Abraham Kuyper and Work

19th century Dutch economic situation
In spite of the wealth flowing in from its colonies, notably Indonesia, the Netherlands for much of the 19th century was an economic backwater. Industrialization came slowly and when it came Dutch employers needed to hire foreign workers because there were not enough skilled Dutch workers. Of all the Western European countries the Netherlands had the poorest technical education. By 1870 the country was still in the first phase of industrialization and in the pre-capitalist stage. With a significant increase in population, still mainly in the countryside, and poor skills it is no wonder that the wages were low--and kept low by employers. Depending on province and type of work, the average wage by 1870 was between 50 and 80 cents a day, although the basic costs were increasing. As a consequence working class families ate less and less meat. Even this slow industrialization caused a significant increase in children's work. Sometimes children as young as four were employed, earning as little as 5 cents a day. About 20% of these children were girls. Although the misuse of children was not as bad as in England, some, depending on the season, had to work 15 hours a day, sometimes starting at 3:00AM. In general children in the two southern provinces fared better, except in Maastricht. Housing for the workers was often extremely poor, many of them living in cellars. Diseases such as cholera, typhus, smallpox, diphtheria, and measles often decimated the population; on average 25 out of 1000 people died per year (in my birthplace Woerden it was 40), while the birthrate was 35 per 1000. The average lifespan of the worker in 1850 was 32 years. The grim picture reminds one of novelist Charles Dickens' or Salvation Army general William Booth descriptions of England’s poor and of the potato famines in Ireland. It was said that the worker did not earn enough to live but too much to die. In spite of that grim situation the workers hardly protested; many of them were quite fatalistic. Although the church cared for the poor through its diaconate, it could not cope with the situation. The government tried to take over, but the church resisted. Officially the struggle was settled in 1854, but as will become apparent it was an empty victory.
After 1870 industrialization picked up and there were improvements in the cities. However, in the countryside there was still great poverty, suffering some of its hardest economic times due to cheap American grain. This agricultural crisis forced many farmers to change to cattle breeding and horticulture. Local problems furthered the depression. Workers, about 15% of whom were women, suffered unemployment without insurance and had little prospect of improvement. Work was often heavy and it was not uncommon for women and children to work eleven hours a day carrying 25-30kg weights. While strikes were never legally prohibited, there was legislation forbidding some forms of association, both for employers and employees. This legal restriction was rescinded in 1872, opening the way for more associations, including unions. While some official industrial inquiries had taken place before 1870, nothing had been done about the workers' plight. It was not until 1874 that the so-called Van Houten Law restricted some work for children, but many of its original suggestions had been eliminated. Even to that minimum restriction some Calvinists objected on the basis that God had restricted the sovereignty of government and that this restriction was interfering with the right of the family.

Christian union movement
Before 1870, Dutch pre-industrial society was basically divided into two classes, the aristocracy with higher officials and the poor; thereafter came more class gradations. With that greater variety came the workers' desire to do something about the situation. In 1866 the typographers, a rather elite group of workers, formed the first workers' association. In 1871 the General Netherlands Workers' Association (Algemeen Nederlands Werkliedenverbond, ANWV) was formed, which made it clear that socialism, revolution and violence were unacceptable, ideas that militated against a small section of the Marxist International that had been formed in 1869 (and existed only briefly) and the 1871 Paris Commune. However, some of its views, such as Sunday work, Christian education and class struggle, were unacceptable to some Christians. Most vocal was Klaas Kater (1833-1916), who was educated as a teacher but had become the president of Amsterdam's bricklayers and overseers' association, which was a member of the ANWV. Already in 1871 a banker gave the impetus to a new organization, the Fatherland Workers' Association (Vaderlandsche werkmansvereeniging), which had as its motto, "order, freedom and justice." In 1873 Kater broke with the ANWV and in 1876 was able to transform the FWA into a new organization, the Netherlands Workers' Association (Nederlandsch Werkliedenverbond), usually referred to as Patrimonium, the first Christian social organization and the ancestor of the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC). Kater was its first president and its soul. Patrimonium remained the only Christian social organization until 1890, when, as a result of the 1886 split in the Reformed Church and the activities of Rev. J. Th. de Visser, the Christian National Workers' Association (Christelijke Nationale Werkmansbond) was formed. Patrimonium's constitution stated that "only God's word and the tradition of our nation can be the foundation of a Christian society." It tried to implement this through libraries, building houses and cooperative work. In 1886 Kater gave up his work as bricklayer and became the editor of Patrimonium's The Worker's Friend (De Werkmansvriend). He was a fiery combatant for better work conditions and the rights of the workers. Initially he opposed strikes, which often went together with violence, but later changed his mind on this issue. As will be seen he played a crucial role in connection with the First Christian Social Congress, held in 1891.
