Oorspronklik geskryf vir publikasie in "Die Vrye Weekblad"
‘n Ruk gelede lees ek wat iemand oor Calvinisme skryf - die wortel van die kwaad as dit kom by die sondes van Afrikaner-Nasionalisme en Apartheid. Dit was nie die eerste keer wat ek so-iets lees nie. Daar word sporadies sulke sydelingse opmerkings in die media en op sosiale media gemaak.
Ek frons meestal as ek hierdie opmerkings lees. Nie soseer omdat ek vandag nog ‘n ernstige verbondenheid aan die benaming self ervaar nie. Bloot omdat dit onverdiend as gerieflike teiken gebruik word en ook omdat dit in die regse geledere net so onverdiend as kruk gebruik word.
In my studentejare op Potchefstroom en vir ‘n paar jaar daarna was ek ‘n bietjie betrokke by die Instituut vir die Bevordering van Calvinisme, maar dit het lankal vervaag. Nie omdat ek ‘n probleem daarmee gehad het nie, maar dit het mettertyd soos ‘n ekstra horlosie gevoel. En ek het net een linkerarm.
Ten spyte van die benaming, die -isme, is Calvinisme nie ‘n tipiese ideologie nie. Dit is ‘n ander naam vir reformatoriese denke. Dit verabsoluteer nie bepaalde wêreldse voorkeure t.o.v. geld, kultuur, politiek, lewensstyl of regte nie. Geloof is wel die fondasie van Calvinisme. Maar vandag se gesprek gaan nie oor geloof as sulks nie.
Calvinisme is dikwels deur kritici beskou as iets konserwatief, bekrompe, eksklusief en selfverheffend. Maar daar kom darem ook positiewe opmerkings van buite, wat dit assosieer met ‘n sobere lewensstyl, pligsbesef en hardwerkendheid.
In SA word dit soms geteiken as basis, katalisator of regverdiging vir Afrikaner- Nasionalisme en Apartheid. Meestal deur die kritici van Afrikaner-Nasionalisme, maar soms het Afrikaner-Nasionaliste hulle self ook op ‘n lomp manier daaraan behelp. Soos toe FW de Klerk daar in die laat sewentigs by ‘n byeenkoms van die Instituut vir die Bevordering van Calvinisme op Potchefstroom gesê het Afrikaner- Nasionalisme staan met sy wortels gegrond in die Calvinisme. Daar was geen verduideliking nie, dit was bloot ‘n opportunistiese stelling. Pure FW-smooth talking en hy is daarna ook vanuit die akademiese Calvinistiese geledere daaroor gekritiseer.
In Suid-Afrika is Calvinisme redelik sterk met die Gereformeerde Kerk en die Universiteit van Potchefstroom geidentifiseer. Waarskynlik omdat diè kerk ‘n reputasie gehad het as meer dogmaties as die ander twee hoofstroom Afrikaanse kerke. Die NG Kerk en Hervormde Kerk het egter ook gerekende persoonlikhede gehad wat hulleself as Calviniste beskryf het.
Ek het die term as jongmens nooit in die kerkomgewing gehoor nie en het eers in die sewentigerjare op Potchefstroom in die regsfilosofieklas daarmee kennis gemaak. Daar was definitief geen poging om Calvinisme ‘n bousteen van die Afrikanervolk of Afrikanerpolitiek te probeer maak nie. Ek wil eintlik sê inteendeel. En ek wil dankie sê dat FW toe eerder politiek toe is as om die aanbod van ‘n professoraat by die Puk se regsfakulteit te aanvaar. In die politiek het hy uiteindelik die lig gesien en die regte
ding gedoen. Ek dink op Potch sou sy missie wees om die skade wat die regte Calviniste aan die Nasionale Party gedoen het, ongedaan te probeer maak.
Die essensie van Calvinisme kan gesien word as die aanname dat die beginsels van die Christelike geloof, eerder as kerklike tradisie op alle lewensterreine geld en die uitgangspunt word breedweg beskryf met behulp van die bekende vyf Solas - Sola scriptura (Bybel), Sola fide (geloof), Sola gratia (genade), Solus Christus (Christus) en Soli Deo Gloria (Alle eer aan God).
Die essensie van Calvinisme het niks direk voorskriftelik met ras, volk en vaderland te doen nie. En definitief nie met die uitverkorenheid van sekere etniese of kultuurgroepe nie. Waar lê die probleem dan?
