Religion in the modern Netherlands and the problems of pluralism

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Religion in the modern Netherlands and the problems of pluralism

Kennedy, J.C.; Zwemer, J.P.

Published in:Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden

DOI:10.18352/bmgn-lchr.7121

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Kennedy, J. C., & Zwemer, J. P. (2010). Religion in the modern Netherlands and the problems of pluralism.Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 125(2/3), 237-268. DOI:10.18352/bmgn-lchr.7121

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, statingyour reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Askthe Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date: 17 Mar 2018

http://dx.doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.7121

http://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/religion-in-the-modern-netherlands-and-the-problems-of-pluralism(05e32583-8e37-4ef0-a6c7-49eb176bb92c).html

237

bmgn

| lchr | volum

e 125 - 2-3 | 237 - 268

Religion in the Modern

Netherlands and the Problems of

Pluralism

james c. kennedy and jan p. zwemer |

university of amsterdam and serooskerke

The religious history of the Netherlands during the last two centuries exhibits

some of the same dynamics and tensions as those evidenced in neighbouring

countries. This article selects from religious history three historiographical

issues salient to transnational patterns. The first pertains to Dutch church-

state relations in the nineteenth century, most notably a relatively early

disestablishment. The second theme concerns the so-called ‘pillarization’

(verzuiling) of Dutch society, and to what extent pillarization – to the extent

it is a useful concept at all – can be regarded as a quintessentially ‘Dutch’ way

to manage religious pluralism. The last theme focuses on secularization, a

concept which historians have used to analyse the decline of organized religion

in the Netherlands, particularly the sharp decline in religious participation and

adherence after 1960. Religion, however, has remained an important focus of

debate in recent decades, as the Dutch sought again to renegotiate the politics

of pluralism.

Inreligiousterms,themodernNetherlandshasbeenacountryofparadoxes.

Forthelastcentury,thenumbersofthosedisclaiminganyreligiousaffiliation

havebeenamongthehighestinEurope,aphenomenonstrengthenedby

theabsenceofastatechurch.Atthesametime,thecountry’spubliclifein

thelasttwocenturieshasbeencharacterizedbyuncommonlypowerful

religiousmovementsthatshaped–andtosomedegreestillshape–the

fieldsofpolitics,educationandmedia.AProtestantcountry(nearlytwo-

thirdsofitspopulationweresoidentifiedinthenineteenthcentury)witha

historicallyProtestant-dominantstate,theNetherlandsbecame,bythemid-

twentiethcentury,acountrywherethefulcrumofpowerlayinthehands

oftheCatholicpoliticalparty(Katholieke Volkspartij),whorepresentedalarge

andratherwell-disciplinedreligiousminority.1AnIslamicpower–insofar

t

BMGN.Opmaak.Special.indd 237 28-06-10 15:17

the international relevance of dutch history

astheDutchcolonialempireuntilthe1940sincludedthelargestMuslim

populationintheworld–theNetherlandshasfounditdifficulttocometo

termswiththe‘new’religionofIslamthatarrivedwithrecentimmigration.

Inmoregeneralterms,modernDutchhistoryhasbeencharacterizedby

arrangementsthatgavemuchlatitudetoitsmanyreligiousgroups,butatthe

sametimegeneratedasocietyfrequentlygiventoreligioustension,attimes

notfarfromviolentformsofconfrontation,butinanyeventasocietyacutely

awareofitsreligiousdivisionsanddifferences.2

TheNetherlands’fractiousreligiouslandscape,then,iscrucialto

understandingnotonlytheDutchRepublicoftheseventeenthandeighteenth

centuriesbutalsothehistoryoftheKingdomoftheNetherlandsinthe

nineteenthandtwentieth.ThisneednotsuggestthatDutchreligioushistory

issomehowunique.Thecountry’sreligioushistoryinthemodernperiodin

importantrespectsresemblesthatofSwitzerlandandGermany,allhistorically

decentralized,confessionally-mixed,andProtestant-dominantstates,the

Netherlandsresemblingthesecountriesparticularlyinrespecttotheresponse

ofsubstantialCatholicminoritiestotheirminoritystatus.Seenmorebroadly,

theNetherlandsconstitutesonlyanotherexampleofthe‘ethnicization’of

religiousconflictthatcharacterizedWesternEuropeinthelatenineteenth

andearlytwentiethcenturiesthatpittednotonlyCatholicsandProtestants

againsteachotherbutalsoanticlericalorsecularmovementsagainstreligious

ones.Inthisway,Dutchreligioushistoriesshowimportantcongruitieswith

notonlyGermanyandSwitzerlandbutcountrieslikeAustriaorBelgium,

wherethecontestbetween‘belief’and‘unbelief’,betweenreligiousparties

andsecularones,longhelpedtodeterminepoliticalandsocialidentities.

Inyetotherways,theNetherlandsmorecloselyresemblesother

neighbours.Initsrelativelypluralandunregulatedreligiouslife,andinthe

relativelyfreewheelingwaysinwhichreligionhasshapedcivilsociety,the

NetherlandsmorecloselyrepresentsGreatBritainortheUnitedStatesthanit

doesthemorethoroughlyconfessionalizedstatesofcontinentalEurope,with

theirhistoric(semi-)statechurchesandregisteredreligiouscommunities.3

Dutchreligiouscommunitieshavenotenjoyedthesamepartnershipwith

thestatethanisevennowoftenthecaseinotherpartsofEurope,butthey

havealsoenjoyedgreaterfreedomtoactwithoutrestrictions,asevident

3 David Martin, On Secularization (Lanham 2005)

77. For a recent comparative study that draws

similar conclusions about the relative closeness

of Dutch churches to civil society, see Arnd

Bauerkämper and Jürgen Nautz (eds.), Zwischen

Fürsorge und Seelsorge. Christliche Kirchen in

den europäischen Zivillgesellschaften seit dem 18.

Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main 2009).

We would like to thank several anonymous

reviewers for their comments on earlier versions

of this article.

1 Herman Bakvis, Catholic Power in the Netherlands

(Montreal 1981).

2 P. de Rooy, Openbaring en openbaarheid

(Amsterdam 2009).


239

inthecaseoftheScientologychurch,which,incontrastwithsurrounding

countries,hasoperatedwithoutimpedimentintheNetherlands.Initslevel

ofsecularization,definedasnumberofpeoplewithoutchurchaffiliation,

theNetherlandscanagainbereconfiguredintoawiderEuropeanpattern,

constitutingpartofawiderbeltofnon-adherenceinWesternEuropethat

stretchesdowntoBelgiumandFrance(andwhichalsoincludesregions

offormerlycommunistEurope).Byanothermeasure,theNetherlands,at

leastinrecentyears,hasshownevidenceofamoralethosthatclearlyplaces

itwithinthe‘secular-rational’and‘self-expressive’valuesofProtestant

Europeancountries.4With5.8percentofitscitizensMuslim,theNetherlands

alsobelongstoagroupofcountriesofWesternEuropewheretheIslamic

populationisrelativelyhigh,andwhere,asinFrance(6.4percentto9.6

percentMuslim),Denmark(2.8percentto5percent)andSwitzerland

(4.2percent)therehasbeenstrongpublicprotestagainsttheanticipated

‘Islamization’ofsociety.5LikeitsneighbourstheDutchhavefounditdifficult

tofind‘room’forIslaminitspublicspace.6

GiventhefactthatDutchreligioushistoryhassocloselybeenpart

andparcelofvariousinternationalpatterns,themostprudentconclusion

maybethattheNetherlandsstandsoutreligiouslyspeakingonlyinthehigh

concentrationofreligiousdiversityitcontainswithinitssmallterritory(asthe

historiansJorisvanEijnattenandFredvanLieburghavesuggested).7Perhaps

anotherargumentisthatradicaldiscontinuitieshavecharacterizedDutch

religioushistory,asthescholarofreligionPetervanRoodenhasargued.Van

Rooden’sthesis,bothinfluentialandcontroversial,isthatDutchreligious

historyischaracterizedbyradicalshiftsintherelationshipbetweenreligion,

societyandpolitics,mostnotablytheshiftfromtheconfessionalchurchto

theProtestantnationattheendofeighteenthcentury,theshiftfromtothe

Protestantnationtoa‘pillarized’regimeinthelatenineteenthcentury,and

theshifttoasecularor‘dechristianized’regimeafterthe1960s.8

Inlookingatthepasttwocenturiesalone,however,the‘relevance’

ofDutchreligioushistorycanbefurtherspecified.Opentodifferentand

competingreligiouscurrentsfromtheoutsideworldandhistorically

fragmentedfromwithin,theNetherlandswas,nolessinthemodernperiod

7 Joris van Eijnatten and Fred van Lieburg,

Nederlandse religiegeschiedenis (Hilversum 2006).

8 P. van Rooden, Religieuze regimes. Over

godsdienst en maatschappij in Nederland. 1570-

1990 (Amsterdam 1996) 17, 29, 40-45; Peter van

Rooden, ‘Oral history en het vreemde sterven

van het Nederlands christendom’, Bijdragen en

Mededelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der

Nederlanden [bmgn] 119:4 (2004) 524-551.

4 ‘Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World’,

www.worldvaluessurvey.org; Ronald Inglehart,

The Silent Revolution (Princeton 1977).

5 Forum, Factbook 2008. De positie van Moslims in

Nederland, feiten en cijfers; http://www.forum.nl/

pdf/factbook-islam-nl.pdf.

6 Marcel Maussen, Ruimte voor de islam?

(Amsterdam 2006).

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



thanintheGoldenAge,aparticularlyintenselocusofcompetingclaims

onhowtodefinereligionintermsofbothmaintainingpublicorderand

guaranteeingpersonalandcollectivefreedoms.Theselongstandingdebates

weredefinedbyabidingdivisionsbetweenProtestantismandCatholicism,

betweenmoreorthodoxandmoreliberaloutlooks,betweenthedefendersof

religionandofsecularism,andperhapsinrecentyears,betweensecularism

andIslam.PerhapspreciselybecausetheNetherlandsinitsrecenthistoryhas

beensubjecttonegotiatingaplaceforreligioninpublicandinprivatelife,it

mightbeexpectedthatreligionwouldretainanunusualsaliency,acontested

butpersistentforceinshapingDutchpolitics,societyandtheidentities

ofitscitizens,notleastthosewhowouldhavepreferredtoignorereligion

altogether.Religiousmotivationprovedenormouslyimportantinmobilizing

Dutchcitizenstobecomeactiveinpubliclife,apatternthathasdeclinedin

importanceonlyinrecentdecades.Butevennow,whenthedeclineofreligion

hasledonesociologisttotypifytheNetherlandsas‘onenationwithoutGod’9,

theplaceofreligioninDutchsocietyremainsavolatilesourceofdebate.

