Roots of Western Culture

8/13/2019 Roots of Western Culture

1/240

pluri form dem ocracy was at stake. Th is principle safeguarded the pres-ence of a christian position in the public realm alongside the conserva-t ive, centrist, and rad ical posit ions of hum anism . The Dutch Na tionalMovem ent favoured the e l imination of the spir itual "anti thes is" be-tween Ch ristianity and hum anism in public l i fe. In practice this wou ldmean the replacement of the principle of p luri form democracy by thenew com mu nity ideal of "personal socialism" w hich entailed decentral-i zed government and supposedly was based on both hum anis t andchristian world views.As it turned out, the principle of pluriform democracy, which consti-tuted the basis for Hol land's parl iamen tary system since the 1880s,prevailed during the 1946 elections. And it cannot be denied thatDooyew eerd 's ca ll to fund am enta l re flect ion, issued week ly in NieuwNederland, was a contributing factor.In Dooyeweerd's view, those who propagated the u nity of the peopleon the basis of a breakthrou gh of old lines of principled dem arcation hadbeen uprooted by the crisis of the western w orld in the twentieth century,an uprootedness w hich had becom e the m ore existential because of thehorrors and atroc i ties o f that terr ib le war. Co nsequently , they wereunable to really come to grips with the question as to the directionpostwar renewal would h ave to take. Dooyeweerd was convinced thatthis question could be answered on ly against the background of a fun-damen ta l re flect ion on, and reappropriat ion of , one 's roots, the we l l-springs and ultimate sources of inspiration that alone can confer mean-ing on act ion. To be radical one mu st go back to the roots of one 'sculture, to the sources of the com mu nal way s of l ife in which individ-uals, institutions, and organizations live and move an d have the ir being.This is what h is articles were all about.Herein lies their significance beyond that postwar period of hope andconfusion, beyond the borders o f the Low C ountries. For it was in thissituation that Dooyeweerd for the first time offered to a broad public theresults of his invest igat ions into th e role of the ground motives as thedynamic, community-establishing expressions of ult imate meaning interms of which western civilization has been, and still is being, shaped.Three points are of outstanding importance here:1. If the ground motives indeed embody ultimate meaning, it is here thatevery battle of the spirits in the struggle for cultural direction reveals itstrue character, its religious nature. This means that the antithesis eveni f the word itself is not particularly fortunate refers to the intrinsicconnection between religion an d the w hole of l i fe, so that there simplyare l ines of demarcation an d crucial differences that are not "negotia-ble."2. I f the ground m ot ives are comm unity-establ ishing driving forces,

TRANSLATOR S PREFACE ix


2/240

Roots of W estern Culture


3/240

1.14. AI

.... ,4.44...romemowewfwewouipolow ripli OmpiiiirlibusaipreN 1111 1 qPool lm


4/240

Herman DooyeweerdR oots of W estern C ulture

Pagan, S ecu lar, and Christian O ptio ns

John Kraay, TranslatorM ark V ander V ennen and B ernard Zy lstra, Editors

Wedge Pu blishing FoundationToronto13a


5/240

This book originally appeared as a series of articles in the weekly NieuwNederland from August 1945 to May 1948. They were f irst published as abook by J.A. Oosterhoff, editor, in V ernieuw ing en bezinning om he treformatorisch grondmotief (Zutphen: J.B. van den Brink, 1959).

Copyright 1979 W edge Publ ishing Foun dat ion, 229 Col lege Street ,Toronto, Canada M5T 1R4. Al l r ights reserved. This book may n ot bereproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (except by reviewers for thepublic press), without written perm ission from the publishers.

Cover design: John B urnett, TorontoTypesett ing: Compo sitor Associates Limited, TorontoPrinting: General Printers, Oshawa, OntarioISBN 0-88906-104-1

....f..4Pwww,powellpsolellpl NOrpeimiwimpurruguippepoupeqpipingampiimppi uplegigappewimrs.somenwepoposo.


6/240


7/240

4 Faith and Culture8The Structure of Faith8Faith in a Closed Culture9Disclosure of an Apostate Faith0 3Disclosure of an Apostate Culture0 5The Ra dical Challenge of the Word of God0 85 The Great Synthesis11Early Setting1 1The Roman Catholic Ground Motive1 5The R oman Catholic View of Natural Society2 1The R oman Catholic View of Ch ristian Society2 9Disintegration of the Synthesis376Classical Humanism4 8The Grou nd Motive of Nature and Freedom4 8Polit ical Theories of the Modern A ge5 6Separation of Science from Faith7 17 Romantic Redirection75The New Personality Ideal7 5Ideology of Com mun ity7 8The New Science Ideal8 2Counterrevolution and Christianity8 58 The Rise of Social Thought89Birth of Modern Sociology8 9Distinction between State and Society9 2Civil Society and C lass Conflict9 6The Class Concept9 9Estates and Classes02Basic Problems in Sociology0 6I nd ex o f P e r so ns19Index of Subjects21

vi

.. ..' / .1 17.4.11.1041,7r4 011010100,4POP101.1.010,10.1101.11No


8/240

Translator's Preface

A few m onths af ter the second world war, in August 1945, Herm anDooyeweerd became editor o f a weekly paper named N ieuw N ederland.During the nex t three years he contributed to it regularly, thus in hisown highly d istinct ive way sou nding the note of Reform ation amidstserious and dedicated attempts at postwar renewal and even reconstruc-tion of the social and political order in the Netherlands. That noteneeded to be sou nded w ith the greatest possible clarity. The spiritualcrisis demanded a diagnosis based on a sustained systematic analysis ofthe religious roots of western culture. Dooyeweerd's art icles attemp tedto do just that. A brief sketch of the backgrou nd against wh ich they werewritten may help to clarify this.Since the days of Gui l laum e Groen van Pr insterer and AbrahamKuyp er, just before the turn of the century, Calvinism had bee n a way oflife and on e of the very pillars of the Dutch social order. Far from being atheological system alon g rationalist lines, continuing a d ead or at leastst i fl ing tradit ion, as has by an d large been the case in An glo-Saxoncountries, Dutch Calvinism addressed itself relevantly and incisively toevery sphere of life. One need but read Kuyper's S tone Lectures onCalvinism presented at Princeton in 1898 to sense something of thetremen dous vitality and broadness of scope inhe rent in "the calvinistworld an d l i f e v iew."Bu t in the course of the twent ies a spir itual apathy crept into theReformed com mun ity. The battle for public recognition and governmen-tal support of christian schools had been won; in the political arena the

vii


9/240

calvinist Antirevolutionary Party was f irmly established; in public andprivate life the Calvinist was thoroughly respectable. But the greatleaders were gone, and it seemed to som e that the r igour with which thecentra l princip les ( "ant ithesis" and "sphere sove reignty") were m ain-tained and put into practice was not entirely unlike rigor mortis.At that t ime D ooyeweerd, who was born in 1894, had completed h isformal studies in law at the Free University and h ad served in a varietyof governmental posit ions. Because he recognized the need to engage infoundational s tudies , in 1922 he w as invi ted to becom e head o f theKuy per Institute in The Hague the research centre of the Antirevolu-t ionary Party. In this capacity he laun ched an ambit ious pu bl icat ionprogram aimed at outlining the foundation of christ ian polit ical theoryand p rac t ice . In m any w ays one can draw a para l le l be tween thoseef forts of the twent ies and the focus of the col lect ion n ow b efore us.Then , too, his intent was to call peop le to reflection on the vital strengthof the biblical ordering principles for the whole o f societal l ife, drawingon the work of Abraham Kuyper who in turn had depended great ly onthe calvinist tradit ionparticularly on Joh n Calvin him selfto inspiretruly christian act ion and organizat ion. In 1926 Doo yeweerd w as ap-pointed professor of legal philosophy at the Free U niversity, and for thenext two decades h e devoted nearly all his energies to the developmentof christian scholarship. In the area o f philosophy h is great trilogy D ewijsbegeerte der wetsidee (Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea) , publishedin 193 5-36 , was an eloquent witness to the vastness of his vision whichhe elaborated with reference to several special sciences, especially politi-cal and legal theory, in numerous academ ic monographs.Immediately after the war, however, the need to add ress the nonaca-demic comm unity was part icularly urgent once again. During the war aspirit of unity and deeply felt comradesh ip, born of the need to entrustone's l ife to the next resistance fighter, had fostered hope am ong m anythat a last ing bond could be forged, not only when a com mon enem ywas to be fought, but also when Ho lland was to be built up again. Forman y the question was existential: can w e not "break through" the old,ideologically inspired oppositions and divisions within the nation?Shou ld we not consider the m arxist notion of "class struggle" and thecalvinist notion of "antithesis" to be relics of a bygone era? Let us buildas we battled togetherSuch w as the appeal issued by the Dutch N at ional Movement. Ini-tially it met with eager response. Along with many a leading statesman,Queen Wilhelmina was very favourably disposed toward themo vemen t 's aspirat ions and h oped that the f irst f ree e lect ions, to beheld in the spring of 1946, would entrench the new ideal in the places ofpower. W hen D ooyeweerd began h is series of art ic les, the principle ofviii ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


10/240

cata lyzers of act ion, they con st itute the h ermeneu t ic keys for under-standing and interpreting periods and patterns of history and culture.They spea k to us of our roots, our presence, and our destination. Thisimpl ies that the me aning of such incis ive historica l d ivergences cancome to radical clarity, that there are criteria by which the spirits may betested, and that authentic confrontation is possible.3 . I f the ground mot ives are spir i tual powers thatoften u nawarestake hold of the hearts of men and wom en, they wil l indeed inspire allund erstanding, interpretat ion, and every other kind of act ion. Thisimplies two po ssibilities. Either one engages in reflection on the gro undmo tives which leads to s elf-ref lection an d self-crit ique that gets at theheart of things, that reaches down to the m ost fundam ental choice onemust necessarily make; or one is swept along by supraindividualpowers, perha ps in resignation or fed by false hope, toward i l lusionarygoals. Moreover, if the most fundamental wellsprings of action arerecognized for what they arereligious ground motives open dialogueis possible among a dherents of divergent convict ions as equal p artnersin a d iscussion, a l l sharing in the aw esome rea l ity of a broken w orld,broken on account of what man h as done and ha s failed to do.

