What do you think?
Rate this book
Unbelief and Revolution
God's word illumines the darkness of society.
Groen van Prinsterer's Unbelief and Revolution is a foundational work addressing the inherent tension between religion and modernity. As a historian and politician, Groen was intimately familiar with the growing divide between secular culture and the church in his time. Rather than embrace this division, these lectures, originally published in 1847, argue for a renewed interaction between the two spheres. Groen's work served as an inspiration for many contemporary theologians, and as a mentor to Abraham Kuyper, he had a profound impact on Kuyper's famous public theology.
Harry Van Dyke, the original translator, reintroduces this vital contribution to our understanding of the relationship between religion and society.
Groen van Prinsterer's Unbelief and Revolution is a foundational work addressing the inherent tension between religion and modernity. As a historian and politician, Groen was intimately familiar with the growing divide between secular culture and the church in his time. Rather than embrace this division, these lectures, originally published in 1847, argue for a renewed interaction between the two spheres. Groen's work served as an inspiration for many contemporary theologians, and as a mentor to Abraham Kuyper, he had a profound impact on Kuyper's famous public theology.
Harry Van Dyke, the original translator, reintroduces this vital contribution to our understanding of the relationship between religion and society.
280 pages, Paperback
Published November 28, 2018
16 people are currently reading
163 people want to read
About the author
Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer
174 books4 followersDutch historian and politician for the Anti-Revolutionary Party.
From 1829 to 1833 he acted as secretary to William II of the Netherlands in Brussels. Afterwards he took a prominent part in Dutch domestic politics, and gradually became the leader of the Anti-Revolutionary Party,
Groen was ardently opposed to constitutionalist Thorbecke, the father of Dutch parliamentarism, whose principles he denounced as ungodly and revolutionary. Although Groen lived to see these principles triumph in the constitutional reforms implemented by Thorbecke, he never ceased to oppose them until his death in 1876.
From 1829 to 1833 he acted as secretary to William II of the Netherlands in Brussels. Afterwards he took a prominent part in Dutch domestic politics, and gradually became the leader of the Anti-Revolutionary Party,
Groen was ardently opposed to constitutionalist Thorbecke, the father of Dutch parliamentarism, whose principles he denounced as ungodly and revolutionary. Although Groen lived to see these principles triumph in the constitutional reforms implemented by Thorbecke, he never ceased to oppose them until his death in 1876.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 11, 2020
This book is a timely read for 2020 in its post-Covid19 agitations supposedly based on concerns for racial justice/injustice and Black Lives Matter (“...as a movement, not as an organization”). This book is also “timeless” because of this general principles for which Groen argues and his premise that we are all living in an age of Revolution. Although this may be his name for a modern framework, it is also an appropriate name for the underlying premises that have been the basis for much of modern action since the French Revolution. Along with Groen, I would distinguish the “American Revolution” as a form of reformation more so than an anti-God and anti-revelation type of revolution.
The thing is, I think he is correct that we are living in an age where revolution is the promoted action and basis for human existence.
The book quotes frequently from Jean Jacques Rousseau and he is clear he has points of agreement and disagreement with his ideas about the Social Contract. Groen makes a very convincing argument that revolution is based on unbelief (in God and in revelation)n and presumes itself to be reasonable and rational. Groen shows that once humans separate themselves from the idea of God as the basis for all power/sovereignty, Rousseau’s argument is internally consistent.
Groen sees much of “modern democracy” based on Rousseau’s social contract (as opposed to Godly reason and covenants) which is the result of theological unbelief that is anti-God, anti-revelation, and is the heart of the Revolution principle.
Although I have never been a fan of Rousseau’s Social Contract (either the reading or the idea) l have come to appreciate the depth to which Rousseau affected Locke and contemporary ideas about democracy in the US—not the older founders’ principles that I still contend were based on biblical covenantal thinking. The presumption of the “sovereignty of the people” as the complete and total justification for any and all actions is clearly evident in the reasoning that comes out of Portland, Seattle, Atlantan and several other places where the local mayors are turning a blind eye to the violence and mayhem created by “peaceful protesters.” This is allowed (and even promoted) because, as Groen contends, the basis for our thinking and our society is THE Revolutionary principle that places humanity above God, human reasoning above revelation, and an excuse to allow any and all forms of revolutionary acts / actions in the name of “the sovereign people.”
This is a very good read. It is not a typical academic treatise but Groen does well to temper his language and ideas so that they are better understood—even by those who disagree with him and opposed him.
