With the publication of an English translation of Herman Bavinck’s Christianity and Science in 2023 and the growing literature on his thought, more and more readers are now considering his theology and the neo-Calvinist tradition he represents.1 Picking up Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, Christianity and Science or Philosophy of Revelation, however, can be daunting.
His prose is elegant, but he interacts with 19th- and 20th-century European scholarship with which few readers are familiar. Sometimes he uses theological terms no longer common in our discourse. Additionally, the sheer volume of his literary output can seem intimidating to the potential reader. It’s hard to know where to start.
Bavinck is especially valuable to 21st-century readers because he dealt with the rapid evolution and growth of modernism in real time. Significantly, he was doing so from a foundation of Reformed orthodoxy with a goal of catholicity, which pushed him to charitably wrestle with his theological opponents. Bavinck will positively cite modern thinkers where they get it right but then turn around and critique them in another area a few pages later. He works diligently to present their arguments in the best light, so it can be hard for readers today to figure out where Bavinck’s actual perspective is represented.
Bavinck’s work is worth studying because he combines certain virtues that usually don’t go together: (1) a commitment to rigorous, biblical Reformed orthodoxy and the capacity to show, not merely assert, that this orthodoxy addresses the modern age’s concerns; (2) the ability to critique his interlocutors while practicing charitable reading; (3) the vision to see both sides of a major issue while seeking to move beyond them toward a greater unity; and (4) attentiveness to biblical authority while seeking to do justice to the development of doctrine throughout church history.
Given these challenges and the potential benefits of understanding Bavinck, how should we read him? Here are five principles to keep in mind that might aid readers in avoiding common pitfalls.
1. Establish the Context
As with any author, keep in mind the context and location of the particular work you’re reading within Bavinck’s overall corpus. His writings fit into two major categories: (1) those writings leading up to and during his tenure at the Theological School at Kampen (1883–1902) and (2) those in his Amsterdam years at the Free University (1902–21). His works in the earlier period consisted of shorter treatises on various theological topics but culminated in the first edition of the Reformed Dogmatics.2 His later years in Amsterdam focused on applying this Reformed theology to various areas of life.
For instance, Christian Worldview (1904), considers the implications of this theology for the three major areas of philosophy: metaphysics (the study of being), epistemology (the theory of knowledge), and ethics (the study of the moral life).3 Christianity and Science was published in the same year and is not only a companion volume to his booklet on worldview but also a kind of manifesto for a Christian university. It thus considers the benefits of the Christian faith for the disciplines of history, the natural sciences, religion, and the humanities in general. Ultimately, Bavinck argues revelation is the “secret” of all human existence, and he explores this at length in his 1908 Stone lectures, published as Philosophy of Revelation.
Bavinck was constantly trying to update and revise his reflections during this period. While the Reformed Dogmatics was certainly his magnum opus, his enlarged second edition was released between 1906 and 1911, adding, for example, sections on psychology and the science of religion. He continued to wrestle with his ideas, planning further revisions and expansions to the text (that never came to light) before he died in 1921.
Readers who want a concise, mature statement of Bavinck’s theological views do well therefore to consult his later works, including The Wonderful Works of God (1909), and the Guidebook for Instruction in the Christian Religion (1913). These were written for laymen and students respectively, which conveys Bavinck’s desire to “translate” the depth of the faith for greater accessibility. For those reasons, these two works are the best starting points for the new reader who wants to gain entrance to his overall work.
