional decisions were made and the matter referred back to the deputation for further report to the following synod (RCSA 1958:270). Although neither of the two synods accepted the reports of the deputation as it is, both assemblies expressed their appreciation thereof (RCSA 1958:270; 1961:115), and on both occasions the reports guided the ultimate decisions. Reflection on this matter finally culminated in the decisions of 1961.
According to the synod of 1961, the possibility of differentiation of the human race is based in the Creator will of God. God called nations, peoples and tongues into existence, each with its own distinct identity and nature, and determined the boundaries of their dwelling-places. In this respect the synod referred to Genesis 1,10,11 and Acts 17:26 as proof texts. The uniformity of Babel was rejected as false and unbiblical, while a dynamically developed differentiation of nations was defended on the basis of the Scriptures. Furthermore the synod was of the opinion that Christian nations occur alongside heathen nations and that, due to the above- mentioned process of differentiation, these also differ in respect of civilisation and development. Therefore miscegenation could (my italics - P.S.) pose a threat to the Christian or historically valuable culture with disastrous consequences. In such a situation (the synod could only have had the South African context in mind!) it had to be regarded as sin. In order to counteract this threat, each nation is called upon to preserve and develop its own unique features in a positive manner (RCSA 1961:117).
Although phrased differently, the influence of Kuyper's line of thought is very much in evidence in these standpoints. The distinctive nature of nations, as a potential inherent in creation still lies at the basis of much of this. Thus also Babel and Genesis 11 is used as proof texts for the variety of nations. Although without direct reference to the South African situation, the reference to "christianised nations" as being different from non-christianised people in respect of development and civilisation directly proceeds from Kuyper's philosophy of civilisation and viewpoints on and understanding of the history of the Boer nation in Africa. The statement that miscegenation could prove detrimental to Christian culture opened the way to the possibility that differentiation might prove necessary in one situation and not in others. It therefore closely followed Kuyper's "open" application of the argument of civilisation to the South African situation - with a "milder" form of differentiation which came down to apartheid as method - but was immediately cancelled by the reference to separate preservation of national identity to counteract miscegenation. The latter was reinforced by the nation state idea and the society-embracing apartheid which characterise the decisions in various respects (RCSA 1961:116- 119).
On the whole the decisions of the synod of 1961 therefore constituted a classical expression of South African Kuyperian viewpoints, in which Scripture, Calvinism (without being mentioned by name), the Afrikaner national identity and apartheid are linked together. Not before the synod of 1985 would this connection be severed (RCSA 1985:429 et seq.). In its turn, the synod of 1991 went so far as to reject the ideology of apartheid as unchristian (RCSA 1991:160,169,187).
KUYPER, INDIVIDUALS IN THE DRC AND APARTHEID
Although internal apartheid in the DRC dates back much earlier (cf. Strauss 1983:1), the first decisions in the broad context of the DRC regarding apartheid as a social phenomenon were taken in 1935. This happened on the occasion of the acceptance of the so-called missionary policy of the then Federal Council of the Dutch Reformed Churches. After this apartheid became a regular point of discussion on the agendas of this Council, as well as on those of the varios regional synods and the general synod of the DRC which assembled for the first time in 1962 (Strauss 1983:30 et seq.).
Space does not allow a close study of the influence of Kuyper on the pronouncements of all these assemblies. Suffice it to say that a Christian philosophy of civilisation constituted one of the most important points of departure of the missionary policy with its support of apartheid (DRC 1935:96-99), and that Genesis 11 and the events at Babel played a crucial role in the establishment of a Biblical foundation for apartheid by the Federal Council of Churches in 1947 (DRC 1947:54). A former student of the FU, E.P. Groenewald (Odendaal 1956:253) was the original author of the document submitted to this assembly (Strauss 1983:45).
The document, "Ras, volk en nasie in die lig van die Skrif" (Race, people and nation in the light of Scripture), which was accepted by the General Synod of 1966, undoubtly constituted the culmination of a Kuyperian support of apartheid in the DRC. It was based on a report submitted to the Cape Synod of the DRC in 1965, in the compilation of which persons such as F.J.M. Potgieter and A.P. Treurnicht had played a guiding role. In fact, Treurnicht was appointed as vice-chairman of the synod of 1966 (Strauss 1983:161).
Under the significant title, "Veelvormige ontwikkeling die wil van God" (Pluriform development the will of God), Potgieter traced the origins of the differences between nations back to Babel. These differences, or pluriformity, as based on Kuyper's point of departure, led him to the conviction that this left no room for an argument in favour of integration in South Africa (1956:9). In this he clearly proceeded further than Kuyper with his "open" application of the civilisation argument.
For Treurnicht, as previously for Totius, God was the great Divider who established a pluriformity within creation and thus divided and created boundaries for people and groups of people (Die Kerkbode 1961:36). On the same line of fundamental thought, we encounter his famous pronouncement that the fact that God created all races of mankind from one man (Acts 17:26) is qualified by an equally great truth, namely that the human race falls apart into a variety of nations for whom it is normal and ideal to live within their own territories. The later viewpoint he also based on Genesis 10 and 11 (Die Kerkbode 1973:481). According to Treurnicht, his national context constitutes the natural substratum in which the normal human being grows and develops (Treurnisht s.a.:20). He therefore identified with Kuyper's viewpoint regarding the differences between nations as constituting a fundamental principle of creation, and again at Babel and, in doing so, proceeded to a standpoint of closed apartheid. In addition, his last remark constituted an expression in the best tradition of Idealism in which the nation concept is promoted to a predominant socio- political principle (Van Wyk 1978:17). According to Treurnicht, the distinctive "character" of a nation may not be sacrificed in favour of unity of the human race (1975:88). It is a bond and a gift of God's common grace, by means of which He wishes to safeguard people, as well as a breakwater wall, by means of which He intends to counter the power of sin (Die Kerkbode 1960:644). Moreover state and nation should complement each other - a genuflexion by Treurnicht to the idea of a nation state (1975:88).
Both Potgieter and Treurnicht therefore find a point of contact in the national idealistic part of Kuyper's line of thought. Both radicalise certain of Kuyper's viewpoints: with Treurnicht linking Kuyper's common grace, the potential inherent in creation and national differences. Their standpoints in respect of Scripture, creation, Babel and the national identity of a nation also exhibit clear points of agreement with the Neo-Calvinism in the RCSA and are worked out in greater detail in the decisions of the General Synod of 1966.
KUYPER, THE DRC AND APARTHEID
In the accepted tradition of the DRC since the forties, this General Synod attempted to base its standpoint on the Scriptures. Therefore the assembly was of the opinion that the Bible also contained guiding principles for the relations between races, peoples and nations (the kind of relations that, according to the Synod, were primarily at stake in South Africa).
On the basis of the story of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, the synod arrived at the conclusion that the many differences in and the pluriformity ("veelvormigheid" - Potgieter's expression) of the organic and inorganic world imply that "pluriformity" (a concept of Kuyper's) was inherent in creation as well as in the unity of the human race before the Fall. After this pluriformity developed further (note that development of the potential inherent in creation therefore already occurred immediately after creation - P.S.). Genesis 10 and 11 ( the table of nations and Babel) indicate an intensification of this process of differentiation, leading to greater pluriformity of nations and races. According to the synod, the variety of nations and races also implies differences in respect of development and civilisation. From this one can proceed to the concept of guardianship of a Christian nation in respect of other nations (DRC 1966:514,515,567).
The similarities between these dicisions and those of the synod of the RCSA in 1961 leap to the eye. Not only did the DRC identify with Kuyper in respect of "scheppingspotenties" and Babel, but, as was the case in the RCSA, Kuyper's civilisation argument was traced back to an organic growth process inherent in creation. As in the broad Neo-Calvinistic tradition current among Afrikaners, a connection was established between the Afrikaner nation and apartheid. And although the inference was somewhat veiled, this nation, as a Christian nation, found itself, according to the synod, on this side of the antithesis. This connection was only severed by the synods of 1986 and 1990 which rejected the idea of a Biblical basis for apartheid (DRC 1986:52) and condemned the ideology of practical apartheid in South Africa (DRC 1990:39).