Die invloed van Abraham Kuyper, Nederlandse predikant, wysgeer en eerste minister het waarskynlik bygedra tot ‘n gevoel van nasionale eenheid tydens die ontwikkeling van die Afrikanervolk na die Boere-oorlog. Kuyper was bekend as ‘n neo-Calvinis en het soos baie Europeërs en veral Nederlanders, die saak van die Boere tydens die Boere-oorlog ondersteun. Daar is egter nie stawing vir ‘n aanname dat hy ‘n ware nasionalisme, met ander woorde ekslusiwiteit en superioriteit, vanuit ‘n Calvinistiese oogpunt probeer bevorder het nie. Dit sou ook nie sin maak nie. Hy het homself bloot met die Boere se saak vereenselwig.
Die digter, predikant en akademikus Dr JD du Toit (Totius), is ‘n ander bekende persoonlikheid wie se naam ook aan Calvinisme en Afrikaner-Nasionalisme gekoppel word. Hy het definitief Afrikanerbelange op die hart gedra en gepropageer. Hy het byvoorbeeld in ‘n koerantartikel in die vroeë 1950’s so ver gegaan om te sê dit is tyd dat die groot mynmaatskappye genasionaliseer word tot voordeel van die Afrikaner. (Ek hoop nie Malema lees dit ooit nie. Dit sal water op sy meul wees).
Ek kon egter nie in Totius se Versamelde Werke enige poging tot Calvinistiese begronding vir hierdie tipe versugtinge vind nie. Die huldeblyk van die gerekende Potchefstroomse regsakademikus, Prof LJ (Wicus) du Plessis, na Totius se dood is ook insiggewend. Hy het Totius se bydrae tot die ontwikkeling van die Afrikanervolk geloof. Hierdie lofprysing kan mens net reg verstaan as jy Wicus du Plessis se eie lewensbenadering en politiek bekyk. As Totius Calvinisme as regverdiging vir apartheid sou gebruik, sou die kommentaar daar heelwat anders uitgesien het.
Wicus du Plessis was ‘n uitgesproke Calvinis, wat diè denke op akademiese terrein verder uitgebrei het. Van 1930 tot 1933 was hy die nasionale voorsitter van die Broederbond en het ‘n leidende rol gespeel in die uitbouïng van die Nasionale Party in Transvaal. Hy was egter meer bekend vir sy latere kritiek op die partybeleid en het met DF Malan en JG Strijdom verskil oor belangrike aspekte van Republiekwording. Maar hy was veral bekend vir die vete wat tussen hom en HF Verwoerd ontwikkel het. Hy het ‘n groter inklusiwiteit voorgestaan as wat Verwoerd in gedagte gehad het. Die openlike geveg tussen hulle het daartoe gelei dat hy uit die Broederbond bedank het en uit die NP geskors is.
Wicus du Plessis het ‘n groot rol gespeel in die opbou van die regsfakulteit van die Potchefstroomse Universiteit en die vestiging van reformatoriese regsdenke. En dit het definitief nie nasionalisme probeer bevorder nie. Toe ek daar begin studeer het, ‘n paar jaar na sy dood, was sy naam nog dikwels met groot ontsag genoem.
Hy het ‘n ewe indrukwekkende opvolger gehad in die persoon van Johan van der Vyver, professor in regsfilosofie. ‘n Calvinis uit die Hervormde Kerk wat gesorg het dat diè universiteit die eerste in SA was wat ‘n kursus in Menseregte ontwikkel het en dit deel van die regsopleiding gemaak het. Die onderliggende filosofie waarop die regsfakulteit gesteun het was die Wysbegeerte van die Wetsidee van die Nederlandse Calvinistiese filosoof, Herman Dooyeweerd.
Johan van der Vyver was ook die persoon wat gesorg het dat die Kanadese filosoof, prof Hendrik Hart, vir ses maande lank vir ons (in Afrikaans nogal) ‘n module in Menseregte kom doseer het. En Hendrik Hart se vertrekpunt was nie humanisme nie. Inteendeel, hy was ‘n reformatoriese denker in murg en been.
Die vyf jaar in daardie dampkring het my eie reis weg van die nasionalistiese politiek gestimuleer.
Johan van der Vyver was nie ‘n politieke aktivis nie en die selfbeskikking van volke het daardie tyd nog ‘n bepaalde aanklank by hom gehad. Maar hy was op sy kalm manier baie duidelik uitgesproke oor die euwels van veral Klein Apartheid. Dit mag vandag, byna 50 jaar later, na sagte teenstand klink. Maar sy uitsprake en invloed op studente het die doyens van Afrikaner-Nasionalisme so teen die bors gestuit dat hulle baie druk op die universiteitsowerheid gesit het. Hy is in die laat 70’s uitgewerk en het Wits toe vertrek. Hierdie fout is darem later by implikasie erken en onder leiding van die rektor Theuns Eloff, is daar in 2003 ‘n welverdiende eredoktorgraad aan hom toegeken.
