Neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism 9004546065, 9789004546066

Table of contents :
Contents
Notes on Contributors
1 Introduction: Neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism
1 A Tense Relationship
2 Breaking New Ground
3 A Shared Struggle
4 Twentieth Century Development
5 Contemporary Scholarship
6 Scripture and Tradition
7 Theological Interaction with the (Modern) World
8 Christian Ethics/Moral Theology
9 Worship
10 Constructive Theological Engagement
Bibliography
Part 1 Scripture and Tradition
2 “In More or Less Figurative Language”: The Dutch Neo-Calvinist Fascination
1 Introduction
2 Providentissimus Deus – Context and Content
3 Herman Bavinck
4 Jan Ridderbos
5 Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer
6 Hermeneutics of Genesis 1–3
7 Concluding Observations
Acknowledgement
Bibliography
3 Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition
1 Introduction
2 Bavinck
2.1 Theological Principles
2.2 Christology and Pneumatology
2.3 Tradition
2.4 Church
2.5 Principium Internum
2.6 Rome
3 Constructive Evaluation
Bibliography
Part 2 Theological Interaction with the (Modern) World
4 Shared Principles, Diverging Paths: Neo-Calvinism, neo-Thomism and the Natural Sciences, 1880–1960
1 Introduction
2 The Dutch Context: Neo-Calvinist and Neo-Thomist Scientific Organizations
3 Neo-Calvinist and Neo-Thomist Views of the Sciences: Foundational Ideas
4 Neo-Calvinist and Neo-Thomist Views of Evolution
5 Scientists and Theologians in the Interbellum Period
6 Neo-Calvinist and Neo-Thomist Scientists in the 1950s
7 Conclusion
Bibliography
5 “All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis”
1 Introduction
2 Berkouwer on “Creation and Evolution” (1956)
3 Berkouwer’s Theological Anthropology (1957) and Doctrine of Scripture (1967)
4 The Catholic Connection
5 Conclusion
Bibliography
6 Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist? A Reevaluation of Influence
1 Introduction: Herman Bavinck and His Interpreters
2 Herman Bavinck’s Neo-Thomist Window
3 Toward a Neo-Thomistic Center: Joseph Kleutgen’s ‘Vorzeit’ Theology
4 Bavinck on Supernaturalist Deviation
5 Conclusion
Bibliography
7 Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’, and the Nouvelle Théologie
1 Introduction: Doctrinal Development?
2 Duplex Ordo Cognitionis
3 Hermeneutical Principle for Interpreting Ecclesial Texts
4 Faith and Reason, Nature and Grace
5 Conclusion
Bibliography
Part 3 Christian Ethics and Moral Theology
8 A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor: Towards a Bavinckian Theology of Work
1 Introduction: How Changing Locations for Work Reshapes Societies & Creates Social Problems
2 Herman Bavinck’s Engagement with the ‘Social Question’
3 New Century, Similar Problems: Pope John Paul II and Laborem Exercens
4 The Theological Anthropology of Laborem Exercens
5 Sin’s Dehumanizing Effects on Work in Both Capitalist and Communist Societies
6 Capitalism: When Humans Become the Object of Work
7 Communism: Stripping Humans of a Rightful Claim to the Outcomes of Their Work
8 Laborem Exercens’s Third Way Between Rigid Capitalism and Communism
9 What Should Neo-Calvinists Learn from Laborem Exercens?
10 A Bavinckian Theological Anthropology for Today’s Work Environment
11 Fragmentation and Dehumanization
12 The Search for a New Locus Classicus
13 Tuning Our Lives to Sense God’s Presence: The Liturgical Rhythms of Psalm 104
14 A Dynamic View of God’s Presence in the World
15 The Liberating Guidance of God-Intended Boundaries
16 Conclusion
Bibliography
9 Theologizing Social Pluralism: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Approaches
1 Social Pluralism in the Catholic Tradition
2 Social Pluralism in the Neo-Calvinist Tradition
3 The Challenge of Theologizing Social Pluralism
4 Grounding Social Ontology: Anthropology or Creation Order?
5 The Church and Social Structure: Hierarchy or Collegiality?
6 Christology: Participation or Prostration?
7 Conclusion: Implications for Pluralistic Societies
Bibliography
10 Consuming Christ and Creation: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Responses to Capitalism
1 Christianity and Economics
2 A Comparative Exercise
3 William Cavanaugh
4 Contested Rituals of Market and Church
5 Bob Goudzwaard
6 The Calvinist Disclosure of the Tunnel Society
7 Calvinism and Catholicism in Dialogue
Bibliography
11 How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics? Edward Schillebeeckx’s
Bibliography
Part 4 Worship
12 “Spirit and Imagination”: Secularism and the Role of the Liturgy in Joseph Ratzinger
1 Liturgical Theology in Ratzinger and Smith
2 Secularism in Ratzinger and Smith
3 Nature and Grace
4 Conclusion
Bibliography
Part 5 Constructive Theological Engagement
13 “The Clay of Paganism with the Iron of Christianity”
1 Between Metaphors and Philosophical Categories
2 Between the Aristotle-Christ and the Kant-Christ
3 Van Til’s Prophetic Insights and Their Limits
Bibliography
14 Why Not Join the Roman Catholic Church?
1 Emergency Measure
2 Transitions and Conversions
3 Historical Developments
4 Pope and Image
5 Unity of the Church
6 Authority
7 Objectivity of Grace
8 Why not Join the Roman Catholic Church?
Bibliography
15 Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination”
Bibliography
Index of Names

Citation preview

18 mm

SRT 47

George Harinck (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) is Professor of the History of Neo-Calvinism at Theological University Kampen/Utrecht and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and Director of The Neo-Calvinism Research Institute at the Theological University Kampen/Utrecht. He recently co-edited The Klaas Schilder Reader: The Essential Theological Writings (2022), with Marinus de Jong and Richard Mouw.

N E O  C A LV I N I S M A N D ROM A N C AT HOL IC I S M

James Eglinton (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is Meldrum Senior Lecturer in Reformed Theology at the University of Edinburgh. His most recent book, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (2020), won the History and Biography Book of the Year prize at The Gospel Coalition Book Awards 2020, and was a finalist at the ECPA Christian Book Awards 2021.

T

U

D

I

E

S

.

I

N

.

R

E

F

O

R

M

E

D

.

T

H

E

O

L

O

G

J E  G H (Eds.)

In their theological and historical interactions, neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism have often met in moments of conflict and co-operation. The neoCalvinist statesman Abraham Kuyper polemicized against the Roman Catholic Church and its theology, whilst building bridges between those traditions by forging novel political coalitions across ecclesiastical boundaries. In theology, Gerrit C. Berkouwer, a neo-Calvinist critic of Roman Catholicism in the 1930s, later attended the Second Vatican Council as an appreciative Protestant observer. Telling their stories and others—including new research on lesser-known figures and neglected topics—this book presents the first scholarly volume on those dynamics of polemics and partnership.

S

N E O  C A LV I N I S M A N D ROM A N CATHOLICISM

Edited by

J E  G H

9 789004 546066

SRT 47 ISSN: 1571‒4799 brill.com/srt

Series Editor: E

V  B - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Y

Neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Studies in Reformed Theology Editor-in-Chief Eddy Van der Borght (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Editorial Board Abraham van de Beek (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Martien Brinkman (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) George Harinck (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Dirk van Keulen (Theological University, Kampen) Daniel Migliore (Princeton Theological Seminary) Richard Mouw (Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena) Emanuel Gerrit Singgih (Duta Wacana Christian University, Yogjakarta) Pieter Vos (Protestant Theological University, Amsterdam) Conrad Wethmar (University of Pretoria)

volume 47

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/srt

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism Edited by

James Eglinton and George Harinck

leiden | boston

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Cover illustration: ‘Voters! Vote against the unholy alliance next Wednesday, June 28, [1905]. Calvin and Rome go hand in hand, May God preserve our fatherland!’ In the second round of the 1905 elections for the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament opponents of the ruling coalition of Antirevolutionary and Roman Catholic parties incited voters to prevent the continuation of this coalition. Source: Unknown artist. Catalogus van politieke tekeningen (1874–1950), nr. 790A. Collectie HDC | Protestants Erfgoed, Bijzondere Collecties, Universiteitsbibliotheek van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023009488

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1571-4799 isbn 978-90-04-54606-6 (paperback) isbn 978-90-04-54608-0 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by the Authors. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Contents

Notes on Contributors IX

1

Introduction: Neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism 1 James Eglinton and George Harinck

Part 1 Scripture and Tradition 2

“In More or Less Figurative Language”: The Dutch Neo-Calvinist Fascination with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893) and Its Aftermath 21 Koert van Bekkum

3

Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition 46 Hans Burger

Part 2 Theological Interaction with the (Modern) World 4

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths: Neo-Calvinism, neo-Thomism and the Natural Sciences, 1880–1960 67 Abraham C. Flipse

5

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis”: Gerrit Berkouwer on Scripture and Science 93 Gijsbert van den Brink

6

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist? A Reevaluation of Influence 114 Cory Brock

7 Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’, and the Nouvelle Théologie: A Test Case for Doctrinal Development 134 Eduardo Echeverria

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

vi

Contents

Part 3 Christian Ethics and Moral Theology 8

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor: Towards a Bavinckian Theology of Work 161 Cory B. Willson

9

Theologizing Social Pluralism: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Approaches 182 Robert S. Covolo

10

Consuming Christ and Creation: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Responses to Capitalism 198 Matthew Kaemingk

11

How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics? Edward Schillebeeckx’s 1986 Abraham Kuyper Lectures at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 218 Andrew Kloes

Part 4 Worship 12

“Spirit and Imagination”: Secularism and the Role of the Liturgy in Joseph Ratzinger and James K.A. Smith 235 Joseph H. Sherrard

Part 5 Constructive Theological Engagement 13

“The Clay of Paganism with the Iron of Christianity”: Cornelius Van Til’s Critique of Roman Catholicism 249 Leonardo de Chirico

14

Why Not Join the Roman Catholic Church? 263 Cornelis van der Kooi

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Contents 

vii

15

Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination” 275 Richard J. Mouw



Index of Names 291

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Notes on Contributors Koert van Bekkum (PhD, Kampen Theological University) is Professor of Old Testament at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven. He also teaches at the Theological University Kampen|Utrecht. Most recently, he co-edited Violence in the Hebrew Bible: Between Text and Reception (2020). Gijsbert van den Brink (PhD, Utrecht University) holds the Chair of Theology and Science in the Faculty of Religion and Theology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His most recent books are Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory  (2020), Dawn (co-authored with Corien Oranje and Cees Dekker, 2022) and Test All Things (2023). Cory Brock (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is a minister in the Free Church of Scotland at St Columba’s Edinburgh, and a lecturer in Theology and Preaching at Edinburgh Theological Seminary. He is the author of Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s use of Friedrich Schleiermacher (2020) and co-author of Neo-Calvinism: A Theological Introduction (2023). J.M. (Hans) Burger (PhD, Theological University Kampen|Utrecht) is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Theological University Kampen|Utrecht. He is co-editor of Covenant: A Vital Element of Reformed Theology (2022). Leonardo de Chirico (PhD, King’s College, London) is Lecturer of Historical Theology at Istituto di Formazione Evangelica e Documentazione, Padova (Italy). He serves as editor of Studi di teologia, and most recently published Same Words, Different Worlds: Do Roman Catholics and Evangelicals Believe the Same Gospel? (2021). Robert S. Covolo (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Fuller Theological Seminary) is affiliate Assistant Professor of Theology and Culture at Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the author of Fashion Theology (2020).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

x

Notes on Contributors

Eduardo Echeverria (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) is Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit (MI). His most recent book is Revelation, History, and Truth: A Hermeneutics of Dogma (2018). James Eglinton (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is Meldrum Senior Lecturer in Reformed Theology at the University of Edinburgh. His most recent book, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (2020), won the History and Biography Book of the Year prize at The Gospel Coalition Book Awards 2020, and was a finalist at the ECPA Christian Book Awards 2021. Abraham C. (Ab) Flipse (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) is university historian at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has contributed chapters and articles to a number of publications, including the journals Annals of Science, Church History, Philosophia Reformata, and History. He recently edited VU Objects and Their Stories: 140 Years of Heritage at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2021).  George Harinck (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) is Professor of the History of NeoCalvinism at the Theological University Kampen|Utrecht and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and director of The Neo-Calvinism Research Institute at the Theological University Kampen|Utrecht. He recently co-edited The Klaas Schilder Reader: The Essential Theological Writings (2022), with Marinus de Jong and Richard Mouw. Matthew Kaemingk (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Fuller Theological Seminary) is the Richard John Mouw Assistant Professor of Faith and Public Life, and Director of the Richard John Mouw Institute of Faith and Public Life, at Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the co-author of Work and Worship: Reconnecting Our Labor and Liturgy (2020), and editor of Reformed Public Theology: A Global Vision for Life in the World (2021). Andrew Kloes (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is a historian, and author of The German Awakening: Protestant Renewal After the Enlightenment, 1815–1848 (2019).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Notes on Contributors 

xi

Cornelis (Kees) van der Kooi (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) is Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His most recent books are Good tools are half the job: The importance of theology in chaplaincy and pastoral care (with Margriet van der Kooi, 2021) and Theology, Morality and Adam Smith (co-edited with John Ballor, 2022). Richard J. Mouw (PhD, University of Chicago) is Emeritus Professor of Faith and Public Life at Fuller Theological Seminary. His most recent book is How to Be a Patriotic Christian: Love of Country as Love of Neighbor (2022). Joseph H. Sherrard (PhD, University of St. Andrews) is Pastor at Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church, Chattanooga, TN. He is the author of T.F. Torrance as Missional Theologian: The Ascended Christ and the Ministry of the Church (2021).  Cory B. Willson (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Fuller Theological Seminary) is Jake and Betsy Tuls Professor of Missiology, World Christianity, and Public Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary. He is co-author of Work and Worship: Reconnecting Our Labor and Liturgy (2020).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 1

Introduction: Neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism James Eglinton and George Harinck In trying to understand the advent and subsequent development of neoCalvinism as a distinctively modern movement in the Reformed tradition, two sets of factors must be taken into account. In the first place, without paying attention to the historical circumstances that function as a backdrop to the birth of neo-Calvinism, our grasp of it will be considerably limited. NeoCalvinism cannot be accounted for in any depth without recourse to, amongst other things, the impact of the Enlightenment on European Christianity; the growth of neo-confessionalism and retrieval of personal piety that developed in response to the anti-supernatural, rationalistic, and moralistic Christianity of the Enlightenment; the particular circumstances that caused the Dutch Reformed Church to fracture in the mid-nineteenth century; the development of Dutch society along modern, liberal, and pluralistic lines from 1848 onwards; and the subsequent reimagining of Dutch society via the system of pillarization. However, alongside this necessary attention to historical circumstances, discussion of neo-Calvinism also requires attention to its most significant and longstanding conversation partners. The intellectual and social climate of late modernity impacted Reformed theology in profound ways, prompting fresh articulations of longstanding theological traditions, including those of Dutch Reformed Christians whose school of thought eventually came to be known as neo-Calvinism. As such, the history of neo-Calvinism is the story of Reformed Christians who strove to find their orthodox feet in an ever-shifting modern society. Their interaction with the modern world was not simply that they received the trappings of modern culture – industrialization, modern medicine, fashion, and so on. In their case, it also entailed profound engagement with modern thought. That they were willing to undertake this challenge is precisely what marked them out as neo-Calvinists: they did not simply reassert the Calvinism of the sixteenth century, as though it had reached its final stage of development in Calvin’s Geneva. When the movement’s progenitor Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) first rose to public prominence in the 1870s, his repeated public insistence was that, © James Eglinton, George Harinck, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_002 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

2

Eglinton and Harinck

Calvinism is not a rigid, unalterable power that had reached its final conclusions, its definitive shape, already in Calvin’s time. On the contrary, it is a principle that only gradually reveals its power, that has a unique insight for every age, that assumes a form suitable for every country. Precisely in this metamorphosis its development continues.1 Following Kuyper’s lead, the neo-Calvinists sought to articulate a recognizably Reformed faith that was also native within their own historical location. Typical of that drive was the insistence of Kuyper’s younger colleague Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) that, ‘To praise the old simply because it is old is neither Reformed nor Christian.’2 Their new day necessitated a new development within their Calvinistic tradition. In feeling this impulse to renew their tradition, however, the likes of Kuyper and Bavinck were not alone. The impulse to rearticulate an older theological legacy in a modernizing setting was seen in various Christian traditions. The nineteenth century gave rise not simply to neo-Calvinism, but also to neo-Lutheranism, and neo-Thomism. In that regard, the study of neo-Calvinism must pay attention to its most important interlocutors. This book represents an attempt to do so with particular regard to the importance of Roman Catholicism – as a Christian tradition that also felt the onset of modernity – to the development of neo-Calvinism. As the earliest neo-Calvinists were contending for space in their newly modernized social environment, they did so alongside their Dutch Roman Catholic neighbours, and were required by circumstance to wrestle with the same set of questions: what is the place of religion (and the religious) in a pluralistic society? What does Christianity have to say to late modernity’s secularised conception of the good, the beautiful, and the true? How should Christianity respond to modern industrialisation and its impact on the human agent as a worker? What should be made of the relationship between the Reformed and the Roman Catholic traditions in a secularised social context, where neither dominates the cultural narrative? And perhaps most significantly, what should be made of the fact that neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism often air strikingly similar critiques of (paleo-) Calvinism, albeit whilst proposing quite different solutions? 1 Abraham Kuyper, Het calvinisme, oorsprong en waarborg onzer constitutioneele vrijheden (Amsterdam: B. van der Land, 1874), 22; “Calvinism: Source and Stronghold of our Constitutional Liberties,” in James Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 293. 2 Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek. Eerste deel, inleiding – principia (Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1895), iv. ‘Het oude te loven alleen omdat het oud is, is noch gereformeerd noch christelijk.’

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Introduction

1

3

A Tense Relationship

The bare fact that neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism responded to the same questions does not mean, of course, that their relationship has always been easy. Ever since the days of the Dutch Republic, conflict between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism simmered: although anti-Catholicism may have slumbered in the nineteenth century Netherlands—an era in which many Dutchmen viewed their country as a ‘Protestant nation’—it never truly slept. The most famous outbursts of this conflict were the April Movement of 1853, a vehement Protestant protest against the restoration of the ecclesial hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church after three centuries of absence, and the Vatican Crisis in Dutch politics in 1925. At that time a Christian coalition government stepped down, because the majority of the members of parliament supported the motion of Protestant member G.H. Kersten to strike out the budget for the Dutch embassy at the Vatican. George Puchinger, who devoted a 300-page historical introduction to this political crisis, wrote that by 1925, this representation had ‘stirred up the pride of strict Roman Catholics and the disapproval of extremist Protestants for over a century.’3 This sensitive and longstanding conflict was the context in which the neo-Calvinist tradition developed its relationship with the Roman Catholic tradition. From its beginnings in the 1870s, the neo-Calvinist movement in the Netherlands knew both sympathetic encounters and difficult confrontations with Catholicism. In 1872, for example, Kuyper used harsh words at the commemoration of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre (August 23rd)—a tragic piece of Reformation-era history in which two thousand French Protestants (Huguenots) lost their lives in a wave of Roman Catholic mob violence. In responding to the claim in the Dutch Catholic newspaper de Maasbode that Dutch Protestants no longer commemorated that event—an observation that implicitly justified these Huguenot deaths—Kuyper penned a pamphlet that began with a stark insistence that the Reformed should not simply let bygones be bygones. A day at the graves! A day of mourning! The entire church of the Reformed, all over the world, laments! It cannot forget its martyrs, because it 3 George Puchinger, Colijn en het einde van de coalitie II. de geschiedenis van de kabinetsformaties 1925–1929 (Kampen: Kok, 1980), 223. ‘Uit deze inleiding blijkt dat het gezantschap bij het Vaticaan (…) reeds méér dan een eeuw de trots van de principiële rooms-katholieken en de afkeuring van de extreme protestanten opwekte’.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

4

Eglinton and Harinck

confesses a “communion of saints” that does not die in the grave, or wear out as the centuries pass, and that holds all the more tightly to the blood that was shed.4 Whatever might be said of his Dutch Protestant contemporaries, Kuyper was far from indifferent to St. Bartholomew’s Day: to him, it remained a question of blood on the streets, rather than water under the bridge. In response to this pamphlet, he was challenged and reproached, but replied by quoting historians and historical sources to argue that persecution of heretics in Europe originated in the Catholic tradition, and the atrocity of St. Bartholomew’s Day was thus no accident or inexplicable incident, but rather, it had occurred in full accordance with the history of Roman Catholicism. On this point, Kuyper would not back down. 2

Breaking New Ground

Although these polemics depicted a rather traditional Protestant view of the Roman Catholic Church and its theology—a view that served to keep Roman Catholicism at a distance—Kuyper also broke new ground by cooperating closely with Roman Catholics in the realm of national politics. After his fellow Anti-Revolutionary Party member and member of parliament Alexander F. de Savornin Lohman Esq. (1837–1924) had advocated for cooperation with Roman Catholic politicians for several years, Kuyper himself crossed his own political Rubicon in 1887. In the process, he distanced himself from the stringently anti-Catholic and anti-democratic elements in his own party and in Protestant circles, and began instead to cooperate with Roman Catholics in the political sphere. His opponents were not only anti-Catholic, but they also wanted to deprive Roman Catholics of their civil rights and render them second-rate citizens, as had been the case in the Dutch Republic before 1795. Contrary to this position, Kuyper stressed that his political mission was to guarantee ‘a calm, independent and yet well-functioning coexistence (…) for libertarians and Calvinists, Roman Catholics and Erasmians, for Jews and

4 Abraham Kuyper, de Bartholomeusnacht (Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh, 1872), 5. ‘Een dag op de graven! Een dag van rouwe! Heel de kerk der Hervormden aan alle plaatsen der aarde treurt! Ze kan haar martelaren niet vergeten, want ze belijdt een “gemeenschap der heiligen,” die in het graf niet sterft, niet wegslijt met den loop der eeuwen en te nauwer klemt op het bloed, dat vergoten werd.’

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Introduction

5

if necessary Mohammedans alike.’5 Together with his Catholic contemporary Herman Schaepman (1844–1903), a politician memorably described by George Puchinger and Nico Scheps as Kuyper’s ‘Catholic twin’,6 Kuyper defended the right of Christian schools—Protestant and Catholic alike—and forged coalition governments. By joining forces, Kuyper and Schaepman broke the previous liberal dominance in Dutch politics, and started a Christian political cooperation that has continued into the present day. Notwithstanding this political cooperation, Kuyper’s differences with Rome on theology and worldview remained sharply defined. In his 1898 Stone lectures on Calvinism he described the fundamental thought of the life system of ‘Romanism’ as crucially different to his own Reformed convictions. In Catholicism, he argued, ‘God enters into fellowship with the creature by means of a mystic middle-link which is the Church; not taken as a mystic organism, but as a visible, palpable and tangible institute.’7 He contrasted this view with Calvinism’s basic idea of the immediate relation of God and each individual. Despite this difference, in the last of his lectures, Kuyper also acknowledged that, ‘what we have in common with Rome concerns precisely those fundamentals of our Christian creed now most fiercely assaulted by the modern spirit.’8 Kuyper’s Calvinism and Roman Catholicism shared a great deal, he thought, ‘inasmuch as [the Roman Catholic Church] also recognises and maintains the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Cross as an all-atoning sacrifice, the Scriptures as the Word of God, and the Ten Commandments as a divinely imposed rule of life.’9 3

A Shared Struggle

For that reason, to Kuyper there was no question of whether Calvinists should accept the help of Roman Catholics in the struggle against the modern spirit. 5

Johan van Zuthem, ‘Heelen en halven’. Orthodox-protestantse voormannen en het ‘politiek’ antipapisme in de periode 1872–1925 (Hilversum: Verloren, 2011), 71–74. ‘(…) het probleem, ter oplossing door ons gesteld, was niet: hoe een puur calvinistischen staat in te rechten?, maar wel: hoe moet onze staatinrichting zijn om aan libertijnen en calvinisten, aan roomschgezinden en erasmianen, tot aan joden en desnoods mohamedanen toe, een gerust, vrij en toch goedloopend saâmleven te verzekeren?’ 6 George Puchinger and Nico Scheps, Gesprek over de onbekende Kuyper (Kampen: Kok, 1971), 25. ‘Bepalend is dat Kuyper, mede door zijn bondgenootschap met zijn roomse tweelingbroeder Schaepman, het regeringskasteel veroverde.’ 7 Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism. Six Stone Lectures Delivered in the Theological Seminary at Princeton (New York/Toronto/London: Fleming H. Revell, 1899), 18. 8 Kuyper, Calvinism, 251. 9 Kuyper, Calvinism, 251–252.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

6

Eglinton and Harinck

To convince them, he referred those in his own constituency to Calvin himself, as a Protestant who was prepared to lean on the work of the great medieval Catholic Thomas Aquinas. ‘And I for my part,’ Kuyper followed suit, ‘am not ashamed to confess that on many points my views have been clarified through the work of the Romish students [theologians].’10 Indeed, in his own intended magnum opus, the three-volume Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology released in 1894, Kuyper’s treatment of Calvin and Aquinas left the Genevan firmly in the shadow of the Angelic Doctor. ‘Thomas,’ he wrote, ‘is the ‘doctor’ upon whom all branches of the Christian Church still depend, and whose ecumenical significance no theologian, irrespective of [theological] orientation, can ever omit with impunity.’11 Clearly, Kuyper’s own relationship to Roman Catholicism was complex. At times he saw leading Catholic figures as friends, co-belligerents, and opponents. As was true with all of his relationships, Kuyper vis-à-vis Catholicism was a complex set of engagements. In 1909, for example, he received an honorary degree from the Catholic University of Louvain. Notably, this degree was conferred by the University’s Faculty of Law, rather than by its theologians, on account of ‘services that you have rendered in political and social science’ [‘services que vous avez rendus aux sciences politiques et sociales’].12 The same pattern of civic solidarity alongside the maintenance of theological difference carried on for the remainder of Kuyper’s life. In his latter years, for example, Kuyper defended his longstanding cooperation with Roman Catholics in the political realm, whilst also firmly rejecting the idea of a merger of the Roman Catholic and Protestant political parties. He judged, rather, that Roman Catholic and Protestant politicians would best support each other by remaining in separate parties and with their own political programs.13 Nelson Kloosterman has memorably described this pattern of Protestant-Catholic relationship as one in which the two sides ‘lock arms, even if they do not hold hands.’14 Such was certainly true of Kuyper’s need for solidarity between Catholics and Protestants.

10 Kuyper, Calvinism, 252. 11 Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopedie der heilige godgeleerdheid, vol. 1 (Amsterdam: J.A. Wormser, 1894), 8. See also James Eglinton, “The Reception of Aquinas in Kuyper’s Encyclopaedie der heilige godgeleerdheid,” in Oxford Handbook of the Reception of Aquinas, eds. Matthew Levering and Marcus Plested (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 453–67. 12 Rector A. Hebbelynck to A. Kuyper, 11 April 1909, cited in: Petrus Kasteel, Abraham Kuyper (Kampen: Kok, 1938), 279. 13 Abraham Kuyper, Antirevolutionaire staatkunde I (Kampen: Kok, 1916), 510. 14 Nelson Kloosterman, “Review” of Eduardo Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), in Themelios 39.3 (2014): 579.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Introduction

7

In keeping with his own irenic personality, Bavinck warmly engaged Catholic theology across his career. Like Kuyper, Bavinck was open to political dialogue with Herman Schaepman. In 1885, for example, Bavinck was part of a group of Reformed theologians and pastors who invited Schaepman to give a public lecture in Kampen. In this instance, by enthusiastically introducing his Catholic guest to a Reformed audience, Bavinck drew the ire of his more staunchly anti-Catholic colleague Lucas Lindeboom.15 Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics and Reformed Ethics regularly cite and interact with Thomas Aquinas. The backdrop to this particular interaction, which centred on the relationship of nature and grace, concerned a revival of Thomistic thought amongst the neo-Thomists, as signalled in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879). On that particular issue, Bavinck opposed the Catholic notion of grace as a superadded gift (donum superadditum) to nature, which he viewed as introducing a dualism with nature. To the contrary, Bavinck stated that nature is being reformed by grace in order to eradicate sin. Rather than being something added to nature, he argued that grace restores and elevates nature. In the second half of the twentieth century, debate on Bavinck’s relationship to Catholicism arose, and has yet to abate. The great Bavinck interpreter Rolf H. Bremmer argued for the presence of neo-Thomist influences in Bavinck’s thought.16 Antoon Vos and Gregory W. Parker have pointed to the similarity between Bavinck and the Nouvelle Théologie in their common emphasis on the intrinsic relationship between nature and grace, and in their critique of the dualistic interpretation of Thomas.17 Willem Jan de Wit has described Bavinck as a Reformed Catholic, instead of a neo-Calvinist.18 Others still have claimed that Bavinck’s chosen group of interlocutors was simply too diverse for him to be meaningfully labelled Catholic or Thomist, simply on account of his interactions with Thomist scholars.19 Of these, Nathaniel Gray Sutanto in particular has stressed the eclecticism that characterises Bavinck’s writings, and in that 15 16 17

18 19

James Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 156–7; cf. Lucas Lindeboom, Onze roeping tegenover, en onder Rome (Heusden: A. Gezelle Meerburg, 1890). Rolf H. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus (Kampen: Kok, 1961), 328–329. Antoon Vos, Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought. A Critique of Protestant Views on the Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985); Gregory W. Parker Jr., “Reformation or Revolution? Herman Bavinck and Henri de Lubac on Nature and Grace,” Perichoresis, 15.3 (2017): 81–95. Willem Jan de Wit, On the Way to the Living God: A Cathartic Reading of Herman Bavinck and An Invitation to Overcome the Plausibility Crisis of Christianity (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2011). James Eglinton, Trinity and Organism: Towards A New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif (London: T&T Clark 2012); Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, “Herman

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

8

Eglinton and Harinck

light has demonstrated the pitfalls of appropriating Bavinck based on his use of sources: ‘particular deployment,’ Sutanto reminds Bavinck’s readers, ‘is not systematic endorsement.’20 4

Twentieth Century Development

Bavinck’s second successor in the chair of systematic theology at the Vrije Universiteit was Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996). From the start of his academic career, Berkouwer paid attention to developments in Roman Catholic theology, albeit with strong apologetic overtones.21 From the 1950s onwards, however, Berkouwer’s view of Rome shifted from opponent to conversation partner. He kept himself well informed of developments in Roman Catholic theology and had personal contacts with the Dutch Roman Catholic Cardinal Johannes Willebrands (1909–2006), among others. Through Willebrands, Berkouwer was invited to attend the Second Vatican Council in 1962 as an observer. His post-Vatican II publications have been well received by Catholics, especially because of the absence of distrust in his critical engagement. In this respect he resembled the irenic Bavinck more so than the polemical Kuyper. And influenced by the great Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, Berkouwer made a hermeneutical turn in his application of the Bible in theology, particularly regarding the relationship of Scripture to ecclesiastical tradition.22 More conservative neo-Calvinists did not approach the Roman Catholics in this way, and stuck rather to the critical Protestant position, and for that reason were critical of Berkouwer’s moves.23 Theological contacts like those of Berkouwer stimulated ecumenical conversations in the Netherlands. Across the remainder of the twentieth century, the ecclesial relationships between Dutch Protestants and Catholics grew and were cordial at times, but did not result in close cooperation or a sharing of the Sacraments. On ecclesiastical terrain, theological differences continued to

20 21 22 23

Bavinck’s Reformed Eclecticism: On Catholicity, Consciousness and Theological Epistemology,” Scottish Journal of Theology 70.3 (2017): 310–332. Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, God and Knowledge: The Theological Epistemology of Herman Bavinck (London: T&T Clark, 2019): 144. G.C. Berkouwer, de strijd om het roomsch-katholieke dogma (Kampen: Kok, [1940]); Conflict met Rome (Kampen: Kok, 1948) See: Dirk van Keulen, “Berkouwer and the Council,” Trajecta. Religion, Culture and Society in the Low Countries 22 (2013): 15–28. George Harinck, “Storm in a Teacup? Dutch Orthodox Protestants and the Second Vatican Council during the Pontificate of Pope John XXIII (1958–1963),” Trajecta 22 (2013): 129–152.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Introduction

9

provide reasons for separation. In the realm of politics, however, the kind of cooperation first seen in Kuyper and Schaepman continued. Arms remained locked, even if hands were not held. In 1980, the longstanding openness towards political solidarity between Dutch Protestants and Roman Catholics resulted in the merger of the Catholic People’s Party and two Protestant parties, including the neo-Calvinist Anti-Revolutionary Party, to form the Christian-Democratic Appeal.24 5

Contemporary Scholarship

Against that backdrop, this book offers a series of essays probing the relationship of neo-Calvinism to Roman Catholicism. Its chapters offer critical reflection on neo-Calvinist engagement with Catholicism across a range of important topics, including neo-Thomism as a modern expression of Catholicism, theology and the natural sciences, Scripture and tradition, the imagination, social ethics, liturgy, social pluralism, labour, economics, and political participation. These essays also demonstrate that the relationship between neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism is not limited to the original (Dutch) historical location within which neo-Calvinism arose. In 2023, neo-Calvinism is perhaps more influential outside the Netherlands than within it. In the present day, Protestant voices drawing on the neo-Calvinist tradition while entering dialogue with Roman Catholic thought are just as likely to be heard in Los Angeles, Edinburgh, or Jakarta, as they are to be in Amsterdam and Kampen. The chapters in this book have been ordered to follow a particular logical progression: (i) Scripture and tradition (van Bekkum, Burger), (ii) theological interaction with the (modern) world (Flipse, van den Brink, Brock, Echeverria), (iii) Christian ethics/moral theology (work, literature, public space, capitalism, politics etc; Willson, Covolo, Kaemingk, Kloes); (iv) worship (Sherrard); and (v) constructive theological engagement (De Chirico, van der Kooi, Mouw). 6

Scripture and Tradition

Koert van Bekkum’s essay ‘‘In More or Less Figurative Language’: The Dutch Neo-Calvinist Fascination with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893) 24

See: H.-M.T.D ten Napel, ‘Een eigen weg’. de totstandkoming van het CDA (1952–1980) (Kampen: Kok, 1992).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

10

Eglinton and Harinck

and Its Aftermath’ critically explores how Roman Catholic and neo-Calvinist theologians dealt with historical criticism of the Bible. It begins by highlighting the encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893) as a moderate Catholic position, and sets out the responses offered by the neo-Calvinists Herman Bavinck, Jan Ridderbos, and Gerrit Berkouwer. Its reading of Herman Bavinck argues that he was not only critical of Catholic ‘concessionism’ (the distinction between different kinds of truths in the Bible, which was refuted by the Vatican in the so-called crise moderniste), but also that Bavinck heavily drew upon Providentissimus Deus in formulating final the sections of his view of organic inspiration. Following this, the essay focuses on neo-Calvinist and modern Roman Catholic readings of Genesis 1–3, dealing in particular with the criteria used to argue for a non-literal interpretation. It highlights significant parallels in both traditions in how they view the inspiration and authority of Scripture, in addition to how each tradition dealt with new impulses from scientific and scholarly research. In his essay ‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’ Hans Burger argues that recent research on Herman Bavinck’s doctrine of Scripture largely overlooks Bavinck’s views on the relationship between tradition and Scripture, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the Reformed teaching of sola scriptura. Despite this, he argues, tradition was of considerable significance to Bavinck. Burger investigates Bavinck’s understanding of the relation between tradition and Scripture particularly as it relates to Roman Catholic theology—an investigation that focuses especially on the first volume (Prolegomena) of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics. In this analysis, Burger focuses on the sufficiency of Scripture and the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura, following which he examines Bavinck’s interaction with Roman Catholic theology and depiction of his own theological position vis-à-vis Catholic teaching on tradition and Scripture. Burger’s chapter concludes by engaging constructively with the question of how Bavinck’s conception of tradition and Scripture might still be valuable for 21st century Reformed dogmatics. 7

Theological Interaction with the (Modern) World

Two noteworthy essays, respectively by Ab Flipse and Gijsbert van den Brink, explore key issues in neo-Calvinism’s relationship to the natural sciences—exploring, in particular, the work of G.C. Berkouwer. In ‘Shared Principles, Diverging Paths: Neo-Calvinism, neo-Thomism and the Natural Sciences, 1880–1960,’ Flipse views both late-nineteenth-century neo-Calvinism and neo-Thomism as attempts to come to terms with modernity,

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Introduction

11

including modern science, by criticizing certain aspects of ‘modern science’ and developing a synthesis of science and religion that fitted in with their own worldview. In the present day, neo-Calvinism is perhaps more critical than Roman Catholicism in its posture towards evolutionary theory. In the Interbellum period, scientists (both Reformed and Roman Catholic) increasingly accepted evolutionary theory. In neo-Calvinist circles this caused a counteraction. Flipse describes now neo-Calvinist theologians stressed the authority of Scripture, and developed a specific exegesis of Genesis in their approach to natural science, instead of the broader approach of their movement’s founding fathers. Although Roman Catholic philosophers and theologians of that period also remained skeptical towards evolution, they did not adopt young-earth creationism. Whereas the neo-Thomists continued the debate on evolution in this period, it was only after World War Two that the discussion among neo-Calvinists was resumed and that scientists returned to the approach favoured by their movement’s earliest exponents. In ‘“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis”: Gerrit Berkouwer on Scripture and Science,’ van den Brink correlates the ways in which Dutch neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism approached the natural sciences from 1880–1940, charting a transition from a purely antithetical relationship, towards a more constructive engagement between their respective traditions. Along with other neo-Calvinists, in the 1950s the neo-Calvinist theologian G.C. Berkouwer reopened the dialogue with natural scientists that had ground to a halt in 1926. (That longstanding exchange had been hindered following that year’s ecclesiastical trial of Johannes Geelkerken, a Reformed pastor whose views on Genesis 1–3 came into question, soon leading to the formation of a new denomination which broke away from the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands.) This chapter explores how Berkouwer’s earlier reticence to engage in this dialogue can be explained, and how his views developed over time. On this front, it traces parallels with his more open approach to Roman Catholicism (also starting from ca. 1950). Van den Brink focuses on the debate on the interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis in relation to the growing acceptance of evolutionary theory among neo-Calvinist scientists and biblical scholars, especially in relation to Berkouwer’s views on natural theology. It is here, in particular, that his encounter with Roman Catholic theology emerges as noteworthy. In ‘Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist? A Reevaluation of Influence,’ Cory Brock probes the commonplace view that Bavinck’s theology can appropriately be described as neo-Thomistic. When describing 20th century Bavinck scholarship’s search for unity and division in his thought, Brock identifies commentators who contended that Bavinck’s theology was fundamentally

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

12

Eglinton and Harinck

scholastic in nature. Amongst these, he writes, some argued more narrowly that it was specifically neo-Thomistic in character. Bremmer, he notes, concluded that Bavinck’s “primary ground motif is neo-Thomism.” As Brock notes, Brian Mattson has responded critically to the claim that Bavinck is a neo-Thomist in this sense. Surveying these trends, Brock assesses Bavinck’s relationship to neo-Thomism in light of more recent scholarship on the distinctions between Reformed and Thomistic scholasticism especially in the work of Richard Muller. In conclusion, he argues that the charge of neo-Thomism is not plausible. In the book’s final essay on theological interaction with the (modern) world, Eduardo Echeverria, in ‘Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’, and the Nouvelle Théologie: A Test Case for Doctrinal Development’ discusses Bavinck’s and Berkouwer’s views of the relation of nature and grace, and Berkouwer’s charge that the interpretation of this relation by mid-20th century Catholic Nouvelle Théologie—a movement appreciated by Berkouwer—was out of step with the Roman Catholic tradition. Echeverria argues this is not the case. He contends that the strong influence of the Nouvelle Théologie led to a crisis in Roman Catholic theology and philosophy, a crisis that is by no means at an end and certainly has not been resolved by the encyclical Humani Generis issued by Pius XII in 1950. In this crisis, Echeverria claims, we see doubts arising concerning the autonomy of reason in the natural realm, doubts that entail an altered view of philosophy and in particular natural theology. Accordingly, much discussion has been promoted on whether this change of direction can be reconciled with the decisions of the encyclicals Dei Filius (1870) at the First Vatican Council and Humani Generis. Echeverria believes that this is not the case. In arguing this case, he interacts with Michael J. Marlet who, amongst others, has attempted to find a synthesis and harmony with such decisions, which (especially the pronouncements of Vatican I in 1870) have absolute validity. 8

Christian Ethics/Moral Theology

Cory B. Willson’s chapter ‘A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor: Towards a Bavinckian Theology of Work’ offers a critical analysis of the 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens to set out principles for a contemporary theology of work that builds upon the rich tradition of Herman Bavinck’s theological anthropology. Drawing on a creational theology of the human person as an image bearer who reflects God through cultural work, Laborem Exercens strikes theological chords that resonate in many ways with classic neo-Calvinist principles and

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Introduction

13

values. Ordinary human work, argues Laborem Exercens, is the key to addressing the social question. Considering its pedigree as a theology of work developed from the inheritance of Catholic Social teaching, Willson argues that Laborem Exercens holds great potential as a dialogue partner to Bavinck’s own creational theology and strong emphasis on the cultural mandate. Although Bavinck seldom addressed the topic of work or labor with sustained attention, Willson describes how his literary corpus is replete with a mature theological anthropology that serves as a fecund source to fuel his approach to both social issues and the public life of Christian witness. According to Robert Covolo’s ‘Theologizing Social Pluralism: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Approaches,’ neo-Calvinists and Roman Catholics have a history of finding common cause in addressing secular forces in the increasingly pluralistic public squares of the world. His chapter notes that Abraham Kuyper and post-Vatican II Catholic voices have turned to a Christological framework to offer a case for an inherent pluralism alongside a concomitant ecclesial participation within such pluralistic societies. This chapter traces Abraham Kuyper’s Christological basis for his principled pluralism, and takes up the Christological importance of the Catholic pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes to the emergence of Catholic public theology, as expressed in the Christological engagement with pluralism. Constructively, Covolo’s chapter addresses how these two theological projects compare and contrast with regard to their attempts to reframe the church’s mission in pluralistic societies. In his chapter, ‘Consuming Christ and Creation: Catholic and neo-Calvinist Responses to Capitalism,’ Matthew Kaemingk compares and contrasts two theological evaluations of late modern capitalism and consumerism. The first of these is found in the work of the Roman Catholic theologian William Cavanaugh, and the second in the work of the neo-Calvinist economist Bob Goudzwaard. In his work Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire, Cavanaugh explores capitalism and consumption through the theological lens of the Eucharist. In Capitalism and Progress: A Diagnosis of Western Society, Goudzwaard examines capitalism through the neo-Calvinist conception of creation. Kaemingk argues that Cavanaugh’s emphasis on the Eucharist leads him to explore questions of community, consumption, and desire within a capitalistic society. Goudzwaard’s focus on the complex flourishing of creation and cultural spheres leads him to explore the ways in which capitalism can commodify, and oversimplify the diversity of the created order. Kaemingk brings Cavanaugh and Goudzwaard into productive dialogue in making a case for a better understanding of the strengths of each tradition and the ways in which each can learn from the other.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

14

Eglinton and Harinck

Andrew Kloes’ chapter ‘How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics? Edward Schillebeeckx’ 1986 Abraham Kuyper Lectures at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam’ analyzes the respective Christocentric approaches to culture and Christian cultural engagement and participation found in the neo-Calvinist Abraham Kuyper and the Roman Catholic Edward Schillebeeckx. In 1985, Harry Kuitert, a liberal theologian of neo-Calvinist descent, published a criticism of how, since the 1960s, many Western churches had become more politically active through pronouncements pertaining to contemporary events. Schillebeeckx strongly disagreed with aspects of Kuitert’s positions and argumentation and criticized them in the following year in a series of Abraham Kuyper Lectures. In this chapter, the author explains the historical and intellectual significance of Schillebeeckx’s Kuyper Lectures, arguing that they furnish a succinct distillation of his fully developed theology—one which, in its engagement with Kuyper’s neo-Calvinism, especially his notion of sphere sovereignty, is particularly fruitful for the comparative study of their Roman Catholic and neo-Calvinist theologies. 9 Worship In his chapter, ‘“Spirit and Imagination”: Secularism and the Role of the Liturgy in Joseph Ratzinger and James K.A. Smith’, Joseph H. Sherrard narrates the history of liturgical theology within neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism, examining convergences and divergences. Common to both traditions’ responses to the modern age, he writes, is an appreciation of the importance of the traditional structures of the church’s liturgy. Within neo-Calvinism, Sherrard draws the reader’s focus in particular to Abraham Kuyper’s work Onze eeredienst, and within Roman Catholicism, to the encyclical Mediator Dei and Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium as institutional expressions of the early twentieth-century liturgical movement. Against this backdrop, his chapter then focuses on more recent arguments for the liturgy made in Joseph Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy and, from a neoCalvinist perspective, James K.A. Smith’s Imagining the Kingdom. He explores the similarities and differences in their publications, with specific attention to the understanding of what they perceive as taking place in the event of the liturgy. In the conclusion, Sherrard breaks new ground in comparative neoCalvinist and Roman Catholic understandings of the liturgy, and suggests how these traditions may move forward in light of his analysis.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

15

Introduction

10

Constructive Theological Engagement

According to Leonardo de Chirico’s chapter, ‘“The clay of Paganism with the iron of Christianity”: Cornelius Van Til’s Critique of Roman Catholicism,’ the apologist Cornelius Van Til assumes with Kuyper that each Christian tradition implies a Weltanschauung forging all areas of life. de Chirico presents Van Til as an alert and critical witness of the significant developments which had occurred within Roman Catholic theology from the 1950s until their culmination at the Second Vatican Council, and presents him as a theologian who became keenly aware of the impossibility of referring to Roman Catholicism as a theologically monolithic reality. One the one hand, there is its well-established Thomistic legacy. On the other, Van Til believed that “modern” Catholicism absorbed categories of thought and cultural sensibility derived from contemporary secular intellectual trends, arguing that the former upholds an “Aristotle-Christ” while the latter supports “the Kant-Christ” synthesis. This chapter explores Van Til’s analysis of these syntheses, presenting it as a linear and coherent apologetical attempt to consider Roman Catholicism as a life-system. de Chirico sets out an account of Van Til’s understanding of Roman Catholicism through the categories of ‘synthesis,’ ‘compromise,’ and ‘alliance’ between Christian and non-Christian elements. In his creative dogmatic reflection, ‘Why Not Join the Roman Catholic Church?’, Cornelis van der Kooi’s starting point is that historically, Protestantism never intended to start a new church. Although the Reformation enacted a division between Reformed and Catholic, van der Kooi argues that the dividing line between these has often been thin, and the Roman Catholic Church has changed, especially since Vatican II. In the midst of this, he asks why Reformed Christians should not join the Roman Catholic Church. In responding to this question, van der Kooi notes that the Roman Catholic Church has its mediating position between God and man. Alongside this, however, recent popes have been clear in their Christocentric theology and practice, and their Church represents objective unity in sharp contrast to the subjectivism of Protestantism. The Roman Catholic Church has its pillar in the concept of office. From a Reformed perspective, van der Kooi reflects on this as one of the most attractive characteristics of the religious practices of the Roman Catholic Church: the visibility of God’s grace is strongly emphasized. However, van der Kooi argues, the Holy Spirit is never the possession of office bearers or the church. This chapter argues that Christians must pray continually to be filled with the Holy Spirit. It makes this case en route to van der Kooi’s invocation of Karl

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

16

Eglinton and Harinck

Barth’s provocative question: might it be that the Roman Catholic Church stresses office and tradition because it is running from, but not in step with, the Holy Spirit? In his essay, ‘Neo–Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination”’, Richard J. Mouw notes the common view that Calvinists do not seem to look kindly on temporal enjoyment, whereas Roman Catholicism depicts this present life in more attractive terms. His chapter claims that the basic problem at hand is the Calvinist failure to recognize divine “nearness” to created reality. One of Calvinism’s theological non-negotiables is the pervasiveness of human depravity. To this, Mouw’s work argues that the larger question of divine “distance” from the creation remains problematic within Calvinism. In contrast to this, a Catholic sacramental/incarnational view of ontology does not sit well with Reformed thought, for a variety of reasons. At stake here, he reasons, is the emphasis—featured prominently in neo-Calvinist thought—on the unbridgeable “being” gap between Creator and creation. In response, Mouw argues for the importance of divine “nearness” to the creation within the framework of a Reformed view of the Creator-creature distinction. This account affirms the ontology of Reformed thought on Creator and creature, and within that setting makes much of the metaphors of divine “nearness” that are compatible with the insistence of an unbridgeable ontological gap between God and the cosmos. Mouw’s argument is that in their own doctrine of common grace, neo-Calvinists have the resources with which to discern the workings of the Spirit of God far beyond the boundaries of the church. The chapters in this book were based on lectures delivered at the Third European Conference on neo-Calvinism, held on September 4th–5th, 2014, at The Lay Center of the Foyer Unitas Institute in Rome. This book follows the earlier volume, Neo-Calvinism and the French Revolution (Bloomsbury, 2014). Together, they contribute to an emerging comprehensive survey of the context within which neo-Calvinism took shape, whilst also offering creative new applications of neo-Calvinist theology across a range of intellectual fields. Bibliography Bavinck, H. (1895). Gereformeerde dogmatiek. Eerste deel, inleiding – principia. Kampen: J.H. Bos. Berkouwer, G.C. (1940). de strijd om het roomsch-katholieke dogma. Kampen: Kok. English: The Conflict with Rome. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958. Bremmer, R.H. (1961). Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus. Kampen: Kok.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Introduction

17

Brock, C.; Sutanto, N.G. (2017). “Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Eclecticism: On Catholicity, Consciousness and Theological Epistemology.” Scottish Journal of Theology 70.3: 310–332. Eglinton, J. (2021). ‘The Reception of Aquinas in Kuyper’s Encyclopaedie der heilige godgeleerdheid.” In: M. Levering and M. Plested (eds.). Oxford Handbook of the Reception of Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 453–67. Eglinton, J. (2020). Bavinck: A Critical Biography. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Eglinton, J. (2012). Trinity and Organism: Towards A New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif. London: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury. Harinck, G. (2013). “Storm in a Teacup? Dutch Orthodox Protestants and the Second Vatican Council during the Pontificate of Pope John XXIII (1958–1963).” Trajecta. Religion, Culture and Society in the Low Countries 22: 129–152. Kasteel, P. (1938). Abraham Kuyper. Kampen: Kok. Keulen, D. van (2013). “Berkouwer and the Council.” Trajecta. Religion, Culture and Society in the Low Countries 22: 15–28. Kloosterman, N. (2014). “Review” of Eduardo Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions (Leiden: Brill, 2013), in Themelios 39.3: 579 Kuyper, A. (1998). “Calvinism: Source and Stronghold of our Constitutional Liberties.” In: James Bratt, ed., Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kuyper, A. (1916). Antirevolutionaire staatkunde, vol. 1. Kampen: Kok. Kuyper, A. (1899). Calvinism. Six Stone Lectures Delivered in the Theological Seminary at Princeton. New York/Toronto/London: Fleming H. Revell. Kuyper, A. (1894). Encyclopedie der heilige godgeleerdheid, vol. 1. Amsterdam: J.A. Wormser. Kuyper, A. (1874). Het calvinisme, oorsprong en waarborg onzer constitutioneele vrijheden. Amsterdam: B. van der Land. Kuyper, A. (1872). de Bartholomeusnacht. Amsterdam: H. de Hoogh. Lindeboom, L. (1890). Onze roeping tegenover, en onder Rome. Heusden: A. Gezelle Meerburg. Napel, H.-M.T.D ten (1992). ‘Een eigen weg’. de totstandkoming van het CDA (1952–1980). Kampen: Kok. Parker, G. (2017). “Reformation or Revolution? Herman Bavinck and Henri de Lubac on Nature and Grace.” Perichoresis, 15.3: 81–95. Puchinger, G. (1980). Colijn en het einde van de coalitie II. de geschiedenis van de kabinetsformaties 1925–1929. Kampen: Kok. Puchinger G.; Scheps, N. (1971). Gesprek over de onbekende Kuyper. Kampen: Kok. Sutanto, N.G. (2019). God and Knowledge: The Theological Epistemology of Herman Bavinck. London: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury. Vos, A. (1985). Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought. A Critique of Protestant Views on the Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

18

Eglinton and Harinck

Wit, W.J. de. (2011). On the Way to the Living God: A Cathartic Reading of Herman Bavinck and An Invitation to Overcome the Plausibility Crisis of Christianity. Amsterdam: VU University Press. Zuthem, J. van (2011). ‘Heelen en halven’. Orthodox-protestantse voormannen en het ‘politiek’ antipapisme in de periode 1872–1925. Hilversum: Verloren.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

PART 1 Scripture and Tradition

∵

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 2

“In More or Less Figurative Language”: The Dutch Neo-Calvinist Fascination with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893) and Its Aftermath Koert van Bekkum 1 Introduction In 2007, Joseph Ratzinger, bishop of Rome, surprised the world with the culmination of his theological reflection, the first volume of his portrait of Jesus in Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2007). After its release, this book spent weeks at the top of bestseller lists across Western Europe. Hundreds of thousands of copies were sold, not only in Germany, or among theologians and members of the Catholica, but also among Protestants. In this book and its two subsequent volumes, Pope Benedict XVI attempted to unveil the ‘real’ Jesus, and to elaborate on his mystery. That this effort was positively received in orthodox Protestant and evangelical circles, for instance, in reviews by theologians in the Dutch neo-Calvinist tradition, was striking.1 Undeniably, Ratzinger’s exposition of the Gospels is written in a brilliant style, presenting a breathtaking balance of scholarly exegesis, systematic reflection, meditation and homily. In order to understand its success and positive reception among orthodox Protestant church members and theologians, however, two other factors are of great importance. First, Ratzinger clearly tries to help the church in its mission to preach the gospel to modern, secularized people by addressing what he elsewhere called the “crisis of European culture” and the “eclipse of the sense of God,” and does so by addressing capitalism, Marxism, science, and moral questions. How can we speak of Jesus in such a culture? Second, Benedict offers his 1 For a bibliographical overview of reviews, see Roland Deines, “Can the ‘Real’ Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus? Joseph Ratzinger’s (Pope Benedict XVI) Challenge to Biblical Scholarship,” in Roland Deines, Acts of God in History: Studies towards Recovering a Theological Historiography. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 317 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 351–406. See also the positive reviews by the professor of New Testament of the Theologische Universiteit, Kampen (NL), P.H.R. van Houwelingen in Radix 34 (2008), 60–62; 37 (2011), 309–11; 39 (2013), 69–71.

© Koert van Bekkum, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_003 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

22

van Bekkum

response to the crisis of secularization in the West by turning to the Bible. As Ratzinger himself argues, the quest for the historical Jesus has led to a whole range of contradictory reconstructions that make the possibility of having friendship with Jesus seem like “clutching at thin air.” Accordingly, Ratzinger thinks there is an urgent need for “a criticism of criticism,” that is, a criticism of historical criticism. On the one hand, that kind of historical critical research offers great insights and rightly stresses the historical character of the Christian faith. On the other hand, however, the dominant methodology in biblical interpretation attempts to impose the scientific method of the natural sciences on biblical interpretation, so that it almost becomes impossible to speak of spiritual history and supernatural realities. This view, speaking positively about Scripture and the place of history in biblical studies, but critically about the limits of historical criticism, is in more than one way similar to that of neo-Calvinist and evangelical biblical scholarship. These similarities are striking, in that Ratzinger’s statements form the apex of his lifelong study of the place of the Bible and biblical studies in church and theology: in his introduction to and commentary on Dei Verbum, the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation by the Second Vatican Council, in 1965;2 on many other occasions including, for instance, at the ecumenical theological debate during the so-called Ratzinger Conference on Bible and the Church in 1988.3 And finally in 1993, when Ratzinger directed the publication of a document by the Pontifical Biblical Commission at the centennial of the first encyclical on modern biblical studies, Providentissimus Deus (1893).4 2 J. Ratzinger, “Einleitung zur ‘Dogmatischen Konstitution über die göttliche Offenbarung’ und Kommentar zu Proömium, Kap. 1 und 2.” In Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Erg. Bd. 2. (Freiburg: Herder, 19672), 498–528. 3 J. Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis. On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today,” in Richard John Neuhaus (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church. Encounter Series 13 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1989), 1–23. Cf. Tracey Rowland, Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). 4 “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993,” Origins 23.29 (1994), 497–524. Cf. Ratzinger’s preface to the document: “In this struggle the teaching office of the Catholic Church has taken up positions several times. First, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical ‘Providentissimus Deus’ of Nov. 18, 1893, plotted out some markers on the exegetical map. At a time when liberalism was extremely sure of itself and much too intrusively dogmatic, Leo XIII was forced to express himself in a rather critical way, even though he did not exclude that which was positive from the new possibilities. Fifty years later, however, because of the fertile work of great Catholic exegetes, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical ‘Divino Afflante Spiritu’ of Sept. 30, 1943.” The encyclical Providentissimus Deus has been published by Heinrich Denzinger, Peter Hünermann, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

23

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

Interestingly, around 1900 this encyclical prompted reactions among Dutch neo-Calvinists that were quite similar to the Protestant responses seen more recently in response to Ratzinger’s books on Jesus of Nazareth. Despite their criticism of Roman Catholicism, several Dutch Reformed spokesmen recognized their own struggle with the results of so-called ‘higher criticism’ in a letter by Leo XIII and the subsequent establishment of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1902. They were delighted that the pope raised his voice against the modernists, who presented a totally different view of the divine and historical nature of the Bible. The anonymous editor of the popular church weekly de Heraut even hoped that “the example of the pope will awaken the Protestant Churches from their lethargic sleep and excite them in order to develop a new strength in confessing the truth.”5 This contribution explores the striking similarities between Roman Catholic and neo-Calvinist systematic theological and exegetical considerations with regard to the hermeneutics of biblical historical narratives by offering a brief description of the context and content of the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, its reception by Herman Bavinck, Jan Ridderbos, and Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, and by a sketch of the exegetical discussions about Genesis 1–3 in the neo-Calvinist tradition. The chapter will then be concluded with some historical and hermeneutical observations. 2

Providentissimus Deus – Context and Content

At the end of the nineteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church was struggling with modernity. Despite gaining new members in the Anglo-Saxon world it had to fight an increasingly secular culture on the continent. The political situation deteriorated due to the anticlerical governments in France, Italy and Spain, creating a setting in which Catholics faced the danger of assimilation in modern cultures generally. Modern science and biblical studies increasingly came to influence Catholic intellectual circles, despite the vigorous criticism of modernity offered by Gregory XVI and Pius IX. Many people affected by their contemporary world wanted to get out of what they perceived as the ghetto of (Freiburg: Herder 200540), §§ 3280–94. For the official English translation, as used in this essay, see www.vatican.va. 5 “Rome en de Bijbelkritiek,” de Heraut, 2 February 1902 (most likely written by H.H. Kuyper or W. Geesink). Abraham Kuyper’s political career prevented him from being directly involved in the discussions surrounding the so-called crise moderniste in France. For his earlier treatment of the Roman Catholic views of Scripture, see, for example, A. Kuyper, Dictaten dogmatiek, dl. 2. (Kampen: Kok 19102), 47–54, 229–34, 239–40.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

24

van Bekkum

anti-modernism and strived for a more open, ecumenical form of Catholicism. At the turn of the century, this idea was most explicitly expressed by in the German Reformkatholizismus. Earlier and more influential, however, was the ‘concessionist’ movement in France, which had started at the Institut Catholique in Paris through biblical scholars like Alfred Loisy (1857–1940), Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855–1938) and Albert Houtin (1867–1926), and also led to the foundation of the Dominican École Biblique in Jerusalem in 1890, which received formal papal approval in 1892.6 According to these scholars Scripture is most certainly true, but only true in the sense in which Scripture itself intends to be. Accordingly, they claimed, readers must distinguish between absolute and relative truth, between formal and material errors, and between what biblical authors say and what they mean. If the reader bears in mind the way in which the ancient Semites used poetic truth and wrote history, the concessionists argued, it will become clear that the Bible is full of fables, myths, sagas and legends, allegories and poetic representations – all given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.7 Confronted with these kinds of ideas, Pope Leo XIII chose for a moderate answer in Providentissimus Deus, the first magisterial document to consider critical biblical studies seriously. The encyclical clearly responded with a polemic against rationalism, and highlighted that the Bible is a book of the Spirit and of the Church. But the pope also presented plans for a modernization of the study of Scripture in the seminaries, and praised the study of textual criticism, oriental languages and literary genres. From a hermeneutical point of view, it is important to observe that the literal sense, that is, the verbal or a historical meaning of a text, serves as the basis for interpretation. In addition, the inspiration of Scripture is highlighted and considered to be incompatible with error. At the same time, however, the encyclical’s open nature betrays a degree of ambivalence. The encouragement to study Scripture with the help of science is followed by Augustine’s famous dictum: “Whatever they can 6 On these developments, see, for example, Joseph G. Prior, The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis. Tesi Gregoriana 50 (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1999), 89–114; Bernard Montagnes, Marie-Joseph Lagrange. Une biographie critique (Paris: Cerf 2004), 57–288; Jeffrey L. Morrow, “Alfred Loisy’s Developmental Approach to Scripture: Reading the ‘Firmin’-Articles in the Context of Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Biblical Criticism,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15 (2013), 324–44; C.J.T. Talar, “Science catholique, science chrétienne, science religieuse: The Matrix of Modernism,” in Leo Kenis, Ernestine van der Wall (eds.), Religious Modernism in the Low Countries. Bibliotheca Ephimeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 255 (Louvain: Peeters, 2013), 23–44. 7 For example, Marie-Joseph Lagrange, La méthode historique. Etudes Bibliques (Paris: Libraire Victor Lecoffre, 1904).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

25

really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so” (De genesi ad litteram I.41.21). In the debate on this issue, Leo XIII states, we must remember that the sacred writers did not penetrate the secrets of nature, “but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were used commonly used at the time” (…) “and in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.”8 Evidently, these formulations provided stimulus to biblical studies. Indeed, the encyclical even led to the establishment of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in 1906. Nevertheless, they also made it clear that the debate was not settled at all. In this light, it was no surprise that Pope Pius X tried to end the discussion in 1907 by the condemnation of no less than sixty-five propositions in the decree Lamentabili Sane Exitu and by the encyclical Pascendi Domini Gregis, which described the modernist movement as a mixed system of all sorts of heresies, and led to the excommunication of Alfred Loisy in 1908.9 3

Herman Bavinck

Just before these decisions were taken, in the middle of the so-called crise moderniste, the neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) paid attention to the debate while working on the second edition of his Reformed Dogmatics during the first months of 1906. In Leiden in the 1870s, where he was a student of the eminent modern biblical scholar Abraham Kuenen, he had personally wrestled with the relation between the results of the modernist study of the Bible and the authority of Scripture. Having become professor in Kampen, he and his colleagues severely criticized the rationalism of modernism, whilst also being deeply convinced that biblical studies had to be renewed: in dogmatics, this renewal was to come by an organicist account of

8 Providentissimus Deus § 18. 9 Denzinger. §§ 3401–66; 3475–3500. Cf. Louis-Pierre Sardella, “Il y a cent ans: la réception de l’encyclique Pascendi Domini Gregis en France,” Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 1–3 (2010), 467–96.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

26

van Bekkum

biblical inspiration, and in Old and New Testament exegesis, by the study of ancient languages and cultures.10 Having become professor in Amsterdam in 1902, Bavinck set about revising his Dogmatics, being conscious that his account of the doctrine of Holy Scripture required further development. Moreover, he was writing in the context of a profound cultural shift in the direction of atheism.11 Accordingly, the newly added material does address the issues of the first paragraphs of Providentissimus Deus, such as, for example, the meaning of the Scriptures for doctrine and morality, and the question of how to study Scripture, and Scripture’s relationship to theology.12 In his account, Bavinck goes right to the heart of the matter, that is, the authority of Holy Scripture, its relation to modern criticism and physical science, and how inspiration is incompatible with error.13 Bavinck first offers a description of the views of the so-called ‘concessionists’ in a historical outline of Roman Catholic theories about divine inspiration, or in his own Dutch neologism, “theopneustie.” In this passage, Bavinck first highlights – much more extensively than in the first edition of his Dogmatics14 – that the encyclical Providentissimus Deus and two letters of Leo XIII in 1899 adopt the same position as the decrees of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council, that is, that the infallibility of Scripture is a direct consequence of the positive activity of God in the process of inspiration.15 Following this, he offers an analytical description of the view of inspiration in Lagrange’s most important books, and articles in the early issues of the Revue Biblique. He clearly sympathizes with the idea that Scripture is true in the sense in which Scripture itself intends to be, rather than in the sense of our exact natural and 10

See the comments by Bavinck’s colleague Maarten Noordtzij, professor of Old Testament in Kampen, on Abraham Kuenen’s rationalism, in his inaugural address, which stated that only a high view of Scripture could lead to a proper renewal of Old Testament exegesis. M. Noordtzij, de beoefening der exegetische theologie, inzonderheid van de tekstkritiek, de geschiedenis des Bijbels en de exegese (Kampen: Zalsman 1875), 12–14, 31–37. Cf. Niels van Driel, “Believing Criticism: Kuyperians versus Kuenen,” in Kanis, van der Wall, Religious Modernism in the Low Countries, 205–26; James Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 115, 139. 11 Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography, 227, 241. 12 Providentissimus Deus §§ 1–17. 13 Providentissimus Deus §§ 18–22. 14 The only sentence in the first edition of his Dogmatics referring to Providentissimus Deus occurs after Bavinck’s description of the Vatican Council’s view of inspiration: “En de encycliek van Leo XIII de studiis Scripturae sacrae 18 Nov. 1893 is geschreven in ditzelfde geloof.” H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, dl. 1 (Kampen: Bos, 1895), 315. 15 H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1: Prolegomena (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 411. Interestingly, Bavinck stops quoting Providentissimus Deus § 18 just before the sentence on the “more or less figurative language.”