2. Observe Reformed Catholicity
Bavinck has a self-consciously Reformed catholic approach to constructive theological writing. He has a habit of citing one figure, for example, and critiquing his theology relentlessly in one passage, only to use him constructively in another. As Wolter Huttinga notes,
The way [Bavinck] represents the opinions of others, even those with whom he obviously disagrees, always belies a deep sympathy which may cause the reader to wonder to what extent Bavinck actually agreed with the author under discussion. When reading Bavinck, one often wonders: “Whose voice is this?” In Bavinck’s idiom, even the most obvious heresies sound tempting. He himself makes no secret of this, as he often confesses that “there lies a great and deep truth” in this or that view—even if in the end it is not his own. The synthesizing character of Bavinck’s mind makes it hard to ascertain what does and does not belong to the thread of his theology.4
Readers often find Bavinck arguing there’s always something good and true even in the most errant writers (by God’s common grace). One colleague during my doctoral studies in Edinburgh expressed his frustration at reading Bavinck by calling him a “greedy vacuum”—Bavinck seemingly tries to bring out the best in everybody, even when the thinkers he’s using seem to conflict with one another. Far from making Bavinck an inconsistent reader, his patient use of diverse thinkers comes from the conviction that Reformed Christianity truly is universal.
Reformed theology’s all-encompassing character means that the philosophies and values of every age would inevitably, though often unwittingly, resonate with aspects of Reformed theology. This is because Reformed theology is truly catholic. This has led Cory Brock to argue Bavinck is orthodox yet modern.5 Turning to the “philosophic systems” of his century, for example, Bavinck argued the central lines of “Calvinism” are resident in the “moral principles of Kant,” the “pessimistic philosophy” of Schopenhauer and, indeed, in “almost every system” of the 19th century that denies the “indeterminism of the will.”6
This isn’t to say Reformed theology should be combined with modernism. Rather, he’s arguing Calvinism is uniquely suited to encounter 19th-century philosophy precisely because Calvinism can accommodate and appropriate the philosophies of any age. Despite the tendency for early Christianity to use Plato and Aristotle as philosophical handmaidens, Bavinck argues,
Theology is not in need of a specific philosophy. It is not necessarily hostile to any philosophical system and does not, a priori and without criticism, give priority to the philosophy of Plato or Kant or vice versa. But it brings along its own criteria, tests all philosophy by them, and takes over what it deems true and useful.7
There’s no perennial or natural philosophy to which Christianity must be attached, and for that reason, Christianity can make use of any philosophy it encounters.8
Don’t be surprised or alarmed, then, when Bavinck deviates from one source and uses another seemingly contradictory source: his use of one particular thinker doesn’t indicate total agreement. We can resist the temptation to charge Bavinck with inconsistency by keeping in mind that particular deployment isn’t systematic endorsement.
3. Listen for Bavinck at the End
Bavinck usually approaches topics with a particular three-layered approach: (1) biblical exegesis, (2) tracing the historical-theological development of a doctrine, and (3) expressing that doctrine freshly and normatively for the present day. Consider Bavinck’s self-conscious description of the organization of a Reformed ethic:
1. We need to gather together the material from Holy Scripture and arrange what it teaches about sins, regeneration, sanctification, the relationship between parents and children, and so forth.
2. We need to examine carefully the way in which the Christian church has handled this material, particularly the Reformed churches . . .
3. Finally, we need to develop this further in a normative way and apply it to our own day, in particular pointing the way by which we can complete ethical dogma.9
This structure isn’t only characteristic of his Ethics and Dogmatics but also shapes his other works. Keeping it in mind helps readers continue to see the forest when they’re closely examining the trees. His survey of the biblical material and evaluation of particular historical thinkers and movements are helpful, but we usually have to keep reading until the end of the section for his constructive statements on the given topic.
This pattern stems from Bavinck’s conviction that a responsible theologian ought not to merely repristinate the old but to communicate freshly to the new generation.
For example, in the 1895 foreword to Reformed Dogmatics, he argues that an aim to bring dogmatics forward by conversing with the present is implied in the definition of Reformed catholicity: “To cherish the ancient simply because it is ancient,” he writes, “is neither Reformed nor Christian. A work of dogmatic theology should not simply describe what was true and valid but what abides as true and valid. It is rooted in the past but labors for the future.”10 Thus, he wants to present his views in light of both the development of doctrine and the contemporary context.
4. Pay Attention to the ‘Organic’ Idea
Following from the previous principle, we should pick up on the idea of the organic that appears regularly in his works. The “organic” idea is picked up by observing that organic creatures are driven by a “center” or “unity” that animates the diversity of parts (e.g., the cardiovascular system is united by the heart, which then animates the whole body).