Kater's activities did not occur in a vacuum. In the early part of the 19th century some members of the Reveil, a revival among mainly the elite, had become interested in the emerging "social question." Among them were the well known poets Willem Bilderdijk (1756-1831) and Jewish convert Isaac da Costa (1798-1860), statesman and historian Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801-1876) and social activist Rev. O. G. Heldring (1804-1876). When Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) gave the introductory address at the congress, he quoted from the work of the first three, indicating that little had been done since their accusatory comments.
As he stated, there was no excuse for "our Christian thinkers should already have been laboring for twenty or thirty years ... to plumb the depths of this desperate situation." His address was not the first foray into the "social question", which, he stated, had "become the question, the burning life-question of the late nineteenth century."Nearly three decades before the address he had taken up their torch.

Kuyper's early involvement
After graduation in 1863 Kuyper became a minister in Beesd, a village in the province Gelderland, and since 1978 a part of the city Geldermalsen. Not only did he there encounter very pious folk, who contributed to his rejection of the liberal theology he had imbibed at Leiden University, but also saw "with his own eyes, that the relationship between the landowner and the peasant day laborer was not as it should be, and so he became a democrat....He saw how the social and legal structures led to a class division in the life of the people that was sinfully unequal rather than the divinely ordained pattern of inequality." While in the 18th century a minister was socially one with the mass of people, in the 19th century he stood above the mass, taking on the special role to elevate the mass. Kuyper, who realized that the social question had a devastating effect on the family, did so in his early sermons, arousing his poor parishioners to political awareness and political struggle and causing a clash with the local noble and wealthy landlord. He tried to practise what he preached, giving surplus fruit crops from his own orchard to the poor. In his congress address he would make it clear that such charity would not solve the deeper problem: "charity which knows only how to give money is not yet Christian love....you also [have to] give your time, your energy, and your resourcefulness to help end such abuses for good." At the same time he realized that while the physical needs were appalling, the spiritual need was even more appalling. In fact, the weaker party was first of all spiritually and then materially oppressed. Becoming aware of the labor problems and the social unrest, he chose for social reform, recognizing that the existing and carefully conserved social order would and could not continue along the same line.
