Reading this article about Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), I found myself overwhelmed by a flood of thoughts. His influence is profound and growing and yet is this something to celebrate?
I recently wrote about the Church's appropriation of Greek philosophy and the problems connected to this. Some argue for the uniqueness of the Greeks and their place in a larger 'Western' conception which is often conflated with the Kingdom of God. I pointed out that a strong case can be made that the birth of Greek philosophy was connected to their contacts with Eastern Subcontinental thought, which at the very least would destroy the 'unique' aspects of the Greeks and the origins of their philosophy.
Natural Law can be employed at this point and I do not doubt some modernist Roman Catholics might do so in order to justify the incorporation of Indian philosophy. Others in the Reformed sphere, particularly those that have doubts about the utility of Natural Law and theology might appeal simply to Common Grace. All truth is God's truth they might say and they can take the good and leave the bad when it comes to any philosophical system, Greek, Indian, or otherwise.
Common Grace takes different forms. For some it's simply the universal, temporal and non-redemptive grace God extends to man in order to preserve the Earth before the Second Coming. In addition to providing the rain and the sun, such grace creates a context in which the Church can do its work. Common grace restrains evil from becoming absolute. Some balk at the label 'grace' insisting the term can only apply to redemption and prefer terms like 'general benevolence'. Critics argue this is a distinction without a difference.
For others, particularly those that conceive of the Kingdom as encompassing culture and civilisation and believe that part of the gospel's task is to redeem and reconcile the Earth in this age, and especially for others who believe the Church is to effectively dominate the Earth - Common Grace becomes a means or vehicle to this end. Under this schema, the 'grace' God extends to the unbeliever is also contributing to the building of the Kingdom. The Kingdom is thus extra-covenantal in its form and manifestation. It is something much bigger than the Church. Under this model the Holy Spirit is working to transform the world and lost people are contributing as they engage in culture building. Thus Christians are able to incorporate the thoughts, ideas, and theories of the world into their own 'worldview' model - taking the good and sanctifying it, even while leaving the bad.
The New Testament knows nothing of this and as such the project is driven by a philosophical framework and the inferences it generates. In fact if this model is brought to even partial fruition, many verses, exhortations, and doctrines in the New Testament are rendered obsolete, even moot. We've seen this throughout Church history particularly with the advent of Constantine and the transformation of the Church in the generations following him. A Church in a state of wealth, power, and cultural dominance creates a situation in which many of the exhortations and ethical imperatives of the New Testament are watered down if not rendered irrelevant.
Bavinck, Kuyper, and others like them are more or less engaged in the same type of project but in the different context of the post-Enlightenment world, one in which the old order of Christendom was in its death throes. And that was certainly the case in the late 19th century Holland and much of the European continent.
Right from the beginning of Graham's piece we begin with Greek philosophy and its concept of aesthetics - a concept adopted by the theologians and philosophers of Christendom. The goodness of the created order is celebrated even while the Scriptures teach the world is under the curse of death and the New Testament paints a clear picture of decline, persecution, permanent antithesis, and final judgment. That which is 'true' is in fact metaphysical and eschatological - that which is not subject to death. As such, art cannot actually depict this but only hint at it, evoke it, and dance around it. There are classical definitions of beauty related to symmetry, purity, and the like but the Scriptures define it in a different way - God looks on the heart not the outward form. A woman may be 'ugly' and yet beautiful if she is godly and manifests the fruits of the Spirit and vice versa. More could be said about the weak and the strong, or the beauty of faithfulness as exhibited in Hebrews 11 - a grim panoply and unlikely portraiture that must appear wretched and foolish in the eyes of the world but is beautiful and glorious when one views such questions through eschatological eyes.
Common Grace baptises the world and promotes world-liness. It synthesizes almost seamlessly with the Middle Class values the Reformation helped to create and continues to celebrate - the values of security and respectability which stand in stark contrast with Christ's teachings in the gospels and in the writings of the apostles.
Common Grace is defined as non-redemptive but if you follow through on the teachings of Bavinck and Kuyper, you will understand that since the contributions of the lost in the realms of culture (art, science, and philosophy) help to build the Kingdom - it is in fact redemptive. Common Grace under this model is in fact special grace. It is the work of the Holy Spirit. The world and the Kingdom are confused and conflated into a monistic structure.