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

27

historical science. Despite this, Bavinck is less comfortable with the way this is applied to the whole of Scripture by distinguishing between different kinds of truths, and with the idea that the Bible contains fables, myths, sagas, and legends, and that Genesis 1–11 and the patriarchal narratives are not historical, but only teach some religious or moral truth.16 “This trend of ‘concessionism,’” he concludes, “has pitched the Roman Catholic doctrine of Scripture into a serious crisis, the further course and outcome of which deserves to be followed with interest.” Indeed, Bavinck followed the then current events in Rome very closely. His final sentences of this section refer to the Apostolic Letter Quoniam in Re Biblica, “On the Study of Scripture in Seminaries,” of March 27, 1906, and culminate in a real cliff hanger: “Only the future can tell whether this whole development will end in a papal decision.”17 Thirty pages later, while offering his own opinion in the last section of this chapter on the inspiration of Scripture, Bavinck returns to the recent ideas of Roman Catholic theologians. The main problem of their view, he argues, is the argument behind the distinction between different kinds of truths, that is, the presupposition that the biblical writers only wrote in accord with the subjective appearance of things and not in terms of objective reality. This would imply that the Bible gives us a false impression and therefore its authority and reliability is compromised. If this principle is applied consistently, not only the earlier chapters in Genesis, but the entire history of Israel and early Christianity could be dissolved into myths and legends. Over against this view, Bavinck maintains a position regarding inspiration that – apart from the Roman Catholic views of the Church and the principle of theology, which he had severely criticized in an earlier work in 1888, and in the first edition of his Dogmatics18 – comes remarkably close to that of Providentissimus Deus. The encyclical is not mentioned explicitly. Nonetheless, several new elements basic to his argument are exactly the same as those in the papal document: Scripture uses the language of everyday experience; biblical historiography has a character of its own, because it is revelation about God directed at salvation; divine inspiration made all literary genres subservient to its aim; accordingly, it does not give us the degree of exactness we might wish for; but if Scripture obviously intends

16 Bavinck, Dogmatics, Vol. 1, 412–13. 17 Bavinck, Dogmatics, Vol. 1, 413–14. 18 H. Bavinck, de katholiciteit van Christendom en kerk (Kampen: Zalsman, 1888), 17–28 [English: “The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church,” tr. John Bolt, Calvin Theological Journal (1992), 229–36]. See also Hans Burger’s chapter, “Bavinck’s View on the Relation between Scripture and Tradition,” in this volume, 46–64.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

28

van Bekkum

to present a story as historical, the exegete has no right to turn it into a myth.19 This pattern of parallels strongly suggests that the study of the ‘concessionists’ and the crise moderniste in France and his search for language that would meet the needs of the moment through a revision of the Dogmatics triggered Bavinck to take a new, more favourable look at the encyclical, with as a result that it contributed significantly to the development of his view of organic inspiration. In 1895 Bavinck had written that the Bible speaks about the highest and holiest things in a human way. But in 1906, the encyclical prompted him to add intriguing sentences on the Holy Spirit’s use of literary genres. A few years later, Bavinck delivered a magnificent lecture on “Modernism and Orthodoxy.” This address reflects a similar attitude and can even be characterized as the neo-Calvinist treatise on modern science taking its point of departure in the Augustinian principle that all real knowledge has to be reconciled with the Scriptures, while all that is against them must be proved or believed to be false.20 Later analysis of his doctrine of Scripture, however, has made it clear that his view of inspiration contains some tensions that do not solve the debate of, for instance, the literary genre of Genesis 1–11.21 The most apparent contradiction is that in Bavinck’s view, the phenomena, that is, concrete results of historical biblical studies, can hardly play a role in formulating the doctrine of Scripture, because this would undermine its self-convincing authority.22 At the same time, however, he states that Christians should embrace the world as it is known through science and accept well interpreted

19

Cf. Bavinck, Dogmatics, Vol. 1, 446–48 with Bavinck, Dogmatiek1, dl. 1, 358–62 and Providentissimus Deus §§ 18–20. In the third volume of his Dogmatics, Bavinck made use of exegetical literature by Lagrange and Loisy in order to understand Jesus’ historical background, but also criticized the distance they created between the confession of Christ according to the Scriptures and the sketch of the nature of salvation as only a change of mood and disposition. Cf. H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 3. Sin and Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 246–47, 272, 330, 554. 20 H. Bavinck, Modernisme en orthodoxie (Kampen: Kok, 1911). [English: On Theology: Herman Bavinck’s Academic Orations, ed. and tr. Bruce R. Pass (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 146–81]. 21 Jan Veenhof, Revelatie en inspiratie. de openbarings- en Schriftbeschouwing van H. Bavinck in vergelijking met die der ethische theologie (Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn 1968), 428–29, 468–73; C. van der Kooi, “Van buitenaf of van binnenuit,” in C. van der Kooi, E. Talstra, J.H. de Wit, Het uitgelezen boek. Opstellen over de omgang met de bijbel als het Woord van God. VU-Segmenten 1 (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 1995), 35–37; Koert van Bekkum, “Zekerheid en Schriftgezag in de zaak Geelkerken,” in Koert van Bekkum and Rien Rouw (eds.), Geloven in zekerheid. TU-Bezinningsreeks 1 (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2000), 95, 101–3; Dirk van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek. Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen: Kok, 2003), 133–59. 22 Bavinck, Dogmatics, Vol. 1, 419–20, 423–25.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

29

evidence gratefully, for facts are “stubborn things” which are brought into our path by God’s providence.23 4

Jan Ridderbos

In the decades that followed, exegetical freedom in the Roman Catholic Church was limited by the strict, anti-modern agenda of Pius X and a whole range of decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on, for example, explaining “historical presentation” as “historical appearance,” the authorship of the Book of Isaiah and the nature of the Gospel of John.24 In 1920, the idea that Providentissimus Deus also contained an invitation to historical criticism by stating that the “more or less figurative language” of the biblical writers with regard to physics could also be applied to history, was even declared “a rash and false deduction” by Benedict XV.25 Similar developments took place in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. Bavinck’s colleague Cornelis van Gelderen, professor of Semitic languages at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, had to answer vigorous questions by the members of the board maintaining the relations between the Faculty of Theology and the Reformed Churches, on his classes on the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 10.26 In addition, Arie Noordtzij, son of Bavinck’s former Kampen colleague Maarten Noordtzij and professor at Utrecht University, was suspected of construing the Old Testament’s relationship to the broader context of the Ancient Near East too closely.27 This trend in the direction of a churchly involvement in debates among biblical scholars culminated in a conflict around a minister in Amsterdam, Johannes G. Geelkerken, who considered a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 2–3 in one of his sermons in 1924. Maarten Aalders’ excellent biography of Geelkerken shows that he was a gifted student and evangelist, but also had a 23 Bavinck, Modernisme en orthodoxie, 12 [English: On Theology, 152–53]. 24 For an overview, see Prior, Historical Critical Method, 104–9. 25 Spiritus Paraclitus § 20. Cf. Providentissimus Deus § 20: “The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history.” 26 C. Houtman, “Een episode uit het leven van een oriëntalist en oud-testamenticus aan de Vrije Universiteit,” in C. Augustijn et al., In rapport met de tijd. 100 jaar theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit (Kampen: Kok 1980), 67–87; Koert van Bekkum and Lodewijk van Bekkum, “Plotseling bewust van eene kentering.” Mémoires en brieven van Cornelis van Gelderen (1972–1945). AD Chartasreeks (Amersfoort: Vuurbaak (forthcoming)). 27 C.M. van Driel, Gewantrouwd gereformeerd. Het omstreden leiderschap van neocalvinist Arie Noordtzij (1871–1944). AD Chartas-reeks 15 (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2010), 245–95.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

30

van Bekkum

serious attitude problem. Over the years this badly affected the contact with his professors and colleagues, and created difficulties in discussions about his theological position. The quarrel around Geelkerken’s sermon, a dispute that rumbled from 1924 to 1926, became (in)famous as the ‘snake trial,’ because the question at stake concerned whether the snake in Genesis 3 truly had spoken. This legal procedure was beset by a major problem in that Geelkerken himself refused to offer a thoughtful exegesis of Genesis 3, so that it became impossible to test the extent to which his view held the biblical chapter to be true in the sense in which Scripture itself intended to be. As a result, Geelkerken was convicted by the Synod of Assen.28 In the in the polemics surrounding the case, Jan Ridderbos (1879–1960), professor of Old Testament at the Theologische School in Kampen, referred to Bavinck’s description and refutation of the views of the French ‘concessionists.’ In addition, he offered a full translation in Dutch of the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the historicity of first three chapters of the Book of Genesis, as they were published in 1909. In this way, Ridderbos undergirded his view that from the perspective of theology and church politics, it was totally normal to state that “solid arguments” had to be offered for the hypothesis that biblical writers did not write normal historiography.29 5

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer

In the following years, it became clear that the decision reached at the Synod of Assen in 1926 had the effect of restricting biblical studies in the Reformed Churches, just as happened with Catholic exegesis due to the ecclesial policy of Pius X and Benedict XV. Some even stated that the neo-Calvinist view of Biblical authority was in essence the same as that of the pope: a formal authority with no direct relation to the gospel, instead of an open authority that is connected to the content of Scripture. An answer to this challenge was offered by a talented Reformed minister in Amsterdam, Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996), in a study on “the problem of higher criticism.” In this book, Berkouwer offered a detailed overview of 28 29

Maarten J. Aalders, Heeft de slang gesproken? Het strijdbare leven van dr. J.G. Geelkerken (1879–1960). Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2013, 163–313. J. Ridderbos, Het verloren paradijs. Kampen: Kok, 1926, 43–46. For the Latin text of the answers of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, see Denz. §§ 3512–19. Moreover, by asking for “soliede argumenten” (44), Ridderbos alluded to the expression solidi argumentis probetur in the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s letter of 13 February 1905 (Denz. § 3372).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

31

the debates in Roman Catholic circles. He observed that Providentissimus Deus had not formulated concrete boundaries and thus had generated the debate that followed.30 The undertone of his discussion of Pascendi Domini Gregis (1907) and Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) is one of understanding: the pope had to do something in order to oppose the rationalism of modern Catholic biblical studies.31 At the same time, however, he tried to show that according to the Roman Catholic view of Scripture, the church is led by an undefined apostolic tradition preceding the authority of the Bible. According to Berkouwer, the assistentia divina, the inspiration of the Holy See by the Spirit, is ultimately more decisive than Scripture. In this way, the Roman Catholic Church in fact asks for blind submission. By contrast, Berkouwer portrayed the Reformed position as the true form of heteronomy, for according to Reformed doctrine, biblical authority is closely connected to the content of Scripture and to salvation in Jesus Christ, while Scripture is actually defined as the ultimate referee in all matters.32 Twenty years after this, Berkouwer made some additional remarks on Pro­ videntissimus Deus. In the meantime, the situation had totally changed. Before his appointment as professor of dogmatics at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Berkouwer had presided at the Synod of the Reformed Churches 1943– 1945, which itself led to an event, ‘the Liberation’ (Vrijmaking), that saw several of his colleagues and pastors leave the denomination, along with tens of thousands of church members. Traumatized by this,33 both Berkouwer and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands departed from antithetical theology in the direction of a much more understanding approach in scholarly debate, always asking for the motivation behind a certain point of view. Theologically, it seems that Berkouwer’s concentration on Christ, his refusal to interact with questions of ontology and worldview in philosophical terms, and the fact that

30

G.C. Berkouwer, Het probleem der Schriftkritiek. Kampen: Kok, 1938, 178–88. During the same period, the works of Lagrange and those in his intellectual circle were used by other neo-Calvinists, for instance, in the series ‘Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament’, edited by F.W. Grosheide and S. Greijdanus. See e.g. S. Greijdanus, de brief van de apostel Paulus aan Rome, dl. 1 (Amsterdam: Bottenburg, 1933), 3, 6, 138, 155, 213, 255, 273–77, 321. 31 Berkouwer, Probleem der Schriftkritiek, 189–95. 32 Berkouwer, Probleem der Schriftkritiek, 217, 246–49. 33 Dirk van Keulen, “Een levenslang trauma. G.C. Berkouwers terugblik op de Vrijmaking,” in Erik de Boer, Geranne Tamminga and Dolf te Velde (eds.), Gereformeerde theologie stroomopwaarts. Terugkijken op 75 jaar Vrijmaking. TU Bezinningsreeks 24 (Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn, 2021), 45–60.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

32

van Bekkum

he did not develop specific doctrines of God or creation increasingly prevented him from being critical of his opponents.34 Accordingly, Berkouwer was the first delegate of the Dutch Reformed Churches attending the 1957 World Council of Churches in New Delhi, India. Alongside this, he wrote about the new atmosphere concerning the relationship between scholastic theology and biblical interpretation that had entered the Catholic Church after the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943).35 A few years later, after having become an official observer at the Second Vatican Council, Berkouwer wrote more extensively on the place of the Bible in the so-called Nouvelle Théologie in the Roman Catholic Church. In his view, the encyclical of Pius XII rightly stated that the idea of divine inspiration should in fact be a stimulus for genre-research, also with regard to the literary nature of Genesis 1–11 and the historicity of Jesus’ remarks on Peter in Matthew 16. He expected that the Council would not go back to the days of Pius X.36 Berkouwer also put his previous criticism of the Catholic view of Scripture into perspective. He was very impressed by the arguments of Karl Rahner, who highlighted that the Catholic view of the Church does not deprive Scripture of its ultimate authority.37 Over the years, then, Berkouwer’s antithetical view turned into a much more amicable conversation on issues important to both the Roman Catholic and the Reformed traditions, that is, biblical interpretation and authority, and ecclesiology and hermeneutics. In his works on Holy Scripture, and the Second Vatican Council, there is a clear emphasis on the fact that the divine inspiration of the Bible is directed at salvation and that this does not imply that the biblical books are without any error. In essence, the Bible is the same as Jesus Christ himself: a servant, who does not force people to have faith in Him.38 This trend in Berkouwer’s work does not lead to dogmatic convictions 34

For this observation, see A. Vos, “Consistentie en theologie,” in E. Dekker, G.G. de Kruijf and H. Veldhuis (eds.), Openbaring en Werkelijkheid (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1994), 46, footnote 6; Eduardo Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions. Studies in Reformed Theology 24 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 12. 35 G.C. Berkouwer, Nieuwe perspectieven in de controvers: Rome-Reformatie. Mededelingen KNAW 20 (Amsterdam: Noordhollandsche Uitgeversmaatschappij, 1957), 29–30. 36 G.C. Berkouwer, Vatikaans Concilie en nieuwe theologie (Kampen: Kok, 1964), 135–39. 37 Berkouwer, Vatikaans Concilie, 172–6. Cf. G.C. Berkouwer, Zoeken en vinden: herinneringen en ervaringen (Kampen: Kok, 1989), 372–73: the Protestant polemics (including his own study Conflict met Rome (Kampen: Kok, 1948)) had focused too much on the Roman view of tradition and did not pay enough attention to the new Catholic reflections on the position of the Scriptures. 38 For this trend, also by referring to Providentissimus Deus and its aftermath, see G.C. Berkouwer, de Heilige Schrift, dl. 1 (Kampen: Kok, 1966), 191–205; de Heilige Schrift, dl. 2

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

33

being entirely different from those in Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum. At the same time, however, Berkouwer’s considerations clearly miss the doctrine of God and the view of creation found in the Catholic documents, which are helpful in correcting the philosophical presuppositions and negative effects of historical criticism. In this development, Berkouwer often presented Bavinck’s view of inspiration in such a way that it seemed to fit his own opinions.39 Among Berkouwer’s heirs, this tendency was still felt as theologians in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands increasingly embraced modern biblical studies. In 1992, a historical overview of the neo-Calvinist doctrine of Scripture by Henk Vroom even described the depiction of the ideas of the French ‘concessionists’ in the Reformed Dogmatics as Bavinck’s own view – a mistake subsequently corrected in great detail by Dirk van Keulen.40 6

Hermeneutics of Genesis 1–3

Particularly interesting for the purpose of this essay are the criteria that are used by biblical scholars in the neo-Calvinist tradition in order to argue for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1–3. As became evident above, both the Roman Catholic and the neo-Calvinist traditions accepted these chapters as divine revelation regarding the origin of creation, humankind and sin, and had a similar approach in dealing with the problems of how to interpret these chapters in the context of the modern world. At the same time, their historical and doctrinal significance made them a difficult test case in dealing with the option that God’s revelation about history sometimes also took place in a “more or less figurative way.” How did the neo-Calvinist exegetes do that, and to what extent were they inspired by Roman Catholic colleagues? During the 1920s–30s, Arie Noordtzij defended the so-called framework hypothesis with regard to Genesis 1 on the base of its textual structure, saying that the Hebrew text clearly implies that the seven days in this chapter are

39 40

(Kampen: Kok 1967), 191–98; Nabetrachting op het Concilie (Kampen: Kok, 1968), 121, 135; Een halve eeuw theologie: motieven en stromingen van 1920 tot heden (Kampen: Kok, 1974), 151–54. Cf. van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 531–42; Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism. See, for example, Berkouwer, de Heilige Schrift, dl. 1, 196. H.M. Vroom, “De gelezen Schrift als principium theologiae,” in M.E. Brinkman (ed.), 100 jaar theologie. Aspecten van een eeuw theologie in de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1892–1992) (Kampen: Kok, 1992), 124–26. For criticism, see B. Kamphuis, “Uit de hemel of uit de mensen,” de Reformatie 69 (1993–1994), 152; Dirk van Keulen, “Bavinck en het ‘Concessionisme,’” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 55 (2001), 301–12.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

34

van Bekkum

only a means in telling about creation. He also stressed the Semitic nature of Genesis 2 and 3, but clearly never doubted that the story refers to history. As he did not disclose his sources, it is unknown whether Noordtzij made use of the work of Catholic scholars, although it is known that he corresponded with the pères Marie-Joseph Lagrange and Louis-Hugues Vincent after visiting them in Jerusalem in 1926. He also wrote an article in an issue of the Revue Biblique in 1940 dedicated to the memory of Lagrange, who had died in 1938.41 As could be expected, the debate concerning the genre of Genesis 1–3 flared up after the publication of the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943. In the first address, in 1954, in which he offered a broad defense of the framework hypothesis, Nico H. Ridderbos, professor of Old Testament at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, started by saying that “one can find this opinion nowadays among many Roman-Catholic authors.” Most of his lecture – and his 1963 book – is devoted to a detailed exegesis of the text of Gen. 1:1–2:4 and a search for hints defining its genre, in which he cites scholars from many directions. At the same time, it is clear that like his more reluctant colleague Willem H. Gispen,42 he is aware of the parallel with Roman Catholic biblical studies.43 Even more interesting in this respect is a contribution made in 1963 by Jan Leunis Koole, professor of Old Testament in Kampen (Oudestraat). His article on the literary genre of Genesis 1–3 starts with a broad description of the parallels on this issue between the Catholica and the Reformed Churches in the 41

42 43

A. Noordtzij, Gods Woord en der eeuwen getuigenis (Kok: Kampen, 1924), 77–81; 19312; 19363, 111–20; “Les intentions du Chroniste,” Revue biblique 49 (1940) 161–68. Cf. Niels van Driel, “Langs Nijl en Jordaan. Een gereformeerd-ethische reis door het Heilige Land,” in Frits G.M. Broeyer, Gert J. van Klinken (eds.), Reizen naar het Heilige Land. Protestantse impressies 1840–1960 (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2008), 153–54; Gewantrouwd gereformeerd, 235, 287–95. Noordtzij’s framework hypothesis was rejected by, amongst others, George Ch. Aalders, professor at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. G.Ch. Aalders, de goddelijke openbaring in de eerste drie hoofdstukken van Genesis (Kampen: Kok, 1932), 232–40. For the creationist influences in neo-Calvinist theology during the 1930s, see Ab Flipse’s chapter, “NeoCalvinism, neo-Thomism and the Natural Sciences, 1880–1960,” in this volume, 67–92. W.H. Gispen, Schepping en paradijs (Kampen: Kok, 1966), 9–17, who refers to R. de Vaux, La Genèse (Paris: Cerf, 1951), and J.G.F.L. de Fraine, Genesis uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (Roermond: Romen, 1963). Nico H. Ridderbos, Beschouwingen over Genesis 1 (Assen: G.F. Hummelen’s boekhandel 1954), 6; Beschouwingen over Genesis 1 (Kampen: Kok, 1963). Ridderbos mentions J. Renié, Les origines de l’humanité d’après la Bible: mythe ou histoire? (Lyon: Vitte, 1950), and J.P.M. van der Ploeg, Het zesdagenwerk der schepping (Hilversum: Gooi & Sticht, 1949). It is no coincidence that Jan Lettinga, professor of Semitic Languages and Cultures at the Theologische Hogeschool Kampen, Broederweg (1952–1987), who had a close relationship with the biblical scholars of the Catholic University Nijmegen, also favoured the framework hypothesis.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

35

Netherlands as they occurred since the encyclical Providentissimus Deus up to the recent mitigating papal remarks concerning the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909, and the question in the Reformed Churches for a retraction of the decisions of the Synod of Assen in 1926.44 In Koole’s view, biblical historiography, including Genesis 1–11, clearly refers to a past in which God acted. Accordingly, there is no place for timeless myths in the Old Testament. At the same time, however, he assumes that besides annals, biographies and memoires, Scripture also makes use of sagas, legends and folktales. Koole clearly betrays great affinity with his era’s historical-critical consensus regarding Old Testament historiography, as it was developed by, for instance, Gerhard von Rad, who used the Documentary Hypothesis and Form Critical research and undergirded a Barthian view of creation, but whose writings were also much more theological in nature than those of previous historical critical scholarship.45 With regard to Genesis 1 and 2–3, Koole argued that these chapters are not the product of tradition-history, but of a special revelation in language familiar to the genres of biblical wisdom and prophecy.46 Koole did not offer a detailed exegesis of the beginning of Genesis. Accordingly, the question could be asked to what extent his view corresponded to the hermeneutical principle that Scripture is true in the sense in which the Bible itself intends to be. Koole also deviated from traditional neo-Calvinist hermeneutics by no longer being critical of the historical-critical consensus of his day.47 However, a report for the Synod of Amsterdam and Lunteren in 1967, with similar general considerations regarding the significance of the natural sciences and the “scope” of Scripture paved the way for the actual retraction of the decisions of the Synod of Assen in 1926.48 44 45

46 47

48

J.L. Koole, “Het litterair genre van Genesis 1–3,” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 63 (1963), 81–85. Koole, “Litterair genre,” 83–111. He offered a popular description of this view in J.L. Koole, Verhaal en feit in het Oude Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1966). For Von Rad’s view of Old Testament historiography, see G. von Rad, “Der Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel,” in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Theologische Bücherei 8 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1958), 148–88. Koole, “Litterair genre,” 111–22. It should be noted, however, that Koole always maintained that the canonical Scriptures are inspired and that later redaction-historical additions and re-interpretations can never contradict the original divine revelation. Cf. e.g. J.L. Koole, Jesaja III. Commentaar op het Oude Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1995), 7–8, 10, 31. Rapport van de deputaten voor advies inzake de leeruitspraak van de synode van Assen 1926. Meerderheids- en minderheidsrapport (Kampen: Kok, 1968). For an overview of the reception history of the decisions of the Synod of Assen in 1926, see Koert van Bekkum, “Sprekende slang,” in George Harinck, Herman Paul and Bart Wallet (eds.), Het gereformeerde

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

36

van Bekkum

Just outside the direct stream of the tradition of neo-Calvinist exegesis, Berend J. Oosterhoff, professor of Old Testament of the Theologische Hogeschool van de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Apeldoorn, characterized this as an untimely decision. Nevertheless, he also stated that a “prophetic-symbolic” understanding of Genesis 2 and 3 would do most justice to the text, in appreciating its historical nature, prophetic motifs and the mythological elements found in the rivers, trees and snake. Oosterhoff wrote a book in order to answer questions about this view. He explicitly stated that his reading of Genesis 1–3 was meant to stay within the hermeneutical framework of the Synod of Assen, because every step in the direction of a more figurative understanding was taken on the basis of Scripture itself.49 Besides some discussion with the Catholic scholars van der Ploeg and de Fraine, Oosterhoff did not pay much attention to the parallels between the debates in the Romana and the Reformed churches. That does not mean, however, that the hermeneutical principles from Providentissimus Deus mentioned by Herman Bavinck no longer played a part in Dutch Reformed theological discussions. In his thesis on descriptions of heaven and earth in the Old Testament, Cees Houtman, Lecturer of Old Testament at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam and later one of Koole’s successors in Kampen (Oudestraat), evaluated the discussions during the 1930s following the Synod of Assen’s decision. He argued quite persuasively that the opposition between “biblical worldview” and the use in Scripture of “language of everyday experience” was a false one. The Old Testament has no definite worldview. He argued that the way heavenly bodies were experienced in ancient Israel was different and more symbolic in nature than it seems to be in the modern world.50 Many years later, Gert Kwakkel, professor of Old Testament at the Theologische Universiteit, Kampen (Broederweg), and the writer of this chapter published a review article exploring the question of the extent to which new

49

50

geheugen. Protestantse herinneringsculturen in Nederland, 1850–2000 (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2009), 585–94. B.J. Oosterhoff, Hoe lezen wij Genesis 2 en 3? Een hermeneutische studie (Kampen: Kok, 1972), 240, referring to C. Trimp, Om de klaarheid der waarheid (Groningen: de Vuurbaak, 1967), 44–45. For his view of Genesis 1, see B.J. Oosterhoff, Om de Schriften te openen (Kampen: Kok, 1987), 66–68. For the relation of biblical studies in Apeldoorn to the neo-Calvinist tradition, see Niels van Driel, “Fricties in een falanx. Gereformeerde bijbelwetenschap tussen 1890 en 1950,” in Koert van Bekkum, Rob van Houwelingen and Eric Peels (eds.), Nieuwe en oude dingen. Schatgraven in de Schrift. Apeldoornse Studies 62; TU-Bezinningsreeks 13 (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2013), 29–33; Koert van Bekkum, Rob van Houwelingen, Eric Peels, “Epiloog. Gereformeerde bijbelwetenschap en bijbelse hermeneutiek,” in Nieuwe en oude dingen, 245–47. C. Houtman, de hemel in het Oude Testament (Kampen: Kok, 1974), 202, 209.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

37

figurative explanations of Genesis 1–3 in Reformed and evangelical circles were actually based on the text itself, and concluding that these chapters claim to be historical. Despite this, both detailed exegesis and historical considerations with regard to the ancient Near Eastern background prevent a very literal reading of them. Thus far, no reading has been found that defines its figurative nature or relation to history in a convincing way. Nevertheless, the new efforts to understand the text contributed significantly to formulating its clear message.51 Finally, an interesting conversation regarding the divine inspiration of these chapters took place in 2014 when two scholars announced that they had discovered the “Adamic Myth,” the Canaanite origin of the biblical traditions concerning the creation of humankind. These two scholars, Marjo C.A. Korpel, associate professor of Old Testament at the Protestantse Theologische Universiteit in Amsterdam and Groningen, and Johannes C. de Moor, emeritus professor of Semitic Languages and Cultures of the Theologische Universiteit Kampen (Oudestraat), offer a reconstruction of two late 13th century BCE Ugaritic tablets KTU 1.107 and 1.100 and claim that they contain the story of a rebellion of Adammu, the divine prototype of humanity and the first sinner, against the highest god Ilu. In their view, the many traces of this story in the Bible, the apocrypha, pseudepigraphical and Islamic literature shows that this story forms the actual ancient Near Eastern background to Genesis 2–3, Ezekiel 28 and a number of other biblical texts. The highly critical reception and reworking of the story in the Bible would not only highlight that ancient Israel had a unique vision of creation, human responsibility, evil and sin, but also show that the story about a distinction between good and a personified evil originated in Canaan itself, instead of in Persian Zoroastrian accounts, as has often been stated.52 The early scholarly evaluation of this hypothesis suggests that it has difficulties in dealing with several questions: Will the reconstruction of the tablets which are normally read as independent incantations stand the test of critical 51

52

K. van Bekkum and G. Kwakkel, “Een veilige leefwereld voor de mens in dienst van God,” Theologia Reformata 53 (2010), 318–55. See also Gert Kwakkel, “In het begin. Welke boodschap beluisterde Israël in Genesis 1?,” in G. Kwakkel and P.H.R. van Houwelingen (eds.), In den beginne en verder. Een bijbels-theologische reflectie op de schepping. TU-Bezinningsreeks 8 (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2010), 9–24; Koert van Bekkum, Verdreven uit de hof, levend uit de belofte. Mens en wereld in het licht van Genesis 1–11 (Baarn: Willem de Zwijgerstichting, 2020). Marjo C.A. Korpel and Johannes C. de Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil. A New Beginning. Hebrew Bible Monographs 65 (Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2014 (2nd, enlarged edition, 2015)).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

38

van Bekkum

scrutiny by Ugaritic scholars? Can this story really be considered to be a representative myth in the Late Bronze Eastern Mediterranean? Will the network of texts hold, if each passage is explained in its own context, before a comparison with other (non-)biblical texts is made?53 Nevertheless, it is interesting to see how in this, and in previous, work, Korpel and de Moor, whose roots are in the neo-Calvinist tradition, reflect on the impact of their reconstruction on the doctrinal notions of revelation and the inspiration of Scripture. Referring to both the Roman Catholic dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands’ report God with Us – On the Nature of the Authority of Scripture (Grand Rapids [1981]), they argue that there is no revelation without the intervention of humans, because the word of the deity is always mediated and the divine cannot be separated from the human in religious writings in antiquity, including the Bible. Accordingly, they prefer to speak of revelation in terms of synergy between God and humans: divine illumination forced prophets and sages to speak in the name of God. Similarly, the Spirit who guided the writers of the Bible is still at work in our times.54 This “conviction that God spoke and speaks through human intermediaries who are/were as much children of their times as children of God” also explains why the writers of the first chapters of Genesis made extensive use of myths and legends. According to Korpel and de Moor, they intended to offer a description of the first phase of world history, but by using symbols and by adapting myths to their own faith and circumstances they also gave indications of their lack of knowledge and found other ways of representing reality.55 In a review of this book, Eric Peels, Oosterhoff’s successor in Apeldoorn, seriously considers the possibility that the Adamic myth has actually been found. In any case, he states, it remains clear that the Biblical authors made use of, and opposed, the religious myths of their times. At the same time, it is clear that he – alongside Providentissimus Deus and Herman Bavinck – insists on the classical distinction between inspiration and illumination, that is, between the unique guidance of the scribes by the Holy Spirit in writing the canonical Scriptures and the illumination of the church in interpreting the Bible. 53

54

55

See, for example, the review by Florentina Badalanova Geller in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40 (2016), 155, and the publication of the tablets in Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Incantations and Anti-Witchcraft Texts from Ugarit. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 4 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 157–64, 188–203. Marjo C.A. Korpel and Johannes C. de Moor, The Silent God (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 282–93. A similar view of inspiration is offered by Cees Houtman, de Schrift wordt geschreven. Op zoek naar een christelijke hermeneutiek van het Oude Testament (Zoetermeer: Meinema 2006), 190–200. Korpel, de Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil, 242–3; quotation on 242.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

39

Accordingly, Peels is not willing to read the story with Korpel and de Moor as being only an “extended parable,” as it is also clear that these chapters intend to refer to a past. Accordingly, “it is necessary to say more on the nature of this kind of historiography and about the way it is rooted in the past.”56 Once again, it seems that historical information from the Bible and the concrete results of biblical studies – Bavinck’s phenomena – matter in defining the Holy Spirit’s use of genres, and therefore of the doctrine of Scripture. Conversely, it can also be concluded that positions taken on revelation, inspiration and biblical authority clearly influence the way in which the difficulties are dealt with in defining the genre of Genesis 1–3. Moreover, it is clear that the Dutch Reformed tradition in the Netherlands developed in different directions in this respect. 7

Concluding Observations

Since the letter of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the sources of the Pentateuch and the first chapters of Genesis to Cardinal Suhard of January 16, 1948, the Roman Catholic Church no longer undertakes concrete action against biblical scholars, because it wants to safeguard “for them the greatest freedom within the traditional teachings of the Church.”57 Due to their different ecclesiology, this situation does not exist in that way in most churches where the influence of neo-Calvinism can still be felt, as Scripture is seen there as the ultimate principium theologiae. Nevertheless, there are still strong parallels between both traditions in how they view the inspiration and authority of Scripture, and how they deal with the new impulses from scientific and scholarly research. Therefore, it is important to conclude with a few observations. First, neither the Roman Catholic nor the neo-Calvinist view of Scripture can be characterized as a purely anti-modern. In fact, the struggle with the philosophy and the results of ‘higher criticism’ as depicted in Providentissimus 56

57

H.G.L. Peels, “Een nieuw begin?,” Theologia Reformata 57 (2014), 281–89; quotation on 288. Cf. van Bekkum, van Houwelingen, Peels, “Epiloog. Gereformeerde bijbelwetenschap en bijbelse hermeneutiek,” 250–3. Peels’ approach to Genesis 1–11 is quite similar to that of evangelical scholars, such as Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word Books, 1987); Daniel D. Lowery, Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11. Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern Context. BBR Supplement 7 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2013); Matthieu Richelle, Comprendre Genèse 1–11 aujourd’hui (Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac, 2013). Dean P. Béchard, The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2002), 221–25; quotation on 221.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

40

van Bekkum

Deus and in Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics even tends towards a Christian way of embracing the modern world. Both try to offer a framework in which the results of modern historical research can be integrated in the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture. Remarkably, over the years both traditions developed in a similar way, from stimulating biblical studies and offering additional systematic theological considerations at the end of the 19th Century ce, through a few decades of stricter church politics, towards an open attitude regarding the historical complexity of divine revelation since the 1940s. Second, from the perspective of the practice of biblical exegesis it is clear that there is a tension in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, the papal decrees, Bavinck’s Dogmatics, and Berkouwer’s earlier views. The phrase “in more or less figurative language” rightly makes possible both that divine inspiration made use of literary genres, and a way of referring to history that diverges from modern historiographical expectations. In practice, however, other statements about the historical reading of biblical texts prevented a fruitful exploration of this principle. Third, this difficulty seems to be solved in the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of 1943. There is, however, still a problem with the Catholic view of Scripture that was highlighted by Berkouwer in 1938, and that became evident again in the portrait of Jesus by Pope Benedict. According to Ratzinger’s own categories, because of the nature of reason, the historical-critical method barely requires faith, while at the same time it is ultimately the Church which guarantees that the Gospels offer a trustworthy portrait of Jesus.58 From a neo-Calvinist point of view, this cannot be the case. Reason is in no way able to operate as an independent entity, for which reason an authentic exegete is obliged to undergird his Christological conclusions by paying attention to the historical aspects of the text.59 Finally, however, the problematic aspects of Berkouwer’s later view of divine inspiration and of the further developments in Dutch Protestantism reveal that Reformed biblical scholars can also learn from the encyclicals. Good historical research needs the doctrine of God and a larger ecclesiological framework on what it is to read the Bible in the Church.

58 59

Cf. J. Ratzinger, “Faith, Reason and the University. Memories and Reflections.” Address in the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006 (www.vatican.va). See also, for example, Richard Hays, “Benedict and the Biblical Jesus,” First Things, August 2007.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

41

Acknowledgement I thank the members of the Biblical Exegesis and Systematic Theology research group of the Theological Universities of Kampen|Utrecht and Apeldoorn, and Niels van Driel and Henk van den Belt, for their comments on a previous version of this paper. Bibliography Aalders, G.Ch. (1932). de goddelijke openbaring in de eerste drie hoofdstukken van Genesis. Kampen: Kok. Aalders, M.J. (2013). Heeft de slang gesproken? Het strijdbare leven van dr. J.G. Geelkerken (1879–1960). Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Baarda, T. and Reformed Churches in the Netherlands [1981]. God with Us – On the Nature of the Authority of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Reformed Ecumenical Synod. Bavinck, H. (1888). de katholiciteit van christendom en kerk. Kampen: Zalsman. [ET “The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church.” Trans. John Bolt, Calvin Theological Journal (1992), 220–51]. Bavinck, H. (1895). Gereformeerde dogmatiek, dl. 1. Kampen: Bos. Bavinck, H. (1911). Modernisme en orthodoxie. Kampen: Kok. Bavinck, H. (2003) [2nd ed. 1906]. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1: Prolegomena. Transl. J. Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Bavinck, H. (2006) [2nd ed. 1910]. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 3. Sin and Salvation in Christ. Transl. J. Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Bavinck, H. (2021). On Theology: Herman Bavinck’s Academic Orations. Transl. B.R. Pass. Leiden: Brill. Béchard, D.P. (2002). The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press. Bekkum, K. van (2000). “Zekerheid en Schriftgezag in de zaak Geelkerken.” In: K. van Bekkum and R.A. Rouw (eds.), Geloven in zekerheid. TU-Bezinningsreeks 1; Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 77–108. Bekkum, K. van (2009), “Sprekende slang.” In: G. Harinck, H. Paul and B.Wallet (eds.), Het gereformeerde geheugen. Protestantse herinneringsculturen in Nederland, 1850– 2000. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 585–94. Bekkum, K. van (2020). Verdreven uit de hof, levend uit de belofte. Mens en wereld in het licht van Genesis 1–11. Baarn: Willem de Zwijgerstichting. Bekkum, K. van, Kwakkel, G. (2010). “Een veilige leefwereld voor de mens in dienst van God.” Theologia Reformata 53: 318–55.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

42

van Bekkum

Bekkum, K. van, Houwelingen, P.H.R., Peels, H.G.L. (2013). “Epiloog. Gereformeerde bijbelwetenschap en bijbelse hermeneutiek.” In: K. van Bekkum, P.H.R. van Houwelingen and H.G.L. Peels (eds.), Nieuwe en oude dingen. Schatgraven in de Schrift. Apeldoornse Studies 62; TU-Bezinningsreeks 13. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 243–55. Bekkum, K. van, Bekkum, L. van (forthcoming). “Plotseling bewust van eene kentering.” Mémoires en brieven van Cornelis van Gelderen (1972–1945). AD Chartasreeks. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak. Berkouwer, G.C. (1938). Het probleem der Schriftkritiek. Kampen: Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1948). Conflict met Rome. Kampen: Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1957). Nieuwe perspectieven in de controvers Rome-Reformatie. Mededelingen KNAW 20. Amsterdam: Noordhollandsche Uitgeversmaatschappij. Berkouwer, G.C. (1966–1967). de Heilige Schrift, dl. 1–2. Kampen: Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1967). Vatikaans Concilie en nieuwe theologie. Kampen: Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1968). Nabetrachting op het Concilie. Kampen: Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1974). Een halve eeuw theologie: motieven en stromingen van 1920 tot heden. Kampen: Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1989). Zoeken en vinden: herinneringen en ervaringen. Kampen: Kok. Burger, J.M. (2023). “Bavinck’s View of the Relation between Scripture and Tradition.” In: J. Eglinton and G. Harinck (eds.), Neo-Calvinism and Roman-Catholicism. Studies in Reformed Theology. Leiden: Brill, 46–64. Deines, R. 2013. Acts of God in History: Studies towards Recovering a Theological Historiography. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 317. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Denzinger, H., Hünermann, P. (2005). Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. 40th ed. Freiburg: Herder. Driel, C.M. van (2008). “Langs Nijl en Jordaan. Een gereformeerd-ethische reis door het Heilige Land.” In: F.G.M. Broeyer, G.J. van Klinken (eds.), Reizen naar het Heilige Land. Protestantse impressies 1840–1960. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 147–61. Driel, C.M. van (2010). Gewantrouwd gereformeerd. Het omstreden leiderschap van neocalvinist Arie Noordtzij (1871–1944). AD Chartas-reeks 15. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak. Driel, C.M. van (2013). “Believing Criticism: Kuyperians versus Kuenen.” In: L. Kenis, E.G. van der Wall (eds.), Religious Modernism in the Low Countries. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 255. Louvain: Peeters, 205–26. Driel, C.M. van (2013). “Fricties in een falanx. Gereformeerde bijbelwetenschap tussen 1890 en 1950.” In: K. van Bekkum, P.H.R. van Houwelingen and H.G.L. Peels (eds.), Nieuwe en oude dingen. Schatgraven in de Schrift. Apeldoornse Studies 62; TU-Bezinningsreeks 13. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 13–34. Echeverria, E.J. (2013). Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions. Studies in Reformed Theology 24. Leiden: Brill. Eglinton, J. (2020). Bavinck: A Critical Biography. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

43

Flipse, A. (2023), “Shared Principles, Diverging Paths: Neo-Calvinism, neo-Thomism and the Natural Sciences, 1880–1960.” In: J. Eglinton and G. Harinck (eds.), Neo-Calvinism and Roman-Catholicism. Studies in Reformed Theology. Leiden: Brill, 67–92. Fraine, J.G.F.L. de (1963). Genesis uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd. Roermond: Romen. Geller, F.B. (2016). “Review” of Marjo C.A. Korpel and Johannes C. de Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil. A New Beginning. Hebrew Bible Monographs 65. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2014. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40: 155. Gispen, W.H. (1966). Schepping en paradijs. Kampen: Kok. Greijdanus, S. (1933), de brief van de apostel Paulus aan Rome, dl. 1. Amsterdam: Bottenburg. Hays, R.B. (2007). “Benedict and the Biblical Jesus.” First Things, August. Houtman, C. (1974). de hemel in het Oude Testament. Kampen: Kok. Houtman, C. (1980). “Een episode uit het leven van een oriëntalist en oud-testamenticus aan de Vrije Universiteit.” In: C. Augustijn et al., In rapport met de tijd. 100 jaar theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit. Kampen: Kok, 67–87. Houtman, C. (2006). de Schrift wordt geschreven. Op zoek naar een christelijke hermeneutiek van het Oude Testament. Zoetermeer: Meinema. Houwelingen, P.H.R. van (2008). “Review” of Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus von Nazareth. Erster Teil: von der Taufe im Jordan bis zur Verklärung. Freiburg: Herder, 2007. Radix 34: 60–62. Houwelingen, P.H.R. van (2011). “Review” of Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus von Nazareth. Zweiter Teil: vom Einzug in Jerusalem bis zur Auferstehung. Freiburg: Herder, 2011. Radix 37: 309–11. Houwelingen, P.H.R. van (2013). “Review” of Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus von Nazareth. Dritter Teil: Prolog, die Kindheitsgeschichten. Freiburg: Herder, 2013. Radix 39: 69–71. Kamphuis, B. (1993–1994). “Uit de hemel of uit de mensen.” de Reformatie 69: 149–52. Keulen, D. van (2001). “Bavinck en het ‘Concessionisme’.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 55: 301–12. Keulen, D. van (2003). Bijbel en dogmatiek. Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer. Kampen: Kok. Keulen, D. van (2021). “Een levenslang trauma. G.C. Berkouwers terugblik op de Vrijmaking.” In: E.A. de Boer, G. Tamminga and R.T. te Velde (eds.), Gereformeerde theologie stroomopwaarts. Terugkijken op 75 jaar Vrijmaking. TU Bezinningsreeks 24. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn, 45–60. Kooi, C. van der (1995). “Van buitenaf of van binnenuit.” In: C. van der Kooi, E. Talstra, J.H. de Wit, Het uitgelezen boek. Opstellen over de omgang met de bijbel als het Woord van God. VU-Segmenten 1. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 30–49. Koole, J.L. (1963). “Het litterair genre van Genesis 1–3.” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 63: 82–122.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

44

van Bekkum

Koole, J.L. (1966). Verhaal en feit in het Oude Testament. Kampen: Kok. Koole, J.L. Jesaja, dl. 3. Commentaar op het Oude Testament. Kampen: Kok. Korpel, M.C.A., Moor, J.C. de (2011). The Silent God. Leiden: Brill. Korpel, M.C.A., Moor, J.C. de (2014; 20152). Adam, Eve, and the Devil. A New Beginning. Hebrew Bible Monographs 65. Sheffield: Phoenix Press. Kuyper, A. (1910). Dictaten dogmatiek, dl. 2. 2nd ed. Kampen: Kok. Kuyper, H.H. (1902). “Rome en de Bijbelkritiek.” de Heraut, 2 February. Kwakkel, G. (2010), “In het begin. Welke boodschap beluisterde Israël in Genesis 1?.” In: G. Kwakkel and P.H.R. van Houwelingen (eds.), In den beginne en verder. Een bijbels-theologische reflectie op de schepping. TU-Bezinningsreeks 8. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 9–24. Lagrange, M.-J. (1904). La méthode historique. Études Bibliques. Paris: Libraire Victor Lecoffre. Lowery, D.D. (2013). Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11. Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern Context. BBR Supplement 7. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Montagnes, B. (2004). Marie-Joseph Lagrange. Une biographie critique. Paris: Cerf. Morrow, J.L. (2013). “Alfred Loisy’s Developmental Approach to Scripture: Reading the ‘Firmin’-Articles in the Context of Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Biblical Criticism.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15: 324–44. Noordtzij, M. (1875). de beoefening der exegetische theologie, inzonderheid van de tekstkritiek, de geschiedenis des Bijbels en de exegese. Kampen: Zalsman. Noordtzij, A. (1924, 19312, 19363). Gods Woord en der eeuwen getuigenis. Kok: Kampen Noordtzij, A. (1940). “Les intentions du Chroniste.” Revue biblique 49: 161–68. Olmo Lete, G. del (2014). Incantations and Anti-Witchcraft Texts from Ugarit. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 4. Berlin: de Gruyter. Oosterhoff, B.J. (1972), Hoe lezen wij Genesis 2 en 3? Een hermeneutische studie. Kampen: Kok. Oosterhoff, B.J. (1987). Om de Schriften te openen. Kampen: Kok. Peels, H.G.L. (2014). “Een nieuw begin?.” Theologia Reformata 57: 281–89 Ploeg, J.P.M. van der (1949). Het zesdagenwerk der schepping. Hilversum: Gooi & Sticht. Pontifical Biblical Commission (1994), “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.” Origins 23.29: 497–524. Prior, J.G. (1999). The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis. Tesi Gregoriana 50. Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana. Rad, G. von (1958). Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Theologische Bücherei 8. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag. Rapport van de deputaten voor advies inzake de leeruitspraak van de synode van Assen 1926. Meerderheids- en minderheidsrapport. Kampen: Kok, 1968 Ratzinger, J. (1967). “Einleitung zur ‘Dogmatischen Konstitution über die göttliche Offenbarung’ und Kommentar zu Proömium, Kap. 1 und 2.” In: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Erg. Bd. 2. Freiburg: Herder, 498–528.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“In More or Less Figurative Language”

45

Ratzinger, J. (1989). “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis. On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today.” In: R.J. Neuhaus (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church. Encounter Series 13; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1–23. Ratzinger, J. (2006). “Faith, Reason and the University. Memories and Reflections.” Address in the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006 (www.vatican.va). Ratzinger, J. (2007). Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. San Francisco: Ignatius. Renié, J. (1950). Les origines de l’humanité d’après la Bible: mythe ou histoire? Lyon: Vitte. Richelle, M. (2013). Comprendre Genèse 1–11 aujourd’hui. Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac. Ridderbos, J. (1926). Het verloren paradijs. Kampen: Kok. Ridderbos, N.H. (1954) Beschouwingen over Genesis 1. Assen: G.F. Hummelen’s boekhandel. Ridderbos, N.H. (1963). Beschouwingen over Genesis 1. Kampen: Kok. Rowland, T. (2008) Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI. New York: Oxford University Press. Sardella, L.-P. (2010). “Il y a cent ans: la réception de l’encyclique Pascendi Domini Gregis en France.” Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 1–3: 467–96. Talar, C.J.T. (2013). “Science catholique, science chrétienne, science religieuse: The Matrix of Modernism.” In: L. Kenis, E.G. van der Wall (eds.), Religious Modernism in the Low Countries. Bibliotheca Ephimeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 255. Louvain: Peeters, 23–44. Trimp, C. (1967). Om de klaarheid der waarheid. Groningen: de Vuurbaak. Vaux, R. de. (1951). La Genèse. Paris: Cerf. Veenhof, J. (1968). Revelatie en inspiratie. de openbarings- en Schriftbeschouwing van H. Bavinck in vergelijking met die der ethische theologie. Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn. Vos, A. (1994). “Consistentie en theologie.” In: E. Dekker, G.G. de Kruijf and H. Veldhuis (eds.), Openbaring en Werkelijkheid. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 43–59. Vroom, H.M. (1992). “De gelezen Schrift als principium theologiae.” In: M.E. Brinkman (ed.), 100 jaar theologie. Aspecten van een eeuw theologie in de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1892–1992). Kampen: Kok, 96–160. Wenham, G.J. (1987). Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word Books.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 3

Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition Hans Burger 1 Introduction The hermeneutical significance of church and tradition has been emphasized by many in recent decades. Reacting to (post)modern individualism and relativism in the Christian life, and also to the consequences of a historical-critical reading of Scripture in theology, postliberal theologians (and others in their footsteps) have been engaged in reconsidering the role of the interpretative community and its tradition.1 However, the theme of Scripture and tradition remains a controversial one between neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism. This chapter will explore how neo-Calvinists understood the relation of Scripture and tradition, and evaluate their position on this topic in light of recent developments. To do so, this chapter will focus on Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, and does so noting that this particular topic has not yet received detailed attention in scholarship on Bavinck.2 This neglect is striking given that, according to 1 To mention some examples of the literature on this theme: A.K.M. Adam, S.E. Fowl, K.J. Vanhoozer, F. Watson, Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2006); C.E. Braaten and R.W. Jenson, Reclaiming the Bible for the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995); C. Houtman, de Schrift wordt geschreven: Op zoek naar een christelijke hermeneutiek van het Oude Testament (Zoetermeer: Meinema 2006); R.W. Jenson, Canon and Creed. Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press 2010); A. Paddison, Scripture: A Very Theological Proposal (London: T&T Clark 2009); D. Sarisky, Scriptural Interpretation. A Theological Exploration. Challenges in Contemporary Theology (Chichester/Malden: John Wiley & Sons, 2013); D.J. Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian practice (Nottingham: Apollos 2008); D.J. Treier, “What is Theological Interpretation? An Ecclesiological Reduction,” IJST 12 (2010), 144–161; K.J. Vanhoozer, The drama of doctrine: a canonical-linguistic approach to Christian theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005); A. Yong, Spirit – Word – Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective. Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology & Biblical Studies (Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate, 2002). 2 On Bavinck and Scripture, see J. Veenhof, Revelatie en inspiratie: de openbarings- en Schriftbeschouwing van Herman Bavinck in vergelijking met die der ethische theologie (Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn N.V. , 1968); S. Meijers, Objectiviteit en existentialiteit: © Hans Burger, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_004 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’

47

Vroom, Bavinck does indeed ascribe an important role to tradition.3 Hence, by delving into the relation between Scripture and tradition, this chapter aims to fill that lacuna in Bavinck scholarship. The influence of neo-Thomistic philosophy is often mentioned in discussions regarding the relationship between Bavinck and Roman Catholicism. Bremmer detects this neo-Thomistic influence in Bavinck’s critical realism, as well as in his doctrines of the principia, and the divine ideas, arguing that it determined the basic structure of his dogmatics.4 Van den Belt, however, has shown that parallels between Bavinck and neo-Thomism can also be traced back to the Aristotelianism that marked Reformed Scholasticism. Moreover, he doubts whether Bremmer is right in suggesting that Bavinck’s theological epistemology rests on philosophy. Instead, van den Belt emphasizes the interwovenness of Bavinck’s theological and philosophical epistemology.5 Similarly, Mattson is critical of Bremmer, because he too easily lumps neo-Thomism and Reformed Scholasticism together.6 Eglinton makes clear that Bavinck deals critically with the Roman Catholic dualism of reason and faith, nature and super-nature.7 Finally, Sutanto follows Mattson and Eglinton in mentioning

3 4

5 6 7

een onderzoek naar hun verhouding in de theologie van Herman Bavinck en in door hem beïnvloede concepties (Kampen: Kok 1979); D. van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek: schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen: Kok 2003); H. van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed theology: Truth and Trust. Studies in Reformed Theology, 17 (Leiden: Brill 2008); H. Burger, “Discernment in the Light of an Authoritative Revelation? Rethinking the Authority of Scripture,” in Z. Görözdi et al (eds.), Roads to Reconciliation Between Groups in Conflict // Theology in a World of Ideologies: Authorization or Critique? Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau, Band 133 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2021), 214–226. H.M. Vroom, “De gelezen schrift als principium theologiae,” in M.E. Brinkman (ed.), 100 jaar theologie: aspecten van een eeuw theologie in de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1892– 1992) (Kampen: Kok 1992), 96–160 (134–39). R.H. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus (Kampen: Kok 1961), 315, 328–30, 386. Bremmer refers to works by van der Walt, Heideman, Kristensen and Dooyeweerd as his sources. He mentions two books that were important to Bavinck: Matteo Liberatore, Die Erkenntnisz-Theorie der heiligen Thomas von Aquin and Bellaar Spruyt, Proeve van eene geschiedenis van de leer der aangeboren begrippen. Veenhof refers to Bremmer and mentions, moreover, that Bavinck saw a parallel between neo-Thomism and neo-Calvinism. See Veenhof, Revelatie en inspiratie, 114–15. Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 237–38, 281–82. B.G. Mattson, Restored to our Destiny: Eschatology & the Image of God in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics. Studies in Reformed Theology, 21 (Leiden: Brill 2012), 14–17. J. Eglinton, Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif. T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology, 17 (London: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury, 2012), 40–44; J. Eglinton, “How many Bavincks? de Gemeene Genade and the “Two Bavincks” Hypothesis,” in J. Bowlin (ed.), The Kuyper Center Review: Volume 2 Revelation and Common Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 279–302 (290–94).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

48

Burger

similar criticisms of Aquinas by Bavinck.8 The influence of neo-Thomism is a neglected theme in secondary literature dealing the theme of Scripture and tradition within neo-Calvinism. Some scholars have noted a degree of openness towards Roman Catholic ideas concerning church and tradition in Bavinck’s theology. Veenhof mentions that Bavinck is aware of his historicity, and enters into a discussion with Roman Catholicism. He argues that an Aristotelian-Thomistic influence can be traced especially in the prolegomena to Bavinck’s Dogmatics.9 Van den Belt quotes a letter from Bavinck to Kuyper written in 1885 in which Bavinck discusses, ‘an ecclesiastical element or factor in the dogmas’. There, it seems, Bavinck wrestles with Scripture as principium of theology and the church as possible principium.10 Consequently, it is not strange to expect some positive influence of Roman Catholic theology concerning the relationship between Scripture and tradition. In investigating Bavinck’s understanding of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, particularly as it relates to Roman Catholic theology, this chapter will limit its purview to the first volume of the Reformed Dogmatics, concentrating on Bavinck’s doctrine of the principia, as handled in chapters 1–3.The next section will provide an analysis of Bavinck’s view of Scripture and tradition as he develops it in part I of his Gereformeerde dogmatiek. The third section is an evaluation of his position from a contemporary perspective. 2 Bavinck 2.1 Theological Principles Bavinck distinguished three theological principles: God is theology’s principium essendi, God’s revelation is the principium cognoscendi externum, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit is the principium cognoscendi internum.11 These principles apply to all knowledge of God: they are also the principles of 8

N.G Sutanto, God and Knowledge. Herman Bavinck’s Theological Epistemology. T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology (London: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury, 2020), 77–93. Concerning Bavinck’s critical realism, Sutanto situates Bavinck between naïve realism and idealistic subjectivism. Bavinck’s organic holism enabled him to integrate both classical realist elements and elements of the absolute idealism of Eduard von Hartmann. See Sutanto, God and Knowledge, 123–149. 9 Veenhof, Revelatie en inspiratie, 107, 120, 126. 10 Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 253. 11 On the principles, see Bremmer, Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus, 155–81; van den Belt, The authority of Scripture, 236–50; van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 70–132; W. Huttinga,

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’

49

religion. God knows himself in his own divine consciousness (theologia archetypa), only God can disclose his self-knowledge by revelation and by bringing this self-knowledge into the human consciousness. Bavinck emphasizes that all these three principles presuppose that it is God himself who acts in knowledge, revelation and illumination.12 Theological knowledge and the absolute certainty of religion both rest on the notion of ‘Deus dixit’.13 Dealing with these principles, Bavinck works towards a Trinitarian conclusion. Both his general treatment of principles, and of principles in religion, conclude with an explicit account of how these relate to the Trinity: in the case of the Father, God’s self-knowledge; in the case of the Logos (or the Son), revelation; and in the case of the Holy Spirit, illumination.14 On this point, Bremmer saw Roman Catholic influence. In his account, Bavinck followed Thomas in his choice for Aristotelian realism.15 Van den Belt however, has shown that Bavinck’s sources were drawn from the tradition of Reformed orthodoxy, and more recently, from Abraham Kuyper.16 Nevertheless, according to van den Belt, the differentiation of one principium cognoscendi into an external and an internal principle are a distinct innovation on Bavinck’s part.17 Van den Belt understands this in the light of Bavinck’s discussion with the Ethical Theology movement: Bavinck ‘fences his position off Participation and Communicability: Herman Bavinck and John Milbank on the Relation between God and the World (Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn 2014), 86–91, 102–105 12 H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1: Prologomena. J. Bolt (ed.); J. Vriend (tr.) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 212–14, 276–79. Bavinck’s understanding of revelation and religion does not presuppose sin; against van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 160, 172: see Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 276–79. 13 In the English translation, this characteristic ‘deus dixit’, used by Bavinck in its original Latin form, is muted by the editor’s preference to render it in English; see Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 30, 46, 590. In the Dutch edition, see H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek: Eerste deel (Kampen: Kok 1928, 4th edn.), 5, 22, 559. 14 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 213–14, 233, 279. For the influence of Bavinck’s trinitarian doctrine of revelation on Karl Barth, see J. Vissers, “Karl Barth’s Appreciative Use of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics,” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010), 79–86. 15 Bremmer, Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus, 161. 16 Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 242–250; on Kuyper’s doctrine of scripture see further H. Burger, “Kuyper’s Anti–Revolutionary Doctrine of Scripture,” in J. Eglinton, G. Harinck (eds.), Neo–Calvinism and the French Revolution (London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2014), 127–42; van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 68–174. 17 Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 248. One can doubt whether this differentiation is really an innovation. According to van den Belt, Kuyper only had one principle. Vroom, however, mentions a comparable differentiation in Kuyper, between the principium theologiae materiale (Scripture) and the principium theologiae formale (listening in faith). See H.M. Vroom, de schrift alleen? Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de toetsing van theologische uitspraken volgens de openbaringstheologische visie van Torrance en de hermeneutisch-the-

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

50

Burger

from subjectivism, but the principium internum enables Bavinck to give the religious subject a positive place and acknowledge an element of truth in Ethical Theology’.18 Bavinck himself refers to Herbert Spencer, Schopenhauer and Kant in the first section of his chapter on the internal principle.19 Accordingly, it seems better to interpret Bavinck’s innovation more generally as an acknowledgment of an element of truth in the post-Kantian turn to the subject. Here, it is difficult to find a reason to suppose a particular Roman Catholic influence on Bavinck. Instead, Bavinck’s doctrine of the principia seems typically Protestant: the emphasis falls entirely on the acts of God. A mediating role for community or tradition does not come into play. It has to be said that Bavinck relativizes the role of the church as well as the role of Scripture, and even argues that Scripture can only be ‘causa efficiens instrumentalis’ of theology. He leaves open the question of whether God’s revelation comes to individual human beings or to humanity in general,20 and in relation to these principles, does not deal with the polarity of the community and the individual. Still, the differentiation of the principium cognitionis into objective and subjective tends towards an individual interpretation. Again, this does not favour a mediating role for church or communion. Again, on this point there are no clear traces of a positive interaction with Roman Catholic theology. 2.2 Christology and Pneumatology Within his Trinitarian framework, Bavinck closely links objective revelation to Christology, and its subjective counterpart to pneumatology. The completeness of the revelation and work of God in Christ leads directly to the completeness of the Scriptures. Bavinck repeatedly demonstrates a Christological understanding of the Scriptures, for example, in the parallel between incarnation and inscripturation.21 Bavinck’s understanding of revelation and soteriology ologische opvattingen van Van Buren, Ebeling, Moltmann en Pannenberg (Kampen: Kok 1978), 69–72; Vroom, “De gelezen schrift,” 120. 18 Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 249. 19 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 501–503. 20 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 212–13, esp. footnote 14. 21 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 380–81, 434. A comparable differentiation of revelation and pneumatology can be found in Kuyper’s pneumatologically embedded foundationalism. Kuyper’s doctrine of revelation, however, is less christological than Bavinck’s. Cf. Burger, “Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Doctrine of Scripture”, 131–37. Van Keulen does emphasize the importance of pneumatology for Bavinck’s theological epistemology, but overlooks the centrality of Christology for Bavinck’s doctrine of Scripture, although he mentions the parallel between incarnation and inscripturation. Van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 111–12, 154–55, 172.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’

51

are almost identical: revelation is the gift of new life. Just as Christ has become head of the communion of the church, so God’s revelation is completed in the Scriptures. No new constitutive elements can be added: both Christ’s work and God’s revelation are finished. Bavinck understands the completion of the canon as a consequence of Christ’s completed work. After the economy of the Son, the church entered a new dispensation, the economy of the Spirit. The church is now formed as the body of Christ. Prophecy and miracles are no longer necessary and cannot enrich God’s revelation. The work of the Spirit is to glorify Christ and to make us share in Christ. Consequently, the completion of revelation is not the completion of God’s work. God’s aim is the new creation, in which God will live with his people. In the economy of the Spirit, the content of revelation has to be realized in the life and consciousness of humanity. The Spirit does not reveal new mysteries, but rather, applies the treasures of salvation.22 ‘There is no knowledge of Christ apart from Scripture, no fellowship with him except by fellowship in the word of the apostles’.23 This Christological understanding of revelation and Scripture is the core element of Bavinck’s discussion with Roman Catholicism concerning the hermeneutical significance of tradition and church, which provided him with direction as he developed his own position. 2.3 Tradition The difference between the two dispensations of the economy of Christology and pneumatology leads Bavinck to a differentiated concept of tradition. Before the completion of the canon, tradition and Scripture were like two streams of water, flowing side by side. But like the incarnation, revelation has to adopt the deficient form of Scripture. When the process of inscripturation came to an end, these two streams became one. Now we only come to know the truth through the reading of the Scriptures. Tradition cannot add anything to the word of God, just as nothing can be added to the person and work of Christ. The Holy Spirit’s special work of inspiration has come to an end.24 Nonetheless, Bavinck does emphasize the hermeneutical significance of tradition. This tradition flows from the Scriptures as a river from its source, and has to be shaped by them. The tradition ‘is the method by which the Holy Spirit causes the truth of Scripture to pass into the consciousness and life of the church’.25 We inherit everything from the preceding generations. We 22 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 290, 346–47, 382–85, 490–91, 505–506, 587–88. 23 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 472. 24 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 88, 346–48, 383, 482, 485–86. 25 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 494.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

52

Burger

always read the Scriptures within the perspective that we received from the communion of the church in which we were raised. Theologians ‘look at Scripture with the aid of the glasses that their churches have put on them’.26 Living in a fractured church with many traditions, the best each can do to serve the unity of the church is by trying to think ‘through the faith of his own church and [make] the most accurate presentation of it’.27 Reading Scripture, we start with the perspective of the confession and the life of our own church, but we need to read in unity with the worldwide catholic communion of the church. Bavinck believed that despite aberrations, the Christian tradition does make progress in interpreting the Bible. In summary, the apostles’ Christological tradition came to an end. Nothing can be added to the objective revelation of God’s truth. Pneumatologically, however, the tradition is a tradition of interpretation that is needed if we are to understand revelation. Hermeneutically, the tradition is very significant, for in the tradition it is the Holy Spirit who guides in all truth.28 Consequently, Bavinck’s concept of tradition is differentiated, in the first place by two dispensations, the economy of Christ and of the Spirit; and in the second place pneumatologically by the distinction between inspiration and illumination. Due to his Christological emphasis on the completeness of Scripture, Bavinck is critical of a concept of tradition that sets it alongside Scripture as a second source. In line with Jesus and the apostles, he argues, the Christian church never acknowledged the Jewish tradition as we find it now in Mishna and Gemara. Unjustly, this Jewish tradition had become a second source alongside the Tanakh, suggesting its insufficiency. During the genesis of the Old Testament, revelation and Scripture were two different streams. Still, to preserve God’s revelation and to protect it against human sinfulness, it had to become Scripture. The same is the case with the New Testament: the apostles’ oral tradition had to be written down to make it lastingly available in an uncorrupted form. As such, the tradition of the apostles became part of Scripture. Bavinck claims that until the Council of Trent, the church always acknowledged the supreme authority of Scripture, at least theoretically.29

26 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 82. 27 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 85. 28 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 82, 85–87, 93, 119–20, 379–80, 493. Despite its significance, according to Bavinck, in reproducing the thought of the church, theology should not start with tradition to go back to the Bible, but begin with the source and then follow the river that proceeds from it, see 93. 29 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 402–408, 452, 470–72.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’

53

The Council of Trent changed, which was affirmed, in turn, by the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the infallibility of the pope as head of the church was proclaimed. For Bavinck, a theologian born in 1854, this decision (reached in 1870) was a relatively recent one. In his view, Rome teaches the insufficiency of the Scriptures, which need to be flanked by another source, namely, the tradition of the church. Rome claims the continuity of the apostolic tradition in the church, which Bavinck thought causes the difficulty of selecting who determines what counts as infallible tradition: the bishops, or a council? As such, Bavinck sketches a development in which Rome ultimately decided to proclaim the infallibility of the pope in order to create clarity and certainty. The church and the tradition replace the Scriptures, and the pope replaces Christ, leading Bavinck to conclude that the infallible pope is the principium formale of Roman Catholicism.30 This particular conclusion sheds light on why Bavinck only twice briefly presents a positive concept of tradition in his doctrine of principles.31 In the Introduction to his dogmatics, in which Bavinck gives a general overview of the field, he develops a concept of tradition more directly. When dealing with the principles of theology, however, Bavinck seems reluctant to do so. 2.4 Church Closely related to his differentiated concept of tradition is Bavinck’s view of the relationship between Scripture and church. Bavinck acknowledges the hermeneutical significance of the church. At the same time, he maintains the unique position of the Scriptures. ‘Pedagogically the church is prior to Scripture. But in the logical order, Scripture is the sole foundation (principium unicum) of church and theology’.32 In this context, Bavinck quotes Augustine’s dictum several times: ‘I indeed would not have believed the gospel, had not the authority of the church moved me’.33 Of course, church and tradition cannot be separated here. As has already 30 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 81, 452–55, 470–72, 481–85, 487–88, 492–93. Marcel Sarot confirms this analysis, comparing the infallibility of the pope with the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, seeing both as forms of foundationalism. See M. Sarot, “Christian Fundamentalism as a Reaction to the Enlightenment,” in B. Becking (ed.), Orthodoxy, Liberalism, and Adaptation: Essays on Ways of Worldmaking in Times of Change from Biblical, Historical and Systematic Perspectives (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 249–267 (265). 31 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 379–80, 493. 32 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 86. Cf. 93. 33 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 456, 510. Van den Belt, The authority of Scripture, 260– 62. Further on Bavinck, Augustine and the church, see M.S. Chen “Herman Bavinck and Augustine on Epistemology,” The Bavinck Review 2 (2011), 96–106.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

54

Burger

been seen, it is in the church that we receive our perspective for reading the Scriptures. Bavinck emphasizes over against Rome that ‘church’ does not refer to the pope or to an institution, but to the communion of believers. In the first place, this starts with one’s own local denomination, but in the end has in view the entire catholic church. To understand the length and depth and height and breadth of the love of God, we need the communion of all saints. Further, in the church as organism, objective revelation becomes part of the consciousness of humanity. Christ and the Spirit, revelation and illumination, word and consciousness belong closely together, as do Scripture and the church. In the dispensation of the Spirit, ‘revelation … is continued jointly in Scripture and in the church. Apart from the church, Scripture is an enigma and an offense… Conversely, the life of the church is a complete mystery unless Scripture sheds its light upon it. Scripture is the light of the church, the church is the life of Scripture… Scripture explains the church, the church understands Scripture.’34 As such, the church remains important for believers throughout their lives. The Holy Spirit prepares the parousia, keeping Scripture and church closely together. In conclusion, Bavinck highly values the hermeneutical significance of the church.35 At the same time, it is Scripture, and not the church, that is the principle of theology. Scripture is autopistos, but the church is not. Bavinck is very keen to maintain the right order of Scripture and church. The church lives under the authority of the Scriptures. The Scriptures did not come to existence within the church, but are God’s gift to the church. However, he argues, Rome increasingly changed this order by claiming that temporally and logically the church precedes the Scriptures. According to Bavinck, Rome makes the Scriptures dependent on the church, and even denies that the church needs the Scriptures. Due to their obscure character, the Scriptures need the church as its interpreter. Particularly on the issue of Scripture and church, he believes, Rome is the model of error. In this context, Bavinck often mentions Schleiermacher and Rome together, accusing Schleiermacher of vigorously supporting Rome by changing the order of Scripture and church, in the process giving the church the primacy. To reinforce Rome’s claim on this particular point, it seems, was pheraps the worst thing a Protestant could do.36

34 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 384. 35 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 31, 46, 83, 85–86, 346–47, 383–85, 457–58, 505–506. 36 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 30, 88, 100, 455–57, 468–69, 471, 476, 487–88.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’

55

2.5 Principium Internum Unlike reason, feeling or will, the internal principium cognoscendi is not a natural anthropological given. Again, Bavinck relates this principium to the acts of the triune God, although the principium is not the act itself, but rather, its result: faith (or rebirth, purity of heart, love for the will of God). The acts of the logos result in divine revelation as we find it especially in the Scriptures. However, he also argues that the Spirit is also active – the testimonium spiritus sancti – which results in faith.37 Faith as fides salvifica is the ‘soul’s union with the person of Christ according to the Scriptures and with the Scriptures as the Word of Christ’. Its object was, ‘the grace of God in Christ; its foundation the witness of God in his Word; its author the Holy Spirit’.38 Consequently, faith is more than believing that what the church and the Scriptures say is true. Bavinck is critical of the Roman Catholic concept of faith. According to Bavinck, this is no more than a fides historica, a rational assent of a suprarational, mysterious doctrine. Salvific faith has its own unshakable certainty due to the work of God both in the revelation (‘deus dixit’) and in the testimonium spiritus sancti.39 Because of this unshakable certainty, the testimony of the church can never be the ground of faith. According to Bavinck, in the end Rome and Reformation both acknowledge that only the Holy Spirit can give the strong convictions of faith. Again, Bavinck acknowledges the role of the church, but sees its pedagogical function as embedded in the work of the Spirit. The testimonium spiritus sancti is threefold: first, it is the testimony of the Spirit about the Scriptures as divine in content and form; second, it includes the testimony of the Spirit through the church; and third, the Spirit testifies about the Scriptures in the heart of every individual believer.40

37

Van den Belt fears that the subjective element will lead to subjectivism, due to the dualism of an objective and subjective approach to faith. See van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 290–294. However, it is important to notice that, according the Bavinck, the religion of the sinner who becomes Christian is the result of God’s Trinitarian act. The subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit as well as faith are the results of what God has done in a sinner. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 278–79, 565–66, 570, 587–91. 38 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 573; cf. Dalferth’s emphasis on the eschatological character of the Christian faith, to distinguish faith in Jesus Christ from a doxastic (or affective or fiducial) understanding of faith. See I.U. Dalferth, “Über Einheit und Vielfalt des christlichen Glaubens. Eine Problemskizze,” in W. Härle, R. Preul (eds.), Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie IV (Marburg: N.G. Erwert Verlag, 1992), 99–137. 39 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 571–78. 40 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 579–82, 585–86, 591–92, 596–98.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

56

Burger

2.6 Rome Considering this analysis of Bavinck’s position, we can conclude that in his doctrine of principles, Bavinck is deeply critical of Rome. The decisions of Trent regarding tradition as a second source and – relatively recently in Bavinck’s own experience – the First Vatican Council of 1870 on papal infallibility determine his view of the Roman Catholic position. The developments after Trent prove to him the unreliability of the church and her tradition. Moreover, in his view, these developments showed that the church does not need the tradition as a source alongside the Scriptures. Only the dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary and the pope need the tradition; the other dogmas only make explicit what we find embedded in the Scriptures.41 As has been seen, this critical evaluation almost prevents Bavinck from developing a positive concept of tradition in his chapters on the principles of theology. Marcel Sarot has shown that in the climate of foundationalism, Rome sought its epistemological certainty in the infallibility of the pope, whereas evangelical and Reformed theologians took the infallibility of Scripture as their foundation.42 Bavinck’s position is too nuanced to accuse him of foundationalism.43 However, it is true that a focus on epistemological questions can be found in Reformed Dogmatics. In his context, and in his doctrine of the principles, he could not value the position of Rome positively, although his introduction and his method indicate the hermeneutical significance of church and tradition. 3

Constructive Evaluation

Does Bavinck’s position help us to understand the hermeneutical significance of church and tradition today? In his own evaluation of Bavinck, van den Belt asks, ‘how this renewed emphasis on the Church can be made fruitful, without returning to the … position in which the church overrules the authority of Scripture’.44

41 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 471–72, 484–88, 490–91. 42 Sarot, “Christian Fundamentalism,” 261–65. 43 In his ‘The biblical criticism of the present day,’ Kuyper defends a pneumatologically embedded foundationalism; see A. Kuyper, ‘The biblical criticism of the present day,’ in The Bibliotheca Sacra 61 (1904), no. 243, July 1904, [409]–442; no. 244, October 1904, 666–688. Burger, “Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Doctrine of Scripture”. 44 Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 296.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’

57

Bavinck tried to understand the hermeneutical significance of church and tradition within his modern context, with its focus on epistemology, foundations and certainty. Both the Roman Catholic defence of the infallibility of the pope, and the Kuyperian defence of Scripture, breathe this climate and share its quest for absolute certainty.45 That this climate influenced Bavinck is evidenced by the fact that in the chapters on the principia, he develops his own positive account, albeit briefly, at the end of chapter 2.46 In offering a constructive way forward, the remainder of this chapter will evaluate and build on Bavinck from a broader soteriological (rather than epistemological) perspective. It will do so presupposing that God uses the Scriptures to let us participate in Christ and to renew our minds in accordance with the mind of Christ. Stated differently, this is to say that God exercises the authority of his kingdom through his word to enable us to be his fellow workers.47 Such a perspective can build on passages in Bavinck that indicate the primacy of life and salvation over knowledge and revelation, although his framework favours revelation and knowledge. How does Bavinck help us to understand the relation between Scripture and tradition within this perspective? 1. Bavinck relates his doctrine of the three principia to the Trinity, the Scriptures to the dispensation of the Son, and the testimonium spiritus sancti with the dispensation of the Spirit. His own reflections on inspiration and mystical union, however, show that this scheme is too simple. In God’s work, we always meet Father, Son and Spirit in a ‘mutually single act’.48 Nevertheless, it is important to keep to Bavinck’s Trinitarian emphasis. In Christ, in the Scriptures, in the church and in our own lives, we always meet and are always dependent on God’s Trinitarian acts. 2. Essential to Bavinck’s position is the relation between the completed work of Christ and the completeness of the Scriptures, and hence between the sufficiency of salvation in Christ and the sufficiency of Scripture. 45 46 47

48

Cf. Burger, “Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Doctrine of Scripture”; Sarot, “Christian Fundamentalism”. H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 590–99. On Bavinck and fundamentalism, see D. van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 168–71. H. Burger, “A Soteriological Perspective on our Understanding,” in M. te Velde, G. H. Visscher (eds.), Correctly Handling the Word of Truth: Reformed Hermeneutics Today (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 195–207; Burger, “Discernment in the Light of an Authoritative Revelation”; Vanhoozer, The drama of doctrine, 103–110, 245–265, 284–285, 301–304, 332–335, 363–399; N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (New York: Harper Collins, 2011), 21–23. R.W. Jenson, Systematic Theology. Volume 1 The Triune God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 111.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

58

3.

4.

49

50

Burger

This Christological emphasis is important to maintain: in Christ we find everything we need. Christ is and remains our representative, who constitutes us as his represented people. Nothing needs to be added to his person and work for our salvation. The Spirit takes from Christ, but never replaces him (John 16:14).49 This makes a two-source theory of revelation impossible, as everything we need to know concerning our salvation in Christ is contained by Scripture.50 Christ makes us participate in his identity and story by his Spirit. The head of the church is formed first, and then the body of Christ, Bavinck writes. In this process of participation, Christ and the Spirit are both active in using the Scriptures and the community of the church. Bavinck’s organic thinking in connection to the mystical union with Christ makes it possible to deny primacy both to the individual and the community, because both are rooted in Christ. Still, the central question now concerns the relationship between Christ, the Spirit, the Scriptures, and the church and her tradition and their respective roles in this process of participation. In Bavinck’s reflections, an important difference between Christ, the Spirit and the Scriptures on the one hand, and the church and her tradition on the other, has to be noted: as far as our salvation is concerned, the church and her tradition cannot be trusted as infallible, whereas the Son and the Spirit and the divinely inspired Scriptures are infallible. Here the transcendence of the salvation extra nos and the critical otherness of God and his truth are at stake. In this critical instance, the church and

H. Burger, Being in Christ. A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2008), 460–64, 481, 487. Here, O’Donovan even uses the pairing of objective/subjective to refer to what is reality in Christ as our representative (objectively), and to what is realized in us by our participation in Christ through the Spirit (subjectively). Bavinck himself refers twice to John 16.14 to indicate the relationship between Christ and the Spirit, see H. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1, 347, 427. See further E. Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism: disputed questions. Studies in Reformed Theology, 24 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 306–307. According to Echeverria, the two-source theory is now rejected by a part of Roman Catholic theology. Echeverria distinguishes a material sufficiency (all truth of salvation is contained in Scripture) from a formal insufficiency (for its interpretation, Scripture needs the church). Echeverria claims that the Council of Trent does not necessarily lead to the doctrine of such a two-source theory. However, Ratzinger’s criticism of Vatican II indicates a new problem: now the primacy of Scripture is threatened, Scripture being swallowed up into the tradition. See Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism, 281–83, 295–303. And further C. Trimp, Betwist schriftgezag: een bundel opstellen over de autoriteit van de bijbel (Groningen: de Vuurbaak, 1970), 192–221.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’

5.

6.

59

her tradition need to lay bare their human ambivalence.51 In line with e.g. John 10 and 15, Bavinck emphasizes that we have communion with Christ only through the word of Scripture. In this line, the normativity of the Scriptures as critical ‘Gegenüber’ of church and tradition has to be maintained. As has been seen, Bavinck emphasizes that Scripture is the light of the church and the church is the life of Scripture. The importance of the church’s particular mediating and formative role must be acknowledged. Sola scriptura can never mean solo scriptura, as though it should be understood as an ‘anti-tradition principle’.52 Bavinck also sees the testimonium spiritus sancti working through the church. We can understand the role of the church in the light of the work of the Sprit as communion of the Spirit, and in the light of the work of Christ as his body. Using the difference between Christology and pneumatology, Bavinck develops a differentiated concept of tradition. In the Christological economy, an oral stream of tradition existed alongside the Scriptures. At the end of this economy, this stream of tradition (in its entirety) became part of the Scriptures and disappeared. In the pneumatological economy, a new stream of tradition flows from Scripture as the source, connecting us with the Scriptures. In this tradition, we find a perspective from which to understand the Scriptures. This second tradition, however, does not provide us with new information, or with new revelation of divine mysteries. Bavinck is very hesitant to reflect on prophecy and the guidance of the Spirit.

