Orthodox yet Modern

Herman Bavinck's Use of Friedrich Schleiermacher

Cory C. Brock

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781683593867
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Herman Bavinck showed that othodox theology continues to speak authoritatively today.
Since the English translation from Dutch of Herman Bavinck's magisterial 4-volume Reformed Dogmatics, there has been a blossoming interest in Bavinck's theology. Readers have been drawn to Bavinck for his faithfulness to the Reformed tradition while also engaging the questions of 19th-century Europe. Far from simply revisiting the older dogmatic systems, Bavinck faithfully engages modern trends like historical-criticism, the epistemological problems raised by Kant, the rationalism of the philosophes, and the radical changes ushered in through the French and European revolutions.
The question then is, was Bavinck orthodox, modern, or both?
In Orthodox yet Modern, Cory C. Brock argues that Bavinck acts as a bridge between orthodox and modern views, insofar as he subsumes the philosophical-theological questions and concepts of theological modernity under the conditions of his orthodox, confessional tradition. By exploring the relation between Bavinck and Schleiermacher, Orthodox yet Modern presents Herman Bavinck as a theologian eager to engage the contemporary world, rooted in the catholic and Reformed tradition, absorbing the best of modernity while rejecting its excesses. Bavinck represents a theologian who is at once orthodox, yet modern.

Part 1

DEEPLY MISUNDERSTOOD and TOO HIGHLY ESTEEMED

1

REFORMED CATHOLICITY BETWEEN THE MODERN AND ORTHODOX

Bavinck’s appropriation of Schleiermacher’s concepts unveils a paradigmatic example of how he perceived the theological task. This chapter unveils that perception pertaining especially to his methodological catholicity. What is the task, in other words, of the theologian in his relationship to the old and new? If one adopts the modern ethic as Lauzon recounts it—“to be modern … meant more than simply to see the present as equal or superior to the past; it also implied the rejection of the idea that the past should in any way constrain the present”—then Bavinck rejects wholly the modern methodology.1 Francis Bacon likewise argued in his 1620 Novum Organum that the failure of Aristotle, particularly the Organon, lead to the necessity of new foundations, a position that finds no place in Bavinck’s corpus. He regularly upholds Aristotelian logic of final causation, and common principles.2 René Descartes, like Bacon, in his search for a certainty that could only begin from an absolute doubt, affirmed something comparable.3 In contradistinction, Bavinck as a modern theologian outlined the very structure of his dogmatics in order to let the ancient speak to the modern and the modern to the ancient; to speak from a tradition (gereformeerd), under the authority of Scripture guided by the confessions—a requirement of his Reformed catholicity and the recognition of his position as a dependent, finite creature.4 The past must constrain the present, he argued, insofar as the doctrines of his Reformed confessional theology offered a fence of freedom within which to work. His use of Schleiermacher did not tear down that fence but sought to make the most use of its territory. In a phrase, his catholic task demanded a search for truth wherever it could be found.

In the broadest of claims, it was stated in the introduction that Bavinck, through the influence of Schleiermacher and the mediation theologies (what he calls the consciousness-theology tradition), turned to the fact of subjectivity as a prominent motif in his corpus. And in this broad adoption, more specifically, this study unveils what Bavinck learned from Schleiermacher most specifically: a grammar and logic for conceptualizing his theological-philosophical speech in the light of the principle of subjectivity. He applied Schleiermacher’s philosophic-religious reasoning to the problem of the duality of subject and object especially. The duality, often construed by Hegel as that between nature and spirit,5 by Kant as that between subject and object,6 and Schleiermacher, between being and thinking,7 was the context in which Bavinck constructed the problems facing modern philosophies. By indirect implication, Bavinck found the unity of thinking and being along the path of immediate self-consciousness, which was a discovery situated within his general turn to the fact of subjectivity.8

The treatment of this central thesis of appropriation begins in part II, chapter 4. In part I, in preparation for the arguments of appropriation, one must begin by establishing justification for the broader proposition of his modern/orthodox relation. Before embarking on the study of Bavinck’s texts to vindicate the introductory claims, it is important to investigate first (i) Bavinck and his interpreters—the justification for the modern/orthodox question develops directly from the prevailing trends of Bavinck scholarship. Among these scholarly trends, there are two that deserve attention foremost: (a) the two-Bavincks hypothesis in relation to the organic motif; (b) Bavinck’s contested genealogical relation to both post-Reformation scholastic theology and post-Kantian philosophy and theologies. These two trends, however, are not equals. The two-Bavincks hypothesis, the bi-polarity narrative briefly presented in the introduction, consists of architectonic questions regarding the presuppositions of Bavinck interpretation from which other questions must be asked.