After a brief and not very fruitful pastorate in Utrecht (1867-70), he moved on to Amsterdam, where Groen van Prinsterer became his political mentor. In 1872 he added the editorship of a new daily De Standaard (The Standard) to his editorship of the church weekly De Heraut (The Herald). A year earlier he already had written that “One will readily assent to this: to help where the need has already arisen, to battle against an isolated social evil, to rescue individuals is, while excellent, something different from taking hold of the socio-economic problem itself with the sacred enthusiasm of faith.” Such a battle could only be fought in parliament, of which he became a member in 1874. On 28 November 1874 he introduced a code of labor (Wetboek van de Arbeid), a complete set of regulations whose equivalence to civil and criminal codes would give labor and economic issues a dramatic new status. He commented that "There must come and there can come a new, organic life, provided that the organization be not imposed by the state but first take form spontaneously in real life by right of custom and usage, thereafter to be enacted into a code of statutes." In many ways this failed bill was too far ahead for most Dutch leaders. Four observations may be made here. Even though labor unrest was barely beginning and the depression had not yet begun, he realized that the existing labor situation could and should not continue. At the height of the economic depression he would state that it was untenable. Secondly, like Pope Leo XIII, he envisaged society as an organic whole. Possibly on the basis of its liberal perspective a 1958 Dutch history encyclopedia regarded this corporative nature of society as reactionary. For Kuyper liberalism was a culprit; its victory during the French Revolution had broken society's organic composition and replaced it with individualism and self-interest. Nevertheless, there is evidence that organicism contributed to a socio-political conservative perspective. It accepted the unequal dividing in which the poor had to be content with their status, while the rich should protect them, a paternalistic idea hardly acceptable in our present society. Thirdly, he accepted that the state had a role to play, but, like pope Leo XIII, Mackenzie King and guild socialism and unlike the Social Gospel movement, he posited that it was only a limited role. The code could only come about after consultation with all concerned parties. Thus the state would and could not impose its paternalistic views on its subjects. One can detect here the beginning of his notion of sphere sovereignty. Fourthly, custom and usage were important. They could not be simply discarded and destroyed, as had happened during the French Revolution. Only gradually and after careful consultation could they be changed. In a series of articles in February 1889 he gave further insight to his introduction: "The matter of manual labor is of social importance because the class of citizens who depend on it is so large; in our country the majority have it as their sole means of existence. Thus, the condition in which manual labor finds itself inevitably exerts an influence on the entire social and domestic condition of the greater part of our nation. Naturally, every Netherlander is eager to know whether this majority is doing well, has a reasonable existence and is prospering morally, or whether it is depressed by worries, tending towards discontent, and declining in morals. In the long run [it] is of the greatest importance for the safety of our society too." Cleary, Kuyper emphasized the national interest over against that of any class. Not only was this a consequence of his organic view but also of his opposition to Marxist class warfare.

Kuyper's 1889 articles
By 1889 the economic situation had significantly worsened, prompting him to write a series of seven articles in De Standaard. They could be regarded as a prologue to his 1891 congress address. In them he discussed the disastrous consequences of the French Revolution. I have already mentioned society's shattered organic whole, liberalism's individualism and self-interest, and the destruction of customs. In addition it replaced divine transcendent with human rational authority. False premises, Kuyper argued, had disastrous consequences. Not surprisingly, he also noted the broader consequences of industrialization.