However, this concept of tradition is not sufficiently nuanced. First, Bavinck’s idea of the two rivers of tradition and Scripture flowing together until the canon was finished, does not clarify the interaction between tradition and the growing Scriptures. Texts resulting from revelation were preserved, read, interpreted, and handed down within a living community. During the christological dispensation, the community already maintained a perspective on the Scriptures within which they understood Scripture. Moreover, texts produced within the Jewish community that did not become part of the Christian Scriptures nonetheless influenced the genesis of other parts of the Christian Scriptures: for example, we cannot understand the genesis

51 52

In a comparative way for Berkouwer, see Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism, 311–16; and further 275–76, 304, 309. Cf. Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism, 303–304, and further 276–78.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

60

Burger

of parts of the New Testament without acknowledging the role of inter-testamental Jewish literature. Second, within this view of tradition as the handing down of a perspective for reading, we need to distinguish between the basic convictions about the triune God who acts to save us in Christ and the Spirit, uniting us to Christ, and realising his kingdom; the central elements of the Christian faith as we find them in the Apostolic and Nicene creeds of the early church; and more specifically, confessional or exegetical sub-traditions, like the Reformed tradition or a particular exegetical school. This distinction is necessary to acknowledge that within the Christian tradition, readers of Scripture can recognize each other as fellow Christians, even as orthodox Christians, while at the same time perhaps understanding passages differently within their Christian sub-traditions. Third, the reality of Christ is more comprehensive and more mysterious to us than what we know and find in Scripture. We do not know what is it to share in Christ completely: our knowledge is sufficient for our present Christian lives, but it is not comprehensive. Christ himself is hidden in heaven until he will be revealed in his glory. As the first letter of John says, ‘Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is’ (1 John 3:2). For fear of Anabaptist or Roman-Catholic derailments, Bavinck does not leave room for eschatological newness within the pneumatological economy. Nonetheless, if the Spirit makes us participate in Christ, he can reveal secrets in the lives of individual persons, in prophecy or in guiding the church. And the Spirit will do so when Christ appears in his glory at his parousia. This necessitates reconsideration of the relationship between Christ, Scripture, Spirit and church. From Bavinck we can learn that nothing constitutive for our salvation can or has to be added by the Spirit or the church to what we have in Christ. Scripture contains sufficiently what we need to know about salvation in Christ. However, we need to maintain openness to what the Spirit can do if he lives in us, unites us to Christ and makes us share in who Christ is and what he has done. Here we face a difficult problem: how can we maintain openness towards prophecy as a gift of the Spirit, without creating openness towards wrong enthusiasm, new dogmas (for example, the ascension of Mary or the infallibility of the pope), or for a liberal movement away from the Scriptures in the name of progress?53 While it is impossible to solve this problem completely, and this is certainly so in a single chapter, some guidelines can 53

Houtman maintains an openness of the canon when moral issues are concerned; a comparable movement can be made as well in doctrinal discussions. See Houtman, de Schrift wordt geschreven, 456–507.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’

61

be given on the basis of the previous discussion. The words of Jesus, ‘It is finished,’ should guide us here: our salvation is complete, and Mary or a bishop of Rome cannot add anything to Christ as our inclusive Messiah. As our Lord and our representative substitute, he constitutes our identity as well as our destiny. Furthermore, nothing else than conformity to Christ, as we know him through the canonical writings of his apostles, is the aim of the Christian life. The canonical Scriptures remain normative, and prophecy has to be tested in the light of Scripture. At the same time, we cannot know in advance what will happen if the Spirit makes us share in Christ. Our knowledge of what it is to be conformed to Christ and our life in conformity to him, increase together. Hence, solus Christus should be the final word. Following this, within a concept of tradition, we need to differentiate between: a. Tradition as a source of knowledge flowing from God’s interaction with his people, culminating in his revelation of the mystery of salvation, and coming to an end in the completion of the texts of the canonical Scriptures. b. Tradition as the non-canonical writings and oral traditions stemming from the first Christians that might be conserved partly in early Christian writings, but that cannot claim canonical normativity. c. Tradition as a perspective of faith in God our creator and Father, in his Messiah as the fulfilment of the Scriptures, and in his Holy Spirit who spoke through the prophets, passed down through the generations. Here, the Apostolic and Nicene creeds play an important role, identifying the three persons of the Trinity “by biblical names for the dramatis personae” of the divine drama.54 d. Tradition as history of the effect of the Scriptures in the life of the church. In conclusion, the christological character of Bavinck’s emphasis on Scripture can be appreciated within a soteriological framework. When Father, Son and Spirit make us share in Christ, God uses the Scriptures. If God does so, the church is formed in conformity to Christ, the head of the church. In this process of transformation, Bavinck rightly saw the mediating role of church and tradition. Scripture, church and tradition belong together in the unity of the Spirit. However, in the church we need the saving transcendence of Christ and his word, the canonical Scriptures. Here Bavinck’s distinction between christology and pneumatology reminds us of something important: Christ and the

54

Cf. Jenson, Canon and Creed, 45, and further 43–50.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

62

Burger

Spirit are divine, Scripture is canonical, but while church and tradition are important, they remain ambivalent. Bibliography Adam, A.K.M.; Fowl, S.E.; Vanhoozer, K.J.; and Watson, F. (2006). Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Bavinck, H. (1928). Gereformeerde dogmatiek: Eerste deel. Kampen: Kok. Bavinck, H. (2003). Reformed Dogmatics Vol 1: Prologomena. J. Bolt (ed.); J. Vriend (tr.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Belt, H. van den (2008). The authority of Scripture in Reformed theology: truth and trust. Studies in Reformed Theology, 17. Leiden: Brill. Bremmer, R.H. (1961). Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus. Kampen: Kok. Burger, H. (2008). Being in Christ. A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. Burger, H. (2014a). “Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Doctrine of Scripture”. In: J. Eglinton, G. Harinck (eds.). Neocalvinism and the French Revolution. London/New York: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark: 127–42. Burger, H. (2014b). “A Soteriological Perspective on our Understanding”. In: M. te Velde, G. H. Visscher, (eds.). Correctly Handling the Word of Truth: Reformed Hermeneutics Today. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 195–207. Burger, H. (2021). “Discernment in the Light of an Authoritative Revelation? Rethinking the Authority of Scripture”. In: Zsolt Görözdi, Henk de Roest, Katya Tolstoj, Hans-Martin Kirn, and Wolter Rose (eds.). Roads to Reconciliation Between Groups in Conflict // Theology in a World of Ideologies: Authorization or Critique? Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau, Band 133. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt: 216–28. Chen, M.S. (2011). “Herman Bavinck and Augustine on Epistemology.” The Bavinck Review 2 (2011): 96–106. Dalferth, I.U. (1992). “Über Einheit und Vielfalt des christlichen Glaubens. Eine Problemskizze.” In: W. Härle, R. Preul (Eds.), Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie (IV). Marburg: N.G. Erwert Verlag, 99–137. Echeverria, E.J. (2013). Berkouwer and Catholicism: disputed questions. Studies in Reformed Theology, 24. Leiden: Brill. Eglinton, J. (2011). “How many Bavincks? de Gemeene Genade and the “Two Bavincks” Hypothesis.” In: J. Bowlin (ed.), The Kuyper Center Review: Volume 2 Revelation and Common Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 279–302. Eglinton, J. (2012). Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif. T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology, 17. London: T&T Clark/ Bloomsbury. - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

‘Bavinck’s View of the Relation Between Scripture and Tradition’

63

Houtman, C. (2006). de Schrift wordt geschreven: Op zoek naar een christelijke hermeneutiek van het Oude Testament. Zoetermeer: Meinema. Huttinga, W. (2014). Participation and Communicability: Herman Bavinck and John Milbank on the Relation between God and the World. Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn. Jenson, R.W. (2001). Systematic Theology. Volume 1 The Triune God. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenson, R.W. (2010). Canon and Creed. Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Keulen, D. van (2003). Bijbel en dogmatiek: schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer. Kampen: Kok. Kuyper, A. (1904). “The biblical criticism of the present day,” The Bibliotheca Sacra 61, no. 243, July, [409]-442; no. 244, October, 666-688. Mattson, B.G. (2012). Restored to our Destiny: Eschatology & the Image of God in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics. Studies in Reformed Theology, 21. Leiden: Brill. Meijers, S. (1979). Objectiviteit en existentialiteit: een onderzoek naar hun verhouding in de theologie van Herman Bavinck en in door hem beïnvloede concepties. Kampen: Kok. Paddison, A. (2009). Scripture: A Very Theological Proposal. London: T&T Clark. Sarisky, D. (2013). Scriptural Interpretation. A Theological Exploration. Challenges in Contemporary Theology. Chichester/Malden: John Wiley & Sons. Sarot, M. (2011). “Christian Fundamentalism as a Reaction to the Enlightenment”. In: B. Becking (ed.). Orthodoxy, Liberalism, and Adaptation: Essays on Ways of Worldmaking in Times of Change from Biblical, Historical and Systematic Perspectives. Leiden: Brill, 249–67. Sutanto, N.G. (2020). God and Knowledge. Herman Bavinck’s Theological Epistemology. T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology. London/New York: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury. Treier, D.J. (2008). Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian practice. Nottingham: Apollos. Treier, D.J. (2010). “What is Theological Interpretation? An Ecclesiological Reduction.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 12, 144–161. Vanhoozer, K.J. (2005). The drama of doctrine: a canonical-linguistic approach to Christian theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Vissers, J. (2010). “Karl Barth’s Appreciative Use of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics.” Calvin Theological Journal 45, 79–86. Veenhof, J. (1968). Revelatie en inspiratie: de openbarings- en Schriftbeschouwing van Herman Bavinck in vergelijking met die der ethische theologie. Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn N.V. Vroom, H.M. (1978). de schrift alleen? Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de toetsing van theologische uitspraken volgens de openbaringstheologische visie van Torrance en de - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

64

Burger

hermeneutisch-theologische opvattingen van Van Buren, Ebeling, Moltmann en Pannenberg. Kampen: Kok. Vroom, H.M. (1992). “De gelezen schrift als principium theologiae”. In: M.E. Brinkman (ed.). 100 jaar theologie: aspecten van een eeuw theologie in de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1892–1992). Kampen: Kok, 96–160. Wright, N.T. (2011). Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. New York: Harper Collins. Yong, A. (2002). Spirit – Word – Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective. Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology & Biblical Studies. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

PART 2 Theological Interaction with the (Modern) World

∵

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 4

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths: Neo-Calvinism, neo-Thomism and the Natural Sciences, 1880–1960 Abraham C. Flipse 1 Introduction The general public perception is that contemporary Roman Catholics have a more positive attitude towards science than orthodox Protestants. In October 2014, news media all over the world reported that Pope Francis, speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, had stated that evolution and the Big Bang theory were not incompatible with the existence of a Creator.1 Pope John Paul II had already repeatedly attracted attention with his conciliatory statements about science, for example when he sent a message to the Pontifical Academy in 1996 in which he declared that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis. Although positive statements by the pope about evolution always seem to draw attention and are seen as inherently newsworthy, the general impression is rather one of reconciliation between Catholicism and natural science.2 Orthodox Protestants, on the other hand, are often associated with radical rejection of evolutionary theory. This is particularly the case in the American context, where fundamentalists and their creationist organizations attract a great deal of attention. However, the heirs of neo-Calvinism are often also placed in the anti-evolutionist camp. In June 2014, for example, the theme of creation and evolution was a topic on the agenda of the synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC). In reaction to a decision by the synod an article appeared by the science writer and scholar of science and religion, Karl Giberson, under the title “The Christian Reformed Church Still 1 See, for example, Lizzy Davies, “Pope Francis: Evolution and Creation both Right,” The Guardian, 29 October 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/pope-says -evolution-and-creation-both-right (accessed 11 February 2021). 2 John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22 October 1996,” Papal Addresses to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 1917–2002 and to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences 1994–2002 (Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2003), 370–374, cf. xxix., 232; Alison Abbott, “Papal Confession: Darwin Was Right about Evolution,” Nature 383 (31 October 1996), 753. © Abraham C. Flipse, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_005 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

68

Flipse

Won’t Stand up for Science.”3 While it may be that Giberson’s reaction does not do justice to the decision, it is nonetheless revealing as to the general perception of the debate. This chapter will provide a comparative, historical analysis of the neoCalvinist and Roman Catholic views of science in the late nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, the period during which neo-Calvinism and neo-Thomism came into existence and flourished as frameworks for reflection on social, cultural and scientific issues.4 Both late-nineteenth-century neo-Calvinism and neo-Thomism can be viewed as attempts to appropriate the natural sciences, by criticizing them on certain aspects while also developing a synthesis of science and religion compatible with their own worldviews. Accordingly, this chapter will analyse the similarities and parallels of the foundational views of neo-Thomism and neo-Calvinism within their socio-cultural context. Although neo-Thomism was a wide international movement during this period, this chapter will limit its focus to the Netherlands, where interaction between neo-Calvinism and neo-Thomism was particularly clearly manifest. While both neo-Calvinists and neo-Thomists developed an all-embracing view of science, I will use evolutionary theory as a case study, because the question of creation and evolution is viewed by many as the most controversial issue in the debate. As shall be seen, although there were important similarities between neo-Calvinists and neo-Thomists during the early period, contemporary neo-Calvinists are often more critical of evolutionary theory than Roman Catholics. This chapter will describe how the debate developed in the period until 1960, and explain where and why the ways diverged.5 3 Karl Giberson, “The Christian Reformed Church Still Won’t Stand up for Science,” The Daily Beast, 29 June 2014, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/29/the-christian-reformed-church-still-won-t-stand-up-for-science.html; Roxanne Van Farowe, “Synod Rejects Request to Study Creation Account,” The Banner, 18 June 2014, http://www.thebanner.org /news/2014/06/synod-rejects-request-to-study-creation-account (both accessed 11 February 2021). 4 Cf. Herman Paul and Johan de Niet, “Issus de Calvin: Collective memories of John Calvin in Dutch neo-Calvinism,” in: Johan de Niet, Herman Paul and Bart Wallet (eds.), Sober, Strict and Scriptural: Collective Memories of John Calvin, 1800–2000 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 67–95, esp. 70–72. 5 This chapter is largely based on my Ph.D. thesis, Christelijke wetenschap. Nederlandse rooms-katholieken en gereformeerden over de natuurwetenschap, 1880–1940 (Hilversum: Verloren, 2014). I will not discuss the so-called ‘Reformational philosophy,’ developed during this period by the Vrije Universiteit philosophers H. Dooyeweerd and D.H.Th. Vollenhoven, and their criticism of the ‘scholastic’ line in neo-Calvinism. This Calvinist philosophy played no role of any significance in the debate among the scientists.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

69

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

2 The Dutch Context: Neo-Calvinist and Neo-Thomist Scientific Organizations In the final decades of the nineteenth century, orthodox Protestants in the Netherlands, under the leadership of Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), increasingly participated in contemporary culture. Active in many social domains, these neo-Calvinists sought increasing participation in the academic world. In 1880 Kuyper and his sympathizers founded the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, a ‘free’ (private) university, alongside and in opposition to the public (state) universities. The Vrije Universiteit initially comprised three faculties – Theology, Law and Arts – but was intended to develop into a complete university including Faculties of Science and Medicine.6 In Kuyper’s view, the Vrije Universiteit should be the place where modern scholarship and science would meet orthodox faith. The aim was to develop a Christian science, founded on Calvinist principles, alongside and in opposition to the naturalistic science practised at the public universities. The foundation of the Vrije Universiteit did not mark the sudden birth of a complete ‘Christian science’ or a ‘Calvinist philosophy of science,’ but in the first decades of its existence various ideas towards that end were put forward by Kuyper himself and others. This included Herman Bavinck (1854–1921), his successor as professor of dogmatics at the Vrije Universiteit in 1902, after Kuyper had become Prime Minister in a coalition cabinet of Calvinists and Roman Catholics.7 The ideas aired by neo-Calvinism’s ‘founding fathers’ were of great importance to the ongoing discussion on science and religion in the Calvinist world. A Faculty of Science, however, was not established at the Vrije Universiteit until 1930. In 1896, however, Calvinist scientists had already established a Christian Society of Natural and Medical Scientists (hereafter: Christian Society), which aimed at practising science and medicine “by the light of God’s Word.”8 Most of 6 See especially Abraham Kuyper, Souvereiniteit in eigen kring. Rede ter inwijding van de Vrije Universiteit, den 20sten October 1880 gehouden, in het koor van de Nieuwe Kerk te Amsterdam (Amsterdam: J.H. Kruyt, 1880), 33–35. [English: “Sphere Sovereignty,” in James D. Bratt (ed.), Abraham Kuyper. A Centennial Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 463–490.] See also: A.Th. van Deursen, The Distinctive Character of the Free University in Amsterdam, 1880–2005, A Commemorative History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 5–9. 7 Johan Snel, De zeven levens van Abraham Kuyper. Portret van een ongrijpbaar staatsman (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2020), 191–193, 225–227; James Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 217–254. 8 Abraham C. Flipse, “Against the Science-Religion Conflict: The Genesis of a Calvinist Science Faculty in the Netherlands in the Early Twentieth Century,” Annals of Science 65 (2008), 363– 391. “Christelijke Vereeniging van Natuur- en Geneeskundigen in Nederland”; “bij het licht van Gods Woord.”

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

70

Flipse

the members of this Society had been trained at one of the Dutch public universities, and as such were familiar with the practice of (naturalistic) science. At the same time, the inspiration they drew from neo-Calvinist ideals meant that the debate within this Christian Society was marked by neo-Calvinism. Around 1900, a similar development took place in the Roman Catholic community in the Netherlands, although the Catholics thought in terms of ‘emancipation’ more so than the neo-Calvinists. During the nineteenth century the Dutch Roman Catholic population had been in a position of cultural backwardness. This standing aloof in cultural and academic life was partly due to intentional exclusion by the liberal Protestant elite, but it was also caused in part by the attitude of the Catholics themselves. They had a certain apprehension towards the modern world in general, and of the sciences in particular. The sciences were associated with an unchristian, naturalistic and materialistic worldview, which formed a threat to moral values and the truth of Christianity. Only around the turn of the twentieth century did this attitude slowly begin to change. In 1899 the Catholic writer and teacher Maarten Poelhekke (1864–1925) lectured on The Shortfall of Catholics in Science, referring not only to the small number of Catholic scientists but also hinting at what he saw as their shortcomings. He blamed his fellow believers for being too passive, and he called on them to ‘invade’ the academic world to make up this shortcoming. In particular, he exhorted them to follow the example set by Abraham Kuyper and his supporters.9 In the following decades, the Dutch Catholics’ passive and hostile attitude towards the sciences gradually dissipated and a process of emancipation began. In 1904, a “Society for the Advancement of Science among Catholics in the Netherlands” (hereafter: Catholic Scientific Society) was founded for Catholic graduates.10 In the following year, the Dutch bishops founded the St. Radboud Foundation, which was intended to establish special chairs for Thomistic philosophy at public universities, and, in the long term, to work towards the foundation of a Catholic University. It was only in 1923 that this Roman Catholic University was established, in Nijmegen, with faculties of Theology, Arts and Law. Faculties of Science and Medicine were only created after the Second World War.11 In the meantime, some professors at the Catholic seminar9 10 11

M.A.P.C. Poelhekke, Het Te-kort der Katholieken in de Wetenschap (Nijmegen: Malmberg, 1900), 27–28, 46. Hans Bornewasser, In de geest van Thijm. Ontwikkelingen in de verhouding tussen wetenschap en geloof. 1904–1984 (Baarn: Ambo, 1985). “Vereeniging tot het Bevorderen van de Beoefening der Wetenschap onder de Katholieken in Nederland.” Jan Brabers, Proeven van eigen cultuur. Vijfenzeventig jaar Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. 1923–1998. Deel 1: 1923–1960 (Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers, 1998); Hub. Laeven and Lodewijk

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

71

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

ies also began to pay attention to the sciences. Some of the priests, especially Jesuits who had graduated in one of the sciences at the public universities, stimulated their students to attend university as they themselves had done. In 1894 the Dominican J.V. de Groot (1848–1922) was appointed to a special chair for Thomistic Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam and in 1909 J.Th. Beysens (1864–1945) became professor for Thomistic philosophy at Utrecht University. De Groot and Beysens can be viewed as the founding fathers of neo-Thomism in the Netherlands. Both men were influenced by the work of (the later cardinal) Désiré-Joseph Mercier, founder of the Higher Institute of Philosophy at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, the international centre of neo-Thomism.12 The Catholic Scientific Society aimed at “promoting the sciences amongst Dutch Catholics,” an aim that points to the dominant motive of emancipation. Thus, over the years many more or less specialist scientific lectures were delivered at the Society’s meetings. However, efforts were also made to find specifically Catholic, neo-Thomist answers to the questions of the age. The aim of the University was more comprehensive and its statutes stated that “the R.C. university recognizes, for all its scientific work, as the highest authority God’s revealed truth, of which the R.C. Church is acknowledged to be the bearer.” Many Catholic graduates who had studied at one of the public universities and who were members of the Catholic Scientific Society were initially rather critical of the foundation of a free, Catholic university, fearing that it would lead to isolationism. However, in 1923 some of the Catholic Society’s critical members decided to devote themselves to the Catholic University when they were appointed professors.13 3 Neo-Calvinist and Neo-Thomist Views of the Sciences: Foundational Ideas The neo-Calvinist and neo-Thomist ideals of science had important similarities, which distinguished them from the liberal view. In addition, several Winkeler, Radboudstichting 1905–2005 (Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers, 2005). Joep van Gennip and Marie-Antoinette Th. Willemsen (eds.), Het geloof dat inzicht zoekt. Religieuzen en de wetenschap (Hilversum: Verloren, 2010); Laeven and Winkeler, Radboudstichting, 143–155. 13 Bornewasser, In de geest van Thijm, 46–48; Brabers, Proeven van eigen cultuur, 141: “De R.K. Universiteit huldigt bij de beoefening en bevordering der wetenschap als hoogste gezag de door God geopenbaarde waarheid, waarvan zij de Roomsch Katholieke Kerk als draagster belijdt.” 12

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

72

Flipse

elements of the neo-Calvinist view of science were derived from neo-Thomism. Alongside this, the way neo-Thomism took shape in the Netherlands was also influenced by neo-Calvinism. When Bavinck published a brochure under the title “Christian science” in 1904, he referred expressly to the neo-Thomist view advanced by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Aeterni Patris. Bavinck wrote: “Amongst Roman Catholics, particularly since the encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII on August 14, 1879, recommending the study of Thomas, a zeal has awakened to pursue science in accordance with Thomistic principles, which must put faithful Protestants to shame.” Bavinck’s brochure was reviewed with approval in the Jesuit periodical Studiën.14 In the area of academic teaching and research the Dutch Calvinists and Catholics had similar interests, and thus stood together in opposing the liberals. The public debate flared up in 1904, when as the Minister responsible, Kuyper proposed an amendment to the Law on Higher Education that facilitated religious initiatives in academia (namely, the establishment of free universities and special professorships).15 Calvinists and Catholics now jointly and publicly defended the right to establish Christian universities, and the development of a ‘Christian science.’ From their debates with the liberals it appears that the neo-Calvinists and the neo-Thomists did not reject modern science, but rather that they were not willing to adopt it simpliciter. They viewed mainstream ‘modern science’ as part and parcel of the liberal, non-Christian culture, to which neo-Calvinists and neo-Thomists proposed their own alternative views of science and society. Alongside ‘liberal science,’ they argued, an equivalent ‘Christian science’ should be allowed to develop.16 Both neo-Calvinists and neo-Thomists contested the view that faith and science should be kept separate and that they were in conflict. Religion should be allowed – if necessary, through the mediation offered by philosophy – to have a normative role in the sciences. Kuyper advanced these ideas in his Encyclopaedia 14

H. Bavinck, Christelijke wetenschap (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1904), 6–7: “Met name is er bij de Roomsche Christenen, vooral na de encycliek, door Paus Leo XIII den 4den Aug. 1879 uitgevaardigd tot aanbeveling van de studie van Thomas, een ijver tot beoefening der wetenschap overeenkomstig diens beginselen ontwaakt, die geloovige Protestanten diep moet beschamen.” Review: “Christelijke wetenschap, door Dr. H. Bavinck,” Studiën. Tijdschrift voor godsdienst, wetenschap en letteren 37 (1904), 312–316. On Bavinck and neo-Thomism: J. Veenhof, “De God van de filosofen en de God van de bijbel. Herman Bavinck en de wijsbegeerte,” in G. Harinck and G. Neven (eds.), Ontmoetingen met Herman Bavinck (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2006), 219–233. 15 C. de Ru, De strijd over het hoger onderwijs tijdens het Ministerie-Kuyper (Kampen: Kok, 1953). 16 Flipse, Christelijke wetenschap, 67–79.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

73

of Sacred Theology (1893–1895), his Stone Lecture on ‘Calvinism and Science,’ which he gave at Princeton Seminary in 1898, and in his Common Grace in Science and Art (1905).17 In these works Kuyper emphasized – in contrast to proponents of the idea that there had always been ‘warfare’ between science and faith – that such a conflict did not exist. The ‘conflict view,’ the idea that science and (orthodox) religion were necessarily antagonistic, was widespread in the late nineteenth century. It was advocated by scientific naturalists like Thomas Huxley and John Tyndall, and by the German monist Ernst Haeckel. It was also the Leitmotiv in such books as History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and A History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom (1896).18 According to Kuyper, however, there was no conflict between science and religion. The real conflict was the “antithesis” between “normalism” (a naturalistic worldview) and “abnormalism” (a theistic worldview). Kuyper argued that science is not religiously neutral, but is, rather, affected by faith: “Every science in a certain degree starts from faith, and, on the contrary, faith which does not lead to science, is mistaken faith.” A conflict between Christian and non-Christian science was inevitable because they proceeded from different religious presuppositions or principles.19 A similar voice was heard in Catholic circles. Like the neo-Calvinists, the neo-Thomists were strongly opposed to the idea that there was an essential

17

18 19

Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid. Deel 2. Algemeen deel (1894; Kampen: Kok, 2nd edn 1909), 97–161. Abraham Kuyper, “Calvinism and Science,” in Calvinism: Six lectures delivered in the Theological Seminary at Princeton (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1899), 143–188. Abraham Kuyper, De gemeene gratie in wetenschap en kunst (Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser, 1905). J.W. Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton, 1874); A.D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (New York: D. Appleton, 1896). Kuyper, “Calvinism and Science,” 173. A great deal has been written about Kuyper’s ideas on science and the university. See e.g.: Del Ratzsch, “Abraham Kuyper’s Philosophy of Science,” in Jitse M. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science, Vol. 2: The Role of Beliefs in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences: An Augustinian Perspective (Lanham: University Press of America, 1996), 1–32; J. Klapwijk, “Abraham Kuyper on Science, Theology and University,” in Steve Bishop and John H. Kok (eds.), On Kuyper: A Collection of Readings on the Life, Work & Legacy of Abraham Kuyper (Sioux Centre, Iowa: Dordt College Press, 2013), 221–245 (also published in Philosophia Reformata 78 (2013), 18–46); George Harinck, “Twin Sisters with a Changing Character: How neo-Calvinists Dealt with the Modern Discrepancy between the Bible and Modern Science,” in Jitse M. van der Meer and Scott Mandelbrote (eds.), Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700-Present, Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 317–370; Flipse, Christelijke wetenschap, 56–59, 84–93.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

74

Flipse

conflict between science and faith.20 Therefore, with respect to the Catholic University and the Catholic Society, the question arose: is the only aim of these Catholic organizations to stimulate participation in mainstream science (‘emancipation’), or should Catholics develop their own ‘Catholic science’ – and if so, what should it look like? Although most Catholic intellectuals admitted that to a certain extent science was independent of faith, they also agreed that faith should play an evaluative role in science, for example in interpreting results, developing theories, and formulating or judging hypotheses. The bridge between faith and science was, they agreed, the philosophy of neo-Thomism. As early as 1879, in the encyclical Aeterni Patris, Pope Leo XIII had recommended the study of St. Thomas Aquinas in order to achieve a new synthesis of science and faith. This new synthesis was denoted (also among Catholics) as ‘Christian science’ or ‘Catholic science.’21 In particular, the neo-Calvinists and the neo-Thomists opposed what they called the ‘mechanist’ character of nineteenth-century science. This was also the reason for their criticism of the (Darwinian) theory of evolution, as will be discussed later in this chapter. For the neo-Calvinists a machine-like, autonomous view of nature was irreconcilable with God’s providence and involvement with this world. For neo-Thomists the stumbling block was particularly the mechanist concept of matter, which clashed with that of Aristotle and Thomas in which teleological notions play an important role. For both groups their ideal of science implied renewed positive valuation of teleological thinking in opposition to mainstream science. 4

Neo-Calvinist and Neo-Thomist Views of Evolution

What did this general view of science mean for their attitude to evolutionary theory? Abraham Kuyper’s view, which he formulated eloquently and persuasively

20

S. van den Anker, “Draper’s geschiedenis van de worsteling tusschen godsdienst en wetenschap,” Studiën 11 (1878), Vol. 11, 305–369. See also, Don O’Leary, Roman Catholicism and Modern Science (New York/London: Continuum, 2006), 22, 41. 21 Bornewasser, In de geest van Thijm, 52–54; Brabers, Proeven van eigen cultuur, 73–75; Flipse, Christelijke wetenschap, 125–128; Kaat Wils, De omweg van de wetenschap. Het positivisme en de Belgische en Nederlandse intellectuele cultuur, 1895–1914 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005), 346–354. Concerning the (seeming) differences between the neo-Calvinist and neo-Thomist views of reason, see: Eduardo J. Echeverria, “Fides et Ratio. The Catholic and the Calvinist: Prospects for Rapprochement,” Philosophia Reformata 65 (2000), 72–104.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

75

in his rectorial address on ‘Evolution’ in 1899, is well-known.22 A few points in this lecture are relevant here. First, Kuyper did not adduce the text of the book of Genesis against evolutionary theory. Indeed, his lecture only contains one remark about the Genesis story, which seems to support a kind of developmental view on creation: “Scripture states that ‘the earth brought forth herb yielding seed after its kind’ and also that ‘the earth brought forth the cattle and everything that creepeth upon the earth,’ not that they were set down upon the earth by God like pieces upon a chessboard.”23 Alongside this, he was very critical of “Darwinism,” i.e. the theory of natural selection. He pointed to the scientific problems in the Darwinian theory of evolution at the time, such as the lack of an adequate theory of heredity, and the incompleteness of the fossil record. He was not alone in this opinion. Many scientists around 1900 felt that natural selection was unsatisfactory. This was the period of the ‘eclipse of Darwinism,’ in which many opted for alternative theories, such as neo-Lamarckism, saltationism, or some form of orthogenesis. Kuyper also fundamentally criticized the principle of natural selection because it was naturalistic, mechanistic, and a-teleological. As such, it could not be combined with belief in a providential and interventionist God, “who first prepares the plan and then omnipotently executes it.”24 He was especially critical of those who made Darwinism into a worldview. According to Kuyper, especially the monist philosophy of life advocated by Ernst Haeckel and the evolutionary ethics of Herbert Spencer were systems that repudiated the essence of ethics, aesthetics, and religion.25 Bavinck’s publications on science and scholarship include a contribution to a pamphlet in which opinions ‘pro’ and ‘contra’ evolution were discussed.26 22

23 24 25 26

Abraham Kuyper, “Evolution,” in: Bratt (ed.), Kuyper Centennial Reader, 405–440. Originally published as Evolutie. Rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit op 20 October 1899 gehouden (Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser 1899). In the course of time, different interpretations of Kuyper’s address have been put forward, including: Clarence Menninga, “Critical Reflections on Abraham Kuyper’s Evolutie Address,” Calvin Theological Journal 33 (1998), 435–443; Ratzsch, “Kuyper’s Philosophy of Science,” 15–16; Peter S. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 104–111; Gijsbert van den Brink, “Evolution as a Bone of Contention between Church and Academy: How Abraham Kuyper Can Help Us Bridge the Gap,” in Gordon Graham (ed.), The Kuyper Center Review, Volume 5: Church and Academy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 92–103, on 94–98. Kuyper, “Evolution,” 438–439. Kuyper, “Evolution,” 427–428, 437. For the scientific crisis in Darwinism around 1900: Peter J. Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983). Kuyper, “Evolution,” 431–435. H. Bavinck, “Contra,” in P.G. Buekers and H. Bavinck, Pro en Contra Evolutie (Baarn: Hollandia, 1907); a translation is included in John Bolt (ed.), Essays on Religion, Science and

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

76

Flipse

Bavinck defended the ‘contra’ position, but like Kuyper, his criticism of evolutionary theory concentrated on its “mechanistic character.” Because of this, Bavinck argued, “it leaves no room for a plan or goal, but has a random character.”27 The “mechanistic worldview” which, according to Bavinck, underlies the Darwinian view of evolution, a priori excluded supernatural interventions and prescribed that everything “should be reduced to mechanical motion.” Therefore, Darwinists claim that humankind is descended from animals, and that life emerged spontaneously from inorganic matter. How could it have happened otherwise?28 If the mechanistic, or naturalistic worldview were to be abandoned, Bavinck believed, an alternative worldview could produce a different theory. Such a theory might contain elements of Darwinism and would still be in harmony with belief in creation.29 On the Catholic side, Beysens developed a similar view. For Beysens, the issue of creation and evolution was also particularly relevant in the context of the opposition between mechanicism and teleology. In his view, Darwinism clashed head-on with the teleological view of nature, which was precisely the cause of its popularity in “anti-theist” circles. Darwinism, the theory of “physico-mechanical adaptation to external conditions; the struggle for life and the concomitant natural selection,” was, according to Beysens, a theory with a “concretized mechanist random” character and therefore it was reprehensible.30 In a brochure on evolution published in 1902, Beysens argued that there was as yet insufficient evidence to accept evolutionary theory, but left open the possibility that this might well be found in the future. He indicated certain a priori conditions that any evolutionary theory would have to satisfy in order to be acceptable to Catholics. It had to assume essential boundaries in nature between, what he called, “philosophical species” and it had to involve teleological concepts. “Darwinism,” the theory of natural selection, was therefore an

27 28 29 30

Society: Herman Bavinck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 105–118. On Bavinck and science: Al Wolters, “Herman Bavinck on Faith and Science,” in van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science Vol. 2, 33–56; Willem J. de Wit, On the Way to the Living God. A Cathartic Reading of Herman Bavinck and an Invitation to Overcome the Plausibility Crisis of Christianity (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2011), 52–94. Bavinck, “Contra,” 26: “Van een plan en een doel […] is geen sprake, [maar ze draagt] een toevallig karakter.” Bavinck, “Contra,” 36: “De dingen [moeten] tot mechanische bewegingen herleid kunnen worden.” Bavinck, “Contra,” 37–38. J.Th. Beysens, Theodicee of natuurlijke Godsleer (Amsterdam: C.L. van Langenhuysen, [1907]), 211–212, 220: “physisch-mechanische aanpassing aan de uiterlijke omstandigheden; strijd om het bestaan en de daaraan verbonden natuurkeus”; “geconcretiseerde-mechanistische-toevalstheorie.”

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

77

unacceptable theory: it could not be reconciled with a teleological conception of nature.31 In their general approach to science, and also in their views on evolution, there are many similarities between neo-Calvinism and neo-Thomism around 1900. Both groups aimed at offering an alternative, based on their own worldview, to nineteenth-century science which had, in their view, gone off the rails in various respects. This concerned in particular its naturalistic and mechanistic character, which was most clearly visible in Darwin’s theory of evolution, which seemed to exclude any form of goal-directedness. However, there might seem to be a difference between the neo-Calvinist and neo-Thomist views of the Bible. As is well known, the absolute authority of Scripture played a central role in neo-Calvinist theology.32 Was this perhaps different in the Catholic tradition? And is this not the point at which the greatest problems in the debate on creation and evolution arise? However, the view of the Bible as infallible, as found in Kuyper and Bavinck, is not fundamentally different from the equivalent views found in the relevant Catholic documents on this issue, especially the encyclical Providentissimus Deus of 1893. The more precise guidelines of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909 for a literal-historical exegesis of the first chapters of Genesis are reminiscent of the (later) declarations of the Reformed synod of Assen of 1926.33 It is true, however, that Kuyper and Bavinck discussed the relation of the Bible and science more explicitly than the neo-Thomist natural philosophers, but like most orthodox Protestants in the Anglo-Saxon world, Dutch neo-Calvinists were inclined to harmonize the findings of modern geology with the creation account in a ‘concordistic’ way, for example by using a day-age interpretation

31

J.Th. Beysens, De ontwikkelingsgeschiedenis der organische soorten (Leiden: Théonville, 1902), 19, 45, 95 and passim. 32 Koert van Bekkum, “Zekerheid en Schriftgezag in neo-calvinistische visies op de historici­ teit van de bijbel,” in Koert van Bekkum and Rien Rouw (eds.), Geloven in zekerheid? Gereformeerd geloven in een postmoderne tijd (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2000), 77–108; Dirk van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek. Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer (Kok: Kampen, 2003). 33 Leo XIII, Providentissium Deus (http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/ documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html); Pontifical Biblical Commission, “Concerning the historical nature of the first three chapters of Genesis - June 30, 1909” (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p100.htm#Response) (both accessed 11 February 2021); O’Leary, Roman Catholicism and Modern Science, 68–72, 124–126. Cf. Koert van Bekkum, “‘In More or Less Figurative Language.’ The Dutch neo-Calvinist Fascination with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893) and its Aftermath,” in this volume, 21–45.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

78

Flipse

of Genesis 1.34 Moreover, the worldview approach was dominant among the neo-Calvinist theologians. It is also noticeable that both groups were more precise in their criticism of the positions they rejected than in the formulation of their own favourite alternatives. It was up to the scientists to develop these alternative scientific theories. 5

Scientists and Theologians in the Interbellum Period

How did the scientists appropriate the neo-Calvinist and neo-Thomist foundational views? How did they try to flesh them out? In the Netherlands, both Calvinist and Catholic scientists took the views of their communities as their starting point, and thought about the relation of faith and science within this framework. What were the results of this reflection? For the interbellum period, I will give two examples: the views of the Reformed biologist J.P. de Gaay Fortman and of the Catholic biologist A.C.J. van Goor. They both used the options provided in the view of science developed in their traditions in order to move forward, without making a break with the neo-Calvinist and neo-Thomist traditions. The Calvinist scientists who were active in the 1920s and 1930s had learned from the neo-Calvinist leaders that ‘the mechanistic worldview’ and naturalistic science were in conflict with Christianity. However, encouraged by some ideas of the late Bavinck, who had shown more openness to modern culture, they stressed that the contemporary situation was different from its nineteenth century antecedent. ‘Naturalism’ was a thing of the past, they believed, and mainstream science could not be considered suspect simply because it was based on non-Calvinist principles. Moreover, many of the practising scientists increasingly demarcated a domain of ‘pure’ scientific research, in which religion does not play a direct role, from the domain where it does. They continued to discuss the proper relation between science and religion for this domain of ‘natural philosophy,’ where religion is involved.35 34

35

See, for example, Abraham Kuyper, “Van de voleinding,” De Heraut, 3 November 1912 – 5 January 1913. The series is partly included in Abraham Kuyper, Van de Voleinding, Vol II (Kampen: Kok, 1929). See also W. Geesink, Van ’s Heeren ordinantiën Inleidend deel (1907; Kampen: Kok, 2nd edn 1926), 245–246. Cf. Abraham C. Flipse, “The Origins of Creationism in the Netherlands: The Evolution Debate Among Twentieth-Century Dutch neo-Calvinists,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 81 (2012), 104–147, on 113–116. H.R. Woltjer, “Natuurkunde en natuurfilosofie,” Orgaan van de Christelijke Vereeniging van Natuur- en Geneeskundigen in Nederland (1927), 1–14. Flipse, “Against the Science-Religion Conflict,” 379; Flipse, Christelijke wetenschap, 155–157.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

79

This allowed some of the Calvinist scientists to go so far as to accept the biological theory of evolution. One such Calvinist scientist was J.P. de Gaay Fortman (1887–1983), a zoologist by training, biology teacher and co-author of a series of biology textbooks for Christian secondary education. In several lectures and articles for the Christian Society and for Calvinist student groups, he argued that if it is used purely scientifically, there is no objection to the idea of evolution. He expressly wanted to follow in Bavinck’s wake, but he developed concrete ideas to fill the space that Bavinck had created. In his dissertation (1918) he made the following claim, which he had discussed with Bavinck himself: “In the theory of evolution, if it is conceived in a non-mechanistic way, there is a truth that has to be recognized from the theistic point of view.”36 In 1926 he argued that Bavinck had been too critical of evolutionary theory, certainly in the light of developments in science. It was perhaps understandable, he said, that Bavinck had identified evolutionary theory with the mechanist worldview, but such an identification was not justified. In his view, it was quite possible to accept “the fact of evolution” without accepting the mechanistic worldview. He regretted that Bavinck and others had simply identified evolution with the mechanistic worldview, although that had been understandable thirty years previously.37 A similar step was made on the Catholic side. A.C.J. van Goor (1881–1925), a young scientist who had received a doctorate in biology from the University of Amsterdam and had worked in that field as a researcher, argued for the Catholic acceptance of the “theory of descent.” In this effort, he attempted to coordinate his view with the neo-Thomist approach, and in particular Beysens’ publications. In his view, however, Beysens had been too critical in 1902, and the time had now come to accept some form of evolution. In contrast to de Gaay Fortman, van Goor did not have to take this step on his own, but rather was publicly supported by Beysens himself. In 1916, together with the seminary professor in dogmatics, G. van Noort (1861–1946), van Goor and Beysens published a book entitled The Evolutionary History of Organic Life, From the

36

37

J.P. de Gaay Fortman, Onderzoekingen over de ontwikkeling van de wervelkolom der amphibiën, in ’t bijzonder bij Megalobatrachus maximus (Leiden: Brill, 1918), proposition XV: “In de evolutieleer, mits niet mechanistisch opgevat, ligt een waarheid, die ook van het standpunt van het theisme dient te worden erkend.” J.P. de Gaay Fortman, “De evolutie-gedachte”; and “Wederwoord,” Orgaan der Societas Studiosorum Reformatorum, January 1930, 88–92, 150–153, esp. 150. J.P. de Gaay Fortman, “Evolutie en christelijke wetenschap,” in Gedenkboek der Societas Studiosorum Reformatorum ter gelegenheid van haar 8ste lustrum 1886–1926 (Rotterdam: J.H. Donner, 1926), 107–112.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

80

Flipse

Perspective of Philosophy, Science and Theology.38 In that book they argued that neo-Thomist philosophy and Church doctrine were not hostile to the idea of evolution in the natural world as such – as long as one held on to a teleological evolutionary mechanism, a hylemorphic concept of matter, and the belief that God had created the “potentiality for life” in the beginning. The immaterial, immortal human soul was excluded a priori from the process of evolution: it was created immediately by God. Subsequently the authors discussed the “facts” of geology, palaeontology, embryology, morphology and genetics. It had been shown, they explained, that in successive geological ages more and more groups of increasingly complex plants and animals had emerged, with a number of theories having been proposed to explain these facts. The authors concluded that “monophyletic evolution” and not, for example, an ongoing creation of new species by God, was the most probable explanation of the phenomena. Moreover, they argued that the “ongoing creation hypothesis” would be at odds with St. Thomas’s rule, “not to assume miracles or supernatural interference when a natural explanation is available.”39 Van Goor was anxious to give his view a strong Thomistic foundation. Besides having been influenced by Beysens, he also used the ideas of the Belgian Catholic geologist Henry de Dorlodot. When corresponding on evolution in 1913–14, de Dorlodot had assured him that belief in God as the Causa Prima, who worked indirectly in the created world by means of causae secundae, had always been an article of faith for the Church.40 However, the ideas of de Gaay Fortman and van Goor were a bridge too far for the majority of orthodox Calvinists and Catholics, and as such, both met with ecclesiastical resistance. De Gaay Fortman even left the Reformed Churches after the Geelkerken Case (which will be discussed later in this chapter), although he remained an active member of the Christian Society, and after the Second World War he was even appointed as a lecturer at the Vrije Universiteit. Van Goor’s ideas were also rejected by the Church. Despite the strong Thomistic foundation that the authors had provided for their views, Church Censorship, influenced by anti-modernist advisors, withheld the ‘imprimatur’ for the 1916 book, for which reason it could not be published for the general

38 39 40

J.Th. Beysens, A.C.J. van Goor, and G. van Noort, De ontwikkelingsgeschiedenis van het organische leven. Wijsgerig, natuurwetenschappelijk en theologisch beschouwd (Leiden: Théonville, 1916). Beysens, van Goor and van Noort, De ontwikkelingsgeschiedenis, 40 and passim. De Dorlodot to van Goor, 2 January 1914, Van Goor Archive, Katholiek Documentatiecentrum Nijmegen. On de Dorlodot, see O’Leary, Roman Catholicism and Modern Science, 126–129.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

81

public.41 Nevertheless an adapted version of van Goor’s book was published in 1918 and discussed in the relative seclusion of the Catholic Scientific Society. Here the reactions varied from qualified approval to indignant rejection. The majority of the members, however, were prepared to accept a Thomistic evolutionary theory for the plant and animal world.42 Internationally, the Catholic Church was equally reluctant to accept evolutionary theory, as is apparent from the way de Dorlodot was thwarted behind the scenes.43 Whereas the tensions regarding creation and evolution in the Catholic world remained largely behind the scenes, a fierce public controversy flared up in Reformed circles during the 1920s and 1930s. The second generation of neo-Calvinist theologians, who were active in this period, were in several respects stricter than the founding fathers had been. They were inclined to reject the outcomes of scientific research and also held stricter views on the authority of Scripture and the interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis.44 In this period, the notorious ‘Geelkerken Case’ took place. The Reverend J.G. Geelkerken (1879–1960), a Reformed minister, had publicly doubted whether the story of the Fall (Genesis 2–3) should be taken literally. In 1926 the Synod of the Reformed Churches decided to suspend Geelkerken. Contemporaries compared it with the Scopes ‘monkey trial’ that had taken place in Dayton, Tennessee, one year before.45 At first sight, the parallel seems only superficial. The Geelkerken Case was an ecclesiastical process about the interpretation of Scripture, and was not about the teaching of evolution in public schools. Nevertheless, at a deeper, cultural level, there are parallels. The Dutch Calvinists, like the American Evangelicals, were in a process of reorientation in 41 42

43 44

45

L.J. Rogier, Katholieke Herleving. Geschiedenis van Katholiek Nederland sinds 1853 (’s-Gravenhage: Pax, 1956), 493–494; L.J. Rogier and N. de Rooy, In vrijheid herboren. Katholiek Nederland, 1853–1953 (’s-Gravenhage: Pax, 1953), 574–575. A.C.J. van Goor, J. Hoogveld, and G. van Noort, De afstammingsleer en de tegenwoordige stand der natuurwetenschap. Wijsgerige gegevens. Theologische Inleiding. Praeadvies (1918); Annalen Vereeniging tot het bevorderen van de beoefening der wetenschap onder de katholieken in Nederland (1918), 123–160. Raf de Bont, “Rome and Theistic Evolutionism: The Hidden Strategies behind the ‘Dorlodot Affair,’ 1920–1926,” Annals of Science 62 (2005), 457–478. Maarten Aalders, 125 jaar Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid aan de Vrije Universiteit (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005), 161–163; C.M. van Driel, Gewantrouwd gereformeerd. Het omstreden leiderschap van neocalvinist Arie Noordtzij (1871–1944) (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2010), 18–26, 266–295. “De ‘monkey trial’ in Nederland,” Het Vaderland, 8 September 1925; “Fundamentalisme in Amerika en Nederland, I. Meester Scopes en ds. Geelkerken,” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 20 October 1925; “Fundamentalisme in Amerika en Nederland, II. ‘Bryan is not dead’,” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 21 October 1925.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

82

Flipse

the interwar years. There was a group that favoured greater openness towards modern culture, although many church leaders tightened the reins and initiated more conservative, ‘fundamentalist’ policies.46 Theologians at the Vrije Universiteit like G.Ch. Aalders (1880–1961) and V. Hepp (1879–1950) were inspired in this approach by American fundamentalist writers. In their efforts to advocate the ideal of a ‘Christian science,’ they appealed to anti-evolutionistic writers like the Canadian amateur-geologist and Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price (1870–1963). Nowadays, Price is considered the founding father of twentieth century ‘young-earth creationism.’ Price did not believe that there was a natural order in the fossil-bearing rocks, but instead held that the Earth was only 6000 years old, and proposed that all the fossils were deposited during a worldwide flood.47 In 1930 the professor of dogmatics, Hepp, gave the Stone Lectures in Princeton in which he sketched the outlines of a Calvinist natural science. His ideal of a ‘Christian geology’ he derived largely from Price’s book The New Geology (1923).48 Price’s influence is also apparent in the influential exegetical work of the Old Testament professor Aalders. In 1932, he published Divine Revelation in the First Three Chapters of Genesis, in which, page after page, he discussed the “theory of descent” alongside a variety of geological issues. Aalders also relied heavily on Price’s theories, which saw no need of “many millions of years,” but instead posited the flood as the explanation of fossils and geological strata.49 In the meantime, Calvinist scientists realized that the young earth creationist ideas advanced by theologians were unworkable. In their view, these ‘young earth’ theories had nothing to do with science, but rather were pipe dreams.50 These scientists (and some theologians) who showed more 46

47 48 49 50

Maarten J. Aalders, Heeft de slang gesproken? Het strijdbare leven van dr. J.G. Geelkerken (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2013), 307–313; George Harinck, “De kwestie-Geelkerken en de moderne cultuur,” in George Harinck (ed.), De kwestie-Geelkerken. Een terugblik na 75 jaar (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2001), 69–86; Cf. Stuart Mathieson and Abraham C. Flipse, “Religious Controversy in Comparative Context: Ulster, the Netherlands and South Africa in the 1920s,” History: The Journal of the Historical Association Vol. 106, Issue 371 (2021): 429–55. Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Expanded Edition (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), 88–119. V. Hepp, Calvinism and the Philosophy of Nature: The Stone Lectures Delivered at Princeton in 1930 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930), 183–223; G. McCready Price, The New Geology (Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press, 1923). G.Ch. Aalders, De Goddelijke openbaring in de eerste drie hoofdstukken van Genesis (Kampen: Kok, 1932), esp. 284–298. W.J.A. Schouten, “Calvinisme en natuurphilosophie (Een beoordeling van prof. Hepp’s Stone-lectures),” Orgaan van de Christelijke Vereeniging van Natuur- en Geneeskundigen in

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

83

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

openness to evolutionary science were relegated to the margins or left the neoCalvinist fold altogether. Consequently, the relative openness towards science (including evolution and historical geology) of the turn-of-the-century founders of neo-Calvinism was replaced with a restricted, young earth doctrine.51 The Calvinist biologist de Gaay Fortman and the Catholic biologist van Goor believed that some form of evolution could be accepted within their respective neo-Calvinistic and neo-Thomistic frameworks. However, this claim was not met with overwhelming acceptance amongst their co-believers and churches. For this reason, the discussion on creation and evolution came to a virtual standstill between 1930 and 1950, and was largely limited to discussions among the scientists themselves. In particular the approach taken by the Reformed theologians restricted the elbow-room available to neo-Calvinist scientists, although those in Catholic circles had slightly more space to develop novel ideas. The Vatican was not particularly fond of evolution, but did not seek an alternative in the direction of young earth creationism.52 6

Neo-Calvinist and Neo-Thomist Scientists in the 1950s

Only after the Second World War was this thread picked up anew. Both Reformed and Roman Catholic scientists claimed room for further reflection on the theme of creation and evolution, independently of theologians and the church. They also began to write about the topic for a wider audience. Within neo-Calvinist circles in the Netherlands, the Vrije Universiteit professor of biology Jan Lever (1922–2010) played a central role in the discussion. His great achievement (or, according to others, his fault) is sometimes taken to be that he rejected the traditional Reformed view of the Bible, before many theologians of the Vrije Universiteit did so.53 However, Lever’s focus was different. During the 1950s, Lever published on a range of topics. His first articles in 1945 concerned Kuyper’s Evolution address, in which Lever did not discuss

51 52

53

Nederland (1931), 51–81; A. de Graaf, De wereld in den loop der tijden (Zutphen: G.J.A. Ruys [1938]), passim. More extensively in Flipse, “The Origins of Creationism,” 122–130. Stefaan Blancke, “Catholic Responses to Evolution, 1859–2009: Local Influences and MidScale Patterns,” Journal of Religious History 37 (2013), 353–368; Gijsbert van den Brink, “‘Meer dan een hypothese.’ Patronen in de rooms-katholieke receptie van de evolutietheorie,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 58 (2018), 135–152. Hittjo Kruyswijk, Baas in eigen Boek? Evolutietheorie en Schriftgezag bij de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1881–1981) (Hilversum: Verloren, 2011), 233–236; Van Deursen, The Distinctive Character, 266–267.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

84

Flipse

the Bible.54 In the period 1948–1950, together with the philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd, Lever co-authored a series of articles on the concept of species in Philosophia Reformata.55 In his inaugural lecture (1952), Lever continued this approach, and in his best-known book, Creation and Evolution (1956), he did of course discuss Genesis, but dismissed what he called the ‘fundamentalism’ of Aalders, Hepp, and others. This dismissal, however, only occupied a few pages.56 Most of the book deals with philosophy and biology. He used the neo-Calvinist conceptual tool kit to argue that there is a place for evolution within all kinds of worldviews, both Christian and naturalistic. Lever explained that it was possible to accept the biological theory of evolution and at the same time adhere to belief in a providential God who guided the evolutionary process. Referring to Kuyper, he called this “divine evolutionistic creation.”57 He believed that the theory of evolution could be incorporated in the Christian worldview, and did not necessarily imply “evolutionism,” a worldview that conceives the process of evolution as autonomous and independent of God.58 As such, Lever used the resources available within neo-Calvinism in an effort to make evolution acceptable. The reaction to this on the part of Reformed theologians was cautiously positive, although they did not engage with Lever’s philosophical approach.59 Instead they threw themselves into a debate on the authority of Scripture. As a result, in the public discussion about creation and evolution in the Netherlands, the original neo-Calvinist voice was to be heard less and less from the 1970s onwards.60 For decades, the debate would be dominated by young earth creationists and their opponents, with the Netherlands even attracting attention as a hotspot in the global creation-evolution debate. 54

J. Lever, “Evolutie. Dr. A. Kuyper, 20 October 1899,” I–IV, Polemios, 17 November 1945, 1 December 1945, 19 January 1946, 2 February 1946. 55 See Harry Cook and Abraham C. Flipse, “Jan Lever: Challenging the Role of Typological Thinking in Reformational Views of Biology,” Philosophia Reformata, 82:1 (2017), 3–25. 56 J. Lever, Het creationisme. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogle­ raar aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op 22 september 1952 (Wageningen: Zomer & Keunings, 1952); J. Lever, Creatie en evolutie (Wageningen: Zomer & Keunings, 1956), 10–14. [English: J. Lever, Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1958).] 57 Lever, Creatie en evolutie, 190. 58 J. Lever, “Evolutionisme,” in F.W. Grosheide and G.P. van Itterzon (eds.), Christelijke Encyclopedie. Tweede geheel herziene druk Vol. II (Kampen: Kok, 1957), 686–689. 59 See Gijsbert van den Brink, “‘All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis.’ G.C. Berkouwer on Scripture and Science,” in this volume, 93–113. 60 Abraham C. Flipse, “‘Natuuronderzoekers dagen de kerk uit.’ Natuurwetenschappers, theologen en de kerken in de jaren vijftig,” in George Harinck and Paul van Trigt (eds.), “In de vergifkast”? Protestantse organisaties tussen kerk en wereld in de jaren vijftig (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2013), 119–137, on 132–133.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

85

Indeed, it was only recently that thorough new studies from a Reformed perspective defending ‘theistic evolution’ have appeared within this tradition.61 In the meantime, views on evolution were changing within the Catholic tradition as well. A variety of ideas on the reconcilability of creation and evolution began to circulate among intellectuals, in reaction to which Pope Pius XII promulgated the encyclical Humani Generis (1952). This was the first time a declaration was made about evolutionary theory in an official document. Within a Thomist framework evolution was denoted as a valuable, although unproved hypothesis. Some restrictions were formulated concerning human origins. Nonetheless several intellectuals seized at the opportunity to create more room for the acceptance of evolutionary theory.62 One of these was the ‘natural philosopher’ Andreas van Melsen (1912–1994), professor at the Catholic University of Nijmegen since 1945. Van Melsen played a role in Catholic circles similar to that played by Lever in the Calvinist world. His books on the relation between faith, science and society – among them Evolution and Philosophy (1964) – were read by a wide audience.63 Van Melsen achieved a reconciliation of evolution and faith by giving a Christian interpretation of the evolutionary process. Following in the wake of the pre-war neo-Thomist natural philosophers, he assumed that God had created potentialities in matter, which had unfolded in the course of the evolutionary process. Van Melsen even suggested that it might not be necessary to think of a direct creation of the soul in the development from animal to the human being. On the other hand he stated that evolutionary data easily compels us to believe “that human origins should be viewed as a descent of the spirit into the body.”64 Although he did not indicate clearly how this approach to the evolutionary process should be conceived of scientifically – neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory is difficult to combine with the idea of the unfolding of potencies that 61

Stefaan Blancke, Abraham C. Flipse, and Johan Braeckman, “The Low Countries,” in S. Blancke, H.H. Hjermitslev and P.C. Kjærgaard (eds.), Creationism in Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014), 65–84; Gijsbert van den Brink, Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020). 62 Pius XII, Humani Generis, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html (accessed 11 February 2021); O’Leary, Roman Catholicism and Modern Science, 149–159. 63 A.G.M. van Melsen, Evolutie en wijsbegeerte (1964; Utrecht: Aula, 2nd edn 1968); Taede Smedes, “Denken over dansen: Het constitutieve verschil tussen geloof en wetenschap,” in Palmyre Oomen and Taede Smedes (eds.), Evolutie, cultuur en religie. Perspectieven vanuit biologie en theologie (Kampen: Kok, 2010), 123–151, on 134–136. 64 Van Melsen, Evolutie en wijsbegeerte, 95–105, 124–142, on 131: “dat de gedachte, dat de menswording als een indaling van de geest moet worden opgevat, zich gemakkelijk opdringt.”

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

86

Flipse

are already present – for many Catholics his ideas provided a convincing synthesis of faith and science. In the 1960s, other Catholics were rather taken with the ideas of the Jesuit palaeontologist, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955). Before the Second World War, Teilhard de Chardin had tried to reconcile evolution and faith in creation by propounding a mystical-evolutionist philosophy. However, his ideas deviated too far from official Catholic doctrine, and they were condemned by the Vatican. This did not prevent his books from gaining great popularity after his death.65 That particular development, however, takes us far beyond the framework of neo-Thomism. 7 Conclusion In summary we can say that neo-Calvinist and neo-Thomist attitudes towards the natural sciences around 1900 were less different than might be imagined today. Both can be viewed as attempts to come to terms with modernity, including modern science. On the whole, neo-Calvinists and neo-Thomists approached science positively, although they were critical of certain aspects of it. They developed a philosophical tool kit that enabled them to create a synthesis of science and religion that fitted in with their own worldview. Within these philosophical frameworks natural scientists tried to reconcile creation, faith and evolution. These scientists were increasingly willing to grant a certain degree of autonomy to science. Nevertheless, they did not break with neo-Calvinism or neo-Thomism but rather thought through the consequences of their traditions, in the process using some concepts in novel ways. In my view, there is a continuous line from the ‘founding fathers,’ via the debate during the interbellum period among scientists, to the syntheses that were put forward in the 1950s by the Calvinist Jan Lever, and the Catholic Andreas van Melsen. The view of the Reformed theologians in the interbellum period ought to be seen as an aberration, which arose due to an unfortunate combination of factors. Historians have analysed the social and cultural conditions in the Reformed community in the Netherlands that caused the theologians to opt for a more conservative line.66 From the above analysis, it has become clear that 65 O’Leary, Roman Catholicism and Modern Science, 158–159; B. Delfgaauw, Teilhard de Chardin (1964;. Baarn: Wereldvenster, 1974 14th edn); Marcel Sarot, “De waarheid is één. De Rooms-Katholieke Kerk en de evolutietheorie,” Radix 45 (2019), 112–122. 66 Cf. George Harinck (ed.), De kwestie-Geelkerken. Een terugblik na 75 jaar (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2001); Aalders, Heeft de slang gesproken?, 297–313.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

87

this move also had implications for the way the neo-Calvinists approached the sciences. The second generation of neo-Calvinist theologians combined two aspects of neo-Calvinism that, until then, had to a large extent remained separate: on the one hand, the ideal of a Christian science – an approach to science from a worldview perspective – and on the other, a strong belief in the authority of Scripture, including a more or less literal-historical interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. As a result, young earth creationism became part of the Dutch neo-Calvinist tradition. The road to a straightforward acceptance of ‘theistic evolution’ was blocked and it was only after the Second World War that the debate among neo-Calvinists was resumed and brought to a higher level. Nevertheless, among neo-Calvinists, the discussion about ‘creation or evolution’ was to flare up again and again in the second half of the twentieth century, whereas the Roman Catholics continued on their course towards reconciliation. Bibliography Aalders, G.Ch. (1932). De Goddelijke openbaring in de eerste drie hoofdstukken van Genesis. Kampen: Kok. Aalders, M. (2013). Heeft de slang gesproken? Het strijdbare leven van dr. J.G. Geelkerken. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Aalders, M. (2005). 125 jaar Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid aan de Vrije Universiteit. Zoe­ termeer: Meinema. Abbott, A. (1996). “Papal Confession: Darwin Was Right about Evolution.” Nature 383: 753. Anker, S. van den (1878). “Draper’s geschiedenis van de worsteling tusschen godsdienst en wetenschap.” Studiën 11, Vol. 11: 305–369. Annalen Vereeniging tot het bevorderen van de beoefening der wetenschap onder de katholieken in Nederland (1918). Bavinck, H. (1904). Christelijke wetenschap. Kampen: J.H. Kok. Bekkum, K. van (2000). “Zekerheid en Schriftgezag in neo-calvinistische visies op de historiciteit van de bijbel.” In: K. van Bekkum and R. Rouw (eds.), Geloven in zekerheid? Gereformeerd geloven in een postmoderne tijd. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 77–108. Bekkum, K. van (2023). “‘In More or Less Figurative Language.’ The Dutch neo-Calvinist Fascination with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893) and its Aftermath.” In: J. Eglinton and G. Harinck (eds.), Neo-Calvinism and Roman-Catholicism. Leiden: Brill, 21–45. Beysens, J.Th. (1902). De ontwikkelingsgeschiedenis der organische soorten. Leiden: Théonville.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

88

Flipse

Beysens, J.Th. (1907). Theodicee of natuurlijke Godsleer. Amsterdam: C.L. van Langenhuysen. Beysens, J.Th., A.C.J. van Goor, and G. van Noort (1916). De ontwikkelingsgeschiedenis van het organische leven. Wijsgerig, natuurwetenschappelijk en theologisch be­ schouwd. Leiden: Théonville. Blancke, S. (2013). “Catholic Responses to Evolution, 1859–2009: Local Influences and Mid-Scale Patterns.” Journal of Religious History 37: 353–368. Blancke, S., Flipse, A. and Braeckman, J. (2014). “The Low Countries,” in S. Blancke, H.H. Hjermitslev and P.C. Kjærgaard (eds.). Creationism in Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 65–84. Bolt, J. (ed.). (2008). Essays on Religion, Science and Society: Herman Bavinck. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Bont, R. de, (2005). “Rome and Theistic Evolutionism: The Hidden Strategies behind the ‘Dorlodot Affair,’ 1920–1926.” Annals of Science 62: 457–478. Bornewasser, H. (1985). In de geest van Thijm. Ontwikkelingen in de verhouding tussen wetenschap en geloof. 1904–1984. Baarn: Ambo. Bowler, P. (1983). The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Brabers, J. (1998). Proeven van eigen cultuur. Vijfenzeventig jaar Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. 1923–1998. Deel 1: 1923–1960. Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers. Bratt, J. (ed.). (1998). Abraham Kuyper. A Centennial Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brink, G. van den (2015). “Evolution as a Bone of Contention between Church and Academy: How Abraham Kuyper Can Help Us Bridge the Gap.” In: G. Graham (ed.). The Kuyper Center Review, Volume 5: Church and Academy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 92–103. Brink, G. van den (2018). “‘Meer dan een hypothese.’ Patronen in de rooms-katholieke receptie van de evolutietheorie.” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 58: 135–152. Brink, G. van den (2020). Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brink, G. van den (2023). “‘All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis.’ G.C. Berkouwer on Scripture and Science.” In: J. Eglinton and G. Harinck (eds.). Neo-Calvinism and Roman-Catholicism. Leiden: Brill, 93–113. Buekers, P.G., and Bavinck, H. (1907). Pro en Contra Evolutie. Baarn: Hollandia. “Christelijke wetenschap, door Dr. H. Bavinck.” Studiën. Tijdschrift voor godsdienst, wetenschap en letteren 37 (1904), 312–316. Cook, H. and Flipse, A. (2017). “Jan Lever: Challenging the Role of Typological Thinking in Reformational Views of Biology.” Philosophia Reformata, 82:1, 3–25. Davies, L. (2014). “Pope Francis: Evolution and Creation both Right,” The Guardian, 29 October, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/pope-says-evolution -and-creation-both-right (accessed 11 February 2021).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

89

Delfgaauw, B. (1974). Teilhard de Chardin. Baarn: Wereldvenster. Deursen, A.Th. van (2008). The Distinctive Character of the Free University in Amsterdam, 1880–2005, A Commemorative History. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Draper, J.W. (1874). History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. New York: D. Appleton. Driel, C.M. van (2010). Gewantrouwd gereformeerd. Het omstreden leiderschap van neocalvinist Arie Noordtzij (1871–1944). Barneveld: de Vuurbaak. Eglinton, J. (2020). Bavinck: A Critical Biography. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Echeverria, E. (2000). “Fides et Ratio. The Catholic and the Calvinist: Prospects for Rapprochement,” Philosophia Reformata 65: 72–104. Flipse, A (2008). “Against the Science-Religion Conflict: The Genesis of a Calvinist Science Faculty in the Netherlands in the Early Twentieth Century.” Annals of Science 65: 363–391. Flipse, A. (2012). “The Origins of Creationism in the Netherlands: The Evolution Debate Among Twentieth-Century Dutch neo-Calvinists.” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 81: 104–147. Flipse, A. (2013). “‘Natuuronderzoekers dagen de kerk uit.’ Natuurwetenschappers, theologen en de kerken in de jaren vijftig.” In: G. Harinck and P. van Trigt (eds.). “In de vergifkast”? Protestantse organisaties tussen kerk en wereld in de jaren vijftig. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 119–137. Flipse, A. (2014). Christelijke wetenschap. Nederlandse rooms-katholieken en gereformeerden over de natuurwetenschap, 1880–1940. Hilversum: Verloren. Gaay Fortman, J.P. de (1918). Onderzoekingen over de ontwikkeling van de wervelkolom der amphibiën, in ’t bijzonder bij Megalobatrachus maximus. Leiden: Brill. Gaay Fortman, J.P. de (1926). “Evolutie en christelijke wetenschap.” In: Gedenkboek der Societas Studiosorum Reformatorum ter gelegenheid van haar 8ste lustrum 1886–1926. Rotterdam: J.H. Donner, 107–112. Gaay Fortman, J.P. de (1930). “De evolutie-gedachte”; and “Wederwoord,” Orgaan der Societas Studiosorum Reformatorum, January, 88–92, 150–153. Geesink, W. (1907). Van ’s Heeren ordinantiën Inleidend deel. Kampen: Kok. Gennip, J. van, and Willemsen, M.A. (eds.), (2010). Het geloof dat inzicht zoekt. Religieuzen en de wetenschap. Hilversum: Verloren. Giberson, K. (2014). “The Christian Reformed Church Still Won’t Stand up for Science.” The Daily Beast, 29 June, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/29 /the-christian-reformed-church-still-won-t-stand-up-for-science.html (accessed 11 ­February 2021). Goor, A.C.J. van, Hoogveld, J. and Noort, G. van (1918). De afstammingsleer en de tegenwoordige stand der natuurwetenschap. Wijsgerige gegevens. Theologische Inleiding. Praeadvies. Graaf, A. de (1938). De wereld in den loop der tijden. Zutphen: G.J.A. Ruys.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

90

Flipse

Harinck, G. (2001). “De kwestie-Geelkerken en de moderne cultuur.” In: G. Harinck (ed.), De kwestie-Geelkerken. Een terugblik na 75 jaar. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 69–86. Harinck, G. (ed.), (2001). De kwestie-Geelkerken. Een terugblik na 75 jaar. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak. Harinck, G. (2008). “Twin Sisters with a Changing Character: How neo-Calvinists Dealt with the Modern Discrepancy between the Bible and Modern Science.” In: J. M. van der Meer and S. Mandelbrote (eds.). Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700-Present, Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 317–370. Hepp, V. (1930). Calvinism and the Philosophy of Nature: The Stone Lectures Delivered at Princeton in 1930. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Heslam, P. (1998). Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. John Paul II (2003). “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22 October 1996.” Papal Addresses to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 1917–2002 and to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences 1994–2002. Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 370–374. Keulen, D. van (2003). Bijbel en dogmatiek. Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer. Kok: Kampen. Klapwijk, J. (2013). “Abraham Kuyper on Science, Theology and University.” In: S. Bishop and J.H. Kok (eds.). On Kuyper: A Collection of Readings on the Life, Work & Legacy of Abraham Kuyper. Sioux Centre, Iowa: Dordt College Press, 221–245 (also published in Philosophia Reformata 78 (2013), 18–46). Kruyswijk, H. (2011). Baas in eigen Boek? Evolutietheorie en Schriftgezag bij de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1881–1981). Hilversum: Verloren. Kuyper, A. (1880). Souvereiniteit in eigen kring. Rede ter inwijding van de Vrije Universiteit, den 20sten October 1880 gehouden, in het koor van de Nieuwe Kerk te Amsterdam. Amsterdam: J.H. Kruyt. Kuyper, A. (1894). Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid. Deel 2. Algemeen deel. Kampen: Kok. Kuyper, A. (1899). “Calvinism and Science.” In: Kuyper, Calvinism: Six lectures delivered in the Theological Seminary at Princeton. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 143–188. Kuyper, A. (1899). Evolutie. Rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit op 20 October 1899 gehouden. Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser. Kuyper, A. (1905). De gemeene gratie in wetenschap en kunst. Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser. Kuyper, A. (1929). Van de Voleinding, Vol II. Kampen: Kok. Laeven, H., and Winkeler, L. (2005). Radboudstichting 1905–2005. Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers. Leo XIII, Providentissium Deus https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals /documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html (accessed 11 February 2021).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Shared Principles, Diverging Paths

91

Lever, J. (1945–46). “Evolutie. Dr. A. Kuyper, 20 October 1899” I–IV, Polemios, 17 November 1945, 1 December 1945, 19 January 1946, 2 February 1946. Lever, J. (1952). Het creationisme. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op 22 september 1952. Wageningen: Zomer & Keunings. Lever, J. (1956). Creatie en evolutie. Wageningen: Zomer & Keunings. Lever, J. (1957). “Evolutionisme.” In: F.W. Grosheide and G.P. van Itterzon (eds.). Christelijke Encyclopedie. Tweede geheel herziene druk Vol. II. Kampen: Kok, 686–689. Lever, J. (1958). Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications. Mathieson, S., and Flipse, A. (2021). “Religious Controversy in Comparative Context: Ulster, the Netherlands and South Africa in the 1920s,” History: The Journal of the Historical Association Vol. 106, Issue 371: 429–55. Melsen, A.G.M. van (1964). Evolutie en wijsbegeerte. Utrecht: Aula. Menninga, C. (1998). “Critical Reflections on Abraham Kuyper’s Evolutie Address.” Calvin Theological Journal 33: 435–443. Numbers, R. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Expanded Edition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. O’Leary, D. (2006). Roman Catholicism and Modern Science. New York/London: Continuum. Paul, H. and Niet, J. de (2009). “Issus de Calvin: Collective memories of John Calvin in Dutch neo-Calvinism,” in: J. de Niet, H. Paul and B. Wallet (eds.). Sober, Strict and Scriptural: Collective Memories of John Calvin, 1800–2000. Leiden: Brill, 67–95. Pius XII, Humani Generis, http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docu�ments/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html (accessed 11 February 2021). Poelhekke, M.A.P.C. (1900). Het Te-kort der Katholieken in de Wetenschap. Nijmegen: Malmberg. Pontifical Biblical Commission, “Concerning the historical nature of the first three chapters of Genesis - June 30, 1909” http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p100.html Response (accessed 11 February 2021) Price, G.M. (1923). The New Geology. Mountain View, Cal.: Pacific Press. Ratzsch, D. (1996). “Abraham Kuyper’s Philosophy of Science.” In: J.M. van der Meer (ed.). Facets of Faith and Science, Vol. 2: The Role of Beliefs in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences: An Augustinian Perspective. Lanham: University Press of America, 1–32. Rogier, L.J., and Rooy, N. de (1953). In vrijheid herboren. Katholiek Nederland, 1853–1953. ’s-Gravenhage: Pax. Rogier, L.J. (1956). Katholieke Herleving. Geschiedenis van Katholiek Nederland sinds 1853. ’s-Gravenhage: Pax.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

92

Flipse

Ru, C. de (1953). De strijd over het hoger onderwijs tijdens het Ministerie-Kuyper. Kampen: Kok. Sarot, M. (2019). “De waarheid is één. De Rooms-Katholieke Kerk en de evolutietheorie.” Radix 45: 112–122. Schouten, W.J.A. (1931). “Calvinisme en natuurphilosophie (Een beoordeling van prof. Hepp’s Stone-lectures).” Orgaan van de Christelijke Vereeniging van Natuur- en Geneeskundigen in Nederland, 51–81. Smedes, T. (2010). “Denken over dansen: Het constitutieve verschil tussen geloof en wetenschap.” In: Palmyre Oomen and Taede Smedes (eds.). Evolutie, cultuur en religie. Perspectieven vanuit biologie en theologie. Kampen: Kok, 123–151. Snel, J. (2020). De zeven levens van Abraham Kuyper. Portret van een ongrijpbaar staatsman. Amsterdam: Prometheus. Van Farowe, R. (2014). “Synod Rejects Request to Study Creation Account.” The Banner, 18 June, http://www.thebanner.org/news/2014/06/synod-rejects-request-to-study -creation-account (accessed 11 February 2021). Veenhof, J. (2006). “De God van de filosofen en de God van de bijbel. Herman Bavinck en de wijsbegeerte.” In: G. Harinck and G. Neven (eds.), Ontmoetingen met Herman Bavinck. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 219–233. White, A.D. (1896). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. New York: D. Appleton. Wils, K. (2005). De omweg van de wetenschap. Het positivisme en de Belgische en Ne­derlandse intellectuele cultuur, 1895–1914. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Wit, W.J. de (2011). On the Way to the Living God. A Cathartic Reading of Herman Bavinck and an Invitation to Overcome the Plausibility Crisis of Christianity. Amsterdam: VU University Press. Wolters, A. (1996). “Herman Bavinck on Faith and Science.” In: J.M. van der Meer (ed.). Facets of Faith and Science, Vol. 2: The Role of Beliefs in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences: An Augustinian Perspective. Lanham: University Press of America, 33–56. Woltjer, H.R. (1927). “Natuurkunde en natuurfilosofie,” Orgaan van de Christelijke Vereeniging van Natuur- en Geneeskundigen in Nederland, 1–14.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 5

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis”: Gerrit Berkouwer on Scripture and Science Gijsbert van den Brink 1 Introduction In the preceding chapter Abraham Flipse sketched the main contours of the development of neo-Calvinist and Roman Catholic views of science in the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century. One of the things his analysis brings to light is the special role played by leading neo-Calvinist theologians during and after the interbellum. His chapter shows how these theologians opted for a conservative line by integrating two aspects of neo-Calvinism that until then had largely remained separate: the ideal of developing a “Christian science” on the one hand, and a literal-historical reading of the Bible, especially with regard to the first chapters of Genesis, on the other. Young earth creationism, as it had emerged in the USA several decades before, came to their aid as the perfect bridge to connect these two strands in their thinking.1 As a result, neo-Calvinist attempts to come to terms with contemporary science came to a standstill, and neo-Calvinist academics who were involved in the natural sciences had a hard time. The road towards taking the methods and results of mainstream science seriously was blocked. Whenever these results deviated from a so-called literal understanding of the Bible, as was particularly the case with regard to the questions of origin, biblical exegesis overruled the search for the most adequate scientific theory. How did this situation change? Following on Flipse’s observations, this chapter will explore more closely the next stage of neo-Calvinist thinking on the relations between science and religion: the late 1950s and 1960s. During this period, the way in which the natural sciences were conceived of in relation to biblical interpretation and theological doctrine underwent significant 1 Abraham C. Flipse, “Shared Principles, Diverging Paths. Neo-Calvinism, neo-Thomism and the Natural Sciences, 1880–1960,” in this volume, 67–92; cf. A.C. Flipse, “The Origins of Creationism in the Netherlands: The Evolution Debate Among Twentieth-Century Dutch neo-Calvinists,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 81 (2012), 104–147. © Gijsbert van den Brink, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_006 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

94

van den Brink

change, and set a course for even more drastic shifts. In particular, this contribution will probe the role played in this regard by Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996), professor of systematic theology at the Vrije Universiteit from 1940–1973. At the peak of his powers, Berkouwer became representative for the outlook and image of the VU to such an extent that both insiders and outsiders could refer to him with a smile as “Mr. VU”.2 This focus on Berkouwer rests on three reasons. First, it is generally agreed upon that Berkouwer was a highly influential theologian in neo-Calvinist circles, whose national and international stature and radiance almost equalled that of his famous predecessors at the Vrije Universiteit (‘the Free’), Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. In fact, Berkouwer may have been the last Dutch neo-Calvinist theologian whose publications largely determined the course of an entire church. In comparison, later neo-Calvinist theologians found themselves in a much more fragmented landscape, at best speaking to particular factions within their churches. Second, Berkouwer was a very accurate observer of developments that took place in contemporary Roman Catholic theology, and became deeply involved in inter-confessional dialogue with Roman Catholicism.3 As such, the connections and differences he perceived between these traditions with regard to the natural sciences are important in our understanding of the relationship between them. Third, Berkouwer was very circumspect about making unequivocal statements with regard to ‘hot issues’, such as how to assess evolutionary theory in relation to theological doctrine. Still, as will be seen, he did not shy away from sensitive debates, as has sometimes been suggested. The fact that Berkouwer played a pivotal role in neo-Calvinism’s transition from fundamentalism towards a more open-minded attitude makes him an intriguing and rewarding figure to study.4 In that light, this chapter will

