To the Editor:

I hesitate to do this, but I find the article by Ref. Steve Swets to be of such a nature that a response must be presented. “What It Means to Be Reformed: Education” offers a perspective and analysis that might cause significant harm to many Christian schools, if implemented by them. My concerns are focused on the amount of emphasis and credibility that he gives to the philosophy of Abraham Kuyper (see p. 22, col. 1). Rev. Swets is apparently ignorant of the confusion and conflict that Kuyper’s ideas and philosophy created in many Canadian and United States Christian schools during the 1960s and 1970s. Many Christians had been part of the Doleantie movement and considered Kuyper to be a world leader. They welcomed his doctrine of sphere sovereignty and thought it gave to their schools the kind of independent governance that was accorded to the Free University in the Netherlands. Many of them thought that the Afscheiding movement no longer had validity. They were wrong.

The problem is that “sovereignty” can never be divided. One cannot have a sovereign church, a sovereign state, a sovereign school, a sovereign business, or any of the other fourteen modalities that his students tried to create. The brighter students saw right through this and were horribly confused. The less perceptive thought they had found a new guru to follow. Dordt College tried to introduce this in 1968 and then found intense infighting for six years until the board banished it in March of 1974. Trinity Christian College removed many of their Kuyperian faculty and had to rebuild about the same time.

A second major flaw in Kuyper’s theology was his theology of God and his Word. When students would want to consult the Word of God, I and many others pointed them to the Bible, the Word of God. What students got was a counterquestion: “Which Word do you want? The Law Word? The Inscripturated Word? Or, the Incarnate Word?” According to Kuyper and his followers, the Law Word was the source of laws for education, for business, for the home, for the church, and for the state. To have a Christian perspective on education, one had to “struggle with the issues” to find the Law Word for education. Some of their answers were illogical, immoral, and contradictory.

In all my work and writing on Christian education, I sent students to the Bible, the Word of God. All the major answers for Christian education can be found there. Sad to say, I was often called a biblicist and worse than that.

If Rev. Swets is open to further discussion, I will be happy to refer him to some readings which will offer a much better perspective than that offered by Kuyper or his followers.

I send this with some trepidation, but I feel that this issue is too important to be ignored.

Cordially, in Christ,

Norman De Jong, PhD

Norman De Jong is a semi-retired pastor in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Response to Dr. De Jong

Regarding the letter from Dr. Norman De Jong responding to the article “What Does It Mean to Be Reformed: Education”:

I am thankful for Dr. De Jong’s thoughtful interaction with my article. Even though he said he sent his response with trepidation, it is an important subject to discuss. Dr. De Jong has certainly read, written, and experienced more than I have regarding the history of Christian education in North America. Nevertheless, permit me to limit my response to three points.

First, my focus is on parent-run Christian day schools. Parents are called to train their children, and to use a school as one of three legs of the three-legged stool of home, church, and school is certainly a fruit of Kuyperian influence. When it comes to university education, where the students are now adults and can be challenged in greater ways, I will leave that debate with Dr. De Jong. He clearly has a history in mind I have not studied.

Second, sphere sovereignty is a helpful principle when it is applied properly. Properly understood, sphere sovereignty teaches that Christ is lord over all. He is the sovereign. Under his lordship, each realm or sphere operates for the Christian under the authority of the Word of God. It is when this Word is undermined that problems will inevitably arise. Sovereignty does not need to be divided, but it ought to be distinguished. For instance, the elders of a local church have authority over my doctrine and life, and this includes my parenting. Nevertheless, they cannot demand that I give a particular amount of money to the church. They would be overreaching their authority and undermining my liberty as the head of a home. At the same time, the Christian home and the work of the consistory must always function under the ultimate authority of God’s Word.

Third, the Afscheiding (1834) and the Doleantie (1886) as reforming movements out of the Dutch state church are not mutually exclusive of each other. These two groups merged into one church in 1892 (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederlanden). Many of the immigrants who came after that church merger had no trouble assimilating the emphasis of each when it came to education. Those who were already living in the United States especially adopted a number of Kuyperian principles. This is part of the reason we see Christian day schools established where Christian Reformed churches were located. I am a product of such a history in my own family.

I am open to reading more on the subject and I would like to thank The Outlook for the opportunity to respond. I hope it clarifies my position on this important subject.

Brotherly greetings in Christ,

Rev. Steve Swets

Steve Swets is the pastor of Rehoboth United Reformed Church in Hamilton, ON, and the co-editor of Faithful and Fruitful: Essays for Elders and Deacons (now available at reformedfellowship.net).