One begins then by considering appropriate aspects of Bavinck’s biography and the most recent debates regarding tension and bifurcation in his life and thought between what has been called a pull of two distinct traditions creating two Bavincks. A brief examination of these recent scholarly trends will reveal in this chapter that all of them, at base, are offering responses to the modern/orthodox binary without necessarily giving specific attention to the question in this manner. An investigation of Bavinck and his interpreters will make clear that all agree that he is both a modern and orthodox theologian, although under the guise of various definitions.

The penultimate portion of this chapter, (ii) the task of the Reformed catholic theologian, unveils Bavinck’s theological method by answering this question: what is the duty of the theologian in his development of dogmatics with regard to the relationship between old and new? The answer provides a norm for understanding why Bavinck generously used Schleiermacher within an opposing tradition. To state it positively, his appropriation of Schleiermacher exemplifies his conception of the task of a Reformed catholic theologian as one who hunts for truth wherever it can be found. In the final section of this chapter, before turning to the material evidence of the historical argument, it is critical to briefly consider (iii) the nature of proof. Such a foray into the historical and textual dimensions of Bavinck’s relationship to Schleiermacher demands some remarks regarding a description of the characteristics of evidence.

BAVINCK AND HIS INTERPRETERS

Born on December 13, 1854, in Hoogeveen, Bavinck’s location in the history of Dutch ecclesiastical development reflects the question presented. To elucidate the narrative mentioned earlier, the culmination of the secession movement was the 1834 separation from the Hervormde Kerk, the state church of the Netherlands, because of overreach by the state coupled with doctrinal issues and a call to renewed spirituality.9 The Afscheiding (secession) was associated with the spiritual roots of the Nadere Reformatie.10 The newly formed body, originally known as the Afgescheidenen and later called the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk, organized a seminary for ministerial training in Kampen by the year of Bavinck’s birth. Jan Bavinck declined an offer from the Synod to be one of its first professors after casting lots in the form of mailed letters. He wrote two letters and asked a student to randomly post only one of them (one with ja and one with nee) and the “no” was selected.

The religious climate of the secession lobby and Bavinck’s education at home and church throughout his childhood and teenage years were pietistic and confessional. He also attended a top school at the Gymnasium in Zwolle. According to Bolt, “Bavinck’s church, his family, and his own spirituality were thus definitively shaped by strong patterns of deep pietistic Reformed spirituality” as well as surrounded by a sectarian climate.11 While the sectarian narrative is somewhat troubled with respect to Bavinck’s family (see chapter 2), it is generally recognized to obtain for the Kampen environment, which Dosker’s letter previously quoted affirms. To the disappointment of a small segment of the secession community, after attending the theological school at Kampen for one year, Bavinck chose to attend the University of Leiden to attain a “more scientific” induction into academic theology.12 This transfer to Leiden embodies what has been called a twofold constituency: the pull between the modern and pre-modern, liberal scientific theology and an old orthodox and pietistic oriented secessionism.13

TWO-BAVINCKS AND ORGANIC UNITY

The early move from Kampen to Leiden, as mentioned previously, introduces a narrative of biographical extremes that has been used as a caricature and the basis of a dualistic hermeneutic known as the “two-Bavincks hypothesis,” which presupposes incoherence and challenges Bavinck’s own intellectual facility. This tension is often expressed as the competition between secessionist orthodoxy and religious engagement in culture, a this-worldly vs. other-worldly (Kingdom of Heaven) binary.14 The dualism was first posited by one of his principle biographers, Valentijn Hepp, and then one of his most significant interpreters, Jan Veenhof.15