2 On Berkouwer’s stature, see Arie Theodorus van Deursen, The Distinctive Character of the Free University in Amsterdam, 1880–2005 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 163, 254 (“His importance … for the Free University in general must be judged very high.”) 3 Cf. G.C. Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958; Dutch original 1949); Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958); The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965); and at least three other titles that appeared in Dutch only. In 1963, Berkouwer had attended the Second Vatican Council as an ‘observer’ at the personal invitation of Pope John XXIII. For a large-scale analysis of Berkouwer’s assessment of Roman Catholic theology, see Eduardo Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions (Leiden: Brill, 2013). 4 For a more succinct rendering of Berkouwer’s views on evolution, in comparison to those of Hodge, Warfield, Kuyper, Bavinck and Hendrikus Berkhof, see Gijsbert van den Brink and Harry Cook, “A Variety of Voices: Reformed Theologians on the Theory of Evolution,” Calvin Theological Journal 55 no. 2 (2021): 265–92.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis”

95

discuss his views, and the extent of their influence on subsequent generations of neo-Calvinist thinkers and scientists. To do so, it will first provisionally explore the way in which Berkouwer typically discussed the theme of faith and science – and in particular the topic of creation and evolution – by close-reading a popular newspaper review he published in the mid-1950s. Second, it will examine how he elaborated his approach to these issues in his Studies in Dogmatics, initially in his theological anthropology (1957) and subsequently in his volumes on Holy Scripture (1966/1967). Following this, it will focus on the parallels drawn by Berkouwer regarding the way in which the same problems were dealt with in contemporaneous Roman Catholic theology. 2

Berkouwer on “Creation and Evolution” (1956)

In 1956 Jan Lever, professor of zoology at the newly established biology department (1950) of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, published a landmark book that was to become a watershed in the Dutch Calvinist reception of evolutionary theory: Creatie en evolutie.5 Following up on comments he had made in his inaugural lecture (1952), Lever explained to his neo-Calvinist readership why, in his view, evolutionary theory should be accepted. He also attempted to reconcile such acceptance with an adequate interpretation of the first chapters of the book of Genesis, rejecting so-called literal readings of it as being informed by outdated science. His own views on the questions of origin came close to what later came to be called ‘theistic evolutionism’, but which Lever himself somewhat confusingly referred to as ‘creationism’. In his account, this entailed that after having created the world, God has guided the process of evolution in accordance with his predetermined plan, the workings of which can only be known by the practice of science.6 In Trouw, the daily newspaper that served the neo-Calvinist “pillar” in the Netherlands at the time, Berkouwer published one of the first reviews of Lever’s book. Its entirely positive tone was very much appreciated by Lever (and presumably came to some extent as a relief to him, given the extent of 5 J. Lever, Creatie en evolutie (Wageningen: Zomer & Keuning, 1956). The book sold well. A second edition appeared in 1958, as did an English translation: Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1958). 6 Cf. Rob P.W. Visser, “Dutch Calvinists and Darwinism, 1900–1960,” in Jitse M. van der Meer and Scott Mandelbrote (eds.), Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700–Present, Vol.2 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 310. See also my paper on Lever’s treatment of the questions of origin in Ab Flipse (ed.), Jan Lever – Honderd. Terugblikken op leven en werk van VU-bioloog Jan Lever (1922-2010) (Amsterdam: HCD Centre for Religious History, 2022), 39–58.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

96

van den Brink

Berkouwer’s influence at that time).7 There, Berkouwer first connects Lever’s book to earlier publications on the same topic by Bavinck and Kuyper, but also to more recent neo-Calvinist theologians such as N.H. Ridderbos. In this way, Berkouwer showed his readers that Lever’s ideas did not come out of the blue. In fact, he even suggests that some of the questions Lever addressed had lingered in contemporary neo-Calvinism for quite some time without being answered, and that as such, Lever’s book had come as a natural sequel to earlier debates. Berkouwer then praises the “honesty” with which Lever revisited these questions in his book, and shows respect for his scholarship. Lever rightly saw that the word of God (i.e. the Bible) enlightens the Christian scientist, but does not make his scientific research superfluous.8 Next, Berkouwer proceeds in a rather remarkable way. Instead of assessing Lever’s theological proposals and solutions to the creation-evolution conundrum from his perspective as a systematic theologian, he places himself in the position of prospective critical readers who might read Lever’s work from a more conservative perspective, pre-empting the objections such readers might be willing to raise. In that guise, he argues that Lever did not pose limits to the word of God, but rather, he addressed the question of how to interpret the book of Genesis in an appropriate way. In this connection, Berkouwer notes that Lever rejected a reading according to which Genesis offers us “scientifically exact knowledge”, because such “fundamentalism” unwittingly favored the state of the art in the natural sciences of some centuries ago over against modern science, canonizing the former by means of biblical texts. Berkouwer does not make explicit whether he agrees with Lever here, but the reader is given a firm impression in that direction: he extols Lever’s virtues, describing his book as “stamped by the seriousness and honesty of a Christian who wants to be a man of science with a good conscience”. What follows is a passage characteristic of Berkouwer’s cautious way of proceeding at this stage in life: I can imagine that someone asks: but what is his [Lever’s] solution with regard to creation or evolution? It is definitely not my purpose to answer this question in a couple of compact sentences. That is not even possible, 7 Kruyswijk mentions an interview with Lever in 2005 (Lever passed away in 2010), in which Lever acknowledged that Berkouwer’s positive tone in this review had indeed come as a relief to him; cf. Hittjo Kruyswijk, Baas in eigen Boek? Evolutietheorie en Schriftgezag bij de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1881–1981) (Hilversum: Verloren, 2011), 226. 8 G.C. Berkouwer, “Creatie en evolutie,” Trouw (15 December 1956), 5; all quotes in this section are from this review article.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis”

97

since one needs to read the entire book in order to understand the questions and answers.9 Thus, Berkouwer does not even tell his readers – let alone evaluate – what Lever actually proposes in his book! Notably, even later in his career he would hardly begin to assess Lever’s “solution” to the questions raised by evolutionary theory, even when space limits did not prevent him from doing so. In this review article, Berkouwer goes on to emphasize the continuity between Lever’s views and some insights put forward by Abraham Kuyper,10 in order to admit, then, that “of course questions also arise from this book”. In fairly general terms, Berkouwer indicates these as “questions with regard to the goal of revelation, the scientific realm and the religiously decisive realm of faith”. The most concrete reference here is to questions “on the religious meaning of the paradise narrative according to Acts 17 and Romans 5, which strongly suggests that it is essential that only two humans inhabited the garden of Eden”.11 However, Berkouwer does not explain how Lever interprets these critical passages. Instead, he ends his review by stipulating that these and other questions that might be raised by Lever’s book should be asked in the same spirit of seriousness in which the book was written, and thus attempts at warding off any possible dismissive responses. This particular (and short) review is worth highlighting because the way in which its argument proceeds is typical of Berkouwer’s approach more generally. Throughout his vast oeuvre,12 Berkouwer steered clear of addressing the questions of (human) origins in any straightforward way. This may have been due to his wish to prevent new ecclesial divisions from taking place. Berkou­ wer’s Reformed church had gone through a tragic split over the interpretation of Genesis 2–3 as recently as in 1926, one year before Berkouwer was ordained and became one of its ministers. This split had been occasioned by the decisions 9 10

11 12

Berkouwer, “Creatie en evolutie,” 5. Drawing on Lever, Berkouwer refers in particular to Kuyper’s famous rectorial address on evolution: Evolutie (Amsterdam: Höveker & Wormser, 1899) [English: Abraham Kuyper, “Evolution,” Calvin Theological Journal 31 (1996), 11–50]. According to Lever, unlike many of his followers, Kuyper himself had drawn a distinction between evolution as a ‘dogma’ or ideology, which he vehemently rejected, and evolution as a scientific theory, which in his view could be accepted. Cf. Gijsbert van den Brink, “Evolution as a Bone of Contention between Church and Academy: How Abraham Kuyper Can Help Us Bridge the Gap,” Kuyper Center Review 5 (2015), 92–103. Berkouwer, “Creatie en evolutie,” 5. The references here are to Acts 17:26 and Rom. 5:12, 18–19. Cf. Dirk van Keulen, Bibliografie/Bibliography G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen: Kok, 2000).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

98

van den Brink

of the Synod of Assen (1926), especially by its claim that the serpent in paradise (Genesis 3) had spoken in an empirically observable way, and by its prohibition of advocating any exegesis that obscures this clear meaning of Scripture.13 Berkouwer may have been wary of rekindling the unhappy debates that preceded this decision, perhaps fearing once again dire consequences. Alternatively, the reason for his silence on the ‘real’ issues may have been that he was simply unsure of how to deal with them adequately. In any case, as will be seen in the next section, he was very much aware of the fact that from a theological point of view the issues were critical, having the potential to affect some of the basic tenets of Reformed theology. 3 Berkouwer’s Theological Anthropology (1957) and Doctrine of Scripture (1967) When the topics handled in Berkouwer’s impressive eighteen-volume Studies in Dogmatics (1949–1972) are examined, some customary themes are conspicuous by their absence. For example, although Berkouwer devoted separate volumes to specific works and decrees of God (in particular God’s providence and election), he provided no study on the doctrine of God as such. Neither did he include a volume on the prolegomena (in which he could have explained his theological method). A volume on the doctrine of creation is also missing.14 It is precisely in such volumes that an in-depth engagement with the relationship of God and creation and the theological relevance (or irrelevance) of scientific inquiry could be expected. Similarly, Berkouwer might have entered the debate in a straightforward way in his volume on anthropology. Indeed, in his Man: The Image of God, Berkouwer acknowledges that throughout the centuries “the Church and

13

14

For the broader context of the split, see, for example, J. Veenhof, “A History of Theology and Spirituality of the Dutch Reformed Churches (Gereformeerde Kerken), 1892–1992,” Calvin Theological Journal 28 (1993), 266–297; and George Harinck (ed.), De kwestie-Geel­ kerken. Een terugblik na 75 jaar (Barneveld: de Vuurbaak, 2001). Interestingly, volumes on prolegomena and the doctrine of creation were part of Ber­ kouwer’s original overall plan for the Studies in Dogmatics. See Dirk van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek. Schriftbeschouwing en Schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen: Kok, 2003), 359–365. Van Keulen concludes that, although various suggestions circulate in the secondary literature, we can only speculate about the reasons why Berkouwer deviated from his original plan (363).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis”

99

theology have been interested in the origin of man”.15 He admits that Bavinck had even addressed “the problems of the ‘ancestry’ of man, and Darwinism and evolution” at length.16 This was in a different setting, however, since Bavinck did so in his doctrine of creation. In writing a theological anthropology, Berkouwer is more interested in the traditional debate on the origin of the human soul: namely, is each individual soul directly created by God (creatianism), or do souls come into being through procreation (traducianism)? While this dilemma may now strike us as fairly obsolete, for Berkouwer it was apparently more pressing than the questions raised by the sciences of human origin. (Alternatively, of course, one may wonder whether it was simply a safer question?) In any case: “We do not plan to take up the problems regarding the creation of man and of the human race, since these problems would involve us in a discussion of the meaning of creation and of the unity of the human race, and also of the fall of man”.17 One wonders what would be wrong with that, but it seems Berkouwer felt that it would lead him too far away from his actual goals. Therefore, he restricts himself to pointing out a parallel discussion on human origins in contemporary Roman Catholic theology (to which we will return in section 4). Ten years later, however, in the penultimate volumes of his Studies in Dogmatics, Berkouwer becomes a bit more explicit. These volumes are devoted to the doctrine of Scripture. Here, finally, Berkouwer had to give some account of his theological method, and especially of the role of the Bible in his thinking.18 He felt the need to do so all the more keenly as in the preceding volumes, on eschatology, he had occasionally employed the Bible in an unusual way, applying figurative methods of interpretation at places where this had not been customary in his circles thus far.19 It is in the volumes on Holy Scripture 15

G.C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 279; the Dutch original is from 1957, which means that this book would have offered him a perfect opportunity to pursue some of the questions to which he had alluded in his review of Lever’s Creatie en Evolutie one year before. 16 Berkouwer, Man, 279; cf. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics II (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), §36. 17 Berkouwer, Man, 279. 18 Two volumes appeared in Dutch: De Heilige Schrift I (Kampen: Kok, 1966) and De Hei­ lige Schrift II (Kampen: Kok, 1967), the first volume clearing the ground for a discussion of more fundamental issues in the second. An English edition was provided by Jack B. Rogers in one volume: G.C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). Rogers’ translation left out approximately one-third of the original material, especially “interactions with people holding other viewpoints” (Holy Scripture, 7). 19 Van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 364; “Promise and Expectation. The Use of Scripture in the Eschatology of G.C. Berkouwer,” in A. van Egmond & D. van Keulen (eds.), Christian Hope in Context, Vol.1 (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2001), esp. 220.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

100

van den Brink

that Berkouwer further accounts for this hermeneutics, and in the process also discusses the way in which scientific claims can be allowed to influence our readings of the Bible. In particular, he does so in an extensive chapter on one of the properties that Protestant theology had traditionally ascribed to the Bible, namely clarity or perspicuity. This chapter is placed in between chapters on Scripture’s reliability and sufficiency – two other properties ascribed to the Bible in orthodox Protestant theology.20 The chapter on Scripture’s clarity is much larger than those on its reliability and sufficiency, though, which can be explained by the fact that the appeal to Scripture’s clarity (or “clear sense”) had played a pivotal role in the decisions of the 1926 Synod of Assen. Berkouwer starts this chapter by asking the obvious question of whether the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture “leaves any room for the need of interpretation”.21 If Scripture is clear in and of its own, why do we need interpreters and interpretations in order to understand it? Is not Holy Scripture “its own interpreter” (267)? Berkouwer then points out that the Reformers never took this maxim as implying that biblical exegesis is superfluous, noting that such Reformers as Luther and Calvin were intensely occupied with scriptural interpretation themselves (268). Obviously, the clarity of Scripture does not mean that the Bible is immediately accessible to us like a newspaper report (270). What it does mean can only be retrieved by examining the historical circumstances in which the doctrine arose, namely as part of the Reformation’s controversy with Rome (271). It then turns out that the Reformers were not primarily opposed to the special role of ecclesial office in interpreting Scripture, but wanted to uphold that Scripture as the Word of God is a light on everyone’s path.22 It is from this perspective that we can appreciate the confession of the clarity of Scripture: when reading the Bible, its message of salvation is indeed conveyed, and the reader need not be in doubt about its meaning. Thus, it was from the context of the biblical message of salvation that the confession of 20 The locus on Scripture in Heinrich Heppe’s compendium of orthodox Reformed theology, Reformed Dogmatics. Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, rev. and ed. by Ernst Bizer (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), has sections on the authority of the Bible (22–28), its perfection or sufficiency (28–31), its necessity (31–32) and its clarity (32–36). All these properties (and more, 21–22) were taken by Protestant theologians from the doctrine of God and applied to Scripture as the Word of God. For a more recent discussion of their meaning and functions see Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 295–370. 21 G.C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, 267; in this section, page numbers in the body of the text will refer to this volume. 22 Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, 272; I have added the italics from the Dutch original (Heilige Schrift 2, 255).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis” 101

Scripture’s clarity emerged. It was only at a later stage that post-Reformation theologians came to apply it to the very words of Scripture. Though the message of salvation is of course conveyed to us in words and language, the Reformers never isolated these words from the message. Berkouwer’s exposition acquires a more personal flavour when he laments the fact that the confession of Scripture’s clarity “does not automatically lead to a total uniformity of perception, disposing of any problems”, calling this one of its “most moving and difficult aspects” (286).23 We cannot escape “from the anxiety of divergences” in interpretation, however, by retreating to some “preconceived technique”. Rather, we have to hear the call “to receptive attention, research, respect, and expectation, to faith and prayer” (287). It is in this context that Berkouwer raises the sensitive issue of the critical ‘scientific’ study of Scripture – a topic that had concerned him from the very beginning of his career.24 Many people think, he argues, that this study will only sharpen the “fatal division of minds” concerning the meaning of Scripture, and they sometimes retreat to “the arbitrariness of private understanding” (287). Berkouwer, however, ponders the more optimistic possibility that “the fascinating process of continued biblical research” may bring to light “converging lines in the understanding of Scripture” (287).25 In fact, if we really believe in the clarity of Scripture we should eagerly long for such convergence, and expect it. In the next section, we will see that in his own lifetime, Berkouwer did indeed observe a number of important converging lines between Protestant and Roman Catholic theology. Although Berkouwer closely connected the notion of the clarity of Scripture to its message or ‘scope’ – a notion that gradually came to occupy the centre-stage in his doctrine of Scripture26 – this did not mean that the verba or literal words of Scripture became unimportant to him. On the contrary: “Without giving the words of Scripture full attention, it is wholly impossible 23

24

25 26

Berkouwer’s strong engagement with the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture also transpires from the fact that he had a gifted South African student who wrote a doctoral thesis on this topic: H.W. Rossouw, Klaarheid en interpretasie. Enkele probleemhistoriese gesigs­ punte in verband met die leer van die duidelikheid van die Heilige Skrif (Amsterdam: Jacob van Campen, 1963). Cf. G.C. Berkouwer, Het probleem der Schriftkritiek [The problem of biblical criticism] (Kampen: Kok, 1938); I use ‘scientific’ within quotation marks to indicate that the Dutch original in Berkouwer’s oeuvre (wetenschappelijk) does not just refer to the natural sciences but to historical scholarship as well. The Dutch original has “boeiend” for “fascinating” (Heilige Schrift 2, 286), which is perhaps better translated by the slightly more distanced term “interesting”. Cf. van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 513–514, 526–531.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

102

van den Brink

to confess the perspicuity of Scripture” (290). Attention to the exact words of Scripture, however, does “not in the least warrant a simplistic exegesis” (290). Using the generally acknowledged difficulties in the interpretation of the Book of Revelation as an example, Berkouwer argues that the appeal to the clarity of Scripture cannot be naively used as an excuse for ignoring “[t]he peculiar imagery and figures of speech of apocalypticism” (290). Rather, like other parts of Scripture, apocalyptic texts can only be understood if we take into account, “the specific literary form in which the words appear and the great variety of ways in which Scripture speaks to us” (291). Now, why is this generally accepted with regard to apocalypticism and eschatology (the last things) while it is much more disputed in the realm of protology? Why is it so sensitive to observe that the literary style of the first chapters of Genesis cannot simply be identified with history/historiography? That is, Berkouwer surmises, because in the case of protology alongside the question of its literary style, consideration of the findings of science has come into play (292–293). On this occasion, Berkouwer does not shy away from the tough and complex issues that arise here, but explicitly addresses them from the specific angle of the claritas Scripturae: In our time these questions have become more and more relevant, particularly with respect to the problems of ‘origin’ in the first three chapters of Genesis. It is not within the scope of this study to elaborate on the question of the creation and man’s fall from God’s hand in guilt and alienation. But I do wish to discuss in some detail the very important aspect of the clarity and self-evidence of Scripture concerning creation and the fall.27 Berkouwer starts his reflections with the more general question of whether “certain results of science, be it natural science or historical research, can provide the ‘occasion’ for understanding various aspects of Scripture in a different way than before” (133). He argues that as soon as one adopts an organic understanding of the inspiration of Scripture, which takes its human form with full seriousness, this question can only be answered affirmatively. As such, Bavinck had already spoken of the “excellent service” which geology can offer us “when explaining the creation story”, of the Copernican system that “forced” theology to a better interpretation of Joshua 10, and of the “precious contributions” of Assyriology and Egyptology to scriptural exegesis.28 Berkouwer observes, however, that almost nobody is still worried about the changed exegesis of 27 Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, 292. (I have slightly adapted Roger’s translation). 28 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 496.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis” 103

Joshua 10 in the wake of the Galileo-trial, but that the problems with regard to Genesis 1–3 are much more fundamental since they are inextricably bound to our understanding of Scripture as a whole in its witness on creation, fall and redemption.29 Moreover, allowing certain scientific results to influence our exegesis cannot mean that we retroject these results into Scripture, as if they had been present there all the time. Given the nature of Scripture, he posits, we should not expect it to anticipate later scientific research (300).30 Therefore, Berkouwer unambiguously rejects all “concordism”, meaning by this all attempts to harmonize Scripture with the newest findings of the natural sciences. In particular, he criticizes the so-called day-age view of Genesis 1 in this connection as “an untenable construction”.31 However, the results of scientific research can legitimately influence our use of Scripture in another way, namely by correcting an approach which, after all, may not have been in agreement with the meaning and goal of Scripture all along. In this way, one does not allow science to dominate or even dictate one’s understanding of Scripture (and by consequence, one’s faith), but science can still contribute to a better understanding of its unique message.32 With respect to the first chapters of Genesis, for example, scientific research has opened our eyes to the role of human activity, reflection and composition in the creation stories that emerged in Israel and that cannot be isolated from Israel’s belief in God. This is not to turn the stories into subjective human projections, but to acknowledge the way in which God apparently worked when revealing himself and inspiring the biblical writers. Rather than assuming that God provided some unique information to them about “how it all began”, we have to see the creation stories (esp. Genesis 1) as Israel’s faith-driven polemical response to the mythical theogonies and cosmogonies which dominated its ancient near eastern Umwelt. “For God’s revelation does not exclude human thought and historical confrontation, but adopts them” (293). Once we see this, the notion of the clarity of Scripture starts to shift: the ‘clear sense’ of Scripture no longer coincides with what we intuitively think to be the meaning upon reading the

29 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 303; this is a part of a long section in the Dutch original (296–320) which has not been included in the English translation, apparently because Berkouwer engages extensively here with arguments that played a role around and after the decisions of the 1926 Synod of Assen. 30 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 300. 31 On this day-age view as a variety of old earth creationism, see, for example, Gerald Rau, Mapping the Origins Debate. Six Models of the Beginning of Everything (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012), 48–50 and passim. 32 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 301.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

104

van den Brink

text, but can only be established when we take these historical conditions into account.33 What then is the meaning of Genesis 1–3? Berkouwer is not ambivalent here, but answers this crucial question in a clear way. The Genesis story does not convey human fictions or projections, timeless general ideas or psychological truths, but rather, (…) a reality of the creation of heaven and earth (…), of the gap that arose between God and humanity, a gap of guilt and alienation that became deeper and deeper, and of the divine initiative towards salvation and light in this utter darkness.34 The sequence is absolutely key here to Berkouwer: the relationship between creation and sin in this story is “really irreversible”, as Genesis 1 precedes Genesis 3.35 Thus, in these chapters we are not dealing with myth, since the stories are relating a real act of creation and the equally real event of the rise of human guilt and alienation, in a way that excludes any confusion of creation and Fall which would leave us humans excused. Thus, the stories are not naïve, but reflective, and highly radical at that: they reject a tragic view of life in which God or fate are considered to be the origin of evil, and instead they hold us humans accountable– though not without the promise of God’s salvation. In this way, Berkouwer continued to uphold the basic structure of classical Reformed theology in his reading of Genesis 1–3. At the same time, however, he observed that this profound revelation of human guilt over against divine generosity is couched in these chapters in human culturally-situated imagery. In fact, Berkouwer ponders, we could already have considered the possibility of this interpretation by closely examining the stories themselves, in their peculiar contours and typically human characteristics. Science came in as the coincidental occasion that pressed us to do this more seriously than before.36 After all, the traditional 33

Berkouwer clearly believed that the biblical texts had a meaning and that in principle it is possible to grasp it; not being a postmodern thinker, his was not the view that the text has a plurality of meanings depending on the situatedness (or wishes) of its readers. 34 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 313. (Translation original). 35 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 316; this is fully in line with Berkouwer’s treatment of the problem of evil in his The Providence of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), ch. VIII. 36 Kruyswijk, Baas in eigen Boek?, 245–246, criticizes Berkouwer for only allowing science the role of an “outside” occasion to re-examine traditional interpretations: “we hear nothing on the legitimacy of science as such, apart from this function” (246). This criticism is unfair, given the fact that Berkouwer’s topic is the interpretation of Scripture (not the nature of science), and moreover it is hard to see how Berkouwer could consider science as illegitimate given the role he assigns to it with regard to biblical interpretation. Berkouwer rightly argued, however, that in this context science can only function as

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis” 105

exegesis had its problems all along, and therefore “(…) there is all the more reason to exercise caution while discussing Genesis. One must above all be on guard for the false dilemma of reality or fiction when choosing between the traditional exegesis or a different one” (294–295). To conclude, the direction in which Berkouwer looked in addressing the tensions between science and faith with respect to the questions of human origins was in no way unclear. He rejected (both young earth and old earth) creationist readings of the first chapters of Genesis on the one hand, and phenomenological interpretations of these chapters (as if they merely offered some wise lessons on the human condition) on the other. The Genesis story belongs to the prologue of the book, and its author had a keen interest in what happened “in the beginning”.37 At the same time, the chapters describe the reality of God’s good creation and the human Fall in vivid contemporary imagery.38 But can such a view be sustained in the light of contemporary scientific evidence on human evolution? And if so, how should we envisage what exactly happened at the dawn of human history? Here we reach territory that Ber­ kouwer did not enter – and perhaps wisely so, since any way forward he might have taken would most probably have led to controversy, and to a parting of the ways in his Reformed community.39 Berkouwer may very well have sensed how far he could go without losing support. Van Deursen’s (otherwise critical) portrayal of Berkouwer is pertinent here: “Berkouwer succeeded in winning the majority of the gereformeerde church people for himself (…). He did what Bavinck had never dared to do: publishing altered, new insights to the world outside, and he was rewarded for it. He gained the support of the people because they continued to trust him”.40 By letting his students think for theman occasion to reconsider traditional understandings that previously had gone unchallenged, since obviously contemporary science should not be ‘read in’ into the biblical texts. 37 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 315. 38 In today’s jargon, it seems that Berkouwer’s vision could best be described as a variety of ‘theistic evolutionism’. He would probably have been quite sympathetic to, for example, Denis Alexander’s elaboration of this view in his Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2008; 2nd ed. 2014), 177–388. Berkouwer’s insistence on the sequential order of creation and Fall as decisive for the interpretation of Genesis 2–3 is reflected in several essays in William Cavanaugh and James K.A. Smith (eds.), Evolution and the Fall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). 39 That Berkouwer was well aware of the fact that his work in this area was unfinished, is clear from his comment that these issues “should of course be discussed more extensively in a ‘locus de creatione’”; Heilige Schrift 2, 322. 40 Van Deursen, The Distinctive Character of the Free University in Amsterdam, 1880–2005, 254. In this connection, a rhetorical analysis of Berkouwer’s writing style might be revealing. - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

106

van den Brink

selves he enabled them to move on gradually where he himself had stopped – although they sometimes went far beyond the boundaries he had delineated (e.g. by abandoning the “irreversible” order of creation and Fall). Meanwhile, in contemporary research on the interface of science and religion, attempts have been made to re-contextualize the notion of a primordial human Fall from God’s intentions within an evolutionary worldview.41 4

The Catholic Connection

When investigating Berkouwer’s relationship to Roman Catholicism it seems natural to consult his various treatises on contemporary Roman Catholic thought.42 In these publications, however, Berkouwer’s method is mostly descriptive, and his personal views remain even more implicit than is famously the case in his dogmatic work.43 Moreover, since in these treatises Berkouwer mostly focuses on the traditional doctrinal differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism rather than on shared contemporary challenges, the issue of Scripture and science is not at the forefront. Interestingly, however, in each of the three pieces analyzed above, Berkouwer draws a parallel to contemporary Roman Catholic discussions on the questions of origin. Therefore, this section will focus on the relevant parts of these pieces. In his one-page review of Lever’s Creatie en Evolutie, Berkouwer refers to “certain pronouncements” of the Roman Catholic Biblical Commission in 1909. These statements delineated what had to be accepted as the established result of the exegesis of the Genesis story.44 Berkouwer points out that these pronouncements had engendered much discussion, and though “we” Protestants do not have Biblical commissions, we do have our own questions on this theme and want to deal with them in a responsible way (as Lever had done). The reference to contemporary Roman Catholicism seems mainly intended to 41 42 43 44

Cf. Gijsbert van den Brink, Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 180–195. See footnote 3. Cf. van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 463–464; Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism, 3–4. Cf. Heinrich Denzinger and Peter Hünermann (eds.), Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum / Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, Latin-English, 43rd Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 705–707 (nos. 3512–3519). The declaration stipulates that, though metaphorical or anthropomorphical elements may be involved in the text (707), Genesis 1–3 should in any case be regarded as historical, since these chapters inform the fundamentals of the Christian religion.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis” 107

make clear that “we Protestants” are not the only ones who have some work to do in this area. In Man: The Image of God, Berkouwer only refers to Lever’s book once, pointing out that the questions that concerned Lever, especially the question of the unity of the human race in Adam, have become more urgent in recent times as a result of “developments in the biological sciences”.45 Though the questions are common to Protestants and Catholics, Berkouwer observes with some surprise that thus far they have been “most actual” in Roman Catholic theology. In this connection he not only refers once more to the statement of 1909, but also to the papal encyclical Humani Generis of 1950. Here, the question of human origins was taken up in connection with the theory of evolution. Berkouwer carefully renders the solution which Humani Generis stipulated: the church allows a treatment of evolution that, as far as humans are concerned, is restricted to the human body.46 While the human body may be regarded as having evolved from other living beings, it should be upheld that the human soul is directly created by God. Berkouwer notes that in this way, the results of modern science are cautiously accommodated, but within clearly defined limits. These limits are determined by the doctrine of original sin: it is because of this doctrine that the human soul has to be seen as created by a special act of God and that polygenism (the idea that not all contemporary humans descend from Adam and Eve because of the existence of more people and clans in primordial times) has to be rejected. After having mentioned the internal Roman Catholic debates on the interpretation of Humani Generis, Berkouwer makes clear that as a Protestant he has two problems with its stipulations. First, he is surprised by the fact that making such a sharp distinction between soul and body as Humani Generis does “is not at all experienced as dualistic”.47 Berkouwer himself opines that the background to this distinction is an unwarranted dichotomy between soul and body. Second, Berkouwer laments the fact that Scriptural arguments do 45 Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, 280; Berkouwer does not specify the nature of these developments. 46 Berkouwer, Man, 281; this is one of the few times that the word ‘evolution’ occurs in Ber­ kouwer’s oeuvre (interestingly, the Dutch original has “the so-called theory of evolution”). M.P. van der Marel, Registers op de dogmatische studiën van Dr G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen: Kok, 1988), 37, notes one place in the eighteen Studies in Dogmatics where Berkouwer uses “evolution”, another one where he has “evolutionism”, and two places where he writes “evolutionary theory” (evolutieleer). 47 I have re-translated the Dutch here (“… blijkbaar allerminst als dualistisch wordt aangevoeld”); the English edition more ambiguously renders this as “felt to be not at all dualistic” (282).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

108

van den Brink

not play a decisive role in Humani Generis. Rather, it is led by doctrinal considerations (especially “the infallible dogma of original sin”) that largely function in isolation from biblical exegesis. This goes back to “a very different view of the relation between dogma and Scripture”, and as a result of this “far-reaching methodological difference in approach,” it is hard to imagine that Protestants could adopt Humani Generis’ line of reasoning on this issue.48 Turning to Protestant thought, however, Berkouwer warns that here as well, “dogmatic presuppositions – though they be within another view of the relation between dogma and Scripture – may influence and dominate the portrayal of man”.49 Unfortunately he does not explain this intriguing remark. Rather, at this point he shifts his focus to the actual theme of his chapter: a discussion of various speculative theories on the origin of human souls. In any case, the way in which Humani Generis had dealt with evolutionary theory did not particularly entice Berkouwer to follow suit.50 Finally, in his dogmatic study on Holy Scripture, Berkouwer starts on a much more positive note when examining contemporary Roman Catholic theology. In a passage that has been skipped in the English version of the book, Berkouwer observes that both in Roman Catholic and in Protestant theology, the transition had been made from a so-called mechanical, towards a more organic understanding of the inspiration of Scripture, that is: an understanding that takes seriously the involvement of concrete human beings in the formation of the Bible.51 At the same time, the Bible had received a more central place in recent Roman Catholic theology. Noting this, Berkouwer suggests that this change in both the place of the Bible and the understanding of its inspiration had led to a number of remarkable theological convergences between recent Roman Catholic and Protestant theology. In particular, he points to the doctrines of grace and justification, and even to certain motives in the doctrine of the eucharist.52 Although it is unclear how these developments will work out, especially because substantial divergences will also continue to play a role, Berkouwer pushed back against sceptics by hailing the convergences as a clear

48 Berkouwer, Man, 283. 49 Berkouwer, Man, 283. 50 In his Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought (1958; Dutch original 1957), Ber­ kouwer devotes an entire chapter to Humani Generis (44–54), but does not address the way in which it discusses the question of human origin in relation to evolutionary theory. 51 Cf. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, 155; and more broadly Berkouwer, Second Vatican Council, Ch.3. 52 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 286–290.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis” 109

sign of what the perspicuity of Scripture implies: if we really believe in the clarity of Scripture, such convergence is exactly what may be expected.53 As we have seen above, the transition to an organic understanding of the inspiration of Scripture also led to the question of the extent to which scientific developments might legitimately be used in biblical exegesis.54 Berkouwer is highly interested in the Roman Catholic response to this question, as Roman Catholicism had a longstanding tradition of protecting the true understanding of Scripture by infallible church dogma. Today, however, it had become more and more clear according to Berkouwer that this protection was unable to deal adequately with the questions that had newly emerged. Clearly, church dogma was formulated in times in which the new problems caused by science lay beyond the horizon of the church.55 How, then, does the Roman Catholic Church come to terms with these problems? In this connection, Berkouwer now points in a more positive way to Humani Generis: though the encyclical’s dualistic tendency hampered its reception, by taking evolutionary theory seriously “it wanted to make room for honest and unprejudiced consideration of the new questions, acknowledging that these cannot be answered aprioristically from the perspective of church doctrine”.56 Still, Berkouwer perceives a “remarkable difference” between Roman Catholic theology and Reformation thought on this point, in that from its very beginning the latter had allowed more space to a critical testing of human interpretations of Scripture as they emerged in the faith tradition of the church.57 In particular, the Reformation did not recognize an infallible magisterium or an infallible dogma, which Berkouwer thinks almost automatically led to a stronger concentration on the soteriological scope of Scripture, and which in turn largely prevented the Reformation from taking Scripture as a source of science. Whereas in Roman Catholicism, retracting from earlier ecclesial statements often continued to be a problem, Protestantism’s concentration on the clarity 53 Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, 288. 54 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 302. In fact, as Berkouwer makes clear, this transition itself cannot be explained without taking into account the result of scientific discoveries, for example, concerning the Unwelt of Old Testament Israel (301). 55 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 326. 56 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 327. Indeed, the acceptance of (large parts of) evolutionary theory in Humani Generis was quite remarkable in light of earlier rejections of evolution. For the history of the reception of evolutionary theory in Roman Catholicism, see, for example, Gijsbert van den Brink, “Meer dan een hypothese: Patronen in de rooms-katholieke receptie van de evolutietheorie,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 58 (2018), 135–152. 57 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 327; presumably, Berkouwer has in mind here that patristic interpretations of the Bible were not taken for granted (or harmonized with each other) in the Reformed tradition.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

110

van den Brink

of Scripture’s salvific message helped it not to demand too much of Scripture, or to take its clarity at face value.58 One can wonder, however, whether Berkouwer was not jumping to conclusions here. At the very least we must say that his optimism regarding the relative flexibility of Protestantism (due to its soteriological concentration) with regard to matters of science has not been confirmed by later developments. As a matter of fact, whereas the Roman Catholic Church had already radically qualified its former rejection of evolutionary theory in 1950, many Protestant churches continue to have difficulties in coming to terms with evolutionary theory into the present day.59 As is clear from a typically Protestant phenomenon like young earth creationism, one important reason for these difficulties is the attachment of many Protestants to a literalistic reading of the first chapters of Genesis. As a result, whereas Galileo has been a source of Roman Catholic trauma for many centuries, half a century after Berkouwer’s Holy Scripture, Darwin is still to a large extent a cause of Protestant trauma. 5 Conclusion It belongs to the standard perception of Berkouwer that he dodged the most pressing issues raised by modern science in relation to Scripture and theology, either because of his irenic persona, or because he did not know how to deal with them. Both conclusions are sometimes drawn, for example, from the fact that he dropped his original plan to include a volume on the doctrine of creation in his Studies in Dogmatics. It also belongs to the standard perception of Berkouwer that as a neo-Calvinist he went to great lengths to understand, appreciate, and do full justice to recent theological developments within Roman Catholicism. The above analysis, however, gives us reason to nuance and qualify both aspects of this standard view of Berkouwer’s theological attitude slightly. First, it is true that Berkouwer never discussed the questions raised by modern science with regard to biblical interpretation in a straightforward way. Indeed, he saw “reason to exercise caution” when discussing the first chapters of Genesis. If we carefully reconstruct his approach, however, especially 58 Berkouwer, Heilige Schrift 2, 327–328. 59 See Norman C. Nevin (ed.), Should Christians Embrace Evolution? (Nottingham: IVP, 2009); Matthew Barrett and Ardel D. Caneday (eds.), Four Views on the Historical Adam (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013); J.P. Moreland et al. (eds.), Theistic Evolution. A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), to mention only a few recent titles. - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis” 111

as it was elaborated in his thoroughgoing discussion in Holy Scripture, it becomes clear that he made some crucial steps which clearly delineate the range of options available to Reformed Christians who want to take science seriously. Berkouwer advocated a reading of Genesis 1–3 that does full justice to its embeddedness in Ancient Near Eastern culture. He therefore rejected “a simplistic exegesis that glories in the literal understanding of everything”60 and forcefully argued against a naïve approach to the Bible that ignored the specific literary form and genre of its texts (thus implicitly discarding young earth creationism). He also opposed all attempts to read the results of modern science back into the text of Genesis, singling out for criticism in this connection the so-called day-age view and other ‘concordist’ solutions. On the other hand, Berkouwer also repudiated the well-known ‘everyman’ interpretation of Genesis 2–3, according to which the narrative highlights some existential characteristics of the human condition. In his view, the structural and temporal distinction between creation and Fall is key to the message conveyed by the text. The good creation of Genesis 1 and 2 is contrasted with the story of human sin and guilt in Genesis 3, and unlike all that happens in extra-biblical cosmogonies, the reality of human guilt is not evaporated. By reading the narratives in this way, Berkouwer is able to endorse the results of modern (evolutionary) science tacitly while at the same time upholding the most essential Reformed theological intuitions that are at stake: the sovereignty and goodness of God as creator, and the seriousness of human sin.61 In this way, the first chapters of the Bible set the stage for the ensuing history of salvation. Second, it is true that Berkouwer gives notable attention to parallel developments in Roman Catholic theology, appreciating what he sees as ‘convergences’ (but in fact describing these as Roman Catholic rapprochements of classical Protestant points of view). As is well-known, his rendering of Roman Catholic theological developments and discussions is particularly well-informed and instructive. In his assessment of these developments and discussions, however, it is clear that on at least one occasion Berkouwer is unduly critical, while being far too optimistic about the possibilities of his own Protestant tradition to cope adequately with the challenges of modern science. In this respect as well, it seems that the standard picture of Berkouwer’s theological profile stands in need of a bit more nuance. In the meantime, Berkouwer’s cautious navigating of the complex and potentially divisive questions of origin was typical for the way in which Dutch 60 Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, 290. 61 For an overall survey of how typically Reformed theological tenets could be upheld within an evolutionary framework, see van den Brink, Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory. - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

112

van den Brink

neo-Calvinism in his days started to abandon its fierce opposition towards critical parts of mainstream science and gradually adopted a more constructive attitude in this regard. Bibliography Alexander, D. (2008). Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? Oxford: Monarch Books. Barrett, M.; and Caneday, A.D. (eds.). (2013). Four Views on the Historical Adam. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bavinck, H. (2004). Reformed Dogmatics II. J. Bolt (ed.), J. Vriend (tr.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Berkouwer, G.C. (1938). Het probleem der Schriftkritiek. Kampen: Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1952). The Providence of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkouwer, G.C. (1956). “Creatie en evolutie.” Trouw 15 December, 5. Berkouwer, G.C. (1958). The Conflict with Rome. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Berkouwer, G.C. (1958). Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkouwer, G.C. (1962). Man: The Image of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkouwer, G.C. (1965). The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkouwer, G.C. (1966). De Heilige Schrift I. Kampen: Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1967). De Heilige Schrift II. Kampen: Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1975). Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brink, G. van den (2015). “Evolution as a Bone of Contention between Church and Academy: How Abraham Kuyper Can Help Us Bridge the Gap.” In: G. Graham (ed.). Kuyper Center Review 5: 92–103. Brink, G. van den (2018). “Meer dan een hypothese: Patronen in de rooms-katholieke receptie van de evolutietheorie.” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 58: 135–152. Brink, G. van den (2020). Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brink, G. van den Brink; Cook, H. (2021). “A Variety of Voices: Reformed Theologians on the Theory of Evolution.” Calvin Theological Journal 55 no. 2 (2021): 265–292. Cavanaugh, W.; Smith, J.K.A. (eds.). (2017). Evolution and the Fall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Denzinger, H.; Hünermann, P. (eds.). (2012). Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum / Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, Latin-English, 43rd Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Deursen, A.Th. van (2008). The Distinctive Character of the Free University in Amsterdam, 1880–2005. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“All the More Reason to Exercise Caution while Discussing Genesis” 113 Echeverria, E. (2013). Berkouwer and Catholicism. Disputed Questions. Leiden: Brill. Flipse, A. (2012). “The Origins of Creationism in the Netherlands: The Evolution Debate Among Twentieth-Century Dutch neo-Calvinists.” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 81: 104–147. Flipse, A. (ed.) (2022). Jan Lever – Honderd. Terugblikken op leven en werk van VUbioloog Jan Lever (1922-2010). Amsterdam: HCD Centre for Religious History. Flipse, A. (2023). “Shared Principles, Diverging Paths. Neo-Calvinism, neo-Thomism and the Natural Sciences, 1880–1960”, in: J. Eglinton and G. Harinck (eds.). NeoCalvinism and Roman-Catholicism. Leiden: Brill, 67–92. Harinck, G. (ed.). (2001). De kwestie-Geelkerken. Een terugblik na 75 jaar. Barneveld: de Vuurbaak. Heppe, H. (1978). Reformed Dogmatics. Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources. E. Bizer (ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Keulen, D. van (2003). Bijbel en dogmatiek. Schriftbeschouwing en Schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer. Kampen: Kok. Keulen, D. van (2000). Bibliografie/Bibliography G.C. Berkouwer. Kampen: Kok. Keulen, D. van (2001). “Promise and Expectation. The Use of Scripture in the Eschatology of G.C. Berkouwer.” In: A. van Egmond and D. van Keulen (eds.). Christian Hope in Context, Vol.1. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 205–221. Kruyswijk, H. (2011). Baas in eigen Boek? Evolutietheorie en Schriftgezag bij de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1881–1981). Hilversum: Verloren. Kuyper, A. (1996). “Evolution.” Calvin Theological Journal 31: 11–50. Lever, J. (1958). Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1958; Dutch original 1956. Marel, M.P. van der (1988). Registers op de dogmatische studiën van Dr G.C. Berkouwer. Kampen: Kok. Moreland, J.P., et al. (eds.). (2017). Theistic Evolution. A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Wheaton: Crossway. Muller, R. (2003). Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 2. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Nevin, N.C. (ed.). (2009). Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Nottingham: InterVarsity Press. Rau, G. (2012). Mapping the Origins Debate. Six Models of the Beginning of Everything. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Rossouw, H.W. (1963). Klaarheid en interpretasie. Enkele probleemhistoriese gesigspunte in verband met die leer van die duidelikheid van die Heilige Skrif. Amsterdam: Jacob van Campen. Veenhof, J. (1993). “A History of Theology and Spirituality of the Dutch Reformed Churches (Gereformeerde Kerken), 1892–1992.” Calvin Theological Journal 28: 266–297. Visser, R.P.W. (2008). “Dutch Calvinists and Darwinism, 1900–1960.” In: J.M. van der Meer and S. Mandelbrote (eds.). Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700-Present, Vol.2. Leiden: Brill, 293–315.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 6

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist? A Reevaluation of Influence Cory Brock 1

Introduction: Herman Bavinck and His Interpreters

In a volume dedicated to studying the relationship between Roman Catholicism and neo-Calvinism, it is important to consider one of the debates regarding Bavinck’s relationship to Roman Catholicism. Particularly, the debate concerns his appropriation of neo-Thomism, a body of theological distinctives that arose from the nineteenth-century revival of Thomism under the leadership of Pope Leo XIII (who is more widely known for his work on the European social question of the second half of the century). For example, according to R. H. Bremmer’s 1961 work, ‘all Bavinck commentators agree that the neo-Thomistic philosophy has exercised great influence over [Bavinck]’.1 In fact, for Bremmer, neo-Thomism is the primary ‘ground-motif’ in Bavinck’s dogmatiek. Indeed, Bavinck’s indebtedness to the Leonine revival has been asserted by a number of scholars for good reason. Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics does not lack a moderate number of references to neo-Thomists like Leo XIII and Matteo Liberatore.2 And to be sure, Bavinck was a student of Thomas and held the Summa in high regard, quoting from it often in his Reformed Dogmatics. However, Bavinck’s relationship to Thomas and Thomism in general is a separate question and the specific concern of previous writers has been to suggest that Bavinck was the inheritor of a particular Thomism, that of the Leonine revival. Yet, the extent of this influence has not been stated with specificity and this neglect has resulted in some authors attaching the label ‘neo-Thomist’ onto Bavinck’s dogmatics as a sui generis framework for understanding much of his theology. For example, Hendrikus Berkhof suggests that Bavinck ‘threw in his 1 R.H. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck als Dogmaticus (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1961), 328. “Nu zijn alle Bavinck-commentatoren het er over eens, dat de neothomsitische wijsbegeerte grote invloed op hem geoefend heeft.” 2 See Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008). Henceforth, RD. For Leo XIII, see RD 1.144, 157, 411; RD 2.362; RD 3.254; RD 4.404. For Liberatore, see RD 1.224, 232; RD 2.208, 601. © Cory Brock, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_007 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

115

lot (with some Reformed corrections) with neo-Thomism’ which is exemplified, for Berkhof, in Bavinck’s ‘intellectualism’ in the Prolegomena.3 In addition to Bremmer and Berkhof, Albert Wolters argues that ‘Bavinck’s conceptual apparatus is very largely borrowed from neo-Thomism, whereas Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd have evolved a categorical framework and terminology of their own, which do fuller justice to the religious intuition of Calvinism’.4 In an earlier essay, Wolters suggests that the neo-Thomism espoused in Leo’s encyclical Aeterni Patris of 1879 influenced Bavinck to adopt a neo-Platonic conceptual framework which Wolters sees as the norm of the whole of historical western theology.5 Yet, beyond mentioning Leo’s encyclical Wolters offers no description of the precise nature of this influence. In other words, the question remains: to whom within the revival was Bavinck indebted? Further, is the claim that Bavinck was consciously adopting the frame of this movement, which was nearly exclusively Roman Catholic, or was this influence a result of the zeitgeist of the late nineteenth century theological milieu? Related statements of this influence are found in Jan Veenhof and Cornelius Van Til, among others.6 The aim of this essay is modest. I will not attempt to address the extent to which Bavinck’s dogmatics is influenced by Leonine Thomism or attempt to refute the supposition that Bavinck was overly indebted to neo-Thomism to adopt a neo-Platonic conceptual framework.7 Rather, I will attempt to locate the ‘who’ behind the claim of Bavinck’s indebtedness to the nineteenth century neo-Thomistic influence in order to offer specificity to the discussion. Additionally, by locating the ‘who’ we will be able to evaluate the theological center of the particular neo-Thomist program and evaluate Bavinck’s reception of that contextual theology. In doing so, one will see that the ‘neo-Thomist’ label requires nuance by comparison to using language like ‘ground-motif’.

3 Hendrikus Berkhof, Two Hundred Years of Theology: Report of a Personal Journey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 114. 4 Albert Wolters, “Translator’s Preface,” in Jan Veenhof, Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck, tr. Albert Wolters (Sioux Center, IA: Dordt College Press, 2006), 1–6, 3. 5 Albert Wolters, “Dutch Neo-Calvinism: Worldview, Philosophy and Rationality,” in H. Hart, J. van der Hoeven and Nicholas Wolterstorff, (eds.), Rationality and the Calvinian Tradition (Toronto: University Press of America, 1983), 113–131, 125. 6 Veenhof, Revelatie en Inspiratie, 115; Cornelius Van Til, “Bavinck the Theologian, A Review Article,” Westminster Theological Journal 24:1 (November, 1961), 48–64, 50. 7 However, I do find this statement to be problematic due to the complexity of the neo-Thomist revival in which Thomas Aquinas, as well as Duns Scotus, among others, found substantial renewal. For this reason, the result of the revival often is termed neo-scholasticism.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

116

Brock

Modern neo-Thomism was a progressive movement in the second half of the nineteenth century grounded in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris of 1879. According to Leo, the necessity of a Thomistic revival depended on the earlier infiltration of Enlightenment philosophy into the public square and consequently the Church. For Leo, ‘false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses.’8 In other words, the neo-Thomist revival was anxious to address the problems that Cartesian and Kantian philosophy had created for Roman Catholic Theology. Leo’s proposed solution was that all Roman Catholic clergy must, aided by the ‘light of nature’, ‘aim at restoring the renowned teaching of Thomas Aquinas and winning it back to its ancient beauty’.9 Undergirding Leo’s program was the theological doctrine of the division between natural and supernatural orders that fueled the neo-Thomist program of appropriate separation of philosophy and theology, reason and faith (with particular emphasis on the distinction between theological reason and supernatural theology), which was instituted nine years prior to Aeterni Patris. The 1870 publication of Dei Filius in the Dogmatic Constitution of Faith published by the First Vatican Council divided knowledge between the things received by revelation and deduced by reason, grounded in a sharp distinction between natural knowing and supernatural knowing. This distinction is also known as the two-fold order of knowing: By enduring agreement the Catholic Church has held and holds that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only in principle but also in object: (1) in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine faith; (2) in object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they not been divinely revealed, could not become known.10

8 9 10

Pope Leo XIII, “Aeterni Patris: On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy,” Logos 12:1 (2009), 169–192, 169. Aeterni Patris, 187. Dean P. Bechard (ed.), ‘Dei Filius’, in The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teaching (Collegeville, MN: The Order of St. Benedict, 2002), 14–19; Latin text in H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Simbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, ed., P. Hünermann (Freiburg: Herder, 1991).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

117

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

2

Herman Bavinck’s Neo-Thomist Window

The multiformity of the neo-Thomistic revival has been established by a number of scholars.11 Étienne Gilson, a neo-Thomist and twentieth century historian, declared that no philosophical commonality or synthesis existed amongst the various scholastic theologians. The only synthesis to be found was that of the commitment to Christian revelation in distinction to philosophy. Gilson concluded that Thomism was irreducible to a common synthesis and that mediaeval philosophy was pluralistic. To build a common system, as neo-Thomism in its popular nineteenth century form attempted, is to reject Thomism.12 There were then a number of schools of Thomism stemming from the Jesuit and Dominican orders in addition to Suarezianism and those committed to a Scotus revival. To categorize Bavinck’s system of thought in the Reformed Dogmatics as heavily influenced by a common neo-Thomism is a generalization that the history of neo-Thomism, or neo-scholasticism, will not allow. For this reason, when considering the question of influence, one must ask ‘whose neo-Thomism’? Only one of Bavinck’s interpreters has attempted to address this question by situating his claim in the nineteenth century: R.H. Bremmer. One of the central aspects of Bremmer’s argument that Bavinck was overly influenced by the revival involves Bavinck’s dependence upon the neo-Thomist Matteo Liberatore.13 Bremmer is correct in asserting Liberatore’s influence and especially as it stands in Bavinck’s treatment of universals in the Prolegomena. He cites Liberatore’s Die Erkenntniss-theorie des heiligen Thomas von Aquino several times as an authoritative source on Thomas’ position and then four other times throughout the Reformed Dogmatics. Bremmer did not recognize though that Bavinck interacts more with Liberatore’s Germanic Jesuit contemporary Joseph Kleutgen whose works Bavinck cites fifty-four times.14 Alongside Leo XIII, the writings of Liberatore and A. Stöckl receive attention but it is especially Kleutgen who stands as Bavinck’s window into the thought of the neo-Thomistic revival. Upon closer inspection of the works of Liberatore 11

See Joseph Louis Perrier, The Revival of Scholastic Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1909), 15; Francois Picavet, Esquisse d’une histoire générale et comparée des philosophies médiévales (Paris: Alean, 1905), 239; James Hennessey, “Leo XIII’s Thomistic Revival: A Philosophical and Political Event,” The Journal of Religion Vol. 58 (1978), 185–197. 12 Étienne Gilson, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), 130–134, 144–147. 13 Bremmer, Herman Bavinck als Dogmaticus, 326. 14 Regarding Liberatore, see footnote 4. Regarding Kleutgen, see RD 4.856.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

118

Brock

and Kleutgen, historians have suggested that they are actually representative of Suarezianism,15 a movement built upon the writings of the Jesuit Francisco Suárez, who wrote the Disputationes Metaphysicae based upon his study of Aquinas and other scholastics, rather than Thomas Aquinas.16 According to Gerald McCool, it was Suarezian scholasticism and not Thomism for which the two scholars were arguing.17 For this reason alone, the label neo-Thomism, posited as Bavinck’s ground-motif, is problematic due to the complexities of the distinctions between Thomas, Suárez, and their reception among various neo-Thomist theologians. Significantly, the Leonine revival stood upon the authority of two documents: Aeterni Patris and Dei Filius. Both of these texts have been attributed to the same author: Joseph Kleutgen, who wrote the final draft of the former and was the latter’s primary author alongside Leo XIII. It is in the pen of Joseph Kleutgen that one can find the impetus of the Leonine revival and, accordingly, Bavinck interacts with Kleutgen as the central representative of neo-Thomism double that of any of Kleutgen’s colleagues within the pages of the Reformed Dogmatics. In fact, Kleutgen called the 1879 encyclical the confirmation of his life’s work.18 Since Kleutgen was the author of both the documents that frame and define the most well-known strand of neo-Thomism in Bavinck’s lifetime and since Kleutgen’s writings are Bavinck’s primary window into the revival, it is critical to understand the primary theological argument that framed Kleutgen’s desire to return to scholasticism. In doing so, it is possible to delineate the most important points of Kleutgen’s neo-Thomism in order to compare the center of Kleutgen’s thought in relation to Bavinck’s. This comparison will reveal whether the essential components of the influential nineteenth-century neo-Thomist were adopted by Bavinck and the extent to which Bavinck should be considered influenced by Kleutgen’s theology.

15

J.A. Weischeipl, “Contemporary Scholasticism,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 12, 2nd ed. (Farmington Mills, MI: Gale, 2003), 772–779 (772); Gerald McCool, The Neo-Thomists (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1994), 33. 16 Francis Suárez, Fransisci Suarez: Metaphysicarum Disputationum, in Opera Omnia Vol. 7, eds. Charles Benton and Michel Andre (Paris: apud Ludovicum Vives, 1857). 17 McCool, The Neo-Thomists, 33. 18 K. Deufel, Kirche und Tradition. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der theologischen Wende im 19. Jahrhundert am Beispiel des kirchlich-theologischen Programms P. Joseph Kleutgens (Munich: Paderborn, 1976), 383.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

119

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

3 Toward a Neo-Thomistic Center: Joseph Kleutgen’s ‘Vorzeit’ Theology John Henry Newman’s self-selected memorial epitaph, ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem (out of shadows and phantasms into truth), is an apt description of Kleutgen’s presentation of the development of Catholic theology and philosophy in the nineteenth century.19 The first half of the century offered an eclectic array of post-Cartesian thought: ontologism and traditionalism among other Enlightenment philosophical varieties in the Church that attempted to combat the implications of pure reason. The second half brought the Church back to its scholastic heritage and argued that the former attacks on rationalism had depended upon all manner of syncretistic heterodoxy.20 While differing in content, the publications Dei Filius and Aeterni Patris determined the course of philosophical combat for Roman Catholic thought against modernism into the twentieth-century. The former made concrete the doctrine of the supernatural order of faith. The First Vatican Council gave Leo XIII the power and confidence to dictate in the latter that philosophical and theological instruction within Roman Catholic seminaries should be focused on the writing and tradition of Thomas Aquinas. With these two documents, the Church solidified its response to Enlightenment speculation and syncretism. Within these publications, the center of the neo-Thomistic revival emerges: its counter against Enlightenment rationalism by confirming the distinction between the natural and supernatural orders. Dei Filius affirmed the supernatural end of humanity, the distinction between natural and supernatural knowledge, as well as that between supernatural revelation and natural reason. Leo XIII and Kleutgen, in collaboration on Aeterni Patris and in accordance with Dei Filius, argued that special revelation does not cover ‘those truths which human intelligence could attain of itself’ alone.21 This dual order of knowledge was grounded by the more fundamental distinction between the natural and supernatural orders. In fact, Edward Hocedez argues that the relationship between the natural and supernatural orders was the unifying theme in all the conversations of Catholic theology in the nineteenth century.22 The relation between natural humanity and supernatural grace found in Thomas and other scholastic thinkers was central to the Roman Catholic 19 McCool, The Neo-Thomists, 33. 20 McCool, The Neo-Thomists, 33. This historical hermeneutic was questioned in the twentieth century by those within the school of New Theology. “La nouvelle théologie où va-telle’?,” Angelicum 23 (1946), 126–145. 21 Aeterni Patris, paragraph 4. 22 Edgar Hocedez, Histoire de la théologie au xixe siècle (Paris: Desclée, 1948), 1:8–9.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

120

Brock

program of redemption and the very center of the Christian religion for both Leo XIII and Kleutgen. For this reason, the encyclical argues that human reason, ratio humana, stands as a ‘handmaiden and attendant’ to await the supernatural or heavenly doctrines from above. At the same time, philosophy is to retain its ‘own method, principles and arguments’.23 Thus, philosophy and theology adhere to a sharp distinction, each to its domain, according to the division between natural and supernatural knowledge. In addition to these Papal and conciliar documents, this distinction also stands at the center of Kleutgen’s extensive writings. Kleutgen’s two major works were Die Theologie der Vorzeit and Die Philosophie der Vorzeit. All of Bavinck’s references to Kleutgen in the Reformed Dogmatics are to one of these works with the majority being to the former. The German term Vorzeit, in its romantic sense, refers to the pre-modern period or the ‘former times’; times prior to the Enlightenment. Specifically, the so-called ‘former times’ in Kleutgen’s work refer to a pre-Cartesian theological method.24 For Kleutgen, pre-Cartesian theology was consistent and did not waver in its broad commitments from the patristic fathers through the middle ages. Besides specific instances of minor incoherence, Kleutgen sees a common metaphysical and theological method as the core of theological consistency in der Vorzeit.25 For Kleutgen, this old theology is set over against the Neuzeit which is represented by Catholic theologians of the early nineteenth-century who embrace the modern scientific method of doubt now applied to theology introduced by Descartes.26 The chief opponents are the early nineteenth-century non-classical theologians who represent the traditionalist and ontologist theologies. According to Aidan Nichols, Kleutgen’s message is that ‘the theological tradition inherited from Fathers and Schoolmen remains intellectually coherent and spiritually serviceable’.27 In the first volume of both his major works, Kleutgen identifies the three new school theologians whom he sought to investigate and repudiate: Hirscher, professor of moral theology at Freiburg, Hermes, and Günther. Kleutgen addresses the doctrines of faith, the Trinity, God’s creative act, the supernatural order, grace, sin, Adam, redemption, and the Redeemer, among others, in 23 24

Aeterni Patris, paragraph 8. Bernhard Casper, “Der Systemgedanke in der spätern Tübinger Schule und in der deutschen Neuscholastik,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 72 (1964–65), 161–179 (174). 25 J. Kleutgen, Die Theologie der Vorzeit, 5 vols. (Münster: Theissing, 1867), I.5–31, 77–102. 26 Kleutgen, Die Theologie der Vorzeit, I. 123–8; 1:1–22. 27 Aidan Nichols, Conversation of Faith and Reason: Modern Catholic Thought from Hermes to Benedict XVI (Chicago: Hillenbrand books, 2011), 117.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

121

order to defend the Vorzeit theological method and recommend its adoption in the modern development of Catholic theology. Regarding the structure of his major works, Kleutgen offers a detailed account of the history of traditional theology at the first. Then, he addresses the question of the proper use of philosophy in theology and that of the use of reason in the assent of faith. In doing so, Kleutgen gives a fair and balanced look at both the old and new methods of theology and provides his reader the option of deliberating between the two. In his conclusion, Kleutgen uses the previous section to determine how apologetics and philosophy relate to scientific theology.28 This project is comprised of seven volumes. Five are devoted to theology and two to philosophy. With Kleutgen’s balanced representation and extreme detail of the history of theology and philosophy, it is not surprising that Bavinck uses Kleutgen to such an extent. Kleutgen offers a detailed account of the history of both theology and philosophy and a normative voice for Roman Catholicism which provides a trustworthy voice for Bavinck’s own construction of the history of both disciplines. According to McCool, within all of these points of doctrine, the underlying motif that unifies them is Kleutgen’s distinction between the natural and supernatural orders.29 In reference to his central point, Kleutgen argues that Thomas’s theology of the relation of nature and grace is the only theology that could account for the right relation between faith and reason.30 For Kleutgen, theology is a science: die Wissenschaft des Glaubes. Like all sciences, the content of theology is found in its source which is, according to Kleutgen, the supernatural act of faith.31 For Kleutgen, Scripture and tradition are sources of theology that must be exposited by a mind of faith. Therefore, this mind must be elevated by a supernatural act of grace. The source of philosophy is, on the other hand, a product of the natural intellect apart from grace. For Kleutgen, the distinction between theology and philosophy is a distinction between a natural and supernatural source; one profane and the other elevated to the sacred. The difference in the sourced faculties is metaphysical. Philosophy remains self-evident to the natural mind. Theology is dependent upon revelatory elevation.32

28

For an extended exposition, see Gerald McCool, Nineteenth Century Scholasticism: The Search for a Unitary Method (New York: Fordham University Press, 1989), 171–175. 29 McCool, Nineteenth Century Scholasticism, 170. 30 McCool, Nineteenth Century Scholasticism, 7. 31 Kleutgen, Die Theologie der Vorzeit, 5:545–55. 32 Kleutgen, Die Theologie der Vorzeit, 5:548–53, 565–67.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

122

Brock

Kleutgen’s emphasis on metaphysical elevation went a step beyond Aquinas’s grace perfects nature.33 Kleutgen was extensively influenced by Suárez and read Thomas through that lens. According to Dalmau, Suárez ‘vigorously defended the absolute transcendence of the order of grace as supernatural’.34 For Suárez, original justice was established in creatures by the sanctifying grace of God. According to a unique providence, this doctrine of sanctifying grace accounted for the prelapsarian gifts, akin to Thomas’s donum superadditum, and, as a consequence, Suárez limited the actual effect of original sin to the relationship between the orders.35 Suárez retained a neo-Platonic tendency in the form of describing the distinction between God and creature, supernature and nature, in Bavinck’s words, as ‘the graduated scale of the good, on the ranking of creatures and virtues, on hierarchy both in a physical and an ethical sense’.36 This hierarchical conception shaped Kleutgen’s view of the relation between philosophy and theology, one natural, and the other a supernatural science. For Kleutgen, the basic principles of knowledge in philosophy are principles of reason which he defines as ‘those universal truths which lie at the foundation of our thinking’ and are set against the principles of supernatural faith.37 In accordance with Kleutgen’s separation of philosophy and theology, faith and reason, apologetics, using the principles of reason, stands outside the field of theology. Apologetics serves the purpose of displaying the reasonableness and rationality of assent by faith. Apologetics is a presupposition to the science of theology and can be practiced, unlike theology, by those who had not experienced supernatural faith by grace. Thus, apologetics is a subset of philosophy and history and remains a natural science.38 For Kleutgen, knowledge gathered through the sciences of philosophy, history and apologetics, or fundamental theology, is not dependent upon revelation and apologetics stands as a natural propaedeutic to supernatural faith.39 This underlying division between the orders and principles is also central to Kleutgen’s doctrine of redemption. For Kleutgen, theology is about the Triune God. All of the individual propositions are unified in the scope of their formal 33

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, n.d.), I, q.1, a.8, Response to Objection 2. 34 J. Dalmau, “Francis Suárez,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 13. 2nd ed. (Farmington Mills, MI: Gale, 2003), pp. 558–561, 559. 35 Dalmau, “Francis Suárez,” 559. 36 RD 1. 359. 37 Kleutgen, Die Philosophie der Vorzeit, I: 455. Translated by Nichols, 113. 38 Kleutgen, Die Theologie der Vorzeit, 5:554–555. 39 McCool, Nineteenth Century Scholasticism, 7.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

123

object, God.40 Theology, for Kleutgen, is concerned with the object of God’s being ad intra and his work of regenerative redemption ad extra. Regeneration is considered an ontological work of God whereby he moves humanity from the natural to supernatural order. In agreement with the scholastic notion of sanctifying grace and particularly with Suárez, Kleutgen posited that original righteousness was supernatural rather than natural. Regardless of the transmission of sin, the sanctifying grace of God is necessary in order for humanity to obtain the beatific vision. The pre-lapsarian condition is not intrinsic to human nature but a result of imputed grace. Kleutgen especially identifies the supernatural state of righteousness against the Tübingen School and Hirscher’s account of natural righteousness.41 For Kleutgen, like Suárez, the redemptive work of Christ was purposed for elevation and, therefore, regeneration is an act of grace that obtains a new order. Thus, elevation requires a dualistic view of the relation of human nature and God’s grace; the natural from the supernatural. According to McCool, The Tübingen traditionalist anthropology with its metaphysics of a primitive revelation without which the first principles of metaphysics and morals could not be known, made Adam’s state of original justice a natural state. And, in that case, Christ’s redemptive work was reduced to the work of man’s restoration to the perfection of the natural order, and the educative work of Christ and the Holy Spirit assumed the status of a natural causal influence.42 In other words, the distinction between Hirscher and Kleutgen can be expressed in the distinction between the dictums ‘grace restores nature’ and ‘grace elevates nature’. Kleutgen’s intent in a return to scholasticism was to force the hand of the traditionalists and ontologists. With papal infallibility secured in the First Vatican Council, the papal command for the return to Thomas would require the condemnation of a naturalist view of original justice and redemption and would necessitate adoption of the doctrine of sanctifying grace and an Aristotelian metaphysic contra the syncretistic schools of der Neuzeit. Without this scholastic view of the relation between the supernatural and natural orders, the relationship between theology and philosophy would remain distorted.