He began his series by observing that the labor situation in the Netherlands had not deteriorated into threatening forms--perhaps an unstated comparison with the 1889 London dock strike--"only because the spirit of discontent and moral decline has remained confined to a small part of those who work with their hands." But complacency was out of the question: "Our government and our people must open their eyes to the unsatisfactory situation." In fact, they should "ask themselves seriously whether the legislature is entitled and able to help deal with the undeniable need." The problem, he realized, was not only national but international: "The market of goods is cosmopolitan and thus influences the country." Much of the article's tenor was intended as an encouragement, yet his clarification of "doing well" as "being content with little" and "cultivating submissiveness and patience" could easily be interpreted by his opponents as accepting the status quo. But Kuyper thought that it would help the poor in their "distress and difficulties, and [help them] looking toward a higher ideal [that would] draw the tranquil eye away from the world and its desires." He even envisaged a didactic purpose: "If these moral forces enable you to teach the larger part of our nation to be content with little and in condition also to catch the luster of a higher ideal, you have achieved more than if you artificially raise wages 10 or 15 percent." Significantly, he agreed with the analysis of the socialists, usually called social democrats: "We must courageously and openly acknowledge that the Social Democrats are right when they maintain that the situation calls not only for the physician but most certainly for the architect as well....[and] that when a house creaks and warps, the notion of making some superficial repairs and applying a coat of paint without first examining the supporting walls, joists, and foundations is not serious." However, the socialists were wrong in their solution: "Your whole house is useless. Let's demolish it altogether. Then we will build, at our combined expense, a new house according to my design." For Kuyper, the house had been ordained by God and had to be preserved as in any reconstruction. His notion of preservation may also explain his interest in and admiration for medieval guilds, as discussed in the fourth article. Yet he was not uncritical, arguing that nobody wanted to restore the guilds in their ancient form. The problem was that the French Revolution had made an enormous and unforgivable mistake when it demolished the traditional organization of labor without replacing it with something new. Kuyper’s solution included guilds, which would set a quota of laborers for every trade and help settle disputes. His interest in guilds was not uncommon. In previous articles I have mentioned that of Mackenzie King and Pope Leo XIII. Perhaps best known for such interest is British artist William Morris. With the socialists wrong in their solution, the Liberals and Conservatives were wrong in their outmoded basic ideas and solutions, holding that "their holy doctrine was nonnegotiable: the laissez-faire, laissez-passer philosophy was the bedrock of wisdom," while, with implied reference to Social Darwinism, inequality "was simply the struggle between the stronger and the weaker in which the weaker was 'predestined' to succumb." It was, he posited, a misguided idea that boundless liberty would solve everything, for laissez-faire with its unbridled liberty had grievous results.
Kuyper approached his own solution in different ways. In an editorial of 11 November 1885 he had stated that "We are not just facing a need but a situation that needs to be regulated, a set of circumstances that requires provision"  Now he argued that the current government had the jurisdiction to change what its predecessors had effected, providing that it did not violate historic or individual rights. Thus fiscally it could not introduce communism. He suggested, based on Ps. 35:10, that government had the duty to protect the weak and needy so that they might not be too heavily oppressed by the big and powerful. Yet that did not mean that it had the authority to interfere directly with manual labor. As far as he was concerned, the government would make a definite mistake if it were to initiate too many rules. Since government was not the only sovereign in the country, it was his "deepest conviction that the government has no jurisdiction to stipulate how labor matters must be regulated even when it concerns the form of contract." It only should come to the aid of labor organizations, when, through no fault of their own, the balance between the social powers had been disturbed. Organizations, such as unions, alliances, and associations, should, however, receive a legal basis. He was in fact leery of the government, at least of parliament's Second Chamber, which, rather than representing all classes, represented only one, the bourgeoisie. As he had done in 1874, he therefore suggested again Chambers of Labor. Together with Chambers of Commerce they could solve various problems. In case they could not agree they could make use of to be established Councils of Arbitration, which could settle disputes with binding arbitration. These legally and formally instituted organizations were a significant improvement of the right of labor. Economically he argued that the false principle of laissez-faire ought to be abandoned. Manual laborers ought be able to buy good quality and quantity with the money they earned, something that was presently not the case. Inheritance laws making it difficult to inherit undivided farms were unsuitable and needed to be changed. Like William Morris, he suggested that more care should be given to the development of national craftsmanship. Although an updated version of the ancient guilds, it hints at Kuyper's limited grasp of industrialization.