Insummaryonecouldarguethatthe‘relevance’ofDutchhistoryin

thelasttwocenturiesisthatitmakesvisiblethedynamicrolethatreligion

hasplayedinmodernity,inparticulartherangeofresponsesopentovarious

actors–states,associationsandindividuals–inthefacebothofgrowing

religiouspluralismandintheriseofsocietywherebeliefitselfwasnolongera

given.10

Thegeneralfocusofthiscontribution,then,istheimpactof

(organized)religiononthecountry’spoliticalandsocialstructures,andnot

ontheologicalorecclesiasticaldevelopmentsassuch–asimportantasthese

developmentshavesometimesbeenfortransnationalpatterns.Thisessaywill

selectfromDutchreligioushistorythreeimportantthemes.Thefirstpertains

toDutchchurch-staterelationsinthenineteenthcentury,mostnotablyan

earlydisestablishment(i.e.,thewithdrawalofofficialgovernmentsupport

ofparticularchurchbodies)andthedecreasingability–andwillingness–of

aProtestant‘Establishment’todeterminebythelatenineteenthcentury

thesocial,politicalandreligiouscontoursoftheDutchnation-state.The

secondthemeconcernstheso-called‘pillarization’(verzuiling)ofDutch

society,inwhichthecountrywasostensiblysegmentedalongreligious

andideologicallines,repletewithreligiouspoliticalpartiesthatforhalfa

century(1918-1967)maintainedasolidelectoralmajorityinDutchpolitics.

religious change as the metamorphosis of a

broadly defined, iconoclastic ‘Protestantism’,

see Jan Art, ‘Religie en secularisering, de

voortdurende beeldenstorm’, in: D.W. Fokkema

and Frans Grijzenhout (eds.), Rekenschap: 1650-

2000 (The Hague 2001) 95-113.

9 Frank J. Lechner, The Netherlands (Routledge

2008); Idem, The Netherlands: Globalization and

National Identity (New York 2008) 103-136.

10 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass.

2007). For an overview of Dutch religious history

since the seventeenth century which explores


241

Pillarization,sometimeshailedasaquintessentially‘Dutch’responseto

religiousdiversity11,hascomeunderthecriticalscrutinyofhistoriansin

recentyears,anditisworthexploringtowhatextentthisconceptisafruitful

oneforunderstandingDutchreligioushistory,andforrelatingDutchhistory

tobroadertransnationalpatterns.Finally,thethirdandlastthemefocuses

onsecularization,understoodhereasthedeclineininfluenceofreligious

ideasandinstitutionsonpublicandprivatelife.Asaconcept,secularization

iscertainlynolesscontestedthanpillarization,butthathasnotprevented

historiansfromusingitjustasextensivelyfordescribingthedeclineof

religionintheNetherlands,particularlythesharpdeclineinreligious

participationandadherenceintheperiodafter1960.TheNetherlands

historicallyhighpercentagesofthoseprofessingnoreligiousaffiliation,

combinedwitharatherdramaticdeclineofreligioussubculturesinthe1960s,

makesthecountryseem,especiallyinrecentdecades,anexamplepar excellence

of‘secularEurope’.ButinrecentDutchhistory,therearereasonstodoubtthe

usefulnessofsecularizationasleadingexplanationofhistoricaltrends,aswe

shallsee.

Church-state relations and the Dutch Protestant establishment

ContrarytothepowerfulEuropeanmonarchies,theDutchRepublicin

thepre-1795periodlackedastrongcentralizedgovernment.Asaresult

religiousconformitycouldthereforenotbeaseffectivelyimplementedasan

instrumentofstatepowerandauthority.12Afterall,theDutchRepublicwasa

federationofprincipalities,andevenwithintheRepublic’sconstituentparts

administrationoftenwasdecentralized.Asaresult,theconfessionalization

ofDutchstateandsocietyarguablywaslessextensivethaninsurrounding

states.13AlthoughtheprivilegedReformedchurchwastheonlyoneto

functionas‘public’churchinmostoftheRepublic,therewerelargenumbers

ofCatholics(welloverathirdofthepopulationin1809,inthefirstcensus),

plusdissentingProtestantchurchesandJews(togetherconstituting6percent

ofthepopulationinthefirstcensus).EvenduringtheRepublic,whenthere

wasonlyonepublicchurch,therelationbetweenchurchandstatediffered

fromboththeScandinavian-Germanones,ortheCatholicstates.Oneresult

ofadecentralizedstateandchurchwasthatanticlericalfeelingconnected

toanti-stateattitudesamonglargesectionsofthepopulationremained

13 The notion of confessionalization refers to the

concept introduced by the German historian

Heinz Schilling.

11 Arend Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation

(Berkeley 1975).

12 Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 20.

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



Document Nederland is the annual documentary photo

commission awarded by the Rijksmuseum and Dutch

daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad. It focuses on a

different social phenomenon each year. In 1982-83, the

assignment was ‘The Changing Church’, whereby the

challenge was to depict the progressive and regressive

changes taking place in the church.

In the Reformed Church in Almelo, rows of chairs are

drawn up, on which the congregation will sit during

a service of solidarity with Christian Turks. In the

centre is a row of empty chairs that divides the regular

churchgoers from the Christian Turks. The Christian

Turks were granted asylumn in this church.

Hans Aarsman, Service of Solidarity with Christian Turks

in the Reformed Church in Almelo, 9/9/1979. From

the photo series The Changing Church [Dutch: Kerk in

verandering]. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.


243

relativelyabsent.14Nevertheless,oppositiontotheconfessionalstategrewin

thelastdecadesoftheeighteenthcentury.Abourgeois,ProtestantLeitkultur

rootedintheDutchEnlightenmentlaunchedtheideaoftheFatherlandasa

moralcommunity,withtheindividualcitizenasamoralsubject,hisconduct

conducivetothecommongoodoftheRepublic.Itmightbesupposedthatthe

decentralisedwayinwhichtheRepublicwasgovernedhelpedcleartheway

foranideologythatdownplayedreligiousdoctrineandstressedbourgeois

virtue.ManyclergyoftheReformedchurchadheredtoitsinceatleast1780.

Thelocalizationofreligionintheheartandtheconductoftheindividual

accountedforawillingnesstoentertainthepossibilityofdisestablishingthe

church,evenamongtheseclergy.15

TheFrenchinvasionof1795andthecreationofthepro-French

BatavianRepublicbroughtanendtothe‘public’church.InAugustof1796,

theReformedchurchwasformallydisestablished.Allchurcheswereput

onthesamelegalfooting,andallcitizens–includingCatholicsandJews

–weregrantedfullrightsintheory.ArelativelylargenumberofCatholics

anddissentingProtestantswereinchargeoftheinitialreforms.Thecountry

witnessedlittleoftheviolentconflictthatbrokeoutwhereFrenchrulewas

direct,asinneighbouringBelgium,thoughthereweresomereprisalsand

theexclusionofOrangistsfrompublicpositions.Housesofworshipwere

expectedtobesupportiveoftherepublic,notleastinthecultivationofvirtue

andpatriotismamongitsmembers.Thehighwatermarkintheprocessof

disestablishmentcamein1798,whenlegislationwaspassedinwhichnew

Reformedclergywouldnolongerbefinancedbythestate.Andtheproperties

thathadbeenintheReformedchurch’spossessionsince1581weretobe

consideredthecollectivepropertyofallmembersofthemunicipalitywith

localauthoritiesdeterminingwhichreligiousbodyshouldmakefutureuse

ofthebuildingsinquestion.16Withinafewyears,though,manyReformed

hadbeguntoopposethesereforms,resentinginparticularthenewfound

influenceoftheRomanCatholics.Bythefirstyearsofthenineteenthcentury,

Protestants–thistimenotjustthosewhoweremembersoftheReformed

church–wereagainlargelyincontrolofDutchnationalinstitutions.

Therelationshipbetweenreligion,societyandpoliticsinthefirsthalf

ofthenineteenthcenturywasdefinedbyacloseassociationofenlightened

Protestantism,patriotismandasenseofmoralsuperiorityamongtheleading

classesinDutchsociety.17Protestantclergymen,whothemselvesmoreand

century, see: J. van Eijnatten, God, Nederland en

Oranje. Dutch Calvinism and the Search for the

Social Centre (Kampen 1993).

16 Johan Joor, De adelaar en het lam (Amsterdam

2000) 175.

14 Henry Chadwick et al., Atlas van het christendom

(Breda 1987) 213-214.

15 Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 115-119, 157, 158;

for the development towards the combination of

nationalism, royalism (‘Oranje’) and mainstream

protestant orthodoxy, partly in the nineteenth

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



moreparticipatedinbourgeoisculturefromtheendoftheeighteenthcentury

onwards,didmuchtoenhancethesensethatthenationwas,aboveall,amoral

community.In1806,schoolswereplacedundernationalsupervision,andwere

togiveinstructionin‘socialandChristianvirtues’.Duringthefirsthalfofthe

nineteenthcentury,theleadingclassesinDutchsocietyfeltresponsiblefor

themoralelevationofthewholenation.Bothchurchlifeandeducationwere

thewaysinwhichthisprojecthadtobeimplemented.Morethanhalfofthe

schoolinspectorsinthefirstquarterofthenineteenthcenturywereministers.

Otherministersgavelecturesonliterature,historyorarchaeology.Thestate

contributedtotheinter-regionalintegrationoftheReformedchurchby

stimulatingcontactsbetweenthedifferentregionalchurchcouncils(‘classes’).

Theleadingtheologicalgroupsoftheperiodconsideredthedisseminationof

nationalsentimentasacentralcomponentoftheChristianmessage.18

AstheDutchgovernmentincreasinglycentralizedunderNapoleonic

influence,itundertookeffortstoplacereligiousinstitutionsunderstate

oversight.AMinistryforPublicWorshipwasestablishedbyLouisNapoleon,

theemperor’sbrother,in1808.AfterNapoleon’souster,thefirstOrange

monarch,WillemI,initiatedstatutes(reglementen)togoverntheReformed,

theJewsandtheLutherans,whichaimedatturningchurchbodiesintothe

efficientagentsofmaterialandspiritualassistancetoitsmembersandinto

teachersofvirtue.ThesereglementenwerenotonlyFrenchininspiration,but

werealsostronglyinfluencedbypre-1795ideasontherelationshipbetween

churchandstate.19TheJewishcommunitieswereinfactthefirsttoundergo

thisprocess;alreadyin1810,theyhadbeenplacedunderFrenchstatute

whentheNetherlandswasannexedtoFrance,theonlyreligiousgroupinthe

Netherlandsforwhichthiswasthecase.In1814WillemI’sgovernmentwent

further,compellingbystatutethattheSephardicandAshkenaziJewsmerge

theirbodiesintoone,sothatpoorandrichcongregationsmighttogetherfall

underasingleeffectiveadministrationofcharity.PortugueseandYiddish

werefurthermoreprohibitedaslanguagesofworship.20A‘reglement’for

theReformedchurchissuedin1816regulatedeveryareaofchurchlife

except–crucially–doctrinalconformity,oneareainwhichthetheologically

19 R. van der Laarse, ‘De Deugd en het Kwaad.

Liberalisme, conservatisme en de erfenis van de

Verlichting’, in: J.C.H. Blom and J. Talsma (eds.),

De verzuiling voorbij. Godsdienst, stand en natie in

de lange negentiende eeuw (Amsterdam 2000) 12,

13; Abraham Vroon, Carel Willem Pape 1788-1872

(Oosterhout 1992).

