This post is part of a series walking through the second volume of Abraham Kuyper’s Common Grace
As Kuyper argued in the previous chapter, the church influences the nation in which it exists. (That, I think, is obviously true–even if I don’t agree with how Kuyper says it or what he does with that truth.) To say it another way, particular grace influences common grace. But in what manner and to what degree does this influence happen? This is where we transition in our discussion of common grace from doctrine to practice. First, however, how do we explain this influence?
Generally, religion affects our culture. Even false religions do this. This is because religion is the deep expression of fundamental beliefs, and is tied to the nature/character/history/land/climate of the nation. So separate church and state is on one level attempting to separate something inherently unified. Instead we need to focus on how Christianity affects other areas of life.
We all agree on the importance of “religion for the nation’s value.” This has had different social expressions at different times. In the past, secularists fought to get religion out of public life (when it was the “old time religion”). Now they fight to include it (now that it’s “modernized religion”). (768) Moreover, religious differences are tied to differences between peoples as well–we see this even within nations. But this diversity affects questions of law and justice, so here the Reformed deny that one people should dominate others.
But does particular grace do more than this? If not, ethnology is enough to understand religion in society–and certainly false religions have affected common grace at times. But only particular grace strengthens “common grace to such an extent that it could come to full development.” (771) We see this in the world right now–only where Christianity is strong have we see common grace truly flourish. [And again, we have to remember Kuyper’s time and place here–the Great War would kill a lot of this connection in the Reformed mind, and rightly so; the same connection is severed in some of the racial conclusions he draws in this section.]
This connection between particular grace and common grace is “the relationship between the Noahic and the Abrahamic covenants.” (771) The two are connected “ordained and destined” the one for the other. (772) The key term here really is “covenant;” it is religion at its most basic.
That said, we must not incorporate common grace into particular grace. This is a distinction we must be careful to maintain in four areas:
- There are places where common grace is strong, but particular grace has not yet arrived (Kuyper uses the example of China, showing at least some historical ignorance on his part);
- “The institutional church” is the realm only of particular grace;
- Common grace can be illuminated and informed by particular grace (Kuyper here uses the examples of “Christian” nations in Europe and America);
- Particular grace can put common grace to work (here Kuyper uses the example of the church as an organism, where believers shape their lives, practices, and associations by the Word).
Each of these is discussed in Scripture, but they must be kept distinct–especially the last two. Jesus himself makes and maintains this distinction, and we should do no less.
Dr. Coyle Neal is co-host of the City of Man Podcast an Amazon Associate (which is linked in this blog), and an Associate Professor of Political Science at Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, MO
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In