Prologue to the 1891 Congress
In 1887 a report was issued showing the enormous socio-economic problems. The next year the new Christian cabinet under baron Mackay introduced a bill dealing with restrictions of the hours of labor for women and children. It included inspection, something the 1874 Van Houten law had not included. That Mackay did not go any further, in spite of the numerous strikes in the country, may have been due to the tension within Kuyper's party, the ARP, between the aristocracy and the rest. In fact, that tension would lead in 1894 to a split. Especially the province Friesland, suffering great poverty, experienced a number of strikes. Although Patrimonium was able to solve one of them, the situation was tense, including in Patrimonium itself. One of its leaders argued that Christians could suffer injustice and wait for God, but that as citizens Patrimonium could only ask but not demand a humane existence. The province's agricultural workers were oppressed by the big farmers, including Reformed (Gereformeerde) farmers, an "Irish" situation which led the leaders, including a minister, to study "Mosaic socialism." Meanwhile, in Amsterdam, Klaas Kater indicated at the November 1890 annual meeting of Patrimonium that he was willing to break with Kuyper's party, which, he posited, was too much influenced by the conservative upper crust. Not surprisingly his speech was not well received by these ARP leaders, who objected to Kater's language and implications. For the moment Kuyper was able to soothe both sides, warning the elite that Kater's threat could lead to a Christian Workers' Party, while at the same time suggesting the MP candidature of a carpenter foreman of a brewery. Incidentally, his boss, an ARP member, was annoyed and in his annoyance showed his paternalistic perspective. Significantly, at the same annual meeting Kater had invited the ARP to help organize a congress dealing with the social question. Such a congress would give an opportunity to think about the implications of Christian social thinking. That invitation also helped momentarily prevent a split in the ARP. With the tension within his party Kuyper, who functioned as the congress central committee's chairman, wanted to convene the congress as quickly as possible, but was unable to do so. The date was postponed several times until it was decided that it would coincide with Patrimonium's annual meeting, 9-12 November 1891. As an advertisement of 5 November indicated, in addition to Kuyper and Kater, the organizing committee, the section leaders and section reporters included a large number of political, ecclesiastical, academic, and aristocratic leaders, including baron Mackay, who had recently been defeated at the polls by the Liberals

Kuyper's address
After the 9 November evening opening ceremonies of the First Christian Social Congress Kuyper gave a lengthy address under the title Het Sociale Vraagstuk en de Christelijke Religie, translated into English as The Problem of Poverty. In his opening paragraphs he indicated that the church had given very little thought about the social question, in spite of the early words and actions of some of the Reveil leaders and the examples elsewhere. In fact, many church members seemed to think that Jesus' words that we would have the poor always with us were prescriptive. Kuyper obviously did not think so, for he made it clear that the workers could wait no longer, that philanthropy was insufficient, that architectonic societal changes were needed, and that such changes were impossible without radical reform. He noted that the social question was caused by very low wages, very long hours of work, very bad work circumstances, very unhealthy housing, and near-complete absence of social support. Such reality was unacceptable. He asked how that reality had come about. That he started with a biblical answer is significant, since it was the foundation of his analysis and solution. The reality had come about due to sin. And sin led to human errors and "both error and sin joined forces to enthrone false principles that violated human nature." (31, the numbers refer to Skillen's translation). They also led to unjust situations, and quoting from several biblical passages he made it clear that social injustice had a long and ancient pedigree. As a result the balance between the classes had been lost (31). Here he saw a task of the government as a restoration of organic unity: "The art of statecraft intervenes so that out of society a community may develop." Such intervention was nothing new, since "there has never been a government in any country of the world which did not in various ways govern the course of social life and its relationship to material wealth." However, "intervention, often originating from false principles, had in all ages created unhealthy conditions." It had produced an "ineradicable inequality between men" and "a world in which the stronger devours the weaker." Moreover, "the stronger, almost without exception, have always known how to bend every custom and magisterial ordinance." (31-3) Such mentality had not only harmed the weaker, but, quoting Groen van Prinsterer, had also harmed the higher classes (24). Nevertheless, the audience should not conclude that the stronger class was more evil at heart than the weaker one. After observing that "socialists constantly invoke Jesus in support of their utopias, and continually hold before us important texts from the Holy Word" (27), he took issue with their portrayal of Jesus. Jesus knew that "desperate needs grew from malignant roots of error and sin;" therefore he critiqued the unbridled accumulation of wealth at the expense of the poor through usury, exploitation and manipulation, and its tyrannical use. Hunger, poverty, unemployment were anathema to God. Jesus' critique was no different from that of the Old Testament prophets. However, in his critique he did not condemn wealth in itself and he certainly never preached revolution. He lived the way he preached and he wanted his Church, his new community, to influence society in the way he lived, thus reflecting the values of the Kingdom of God. The Church, Kuyper argued, had two ministries, that of the word and that of charity and equality of brotherhood. In other words, the Church was organized not only to seek the eternal welfare, but also to remove social injustices (38-40, 78).