Dooyeweerd's study of the ground motives is not an example ofhistoristic relativism. The condit ion humaine and our com mon responsi-bili ty for it deman d open dialogue am ong equals, but such equality doesnot extend to the u ltimate m otivations by which people and cultures aredriven. Structurally religious, man gives his heart to forces that prolon gand intensify the brokenness of hu man li fe, powers called forth by m anhimsel f that tear him apa rt. Bu t Dooyeweerd ma kes a fundam entaldistinction between apostate ground m otives and the bibl ical one. Apos-tate ground m ot ives display an inherent dialectic; that is, a "destructiveprinciple" is at wo rk at their very core. This destru ctive principle is aspirit of negation that stands over against revelationally given meaning asmatrix of man kind's p lace and ca l l ing in creat ion. In this way D ooy-eweerd offers a renewed and deepened understanding of thesignif icance of the "antithesis" between th e spirit of darkness an d thel iv ing, healing power of the W ord of God.This book is a profound call to depth-level reflection on the dynamicsof cul tural formation. I hope that i t wi l l contr ibute to a n increas ingawareness of what is truly important in private and public life.John K raayFree University of Amsterdam Christmas 1978

x ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


11/240


12/240

derland as part o f the C ol lected W orks. The p oss ibil ity o f an E ngl ishedit ion of the Collected W orks was discussed w ith Dooyeweerd sho rt lybefore his death in 1977 and is currently being pursued by the Do oy-eweerd Publ icat ion Soc iety established by an international group ofscholars interested in this mamm oth undertaking.The d ecis ion to l imit this translat ion to Dooyew eerd 's treatment ofthe impact of the biblical, Greek, roman catholic, and humanist groundm otives upon w estern cul ture was f i rs t m ade by H. Evan R unner ofCalvin College in Grand Rap ids, Michigan. With his encouragement them emb ers of the Groen van Pr insterer Soc iety prepared an in-houseversion in the sixt ies. This served as the ba sis of John K raay's transla-tion, whose work was edited by Mark Vander Vennen, a graduatestudent in philosophy at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. Beert C.Verstraete, a graduate in classics at the University of Toronto, kindlyconsented to translate the last sect ions, entit led "Estates and Classes"and Basic Problems in Sociology, which were not included in theOosterh off edition of 1959. Unfortuna tely, even w ith this addition thef inal chapter does not complete the total argument wh ich Dooyeweerdhad p lanned to d evelop. This is due to the fact that quite unexpectedlyhe terminated his involvement in the publication of N ieuw N ederland.

The division of the material into the present eight chapters is differentfrom O osterho ff 's division into thre e. His f irst chap ter, entit led "Anti-thesis," contained the Introduction and the f irst four chapters of thisbook. His second chapter, entit led "Reformation and Accommodation,"is nearly identical with chapter f ive. And his third chap ter, "Re forma-t ion and Hum anism," em braced what i s here pub l i shed in the f ina lthree chapters. The new divis ion, intended to m ake the m ateria l moreaccessible, is a result of the combined efforts of John Kraay, MarkVander Venn en, and m yself. The three of us a re also responsible for thefootnotes. The new t i tle was cho sen, a f ter much searching, to re f lectmore ad equately the content of the book.Becau se this translat ion had gone through so m any han ds, I took itupon m ysel f to check i t in i ts enti rety against the or ig inal , as I hadpromised professor Dooyew eerd. I hope that this book wi l l contributenot only to an un derstanding of Dooyeweerd 's thought, but to an as-sessment of the spiritual exhaustion of the W est and a surrender to therevitalizing p ower of the Sp irit of Christ.B ernard Zy lstraInstitute for Christian Studies Toronto Summer 1979

xii ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


13/240

Introduction

The D utch National Mo vementOn May 12, 1945, the Dutch Nat ional Movement [Nederlandse V olksbe-weging] made an appeal to the Dutch people in a manifesto whichdecis ively re jected the christ ian ant ithesis the oppo sit ion betweenbelief and unb elief as a princ iple of demarca tion for polit ical partyformation in the postwar period. It stated this conviction:

The second w or ld war s ignif ies the c lose o f an o ld era and the dawn of anew for all nations. E conom ically, socially, politically, and spiritually theworld has changed profoundly and con fronts the individual and the com -munity with new demands.In order to promote the ir own national commu nity and to maintain aworthy p lace am ong the n at ions , the peop le o f the Ne ther lands needabove all a spiritual renewal nourished b y the wellsprings of Christianityand humanism, which have always been our sources of strength.Funda mental to this str iving for renewal ought to be respect and re-sponsibility for man, who ca n unfold on ly in the service of a strong, just,and inspired community (personalistic socialism).

Every area of hum an l i fe is bound by absolute norms, such as charity,justice, truth, and neighbou rly love. According to the gospel, these normsare rooted in the will of God. How ever, they are also grounded in convic-tions other than christian. From th is follows an unconditional rejection ofnation, state, race, or dass as the h ighest corporate good, and likewise ofall spiritual coercion as an instrument for the formation of community.

1


14/240

The manifesto particularly stressed this m atter:The greatest possible consensus amon g the various religious and po liticalgroups is necessary at this time, in order to alleviate our desperate needs,to repair what wa s laid waste, to stamp ou t all corruption, to set produc-tion in motion again, and especially to base governmental authority uponnew confidence....Our national pol itica l l ife mu st move a long paths di f ferent from thoseof before 1940. Specifically, the christian antithesis and the marxist classstruggle are no longer fruitful principles for the solution of today's socialproblems....A time of open discussion is urgently needed, so that spiritual renewalwill become visible also in the political arena.The app eal was signed by represen tatives of the mos t diverse view-points and b e l ie fs . Their nam es alone guaran teed the s incer ity andearnestness of this attempt.One can assum e that the man ifesto gave expression to the aspirationsof many in the country wh o wish to break down the old barriers thatkept ou r nation div ided, a wish st i rred m ost powerful ly by the deepdistress o f a people under enem y occupat ion. These hopes and aspira-

tions required formulation. The appeal of the Dutch National Movementhas indeed given them a specif ic form. Instead of an antithesis betweenthe christian and hum anistic views of l i fe, the appeal recomm ended asynthesis. It called for unification rather than absolute opposition, so thatthe Dutch n ational strength, which had been nourished by the spiritualtraditions of both Ch ristianity and hum anism, might be drawn togetheragain in national unity.The m anifesto indicated that "personalistic socialism" shou ld be theway toward sp ir itual renewal of ou r nat ion. The old an t ithesis, i t ar-gued, mu st be bridged by the principle that hum an sol idarity and re-sponsibility develop only in the service of a strong, just, and inspiredcomm unity. According to the appeal, Christ ians and h um anists a likecan f ind themselves in agreement on th is common bas is . The assum p-tion was that ne ither the christian antithesis nor the old marxist-socialistdogma of class struggle can serve any longer as a fruitful foundation forthe solution of today's social issues.Anyone who wou ld c laim the contrary for the chr ist ian anti thes iswou ld therefore have to prove that the christ ian re l ig ion does indeeddraw a p erman ent div iding l ine of essential s ignif icance n ot only forone's persona l faith but for one's w hole view o f society. Specif ically, hewou ld have to dem onstrate the mean ing of this spiritual antithesis forthe solution of the acute postwar p roblems.This burden o f proof wi ll not be an easy m atter for those wh o con-2ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE

406.11144110MaPPRINNOMPIP1040.1PPiall.r. 4461


15/240

t inue to take their stand on the b asis of the antithesis. There are tw oways op en for them. They cou ld revert the burden of proof back to theDutch Na tional Movement, and ask it to explain how its new principleforms a fruitful foundation for the solution of social problems and at thesam e time eliminates the long-standing conflict between Christianityand hu ma nism. Bu t this is not a healthy att i tude. One can not hidebehind the posit ion of one's opponent w hen one m ust demon strate thevalue of one's own principle in practical life.

Ra ther, one must show that since the days of Groen van Prinsterer[1801-1876] and A braham Kuyp er [1837-1920] the principle of the chris-t ian antithesis has been a vital spiritual force. One m ust m ake clear toboth allies and opponents that christians have not simply relied on theauthority these leaders exercised, but have worked productively withtheir spiritual heritage. For if the spirit that m oved Groen van Prinstererand K uyper is no longer a l ive among their present fol lowers, then atheoretical appeal to the principles they confessed is of no avail . Thenwe are confronted with a spiritless canonization of tradition which fear-fully guards against the budding of new shoots on the trunk of the past.Perhaps the s logans and terms remain the sam e, but those who voicethem a re no longer inspired. He who listens cannot fail to detect that theslogans no longer embody any spiritual reality for their advocates.W hat then are we to say? A midst the ruins of our nation's existenceand the rubble of wes tern civilization it is hardly fitting for us to beat th edrum s. Surely, this is not the time for the propon ents of the antithesis tosound the battle cry. The antithesis can only be confessed, as always, inrecognition of the comp lete solidarity of Christian and nonch ristian alikein the sin and guilt of ma nkind, the sam e sin and guilt which recentlyled the world to the brink of destruction.

W e acknow ledge that the antithesis cuts right through the christ ianlife itself. Everywh ere, in person al life, in the life of the christian fam ily,in christian organizations and polit ical groups, even in the christianchurch there has been gratifying evidence of genuine vitality. But therehave also been alarming symptom s of apostasy, discord, and schism.These are signs of the turbulent spirit of darkness which w ages war inthe most revolting forms against the spirit of Christ.The a ntithesis is therefore not a d ividing l ine between christ ian an dnonch rist ian group s. It is the unrelenting batt le between two spiritualprinciples that cut through the nation and through all mankind. It hasno respect for the secure patterns and lifestyles built by Christians.I f the christian idea of the an tithesis is rooted in m an, then it is aninvention of satan and a source for hypocrisy and ph arasaic pride. But ifthe imp act of the antithesis can stil l be felt as the battle between the

INTRODUCTION 3


16/240

,i1110.11141.1.111... 404.411 upg111.111 1 1 1 1 1

spir it of God and the spir i t of darkness, then we m ust hum bly thankGod ev ery day for the grace of his cont inued deal ings with the w orldand confess that Christians themselves are not particularly responsiblefor it.For surely, the christian principle is not the permanent possession ofa select few who can man ipulate it as if it were a collection of magical

formulas On the con trary. I t is a dynamic, spiritual force that cannot behalted. Those who enclose it within the fixed boundaries of tradition areirrevocably left behind. Those who claim to be led by the christianprinciple are placed directly before the face of God who knows ourhearts and consu mes every insincerity in the f ire of his anger. Today thechristian principle fills us abov e all with a deep con cern for the spiritualand ph ysical distress of our nation and of the entire world wh ich passedthrough the fire of God's judgm ent.How wide is the scope of the anti thes is? Is i t limited to the secretregions of the huma n heart, or does it also draw a principial* demarca-t ion line in tem poral l i fe? Is it l imited to th e individua l or does it alsopenetrate tempo ral society in science, culture, polit ics, and econom ics?And if the latter is true, is the antithesis then limited to a few"specifically christian areas," or is its significance fundamental and uni-versal?In other words, shal l we agree with the Dutch Nat ional Movem entthat the christian antithesis is no longer a fruitful principle, at least forthe solution of contemporary societal problems? Shall we a gree that itssignificance for political and social life has been tran sient and h istorical?This is the crucial question.This is the decisive issue concern ing wh ich we w ill init iate an opendiscussion w ith the Dutch Nat ional Movem ent in a series of art ic les,hope fully for the benef it of the entire Dutch nation. Taugh t by experi-ence, we have decided to pu rsue a path different from the ones gener-ally followed in a dialogue of this kind. W e hope that the Dutch NationalMovement w il l fol low u s on this pa th for the sake of the d iscussion, forwe believe that our way allows no other alternative. Since this issue is offundam enta l im portance for the spir itual developmen t of the nat ion,m ore than ever before, the Dutch p eople have the right to expect clearand exp l ic i t answers f rom those w ho c la im to be able to g ive spir itualguidance.

* The adject ival and adverbial form of the Dutch w ords beginsel and principe ("principle")is principieel which as a rule will be translated as principial or principially.ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


17/240

G e n u in e a n d S u p e r f ic ia l D ia l o g u eThe antithesis was not invented by Groen van Prinsterer and AbrahamKuyper. Anyone who l ives the christ ian re l ig ion and understands thescriptures knows that. Still, even among those who confess Jesus Christno agreem ent prevails as to the thrust of the antithesis for temporal life.Even w orse, it appears that no way has yet been found to uncover theform of disagreement in the discussion about this fundam ental ly impor-tant problem.Surely, then, the first question is this: wha t should w e expect from adiscussion about the mea ning of the antithesis? Should we m erely ex-pect that two opinions are put forward and th at each participant is giventhe opportunity to advance a number of arguments in favour of his pointof v iew? Should we leave the reader w ith the impression that apparentlysomething can be said for either standpoint? It seems to me that in thisway little or nothing is gained. This kind of debate remains superficial.The argum ents f rom both s ides only seemingly touch each other, be-cause the deeper start ing points that determine the argum ent remainhidden . As long as these starting points themse lves are not placed insharp a nd clear l ight in confrontation with each other, real contact issimply out of the question. I t is even conceivable that those w ho defendtheir v iews are n ot aware of their own deeper points of departure. Inthat case certainly the whole discussion never moves tow ard dialogue,and the listener is left in the dark as to the basic principles at stake.Genuinely fruit ful comm unication is possible only when b oth pointsof v iew are developed jointly and w hen both sides try to penetrate to theroot of their differences. Then th e discussion w ill exhibit the character ofa dialogue in which persons truly cooperate to achieve a mutualclarification of the principles at stake. Only then can the reader begin toreflect on the fundamental question as to which side to join.The second question can be raised in the form of an objection: is thistype of discussion not far too dif f icult for the average reade r? Is it notmore ap propriate for a scientific discussion than for a popular expositionmeant for everyone?W hoever argu es in this way is st i ll the victim of a fa ta l misun der-standing that constituted one of the greatest obstacles to real contactamo ng the various spiritual currents in our nation before the wa r. It isquite wrong to think tha t the quest for the deepest source of ou r differ-ences about the antithesis is fitting only in a scientific inquiry . Thedeepest source of ou r view on l i fe 's fundam ental issues does not l ie inscientific theory but in the religious direction of our life. This is a matter

INTRODUCTION 5


18/240

which concerns every human being and which certainly cannot be dele-gated exclusively to the theoretical sphere of scholarship.I t may b e true that a segm ent of the reading publ ic pre fers not toconcern itself with the deep est motives in l i fe and seek s discussion forthe sake of entertainmen t instead of insight. But this attitude is hardly acriterion for distinguish ing readers w ith scientific training from thosewho have litt le or none. It is a fact that amo ng scientists too there arethose who wou ld rather escape f rom themselves and find some kind of"diversion." Indeed, experience tells me that m any in acade mic circlesbelong to this class. Unfortunately, many view the realm of science as ahaven wh ere they think they can escape f rom themselves by m eans ofthe "divers ion" of theoret ical inquiry w hich in the ir opinion is qu i teunrelated to the deepest root o f their l if e . And precise ly the op positesituation is often found among those wh o are n ot scienti fically schooled;they put the shallowness of the educated to sham e.Whatever the case may be, "spiritual renewal" has become a sloganfor the postwar period. We will readily adopt it. If we are to take itseriously, howe ver, we must not be content with superficiality but mustlook for renewal in depth. I f the postwar "dia logue" is to con tribute tothe spir i tual renew al o f our nation, i t must pen etrate to that depthdimension of human life where one can no longer escape oneself. It isprec ise ly there that w e m ust unve i l [dmasquer] the various views re-garding the s igni f icance and sco pe of the ant ithesis . Only when m enhave nothing to hide from them selves and from their counterparts in thediscussion wil l the way be opened for a dialogue that seeks to convincerather than repel.Anyon e wh o ser iously des ires to s tart out along this path w i ll notquickly dismiss m y discussion u nder the p retext that it is too "heavy" todigest for the ordinary reader. I f th is is the only w ay that ul t im ate lyprom ises results, then no ef fort necessary for a truly mutual un der-standing of the various standpoints sh ould be considered too great. Thisroad is indeed accessible to every serious reader and no t merely to aselect com pany of " intellectuals." It is the w ay of self-ex amination and notthe w ay of abstract theoretical inquiry.

ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


19/240

O N E

R oots of W estern Cu lture

The R eligious A ntithesisTaken by itself, the word antithesis mean s no m ore than "opposition. "At an early stage it was given a special meaning in philosophy, particu-larly in the dialect ical way of thinking. This mu st be considered at theoutset, in order to prevent a possible misund erstanding with respect to adiscussion of the place of the an tithesis.

The Theoretical AntithesisThere are some who h old that dialect ical thought does aw ay with everyabsolute antithesis. According to them, the dialect ical method bridgesand relativizes whatever is contradictory, including Christianity andhum anism. I do not m ean to say that this idea is prevalent in the DutchNational Moveme nt, but it undou btedly c la ims ad herents in certa inintellectual circles, especially those oriented toward Hegel.The dia lect ica l way o f thought, which orig inated a lready in Greekantiquity, is not content with simple, logically determined opposites,such as motion and rest. It attempts to reconcile them in a higher unity.This unity is then understood as the synthesis or connection between athesis and an a ntithesis. The great Greek thinker Plato, for example,found the h igher synthesis of mot ion and rest in the idea of "being,"arguing tha t both, with equal right, "are." And it is of course true that inconcrete, t ime-bou nd rea l i ty, mot ion and rest con t inual ly appear to-gether.

7


20/240

Taken in this strictly theoretical sense, "antithesis" mean s no m orethan the logical opposit ion of what belongs together in reality. The keyto this ant ithesis is that i t must ackn owledge a higher synth esis . A l-though one ob tains the concept of motion by logically opposing m otionto rest, a logical distinction of this sort can not lead to or reflect a divisionin reality itself.Let me expla in further. The con sistent re flect ion o f the dia lect ica lmethod d emonstrates that mu tually opposed concepts stand together ina m utual relation. In this relation they are each other's correlates; that is,in it one concept cannot exist without the other. Without the thought ofsom ething at rest it is impossible to determine m otion, and vice versa.The premise here is that the opposites which the m ethod resolves arerelative and not absolute. The m ethod must proceed under that assump-tion. As such it is merely theoretical in character. Certainly the dialecti-cal way of thou ght is legitimate if, in using the tools of logical contrast, itsearches for the higher synthesis of relative opposites. When used cor-rectly, the method illustrates that nothing in temporal life is absolute.

The Re l igious An t i thesi sBut the case is quite different with the antithesis that ha s been estab-lished in the w orld through the christ ian faith. This antithesis pertainsto the relat ion between the creature and h is creator, and thu s touchesthe religious root of all temp oral life.The rel igious an tithesis does n ot al low a higher syn thesis. I t does not,for example, permit christ ian and non christ ian starting points to betheoretically synthesized. W here can on e f ind in theory a higher pointthat might em brace two religious, antithetically opposed stances, whenprecisely because these stances are religious they rise above the sphereof the relat ive? Can one find such a point in ph ilosophy? Philosophy istheoretical, and in its constitution it remains bou nd to th e relativity of allhum an thought. As such, phi losophy i tse lf needs an absolute point ofdeparture. It derives this exclusively from religion. R eligion gran ts sta-bil ity and a nchorage even to theoretical thought. Those w ho think theyfind an absolute start ing p oint in theoretical thought itself come to thisbelief through an essentially religious drive, but because of a lack of trueself-knowledge they remain oblivious to their own religious motivation.The a bsolute has a right to exist in religion only. Accordingly, a trulyreligious starting point e ither claims absolutene ss or abolishes itself. It isnever m ere ly theoret ical , for theory is a lways re lat ive . The re l ig iousstart ing point pen etrates behind theory to the sure, absolute ground o fall tempora l, and therefore relative, existence. Likewise, the antithesis itposes is absolute.To arrive at the true and d ecisive meaning of this antithesis and, at8ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE

.41111.001,06 01.i ..* .4.441,4


21/240

the same time, to penetrate to the real source of the differences ofopinion con cerning its significance, it is necessary to take into accou ntthe religious ground m otives [religieuze grondm otieven] of we stern civi l i -zat ion. They have been the deepest d r iv ing forces behind the enti recultural and spir itual development of the W est.One can point to such a ground m otive in every religion. It is a spiritualforce that acts as the absolutely central mainspring of human society. Itgoverns all of life's temporal expressions from the religious cen tre of life,directing them to the true or su pposed origin of existence. It thus notonly places an indelible stamp on the culture, science, and social struc-ture of a g iven per iod but determines profound ly one 's wh ole wor ldview. If one cannot point to this kind of leading cultural power insociety, a power that lends a clear direct ion to historical developm ent,then a real crisis loom s at the foundations of culture. Such a crisis isalways accomp anied by spir itual uprootedness.A spirit is directly operative in the religious grou nd m otive. It is eitherthe spirit of God or that of an idol. Man looks to it for the origin andunsh akable ground of his existence, and he places him self in its service.He does not control the spir i t , but the sp ir it controls him. Thereforespec i f ical ly re l ig ion reveals to us our com plete depend ence up on ahigher power. We confront this power as servants, not as rulers.

In this way a religious groun d motive is a communal motive. A groundmotive can never b e ascertained through the personal conceptions andbeliefs of an individual. The spirit establishes comm unity and govern sits individuals even w hen they are n ot fully conscious of that spirit orwhen they d o not give an a ccount of it .Final ly , the re l ig ious groun d m otive can never be an object for aspecial science (social psychology, for example). Scientific analysis andexplanation never penetrate to the spiritual root and religious centre ofcommunal life. The special sciences touch only life's temporal"branches": feeling, though t, art, morality, law, faith, and so on. T heyaddress on ly l i fe 's temporally dist inct expressions. The point of depa r-ture for science is governed by a religious groun d m otive; science is thusnever neutral with respect to religion.

The R e l igious Ground M otives o f Weste rn Cul tureThe development of western cul ture has b een control led by severalreligious ground motives. These motives acquired their central influenceupon the h istorical development of ma nkind via certain cultural powers,which, over the centuries, successively gained leadership in the histori-cal process. The most important of these powers h ave been the spirit ofancient civilization (Greece and Rome), Christendom, and modernhum anism. Once each m ade i ts entrance into history, i t continued in

ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE 9


22/240

tension with the others. This tension was n ever resolved by a kind of"balance of powers," because cu ltura l development, i f it is to be sus-tained, always requires a leading power.In c lass ical Greek c iv il izat ion the leading power was the polis, th eGreek city-state. It was the ca rrier of the new culture rel igion of theOlympian gods. In classical Roman times it was the res publica, th eRom an comm onwealth, and later the emperor as the figure who person-if ied the religious idea of imperium. The idea of the sacrum imperium (theholy empire ) remained in the Byzant ine period, having accomm odated

itself externally to Christianity. The tradition of the "Holy Rom an Em -pire" continued in the christian rule of Charlemagne and his su ccessors.By that t ime the G ermanic peoples had accepted the heritage of ancientcivil ization and had adopted the christian religion. It should be notedthat the adaptation of Christ ianity to the Rom an idea of imperium at theend of the third century signified a crisis in the found ations of ancientculture.Dur ing the Middle Ages the Rom an Catho l i c Church man aged tosecure the role of leadership . It established a un ified culture, placing allthe spheres of life under the dominion of the church.But in the fifteenth century, after the church's grip on life hadweakened during the spiritual decay of the late Middle Ages, the rise ofthe modern R enaissance movem ent ushered in the church's down fa lland the next great cul tural cr isis . Wh en the con tent of the re l ig iousground m otive of the Renaissance was transformed by the em ergence ofhum anism, the c lassica l compon ent of western culture began to teari tself loose from the gu idance of the church. At the sam e t ime the greatmo vemen t of the Reforma tion chal lenged the ecc les iastical power ofRoman Catholicism, though from a principially different standpoint.Meanw hi le , in the countr ies that rem ained large ly fa ithful to the

church, Roman Catholicism regrouped its forces in the Counter-Reformation. It created room for the absorption of Renaissance culture,just as it had previously ad apted itself to classical civilization. In protes-tant countries, cultural leadership sh ifted tem porarily to the Reform a-tion.Gradually, however, a new direction in the development of westerncivil ization became apparent . Both R oman Cathol ic ism and the R efor-mation were driven back as leading cultural factors by modernhum anism . Init ial ly, huma nism h ad aligned itself part ly on the side ofthe Reformation and partly on the side of Rom an Catholicism. B ut in theEnlightenm ent it broke aw ay com pletely from the faith of the christianchurch. Then it began to display its true colours and becam e the leadingcu l tura l power in the W es t . O f course , hum anism d id not e l im inateRom an Catholicism and the R eformation as factors in cultural and his-10 ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE

4INIPOIN


23/240

torical developmen t; they continued to function, partly in an ef fort tooppose the ne w w orld view that had transformed Christ ianity into arational, personal rel igion, and part ly in an effort to synthesize Chris-t ianity with the new hum anist ic ideas that were shap ing history. Bu tunlike before, they could not imprint western civilization with the stampof Christianity. The power struggle for the spirit of culture push edRo m an C athol ic ism and Protestantism into the de fens ive for near lythree centuries. For the t ime b eing the leadership cam e to rest withhumanism.But in the last few decades of the nineteenth century a generalprocess of decay entered the hu ma nist ic world view. Ou t of this decayem erged the antihum anist ic cul tural pow ers (m arxism, darwinism,Nietzsche 's doctrine of the Superman) which pu shed hu manism itse l finto the defensive. This turn of events heralded a tremendous period oftransit ion in w orld history and sparked a f ierce batt le for the spiritualleadership of w estern culture. I ts outcome is sti l l undecided.The first world war, together with bolshevism, fascism, and nationalsocialism, greatly accelerated the internal degeneration of human ism.Fascism an d nat ional socia l ism batt led the h um anist " ideology" withtheir re l ig ious "myths of the twen t ieth cen tury. " The react ionary andintensely antichrist ian pow er of fascism and nazism was broken by thesecond world w ar, at least on the p ol i tica l terra in. Nevertheless, thespiritual crisis that set in long before the war was not overcome. Todaythe "new age" exhibits the features of spiritual confusion eve rywh ere.One ca nnot yet point to a definite direct ion that cultural developm entwill follow in the n ear future.In this apparent ly chaot ic stage of transition the W est 's older andspiritually consolidated cultural powers, Roman Catholicism and theRe formation, have again joined th e spiritual fray. This t ime they f ightwith m odern wea pons. Their a im is not just to de fend the chr is t ianfoundations of modern civilization but to reclaim leadership for a futurewhich is sti ll so unknow n and b leak.