For purposes of this work, one needs to merely note the question of the orthodox/modern duality that lies underneath the debate. Eglinton offered the premiere reconstruction and critique of this hermeneutic. “The two-Bavincks hypothesis,” Eglinton argues,

rests on a particular interpretation of his personal narrative.… It combines the factors of his … employment as a reformed dogmatician, involvement in politics, philosophy, psychology, and education and various events of his old age (the most famous being the sale of his theological library and dying statement: “My dogmatics avails me nothing, nor my knowledge, but I have my faith and in this I have all.”16

The two-Bavincks hypothesis is an attempt to frame conceptually a real tension in Bavinck’s life and works. After studying at the University of Leiden, Bavinck described an anxiety in his soul concerning his participation in the scientific and modern world. At the completion of his studies at Leiden in 1880, Bavinck reflects on the costs of his decision: “Leiden has benefitted me in many ways: I hope always to acknowledge that gratefully. But is has also greatly impoverished me, robbed me, not only of much ballast (for which I am happy), but also of much that I recently, especially when I preach, recognize as vital for my own spiritual life.”17 Accordingly, A. Anema, Bavinck’s colleague at the Vrije Universiteit, recognized this duality:

Bavinck was a secession preacher and a representative of modern culture … that was a striking characteristic. In that duality is found Bavinck’s significance. That duality is also a reflection of the tension—at times crisis—in Bavinck’s life. In many respects it is a simple matter to be a preacher in the Secession Church, and, in a certain sense, it is also not that difficult to be a modern person. But in no way is it a simple matter to be the one as well as the other.18

In turn, a Wellhausian-like hermeneutic has been applied to Bavinck’s texts using both a “M” (modern) and “S” (secessionist) source.19 Eglinton argues, however, that “Bavinck’s theological vision is considerably more sophisticated and united than the normative reading makes out.” The two-Bavincks hypothesis initially profited from a misreading of Bavinck’s organic motif, which created a “de facto apartheid”20 between modernist and secessionist readings. The organic motif, argues Eglinton, is the conceptual framework that governs the plurality of Bavinck’s works and disciplines: the coherence and interdependence of all created being as universe or world instituted by the Triune God and revealed in the fact of nature and in human consciousness. The concept of organism means in simplest form the vital movement of growth unto an ultimate unification, to the negation of chaos, and is applied lavishly across his corpus. The confusion lies in the fact that for Bavinck it describes a basic ontology of creation, yet is also found prodigiously used among the modernist theologians and philosophers.

The concept, for Bavinck, signals unity and blossoming, parts coming together for a purpose, unto the kingdom of God in the presence of God as the summum bonum of existence. In an ironic turn, Eglinton proves that the organic motif, while previously misunderstood, is not an agent of disunity but unity across the spectrum of Bavinck’s works. The chief irony is, perhaps, that Bavinck was a theologian most antithetical to all dualisms—sin, in his Augustinian rendering, being the power of disunity, disorder, non-being, and chaos.

Organicism is, regarding Bavinck, an ontic expression with ethical implications. It is a concept derivative of God’s act as creator that identifies both the unified structure of reality (cosmos) and every individual sphere of reality (the diversity of creation) in its relation to the whole. It further identifies the trajectory of that unity—the blossoming of the kingdom of God (thus, the metaphors of mustard seed, vine/branch, bread/leaven and kernel/husk are incorporated throughout). Bavinck nowhere offers a comprehensive definition of this concept. There are several ways to construct a precise definition by piecing the concept together from various texts. One way is to examine the definition and task of dogmatics located in the Prolegomena to see the motif in action.

The definition begins then with the dogmatic task. The task of dogmatics is the sum of his ontic and epistemic principia: it is the science of “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”21 In reflecting on this task, at least three implicit strands of organicism come to the fore: (i) the self-conscious God is a (vital and personal) unity in his Triune being. God is one. His essence is his existence. In creation, God organizes a unified, organic cosmos that analogously reflects his unity. Yet in the realm of creation, unity is qualitatively creaturely. T...