@article{aup:/content/journals/10.5117/DNK2021.94.002.VANK, author = "van Keulen, Dirk", title = "‘De ridder is gestorven’", journal= "DNK : Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse kerkgeschiedenis na 1800", year = "2021", volume = "44", number = "94", pages = "25-50", doi = "https://doi.org/10.5117/DNK2021.94.002.VANK", url = "https://www.aup-online.com/content/journals/10.5117/DNK2021.94.002.VANK", publisher = "Amsterdam University Press", issn = "2665-9492", type = "Journal Article", keywords = "A.A. van Ruler", keywords = "in Memoriam", keywords = "style of theologising", keywords = "death", keywords = "theocracy", abstract = "Abstract Arnold Albert van Ruler (1908-1970) was one of the leading theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church in the second half of the twentieth century. After having worked as a minister in Kubaard (1933-1940) and Hilversum (1940-1947) he was professor at the University of Utrecht (1947-1970). Van Ruler had a special place in the Dutch theological landscape. The development of his views took the opposite direction of the mainstream of Dutch protestant theology, which can be illustrated with his reception of the theology of Karl Barth. Before the Second World War Van Ruler was a Barthian theologian; after the War he distanced himself from Barth. As a result of this, some of Van Ruler’s theological views were controversial. Van Ruler himself felt somewhat lonely and complained that he was neglected by his colleagues. On the morning of December 15, 1970, Van Ruler had his third heart attack and dead sitting at his writing desk. In this contribution the reactions on Van Ruler’s death are documented. In many daily newspapers his death is mentioned and in several the significance of his work is described. During the months after his death in many ecclesiastical weekly’s and in theological journals in Memoriams were published. We find personal memories and praise for his style of theologising, which was experienced as sparkling and bright. Van Ruler’s colleagues recognised his originality. His views on theocracy, however, remained as controversial as they were during his lifetime.", }