His second answer to how the reality had come about came in the third section through contrasting the French Revolution with the Christian religion. The former had "thrown out the majesty of the Lord in order to construct an artificial authority based on individual free will," and injected "the egoism of a passionate struggle for possessions." The latter held that "authority and freedom were bound together by the deeper principle that everything in creation was subject to God," bringing compassion and seeking "personal human dignity in the social relationships of an organically integrated society." The French Revolution, which had broken that organic connective social tissue and replaced it with an atomistic society, had produced a profound social need, followed by a social democratic movement and a social problem. It had made the possession of money the highest good, and the struggle for money had set everyone against each other. Through proclaiming a mercantile gospel it had compelled people to seek happiness on earth (43-5). In spite of its equality motto, the opportunities at the start were unequal and hence there was no equality. What made the situation worse was that "the luxurious bourgeoisie made a display of its luxury, exciting a false desire in the poorer classes... [and] igniting the poor man's feverish passion for pleasure." (47) Luxurious items are not the only ones exciting our covetousness. A few decades ago I asked my Christian junior high students who had shoplifted anything from candies upwards; the reply was an astonishing 100%.  While pope Leo XIII had treated all socialists as being the same, Kuyper recognized that "the socialist movement had taken shape in four different scientific schools." In spite of these different schools, "the common characteristic of this imposing movement is to be found in the swelling of community feeling--feeling for social justice and for the organic nature of society--over against individualism of French Revolution and its corresponding economic school of laissez-faire." (54) Although Skillen entitled the third section "The Socialist Challenge," Kuyper took Liberal and Conservative economics equally to task.
In the final section Kuyper presented a Christian approach to the problem of poverty. First of he posited that "God has not willed that that one should drudge hard and yet have no bread for himself and his family. Still less has God willed that any man with hands to work and a will to work should perish from hunger or be reduced to the beggar's staff just because there is no work." (61) He then provided a norm for work: "Christians must place the strongest possible emphasis on the majesty of God's authority and on the absolute validity of his ordinances, so that, even as we condemn the rotting social structure of our day, we will never try to erect any structure except one that rests on foundations laid by God." (64) If they did so correctly through God's providence, they could hold state and society each to its own sphere, its own sovereignty, and would place themselves on the side of the social movement. In fact, it was "our calling as Christian...to warn against all violation of authority and lawlessness." Similar to his comment in 1889, development was allowed to be altered only through gradual change and in a lawful way. While private property occupied much space in Leo XIII's encyclical, Kuyper raised the issue very late in his address. Like the pope, he held that absolute property belonged to God alone and that human beings only had it on loan from God. Taking a leaf from ancient Israel's notion that the fruitful fields were given to all the people, he argued for sharing the earth's bounties and rejected as prescriptive that people should eat their bread in the sweat of their face (Gen. 3:19). Quoting various texts he stated that the laborer was worthy of his hire. And in case the worker could no longer toil, he too should be able to eat the bread earned in his day with vigor. However, as the social question made clear, the workman was often treated as a piece of machinery, which constituted a violation of his human dignity.  Therefore, Christians ought not to cease delivering a withering critique of an unhealthy society. Although he painted a grim social picture, Kuyper could only accept government aid in exceptional cases. Even that aid ought to be kept to a minimum, as was done in ancient Israel. He was afraid that state-giving would undermine the position of the laboring class and destroy its natural resilience (66-72). What he offered the worker was two-fold. He argued that it was the government's God-given duty to uphold justice before arbitrariness and to withstand the physical superiority of the stronger. And he made a case again for his code of labor. He ended his speech with re-emphasizing that life eternal must be placed in the foreground and that his audience should never forget that all state relief for the poor was a blot on the honor of their Savior. The address, though filled with intellectual analysis, was really an emotional portrayal of the social question and intended to arouse the audience to action.