20 Bart Wallet, Nieuwe Nederlanders. De integratie

van de joden in Nederland, 1814-1851 (Amsterdam

2007).

17 For an overview of nineteenth-century religion

in Europe and also the place of the Dutch case

in it, see Henk van Dijk, ‘Religion between State

and Society in Nineteenth-Century Europe’,

in: Hartmut Kaelble (ed.), The European Way:

European Societies in the 19th and 20th Centuries

(New York 2004) 253-274.

18 Nikolaj Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland

(Delft 2007) 150, 191-193.


245

latitudinariankingandhisadvisorsshowedastudiedlackofinterest.Itwas

anomissionthatwouldlaterfunctionasthebasisforsustainedtheological

conflictwithintheReformedchurch.21Alreadyinthe1830s,thefirstCalvinist

dissenters,disturbedatitslaxityandmotivatedbyanexactingpietismor

amorerationalistembraceofReformedorthodoxy,wouldsecedefromthe

state-directedChurch.TheAfscheiding,orSeparationof1834,wouldanticipate

amuchlargerdeparturefromthechurchinthe1880s.22

Forthetimebeing,however,Willem’smostdauntingtaskin

regulatingthecountry’sreligiousaffairslayinhisrelationshiptotheRoman

Catholicchurch,whoseadherents,withtheinclusionofBelgiumintothe

KingdomoftheNetherlandsin1815,nowconstitutedover70percentofthe

population.Theking’seffortstopunishtherecalcitrantBelgianbishopDe

Broglie,restrictcorrespondencewiththeHolySee,monitormonasticlife,and

abovealltoregulateCatholictheologicaleducationbyclosingsmallerschools

andrequiringthatseminariansattendthegovernment-controlledschoolin

Leuven,fomenteddeepunhappinessamonghisCatholicsubjects.Although

WillemhadinitiallysoughttocreateanationalCatholicismindependentof

theHolySee,thegovernmentfeltobligedin1827toconcludeaconcordat

withthepapacythatsoughttoregulateandimprovetherelationshipbetween

churchandstate.23InthewakeofthesuccessfulBelgianrevoltin1830,

however,theConcordatbecameadeadletteronbothsidesofthenewfrontier,

anditsignalledthefailureofWillem’sreformingeffortstoassertameasureof

statecontrolovertheCatholicchurch.

Theliberalreformsof1848,includingthepromulgationofanew

constitutionineffecttothepresentday,signalledanendtosystematic

effortsbythestatetodirectreligiouslife.ThestatenowletJewishand

Protestantbodiesregulatetheirownaffairs,andin1853madeclearthat

theRomanCatholicchurchwasfreetoreintroduceanepiscopalhierarchy

totheNetherlands,afterahiatusof275years.Allthisdidnotmeanthat

churchandstatewereradicallyandimmediatelyseparated;ittookmore

thantwentyyearsforallthereglementen tobeterminated,andthestate

continuedtosubsidizechurchesuntiltheearly1980s,althoughwithsums

thatdidnotsubstantiallysurpassthefinanciallevelsofthe1840s.Inthe

early1850s,parliamentstipulatedthatchurchbodies,notgovernment,were

primarilyresponsibleforthecareoftheindigent,evenifinpracticemuch

most thorough work is C. Smits, De Afscheiding

van 1834 (9 volumes, Oudkarspel, Dordrecht 1971-

1991).

23 A. Houkes, ‘Het succes van 1848’, in: Jurjen Vis

and Wim Janse (eds.), Staf en Storm. Het herstel

van de bisschoppelijke hiërarchie in Nederland in

1853. Actie en reactie (Hilversum 2002) 90.

21 I.A. Diepenhorst, De verhouding tusschen kerk en

staat in Nederland (Utrecht 1946) 74-78.

22 There is an enormous literature on the

Afscheiding, the secessionist movement of 1834;

for a recent introduction, see Harm Veldman,

Hendrik de Cock, 1801-1842. Op de breuklijnen in

theologie en kerk in Nederland (Kampen 2009). The

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



ofpoorrelieffelltothemunicipalities.24Furthermore,parliamentfurther

legislatedthebanonCatholicprocessions.Thestatemightwellhavebecome

liberal,buthistoriansrecentlyhavestressedthattheleadingvoicesofDutch

societyremainedstoutlyandconsciouslyProtestantlongafter1848.The

massiveprotestsagainstthereturnoftheCatholichierarchyin1853was

butonesignofthis.25Andwellintothetwentiethcenturytherecontinued

tobeproponentswhochampionedaspecialplacefortheReformedchurch

instateandsociety.Thissentimentreceivedanimpulseinthe1940s,when

inresponsetothewarandwidertrendswithininternational,ecumenical

Protestantism,theReformedchurchforthefirsttimesystematicallystaked

outitsownclaimtopublicauthority.

Disestablishment,moreover,meantanythingbutarigorousneutrality

intheDutchcolonies.TheDutchgovernment’sWestIndianpoliciesdiffered

fromthosefortheEast,withpoliciesinbothcoloniestailor-madetofitlocal

conditions.IntheEastIndies,thepresenceoftensofmillionsofMuslims

inhibitedDutchcolonialauthoritiesfromworkingoutwithanyconsistency

thenotionofareligiouslyneutralstate.Notlegalprescriptionsbutadeep

senseofprobity,theIndonesia-bornlegalscholarW.H.AltingvonGeusau

arguedin1917,wasthehighestaimatwhichthecolonialgovernmentcould

aspireinitstreatmentofthedifferentreligions.Inpractice,colonialreligious

policymeantacloserworkingrelationshipwithleadingChristianchurches

(theProtestantchurchwasdisestablishedfromthecolonialgovernmentonly

in1935),and,afteraninitiallyreservedstance,anincreasinglyextensive

partnershipwithChristianmissions,aspillarizationprocessesinthe

NetherlandshadtheireffectsonDutchmissionsintheoverseascolonies.26

Itmeant,moreover,arecognitionofIslamthatleftworshipunimpededand

madeprovisionforIslamiclawinlocaljudicialbodies,butwhichatthesame

timeincludedeffortstosuppressany‘political’expressionofIslam,adanger

regardedassubversivebothtosocialprogressandtoDutchrule.Itmeant,

finally,ahostilestancetoward‘pagan’religion,asevidentintheprohibition

ofWinti(anamalgamofIndianritualandAfricanvoodoo)inSurinamein

the1870sonthebasisofits‘idolatry’.27Certainlyinthecoloniestheliberal

constitutionalidealwasfarfromrealized.

verhouding tussen kerken en staat, 1796-1996

(Zoetermeer 1998) 180-181.

27 Steenbrink, ‘Staat en religies’, 193; W.H. Alting

van Geusau, Neutraliteit der overheid in de

Nederlandsche koloniën jegens godsdienstzaken

(Haarlem 1917) 19-20, 77, 95; C. Snouck Hurgronje,

Nederland en de Islam. Vier voordrachten gehouden

in de Nederlandsch-Indische Bestuursacademie

(Leiden 1911).

24 Peter Jan Margry, Teedere quaesties. Religieuze

rituelen in conflict. Confrontaties tussen katholieken

en protestanten rond de processiecultuur in

19e-eeuws Nederland (Hilversum 2000).

25 De Rooy, Openbaring en openbaarheid, 31; Vis and

Janse, Staf en storm.

26 K.A. Steenbrink, ‘Staat en religies in koloniaal

Nederlands Indië’, in: J. de Bruijn et al. (eds.),

Geen heersende kerk, geen heersende staat. De


247

Despitethepersistingtiesbetweenchurchandstate,andbetween

ProtestantismandtheDutchnation,itcanbesaidthatecclesiastical

disestablishment,beguninthe1790sanddecisivelyconfirmedin1848,

tookplaceearlierthanelsewhereinEurope.Bythetimethatothercountries

inEuropeandLatinAmericaweregrapplingwithformalseparationof

churchandstate–HughMcLeodarguesthatthisissuewasamajorissue

inmanycountriesbetween1860and1930–theNetherlandshadalready

puttheissuetorest.28Thishardlymeant,asweshallsee,thattheplaceof

religionwassettledinpubliclife,butsimplythattheissueofinstitutional

establishment,oftensocentraltopublicdebateelsewhere,playedno

importantroleinDutchpoliticsafter1848.Thismightbeseenasalogicalif

notinevitableconsequenceofarelativelyweakreligiousestablishment,in

whichtheold‘publicchurch’didnotpossessthesamepublicauthorityvis-

à-visitscompetitorsasdidthestatechurchesinothercountries.Theformal

distancebetweenchurchandstatewaslikelyencouragedbyoneofthecentral

tenetsofthelatitudinarianProtestantismthathadbecomedominantinthe

Netherlands:theideathatreligionwasessentiallymoral,nottobedefinedby

churchmembership,andsofirstofallamatterforthefreeindividual.29Van

derLaarsemakesclearthattheprogressiveliberalismofthetimehadalegalist

stanceandtendedtoseparatethedifferentspheresoflife,andforwhom

religionwasnowregardedasprivate.30Moreover,forProtestantliberalsofthe

mid-tolatenineteenthcentury,thechurchcouldnolongerbeconsideredas

themostimportantvehicleforeducatingthepeople;stateschoolshadtaken

overthatposition.

Intheshortrun,thereformsof1848pavedthewayforliberal

dominanceofaDutchbourgeoisiewhowereself-consciouslytolerant,

committedtosocialharmonyandatthesametimeshowedlittleinclination

tosharepoliticalpowerwithwidersegmentsofthepopulation.Having

abandonedearliereffortstochannelreligiousactivity,theywereincreasingly

concernedthatreligiouspassionsandcommitmentsservedtodivideDutch

societyratherthantounifyit.StemmingbothfromdissentingProtestant

groupsandtheReformedchurch,liberalsalsobegantogravitatetoward

formsofunbelief.AsinBritainandtheUnitedStates,itwasinthe1860s

thatahandfulofDutchProtestantclergyfirstvoluntarilyresignedtheir

officesonaccountoftheiragnosticism.Itwaspartlyfromthisgroupthat

asustainedpatternofformaldisaffiliationfromthechurch,numerically

greaterthanelsewhereinEuropeasshallbeoutlinedbelow,wouldtakeplace

moderniteit’, 29-60; Hugh McLeod, ‘Kerk en staat

in West-Europa sinds 1789’, 13-18.