40 Kleutgen, Die Theologie der Vorzeit, 5:565–81. 41 Kleutgen, Die Theologie der Vorzeit, 2:547–51. 42 McCool, Nineteenth Century Scholasticism, 198.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

124

Brock

Thus, McInery describes the heartbeat of the neo-Thomistic revival following Dei Filius in 1870, of which Kleutgen authored the final draft, as the ‘fundamental theology’, praeambula fidei, or the science that serves as propaedeutic to theology, which he sees best summarized by Pope John Paul II: The existence of truths which are natural, and thus philosophically knowable…Consider for example the natural knowledge of God…from all of these truths the mind is led to acknowledge a truly propaedeutic path to faith, one which can lead to the acceptance of revelation without in any way compromising the principles and autonomy of the mind itself.43 Despite having been accused of conspiracy to murder nearly ten years prior,44 Kleutgen’s influence at the First Vatican Council was unmatched and he was the most important theologian alongside Leo XIII at the drafting of Aeterni Patris. It was Kleutgen’s understanding of the scholastic distinction between nature and grace that served as the impetus of the Leonine revival. 4

Bavinck on Supernaturalist Deviation

In the Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck used Kleutgen in a number of ways including that of citation in order to give evidence for an argument. Bavinck shared ample areas of agreement with Kleutgen: that true knowledge of God is grounded in faith; that reason is a gift of God; that the theologian ought to strive for agreement between revelation and reason; an aversion to innate ideas; that theology stands on revealed first principles, and that there are some significant distinctions between theology and philosophy. Bavinck was also a cognitive realist and agreed with so much of the broadest Thomist tradition. Bavinck, like Kleutgen, made use of Aristotle’s hylomorphic principle, and affirmed the fact of theology as science, calling the science of dogmatics a scholastic enterprise.45 However, Bavinck was adamantly opposed to the center of Kleutgen’s neo-Thomistic program: a dualism, as he understood it, between the natural and supernatural orders. 43 44 45

Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio (Newcastle: Pauline Books and Media, 1998), 67; Ralph McInery, Praeambula Fidei: Thomism and the God of the Philosophers (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 2006). Kleutgen was wrongly accused of conspiracy to murder in the late 1850s and imprisoned for a time. Leo XIII knew of his past and still chose to use Kleutgen at the forefront of the neo-Thomist revival in the late 1870’s. See Nichols, 117–119. RD 1.54.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

125

According to Bavinck, Scripture does not posit a sharp contrast between natural and supernatural orders, both being created, creaturely realms. Bavinck defines nature as all things pertaining to the sensible and material world. Supernature, on the other hand, is that which pertains to the supersensible.46 For Bavinck, Kleutgen is correct to posit continuity between the Patristic Fathers and the later scholastics. It was in Clement of Alexandria that the first clear equation of supernatural ontology and faith appears. Bavinck cites Chrysostom, Ambrose, and John of Damascus as proponents of versions of a mistaken nature/supernature distinction. However, one of the problems with this dualism, according to Bavinck, is that the ideas of nature and supernature are interdependent. While God the Creator does not depend on creation, the very concept ‘supernatural’ is completely dependent upon the concept ‘natural’ in order to carry meaning. Super-nature cannot exist unless nature does as well (otherwise it would not be supernature) and this conceptual dependence points to a real mutuality between these created realms.47 Beyond linguistics, Bavinck argues against Kleutgen’s variety of ‘supernaturalism’ (a dualism between the orders) in terms of ontology, the doctrine of revelation, and teleology. First, in distinction with Kleutgen’s ontological view of the relationship between God and creation, Bavinck affirms the Creator-creature distinction. To be sure, Bavinck does not deny the obvious existence of supernatural and natural creaturely being. For Bavinck, ‘revelation in Scripture presupposes that there exists still another, higher and better world than this nature and hence that there is an order of things “surpassing this natural order”’.48 However, for Bavinck, the distinction must not become a dualism. Bavinck grounds his discussion of the relation of nature and supernature in the categories of being and becoming. Essential to the distinction is a further distinction: the ‘gulf between the infinite and finite, between eternity and time, between being and becoming…’.49 For Bavinck, God is absolute being. God is a se and therefore not dependent on any entity outside of himself. God exists in and of himself without need. All ontological existence outside of Him is dependent upon his free choice to act ad extra and all ontological predication about Him is dependent upon his free choice to reveal himself ad extra. According to Eglinton, for Bavinck ‘the divine ontology is focused on God’s independent, timeless state of being; an ontology quite unlike that of the cosmos. Conversely, the hallmarks 46 47 48 49

RD 1.355. RD 1.357. RD 1.356. RD 2.30.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

126

Brock

of the creation are its dependent, temporal state of becoming, and its ontological difference from the divine being’.50 Eglinton points out that Bavinck’s ontological distinction between Creator and creature stands in the tradition of Calvin’s finitum non capax infiniti, a thoroughly Reformed heritage.51 In distinction from God’s being, there is the order of nature and super-nature, the realm of humanity and the realm of the angels. These two realms share a creaturely mutuality and one of interdependence. Without a strong view of this organic mutuality, Bavinck understands the neo-Thomist theology to mistakenly draw overly sharp metaphysical boundaries between the two. Within neo-Thomistic ontology as Bavinck understands it, the proto-anthropos, Adam, was elevated by grace to a status of super-nature to become fit in order to see the Creator. Thus, the imago dei in this account is primarily a ‘likeness’ ontologically without which stands the ‘natural’ human. Nature is not fit in itself for super-nature, unless God add to nature a particular gift of grace enabling its elevation. Bavinck supposes this an unnecessary dualism that misses the organic mutuality of the two realms. Bavinck on the other hand, in the tradition of Reformed theology, posited an ontology in agreement with the extra calvinisticum in order to maintain a Creator-creature distinction even within the hypostatic union: Christ as both being and becoming. Christ brings clarity to the relation insofar as the telos of human existence is in the union of heaven and earth, exemplified in the person of the Son of God himself. For Bavinck, to be like God is not to share in being with God or be elevated to the realm of the angels, even as an act of grace. Rather, God’s being is the causal principle of humanity’s becoming and there is a radical distinction between the being of God and both realms of existence. For Bavinck then, to be human is to be like God and to be like God is how human nature was made in itself. For this reason, God created humanity to be natural without need of elevation to the order of the supernatural. Rather, the natural and supernatural are mutually existing realities from the original creation forward. For Bavinck, the prelapsarian state was natural and very good. In this way, God’s redemptive supernatural work ad extra is not an effort to elevate nature by grace but to restore nature to and beyond its prelapsarian state, to its intended maturity. The problem then, according to Bavinck, with the influx of sin is not metaphysical but ethical. In contradistinction to Kleutgen’s dualism, it is critical to note that defining the natural state as one inadequate of original righteousness and in need 50

James Eglinton, Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif (London: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury, 2012), 118. 51 Eglinton, Trinity and Organism, 120.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

127

of sanctifying grace results in defining redemption in primarily metaphysical terms. In this way, while Bavinck and Kleutgen share aspects of agreement along the lines of Thomistic epistemology, theology as science, and use much of Thomas’s philosophical framework, they are opposed at the center. For Kleutgen’s neo-Thomism, the Christian religion hinges upon a metaphysical problem. For Bavinck, the problem is entirely ethical. Therefore, regeneration, sanctification, and the other aspects of the ordo salutis take on, for Bavinck, a judicial and ethical transformation of the self. These logical steps in the order of salvation are toward the fullness of human nature rather than an elevation above human nature. Second, Bavinck also rejected Kleutgen’s antithesis between theology and (especially) philosophical theology on the grounds of his doctrine of revelation. For Kleutgen, the difference in the two sciences is a difference in natural and revelational knowledge. For Bavinck however, all knowledge begins with God’s revelation, even if the reality of revelation is unperceived or unacknowledged by the knower. At the bottom of the problem of knowledge, God is at work to unify the subjective and objective and in doing so God reveals God’s self to each human in their consciousness by the Spirit. Bavinck expresses this fact through the Logos principle, that the mediator of both subject and object is the Son of God, thereby justifying a theological understanding of an organic unity between self and world. Thus, the consequence: ‘revelation cannot stand absolutely over against nature’.52 For ‘revelation and creation are not opposed to each other, for creation itself is a revelation’.53 For Bavinck, revelation is both natural and supernatural, as is any knowledge of God. Bavinck summarized the basic content of the distinction between a Roman Catholic view of supernatural revelation against the Reformational view as follows: in the Reformation, supernatural revelation did not, in the first place, mean that it belonged as such to another order and surpassed even the intellect of sinless human beings and angels. Rather, this revelation was supernatural because it far exceeded the thoughts and wishes of sinful fallen human beings.54 Bavinck holds that there is, in reality, no difference in supernatural or natural revelation except for its content. All revelation is supernatural in the sense that all the ways in which God has revealed himself are indicative of God’s own 52 53 54

RD 1.360. RD 1.361. RD 1.305.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

128

Brock

supernatural and independent life. At the same time, all that is natural has the supernatural as its cause. The distinction between natural and supernatural revelation is not, for Bavinck, a distinction between revelations that belong to a particular order (like theophany versus a sunrise) but only one that aids humanity in describing the method by which the mystery of the Gospel has been revealed. Supernatural revelation reveals the special grace of God after sin. All scientific knowledge then, for Bavinck, begins with God’s action in organically uniting subject and object. But, more importantly, natural knowledge about God is indeed revealed knowledge that has been processed by the human faculties. There is no merely natural theological reasoning. All theological supposition that is true knowledge is indeed a product of revelation. This fact is grounded in the very work of creation as the architectonic principle of all of God’s revelation. Subsequently, God reveals himself through the providential care of nature. In this way, God’s revelation is through his words and deeds in nature and history. Both the words and deeds of God are the revelation of supernatural mystery. At the same time, both the words and deeds of God are naturally revealed in nature and history. History is a continuous revelation of God. It is both natural and supernatural. One cannot exist without the other. For Bavinck, nature is revelationally sourced and revelation is, at the same time, supernatural. Therefore, according to Bavinck, ‘the supernatural is not at odds with human nature, nor with the nature of creatures; it belongs, so to speak, to humanity’s essence’.55 For this reason, Bavinck rejects the idea that apologetics is a distinct subset of philosophy and history or that it acts as a propaedeutic to theology. For Bavinck, apologetics does not logically precede dogmatics but is an integral aspect of dogmatics. Apologetics is not an enterprise in general but is indeed Christian persuasion. Bavinck places himself in line with Calvin and the Reformed scholastics by positing that natural theology does not gradually lead to faith. The natural person cannot first adopt the position of reason alone and ascend to faith by way of rationalism. Apologetics, rather, is faith seeking understanding. According to Bavinck, ‘apologetics cannot and may not precede dogmatics but presupposes dogma and now gets the modest but still splendid task of maintaining and defending this dogma against all opposition’.56 Finally, Bavinck rejects nature/grace dualism on the grounds of teleology. Central to the arguments of all three theologians whom Kleutgen interacts with in his major works is the critique of the doctrine of the supernatural end. 55 56

RD 1.308. RD 1.56.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

129

In fact, Bavinck cites both Hermes and Günther as primary Catholic opponents of this Roman Catholic doctrine.57 Bavinck posits that Roman Catholicism in the common stream of neo-Thomism stands upon an antithesis between gradations of the scale of good rather than between sin and grace. The doctrine of supernatural ends present in Dei Filius posits a distinction between humanity’s nature and destiny: Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that revelation is said to be absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained man for a supernatural end, to participation, namely, in the divine goods which altogether surpass the understanding of the human mind, since ‘eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him’.58 With the loss of the image of God, for Kleutgen, the ‘natural’ person can come to know God through reason and can fear Him and acquire a natural joy in their lives that occurs due to some sense of relation to God. Yet, this natural ability is wholly distinct from the supernatural destiny of those to whom God gives a spiritual telos by way of new being. Faith and charity exhibit the higher and supernatural gift of grace that God gives by revelation to some. In this way, even prior to the Fall, human nature and human destiny were not in good relation. Supernatural revelation, in this sense, already contained special or sanctifying grace. According to Bavinck, Roman Catholicism must concede that ‘the entire supernatural order that now exists in the incarnation, the church, and the sacraments, would have been necessary also without and aside from sin’.59 Bavinck critiques this program of supernatural destiny on the grounds that this view deprives the Fall of meaning. If the supernatural destiny of humanity and the content of special grace were God’s program prior to the Fall, sin resulted in no consequence or change in the eschatological movement of the cosmos. Consequentially, redemption could not be an ethical endeavor. In contradistinction to this supernatural end Bavinck proposes that the Christian religion only became necessary after the Fall. While the idea of religion is unified before and after the Fall, the fact that this religion is Christian is occasioned by sin. It is sin that created the need for the Christian program of redemption. Thus, the purpose of the Christian religion is not supernatural elevation or a supernatural end but a natural one, or seeking the fullness of 57 58 59

RD 1.359. Dei Filius, chapter 2. RD 1.359.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

130

Brock

human nature in the vision of the God-man, Christ.60 For Bavinck, the Christian program’s doctrine of grace exists to restore humanity along with the cosmos to the natural order, which includes the union of heaven and earth, expressed in God’s presence in the Edenic garden. In this way, all of nature will be treated in unity. Humanity will not be isolated and removed from nature. Rather, humanity will be restored to its proper place in nature and nature will know the presence of God. Therefore, for Bavinck, the Christian religion seeks a natural end by supernatural means, an end not to be construed in terms of a hierarchy of being. 5 Conclusion Should Bavinck retain the label neo-Thomist? Should neo-Thomism be posited as a ground-motif within the Reformed Dogmatics? In light of the sharp contrast at the very center of the idea of the Christian religion between Kleutgen, Leo XIII, the center of the Leonine revival and Bavinck, this essay suggests that the extent of the neo-Thomistic influence posited by a number of Bavinck interpreters be altered. In addition to the contrast between their view of the relation of the order of nature and grace, the multiformity and complexity of the neo-Thomistic revival and neo-Scholasticism these facts require a more nuanced rendering of Bavinck’s relationship to late nineteenth century Roman Catholic theology than has been previously offered. For this reason, the label ‘neo-Thomist’ is a term of confusion when appropriated as a ‘ground-motif’. In response to the issue of multiformity, this essay has attempted to locate the nature of neo-Thomistic influence upon Bavinck with specificity. Rather than Matteo Liberatore, Bavinck’s primary interaction with the revival is with Joseph Kleutgen and it is at the center of Kleutgen’s theology that the revelation of the stark opposition between Bavinck and neo-Thomism is exposed. While Bavinck does posit a distinction between nature and supernature he does so with much less ferocity and with the aim at maintaining the natural end of humanity. Thus, the ways in which Kleutgen and Bavinck conceive of the Christian religion’s program of redemption are divided. Therefore, the label ‘neo-Thomist’, posited by a number of Bavinck’s commentators as a critical underlying influence, must be shed. This does not mean that neo-Thomism did not have any influence upon Bavinck. Rather, equating one tradition wholesale as a ground-motif or conceptual framework for the 60

RD 1.361.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

131

entirety of one’s thought lacks the nuance needed as regards specific aspects of both the tradition and the thinker. In this way, this work gives heed to Eglinton’s summons to reevaluate all aspects of traditional interpretation regarding Bavinck’s theology and locates Bavinck more clearly as an eclectic theologian who was orthodox yet modern.61 This essay serves to show that in squeezing Bavinck into a neo-Thomistic mold, the aforementioned interpreters have actually created an irreconcilable tension in Bavinck between a neo-Thomistic framework that supports nature/grace dualism and Bavinck’s own antipathy for this supernaturalism as destructive of the logic of the Triune God’s program of redemption. Thus, in support of a unified reading, this work offers a negative argument that neo-Thomism as a system is not apt to describe Bavinck’s framework especially using the language of ground motif. To posit something of the sort is to deny the fundamental antipathy between Bavinck and neo-Thomism with regard to supernaturalism. However, this essay neither denies the influence of Thomism in general upon Bavinck nor posits a replacement for this neo-Thomist hermeneutic. Rather, this work takes a small step in pointing the interpreter away from a neo-Thomistic ground motif towards a re-reading of Bavinck’s dogmatiek that avoids making undeniable tension irreconcilable. Bibliography Aquinas, T. (n.d.) Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne. Bavinck, H. (2003–08). Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. J. Bolt (ed.), J. Vriend (tr.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Bechard, D. (ed.). (2002). ‘Dei Filius’. In The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teaching. Collegeville, MN: The Order of St. Benedict, 14–19; original Latin text: Denzinger, H. (1991). Enchiridion Simbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. (ed.) P. Hünermann. Freiburg i.B.: Herder. Berkhof, H. (1989). Two Hundred Years of Theology: Report of a Personal Journey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bolt, J. (2003). “Grand Rapids Between Kampen and Amsterdam: Herman Bavinck’s Reception and Influence in North America.” Calvin Theological Journal 38: 263–80. Bremmer, R.H. (1961). Herman Bavinck als Dogmaticus. Kampen: Kok.

61 Eglinton, Trinity and Organism, 209. See Cory C. Brock, Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Friedrich Schleiermacher (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

132

Brock

Brock, C. (2020). Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Friedrich Schleiermacher. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press. Dalmau, J. (2003). “Francis Suárez.” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 13. 2nd ed. Farmington Mills, MI: Gale, 558–561. Deufel, K. (1976). Kirche und Tradition. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der theologischen Wende im 19. Jahrhundert am Beispiel des kirchlich-theologischen Programms P. Joseph Kleutgen. Munich: Paderborn. Eglinton, J. (2012). Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif. London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark. Garrigou-Lagrange, R. (1946). “La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?.” Angelicum 23: 126– 145. Gilson, É. (1991). The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Hennessey, J. (1978). “Leo XIII’s Thomistic Revival: A Philosophical and Political Event.” The Journal of Religion Vol. 58: 185–197. Hepp, V. (1921). Dr. Herman Bavinck. Amsterdam: W. Ten Have. Hocedez, E. (1948). Histoire de la théologie au xixe siècle. Paris: Desclée. Kleutgen, J. (1878). Die Philosophie der Vorzeit, 2 vols. Innsbruck: Rausch. Kleutgen, J. (1867). Die Theologie der Vorzeit, 5 vols. Münster: Theissing. Liberatore, M. (1861). Die Erkenntniss-theorie des heiligen Thomas von Aquino. Mainz: Kirchheim. Mattson, B. (2011). Restored to Our Destiny: Eschatology & the Image of God in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics. Studies in Reformed Theology 21. Leiden: Brill. McCool, G. (1994). The Neo-Thomists. Marquette: Marquette University Press. McCool, G. (1989). Nineteenth Century Scholasticism: The Search for a Unitary Method. New York: Fordham University Press. McInery, R. (2006). Praeambula Fidei: Thomism and the God of the Philosophers. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America. Perrier, J. (1909). The Revival of Scholastic Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press. Picavet, F. (1905). Esquisse d’une histoire générale et comparée des philosophies mediévales. Paris: Alean. Pope Leo XIII (2009). “Aeterni Patris: On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy.” Logos 12:1, 169–192. Pope John Paul II. (1998). Fides et Ratio. Newcastle: Pauline Books and Media. Suárez, F. (1857). Fransisci Suarez: Metaphysicarum Disputationum. In: C. Benton and M. Andre (eds.). Opera omnia, vol. 7. Paris: apud Ludovicum Vives. Van Til, C. (1961). “Bavinck the Theologian, A Review Article.” Westminster Theological Journal 24:1, 48–64.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Herman Bavinck the Neo-Thomist?

133

Veenhof, J. (1968). Revelatie en Inspiratie: de Openbarings-en Schriftbeschouwing van Herman Bavinck in vergelijking met die der ethische theologie. Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn. Weischeipl, J.A. (2003). “Contemporary Scholasticism.” In: New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 12, 2nd ed. Farmington Mills, MI: Gale, 772–779. Wolters, A. (1983). “Dutch Neo-Calvinism: Worldview, Philosophy and Rationality.” In: H. Hart, J. van der Hoeven and N. Wolterstorff. (eds.). Rationality in the Calvinian Tradition. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 113–131. Wolters, A. (2006), “Translator’s Preface.” In: J. Veenhof. Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck. Albert Wolters (tr.). Sioux Center, IA: Dordt College Press, 1–6.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 7

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’, and the Nouvelle Théologie: A Test Case for Doctrinal Development Eduardo Echeverria 1

Introduction: Doctrinal Development?

Is there a contradiction between Vatican I (1869–1870), particularly its Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, and the Nouvelle Théologie?1 In his penetrating essay “Identiteit of Conflict: Een poging tot analyse” [Identity or Conflict: An Attempt at Analysis], the Dutch master of dogmatic and ecumenical theology G.C. Berkouwer (1903–1996) argues that such is the case.2 Under the strong influence of the theologizing of the Théologie Nouvelle, I believe a crisis arose in Roman Catholic theology and philosophy, a crisis that is by no means at an end and certainly has not been resolved by Humani Generis [Pius XII, 1950]. In this crisis, we see doubts arising concerning the autonomy of reason in the natural realm, a doubt which entails an altered view of philosophy and in particular natural theology. At this stage there are many discussions circulating—understandably so—about whether this change of direction can be reconciled with the decisions of 1870 [Dei Filius, Vatican I] and Humani Generis. We believe that this is not the case, but fully respect the perspective of [Michael] Marlet and others [nouveaux théologiens] who are attempting to find a

1 Major parts of this essay are adapted from my book, Revelation, History, and Truth: A Hermeneutics of Dogma (New York: Peter Lang, 2018), 154–168. 2 G.C. Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict? Een Poging tot Analyse,” Philosophia Reformata 21 (1956): 1–41. All the untranslated Dutch citations of Berkouwer’s writings were translated into English by James A. de Jong. Five years after the publication of de Algemene Openbaring (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1951; English: General Revelation [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955]), Berkouwer returns to a critical discussion of Vatican I and the “duplex ordo cognitionis” in his extensive article review of Michael J. Marlet, S.J., Grundlinien der Kalvinistischen ‘Philosophie der Gesetzesidee’ als Christlicher Transzendentalphilosophie (München: Karl Zink Verlag, 1954). © Eduardo Echeverria, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_008 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

135

synthesis and harmony with such decisions, which (especially the 1870 pronouncements of Vatican I) have absolute validity.3 Berkouwer alleges that a crisis exists stemming from a fundamental contradiction between Vatican I and the Nouvelle Théologie. In contrast, the interpretation provided by the nouveaux théologiens, such as Henri de Lubac, SJ, Hans Urs von Balthasar, et al., of the relation of nature and grace—of creation and redemption—and, epistemically, of faith and reason, argues for the consistency of their interpretation with Vatican I’s teaching regarding a ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’. Of course, their denial that a contradiction exists does not exclude legitimate development of Catholic doctrine on faith and reason. In light of Benedict XVI’s distinction between two hermeneutics, we can understand the idea of legitimate development. Benedict states: On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform”, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church that the Lord has given to us. She is a subject that increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.4 How should we think about legitimate doctrinal development? Following Benedict, I will call it a hermeneutic of reform and renewal within the continuity of the Church’s teaching. Briefly, then, Aidan Nichols is right: “What we should look for is a theory which allows for genuine development in doctrine yet respects the substantial homogeneity of revealed truth.”5 We find elements of such a theory in St. Vincent of Lérins, who died about 445 A.D., was a Gallic monk, the chief theologian of the Abbey of Lérins, and developed a fundamental theological account of the development of Christian doctrine in his chief work, the Commonitorium (434).6 His theory allows a historical dimension to the explicitation of unchangeable doctrinal truth. Vincent

3 Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 34. 4 Benedict XVI, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia offering them his Christmas Greetings (Libreria Editrice Vaticana), Thursday, 22 December 2005. 5 Aidan Nichols, OP, From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the Victorians to the Second Vatican Council (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 169. 6 Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitories, tr. Rudolph E. Morris (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1949).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

136

Echeverria

distinguishes between propositional truths of faith and their formulations. He alludes to this distinction when arguing that the form may change but not the fundamental content of the faith, because the meaning and truth of the latter remains always the same.7 “Hence, it must be that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance mightily and strongly in individuals as well as in the community, in a single person as well as in the Church as a whole, and this gradually according to age and history. But only within the proper limits, i.e., within the same dogma, the same meaning, the same judgment (in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu eademque sententia).”8 Although the truths of the faith may be expressed differently, they must be kept within determinate bounds. That is, we must always determine whether those re-formulations preserve the same meaning and mediate the same judgment of truth. Importantly, John XXIII depends on Vincent as well as the First Vatican Council by implicitly distinguishing between propositional truths of faith and their formulations in reflecting on the sense in which a doctrine, already confirmed and defined, is more fully known and deeply understood. For the deposit of faith, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, are one thing; the fashion in which they are expressed, but with the same meaning and the same judgment [eodem sensu eademque sententia], is another thing.9 The subordinate clause, which I have cited in its Latin original, is part of a larger passage from the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Faith and Reason, Dei Filius (1869–70), which is earlier invoked by Pope Pius IX in the bull of 1854, Ineffabilis Deus, also cited by Pope Leo XIII in his 1899 encyclical letter, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae. And this formula in Dei Filius is itself taken from the Commonitorium of Vincent of Lérins, as I cited above. The differing linguistic expressions of the propositional truths of faith must keep the same meaning and the same judgment: eodem sensu eademque sententia. This italicized phrase means to say that the truth of a proposition is 7 For an account of Vincent’s theory of dogmatic development, see Eduardo Echeverria, “Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine,” in K.J. Flannery, SJ, and R.J. Dodaro, OSJ (eds.), “Faith Once For All Delivered”: Tradition and Doctrinal Authority in the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2021). See also, Revelation, History, and Truth, 1–45. 8 Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitories, 309. 9 Allocution on the Occasion of the Solemn Inauguration of the Second Ecumenical Council Gaudet mater ecclesia (October 11, 1962), §14. John XXIII cites Vincent’s words in Latin, “in eodem sensu eademque sententia,” when he delivered the opening address to the Council.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

137

inextricably connected with its meaning. As to meaning, the way things are is what makes “meaning” true or false. Therefore, a proposition is true if what it says corresponds to the way objective reality is; otherwise, it is false. In the words of Bernard Lonergan, “Meaning of its nature is related to a ‘meant,’ and what is meant may or may not correspond to what is so. If it corresponds, the meaning is true. If it does not correspond, the meaning is false.”10 Thus, a dogma’s meaning is unchangeable because that meaning is true. The truths of faith are, if true, always and everywhere true; the different way of expressing these truths may vary in our attempts to communicate revealed truths more clearly and accurately, but these various linguistic expressions do not affect the truth of the propositions. Let us look back to Benedict XVI: It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the program that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.11 How, then, does a theory of doctrinal development—in a Vincentian mode— allow for genuine development in doctrine yet respects the substantial homogeneity of revealed truth, such that an “essential homogeneity . . . unite[s] both revelation and dogma in one seamless garment?”12 It is precisely that ‘synthesis of fidelity and dynamic’ between Vatican I and the Nouvelle Théologie that Berkouwer denies is possible—a claim that will be refuted in this chapter. 2

Duplex Ordo Cognitionis

What does Vatican I mean by the duplex ordo cognitionis?13 The latter refers to a ‘twofold order of knowledge [that is] distinct both in [epistemic] principle 10

Bernard J.F. Lonergan, SJ, “The Dehellenization of Dogma,” in Bernard J.F. Lonergan, A Second Collection, eds. William F.J. Ryan, SJ, et al. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), 11–32, esp. 14. 11 Benedict XVI, “Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia”. 12 Nichols, From Newman to Congar, 177. 13 Heinrich Niebecker calls this twofold order of knowledge, “das erste grosze Wesensgesetz des katholischen Offenbrarungsbegriffs” [the first great essential law of the Catholic

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

138

Echeverria

and also in object’, according to the dogmatic constitution of the First Vatican Council (1870) on the Catholic faith, Dei Filius. “In its [epistemic] principle, because in the one we know by natural reason, in the other by divine faith; in its object, because apart from what natural reason can attain, there are proposed to our belief mysteries that are hidden in God that can never be known unless they are revealed by God.”14 Berkouwer claims, in the passage cited above, that there is an epistemological crisis in Roman Catholic theology and philosophy regarding the autonomy of human reason in the natural realm, in particular, regarding both philosophy’s and natural theology’s capability of apprehending truth about the natural order of things, of reality and therefore in some degree about God by reason alone, in other words, as a “self-contained product of autonomous reason.”15 The crisis stems from recognizing that everyone who engages in the practice of philosophical reasoning—including natural theological reasoning—operates within a framework of presuppositions, a worldview, inseparable from particular intellectual and cultural traditions in which that practice is embodied. Perhaps a crux interpretum for understanding the nature of the crisis to which Berkouwer refers is the question regarding the idea of Christian philosophy. In Berkouwer’s 1956 review article of Fr. Marlet’s study of Herman Dooyeweerd’s Christian transcendental philosophy, he shows that Marlet embraces the idea of Christian philosophy. Marlet writes, “philosophical thought is always already encompassed by a theological a priori in the sense of an a priori standpoint in revelation.” In short, adds Marlet, all philosophical thought is rooted in “concrete and supra-theoretical presuppositions” and hence it is about an “inner penetration of philosophy and religion.”16 Although Berkouwer has no problem recognizing Marlet’s affinity, and hence the affinity of the Nouvelle Théologie, with Dooyeweerd’s thought17 on notion of revelation] (Wesen und Wirklichkeit der übernatürlichen Offenbarung—Eine Besinnung auf die Grundlagen der Katholischen Theologie [Herder: Freiburg, 1940], 198; cited by Berkouwer, Algemene Openbaring, 49n4; English: 63n). 14 Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matter of Faith and Morals, ed. Peter Hünermann, 43rd Edition, trs. and eds. by Robert Fastiggi and Anne Englund Nash (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), no. 3015. 15 Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Can Philosophy be Christian?” in First Things April 2000; online: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2000/04/001-can-philosophy-be-christian. (Accessed Feb. 16, 2022). 16 Marlet, Grundlinien, 96, 97, 99. 17 Herman Dooyeweerd, “Het Gesprek tussen het neo-Thomisme and de Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee,” Bijdragen, Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie 72 (1966): 202–13. For an essential summary of Herman Dooyeweerd’s transcendental critique of theoretical thought, see his 1959 American and Canadian lectures published in his work, In the Twilight of

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

139

the supra-theoretical, religious roots of philosophy, he seriously questions whether Marlet’s position on Christian philosophy, that is, on the religious roots of philosophy, the ‘Christian, religious a priori’,18 is consistent with the Church’s teaching, especially with the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’, of faith and natural reason, found in Vatican Council I of 1870, reaffirmed in Pius XII’s 1950 Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis. This duplex ordo is also reaffirmed in John Paul II’s 1998 Encyclical, Fides et Ratio. Since Berkouwer thinks that human reason, with its powers and activities, on the lower level of the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’ is essentially self-sufficient, abstracted from a commitment of the will, religiously neutral, and unaffected by sin, it is no wonder that he would find inconsistency here. Perhaps the most succinct expression of this inconsistency is, according to Berkouwer, expressed by Balthasar: “The outlook of [man’s philosophical] reason will not be the outlook of a ratio pura but of a reason that already stands within the teleology of faith or unbelief.”19 Briefly, on this view, ‘pure reason’ does not, concretely, exist because the natural reasoning of actual human beings is at its root a religious act, as it were, being already directed in the actual conditions of fact under which it operates by the central disposition of the heart, whether fallen or renewed, either for or against God. In this light, we can understand why Marlet therefore rejects the autonomy of reason and embraces the idea, as Berkouwer puts it, “all philosophical thought has at its root ‘concrete and supra-theoretical presuppositions’, and their corresponding religious ‘Leitmotifs’, ‘which Dooyeweerd’s transcendental critique of philosophical thought has laid bare’.”20 Western Thought: Studies in the Pretended Autonomy of Philosophical Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Paideia Press, 2012). In fact, Dooyeweerd again acknowledges this affinity in 1964: “But now, with the rise of the nouvelle théologie, and new directions in neo-Scholastic philosophy, in which people also speak of the religious center of man—why, now the second volume of my book Reformation and Scholasticism in fact suddenly lost its basis, at least as regards its treatment of Scholasticism, because the Roman Catholics would say, ‘What are you talking about? We are living in different times, and neo-Scholasticism has long outgrown the old standpoint. It has come very close to you’… But that was also the reason why I never published that second volume of Reformation and Scholasticism in its entirety. I was no longer satisfied with it.” [Herman Dooyeweerd, “Centrum en Omtrek: de Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee in en Veranderende Wereld,” Philosophia Reformata 72 (2007), 1–20, and at 12; translation original]. 18 Marlet, Grundlinien, 125. 19 Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth, tr. Edward T. Oakes, SJ (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992), 280. 20 Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 3. Quotes within the quote from Marlet, Grundlinien, 99.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

140

Echeverria

Still, the question is, asks Berkouwer, whether Marlet’s claim can be regarded as “a legitimate development within the Roman Catholic Church.”21 Berkouwer thinks not—as he says in the passage quoted above: “We believe that this is not the case, but fully respect the perspective of [Michael] Marlet and others [nouveaux théologiens] who are attempting to find a synthesis and harmony with such decisions, which (especially the 1870 pronouncements of Vatican I) have absolute validity.”22 I do not share Berkouwer’s view, but he nevertheless correctly recognizes the heart of the matter: “The heart of the matter that we face here can be summarized in this question: what are we to understand by natural reason in the order of nature, the way of the natural light of reason, and natural theology?”23 Then in an allusion to the question of the relation between nature and grace, the order of creation and the order of redemption, which epistemologically is expressed as the problem of faith and reason, Berkouwer asks: “Is there [with respect to Marlet and the Nouvelle Théologie] nevertheless a two-level theory of nature and grace present or should the order of nature [with respect to grace] be understood differently?”24 I will return to these questions below. For now, there is more to say in preparation for the next section: this crisis is more than epistemological, or philosophical; indeed, it is fundamentally a theological crisis. For more than a century, neo-Calvinists, like Berkouwer, have contrasted their own “organic way of relating nature and grace,” as Herman Bavinck puts it, with “the mechanical juxtaposition and dualistic world­ view of the Catholic Church.”25 Briefly, the standard neo-Calvinist account of Catholicism characterizes the relation between these orders as a two-level system: the lower level of nature is understood to be the purely passive substratum for grace, that is, a self-enclosed, self-sufficient, autonomous order with its own natural ends, and a presupposition of grace. To the lower level an upper level is added of the freely given gift of grace (donum superadditum) that is essential to attaining man’s supernatural end. These two orders of nature and grace are regarded as parallel levels having only an extrinsic relation to each 21 Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 10. 22 Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 34. 23 Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 10. 24 Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 10. 25 Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek I (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1895). English: Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, tr. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 303–305; 353–361. See also, Herman Bavinck, “Common Grace,” Calvin Theological Journal 24 (1989): 60. “Common Grace” is a translation by R.C. van Leeuwen of Bavinck’s rectorial address at Kampen Theological Seminary, Netherlands, in December 1894, entitled “De Algemeene Genade.”

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

141

other; or, alternatively put, the relation between nature and grace is such that the latter is taken to be a ‘plus-factor’, and hence simply alongside of or above nature—a mere superstructure erected on top of autonomous nature. It is clear to see that the ‘autonomy of reason’ within the order of nature is taken to be a basic presupposition of Roman Catholic thought that is expressed in the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’ of Vatican I. Berkouwer argues—with an explicit reference to Bavinck—that this dualistic two-levels theory of the understanding of nature and grace is also in crisis because some Catholics have sought to characterize the relation between nature and grace in a more organic and less dualistic way. Berkouwer explains: This crisis has resulted, in a sense, in a new situation wherein a new conversation appears to be possible. … Does it call for both an incisive theological and philosophical change in the Rome-Reformation controversy since now it appears that there are many Catholics who are apparently prepared to think differently—no longer from the perspective of a dualistic two-level theory—about the ‘order of nature’? These Catholics judge that this change is possible and legitimate within the limits of magisterial teaching.26 I think that such a change is possible and legitimate within the boundaries of magisterial teaching. In the next section, I begin my brief response here to Berkouwer’s charge that the interpretation of the nouveaux théologiens, such as de Lubac, Balthasar, or those under their influence, such as Marlet, Gilson, et al., of the relation of nature and grace—of creation and redemption—and, epistemologically, of faith and reason is not consistent with Vatican I’s teaching regarding a ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’ and Pius XII’s Humani Generis. Berkouwer succinctly formulates his objection: “The leap from both Vatican Council I and Humani Generis to a religious Christian philosophy—in connection to a Christian, religious a priori of revelation—remains a leap.”27 Pivotal to my argument against Berkouwer is, then, a hermeneutics of ecclesial texts in which the expression of the truth itself in these texts may be characterized by one-sidedness, that is, incomplete or unbalanced formulations that, by implication, needs correction, modification, and supplementation. What principle, then, informs this hermeneutics?

26 27

Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 4. Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 16–17.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

142 3

Echeverria

Hermeneutical Principle for Interpreting Ecclesial Texts

The brief answer to the concluding question of the last section is this: we should not make judgments about, say, the Councils of Trent and Vatican I without understanding the integral totality of Catholicism because the statements of these councils were polemical and antithetical. Characterizing these councils in this way provides openness to seeing that all truth formulated for polemical reasons is partial—albeit true. Berkouwer recognizes this point: “One-sidedness does not make the decision of 1870 [Vatican I on the primacy and infallibility of the pope] a false one, but it does have the marks of incompletion, of needing the complement of other facets of the episcopacy.”28 In explaining the hermeneutical principle operative here, Berkouwer draws on Hans Urs von Balthasar’s understanding of this principle.29 Balthasar explains, “Even though, of course, the truth of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I will never be overtaken or even relativized, nonetheless there are still other views and aspects of revelation than those expressed there. This has always happened throughout church history, when new statements are brought forth to complete earlier insights in order to do justice to the inexhaustible riches of divine revelation even in the earthen vessel of human language.”30 A corollary of this hermeneutical principle is the Vincentian distinction between the truth and its formulations, between form and content, context and content, and, in sum, the propositional truths of faith and their linguistic formulations. The import of this distinction is that it “implies that the Church’s formulation of the truth could have, for various reasons, actually occasioned misunderstandings of the truth itself.”31 In other words, the formulation or expression itself of the truth could be characterized by one-sidedness. Following Congar, we may distinguish two types of one-sidedness. “First, there is the possibility that this formulation, made in reaction to an error characterized by unilateralism, should itself become unilateral in its expression. Next, there is the possibility that the condemnation might include in its condemnation of the erroneous reactive element the seeds of truth as well, whose 28

G.C. Berkouwer, Vatikaans Concilie en Nieuwe Theologie (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1964); English: The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism, tr. Lewis Smedes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 148, 179. 29 Berkouwer, Nieuwe Perspectieven in de Controvers: Rome-Reformatie, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, Deel 20, No. 1 (Amsterdam: N.V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1957), 4–5. 30 Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 11–12. 31 Berkouwer, Vatikaans Concilie en Nieuwe Theologie, 20; ET: 23–24.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

143

original ambivalence unfortunately became deviant.”32 For an example of the first type of one-sidedness we may turn briefly to the beginning of Chapter 2 of the Constitutio dogmatica de fide catholica where, in opposition to fideism and rationalism, it is affirmed that man’s reason has the natural ability to grasp with certainty truths about God in and through the things that were created. In other words, the emphasis here is on “the subjective, creaturely presupposition for perceiving it.” Given this concern, it is understandable why, as Balthasar also remarks, “this [creation] revelation is not at all named or described as such.” Still, he adds: The passage from Paul (Rom 1:20) cited by the Council frequently speaks in this context—from which it cannot be disengaged—of an act of revelation. … Certainly it was not part of the intention of the Council to thematize this side of the problem. But the Acta [et decreta sacrorum Conciliorum recentiorum] speak nonetheless of an act of revelation by God. Catholic dogmatics recognizes this. … Thus we may say that the ‘inferential’ ascent of thought to the Creator [that is, natural theology] is always borne by the Creator’s prior decision to reveal himself in this nature itself.33 Balthasar is not alone in his view that Vatican I presupposes that God made himself known to us in creation as the basis for the natural knowledge of God. Berkouwer also agrees that, in Roman Catholic theology, “It is true that … we often do find the conception of revelation expressed in relation to nature.”34 Wolfhart Pannenberg, too, is in agreement with Balthasar’s point: “Unlike Paul, the council did not in fact expressly present the knowledge of God from the works of creation as a result of divine self-declaration. On the other hand, it was obviously not the intention of the council to rule out this basis of the 32

Yves Congar, OP, True and False Reform in the Church, tr. Paul Philibert, OP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011), 205–208. 33 Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth, 309–310. The Acta et decreta sacrorum Conciliorum recentiorum (1789–1870) are found in the Collectio Lacensis (1870), edited by Theodor Granderath, S.J. (1839–1902), expositor of Vatican I proceedings. Fergus Kerr, OP, explains the content of these proceedings: “This contains the draft, minutes of the speeches, the responses by the steering committee (deputation de fide) to additions and amendments proposed by the bishops—all the material from which it is quite easy to reconstruct the debate [at Vatican I]” (“Knowing God by reason alone: what Vatican I never said,” New Blackfriars, Vol. 91, No. 1033, May 2010: 215–228, and for this quote, 219–220). 34 Berkouwer, Algemene Openbaring, 66; ET: 80.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

144

Echeverria

knowledge.”35 Nevertheless, Berkouwer adds, “It is certainly true that in Roman Catholic theology (here natural theology) God’s revelation in nature does not function as such.”36 And yet, given the polemical and antithetical doctrinal pronouncements of Vatican I against fideism and rationalism, it is easy to see why, unfortunately, it is unilateral in its expression of the mind’s truth attaining capacity. There are more examples of such one-sidedness that I will return to below. For now, as an example of the second type of one-sidedness, consider here Pius XI’s negative attitude toward the ecumenical movement37 because of its denial of the visible unity of the Church of Christ, appearing as “one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government.” On the contrary, some in the ecumenical movement “understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another.”38 The pope rejected these views because they were based on an ecclesiological relativism, fostering a false irenicism, and religious indifferentism. In light of Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) and John Paul II’s Ut unum Sint (1995), however, we can say that Pius XI was right in rejecting these views as false, but incorrect in his analysis that the rejected errors where inherent to ecumenism, with the latter in principle jeopardizing the dogma that the Catholic Church is in some fundamental sense the one visible Church of God.39 The distinction, then, rightly understood, between truth and its formulations or expressions need not bring the truth of the Church’s dogmas into uncertainty. Berkouwer understands the types of one-sidedness we have been briefly examining. He writes, “The Church has been constant in truth at its deepest intent, even though it [the Church] has not been elevated above historical relativity in its analysis of the rejected errors.”40 Here lies a source of the

35

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie, Band I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 86; English: Systematic Theology, Vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 75. 36 Berkouwer, Algemene Openbaring, 66; English: 80. 37 Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Religious Unity, January 6, 1928 (Libreria Editrice Vaticana). 38 Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, no. 6. 39 See Eduardo Echeverria, “The One Church and the Many Churches: A Catholic Approach to Ecclesial Unity and Diversity—with Special Attention to Abraham Kuyper’s Ecclesiastical Epistemology,” Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies, Vol. 5/2, 2020, 239–264. 40 Berkouwer, Vatikaans Concilie en Nieuwe Theologie, 52; ET: 49.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

145

Church’s one-sidedness. He elaborates this point in a passage worth quoting in full: An unmistakable limitation and even, in a sense, an overshadowing of the fullness of truth is created by the defensive and polemical character of dogmatic pronouncements. Thus, Trent judged the Reformation sola fide as a vain confidence, but failed to ‘delineate what could rightfully have been intended by the phrase sola fide’. The historical and polemical conditionedness of Church pronouncements must be respected. It seems both necessary and almost self-evident that previous pronouncements of dogma must be interpreted in this light. The interpretation need not bear the character of a revision which gives a new and different meaning to the dogma in order to make it acceptable to a new era. But dogma must be understood in the light of revelation and of the intention of the Church as that intention came to expression in a given period of history.41 Significantly, Berkouwer correctly affirms in the italicized sentence of the above quotation that interpretations of previous dogmatic pronouncements may not be revisionist. He clearly defines what he means by the latter: “giving a new and different meaning to the dogma in order to make it acceptable to a new era.” In this connection, I think we can justifiably hold that Berkouwer’s point here is, arguably, based on the distinction between the propositional truths of faith and their historically conditioned formulations, between form and content, propositions and sentences, which was invoked by John XXIII in his opening address at Vatican II, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, as I cited in the first section of this essay.42 As such, we can say with justification that John XXIII framed the question regarding the nature of doctrinal continuity in light of Vincentian hermeneutics, which was received by Vatican I and II, namely, that doctrine must progress according to the same meaning and the same judgment (eodem sensu eademque sententia), allowing for legitimate pluralism and authentic diversity within a fundamental unity of meaning and truth.43 41 Berkouwer, Vatikaans Concilie en Nieuwe Theologie, 77; ET: 69 (italics added). 42 Berkouwer devotes the entirety of chapter III in Vatikaans Concilie en Nieuwe Theologie, ‘Unchangeability and Changeability of Dogma’, 61–104, to an analysis of John XXIII’s distinction and all that it entails. For an extensive analysis of Berkouwer’s interpretation of Vatican II on this question, see Eduardo Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism, Disputed Questions (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), 20–109. 43 In his subsequent book on Vatican II, G. C. Berkhouwer, Nabetrachting op het Concilie (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1968), Berkouwer claims that the subordinate clause in Pope John’s

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

146

Echeverria

Put differently, appreciating the ecumenical significance of the distinction between truth and its formulations, form and truth-content, does not sacrifice the immutability or permanence of dogmatic truth. It simply brings with it the “immense advantage of dissipating prejudices and correcting false interpretations” presupposed in the Church’s analysis of rejected errors.44 Furthermore, mindful that the expression of the truth itself may be characterized by one-sidedness, that is, “incomplete or unbalanced formulations”—which is different from claiming that the Council “formally committed the Church to doctrinal error”45—we can easily understand Aidan Nichols point. He writes: [T]he doctrinal statements of a Council (which, obviously, are far more important for the Church of all ages) may be less than balanced or comprehensive and thus, by implication, need supplementation, whether from another Council or from other sources. The development of Christological doctrine in the early centuries, from Ephesus to the Third Council of Constantinople, substantiates, I believe, this view. Were the Church to have drawn a line under that development at any point before the last of the four Councils concerned, we should not have had the beautiful equilibrium of our doctrine of the Word incarnate, a pre-existing divine Person now energizing in his two natures, with his twofold divine and human will... We must not ask for perfection from Councils, even in their doctrinal aspect. It is enough to know that, read according to a hermeneutic of continuity they will not lead us astray. An Ecumenical Council will never formally commit the Church to doctrinal error. It is, moreover, unfair to ask of Councils what they have not claimed to provide.46 I turn now to illustrate this hermeneutic in the context of discussing Berkou­ wer’s critique of the “duplex ordo cognitionis” and natural theology.47

44 45 46 47

statement (“keeping the same meaning and the same judgment” [eodem sensu eademque sententia]) becomes the principal clause in Paul VI’s view, and is then linked by the pope to the doctrinal formulations or expressions of the truth—which leads back to an immobilism. I dispute this interpretation in Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism, 65–81. Yves M.J. Congar, OP, Dialogue between Christians, Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism, tr. Philip Loretz, SJ (Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1965), 129. Aidan Nichols, OP, and Moyra Doorly, The Council in Question, A Dialogue with Catholic Traditionalism (Herefordshire: Gracewing, 2011), 81–83. Nichols and Doorly, The Council in Question, 29. See, further, Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism, 110–272.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

4

147

Faith and Reason, Nature and Grace

Berkouwer challenges the legitimacy of natural theology because he rejects the claim that the unbeliever can achieve certain knowledge of the true God’s existence in any sense whatsoever by the light of natural reason through the things that have been made, or for that matter of any other naturally knowable truths such as the spirituality of the rational soul and the dependence of the whole world on God’s creative action. In general, there are various reasons for this challenge, but given the limitations of this essay I cannot consider them here.48 Pared down for my purpose now, I will return, as indicated, to the question of the relation between nature and grace, the order of creation and the order of redemption, which epistemologically is expressed as the problem of faith and reason. Earlier in this chapter, I quoted Berkouwer’s description of what he thought to be the heart of the matter in addressing the consistency of the nouveaux théologiens’ interpretation of human reason with Vatican I’s ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’. “The heart of the matter that we face here can be summarized in this question: what are we to understand by natural reason in the order of nature, the way of the natural light of reason, and natural theology?”49 In answering Berkouwer’s question about how to understand the nature of reason in Vatican I’s ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’, I will distinguish, with Aidan Nichols’ aid, ‘absolute reason’, ‘pure reason’ and ‘natural reason’.50 “[1] ‘Absolute reason’ refuses all revelation, as of set purpose; [2] ‘pure reason’, beloved of rationalism, belongs only with a state of pure nature which has never, in the concrete, existed; [and 3] ‘natural reason’, on the other hand, remains open and disponible [disposable, available] where revelation is concerned: it is able to enter into a relation with some historically realized situation of [humanity], whether fallen or renewed.” Regarding 1, the First Vatican Council clearly rejects the notion of ‘absolute reason’: “Since man is totally dependent upon God as upon his Creator and Lord, and since created reason is absolutely subject to uncreated truth, we are bound to yield by faith the full homage of intellect and will to the God who reveals.”51 Regarding 2, it is not so easily dispensed with in regard to Catholic thought. Some clarification is required. Étienne 48 49 50 51

For an in-depth treatment of Berkouwer’s objections, see Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism, 110–272. This treatment includes a rebuttal of Berkouwer’s critique in “Identiteit of Conflict?” (14–16) of Pius XII’s Humani Generis, 160–166. Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 10. Aidan Nichols, OP, Epiphany: A Theological Introduction to Catholicism (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 10. Denzinger, no. 3008.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

148

Echeverria

Gilson describes what he calls ‘Catholic rationalism’ that seems to subscribe to ‘pure reason’. “If reformed dogmatic theology believes itself authorized in criticizing what it calls Catholic rationalism, it is perhaps because certain Catholics express themselves as though the science of the preambles of faith, namely, natural theology, under the pretext that it is essentially rational, were a religiously neutral domain, wherein Revelation exercises no positive and direct influence.”52 This is the view of natural reason and natural theology that Berkouwer has in mind and which he thinks is the view of Vatican I. These Catholic rationalists—neo-scholastics of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries— who held that the unaided reason of natural theology could reason about God of course did not subscribe to a notion of ‘absolute reason’ that ‘refuses all revelation, as of set purpose’. In other words, they were not ‘pure rationalists’. Gilson explains: “While the pure rationalist puts philosophy [and hence reason] in the highest place, and identifies it with wisdom, the Neo-Scholastic subordinates it to theology which alone, as he holds, fully deserves that name.”53 Still, the neo-scholastics subscribe to a notion of ‘pure reason’, “beloved of rationalism,” as Nichols put it, “[and which] belongs only with a state of pure nature.” The notion of ‘pure nature’ prescinds from all concrete conditions and circumstances under which human reason actually functions. Gilson correctly notes that even though these neo-scholastics subordinate philosophical reason to theology, indeed, divine wisdom, as it were, in their view “philosophy [and hence reason] remains precisely of the same nature as any other that recognizes no Wisdom higher than itself?”54 But this means that neo-scholastics do not recognize in the order of nature, as Vatican I stated, that “created reason is wholly subordinate to uncreated Truth,” even in the natural activity of human reason. In this dualistic view of nature and grace, human reason is autonomous, self-sufficient, and the ultimate authority in the order of nature, and separated from the supernatural order of grace in which a pre-existent natural reality is subsequently elevated—but that is precisely what Reformed critics, such as Berkouwer, repudiate. But they are not alone. Catholic critics, such as Gilson, Maritain, Balthasar, Ratzinger, Nichols, et al., of the neo-Scholastic dualism of nature and grace and hence of its corresponding conception of human reason, argue that—in Nichols’ words—the “state of pure nature … has never, in the concrete, existed.” We cannot abstract 52

Étienne Gilson, Christianity and Philosophy, tr. Ralph MacDonald, CSB (New York/London: Sheed & Ward, 1939), 59. 53 Étienne Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, Gifford Lectures 1931–1932, tr. A.H.C. Downes (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1940), 4. 54 Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, 4.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

149

from the domain of grace such an entity as pure nature. As I understand these critics, ‘pure reason’ does not, concretely, exist because the natural reasoning of actual human beings is a religious act, as it were, being already directed in the actual conditions of fact under which it operates by the central disposition of the heart, whether fallen or renewed, either for or against God. Indeed, these critics subscribe to a notion of ‘natural reason’, according to Nichols, which “remains open and disponsible where revelation is concerned: it is able to enter into a relation with some historically realized situation of [humanity], whether fallen or redeemed,” or as Balthasar puts it, either “under the positive sign of faith or under the negative sign of unbelief.”55 Nichols’ view, then, is, that men seek a natural knowledge of God in the actual conditions in which they have already made a choice either for or against God, and hence they are in either a state of grace or of sin. Summarily stated, “there are no neutral points or surfaces in this relationship.”56 Balthasar explains: In the light of faith, both a pure nature and a pure reason appear as abstractions which indeed need not be false as such, but which lack any corresponding detached and separate reality in the concrete world-order. The human person, as he exists de facto, is always a priori one who has taken a position and a decision for or against the God of grace, because the entire order of nature has been set a priori by the revelation of Christ at the service of his supernatural kingdom. Thus, too, the concrete eye of reason is always already either an eye that is purified and made keener by the light of faith and love, or else an eye that is obscured by original sin or by personal guilt.57 This view is consistent with Vatican I’s duplex ordo cognitionis as long as one affirms at the same time that we can have certain knowledge of God, the principle and end of all things, by the natural light of reason. Adds Balthasar: “This supernatural modality does not in any way destroy the relative autonomy of nature and of its epistemological capacity.”58 But here we have circled back to the pressing question: Can one consistently hold both views? Yes, one can hold both views consistently provided we see 55

Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Logic: Theological Logical Theory, I, Truth of the World, tr. Adrian J. Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 1:11. 56 Balthasar, Theo-Logic, I:30. “The world as it concretely exists is one that is always already related either positively or negatively to the God of grace and supernatural revelation.” 57 Hans Urs von Balthasar, “On the tasks of Catholic Philosophy in our time,” Communio 20 (Spring 1993): 147–187, and at 151–152. This essay was originally published in 1946. 58 Balthasar, “On the tasks of Catholic Philosophy in our time,” 152.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

150

Echeverria

that natural theology—and the corresponding relative autonomy of nature and of natural reason’s epistemic capacity—is necessarily a posteriori, rather than a priori, seeing it as a ‘secondary moment’ within the dynamic of fides quarens intellectum. On this view, the Catholic tradition defends “reason’s and nature’s inherent capacities, while simultaneously insisting on the essential and necessary openness of this sphere to the purifying and transforming light of revelation.”59 Here is precisely where we can draw on the hermeneutics of ecclesial texts that I sketched in the last section in order to show the consistency of holding both views. In sum, I argued—with Balthasar and Nichols—that (in Nichols’ words) “the doctrinal statements of a Council may be less than balanced or comprehensive and thus, by implication, need supplementation, whether from another Council or from other sources.”60 Undoubtedly, Vatican I, Chapter 1, God the Creator of all Things, and Canons 1–5, does assert a classical theistic doctrine of God.61 Nevertheless, what Vatican I did not claim “is that natural reason suffices to know with full certainty: (1) the unity of God; (2) the true nature of God; (3) the mystery of creation in its true sense, that is: ex nihilo.”62 Furthermore, the council also did not make claims about the following four points: The Council did not touch upon the question of [1] whether nature in concreto was ever raised to another state, the supernatural one, or [2] whether there is within fallen nature an essential expression of nature that occurs without any relationship to supernatural grace, or [3] whether de facto, if not necessarily de jure, a moment of supernatural grace is not at work either internally or externally in all knowledge of God by the human race… Nor finally [4] did the Council ever declare what number

59 60 61 62

Thomas G. Guarino, “Nature and Grace: Seeking a Delicate Balance,” Josephinum Journal of Theology 18 Winter/Spring (2011): 150–162, and at 161. Nichols and Doorly, The Council in Question, 29. Denzinger, nos. 3001–3002, 3021–3025. Of course, Vatican I does claim in Canon 3025: “If anyone refuses to confess that the world and all things contained in it, the spiritual as well as the material, were in their whole substance produced by God out of nothing … let him be anathema.” What it does not claim is that this truth and others can be known by natural reason alone with full certainty. We know that it did not make this claim from the proceedings of Vatican I in the Acta. These proceedings are analyzed by J.M.A. Vacant, Études théologiques sur les constitutions du Concile du Vatican, 2 vols. (1895), I, 308–309, as cited in Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 312.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

151

of human beings actually attained a true knowledge of God outside the revelation of God’s Word in the Old and New Covenants.63 Here, too, it would be unfair to ask of Vatican I what it did not claim to provide. A fully developed account of the question of the relation between nature and grace, the order of creation and the order of redemption, which epistemologically is expressed in the problem of faith and reason, would require an answer to these four points in the above paragraph. The limitations of this essay prohibit me from undertaking that task here. Some brief comments are, however, in order. Regarding 1, the question is whether natural reason’s powers and activities, in the order of nature and the concrete conditions where it actually functions, are approached from the order of grace. Balthasar and others64 argue that this question is left open by Vatican I. In other words, what the Council did not do was to make definitive statements about concrete human nature and the relation of nature, sin and grace in the conditions of human reason’s actual functioning. Berkouwer disputes this interpretation. “It is clear that the Vatican Council ... wanted very much to speak concretely and explain positively the actual use of reason.”65 And yet, there is a definite basis in the records of Vatican I, the Acta, for the interpretation that “the Council decided the de jure question” but “clearly left the de facto question open.” Some Council Fathers even suggested that the de jure statement be completed with a complementary de facto statement: “Whoever denies that human reason as it now is can know God from the things he had made by its own rational light, let him be anathema.”66 But this suggestion the records show was resisted, not because a de facto possibility of natural reason reaching certain knowledge of God was denied by the Council. How could it be denied given the writings of Catholic theologians throughout the centuries? The ‘absolute statement’ entailed by de jure possibility “cannot be so abstract that it is not applicable in some way to concrete human nature.”67 Regarding 2, Vatican I’s distinction between a de jure statement about acquiring knowledge of God by natural reason—a statement about reason’s capacity—rather than a de facto statement about the concrete conditions in 63 Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 304, 306. 64 For example, Bernard J.F. Lonergan, SJ, “Natural Knowledge of God,” in A Second Collection, edited by W.F.J. Ryan, SJ, and B.J. Tyrrell, SJ (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 117–133. 65 Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 11. 66 Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 304. 67 Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 305.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

152

Echeverria

which human reason actually functions, we can appreciate that a corollary of this distinction is that the orders of nature and grace were distinguished— hence the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’. But Vatican I never said anything about ‘pure reason’ and its corollary a state of ‘pure nature’. Now, three quarters of a century past, Jacques Maritain significantly remarked regarding the question of the relation of nature and grace that it is erroneous to ignore both the distinction between nature and grace as well as their union.68 So, regarding the question of their union, “nothing was said about the type, depth and duration of the connection between the two.”69 Regarding 3, on the issue that Vatican I decided the de jure question but left open the de facto question, here are some samples of recorded statements at the Council in the Acta. 1) “The Council teaches the possibility but not the fact of a supernatural knowledge of God.” 2) “The issue at stake and what the statement is saying directly concerns the faculty of reason: it says that the objective revelation of God to creatures is suited to the constitution of human reason. Human creatures possess the means to recognize God based on this revelation” (Annotation 6 to the Schema). 3) “In order to keep itself outside of every concrete, historical way of looking at things, the Council distanced itself with great care from every statement that could be applied, not to man in general, but to some actual human being in a specific state, whether that state be real or hypothetical.” In response to the objections of some of the Council Fathers who “would have preferred to see it verified in the concrete order and held out for a statement corresponding to revelation about man as he actually exists,” [Bishop Vincent] Gasser—the official relator or spokesman for the magisterium at the Council—stated 4) “It seems to me that the honored Father who has raised this objection has confused two things that should not be confused: the principia rationis and the exercitium rationis. We are speaking here only of the principle of reason and assert that God can be known with certainty through these principles, however the case may be in the de facto exercise of that faculty.”70 Still, leaving the de facto question open does not mean that the Council Fathers did not speak at all on the question of concrete human nature. Rather, they spoke with reserve and caution because it was understood “how difficult 68

Jacques Maritain states, “There is one error that consists in ignoring [the] distinction between nature and grace. There is another that consists in ignoring their union,” Clairvoyance de Rome (Paris: Spes, 1929), 222. 69 Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 304. 70 Again, to be found in the Acta, Collectio Lacensis (as cited by Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 304–305).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

153

it is in practice to attain [certain knowledge of God] when reason is left completely to itself.”71 Hence, the import of the moral necessity of divine revelation, namely, that such truths among things divine that of themselves are not beyond human reason, can, “even in the present conditions of mankind, be known by everyone with facility, with firm certitude, and with no admixture of error.”72 This point brings us to the last claim about which Vatican I says nothing. Regarding 4, according to Aquinas, even those truths that are in themselves naturally knowable and, additionally, philosophically justifiable are also divinely revealed. Why would God reveal even those truths that man’s mind can in principle know on its own? Because most men are hampered in actually grasping these truths through theistic arguments due to their ability, time, training, background, or opportunity to understand or evaluate them; and those few men that do arrive at the truth that God exists, do so only after a long time, and with a mixture of truth and error.73 Thus, Aquinas concludes, ‘Beneficially, therefore, did the divine Mercy provide that it should instruct us to hold by faith even those truths that the human reason is able to investigate. In this way, all men would easily be able to have a share in the knowledge of God, and this without uncertainty and error’.74 Pace Berkouwer, then, that God’s 71 Gilson, Christianity and Philosophy, 60. In this connection, Gilson cites Aquinas, who has written regarding these matters, “our researches easily lead us into error because of the weakness of our intellect. This is clearly shown by the example of the philosophers who, looking for the end of human life by following the path of reason, and failing to discover the way of attaining it, fell into so many and such abominable errors, contradicting one another so much that we can scarcely find two or three holding one opinion identical on every point in these matters, where we see even several peoples agree in the same opinion of faith” (In Boeth. de Trinitate, q. III, art. 1, ad 3m). 72 Denzinger, no. 3004. Vatican I refers here to Aquinas, Summa theologiae I, q. 1, a. 1. What about the noetic influences of sin on natural reason? On this, the Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 37 summarizes the longstanding teaching of the Catholic Church on this last question. Given “the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone.” This justifies the necessity of revelation “not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also ‘about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason’.” 73 These are the three reasons Aquinas gives why ‘It is necessary for man to accept by faith not only those things which are above reason, but also those which can be known by reason’. That is, ‘in order that men might have knowledge of God, free of doubt and uncertainty, it was necessary for Divine matters to be delivered to them by way of faith, being told to them, as it were, by God Himself Who cannot lie’ (Summa theologiae, II-II, Q. 2, Art. 4). 74 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, Bk. I, 4.6.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

154

Echeverria

existence ‘could be known with certainty’ (certo cognosci posse) by reason’s natural light is different from having demonstrative certainty (certo demonstrari posse) acquired by theistic arguments.75 If the latter were required, then most men would not know that God exists. Vatican I teaches the former but not the latter. Of course affirming the import of this difference does not mean that such arguments are not available, but only that they are not necessary—since testimony provides an epistemic access to such divine truths—for knowing divine truths that are in principle within reason’s grasp. Mindful of this point, again, pace Berkouwer, we can do justice to the modernistic oath of 1910 that interpreted Vatican I’s pronouncement regarding the natural knowledge of God to mean that God “can be known with certainty and, indeed, also demonstrated through the natural light of reason from ‘the things that have been made [Rom 1:20]’.”76 5 Conclusion Balthasar is right that an argument may be advanced—as is the case in this chapter—to show the consistency of Vatican I with the claim that “all natural knowledge of God occurs de facto within the positive and negative conditions of the supernatural order. Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that in corresponding to the fact that man possesses only one single supernatural goal, every human being who had reached the age of reason must make a choice either for or against the God of grace.”77 In other words, man himself within the actual history of salvation is always de facto the man who has either turned away from God in sin or turned toward God in the light of grace and faith. This turn toward God always occurs with his prevenient grace, or, in the words of Vatican I: “For the most merciful Lord stirs up and aids with his grace those who are wandering astray, that they be able to ‘come to the knowledge of the truth [see 1 Tim 2.4]’, and those whom ‘he has called out of darkness into his marvelous light [cf. 1 Pet 2.9; Col 1.13]’ he confirms with his grace that they may persevere in this faith.”78 Still, on this view, the natural capacity of human reason to grasp, to some degree, the truth about God continues to function because “the intellectual character of [natural reason] or the clear evidence it perceives” has not been 75 Berkouwer, “Identiteit of Conflict?,” 11–12. 76 Denzinger, “Oath against the Errors of Modernism,” nos. 3537–3550, and at 3538. 77 Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 307. 78 Denzinger, no. 3014.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

155

called into question by being called to total submission to the Creator and Lord.79 Rather than destroy or turn human nature and hence human reasoning into its opposite, grace transforms it by calling “on reason to fulfill the most natural aspects of its identity.”80 Grace restores nature rather than replaces it or leaves it untouched. Berkouwer regards this interpretation of natural reason, which is influenced by the Nouvelle Théologie, to be an advance over the neo-scholastic view, but he argues that it is inconsistent with Vatican I’s decree, which speaks of a ‘duplex ordo cognitionis,’ distinguishing the source and object of knowledge pertaining to faith and reason. The upshot of this essay is the refutation of Berkouwer’s claim. Indeed, pace Berkouwer, there is no contradiction between Vatican I, particularly its Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, and the Nouvelle Théologie. Bibliography Aquinas, T. (n.d.). Summa Theologiae. Aquinas, T. (1955). Summa Contra Gentiles, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, vol. 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Balthasar, H.U. von (1993). “On the Tasks of Catholic Philosophy in our Time.” Communio: International Catholic Review 20: 147–87. Balthasar, H.U. von (1992). The Theology of Karl Barth. Edward T. Oakes, SJ (tr.). San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Balthasar, H.U. von (1947). Theo-Logic: Theological Logical Theory, I, Truth of the World. A. Walker (tr.). San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Bavinck, H. (1895). Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. I. Kampen: J. H. Kok. English: Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena, vol. 1. J. Bolt (ed.), J. Vriend (tr.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Benedict XVI, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia offering them his Christmas Greetings (Libreria Editrice Vaticana), Thursday, 22 December 2005. Berkouwer, G.C. (1968). Nabetrachting op het Concilie. Kampen: J. H. Kok. Berkouwer, G.C. (1964). Vatikaans Concilie en de nieuwe theologie. Kampen: J. H. Kok. English: The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism. L.B. Smedes (tr.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965. Berkouwer, G.C. (1957). Nieuwe Perspectieven in de Controvers: Rome-Reformatie, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd.

79 Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 311. 80 Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 311, and 307.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

156

Echeverria

Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, Deel 20, no. 1. Amsterdam: N. V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. Berkouwer, G.C. (1956). “Identiteit of Conflict? Een poging tot analyse.” Philosophia Reformata 21: 1–41. Berkouwer, G.C. (1951). de Algemene Openbaring. Kampen: J. H. Kok. English: General Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955. Congar, Y. (1968). True and False Reform in the Church. P. Philibert, O.P. (tr.). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Denzinger, H. (2012). Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals. Latin-English: P. Hünermann (ed.). 43rd ed. English edition: R. Fastiggi and A.E. Nash (eds.). San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Dooyeweerd, H. (2012). In the Twilight of Western Thought: Studies in the Pretended Autonomy of Philosophical Thought. Grand Rapids: Paideia Press. Dooyeweerd, H. (2007). “Centrum en Omtrek: de Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee in en Veranderende Wereld.” Philosophia Reformata 72: 1–20. Dooyeweerd, H. (1966). “Het Gesprek tussen het neo-Thomisme and de Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee.” Bijdragen, Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie, 72: 202–13. Dulles, A. (2000). “Can Philosophy Be Christian?.” First Things. (http://www.firstthings . com/article/2000/04/001-can-philosophy-be-christian.) Echeverria, E. (2021). “Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine.” In: K.J. Flannery, S.J., and R.J. Dodaro, O.S.J. (eds.). “Faith Once For All Delivered”: Tradition and Doctrinal Authority in the Catholic Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Echeverria, E. (2020). “The One Church and the Many Churches: A Catholic Approach to Ecclesial Unity and Diversity—with Special Attention to Abraham Kuyper’s Ecclesiastical Epistemology.” Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 5/2: 239–264. Echeverria, E. (2018). Revelation, History, and Truth: A Hermeneutics of Dogma. New York: Peter Lang. Echeverria, E. (2013). Berkouwer and Catholicism, Disputed Questions. Leiden: Brill. Gilson, É. (1940). The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy. Gifford Lectures 1931–1932. A.H.C. Downes (tr.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Gilson, É. (1939). Christianity and Philosophy. R. MacDonald, C.S.B. (tr.). New York: Sheed & Ward. Guarino, T. (2013). Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Guarino, T. (2011). “Nature and Grace: Seeking a Delicate Balance.” Josephinum Journal of Theology 18: 150–62. John Paul II. (1998). Encyclical Letter: Fides et Ratio. Kerr, F. OP. (2010). “Knowing God by Reason Alone: What Vatican I Never Said.” New Blackfriars 91, no. 1033: 215–28.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Vatican I, the ‘duplex ordo cognitionis’

157

Lonergan, B. SJ. (1974). “Natural Knowledge of God.” In: W.F.J. Ryan, SJ, and B.J. Tyrrell, SJ. (eds.). A Second Collection. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 117–33. Lonergan, B. SJ. (1974). “The Dehellenization of Dogma.” In: W.F.J. Ryan, SJ, and B.J. Tyrrell, SJ. (eds.). A Second Collection. Philadelphia: Westminster Press 11–32. Marlet, M. SJ. (1954). Grundlinien der Kalvinistischen “Philosophie der Gesetzesidee” als Christlicher Transzendentalphilosophie. München: Karl Zink Verlag. Nichols, A. OP. (1996). Epiphany: A Theological Introduction to Catholicism. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. Nichols, A. OP. (1990). From Newman to Congar, The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the Victorians to the Second Vatican Council. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Nichols, A. OP, and Doorly, M. (2011). The Council in Question: A Dialogue with Catholic Traditionalism. Herefordshire: Gracewing. Pannenberg, W. (1991). Systematische Theologie. Band I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. English: Systematic Theology, vol. I. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. Pius XI. (1928). Encyclical Letter: Mortalium Animos. http://www.vatican.va/holy _father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos _en.html. Pius XII. (1950). Encyclical Letter: Humani Generis. http://w2.vatican.va/content/piusxii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html. Vincent of Lérins (1949). The Commonitories. R. Morris (tr.). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

PART 3 Christian Ethics and Moral Theology

∵

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 8

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor: Towards a Bavinckian Theology of Work Cory B. Willson 1 Introduction: How Changing Locations for Work Reshapes Societies & Creates Social Problems The late Peter Drucker once wrote: “Very few events have as much impact on civilization as a change in the basic principle for organizing work.” He described ways in which the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth century spawned numerous innovations that shifted the centers around which work was organized, which radically altered the social landscape of western countries. The shift from rural agricultural life to urban industrial life was precipitated by the reorganization of work around machines rather than humans and animals.1 For all its benefits of enabling entrepreneurship, productivity, and efficiency, the Industrial Revolution had a shadow side. As the center of work shifted from farm to factory, workers migrated en masse from rural settings to urban centers. These shifts resulted in housing shortages, low wages, poor working conditions, and the dissolution of ancient work guilds.2 Society was ripe with social upheaval, and struggle between liberal capitalism and communist socialism reached a fever pitch. It was in this social context that Pope Leo XIII delivered his 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum. “[T]here can be no question whatever,” he wrote, “that some remedy must be found, and quickly found, for the misery and wretchedness which press so heavily at this moment on the large majority of the poor.”3 Rerum Novarum brought a modern Catholic vision of public theology to bear on the ‘social question’ in the late nineteenth century and set the course for subsequent development of Catholic social thought.4

1 Peter Drucker, The Essential Drucker: In One Volume the Best of Sixty Years of Peter Drucker’s Essential Writings on Management (New York: HarperBusiness, 2000), 338. 2 Pope Leo XIII, “Rerum Novarum: The Condition of Labor,” in Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage, eds. David J. O’Brien and Thomas A. Shannon (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2013), 14. 3 Leo XIII, “Rerum Novarum,” 15. 4 O’Brien and Shannon, Catholic Social Thought, 12–13. © Cory B. Willson, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_009 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

162 2

Willson

Herman Bavinck’s Engagement with the ‘Social Question’

In November of 1891, just six months after Pope Leo XIII delivered Rerum Novarum at Saint Peter’s in Rome, Herman Bavinck addressed the first Christian Social Congress in the Netherlands regarding the ‘social question.’ In his address Bavinck sought to identify principles in the Mosaic Law to serve as a hermeneutical bridge between Scripture and the labor problems of his day. Embedded in the moral law of the Old Testament, Bavinck asserted, there are eternal principles intended to guide humanity into paths of life that would bring about the well-being of family, society, and nation.5 There are, in his words, “eeuwige beginselen welke in het Woord Gods voor de verschillende levenskringen neergelegd zijn” (“eternal principles laid down in the Word of God for the various spheres of life”) that can be used to test laws that govern society.6 Like Pope Leo XIII, Bavinck was troubled not only by the economic injustice brought about by the accumulation of resources into the hands of the few (capitalism corrupted), but also by the problematic loss of ownership entailed in communism.7 Ten years later Bavinck returned to the topic of Scripture’s authority in a debate over the application of biblical commands to contemporary labor challenges.8 In the debate Aritius Sybrandus (Syb) Talma—a self-identifying ethical theologian and Christian socialist—claimed that the Apostle Paul’s command, “servants obey your masters” (Col. 3.22–24; Rom. 13.1), did not apply to the modern worker.9 Talma believed that although workers were ‘free’ persons and the slave in antiquity was not, they faced a more grim reality than the 5 Herman Bavinck, “Welke algemeene beginselen beheerschen, volgens de H. Schrift, de oplossing der sociale quaestie, en welke vingerwijzing voor die oplossing ligt in de concrete toepassing, welke deze beginselen voor Israël in Mozaïsch recht gevonden hebben?” in Johan Adam Wormser, Proces-verbaal van het social congress, gehouden te Amsterdam den 9, 10, 11, 12 November, 1891 (Amsterdam: Höveker & Zoon, 1892), 149–157 (157). See also John Bolt’s essay on Bavinck’s address: “General Biblical Principles and the Relevance of Concrete Mosaic Law for the Social Question Today (1891),” Journal of Markets & Morality, vol. 13, no. 2 (Fall 2010), 411–446 (430, 426). 6 Bavinck, “Welke algemeene beginselen,” 157. 7 Propositions 5d and 5e of Bavinck’s address highlight the importance of guarding against the injustices created within capitalism (“Welke algemeene beginselen,” 157). Section III of Bavinck’s address outlines the nature of ownership of private property as part of stewardship to God as the true owner of all creation (“Welke algemeene beginselen,” 152–153). 8 The debate was ignited by an article by Piet van Vliet entitled “Proper Relationships” in Patrimonium, 28 March 1902. (Gerard van Krieken, “Syb Talma: A Dutch Christian Socialist,” Journal of Markets & Morality, vol. 14, no. 2 (Fall 2011), 393–428 (410). 9 van Krieken, “Syb Talma: A Dutch Christian Socialist,” 393–398.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

163

slave. At least in antiquity, he argued, a master had a vested interest in protecting his ‘investment’ in his human property. The modern worker, by contrast, was treated as an expendable resource that could be used and discarded with little concern.10 Talma considered the tension between Scripture’s teaching of freedom (1 Cor. 7.22) with the admonition to servants to “be obedient to their masters in everything” (Col. 3.22), but insisted that the Apostle Paul did not have the modern worker in mind when he gave this command. Paul was not endorsing a perpetual system of slavery but was in fact laying out the true freedom of the gospel to overturn all servitude and oppression. Consequently, instead of the paradigm of ‘authority’ governing relationships in the factories, ‘leadership’ was a more fitting way of framing the relationship between workers and employers. In a sense, factory workers were more like bakers who voluntarily agreed to provide for their customers rather than being bound by authority structures that were ‘ordained by God.’ The way forward advocated by Talma and his fellow Dutch Christian Socialists was that employers and employees should negotiate fair working conditions and wages. The employer-worker relationship was not based on the authority structure of master-servant but on a negotiated contract; therefore the issue of obedience was not at stake. Society should not be modeled after the family or feudalism, but required voluntary agreement between citizens with equal rights.11 Bavinck shared Talma’s concern for the plight of workers, but he took exception with what he saw as the tearing apart of Scripture’s authority. Talma’s approach undermined Scripture’s ability to speak to all areas of life and to place both masters and servants—as well as employers and workers—under the governance of God. In liberating employees from Paul’s command to obey those in authority, Talma was at the same time setting employers free from Paul’s command to provide what is just and fair for their employees (Col. 4.1). In Bavinck’s words: “Als de zedelijke band van de eene zijde verbroken wordt, kan hij van de andere zijde niet meer gehandhaafd worden” (translation: “If the moral band is broken on one side, it can no longer be maintained on the other.”)12 Years later, in his 1920 publication, Biblical and Religious Psychology, 10 11 12

van Krieken, “Syb Talma: A Dutch Christian Socialist,” 395, 409–410. van Krieken, “Syb Talma: A Dutch Christian Socialist,” 410–413. Bavinck, “Heeren en Knechten,” de Bazuin, 9 May 1902. See also van Krieken, “Syb Talma: A Dutch Christian Socialist,” 410. It should be noted that Bavinck was not unmindful of the ways in which inequities in wealth, class, and human giftings could be perverted by sin and become solidified in systemic injustices. To curb such abuses Bavinck advocated various principles that protected the weak, vulnerable and poor (Section III of his 1891 address).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

164

Willson

Bavinck revisited this debate over the enduring authority of Scripture across history and commented that this debate with Talma was an “eloquent example of the difficulty into which life can put us if it would earnestly direct itself according to the rule of Holy Scripture.”13 Of utmost importance to Bavinck was the struggle to bridge the gap between the commands of Scripture and the contextual realities of the day. For Bavinck, either Talma was right and the social structures of his day were incommensurate with those of the Apostles’ period, thereby nullifying the ethical import of Paul’s teaching; or the unchanging unity of humanity meant the enduring authority of Scripture’s commands could continue to be applied in straightforward ways.14 What is not clear in this debate is why Bavinck moved from his prior (1902) method of bridging the Scripture-context gap through a creative interpretation of the Mosaic Law, to this later (1920) debate over the authority of New Testament texts to speak to contemporary social structures. It is puzzling why he could not see a third option for how to form a hermeneutical bridge—something other than Talma’s selective use of Scripture (based on the discontinuity between socio-historical contexts), or Bavinck’s own approach that upheld biblical authority based on the continuity of human nature across time regardless of differences in social structures.15 What is apparent in this hermeneutical quandary is that much of Bavinck’s extensive work in theological anthropology was left aside in his debate over hermeneutics with Talma. Bavinck’s primary concern for upholding the authority of the Bible is evident in what he described as the incarnational principle of Scripture. “This principle of incarnation controls the whole of special revelation,” wrote Bavinck. “This incarnation is always from above and yet is organically united with the world and humanity, and makes itself an indestructible part of cosmic life…. It always brings a word of God to us, but always entering into the word [and world] of man, and insofar as this is true, it bears a human, historical, local,

13

Herman Bavinck, Bijbelsche en religieuze psychologie, tr. Herman Hanko (Grand Rapids: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Church, 1974), 7. 14 Bavinck, Bijbelsche en religieuze psychologie, 8. 15 Scripture itself includes examples of sustained reflections on authoritative tradition in light of changing socio-cultural contexts. For example, sabbath remains a focal point throughout the canon even as its authoritative meaning and ethical import is expressed in distinct ways in new contexts (Exod. 20.8–11: sabbath is grounded in creation; Deut. 5.12–15: sabbath is patterned after the exodus event; Amos 8.4–6: sabbath is designed to protect the weak from the abusive employers; Isa. 56.1–8: sabbath is about inclusion of immigrants and eunuchs into worship of YHWH with the people of God; Mk 2.23–27: sabbath was created for humanity, not vice versa).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

165

temporal character.”16 Instead of simply writing off Scriptural commands as outdated, Bavinck insisted that Christians find a way forward that does justice to both the enduring authority of Scripture and the contextual complexities of their day. What Bavinck still needed to identify was a hermeneutic that gave proper weight to both biblical text and contemporary context. 3 New Century, Similar Problems: Pope John Paul II and Laborem Exercens Sixty years later, this same hermeneutical question preoccupied Pope John Paul II as he sought to relate the enduring authority of Scripture to the modern worker. In his 1981 encyclical, Laborem Exercens: On Human Work, he revisited the social question by developing a theological vision from the Old Testament—a vision that bears striking resemblance to Bavinck’s 1891 address to the Social Congress. Laborem Exercens provides a hermeneutical bridge between Scripture and contemporary issues of work. This can open a door to critically reappropriate a Bavinckian theological anthropology that speaks to the labor issues of the twenty-first century. In 1981, on the eve of what would come to be known as Reagonomics and Thatcherism—U.S. and British Hayekian economic bulwarks against the expansion of Soviet Communism—17 Pope John Paul II began his encyclical, Laborem Exercens, by saying: “We are celebrating the ninetieth anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum on the eve of new developments in technological, economic and political conditions which, according to many experts, will influence the world of work and production no less than the Industrial Revolution of the last century.”18 Laborem Exercens brought forth a marked development in modern theology of work and has become the classic text on this subject. While aligned with traditional Catholic social teaching, it goes beyond offering a social critique of modern industrialism and singles out human work as “a key, probably the essential key, to the whole social question, if we try to see that question really from the point of view of man’s good. And if … the gradual 16 Bavinck, Bijbelsche en religieuze psychologie, 9; cf. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Until Justice and Peace Embrace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 45. 17 See Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (New York: Touchstone, 1998). 18 Pope John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, tr. Vatican (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1981), 7. The encyclical identifies the following developments that must be addressed: increase in automated production, cost of energy, scarcity of raw materials, pollution of the earth, and increased demand among rising nations for a place at the decision table.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

166

Willson

solution … must be sought in the direction of ‘making life more human,’ then … human work acquires fundamental and decisive importance.”19 In saying this, Laborem Exercens aimed at the heart of the social question that had been of critical importance to Pope Leo XIII and Herman Bavinck some ninety years earlier. Laborem Exercens’s theology of work implements a Catholic social vision that navigates through the communism-capitalism impasse. Like Rerum Novarum in the previous century, it critiques the ways in which work becomes dehumanizing in contemporary societies. Drawing on the themes of creation, mercy, and justice in his earlier work, Redemptor Hominis (March 1979), Pope John Paul II provided a theological vision of the human person by which to discern those areas of society where the church needs to protect human dignity.20 4

The Theological Anthropology of Laborem Exercens

Laborem Exercens draws on the rich troves of biblical creation theology and never travels far from it in discussion of human work.21 The locus classicus of Laborem Exercens is Genesis 1.28: “And God said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion.’” In this text Pope John Paul II sees “the first gospel of work” in which humans are taught to imitate the Creator God and participate in his activity in the world in the “most ordinary everyday activities.”22 Work is defined in broad terms and “means any activity of man [sic], whether manual or intellectual, whatever its nature or circumstances … that can and must be recognized as work” in the course of human endeavors.23 Work is fundamental to human existence, for it is through work that “man in a sense continues to develop that activity [of God in creation], and perfects it as he [sic] advances further and further in the discovery of the resources and values contained in the whole of creation.”24 Work not only transforms nature, 19

20 21 22 23 24

John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 10 (emphasis original); cf. O’Brien and Shannon, Catholic Social Thought, 41–42; Miroslov Volf, Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 5, 9; Miroslov Volf, “On Human Work: An Evaluation of the Key Ideas of the Encyclical Laborem Exercens,” Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 37 (1984), 65–79 (3). O’Brien and Shannon, Catholic Social Teaching, 371. Pope John Paul II asserts that creation theology is the “guiding thread” of the whole encyclical (Laborem Exercens, 29). John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 58 (quoting Gaudium et Spes). John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 5. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 57.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

167

it also provides a means of self-realization for humans; for work is a primary way in which a person “achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes ‘more a human being.’”25 Laborem Exercens also teaches that embedded in creation are potentials that await discovery and development.26 Through work humans take a small portion of creation’s resources “onto [their] workbench,”27 and fulfill God’s command by enabling nature to bear fruit. Humans draw on the storehouses of two inheritances to conduct their work: the first is nature with its potentials and resplendent resources, and the second is culture with its accumulation of technologies and goods. It is through work that a person finds sustenance for themselves and others, and it is through work that they contribute to the development and health of the human community. In short, work is intended to be a form of imitating God that simultaneously draws creation and human potential toward God’s intention for the flourishing of all creation.28 From these convictions Laborem Exercens derives this guiding principle by which to evaluate all systems of work: in order for work to be what God intended, humans must always be the “subject and deciding agent” of their work rather than a mere object of work.29 This subject/object distinction becomes a test for discerning how work is humanizing or dehumanizing. 5 Sin’s Dehumanizing Effects on Work in Both Capitalist and Communist Societies It is against this backdrop of God’s intention for work to actualize the potentials of humanity and nature that we can better understand Laborem Exercens’s assessment of labor problems at the end of the twentieth century. While sin did not cancel out the cultural mandate, it does adversely affect human work. Laborem Exercens focuses on the ways in which work conditions undermine human dignity by impeding rather than facilitating the realization of human potential.30 In particular, it examines the dehumanization that is found in both capitalist and communist systems.