The thing is, I think he is correct that we are living in an age where revolution is the promoted action and basis for human existence.
The book quotes frequently from Jean Jacques Rousseau and he is clear he has points of agreement and disagreement with his ideas about the Social Contract. Groen makes a very convincing argument that revolution is based on unbelief (in God and in revelation)n and presumes itself to be reasonable and rational. Groen shows that once humans separate themselves from the idea of God as the basis for all power/sovereignty, Rousseau’s argument is internally consistent.
Groen sees much of “modern democracy” based on Rousseau’s social contract (as opposed to Godly reason and covenants) which is the result of theological unbelief that is anti-God, anti-revelation, and is the heart of the Revolution principle.
Although I have never been a fan of Rousseau’s Social Contract (either the reading or the idea) l have come to appreciate the depth to which Rousseau affected Locke and contemporary ideas about democracy in the US—not the older founders’ principles that I still contend were based on biblical covenantal thinking. The presumption of the “sovereignty of the people” as the complete and total justification for any and all actions is clearly evident in the reasoning that comes out of Portland, Seattle, Atlantan and several other places where the local mayors are turning a blind eye to the violence and mayhem created by “peaceful protesters.” This is allowed (and even promoted) because, as Groen contends, the basis for our thinking and our society is THE Revolutionary principle that places humanity above God, human reasoning above revelation, and an excuse to allow any and all forms of revolutionary acts / actions in the name of “the sovereign people.”
This is a very good read. It is not a typical academic treatise but Groen does well to temper his language and ideas so that they are better understood—even by those who disagree with him and opposed him.
October 15, 2022
Penetrating analysis.
July 23, 2023
Groen expounds what might be termed a Protestant version of throne and altar conservatism. He traces a line from the decline of Christian faith to the rise of the philosophes and the primacy of reason to the Revolution. As a history it seems a measure too obtuse, in his attempt to shoehorn everything from Rousseau and his antecedents through to 1846 into his theory of revolution. And in attempting to absolve Luther and the Reformation of any taint of or blame for the revolutionary tendency he perhaps protests a little too much.
But as a description of the mechanisms underlying revolutions past and future, he has few peers. He demonstrates that the French Revolution's "excesses" follow from the theory, especially Rousseau, regarding the sovereignty and absolute power of the people. His descriptions of civil religion and the incompatibility of a powerful, ambitious state with the practice of any but a chastened, toothless religion resonate today, even if our scene bears little resemblance to France in the years 1789-1794. While his seeming suggestion that revolutionary tyranny is inevitable without a robust connection between the sovereign and the Protestant faith is difficult to stomach in this day and age, the notion that a government without limiting principles (be it the true sovereignty of the Divine or even just the primacy and immutability of laws over men) is a tyrant in waiting remains sage almost two centuries on.
But as a description of the mechanisms underlying revolutions past and future, he has few peers. He demonstrates that the French Revolution's "excesses" follow from the theory, especially Rousseau, regarding the sovereignty and absolute power of the people. His descriptions of civil religion and the incompatibility of a powerful, ambitious state with the practice of any but a chastened, toothless religion resonate today, even if our scene bears little resemblance to France in the years 1789-1794. While his seeming suggestion that revolutionary tyranny is inevitable without a robust connection between the sovereign and the Protestant faith is difficult to stomach in this day and age, the notion that a government without limiting principles (be it the true sovereignty of the Divine or even just the primacy and immutability of laws over men) is a tyrant in waiting remains sage almost two centuries on.
September 28, 2022
Erudite interpretation of the ideas behind the French Revolution, what he calls a perpetual revolution continuing past the actions of the French to other governments and countries.
Worth reading and re-reading. The biggest insight for me is from van Prinsterer's argument that once divinely ordained offices (King, Priest, Family) are removed, everyone becomes a clerk tasked with producing universal happiness. If they fail in this regard, there is no limit to removing them.
Worth reading and re-reading. The biggest insight for me is from van Prinsterer's argument that once divinely ordained offices (King, Priest, Family) are removed, everyone becomes a clerk tasked with producing universal happiness. If they fail in this regard, there is no limit to removing them.
March 2, 2026
Essential reading to understand the cultural crises of our time. Van Prinsterer correctly saw that the French Revolution was the logical development of the anti-Christian Revolutionary principle. This principle is still alive and well, and keeps being recycled in various forms.
Read
May 18, 2023Important for seeing what Groen thought, but not the place to go for a history or analysis.
July 27, 2023
Pure Gold. And just what our sick-with-secularism church culture needs to hear.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews