Introduction
This article examines the rise of the International Calvinistic Congresses, along with the subsequent development of the International Association for Reformed Faith and Action (IARFA),[1] to shed light on the development of Neocalvinism in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) and Herman Bavinck (1854–1921).[2]
It has been said that there are as many Calvinisms as there are Calvinists. The term Calvinism should perhaps be “Calvinisms” (plural). However, despite differences there have been numerous attempts to provide some international collaboration between Calvinists.[3] This aim of collaboration, of promoting a unified world- and life-view and cultural engagement is rooted in Neocalvinism. Neocalvinism faced significant obstacles; some theological, others arising from external disruptions such as World War II. And yet, despite these setbacks, the vision persisted for a globally connected Calvinist movement committed to faith, culture, and social engagement in line with biblical principles. As many of the primary sources are not easily accessible or available only in Dutch, I will include extensive (translated) quotations.[4]
The origins of the International Calvinist Congresses must be understood within the broader resurgence of Neocalvinist thought in the late nineteenth century. The early Congresses emerged not as isolated initiatives but as deliberate attempts to give institutional expression to a growing international consciousness.
The Interwar Years
The origins of the International Conferences can be traced to both Jan Van Lonkhuyzen (1873–1942) and Valentijn Hepp (1879–1950), who appear to have arrived at the idea independently. In 1924, Hepp had lectured on “International Calvinism” at various places in the United States. His lectures were published in a popularized form in Die Reformatie and subsequently published in a booklet in Dutch (Hepp 1929). Hepp had been a church pastor in Antwerp, Klundert, and Watergraafsmeer. He earned his doctorate with a dissertation on “Het testimonium Spiritus Sancti generale” (The General Testimony of the Holy Spirit) in 1914 supervised by Herman Bavinck. In 1920, he became the chief editor of De Reformatie (Harinck 1993).[5] Then in 1922, he succeeded Bavinck as professor of Dogmatics at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU).
Hepp advocated and campaigned for international cooperation as it would provide unity and strength, expand the influence of Calvinism globally, provide a basis for tackling global issues from a distinctly Calvinist perspective, and be a fulfillment of Calvin’s own vision. The backdrop of Hepp’s endeavors was the imminent threat of another global conflict.[6]
Hepp also addresses several criticisms or concerns regarding international collaboration. He distinguishes internationalism, which respects national boundaries and cultural diversity, from cosmopolitanism, which, like the Tower of Babel, seeks to erase them.
Internationalism, after all, assumes that every nation has a right to a place under the sun. It wants to preserve the character of every nation intact. It only wishes to bring the nations into closer contact with each other, under the guarantee of mutual independence.
Cosmopolitanism, however, coddles the desire to trample all national rights through unbridled annexation, through a sacrilegious imperialism, and to establish a polis, a city-state, which will spread over the cosmos, over the whole world.
This cosmopolitanism is an angry reaction against God’s intervention in the life of humanity at Babylon.
But Internationalism is a respect for that Divine act.
The former must also be rejected as a God-hostile principle even by the most idealistic Calvinist. (Hepp 1929, 10)
He recognized that internationalism has been tainted by worldly concerns, but this does not necessarily invalidate the idea itself. International cooperation has not always been successful, but starting with national organizations that enable a bottom-up approach with a focus on more realistic goals will, he thinks, by the grace of God, be more successful. He realizes that the challenge of uniting Calvinists with differing confessions will be difficult and so suggests adopting a concise statement of shared beliefs rather than a comprehensive creed.
Hepp’s tentative suggestion is as follows:
The International Calvinist Organization accepts as its religious foundation the fundamental truths of the Calvinist Reformation as being: the inerrancy and absolute authority of all Sacred Scripture; the Trinity of God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Persons distinct, but essentially one; the Eternal Counsel, in which God alone determined by His good pleasure all that should come to pass in time, and in which eternal election as well as eternal reprobation are included; the shaping of the whole universe into substance and force in an instant by His word of power alone; the creation of man in His image in perfect sinlessness; the maintenance and government of all things, by which fate and chance are excluded, and everything is led to one end, the glory of God’s name; the voluntary fall of man, imputed by the covenant of works to every member of the human race; the general depravity of Adam and his descendants, so that not even the will to do good is left in him; the tempering of the effects of sin by common grace, but also the insufficiency of common grace unto salvation; the necessity of particular grace in the way of the covenant of grace, the historical facts of salvation, the incarnation of the Word from the virgin Mary, the passion, death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; the utterly substitutionary character, the indispensability, and the sufficiency of Christ’s mediatorial work; the justification of the elect sinner on the merits of Christ, and the acceptance thereof by faith, which the Holy Ghost worketh in the heart; the necessity of rebirth, repentance, and sanctification; the existence of the church as the gathering of the true believers from the Fall to the Second Coming of Christ and its institution through the apostolate, from which sprang the ordinary offices of pastor and teacher, elder and deacon; the ordinance of Word and Sacrament, viz. baptism, which ought to be administered to both infants and believers, and the Lord’s Supper, as means of grace; the abode with Christ of the souls of the believers who have died, and of those who disobey Him, in the place of darkness; the resurrection of the flesh of all the dead without distinction at the second coming of Christ at the last day; the judgment of the heavenly Judge upon all, in which He admits His own into eternal life, and consigns the rest to eternal death; the rebirth of heaven and earth into a habitation of the blessed, where God shall be all in all.
On this religious foundation are built the foundations of morality, science, art, family, state, society, in short, of every sphere of life, which includes the recognition of God’s absolute sovereignty over man in all his relations; the rejection of human autonomy and the profession of theonomy; the maintenance of the divine origin of all true human authority; the demand of social justice, of peaceful relations between peoples, of holding sacred the ties established by God; the call to claim all culture for the Christ of God; so that not man, but God alone, may stand in the center of human knowing, willing, and acting. (Hepp 1929, 42–43)
He notes that the organization is not ecclesiastical in nature. Although it is debatable whether Hepp can be counted among the Neocalvinists,[7] Gijsbert Van den Brink makes this pertinent observation:
Hepp was a polemical theologian (even in his own churches), who tried to cast neo-Calvinist theological thinking in the form of a fixed dogmatic system, thus extrapolating the intellectualist element in Abraham Kuyper’s theology at the expense of its more mystical side. (Van den Brink 2024, 276)
Hepp’s vision for international cooperation certainly had Neocalvinist overtones:
After all, the Calvinistic view of God, the world, and life covers a much broader field than just the ecclesiastical.
Calvinism has a universal cultural vocation.
It cannot be confined within church buildings. It pours forth in every direction, to every region that is subject to Christ. (Hepp 1929, 18)
Hepp goes on to identify three conditions that are important for cooperation: “1. Ecclesiastical disputes are excluded; 2. Issues which affect active politics are left untouched; 3. Principle is always put above personal sympathies” (Hepp 1929, 18).
The other person with a similar vision for international collaboration was Jan Van Lonkhuyzen.[8] As W. G. de Vries observes, “While Hepp started his initiative with a national movement that would support and prepare international cooperation, Van Lonkhuyzen approached the matter from the opposite direction: international cooperation, which would also lead to national cooperation among Calvinists” (De Vries 1974, 27).
In 1928 Van Lonkhuyzen took part in the fifteenth Annual Sovereign Grace Union (SGU) Conference in London (Van Lonkhuyzen 1929; Bebbington 2011a; 2011b). There he expressed and articulated a vision for international cooperation between Calvinists.
Together, the initiatives of Hepp and Van Lonkhuyzen laid the groundwork for what would become a significant attempt at fostering international Calvinist solidarity during the turbulent interwar period.
Another person with a vision for international Calvinistic cooperation was the Scot, Donald Maclean (1869–1943).[9] In March 1927 he was the first Calvin Fund lecturer[10] at the VU Amsterdam and had contributed articles to the journal of the Kuyper Foundation (1929a; 1929b).[11]
“Churchman” commented on Maclean’s visit to the Netherlands:
Dr. Coljin [sic] has had a good deal to do with the modern revival of Calvinism in its social aspects. In a statement to the meeting recently held in Edinburgh to make arrangements for the forthcoming Congress, Professor Donald Maclean stated that ten years ago, when he visited Holland to deliver a course of lectures at Amsterdam University, he spent some time in the company of Dr. Coljin, who informed him of his intention to summon an international conference “for the study afresh of the place and value of the teaching of John Calvin.” (Churchman 1937, 287)
Maclean was also the editor of the newly formed (1929) Evangelical Quarterly.[12] As noted in the Evangelical Quarterly, “His [Maclean’s] championship of Reformed Doctrine was strengthened by his personal friendship with Reformed Leaders in Europe, Africa, the United States and Australasia, who held him in esteem and affection” (Blair 1943, 81).
As editor of the Evangelical Quarterly it gave him the opportunity to invite international Calvinists to Scotland to lecture. In 1937 Oswald T. Allis of Westminster Seminary visited, in 1938 William Childs Robinson of Columbia Theological Seminary, and in 1939 Auguste Lecerf. Later a Dutch lecturer had to reject the invitation as the outbreak of war meant travel was impossible; instead D. M. Lloyd-Jones delivered “The Plight of Man and Power of God” (Lloyd-Jones 1942). As Collins notes, “These appointments did much to establish and strengthen bonds between the various groups of the widely scattered family of Calvinists throughout the world” (Collins 1944, 72).
Macleod observes, “Maclean’s activities outside Scotland began in 1910 when he was sent on a fact-finding trip to South Africa and Australia and, by the 1920s, he was a dominant figure in FC [Free Church] ecumenism” (2021, 24).
Maclean was also involved with the Sovereign Grace Union and from 1935, until his death, was president of the SGU (Hyde 2015, 17).
The Role of the Sovereign Grace Union
In May 1932, an important conference took place in London, its title: “The Reformed Faith: Commonly called Calvinism” (SGU 1932). This international conference was the eighteenth conference organized by the Sovereign Grace Union (SGU).[13] It was held at Grove Chapel, Camberwell, London and at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, London. The secretary of the SGU and pastor of Grove Chapel was Henry Atherton (1875–1933). Unfortunately, Atherton was unable to attend because of illness.
The conference was the result of the desire to form an international connection between Calvinists. The SGU was a pan-denominational Calvinist organization based on free grace doctrines. In each of their publications this vision statement was printed:
THE Sovereign Grace Union is the ONLY Interdenominational Society standing for a PROTESTANTISM which the Martyrs considered WORTHY dying for. It is by MAINTAINING True Reformation Principles that alone IS BUILT UP an effective opposition to Rome, based ON SOUND Foundations which magnify the FREE GRACE of the Triune Jehovah, and DOCTRINES of the Everlasting Gospel.[14]
The SGU’s first conference in 1915 was held in Grove Chapel, Camberwell with the topic “Our Benefits in Christ.” Subsequent conferences addressed “Grace” (1916), “Covenant” (1917), “Redemption” (1918), “Some Foundational Truths” (1919), “The Lord Jesus Christ” (1922), “The Atonement” (1923), “The Holy Ghost” (1924), “The Church and Calvinism” (1926), and “Doctrinal Principles” (1927). All were typical traditional Calvinistic concerns. However, in 1928, the annual conference saw a notable shift in scope when Jan Van Lonkhuyzen addressed the gathering and proposed an ambitious vision for international cooperation among Calvinists.
