The Neo-Calvinists and Egalitarianism

25 February 2025

By dr Adi Schlebusch

Depite their errors in terms of doing away with the classic Christocratic view of civil government as articulated in article 36 of the Belgic Confession and wrongly embracing pluralism and universal franchise, I believe the Dutch Neo-Calvinists Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck can still be appraised for their polemics against liberal egalitarianism, which is what I hope to accomplish with this brief article.

In 1913, Bavinck published an article specifically on the subject of equality. He writes that the problem of equality is sharply accentuated due to humanity's ongoing philosophical struggle with "the problem of unity and plurality"¹. Bavinck notes how there are clear distinctions and often disharmony between nations, classes, and groups despite the unity of humankind. He further explains how certain often philosophical movements attempt to resolve this tension between unity and plurality through pantheistic and monistic perspectives, which essentially absolutize unity as the only true reality and dismiss diversity as merely a product of imagination. He cites Hegel's philosophy as an example of such a system, but for him, the most consistent embodiment of this is Buddhism. In contrast, there are also systems that absolutize the plurality of reality and humanity at the expense of unity, such as Greek-Roman polytheism and Manichaeism².

Bavinck goes on to show how Jean-Jacques Rousseau exacerbated this struggle with diversity as it manifests in socio-economic inequality. Rousseau saw inequality as the product of civilization and thus advocated a return to what he viewed as the idea of a primitive natural state of mankind in which there would be absolute equality. Consequently, he proposed a retreat from culture to a so-called natural state, which he admitted ever historically existed, but merely existed as an abstact idea³. Interestingly, Bavinck expresses appreciation for Rousseau's good intentions and views him as someone who, amid the Enlightenment's glorification of scientific progress, did not lose sight of the suffering of ordinary people. Yet, Bavinck argues that although Rousseau was not himself a socialist or communist, "the ideas expressed by him about inequality and its origin, about the rich and the poor, about masters and servants, and especially about the subjugation of social and political institutions by the rich and powerful to their own interests, have nevertheless become the material from which the socialist and communist systems were built after him"⁴.

Bavinck acknowledges that Rousseau distinguishes between natural and social inequality, but emphasizes that he also attacks natural inequality, because even natural inequalities among people, such as in terms of physical abilities, are often the result of education and lifestyle⁵.

At the end of his article, he contrasts Rousseau as the Genevan representative of Liberalism with Calvin as the Genevan representative of Reformed Christianity:

Calvin sought the cause of all misery in sin, a personal act consisting of disobedience to the divine law. Rousseau laid all the blame on society and civilization, and was moved to tears when he thought how good he was; never had a man lived on earth as good and compassionate as he! Calvin expected nothing from nature, but everything from God's grace in Christ; Rousseau had no need for grace, and placed all hope in a return to nature. Calvin, in one word, cast mankind and all creatures down into the dust before the overwhelming majesty of God; Rousseau exalted man to the throne, himself in the first place, at the expense of God's justice and holiness⁶.

Regarding inequality among people, Calvinism views this in the sovereignty of God as realized through His providence, while liberalism sees it as essentially man-made. Therefore, Bavinck states that the distinction and diversity within humanity are fundamentally not grounded in culture and education, "because the fundamental differences precede them, and are already given in nature; and also nature is not the cause, for it did not arise nor exists by itself, but has been from its beginning and always carried by the word of God's power"⁷.

Bavinck notes that while Calvinism always seeks to reform society with the goal of casting off sin and achieving increasing alignment with the divine will, Rousseau's revolutionary idea of equality is one that leaves mankind eternally dissatisfied with their fate, leading to the overthrow of the God-given natural order, and ultimately results in anarchy, chaos, and even increasing poverty in practice⁸.

Abraham Kuyper points out how the liberal notion of equality unfolds into communism. He notes that the dire conditions of the poor were one of the main reasons why the communist idea of equality, as presented by Karl Marx, found such resonance during the second half of the nineteenth century. Kuyper points out the irony in socialists often citing Christ, viewing Him as the great prophet of their egalitarian utopia, as this in practice leads to the establishment of "an aristocracy of much lower caliber, namely the aristocracy of money, which prepares itself to impose the law upon us, to put its foot on our neck, and thus renews the same conundrum that once, with such incredible effort, was defeated by Voltaire, Rousseau, and the heroes of the Bastille"⁹.