29 Van Eijnatten en Van Lieburg, Nederlandse

Religiegeschiedenis, 262.

30 Van der Laarse, ‘De Deugd en het Kwaad’.

28 For an overview of church-state relations in the

nineteenth and twentieth centuries, see De Bruijn

et al., Geen heersende kerk, geen heersende staat,

particularly J.A. Bornewasser, ‘Twee eeuwen kerk

en staat. Een veelledige confrontatie met de

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



People on their way to the morning service in a church

of the Reformed Association [Dutch: Gereformeerde

Bond] in Alblasserwaard. In this extremely orthodox

area, it is not unusual for people to go to church twice a

day, morning and evening.

Oscar van Alphen, Reformed Association Church in

Alblasserwaard, summer 1983. From the photo series

The Changing Church.

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.


249

inthedecadesafter1880.Iftheirpreeminentpoliticalpositionwouldbe

increasinglychallengedafterthe1870s,liberalswouldcontinuetomaketheir

markonDutchsociety.Therewereechoesofthisideologyintheliberalism

thatpersistedintothetwentiethcentury.DuringtheInterbellumliberals

tendedtoyearnforaunifiedsociety.Theirideology,withitsmoralinclination

aswassometimesevidentininternationalaffairs31,wasclearlyindebtedtothe

Enlightenment.ItcanbearguedthattheDutchsocialismandtheChristian

pacifismoftheInterbellumwasquiteakintothisvisionofaharmonious,

unifiedsocietyaswasthemovementthatstroveforthepoliticalunityofall

progressivepartiesinthe1940s,inthewakeoftheSecondWorldWar.32

Butinthelongrun,themostimportantconsequenceofthe

disestablishmentof1848wasnotacertainliberalambivalencetowardthe

roleofreligioninsociety,butpowerfulreassertionsofreligioninpublicand

privatelife.Thenewtermsof1848didnotsettletheplaceofreligioninthe

Netherlands,butopeneditup,allowingnewreligiousforcestocontendfor

theirownplaceinsociety.33Theareasthatnowcameintoconflictwerethose

issuestraditionallydefinedastheres mixtae(thatis,thoseareastraditionally

thoughttobetheconcernofbothchurchandstate):mostnotablyeducation

andcareofthepoor.34TheConstitutionof1848ineffectencouragedthe

RomanCatholics,theanti-RomanCatholicProtestantsoftheperiodandthe

dissentersoftheAfscheidingintotheirownorganizationsthatdefinedand

advancedtheirownreligiousinterests.Areturntothesituationbeforethe

Constitutionwasnolongerconceivable.35

IftheNetherlandsdivergedfromothercountriesinanearly

disestablishment,inthereligiousmobilizationofcitizensinthelasthalf

ofthecenturyitwaspartandparcelofawidertransnationaldevelopment.

Asaresult,andasinotherpartsofEurope,thenineteenthcentury,

particularlythelastthirdofthecentury,wasa‘secondconfessionalage’in

theNetherlands,thatpittednewlydisciplinedandnewly-organizedreligious

forces,CatholicandProtestants,againstmoresecularly-mindedcitizens–

andagainsteachother.36Fromthemid-nineteenthcenturyonwardnew

bias in the Reformed church of the second half of

the nineteenth century see A. Houkes, Christelijke

vaderlanders. Godsdienst, burgerschap en de

Nederlandse natie, 1850-1900 (Amsterdam 2009).

33 Ido de Haan, Het beginsel van leven en wasdom

(Amsterdam 2003).

34 Bornewasser, ‘Twee eeuwen kerk en staat’.

35 Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 30, 31.

36 O. Blaschke (ed.), Konfessionen im Konflikt.

Deutschland zwischen 1800 und 1970. Ein zweites

konfessionelles Zeitalter (Göttingen 2002).

31 Michael John Riemens, De passie voor vrede

(Amsterdam 2005).

32 Van der Laarse, ‘De Deugd en het Kwaad’, 2-45,

15, 24, 36, 41-43; For the ‘bourgeois’ element in

this leading ideology see: H. te Velde, ‘How High

did the Dutch fly? Remarks on Stereotypes of

Burger Mentality’, in: A. Galema, B. Henkes and

H. te Velde (eds.), Images of the Nation: Different

Meanings of Dutchness 1870-1940 (Amsterdam

1993) 59-79; for the echo of this national-church

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



associationsincreasinglybecamethevehiclesforreligiousandpoliticalgroups

thatchallengedthedominantliberalvisionofstateandsociety.37Inthe

Netherlands,thisprocesstraditionallyhasbeendescribedas‘pillarization’,

inwhichDutchsocietywasincreasinglysegmentedalongreligiousand

ideologicallines.Buthowdoesthisnarrative–totheextentthatitishelpful

atall–tieintowiderhistoricalpatterns?

Religious fragmentation and Dutch ‘pillarization’

Despiteformalrestrictionsonassociationallifethathadexistedbefore1848,

Dutchsociety,toalargeextentdefinedbythedominationofitstownsand

smallcities,possessedarelativelystrongtraditionoflocalassociationsand

otherprivateinitiatives.Thestrengthofthisself-regulatingtraditionmust,

atleastinpart,beexplainedbythetraditionalpoliticaldecentralizationof

thecountry.ItwasadecentralizationthatwasaffirmedbytheConstitutionof

1848andinthedecadesthatfollowedtherewasasurgeinlocalorganizational

life,ledbypartsofthelocalliberalbourgeoisieandotherlocalleaders.A

part,butonlyapart,oftheseorganisationswouldlaterhelpconstitutethe

religiouslyandideologicallynetworksofassociationsknownsincethemid-

twentiethcenturyas‘pillarization’withitssuggestionofseparatecolumns

togethersupportingDutchstateandsociety.

Indeed,sincethattimepillarizationhasbeenconsideredbyhistorians

andlaityaliketobeacentralconstitutiveelementofmodernDutchhistory.

Politicalandsocialsegmentationenhancedthecountry’spoliticalstabilityby

effectivelychannelling,andthus‘pacifying’Holland’sreligiousminorities

(CatholicandorthodoxProtestant)anditsideologicalones(thesocial

democratsandtheliberals).38Asanexplanationfortheparadoxofreligious

divisionsandpoliticalstability,pillarizationwasfirstanalyzedinthe1960s

bysocialscientists.Butinthelastthreedecadesitalsohasbeenthefieldof

labourofmanyhistorianswhohaveattemptedtoexplaintheorigins,andthe

dynamics,oftheNetherlands’strikinglypluralistlandscape.39

ThemassmobilisationofbothRomanCatholicsandorthodox

ProtestantsoweditssuccesstoanumberofchangesinDutchsocietyasa

whole.ThesocialgeographerKnippenberghasarguedthatinfrastructural

Knippenberg, ‘Nationale integratie en ‘etnisering’

van katholieken en protestanten. De rol van

onderwijs’, in: H. te Velde and H. Verhage (eds.),

De eenheid en de delen. Zuilvorming, onderwijs en

natievorming in Nederland 1850-1900 (Amsterdam

1996) 177-196, 193; Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes,

17.

37 Stefan-Ludwig Hoffmann, Civil Society, 1750-1914

(New York 2006).

38 Lijphart, Politics of Accommodation.

39 D.F.J. Bosscher, ‘Confessionele partijen en

politieke stabiliteit’, in: P. Luykx and H. Righart

(eds.), Van de pastorie naar het torentje. Een eeuw

confessionele politiek (The Hague 1991) 93-103; H.


251

improvementsduringthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcenturywasof

essentialhelptotheleadersofthenewmovementsincommunicating

theirmessagetotheirfollowers.Socio-economicmodernizationopened

uptraditionallocalsocietyandbroughtpeopleintocontactwithnew

developments.Theincreasedchancesforbothupwardanddownwardsocial

mobility,andofmigrationresultingfromgrowingdifferencesinprosperity

betweendifferentregions,couldresultinalienatingpeoplefromtraditional

commitments,andmoreopentoparticipationin‘modern’movements.40

Especiallytheliberals’advocacyofstateschoolsthatweretobeshornofa

religiouscharactergeneratedabacklashamongthelowerclasses,ultimately

stimulatingresponsesbyRomanCatholicsandorthodoxProtestantswho,

historiansnowagree,werenoless‘modern’intheircompetingorganizations

thanweretheliberalstheycontested.

Historically,mostRomanCatholicshadnotbeenmuchinterestedin

thestateorintheDutchnationatall.Butsomeofthemeveninthefirsthalf

ofthenineteenthcenturyfeltcompelledtodefendthemselvesagainstthe

sometimesaggressiveclaimsofProtestantnationalism.41Theconstitution

of1848andthereintroductionofthehierarchygaveCatholicsnewchances

toassertthemselves,thoughittooktwodecadesbeforeDutchCatholic

leadersclearlychosefortheUltramontanistlinethatwouldcharacterizetheir

stancefromthelate1860son.42Inmobilizingthemselves,DutchCatholics

resembledtheirco-religionistsinSwitzerland,Austria,Germany,seeking

todefendthemselvesfromtheonslaughtofasecularmodernity.43Atthe

sametime,DutchCatholicswere,incontrastwiththesituationinPrussia,

notcompelledtofightaprotractedKulturkampf.44Dutchliberalsseemed

soconfidentoftheirownpreponderancethattheysawnoneedforsucha

conflictandDutchCatholicsthemselvesseemedcontenttobuilduptheirown

subculture.45

43 Hans Righart, De katholieke zuil in Europa.

Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar het ontstaan

van verzuiling onder katholieken in Oostenrijk,

Zwitserland, België en Nederland (Meppel 1986).

44 For the Dutch reception of Bismarck’s policies,

see Pieter de Coninck, Een les uit Pruisen.

Nederland en de Kultuurkampf, 1870-1880

(Hilversum 2005).

45 De Rooy, Openbaring en openbaarheid, 30;

J.M.M. Leenders, ‘Zijn dat nu handelwijzen van

een herder…’ Hollands katholicisme 1840-1920

(Nijmegen 2008).

40 Knippenberg, ‘Nationale integratie’, 185, 186.

41 Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 32; Van der Laarse,

‘De Deugd en het Kwaad’, 7, 18; Van Eijnatten,

God, Nederland en Oranje, 461, considers this

anti-Roman Catholic ideology as typical for the

nineteenth century. Only the Roman Catholic

hierarchy was rejected, with Catholic believers

granted a theoretical place as Christian citizens of

the Dutch nation.

42 Henk van den Berg, In vrijheid gebonden.

Negentiende-eeuwse katholieke publicisten in

Nederland over geloof, politiek en moderniteit

(Nijmegen 2005).

