MAILING LIST 
Home > About Us > Collaborators > Christian Reformed Church > Resources > Worship
Preaching and Worship According to H. J. Kuiper
James A. De Jong
This article originally appeared in Origins the Historical Magazine of the Archives of the Hekman Library at
H. J. Kuiper cut an impressive figure in the pulpit during the 1920s. Young, convicted, and fearless, he spoke forthrightly. His statesmanlike bearing, enhanced by the flowing tails of his Prince Albert suit and his stiffly starched shirt collar, lent authority to what he said. And he said it effectively, with clarity of thought and command of the language and absence of the brogue that still afflicted most of his peers.
When he mounted the pulpit of Broadway Christian Reformed Church on Christmas Day 1925, he was only forty by three days. Yet he was already a confident veteran six years into his fourth pastorate. Graduating from seminary at twenty-one, he had been the youngest man ever to be ordained as a Christian Reformed minister. So he spoke from experience. He preached with authority. And people listened.
Kuiper had no lack of grist for his homiletical mill. The 1920s were threatening times. People on the west side of Grand Rapids were now communicating in English. They were buying a wonderful new invention called "the radio," which meant they were imbibing American news and entertainment en masse for the first time in the denomination's history. Kuiper fretted about the roaring twenties and the encroaching worldliness. He said so from the pulpit--often and in no uncertain terms. His doctrinally precise and heavy sermons detailed why Herman Hoeksema was misguided on common grace, Harry Bultema on premillennialism, and Ralph Janssen on Scripture. Increasingly they found solemn application in warnings against compromise with the world, entreaties to support Christian schools for covenant youth, encouragements to keep the Sabbath, and appeals to reach out evangelistically to a misguided generation. The church's purity, even its very identity, was threatened. And H. J. Kuiper was called and compelled by God to sound the alarm.
Four years later Kuiper accepted the call to Neland Avenue CRC. The congregation was only eight miles across town, but, including the likes of Louis Berkhof and D. H. Kromminga and a dozen or so
Reviewing 1962, the year of Kuiper's death, John H. Kromminga stated "No man in our time has left a deeper imprint on the Christian Reformed Church than Henry J. Kuiper."1 If so, his views on preaching and worship are certainly worth reviewing.
Preaching
Remarkably, an inventory of Kuiper's Banner editorials (he wrote little else in his long career) shows that he produced only 8 on preaching. By contrast, he contributed 106 on all aspects of worship and liturgy. Sabbath observance, on which he wrote 18 columns during his twenty-seven-year career, was on his editorial mind more than twice as often as preaching.
The explanation for this disparity is quite simple. In a reformation tradition that prized "pure preaching of the Word" as the most fundamental of the three marks of the true church, preaching was not in dispute. Worship and liturgy were, sometimes quite heatedly. So were Sunday mores, more by neglect and default than in open debate. Kuiper sounded the bugle where God's troops needed rallying.
He made a number of points about preaching. He dismissed those who made too sharp a distinction between preaching and teaching. Preaching that lacks instruction "is not the kind that edifies, builds up," but preaching devoid of expository substance cannot "impart inspiration to the hearts of truth-hungry men." According to Kuiper, a sermon needs to address both intellect and emotions, conscience and will.2 Kuiper believed in passion and emotion in preaching, especially when appealing to the unsaved.
Not until the last year of his tenure as Banner editor did Kuiper contribute an editorial on "The Minister's Foremost Task." Then he said, "Leading the congregation in public worship is the high point of a minister's divinely appointed task. The center and core of this ministerial activity is the exposition and application of the Word of God. The first and foremost duty of the minister is to be a preacher."3
Preparing sermons, he stated in the same editorial, "requires at least two full days of undisturbed study" a week (emphasis Kuiper's). This is the minimal requirement. Churches, he believed, expected too much from their ministers, and this distracted them from the work of preparing sermons. The heart of this study must be a systematic reading and reflection on the entire Bible. Wider, general reading was important but secondary for ministers, in Kuiper's opinion.