Bavinck applies this idea metaphorically as a structuring device to describe the many unities and diversities within creation. Driven by a rigorous Trinitarian outlook, Bavinck argues creation reflects God’s triune self by exhibiting unities-in-diversities in its various spheres. God, of course, is a unity-in-diversity in a unique sense, for his divine being is simple and thus not composed of parts. However, creatures are analogical replicas, and though we’re different beings, we’re linked by various bonds of unity.
Over and over, Bavinck describes various aspects of the cosmos as “organisms.” For example, the universe as a whole forms an organism of diverse parts, the law of God is a single organism, knowledge is an organism of science, and so on. This organic motif is found clearly when Bavinck describes human beings, who are uniquely image-bearers of God. Just as God is one-in-three, an absolute unity-in-diversity, so humanity isn’t a collection of atomistic individuals but a corporate entity united in a single federal head. Bavinck writes,
Only humanity in its entirety—as one complete organism, summed up under a single head, spread out over the whole earth, as prophet proclaiming the truth of God, as priest dedicating itself to God, as ruler controlling the earth and the whole of creation—only it is the fully finished image, the most telling and striking likeness of God.11
This organic way in which Bavinck describes humanity will also make an appearance in the various topics of theology: including revelation, Scripture and its inspiration, covenant, ethics, sin’s parasitic character, and the church. Look out for the organic motif: when it shows up, you’re most likely finding Bavinck’s constructive voice.
5. Pursue Holistic Thinking
Much like Abraham Kuyper, Bavinck sees uniformity, one-sidedness, or false binaries as errors that regularly crop up in the history of ideas.12 Uniformity is the temptation to reduce all the diverse phenomena of creation into a single idea or thing. For example, naturalism is tempted to reduce everything to the merely physical and pantheism reduces everything to the divine, but Christianity keeps both the physical and divine together while distinguishing properly between the two.
One-sidedness is also a serious error: historicism privileges one era or people group as a golden age, not realizing developed cultures and intellectual life exist in other times and places; liberalism prioritizes the horizontal, neighborly love and ethical life to the detriment of the properly religious, while religious fanaticism exercises rigorous personal piety to the neglect of love of neighbor and society. This one-sidedness thus produces a third error: raising a false binary. Here, one is forced to choose between two options that are supposed to go together. Christianity, however, does justice to the richness of the created order.
In Christianity and Science, this is exactly the sort of criticism that Bavinck lodges against scientism, or radical empiricism. In short, scientism is entirely one-sided and smuggles in the assumption that human beings are machine-like beings who can look at data in a detached, objective way. Far from it—scientists are persons, and their calls to be “neutral” about the “facts” often smuggle in their personal assumptions. “Everywhere, life precedes philosophy.”13 Behind their claims of neutrality lies a one-sided, unrealistic account of what humans are, and this lopsided anthropology thus also gives birth to a kind of uniformity: humans are no more than the sense-perceptible material they’re observing (which, ironically, is an assertion that itself cannot be proved by empirical data alone).
Bavinck will often critique a particular position for its lack of holism, or for its “dualism” or the like. He pushes readers not to reject a pattern of reasoning or observation immediately but to see whether one can incorporate its insights into a holistic Christian worldview. Far from making us narrow-minded, a Christian worldview aids us in becoming more whole in our thinking and living––indeed, a proper Christian worldview cultivates and nourishes Christian wisdom. Once we see that Bavinck’s goal is often a more holistic approach, we can better anticipate and understand where his discussions are going.
Take Up and Read
Studying Bavinck’s works encourages us to be patient, capacious, and voracious readers, helping us to avoid polarization and to develop a kind of principled pliability that can engage any idea with charity without sacrificing conviction. These principles should aid and encourage readers to pick up the premier neo-Calvinist theologian for themselves.
While reading Bavinck is still often challenging, readers should find the profit well worth the toil. Tolle lege!
The Gospel Coalition