This has to be evaluated in light of the New Testament. And it is found wanting. This teaching is a fruit of philosophical theology and speculation, driven by questions that motivate cultural thinkers, but they are questions the New Testament does not ask. And in fact a close read of the New Testament reveals that Christ and the apostles were not thinking in these terms or categories. The world is spoken of as those who are 'outside', and we are exhorted to pray for kings - that we might lead quiet lives. We are enjoined to work with hands minding out own business and to not entangle ourselves in the affairs of this life. The coin is Caesar's and the present evil age is ruled by the god of this world. We are told to love not the world even while Bavinck's understanding of Common Grace opens the door wide open to self deception in which the end result is the lust of the flesh, eyes, and the pride of life. Look at the history of the West and the pride such Christians feel when it comes to their Christendom - their cross-topped Tower of Babel.
Bavinck we're told, distinguishes between general and special revelation when in fact the opposite is true. He conflates them and since the cultural concerns which motivate Dominionists are not found in the New Testament (and much to the contrary) they must rely on extra-Biblical epistemology when forming their so-called Christian Worldview. The end result is that the thinking of the lost over the centuries is treated as revelatory - once it is combined with or synthesized with the 'Christian' philosophical tradition. This is the point of compromise, the fatal flaw that needs to be exposed and one motivated from the onset by a false understanding of the Kingdom and an unwillingness to submit the New Testament. For bourgeois Christianity nothing could be more horrific to contemplate than to think of the Church as a sect relegated to the back streets and alleys with the other outcasts and second class members of society. They despise this because they have not understood the New Testament but have misread it on a massive scale - thinking godliness is gain.
For Bavinck, special revelation is like a switch that is flipped. It turns on 'right reason' that enables and empowers the Church to utilise philosophy and sanctify epistemology. This is a top-down approach contrasted with the Thomistic-Aristotelian approach which begins with human experience and relies on inductive reasoning. Both are flawed approaches and represent a departure from Scripture.
The Incarnation is appealed to in order to reject the 'extreme binary' advocated by people like me, those guilty of 'nature-grace dualism'. Under this monistic conception, the Incarnation is the bridge between supernatural and natural revelation and thus through Christ, the wounds of the world are healed and all that is 'natural' (and fallen under curse) can be redeemed. This is at the heart of the modern Dominionist project and while most Evangelicals are unable to elaborate these ideas, they have nevertheless greatly affected their movement and motivate its cultural conduct - at least officially. In reality and on a practical level for many Evangelicals it is simply a convenient means to justify what is in the end their proclivities toward worldliness.
The problem with such an appeal to the Incarnation is that it's a revealed mystery that transcends philosophical examination or penetration. Christ is the 'bridge' to the world by means of the gospel and the Holy Spirit. In the Spirit we are in union with Christ. This is not true of the world which cannot understand or follow the dictates of God. This is the foolishness of the gospel which remains a stumbling-block and this is just as much the case with the advocates of Kuyperian Common Grace, which certainly includes Herman Bavinck. Despite the nuanced differences in their thought, Bavinck and Kuyper are cut from the same cloth. They treat the Incarnation as the supreme justification for their rationalism - the means they must employ to construct a holistic coherent system that can encompass (and sanctify) the whole of thought and civilisation aspiration.
In fact the Incarnation defeats and defies their central thesis. It stands in defiance of philosophy and exposes it as impotent. The Central Truth of the universe and existence is found in the Person of Christ and as such the Incarnation demonstrates that it is beyond philosophical inquiry. Job knew his redeemer liveth but the book is a condemnation of philosophical inquiry and certainty. In fact the Church wasted centuries of debate on the Incarnation and wrought great destruction in trying to force this doctrine into philosophical categories. And every time theologians have attempt to cage this doctrine, it simply spawns distortions and ultimately schism. The theologians both then and now think they are answering error - in fact they are spawning it by generating endless permutative ideas and debate. This is no less true in our day when it comes the Doctrine of God. For of course to speak of the Incarnation we also speak of the Trinity - they are necessarily connected.