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



InmanypartsofWesternandCentralEurope,Catholicismcouldrely

onapoliticallyexperiencedandassertivelaity.Historicallydisadvantaged,

DutchCatholicswereweakerinthisrespectbuttheDutchchurchincreasingly

developedawidearrayofCatholicinstitutionsthatsucceededinrepresenting

thevastmajorityofDutchCatholics.ResearchintheVaticanarchiveshas

shownthattheacceptanceofpopularsovereigntybyleadingDutchRoman

Catholicsdatedbacktothepre-1853eraandwasadvancedbytheHolySee.

Theintroductionoftheepiscopalhierarchypartiallychangedthispattern:

thebishopstriedtobuilduptheirown‘clerico-hierarchicalsystem’within

theDutchnationalcontext,butwereimpededbyanewtheologicalemphasis

onpapalauthoritythatnowemanatedfromRome.After1853,thefaithful

weremoredirectlyandmorefrequentlyconfrontedbynewmandatesfrom

thepapacy.Relationsbetween‘Rome’and‘Utrecht’(wherethearchbishopwas

ensconced)werenotintheleastcharacterizedbyone-waycommunication,

asDeValkhaspointedout.ChurchauthoritiesandleadingCatholicsdidnot

conformtoRome’sinstructionsandinterventionswithoutafight,butthey

didoftenhavetogivein.Asaresult,thedevelopmentoftheCatholicpillarin

theNetherlandswasinfluencedtoamuchlargerextentbytheattitudeofthe

HolySeethanhadbeenassumed.46

Knippenberghascalledthenewreligiousformation‘pseudo-ethnic’

groupsandpointsoutthattheNetherlandswereuniqueinthatitwasthe

onlycountryinwhichorthodoxProtestantsubculture(s)flourished.Inthis

respecttheearlydisestablishmentoftheProtestantchurchservedtomobilize

DutchProtestants,morethantheirco-religionistsinotherpartsofEurope,

intoaction,withvariousfactionsvyingfortheirownvisionofwhattheplace

ofreligionmustnowbeinDutchsociety.Changesin1852tothecharterof

theReformedchurch–reformsalreadybegunintheearly1840sbutalso

wereprecipitatedby184847–ultimatelyresultedinthefirstecclesiastical

electionsof1867,inwhichnearlyallofitsmalemembers(insharpcontrast

toparliamentaryelectionsofthetime)couldvote.Inachurchbadlydivided

byanextremelywiderangeoftheologicalopinionandlackinganyorgan

empoweredtodetermineecclesiasticaldoctrine,theseelectionsservedasa

catalystforfurthermobilizationoutsidethechurch.Inthe1860s,theDutch

theologianandpastorAbrahamKuyperbegantomobilisetheorthodox

Calvinistbelieversbymeansofthepressandapoliticalorganisation.Kuyper’s

politicalmobilisationofProtestantsfurtherprecipitatedmassmobilisation

47 Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland, 82, 194;

Vroon, Carel Willem Pape, 136-139; C. van den

Broeke, Een geschiedenis van de classis. Classicale

typen tussen idee en werkelijkheid (1571-2004)

(Kampen 2005) 163-168, 549; see also: Van der

Laarse, ‘De Deugd en het Kwaad’, 24, 25.

46 J.P. de Valk, Roomser dan de paus? Studies over

de betrekkingen tussen de Heilige Stoel en het

Nederlands katholicisme, 1815-1940 (Nijmegen

1998) 368-371.


253

inchurchmatters.Thispastor-cum-politician,whofoundedanewspaper,a

university,apoliticalpartyandachurch,dramaticallychangedthesocialand

politicalconstellationoftheNetherlands,galvanizinghissupporterstowork

outa‘neo-Calvinist’visionoflifethateffectivelycontendedwiththeliberals

forpoliticalpower.48Initssuccessandinitsscalehegeneratedaformof

politicalProtestantismwithoutparallelinEurope,thoughDutchProtestant

activism,neo-Calvinistornot,paralleledinitiativestakenmuchearlierin

Anglophonecountries,andwereindeedinfluencedbythem.49

ThepartialfragmentationofDutchsocietiesinto‘pillars’didnotresult

inthe‘balkanization’ofthecountry.Indeed,theriseofsubculturesorpillars

hadastrongintegrativeeffectonthecountry.Regionalorlocalgroups,fora

longtimeacceptingliberaldomination,nowfoundcommoncausewithnew

compatriotsatthenationallevel.Massmobilisationandeducationalongthe

pathsofthesubculturebroughtorthodoxProtestantsfromGroningenin

thenorthfromZeelandinthesouthwesttogetherorganizationally,asitdid

RomanCatholicsfromTheHaguewiththeircounterpartsinTwente,nearthe

Germanborder.1870functionedasawatershed:Dutchpoliticsaroundthat

timechangedfromdebatebasedonregionalintereststodebatescentredon

ideologicaldifference.Inthisshift,thepositionofprivatereligiousschools

wasamajorissueofcontention,withbothliberalsandchampionsofthese

schoolsvigorouslydefendingtheirowneducationalvisions.50

Theformationofnationalsubculturesmeantthatthedisciplinewithin

eachofthesegroupscouldbestrengthened;churches,forexample,wereable

toregulatethebehaviouroftheirmembersmoretightlythanbefore.The

importanceofbearingchildrenwasheavilyemphasizedamongorthodox

ProtestantsandCatholics,withmorechildrenbornamongthesegroupsthan

amongsocialistsorliberalsfromthe1880son.Knippenbergpointstothe

decreaseofthemixedProtestant-RomanCatholicmarriagesinthesecondhalf

ofthenineteenthcentury,paralleledonthesideoftheRomanCatholicsby

theofficialpreferenceforamarriageinthechurchanddisapprovalofmixed

marriagesintheSyllabus errorumoftheQuanta cura encyclicalof1864.51

By1920,DutchRomanCatholicsandorthodoxProtestantshad

succeededinobtainingastrongpoliticalandsocialposition;theirschools

werefullyfinancedbythestate,andtogethertheyformedapoliticalmajority

thatwouldlastforhalfacentury.Subculturalinstitutionswouldcontinueto

50 De Coninck, De natie in pacht, 70-78; R. op

den Camp, ‘God, Vaderland en Broederbond.

Nationaal besef, vereniging en schoolstrijd in

het anmv’, in: Te Velde and Verhage, De eenheid

en de delen, 85-97, 95; Knippenberg, ‘Nationale

integratie’, 190, 193.

51 Knippenberg, ‘Nationale integratie’, 187.

48 Jeroen Koch, Abraham Kuyper. Een biografie

(Amsterdam 2006).

49 Maartje Janse, De afschaffers. Publieke opinie,

organisatie en politiek in Nederland. 1840-1880

(Amsterdam 2007).

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



Young people line the route of the annual procession

of St. John [Dutch: St. Jan], the patron saint of Laren.

St. John’s procession expresses the hope given to the

world by the apostle John. His name, which means ‘God

will show mercy’ in Hebrew, inspires confidence in the

future.

Hans Aarsman, Annual St. John’s Procession in Laren,

27/6/1982 [Dutch: Jaarlijkse St. Jansprocessie in Laren, 27-

6-1982]. From the photo series The Changing Church.



255

bedeveloped,reachingtheheightoftheirexpansioninthe1950s.AsMcLeod

notes,theseparationofchurchandstateintheNetherlandslednottolaicist

regimeasinFrance,buttoasituationthatparalleledtheoutcomeinnewly-

independentIreland:anon-sectarianstatelargelyincontrolofthosewho

weresympatheticto,andfinanciallysupportiveof,variousformsofreligious

endeavour.52

The conceptual problems of pillarization

Thedevelopmentofapillarizedsocietyhasservedtogenerateseveral

importanthistoriographicaldebatesamongDutchhistorians.Oneissuehas

focusedontheextenttowhichpillarizationwasprimarilyamodernized

manifestationofearlierconfessionalcleavages,ortowhatextentthemodern

nationalstateitselfcreatedawhollynewdynamicofreligiousconflict.Van

derLaarsethinksthatalreadyinthefirsthalfofthecenturyaconsiderable

numberoflocalofficialsdissentedfromtheenlightenedProtestantview

ofstate,moralityandthechurch,whileVanRoodenhasdeniedthatbefore

thesuccessfulmobilisationofthe1870stherewasanythinglikeacoherent

orthodoxProtestantbodyofbelievers.Before1875,congregationswhich

werelaterclearlyinaliberalorconservativecampcalledpastorswithout

muchdiscernibletheologicalpattern;onlyintheprovincesofSouthHolland

andFrieslandweregeographicalpatternsof(un)orthodoxyvisibleearlier,

withministerialcallingsshowingapatternfrom1825onwards.53Itmight

bearguedthattheactivepresenceoforthodoxsecessionistsinthe1830s

doesrevealanolderconfessionaldivide,andthatVanRooden’semphasison

aradicaldiscontinuitybetweenmodernpillarizationandolderconfessional

said that the level of clerical influence in Ireland

was greater than Dutch churches, Protestant and

Catholic together, were able to exert on Dutch

private and public life.

53 Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 182-185.

52 Hugh McLeod, Secularisation in Western Europe,

1848-1914 (New York 2000) 56. McLeod sees

Britain and Germany taking a middle position

between France on the one side and Ireland and

the Netherlands on the other, though it might be

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



battlelinesmaybeoverdrawn.54ButVanRoodeniscertainlyrightinstressing

thenationalcharacteroforthodoxProtestantmobilisationfromthe1860s

onwards:localconflictsfolloweddividinglinesthatoriginatedatthenational

level.Certainly,too,thelatenineteenthcenturynecessarilywasaccompanied

bytheinventionoftraditions;orthodoxProtestants,RomanCatholicsand

liberals,too,usedhistoryasthecommongroundfromwhichtheyconstructed

theirideology.Alltheseideologiesweremixturesofnationalismandthe

differentreligiousidentitiesoftheserespectivegroups.Whatevervariations

theremighthavebeen,inallthecompetingnarratives,aquintessentially

Dutchtolerancewasposited.55Seenthisway,variouseffortstodevelop

distinctivereligiousculturesdrewlessfromconfessionaltraditionsandmore

fromcommoncontemporarysources,notleastmodernnationalism.

Asecondissuepertainstothefalsesymmetryanduniformitythat

themetaphorof‘pillarization’atleastsometimessuggests.56Ithasbeena

matterofsomedebatewhethersocialdemocratsorliberalscanusefullybe

describedaspartofthepillarizedsystem,sincetheyweredifferentlyordered

For a defence of his orthodoxy see the edition

of J. Mazereeuw’s Geschriften handelende over

de ware onderlinge bijeenkomst (Leiden 1941),

especially the introduction by C. Sluys, 1-52.

55 Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 196, 197; H. Blom,

‘Vernietigende kracht en nieuwe vergezichten.