In this regard, Kuyper strongly aligned himself with the conservative counter-Enlightenment narrative, which had been warning for nearly a century that tyranny and increasing oppression would be the logical outcome of liberal dreams. Already in 1791, Edmund Burke pointed out the same irony in the application of the Enlightenment ideal of equality: 

But the rights… though declared are certainly not enjoyed by the French… The fact is, that notwithstanding the cry of liberty and equality, the most oppressive tyranny—the tyranny of a delegated Banditti—pervades every part of that distracted country¹⁰.

Kuyper affirmed the Christian position that over against the tension between simplistic ideals and the complexity of reality characteristic of both Liberalism and Marxism, it is only through the unchanging principles of Scripture, applied according to the demands of each unique context, that harmony between unity and diversity can be achieved and restored. Whereas communism advocates a purely theoretical and practically unattainable ideal of equality on paper, which is essentially at odds with the nature of reality, it is in the Christian principle of love for one's neighbor that real concern for the practical, everyday challenges of the poor and oppressed lies, i.e., through that "holy compassion" which, according to Kuyper, is entirely absent in the communist model of centralized state power. Kuyper, as the Dutch Prime Minister, also applied this principle in terms of his policy regarding the Dutch colonies. The Kuyper cabinet viewed it as their duty as Christians to assist in both the socio-economic upliftment of the colonies, while also ensuring that the local peoples enjoyed increasing political self-determination. Even his liberal opponents praised Kuyper for what was at the time considered a "progressive" colonial policy. Kuyper condemned homogenizing imperialism from a Calvinist athropological understanding of mankind as exhibiting both a unity and diversity without any tension, strongly criticized the imperialistic tendencies of post-Enlightenment nineteenth-century European colonialism¹¹.

The Neo-Calvinist exploration of egalitarianism by Bavick and Kuyper rightly highlights the tension which exists between the One and the Many in non-Christian philosophical systems. In contrast, both affirm that the basic tenets of the Christian faith is fundamentally anti-egalitarian. Of course, it will always be such a shame that they did not consistently apply their theory in practice.

1. Bavinck, H. 1913. Over de ongelijkheid. Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913): 17.
2. Bavinck, H. 1913. Over de ongelijkheid. Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913): 18–19.
3. Bavinck, H. 1913. Over de ongelijkheid. Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913): 25–26, 28.
4. Bavinck, H. 1913. Over de ongelijkheid. Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913): 30.
5. Bavinck, H. 1913. Over de ongelijkheid. Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913): 20.
6. Bavinck, H. 1913. Over de ongelijkheid. Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913): 32.
7. Bavinck, H. 1913. Over de ongelijkheid. Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913): 33.
8. Bavinck, H. 1913. Over de ongelijkheid. Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913): 33.
9. Kuyper, A. 1891. Het Sociale Vraagstuk en de Christelijke religie. Amsterdam: Wormser, 23.
10. Burke, E. 1791. An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs. London: Dodsley, 50.
11. Joustra, R. 2019. Abraham Kuyper among the Nations. In G.J. Buijs and S. Polinder (eds.), Christian Faith, Philosophy & International Relations: The Lamb and the Wolf. Leiden: Brill, 163–164.

Bavinck, H. 1913. "Over de ongelijkheid." Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913): 17–43.

Buijs, G.J. and S. Polinder (eds.). 2019. Christian Faith, Philosophy & International Relations: The Lamb and the Wolf. Leiden: Brill.  

Burke, E. 1791. An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs.* Londen: Dodsley.  

Joustra, R. 2019. Abraham Kuyper among the Nations. In G.J. Buijs en S. Polinder (eds.). 2019.  

Kuyper, A. 1891. Het Sociale Vraagstuk en de Christelijke religie. Amsterdam: Wormser.