In his address, Van Lonkhuyzen reminded the audience that Calvin had been an “emblem of International Christianity,” attracting students from across Europe to Geneva. He emphasized the pressing need for national and international cooperation:
First, there is the task for the Calvinists of each country to perform for and in their own country. They should band together and form one national Calvinistic league, in order that it may be seen that God has still in that country His people who stand for the old truth. This is indeed giving honour and glory to God for His faithfulness. (Van Lonkhuyzen 1929, 121)
He concludes with a call to action:
For that purpose it will be advisable for Calvinists of all nations to band together, and to show to the whole world that there is still, through the Lord’s grace, a people left that has not bowed the knee before the Baals of our times! Indeed, such an international league of Calvinists of all countries will give honor to God and His truth over the whole world. And these national leagues of Calvinists, united in one international league, can greatly help, guide, teach and support one another. We have many enemies over against us: rationalism, indifference, superstition, etc. We have a tremendous struggle. (Van Lonkhuyzen 1929, 122)
This address appears to have been a catalyst for subsequent collaboration, leading to an exploratory SGU delegation visit to the Netherlands the following year. The October 1929 issue of Peace and Truth featured detailed reports, press clippings, and photographs documenting the visit (Cole 1929).[15]
The English delegation—which included Atherton, Rev. C. D. Pool, Rev. Charles Breed, Mr. R. Hanson[16] among others—visited major Dutch cities including The Hague, Delft, Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Leiden, Amsterdam, Volendam, Marken, and Utrecht. The delegates were struck by the “vigorous life of the Calvinistic faith” in the Netherlands. During the visit, the delegation attended a service at The Hague where Rev. Barkey Wolf preached. Atherton, following the service, expressed his regret at not knowing Dutch, remarking that he longed to read Kuyper’s works in their original language.[17] That evening, at the Wolfs’ residence, the group met two of Kuyper’s daughters, both of whom presented papers on charitable institutions and the work of the Calvinistic Girls’ Union.
A particularly significant private meeting took place on 15 August with Hendrikus Colijn (1869–1944), Kuyper’s political successor, at Kuyper’s former residence in The Hague. The meeting, facilitated by Van Lonkhuyzen, served as a further step toward organizing an international Calvinist association. The proposed aims for such an association were:
1. To bring Calvinists of all countries into closer contact with each other.
2. The propagation of these basic principles by publishing Calvinist materials.
3. The organization of national and international conferences.
4. To produce its own publications. (De Vries 1974, 33)
Suggested participants included leading theologians and figures:
Netherlands: Prof. Hepp…; Scotland: Prof. Maclean; America: J. Van Lonkhuyzen, Professor Kuizenga, M. Broekstra, Prof. L. Berkhof, H. Beets, Prof. S. Volbeda, Professor Fox, Professor Mackenzie, Professor Wilson; France: Prof. Lecerf and his circle; South Africa: Prof. Dutoit; Hungary: Prof. J. Sebestyen; Germany: W. Kolfhaus. (De Vries 1974, 3)
Despite this momentum, Van Lonkhuyzen expressed significant reservations about Atherton’s leadership and the SGU’s intentions, as revealed in a candid letter to Colijn dated 11 September 1931. In it, Van Lonkhuyzen warned of Atherton’s affiliations, particularly his sympathies with the G. H. Kersten[18] circle, and the internal dynamics of the SGU made him cautious about deeper collaboration.
Zierikzee, 11 Sept. 1931
Dear Sir,
In response to your letter regarding advice on the letter from Rev. Atherton, I inform you that my advice would be to advise Mr. Colijn:
a. To be cautious with Rev. Atherton and others. He appears to be a man of [G. H.] Kersten persuasion. He openly expressed this to me after his last or penultimate visit to our country. According to him, we are just a worldly mess. There lives in The Hague, on Paleisstraat, a young lady from his congregation who runs a business there; she has also informed him in such a way that he belongs at Kersten’s home, and what we are according to her account.
b. Our American brothers (Dr. Beets, Eerdmans, etc.) have completely broken ties with him. He wished to make a trip to America under the auspices of Rev. Hoeksema[19] (approximately the Kersten party here). They wrote to him that if he came in that way, he would not be received by them. He has some contributors from the Hoeksema circles. He also preached for him in London.
c. The Sovereign Grace Union is his idol; he wants to make it an international organization. In this Sov. Grace Union, he is lord and master. There are some who do not agree with him and his principles, and least of all with his autocracy, but he rules.
d. The scheme is to raise money for the Sov. Grace Union; otherwise, I do not believe they care much about our principles.
e. I receive the gentlemen kindly, but that’s about it.
f. It is a shame that our own organization has been so miserably broken down; otherwise we might in time have brought healthier principles to them, or at least to a good portion of them.
Yours sincerely,
J. Van Lonkhuyzen. (De Vries 1974, 38n37; Bishop 2024, 314–15)
A proposal for an international conference in mid-September was considered premature. Colijn also expressed a desire to broaden the scope of the initiative. He suggested:
1. The acceptance of the obviousness of the dangers to Christian faith and practice arising from the growing denial of God’s sovereignty;
2. The confession of the full sovereignty of God in every sphere of life and of his Word as a rule of faith and practice;
3. Propaganda principles mentioned in point 2 to combat the dangers mentioned under 1. (De Vries 1974, 33)
In the article “An Impression of Holland” published in Peace and Truth, presumably by Atherton, he acknowledges the instrumental role of Kuyper in the revival of Calvinism there and notes that one-eighth of the population hold to the Reformed faith, with “an aggressive religion that enters into their every-day life.” But despite “such a wonderful revival, religion itself finds itself attacked by an irreligious foe.” The foe, it appears, is lawlessness and Bolshevism. He concludes by stating that “Even at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace and we rejoice that our brothers and sisters in Holland are praying for us.”
In a letter dated 21 August, 1928, Colijn writes of the meeting (De Vries 1974):
The Hague,
21st August 1928
Gentlemen,
I met with Messrs. Atherton, Talbot, Wakeley, and Falkner on 15th August.
The result of this discussion will be evident from the minutes presented herewith. The Sovereign Grace Union is an organization comprised of members from different denominations in England whose aim it is to strengthen and disseminate the Reformed doctrines within their own congregations, especially the doctrine of election.
In addition to this, an awareness has arisen within this circle that the Calvinistic world and life view has a wider application than has hitherto been part of their activities. It has especially been the latter that has motivated them to seek to contact Calvinistic believers in other countries.
As far as the people are concerned, it seems to me that Rev. Atherton is the most positive. He was familiar with some of Kuyper’s writings and has an open mind for the broader significance of Calvinism. Rev. Atherton used to belong to the Anglican Church but after his conversion no longer felt at home there and went to a Congregational church. His opinions are occasionally capable of surprising the Dutch Reformed people, especially when he starts to talk about the Battle of the Boyne and the Loyal Orange Institution, where it would seem that he has aligned those with the Reformed doctrines.
And yet, he is an attractive personality with extensive knowledge, a warm faith, and a good Calvinistic foundation.
Rev. Talbot is a much calmer personality. He discerns the limitations of what is possible more accurately, but he does not have the driving force of Rev. Atherton. Mr. Talbot is still a preacher in the Anglican Church in Portsmouth.
Neither of the other two gentlemen contributed much to the discussion. Nevertheless, they gave the impression of being calm people with well-considered opinions.
My final impression of the discussion is that we can continue in our country to try to form a national committee of those who are prepared to envisage the possibility of international cooperation of Calvinists, and that we shall then have to see what these gentlemen, or their organization, can establish toward this purpose.
Respectfully,
H. Colijn. [20]
The First International Conference of Calvinism (1932), London
Although Atherton’s report concluded on a pessimistic note regarding a persecuted remnant, the visit nonetheless helped pave the way for the International Conference held in May 1932: “The Reformed Faith: Commonly called Calvinism.” In the preface to the conference proceedings the authors acknowledge the work of Van Lonkhuyzen:
For some years past there has been a growing desire on the part of many brethren for some form of international connection for mutual benefit between Calvinists throughout the world. Since 1928, when the Rev. Dr J. Van Lonkhuyzen first addressed a meeting on the subject in London, an extensive correspondence has been conducted by the Sovereign Grace Union with Calvinists in other countries, and thus was prepared the way for the First International Conference of Calvinists, when representatives from eight different countries met and exchanged views. (SGU 1932, 4)
The outcome of the meeting was that:
1. that efforts should begin with the formation of national committees;
2. through which greater clarity on common principles would be sought by private correspondence;
3. that the work of the national committees would vary by country;
4. that, given the still weak expression of Calvinism in countries such as Germany, France, Switzerland, Hungary initial contact between Britain, the United States and the Netherlands and others is for the time being sought;
5. that international cooperation will initially mainly consist in exchanging speakers and holding conferences. (De Vries 1974, 34)
These resolutions reflected the conference’s consensus on a gradual, federated approach to international Calvinist cooperation. The gathering itself brought together delegates from different countries to consider the possibility of “formulating a scheme for the ultimate formation of an International Federation of Calvinists.”
Unfortunately, Van Lonkhuyzen was unable to attend the conference but F. W. Grosheide (1881–1972), professor of New Testament from the VU Amsterdam and Hepp were there, as were delegates from other countries.[21] Hepp’s lecture, subsequently published in the Evangelical Quarterly, contained a distinct Neocalvinist theme:
It would be an error to suppose that the distinctiveness of Calvinism, in depth, is to be sought only in the Reformed dogmas. Calvinism is more than a world- and life-view, more than a view concerning God. It is not merely doctrine. If it were, the charge of intellectualism, sometimes directed against it, would be fully deserved. But it is also practice. It is religious, moral, political, social, scientific, aesthetic life. (Hepp 1932, 339)
At the Congress in London, it was decided to continue organizing international Congresses of Calvinists. It was proposed that a second international Congress would take place in Amsterdam in 1934.
Numerous others could not attend and several sent messages; these included Henry Atherton, Donald Maclean (Scotland), Van Lonkhuyzen, (Holland), J. Sebestyen (Budapest), and J. Warren (S. Ireland).
The following resolution was submitted by the SGU:
The Committee of the Sovereign Grace Union, whilst emphasising its insistence upon a sound doctrinal basis as fundamental to any truly Calvinistic Federation, is of opinion that practical co-operation is immediately possible, and ultimate Federation may be eventually achieved by (i.) Official correspondence between Societies of each country; (ii.) Interchange of Society publications; (iii.) The publication annually, by each Society in its own magazine, of a “letter” (or report) from each of the other Societies co-operating; (iv.) Possible arrangement of further International Conferences in other centres.
The committee further maintained that each Society shall retain its own individuality and jurisdiction in its own affairs, and shall not be bound by any acts on the part of any other Society. (SGU 1932, 7)
It was thought that “a more definite statement as to the Doctrinal Basis was desirable” (SGU 1932, 7). It was agreed unanimously that only those Calvinistic bodies that adhered to the Synod of Dordt, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Confession of La Rochelle, or “any other recognized National Confession of the Protestant Reformed faith” could be invited “to federate.”
It was also suggested that the newly formed (1929) Evangelical Quarterly could serve the interest of Calvinists throughout the world. Maclean, who was unable to attend as his wife was suddenly taken ill, had been scheduled to chair the meeting; he was one of the editors of the Evangelical Quarterly.
“W.” provides a brief item regarding the proposed conference:
Abroad
ENGLAND—The Sovereign Grace Union takes the initiative to establish an International Calvinist Confederation.
It is a joyful phenomenon that, in recent years, our glorious Reformed confession has become known and appreciated in various parts of the world. We have often heard from those who traveled abroad that, while they enjoyed much beauty, they nevertheless missed the Reformed preaching—something we also experienced. We had the impression that, apart from Wales, Scotland, and America, there was hardly any Reformed preaching to be heard.
A few weeks ago, we were surprised by an article from Dr. J. Van Lonkhuyzen in De Standaard, informing us that there exists in England a Sovereign Grace Union—an association that has inscribed God’s sovereign grace upon its banner. This Union consists of English Calvinists from various church traditions who uphold the doctrine of free grace. Among its members are many ministers: Episcopalians, Baptists, Congregationalists, or Independents, as well as numerous prominent laypeople. The foundation of this Union is roughly the same as that recorded in the Five Articles against the Remonstrants. Dr. Van Lonkhuyzen once attended a meeting of the London branch of the Union, where he also spoke. Last year, he had written several articles advocating closer unity and cooperation among Calvinists from all nations. To achieve the goal he had in mind with his writings, Dr. Van Lonkhuyzen traveled to London. His message was received with joy, and hands were joined in agreement.
After preparation and discussion, the Sovereign Grace Union took the initiative for action toward unity and cooperation among Calvinists from all nations. The Union is an organization well-suited to take on this cause, having already accomplished much in England. The meeting took place in London, the hub from which the lines of global communication extend.
However, it was also decided that while the Sovereign Grace Union initiated the formation of an International Calvinist Confederation, this new institution would stand on its own—working together with and supporting the Sovereign Grace Union, but not identifying itself with the Union and its more limited scope.
Thus, in a meeting convened by the Union the following day, the foundation was laid for an independent International Calvinistic Confederation. Leading Calvinists from other nations would be invited to establish an agreed-upon foundation and program and to collaborate on that basis. It goes without saying that we will follow the further development of this Federation with great interest. We have never felt sympathy for the Presbyterian Alliance, as we believe that an alliance based on agreement regarding church government, rather than on a shared confession of fundamental doctrinal tenets, lacks sufficient strength—since it brings together too many diverging perspectives.
This concern does not apply to a Federation whose foundation is Calvinism. May the organizers succeed in formulating such a foundation and working plan that all who may call themselves issus de Calvin [followers of Calvin] can wholeheartedly join in! In Hungary, Switzerland, Denmark, and France, signs of an awakening Reformed life can be observed. It would be a great blessing if those who now feel more or less isolated could receive support from a Federation that seeks to unite all who have embraced the spiritual heritage of Calvin.
The Second International Conference of Calvinism (1934), Amsterdam
It was decided at the London Congress that the second should take place in 1934 in Amsterdam. The Bond van Gereformeerden (Calvinisten) in Nederland [The Union of Reformed (Calvinist) Churches in the Netherlands],[22] was responsible for organizing the Amsterdam Congress.[23]
Van Lonkhuyzen had played a significant role in revitalizing the Union which had been considered “long-dead” (De Vries 1974, 151). This organization, however, was not without its difficulties. Van Lonkhuyzen had written about concerns some had expressed over the inclusion of individuals who were not Calvinists nor committed to the authority of Scripture. He had hoped to “steer the Calvinists’ association toward the Calvinistic side, to exclude the un-Calvinistic elements that were included in the administration” (De Vries 1974, 151–152). Eventually, despite attempting to resurrect the association, Van Lonkhuyzen broke with it because of its watering down of what he defined as Calvinism. Van Lonkhuyzen ultimately distanced himself from the association and appears not to have participated in any of the subsequent international conferences.
He was, however, not alone in his concerns. One influential Dutch theologian, Klaas Schilder (1890–1952), strongly objected to the growing influence of dialectical theology, especially that of the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) and his followers.[24] Schilder wrote to D. H. Th. Vollenhoven:
On June 4, 1934, colleague Waterink wrote me a letter that included the following sentence: “I had no objection, at least from the Committee organizing the International Congress, to becoming a member.”
Colleague Waterink and I have discussed this matter. I told him that I regretted his participation. The reasons for my regret are not relevant here, except for one, which also explains why I am writing this letter.
I personally received a visit from colleague [V. H.] Rutgers, your chairman in this matter, who invited me to participate as well. He showed me the program, which included a speaking engagement for Professor Haitjema.[25] I may share this because I am not disclosing secrets to outsiders.
I told colleague Waterink that I did not understand how one could invite Mr. Haitjema to a Calvinist Congress. In my view, he is not a Calvinist at all. I extensively discussed this issue with colleague Rutgers and even cited this fact as a reason for my refusal to participate. (De Vries and Vollenhoven 1992, 14–15)
Vollenhoven responded to Schilder on 27 June 1934 and wrote:
At the next meeting (May 24), Dooyeweerd was absent, and I was late. Moreover, upon arrival, my attention was immediately drawn to something I noticed in the hall, which gave me much to think about but had no connection to the purpose of the meeting. Thus, I was not particularly inclined to participate and, unlike last time, did not engage in the debate at all. When the invitation of foreign speakers came up, it was decided not to invite Barth, partly based on the argument that he might easily absorb all the Congress’s attention. Regarding the agenda, only the topics were discussed (final decisions were left to the committee); speakers were not discussed at all—except for Barth in the earlier discussion.
At the end, the committee expansion was discussed. The name of Haitjema was mentioned (more on that later), but not that of colleague W[aterink]. From the excerpt of his letter in yours, I infer that if he was not later invited to join the committee, he must have assumed, when he wrote that passage, that the meeting itself was the “organizing committee”—an interpretation that seems incorrect to me, since a meeting like this, with its accidental composition, cannot take responsibility for unknown plans of a still unconstituted “expanded committee.”
However, opinions may differ on this. I only note that if that phrase is based on the interpretation mentioned above, even if one were to accept it momentarily as correct, there is no basis whatsoever for the oral judgment quoted in your letter—at least regarding D[ooyeweerd], who was not even present at the meeting. This is all the more pressing because D. and I, paying little attention to either the committee or the Congress, never discussed these matters in our later encounters. D. remained completely unaware of the proceedings of the second meeting for a full four weeks thereafter—until the evening of Thursday 21 June. . . .
Now, about the H[aitjema] issue. As mentioned, I knew nothing about an invitation for a speaking engagement—only about the plan to include him in the “expanded committee.” It would have been more consistent if I had even objected to that. However, as stated, I was in poor condition that afternoon; moreover, without consciously reflecting on it, I probably thought that H., unlike Barth, would not easily absorb all attention at such a Congress, even if he participated in the discussions.
A few days after the second meeting, I had time to study Gnosis more closely. That study was a revelation to me, as I discovered that the connection between Gnosis and Marcion was much closer than I had previously assumed. So when, last Thursday, Veenhof spoke to me about the almost-forgotten Congress, I saw the “H” in the committee issue in a much sharper light and felt the need to discuss the matter with D[ooyeweerd]. That evening, we met and agreed to make any further requested participation conditional on whether collaboration with open representatives of dialectical theology was rejected. (De Vries and Vollenhoven 1992, 16–19)
As Vollenhoven’s biographer, Stellingwerff notes:
Hitherto [Vollenhoven] had counted Gnosticism as one of the many offshoots of the synthesis philosophy and had paid little attention to it. He had paid much more attention to Pietism in his own group, in connection with Anabaptist thinking. But now, during that meeting, he realized the relationship of Gnosticism with the heretic Marcion, and because of this he also thought he saw a connection with the dialectical theology of Barth and Haitjema. (Stellingwerff 1992, 112)
The above quote from Stellingwerff highlights one of the key concerns that the Neocalvinists had with Barth and dialectical theology. Initial Neocalvinist responses to Barth had been relatively positive. Barth had been sent copies of Kuyper and Bavinck’s work with a Dutch–German dictionary (Harinck 2001, 176), in the hope he would become an ally of Neocalvinism (Tseng 2024, 351). However, optimism gave way to skepticism.
As early as 1928 Antheunis Janse (1890–1960) gave a lecture in which he “compared Barth with Goliath, the enemy of the people of God, who challenges the hosts of Israel with his mockery” (Haitjema 1936, 572).[26] As well as Janse the other two main Dutch Neocalvinist critics of Barth were Klaas Schilder and the young G. C. Berkouwer.[27] Barth was aware of Neocalvinist antipathies largely through Theodorus Haitjema (1888–1972). In his preface to Church Dogmatics III/4, Barth comments:
That the Neo-Calvinists in the Netherlands and elsewhere are not among my well-wishers is something that I have been forced to recognize at all stages of my path so far. Let us not blame them for this, nor for accusing me of being a “monist,” which they have recently proceeded to do. But it is going too far that in their attacks, obviously to offend me the more, they so far forget themselves as to use unrepeatable terms in disparagement of W. A. Mozart. In so doing they have, of course, shown themselves to be men of stupid, cold and stony hearts to whom we need not listen. (Barth 2004a, xiii)[28]
Barth’s estimation of Neocalvinism was through the lens of Haitjema. Haitjema remarks:
It may be considered a fact, from which we can start in this essay, that a state of conflict exists between Dutch Neo-Calvinism and “Barthian” theology. It must even be said that this conflict has recently intensified extraordinarily. While about ten years ago, the Neo-Calvinists were still content with a critical discussion of dialectical theology, with rejection and positive appreciation still arguing for primacy, Barth’s theology has recently been sharply rejected as a danger to the entire Christian life in the Netherlands. (Haitjema 1936, 572)
According to Haitjema, the conflict was not primarily theological but also driven by deeper institutional tensions:
However, the gradually intensifying tension between Neo-Calvinism in our country and dialectical theology is certainly not primarily related to the deepening of theological insight into the differences in the thought world of Kuyper and Barth. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear, in my opinion, that this conflict between Neo-Calvinism and Barthian theology is fundamentally about organizational, ecclesiastical, and political matters in which prestige plays a primary role. (Haitjema 1936, 573)
Not all Neocalvinists, however, were antithetical to Barth. The German Wilhelm Kolfhaus (1870–1954) appreciated both Kuyper and Barth and published works on both of them (Kolfhaus 1924; 1930; 1927).
Nevertheless, the inclusion of Haitjema in the Congress was also problematic to the Neocalvinists as Haitjema described himself as an “opponent of Kuyper” (Haitjema 1919, 83). Haitjema had also been very critical of the Neocalvinist approach to culture. In 1919 he wrote, “The main objection to Dr. Kuyper and his system, it seems to me, is this: Neo-Calvinism is too oriented toward the world, with its culture and science” (Haitjema 1919, 83). And: “Neo-Calvinism is far more oriented toward the world with its culture, art, and science than original Calvinism was” (Haitjema 1919, 85).
The Tweede Internationaal Congres van Gereformeerden (Calvinisten) [Second International Congress] was held in the Nieuwe Waalse Kerk (Keizersgracht 676), Amsterdam 23–26 October 1934.[29] Schilder, Van Lonkhuyzen, Vollenhoven, and Herman Dooyeweerd were conspicuous by their absence.
The front of the conference booklet had this:
The Congress is based on the Reformed confessions of various countries (the Westminster Confession, the 39 Articles of the Church of England, the Confession of La Rochelle, the Dutch Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, etc.).
Anyone who agrees with this foundation may participate in the Congress. (Tweede Internationaal Congres 1935, ii)
The subsequent proceedings were published in 1935 by Martinus Nijhoff. The conference was international and made use of four languages. The papers were published with abstracts in English, Dutch, French, and German.
The conference opened in a prayer meeting on the evening of Tuesday 23 October and closed the following Friday. The key theme was the sovereignty of God. Six sessions took this as their theme:
“The Sovereignty of God.” Prof. Dr. V. Hepp (Amsterdam), Prof. A. Lecerf (Paris)
“The Sovereignty of God and Civilization.” W. A. Langenohl (Rheydt, Rhineland), Prof. Dr. J. Severijn (Utrecht).
“The Sovereignty of God and political life.” Prof. Dr. A. Anema (Amsterdam), Prof. Dr. J. Bohatec (Vienna).
“The Sovereignty of God and Oecumenical life.” Prof. Dr. Th. L. Haitjema (Groningen), Prof. D. Maclean, D.D. (Edinburgh).
“The Sovereignty of God and religious life.” Rev. C. Breed (Ilford, Essex), Dr. E. C. Unmack (St. Albans).
By this time the British contingent was reduced, although Maclean was still very much involved. British interest waned until the fourth Congress in Edinburgh, where inevitably the Scots predominated.
The Third International Conference of Calvinists (1936) Geneva
The Third International Calvinistic Conference (1936) was held in Geneva 15–18 June.[30] Klaas Schilder’s fears about the growing influence of Barthian theology at these conferences were confirmed in Geneva, where one of the key speakers was Peter Barth (1888–1940), one of the younger brothers of Karl Barth.
The Congress aimed to facilitate a confrontation of perspectives on Calvinist theology, particularly regarding the doctrine of election, highlighting the existing differences within the Reformed tradition.
Barth caused controversy by criticizing Calvin’s view of election and predestination. As the Barthian influence increased, the distinctively Neocalvinist voice waned, despite Auguste Lecerf presiding over the proceedings. N. J. Hommes even went so far as to describe the event as a “Congress for anti-Calvinist theology” (cited in De Vries 1974, 343).
The Geneva conference ultimately marked a turning point in the International Calvinist Congresses, where the original Neocalvinist emphasis was increasingly overshadowed by the rising influence of dialectical theology and the so-called “Barthian” reinterpretations of Calvinism.
The Fourth International Conference of Calvinists (1938), Edinburgh
The fourth International Conference returned to Britain and was held in Edinburgh from 6–11 July 1938. The proceedings were published by the Congress Executive in 1938. The editorial committee comprised: J. H. S. Burleigh (Edinburgh), W. H. Hamilton (Edinburgh), S. Leigh Hunt (London) and W. Roundsell Brown (Edinburgh).[31]
The conference was organized by Reverend Professor Donald Maclean D.D., of the Free Church College, Edinburgh. The Honorary President of the Conference was Rev. Daniel Lamont (1870–1950), a professor at New College, Edinburgh from 1927 to 1945 and a Moderator of the Church of Scotland (1936–1937).[32] He was the author of Christ and the World of Thought (Lamont 1935).
There were 156 members of the Congress including Kuyper’s daughter Catherine. The General topic of the conference was “The Reformed Faith and its Ethical Consequences.” Papers were delivered on its diverse consequences:
To the individual (J. Sebestyen, Budapest; and W. Childs Robinson, USA)
In the family (John Macleod, Scotland)
In the church (G. T. Thompson, Scotland)
In society (R. J. G. M’Knight, USA)
In the state (V. H. Rutgers, Holland)[33]
In economics (J. H. S. Burleigh, Scotland)
In art (Leon Wencelius, Strasbourg; P. R. Musculus, France)
The interrelation of theology and (secular) knowledge (J. de Saussure, Switzerland)
The significance of the Old Testament for the Christian life (W. Vischer, Basel). (Proceedings of the Fourth Calvinistic Congress 1938, iii)
The inclusion of economics and art at least suggests a broader perspective than that of traditional Calvinism. The majority perspective here is a far cry from the aims of Colijn. The movement away from a Neocalvinist perspective is noticeable. The Barthian influence was less here than at Geneva; nevertheless, in his paper of “The Reformed faith and the Younger Generation,” the Rev. David H. C. Read (1910–2001) of Coldstream West, Church of Scotland, remarks:
there has been the immense stimulus to our generation provided by the dynamic theology of the Word. I hope I may be allowed to mention the name of Karl Barth without being labelled Barthian. He, and, in this country perhaps to an even greater degree, Emil Brunner, has been a mighty formative—or rather reformative—influence on the theology of the new age. (Read 1938, 108)
It is this continuing tentative welcome of the influence of Barth and Brunner that in part contributed to the gradual decline of Neocalvinist influence. Barth was antagonistic toward a distinctively Christian philosophy and this then undermined the Reformational approach. Barthians tended to view Christian philosophy as something of an oxymoron.
The persistent welcome of Barthian and Brunnerian influences at the Edinburgh conference reflected the continuing theological shift away from the Neocalvinist ambitions that had in part shaped the earlier Congresses.[34]
Plans were already underway at the Edinburgh conference for a fifth Congress, scheduled to take place between 25–28 July 1940 in Emden. However, the onset of World War II prevented it from happening.
A letter from V. H. Rutgers outlined what had been planned: the theme of the conference was to be Ordo Salutis with Rutgers as the Vice-president, and Maclean as the president. The provisional agenda for a planning meeting in Emden was as follows:
The intention is to convene the Congress in Emden in the summer of 1940. This proposal is partly due to the fact that, in that year, it will be four hundred years since à Lasco arrived in Emden. Suggestions for names of individuals who could present a paper are requested.
Discussion on how the international Calvinist movement can be promoted.
Encouraging local Congresses in the individual countries.
Contact with student associations that adhere to the Calvinist faith.
The composition and authority of the international committee and the organization of international Congresses. (De Vries 1974, 383)
The meeting took place on 31 March 1939. Only three invitees were able to attend: Rutgers, David Read, and W. A. Langenohl.[35] It seems that at this time plans were to hold the Congress. However, in the April–June issue of the SGU’s Peace and Truth, an official statement from the chairman and vice-chairman of the international committee, Maclean and Rutgers, was published. It reported that all arrangements for the Congress had been made, but that the war had rendered it indefinitely impossible to proceed. De Vries remarks, “Thus, the thread that connected the pre-war Congresses was broken. Despite a weak attempt to revive it in Amsterdam in 1948, it was never taken up again in the same formative way as before” (De Vries 1974, 385–86).
Fifth International Calvinist Congress (1948), Amsterdam
After a decade of interruption due to the Second World War, the fifth International Calvinist Congress was convened in Amsterdam from 27–29 July 1948. The meetings were held at the Nieuwe Waalse Kerk (New Walloon Church) on the Keizersgracht. As De Vries notes, the Dutch had once again convened an international Congress at the urging of the English and Scots.
In his opening address, Prof. G. Ch. Aalders (1880–1961), the Dutch Old Testament scholar, noted that Calvinism has always had a tendency toward international cooperation. It does not limit itself to theological and ecclesiastical issues—it is a worldview. The theme of this fifth International Calvinistic Congress was “Calvinism and the Modern Man.” Aalders noted that since Edinburgh 1938, no such Congress had been held.
The conference program featured a range of speakers reflecting both the breadth and international scope of Reformed thought at the time.[36] The opening lecture, delivered by Prof. Dr. W. Harry Jellema (1893–1982) of Calvin College, Grand Rapids, was entitled “Calvinism and Democracy.” He explored the relationship between Reformed theology and modern political institutions. In the evening session, Rev. P. A. Verhoef (1914–1979), a Dutch Reformed minister from South Africa, provided an analysis of the ecclesiastical situation in his homeland.
The second day featured Prof. Dr. Reijer Hooykaas (1906–1994), from Zeist, on the “Science and the Reformation,” and Rev. F. Ch. Krafft of Lausanne, on “À propos de l’Existentialisme: Réactions en Suisse et en France,” reflecting ongoing Reformed engagement with contemporary intellectual currents. The evening session included reports on the situation of the church in Germany (Rev. W. A. Langenohl, Rheydt) and in Indonesia (Mr. Raden Soedarmo).
The Congress concluded on Thursday morning with a lecture by Dr. G. P. van Iterson on “Eschatology,” followed by closing remarks from Prof. Aalders.
Despite this promising revival, the 1948 Congress marked the final gathering of the International Calvinist Congresses in their pre-war form. The rise of neo-orthodoxy and the growing influence of Barthian theology, which had already reshaped the Geneva and Edinburgh Congresses before the war, among other factors, continued to overshadow the Neocalvinist vision for an integrated Christian world- and life-view. This trend would eventually contribute to the movement’s organizational fragmentation.
After this Congress, the series of International Calvinist Congresses appears to have come to an end. Further efforts to maintain international collaboration among Reformed thinkers did occur, although their focus shifted.
The Neocalvinist perspective in the international conference continued to be squeezed by Barthian voices; Neocalvinism was “tolerated” by a small minority. This changed at a 1951 conference in Montpellier with the formation of the International Association for Reformed Faith and Action (IARFA).
Notably, while the European Congresses struggled with theological tensions, American Calvinists had begun to develop their own networks. Upon his return to the United States during World War II, Van Lonkhuyzen addressed the Second American Calvinistic Conference in Grand Rapids (June 1942), where he gave an overview of the situation in the Netherlands (Van Lonkhuyzen 1943, 208–12). Van Lonkhuyzen remarked on the “trouble and quarreling” that had surrounded the Calvinistic Congresses in London, Amsterdam, and Edinburgh—conflicts which the American organizers had sought to avoid by establishing their own conference. He wryly observed, “Calvinists are not always the easiest persons to deal with when it comes to organization and formulation of a basis for organization” (Van Lonkhuyzen 1943, 208).
Conclusion
The desire to organize international Congresses and the ambition for broader Calvinist collaboration were largely thwarted by pre-war ideational displacement (Barthian tensions), institutional-organizational fracture (SGU autocracy, Dutch leagues’ collapse), and external disruption and interruption (WWII, travel impossibility, severed networks). The result was that the Neocalvinist voice was muted in part because people withdrew from involvement. The emphasis on unity beyond ecclesiastical and political divisions reflected a desire for cooperation, but theological divergences and global upheavals ultimately thwarted these efforts.
The thread connecting the pre-war International Calvinist Congresses was eventually severed. Despite postwar attempts at revival, the movement never regained its original momentum or cohesion. The time had come for a new development: the formation of the International Association for Reformed Faith and Action (IARFA).