The R eligious DialecticThe development of western p ol i tica l systems, socia l structures, sc i-ences, and arts dem onstrates time and time again that all the publicexpressions of society depend upon sp iritually dominant cultural pow-ers.By a nd large, four religious ground m otives have clashed in westernhistory. Three are internally dualistic and fragmentary. Their discordpushe s one's posture of life to opposite extremes that cannot be resolvedin a true synthesis. We call these extremes "polar opposites" because



24/240

they are two spiritually charged poles that collide within a singleground m otive. Each pole bears the seed of a religious dialectic.To an alyze the mean ing of the "re lig ious d ialect ic ," we mu st onceagain sharp ly contrast the theoretical and the religious antithesis. Byway of orientat ion, let us brie fly reca l l our earl ier d iscussion. We ob-served that the two an titheses are entirely different. W e noted that the

theoretical antithesis is relative while the religious an tithesis is absolute.W e concluded that any attem pt to bridge an absolute antithesis with themetho d of the theoret ica l d ia lect ic rests on the i l lusion that a h igherstandpoint exists outside of religion.The theoretical dialectic is concerned with relative opposites. Insofaras these opposites are bound together in a higher unity, they resist anyef fort on the part of theoretical thought to absolutize them. Thus, forexample, the proposit ion that m otion and rest exclude each other abso-lutely makes n o sense; it is not diff icult to determine that m otion andrest simply m ake the same temporal real ity v isible in two dif ferent ways.Instead of excluding they presuppose each other. Their mutual depend-ence points to a third element in which the two are united, eventhough they are mutually exclusive from a purely logical standpoint.The task of theoretical dialectic is to think throu gh a logical oppositionto its higher synthe sis. Therein lies its justif ication. W hethe r or not itsuccessful ly reaches this synthesis depends u pon its start ing point ,which is governed by a religious ground m otive.The true religious an tithesis is established by the revelation foun d inGod's W ord. W e com e to unders tand th i s revela ti on when the Ho lySpirit unvei ls i ts radical meaning and when it works redem ptively at theroot of our fallen existence. The k ey to Go d's revelat ion is the religiousground m ot ive o f Ho ly Scr ipture . Th is m ot ive sum s up the power o fGod's W ord, which, through the Holy Spir it , not only revea ls the trueGod an d ourselves in unmeasurable depth but converts and transformsthe religious root of our lives, penetrates to life's temporal expressions,and redemptively instructs us. The biblical ground motive, the fourth inthe development of western culture, consists in the triad of creation, fall,and redem pt ion through Jesus C hr i st in comm union w i th the Ho lySpirit.The biblical ground m otive is not a doctrine that can be theologicallyelaborated apart from the guidan ce of God's Spirit. Theology in and ofitself cannot uncover the true meaning of the scriptural ground motive.I f i t presses that claim, it stands against the work of God and becom es asatanic power. Theology makes God's self-revelation powerless if itreduces the re l ig ious groun d m ot ive of revelat ion to a theoret ica l sys-tem. As a sc ience, theology too is total ly depen dent up on a re l ig iousgroun d mo tive. I f it withdraws from the driving pow er of divine revela-12 ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


25/240

tion, i t fal ls into the clutches of an idolatrous, nonchristian groundmotive.From the b eginning the W ord of God stands in absolute antithesis toevery form of idolatry. The esse nce of an idolatrous spirit is that it drawsthe hear t o f m an aw ay f rom the t rue God and rep laces H im wi th acreature. By deifying what is created, idolatry absolutizes the relativeand considers self-suffic ient what is not self-suffic ient. W hen this ab -

solutization app ears in science, it is not science itself but a religious d rivethat leads theoret ica l thought in an idolatrous direct ion. As w e haverepeatedly stressed, science is always determined by a religious groundmotive.The religious dialect ic arises when a religious groun d m otive deif iesand absolutizes part of created reality. This absolutization ca lls forth,with inner necessity, the correlates of what has been absolutized; that is,the absolutization of something relative simultaneously absolutizes theopposite or cou nterpart of what is re lat ive, s ince one re lat ive part ofcreation is necess ari ly related to th e other. Th e result is a rel igiousdia lect ic : a polarity or tension between two extrem es within a s ingleground m otive. On the one han d, the ground mo tive breaks apa rt; its

two antithetical motives, each claiming abs oluteness, cancel each other.Bu t on the other hand, each m otive also determines the other's religiousmea ning, since each is necessarily related to the other.Because it is religious, the religious dialectic tries desperately to riditself of this correlativity. W ithout ceasin g, it drives think ing and th epractice of life from p ole to pole in the search for a higher sy nthesis. Inthis quest it seeks refuge in one of the antithetical principles within theground motive by giving it rel igious priority. Concomitantly, it debasesand d epreciates the oppo site principle. But the ambiguity and b roken-ness of the dialectical ground motive do n ot give it access to reconcilia-t ion in a truly higher unity; reconci lia t ion is exdud ed by the grou ndmotive itself . In the end a choice mu st be m ade.The religious dialectic, in other words, entangles life and theory in adialect ic that is utter ly incomp rehensible when m easured w ith theyardstick of the the oretical dialectic. Unlike the th eoretical dialectic, thereligious d ialectic lacks the basis for a rea l synthesis.Let no on e, therefore, try to correct the religious dialect ic by way ofthe theoretical dialecticthe method attempted by the hegelian school.That app roach is an u tterly uncrit ical form of dialectical though t, be-cause at the root of its overestimation of the theoretical dialectic lies areligious dialectic that is hidden to the thinke r him self . Certainly it istrue that the two m ot ives in a d ia lect ica l ground m ot ive are no m orethan correlates in tempo ral reality; nevertheless, in the ground motivethey stand in absolute antithesis to each other. The religious drive of an



26/240

idolatrous spirit absolutizes them both. This religious force can never becontrolled or corrected by mere theoretical insight.Another kind of religious dialectic arises when one attempts to strikea religious synthesis between the ground motive of Christianity and theground m otive of either Greek antiquity or huma nism. In that event thetension between the two an tithetical poles is different from the tensionwithin a strictly idolatrous groun d m otive. It originates in the ef fort tobridge the absolute ant ithesis by mu tual ly adap t ing divine revelationand idolatry. Their mutual ad aptation requires that both tone dow n thepure, original meaning of their ground m otives. But the antithesis be-tween them remains in force and cont inual ly drives the two m ot ivesof this apparent synthesis apart.Those w ho defend this synth esis of ten recogn ize the christ ian an-tithesis to a certain degree, at least in the "sphe res" of faith and religion.Generally, however, a distinction is made between the specifically chris-t ian issues of tem poral l i fe that direct ly involve the christ ian faith a ndthe so-called neutral issues that do not. Or, by con trast, occasionally apartially christian ground motive is structured so that the christian polealmost com pletely controls the adapted nonchrist ian pole. Then indeedthe un iversal significance of the antithesis is recognized. Nevertheless,the antithesis would ha ve been un derstood differently if the scripturalground mot ive had worked i tse l f through comp letely. This is the casewith R oman Cathol ic ism, which f rom the outset a imed at assimilatingthe Greek ground mot ive (and later the hum anist ic ground mot ive ) toChrist ianity. The same m isunderstanding arises whenever those whosel ife and thou ght have been fostered by the R eformation c l ing to theground motive of Roman Catholicism.

The central issue in this religious dialectic is the pseudosynthesiswhich, time an d again, threatens to fall apart into an absolute division oroppo sit ion between ch rist ian and nonch rist ian "areas of l ife." W e mu stsubject all such attemp ts at synthesis to a thorough investigation, forhere, and here alone, lies the real source of disagreement among Chris-tians as to the scope of the a ntithesis.

A Final WarningFour religious ground motives have controlled the development ofwestern culture. We must focus on each in succession, for one cannotpenetrate to the core of today's questions on the antithesis until one seeswhich re l ig ious forces have been operat ive in our culture, and under-stands h ow these forces have been central in the resolution of l ife 'spractical problems.Once m ore I must warn against a possible misunderstanding. We arenot about to engage in a learned academ ic discourse. W hat is at stake in4ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


27/240


28/240

religious synthesis concentrated u pon the value of hum an p ersonality.It is absolutely necessary to consider the G reek groun d m otive f irst,since, despite its mo difications, it continued to operate in both R om anCatholicism and humanism.Although the famou s Greek phi losopher Ar is tot le f i rs t coined theterm "form-matter," the "form-matter" ground m otive controlled Greekthoug ht and civil ization from the beginn ing of the Greek city-states. Itoriginated in the unreconciled conflict within Greek religious con-sciousness between the groun d m ot ive of the ancient nature re l ig ionsand the ground motive of the more recent culture religion the religionof the Olymp ian deit ies.

The M atter MotiveOu tside of their primeval Greek core, the nature re l ig ions conta inedmu ch that was pre-Greek and even of fore ign orig inat ion. These re l i -gions differed greatly in local ritual and in specific faith content. Recon-structing all the early form s of na ture religions is largely guesswork forlack of informa tion, but it is clear that from at least the beginning o f theso-ca l led historica l age ( the age docu men ted by w rit ten records) , thecomm unal ground motive of these religions sustained a great influenceon Greek culture.W hat was at s take in this ground m otive was the de i ficat ion of aformless, cyclical stream o f li fe. Ou t of this stream em erged the ind i-vidual forms of plant, beast, and man, which then matured, perished,and ca me to l i fe again. Becau se the l i fe stream ceaselessly repeated itscycle and returned to itself, all that had individual form was d oomed todisappear. The worship of the tr ibe and i ts ancestors was thorou ghlyinterwoven with this religious conception. Closely related to this beliefwas its view of time: time was not linear, as in Newton's modernconception, but cyclical.Mysterious forces were at w ork in this li fe stream. They d id not runtheir course accord ing to a traceable, rational order, but accord ing toA n an gke (blind, incalculable fate). Everything that had a life of its ow nwas sub jected to it. The divine w as thus not a concrete form or p ersonal-i ty . On the contrary, the nature god s w ere a lways f luid and invis ible .The m aterial names used to indicate them were just as undefined as theshapeless d ivinities themselves. Instead of a u nified deity, a countlessmu ltiplicity of divine powers, bou nd u p with a great variety of naturalphenom ena, were embodied in m any f luid and variable concept ions ofdeit ies. The state of constant variation applied no t only to the " lesser"gods ( the so-ca l led demon s: shapeless, psychica l powers) and to the"heroes" (worsh ipped in con nection w ith the deif ication of li fe in tribeand family), but with equal force to the "great" gods such as Gaia16 ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


29/240

(mo ther earth), Uranos (god of the skies), Dem eter (goddess o f grainand growth) and Dionysus (god o f wine).In this con text i t is unde rstandable that the rise of relat ively durable,individual forms in nature was considered an injustice. According to themyster ious saying of the Ionian phi losopher o f nature , Anaximan der(sixth cen tury B.C .), these individual forms would "find retr ibution inthe course of time." With a genuinely Greek variant o n M ephistopheles'saying in .Goe the's Faust, on e could express this thought as fol lows:"Denn alles, was en tsteht,/Ist wert, dass es zugrunde geht" (For all thatcome s to be/Deserves to perish wretchedly).*On the other hand, it is also understandable that in this nature

religion one 's faith in the continuity of a divine stream o f life provided acertain comfort with respect to the ine vitable destruction of al l definite,visibly shaped an d formed in dividual life. "Mo ther earth" sustaine d thisreligion ; out of it the stream o f life began its cycle.The Form Mo tive

The n ewer cultige religion , on the o ther hand, was a religion o f form,me asure, and harmo ny. I t becam e the of f ic ial re l igion of the Greekcity-state , which establ ished M ount Olympus as one of h istory's f i rs tnational rel igious centres. The O lympian go ds left "mother e arth" andher cyc le of l i fe beh ind. They were im mo rtal, radiant god s of form:invisible, personal, and idealized cultural forces. M oun t Olympus wasthei r hom e. Even tual ly the cul ture re l igion foun d i ts highest G reekexpression in the D elphic god Apollo, the lawgiver. Apollo, god o f l ightand lord of the arts, was indeed the supreme G reek culture god.This new rel igion, which received its most splendid em bodim ent inthe heroic poe try of Hom er, tried to incorporate the older rel igion in itsown ground m otive of form, me asure, and harmo ny. It was part icularlyconcerned to curb the wi ld and impassioned worship o f Dionysus, thegod of wine , wi th the n ormative pr inciple of form that character izedApo l lo w orship. In the c i ty of Delphi Apol lo (culture) and D ionysus(nature) becam e brothers . Dion ysus los t his wildness an d took on amore s erious role as the "kee per of the souls."Early in this period of transition the ancient Greek seers andpoet- theologians (Hesiod and Ho mer) sought to con vince the peoplethat the Olympians them selves had evolved out of the formless gods o fnature. Hesiod's teaching con cerning the gene alogy of the gods, whichdeeply inf luenced subsequent Greek philosophical thought , gave the* Goethe s Faust, trans. and intro. Walter Kau fmann , bi lingual ed. (Garden City, NewYork: Doubleday & Compa ny, 1961), lines 1339, 13 40



30/240

ground motive of the older nature religions a general, abstract formula-tion: the basic principle of all that comes into being is chaos and formless-ness.Bu t the inner conn ection between the culture religion and the oldernature re l ig ions is m ost evident in the pecu l iar part p layed by Moira.Originally, oira was nothing other than the old Anangke of the naturereligions: inexorable fate revealing itself in the cycle of life. But later itwas ad apted somew hat to the form m otive of the culture religion. Moirais related to meros, a word that means part or share. Among theOlympian gods Moira became the fate that assigned to each of the threemost im portant deit ies a "share" or realm: the h eavens to Zeu s, the seato Poseidon, and the u nderworld to Ha des (Pluto). This already imp liedsomething of design instead of blind fate. Moira actual ly became aprinciple of order. Its order, however, did no t originate with the Olym -pian gods but w ith an older, imperson al, and formless divine power.Thus Moira still revealed its original dark and sinister self when itdecreed the fate of death upon morta ls . Even Zeus, lord of Olympus,father of gods and m en, was pow erless before Moira ( a lthough som e-t imes Hom er designated Zeu s as the dispenser of fate) . Moira, the fatethat held death for al l the individual forms of l i fe, was incalculable,blind, but nonetheless irresistible.

Dialect ical TensionAt this point, where both re l ig ions uni ted in the them e of Moira, th eculture religion revealed an indissoluble, dialect ical coherence with thereligions of nature. The religion of culture is inexplicable without thebackground of the nature religions. With intrinsic necessity, the groundmotive of the culture religion called forth its counterpart. Moira was theexpression o f the irreconcilable conflict between both religions. In therel ig ious con sciousness of the Greek s this conf l ict was the un solvedpuzzle standing at the centre of both tragedy and philosophy. Likewise,it was the threatening an tipode to the Greek cu ltural and political ideal.W e have seen that the n ew culture rel igion of Olympus and the poeticteachings regarding the orig in of the gods sought to reconci le the an-t ithetical motives of the older rel igions of n ature and the newer religionof culture. These attem pts failed for at least three reasons , the f irst ofwhich is decisive.1. The new er culture religion neglected the most p rofound questions ofl i fe and death. The Olympian gods protected m an only as long as he washeal thy and v igorously al ive . But as soo n as d ark Anangke or Moirabefore whom even the great Zeus wa s impotent, wi l led the fate o f amortal's death, the gods retreated:18ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


31/240

But death is a thing that comes to all alike. Not even the gods can fend itaway from a man they love, when once the destructive doom [Moira] oflevelling death has fastened upon him.*2. The O lympian culture re l ig ion, g iven m ythologica l form by Ho mer,came into conflict with the moral standards of the G reeks. Even though

the Olympian gods sanctioned and protected Greek morality, theOlymp ians themselves l ived beyond good and evil. They fornicated andthieved. Homer g lori fied decept ion as long a s i t expressed the grandmann er of the gods.3 . The w hole splendid array of deit ies was far too removed from ordi-nary peop le. The h om eric world of the gods suited Greek c ivi l izat iononly during i ts feudal era, when the re lation between Z eus and theothers served as a perfect analogy to that of a lord and h is powerfulvassals. But after feudalism had run its course, the divine world lost allcontact with the cross section of the people. Thereafter i t found supportonly in the historically formative Greek polis, the bearer of culture. Thecritical years of transition between Mycenian feudalism and the Persianwars m arked a re l ig ious cr is is . The G reek c i ty-states wi thstood theordeal bri l l iant ly. Ni lsson, the w el l-know n sch olar of Greek re l ig ion,characterized this cr is is as a conf l ict between an ecstat ic (my thica l )movement and a legalistic movement.t The f irst revived and reformedthe old su ppressed re l ig ions, and the second, f inding i ts typica l rep-resentative in the poet-theologian Hesiod, stood on the side of theOlympian culture rel igion.In the l ight of these reason s i t is understandable that the G reeksobserved the ancient rites of nature religions in private but worshippedthe Olympians as the official gods of the state in public. This alsoexplains why the deeper religious drives of the peop le became orientedto "mystery wors hip," for in this worship th e questions of life and d eathwere cen tral. Hence it is not surp rising that the culture religion in itshomeric form began to lose its strength already in the sixth century B.C.Criticism aga inst it grew m ore and more ou tspoken in intellectual cirdesand the so phists, the Greek "enlightenment" thinkers of the f i fth cen-tury, enjoyed relative popularity, although there was a reaction againstthem in the lega l trials dealing with "atheism ."

* The Odyssey of H omer, trans. and intro. Richmond Lattimore (New York: Harper & Row,1965) 3:236-238.

t Most likely, Dooyeweerd is referring to chapter 6 ("Legalism and Mysticism") ofMartin P. N ilsson's classic book A History of Greek R el igion, 2d ed., trans. F.J. Fielden(New York: W.W . Norton & Compan y, 1964). The book f irst appeared in 1925.ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE 19


32/240

Throughout, the dialectical ground motive remained unsha ken. Bornout of the meeting between the older rel igions of nature and the newerOlym pian religion of culture, this ground m otive maintained its vitalityeven after the myths had be en und ermined . In philosoph ical circles itwas ab le to clothe itself with the garm ents of creeds that answ ered thereligious need s of the t imes. Th e old con fl ict continued to ch aracterizethis re l ig ious groun d m ot ive; the p rinciple of bl ind fate governing theeternal f lux of all individual form s in the cyclical l ife stream stood overagainst the principle of the supernatural, rat ional, and imm ortal form,itself not ruled by the stream of becoming.The sam e conf l ic t found pointed exp ress ion in the orph ic school ,founded by the legendary poet and s inger O rpheus. This school, basi-cally a religious reform movement, gained great influence in Greekphilosophy. Fol lowing the old re l ig ions of the f lux of l i fe , the orphicsworshipped D ionysus. This, however, was a reborn Dionysus. After thet i tans had d evoured h im, the orig inal Dionysus, the untam ed god ofwine, reappeared in person al form as the twin brother of Apol lo, theOlympian god o f l ight . The transf igurat ion of Dionysu s i l lustrates thesharp dist inct ion in orphic re l ig ion between l if e in the starry h eavensand l i f e on the dark earth, which m oved in the cycles of birth, death,and rebirth.

The orphic view of human nature clearly expressed the internaldiscord of the Greek ground motive. At one time, according to theorphics, man had an immortal, rational soul. It originated in theheavens of l ight beyond the w orld. But at a certain point the soul fe l l tothe dark earth and becam e imprisoned or entombed in a material body.This imprisonment of the soul mean t that the soul was subject to theconstant cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Not until it had beenc leansed from the con tam ination of matter could the soul cease i tsmigrations from b ody to body ( including animal bodies) and return to itstrue home: the divine, imperishable sphere of starry light. As the orphicinscription, found in Petelia, declares: "I am a child of earth an d of thestarry heaven/But heaven is my hom e."The imp erishable sphere of light in the heavens points to the combi-nation in orphic religion between the culture m otive and the so-calleduranic nature re l ig ion which w orshipped the sky and i ts l ight-givingbodies. Like the older na ture religions, the uran ic religion did not knowo f an imm orta l f o rm . Even the radiant sun rose f rom the ear th andreturned to the earth's bosom after i t set. The orphic movem ent transfer-red the Olym pian concept of div ine imm ortal ity to the rat ional sub-stances of the soul that made their home in the starry sky. The soul hadan im per ishable form , but earthly bodies , subject to the cyc le o f theceaselessly f lowing life stream, did no t. Clearly, the religious con trast2 ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE

FRIMPOINIONIO


33/240

between form and m atter determined this ent ire concept ion of "soul"and "body ."The G reek motive of matter, the formless principle of becoming anddecay, was oriented to the aspect of m ovemen t in temporal rea l i ty . I tgave Greek though t and al l o f Greek cul ture a hint o f dark mysterywh ich is foreign to mod ern thinking. The Greek m otive of culture, onthe other hand , was oriented to the cultural aspect of tempo ral reality( "culture" means es sentially the free forming of m atter) . It constantlydirected though t to an extrasensory, imperishable form of being thattranscende d the cyclical life stream.The Greek idea o f theoria (philosophic thought) was closely l inked tothe culture mot ive. The form of being could n ot be grasped in a m ereconcept but required contem plation as a su prasensible, luminous f igure.This too was a typica l ly Greek tenden cy wh ich is fore ign to us in i tsoriginal sense. Just as the Olympian gods could only be conceived of asimperishable figures of light standing beyond sense perception, so also"immutable being" could only be conceived of as a radiant form. Theoriawas a lways con templat ion directed to an invis ible and imp erishableform of being which contained the divine. From the outset Greekphilosophical thought presented itself as the way to true kno wledge ofgod. It tied belief to the sphere of doxa (uncerta in opinion) , whichbelonged to sense perception.Form an d ma tter were inseparably connected within the Greek reli-g ious ground m ot ive . They presupposed each other and determinedeach other's religious m eaning. The dialectical tension betwe en thempushed Greek thought to polar extremes and forced it into two radicallyconflicting directions, which nevertheless revealed a deeper solidarity inthe ground motive itself. The Greek conception of the nature (physis) ofthings, for example, was determined by this tension. The Greeksviewed nature som etimes as a purely invisible form and som etimes asan animated, flowing stream of life, but most often as a combination ofboth. L ikewise, this tension shaped the Greek com mun ity of thoughtand culture. Greek philosophy, which so profoundly influenced romancatholic scholasticism, cannot be u nderstood if this ground m otive is leftout of cons ideration. The sam e holds for Gree k art, polit ical l i fe, andmorality.

The connection between the Greek religious ground motive and theGreek idea of the state ma y serve as a n il lustration. In the classical age ofGreek civilization the state w as limited to the sm all area of the city-state(polis). The city-state was the bearer of the Gre ek culture religion andhence the Greek cultural ideal. A Greek was truly hum an only as a freecitizen of the polis. The polis gave form to human existence; outside ofthis formative influence hum an li fe rema ined m ired in the savagery of

ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


34/240

the matter principle. All non-Greeks were barbarians. They were notfully hum an since they lacked the imprint of Greek cultural formation.The ideas o f world cit izenship an d of the natural equality of al l menwere launched considerably later in Greek philosophy by the cynics andthe stoics. These ideas were not of G reek origin. They were essentiallyhostile to the Greek idea of the state, and they exerted little influence onit . The radical wing o f the sophists was sim ilarly antagonistic. Guidedby the G reek m atter motive, i t declared war on the city-state. Even moreradically foreign to the classical Greek was the christian confession thatthe religious root comm unity of mankind transcends the boun daries ofrace and nation.The Greek ideal of democracy that emerged victorious in Ionianculture was quite different from the democratic ideal of modernhuma nism. Democracy in Greece was l imited to a small num ber of "freecit izens. " Over aga inst them stood a m ass of s laves and c ity dwel lerswith no rights. "Freedom" consisted in total involvement with theaffairs of state, and "equality" mean t only that ownersh ip of capital wasnot a prerequis ite for ful l c it izenship. Labou r and industry were de-spised and left to workers and slaves. Soon every aristocracy, whethermaterial or spiritual, became suspect and l iable to all sorts of confiningregulations.

The idea of sph ere sovereignty was therefore utterly fore ign to theGreek m ind. Rooted in the christ ian view that n o single societal spherecan em brace m an's whole l i fe , sphere sovere ignty im pl ies that eachsphere in society has a God-given task and competence which arel imited by the sphere's own intrinsic nature. The Greek idea of the state,however, was basical ly total itarian. In accordance with its rel igiousground m otive it deman ded the allegiance of the whole man. Or rather,man became truly whole only as an active, free citizen. All of li fe had toserve this citizenship, for it alone granted a d ivine and rationa l culturalform to hu man existence. The Greek state, realized in the "democratic"city-state, was n ot founded on the principle that the state's authority isinherent ly l imited by i ts inner n ature. Neither w as i t governed by theprinciple that man has inalienable rights over against the body po litic.The Greek ha d only formal guarantees against despotism.

The Rom an Imper iumGreek culture became a w orld culture when Alexander the Great , theroyal pupi l of Aristot le , created the Macedon ian em pire. This empire(the imperium), which stretched from G reece to India, had l it tle connec-tion with the small city-state. As it arose, certain eastern religious22OOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


35/240

motives began to mingle with Greek mot ives. Alexander m ade use ofthe Asiatic belief in the divine ancestry of monarchs in order tol eg it imize and g ive div ine sanction to the Greco-Maced onian w orldempire. He al lowed himself to be worshipped as a heros, a demigod, andlater as a full god. From east to west, from Greec e to India, the worshipof Alexander was added to the existing cults. In 324 B.C. Athens dec idedto include Alexander among the city's deities as Dionysus. The worshipof Alexander w as the founda tion for the religious imperium idea, whichbecame the driving force behind the R oma n conquest of the world andcontinued in a christ ianized form with the Germ anic-Roman idea of thesacrum imperium, the "Holy Rom an Em pire," after Rome's fal l .

The religious idea of imperium lent itself toward a com bination withthe ground motive of Greek culture. It was not by chance that Alexanderwas worshipped as Dionysus in Athens. We noted earlier that the cult ofDionysus expressed the matter motive of the older nature religions, theformless stream of life m oving in the cy cle of birth, death, and rebirth. Itis even likely that this cult was originally impo rted from As ia. In anycase, the fatalistic conce ption of the cycle of l ife meting ou t death toeverything that existed in individual form w as eminen t ly suited to adeification of the monarch as the lord over life and death. The monarchsoon displayed the sam e mysterious power as Dionysus, the demon, thedynamic soul of the ever-flowing life stream. Carried forward by adeif ied ruler, the imperium became surrounded with a kind of magicalhalo. Like f ighting the inexo rable fate of death, resisting the imperiumwas useless. The imperium idea was already well established in hellenis-t ic culture w hen, a f ter Alexander 's death, his world empire broke u pinto several large realms w hich eventually yielded to R oman might.As the Rom an em pire expand ed, it was understandab le that there l ig ious ground m ot ive of Greek culture would inf luence Rom an cul-ture . The R om ans had already mad e acquaintance wi th the Greekswhen the latter conquered southern Italy. The G reeks had establishedcolonies there and had nam ed that part of the I tal ian peninsula "MagnaGraec ia." Af ter the Rom ans occup ied Greece i tse l f they ada pted theworsh ip of the ir own gods to G reek cul ture re l ig ion. Moreover, theRom an rel igion of l i fe, which worshipped com mun al l ife in the tr ibe anddan, had much in common with the older Greek nature religions.Finally, the religious imperium idea found fert i le soil am ong the Rom anconquerors.

The M otive o f PowerThe m ot ive of power deeply penetrated the Rom an world of thought.Yet it did not become embodied in the person of a ruler until theemperor Augu stus replaced the ancient republican form of government.