Het onderzoeksproject verzuiling op lokaal

niveau geëvalueerd’, in: Blom and Talsma,

Godsdienst, stand en natie in de lange negentiende

eeuw, 203-236, 227; For the pietistic groups see:

F.A. van Lieburg, De stille luyden. Bevindelijk

gereformeerden in de negentiende eeuw (Kampen

1994); Te Velde and Verhage, De eenheid en

de delen, 38-40; P. Raedts, ‘Tussen Rome en

Den Haag. De integratie van de Nederlandse

katholieken in kerk en staat’, in: Te Velde and

Verhage, De eenheid en de delen; G. Harinck, H.

Paul and B. Wallet, Het gereformeerde geheugen.

Protestantse herinneringsculturen in Nederland,

1850-2000 (Amsterdam 2009).

56 P. van Dam, ‘Sind die Säulen noch tragfähig?

Versäulung in der niederländischen

Historiografie’, Schweizer Zeitschrift für Religions-

und Kulturgeschichte 102 (2008) 415-433.

54 It is still unclear whether Van Rooden’s opinion

that there had been no recognizable group of

orthodox Protestant believers before 1860 holds

true. Local examples show that at least some

members of leading families sided with the

Afscheiding and also suggest that the churches

of the Afscheiding, slowly drawing more and

more orthodox people from the Reformed

church, pushed the local church boards towards

more orthodoxy because they wanted to stop

this desertion. This process was evident long

before the mobilization of Kuyper’s neo-Calvinist

movement. Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 30-32,

187, 195, 196; Jasper Vree, ‘Hervormd Groningen

(Stad en Ommelanden) in de eerste kwarteeuw

na de Afscheiding’. Address at Conference 175 Jaar

Afscheiding van 1834, Theologische Universiteit

Kampen, 13 October 2009; J.P. Zwemer,

‘De Doleantie in Serooskerke. Ottoland op

Walcheren’, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse

Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800, nr. 58 (July 2003) 43-62,

47. Attention for an early (1820s) dissenter, J.

Mazereeuw, has mostly concentrated on his

unorthodox ideas and prophetic presentation,

not on his orthodox background and language.


257

thanreligiousgroupsandoftenlessintensively.Morerelevanttothefocusof

thisarticleonreligioushistory,however,arethedifferencesbetweenRoman

CatholicandorthodoxProtestantformsofpillarization.WhereastheRoman

Catholicscouldseethemselvesasmembersofonechurchandadherentsof

onepoliticalparty,orthodoxProtestantsweredivided,splittinginthe1890s

intotwomajorpoliticalparties,withother,smallerpartiescompetingwith

theminthecourseofthetwentiethcentury.Inadditiontothis,theReformed

churchwasseriouslychallengedbytheCalvinistfreechurches(mostnotably

Kuyper’sGereformeerde Kerken in Nederland),whichcontainedsome8percent

ofthepopulation,andwhich,intheirenergeticorganizationaldrive,were

moreinfluentialinpubliclifethantheirnumbersalonesuggest.Inanyevent,

DutchProtestantorthodoxyneverspokewithonevoice,anadvantagein

flexibilityinthelongrun,withbelieversabletoshiftfromonedenomination

toanother,orchangetheirvotingpreferences.57

Althoughsociologistsandanumberofhistorianshavestressedthe

unanimityoftheRomanCatholicpillarizedsubculturebetween1880and

the1950’s,themassmobilizationofRomanCatholicswasneversosuccessful

astheoneledbyKuyper.Inotherwords:themechanismthataccountedfor

differentversionsoforthodoxProtestantidentity,theformationofdifferent

partiesandfreechurches,didnotfunctionamongtheDutchRomanCatholics

–dissidents,totheextentthattheyexisted,tendedtobeabsorbedbythe

RomanCatholicpartyovertime.58Historianshavedisagreedtowhatextent

theDutchCatholicmilieuallowedforinternaldissent.Ontheonehand,

DutchCatholicism,asnotedabove,wasgenerallyhighlyself-disciplined,

withchurchattendanceandlevelsofsubculturalparticipationthatsurpassed

thoseinsurroundingcountries.Thethreatofspiritualsanctionhelpedkeep

theCatholicflockremarkablyfaithfultotheirshepherds.59Incontrast,Luykx

hasarguedthatunanimityandunityneverexistedamongDutchRoman

Catholicsduringpillarization.AdherenceamongDutchRomanCatholics

meantsomethingdifferentthanitdidamongorthodoxProtestantswith

58 P. Luykx, ‘“Van de dorpspastorie naar het

torentje”. Kerken en de macht van de

confessionele partijen’, in: Luykx and Righart, Van

pastorie naar het torentje, 35-71, 50.

59 For two sharply contrasting visions, see Piet

de Rooy, ‘Onheilig moeten. Drie studies over

aspecten van het katholicisme’; Paul Luykx,

‘“Andere katholieken”. Een nieuwe visie’, and

De Rooy, ‘Naschrift’, Bijdragen en Mededelingen

betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden / The

Low Countries Historical Review [bmgn /lchr] 124:1

(2009) 65-84.

57 D.J. Wolffram thinks these changes suggest

that the differences in orthodoxy between the

Reformed denominations were rather small and

that the splitting up of Dutch Calvinism had not

so much to do with religion. See: Bezwaarden en

verlichten. Verzuiling in een Gelderse provincestad,

Harderwijk 1850-1925 (Amsterdam 1993) 249; See

for the stabilizing working of this mechanism

on the local level in a non-Dutch setting: L.J.

Taylor, Dutchmen on the Bay: The Ethnohistory of a

Contractual Community (Philadelphia 1983).

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



Otto Tatipikalawan, Meeting in the mosque. A woman

passes round snacks, 1983.

From the photo series Moluccan History and Culture in

the Picture.

Moluccan Historical Museum/Museum Maluku,

Utrecht.


259

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er

indifferencetoofficialteachingsandtothehierarchyofclergymenacommon

response.60Furthermore,inthefirstthreequartersofthenineteenthcentury

thereexistedaliberal-mindedRomanCatholicbourgeoisie,thoughfromthe

beginningofthepillarizationprocessitformedaneverdecreasingminority.

Moreover,itcosttheRomanCatholicpoliticalpartyveryconsiderable

efforttokeeptheworkingclassCatholicsatitsside.Anoutstanding

numberofclergymenweremobilisedtoleadandappeasetheworkingclass

organisations,whileinparliamenttherealwayshadtobeworkingclass

representativesamongtheRomanCatholicdeputies.Partyleadersfeared

thatlargenumbersoftheirworkingclasssupporterswouldcrossovertothe

socialistsandyieldedtoworking-classdemands,willinglyorreluctantly.61

ThevicissitudesoftheKatholieke Volkspartij intheRomanCatholicpartsofthe

provinceofZeelandaftertheSecondWorldWarsuggestthattherewasafierce

rivalrybetweentheupperclassesandthelargeworkingclasspopulation,

eachpartystrugglingforcontrolofmunicipalgovernmentuntilthebattle

ultimatelyresultedinavictoryfortheCatholicworkers,atleastforanumber

ofyears.62Inthiscase,thevacuumcreatedbyGermanoccupationrevealed

theverysignificanttensionswithintheCatholicpillar.63Intheyearsafterthe

SecondWorldWar,Catholicpoliticswould,largelywithsuccess,attemptto

bridgethedividebetweenitsbourgeoisandproletarianwings.64

Intheserespects,then,pillarizationoccludesrealconflictwithin

thepillars,certainlywithinProtestantism,morecontroversiallywithin

Catholicism.Historicalresearch,moreover,hashighlightedathirdissue:how

elusiveithasbeentoempiricallyverifypillarizationasanationalprocess.

Localstudiesonpillarizationnarratequitedifferentpatterns,inwhich

subculturalformationfailedtomaterializeintheperiodcollectivelystudied

byalarge-scalehistoricalproject(1850-1925).Indeed,Dutchsocietyseemed

of the liberated provinces who tried to influence

Queen Wilhelmina in London during the winter

of 1944-1945. See Een zondagskind in de politiek

en andere christenen. Opstellen over konfessionele

politiek in Nederland van Colijn tot Cals (Nijmegen

1980) 78, 87; H. Termeer reports that they were

afraid of a presumed (future) socialist and

communist dominance in the part of the country

that was still under siege, ‘Het bestuur aan de

ondergrondse’, in: J.A. van Oudheusden and

H. Termeer (eds.), Tussen vrijheid en vrede. Het

bevrijde Zuiden september ’44 - mei ’45 (Zwolle,

Den Bosch 1994) 92-115, 112.

64 Luykx, Andere katholieken, 232-236.

60 P. Luykx, Andere katholieken. Opstellen over

Nederlandse katholieken in de twintigste eeuw

(Nijmegen 2000) 12, 41, 281, 317, 326; P. Luykx,

‘Daar is nog poëzie, nog kleur, nog warmte!’

Katholieke bekeerlingen en moderniteit in Nederland,

1880-1960 (Hilversum 2007).

61 S. Stuurman, ‘De overwinning van de zonde. Over

de verhouding tussen seculiere en confessionele

cultuur in de Nederlandse geschiedenis’, in: Luykx

and Righart, Van pastorie naar het torentje, 11-34,

20.

62 J. Zwemer, Zeeland 1945-1950 (Vlissingen 2000)

277-297.

63 J. Rogier pointed to the anti-union and anti-

socialist stance of the Catholic representatives



ratherunevenlyaffectedbytheprocess.Leadinghistoriansattachedtothis

projecthavewonderedifwemustnotmove‘beyond’pillarizationorregard

itasameremetaphor.65Localdifferenceswerejusttoogreattospeakofa

national,pillarizedpattern.Moreover,historianshaveoftenbeenconfounded

bytheissueoftowhatextentnon-religiousgroupings–namelytheliberals

andthesocialdemocrats–couldalsobecalledpillars.Inparticular,liberals,

beingonlylooselyorganized,didnotactasiftheybelongedtopillarized

institutions,andconsciously‘neutral’organizationseschewedanypillarized

identity.

Perhapsjustasproblematically–andthisisafourthissue–isthat

pillarizationobscuresDutchhistoryfrominternationaltrends.66Pillarization

hasbeenstudiedbyDutchhistoriansasanationalphenomenon,andthey

havenotbeenparticularlyinterestedinrelatingthisnationalproblematique

withinternationaltrends,withtheexceptionofsomehistoriography

ontransnationalCatholicpatterns.67BelgianandGermanscholarshave

offeredtransnationalperspectivesonreligiousmobilization,perhapsmost

notablytheBelgianhistorianStafHellemans.68Problemshaveremained,

however;thepreferenceofGerman-languagescholarshipfortheconceptof

Catholic‘milieu’vis-à-visaBelgian-Dutchfocusonamorepluralistprocess

of‘pillarization’revealsthedifficultiesinconstructingatransnational

historiographyonreligiousmobilizationbetween1850and1960.And

itisimportanttostressthatthecreationof‘heavy’communitieswhich

encouragedtightnetworksofgroupswiththesamereligiousoutlookwasa

broaderpatternwithinthedevelopmentofcivilsocietyinWesternEurope

andNorthAmerica,withCatholicsandconservativeLutheransestablishing

similarsubculturesintheUnitedStates,forexample.69

Seenfromthislastperspective,thereisnothinguniqueabout

Dutchpillarization.Perhapsonecouldarguethatmorethanelsewhere

69 For a critique of national limitations in this

field and an alternative transnational concept

of ‘heavy community’, see P.H. van Dam,

‘Religiöse Traditionen in der Zivilgesellschaft.

