Hendrik G Stoker and the contrast between the Calvinist and the Nazi views of Race, Nationhood, and the State
21 March 2025
By Dr Adi Schlebusch
In 1941, at the hight of the Second World War, the Boer Calvinist philosopher Hendrik G. Stoker (1899-1993) published a work entitled "Stryd om die Ordes" (Battle of the Orders) in which he provides an overview of what he considered to be the leading worldviews at the time: Liberalism, Bolshevism, National Socialism and Fascism, contrasting the four of these to the Calvinism to which he adhered. Stoker discusses a wide variety of subjects in the book, including the Nazi view of race, nationhood, and the state.
He especially criticizes Nazism for its disregard for the individual, arguing that
the National Socialist attempt to force the God-ordained diversity of human relationships and the individual into the straitjacket of the national state as an attempt to overcome conflicts of interest, will inevitably fail because of its disregard for that diversity … The National Socialist reduction of the totality of the social order to the national state, and the reduction of the national community to only the factors of blood and soil, reflects its distinctly naturalistic character. This biological naturalism also explains the frequent use of the word “instinct” in the National Socialist worldview. Not only does the nation grow “instinctively,” according to National Socialism, but even the leader of the nation must possess a finely tuned “instinct” to make the right decisions at the right time in critical moments. It is the healthy “instinct” of human beings, according to National Socialism, which guides them onto the right path. This instinct is found (so it is claimed) especially among people who, like farmers, live closer to nature. The “instinctivist” foundation of this philosphy ultimately shows National Socialism to be both irrational and anti-intellectual.1
Over against this Nazi doctrine of race and nationhood, Stoker articulated what he considered to be the Calvinist doctrine of race, nationhood, and the state as follows:
What interests us more, however, are the consequences of the National Socialist doctrine that the nation is solely determined by blood and soil—a concept that we readily acknowledge contains elements of truth in a relative sense.
We in South Africa are also confronted with the racial question in terms of our struggle against the liberal drive to erase distinctions and to equalize all individuals, regardless of their race or color. Our doctrine of distinctions is based on a Calvinist doctrine of race. We take a different approach than the National Socialist does, for we maintain that God willed the differences between races, nations, and languages and established this differentiation as inherent to humanity itself—and we furthermore base our approach on the Calvinist experience of our Voortrekker ancestors. We therefore likewise embrace the validity and recognize the importance of racial distinctions as well the necessity of living and acting in accordance with these distinctions. [We] must therefore always uphold the racial distinctions between white and black in accordance with the principles of the true Calvinist doctrine ... We must strengthen and refine our existing laws in accordance with this ... Even if we were to allow Jews into our country, we will not be able to grant them the same rights as we do our own people ... not because we are anti-Semites—for we reject anti-Semitism—but because of the fact that the Jewish people are a distinct nation, separate from our own, and one that cannot assimilate with us ... In theory, National Socialism should not be anti-Semitic either, as it recognizes the right of other nations to exist. In practice, however, it is vehemently anti-Semitic, and significant persecution of Jews takes place in Germany, although it must be said that the Jews themselves also bear some responsibility for this in light of their own actions ... We also differ from the Nazis in that we view the individual as mature, and the various human associations and relations as independent, and consequently maintain that government should serve the people and not vice versa. Voters should also seek to pursuade and influence those in government and not merely advise it. The people must hold government morally accountable for its actions and where needed, be free to openly criticize it.2
IIn terms of his view of the relationship between the people and the state, Stoker is unquestionably aligned with the historic Reformed tradition, as a central theme running through all four chapters of a seminal work such as the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (1579) is that civil government is morally bound by covenantal obligations—both to God, who established it, and to the people for whom it was instituted.
1. Stoker, Stryd om die Ordes, p. 113.
2. Stoker, Stryd om die Ordes, p. 114-115.
(Translations are my own from the original Afrikaans)