25 26 27 28 29 30

John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 23. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 12. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 29. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 31, 38–39, 11–13, 5. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 15–16; cf. Volf, “On Human Work,” 68. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 22, 13–14.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

168 6

Willson

Capitalism: When Humans Become the Object of Work

One of the factors contributing to dehumanizing work is the infiltration of “materialistic and economistic” thought that reduces work to mere “merchandise” that workers sell to employers. In this way, work becomes an instrumental “impersonal force” necessary for production—a mere means to an end that can be used and then discarded like any other “raw material.” It is a short step from renaming work in purely instrumental terms to treating humans as primarily an object of work, rather than as the subject and deciding agent of work.31 Laborem Exercens explains how this reversal takes place when capitalism goes awry and humans are treated as if they were created for work rather than work being created for them. [I]t should be recognized that the error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever man is in a way treated on the same level as the whole complex of the material means of production, as an instrument and not in accordance with the true dignity of his work—that is to say, where he is not treated as subject and maker, and for this very reason as the true purpose of the whole process of production.32 Thus, objectification of labor leads to an objectified human worker. This, according to Laborem Exercens, stands God’s intention on its head. For if work is to be the means by which humans obey God by realizing their own God-given potential through their development of creation, then humanity’s dominion must be expressed over nature as well as over a person’s work.33 Capitalism corrupts and dehumanizes when it reduces work to a commodified transaction and treats human workers as expendable resources in the pursuit of maximized profits. 7 Communism: Stripping Humans of a Rightful Claim to the Outcomes of Their Work Laborem Exercens again draws on the theological anthropology of Genesis 1 for its critique of communist solutions to contemporary labor problems. Here the 31

32 33

John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 17–18. “Objective” refers to the agricultural means, industrial processes, or microprocessing in order to subdue the earth. “Subjective,” on the other hand, refers to “the human capacity to act in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself and with a tendency to self-realization” (John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 13–15; cf. O’Brien and Shannon, Catholic Social Teaching, 376). John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 18–19 (emphasis added). John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 18–19, 15–17. - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

169

encyclical distinguishes between labor and capital and insists that the Church has always taught the principle that labor has priority over capital—the latter being the aggregate of agricultural goods and production processes.34 In giving the command to subdue the earth, God—who is owner of all creation—puts before humanity the gifts of nature affording humanity a degree of ownership as they draw out the hidden resources embedded in nature. In order to make nature’s resources bear fruit, “man [sic] takes over ownership of small parts of the various riches of nature … by making them his workbench. He takes them over through work and for work.”35 The problem with communism is that “merely taking these means of production (capital) out of the hands of their private owners” does not “ensure their satisfactory socialization,” nor that this capital will be used for the well-being of society.36 What inevitably transpires when communism makes the means of production a property of the state is that the control of this capital is placed in the hands of the ruling elite rather than the workers. But if the good of society is to be pursued, then it must be on the basis of work that “each person is fully entitled to consider himself [sic] a part-owner of the great workbench at which he is working with everyone else.”37 Workers, not the elite ruling party, must be the subject of their work. If capitalism goes awry when it objectifies humans by treating their labor as just another cog in the wheel of the industrial machine, communism dehumanizes the individual by severing their rightful claim to the capital (of nature and means of production) necessary for contributing to society through their work. Capitalism dehumanizes work when it places humans on the workbench as production material. Communism dehumanizes work when it prohibits workers from having any meaningful ownership of the workbench and its outcomes. In both cases, through different paths, unfettered capitalism and Marxist communism treat humans as the object rather than subject of work. 8

Laborem Exercens’s Third Way Between Rigid Capitalism and Communism

Genesis 1 proclaims the ‘first gospel of work’ and roots human dignity in the act of imitating God by working. In their everyday activities of work people 34 35 36 37

John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 35–36, 27–28; cf. O’Brien and Shannon, Catholic Social Thought, 376–377. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 29. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 36. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 37, 34–35 (emphasis added); cf. Wolterstorff, Until Justice, 67. - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

170

Willson

participate in God’s own activity, thereby fulfilling the command to subdue the earth.38 This vision of humanity and work has the potential to mitigate against the social ills of the modern worker. Work was created for humans. The inversion of the Creator’s ordering, through communist or capitalist economic structures, inevitably leads to dehumanizing and immoral work environments. Laborem Exercens insists that remedies for these social problems must not neglect the reality of sin’s effect on the blessing of work and the introduction of toil into all our cultural labors. Alongside the original gospel of work in Genesis 1, we must also remember the gospel of work proclaimed and fulfilled in the works and words of Jesus. It is in the Paschal Mystery of Jesus that we find the necessary elements of a spirituality of human work fit for our times. For it is in Jesus that we see a preview of how human work can participate in the activity of God himself.39 As we pursue peace and justice in and through our toilsome work, Christ “animates, purifies and strengthens those noble longings … by which the human family strives to make its life more human and to rend the whole earth submissive to this goal.”40 The cross, then, is indispensable to a spirituality of human work, for it enables us to confront the distortion of human hearts and social structures. Just as the cross is inextricably tied to the resurrection of Jesus, so too human work contains within it, “through the power of the Holy Spirit and through the word of the Gospel,” a small “glimmer… of the new heavens and the new earth.”41 The ethical import of this ‘gospel of work’ for human dignity across social contexts is now apparent. In order for work to actualize the humanizing intentions of God, Laborem Exercens argues that the following should be present in society: (1) Suitable employment should be available to all without distinction. (2) Workers must be paid a fair and just wage. (3) Work processes should uphold human dignity. And, (4) workers must be free to form unions.42 The vision of human persons and the intended expression of humanity through their work articulated in Genesis 1 provides an enduring authoritative vision from Scripture to analyze diverse social contexts and structures across millennia. Laborem Exercens provides a hermeneutical bridge lacking in the debate between Talma and Bavinck.

38 39 40 41 42

John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 57–58. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 61–62, 59. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 63 (quoting Gaudium et Spes; emphasis original). John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 63–64. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 38; cf. O’Brien and Shannon, Catholic Social Thought, 377.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

9

171

What Should Neo-Calvinists Learn from Laborem Exercens?

The above analysis of Laborem Exercens demonstrates how John Paul II brought Scripture to bear on the capitalist-communist impasse of the 1980s. There is much in Laborem Exercens’s creation theology that resonates with neo-Calvinism.43 While each of these four principles stated above deserves more attention, I would like to comment on just one area in which the encyclical addresses the impasse that Bavinck encountered on how to interpret Scripture’s commands for contemporary issues of work. The dilemma Bavinck faced in his debate with Talma finds a partial resolution in the objective-subjective distinction that Laborem Exercens makes concerning work. At issue in the debate over servants and masters was not simply the interpretation of Scripture, but also the evaluation of Dutch society. Bavinck argued that the unity of human nature established continuity between the varieties of history so that changing cultural contexts did not free modern society from the authority of Scripture. Talma, on the other hand, argued that the Dutch context at the turn of the twentieth century was so different from the New Testament that Paul’s commands to servants were irrelevant to the labor crisis at hand. Laborem Exercens provides a third way beyond this impasse. With Bavinck, Laborem Exercens affirms that the subject of work, humanity, “is always the same”; at the same time, the encyclical concurs with Talma’s view that “when one takes into consideration its objective directions one is forced to admit that there exist many … different sorts of work.”44 Here Laborem Exercens provides a method that addresses both the unity of human nature as well as the contextual changes throughout history. The distinction between the subjective and objective aspects of work attuned the encyclical’s social analysis of labor to the ways in which work undermines human dignity established by God at creation. Thus, Laborem Exercens is sensitized to contextual realities as it evaluates work in light of the biblical vision of the human person. This raises questions. What was it about the debate with Talma in 1902–3 that led Bavinck away from drawing on the Mosaic Law to evaluate the labor issues of the day? Was it Bavinck’s concern over the revolutionary impulses 43

44

These common themes include the following: a reclamation of creation theology in the development of theological anthropology; the importance of the cultural mandate for a holistic understanding God’s manifold purposes for this world; a focus on the embedded potentials of creation unfolded in human culture; and the critical need to focus on the public expressions of discipleship in light of the enduring value of cultures in the new creation. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 19.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

172

Willson

of Talma’s socialism, a socialism that threatened to dismantle the legal relationships of society while leaving the moral relationships untouched? Or did Bavinck sense that the pervasive application of the social contract to all levels of society threatened to undermine the diversity that God intends for creation? Although these questions deserve to be explored, this essay will focus on a fundamental tension within Bavinck’s hermeneutic. And as we shall see, this tension sheds light on the issue of the authority and applicability of Scripture’s commands. In his book Until Justice and Peace Embrace, Nicholas Wolterstorff identifies a tendency found among the second generation of neo-Calvinists to give more attention to the proper unfolding of each sphere’s nature than to an assessment of how the activities within these spheres impact the well-being of humanity. We find this tension in Bavinck’s 1891 address in which he argued that creational diversity involves inequity of giftings between people, even as he notes the way the Mosaic Law ensured that these inequities would not become systemic injustices (e.g. laws that protect the poor, weak, and vulnerable).45 In his words, we must never forget that “Old Testament morality is written from the point of view of the oppressed.”46 And yet Bavinck did believe that God intended diversity (‘inequity’) between classes and, to a certain degree, between rich and poor. In “Heeren en Knechten” his emphasis shifted away from the plight of the poor to advocating a non-revolutionary ‘leavening’ method of slow social reform. These two themes in Bavinck’s earlier address must be held together if we are to avoid the errors of second-generation neo-Calvinists. Wolterstoff draws on Bob Goudzwaard for a corrective to neglecting the experience of the oppressed. Goudzwaard argues that while God does desire diversity, “It is the fullness of human life that is the decisive test, not the proper realization of each sphere’s inner nature.”47 This danger to give priority to creational diversity over social justice is especially present when neo-Calvinists perform their lives and theology apart from the suffering of the oppressed. When this happens the focus of theology becomes preservation of the social order, and we succumb to the view that people (at least, certain people) are created for the sake of structures.48 Laborem Exercens is an important corrective for neo-Calvinists who hope to resist these elements within our tradition

45 Bavinck, “Welke algemeene beginselen,” 154. 46 Bavinck, “Welke algemeene beginselen,”154. 47 Wolterstorff, Until Justice, 58–59. 48 Wolterstorff, Until Justice, 58–59.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

173

that propel us toward social conservativism to the neglect of the vulnerable in society. 10 A Bavinckian Theological Anthropology for Today’s Work Environment Returning to our contemporary context, Peter Drucker once again offers this helpful historical account of modern work: “In 1946, with the advent of the computer, information became the organizing principle of production. With this, a new basic civilization came into being.”49 As the Industrial Revolution in the mid-eighteenth century moved people to the work, the information revolution in the mid-twentieth century set in motion the pattern of moving work to people. Today the communism-capitalism impasse is no longer prominent in the West. Rather, the question seems to be, what form of capitalism will we have? In this new context of decentralized work we need to evaluate work environments and worker experiences in light of the ethical vision of Scripture. 11

Fragmentation and Dehumanization

As far back as 1973 Peter Berger began describing malevolent features of late modernity in western, technologically driven societies. For Berger, a malaise of loneliness, homelessness and alienation cast a spell on people who found themselves forced to inhabit numerous ‘lifeworlds’ on a daily basis.50 This experience was poignantly captured by Max de Pree’s words: “For many of us who work, there exists an exasperating discontinuity between how we see ourselves as persons and how we see ourselves as workers. We need to eliminate that sense of discontinuity and to restore a sense of coherence in our lives.”51 Fragmentation and loss of coherence have accelerated due to the rapid proliferation of technology in every facet of life. With the expanded mobility afforded by technology it is not only possible but expected that a person should be accessible at all times of the day and from every corner of the globe. The shift to an information-centered society has moved work to the people, but in doing so it has broken all levies and threatens to fill every part of life with 49 Drucker, The Essential Drucker, 338. 50 Peter Berger, Brigitte Berger, and Hansfried Kellner, “Modernity and Its Discontents,” in The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness (Oxford: Penguin, 1973), 182–200. 51 Max de Pree, Leadership Is an Art (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 32 (emphasis added).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

174

Willson

work. Whereas the nineteenth-century worker faced the erosion of the centuries-long work guilds, the twenty-first-century worker faces the erosion of boundaries between work and non-work. The eight-hour workday and six-day workweek seem antiquated in a work environment where virtually everyone has given up on the traditional boundaries of work and rest.52 Busyness and frenetic activity are rampant in the United States today, especially among the congregations where I have conducted qualitative research. Many of the people I interviewed are experiencing what Douglas Rushkoff calls ‘present shock’—the urgency of the present moment, when everything is happening now and unless I remain constantly plugged in, I will be left behind. “Our society has reoriented itself to the present moment,” writes Rushkoff. “Everything is live, real time, and always-on. It is not a mere speeding up …. It’s more of a diminishment of anything that isn’t happening right now—and the onslaught of everything that supposedly is.”53 This accelerated pace of life and pervasiveness of work squeezes out time for rest and play. As one woman I interviewed told me, “Sunday morning worship is the only time in my week when I am still.” For such persons merely having a theology of culture-making is insufficient to help confront the dehumanizing, all-encompassing nature of work, and the result is a life lived without the boundaries of work and rest established at creation. The spiritual needs in this context are simple and yet profound. “What I am looking for,” said another woman in an interview, “are ways to channel God while I’m at work, and to find the ‘more’ to life that is beyond work.” Throughout my qualitative research I found that while work may not be the most pressing issue facing the church today it is nonetheless a strategic area for engaging in the formation of holistic cultural discipleship. The traditional Reformed approach to work through worldview formation is proving insufficient. What we need is a theology of work that cultivates a spirituality that aligns Christians with the creational rhythms God has established, thus attuning us to God’s active presence in the world.54 In light of these challenges the time is ripe for a fresh reclamation of Herman Bavinck’s view of the human person for a theology of work. 52

53 54

A Gallup poll (29 August 2014) found that the average workweek of Americans is not 40 but 47 hours per week, and that 25% of salaried employees work 60 hours or more per week (http://www.gallup.com/poll/175286/hour-workweek-actually-longer-seven-hours .aspx, accessed 4 February 2022). Douglas Rushkoff, PRESENT SHOCK: When Everything Happens Now (New York: Current, 2013), 2. Denise Daniels and Shannon Vandewarker, Working in the Presence of God: Spiritual Practices for Everyday Work (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2019).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

12

175

The Search for a New Locus Classicus

The struggle to understand how the enduring authority of Scripture speaks into our ever-changing world is a perennial issue for theologians. This hermeneutical challenge involves a theological interpretation of Scripture (as opposed to selectively choosing isolated texts), and a theological interpretation of the context in which we find ourselves. The method employed in Laborem Exercens and Bavinck’s 1891 address to the Social Congress sheds light on the need for a “mediating analysis” to bridge Scripture and contemporary society.55 As noted above, the locus classicus of Laborem Exercens is Genesis 1.28. Amidst the onslaught of dehumanizing communism in the early 1980s (especially in Pope John Paul II’s homeland of Poland), and the commodification of labor in capitalist societies, the Genesis 1 vision of work upheld human dignity by asserting that work is a humanizing gift from God. The search for a new locus classicus to fit the needs of our changing context continues among biblical scholars and theologians. As early as 1984 Miroslov Volf was advocating the Genesis 2 vision of humans as ‘tenders’ and ‘keepers’ in an effort to curb the abusive exploitation of the earth.56 More recently Richard Bauckham has written an extensive critique of the ways in which the Genesis 1.28 view of stewardly dominion has been adopted uncritically and has reinforced a mentality of humanity’s total control over the nonhuman creation without any consideration of God’s involvement in nature. Such thinking, he argues, sets humans over but not within the rest of creation in a hierarchical and one-way relationship.57 Is the search for a locus classicus misguided? The answer to that question depends on whether this approach takes into consideration the entire counsel of Scripture and is rooted in the lived needs of workers. The Old Testament in particular contains a diversity of texts and metaphors that relate to human work, and it is important to allow these to inform our theology of work.58 Yet there is some legitimacy to highlighting the ways specific texts speak to particular 55 Wolterstorff, Until Justice, 45. 56 Volf, “On Human Work,” 74–79. For a more recent argument for Genesis 2 as the locus classicus, see Ellen F. Davis, Getting Involved with God: Rediscovering the Old Testament (Boston: Cowley Publication, 2001), 185–201. 57 Richard Bauckham, The Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010), 2–12. 58 Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006), 273–275; John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology Volume 3: Israel’s Life Volume 3, Psalm 90–150 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 16, 46; Bauckham, The Bible and Ecology, 64–102.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

176

Willson

needs of today. In an attempt to address the need for a theology and spirituality of work, I will draw on Psalm 104 as a locus classicus that has special relevance for cultivating a spirituality fit for contemporary work environments. 13 Tuning Our Lives to Sense God’s Presence: The Liturgical Rhythms of Psalm 104 Between the pre-Fall cultural mandate given in the garden (Gen. 1.28) and the new creation when wolf and lamb lie down together in peace (Isa. 11.6–7), Scripture attests to ambivalence about work that corresponds to the experience of life in a fallen world. Work is not only a gift of God basic to humanness (Ps. 104.23), it is also the target of the curse of sin outside of the garden (Gen. 3.17–19; Ps. 104.35). Any theology of work for equipping the church must face these truths head on and accept the world as it is. It must also provide spiritual practices that attune the mind and heart of the believer to the active presence of God in and around them. For such a pursuit Psalm 104 offers two essential resources: a dynamic view of God’s active presence in the world, and the liberating guidance of life lived within the God-intended boundaries of work and rest.59 14

A Dynamic View of God’s Presence in the World

For the many individuals who awake each day to the looming inundation of work and the demand to be incessantly ‘on,’ feverishly plugged in, and frantically busy, Psalm 104 helps us experience the world and work differently— to sense God’s activity in the ordinary events of daily life. This psalm offers the most extensive discussion of the relationship between God and creation outside of Genesis. While Genesis 1 and 2 introduce the story of God and his creation community, Psalm 104 functions as a prayer that enables us to inhabit this story in a God-honoring way. Psalm 104 teaches us that God is the main actor of the creation story and that God’s presence pervades this world. God is the transcendent Other distinguished from creation, but he is at the same time immanent within the world, wrapping himself in light (v. 2) and riding on the winds and the clouds (v. 3). In these verses God’s originating and ongoing activity with each part of 59 Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 190.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

177

creation is as royal as it is intimate. We see a striking example of this intimacy in Psalm 104’s inversion of the Aaronic blessing (Num. 6.24–26): when God hides his “face” creation is dismayed, and when God sends forth his spirit he renews “the face of the ground” (vv. 29–30). God does not stand at a distance but is continually involved in providing energy and breath (vv. 29–30), provisions of food and water (vv. 10–16, 27), and even a variety of habitats for a diversity of animals (vv. 12, 17–18).60 Psalm 104 provides a timely antidote to the prevailing disenchantment in our western social imaginary. It invites us to pray in a way that names God’s active presence in the most mundane activities and in detailed ways. The desire to ‘channel’ or connect with God in one’s work can be greatly aided by cultivating a praying imagination that is funded by these vivid pictures of God’s ongoing care for creation.61 Rabbi Jonathan Sacks makes this connection between theology and prayer clear when he writes, “Summary statements of Jewish faith orient us to the spiritual contours of the world that we actualize in the mind by the act of prayer.”62 I find this a helpful way of viewing how Psalm 104 orients the worshiper to life through the act of praising God for the specific ways his presence is experienced in the world. Following the psalm’s lyrical praise we are invited into a reorienting practice of worship that attunes us to the spiritual contours of the world and places our work within the larger reality of God’s enduring benediction: “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good” (Gen. 1.31).63 15

The Liberating Guidance of God-Intended Boundaries

The opening four verses of Psalm 104 depict the kingly majesty and power of God with rich imagery. It is the rule of this Creator King over the winds and 60

Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150: A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 368; Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 181–182, 197–199; James L. Mays, Psalms: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 333, 335. 61 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 25–89; Eugene Peterson, Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John & the Praying Imagination (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991). 62 Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, commentary on “Shaharit,” The Koren Siddur (Jerusalem: Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd., 2009), 22. 63 Mays, Psalms, 331; Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 196–197, 181–182; Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 55–58.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

178

Willson

clouds and earth that invokes security: “You set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken” (v. 5). “The bounds are set against the chaotic waters (v. 9),” James Mays explains, “but the limits hold because the LORD reigns. Life in the world depends on the reign of God.”64 God’s reign permits a reliable world that includes consistent rhythms of day and night, sun and rain, springtime and harvest (vv. 16–23). God’s ongoing involvement produces order and function as well as the boundaries between each part of the creation community. He gave specific tasks to each part of creation and arranged them in patterns of interdependence (springs for animals, vv. 10–11; grass for cattle and plants for humans, vv. 14–15; trees for birds to nest, vv. 16–17; night and day to demarcate the work of animals from humans, vv. 20–23).65 Creation’s order is not intrinsic to its nature but rather due to the fact that God continues to be active within creation. God stands at his post day and night calling forth the sun, moon, and stars to run their course and to undertake the particular vocation he has given to them (vv. 19–20).66 At the beginning of the twentieth century Bavinck described the changes effected by technology on the human experience: “Technology has now been elevated to the rank of science,” he wrote, “and has gradually turned man into a ruler of nature and of all its powers. Every invention that he makes is a kind of emancipation; steam and electricity shortened the distances and render people more and more independent of place and time, of wind and weather.”67 A century later we can now see that these technological ‘emancipations’ have increasingly placed more responsibility on individuals to set self-imposed limits. The natural rhythms of light and darkness and changes of seasons and weather no longer provide structure our plans and schedules as in former times. (This is to say nothing of the loss of social mores that once governed society through explicit ‘blue laws’ or unspoken taboos concerning work and sabbath). Amidst this experience of unstructured ‘freedom,’ Psalm 104 offers life-giving coherence by aligning us with the daily rhythms of the entire cosmos. Derik Kidner argues that verses 19–24 show us a picture of the movements of the larger community of creation, “teeming with life and exerting the pull of their rhythm on man and beast.” The rhythms of light and darkness are a safeguard built into creation that established rhythms of work and rest—in 64 Mays, Psalms, 333–334; Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 65. 65 Fretheim, God and World, 280–281; Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 197–198. Old Testament texts that are relevant to this topic are: Hag. 1.10–11; Job 37.6; Deut. 28.4; Ps. 65.9–13. 66 Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 198. 67 Herman Bavinck, The Christian Family, tr. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press, 2012), 129.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

179

Kidner’s words, “one of [God’s] best gifts.”68 Freedom requires constraints, and in these creational rhythms and boundaries we find humanizing paths to which we must conform our lives. 16 Conclusion At this present moment fresh opportunities and challenges are before us, and it is in the area of theological anthropology that we can find a rallying point for cooperation between Catholics and Protestants.69 The legacies of Herman Bavinck and Pope John Paul II include a resolute commitment to Scripture’s authority and its enduring relevance throughout all ages. What is needed, however, is not simply a repristination of their theologies but rather a commitment to follow their example of returning to Scripture to find a vision of humanity (replete with concrete spiritual practices) that addresses our hectic pace of life and eroded boundaries between work and rest. From Pope John Paul II we need to remember that the church’s duty is “to form a spirituality of work which will help people to come closer, through work, to God, the Creator and Redeemer.”70 And from Herman Bavinck we are reminded that if we wish to uphold human dignity amidst the onslaught of dehumanizing social structures, then we must repeatedly return to Scripture to discern an ethical vision that speaks to the lived experiences of all members of society—especially those who are oppressed and exploited—and cultivates a spirituality of work fit for our times. Bibliography Bauckham, R. (2010). The Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation. Waco: Baylor University Press. Bavinck, H. (2012). The Christian Family. Transl. N. Kloosterman. Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press. Bavinck, H. (1974). Bijbelsche en Religieuze Psychologie. Transl. H. Hanko. Grand Rapids: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Church. Bavinck, H. (1902). “Heeren en Knechten.” de Bazuin. 68 Kidner, Psalms, 371. 69 Georg Langemeyer, “Image of God,” in Handbook of Catholic Theology, eds. Wolfgang Beinert and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 369–371. 70 John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 56–57 (italics original).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

180

Willson

Bavinck, H. (1892). “Welke algemeene beginselen beheerschen, volgens de H. Schrift, de oplossing der sociale quaestie, en welke vingerwijzing voor die oplossing ligt in de concrete toepassing, welke deze beginselen voor Israël in Mozaïsch recht gevonden hebben?” In: J.A. Wormser (ed.). Proces-verbaal van het social congress, gehouden te Amsterdam den 9, 10, 11, 12 November, 1891. Amsterdam: Hoveker & Zoon, 149–57. Berger, P.; Berger, B.; Kellner, H. (1973). “Modernity and Its Discontents.” The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness. Oxford: Penguin. Bolt, J. (2010). “General Biblical Principles and the Relevance of Concrete Mosaic Law for the Social Question Today (1891).” Journal of Markets & Morality, vol. 13, no. 2: 411–46. Daniels, D.; Vandewarker, S. (2019). Working in the Presence of God: Spiritual Practices for Everyday Work. Peabody: Hendrickson. Davis, E.F. (2001). Getting Involved with God: Rediscovering the Old Testament. Boston: Cowley Publication. De Pree, M. (2004). Leadership Is an Art. New York: Doubleday. Drucker, P. (2000). The Essential Drucker: In One Volume the Best of Sixty Years of Peter Drucker’s Essential Writings on Management. New York: HarperBusiness. Fretheim, T.E. (2006). God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Goldingay, J. (2008). Old Testament Theology Volume 3: Israel’s Life Volume 3, Psalm 90–150. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. John Paul II, Pope. (1981). Laborem Exercens: On Human Work. Transl. Vatican. Boston: Pauline Books and Media. Langemeyer, G. (1995). “Image of God.” In: W. Beinert and F. Schüssler Fiorenza (eds.). Handbook of Catholic Theology. New York: Crossroad, 369–71. Leo XIII, Pope. (2013). Rerum Novarum: The Condition of Labor. In: D.J. O’Brien and T.A. Shannon (eds.). Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 12–39. Levenson, J.D. (1988). Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mays, J.L. (1994). Psalms: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press. Peterson, E. (1991). Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John & the Praying Imagination. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. Rushkoff, D. (2013). PRESENT SHOCK: When Everything Happens Now. New York: Current. Saad, L. (2014). “The Forty-Hour Workweek Is Actually Longer—By Seven Hours.” Gallup News. 29 August. Accessed 18 September 2014. http://www.gallup.com /poll/175286/hour-workweek-actually-longer-seven-hours.aspx. Sacks, J. (2009). The Koren Siddur. Jerusalem: Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

A Reformed Spirituality for Our Daily Labor

181

Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. van Krieken, G. (2011). “Syb Talma: A Dutch Christian Socialist.” Journal of Markets & Morality, vol. 14, no. 2: 393–428. Volf, M. (2001). Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work. Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Volf, M. (1984). “On Human Work: An Evaluation of the Key Ideas of The Encyclical Laborem Exercens.” Scottish Journal of Theology 37: 65–79. Wolterstorff, N. (1983). Until Justice and Peace Embrace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Yergin, D.; Stanislaw, J. (1998). Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy. New York: Touchstone.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 9

Theologizing Social Pluralism: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Approaches Robert S. Covolo Neo-Calvinists and Roman Catholics have a history of finding common cause in their concern for protecting institutions—families, voluntary associations, neighborhoods, and so on—which comprise what has come to be referred to within academic discourse as “civil society.” Drawn together in their mutual struggle with reductive forces that atomize society into nothing more than rights-bearing individuals, reduce social cohesion to the by-product of market forces, or dissolve individuals into an omnipotent collective, these two respective Christian traditions have found themselves battling side by side for what they see as the vital social capital on which both humanity and healthy societies thrive. But how have these two approached this threat, and what theological resources have they used? This essay addresses this twofold question, and does so in three movements: first, it will retrieve the distinct approaches Roman Catholics and neo-Calvinists have taken in their defense of social pluralism. Having reviewed these approaches, it will compare them in light of their use of Christian theology to fund their respective projects. Finally, before concluding, it will tease out what, if any, practical implications result from these theological accounts. 1

Social Pluralism in the Catholic Tradition

Although it is possible to trace theology’s claim for a differentiated social order back to Aquinas, the call among Roman Catholics to protect social pluralism was given distinct impetus in the modern period with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum. Considered “the first great social encyclical,” Rerum Novarum offered not only a defense of the mediation of labor unions between individual workers and corporations but, more broadly, a fundamental discussion of the nature and structure of society aimed at navigating between the Scylla of individualism and the Charybidis of collectivism. While never named explicitly, Leo XIII had a concept in mind guiding his discussion about the kind of social order he sought to champion: an order that would eventually be referred to as © Robert S. Covolo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_010 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Theologizing Social Pluralism

183

“subsidiarianism.” One detects this order when Leo distinguishes between the body politic that exists for the common good and private societies that, although existing within the body politic, are composed for “the private advantage of the associates.” As Leo argues in Rerum Novarum, the state must not take on the tasks that individuals and other institutions (family, religious groups, workingmen’s associations, etc.) can do for themselves. Such private associations of family, religion and workers, though not independent, are both legitimate and deserving of the state’s respect, protection and, if need be, aid (subsidium). Forty years later Pius XI explicitly articulated Leo XIII’s implicit doctrine of subsidiarianism in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. Drawing on the concepts of the common good and the universal law of nature, Pius XI defended a differentiated social order that placed each social entity in its proper place. The resulting encyclical offered one of the most referenced statements on subsidiarianism within Catholic social teaching: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. (Quadragesimo Anno, 203) Noteworthy in Pius XI’s depiction of subsidiarianism is the idea of a range of tasks distributed among a hierarchically ordered body politic in which God stands at the apex and all creatures and institutions are subordinated to God in a descending order. Moving down from “greater” to “lesser” on this social chain of being, Pius XI claimed the demands of natural and divine law provided the basis for efficiency in an over all social order in which each social entity worked within its respective privileges, rights, duties and ends. This principle of subsidiarity laid out in Quadragesimo Anno was reaffirmed and further elaborated in terms of its implications and applications in subsequent Catholic social teaching. Notable in this regard is the reference to subsidiarianism by John XXIII in his Mater et magistra and Pacem in terris, in the 1980’s in the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ The Challenge of Peace and Economics for All, and implicitly in 1991 in John Paul II’s Centesimus annus. Additionally, subsidiarity was summarized in the third part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, wherein article 1894 states: “In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.”

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

184

Covolo

While the exact meaning and implementation of subsidiarianism has been a matter of ongoing discussion both within and outside the Catholic tradition, central elements deserve highlighting. First, subsidiarianism accents the irrevocably social nature of human existence. Secondly, because society provides an indispensible auxiliary to human flourishing, subsidiarianism assumes that the common good and the individual’s good are inter-determinate. Thirdly, the kind of associations subsidiarianism has come to refer to is elastic: from Leo XIII’s discussion of families, religious groups and workingman’s organizations to all “economic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recreational, professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life and which make it possible to achieve effective social growth.” Finally, these associations are hierarchically ranked based on their particular ends, yet with the aim of not neglecting the relative value of each expression. 2

Social Pluralism in the Neo-Calvinist Tradition

Roughly concurrent to the papacy of Leo XIII, the father of neo-Calvinism, Abraham Kuyper, also argued for a society filled with a plurality of social entities. Leary of France’s “popular sovereignty” and Germany’s “state sovereignty,” Kuyper articulated a doctrine of “sphere sovereignty”: a vision of discrete, autonomous spheres of human life that naturally evolved within healthy societies. Going beyond Alexis de Tocqueville’s intermediate associations and Edmund Burke’s platoons of family and guild (yet conspicuously silent on Calvinistic political theorist Johannes Althusius’s associational view of human nature), Kuyper promoted a social theory that described a divinely ordained organic social development responsible for the emergence of the diverse spheres of society. As Kuyper states, “Human life […] turns out to be neither simple nor uniform but constitutes an infinitely composite organism. Its composition is such that the individual exists only in terms of a group, and only in such groups can wholeness become manifest.”1 For Kuyper, a society can only be truly healthy when its historically accrued and divinely ordained diversity is demonstrated in the robust functioning of a pluriformity of social spheres. But what exactly did Kuyper have in mind when describing “a rich, multifaceted variety of human society”? In his 1880 rectoral address “Sphere Sovereignty,” Kuyper explicitly mentions the church, education, the family and the state as well as categories such as politics, business, art and science. For Kuyper, all 1 Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 467.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Theologizing Social Pluralism

185

of these fields have an integrity that must be respected. And therefore, neither individuals, states, nor markets operate within an unrestrained field of action, but must respect this plurality of entities that provide a variety of social expressions. Like subsidiarianism, Kuyper’s doctrine of sphere sovereignty was picked up, reworked, and given fresh articulation by various Reformed thinkers who followed. Notable in this regard is Herman Dooyeweerd, who drew from Kuyper’s basic insights about the pluriformity of creation and the integrity of social spheres to advance a highly nuanced account of how the differentiation of associations and institutions is not an arbitrary historical development, socially constructed by individuals or granted by the all-sovereign state but, rather, dependent on the modal and individuality structures of creation. In suggesting that social realities are dependent upon the modal and individuality structures of creation, Dooyeweerd is simultaneously challenging the substance/accidents approach of Aristotle (upon which Thomism drew) and the social atomizing force of liberalism which held social entities to be merely the cumulative result of individual agency. Important for his project, Dooyeweerd builds into his metaphysic of creation a “historical mode” which entails that humans are called to open up society from undifferentiated social forms (e.g. a tribal society in which the individual is restricted to familial associations and institutions, the feudal system with its undifferentiated patrimonial political authority, etc.) to differentiated societies with defined cultural spheres such as science, the fine arts, commerce, industry, politics and so on. It follows for Dooyeweerd that because the state is not the producer of a complex social ecology, it should not be seen in terms of a whole/part relationship to diverse social entities, but rather, instituted by God as a servant responsible for protecting and supporting the sovereignty of other spheres by administering just interrelationships among other spheres. The above attests to two historic Christian approaches to social pluralism. The Roman Catholic tradition’s doctrine of subsidiarianism operates on the basis of a hierarchical vision of social order in which tasks are to be fulfilled by the lowest element in the social hierarchy, with a higher community only assisting in an ad hoc fashion when the lower order is in need of assistance (subsidium). In distinction, the neo-Calvinist tradition’s doctrine of sphere sovereignty operates on the basis of a non-hierarchical vision of social order in which respective spheres of family, state, church, labor unions, art, etc., maintain their differentiated areas of responsibility within a collegial interdependence. Much more can been said in terms of comparing these two approaches. The aim of this chapter, though, is to understand better how these two traditions compare and contrast theologically: to display the theological grounds

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

186

Covolo

these two approaches rely on to substantiate their claims. In order to do so, it must first address recent challenges to the task of theologizing social pluralism. 3

The Challenge of Theologizing Social Pluralism

Noted Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann claims Old Testament theology should be considered neither “objective history” nor “mythology” but, rather, a broad account of humanity and the world in relationship to God. In making such a claim, Brueggemann is pointing to the nature of theology itself. For such accounts are precisely the kinds of things theology provides. The idea that one’s theology can serve to inform one’s political philosophy has come under attack in recent years. A notable proponent advocating the removal of theology from political philosophy is philosopher Jürgen Habermas. For Habermas, our modern pluralistic society can no longer sustain the kind of language theology offers, and therefore the injection of theological categories into political discourse is untenable if one is to have a properly public discussion. In lieu of this problem, Habermas offers to replace the political implications of theology’s obsolete claims with a sanitized “postmetaphysical” approach—a discourse free from theology’s “totalizing” claims and therefore more suitable for the public square. However, for contemporary Catholic and neo-Calvinist thinkers, Habermas’s “postmetaphysical” approach is not without its own assumptions. As Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor has argued, Habermas treats religion as a special case because he is still living in the malaise of Enlightenment conceit that held to the dogma of the eventual deliverance of timeless principles attainable by reason alone. But since no such “universal reason” was ever forthcoming, Taylor claims democracies are irrevocably dependent upon overlapping consensuses that draw on a variety of arguments—theological or otherwise. For Catholics and neo-Calvinists, the task of doing theology in a pluralistic society is not, as Habermas assumes, to ignore the rise of a plurality of perspectives on ultimate realities and the good life. Rather, it is to give up on the project of a “thin consensus”: as people’s deeper perspectives inevitably inform a person’s political considerations. What’s more, as Mouw and Griffioen contend, “these kinds of [… thin consensus] projects are themselves dependent upon particular views about historical development and the proper patterns of human flourishing.”2 Therefore, the question for these two Christian traditions is not how to eradicate what 2 Richard Mouw and Sander Griffioen, Pluarlisms and Horizons: An Essay in Christian Public Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 49.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

187

Theologizing Social Pluralism

makes their views distinctly Christian, but rather, how to understand the rise of pluralistic societies in light of their distinct approach to Christianity. That having been said, even if we grant theology a stake in considering the normative structure of a diversified social reality, can theology deliver? Here one must be careful when speaking of the theological resources that have funded these two traditions’ visions for social pluralism. In spite of contentions by both neo-Calvinist and Catholic sources—truth be told—there remains modest support in scripture and tradition to fund a robust theology of social pluralism. Therefore, to provide an adequate theological basis for their respective views, Catholics and neo-Calvinists weave their doctrines of social pluralism from a number of theological loci. Of course, a systematic presentation of the theological history of these two traditions is impossible here. Rather, in what follows we shall limit our attention to three important theological motifs that have funded the distinct ways these two traditions have theologized social pluralism. 4

Grounding Social Ontology: Anthropology or Creation Order?

If our social existence is to be more than the arbitrary result of individual action or, conversely, a gift of the state, social pluralism must find a different ground to account for its existence. In light of this, both Catholics and neo-Calvinists have sought ontological grounds for our social world in terms of what God created, yet with distinct emphases. Whereas the Catholic tradition has primarily grounded social pluralism in its doctrine of humanity (creata hominibus), neo-Calvinists tend to account for social pluralism in terms of creation order (creationis ordine). To appreciate these differing emphases, each must be considered in turn. Official Catholic social teaching grounds subsidiarianism’s hierarchically arranged diversity of social entities in the nature of the human constitution. There are two important ways this move has been made: drawing on Aristotle, Thomism accented human beings’ unique status as substantial, rational agents. In turn, this move is reinforced by appealing to humanity as an image bearer who is distinct as the pinnacle of creation. Accordingly, the accent on humanity’s unique status as the basis for the diverse expressions of our sociality is supported in Catholic teaching by both natural law and revelation. Pacem in Terris serves as a clear example of establishing social order by virtue of natural law. As the document states, humanity’s unique status is secured as one for whom “the Creator of the world has imprinted in man’s heart an order which his conscience reveals to him and enjoins him to obey.” As the encyclical details, this

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

188

Covolo

divinely instilled order calls individuals to work alongside others to produce “a great variety of organizations and intermediate groups” that are formed not only to advance their social nature but also act as a safeguard to human dignity, freedom and responsibility. Moving beyond natural law, Gaudium et Spes serves as an example of drawing on revelation. According to this document, Scripture reveals that humans were created as the “center and crown” of creation, in the image of God, and to be in relationship. And as the document goes on to argue, it follows that a plurality of social institutions and communities are required for such a social creature to flourish. This logic is also exhibited in John Paul II’s Centesimus annus, where he blames an “anthropological error” for the contemporary dissolution of “intermediary groups.” Rather than ground social ontology in persons being funded with the capacities for a variety of social worlds, neo-Calvinists tend to favor framing social ontology in light of the larger ecology of a creation in which humanity is placed. Kuyper speaks of creation manifesting itself as “an infinitely complex organism” replete with a number of spheres that include “a ‘moral world,’ a ‘scientific world,’ a ‘business world,’ and the ‘world of art.’”3 Such moves display Kuyper’s desire to connect social ontology to a vision of Christian cosmology, relating a host of “intermediating social structures” to a pluriformity of ‘worlds’ operating simultaneously according to their distinct potentialities given at creation. Kuyper’s colleague and close associate Herman Bavinck would also connect social ontology to creation order, albeit without invoking Kuyper or Kuyper’s terminology of “sphere sovereignty.” For instance, Bavinck at times associates God fixing the bounds of the angels, the heavens and the various creatures to God establishing the domains of family, science and art. Additionally, in Dooyeweerd’s modal spheres, one sees an intricate philosophical rift elaborating the neo-Calvinist theological impulse to ground social ontology in creation order. 5

The Church and Social Structure: Hierarchy or Collegiality?

A second locus informing the two traditions’ distinct theological grounds for social pluralism is ecclesiology. While the doctrine of the church seems to be an unlikely source for a doctrine of society, as we shall see, for both traditions these two doctrines inform each other.

3 Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” 467.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Theologizing Social Pluralism

189

The Catholic Church has a rich and complex tradition of theological reflection on the church replete with numerous creeds, confessions, councils, encyclicals and theologians. Such a rich and diverse tradition makes speaking in the singular about Catholic ecclesiology somewhat problematic. Yet in spite of such a rich and varied body of reflection on the church it is possible to identify distinct doctrines and enduring structural features that have shaped Catholic ecclesiology. Catholic scholar Robert Shelledy draws attention to this ecclesiological distinctiveness when he states, “Catholicism is distinguishable from […] other branches of Christianity by its organization structure, which is a formal hierarchy with a well-defined social structure.”4 Reinforced by longstanding theological positions on sacramentalism, sacerdotalism and successionism (apostolic and Petrine), this enduring ecclesiological structure has been a mark of Catholicism. That said, Catholic ecclesiologists recognize a significant shift from the more strident pre-Vatican II approach to hierarchy and subsequent views that emerged in and around Vatican II. Joachim Salaverri’s pre-Vatican II de Ecclesia Christi is representative of the former. Salaverri argues that at its core, the church is to be thought of as a strictly hierarchical body governed by the monarchical rule of Peter, the college of the Apostles (bishops), and the infallible and absolute teaching magisterium composed of both the pope speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, and the bishops speaking in union with the pope at ecumenical councils. Additionally, Salaverri accents an objectified, quantifiable mediation of grace that is accessible only in and through the proper administration of the sacraments under the careful auspices of the magisterium. For Salaverri, Christ’s presence in the church is manifest primarily and foremostly in and through the work of episcopacy that administers grace and illuminates revelation to the body through a chain of infallible, hierarchical authority. Salaverri’s accent on the identity of the church residing in the unquestioned and absolute magisterium that sits at the apex of a hierarchy mediating grace received significant challenge in the twentieth century. Notable in this regard is the work of Yves Congar. Dubbed “the most important ecclesiologist of the twentieth century,”5 Congar emphasized the important role of the laity in the mission of the church, the need for constant reform (including institutional and structural) within all levels of the Church’s hierarchy, and a missional focus that 4 Robert Shelledy, “The Catholic Tradition and the State,” in Church, State and Citizen, ed. Sandra Joireman (Oxford: Oxford University Pres, 2009), 16. 5 Elizabeth Teresa Groppe, Yves Congar’s Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 4.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

190

Covolo

sees the church existing for the world rather than self-promulgation. A number of other Catholic voices joined Congar. Among these include Karl Rahner, who warned that the age of Christendom was over, and therefore the church itself must rethink ecclesiological identity apart from an institutional model that thinks of the mediation of grace in terms of those who are “in” and those who are “out.” Also included here are Edward Schillebeeckx and Henri de Lubac, who argued that the church should be considered a sacramental community rather than a “strongly hierarchical and disciplined society whose divine origin has to be maintained.”6 Finally, although not formally an ecclesiologist, Jesuit scholar John Courtney Murray’s work on the relationship between church and state recast the role of authority away from what he described as the archaic, overly paternalistic view of Leo XIII, to a more dynamic and responsive leadership in tune with democratic initiatives and constitutional political authority. Murray’s recognition that reframing political theology had implications for Catholic ecclesiology was based on his awareness of Catholicism’s historic mutuality between non-ecclesial and ecclesial social structure. Indeed, for a significant portion of Western history, it was unclear where the power of a sovereign king and his court began and where a sovereign pope and his cardinals ended. This vision of a mutually reinforcing ecclesial and non-ecclesial social structure, of kingly and papal monarchialism, of apostolic succession and royal lineage, was reinforced by the complementary relationship Aquinas drew between non-ecclesial (nature) and ecclesial (grace) social structures: aligning Aristotle’s vision for social structure consonant with natural law (thereby accessible to unaided human reason) with the eternal law (God’s governance over all creation) and divine law (revelation). Undoubtedly, such strong connections between non-ecclesial and ecclesial social structure informed Leo XIII’s hierarchical ordering of social pluralism. Even as, with the advent of contemporary Catholic theologians informing and being informed by Vatican II ecclesiology, there has been a call for the church to have a more ambidextrous relationship to various social structures alongside a de-emphasis on the hierarchical element of subsidiarianism. Like the Catholic tradition, the neo-Calvinist tradition also worked out its views of social structure in relationship to its ecclesiology—yet with very different effects. Although often referred to as a theologian of culture, Kuyper’s work on ecclesiology was arguably far more central to his theological career. At times Kuyper would accent the church as a distinct sphere. The church was not to be viewed as a business, a social club, a concert hall or any number of 6 Henri de Lubac, Catholicism: A Study of the Corporate Destiny of Mankind (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1950), 76.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

191

Theologizing Social Pluralism

other spheres. Rather, the church is the body of Christ. It gathers to fix her eyes on her Lord through worship, study of the scriptures, and celebration of the sacraments. Curiously, Kuyper framed the origin of the hierarchy of the Catholic priesthood as a development that resulted from the church forgetting its calling. Taking her eyes off of the “heavenly sanctuary,” she inevitably became “worldly,” resulting in her stifling domination of other spheres. Rather than identify the church with a priestly hierarchy, Kuyper claimed the church must first and foremost be understood as an assembly of believers. And if Christ alone is the church’s sole sovereign authority, the leadership of the Church must be “democratic to its bones and marrow.”7 In other words, church leadership was not at the top of a hierarchy but elected by the body from the body (the Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of believers) as equals called to serve. Kuyper held that this same idea of a democracy of equals was to apply to the relationship between local churches. Again, rather than a “compulsory uniformity” enforced through a hierarchy of churches (with the top of the hierarchy being the Vatican, Canterbury Cathedral, etc.), local churches were to join together freely into confederations of equals. Indeed, for Kuyper, only such confederations could adequately reflect historic, national, ethnic and even emotional diversity. For all of Kuyper’s insistence on the distinctness of the church, he clearly connected his vision of the church as a collegiality of equals to his views on state and society. As he claimed, “by regarding their church, not as a hierarchy or institution, but as the gathering of individual confessors, they started for the life of the church, as well as for the life of the state, and civil society, from the principle not of compulsion, but of liberty.”8 For Kuyper, the church’s calling as a free assembly that respected the distinct roles and giftedness of all the other members had implications for producing a civil society. Here, Kuyper is not only referring to the free initiative of people needed within a variety of contexts (business, education, media, politics, religion, etc.) to fund the plurality of social entities that make up civil society. He also appears to be suggesting that the recognition of a plurality and diversity of roles and gifts among members of a church translates into a society that values a plurality of social entities mutually respecting (rather than dominating, undermining, etc.) the other.

7 Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931), 63. 8 Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 64.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

192 6

Covolo

Christology: Participation or Prostration?

Finally, the role of Christology offers a third locus funding the distinct theological approaches of these two traditions. The work of Catholic scholar Russell Hittinger is particularly helpful for retracing the Christological underpinnings of subsidiarianism. As Hittinger details, since Pius XI (the pope who coined the term “subsidiarianism”) the Catholic doctrines of social pluralism have been funded from theological reflection on humanity’s social entities sharing in Christ’s munera (gift/ vocation/mission) as prophet, priest and (especially) king. How so? Pius XI expanded reflection on the threefold munera (or roles) of Christ in two ways: first, he noted that the disciples were called to share in Christ’s vocation. And then, more radically, he systematically developed an ontology of munera. Not only are Christ and humanity given munera, but indeed, families, corporations, churches, and the state itself have divinely given roles to play, and gifts to give. For Pius XI, when these various entities perform in-line with their munera, they participate in Christ by reflecting his own faithfulness to his munera. Pius XI’s work on humanity (Christians and non-Christians) sharing in the munera of Christ by virtue of being given their own munera did not go unnoticed by the framers of Vatican II. In Lumen Gentium the language of munera is used to explain the way ruling and being ruled works within the church in a way that echoes subsidiarianism. According to Lumen Gentium, all of the laity are baptized into the threefold roles of Christ (triplex munera Christi), and bear their munera as a “plurality of subjects cooperating hierarchically by the will of Christ.” When still a cardinal, Pope John Paul II expanded on the ruling vocation of Christ (regalitas munera Christi) to suggest every vocation, mission and social station reflects the gift of ruling which was not only manifested perfectly in Christ the king, but was embedded within the structure of the human person. According to John Paul II, while creation grants humanity a share in the munera, it is in the God-man that we see these natural endowments clarified, healed, transfigured and elevated. Pius XI and John Paul II drew from the threefold munera of prophet, priest and king to argue (as stated in the 1884 Catechism of the Catholic Church) that, “God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power, He entrusts to every creature the munera it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life….” In other words, families, businesses, schools, etc. are the manifestations of munera granted by Christ at creation, analogous to the plurality of subjects cooperating in the manifold entities of the church, and clarified, healed and elevated in the life of the God-man in redemption.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Theologizing Social Pluralism

193

Abraham Kuyper also expounded the role of Christology for grounding a doctrine of social pluralism—but quite differently. Kuyper asked: if indeed all authority in heaven and earth is given to Christ, what is the relationship of the living Word (Christ) to our social world? In place of Liberalism’s sovereignty of the individual and Collectivism’s sovereignty of the state (whether “Caesarianism”, which viewed the State as a transcendent “God”, or Hegel’s view of the state as an immanent god) Christ alone was sovereign and therefore all social institutions must operate within their divinely ordained spheres under Christ’s sovereign command. As he puts it in his Lectures on Calvinism, “From this one source [that is Christ], in God, sovereignty in the individual sphere, in the family, and in every social circle, is just as directly derived as the supremacy of state authority.”9 Kuyper’s Christology accents the Lordship of Jesus. He is a King whose sovereignty knows no bounds, and therefore to grant ultimate rather than derivative sovereignty to the individual, the state, or the church was for Kuyper nothing less than blasphemous. This conviction is the context for Kuyper’s famous statement, “there is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’’10 The ground, legitimacy and calling of a social order replete with entities such as schools, families, universities, newspapers, art galleries, and religious communities is ultimately not human authority. All of the spheres of social and cultural life received their existence and capacity to flourish directly from Christ. It is He who grants them their own share of sovereignty in creation and restores and elevates their share of sovereignty in redemption. Here, an interesting distinction between the two traditions becomes apparent. As has been stated, on the Catholic account social pluralism is possible because of participation in Christ: just as Christ is given his munera, social entities share in this Christological pattern in their own munera. This vision of all things participating in Christ draws from a close connection between creator and creation, between heavenly and social order. In turn, this reinforces the hierarchical ordering within subsidiarianism: Christ’s role of being enthroned above a hierarchy of angels in the heavenly realm is recapitulated in the social realm through the iconic image of papal reign over a church hierarchy and the civil magistrate within the state. In contrast, the neo-Calvinists’ emphasis on Christ as the sole sovereign, who alone relegates all authority and power, emphasizes the distinction between Christ and creation. If all social entities are directly dependent on Christ, there is no need to recapitulate Christ’s heavenly hierarchy over angels and archangels within contemporary ecclesial and 9 Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 98. 10 Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” 488.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

194

Covolo

social forms. This Christology has implications not only for the neo-Calvinist nonhierarchical view, but also differing economies between church and state, earthly and heavenly social order. 7

Conclusion: Implications for Pluralistic Societies

We have seen how these two traditions have drawn from creation (anthropology/creation order), ecclesiology and Christology to fund their theologies of social pluralism. Before concluding, it is fitting to ask what, if anything, is the practical outcome for these two approaches. Is the difference between these two traditions palpable? Do they actually look different on the ground? These are important questions, as while this chapter has accented the distinct origins and theological sources that fund these two traditions, the actual way such differences work out may be quite negligible. In this regard, neo-Calvinists have claimed that problems arise in implementing Catholicism’s more hierarchical ordering of social entities. For instance, Jonathan Chaplin contends that subsidiarianism’s commitment to hierarchy loses traction when applied to the distinct ways various social entities interact: Whatever is made of its [subsidiarianism’s] general merits, it creates a problem when applied to the social world. […] In what sense does the state rank ‘above’ the lesser communities, or the local community ‘above’ the family? Is the corporation above the union, or vice versa? Where are political parties or schools positioned in the hierarchy? And perhaps most awkwardly, in what sense does the church as the supernatural community crown the entire hierarchy?11 For Chaplin, the idea of “above” and “below” cannot account for the multiplicity of relationships that exist between various social entities. David Koyzis raises similar concerns when he argues that subsidiarianism’s hierarchical language inserts an artificial division between the individual and the state. As Koyzis contests, subsidiarianism grants greater ontology to the state, even as it attempts to mitigate the implications of such a position for the relationship 11

Jonathan Chaplin, “Subsidiarity and Sphere Sovereignty: Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Role of the State,” in Things Old and New: Catholic Social Teaching Revisited, McHugh, Francis P. and Samuel M. Natale, eds. (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993), 55.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Theologizing Social Pluralism

195

between individuals and the state. Preferable to Koyzis is an approach that does not regard social entities as either mediators or mediated (since they each conferred their autonomy and authority directly from God). For both of these thinkers, the language of hierarchy is problematic when applied to the actual way social entities relate to each other. However, these differences should not be overstated. Indeed, when compared to those that reject the prospect of seeking a flourishing social life outside the polis of the church, Roman Catholic and neo-Calvinist traditions look quite similar. Both traditions believe creation provides an ontological ground for social pluralism, that the church has a God-given responsibility as active participants in the formation and support of a robust social order, and that Christ himself provides impetus for such a project. These similarities demonstrate why, for well over a century, Roman Catholics and neo-Calvinists have found themselves side by side in their mutual fight against the narrowing of our social existence to the individual-state-market grid. And given that such dynamics show little sign of dissipating, these two traditions will continue to serve each other as strong allies. Bibliography Cooke, C. (2014). “Distinctly Common: Advancing Herman Bavinck’s Theology to Pressure Liberal Democratic Ideals.” In: J. Bowlin (ed.). The Kuyper Center Review: Calvinism and Democracy, vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 86–103. Chaplin, J. (1993). “Subsidiarity and Sphere Sovereignty: Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Role of the State.” In: F. McHugh, and S. Natale (eds.). Things Old and New: Catholic Social Teaching Revisited. Lanham, MA: University Press of America, 175–202. Eglinton, J. (2014). “Democracy and Ecclesiology: An Aristocratic Church for a Democratic Age?.” In: J. Bowlin (ed.). The Kuyper Center Review, vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 134–46. Bokenkotter, T. (2004). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Image Books. Bratt, J. (2013). Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Brueggemann, W. (2010). Genesis. Atlanta: Westminster John Knox Press. Dooyeweerd, H. (1979). Roots of Western Culture. Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1979. Ehrenberg, J. (1999). Civil Society: The Critical History of an Idea. New York: New York University Press.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

196

Covolo

Habermas, J. (2011). “’The Political’: The Rational Meaning of a Questionable Inheritance of Political Theology.” In: E. Mendieta and J. Vanantwerpen (eds.). The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere. New York: Columbia University Press, 15–33. Hauerwas, S. (1982). “Symposium.” Center Journal vol. 1, no. 3: 42–51. Hittinger, R. (2008). “Social Pluralism and Subsidiarity in Catholic Social Doctrine.” In: J.H. Schindler (ed.). Christianity and Civil Society: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Perspectives. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 11–29. Kärkkäinen, V.-M. (2002). An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical and Global Perspectives. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Kelley, J. (2000). Freedom in the Church: A Documented History of the Principle of Subsidiary Function. Dayton, OH: Peter Li. Koyzis, D. (2003). Political Visions & Illusions. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Kuyper, A. (1931). Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kuyper, A. (1911). Our Worship. H. Boonstra (ed.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kuyper, A. (1998). “Sphere Sovereignty.” In: J. Bratt (ed.). Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 461–90. Kuyper, A. (2011). The Problem of Poverty, J. Skillen (ed.). Sioux City, IA: Dordt College Press. Lennan, R. (2005). “Ecclesiology and Ecumenism.” In: D. Marmion and M. Hines (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner. New York: Cambridge University Press, 128–43. Lubac, H. de (1950). Catholicism: A Study of the Corporate Destiny of Mankind. New York: Sheed & Ward. Mainelli, V. (1978). Official Catholic Teaching: Social Justice. Wilmington: McGrath. McBrien, R. (1994). Catholicism. San Francisco: Harper. Murray, J.C. (1993). Religious Liberty: Catholic Struggles with Pluralism. Louisville: John Knox/Westminster. Mouw, R. (2012). The Challenge of Cultural Discipleship. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Mouw, R. and Griffioen, S. (1993). Pluralism and Its Horizons: An Essay in Christian Public Philosophy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. O’Brien, D. and Shannon, T. (eds.). (1992). Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage. New York: Maryknoll. Phillips, E. (2012). Political Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: Continuum. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Washington, D.C.: USCCB Publishing. Schindler, J.H. (ed.). (2008). Christianity and Civil Society: Catholic & Neo-Calvinist Perspectives. New York: Lexington Books. Shelledy, R. (2009). “The Catholic Tradition and the State.” In: S. Joireman (ed.). Church, State and Citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 15–34.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Theologizing Social Pluralism

197

Skillen, J. and McCarthy, R. (1991). Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Skillen, J. (2014). The Good of Politics: A Biblical, Historical, and Contemporary Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Taylor, C. (2011). “Why We Need A Radical Redefinition of Secularism.” In: E. Mendieta and J. Vanantwerpen (eds.). The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere. New York: Columbia University Press. Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Van Til, K.A. (2008). “Subsidiarity and Sphere-Sovereignty: A Match Made In…?.” Theological Studies vol. 69: 610–636.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 10

Consuming Christ and Creation: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Responses to Capitalism Matthew Kaemingk Catholics and Calvinists have a long tradition of theological engagement with public issues. Both traditions strongly contend that their faith cannot be reduced to a private spirituality, instead they argue that Calvinism and Catholicism are profoundly public ways of life and thought. This commitment to an intentionally public theology has driven both Catholics and Calvinists to theologically engage global issues of politics, war, culture, science, medicine, and the arts. Economics is no different. Since their beginnings Catholics and Calvinists have applied their theological imaginations to a variety of marketplace issues including systems of lending and interest, wealth and poverty, slavery and labor unions, and corporate and environmental ethics. This chapter offers the reader a brief opportunity to explore how these two theological traditions both cohere and diverge in their readings of and responses to modern capitalism. Admittedly, there is a deep diversity of opinion within these two traditions when it comes to the question of capitalism. Rather than artificially fuse a pluriformity of opinions into a synthetic whole, I have chosen to focus my analysis on a single scholar within each tradition: William Cavanaugh and Bob Goudzwaard. These figures are notable and worthy subjects in that they each purposefully endeavor to evaluate capitalism within and through their respective Catholic and Calvinistic traditions. Their theological commitments are not ancillary to their economic conclusions—they are integral. The faith and practices of Catholicism and Calvinism deeply inform and influence not only their overall analysis of capitalism but their proposed ecclesial responses to the global marketplace as well. The ultimate purpose of this chapter is to illuminate several notable ways in which these two traditions might challenge, inform, and improve both the theological and economic imagination and action of the other.

© Matthew Kaemingk, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_011 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Consuming Christ and Creation

1

199

Christianity and Economics

The past twenty years have seen a marked increase in theological engagement with economic issues.1 It would be a mistake, however, to assume that “theology and economics” is a new or groundbreaking field of enquiry. From its very beginning, Christianity has been engaged in marketplace issues. The Christian church emerged from a Jewish nation whose religion was deeply engaged in questions of economic production, justice, and distribution. The Hebrew scriptures are filled with laws, narratives, warnings, and prophetic judgments regarding economic ethics and behavior. In line with this Jewish preoccupation with economic questions, Jesus himself regularly referred to marketplace issues of greed and generosity, work and rest, debt and taxes, and poverty and wealth. It is, therefore, not surprising that his church would mirror his own preoccupation with economic issues. The book of Acts repeatedly states that early churches were often planted within Roman marketplaces. Surrounded by economic production and exchange it was common for economic debates to make their way into early Christian communities.2 Throughout the wildly diverse 2000-year history of Christian engagement with economic issues a single reality has held true. The church consistently finds itself in a reactive position when it comes to economic thought and action. In every economic era historians find the church struggling to catch up, understand, and respond to economic realities and paradigms that are dynamic, complex, and beyond the church’s control. Faithful economic

1 Stephen Long, Nancy Ruth Fox, and Tripp York, Calculated Futures: Theology, Ethics, and Economics (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007); Duncan K. Foley, Adam’s Fallacy: A Guide to Economic Theology (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2008); Bod Goudzwaard, Mark Vander Vennen, and David van Heemst, Hope in Troubled Times: A New Vision for Confronting Global Crises (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007); Stephen D. Long, Divine Economy Theology and the Market (London: Routledge, 2000); Max L. Stackhouse, Dennis P. McCann, and Shirley J. Roels, On Moral Business: Classical and Contemporary Resources for Ethics in Economic Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); John Atherton, Transfiguring Capitalism: An Enquiry into Religion and Global Change (London: SCM Press, 2008); Ulrich Duchrow and Franz J. Hinkelammert, Property for People not for Profits: Alternatives to the Global Tyranny of Capital (London: Zed Books, 2004); Bryant L. Myers, Walking With the Poor: Principals and Practices of Transformational Development (Marynoll: Orbis, 1999); Robert H. Nelson, Economics as Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State, 2002). 2 Susan R. Holman, ed., Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008); Justo Gonzalez, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance, and Use of Money (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1990).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

200

Kaemingk

behavior has consistently demanded wisdom, prudence, courage, and more than a little theological imagination. 2

A Comparative Exercise

This chapter will analyze two contemporary efforts to analyze and respond to modern capitalism from a Catholic and a neo-Calvinist perspective. Examining the work of William Cavanaugh and Bob Goudzwaard in tandem will reveal several unique methodical strengths, weaknesses, and insights within the public theological imaginations of neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism. This exercise will reveal important ways in which each tradition can be challenged and enriched through dialogue by the other. Before we begin, we must note a number of important caveats and cautions. First, the primary concern of this chapter is not to conclude whether or not Cavanuagh or Goudzwaard are either too critical or too optimistic in their moral evaluations of capitalism. Instead, the primary purpose of this exercise is to compare and contrast the theo-cultural lenses Cavanaugh and Goudzwaard appropriate in their analysis of economic realities. Second, as mentioned earlier, it is important to note that there is a great deal of diversity within both the Catholic and neo-Calvinist traditions on questions of economics. Cavanaugh and Goudzwaard do not represent the whole of their traditions. One can find an array of voices within each community that are either positive, negative, or deeply ambivalent about the cultural, moral, and environmental impact of capitalism. With this ecclesial diversity duly noted, Cavanaugh and Goudzwaard have been selected because of their careful attempts to consistently apply their Catholic and a neo-Calvinistic theology to economic realities. The theological themes and paradigms they choose to appropriate are absolutely central to the public imaginations of Catholicism and neo-Calvinism. 3

William Cavanaugh

William Cavanaugh’s Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire analyzes and critiques capitalism through the Roman Catholic lenses of Eucharistic theology and Augustinian anthropology. Throughout the book Cavanaugh’s chief critiques of capitalism focus on the ideology’s perversion of human freedom, community, and consumption. The Enlightenment language of liberty, independence, and autonomy is pervasive within capitalistic theory and practice. Cavanaugh considers this language

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Consuming Christ and Creation

201

and its philosophical assumption contestable and theologically problematic. What constitutes a truly ‘free’ market? What does financial ‘independence’ mean? What does true liberty entail? Is economic ‘autonomy’ a desirable vision of human flourishing? From the start of his analysis William Cavanaugh argues that a critical distinction must be made between two definitions of human ‘freedom’—the modern capitalist and the Augustinian Catholic. This, he submits, is the primary task of any theological evaluation of ‘free’ market economics. Cavanaugh grounds his distinctly Catholic conception of economic freedom in the work of Augustine. According to Augustinian anthropology, he writes, ‘true freedom requires an account of the end (telos) of human life and the destination of creation.’3 The ‘free’ market system purposefully lacks an account of a telos for trade. Cavanaugh submits that free market economics is based upon an intentionally negative philosophical account of human freedom. It is an economics without a telos. A system of exchange that is endless. True freedom, according to capitalism, is freedom from external direction, restraint, and regulation. External absence, a vacuum, and a fundamental lack of relationship define capitalistic freedom. The only telos in free market economics, if there is one, is the achievement of total independence for producer and consumer alike. In contrast to this negative vision of freedom as freedom from, William Cavanaugh sets up Augustine’s more positive vision of freedom for. Human beings, he argues, are fundamentally free in order that they might flourish in community and solidarity within the theocentric telos of the will of God. In comparison to the simple capitalistic telos of total autonomy, Augustine’s view of freedom is more complex: freedom is not simply a negative freedom from, but a freedom for… Freedom is being wrapped up in the will of God… Being is not autonomous; all being participates in God, the source of being. Autonomy in the strict sense is simply impossible, for to be independent of others and independent of God is to be cut off from being, and thus to be nothing at all.4 Furthermore, Cavanaugh states, [T]he absence of external force is not sufficient to determine the freedom of any particular exchange. In order to judge whether or not the exchange 3 William T. Cavanaugh, Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 2. 4 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 8.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

202

Kaemingk

is free, one must know whether or not the will is moved to a good end. This requires some kind of substantive—not merely formal—account of the true end, or telos, of the human person.5 And again, I reject the idea that a transaction is free just because it is not subject to state intervention or any other form of external coercion. We must give a fuller, more positive, account of freedom; and to do so from a Christian point of view, we must draw on theological resources… real freedom must embrace the positive ‘telos’ of life in God.6 Not only does capitalism fail to offer a positive account of the freedom it provides, Cavanaugh also argues that capitalistic ‘freedom’ ultimately proves to be a self-defeating illusion. Here he explores what he believes to be a deep and troubling paradox within the lived reality of so-called ‘free’ markets. The paradox, he argues, is that the capitalistic ‘freedom’ afforded to producer and consumer alike ultimately foments a situation of deep unfreedom for all involved in the system exchange. Cavanaugh argues that producers routinely complain that the deeply competitive realities of the market restrict them from considering ethical questions of environmental sustainability, living wages, and quality production. Strictly speaking, engaged in a productive race to the bottom to provide goods and services for the cheapest possible price, producers are not ‘free’ to produce goods according to the ethical standards they desire. When these producers find themselves blaming their decisions ‘on necessity, they recognize a very real sense that the “free” market does not leave them free to act in ways they might believe are more just. In their search for cheap labor, managers often appeal to a sense of fate.’7 Along these same lines Cavanaugh argues that consumers find their purchasing ‘freedom’ leading them to a similar sense of being fated. Consumers (through their own ‘free’ choice) opt to purchase goods and services from large corporations rather than small businesses for reasons of convenience and cost. The inevitable result of this free choice is that smaller producers, craftsmen, and local businesses succumb to the dominance of a few global corporations. Because of their ‘free’ choice, Cavanaugh explains, ‘king and queen consumer 5 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 13. 6 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, x. 7 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 22.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Consuming Christ and Creation

203

have paradoxically used their freedom to restrict their freedom, since there are now fewer choices available.’8 Moreover the end-less capitalistic ritual of consumption is falsely believed to produce a lifestyle of freedom and satisfaction within the consumer. Instead, A person buys something—anything—trying to fill the hole…. And once the shopper purchases the thing, it turns into a nothing, and she has to head back to the mall to continue the search. With no objective ends to guide the search, her search is literally endless.9 Here, Cavanaugh argues, producer and consumer alike (through their own ‘free’ choice) foment a binding situation of deep unfreedom. The 20th century economic philosopher and defender of democratic capitalism Michael Novak famously argued that both democracy and capitalism depend upon a fundamental dedication to this negative view of freedom. Free societies, he insisted, must refuse to proclaim a single telos, goal, or purpose to life. Producers and consumers alike must never have their economic decisions directed by anything other than their own free choice. No divine presence should exist beyond the sovereign will of the individual. Democratic capitalism, strictly speaking, must remain a godless system. The holy ‘shrine’ at the center of free market must remain empty—no teleological power or ethic can sit upon the throne other than the autonomous individual. The “empty throne,” Novak argues, is what makes markets truly ‘free’. Cavanaugh quotes Novak’s description of the true ‘spirit’ of capitalism at length. For Novak, the, “wasteland” at the heart of democratic capitalism is like a field of battle, on which individuals wander alone, in some confusion, amid many casualties. Nonetheless, like the dark night of the soul in the inner journey of the mystics, this desert has an indispensible purpose. It is maintained out of respect for the diversity of human consciences, perceptions, and intentions.10 Cavanaugh cannot bare the empty throne of capitalism and neither, he argues, can producers, consumers, or the earth itself. Appealing to Augustine, Cavanaugh argues that we as human beings who have been created to participate in 8 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 20. 9 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 15. 10 Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982), 54–55.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

204

Kaemingk

the life of God ‘desperately need not to be left to the tyranny of our own wills. The key to true freedom is not just following whatever desires we happen to have, but cultivating the right desires.’11 As human beings created in the image of God and created for God, we must learn to have our production, consumption, and exchange participate in the life and will of God. Ultimately end-less consumption directed by nothing more than an individual’s will destroys the producer, the consumer, and the creation itself. Within end-less consumerism, ‘Possession kills desire; familiarity breeds contempt. That is why shopping, not buying itself, is the heart of consumerism. The consumerist spirit is a restless spirit, typified by detachment, because desire must be constantly kept on the move.’12 To paraphrase the bishop of Hippo, the consumer’s heart is restless until it rests in God. Cavanaugh’s theological critique of this end-lessness capitalism and consumerism is withering. That said, what is Cavanaugh’s alternative? Where do we go from here? Cavanaugh quickly rejects the most common modern alternative of state-centered socialism. Cavanaugh argues that the solution to a broken and dominating market is not the empowerment of an equally broken and dominating state. Modern socialism like modern capitalism lives from an anthropocentric rather than a theocentric telos. Neither state intervention nor its absence ensures the freedom of the market… Giving free reign to power without ends is more likely to produce unfreedom than to produce freedom. There is simply no way to talk about a really free economy without entering into particular judgments about what kinds of exchange are conducive to the flourishing of life on earth and what kinds are not. Thus, if freedom cannot be found in either the free market or the empowered state, where will it be found? 4

Contested Rituals of Market and Church

Cavanaugh points to the life and rituals of the church. He does not propose a new set of laws or a new economic theory. Instead, Cavanaugh suggests an alternative economic community and an alternative set of economic practices. For Cavanaugh, ‘Christians themselves are called to create concrete alternative 11 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 11. 12 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 47.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Consuming Christ and Creation

205

practices that open up a different kind of economic space—the space marked by the body of Christ.’13 Rather than imposing this community and these practices on everyone Cavanaugh argues that the church provides an alternative economic model within capitalism that speaks to an alternative mode of gracious exchange. What is the most important is the direct embodiment of free economic practices. From a Christian point of view churches should take an active role in fostering economic practices that maintain close connections among capital, labor, and communities, so that real communal discernment of the good can take place. Those are the spaces in which true freedom can flourish.14 What does this look like in practice? Cavanaugh provides his readers with a number of examples. I will limit myself to two. First, Cavanaugh points to the capitalistic ritual of consumerism as a de-formational ritual of capitalism that must be challenged, not with a new law, but with a re-formative and life-giving counter-ritual. Cavanaugh points specifically to the Catholic ritual of celebrating the Eucharist. For, in the counter-cultural act of participating in the Eucharist, the “act of consumption is turned inside out.” For the Roman Catholic, instead of simply consuming the body of Christ, we are consumed by it. St. Augustine hears God say, “I am the food of the fully grown; grow and you will feed on me. And you will not change me into you like the food your flesh eats, but you will be changed into me.”… In the Eucharist we are absorbed into a larger body. The small individual self is de-centered and put in the context of a much wider community with others in the divine life.15 Moreover, Cavanaugh argues, this practice has an impact on how we are implicated into the lives of the poor. We are no longer atomized and independent individuals. The Eucharist binds us together in and through Christ. For Jesus not only cared for the needs of the poor, he repeatedly identified himself with the poor. Thus when we consume his body and blood we are taking the poor into ourselves and we ourselves are taken up into them. 13 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, viii. 14 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 32. 15 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 54–56.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