Reflections on the congress
Practically the congress led to the founding of several locals of Patrimonium and gave the impetus to a congress of Protestant employers, which in turn led in 1892 to the founding of the employers association Boaz, a rather patriarchal and ineffective organization that lasted until 1918 when it split into three different organizations, one of which could be regarded as the grandparent of some Canadian Christian farmers organizations. Kuyper did not work out his code of labour scheme. That was done later by congress participant, Patrimonium organizer and cabinet minister Rev. Aritus Sybrandus Talma (1864-1916), who in 1889 had observed socially engaged theologians working in the London dock strike. While Klaas Kater accepted strikes and Kuyper accepting them in principle, Talma opposed them, regarding them too antagonistic.
Kuyper's address was largely theoretical, critiquing the foundational structure of society (he called it an architectonic critique). In the process he did not do full justice to the French Revolution, made liberalism too extreme, and ignored the development within liberalism. His reclamation of the position of the workers and the provision of many rights can only be lauded, yet his suggestion that they ought to be satisfied with little, look for a higher ideal, and carry their cross has something of a medieval utopian quality. Was he influenced by medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas and/or by his interest in guilds?
It is clear that he thought that the social question could not be solved through an increase in piety or through friendlier treatment or even through more generous charity. Such approach would treat the issue as merely a religious question or possibly a philosophical question and not as a social issue. It pivoted, he told his audience, on their willingness to see "in the less fortunate, even in the poorest, not merely a creature, a person in wretched circumstances, but one of your own flesh and blood for the sake of Christ, your brother." Unlike so many Christians, he recognized that poverty was not the fault of the poor as a class but that it resulted directly from structural inequalities. Thus, everyone had a responsibility to help their "brother," and at the same time the structure had to be changed in order to deal with poverty adequately. Practically this would mean that community-based organizations should play a role in eradicating poverty and that jobs must be accompanied by high enough wages to lift the poor out of poverty and dependence. If implemented, it would be a giant step forward for the workers.
In his black and white portrayal he did not forget to point out that societal life was meant to unfold and that through the historical process it had become much more complex. Indeed, the social question was so complex that it was international in scope. In that complex life, including the working life, human beings, not just Christians, were expected to be culturally engaged yet at the same time to be non-accommodating. While disagreeing with the perspectives and solutions of socialists, liberals, and conservatives, he was willing to accept them in a pluralistic society. Their presence in all their diversity would ensure a truly healthy, just, and organic society. In other words, his organicism allowed for differences and economic inequality. In his second 1898 Stone Lectures he acknowledged his indebtedness of his organic view to the ethical theologians with whom he had broken in his first pastorate: they had "resurrected that rich organic principle in order to restore its vitality within the consciousness of the church." The acknowledgement shows that he was not afraid to borrow from every useful source, that his scope was broad, and that the principle could be used as an encouragement. In the process of painting a grim economic picture he also painted a negative cultural picture. Perhaps his negativism was part of his black and white picture, but in discussing Kuyper's sixth lecture British historian Peter Heslam, who noted that cultural pessimism was not uncommon, remarked that “in order to emphasize the need for the development of Calvinism in the future, Kuyper depicted the sorry state of current affairs. Drawing his characteristic distinction between the material and the spiritual aspects of human life, he argued that the recent rapid improvements in the material aspects, especially in the form of modern comforts, health, travel, and communications, were unable to improve the spiritual side of human life, which was in a state of serious decline.” (p.226) Heslam's observation hints at a paradox in Kuyper.