SUMMARY
Kuyper's own viewpoints in respect of apartheid and his possible influence on the RCSA and DRC in their support can be summarised in the following statements:
_ In view of his convictions concerning special and common grace, on the basis of which he developed a theological-philosophical and historically orientated civilisation theory, Kuyper was able to support the apartheid of his time. From his frame of reference, this kind of apartheid however constituted a time-bound measure confined to a stage of upliftment or development in respect of civilisation. As opposed to this viewpoint, the theories of both the RCSA and the DRC contain elements of national romanticism which led them to subscribe to a system of closed and permanent apartheid.
_ Although Kuyper, from the background of his European heritage, throughout conferred an undefined nation state and national-cultural connotation upon the concepts "nation" and "people", he never gave any indication of regarding the nation state idea (in the manner of the RCSA and Treurnicht) as normative. We also have to accept that he was never seriously confronted by the idea of more than one nation within one political territory.
_ Kuyper's idealistic point of view in respect of the organic development of national identity on the basis of a distinct vital core did, however, indeed provide a starting-point for a closed system of apartheid. These convictions, however, represent a non-Christian part of his line of thought, a remainder of the old Kuyper of the time before 1867 (cf Velema 1989:70). In the light of the "open" application of his civilisation argument to the situation in South Africa, it seems highly unlikely that Kuyper himself would have subscribed to the idea of closed, permanent apartheid.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Botha A J 1984. Die evolusie van 'n volksteologie. Bellville: UWC Press.
Botha E 1982. Christelik-Nasionaal: Outentieke, ideologiese of gesekulariseerde nasionalisme? Potchefstroom: PU for CHE.
D'Asonville V E 1993. Dit is Totius. Lynnwoodrif: Marnix.
De Gruchy J 1979. The church struggle in South Africa. Grand Rapids: W B Eerdmans.
De Gruchy J 1984. Bonhoeffer and South Africa. Grand Rapids: W B Eerdmans.
Deist F E 1990. Notes on the context and hermeneutics of Afrikaner civil religion. In Kritzinger J N J and Saayman W A. Mission in creative tension (124-139). Pretoria: S A Society for Missiology.
De Klerk P J S et al sa. Rassebakens. Pretoria: Afrikanerbond vir Rasses studie.
De Klerk W A 1975. The Puritans in Africa. London: Rex Collings.
Die Kerkbode 1960, 1961, 1973.
Dunbar Moodie T 1975. The rise of Afrikanerdom. Berkely and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Durch Reformed Church (DRC) 1935, 1947. Acts of the Federal Council of Churches.
Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) 1966. Acts of the General Synod.
Du Toit J D 1954. Enkele grondbeginsels van die Calvinisme. In Stoker H G and Potgieter F J M. Koers in die krisis I (36-46). Stellenbosch: Pro Ecclesia.
Du Toit J D 1955. Die godsdienstige grondslag van ons rassebeleid. In Du Toit J D and S. Die Afrikaanse rassebeleid en die Skrif. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege.
Du Toit S 1955. Openbaringslig op die apartheidsvraagstuk. In Du Toit J D and S. Die Afrikaanse rassebeleid en die Skrif. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege.
Du Toit S 1959. Die Heilige skrif en rasseverhoudinge. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege.
Hexham I 1981. The irony of apartheid: the struggle for national independence of Afrikaner Calvinism against British Imperialism. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Kinghorn J 1986. Die N G Kerk en apartheid. Johannesburg: Macmillan.
Kuiper J 1986. Theory and practice in Dutch calvinism on the racial issue in the nineteenth century. Calvin Theological Journal 21 (1):51-78.