206

Kaemingk

The pain of the hungry person is the pain of Christ, and it is thus also the pain of anyone who is a member of the body of Christ… If we are identified with Christ, who identifies himself with the suffering of all, then… We are not to consider ourselves as absolute owners of our stuff… In the Eucharist, Christ is gift, giver, and recipient; we are simultaneously fed and become food for others. Through the weekly ritual of the Eucharist, those who are consumed by it are inducted into a new way of thinking about relationship, ownership, production, and exchange. They continue to make, sell, and buy, but they do so with an end that goes beyond their own consumption. In the Eucharist they see their neighbors and the creation itself as bound up in the will and glory of God. Through the Eucharist Catholics are inducted on a weekly basis into a ‘sacramental view of the world.’ With this they can begin to see ‘all things as a part of God’s good creation, potential signs of the glory of God’. In this sense ‘things become less disposable, more filled with meaning.’16 Beyond the celebration of the Eucharist, Cavanaugh also suggests that churches begin to model alternative modes of economic exchange that faithfully reflect this Eucharistic economy. Cavanaugh chooses to close his text with the practical example of the Economy of Communion Project and its Focolare Movement. Beginning in 1991, Focolare began sponsoring ordinary, for-profit businesses that divide their profits in three equal parts: a third for direct aid to the poor, a third for educational projects that further a culture of communion, and third for the development of the business. Today more than 700 businesses worldwide follow this model—and thrive.17 The Focolare Movement conducts its business according to a Eucharistic understanding of human beings as bound together in relationship. Instead of seeing workers, customers, and competitors as autonomous and atomized individuals on the battlefield of the marketplace, the Focolare Movement sees them as brothers and sisters—members of a common body. The Focolare Movement’s founder explains that, ‘Unlike the consumer economy, based on a culture of having, the economy of communion is the economy of giving.’18 In

16 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 58. 17 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 98–99. 18 Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 99.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Consuming Christ and Creation

207

the shadow of the holy sacraments the marketplace is not an end-less wasteland but a sacred space created to participate in the will and glory of God. 5

Bob Goudzwaard

Bob Goudzwaard’s Capitalism and Progress19 emerged in the late 1970s out of the neo-Calvinist movement in the Netherlands. Goudzwaard wrote the book while he was a professor of economic theory and history at the Free University of Amsterdam. He also served as a member of the Dutch Parliament, publicly advocating for many of the theological convictions he wrote about in the book. Abraham Kuyper, the 19th century founder of neo-Calvinism, had long argued that God desired humanity to flourish through the societal development of a variety of cultural institutions (families, schools, churches, universities, businesses, governments, art spaces, media outlets, and organizations). This societal diversity and development was, in Kuyper’s mind, fundamentally good and praiseworthy. Human beings require a diversity of communities in order to live out their diverse callings and gifts. That said, Kuyper was deeply concerned that the freedom and integrity of these diverse communities were being endangered by the growing power and bureaucratic reach of the modern state. Kuyper described the growing state as an octopus whose tentacles were stretching into every avenue and artery of social life.20 As a work written within the tradition of Abraham Kuyper, Goudzwaard’s Capitalism and Progress represents an important shift within neo-Calvinism. In the wake of World War II the strength and influence of the Dutch marketplace had grown exponentially. Before the war the Netherlands had been a largely agrarian, blue-collar, and economically modest nation. After the war, considerable industrial and commercial growth forced the relatively frugal culture to grapple with considerable increases in wealth, prosperity, economic change, and disruptive globalization. Writing in the 1970s, Goudzwaard argued in true Kuyperian fashion that the integrity of the family, church, school, organization, university, etc., was being threatened once again. The critical difference between Kuyper and Goudzwaard was that Goudzwaard was not so concerned about the growing

19 20

Bob Goudzwaard, Capitalism and Progress: A Diagnosis of Western Society (Toronto: Wedge Pub. Foundation, 1979). Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931), 96.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

208

Kaemingk

power and influence of the state. His eyes were on the growing tentacles of the marketplace. Capitalism and Progress represents Goudzwaard’s extended historical and theological articulation of how the increased power of the marketplace has come to threaten the societal flourishing of the West. Goudzwaard sees capitalism’s cultural influence and values seeping into the modern family, church, university, hospital, government, and every other facet of communal life. This influence creates what Goudzwaard calls a “tunnel society” in which every social community must ultimately serve the marketplace and its dominant values of power, efficiency, and production. Families, schools, and so on are no longer good and valuable in and of themselves; they are now only valuable if they directly contribute to the power and progress of the marketplace. While Goudzwaard’s work represents a shift in focus within neo-Calvinism, the following section explores three primary ways in which Capitalism and Progress rests firmly within the neo-Calvinist tradition of theo-cultural critique. First, a primary staple of the neo-Calvinist genre is ‘worldview analysis.’ The tradition argues repeatedly that every social philosophy and movement is fundamentally a faith-based endeavor. Every worldview is founded upon a preconceived and unverifiable belief in what is true, good, and beautiful. Therefore, there is no such thing as a purely ‘objective’, ‘rational’, or ‘neutral’ social science or philosophy. Standing in this neo-Calvinist tradition, Goudzwaard argues that capitalism constitutes a worldview and a belief system, it is not a ‘neutral’ economic science. For Goudzwaard, capitalism is, at its core, an ideology that is directed by the modern faith in human progress and power. Ultimately the capitalists’ dogmatic dedication to progress and power directs all of their economic thought, systems, and practice. Moreover, while ‘capitalism is an extremely flexible system of progress’, Goudzwaard explains that the system’s singular focus on progress is ‘not so flexible.’21 Within capitalism the ultimate goal of progress ‘has assumed sovereignty and has subordinated man to itself... Instead of being the creator of progress man has increasingly become its servant.’22 Progress, for the capitalist, constitutes the ‘indispensable and firmly accepted presupposition.’23 As a direct result of this singular dedication to progress,

21 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 124. 22 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 119. 23 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 124.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

209

Consuming Christ and Creation

the forces of economic growth, technical innovation, and scientific aggrandizement have established themselves securely in our society as ultimate standards. They need not measure up to society, but society must measure up to them. Progress does not need to adapt itself to the wishes of the people and institutions; people and institutions must adapt themselves to the demands of progress.24 This is especially problematic because, as Goudzwaard states, We know from the Gospels that every faith, no matter how small, contains within it the power to move mountains. There is no reason to think that the western faith in progress would not have this power.25 A second staple of the neo-Calvinist genre is a full-throated defense of God’s creational laws and communities (families, schools, churches, universities, unions, art galleries, etc.). Neo-Calvinists believe that creation is shot through with a diversity of laws, patterns, norms, boundaries, and limits that have been carefully designed by the creator. Kuyper famously argued that God had created distinct social ‘spheres’ of human community within which human beings could live out their familial, artistic, scientific, religious, political, economic, and educational gifts and callings. When human life is lived within these ordained patterns it grows, unfolds, and develops with increasing beauty and complexity. That said, when these boundaries and communities are abused or ignored, neo-Calvinists argue that terrible consequences will be the result. Furthermore, no sphere of human life—be it the state, the church, or the market—should be allowed to dominate the others. Standing in this tradition, Goudzwaard argues that the contemporary dominance of the marketplace over other human communities is the primary threat facing the integrity of God’s created social order. According to Goudzwaard, it is the social responsibility of Calvinists to defend these diverse communities against the dominating power of capitalism. There is a potential irony here. For the past century historians and sociologists have argued that it was none other than Calvinism that was responsible for the rise of capitalism in early modern Europe. Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is probably the most famous example of this historical argument.26 If Calvinists are in fact the original capitalists, are 24 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 191. 25 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 1. 26 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Scribner, 1958).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

210

Kaemingk

they truly the best people to critique and fight against its dominance? After all, Goudzwaard acknowledges, the Reformation contributed to the development of economic freedom throughout Europe by attaching theological value and importance to the daily work and economic production of the laity. The Reformation flattened medieval society by humbling the divinity of the king and the pope and raising the theological importance of economic vocations in farming, crafts, and trade. The Reformation’s ‘priesthood of all believers’ would significantly raise the Christian dignity and importance of callings to the marketplace. While Goudzwaard acknowledges the contributions of Calvinism to the development of early modern capitalism, he argues that its relationship to late modern capitalism is much more complex. Goudzwaard contends that the capitalism that we experience today has liberated itself from the divinely ordained norms, limits, and laws that early Calvinists held dear. Market activity in contemporary capitalism is not governed by divine law but by the simple acquisition of humanistic progress and power. Goudzwaard argues that this critical divorce of economic activity from divine law was the achievement of humanism—not Calvinism. This normative detachment of theology from the marketplace would have been anathema to John Calvin and the early Reformers.27 Goudzwaard explains that for Calvin, there is indeed a rightful place for economic life in the whole of human experience. But it occupies that place only when it is an “expression of human solidarity and a sign of spiritual community among men,” as Andre Bieler has summarized the basic pattern of Calvin’s social and economic thought. An economic life without consideration for God’s nature, without concern for fellow creations, without solidarity, and without “equity” (a term regularly used by Calvin when he dealt with the “ethics” of trade), is, according to Luther as well as Calvin, no longer an authentic economic life. It deviates from the loving response to God and one another which is expected in economic life also.28 Goudzwaard argues that, within the capitalist worldview, humanistic progress becomes the singular goal of all families, universities, hospitals, artistic communities, and governments. Rather than a diverse array of communities with a variety of goods and goals, capitalism occasions a ‘tunnel society’ in which all ‘people, institutions, norms, behaviors’ contribute towards, 27 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 11–12. 28 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 65.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

211

Consuming Christ and Creation

the smooth advance toward the light at the end of the tunnel… The closed or “flattened” character of such a society comes into prominence particularly in the functional streamlining imposed on the social order in each of its aspects. Nothing is of essential value in any social relationship unless it is a means to advance in the tunnel. Whatever does not serve that purpose is considered meaningless and valueless… Today has meaning only if its achievement serves as a stepping-stone to reach tomorrow.29 This tunnel society creates unfreedom wherever it extends its reach. Families, schools, art galleries, and churches no longer have a God-given value or integrity of their own. Standing in the Calvinist tradition Goudzwaard argues that this tunneling of society is not only socially destructive—it is an affront to society’s creator. 6

The Calvinist Disclosure of the Tunnel Society

The third aspect of Goudzwaard’s neo-Calvinist argument is his call for the Christian to engage in social, political, and economic action. Goudzwaard argues that his fellow Calvinists must work for what he calls the ‘disclosure’ of the tunnel society. His proposed process of disclosure functions like the unfolding of a tulip (to use a Dutch metaphor). Within the tunnel society, capitalism tightly binds social communities together around the singular purpose of human progress, much like the small and narrow bud of a tulip. Disclosure is the gradual process of unfolding the tulip so the petals begin to open up in a variety of directions. In a similar way, Goudzwaard calls Calvinists to participate in the unfolding the tunnel society to a wide variety of divinely-ordained goods and purposes. Through this work the diverse communities of family, labor union, school, neighborhood, media, and government will come to have their own integrity, value, and purpose independent of the singular demands of the marketplace. Disclosure, therefore, is first of all a process in which the norms for human life—like justice, trust, and truth—regain their original validity… Secondly, in the process of disclosure, cultural institutions and societal forms—like governments, trade unions, and economic enterprises— regain opportunities to develop themselves according to their own distinctive responsibilities.30 29 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 193–184. 30 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 186.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

212

Kaemingk

Furthermore, Disclosure implies the recovery of the meaning and value of human life outside of its subjection and service to progress… Disclosure implies that every day life is intended to have its own meaning; that today’s significance is not exhausted in what it may contribute to tomorrow’s needs and wants.31 Goudzwaard goes on to explain that disclosure ‘is not a goal; rather, it is a process… It will occur spontaneously in totally unexpected places and along avenues that have not been mapped out. It is not a prefabricated package.’32 The recovery of these ordained laws and limits is ‘not intended to rob us of our freedom’. Instead it enables, us ‘to retain life and liberty, to prevent us from threatening the lives of ourselves and others.’33 Like Cavanaugh, Goudzwaard is not primarily interested in laying out an exact political and economic blueprint for society. He also rejects the chimera that the regulatory state will serve as a salvific force for the ills of the marketplace. Instead, Goudzwaard argues that the first thing that must be done is that ‘progress’ as the singular goal of all of life must be called into question. In fact, Christians need to be engaged in a holistic effort to reverse and reorder the questions and priorities of the tunnel society. The first example of this reordering is society’s perspective on the purpose of business. Goudzwaard argues that businesses conducted under divine law must be understood not as institutions of progress but of ‘stewardship.’ They must recognize that they are stewards of creation and workers that do not belong to them.34 Goudzwaard suggests that one of the practical ways in which a sense of stewardship can be increased would be through efforts to give workers themselves an increased ownership in their company. Second, Goudzwaard argues that technological innovations should be primarily evaluated not for their ability to simply increase human power but for their ability to improve human creativity, work, and relationships. Related to this issue, Goudzwaard argues that a small amount of the national budget go to ensuring the ‘humanization of labor.’35

31 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 186 32 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 187. 33 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 211. 34 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 212. 35 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 218.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

213

Consuming Christ and Creation

Third, Goudzwaard argues that the norms of morality, equity, and justice must no longer be considered secondary to the norms of production and progress. The dominance to progress must be challenged on all sides. The media, labor unions, government, and the church can all play a role in reminding the marketplace of its larger purposes and obligations to the norms of justice, morality, and equity. Goudzwaard insists that disclosure is a concern for the whole of society.36 All spheres of society must participate in the ‘fundamental disavowal of this utilitarian view of labor, norms, and happiness.’37 7

Calvinism and Catholicism in Dialogue

The reader can quickly observe some rather illuminating points of convergence and divergence in the theo-economic work of William Cavanaugh and Bob Goudzwaard. The Catholic and the Calvinist have two particularly striking points of commonality. The first has to be their common insistence that capitalism represents a faith-based worldview with its own vision of human flourishing and the common good. Capitalism, they agree, represents an ideology that theologically differs from the Christian vision of life, love, and law. This common conviction leads to the second point of agreement. Neither Cavanaugh nor Goudzwaard will allow for an artificial synthesis of their ancient Christian faith with a modern faith in capitalism. The authors are united in their conviction that a fundamental choice must be made between the gods of capitalism and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Calvinist and Catholic alike argue that God alone constitutes the foundation and fulcrum from which Christians should understand and engage the marketplace. Grounding their arguments in a transcendent and liberating theism the authors are able to avoid the immanent modern ideology of secular humanism. Likewise both authors find the immanent modern gospels of capitalism and socialism overly optimistic about the salvific power of either the state or the market. Eschewing these strict and rather brittle modern ideologies, Cavanaugh and Goudzwaard sketch alternative theo-economic visions that are surprisingly open to mystery, contingency, and imagination. Neither scholar closes out their book with a firm or chauvinistic economic manifesto that claims to possess a final or divine solution. Neither paints an immanent picture of economic utopia. Cavanaugh does not claim to fully comprehend the full mystery 36 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 220. 37 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 242.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

214

Kaemingk

and economic meaning of the Eucharist. Goudzwaard does not claim to fully grasp every contour of the creation’s laws and ordinances. Exploring the public implications of either Catholic eucharistic theology or Calvinist creation theology is a lifelong process of discovery. In this, both authors conclude their books with an ecclesial invitation rather than a political conclusion. Both the Catholic and the Calvinist model the illuminating difference between a theistic faith that questions and a humanistic ideology that answers. While the points of convergence between the Catholic and the Calvinist are revealing, so are their moments of divergence. Consider three particularly illuminating points at which Goudzwaard and Cavanaugh part ways. The most glaring point of separation is found in their theological starting points. In true Calvinistic fashion, Goudzwaard elects to begin with the laws and limits of God’s creation. In true Catholic fashion, Cavanaugh begins with the Eucharist. Similarly Goudzwaard emphasizes the creative and juridical work of God while Cavanaugh focuses on God’s work of redemption and reconciliation. Goudzwaard argues that capitalism perverts the original purpose of humanity while Cavanaugh argues that it perverts their ultimate purpose. In the end a both/and solution seems desirable for these dichotomies of creation and redemption, law and grace. Indeed the readers of Cavanaugh and Goudzwaard can even find the authors themselves reaching across the dichotomies on more than one occasion. At multiple points the Catholic can be found grasping for the language of creation law and limit while the Calvinist can be found reaching for the language of grace and teleology. This is not surprising since the human solidarity embodied in Cavanaugh’s Eucharist naturally requires a recognition of creational laws, diversity, and limits. In the same way the disclosure of Goudzwaard’s ‘open society’ requires a telos to provide ultimate direction for the process. A second point of variance between the authors comes when they begin to propose a public theological response to capitalism. Cavanaugh looks primarily to the agency of Christians gathered within the institutional church. Goudzwaard looks primarily to the actions of the Christians scattered out in the world. Cavanaugh believes the church should largely model alternative economic practices outside the centers of economic power. Goudzwaard believes that Christians should publicly advocate for economic change within the centers of economic power. Cavanaugh points to the celebration of the Eucharist within the church and the church-sponsored Focolare movement as the primary Christian ways to respond to capitalism. Goudzwaard argues that Christians involved in public corporations, unions, the media, government, family, consumer organizations, and more can all participate in the disclosure of society. Goudzwaard even holds out hope that non-Christians might

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Consuming Christ and Creation

215

themselves grow weary of the tunnel society and will find the Christian vision of “disclosure” appealing to their own worldviews. The gathered church, therefore, plays a relatively insignificant role in Goudzwaard’s prescriptive response to capitalism. While he places great importance on society’s respect for divine law and limit he fails to understand that the gathered church has historically been the space in which a society’s respect for divine sovereignty has been cultivated. In the same way Goudzwaard can be found bemoaning that humanism has placed humanity and not God at the center of western culture but he fails to recognize the formative potential of ecclesial practices like the Eucharist to actually decenter westerners on a weekly basis. Goudzwaard’s failure to recognize the important role and potential of the gathered church in Christianity’s response to capitalism leaves a critical resource untapped. Like Goudzwaard, Cavanaugh also fails to use all of the resources available to him. The Catholic Church’s influence in the modern marketplace extends far beyond that of the Eucharist and the relatively small Focolare Movement. Around the world millions of Roman Catholics are engaged in politics, media, global corporations, unions, and universities. The callings of Catholics within these “secular” spheres of influence could all be leveraged to embody and advocate the Eucharistic grace, generosity, and solidarity experienced during Sunday Mass. There is little discussion within Cavanaugh of how individual Catholics working within large secular corporations and states could promote positive economic change. Instead, Christians are called to remain outside, “modeling” a different mode of exchange. Moreover, is Goudzwaard not correct that non-Christians could also serve as valuable co-laborers in these efforts? Don’t many non-Christians also long for solidarity and community? Cavanaugh’s work appears to communicate that the church is the only community that understands the values of economic equity and solidarity. Goudzwaard appears to hold out hope that non-Christian individuals, states, and corporations can also sense within themselves the divine laws and norms to love their neighbors and treat them justly. The final point of revealing divergence is Cavanaugh’s preoccupation with matters of the heart in the personally transformative practice of the Eucharist versus Goudzwaard’s more publicly focused preoccupation with societal structures and organizations. For Cavanaugh the fundamental economic issue is one of the heart. This is why the practice of the Eucharist forms the center of his response to capitalism. What is ultimately needed is not a structural transformation but a spiritual transformation of the heart. Goudzwaard, on the other hand, sees the primary issue as societal and structural. The principalities and powers of the tunnel society are pressing and pushing individual

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

216

Kaemingk

hearts and communities through the narrow tube of progress, production, and power. The structural transformation and opening up of society (not the heart) is what is truly needed. In responses to Cavanaugh’s focus on the transformation of the heart one wonders if the weekly practice of the Eucharist is truly enough to resist the pervasive power of consumerism and capitalism that we experience on a daily basis. Will the solidarity we experience during a Sunday morning Mass truly last throughout a week lived in the tunnel society? Similarly, it is telling that Goudzwaard closes his argument wondering if he has failed to address a critical economic issue—the issue of the human heart. After all of his structural and societal proposals Goudzwaard cannot help but ask himself, ‘do we really want a disclosure of our society?’ This, he admits, is the question which still begs an answer at the end of this book. In all honesty, I am not sure that the answer to that question will be positive.... That condition of a shift in mentality, of a conversion in outlook, transcends the categories of extra effort or trying harder.38 In the end, for all his discussion of public law, structure, and reform, Goudzwaard is asking the questions of the heart. In response to this, no doubt, Cavanaugh would point Goudzwaard to the holy table, where Catholic and Calvinist alike could consume and be consumed by their creator and redeemer, the one who embodies both law and love, the savior of private hearts and public squares. Bibliography Atherton, J. (2008). Transfiguring Capitalism: An Enquiry into Religion and Global Change. London: SCM Press. Cavanaugh, W. (2008). Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Duchrow, U. and Hinkelammert, F. (2004). Property for People not for Profits: Alternatives to the Global Tyranny of Capital. London: Zed Books. Foley, D. (2008). Adam’s Fallacy: A Guide to Economic Theology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Goudzwaard, B. (1979). Capitalism and Progress: A Diagnosis of Western Society. Toronto: Wedge Publishing. 38 Goudzwaard, Capitalism, 248.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Consuming Christ and Creation

217

Goudzwaard, B.; Vander Vennen, M.; and van Heemst, D. (2007). Hope in Troubled Times: A New Vision for Confronting Global Crises. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Kuyper, A. (1931). Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Long, S. (2000). Divine Economy Theology and the Market. London: Routledge. Long, S; Fox, N.S., and York, T. (2007). Calculated Futures: Theology, Ethics, and Economics. Waco: Baylor University Press. Myers, B. (1999). Walking With the Poor: Principals and Practices of Transformational Development. Marynoll: Orbis. Nelson, R. (2002). Economics as Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State. Novak, M. (1982). The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. New York: Simon & Schuster. Stackhouse, M.; McCann, D.; and Roels, S. (1995). On Moral Business: Classical and Contemporary Resources for Ethics in Economic Life. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 11

How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics? Edward Schillebeeckx’s 1986 Abraham Kuyper Lectures at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Andrew Kloes The theological question of how the members of the church of Jesus Christ ought to relate to the secular authorities of the societies in which they live dates to the earliest days of the Christian movement. Indeed, as the Gospel of John records, Jesus himself told Pontius Pilate that his “kingdom is not of this world” (Jn 18.36) and that Pilate’s authority as the governor of the Roman province of Judea had been given to him “from above” (Jn 19.11). The First Epistle of Peter exhorted the churches of Asia Minor to “submit themselves for the Lord’s sake” (1 Pet. 2.13–17) to the emperor and his governors, those whom Paul declared in his letter to the Romans to be the servants of God, who do his will when they punish those who do wrong (Rom. 13.1–7). The prophecies contained in Revelation encouraged the churches to whom they were addressed with the ultimate hope that there would come a day on which it would be said that “the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ and he will reign for ever and ever” (Rev. 11.15). Thus the earliest churches were taught that government had been ordained by God for the common good of humanity and that, as such, it must be honoured and obeyed, until the return of Jesus renders it an obsolete institution. However, the authors of the Scriptures did not directly discuss the more precise question of how the church might participate in the political affairs of its society, politics being broadly defined as the ways in which those in authority use power to govern. Involvement in the politics of the Roman Empire was simply not a possibility for the early churches in the historical circumstances in which the Scriptures were written. This state of affairs changed in a profound way for the subsequent historical development of the church on 27 February 380, when the Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica. In this decree the emperor recognised as the Catholic Church only those churches that shared the Nicene faith of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of

© Andrew Kloes, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_012 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics?

219

Alexandria and he established this church as the official church of the empire.1 This recognition laid a foundation for European Christendom and the official involvement of the church in the politics of its constituent states. Since this time, as they have not had precise biblical teaching on this matter, teachers of the church have thus had to apply their own wisdom to formulate answers to the question of how the church should involve itself in politics. This essay examines the answers that the prominent twentieth-century Roman Catholic theologian and Dominican monk Edward Schillebeeckx proposed to the dilemma of the church’s involvement in modern politics as he engaged with the thought of Abraham Kuyper on this subject in the series of Abraham Kuyper Lectures that he gave at the Free University of Amsterdam in 1986. Schillebeeckx availed himself of this opportunity to directly respond to another theologian from the neo-Calvinist tradition, his contemporary, the Free University of Amsterdam professor of systematic theology, Harminus Kuitert, with whose best-selling 1985 book Alles is politiek maar politiek is niet alles: een theologisch perspectief op geloof en politiek (published in English translation as Everything is Politics, But Politics is Not Everything: A Theological Perspective on Faith and Politics), Schillebeeckx strongly disagreed.2 To emphasise how he was issuing a rejoinder to Kuitert’s work, Schillebeeckx entitled the original published version of his Kuyper Lectures as, Als politiek niet alles is… Jezus in onze westerse cultuur, which appeared in English translation as Jesus in Our Western Culture: Mysticism, Ethics, and Politics.3 This was not the first time that Kuitert and Schillebeeckx had engaged in public theological discussion. The year after the first volume in Schillebeeckx’s controversial Christological trilogy, Jezus, het verhaal van een levende, was published in 1974, they appeared together at the Free University of Amsterdam on 7 March 1975 for a televised discussion of the book, an exchange which they later co-edited and published as Jezus van Nazareth en het heil van de wereld. Beyond constituting the second half of a stimulating and respectful debate with Kuitert regarding how churches ought to involve or not involve themselves 1 Marcel Sarot, “Confessing the catholicity of the church,” International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 74, no. II (2013): 154; Jacques Fontaine, “Christianity and the Christian Church between 284 and 476,” in History of Humanity: From the Seventh Century BC to the Seventh Century AD, eds. Joachim Herrmann and Erik Züricher, vol. 3 of UNESCO History of Humanity, ed. Sigfried J. de Laet (London: Routledge, 1993), 236; William K. Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code (New York: Columbia University Press, 1905), 44–45. 2 Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture: Mysticism, Ethics, and Politics, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1987). 3 H.M. Kuitert, Everything is Politics, But Politics is Not Everything: A Theological Perspective on Faith and Politics, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1986).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

220

Kloes

in the political life of their nations, Schillebeeckx’s 1986 Kuyper Lectures furnish a succinct distillation of his fully developed theology, as his fellow Dominican, biographer, and University of Oxford scholar Philip Kennedy has observed.4 Schillebeeckx gave his Kuyper Lectures at the age of seventy-two, following his retirement from a long and distinguished career at the University of Nijmegen, where from 1958 to 1983 he had been the professor of dogmatic and historical theology. As a mature synopsis of his views, his lectures are thus comparable to Kuyper’s Stone Lectures, which he gave in 1898 at Princeton Theological Seminary, when he was aged sixty-one. Schillebeeckx’s engagement with Kuyper’s notion of sphere sovereignty, within his debate with Kuitert about the church and politics, is a particularly fruitful place to observe how commonalities in their Roman Catholic and neo-Calvinist theologies led to similar understandings of how the church should be involved in politics. This is especially so because of the strong similarities between how Kuyper and Schillebeeckx conceived of the church’s role in politics in the modern world as being that of a countervailing source of Christian influence against what they identified as two malevolently aggressive worldviews: what Kuyper called the spirit of the Revolution and what Schillebeeckx called global capitalism. According to the cultural analyses of these two recipients of honorary doctorates from the Catholic University of Leuven, revolutionary ideology and capitalistic ideology were socially disharmonious because of their totalising proclivities.5 That is to say, Kuyper and Schillebeeckx argued that as these ideologies became hegemonic in the political and economic spheres of human society, they then attempted to reorder every other area of human life according to their own value judgments and beliefs about reality. Hereby, in their views, these ideologies rejected and violated the autonomy of the other spheres of human life. Indeed, they maintained that the growing acceptance of them was leading towards societies becoming totally organised by the principles of the Revolution and capitalism. Implicitly, such propensities to reorder society challenged the Lordship of Christ to the extent that they rejected the balance to human life that Christ had given in his common grace to all mankind as their Creator. Thus, according to Kuyper and Schillebeeckx, the church had a special, indirect political calling in the modern Western world to resist the spirit of anti-Christ embodied by the Revolution and capitalism. The church was not to enter into the political sphere directly as another political actor, but rather was to confront all anti-Christian worldviews that provided the ideational bases for anti-Christian praxes of politics. In this way, the church’s 4 Philip Kennedy, Schillebeeckx (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1993), 75. 5 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, vii.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics?

221

political calling was to be the salt of the earth, to announce the message of the gospel and its attendant implications for all the spheres of human life and thereby mitigate against societal deformation. Before beginning our discussion of Schillebeeckx’s interpretation of Kuyper by examining the aspects of Kuitert’s book against which Schillebeeckx had addressed his Kuyper Lectures, let us first place the topic of their debate, the involvement of the churches in modern politics, within the context of its twentieth-century historical development. In the early decades of the twentieth century, there appeared in Europe and North America several new religious organisations whose missions were to foster greater solidarity between the various Christian churches and thereby enable the churches to cooperate more effectively in exercising Christian influence upon contemporary political and social issues. In February 1914, the Scottish-American industrialist Andrew Carnegie donated two million dollars to establish in New York City the Church Peace Union.6 The steel magnate turned philanthropist, who four years earlier had given ten million dollars to create the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believed that the leaders of America’s largest churches were uniquely positioned to influence the members of their churches to pressure their government to support the creation of a system of international law for resolving disputes between sovereign nation-states through courts of arbitration. Carnegie hoped that such a legal system could “banish the crime of war” from the earth and allow commerce to flourish unimpeded.7 Twenty-eight American leaders of Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Congregational, Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, Friends, Universalist, Unitarian Churches and Jewish communities endorsed Carnegie’s belief that it was the churches of what Carnegie called the “Teutonic nations” of the world, chiefly, the British Empire, the German Empire, and the United States of America, who could lead their respective peoples into an age without war through applying pressure upon political leaders to achieve a lasting peace. The declarations of war that were exchanged in the first week of August 1914 reduced the conference that the Church Peace Union had scheduled to take place at that time on Lake Constance in Baden into a farce. Building upon the ecumenical efforts in the interwar years of those involved in the Life and Work and Faith and Order conferences, 450 representatives of 147 Christian churches assembled in Amsterdam from 22 August to the 4 September 1948, to discuss the theme, “Man’s Disorder and God’s Design.”8 The 6 David Nasaw, Andrew Carnegie (New York: Penguin, 2006), 742, 776. 7 “Carnegie Church Peace Union,” The American Journal of International Law 8 (1914): 350. 8 George Dugan, “Churches Create a World Council,” New York Times, 24 August 1948, 2.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

222

Kloes

result of these consultations, which were attended by many ecclesiastical luminaries, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and Karl Barth, was the establishment of the World Council of Churches. The Council, whose members were received at reception in the Rijksmuseum by the Dutch government, elected as its first general-secretary Willem Adolph Visser ’t Hooft, a native of Haarlem who had first studied law and then completed a doctorate in historical theology at the University of Leiden in 1928, before becoming an ordained minister in Switzerland in the National Protestant Church of Geneva in 1936.9 According to his biographers, Jurjen Zeilstra and Peter Bak, ’t Hooft’s approach to ecumenism was informed by “his strong Calvinistic belief in the sovereignty of God,” and his trust that “God himself would fulfil all the expectations for the Church that had been given through the Old Testament prophets and gather together a people through the revelation and atonement of his Son.”10 Indeed, in a manner that was particularly significant in light of how the Russian Orthodox Church had expressed its reluctance to join the Council because of its concerns that Western European and North American Protestants were forming the Council as a means of acquiring political influence and advancing a latent political agenda at the beginning of the Cold War, ’t Hooft averred that rather: We are a fellowship in which the churches after a long period of ignoring each other have come to know each other. We are a fellowship in which the churches enter into serious and dynamic conversation about differences in faith, in message and in order. We are a fellowship in which Christian solidarity is practiced so that the churches aid their weak or needy sister churches. We are a fellowship in which common witness is rendered to the Lordship of Christ in all matters in which the common word for the churches and for the world is given us. … If we succeed here in the Amsterdam and in the coming years in making clear that so far from pursuing political purposes we have no other concern than for the lordship of Christ everywhere – in East and West – and for His

9 10

Jurjen A. Zeilstra, Visser ‘t Hooft, 1900–1985: Living for the Unity of the Church (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020). Jurjen A. Zeilstra, “Willem Adolph Visser ’t Hooft,” Biografisch lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme, vol. 5, ed. C. Houtman (Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok, 2001), 534; Peter Bak, “Willem Adolph Visser ’t Hooft,” Het Friesch Dagblad and Historisch Documentatiecentrum voor het Nederlands Protestantisme (VU).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics?

223

church as the one holy church, it may yet be possible to remove existing misunderstandings.11 The reporter covering the proceedings of the Council for the New York Times remarked how although Pope Pius XII had banned all members of the Roman Catholic Church from attending the Council’s constituent assembly, the Archbishop of Utrecht and the four other Roman Catholic bishops of the Netherlands had authorised the celebration of special Masses on behalf of the council, that it might be a successful step towards the re-unification of the church.12 Despite ’t Hooft’s declamations that the World Council of Churches’ purposes for existing were spiritual and ecclesiastical, and decidedly not political, Kuitert believed that by the early 1980s, the ecumenical movement had lost sight of this welcome original vision and, by this time, had become primarily occupied with political causes that he regarded as lying beyond the proper sphere of the churches’ activities. According to the University of Cambridge historian Christopher Andrew, the KGB too had come to believe that the World Council of Churches possessed significant political influence in the West and by 1969 it claimed to have successfully placed five agents on its central committee.13 As Kuitert explained, he wrote Everything is Politics, But Politics is Not Everything in 1985 to criticise how he believed that Western European churches and especially Dutch churches had become too active in politics since the 1960s. Kuitert was himself a member of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland) and cited a number of recent examples of the political activities that he thought it was wrong for his church and other Dutch churches to be doing. When the government led by the Christian Democratic Appeal Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers allotted a level of financial support for social welfare programs in the state that the officials of the Netherlands Council of Churches considered to be too low, they denounced the budget in the name of their churches.14 In response to the Soviet Union’s decision to station median-range nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe, the Dutch Parliament approved the installation of comparable American nuclear missiles in the Netherlands with a vote of 91 to 59 in November 1985.15 The Ecumenical Peace Council (Interkerkelijk Vredesberaad), an association of churches that included 11 12 13

Dugan, “Churches Create a World Council,” 2. Dugan, “Churches Create a World Council,” 2. Christopher Andrew, “KGB Foreign Intelligence from Brezhnev to the Coup,” Intelligence and National Security 8, no. III (1993): 52. 14 Kuitert, Everything is Politics, 141. 15 Wallace J. Thies, Why NATO Endures (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 196.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

224

Kloes

the Roman Catholic Church, the Dutch Reformed Church, the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands and five smaller Churches, the Old Catholics, Lutherans, the Moravian Brethren, the Remonstrants, and the Society of Friends, strongly opposed the presence of nuclear weapons in their country.16 The Council organised a protest in The Hague on 29 October 1983 that was attended by 550,000 people, the largest protest of any kind in Dutch history, according to the University of Utrecht historian James Kennedy.17 Kuitert’s response to such political activities of the churches was to lament. “The healthy discovery of the 1960s, that church, faith and theology also have a political side, has come to grief by being pressed too far. It has left Christianity in confusion, and the time is coming when the Christian churches and their members will note with regret that they have made a mess of the Christian enterprise.”18 Kuitert feared that those whom he called “left-wing Christians,” who to him were Christians who spoke favourably of socialism and communism, such as the West German theologians Helmut Gollwitzer and Dorothee Sölle, as well as those who supported anti-war protests and environmental movements in the name of their churches, were dangerously leading their churches into what he characterised as a new Babylonian captivity.19 Kuitert accused those whom he called right-wing Christians of having already taken the churches of Europe into such a captivity many times.20 Kuitert’s opposition was not primarily against any of the aforementioned political causes on their individual merits, but rather was, in principle, against the churches advocating any political position whatsoever. He contended that whenever the church adopts one political position, it thereby enters into the struggle to obtain political power to impose its ideals and to defeat those who do not hold to them. In so doing, the church involves itself in this world in such a way that is incongruous with its divine constitution as the inaugurated eschatological community of God’s new creation in the midst of this present evil age. By taking discrete political positions the institutional church introduces divisions into itself by siding with some of its members and against others. How then, Kuitert asked, can its leaders even meaningfully claim to speak for the church as a whole, when their views only represent those of a portion

16 Kuitert, Everything is Politics, 102. 17 James C. Kennedy, “Protestant Ecclesiastical Internationals,” in Religious Internationals in the Modern World: Globalization and Faith Communities Since 1750, eds. Abigail Green and Vincent Viaene (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 303–304. 18 Kuitert, Everything is Politics, 1. 19 Kuitert, Everything is Politics, 14, 18. 20 Kuitert, Everything is Politics, 14.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics?

225

of the church? Does it dare to imply by this that those on the other side are against the church or not part of it?21 Additionally, Kuitert categorically rejected any claim that the churches had a prophetic vocation to exercise in modern society on the grounds that no nation currently lived under the direct reign of God as had the ancient Israelite theocracy.22 Without God’s own commitment to a theocratic government, the leaders of the churches had no special insights or spiritual authority to exercise on matters of public policy that lay beyond their areas of professional competence. Kuitert remarked that theocratic assumptions about the relationship between the Dutch nation and God had been the great error of those whom he called the “anti-Revolutionary Christians and certain Dutch Reformed theologians from the last century.”23 Without mentioning them by name, we may conjecture that Kuitert had in view here a number of prominent Anti-Revolutionary Party officials such as Aeneas Mackay, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1888 to 1891 and president of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament during Abraham Kuyper’s tenure as Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905, Kuyper himself, and Herman Bavinck, a member of the ARP’s central committee from 1897 to 1909 and its chairman from 1905 to 1907. Kuitert made one exception to his robust defence of a strictly separatist Two Kingdoms theology. When the church found itself in the middle of an emergency that was caused by political injustice – like the one that he said then existed during the 1980s in South Africa under Apartheid and in Central America under various dictatorships – it had to take the extraordinary step of entering the political sphere in opposing oppressors.24 To this Schillebeeckx responded that Kuitert had a much too myopic view of where oppression existed and that the lack of a “just distribution of material and spiritual goods and work, make the contemporary world one great emergency situation over its length and breadth.”25 When Schillebeeckx responded to Kuitert he was one of the most distinguished Roman Catholic theologians in Europe, renowned internationally among scholars for his role as a theological adviser to the bishops at the Second Vatican Council and for his 401 publications, which also engaged lay Catholics in the Low Countries.26 To locate Schillebeeckx more precisely within the 21 Kuitert, Everything is Politics, 140–53. 22 Kuitert, Everything is Politics, 79. 23 Kuitert, Everything is Politics, 20. 24 Kuitert, Everything is Politics, 103, 151–153. 25 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 80–81. 26 Edward Schillebeeckx, The Schillebeeckx Reader, ed. Robert Schreiter (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984), 321.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

226

Kloes

post-Vatican II theological landscape of Roman Catholicism we note that he was one of the founders of the academic journal Concilium, which sought to promote a particular interpretation of the Council and what they conceived as its reformatory ethos. Indeed, his Dutch biographer Erik Borgman has heralded Schillebeeckx as “the theological voice of progressive Dutch Catholicism in the 1960s and 1970s.”27 Schillebeeckx may be said to have been progressive in two senses: through his support for the de-centralisation of ecclesiastical authority at every level in the hierarchy of his church and through his teachings that lead to accusations of departures from Catholic orthodoxy. For example, in his Kuyper Lectures, Schillebeeckx asserted that modern New Testament scholarship had established that the canonical gospels contained statements attributed to Jesus that were historically impossible for him to have actually said and declared that it was mistaken to hold that God had sent Jesus into the world to die as a sacrifice because God himself forbade the offering of human sacrifices in Leviticus.28 In his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger twice summoned Schillbeeckx to Rome in 1979 and 1984 to answer questions pertaining to the orthodoxy of his Christology and his teaching that in certain circumstances lay Catholics could administer the Eucharist. In signing the 1989 Cologne Declaration, along with 162 European Catholic theologians, Schillebeeckx criticised Pope John Paul II for disregarding the preferences of the members of that German archdiocese for a progressive archbishop and instead consecrating the conservative Joachim Meisner.29 However, perhaps the way that Schillebeeckx would most like to be understood would be in the same way that he described with great admiration the foremost theologian of his Order, Thomas Aquinas. Of Thomas, Schillebeeckx wrote that he had simultaneously fought on two theological fronts, against what he termed “conservative integralism” and “excessive progressivism,” all because of his love of Jesus.30 In his Kuyper Lectures, Schillebeeckx came to his discussion of politics by way of his discussions of Jesus as the one who liberates humanity. Liberation for Schillebeeckx meant more than what he called the bourgeois middle-class Western focus on the salvation of the soul. While it certainly included this, 27

Erik Borgman, Edward Schillebeeckx: A Theologian in His History, trans. John Bowden (New York: Continuum, 2003), 1. 28 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 23 and 40. 29 Cologne Declaration, “Against Incapacitation – For an Open Catholicism,” Tablet, no. 243, February 4, 1989: 140–142. 30 Edward Schillbeeckx, “Thomas Aquinas: Servant of the Word,” in The Schillebeeckx Reader, 290–291.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics?

227

liberation encompassed as well the complete restoration of human dignity, which he said was best understood in all its fullness by Christians in the Third World who were suffering exploitation and oppression.31 The ecclesiological corollary of Schillebeeckx’s theology of Christ as the liberator of humanity was that “the church is a sign of God’s liberating presence among the nations.”32 It was on such a basis that Schillebeeckx could argue that: Although culture with its personal and socio-political ethics is “sovereign in its own sphere,” as Abraham Kuyper used to put it, belief in God also stands in a critical relationship to any culture. Moreover, this culture is prepared, by the grace which calls men and women to act, for eternal life for them. The gospel of Jesus Christ is ultimately concerned with the messianic preparation of our world to become the kingdom of God.33 Furthermore, Schillebeeckx declared, it was thus the “truly evangelical and human right of churches to make official pronouncements in situations of injustice.”34 As a Dominican, Schillebeeckx approached Kuyper’s concept of sphere sovereignty through Thomas Aquinas’s teaching that ethics was autonomous from faith in God, in the limited sense that it was possible for individuals to act ethically without living the Christian life of faith and obedience. Thus he argued that it was “completely necessary” to acknowledge the autonomy of the sphere of politics from that of the church and that the aim of politics, human flourishing in this life, could be known and pursued by reason alone.35 However, the realisation of the common good for humanity, which political reason was capable of identifying, was now often thwarted, according to Schillebeeckx, by “the basic structures of the economic world system in which we live.”36 He noted how personally he found “the Marxist analysis of society to be a legitimate possibility, but not necessarily the best one.”37 Schillebeeckx argued that the church had now come to a kairos in its history, a special historical moment at which the way Christians had to show their love for God and their neighbours “was to protest against the economic processes arising out of what is the de 31 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 28–29; John Bowden, Edward Schillebeeckx: Portrait of a Theologian (London: SCM Press, 1983), 117–120. 32 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 44. 33 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, viii. 34 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 47. 35 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 77. 36 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 76. 37 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 76.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

228

Kloes

facto universal dominance of the economy” over the other spheres of human life.38 In becoming politically active in this way, the church imitated Christ in proclaiming liberation, prophetically exhorting action to end a number of “dangers which threaten humanity: the arms race, world hunger, the impoverishment of the Third World, unemployment, the rise in racism, damage to the environment, and discrimination against women.”39 Hereby the church was to call the political, economic, and other spheres of society to function as they ought, without encroaching upon their sovereignty by trying to exercise its own authority in them. Let us now briefly note how the form and contents of Schillebeeckx’s arguments mirrored those of Kuyper. In a very well-known passage from the beginning of his Stone Lectures, similar to how Schillebeeckx saw a ubiquitous threat in capitalism, Kuyper declared how modernism, the spirit of the Revolution, had spread like a cancer to oppose Christianity in every sphere of life and that the mortal combat between the Christian and revolutionary life-systems was then the foremost spiritual struggle in Europe and America.40 In regards to the political sphere, Kuyper considered the government to have a number of direct responsibilities to God. Chiefly, it had to recognise that it was God’s servant, from whom it received its power, which it was commanded to exercise in accordance with God’s directives. However, just as political reason was frustrated by capitalist ideology in Schillebeeckx’s analysis, Kuyper charged the Revolution with deforming the political sphere in two ways: by declaring that the people were the source of the state’s power and that the state derived its power from itself.41 In response to such corruption, it was the church’s task, not to strive for power in the political sphere, but to remind and awaken the state to be what God had constituted it to be.42 Kuyper discussed the way he envisioned that this should take place at length in a section of the second volume of Common Grace entitled “The Radiance of the Church in the World.”43 “It is exactly because, as Jesus said, the church is a city set on a hill that its light must shine out over a wide area. Or, to speak more plainly, a sanctifying and purifying influence must go out forth from the

38 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 81. 39 Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture, 83. 40 Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism: Six Lectures Delivered in the Theological Seminary at Princeton (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1898), 3–4. 41 Kuyper, Calvinism: Six Lectures, 111–115. 42 Kuyper, Calvinism: Six Lectures, 134–135 and 138. 43 Abraham Kuyper, de Gemeene Gratie, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: Höveker and Wormser, 1905), 271.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics?

229

community of the Lord to the entirety of its surrounding society.”44 Kuyper emphasised that the church’s influence on the political sphere must be indirect: “simply put, we want a strong confessional church and neither a confessional civil society, nor a confessional state.”45 Kuyper’s and Schillebeeckx’s visions of how the church ought to act indirectly in politics, by bearing witness to Christ and his teachings by challenging ideologies that distort the functioning of the political, economic, and other societal spheres of human life to the detriment of the common good, are two distinctly post-Christendom theologies of the church’s role in political life. They contrast strongly with two important antecedent theological reflections on politics from the medieval Latin Church and from the Reformation era in which the church is either regarded as the master of the state or the state is conceived of as the protector of the church, arrangements that today no longer appear politically or theologically tenable or desirable. In his November 1302 papal encyclical Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII declared to the bishops and all the faithful: We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in the Church and in her power are two swords, a spiritual one and a temporal one…Both then are in the power of the Church, the material sword and the spiritual. But the one is exercised for the Church, the other by the Church, the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of kings and soldiers, though at the will and sufferance of the priest. One sword ought to be under the other and the temporal authority subject to the spiritual power.46 Similarly before its revision at the 1905 general synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands in Utrecht, the original Belgic Confession of 1561, articulated a similar argument in its thirty-sixth article: For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed, and the kingdom of Christ promoted. 44 Kuyper, de Gemeene Gratie, 2: 271. 45 Kuyper, de Gemeene Gratie, 2: 275. 46 Brian Tierney, ed., The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300, with Selected Documents (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964), 189.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

230

Kloes

They must, therefore, countenance the preaching of the word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honoured and worshipped by everyone, as he commands in his Word.47 The modern process of the democratisation of politics through the extension of universal electoral suffrage, concomitant with the proliferation of systems of parliamentary governance in which political parties mediate between citizens and the state, created a new political dynamic within which these older visions of the church’s involvement in politics were no longer intelligible. As two teachers of the church in the modern world, Kuyper and Schillebeeckx rendered the church a great service by providing her two similar visions of the how churches might reorient themselves to this new political dynamic. Bibliography Andrew, C. (1993). “KGB Foreign Intelligence from Brezhnev to the Coup.” Intelligence and National Security, 8, no. III: 52–67. Borgman, E. (2003). Edward Schillebeeckx: A Theologian in His History. J. Bowden (tr.). New York: Continuum. Bowden, J. (1983). Edward Schillebeeckx: Portrait of a Theologian. London: SCM Press. Boyd, W. (1905). The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. New York: Columbia University Press. Brès, G. de. (1919). “The Belgic Confession.” In: P. Schaff (ed.). The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches. New York: Harper and Brothers, 3: 383–436. Cologne Declaration (1989). “Against Incapacitation – For an Open Catholicism,” Tablet 243: 140–142. Dugan, G. (1948). “Churches Create a World Council.” New York Times. August 24: 2 Fontaine, J. (1993). “Christianity and the Christian Church between 284 and 476.” In: J.Herrmann and E. Züricher (eds.). History of Humanity: From the Seventh Century BC to the Seventh Century AD. London: Routledge, 235–240.

47

Guido de Brès, “The Belgic Confession,” in The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches, vol. 3 of The Creeds of Christendom, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1919), 432. On the revision of the confession, see: Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland Generale Synode, Acta der generale synode van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland gehouden te Utrecht van 22 Augustus tot 7 September 1905 (Amsterdam: Höveker and Wormser, 1905), 81–82.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

How Should the Church be Involved in Modern Politics?

231

Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland Generale Synode (1905). Acta der generale synode van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland gehouden te Utrecht van 22 Augustus tot 7 September 1905. Amsterdam: Höveker and Wormser. Kennedy, J. (2012). “Protestant Ecclesiastical Internationals.” In: Abigail Green and Vincent Viaene (eds.). Religious Internationals in the Modern World: Globalization and Faith Communities Since 1750. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 292–318. Kennedy, P. (1993). Schillebeeckx. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Kuitert, H. (1986). Everything is Politics, But Politics is Not Everything: A Theological Perspective on Faith and Politics. J. Bowden (tr.). London: SCM Press. Kuyper, A. (1898). Calvinism: Six Lectures Delivered in the Theological Seminary at Princeton. New York: Fleming H. Revell. Kuyper, A. (1905). de Gemeene Gratie. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Höveker and Wormser. Nasaw, D. (2006). Andrew Carnegie. New York: Penguin. Sarot, M. (2013). “Confessing the catholicity of the church.” International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 74, no. II: 151–164. Schillebeeckx, E. (1984). The Schillebeeckx Reader. R. Schreiter (ed.). Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Schillebeeckx, E. (1987). Jesus in Our Western Culture: Mysticism, Ethics, and Politics. J. Bowden (tr.). London: SCM Press. Thies, W. (2009). Why NATO Endures. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tierney, B. (ed.). (1964). The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300, with Selected Documents. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Unsigned editorial. (1914). “Carnegie Church Peace Union.” The American Journal of International Law 8: 349–351. Zeilstra, J.A. (2001). “Willem Adolph Visser ’t Hooft.” In: C. Houtman (ed.). Biografisch lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands protestantisme. Kampen: Uitgeverij Kok, 5: 534–539. Zeilstra, J. A. (2020). Visser ‘t Hooft, 1900–1985: Living for the Unity of the Church. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

PART 4 Worship

∵

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 12

“Spirit and Imagination”: Secularism and the Role of the Liturgy in Joseph Ratzinger and James K.A. Smith Joseph H. Sherrard There is a remarkable intellectual affinity between the Roman Catholic theologian Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) and the Reformed philosopher James K.A. Smith. As representatives of Roman Catholicism and neo-Calvinism, both stand in the Augustinian tradition and have longstanding interests in the challenge of secularism and in the importance of the church’s liturgical tradition. Ratzinger (who will be referred to as such except when referencing works written while serving as Bishop of Rome) wrote with great pastoral concern about the growing tide of secularism in the West,1 engaging with philosopher Jürgen Habermas2 and Italian philosopher and politician Marcello Pera.3 At the same time, he has dedicated himself to the renewal of the church’s life of worship while preserving its traditional form and content. Similarly, Smith has demonstrated a consistent concern over secularism, from his early engagement with Radical Orthodoxy4 to his more recent promotion and popularization of the work of Charles Taylor.5 These works on secularism unfolded simultaneously with his “Cultural Liturgies” project,6 which has as its centerpiece 1 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2006). 2 Joseph Ratzinger and Jürgen Habermas, The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2006). 3 Joseph Ratzinger and Marcello Pera, Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam (New York: Basic Books, 2006). 4 James K.A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004); James K.A. Smith and James H. Olthuis, eds., Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition: Creation, Covenant, and Participation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). 5 James K.A. Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). 6 James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009); Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013); Awaiting the King: Reforming Public Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017). © Joseph H. Sherrard, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_013 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

236

Sherrard

the reclamation of worship and the liturgy as a chief formative practice of the church. Although they are in many ways different, the resonances between these figures are striking; in an age of Rerum Novarum, both are committed to upholding the tradition of the church’s liturgical practice, and devote significant energy to critiquing the secular conditions of modern human existence. This chapter surveys the respective understandings of the liturgy, and then of secularism, as found in the works of Ratzinger and Smith before arguing that their respective conclusions regarding the importance of the liturgy in a secular age arise from different conceptions of the relationship between nature and grace. By understanding this contrast, we will see how Smith’s understanding of nature lies within the neo-Calvinist—and specifically Bavinckian—tradition while also coming to a better understanding of how Ratzinger believes grace is mediated through the liturgy. 1

Liturgical Theology in Ratzinger and Smith

In The Spirit of the Liturgy, one of the central texts of his liturgical theology, Ratzinger gives wide-ranging and eclectic discussion of the liturgy, moving from the relationship between the liturgy and human existence to the direction that priests should face while leading the liturgy and the role of images in Christian worship. In the first chapter, “Liturgy and Life,” Ratzinger locates the controlling image for the church’s worship in the Exodus narrative. Drawing from the Sinai account of the giving of the Law, Ratzinger draws a connection between the reception of Israel’s liturgy and law in Sinai and their residence in the Promised Land.7 For Ratzinger, the Sinai narrative gives Israel what he calls “its interior land,”8 which provides for Israel the conditions for living with God in the Promised Land. “Worship, that is, the right kind of cult, or relationship with God, is essential for the right kind of human existence in the world… Liturgy implies a real relationship with Another, who reveals himself to us and gives our existence a new direction”9 Ratzinger’s exegesis of the book of Exodus is the foundation for understanding how liturgy guides the Church’s life in the world. In the same way that the liturgy received by Israel in the Sinai narrative provides the ‘inner land’ for Israel, Christians are oriented to life in the world by their participation in the 7 Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2009), 18–20. 8 Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 19. 9 Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 21, 22.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

237

“Spirit and Imagination”

liturgy. The transcendent reference of this new ordering towards God, however, is of particular importance. “Worship gives us a share in heaven’s mode of existence, in the world of God, and allows light to fall from that divine world into ours…. It lays hold in advance of a more perfect life and, in so doing, gives our present life its proper measure.”10 In the liturgy, “we are caught up and made contemporary with the Paschal Mystery of Christ, in his passing from the tabernacle of the transitory to the presence and sight of God.”11 Here as elsewhere, there is an ontological claim enclosed within Ratzinger’s understanding of what takes place when the Church enacts the liturgy. The movement described by Ratzinger, which climaxes in the Eucharist, anchors the liturgy’s effectiveness in Christology and the “Paschal Mystery.” The Christian participates in divine reality through the liturgy and in so doing is properly reoriented to human existence. In contrast, Smith’s discussion of liturgy develops from a particular version of Augustinian anthropology that shifts “the center of gravity of human identity, as it were, down from the heady regions of mind order to the central regions of our bodies, in particular, our kardia—our guts or heart.”12 Because Smith’s account moves first from anthropology, and not exegesis as Ratzinger does, his understanding of liturgy is initially generic. Liturgy does not necessarily specify the gathered worship of the church; instead, he defines all liturgies as a “rituals of ultimate concern: rituals that are formative for identity, that inculcate particular visions of the good life, and do so in a way that means to trump other ritual formations.”13 Thus Smith’s discussion of liturgy includes descriptions of what he calls “secular liturgies,” which rival the Church’s liturgy in their vision of the good life and the types of desire they intend to form in their participants.14 Smith’s understanding of liturgy is self-consciously indebted to the work of Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor and his concept of the “social imaginary.” To understand the social imaginary is to understand that the formation of human identity takes place less through articulated theories of culture and behavior, and instead is given to us by way of a pre-theoretical and often unconscious inhabiting of the world constituted by practices, narratives, and affections. “A social imaginary is not how we think about the world, but how

10 Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 21. Emphasis added. 11 Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 57. 12 Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 47. 13 Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 86. 14 Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 89–129.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

238

Sherrard

we imagine the world before we ever think about it.”15 Everyone inhabits some kind of social imaginary: the question is whether that social imaginary is held together by a Christian or a secular center of gravity (or, in Smith’s language, a liturgy). As such, the concept endows Christian liturgy with a particular importance in the formation of human desire, and therefore identity, in the world. The ontological character of this account is found in what Smith calls a “sacramental understanding of the world.”16 Invoking the Eastern Orthodox priest Alexander Schmemann, and the evangelical Reformed liturgical theologian Leonard Vander Zee, Smith develops an account of the sacramental nature of creation. It must be noted that in applying this description of the sacramental to liturgical worship, Smith proceeds with no small amount of imprecision. In distinguishing between different levels of sacramentality within creation, Smith gives this account of the particular sacraments recognized by the church: “Jesus seems to establish particular hot spots of sacramentality within a good creation, while also ordaining particularly packed practices.”17 This fairly slim account of sacramentality has justly left Smith open to criticism by Amos Young,18 amongst others—a point to which this chapter will later return. The evident points of convergence between Ratzinger and Smith can be summarized as follows: both understand the liturgy to have a significant role in the reordering of human existence for life in the world. Because of this, corporate worship has a robust place in their respective bodies of work. But there are also significant divergences: while Ratzinger privileges the transcendent character of worship and anchors the liturgy in a Christological grammar, Smith describes liturgy by way of Taylor as a social imaginary that shapes human desire. Having summarized these twin understandings of the liturgy, our attention turns to the ways that Ratzinger and Smith diagnose the problem of secularism. 2

Secularism in Ratzinger and Smith

Secularism increasingly became an area of concern for Ratzinger in the years leading up to, and then following his appointment to the papal office. In the many and varied places Ratzinger takes up the issue, a central theme can be 15 Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 66. 16 Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 141. 17 Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 149. 18 Amos Yong, “Radically Orthodox, Reformed, and Pentecostal: Rethinking the Intersection of Post/Modernity and the Religions in Conversation with James K.A. Smith,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.2 (2007), 233–250.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“Spirit and Imagination”

239

traced: the problem of secularism results from a disorder in the relationship between reason and faith. This disorder then results in the widespread modern phenomenon of relativism. The following quotation, intended as a prescription to the ill of modern secularism, is representative: “I would speak of a necessary relatedness between reason and faith and between reason and religion, which are called to purify and help one another. They need each other, and they must acknowledge this mutual need.”19 This quote echoes the concern that Ratzinger voices as Benedict XVI in the Regensburg Lecture, and also the argument Ratzinger makes in Truth and Tolerance. Commenting on the encyclical Fides et Ratio, he writes, “If I had briefly to sketch the main intention of the encyclical, I would say that it is trying to rehabilitate the question of truth in a world characterized by relativism; it is trying to reinstate it as a rational and scientific task in the situation of modern science, which does indeed look for truths but which to a great extent disqualifies the search for truth as being unscientific; it is attempting this because otherwise faith loses the air it breathes.”20 Is a response to secularism connected to Ratzinger’s liturgical theology? In the papal encyclical Spe Salvi he hints at this. In this letter, Benedict addresses the eclipse of Christian hope by conditions of secular modernity. Toward the close of the letter, he suggests that it is in prayer that authentic Christian hope can be nourished. Resonances with Smith’s liturgical anthropology are evident here, particularly when Benedict draws from Augustine and his homilies on 1 John. “[Augustine] defines prayer as an exercise of desire. Man was created for greatness, for God himself; he was created to be filled by God. But his heart is too small for the greatness to which it is destined. It must be stretched.”21 This “stretching” takes place in prayer. In this letter, however, there is only the briefest of mentions of the liturgy as a place where this kind of education in hope takes place—and that within an already small section of the encyclical—and significantly, the importance of the proper ordering of reason is given a prominent place in Benedict’s account of hope within modern secular society.22 How, then, does Smith understand secularism? Smith’s account, like Ratzinger’s, must be traced throughout his corpus, not least his engagement with the Radical Orthodoxy movement. Central to Radical Orthodoxy is a denial of the concept of the secular, which springs from a “neutral” conception of nature 19 Ratzinger and Habermas, The Dialectics of Secularization, 78. 20 Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005) 184. 21 Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter. Spe Salvi, 30 November 2007. Accessed on Feb. 7, 2022. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi _enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html33. 22 Spe Salvi, 19–23.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

240

Sherrard

or reason. At this point, we can find a great deal of similarity with Ratzinger’s account: both trace secularism to a disordering of reason. Smith follows the genealogy of Radical Orthodoxy and traces the problem to Duns Scotus, who unintentionally unhooked created reality from its transcendent source, leading to a “world uncontaminated by the theological.”23 But it is here that Smith diverges from Ratzinger. Because of how the social imaginary functions in Smith’s thought, the concept of reason may be understood to create the conditions of secularism but, in contrast to Ratzinger, one cannot address secularism first and foremost by directing attention to reason. For Smith, the move from a medieval social imaginary that in many ways was more accommodating to Christian faith, to the modern ‘exclusive humanist’ social imaginary cannot be addressed on the level of theory because of the pre-theoretical nature of social imaginaries. The following quote is indicative of his engagement with secularism: “We really need to try to feel the difference between [the pre-secular] age and ours. Because we’re not really talking about what people think; it’s a matter of the difference between what we take for granted—what we don’t give a second thought— and what people of that age took for granted.”24 The de-centering of reason at this juncture in Smith’s account is supplemented by the interpretation of Augustinian anthropology that has previously been described: an anthropology in which desire is more fundamental than reason. (It is important to note that Smith’s project does not marginalize reason; instead, he makes an anthropological claim about what elements of human persons drive them as agents in their actions and choices.) In Smith’s thought, the combination of this anthropology and the role of the social imaginary means that the liturgy has a much more central role in responding to secularism than can be found in Ratzinger. Importantly, for Smith the liturgy is not merely a buffer against the social imaginaries of a secular age. Rather, it is a social imaginary all its own. “The rhythms and rituals of Christian worship are not the ‘expression of’ a Christian worldview, but are themselves an ‘understanding’ implicit in practice—an understanding that cannot be had apart from the practices.”25 Chapter 5 of Desiring the Kingdom is an exegesis of this social imaginary and its practices—from the call to worship to the benediction—and how it provides an alternative vision of the good life in contrast to the various modern secular liturgies and their implicit competing visions of the end of human existence. For Smith, the proper response to 23 Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, 89. 24 Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular, 28. 25 Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 69.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“Spirit and Imagination”

241

secularism is to for the church to be “‘a people,’ a nation marked by overarching narratives enacted and embodied in concrete practices that shape our communal perception of the world.”26 Of course, Smith does not advocate the liturgy as the only resource at the disposal of the Christian tradition in its engagement with secularism, or any other secular liturgy which has deleterious effects upon Christians. While worship no doubt receives a central practice, Smith understands that it should be located embedded in the way of life that supplements the vision of the good life embedded within its social imaginary.27 The point here is simply that because he understands our perception of reality to be guided by social imaginaries, and also because of his particular Augustinian anthropology, Smith places a greater emphasis upon Christian practice, and particular upon the importance of the liturgy, than can be found in Ratzinger’s response to secularism. Instead, he addresses this issue via a more straightforward appeal to reason. Charles Taylor’s own understanding of his work, and of Benedict XVI, confirms this argument. In an interview with Comment Magazine hosted by Smith, the differences between the papacies of Benedict and Francis were discussed. During the course of their exchange, Smith suggests that the difference between Francis and Benedict primarily concerns how the faith is communicated: “I suppose the one difference is maybe less fixation on, as you said earlier, belief—beliefs—and sort of dotting our I’s and crossing our T’s, and more on this sort of experience of Christ, of that journey, of that pilgrimage.”28 In agreement with Smith, Taylor replied, “I have great admiration for Benedict as a theologian, I have to say it. But he didn’t really understand the world in which he was, so he had this completely reactive view. He sees this kind of splitting up into different spiritual paths as relativism and it isn’t relativism.”29 Like Smith, Taylor diverges from Benedict’s focus upon rationality, or as Smith phrases it, “belief.” Their approach, framed by the concept of the ‘social imaginary,’ finds appeals to ‘experience’ and ‘pilgrimage’ more compelling and persuasive. 3

Nature and Grace

What lies behind these differences for these two thinkers, each of whom has devoted so much attention to both the liturgy and secularism? In order to 26 27 28 29

James K.A. Smith, Who’s Afraid of Relativism? (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 176. See, for example, Desiring the Kingdom, 207–214 and Imagining the Kingdom, 151–164. Charles Taylor, interview by James K.A. Smith, Comment Magazine, Fall (2014), 54. Taylor, interview by Smith, Comment Magazine, 55.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

242

Sherrard

answer this, we must examine the differing ways that Ratzinger and Smith understand nature and grace. The nature/grace distinction, and the contrast between the thought of Ratzinger and Smith on this point, sheds light on Smith’s more recent use of the concept of nature, as well as a deficiency in his understanding of grace’s mediation. It is clear from Ratzinger’s appeals to natural reason that he holds to a broadly Catholic understanding of the intelligibility of creation’s ontological integrity30 (or more traditionally put, that grace presupposes the category of nature). Hence in his Regensberg Lecture, Benedict can speak of the “rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given.”31 While this intelligibility of nature ultimately only yields a non-quidditative knowledge of God (which is to say, a non-definitional and non-essential knowledge of God), it is nonetheless indicative of a robust understanding of the capacity of postlapsarian intellect. Grace, mediated in the liturgy and the Eucharist, perfects this natural knowledge so that it rests properly upon God. In Ratzinger’s thought, then, there is significantly less anxiety around the liturgy’s role in giving intelligibility to various aspects of the human existence. He can simply say that this intelligibility exists, even if it is now partially obscured. To quote Ratzinger’s Regensburg Lecture: “The West has long been endangered by this aversion of the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur—this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.”32 This quote is telling in its display of the confidence that Ratzinger has in the intellectual faculties and the prominent role reason has in facing the challenges Western society faces. Because of this, for Ratzinger, nature is the type of thing that the intellect can grasp and comprehend even after the mind’s capacities have been damaged, as they have been in the Fall. Smith’s articulation of the relationship between nature and grace is filtered through his most recent appropriation of Wittgenstein, Rorty, and Robert Brandom in Who’s Afraid of Relativism? Smith’s use of these figures leads him to affirm a doctrine of nature and natural law while also stating that this is 30

Here I am indebted to Steven A. Long’s book Natura Pura: On the Recovery of Nature in the Doctrine of Grace (New York: Fordham, 2010), particularly his appendix dealing with Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s thought on the relationship between nature and grace (212– 222). 31 James V. Schall, The Regensberg Lecture (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine Press, 2007), 145. 32 Schall, The Regensberg Lecture, 146.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“Spirit and Imagination”

243

dependent upon being a part of a community that inculcates the rationality that enables knowledge of nature and natural law. “One needs to be inculcated in the community of grace that is the body of Christ in order to be able to ‘see’ nature as the natural law theorist claims any rational being can.”33 Because of his understanding of the contingency of reason and the role that communities and practices play in developing and sustaining rationality, the liturgy is then one of the means of grace within the nature/grace relation. To paraphrase Smith, to be a part of the liturgy is to be enabled to see the truth about the world.34 In one sense, Smith’s position is quite close to Herman Bavinck’s articulation of the way in which grace restores nature.35 Nature is not intelligible without grace’s restorative power, and that grace is located within the church. And yet it is notable that in his most recent work, Smith appears to be suggesting that nature is less intelligible than is commonly understood in the neo-Calvinist tradition. This appears to be a departure from his earlier work, where he made use of Dooyeweerd’s distinction between structure and direction—a distinction that assumes the intelligibility of structural categories and thus, nature.36 While Smith makes clear delineations between his position and a pure relativism, his contingent account of rationality implies a thinner account of creation’s natural intelligibility. It is a difference of gradation and not of category, but it is to be contrasted to Bavinck’s appeal to the positive potential of general revelation. For example, in a section of Reformed Dogmatics entitled “General Revelation and Christian Discipleship,” Bavinck writes, “No one escapes the power of general revelation... The idea and existence of God, the spiritual independence and eternal destiny of the world, the moral world order and its ultimate triumph—all these are problems that never cease to engage the human mind.... General revelation preserves humankind in order that it can be found and healed by Christ.”37 Through the influence of A Secular Age, Smith has more recently restricted his appeals to the category of nature to the haunted nature of Taylor’s immanent frame and secularism’s struggle to circumscribe the ‘fullness’ of human existence. Smith’s relative modesty in comparison to Bavinck’s confidence in 33 Smith, Who’s Afraid of Relativism?, 113n49. 34 “To be a part of this tradition-by the grace of God-is to be enabled to see the truth about the cosmos.” Smith, Who’s Afraid of Relativism, 113. 35 See Jan Veenhof, Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck, trans by Albert M. Wolters (Sioux Center, Iowa: Dordt College Press, 2006). 36 Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, 166–179. 37 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1: Prolegomena. ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 321–22.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

244

Sherrard

general revelation is of note as evidence of a family disagreement within the neo-Calvinist tradition. Attention to should be paid to that tension as both his own scholarship, and that of the Bavinckian tradition continue to develop. 4 Conclusion What might we learn from this contrast between Joseph Ratzinger and James K.A. Smith? We have already noted that Smith uses the imprecise language of ‘sacramental hotspots’38 to describe the transforming work of grace. Smith’s struggle to articulate a coherent notion of the sacramental nature of worship and the liturgy springs from the aforementioned contingent account of epistemology, and from Smith’s accompanying appeal to the Yale school of postliberalism.39 While the differences between Roman Catholic and Reformed understandings of worship and the sacraments are significant, it must be noted that Ratzinger’s account of the transcendent and ontological nature of the liturgy, and in particular his placement of the living Christ at the center of the liturgy, exposes the inadequacy of using Smith as the centerpiece of a truly theological understanding of the liturgy. If not supplemented within future constructive proposals in the Reformed liturgical theology tradition, the overemphasis upon the sociality and practice of the church found in Smith’s account has the effect of severing the church from the living God who truly constitutes and sustains its life and practice.40 Smith, of course, is a philosopher rather than a theologian, and as such we should not criticize his project for a failure to utilize the resources that are contained within a discipline not his own. There is much in Smith’s account that is useful for the development of the Reformed theological tradition: his criticism of the over-intellectualizing of Christian formation, his reclamation of traditional forms of worship for Reformed evangelicals, and his use of modern continental philosophy and phenomenology (which is itself a fine example of neo-Calvinist reasoning!) For all that, however, there is a danger that theologians might appropriate Smith’s project in such a way that speech about Christian formation is bereft of speech about God. A sacramentality that is not grounded in Christology, and subsequently pneumatology, is problematic. Ratzinger’s account may not 38 Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 47. 39 Smith, Who’s Afraid of Relativism?, 154–169. 40 I am here indebted to a similar argument made by John B. Webster in his essay “Theology and the Peace of the Church” in The Domain of the Word (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012), 160n15.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“Spirit and Imagination”

245

appreciate the depth of sin’s influence upon the human intellect as understood in a Reformed reading of Romans 1, and indeed Smith’s account of the importance of social imaginaries in general and the liturgy in particular should be heeded. Still, the contrast between Smith and Ratzinger’s account of God’s activity in and through the liturgy is instructive. As an example of a contemporary liturgical theology, Ratzinger maintains a strong and proper emphasis on worship’s transcendent character alongside a robust Christocentricity. For this reason, while there is much to commend Smith’s account of the role of the liturgy in a secular age, we would also do well to listen attentively to Ratzinger so that we might be attentive to the Spirit of Christ at work in the liturgy. Bibliography Bavinck, H. (2003). Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1: Prolegomena. J. Bolt (ed.) and J. Vriend (tr.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Benedict XVI (2014). Encyclical Letter. Spe Salvi. 12 December. http://www.vatican.va /holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe -salvi_en.html33. First appeared online: 30 November 2007. Long, S.A. (2010). Natura Pura: On the Recovery of Nature in the Doctrine of Grace. New York: Fordham. Ratzinger, J. (2009). The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. Ratzinger, J.; Habermas, J. (2006). The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion. San Francisco: Ignatius. Ratzinger, J; Pera, M. (2006). Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam. New York: Basic Books. Ratzinger, J.C. (2006). Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. San Francisco: Ignatius. Schall, J.V. (2007). The Regensberg Lecture. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine Press. Smith, J.K.A. (2017). Awaiting the King: Reforming Public Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Smith, J.K.A. (2014). How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Smith, J.K.A. (2014). Who’s Afraid of Relativism? Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Smith, J.K.A. (2013). Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Smith, J.K.A. (2009). Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Smith, J.K.A.; Olthuis, J.H. (2005). Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition: Creation, Covenant, and Participation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

246

Sherrard

Smith, J.K.A. (2004). Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Taylor, C. (2014). Interview by James K.A. Smith, Comment Magazine, Fall. Veenhof, J. (2006). Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck. A. Wolters (tr.). Sioux Center: Dordt College Press. Webster, J.B. (2012). “Theology and the Peace of the Church.” In The Domain of the Word. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Yong, A. (2007). “Radically Orthodox, Reformed, and Pentecostal: Rethinking the Intersection of Post/ Modernity and the Religions in Conversation with James K.A. Smith.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15.2, 233–250

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

PART 5 Constructive Theological Engagement

∵

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 13

“The Clay of Paganism with the Iron of Christianity”: Cornelius van Til’s Critique of Roman Catholicism Leonardo de Chirico In the book of Daniel (chapter 2), we are told that king Nebuchadnezzar had a dream in which he saw a great statue. Only Daniel was able to tell him what the dream was about and to interpret it. In the dream, this statue had several parts made of different materials, although the narrative is particularly interested to describe its feet, which were made “partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron”. The text goes on to associate some distinctive properties to both materials: the iron speaks of ‘firmness’, whereas the clay is materially and metaphorically ‘soft’. Thus, the statue’s feet are partly strong and partly brittle (3.42). After describing the feet, Daniel becomes the interpreter of the dream, explaining to Nebuchadnezzar that because of the mixture of iron and clay—materials that do not hold together—the statue rested on a very weak foundation. Thus, while the statue seemed powerful and imposing, in reality it stood on shaking legs and weak feet. Its future was to be broken in pieces by a stone “cut out by no human hand” (3.34), and carried away by the wind. This dream has a long history in the interpretation of the Bible. Even to survey its complex trajectory would take us too far from the scope of this chapter.1 Its interest to this chapter is that Cornelius van Til used the metaphor of the mixture of clay and iron to describe his view of Roman Catholicism. As we shall see, this metaphor is one of the many biblical and evocative images that van Til used to characterize his interpretation of the Roman Catholic system. This chapter will present the basic contours of van Til’s critical engagement with Roman Catholicism and assess it from a sympathetic perspective that, though not uncritical, has the advantage of being formulated many decades after his books were written. Cornelius van Til (1896–1987) has been described as, “one of the greatest apologists of our time”.2 What is of interest here is to highlight a brief 1 On the history of the modern interpretations of Daniel’s dream, see M. Miegge, Il sogno del re di Babilonia. Profezia e storia da Thomas Müntzer e Isaac Newton (Milano: Feltrinelli, 1995). 2 William Edgar, “L’apologetica di Cornelius van Til,” Studi di teologia 13 (1995):5–20. © Leonardo De Chirico, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_014 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