Westdeutsche und niederländische

Gewerkschaften, 1945-1976’ (PhD dissertation

Münster 2009). For a brief comparison with

developments in the United States, see Mark A.

Noll, Old Religion in a New World (Grand Rapids

2002) 235-236.

65 J.C.H. Blom and J. Talsma, De verzuiling voorbij; P.

de Rooy, ‘Zes studies over verzuiling’, bmgn 110:3

(1995) 380-392.

66 For a recent discussion of this issue, see Henk te

Velde, ‘Inleiding. De internationalisering van de

nationale geschiedenis en de verzuiling’, bmgn/

lchr 124:4 (2009) 494-514.

67 Luykx and Righart, Van pastorie naar het torentje;

Theo Clemens, P. Klep and L. Winkeler, Moeizame

moderniteit. Katholieke cultuur in transitie

(Nijmegen 2005).

68 Staf Hellemans, Strijd om de moderniteit. Sociale

bewegingen en verzuiling in Europa sinds 1800

(Leuven 1990).


261

thethoroughgoingprocessofsubculturalsegmentationresultedin(some

historiansmightsay:confirmed)acountryinwhichtherewereonly

minorities.PoliticalpowerinDutchsocietyremainedstronglyfragmentedfor

aboutacentury:therewasnotoneleadinggroup,butseveral.Thismeans,as

thesociologistsofa1985investigationputit,

In the Netherlands there are a number of churches with nearly equal rights since the

middle of the last century. One does not have to be a number of any one of them in order

to be a fully respected member of society. 70

ThisobservationmaydownplaytoomuchpersistinghierarchiesinDutch

society,whereliberalsandProtestantsremainedculturallyandpolitical

prominentforalongtime.Butthissituationdidgenerateovertimea

modus vivendiwherepublicgoodswereproportionallydividedamongthe

Netherlands’minorities,evidencedinitslow-thresholdparliamentary

democracy(0.67percentofthevoterequiredforaseat)andeasyaccessto

statesubsidiesforassociationswithareligiousidentity(thoughnotfor

religiousorganizationspur sang,whichwereexcludedfrommostsubsidies).

Pillarization,too,mayhavecontributedtowhatisstillapoliticallyquiescent

society,withalive-and-let-livementalityreducingthemotivationforvigorous

politicalandsocialprotest.71Therelativelyrapidacceptanceofhomosexuals

inDutchsocietyhasbeenattributedtotheroomthatwasmadefortheir

‘pillarized’associations,andsubsidiestoMuslimandHindugroupsfromthe

1980swasjustifiedonthesameprinciple.TheextenttowhichtheDutchwere

willingtofinancetheinstitutionsofeventinyreligiousminoritiesprompted

onestudyingthe1990stopraisetheequitabilityofDutcharrangements

incontrasttocountriesliketheU.S.,England,GermanyandAustralia.72

AndstrikinginDutchhistoryisnotonlythehighdegreeofself-regulation

thathasbeenshownbyreligiousgroups,butthewillingnessofthestate

toaccommodatethesegroups.Theabilitytogiveameaningandashapeto

theirowncollectiveexistencecharacterizesDutchsociety,traditionallyand

nowadays,topandbottom,assertedthehumanistthinkerRobTielmaninthe

1990s.73

72 Rob Tielman, Homoseksualiteit in Nederland

(Amsterdam 1982); Stephen V. Monsma and J.

Christopher Soper, The Challenge of Pluralism

(Lanham 2008); John Lucas Hiemstra, The Role

of Worldviews in the Politics of Accommodation

(Calgary 1993).

73 Rob Tielman, ‘Is Nederland van God los?’, Civis

Mundi 33 (November 1994) 125.

70 Chadwick, Atlas van het Christendom, 215; Mady

A. Thung and L. Laeyendecker, Exploring the New

Religious Consciousness: An Investigation of Religious

Change by a Dutch Working Group (Amsterdam

1985) 4.

71 R. van Splunder in: cnv-nieuws (January 2002).

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



After their First Communion, a group photo is made

of the children in Den Bosch’s cathedral (the St.

Janskathedraal). In the Roman Catholic church, children

first take part fully in the ‘eucharist’ around the age of

six.

Oscar van Alphen, Children After Their First

Communion, Den Bosch 5/6/1983. From the photo

series The Changing Church.



bmgn

| deel 123 - 3 | 516 - 541

263

Secularization and recent Dutch religious history

Throughoutthetwentiethcentury,theNetherlandshasbeencharacterized

byanuncommonlyhighpercentageofthoseclaimingtobereligiously

unaffiliated,andarelativelyhighpercentageofactivechurchgoers,especially

beforethe1960s(evennow,11percentofDutchsaytheyattendreligious

servicesweekly,arelativelyhighratefornorthernEurope74).ForDutch

Protestantsinparticular,churchmembershipwaslesscoextensivethan

itwasfortheircounterpartsinScandinaviaorregionsofGermanywith

beingamemberofsocietyorofthenation,oneoftheeffects,presumably,

oftheincompleteconfessionalizationoftheNetherlandsandtheearly

disestablishmentdiscussedabove.Thepoliticizationofreligioninthelate

nineteenthcenturymayfurthermorenotonlyhavemobilizedbelievers,

butalienatedreligiousliberalsfromchurchmembership.Whateverthe

precisereasonsby1930some14percentoftheDutchpopulationdisclaimed

religiousaffiliation.AlthoughformerCatholicsandorthodoxProtestants

alsohelpedconstitutethisgroup,itwasdrawndisproprionatelyfromthose

bornintotheDutchReformedchurch,theolderdissentingchurches(such

astheLutherans),andtheJewishcommunity.After1870,manyJewscutor

reducedtheirtiestotheirsynagogues,drawnbytheopportunitiesofsocial

assimilationthatDutchsociety,inrelativeterms,afforded,whetherintothe

bourgeoisieorworkingclassmovements.Thatthisassimilationhaditslimits

hasbeendebatedbyhistoriansasafactorintheunusuallyhighpercentageof

DutchJews(75percent)whoperishedintheShoa.75

ButaselsewhereinWesternEuropeandNorthAmerica,therealdrop-

offinchurchattendanceandaffiliationintheNetherlandswouldnotoccur

untilthe1960s.IntheNetherlands,thefallwouldseemparticularlyfast,

giventhedominanceofreligiousorganizations.In1966,consistentwitha

muchlongerpattern,halfoftheDutchpopulationattendedchurchweekly,a

veryhighpercentagebythestandardsofpostwarNorthernEurope.Starting

inthe1960sandparallelinginternationaldevelopments,however,thishigh

levelofchurchattendancebegantofalloffverysignificantly.‘Depillarization’

occurredroughlysimultaneously,inwhichreligiousorganizationseither

disaffiliated,mergedwith‘neutral’organizations,or,probablymost

commonly,broadenedtheirreligiousidentities.ThelargeProtestantand

CatholicpartiesmergedintoaChristianDemocraticparty,withscholars

debatingwhetherthisshiftwasprimarilymotivatedbyanewecumenical

(Amsterdam 1995); Evelien Gans, Gojse nijd &

joods narcisme. Over de verhouding tussen Joden en

niet-Joden in Nederland (Amsterdam 1994).

74 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (cbs), Religie

aan het begin van de 21e eeuw (The Hague 2009).

75 J.C. H. Blom, R.G. Fuks-Mansfeld and Ivo

Schöffer, Geschiedenis van de Joden in Nederland



élanoraresponsetothefactthattheyhadgonefromrepresentingmorethan

halftojustone-thirdoftheelectorate.76Bythemid-1980s,nearlyhalfthe

populationclaimedtohavenotieswithareligiousbody,thoughreligious

sentimentsheldbythepopulationremainedhigherthanthisstatisticmay

suggest.77‘Onemightperhapssay’,wroteabodyofDutchsociologistsin1985

onRomanCatholicandCalvinistchurches,

that people’s ties with the churches were weakening all over Western Europe. But

whereas elsewhere this was manifested by decreasing participation in church life, the

Netherlands showed a decreasing number of church-members.78

ThesuddendeclineofwhatwasonceahighlydisciplinedRomanCatholic

subculturewasperhapsthemostdramaticreligiouschangeinpostwar

Holland.Luykx,aswellastheBelgianhistoriansDeMaeyerandHellemans,

holdthatRomanCatholicism,inreactiontothemodernisationchallenge

ofthenineteenthcentury,precipitatedareligiousrevivalculminatingin

thepronouncedpillarizationoftheInterbellum.Thedepillarizationand

secularizationofthe1960sandafterwassimplythecounterpartofthis

upsurge,areturntoa‘normal’levelofadherencetoRomanCatholicism.

Seenthisway,thesecularizationofthe1960sandafterwasnotaunique

occurrencewithinEuropeanRomanCatholicism,butwasareturntothepre-

1850situation.LikeLuykx,DeMaeyerandHellemans,WintleseesDutch

pillarizationasaphenomenonthatcouldonlybetemporary.Inthenineteenth

century,newgroupsknockedonthedoorwhowantedtobecomeanintegral

partofthenation.Afterthesenewgroupshadtakenintheirpositions,

pillarizationbegantoloseitsfunctionandfadedaway.VanRooden,oneof

thefewwhodidresearchonDutchreligioushistoryalongfoursucceeding

centuries,infactfollowsalltheexplanationsmentionedbeforeaboutthe

quicksecularisationsincethesixties.Hethinks,likeLuykx,thatthestrong

adherencetochurchlifeofthefiftiesoriginatedinthemassmovements

76 Rutger Zwart, ‘Gods wil in Nederland’. Christelijke

ideologieën en de vorming van het cda (1880-

1980) (Kampen 1996); Dick Verkuyl, Een positieve

grondhouding. De geschiedenis van het cda (The

Hague 1992).

77 That secularisation was more gradual than

believed at the time, was shown by a working

group of sociologists who found that in 1975

about a quarter of the male Dutch population

denied ‘Christian or transcendent references’;

M.A. Thung, L. Laeyendecker et al., Exploring

the New Religious Consciousness: An Investigation

of Religious Change by a Dutch Working Group,

Amsterdam (Amsterdam 1985) 148-149. The

census data for non-church affiliation are 17,1

percent of the overall population in 1947, 18,4

percent in 1960, 23,6 percent in 1971. Probably

the quickest development was between 1975

and 1985: in the last year 48,7 percent of the

population was found to be non-church affiliated.

78 Luykx, Andere katholieken, 39-41, 241, 242, 257, 283,

320; Stuurman, De overwinning van de zonde, 26,

27; Thung and Laeyendecker, Exploring the New

Religious Consciousness, 4, 209.


265

datingbacktothesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury.Healsothinks

neo-CalvinistandRomanCatholicleadersaround1960nolongerrequired

strongorganisationsasthesocial,economicandpolitical‘emancipation’of

theirgroupshadbeenquitesuccessful.Withreligiousleadersincreasingly

expressingequivocationaboutthevalueoftraditionalreligiousviewsand

habits,thecentralisedstructurestheyhadbuiltnowservednottomaintain

faithbuttoenabletherapidspreadofthedoubtssomemembersmaylong

haveheld,doubtsthatfurtherwerestimulatedbythegrowingmobilityofthe

Dutchpopulation.79

Thisexplanationmayaccountforthelong-termbackgroundof

Dutchsecularization,buttherealsomusthavebeenmoredirectcauses.The

crumblingoftheRomanCatholicpillarandthequickdiminishingofthe

adherencetochurchlifewasprecipitatedbythequickgrowthofprosperity

fromtheendofthe1950sonwards.Sociologistsandresearchersonthe

comparativehistoryofreligionhavelongheldthatthisgrowthworkedout

negativelyonchurchadherenceandbeliefs.ChadwickandEvansconclude

thatparticipationinchurchlifediminisheswhenpopulationsconcentrate

instilllargerandlargertownsandwhenheavyindustrygrows.Religious

notionsandrelationsgenerallyarebasedonpersonaltiesandsmallerforms

ofcommunityandsoareinfluencednegativelybysizeandlargeproportions.

Thesameistrueforsocialandgeographicalmobility.80Justasimportant,

however,wastheriseofthewelfarestatewhicheliminateddependenceon

religiousbodiesforsupportandeducationwhichunderminedtheauthority

oftraditionalinstitutionsandleaders.

MorethanoneProtestanttheologianhoweverthinksthatthequick

secularisationsincethe1960swasfurtheredbythechurches’engagement

withaimsandmovementsinthesocialfield.RecentlyE.P.Meijeringhas

claimedthatthechurches,inreactiontothethreatofquickmodernisation,

embracedsomanyinner-worldlyvalues(environment,peacemovement,

fightingpoverty)thattheymadethemselvessuperfluous.Fortheattainment

ofthesemoralgoals,oneneedednotpartakeinchurchlifeandtheunique

messageof(Christian)religiontendedtofadeawaybywaveofstrong

engagement.81Somescholarshavearguedthatthefastrateofreligious

reformthatcharacterizedtheDutchCatholicchurchinthe1960smay

and Verhage, De eenheid en de delen, 13-28, 25; Van

Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 17, 29, 40-45.

80 Luykx, Andere katholieken, 40; Stuurman, 27;

Chadwick, Atlas van het christendom, 212.

81 E.P. Meijering, Het roer moet om! De kerk van

Jezus Christus is meer dan een Jezusbeweging

(Zoetermeer 2008).

79 Luykx, ‘Andere katholieken’, 241, 242; J. De

Maeyer and S. Hellemans, ‘Katholiek reveil,

katholieke verzuiling en dagelijks leven’, in: J.

Billiet (ed.), Tussen bescherming en verovering.

Sociologen en historici over zuilvorming (Leuven

1988) 171-200; Hellemans, Strijd om de moderniteit;

M. Wintle, ‘Natievoming, godsdienst en

onderwijs in Nederland, 1850-1900’, in: Te Velde

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



havecontributedtothedeclineinparticipationbyratherabruptlyshifting

fromreligiousobservancethatwasexternalinformtoanewemphasison

individualconscience.82

Theresultofthesechangeswas,arguably,asecularandconsciously

post-Christiansociety,awareofthebreakthathadbeenmadewithareligious

past,andforatime,anxioustobreakwithwhatbythe1970swasgenerally

regardedasarepressivepast.Manyyoungpeoplewereraisedwithoutany

religiousties,thoughalargemajorityofthemcontinuedtoattend(often

nominally)religiousprimaryandsecondaryschools.Thelegalizationof

abortion,euthanasiaandsame-sexmarriagewereundoubtedlyreflectionsofa

societythatnowconceivedofmoralityinemphaticallysecularterms,though

othersignaturefeaturesofDutchsocialpolicy–suchasdrugspolicy–were

notseeninlightoftheperceivedtransitionfromreligioustosecularsociety.

Stilltherewerereasonsthathistoriansandotherscholarshavedoubted

thesecularizationthesisasappliedtorecentDutchhistory.Someofthem

haveemphasizedthatreligionwas‘transformed’afterthe1960s.Forabrief

time,inthe1970sand1980s,theNetherlandsledtheworldinthenumberof

itscitizensengagedinthe‘newsocialmovements’,includingthosededicated

topeace,humanrightsandtheenvironment,andmanyengagedinthese

movementswereinpartreligiouslymotivated.83TheChristianDemocrats

mayhaveshrunktoaquarteroftheelectorateandforthemselvesloosenedthe

nexusbetweenreligionandpolitics,buttheyremainedaleadingcontender

inDutchpolitics,andreligiously-basedorganizations,fromtheChristian

tradeuniontopubliclyfinancedbroadcastassociationsandschools,have

continued,forthetimebeing,toshapethecontoursofDutchpubliclife.As

thewelfarestatereceded,religiousorganisations,especiallyonthelocallevel,

wereseenbyboththegovernmentandthepublicassignificantcontributors

of Religion in the Netherlands since 1950 (Hilversum

2005) 26-42; Jan Willem Duyvendak, Tussen

verbeelding en macht. 25 Jaar nieuwe sociale

bewegingen in Nederland (Amsterdam 1992);

Remco van Diepen, Hollanditis (Amsterdam

2004); Beatrice de Graaf, Over de muur. De

ddr, de Nederlandse kerken en de vredesbeweging

(Amsterdam 2004); E. Meijers, Blanke broeders

- zwarte vreemden. De Nederlandse Hervormde

Kerk, de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland en de

apartheid in Zuid-Afrika, 1948-1972 (Hilversum

2008).

82 Van Rooden, ‘Oral history en het vreemde

sterven van het Nederlands christendom’,

119:4 (2004) 524-551; James C. Kennedy, Nieuw

Babylon in aanbouw. Nederland in de jaren zestig

(Amsterdam 1995) 82-116; John A. Coleman,

The Evolution of Dutch Catholicism, 1958-1974

(Berkeley, Los Angeles 1978); Johannes Matthias

Gerardus Thurlings, De wankele zuil. Nederlandse

katholieken tussen assimilatie en pluralisme

(Nijmegen 1971).

83 James Kennedy, ‘Recent Dutch Religious History

and the Limits’, in: Eric Sengers (eds.), The Dutch

and their Gods: Secularization and Transformation


267

tocivilsociety.84Moreover,moreindividualformsofspiritualitybecame

evident,thoughtheimpactofthesesentimentsweredifficulttomeasure.

Aconsciouslydemocraticandindividualistically-mindedevangelicalism,

shapedbyAmericaninfluences,changedthecharacterofDutchProtestantism

inthepostwaryears,forexample.85Justasimportant,religionremained

animportantfactorformanyimmigrantswhoarrivedintheNetherlands

inlargenumbersbetweenthe1960sandthe1990s,includingtheroughly

850,000Muslimsandsome1.3millionChristianswhoarereckonedto

beofforeignorigin.86Itwastheformergroupthatcametodrawmostof

publicattention,notleastbecauseoffilmmakerTheovanGogh’smurderat

thehandsofMohammedBouyeri,anIslamicjihadist.Thoughlargelynon-

practicing–perhapsaquartertoathirdofDutchMuslimsregularlyattenda

mosque–Muslims’verypresencepromptedmanyDutchtowonderwhether

theNetherlandswasincontrovertiblyasecularcountry,astheyoncehad

supposeditwas.

Onceagain,then,atthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,religion

hadbecomeacentralelementinpublicdebate.Inthis,theDutchwerenot

unique;whetherinAmsterdam,MumbaiorNewYork,migrationandother

patternsofglobalizationhavecompelledpublicstocometotermswiththe

religiouspluralismthatisoneoftheconsequencesoftheseprocesses.87

AlthoughsomeDutchobserversnowlongedfortherelativestabilityof

pillarization,itseemedclearenoughthattheoldformsofsegmentationcould

nolongerbeappliedtothetwenty-firstcentury.Buthowthenshouldreligion

beordered?Opposingmulticulturalistswerethosewhonowinsistedthatthe

Netherlandsreassertasecularistorsomekindof‘Judaeo-Christian’Leitcultuur.

Thoseactiveinorganizedreligionwerenowrelativelysmallminorities,but

theirproperplaceinDutchsociety,andthekindofconsiderationtheyought

toreceive,hasbecomeapersistentissue.Now,asinthepast,thestrugglesin

whichtheDutchhaveattemptedtoordertheirreligiouspluralismisworthy

ofinternationalattention.q

84 James C. Kennedy, Stad op een berg. De publieke rol

van protestantse kerken (Zoetermeer 2010) 64-72,

88-98.

85 Hans Krabbendam, ‘The American Impact on

Dutch Religion’, in: Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis

A. Van Minnen and Giles Scott-Smith (eds.),

Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations

(Amsterdam 2009) 1027-1038.

86 M.M. Jansen and H.C. Stoffels (eds.), A Moving

God. Immigrant Churches in the Netherlands

(Munster 2008).

87 Markha Valenta at the Universiteit van

Amsterdam is working on a project linking

religion in these three cities with processes of

globalization.

religion

in the m

odern

netherlan

ds and the pro

blems o

f pluralismken

nedy &

zwem

er



James C. Kennedy (1963) is Professor of Dutch History since the Middle Ages at the Universiteit

van Amsterdam. He recently finished a book on the history of the Dutch Protestant churches since

1848: Stad op een berg. De publieke rol van protestantse kerken (Zoetermeer 2010). He has published

widely on Dutch postwar history, including a study on the 1960s: Nieuw Babylon in aanbouw.

Nederland in de jaren zestig (Amsterdam 1995) and on Dutch euthanasia policy: Een weloverwogen

dood. Euthanasie in Nederland (Amsterdam 2002).

Jan P. Zwemer (1960) is a freelance historian. He has published on the religious history of the

Netherlands from circa 1800 and the social and political history of the Dutch province of Zeeland

from circa 1850, among other areas.Zeeland 1945-1950 (Vlissingen 2000); (with textual contributions

from others), Zeeland 1950-1965 (Vlissingen 2005) and In Conflict met de Cultuur. De bevindelijk

gereformeerden en de Nederlandse samenleving in het midden van de twintigste eeuw (Kampen 1992,

reprinted 1993).


Documents

Religion in the modern Netherlands and the problems of pluralism