Six years earlier Kuiper broke his editorial golden rule of not relying on or summarizing the work of others on his page. Perhaps because Calvin Seminary was in tumult at the time or perhaps because he simply thought it was a fine contribution, he summarized advice to seminarians from the Gereformeerd Weekblad, a widely-read and respected Dutch paper. Entitled "Pointers for Preachers," it listed and amplified twelve practical hints for successful preaching. Some of these were obvious, like "be original," "don't be conceited," and "learn to read properly." Some of them were salted with humor: "guard against blowing or bluffing" and "guard against pointing the finger or threatening." All of them were wise and practical.
Half of Kuiper's writing on preaching was devoted to comments about preaching the Heidelberg Catechism, a practice that some were neglecting in the 1930s, according to a writer in De Wachter, the Dutch-language sister paper. He counseled that the speculation about rampant omission of Catechism preaching was unfair and unfounded gossip. He did acknowledge that "less aversion to doctrinal preaching" existed a generation before than in his day.4 The tastes of the listener may be just as threatening to the practice as the habits of the preacher, wrote Kuiper. Ministers should do all in their power to make Catechism preaching plain, interesting, and fresh.
Several issues later the editor responded to a keen layman who observed that ministers are called to preach "the sum of Christian doctrine" contained in each Lord's Day. Some ministers, he asserted, select a text related to the Catechism, read it, and omit attention to the Catechism itself. Drawing himself up to full editorial flair, Kuiper categorically rejected such "disguised Catechism preaching" as robbing the congregation! "The right kind of Catechism sermons have more of Scripture in them than the large majority of sermons on free texts," he sniffed.5
A young theology student in graduate studies at Harvard was not convinced. He wrote the esteemed editor a long, carefully framed letter. Because it is impossible to do justice to "the sum" of a Lord's Day in one sermon, why not pick a text that accents one angle of the doctrine, he asked. Furthermore, he asserted, the editor's approach diminishes the historical-redemptive setting of biblical passages. It also allows less serious and in-depth treatment of the Bible since many passages must be covered. A fair-minded man who also wanted to drive his point home definitively, the editor printed the entire letter of John H. Bratt, who went on to become chair-person of the Calvin College Bible Department and an esteemed Banner columnist in his own right. Preaching "the sum" means just that, pointed out the editor. Preaching only "angles" produces doctrinal disjointedness. Besides, passages referred to in the Catechism have an "inner relation" to one another because there is in Scripture "an implied system of doctrine" that our people need to hear and to grasp. "If our brother's position is correct," said H. J., "systematic theology can never be as scriptural as biblical theology."
By now Kuiper was rowing in heavy seas. Not only was the debate getting technical, but Samuel Volbeda, professor of preaching at Calvin Seminary, had schooled Bratt and others in the position the young graduate student was taking. Kuiper knew it. He merely seized the occasion to exercise an important editorial correction on the direction of the seminary. His point made, Kuiper dropped the topic.
Worship and Liturgy
If Kuiper wrote sparsely on preaching, he contributed amply to the discussions on worship. His opinions were shaped by his considerable liturgical interest and experiences.
In 1916 synod approved an overture asking that a uniform order of worship for English-speaking congregations be adopted. Kuiper, a 32-year-old fledgling with nine years of ministerial experience, was not only appointed to the committee of seven charged with this important task; he was named secretary of it. An illustrious group, the committee worked thoroughly, creatively, and unitedly. They diverged on only one point. Kuiper joined a minority of three, led by chairperson and professor of practical theology William Heyns, in rejecting the "votum" as the official beginning of the service. The final report was considered in 1920. Synod decided to refer the report to the churches for study, discussion, and response. It continued the committee in order to receive and to consider communications from the churches. And it referred three specific recommendations to new, separate committees for review. These decisions began a twelve-year debate about liturgy and worship in the Christian Reformed Church. H. J. Kuiper was at the center of the fray.
Synodical discussions on a uniform order of worship languished for eight years.
Meanwhile Kuiper became increasingly anxious that Christian Reformed people were making indiscriminate use of readily available English-language hymns. Many of these were of questionable or mistaken theological quality. When Mr. William B. Eerdmans invited him and several others to join a committee that would compile a hymnal for those "who love the orthodox, evangelical faith,"6 Kuiper enthusiastically accepted. The project fell on Kuiper's shoulders because the committee could not convene as often as necessary to complete the work in the two-year time frame. His preface stated five criteria for selecting hymns to be included. The most prominent was "theological soundness." "Those who love sound doctrine and realize what a vast influence for good or evil religious song may exert upon the thought and life of the members of the church of Christ will appreciate the effort we believe, to provide a collection of hymns which are fully Scriptural in their teaching and spirit," he wrote.7 He amplified the point, noting that the committee had freely excised or amended offending stanzas. A second criterion was "general use." The committee wanted a collection that was suitable for Christian schools, church societies, Sunday school, evangelistic settings, and family gatherings. The numbers also had to be singable. Fourth, the committee included a collection of hymns whose tunes and texts were especially designed for children. It concluded with a section of chorales, which attempted to give direction to the revived interest in that musical form. The entire collection of 451 numbers was arranged topically.
Preparing The New Christian Hymnal for press was a "gigantic task," admitted Kuiper. But the conviction that the effort would not be futile was his "sufficient reward." The editor could not have known how important the impact of his publication was to be. For two subsequent generations it shaped the Christian musical idiom, expressed the devotional experience, and molded the theology of the Christian Reformed Church and related denominations. It was produced at a time when the Dutch subculture was moving into the evangelical mainstream and when the church was ready to augment its exclusively psalm-singing tradition with the best in Christian hymnody. The hymnal is, perhaps, the greatest achievement of H. J. Kuiper's life.
By the time the hymnal was well along in production and had been widely advertised, the synod of 1928 was held. Kuiper's fingerprints mark the assembly. The first morning he was elected vice president. The synod highly commended the excellent report of the "Committee on the Improvement of Our Public Worship," as it was by then being called. The delegates knew Kuiper had drafted it. Synod adopted the committee's recommendation to adopt a uniform order of worship, but despite a fine, supportive overture from Classis Grand Rapids East, it stalled the adoption of its proposal to allow the use of approved hymns in worship services until 1930. Instead, it appointed a committee to investigate whether such hymns could be found. Kuiper was named to it, but to his dismay and that of others on the committee for the improvement of public worship, Synod refused to roll back the 1926 decision against allowing church choirs. The committee's argument that "flexibility within uniformity" should also extend as far as choirs did not persuade the majority of the delegates. Kuiper recorded his negative vote.
Synod also had on its table an overture from Kuiper's consistory. The Broadway CRC was asking synod "to appoint a committee to study the proposed New Christian Hymnal and authorize them, if they can conscientiously do so, to recommend this hymnal" for use by our members and organizations.8 It argued that many hymnals currently used "among us" are doctrinally unsound and are a "menace to the purity of our churches." Furthermore, the men behind the project are "doctrinally sound," and Synod's endorsement would help sales! Synod refused to endorse Kuiper's hymnal sight unseen, because it did not trust a delegated committee to make a decision for Synod.
In one of its final actions, the synod of 1928 elected H. J. Kuiper as editor of The Banner. Early in the sessions it had chosen Dr. D. H. Kromminga for the position, and subsequently also appointed Kromminga as professor of church history. Consulting with his consistory, Kromminga felt he could not assume both positions so declined the editorship. Chosen from a later nomination of three, H. J. Kuiper accepted and found himself catapulted into denominational prominence. Though synod had refused a direct endorsement of his forthcoming hymnal, it accorded the hymnal indirect endorsement by entrusting Kuiper with the most visible position in the denomination.
Kuiper returned as a synodical delegate in 1930, now representing Classis Grand Rapids East. He led devotions at the third session and selected number 415 from The New Christian Hymnal, a chorale based on Psalm 42, "As the Hart When Noon Is Burning." In all, six of synod's twenty-three sessions were opened with selections from the new hymnal. But the tide had turned against the uniform order of worship endorsed by Kuiper, and Kuiper was not elected an officer. In the face of fourteen overtures, most of them negative, and twelve protests against the 1928 decision, this synod rescinded the action of two years earlier. Kuiper, who had given so much thought and energy to liturgical matters and who by this time was one of the most conversant Christian Reformed leaders on the subject, was one of only four delegates to record their opposition. "Synod rescinded the decisions of 1928 ... without showing that said order of worship was contrary to the Word of God, our confession, or the church order," they logged in the official Acts of Synod. It has "utterly failed ... to safeguard the peace and welfare of the churches."9 Despite his disappointment, the editor continued his service on both synod's committee for hymns and Psalter chorales and its committee on the order of worship.
By 1932 the latter had been disbanded, Kuiper was again elected vice president of synod, and he found himself on the newly constituted committee to produce the first Psalter Hymnal. By 1934 he was chairing the committee which produced a report to synod detailing the immense effort that had gone into coordinating and producing the denomination's first worship book combining both psalm versifications and hymns. All the liturgical forms had been reviewed and augmented or replaced. Indexes had been prepared. The confessions, forms, and prayers had been reviewed for consistent use of the American Standard Version of Scripture. And the business details had been attended to, so that the publication committee was legally incorporated to own and control the copyright on behalf of the denomination. H. J. Kuiper had orchestrated the event down to reviewing the galleys sent from the printer for review and setting the price of the shortly anticipated book.
In six years Kuiper saw two major liturgical resources through production. That he did so while an active, effective pastor of large congregations is remarkable. That the second project coincided as well with his earliest years as editor of the denomination's weekly magazine makes his achievement nearly unbelievable.
H. J. Kuiper's more than one hundred editorials on worship and liturgy run the gamut. Early on he visited frequently the burning issues of hymns, a uniform order of worship, the absolution of sin as part of the service and the legitimacy of choirs. During the 1930s he understandably kept the church informed on progress being made in selecting suitable hymns and in producing the Psalter Hymnal. During the last twenty years of his editorship his focus often turned to the meaning and importance of corporate public worship. Motive in worship was important to him. So were worshiping as families, the sacraments, and conferences for church musicians. Periodically he revisited the subject of Lent, commending certain aspects of its observance but warning against others. But most prominent in his writing was church music. He did a whole series in 1948 on the kinds of congregational singing and their legitimate use. He was a friend and encourager of church organists. And near the end of his career he raised the unthinkable in an editorial entitled, "Suppose There Were No Music in Church"!10
Given the church's preoccupation with matters of worship and liturgy, it is not surprising that Kuiper gave them the attention he did in his editorials. And his attention was usually solid and sensible. He had studied worship thoroughly and had contemplated it seriously. Contrary to those who think that the 1920s through the 1940s were years when Christian Reformed people were uninformed and indifferent concerning the subject, the church got full, regular instruction on worship and liturgy. In an era when people read The Banner religiously and respected the editor highly, Kuiper's influence was substantial. It is doubtful that anyone before or since has had as great an impact on Christian Reformed worship.
Endnotes
1. Yearbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1963) 338.
2. The Banner, 14 Mar. 1939: 820. (number 2209), p. 820.
3. The Banner, 1956 (volume 91, number 3046), p. 100.
4. The Banner, 1938 (volume 73, number 2167), p. 1036.
5. The Banner, 1939 (volume 74, number 2176), p. 28.
6. Preface, The New Christian Hymnal, edited by H. J. Kuiper. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1929.
7. Ibid.
8. Acta der Synode 1928, p. 63.
9. Acta der Synode 1930, p. 186.
10. The Banner, 1954 (volume 89, number 2972) p. 965.
James A. De Jong is president and professor of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary.