Kuyper A 1870. Eenvormigheid, de vloek van het moderne leven. Amsterdam: sl (2nd edition).
Kuyper A 1884. Plancius-rede. Amsterdam: J H Kruyt.
Kuyper A 1900. De crisis in Zuid-Afrika. Amsterdam: Hoveker en Wormser.
Kuyper A 1912. Pro Rege iii. Kampen: J H Kok.
Kuyper A 1930. Souvereiniteit in eigen kring. Kampen: J H Kok (3rd edition).
Kuyper A 1943. Calvinism - Six Stone Foundation Lectures. Grand Rapids: W B Eerdmans.
Kuyper A sa [a]. De Gemeene Gratie i,ii,iii. Kampen: J H Kok (4th edition).
Kuyper A sa [b]. De overheid - locus de magistratu. Kampen: J H Kok.
Lubbe J J and Britz R M 1992. Abraham Kuyper oor die Anglo-Boere-oorlog: 'n krisis in Suid-Afrika..? Ned Geref Teologiese Tydskrif 33(2):179-187.
Nasionale Pers sa. Die Kerksaak. Cape Town:Nasionale Pers.
Oberholster J A S 1956. Die Gereformeerde Kerke onder die Kruis in Suid-Afrika. Cape Town: HAUM.
Odendaal B J 1957. Die kerklike betrekkinge tussen Suid-Afrika en Nederland (1652- 1952). Franeker: T Wever.
Potgieter F J M 1956. Veelvormige ontwikkeling die wil van God. Bloemfontein: Sacum.
Reformed Church in South Africa (RCSA) 1958, 1961. Acts of the 33rd and 34th Synods.
Reformed Churches in Africa (RCSA) 1985, 1991. Acts of the 42nd and 44th Synods.
Ridderbos S J 1947. De theologische cultuurbeschouwing van Abraham Kuyper. Kampen: J H Kok.
Schutte G J 1986. Nederland en de Afrikaners - adhesie en aversie. Franeker: T Wever.
Smit D J 1992. Reformed Theology in South Africa - A story of many stories. Acta Theologica 12/1:88-110.
Smit J H 1989. Abraham Kuyper en volsideologie onder Afrikaners. In die Skriflig 23/1:45- 55.
Strauss P J 1983. Die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk en die Gereformeerde Kerke in Nederland: Betrekkinge rondom die Suid-Afrikaanse rassevraagstuk. Unpublished DD-thesis:UP.
Strauss P J 1984. Nogeens Abraham Kuyper, ras en volk en Suid-Afrika. Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap 20/1:89-97.
Strauss P J 1993. Op die tweesprong? Bloemfontein: University of the Orange Free State.
Stoker H G and Potgieter F J M 1935. Redaksionele voorwoord. Koers in die krisis I. (vii- xii). Stellenbosch: Pro Ecclesia.
Treurnicht A P 1975. Credo van 'n Afrikaner. Kaapstad: Tafelberg.
Treurnicht A P sa. Die Afrikaner en sy kerk. Johannesburg: SABC.
Van Ruler A A sa. Kuyper's idee eener christelijke cultuur. Nijkerk: G F Callenbach.
Van Schoor M C E and Van Rooyen J J 1960. Republieke en Republikeine. Cape Town: Nasionale Boekhandel.
Van Wyk J A 1978. Teologie en ideologie. Sovenga: Studiegroep "Kerk en wêreld".
Van Wyk J H 1993. Homo Dei. In die Skriflig 27 (supl 1).
Velema W H 1989. Kuyper als theoloog - een persoonlijke evaluatie na dertig jaar. In: In die Skriflig 23/91:56-73.
Venter H 1977. Totius Versamelde Werke 7. Kaapstad: Tafelberg.
Verkuyl J et al 1968. Verantwoorde revolutie. Kampen: J H Kok.
Viljoen A C 1980. Trends in the ecumenical movement and the South African Churches. In Vorster W S (red), Church unity and diversity in the South African context. Pretoria: Unisa.