Time and again Kuyper argued that government should only be used as last resort and as umpire; the responsibility should remain with the family. This sovereignty in own circle militates against the welfare state, yet as PM he introduced such social legislation as the Workmen’s Compensation Bill, thus implementing a scheme he had launched in 1895. It was designed to protect workingmen against undue financial loss while employers should carry financial risks through insurance. Although the bill passed, his further ideas were not implemented. Those ideas included adequate pensions, allowance in case of sickness and for orphans, and retirement at age 65. It could be argued that the compensation law was not welfare, yet it opened up new avenues. A decade later minister Rev. Talma ushered in welfare's beginning. Over time Kuyper's followers seem to have changed their minds. In the 1960s Kuyper's party, the ARP, redefined sovereignty into nearly its opposite, a redefinition in which Bob Goudzwaard, well known to many readers of this paper, played a crucial role. Christian school supporters in Canada have moved from no government support to limited support to total support (at least several schools in Alberta). In 1998 Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen argued that the doctrine of sphere sovereignty, arising in response to the pressures of urbanization and industrialization, was detrimental to women. It considered it legitimate for men to go out into the public square and earn a wage. Women on the other hand were allocated nurturing tasks and the maintenance of the home. Men were allowed to be modern but women were not, a differentiation that was meant to preserve the organic balance of society. The doctrine had several consequences: men were expected to earn a family wage, they needed to be oriented toward public achievements, they were tied to their families through their breadwinning role, and they had to be rational and individualistic. Women by contrast were to be "expressive specialists," meaning that they were emotional, relational, and identified mainly by ties to family, church, and neighborhood (p.77). This division contributed to what now is often called the traditional family, but was in reality a fairly recent phenomenon. According to Stewart Van Leeuwen, material production tasks that were shared by all family members in pre-modern times were now moved out of the household and into the hands of largely male-controlled commerce and industry. Kuyper endorsed and theologically legitimized this shift, and in doing so he "was as much a nineteenth-century bourgeois as the political opponents whom he claimed in other respects to be opposing." (p.78) Kuyper certainly applied his view to his own household.

The railway strike
As noted above Kuyper was only able to implement a very limited segment of his social program while as prime minister (1901-1905). There is no consensus about his premiership, but the general tendency seems to characterize it as weak. The handling of the 1903 railway strike has received very strong condemnation. Biographer Frank Vanden Berg has tried to exonerate Kuyper's actions. His summary of the events still cover eight pages. Only a few details are relevant here. In January there was a water transport strike in Amsterdam which, through solidarity, broadened to a national railway strike. Commercial and industrial activity came to a standstill. Socialists, anarchists and syndicalists supported the strike, thus making the economic issue also a political issue. Furthermore, force was involved. In this volatile situation Kuyper had to do something. In principle he accepted strikes. However, he objected to its use for political purposes. On 24 February he introduced three bills that were passed in April. The essence of one of them criminalized some of the strike's activities and became known as the anti-railroad strike law. The effect was that the country returned to normalcy. Vanden Berg commented that "Kuyper had rendered the country the highest type of national service." (p.206) He also seemed to appreciate that Kuyper "did not hesitate to use the mailed fist." At issue here is the "sword" of government, but did Kuyper's use of the "sword" exemplify the life of Jesus? Was there a discrepancy between Kuyper's theory and his practice? On the one hand he seemed to give much to the worker, while on the other hand he took away some of their rights.

Bibliography
Bratt, James D. ed. Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998); Heslam, Peter S. Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998).  Kuyper, Abraham. The Problem of Poverty, tr. James W. Skillen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991); Lugo, Luis E. ed. Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyper's Legacy for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), which includes 2 relevant articles, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, "The Carrot and the Stick: Kuyper on Gender, Family, and Class" and John Bolt, "Abraham I, Walter Rauschenbusch, and the Search for an American Public Theology;" Stockwell, Clinton. "Abraham Kuyper and Welfare Reform: A Reformed Political Perspective," Pro Rege: Sept. 1998: 1-15; Vanden Berg, Frank. Abraham Kuyper: A Biography (St. Catharines: Paideia Press, 1978).
For those able to read Dutch, Transparant, 2:3 (July 1991) is a useful source.