We're told general revelation brings a 'rich significance for the whole of human life' - but where do we find that? In truth the blessings of rain and sun (which can also be a curse) and the rare blessings of peace only bring judgment in the end. The unbeliever does not acknowledge God nor give thanks and as such he falls under judgment. It cannot provide a telos, the proper end of man says Graham quoting Bavinck, but in fact the Dominionist understanding does seem to drive toward that. Or rather we should say that the Bible is not enough, but using 'special revelation' combined with 'natural revelation' by means of Common Grace - the believer discovers the 'significance' or wholeness of human life. I must confess I cannot find any evidence of this in the New Testament - or any hint of such a notion.
If Common Grace is understood as God's Providential restraint until the eschaton, then it plays no role in the Kingdom and the work of redemption apart from creating a context in which the gospel can work and the Church can go about its martyr-proclamation task which includes an element of celestial or spiritual warfare. At the eschaton all that is Common Grace and whatever it produced will be burned up with all the works of men.
But if Common Grace is framed as the means by which the Kingdom is built and fleshed out, if it is the tool that enables the Church and the world to attach meaning and 'significance' to life in this world - then we must conclude that the Kuyperian-Bavinckan model constitutes a thorough rejection of the Sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible is at best a starting point, a single foundation stone in a complex of many. This I would argue explains the decline and breakdown of Reformed theology and in particular Dutch Reformed theology as seen in the Netherlands and in denominations such as the Christian Reformed Church or CRC. In ways reminiscent of and parallel to developments within Roman Catholicism, these men opened the door wide to the influences of the world. While hoping to combat modernist theology, they created a matrix for it to grow right in their midst. Confessionalists seek to arrest this process by fealty to man-made forms from a Romanticised time, but their confessions are flawed and while they continue to swim in the corrupt waters of that tradition and intellectual milieu, they will find themselves fighting the same battles over and over again and left wondering as their teachers, institutions, and even many in the pews keep falling away.
The end result is worldliness and this in itself is corrupting. The security and respectability values of the middle class corrupt the Church and teach it to sin and tolerate sin. Mammonism is sanctified and power is celebrated. It's no wonder that Bavinck must celebrate the legacy of Cain and his city. As Meredith Kline wrote, the believers lived in and among the cities of Cain - but there's no indication that they partook of its life in the way Bavinck seems to suggest. Over and over again the beauties and charms of the world represent a stumbling-block to God's people. From Midian, to Egypt, to the beauty of the Philistine women that tempted Samson, to the ways in which the kings of Israel sought to imitate and emulate the Beast powers, to the denunciations of the prophets regarding the corruption of wealth - to the example of Lot in Sodom, one is left wondering just what Bible Herman Bavinck was reading.
He would celebrate the Cainite arts and beauty - where does Genesis or the New Testament suggest that's how that passage should be understood? He came to that conclusion not through exegesis but through philosophical inference - the alternative is too awful and wretched to contemplate as he makes clear. And as I have often argued, this is why the heirs of the Magisterial Reformation are not interested in pre-Reformation dissent apart from some patronizing pity and compliments. Why? Because these groups (like the Waldenses) did not look at the castles, cathedrals, and universities with appreciation. These were the symbols of power, the hulking edifices and institutions of the Beast-system which persecuted them. These were temples of Antichrist. These are the temples and institutions the Reformers wanted to appropriate and the culture their descendants wish to claim and celebrate.
Again, the alternative is to embrace a Church of the outcasts and downtrodden - a Church of the Wilderness. I often think of Bavinck, Kuyper, and such people when I read Hebrews 11. They are no doubt inspired by the account but I wonder why? In truth they despise such a pilgrim-martyr Church and as such theologians like Bavinck and Kuyper are treasured and celebrated by their respectable monied followers - for they provide a theological justification for its rejection. The organic unity of revelation that Bavinck is trying to hold together is in fact testified against by the expulsion from Eden and by the promise of Christ's parousia. There is no organic unity or monist order in this present evil age - the age that will be destroyed with fire when Christ returns. We testify of this to the world and the powers that reign over this present evil age every time we partake of the Lord's Supper, as we proclaim His death (and thus his victory over it) until He come.