36/240

Even then, how ever, the deification of the office of em peror was firstassoc iated with the comm on R oman pract ice o f ancestor worship. Theemp eror Tiberius, successor to Au gustus, st i l l resisted veneration of al iving em peror and allowed w orship only of his predecessor. Bu t afterhim the infam ous Caligula dropped this restriction and the existing rulercame to be worshipped as a god.In the re l ig ious consciousness o f the Rom ans the dei f ication of theimper ium was the cou nterpart and a ntipode to the typical ly jur idicaltendency o f the ir ances tor worsh ip . Rom an w orsh ip w as sober andbusinesslike. It had a stern juridical bent. The gods of the state had theirown sphere of competence next to the old gods of home and hearth whorepresented the con t inuity of fam ily l i fe through out the gen erat ions.The claims of both spheres regarding sacrif ices and worsh ip were pre-cisely defined an d balanced.The re l ig ious m ot ive of power an d law thorough ly pervaded the oldfolk law (ius civile) of Rom an tr iba l ism. This m ot ive rested on a str ictjuridical delimitation of different spheres of authority. Each sphere wasreligiously sacred and unassailable. The large patrician clan (gens)defined the sphere of authority, centred in the rel igious com mu nal l i fe ofthe family. W ith the head of the clan as its priest, the family deified andworshipped its ancestors. This sphere w as carefully distinguished fromthe sphere of au thority belonging to the R oman tribe (civitas), where thepublic tribal gods m aintained an inviolable rel igious sway. W hen in thecourse of time the Roman state as the res publica slowly cu t itself off fromthis st i ll primit ive and und ifferentiated societal structure, the powe r ofthe great patr ic ian c lans w as broken. T he c lans then dissolved intonarrower spheres o f author i ty : the Rom an familiae or domest ic com-munities.

The familia was n ot l ike our m odern fam i ly . L ike the o ld gens, th efamilia was und i fferentiated. I t displayed the trai ts o f ma ny d i fferentsocietal spheres which diverge into well-defined com mu nities, such asthe fami ly , the state , industry, and the church in a mo re highly de-ve loped cul ture . One m ight comp are this undi f ferentiated structurewith the lack of specialization in lower an imals, such as worm s, whichdo no t develop speci f ic organs for the various funct ions of l i fe . Eachfamilia was a family community, an economic unit, a miniature state, anda community of worship. Above all, it was the embodiment of there l ig ious authority of the hou sehold gods, wh o represented the com -mun ion between the liv ing and dead m embers o f the familia. The headof the familia was usu ally the oldest male m ember, the paterfamilias, w howielded the power of life and death over all over his wife, hischildren, his slaves, and his so -called clients. He also presided as thepriest.The sp here of author i ty o f the pater fam ilias was juridically dist inct24ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


37/240

from the pow er of the state. It was religiously inviolate and abso lute,and th e state could n ot interfere with it. Its territorial basis wa s the plotof Italian soil on wh ich the familia was situated, just as the sphere ofauthority of the older patrician clan had been territorially based on landsowned by the clan. To this piece of land, which, under solem n invoca-t ion of the god Term inus, had been cerem oniously marked of f wi thboundary stones, the pater familias had the rights of absolute ownershipand exclusive use. This own ership was not at all l ike our m odern civi llegal right to own ership wh ich is strictly a right to property and doe s notinclude any au thority over persons. The r ight to absolute ownershiphe ld by the Roman pater f amilias was rooted in the familia's religioussphere of authority. For those wh o belonged to the ance stral lands it wasan au thority that disposed of their l i fe and death. It was exclusive andabsolute. In this still undifferentiated form of ownership, legal authorityand property r ights were indissolubly bound together. The pater familias,for examp le , had pow er to se l l the chi ldren and s laves that res idedunder h is jurisdiction.Rom an f o lk law (ius civile) can never be u nderstood apart from therel ig ious groun d mo t ive of Rom an culture. For example, this mot ivepermeated the contractual laws of Rom an society. The househ old headswere m utual equals; the one had no jurisdict ion over the other. Bu t i fone were indebted to another and did not discharge his debt im-m ediate ly, then a contract (obligatio) was established. Originally thismea nt that the debtor was b rought w ithin the religious jurisdiction ofthe creditor. A prescribed legal formula dictated the severity of punish-ment. Payment (so/utio) released him from this sphere of power which,l ike a m agic bond (vinculum), held him captive. If he failed to pay, thenhis whole person fell to the creditor.Like ancient German ic and other primit ive folk law, Rom an folk law(ius civile) was exclusive. I t made o ne 's ent ire lega l status dependentupon mem bership in the Roman populus . Banishment from the com-mu nity resulted in the total loss of one's legal rights. A foreigner too h adno rights and could only secure juridical protect ion by placing himselfunder the patronage o f a Rom an pater f amilias, who took him into thefamilia as a "client."

Public Law and Private LawW hen Rom e became an em pire the need arose for a more universal lawthat could apply to the private interrelations between both citizens andforeigners. This universal law, the ius gentium, was what we todaywould ca l l the c ivil law of the Rom ans. I t was no longer bound to thereligious sp here of auth ority of the undif ferentiated gerzs or familia. Itraised every free person , regardless of birth or nationality, to the statusof a lega l subject , a status which endo wed h im with both r ights and



38/240

obligations. It created a sphere of personal freedom and self-determination that offered a h ealthy counterbalance to the jurisdict ionof the commun ity (both the state and the familia). I t was a product of theprocess of di f ferentiation in ancient R oman society. Certainly the Rom anstate as the res publica, though founded on the power of the sword, hadthe publ ic good as its goal when it acknowledged over aga inst i tse l f ac iv il legal sphere o f f reedom for indiv idua l personal i ty in which theindividual could pursue his private interests.

Public law, then, as the internal sphere of jurisdict ion in the R omanstate, began to distinguish itself in accordance w ith its inner nature fromcivil, private law. This distinction had a lready appea red in the old folklaw (ius civile) but, as long as the Roman community was still undifferen-t iated, public and private law could not be dist inguished in accord ancewith their inner nature. Both w ere rooted in a religious sphere of author-i ty which, because o f i ts absolute character , embraced the ent i re tem-pora l l i fe of i ts subordinates. Both h ad sw ay over l i f e and death. Thedifference between them depended strictly on who or what carriedauthority. I f it was the Rom an com munity, one was su bject to the sphereof public law; if it was the pater familias, one was subject to the sphere ofprivate law. This und ifferentiated state of comm unal l i fe allowed roomfor neither a constitutional law nor a differentiated civil, personal law.All law was folk law. Differences within this law were du e to differencesas to who wielded authority.The developm ent of a universa l c iv il law comm on to a l l f ree peoplepresented the R oman legislators with a d eeply re l ig ious problem. Theuniversal law (ius gentium) could not be based o n the rel igious autho rityof either the old gens, the familia, or the Rom an comm unity. W here thencould its basic principles be found? Here Greek p hi losophy providedassistance with i ts doctr ine of natura l law (ius naturale). Natural lawresided not in hum an insti tutions b ut in "nature" i tsel f.

Stoic phi losophy ( inf luenced by semitic thought) had introduced intoGreek thought the idea of the natural freedom and equality of al l men. I thad broken w i th the narrow boundaries of the polis. The founders ofstoic phi losophy l ived during the period when Greek culture becameworldwide und er the Macedonian empire. Their thinking about naturallaw, however, was no t determined by the religious idea of imperium bu tby the old idea of a so-called golden age. This age, an age wi thoutslavery or war and without distinction between Greek and barbarian,had been lost by m an beca use of h is gui l t . The sto ic doctr ine of anabsolute natural law reached back to this p rehistoric golden era. For thestoics, all men were f ree and equal before the law of nature.The Rom an jurists based the ius gentium on this ius n aturale. In doing6ROOTS OF WESTERN CULTURE


39/240

so, they made an outstanding discovery. They discovered the enduringprinciples that l ie at the basis of civi l law accord ing to its own n ature:civil freedom and e quality of persons as suc h. Civil law is not comm unall aw and cannot be m ade in to comm unal l aw wi thout d i s tort ing i tsessence. As one says in m odern times, civ il law is founded on the r ightsof man. The Roman ius gentium, wh ich sti l l legitim ized slavery, ac-tualized these principles only in part, but the doctrine of the ius n aturaleand the pure principles of civil law lived on in the consciousness of theRom an jurists.At the c lose of the Middle Ages most of the Germ anic coun tries ofcont inental Europe adopted this Rom an law as a supplemen t to indi-genous law. I t thus became a lasting influence on the development ofwestern law. The fact that national socialism resisted this influence andproclaimed the return to Germ an folk law in its myth of "blood and soi l"only proves the reactionary character of the Hitler regime. It failed to seethat the authen t ic meaning o f c iv il law acts as a cou nterforce to theoverpowering pressure of the comm unity on the private freedom of theindividual person. B ut the process of underm ining c ivi l law, which isstill with us, began long before national socialism arose.

The Roman ius gentium was a gift of God's comm on grace to westernculture. The Rom an jurists masterfully developed its form with a greatsensitivity to practical needs. Many profound principles of law so famil-iar to us today because of modern c ivil law came to expression here.Some of these principles are good fa ith (bona fide) in contractual

Documents

Roots of Western Culture