Johan van der Vyver is vandag op ouderdom 88 nog steeds betrokke by die Emory Universiteit in die VSA en het pas nog ‘n toekenning van die NWU ontvang as ‘n oudstudent wat permanent presteer. In ‘n onlangse gesprek noem hy dat die negering van verklaarde beginsels ter wille van politieke gewin in die VSA net so ‘n opvallende verskynsel is as wat hy vroeer in SA ervaar het Wat SA betref het hy veral verwys na sommige van sy kollegas op die Puk.
Lourens du Plessis het op Potchefstroom in Johan van der Vyver se voetspore gevolg. ‘n Gerespekteerde akademikus. Hy was op ‘n ewe kalm manier baie uitgesproke oor apartheidseuwels. En Calvinisme (reformatoriese denke) was die basis van die kritiek. Na sy verskuiwing Stellenbosch toe, het ons nog saam bespiegel oor moontlike byeenkomste van die Instituut vir die Bevordering van Calvinisme in die Kaap.
So kan ‘n mens aangaan. Daar is ook ander persone wat sterk met Calvinisme geassosieer het, maar dikwels ‘n pyn in die nek was van die harde Afrikaner- Nasionaliste. Mense soos Ponti Venter, Johan Heyns, Theuns Eloff en Pieter Potgieter. Almal mense wat geweet het waaroor dit gaan.
Dan is daar natuurlik name met ander benaderings wat in ‘n mens se kop opkom, maar steeds die punt onderskryf dat Calvinisme eerder sondebok as sondaar is. Ek het byvoorbeeld vroeër jare noue kontak gehad met ‘n predikant wat ‘n sterk Afrikaner-Nasionalis was en ook ‘n grootkop in die Broederbond. Ek het hom nie eenkeer die woord Calvinisme hoor sê nie. Sy motivering was volksverbondenheid en oorlewing - verskansing teen kommunisme. Nie Calvinistiese beginsels nie. In teologiese kringe het Calvinisme in SA inderdaad ‘n skaars en meer akademiese begrip geword.
Daar was wel een gerekende akademikus wat as filosoof ‘n uitgesproke Calvinistiese basis gehad het en wat Afrikaner-Nasionalisme en afsonderlike ontwikkeling in die 1940’s en 50’s gepropageer het. Dit was Prof Hendrik Stoker. (Dalk wou FW de Klerk in die toespraak waarna ek verwys het by Stoker aanhaak.) Die interessante punt is egter dat Stoker se beredenering duidelik op praktiese oorwegings berus het. Calvinistiese beginsels was nie ‘n rigtinggwende deel van enige van sy redenasies wat ek kon opspoor nie. Afsonderlike onwikkeling was die beste manier om volke hulle potensiaal te laat ontwikkel - soos in Europa. Hy was dalk opportunisties, maar dit was darem ook sewentig jaar of meer gelede. Voordat Apartheid sy werklik nare staatkundige vorm aangeneem het en Klein Apartheid uitgebrei is.
Daar is sekerlik mense wat Calvinisme steeds kaap en as motivering vir hulle rassistiese en nasionalistiese oortuigings gebruik. Soos die aanhangers van Gelofteland. Hulle noem hulleself Calviniste en gee nie ‘n slegte verduideliking daarvan nie. Maar dan laat hulle dit eenkant op die rak staan. Daar is geen integrering daarvan met hulle regse en verspotte sienings nie. En dit sou ook nie kon nie. Daar is meer sulke groepe, almal verder regs as die Vryheidsfront Plus.
En dan die ouens aan die ander kant van die spektrum. Die kommentators wat Calvinisme veroordeel as Leitmotiv van Afrikaner-Nasionalisme en Afrikanerpolitiek. Ek dink die rede hiervoor is maar geloofsbashing en opportunisme. Opportunisme soos die van Gelofteland se mense. Hulle staan net aan die ander kant van die draad. Dit herinner nogal aan die ewe bedenklike pogings van Afrikaner-Nasionaliste om ernstige kritiek teen NP-beleid as kommunisties af te maak.
As iemand wil, kan hy seker ‘n goeie saak daarvoor uitmaak dat ek self ‘n Calvinis is. Darem een wat altyd links van die NP gestem het en vanuit regse geledere al lelike, on-Calvinistiese name genoem is.
Originally written for publication in "Die Vrye Weekblad"
A while ago I read what someone wrote about Calvinism – the root of all evil when it comes to the sins of Afrikaner Nationalism and Apartheid. It was not the first time I read something like this. Such sideways remarks are made sporadically in the media and on social media.
