Theology and Reading
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 52, No. 2 – Spring 2010
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Herman Bavinck. translated by harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres. Grand Rapids: Baker academic, 2008. 304 pages. hardcover, $39.99.
Directly on the heels of the four English volumes of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008) comes this collection of essays by an oft-neglected Dutch Reformed giant. The writings of Bavinck deserve both translation and wide dissemination, and the Dutch Reformed Translation Society is providing a great service to the theological world in this regard. Bavinck is a careful and engaged scholar whose work in the realm of religion, science, and society is still fruitful for Christian reflection, in spite of the fact that his contributions were crafted nearly a century ago. The editors have chosen a 1921 collection of short essays by Bavinck for full translation from the Dutch and have added an introduction, a biographical sketch, and two appendices (a preface by Herman’s brother, and the remainder of an abridged chapter). After the biographical sketch, a selection of the various essays according to the categories of religion, science, and society are surveyed below.
The “biographical sketch” is actually a panegyric delivered by an American colleague, Henry Elias Dosker of Princeton, soon after the death of Bavinck. From a Baptist and Free Church perspective, it is instructive that the separatist worldview of the ecclesiastical tradition from which Bavinck descended and against which he rebelled is described as “practically that of the old Dutch Anabaptists” (17). (Bavinck himself rejected the Anabaptists as akin to the liberals [38].) Although Dosker did not describe Bavinck’s shift as rebellion, it is clear that Bavinck’s interaction with culture is much more engaging, personally and intellectually, than that of his father. Dosker also offers a helpful comparison between Bavinck and his immediate and very famous predecessor in the Free University of Amsterdam, Abraham Kuyper: “[I]n breadth of accurate scholarship, Doctor Bavinck may have excelled Doctor Kuyper, while Doctor Kuyper excelled Doctor Bavinck in giving definite conclusions and daring utterances. The one gently tries to untie Gordian knots; the other cuts them through with mighty blows of his keen sword” (19).
Under the category of “religion” may be considered Bavinck’s insightful essay, “The Essence of Christianity.” The ecumenical project, which must identify the “essence” of Christianity, began “about the eighteenth Century” among the theologians of Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxy, who divided foundational from non-foundational doctrines (33). It was taken up later by Schleiermacher, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Strauss, the latter of whom greatly furthered the quest for the historical Jesus that denigrated the confessional standards of orthodoxy, divorcing the Christ created by the early churches from the Jesus who actually dwelt upon earth. The project was taken up with vigor by Adolf von Harnack, whose influence transformed the false dichotomy between the Christ of the councils and the historical Jesus into an unquestioned axiom. In response, Bavinck engages in a careful critique of the underlying historical critical method, which he finds of limited usefulness and subject to misuse. The search for the essence of Christianity is thus tainted by the tendency to redefine Jesus Christ on a basis other than revelation. In the current environment, perhaps the most relevant statements in Bavinck’s essay on the essence of Christianity are two: first, “Christianity rises and falls with Christ” (46). Here is a healthy Christocentrism that Bavinck would have wisely followed in his earlier prolegomena. Second, Bavinck casts the ecumenical project of theological triage into doubt by asserting that the goal of Christian theology is not reduction but fulfillment: “Dogmatics that takes its point of departure in Christology cannot, as we explained, stop there but must stride from here to the unfolding of the rich content that God has granted to the congregation in his Word” (47). If Southern Baptists heed the Dutch master here, they might save themselves from the dissolution of their biblical identity.
Under the category of “science” may be considered the essay entitled “Evolution.” Bavinck, as was typical for him, begins with a historical and linguistic analysis of the idea under consideration. The concept of evolution or development originated with the Greek philosophers and found detailed expression in Aristotle’s belief that “being” issues forth in “becoming” (106). Christianity completed the classical definition of evolution by positing the origin of all things in creation and the goal for humanity of eternal life. In the nineteenth century, however, there was a shift in the concept of development. The modern definition has a threefold peculiarity: it focuses upon a theory of descent, is bound by mechanism, and has no room for the essence or the end of things. Having defined the historical debate, Bavinck proceeds to a critique of the modern concept of evolution, noting its lack of mystery or mechanistic outlook. Although Bavinck is not averse to the exploration of biological evolution, he is clear that the modern idea is merely “a hypothesis” (114). He explores a way forward for scientists and theologians by arguing that if mechanical philosophy is rejected, there remains “no antithesis between creation and development” (117). He concludes by noting that any proper idea of development must reject mechanism and embrace “an organic, teleological concept”(118). While helpful on an etiological basis, Bavinck leaves one wondering whether modern biological evolution is really compatible with divine providence apart from natural science abandoning its modern philosophical foundation.
Finally, under the category of “society” may be considered the essay entitled “Ethics and Politics.” Bavinck, a member of the Dutch parliament, begins by noting that without religion, morality falters. on the basis of Romans 2:14–15, he argues for the unity of morality and law. As a result, in all three ways (scientia, ars, praxis), “one may regard politics as a high, noble, nearly sacred matter” (264). Again, providing an historical review, he notes the shift from Hegel’s tendency to deify the state to Bagehot’s definition of the state as amoral might. The political philosophy known as “political realism” (Realpolitik) comes in for criticism as being “closely related to the materialistic spirit and the theory of mechanical evolution” (267). Bavinck appeals to philosophy and Scripture to demonstrate that morality and justice, though distinct, are nevertheless related. The key here is a recovery of “natural law,” as rooted in Cicero. Bavinck argues that, “Just order is grounded in moral order and possesses its strong, unshakeable permanence” (271). He thence challenges Nietzsche’s separation of individual morality from any morality for the state, and instead distinguishes moral power from coercive power. Bavinck’s attractive definition of justice (275) even allows him to posit (correctly) that war may have a moral basis in love. Indeed, he argues that international justice rests on “two pillars: the Christian principle of the oneness of the human race in origin and essence, and the principle of the catholicity of God’s kingdom” (277). After filling an essay with such compelling ideas, Bavinck ends curiously with a naïve accolade for Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.
These three essays are merely representative samples of the wealth of applied theology contained in this book, which was Bavinck’s final contribution to theological discourse. Bavinck introduces or recovers major ideas that may be helpful in current discussions about psychology, pedagogy, classical education, and aesthetics. For instance, his survey of psychology brings him to the crucial claim that “the soul cannot be reduced to nature” (169). As a result, psychology may never stand on its own as a science, but must look to “logic and ethics, religion and aesthetics” as independent and necessary instructors (173). In this translation are many such thoughts worthy of deep consideration by modern practitioners of various disciplines. Indeed, the theological principles enunciated therein may help solve some of the problems that currently face Southern Baptists and American evangelicals. This is true, not only with regard to evangelical ecumenism, biological evolution, and political theology, but also with regard to biblical counseling, and many other matters in the realm of common grace. The high praise offered in this review may appear disconcerting, in light of the reviewer’s trenchant criticism of Bavinck’s prolegomena in The Formation of Christian Doctrine (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007). However, the previous criticism regarding Bavinck’s foundational mixture of philosophy and revelation, as well as his unbiblical definition of the church, still stands, even as praise is now delivered for aspects of the Dutch theologian’s practical theology.
