Questions Concerning Kuyper

I have been reading Abraham Kuyper’s Principles of Sacred Theology for a class at the Theological College. I find this to be very enjoyable reading, I think I would classify it as the highlight of the first year program.

In it he discusses the science of encyclopedia, which is essentially that science which organizes all the other sciences. Oh, and science here does not mean the sciences as in chemistry, physics, biology, etc. Science here is more along the lines of scholarship, general knowledge rather than specific knowledge.

In his discussion he makes a big deal out of the notion that this science is organic, which he describes using the example of Botany: “Botany,” he writes, “is an organic science: (1) because it introduces into the mirror of our thoughts a group of phenomena, which as ‘the vegetable kingdom’ exists organically; (2) because it reflects the ‘vegetable kingdom’ in a world of thought, which in its turn also classifies organically; and (3) because it does not introduce this ‘organic vegetable kingdom’ absolutely into this organic ‘world of thought,’ but in organic connection with the life of man and animal.” Basically then, the sciences can be organic when they exist of themselves in a developing relationship with other sciences, when they can be reflected in a world of thought and classified in an organic manner, and when it can be viewed in relationship with other ideas and sciences.

Theology, as a science, which is the point of this book of his, is an organic science because it has an internal relationship between all the parts which make up the study of theology, it has a relationship with the other sciences, like Philosophy and Hermeneutics, because as a science itself it grows and develops, both internally and in its relationships, and because it can be studied and classified.

The biggest problem I have with Kuyper is this idea of the object of study, in this case Theology, existing externally to the person studying it, and providing that person with the means to study it.

In a sense, I can understand this, for Theology as a discipline has been around for many years, has been studied by many people, and someone like myself, coming into it after roughly 2000 years (in terms of Christian Theology) has that whole history through which to learn the best way of studying Theology, how best to get into the discipline, etc.

But those people who first started Theology, how would they have understood it? How could a study provide a way into itself if it does not yet exist properly?

I think that Kuyper makes a little too much of this organic element, and thereby placing the object of study too much external to the subject studying it. But I have not read very much of Kuyper, and that little is only from one work. Some day I hope to be able to better answer these questions. For now, though, if any one can help me by shedding a little more light on my understanding of Kuyper, feel free to do so.