I usually frown when I read these remarks. Not so much because I still experience a serious attachment to the label itself today. Simply because it is undeservedly used as a convenient target, and also because in right-wing circles it is equally undeservedly used as a crutch.
In my student years at Potchefstroom and for a few years thereafter, I was somewhat involved with the Institute for the Advancement of Calvinism, but that has long since faded. Not because I had a problem with it, but over time it came to feel like an extra watch. And I only have one left arm.
Despite the label, the -ism, Calvinism is not a typical ideology. It is another name for reformational thought. It does not absolutise particular worldly preferences regarding money, culture, politics, lifestyle or rights. Faith is indeed the foundation of Calvinism. But today’s conversation is not about faith as such.
Calvinism has often been viewed by critics as something conservative, narrow-minded, exclusive and self-exalting. But there are at least also positive remarks from outside, associating it with a sober lifestyle, sense of duty and hard work.
In South Africa it is sometimes targeted as the basis, catalyst or justification for Afrikaner Nationalism and Apartheid. Mostly by the critics of Afrikaner Nationalism, but sometimes Afrikaner Nationalists themselves also clumsily helped themselves to it. Like when FW de Klerk at a meeting of the Institute for the Advancement of Calvinism at Potchefstroom in the late seventies said that Afrikaner Nationalism stands with its roots grounded in Calvinism. There was no explanation; it was merely an opportunistic statement. Pure FW smooth talking, and he was subsequently criticised for it from within academic Calvinist circles.
In South Africa, Calvinism has been fairly strongly identified with the Reformed Church (Gereformeerde Kerk) and the University of Potchefstroom. Probably because that church had a reputation for being more dogmatic than the other two mainline Afrikaans churches. The Dutch Reformed Church and Hervormde Church, however, also had respected personalities who described themselves as Calvinists.
As a young person I never heard the term in church circles and only became acquainted with it in the seventies at Potchefstroom in the legal philosophy class. There was definitely no attempt to make Calvinism a building block of the Afrikaner nation or Afrikaner politics. I actually want to say quite the contrary. And I want to say thank you that FW rather went into politics than accepting the offer of a professorship at Puk’s law faculty. In politics he eventually saw the light and did the right thing. I think at Potch his mission would have been to try to undo the damage that the true Calvinists had done to the National Party.
The essence of Calvinism can be seen as the assumption that the principles of the Christian faith, rather than ecclesiastical tradition, apply to all spheres of life, and the starting point is broadly described with the aid of the well-known five Solas – Sola scriptura (Scripture), Sola fide (faith), Sola gratia (grace), Solus Christus (Christ) and Soli Deo Gloria (all glory to God).
The essence of Calvinism has nothing directly prescriptive to do with race, nation and fatherland. And definitely not with the chosenness of certain ethnic or cultural groups. Where then does the problem lie?
The influence of Abraham Kuyper – Dutch minister, philosopher and prime minister – probably contributed to a sense of national unity during the development of the Afrikaner nation after the Boer War. Kuyper was known as a neo-Calvinist and, like many Europeans and especially the Dutch, supported the cause of the Boers during the Boer War. However, there is no evidence for the assumption that he tried to promote a true nationalism – in other words, exclusivity and superiority – from a Calvinist perspective. It would also not make sense. He simply identified himself with the Boers’ cause.
The poet, minister and academic Dr JD du Toit (Totius) is another well-known personality whose name is also linked to Calvinism and Afrikaner Nationalism. He definitely had Afrikaner interests at heart and promoted them. For example, in a newspaper article in the early 1950s he went so far as to say it was time for the large mining companies to be nationalised for the benefit of the Afrikaner. (I hope Malema never reads this. It would be grist for his mill.)
However, I could not find in Totius’s Collected Works any attempt at Calvinist justification for this type of aspiration. The tribute by the respected Potchefstroom legal academic, Prof LJ (Wicus) du Plessis, after Totius’s death is also telling. He praised Totius’s contribution to the development of the Afrikaner nation. This praise can only be properly understood if you look at Wicus du Plessis’s own approach to life and politics. Had Totius used Calvinism as justification for Apartheid, the commentary there would have looked quite different.
Wicus du Plessis was an outspoken Calvinist who further expanded this thought on the academic terrain. From 1930 to 1933 he was the national chairman of the Broederbond and played a leading role in the building up of the National Party in Transvaal. However, he was better known for his later criticism of party policy and differed with DF Malan and JG Strijdom on important aspects of becoming a Republic. But he was especially known for the feud that developed between him and HF Verwoerd. He advocated a greater inclusivity than what Verwoerd had in mind. The open conflict between them led to his resignation from the Broederbond and his expulsion from the NP.
Wicus du Plessis played a major role in building the law faculty of Potchefstroom University and establishing reformational legal thought. And this definitely did not try to promote nationalism. When I began studying there, a few years after his death, his name was still often mentioned with great reverence.
He had an equally impressive successor in the person of Johan van der Vyver, professor of legal philosophy. A Calvinist from the Hervormde Church who ensured that this university was the first in South Africa to develop a course in Human Rights and make it part of legal training. The underlying philosophy on which the law faculty rested was the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea (Wysbegeerte van die Wetsidee) of the Dutch Calvinist philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd.
Johan van der Vyver was also the person who arranged for the Canadian philosopher, Prof Hendrik Hart, to come and teach us a module in Human Rights for six months (in Afrikaans, no less). And Hendrik Hart’s starting point was not humanism. On the contrary, he was a reformational thinker to the marrow.
The five years in that atmosphere stimulated my own journey away from nationalist politics.
Johan van der Vyver was not a political activist, and the self-determination of peoples still held a certain resonance for him at that time. But in his calm manner he was very clearly outspoken about the evils of especially Petty Apartheid. This may today, nearly 50 years later, sound like mild resistance. But his pronouncements and influence on students so antagonised the doyens of Afrikaner Nationalism that they put great pressure on the university authorities. He was pushed out in the late 70s and departed for Wits. This mistake was at least later implicitly acknowledged, and under the leadership of rector Theuns Eloff, a well-deserved honorary doctorate was conferred on him in 2003.
Johan van der Vyver is today at the age of 88 still involved at Emory University in the USA and recently received yet another award from NWU as an alumnus who permanently excels. In a recent conversation he mentions that the disregard for declared principles for the sake of political gain in the USA is just as conspicuous a phenomenon as what he experienced earlier in South Africa. Regarding South Africa, he referred in particular to some of his colleagues at Puk.
Lourens du Plessis followed in Johan van der Vyver’s footsteps at Potchefstroom. A respected academic. In an equally calm manner he was very outspoken about the evils of Apartheid. And Calvinism (reformational thought) was the basis of the critique. After his move to Stellenbosch, we still reflected together on possible gatherings of the Institute for the Advancement of Calvinism in the Cape.
One could go on like this. There are also other persons who associated strongly with Calvinism but were often a pain in the neck for the hardline Afrikaner Nationalists. People like Ponti Venter, Johan Heyns, Theuns Eloff and Pieter Potgieter. All people who knew what it was about.
Then there are of course names with other approaches that come to mind, but that still underscore the point that Calvinism is more scapegoat than sinner. For example, in earlier years I had close contact with a minister who was a strong Afrikaner Nationalist and also a bigwig in the Broederbond. I never once heard him say the word Calvinism. His motivation was national solidarity and survival – entrenchment against communism. Not Calvinist principles. In theological circles, Calvinism in South Africa had indeed become a rare and more academic concept.
There was, however, one respected academic who as a philosopher had an outspoken Calvinist basis and who promoted Afrikaner Nationalism and separate development in the 1940s and 50s. That was Prof Hendrik Stoker. (Perhaps FW de Klerk in the speech to which I referred wanted to latch on to Stoker.) The interesting point, however, is that Stoker’s reasoning clearly rested on practical considerations. Calvinist principles were not a direction-giving part of any of his arguments that I could trace. Separate development was the best way to let peoples develop their potential – as in Europe. He may have been opportunistic, but it was also seventy years or more ago. Before Apartheid assumed its truly nasty constitutional form and Petty Apartheid was expanded.
There are certainly people who still hijack Calvinism and use it as motivation for their racist and nationalist convictions. Like the adherents of Gelofteland. They call themselves Calvinists and give a not-bad explanation of it. But then they leave it on the shelf. There is no integration of it with their right-wing and absurd views. Nor could there be. There are more such groups, all further to the right than the Freedom Front Plus.
And then the fellows on the other side of the spectrum. The commentators who condemn Calvinism as the Leitmotiv of Afrikaner Nationalism and Afrikaner politics. I think the reason for this is simply faith-bashing and opportunism. Opportunism like that of the Gelofteland people. They just stand on the other side of the fence. It is reminiscent of the equally dubious attempts by Afrikaner Nationalists to dismiss serious criticism of NP policy as communistic.
If someone wanted to, they could probably make a good case that I myself am a Calvinist. At least one who always voted to the left of the NP and has been called ugly, un-Calvinist names from right-wing quarters.