250

De Chirico

presentation of his apologetic method as it then applies to the study of Roman Catholicism.3 Drawing from the Dutch neo-Calvinistic tradition, van Til develops his apologetical discourse in systemic terms assuming that each Christian tradition implies a Weltanschauung that forges all areas of life and thought. According to this conviction, all different systems of thought—Roman Catholicism included—are expressions of a more or less integrated worldview stemming from a religious pre-theoretical core. According to William Edgar, van Til’s apologetics is characteristically neo-Calvinistic in the following way: (i) It is ‘radical’ because of its refusal of epistemological neutrality. No one operates in an epistemological vacuum, for which reason apologetics has the task of tracing every worldview to its ultimate and penultimate commitments. (ii) It is ‘integral’ because it involves a comprehensive worldview. van Tillian apologetics is not interested in collecting bits and pieces of a given stream of thought, but rather aims at assessing a worldview as a whole. (iii) It is ‘transcendental’ because it evokes the importance of presuppositions. Given the epistemological non–neutrality of every thought, the task of apologetics is to work on what holds a worldview together in terms of the content and shape of its “religious” core. After sketching out the trajectory of van Til’s contribution to apologetics, the focus of our interest is to present and assess his apologetic method in dialogue with Roman Catholicism.4 1

Between Metaphors and Philosophical Categories

In approaching Roman Catholicism, van Til makes an extensive use of a rich set of metaphors and interpretative categories, all of which point to its fundamental nature. van Til is interested in looking for and exploring what is constitutive of Roman Catholicism in terms of its structural blueprint. In rapid succession, Roman Catholicism is denoted as being a ‘synthesis’ (a formula also used by

3 My main point of reference in this respect is John Frame, Cornelius van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995). 4 This chapter develops materials that I have researched and discussed in more detail in: Leonardo de Chirico, Evangelical Theological Perspectives on Post–Vatican II Roman Catholicism (Bern–Oxford–Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2003).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“The Clay of Paganism with the Iron of Christianity”

251

Herman Dooyeweerd),5 a ‘compromise’,6 a ‘combination’,7 a ‘fusion’,8 a ‘confusion’,9 a ‘supplementation’,10 an ‘addition’,11 a ‘correlation’,12 a ‘midway’,13 a ‘half way’,14 or again an ‘alliance’15 between Christian and non-Christian elements. To illustrate the point vividly through Daniel’s language, van Til argues that “Romanists mix a great deal of the clay of paganism with the iron of Christianity”.16 The result, he claims, is a religious framework in which a variety of different materials merge so as to form a composite and complex system of thought which is neither mere paganism nor mere Christianity. Rather, it is a synthesis of both, a combination of different materials. These metaphors suggest the idea that Roman Catholicism is not a random encounter between different elements, but rather a sophisticated mélange whereby clay and iron are joined together in something unique, distinct and new. This point is worth exploration. van Til argues that the fundamental nature of Roman Catholicism is not the on–going, organic development of the early form of Christianity as, for example, John Henry Newman’s account of

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Cornelius van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), 175, 188, 192; Christianity and Barthianism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), 377, 380; (1971); The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971), 84, 192. It is worth adding that Herman Dooyeweerd, a scholar in some respects near to van Til, speaks of Roman Catholicism as “the great synthesis” between Biblical and Greek motives: Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture. Pagan, Secular and Christian Options, trans. John Kraay (Toronto: Wedge, 1979), 111–147. Cornelius van Til, Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 89; The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), 3, 136, 139; A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 13. Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 168, 188; The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought, 219; Cornelius van Til, The Case for Calvinism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 58. Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 188. Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 41; The Defense of the Faith, 71–72; A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 168. Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 173. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 3, 73. Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 168; The Defense of the Faith, 156; Christianity and Barthianism, 325; The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought, 93; The Case for Calvinism, 57. Van Til, The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought, 94. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 56. Van Til, Christianity and Barthianism, 229; The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel (Phillipsburg: Grotenhuis, 1953), 11. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 221.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

252

De Chirico

Catholicism suggests.17 On the contrary, it is characterized by a structural combination of Christian and non-Christian features that lies at the very heart of the Roman Catholic fabric. The theological task of his Reformed apologetic, then, is to detect this, assess it and constructively criticise it against the background of a Reformed worldview. For van Til, the ultimate constitution of Roman Catholicism is marred by the co-existence of Christian and non-Christian elements. Shifting the focus from categories to contents, van Til saw Roman Catholicism as the historical outcome of a process of assimilation by formerly authentic Christianity of non-Christian and pagan thought-products which have led to a radical transformation of the former. Actually, van Til goes as far as arguing that strictly speaking, Roman Catholicism is “a deformation of Christianity”18 itself, whereby non-Christian presuppositions and pagan connotations are given a christianized status and contribute to shape the whole system in ways that depart from the original outlook. In fairness to him, van Til also maintains that, “Romanism has in it a large element of true Christianity”. However, the problem, in his view, is that this healthy part is nonetheless, “counterbalanced and modified by so much taken from non-Christian philosophy”.19 Thus, the Christian ‘iron’ and the pagan ‘clay’ are constitutive parts of the system. Indeed, they are the two legs maintaining the system. In van Til’s terms, “the concrete blocks may be those of Christianity, but the cement is nothing other than the sand of paganism”.20 The Roman Catholic synthesis of ‘iron’ and ‘clay’, he claims, is traceable in Catholic ontology, anthropology, epistemology, ethics, and apologetic strategy, to mention a few specific domains in which van Til tests his critical approach. Beyond these specific cases, van Til is consistently aware that from his point of view, this investigation of the aforementioned Catholic synthesis can be conducted on “every point of doctrine”,21 or “along the entire gamut of doctrinal expression”,22 without dispersing its focus into matters of fragmentary details. It is important to note that according to van Til, the combination of ‘iron’ and ‘clay’ is to be found everywhere in the Catholic system, perhaps not in the same measure and balance, but nevertheless it is present across the whole spectrum of its theological horizon. The point of difference between 17 18 19 20 21 22

Newman’s classical work: John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London: James Toovey, 1845). Van TIl, Christian Apologetics, 41; The Defense of the Faith, 71 (italics original). Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 168. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 221. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 71. Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 41.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“The Clay of Paganism with the Iron of Christianity”

253

the Reformed and the Roman Catholic systems is not in one particular locus, or in few isolated doctrines (e.g. ecclesiology, Mariology, soteriology), but is in fact traceable in all loci. The synthesis may be less evident or consistent in some domains than others, but is found everywhere because of the constitutive composite nature of Roman Catholicism. For van Til, while there may be ‘formal’ occasional agreements with the Reformed view, a closer scrutiny highlights the presence of iron and clay scattered everywhere beyond the surface of apparent convergences. An interesting comparison can be suggested here. In the same years in which van Til was developing his views on Roman Catholicism, Dutch theologian Gerrit Berkouwer published his first major book on Roman Catholicism.23 In that book, Berkouwer argued that to focus on the struggle with Roman Catholicism essentially means being concerned with “fundamental questions”24 entailing “the structure of Rome in its entirety”25 and its “basic religious motive”.26 Though aware of the danger of analytical superficiality and unwarranted schematisation of complex theological data,27 Berkouwer is strongly convinced that ‘atomistic’28 or ‘fragmentary’29 insights on Roman Catholicism would inevitably miss the point of the controversy that caused the Reformation, and that still lies at the heart of the separation between the two traditions. In this respect, “the countless conflicts between Rome and the Reformation” can and must be reduced “to one single denominator”,30 penetrating “the heart of religion”.31 All the complex phenomenology of this battle has but a single aetiology; indeed, the various burning issues of the debate are nothing but “illustrations of the one fundamental conflict”32 which has been progressively ramified in “every department of life”.33 Both van Til’s and Berkouwer’s analyses of Roman Catholicism stand in substantial continuity with the Dutch neo-Calvinistic tradition that, mainly 23

Gerrit Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, tr. David H. Freeman (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1959). 24 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 4. 25 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 5, 53. 26 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 5. 27 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 54. 28 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 5. 29 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 12, 53. 30 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 12. 31 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 240 (italics original). 32 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 12. 33 Berkouwer, The Conflict with Rome, 112; Berkouwer also speaks of a “fundamentally different sense of life”, 10. On Berkouwer’s analysis of Roman Catholicism, see Eduardo Echeverria, Berkouwer and Catholicism: Disputed Questions (Leiden: Brill, 2013).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

254

De Chirico

through the works of Abraham Kuyper, developed a consistent approach to contemporary worldviews competing with Calvinism34 in terms of the concept of ‘antithesis’.35 In this line of thought, the clash between different worldviews is not explicable on the basis of sheer cultural, historical, or social dynamics; rather, the conflict stems from a presuppositional chasm that is continually and effectually working. In this respect, while safeguarding ‘common grace’ to some extent, Kuyper, Bavinck, and the neo-Calvinists in general constantly concentrated on the attempt to underline the ‘antithetical’ thrust of Calvinism in relation to other secular or religious systems. Van Til’s lesson on this point is that Roman Catholicism is an all-encompassing system, for which reason one must approach it as such, trying to make sense of its teachings not as if they were isolated items, but rather, trying to penetrate the fact that they belong to a dynamic yet organic system. In dealing with Roman Catholicism, especially in times of mounting ecumenical pressure, he argued that Reformed theology should go beyond the surface of theological statements and attempt to grasp the internal framework of reference of Roman Catholic theology. From there, one may try to assess it from an evangelical perspective. 2

Between the Aristotle-Christ and the Kant-Christ

Besides pointing to the mixture that lies at the core of Roman Catholicism, van Til also highlights the two main historical and theological outlooks of the combination which he summarizes, respectively, as the ‘Aristotle–Christ’ and the ‘Kant–Christ’. One the one hand, there is the ‘traditional’ Roman Catholicism with its well established Thomistic legacy built along centuries of Catholic history.36 On the other, ‘modern’ Catholicism has also absorbed categories

34

35

36

In his 1898 Stone Lectures on Calvinism, Kuyper mentions Paganism, Islamism, Romanism, and Modernism as competitive worldviews for Calvinism: Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931). On Kuyper’s view of Roman Catholicism as a life–system, see Leonardo de Chirico, “Il cattolicesimo romano come ‘sistema di vita’ alternativo nelle Lezioni sul calvinismo di Abraham Kuyper,” Studi di teologia 63 (2020):30–35. For a brief introduction to the concept of “antithesis” in Kuyper and Bavinck, see Jacob Klapwijk, “Rationality in the Dutch Neo–Calvinist Tradition,” in H. Hart, J.v.d. Hoeven, N. Wolterstorff, eds., Rationality in the Calvinian Tradition (Lanham: University Press of America, 1983), 93–111. Van Til, The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought, 73–105.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“The Clay of Paganism with the Iron of Christianity”

255

of thought derived from modern trends of thought.37 Van Til deals specifically with both typologies of Roman Catholicism, or with exponents of both sides even though not always with the same degree of thoroughness: Aquinas and Thomism in general,38 Trent,39 Vatican I40 as part of traditional Catholicism; Von Balthasar,41 Küng,42 Lonergan,43 Teilhard de Chardin,44 to name but a few, and, of course, Vatican II45 as key theologians and events within modern Catholicism. To begin with the ‘Aristotle–Christ’: in place of the previous metaphor from construction materials, van Til goes on to use a mathematical one. In arithmetical terms, Roman Catholicism is “a synthesis of Aristotle plus Christ”,46 i.e. the ‘Aristotle-Christ’.47 Historically, the key figure of Aristotleanism’s penetration into Christianity is Thomas Aquinas, whereas the larger movement that eventually promoted and consolidated the compromise between Christian theism and Greek philosophy is Catholic Scholasticism.48 Van Til thinks that the traditional Roman Catholic nature-grace scheme is an attempt to fit the god of Aristotle in its relationship to the world of space and time as it is conceived by the philosopher, to the God of Christianity and the creation that He has made. The pure form standing in “relation of correlativity to a self–existing mass of non-rational matter”49 is adjusted to the God who freely gives his grace to the world in Christ. In this respect, according to van Til, Thomas has imposed “the Christian worldview on top of Aristotle’s scheme of abstract form and chaotic matter”.50 Nature is thought of in an Aristotelian way, whereas grace is thought of in Christian terms. As to their relationship, they are juxtaposed one to the other in order to retain “both the freedom of 37 38 39

Van Til, The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought, 189–224. Throughout the Van-Tillian opus. Cornelius van Til, The Doctrine of Scripture (S.l.: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1967), 34; A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 156–157. 40 Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 156–161. 41 Van Til, Christianity and Barthianism, 319–357. 42 Van Til, Christianity and Barthianism, 358–386. 43 Cornelius van Til, “Bernard J.F. Lonergan”, a 43–page unpublished essay (1973). 44 Cornelius van Til, “Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Evolution and Christ”, Westminster Theological Journal XXVIII (1966):109–144. 45 Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 175–193 and The Doctrine of Scripture: 1–2. 46 Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 175. 47 Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 185. 48 Van Til, The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought, 83–104. Frame devotes two useful chapters to van Til’s treatment of both Aquinas and Scholasticism: Frame, Cornelius van Til, 257–268 and 339–352. 49 Van Til, The Case for Calvinism, 57. 50 Frame, Cornelius van Til, 267.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

256

De Chirico

man and the sovereignty of God as well as a ‘rational relation’ between the two”.51 At most, grace brings an elevation supra naturam but it does not shape it totally. Nature maintains a status of independent life. For van Til, the fact that the sphere of nature, even if to a limited extent, enjoys a certain degree of autonomy from the Creator God is wholly unacceptable because it would compromise the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God who instead, as van Til repeatedly affirms, controls whatsoever comes to pass. Van Til is aware of the developments that have taken place in modern Catholicism. This is why he also speaks of the ‘Kant-Christ’. The form-matter motif of Aristotelian derivation is superseded by the freedom-nature motif championed by Kant. Thus, the contemporary Catholic Christ has inevitably become “the Kant-Christ synthesis”.52 In all its philosophical newness, the change has an intrinsic rationale behind it in that, according to van Til, one “cannot start with Aristotle without eventually falling prey to Kant”.53 In this rather deterministic view, van Til seems to be saying that once the Christian system has been affected by the infiltration of pagan elements, it is always forcedly directed by the fundamental orientations imposed by the shifting trends of secular thought. van Til is also conscious that modern Catholicism has somehow modified the nature-grace scheme inherited from Scholasticism, and that the extrinsic version of that relationship no longer applies to authors like Von Balthasar and Küng. These new theologians operate with more ‘dynamic categories’54 within the context of a more open system tending towards Barthian ‘dialecticism’.55 The synthesis which emerged with the rising of modernity does not completely replace the medieval one so as to erase several centuries of Roman Catholic history and ecclesiastical tradition. Indeed, this mere substitution would not fit the Catholic way of relating to history. Discontinuity always occurs in the presence of some kind of continuity. For van Til, the simple ‘Kant-Christ synthesis’ would rather fit ‘modern Protestantism’, Barth and neo-orthodoxy included, in which the Christ-event is read through a Kantian lens.56 In modern Catholicism, instead, the interactive dynamics involve a further synthesis leading to a tri-polar result that is obtained by means of an enlargement of the 51 52 53 54 55 56

Van Til, The Case for Calvinism, 57. On this point see K. Scott Oliphint, Thomas Aquinas (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2017), 51–52, 88. Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 185, 192. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 135. Van Til, Christianity and Barthianism, 357 and 376–378. Van Til, Christianity and Barthianism, 324–325, 329–331, 348–350, 378–386. This is the main critical thrust of Cornelius van Til, The New Modernism: An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner (London: Clarke & Co., 1946), and Christianity and Barthianism.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“The Clay of Paganism with the Iron of Christianity”

257

Catholic ability to connect Aristotle and Kant, and that is always mediated by the Church’s teaching. In van Til’s words, “the former Aristotle-Christ synthesis and the former Kant-Christ synthesis have joined hands to form the Aristotle-Kant-Christ synthesis”.57 Modern Catholicism is thus thought of as being “a synthesis of medieval essentialism and modern existentialism”.58 3

Van Til’s Prophetic Insights and Their Limits

Thus far, van Til’s view of Roman Catholicism can be summarized as follows: Roman Catholicism is a dynamic and evolving synthesis of Christian and pagan elements. The iron and the clay stand intermingled so as to form an inextricable combination that mars the whole fabric of the system. The most established forms are the Aristotle-Christ synthesis and the Kant-Christ synthesis. There is a significant difference between the two, but also substantial continuity because of the stability of the overarching system that supports them. Roman Catholicism does not stand on Christ alone, but on Christ plus something else. In the Middle Ages it was Aristotle who ended up in suffocating the Catholic Christ. In modernity it is Kant who has become an ally, and eventually the destroyer, of the Catholic Christ. According to van Til, the system is governed by a thoroughgoing et-et (both-and) epistemology that needs— indeed requires—the supplementation of Christ with something else. There is no epistemological safeguard that is granted by the Solus Christus principle, but the catholicity of the system makes it possible to expand it in various ways, depending on historical circumstances. The Catholic Denkform is therefore radically different to its Reformed equivalent at this very fundamental level. Methodologically speaking, van Til’s systemic approach does sometimes prevent him from dealing more extensively with Catholic sources and allowing them to speak for themselves. He often seems to presume deductively what Catholicism holds, rather than actually following the train of reasoning provided by Roman Catholic individual theologians or the official Magisterium. Less attention is given to important details and nuances than is granted to the big picture. Moreover, from a theological point of view, he has not invested as much energy in studying post-Vatican II developments as he has in exploring Thomistic 57

58

Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 185. Later in the same book, van Til writes: “the (Catholic) church has enlarged the vision of herself and of her mission by means of adding the Kant–Christ synthesis with which neo–orthodox Protestantism operates to its own Aristotle–Christ synthesis”, 192. Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, 193.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

258

De Chirico

Catholicism. The Second Vatican Council is only touched on superficially and selectively. Therefore, van Til’s post-Vatican II perspectives are only sketched, and stand in need of further elaboration in order to become more plausible. In his own reading of modern Catholic trends, van Til is not greatly impressed by the kind of ‘aggiornamento’ and ‘ressourcement’ brought by Vatican II. For him, in spite of all their manifold differences, both ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ Roman Catholicism, pre- and post-Vatican II, are nonetheless governed by the same kind of unfortunate and fatal ‘synthesis’. The quality of the pagan clay may differ, but it is still clay mixed with iron. According to van Til, the whole Roman Catholic worldview rests on the grand synthesis systematically framed by Thomas Aquinas and updated by the modern post-Kantian trajectory. Whether his assessment of Thomas and Thomism is fair is something that is subject to debate. According to Arvin Vos, van Til is among those contemporary evangelical theologians and thinkers who have patently misread Thomas and who have built for themselves an image of the Angelic Doctor which is grossly misleading.59 In this line of assessment, van Til is one of the many scholars who have mistakenly exchanged the rigid and dualistic essentialism of modern Thomism (i.e. neo-Thomism) with the nuanced fluidity of Thomas himself, attributing to the latter what is instead a feature of the former. The issue of an evangelical interpretation of Thomism in general, and of Aquinas in particular, remains open, and van Til’s interpretation of Thomas is part of what needs to be further investigated.60 This is a debate that also involves Roman Catholic thinkers. The colossal legacy of Thomas, his Scholastic schools of interpretation, his magisterial re-appropriation in the nineteenth century, and reappraisal in the twentieth century ‘ressourcement’ movement indicate that van Til is not the only one to blame for an overly narrow and rigid reading of Thomas. 59

60

This is the thrust of the argument by Arvin Vos, Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought. A Critique of Protestant Views on the Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985). Vos has particularly in mind the writings of Herman Dooyeweerd, Cornelius van Til, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Alvin Plantinga, Carl Henry and Francis Schaeffer. In a milder way and with less provocative intentions, see Norman Geisler, Thomas Aquinas. An Evangelical Assessment (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991). Geisler has also suggested that the “traditional Evangelical criticism” of Thomas (including van Til, but also Os Guinness, Gordon Clark, Carl Henry, E.J. Carnell, Arthur Holmes, Roland Nash) is too rigid, negative, and unfair to Thomas Aquinas himself, 11–23. Distancing himself from fellow Evangelical readers of Thomas and trying to overcome ‘Evangelical antipathy’, Geisler thinks that his philosophy is perfectly compatible with classic Protestant thought whereas his theology is already marked by some excessive sacramental features to the point of not being acceptable to mainstream Protestant theology. For a recent attempt, see Manfred Svensson, and David VanDrunen, eds., Aquinas Among the Protestants (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2018).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“The Clay of Paganism with the Iron of Christianity”

259

As has already been mentioned, in his work The Conflict with Rome Gerrit Berkouwer warned Reformed theologians not to study Roman Catholicism in ‘atomistic’ or ‘fragmentary’ ways, which is to say, a study that avoids selecting issues and topics in isolation from the overall system. van Til took that warning seriously and developed his own apologetic interpretation of it accordingly. In his judgment, unless the Roman system is dealt with from a presuppositional perspective, the subsequent evaluation will be significantly marked by varying degrees of atomism, which in turn loses sight of the core issues. This means that the phenomenology of the system will be easily severed from its ideological source and historical context, and the end result will be a superficial analysis. At this point, the difference between van Til and Kuyper should be noted in spite of the convergence of their methodological starting points. Both authors address Roman Catholicism as if it were a system, but differ in terms of singling out the decisive elements that determine its fundamental orientation. Whereas Kuyper in the Lectures on Calvinism underlines the fact that the ‘mediation’ factor is key in coming to terms with the Roman system, van Til argues that the crucial factor is the ‘synthesis’ between Christian and non-Christian elements. Kuyper seems to highlight the pivotal function of the Church as the normative mediation between God and the world, while van Til underlines the epistemological strategy behind Catholicism, which consists in combining and finally fusing the Christian motif with the Aristotelian form-matter scheme (resulting in ‘traditional’, Thomist Catholicism) or with the Kantian freedom-nature one (resulting in ‘modern’, post-Vatican II Catholicism). The two perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive or utterly incompatible; they certainly represent two options which identify the heart of Roman Catholicism in two different areas and according to two different controlling principles. Certainly, van Til’s analysis lacks a sufficient awareness of the role of the Church in the shaping and functioning of the Catholic system. It is probably the case that his apologetic driving interests explain his emphasis on epistemological issues and his negligence towards the sacramentality of the church. Other important theological foci of the Catholic system, including the prolongation of the Incarnation of Christ in the life of the Church, the hierarchical structure, and Mariology, are simply overlooked and bypassed. Vatican II has brought ‘aggiornamento’ to the Roman Catholic Church. This word does not denote reformation in the evangelical sense, but neither is it a merely political and linguistic device aimed at concealing an unchanging reality. It is rather the Catholic way of responding to the need for some kind of renewal without altering the fundamental structure inherited from the past. Van Til’s approach to Roman Catholicism has many details that need fresh work and constructive criticism. Roman Catholicism appears to be much

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

260

De Chirico

richer, complex and nuanced than van Til’s account of it. The nature-grace relationship entails the Aristotle-Christ and the Kant-Christ, but neither traditional nor modern Catholicism can be reduced to these two versions alone. Nonetheless, his apologetic method which looks for the ‘heart’ of religious worldviews, and is able to figure out what is at stake as far as its basic orientation is concerned, is an asset that cannot be underestimated. Much ecumenical dialogue focuses on minutiae and loses sight of the big picture. To return to Daniel’s dream, van Til helps to see the vision of the grand statue as a whole, and to notice its intrinsically weak foundation if iron and clay are found in its legs. This is not only true of Roman Catholicism, of course. Every Christian tradition needs to ask itself to what degree iron and clay are mixed in its building blocks, and to be self-critical about the gospel sustainability of its setting. On this side of eternity, of course, iron and clay will probably always be intermingled in some way and in different measures. The issue is to discern if and when a critical point of the balance makes the statue more vulnerable and in need of radical reformation according to the gospel. Roman Catholicism is a complex reality. A radical, integral and transcendental view of Catholicism must take into account its doctrine, history, culture, movements and institutions. Roman Catholicism is a religious worldview that has been promoted throughout history by the ecclesiastical institution whose centre is in Rome. Although there is considerable diversity in its forms of expression, Catholicism is a basically unitary reality whose underlying tenets can be discerned. Any analysis that does not take into account the fact that Roman Catholicism is a system will fall prey to a superficial and fragmented understanding of it. In this task, van Til is a voice that may not sound ecumenically friendly but nonetheless remains prophetically true.61 61

There is a van Tillian flavor in the Italian Evangelical Alliance (2001), “An Evangelical Approach Towards Understanding Roman Catholicism,” European Journal of Theology X:32–35. It is argued that: “The doctrinal agreement between Catholics and Evangelicals, which is expressed in a common adherence to the Creeds and Councils of the first five centuries, is not an adequate basis on which to say that there is an agreement concerning the essentials of the Gospel. Moreover, developments within the Catholic Church during the following centuries give rise to the suspicion that this adherence may be more formal than substantial. This type of observation might also be true of the agreements between Evangelicals and Catholics when it comes to ethical and social issues. There is a similarity of perspective which has its roots in Common Grace and the influence which Christianity has generally exercised in the course of history. Since theology and ethics cannot be separated, however, it is not possible to say that there is a common ethical understanding – the underlying theologies are essentially different. As there is no basic agreement concerning the foundations of the Gospel, even when it comes to ethical questions where there may be similarities, these affinities are more formal than substantial”.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

“The Clay of Paganism with the Iron of Christianity”

261

Bibliography Berkouwer, G. (1959). The Conflict with Rome. D. Freeman (tr.). Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed. De Chirico, L. (2020). “Il cattolicesimo romano come ‘sistema di vita’ alternativo nelle Lezioni sul calvinismo di Abraham Kuyper.” Studi di teologia 63:30–35. De Chirico, L. (2003). Evangelical Theological Perspectives on Post–Vatican II Roman Catholicism. Bern–Oxford–Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Dooyeweerd, H. (1979). Roots of Western Culture. Pagan, Secular and Christian Options. J. Kraay (tr.). Toronto: Wedge Publ. Echeverria, E. (2013). Berkouwer and Catholicism. Disputed Questions. Leiden: Brill. Edgar, W. (1995). “L’apologetica di Cornelius van Til.” Studi di teologia 13:5–20. Frame, J.M. (1995). Cornelius van Til. An Analysis of His Thought. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Geisler, N. (1991). Thomas Aquinas. An Evangelical Assessment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Italian Evangelical Alliance (2001). “An Evangelical Approach Towards Understanding Roman Catholicism.” European Journal of Theology X:32–35. Klapwijk, J. (1983). “Rationality in the Dutch Neo–Calvinist Tradition.” In: H. Hart, J. van der Hoeven, N. Wolterstorff (eds.). Rationality in the Calvinian Tradition. Lanham: University Press of America, 93–111. Kuyper, A. (1931). Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Miegge, M. (1995). Il sogno del re di Babilonia. Profezia e storia da Thomas Müntzer e Isaac Newton. Milano: Feltrinelli. Newman, J.H. (1845). An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. London: James Toovey. Oliphint, K.S. (2017). Thomas Aquinas. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Svensson, M.; VanDrunen, D. (eds.). (2018). Aquinas Among the Protestants. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Van Til, C. (1976). Christian Apologetics. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Van Til, C. (1973). “Bernard J.F. Lonergan”. (Unpublished essay). Van Til, C. (1971). The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Van Til, C. (1969). A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed. Van Til, C. (1967). The Doctrine of Scripture. S.l.: den Dulk Christian Foundation. Van Til, C. (1966). “Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Evolution and Christ.” Westminster Theological Journal XXVIII:109–144. Van Til, C. (1964). The Case for Calvinism. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

262

De Chirico

Van Til, C. (1962). Christianity and Barthianism. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed. Van Til, C. (1955). The Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed. Van Til, C. (1953). The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel. Phillipsburg: Grotenhuis. Van Til, C. (1946). The New Modernism. An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner. London: Clarke & Co. Vos, A. (1985). Aquinas, Calvin, and Contemporary Protestant Thought. A Critique of Protestant Views on the Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 14

Why Not Join the Roman Catholic Church? Cornelis van der Kooi This chapter is written under a title that is purposefully ambivalent. It can be read as a rhetorical question: when there are so many good reasons to join the church of Rome, why should Protestants refrain from taking this step? In recent years, from a Reformed and evangelical perspective, there have been many changes in that Church that have caused a rapprochement, and that have prompted many Protestants to become Roman Catholic. However, the title can also be read differently: as an argumentation against joining the Roman Catholic Church. Accordingly, this chapter will elaborate upon both possibilities and offer a number of remarks on the choice itself. 1

Emergency Measure

Historically, Protestantism never had the intention of starting a new church. Rather, it started as movement to reform the church, to bring it back to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Both the Reformers and their Roman Catholic counterparts agreed that the Church had to be one and should not be divided over different confessions. Such is crystal clear from their early religious disputations. When Luther disputed with Eck in Heidelberg in 1518, and when John Calvin stood up in the disputation of Lausanne in 1536, it was clear to all the parties that the disputes at hand concerned central issues pertaining to the one church, the unity of which was a common supposition. Not without reason, Calvin dedicated the introductions to his works to rulers of his days: the unity of the church, and the defense and restoration of true worship were at stake, for which reason rulers and kings should be addressed. To Calvin, the state of true religion was important for the whole society, and therefore became an important concern for ruler and king alike.1 Stated briefly, in the eyes of the advocates of a reformation, the reform of the church was an emergency measure. Protestantism is historically accidental and was never meant to found a confession

1 See for the historical background e.g. E. Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 56–61. © Cornelis van der Kooi, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_015 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

264

van der Kooi

that essentially has a different foundation to that which came before.2 This historical judgment implies a serious statement for the status of the Reformed churches of our own day: the Reformed churches must also regard themselves as an emergency measure. One characteristic of such an emergency measure is that it is not meant for eternity, but rather, is timely. Its very impermanence creates hope that there will be a time in which the necessity for an emergency measure has passed. 2

Transitions and Conversions

There have been times in history in which returns to the Roman Catholic Church were frequent. A number of those in John Calvin’s immediate circle returned to the old Church, including his friend Louis du Tillet and later Pierre Caroli, who criticized Calvin and Farel for their views on the Trinity. Theirs was a time in which borders were not yet firmly set. The line between Roman Catholic and Reformed was not static. It was sometimes thin and depended on political decisions, power issues and personal disappointment. Those borders did not become firm until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia or Münster, which finally brought an end to the Eighty Years War. The beginning of the 19th century formed a similarly interesting period in the history of transitions or conversions to Catholicism. Napoleon had decreased the pope’s power, and the Vatican was in a miserable state. Nevertheless, that century saw a surge in the Roman Catholic Church’s power and moral impact. The story of John Henry Newman (1801–1890) must be mentioned in this context. It was only gradually that the Anglican clergyman Newman became impressed by the Roman Catholic Church. In particular, the idea of the continuity of the development of doctrine convinced him that he had to join this tradition.3 In the Netherlands, a new wave of conversions, or better stated, transitions to the Roman Catholic Church occurred after World War II. The historian H. van der Linde (1915–2008) is one well-known example of this. Another example is that of Ronald Bär (b. 1928), who had previously undertaken theological studies in Utrecht as a member of the Dutch Reformed Church. Bär converted to Roman Catholicism and became a priest in 1959, because, as he once told me, he ‘needed a bishop’. Ronald Bär himself later became one such bishop. Another famous example is Cornelia de Vogel (1905–1986), an expert in Platonic philosophy, who was born in a fairly liberal Protestant milieu, 2 A. Ganoczy, The Young Calvin (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 266–287. 3 J.H. Newman, Apologia pro vita sua (London: Longman, Green, 1864).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Why not Join the Roman Catholic Church?

265

but later became convinced, via Platonism, of the Roman Catholic Church as her own ecclesiastical home. My own tutor and friend Johannes Cornelis (Hans) Schouten (1929–2016), might also be mentioned in this context. For many years, he was a father in the faith to me. He conducted my wedding, ordained me to the ministry, and baptized one of our children. A few years ago, at 80 years old, after many long considerations, he became a Catholic and began a second life as priest. Famous examples of converts can be found in North America: the politician Newt Gingrich (b.1943), the author Graham Greene (1904–1991) and of course, a group of those who might be called evangelical Catholics like Richard John Neuhaus (1936–2009), and Eduardo Echeverria, himself a living example and defender of unity with the Roman Catholic Church in this volume.4 3

Historical Developments

There are many reasons for why we should join the Roman Catholic Church. The present state of the Roman Catholic Church is by no means comparable with the state under the Renaissance popes. At that time, the pope wielded a great deal of worldly power, and was able to build a huge and impressive building like Saint Peter’s Basillica. However, the costs incurred by this project were high indeed. Every marble pillar was paid for by indulgences. The Church claimed to have power over the salvation of sinners. The result of this, of course, was the Reformation, which shook the church and effected a division that was then dramatically multiplied in Protestantism. The Reformers’ accusation was that the church should not place itself between Christ and man: the church can only help the believer to trust Christ, and to embrace the person of Christ as the mirror in whom all the treasures of heaven are stored. The Church of Rome soon understood that it should go through a cleansing of many abuses and unholy practices. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) was a first and important answer to the Reformation. More recently, the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) was a further major step forward in that it can be evaluated as an acknowledgment of some of objections historically mounted from the Protestant side. By contrast, in Protestant eyes, Vatican I (1869–1870) was a reaction to the Catholic Church’s loss of political power, which was balanced by declaring that the pope is infallible when speaking ‘ex cathedra’—a move that aroused suspicion amongst Reformed theologians in the last decades of 4 E. Echeverria, Dialogue of Love. Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic Ecumenist (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

266

van der Kooi

the 19th century, Herman Bavinck being a prime example. In their view, this was another attempt by Rome to exercise control on the whole of life. Nature in itself is not enough, but it should ultimately be ruled and dominated by ecclesial power. Again, it was that power claim that triggered distrust. In the second half of the 19th century, many Protestants saw stakes once again set aflame. Vatican II, however, was different. It was not meant as a Council that would declare new dogmas, but rather was intended as an aggorniamento. The Dutch Reformed theologian Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996) was invited as an observer, together with the then young historian Heiko Augustinus Oberman (1930–2001). The steps made towards the practices of the Reformation were in fact considerable. From now on, the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular was allowed. The Church was no longer regarded as a state, with more accent being given to the community of the church as the people of God. That was a new element and caused a shift in emphasis. It created new space for the laity, and served as an opening for renewal movements like the Charismatic Movement, Focolare, and San Egidio. Attentiveness to Scripture, and to reading the Bible became more important. With regard to the issue of revelation, the step was made that tradition and Bible as Word of God were taken together, and a clear opposition between tradition and Scripture was rejected. Despite all this, the idea of continuity idea in a successio apostolorum was maintained as an essential element of orthodox doctrine. Both church and grace still remained centered on the priestly office, with the most central place being reserved for the infallibility of the pope, who has the plenitude of power, and his position as head of the church. 4

Pope and Image

What are reasons that might compel one to join this church today? For many years we have heard reports of abuse by priests, leading to the Catholic Church’s public image diminishing more and more. This has had a terrible effect, with many people in Germany, for example, quitting the Church. However, from the beginning of the reign of Pope Francis, change has been apparent. He is a pope of the people, of beggars and the disabled. When one sees him addressing public audiences, and notes his way of dealing with questions of justice, it is clear that he communicates a total engagement in, and choice for, those who are poor, live on the margins and suffer from the ills of modern society. Unlike his predecessor, he does not convey the image of a scholar. Pope Benedict’s image was that of a pious scholar, committed to Christ and Mary, but nevertheless one of the elite. Apart from what can be said with regard to

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Why not Join the Roman Catholic Church?

267

image, it should be noted that all the recent popes were clear in their Christocentric theology and practice. 5

Unity of the Church

A more principal reason to join the Roman Catholic Church is that in the episcopal system, the bishop’s role includes publicly presenting the unity of the church. There is one person, locally and perhaps even universally, who can speak on behalf of that church. The issue of ministry, and in particular the possibility of a bishop, is an issue that was also seriously discussed within Protestant theology in the wake of the Lima Report on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry from 1982.5 As to the question of unity, the churches stemming from the Reformation do indeed have an obvious disadvantage. They are divided, if not separated, in denominations, and these denominations are often nationally organized. The continuation of splits is nothing less than a disease. It should be asked: is the church of Christ in its essence organized along borders of nation, ethnic background, or even language? There is only one church that is truly transnational: the Roman Catholic Church. This becomes clear every Sunday and Wednesday in Rome, in front of St. Peter’s, as people from all the nations gather here, sing their songs, and worship in their own language, but are nevertheless one in that they belong to the visible Roman Catholic Church. What a difference with the Protestant denominations, to say nothing of the divisions in the evangelical and Pentecostal world! The caricature of this evangelical division is captured well in the saying: “…then I started my own church.” Many evangelicals who have converted to Roman Catholicism have done so precisely because of this disease. And let us be honest: it is a disease that often leads to the effect that faith and church membership decease. For the aforementioned Hans Schouten, these divisions and the perverse subjectivism in the 5 A few examples from the Dutch context may suffice to show the interest: M. Gosker, Het ambt in de oecumenische discussie. de betekenis van de Lima-Ambtstekst voor de voortgang van de oecumene en de doorwerking in de Nederlandse SOW-kerken (Delft: Eburon, 2000); E. van der Borght, Het ambt her-dacht. de gereformeerde ambtstheologie in het licht van het rapport Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Lima 1982) van de theologische commissie Faith and Order van de Wereldraad van Kerken (Zoetermeer: Meinema 2000), 487–489; B.J. Aalbers and P. Nissen, eds., de bisschop, kerkscheidend of kerkverenigend? (Delft: Eburon 2002); J. Kronenburg, Episcopus Oecumenicus: bouwsteen voor een theologie van het bisschopsambt in een verenigde reformatorische kerk (Zoetermeer: Meinema 2003); A. van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus. de theologie van de kerk en de Heilige Geest (Zoetermeer: Meinema 2012), 246–254.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

268

van der Kooi

evangelical world were an important reason, the drop that made the bucket overflow, that finally made him join the Roman Catholic Church. 6 Authority As we know, the unity of the church is particularly located in the pope as the successor of Peter. Notwithstanding the shift that was brought by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium (1964) in its frequent talk of the church as the people of God (and of the pilgrimage of this people), and notwithstanding the fact that the order of bishops is mentioned as the subject of the highest and complete power over the church,6 it remains clear that the final ecclesial power has its apex and cornerstone in the papacy.7 In this, the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus (1870) was confirmed. This location of the Roman Catholic Church’s authority in the papacy is one of the best examples of a church that has its pillar in the concept of office. It has a wonderful clarity and is distinctly attractive in this way. It is quite different from the practice in most of the Reformed churches, let alone the evangelical churches, where the concept of office is much less clear. Where is the authority in the Reformed churches located? Officially the authority is located in the consistory, with the elders and deacons. But is that true? Perhaps this was the case in some former era when we had elders who knew the confession of the church, and who were immersed in the Bible. In the Netherlands, however, that is now only so for some churches. Might authority in fact be located in one charismatic pastor, as in many free churches and neo-pentecostal churches, or is it found in the committee that takes care of the church’s financial affairs? Some Reformed theologians have become more sympathetic to an episcopal model. In his book on the church, Abraham van de Beek rightly states that biblically, the idea of an office already existed before there was a credo or creed.8 This was even so before there was the Bible as canon. There was a church, and there were bishops long before there were canon and creed. In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the people are summoned to listen to their bishop. It should also be the cause that for the Reformed churches, the office is given by God as a gegenüber (opposite) of the congregation. 6 ‘[S]ubiectum supremae ac plenae potestatis in universam Ecclesiam existit.’ Lumen Gentium, 22. 7 ‘Romanus pontifex, ut successor Petri, est unitatis, tum Episcoporum tum fidelium multitudinis, perpetuum ac visibile principium et fundamentum.’ Lumen Gentium, 23. 8 Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 197.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Why not Join the Roman Catholic Church?

269

One of the central issues at hand is the representation of Christ. Does the minister represent Christ when he delivers a sermon, or when he ministers the Holy Supper? Barthian theologians mostly deeply disagree. van de Beek agrees with the position that the representation of Christ stands at the very core of the office. In his view, however, it is not only the person of the office bearer, which is important, but the ministry of the Word and the Sacrament, that belong indissolubly together.9 In the Heidelberg Catechism this authority is connected to discipline and access to the eucharist.10 In light of this, van de Beek argues for a retrieval and reassessment of the office of the bishop. This works to the disadvantage of the other elders and deacons. In his view, in the Reformed tradition, the elder and the deacon are an attempt to maintain the corpus Christianum in a changing early modern culture. Nowadays, he argues, the office of elder has been hollowed out.11 He argues for a conciliar-presbyterial-episcopal model: people with a personal responsibility, who work with others to keep the church close to Christ.12 7

Objectivity of Grace

It may be, of course, that the aforementioned reasons for joining the Roman Catholic Church are nonetheless non-essential, and that we must proceed to more serious reasons that might convince us that the Reformation was an emergency measure that had its time, and is no longer needed. In this context, there is a serious theological reason that should be reconsidered: the Church’s confession that God has revealed himself in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. As the fulfillment of the promises given to Israel, he is the last and final word, by whom God realized the covenant. He is the second Adam, around whom a new community is gathered. Jesus Christ, the Son, is the gift of God to his world. Him we confess. Jesus Christ is not an idea or a concept. In his humanity, he is rather the objective Gift in which all the treasures of God’s grace are stored. It is this gift that He promised to give us when the Christian church celebrates Holy Communion, the Holy Supper or Eucharist or however else it might be named. He is truly present by the power of the Holy Spirit. Crucial is here a real presence of the Living Lord (praesentia realis). As is well known, the question of whether Reformed theologians do indeed hold to the 9 10 11 12

Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 206–208. Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 83. Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 244. Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 246.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

270

van der Kooi

presentia realis or in fact embrace a kind of symbolism has been a longstanding debate between Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians. Alongside John W. Nevin in the 19th century, and with other scholars in our age, we must say that Calvin expressed his own views on this in different ways, depending on his particular interlocutors. However, there is also good reason to say that in a happy way, he was unsure on this point. Sometimes, he seems to lean towards Zurich, and sometimes to Wittenberg.13 In my own opinion he was more catholic in his experience in that he believed himself to be in the presence of the power (virtus) of the eternal life that springs from Jesus Christ as the fountain of God’s grace. It was not clear to him how the distance between us and Christ in heaven is bridged, but the least that must be said is that the Holy Spirit is the one who bridges this gap. Here, grace is exposed to the senses. There is still an objectivity, of course, which is mediated by the Holy Spirit and therefore spiritualiter, but nevertheless, it is exposed to the objectivity of the Holy Spirit. Recently Frank Ewerszumrode concluded in a careful evaluation that in his own way, Calvin defended what the doctrine of transubstantiation wanted to say in a different conceptuality.14 Or do we find here, exactly as to the question of objectivity, that this objectivity is flawed? In Calvin’s thought grace is received by faith. If there is no faith, no hands stretched out to receive in humbleness, then nothing is received. Bread and wine left over from the Holy Supper mean nothing. There is no reservatio of the body of Christ, no tabernacle in which the holy bread and wine are held. Is the Reformed position ultimately flawed and spoiled by a kind of subjective twist, by subjectivism, that makes the reception of grace dependent on the human subject? That accusation is the concern of many Catholic theologians. What is the objectivity of the grace given to us? The Roman Catholic Church’s strong emphasis on the visibility of God’s grace is certainly one of the attractive characteristics of its religious practices. This is reflected and conceptualized in the teaching of the Church. And yet, we must ask whether this is the very reason that one should not join the Catholic Church. The fullness of God’s divinity was living in Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. In the encyclycal 13 14

W. Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology: Three Dogma-Historical Observations,” in H.J. Selderhuis, ed., Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2008), 37–69. Frank Ewerszumrode OP, Mysterium Christi spiritualis praesentiae. Die Abendmahlslehre des Genfer Reformators Johannes Calvin aus römisch-katholischer Perspektive (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2012), 273. See also H.A. Speelman’s “Introduction” in his translation of Calvin’s Petite Traité de la Sainte Cène: Een met Christus. Een klein traktaat over het heilig avondmaal (Kampen: Brevier 2016).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Why not Join the Roman Catholic Church?

271

Divinum illud munus by Leo XIII (1897), we find this formulated in words so clear that they prevent all misapprehension: “In that way the final promise of Christ to his apostles to send his Spirit came through, who by his breath completed the received doctrine and, so to say, sealed the deposit,”15 and this outpouring of the Spirit will have as its result that the Church “will never be obnoxious to any mistake”.16 Thus the church is a divine work, an “opus plane divinum”. Christ is the Head of the Church and the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church. This strong connection to the institution of the church was given a slight twist in Vatican II, when some words in the original text of Lumen Gentium were changed. Originally it stated that the Church of Christ on earth is identical with the catholic church (est). In the final version, however, this was changed to the famous formula: “haec ecclesia … subsistit in Ecclesia catholica”.17 That means at least that there is differentiation, although definitely not a separation of the two. The comparison with body and soul is made. Berkouwer remarks that in this way there is at least some openness for the acknowledgment of the gifts of the Spirit in other Christian faith communities. Nevertheless, it remains true that according to Lumen Gentium, the Church of Rome is the most perfect realization of the Church of Christ on earth, and the Protestant churches will never be more that imperfect realizations of it.18 Once more, the visibility of the pope’s position as the Head of the Church of Christ on earth is emphasized and made concrete in Lumen Gentium, which clearly states that the order of bishops has authority, but only together with the bishop of Rome, as vicarius Christi, and that the pope has the supreme and universal authority, which he can always freely exercise. The decisions the first Vatican Council, in which the primacy of the pope was articulated in terms of infallibility, were confirmed.

15

16 17 18

“Divinum illud munus” in H. Denzinger, Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen (Freiburg im Breisgau/Basel/Rom/Wien: Herder 199137), 907, par. 3328: “Ita plane eveniebat illud extremum Christi ad Apostolus suos promissum de Spiritu Sancto mittendo, qui doctrinae, ipso afflante, traditae completurus ipse esset et quodammodo obsignaturus depositum”. Denzinger, 908 (3328): “ut ipsa ne ulli unquam errori obnoxia sit”. Lumen Gentium, 8, see Denzinger, 1964. G.C. Berkouwer, Vaticaans concilie en nieuwe theologie (Kampen: Kok 1965), 92. See Lumen Gentium, 8, where it is said that Christ his holy church “ut compaginem visibilem constituit”. As to the churches of the Reformation no more can be said that “extra eius compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniantur, quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria, ad unitatem catholicam impellunt”.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

272

van der Kooi

Why not join the Roman Catholic Church? As has been noted, van de Beek in particular has argued that the Reformed Churches should reconsider their views on ecclesiastical office, arguing that the church needs an office that holds the responsibility for maintaining the community with Christ. This would indeed include a hierarchical structure, which, notably, was also John Calvin’s opinion. Ultimately, the minister is the episcopus. However, it must be said that by removing both the bishop and the worldly power of the duke of Savoy in Geneva, the monarchical model was replaced by a system in which in principle, the community of elders and pastors assumed responsibility and together replaced the bishop. van de Beek observes that at no point in Scripture or the early church did Peter have the decisive position that has grown across history in the primacy of the See of Rome. He concludes that the institution that is the papacy should not be a hindrance for the unity of the church. The official structure is not a case for the status confessionis. The worldwide church, he argues, could be able to include the unity of that church and the leading of Rome.19 He pleads for the reinstallment of an episcopal structure, arguing that it would then be possible for the Church of Rome to adopt a coordinating function. However, such a step makes only sense when it is done by a church as a whole. 8

Why not Join the Roman Catholic Church?

The most important historical reason for the Reformation was the state of the church: the authority of the office, and the episcopacy were spoiled by abuse of that power. The access to Christ and his grace were blocked. To what degree, if any, is this reproach still viable? Particularly in the orbit of Barthian theology, frequent warnings are heard regarding a theology in which the Holy Spirit is claimed by the office bearer or by the church. Such a theology leads to an abuse of authority and power that does not bring to Christ, but rather serves as a barrier. A high view of the office always runs the risk that the name of Christ might be spoiled and become a source of derision due to the behavior of the servants of the church. And yet, the servants of the church remain human beings. The Holy Spirit is never the possession of office bearers or the church. We must pray to be filled with the Holy Spirit, time and time again.

19

Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 259. Much could and should be said when we would engage in the exegesis of Petrine texts like Mat. 16.18–19, John 21.15–19, Mat. 28.16–20. However, this is a task that is beyond the scope of this tentative contribution.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Why not Join the Roman Catholic Church?

273

At this point I come to my question: at their ordination, ministers receive a blessing which means that they live and work under the promise of the Holy Spirit. The objectivity pertaining to this is the objectivity of the promise and work of the Holy Spirit. But this Spirit will never become a possession of the priest or minister; the promise remains just that, and its fulfillment continues to stand under the command to obey Christ, who is the one and real Head of the church. His servants on earth are human beings. They have their own biases, and are vulnerable to disobedience and sin. We have a promise, we receive blessings, and even have people with a special command and task (and therefore, a distinct authority), but they are not the only ones who live under the Holy Spirit’s promise. This could and should be taken far more seriously than it is nowadays in most Protestant churches. When the consistory has to function as a kind of episcopacy, then the censura morum and the mutual visitation between congregations should be installed as real counseling. It is even advisable to take the episcopal model more seriously, in view of how local churches sometimes suffer from situations in which problems were concealed and surface too late. Can we locate and objectify the Holy Spirit in the way the Roman Catholic Church has done in its view on office? As a final remark I offer a question posed by Karl Barth when he was invited to Vatican II. In a meeting with other prelates, Joseph Ratzinger spoke on the church. He spoke for a considerable time and in wondrous ways about the church. After a while, however, Barth responded: “We Protestants are utterly poor when standing alongside this wealth. But why did you not speak until now, at least not explicitly, on the Holy Spirit? And for what reason does the tradition assume such a dominating role for the Roman Catholic Church? Does this somehow stem from fear of the Holy Spirit? My dear Herr Ratzinger, might it be that your church is in fact is on the run from the Holy Spirit?”20 Eberhard Busch recounts that this question was simultaneously embarrassing and consequential enough not to be ignored. Bibliography Aalbers, B.J. and Nissen, P. (eds). (2002). de bisschop, kerkscheidend of kerkverenigend? Delft: Eburon. Berkouwer, G.C. (1965). Vaticaans concilie en nieuwe theologie. Kampen: Kok. Busch, E. (2011). Meine Zeit mit Karl Barth. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Cameron, E. (1991). The European Reformation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 20

E. Busch, Meine Zeit mit Karl Barth (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 230.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

274

van der Kooi

Denzinger, H. (199137). Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Freiburg im Breisgau/Basel/Rom/Wien: Herder. Echeverria, E. (2010). Dialogue of Love. Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic Ecumenist. Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Ewerszumrode, F. OP. (2012). Mysterium Christi spiritualis praesentiae. Die Abendmahlslehre des Genfer Reformators Johannes Calvin aus römisch-katholischer Perspektive. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ganoczy, A. (1987). The Young Calvin. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Gosker, M. (2000). Het ambt in de oecumenische discussie. de betekenis van de Lima-Ambtstekst voor de voortgang van de oecumene en de doorwerking in de Nederlandse SOW-kerken. Delft: Eburon. Janse, W. (2008). “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology. Three Dogma-Historical Observations” in: H.J. Selderhuis (ed.). Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres. Paper of the International Congress on Calvin Research. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kronenburg, J. (2003). Episcopus Oecumenicus: bouwsteen voor een theologie van het bisschopsambt in een verenigde reformatorische kerk. Zoetermeer: Meinema. Newman, J.H. (1864). Apologia pro vita sua. London: Longman, Green. Speelman, H.A. (ed.). (2016). Een met Christus. Een klein traktaat over het heilig avondmaal, Kampen: Brevier. Van de Beek, A. (2012) Lichaam en Geest van Christus. de theologie van de kerk en de Heilige Geest. Zoetermeer: Meinema. van der Borght, E. (2000). Het ambt her-dacht. de gereformeerde ambtstheologie in het licht van het rapport Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Lima 1982) van de theologische commissie Faith and Order van de Wereldraad van Kerken. Zoetermeer: Meinema.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Chapter 15

Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination” Richard J. Mouw My first experience in the study of Philosophy occurred in July of 1959, when I enrolled in an Ethics course at a Catholic university. I was living at home in New Jersey on a summer break from my regular undergraduate college studies, and working fulltime in a factory. My work was boring, and I was eager to find some intellectual stimulation, so I decided to take an evening course offered by the Philosophy Department at Seton Hall University. In one sense, the class sessions did little to relieve the tedium of those summer days. The lectures followed the standard Catholic pattern of that era. The professor, a devout traditional Catholic philosopher, began each class period with the “Hail Mary” and then he proceeded to take us paragraph by paragraph through a 562 page text book that had been published quite recently: Man as Man: the Science and Art of Ethics, authored by Rev. Thomas J. Higgins, SJ. A page at the beginning of the book featured an Inprimi Potest, a Nihil Obstat, and an Imprimatur, each issued by a high-level church authority. A typical chapter consisted of numbered paragraphs, where a “Thesis” would be set forth, followed by various “Proofs.” In retrospect, though, I cherish the experience afforded by that course. This was three years before the convening of the Second Vatican Council, which meant that I was able to witness first hand the way in which Catholic philosophical education was conducted just prior to the Council’s far-reaching reforms. I was sure that I was the only Protestant student in the class, and I made no effort to raise critical questions in the limited time given to class discussion. On one occasion, however, I departed from this pattern. The seventeenth chapter of Father Higgins’ book dealt with ethical issues regarding the possession of property. The author—and our professor in his exposition of the textbook—pointed to medieval society as “a completely articulated, integrated society, teleologically organized upon the basis that all human action was to be directed toward an otherworldly aim, namely, the individual’s attainment of

© Richard J. Mouw, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004546080_016 - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

276

Mouw

eternal happiness,” with the guilds playing an important role in maintain this measure of social harmony.1 This societal pattern came to be disrupted, though, by several “cleavages,” the first of them occurring “as the logical result of Calvinism.” Here is the author’s account of the thinking that led to that initial disruption of medieval economic life: According to Calvin, one was either predestined by God to salvation from all eternity or one was marked for damnation. Nothing a man might do could alter this immutable decree. But how could one tell if he were among the saved? The Calvinist sternly and uncompromisingly answered: only by membership in the Calvinistic Church. Since, then, the Calvinist was predestined and the prime business of life secure for him, he need not worry about salvation but could turn his energy to something else. That something happened to be the making of money. Thus, by the end of the nineteenth century the idea that the possession of money is the criterion of the successful life had supplanted for too many individuals the older view that until one’s last breath one must work out his salvation in fear and trembling.2 While I would have called myself a Calvinist in those teenage years, I had not yet encountered neo-Calvinism, so I had no clear thoughts about how a Calvinist should understand such things as work, calling and profiteering. I did sense, however, that there was something very wrong with that Jesuit’s account of the Reformed tradition that had nurtured me spiritually. Furthermore, I was not particularly attracted to the Catholic alternative to which I was being exposed in that course. Father Higgins’ ideal economic order was that of the medieval period, but he seemed to have a difficult time making even that societal arrangement exciting. About the best he could say for it was that “[m]edieval society, as effectively as human weakness can, kept men’s acquisitive instincts from running wild.”3 And in framing the subject-matter of Christian ethics in general at the beginning of his book he informed his readers that our bodies have nothing essential to offer to our “essential beatitude”—although it is

1 Thomas J. Higgins, SJ, Man as Man: The Science and Art of Ethics (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1958), 277–278. 2 Higgins, Man as Man, 279. 3 Higgins, Man as Man, 277.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination”

277

possible, he allowed, to “enjoy minor blessings” while our souls are inhabiting our bodies.4 Nor was the perspective that Higgins was setting forth a serious distortion of the spirit of the recent Catholic teachings that he meant to be articulating. Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, issued about a half-century before Father Higgins published his book—and while, admittedly, containing much wisdom about the meaning of our work as Christians—nonetheless set the stage by informing us that “when we have given up this present life, then shall we really begin to live. God has not created us for the perishable and transitory things of earth... He has given us this world as a place of exile.”5 These not so subtle Catholic instances of de-valuing our life within God’s creation have given way in more recent decades to a much more upbeat view of our lives as embodied human beings. The 1965 Vatican II decree Apostolicam Actuositatem, “The Apostolate of the Laity,” while not denying—and rightly so—the glories that are to come for humankind in the eschaton, nonetheless depicts this present life in more attractive terms than was typical of the Catholic past. It celebrates the “intrinsic value” of “[a]ll those things which make up the temporal order,” listing “family, culture, economic matters, the arts and professions, the laws of the political community, international relations, and other matters of this kind.” The document sees the value of these aspects of human life as deriving from the Genesis account that “God saw that all He had made was very good” (Gen. 1.31), and it describes these areas of creaturely engagement as having “a special dignity as a result of their relation to the human person, for whose service they were created” by the One who was pleased “to unite all things, both natural and supernatural, in Christ Jesus ‘so that in all things He may have the first place’ (Col. 1.18).”6 That celebration of God’s intention “to unite all things, both natural and supernatural, in Christ Jesus” is obviously one in which we neo-Calvinists can share. But many Catholic thinkers these days exhibit a genuine reluctance to allow us to participate in the celebration. A number of them have been taking the “all things in Christ” affirmation in new directions, and in the process they frequently make unfavorable comparisons of their efforts to Reformation thought—and on more than one occasion to Calvinism in particular. 4 Higgins, Man as Man, 25. 5 Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/doc uments/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html, section 21. 6 Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, http://www.vatican.va /archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_decree_19651118_apostoli cam-actuositatem_en.html, section 7

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

278

Mouw

Take the case of the late Father Andrew Greeley, a sociologist who also doubled as a best-selling novelist. In his book, The Catholic Imagination, published in 2000, Greeley pays considerable attention to sexual passion—likely motivated, at least in part, by the need to offer a rationale for the frequent erotic passages in his own fiction. One example discussed by Greeley from the world of film is Lars von Trier’s Breaking the Waves. Bess, the film’s heroine, Greeley tells us, lives in “dour” Scottish Presbyterian community whose “Calvinist congregation [is] so suspicious of sacraments that it has removed bells from the bell tower of its church.” When Bess experiences a “powerful pleasure in sexual love” with her husband, Greeley reports, “she thanks God, who seems, in a grudging Calvinist way, to approve of her passion.”7 Greeley’s negative depiction of Calvinism here has to do with more than his opinion that Calvinists do not look kindly on the enjoyment of sexual passion. The issue goes deeper for him. He sees Catholicism’s rich theology of the sacraments as grounded in a larger sacramentalist view of reality, in which creation itself is characterized by a divine “real presence.” And the basic problem with Reformation theology is its failure to recognize this kind of divine “nearness” to created reality. Greeley dedicated his book to the theologian David Tracy—“theologian of the Enchanted Imagination”—and Greeley makes his case regarding the way Reformation theology inhibits the artistic impulse by citing the contrast, drawn in Tracy’s book Analogical Imagination, between Catholic and Reformation depictions of God’s relationship to the created order: Tracy noted that the classic works of Catholic theologians and artists tend to emphasize the presence of God in the world, while the classic works of Protestant theologians tend to emphasize the absence of God from the world. The Catholic writers stress the nearness of God to His creation, the Protestant writers the distance between God and His creation; the Protestants emphasize the risk of superstition and idolatry, the Catholics the dangers of a creation in which God is only marginally present.8 Needless to say, not all Protestants would want to locate themselves on the Reformation side of the divide as portrayed by Tracy and Greeley. C.S. Lewis is one case in point. He too wants a world in which the finite and the infinite are more intimately linked. And like Greeley, he also sees Calvinism as presenting serious obstacles to this sense of intimacy. 7 Andrew Greeley, The Catholic Imagination (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 163. 8 Greeley, Catholic Imagination, 5.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination”

279

In his book Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, Lewis rehearses the points of an argument he has been having with his fictional friend Malcolm about the relationship between our rather ordinary experiences of pleasure and the kind of glory that we will experience in Heaven. He chides Malcolm for failing to recognize that even the most frivolous sorts of pleasures can function as “shafts of the [future] glory.” If, in the midst of the very ordinary preoccupations of our daily lives, says Lewis, we are to get any hint of what awaits us in heaven, we have to look to those daily “activities which, for us here and now, are frivolous.”9 And here is where Lewis’s anti-Calvinism surfaces. He reports to Malcolm that he had recently been reading Puritan writers, and he was reminded of how disagreeable he finds them. He goes on to offer examples of Calvinists who talk about the consistently evil contents of their inner lives—one of them even says, he reports, that in the deep places of his soul he sees nothing but “the Filth of a Dungeon.” Of course, C.S. Lewis is not meaning to offer an endorsement of all that goes on in our inner lives. He admits that when he is looking into his own inner regions, he sometimes sees some pretty bad stuff. The problem he has with the Puritan writers he has been reading is not that they discover sin in their private fantasies. Rather, they turn what ought to be a periodic acknowledgement that our lives of pleasure are touched by sin into a way of life built on an ongoing disgust at the quite ordinary things that give us satisfaction. My motive for citing these criticisms of Reformation theology here is not so that I can launch into a detailed defense of the Calvinist understanding of God’s relationship to the creation. Rather, I want to explain why neo-Calvinists should take these expressed concerns seriously. The fact is that many of these critical comments directed against Calvinism are not unlike ones that many of us in the neo-Calvinist movement have also voiced about patterns that we see within our own Reformed ranks. We have critiqued, for example, a stark “bodysoul dualism” that has promoted the very kind of ambivalence about sexual pleasure that plagued Bess, the young wife in the von Trier film. And we have often made our way to the sacred spaces shaped by the traditions of Rome and Canterbury precisely because we have felt the need to be exposed, given the plain worshiping spaces of our own communities, to at least a little bit of what “the Catholic imagination” has to offer us by way of sacramentalist “mystery.” And—going back to my own teenage encounter with a certain brand of Jesuit ethics—I have to admit that I have subsequently met a few Calvinist capitalists 9 C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer (New York: Harcourt, Inc., 1964), 89.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

280

Mouw

along the way whose economic behaviors come uncomfortably close to the caricature of Calvinism set forth in Father Higgins’s textbook. As such, I approach this subject with a genuine desire to learn from the sacramentalist sensitivities that inform the views of Andrew Greeley and C.S. Lewis. I am convinced that we have much to gain by absorbing from their perspective insights and emphases that we can legitimately integrate into our neo-Calvinist framework. In order to do that, however, we do need to be clear about the non-negotiable differences that we have with this alternative perspective. Certainly, one of the non-negotiables is our Reformed insistence on the pervasiveness of human depravity. C.S. Lewis is right to observe that we Calvinists have gone out of our way to emphasize the desperate nature of our sinful condition. Because we are so convinced of the all-pervasive character of human sinfulness, we Calvinists have made it one of our special spiritual assignments to keep reminding other Christians that there is no dimension of our created life that does not afford a real—and often deceptively subtle—opportunity for rebellion against the will of God. In particular, then, while we have no problem admitting that the erotic aspect of our lives was a part of the creation that God originally called good, we also want to point to the real danger that under sinful conditions the erotic can also become a staging area for a violation of the Creator’s purposes. Our sexuality is one of the many aspects of fallen nature that needs to be redeemed. None of that means, however, that we cannot recognize what Lewis labels “shafts of the [future] glory” in, for example, the erotic dimensions of our present lives. There is an illustration that is regularly attributed to G.K. Chesterton that gets at this point in a provocative manner. It goes like this: the man who knocks on the door of a house of prostitution is looking for God. I discovered recently that while no one has been able to find that comment in Chesterton’s writings, it does show up in a piece by a lesser-known Catholic author.10 Wherever the illustration actually comes from, it is provocative in a helpful way. Obviously, the statement should not be taken as meaning that the man who approaches the house of prostitution hopes that God will be the one who greets him at the door. The real message is that people who are looking for ultimate fulfillment in the quest for sexual pleasure or wealth or power or any other element or aspect of creation will not find it in any of these things. The Westminster Shorter Catechism makes the point clearly: our chief end as human beings is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. Nothing brings genuine fulfillment to the human spirit except an obedient relationship with our 10

The likely source is Bruce Marshall, The World, The Flesh, and Father Smith (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1945).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination”

281

Creator, a point made memorably by Augustine in his well-known prayer at the beginning of his Confessions: “You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”11 This emphasis is grounded in the theological notion—a favorite of John Calvin’s—of a sensus divinitatis that the Creator has planted in all human consciousness. With appropriate nuances regarding the need to pay sufficient attention to human depravity, then, there is much that neo-Calvinism can absorb from the ways in which “the Catholic imagination” attends to the telos of human desires and yearnings. But there is still the larger question of divine “distance” from the creation. The typical entry point into these “distance” discussions on the part of Catholic theologians is a focus on the Incarnation. Father Bryan Hehir—a priest-theologian who has drafted some major documents on social teachings issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—starts at that point with reference to political engagement. The incarnation of Jesus Christ, he writes, has now been extended “in time and space,” with the result that creation has come to have a sacramental character. The church, then, knowing of the power of the Incarnation to “touch and transform” human reality, must call for the kind of political life that “carries the transforming grace of Christ in history.”12 This kind of understanding of what we might think of the Incarnation as an ongoing reality does not sit well with Reformed thought, for a variety of reasons. One obvious concern is the “Hegelian” twist given to it in some recent Catholic thought, where it is argued that the Incarnation had to happen, even if the Fall had not occurred. This is the view that the great Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner set forth when he argued that it is misguided to think of the Incarnate Christ “simply as someone who enters into our existence and its history from the outside, moves it a step further and also brings it to fulfillment in a certain sense, but then nevertheless leaves it behind.” No, said Rahner. The Incarnation brought about a new kind of unity between humanity and God, wherein “God brings about man’s self-transcendence into God,” resulting in “an irrevocable kind of unity between this human reality and God.”13

11 12 13

Augustine, Confessions. Translation by Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 3. J. Bryan Hehir, “Personal Faith, the Public Church, and the Role of Theology,” Harvard Divinity Bulletin, vol. 26 (1996), 5. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2002), 200–202.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

282

Mouw

The kind of objection that neo-Calvinism has to this view was nicely articulated by Klaas Schilder, who observed that there is something inherently disagreeable about the thought that God and the creation are so “infatuated with each other” that it was inevitable that they would merge in an ontological sense.14 At stake here is the emphasis, featured prominently in neo-Calvinist thought, on the unbridgeable “being” gap between Creator and creation. There is what we might think of as a non-negotiable “voluntarism” in neo-Calvinist—indeed in all of Calvinist—theology, such that we see the “attraction” between Creator and creation not as leading to an ontological change, but rather as a matter of God’s sovereign gracious willing. The triune God made a decision to create a world in which he, as the totaliter aliter, would take delight in all that he had made (Psalm 104.31). Human beings, in turn, were created to serve the Lord in obedience to his will, and the Fall was the result of—in the traditional terminology of Reformed theology—an “ethical rebellion,” a turning of the human will away from promoting the glory of God. But “God so loved the world” (John 3.16) that he chose to send the Son, the eternal Logos, into the world in order to restore a proper relationship between Creator and creation. For classical Reformed thought the Incarnation was essentially a rescue operation, a remedial project to restore God’s original design for humanity in particular and the cosmos in general. And this means that, strictly speaking, the incarnation began with the birth of the Savior in Bethlehem and ended, in its earthly phase, with the ascension of Christ into the heavens. I introduce the “strictly speaking” modifier here because there are obvious ways in which the Incarnation is a continuing reality for Reformed theology. One important sense is that Reformed thought does see the incarnation as a continuing reality in the heavenly realm. As Richard Muller has put it, “Reformed Christology has always insisted not only on the resurrection of Christ’s body but also on the heavenly location and finitude of Christ’s resurrected humanity. Christ now sits at the right hand of God and visibly rules the church triumphant.” The danger, then, of using language that portrays Christ as incarnationally with us in the present, Muller argues, is that “it detracts from the majesty of the doctrine of Christ’s kingship.”15 Thus the Heidelberg Catechism’s explanation that Christ is not “according to his human nature… now… 14 15

Klaas Schilder, Heidelbergsche Catechismus (Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1949), 2: 93; quoted by Jelle Faber, Essays in Reformed Doctrine (Neerlandia: Inheritance Publications, 1990), 51. Richard Muller, “How Many Points?,” Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 28, no. 2 (November 1993), 430.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination”

283

upon earth,” for he has taken our flesh to heaven with him as the ascended Lord, and it is from there that he presently reigns over all things “according to his Godhead, majesty, grace, and Spirit.”16 But there are also Reformed reasons not completely to abandon all talk of a continuing “earthly” incarnational presence of Christ. We all do—and we all should—speak about the church that is very visible to us in the here-and-now as Christ’s “Body.” Richard Muller is right to note that the ascended Christ “rules the church triumphant” from his heavenly throne. But Christ also rules presently over “the church militant,” that community of confessors of the Name that struggles toward the goals of his Kingdom amid its earthly surroundings. All of this, though, must be understood in terms of his ascended status as the sovereign Ruler who is both “in” and “among” us while preserving his mysterious other-ness as the One “who is, and who was, and who is to come” (Rev. 1.4). Contra Bryan Hehir, then, Christ is “here” not because his Incarnation has been ontologically extended “in time and place,” but in the sense that he chooses, as the risen and ascended Lord, to draw near to us. And this means in turn that the “volitional” character of the Reformed understanding of Christ’s continuing presence means that what others attribute to a continuing earthly incarnation, ontologically understood, Calvinism is disposed to treat in terms of forensic categories. A case in point: an important ethical approach in Catholic thought sees Christian service to the poor as motivated by the conviction that the incarnate Christ is in some mysterious manner “present” among poor and suffering humanity. When, for example, persons interviewing Mother Teresa would refer to her “activism” on behalf of the poor of Calcutta, she would quickly correct them, saying that her community, the Missionaries of Charity, was in fact a “contemplative” order. She and her sisters, she would explain, regularly contemplated the real presence of Jesus in the Mass, and having learned to recognize him there, they would go out onto the streets to find him in his “distressing disguise” among the poorest of the poor.17 There is obviously something spiritually attractive in this “Franciscan” type depiction of Jesus as a continuing presence among suffering humanity—so much so that many Christians from other traditions simply embrace this 16 17

The Heidelberg Catechism, Questions and Answers 47 and 49, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. III (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 322–323. Canons of Dort, Heads III and IV, art. 3, in Schaff, Creeds, Vol. III, 588 Jose Luis Gonzalez-Balada and Janet N. Playfoot, eds., My Life for the Poor: Mother Teresa of Calcutta (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 18.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

284

Mouw

perspective as the obvious way of understanding the well-known charge of the Lord himself in Matthew 25.40: “‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” And while Reformed Christians should certainly take that charge as seriously as Mother Teresa did, we need to avoid the insistence that this divine mandate is best understood in terms of a continuing incarnate presence of Christ among the poor. A consistent Reformed reading of the Matthew passage will resort to forensic categories. What the Lord is saying is that when a follower of Jesus offers nurture and comfort to, say, a dying leper on a Calcutta street, Jesus will count that act as an offering of obedience to his own Person. All of that is to make it clear that neo-Calvinists have several good reasons on theological grounds for resisting the ways that sacramentalism as a world­ view depicts the ontological “nearness” of God to the created order. None of these considerations, however, should keep us from admitting that the neo-Calvinists have some work to do on this subject of divine “distance.” The nature of the problem we must face—as well as the kind of solution we must work toward—is laid out nicely by Janice Knight, an English professor at the University of Chicago, in her 1994 book Orthodoxies in Massachusetts. Knight distinguishes between two schools of thought within the orthodox Calvinism of colonial New England. One view, represented by William Ames, depicts God as a distant sovereign before whom human beings must live in reverence in the presence of transcendent mystery. In this conception, a pattern of spirituality developed where the believer’s relationship to God was dominated by metaphors like master/servant and king/subject. To be sure, a “warmer” piety often showed up in this context, but always against the background that everything else had to be understood with reference to God as “an exacting lord” and a “demanding covenanter.”18 Knight finds a significant alternative within Puritanism to Ames’s conception of sovereign power as the primary attribute of God. She details the ways in which some American Puritans looked to Richard Sibbes, Ames’s contemporary in Old England, for their theological inspiration. The Sibbesians offered a Calvinist conception of God in whom mercy and not power was primary. Here was a clear alternative to the Amesian view of a deity to whom, as Knight puts it, “[t]he only bridge was the contractual covenant, not the personal Christ.”19 Sibbesian Calvinism never abandoned the deep conviction of divine sovereignty. What it did, though, was to downplay any notion of an arbitrary 18

Janice Knight, Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 78. 19 Knight, Orthodoxies, 77.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination”

285

sovereignty by stressing images of divine intimacy, as in Sibbes’s assurance that God, applies himself to us, and hath taken upon himself near relations, that he might be near us in goodness. He is a father, and everywhere to maintain us. He is a husband, and everywhere to help. He is a friend, and everywhere to comfort and counsel. So his love it is a near love. Therefore he has taken upon him the nearest relations, that we may never want [i.e., miss out on] God and the testimonies of his love.20 My own sense is that neo-Calvinists very much need a Sibbsean conception of divine nearness—a conception that does not abandon the ontology of Reformational thought, but, rather, makes much of the metaphors of divine “nearness” that are—as the Sibbseans realized—both biblically sound and compatible with the insistence of an unbridgeable ontological gap between Creator and creation. That such a theological adjustment is necessary specifically for the neoCalvinist movement was brought home nicely for me by a remark made by Professor Henk Geertsema several years ago at a conference of the Vereening­ ing voor Reformatorische Wijsbegeerte. Geertsema observed that the wetsidee philosophical strand of neo-Calvinism has typically depicted the created order as characterized by a pervasive law-structure, such that law is the very means by which God creates and sustains the cosmos. This fosters the notion, Geertsema said, that we never encounter God directly—what we encounter is God’s “law-ing.” And this leads, Geertsema argued, to a denial of the opportunity to engage in “I-Thou” relationships with our Maker. Abraham Kuyper would certainly have endorsed the kind of profound sense of divine nearness that Geertsema was commending. To make the obvious point, Kuyper’s best known collection of meditations has the title, Nabij God te Zijn, in English, To be Near Unto God,21 a phrase taken from Psalm 73.28: “But as for me, it is good to be near God.” But there is also a Kuyperian insight relevant here regarding the question of ontological distance. Kuyper’s American disciple Geerhardus Vos, longtime professor at Princeton Seminary, argued at length that it is presently the role of the Holy Spirit, not only to bring redeemed individuals along in the process 20 21

Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes (Edinburgh: J. Nichol, 1862–1864), 4:196; quoted by Knight, Orthodoxies, 83. Abraham Kuyper, To be Near unto God. Transl. John Hendrick de Vries (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1979).

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

286

Mouw

of sanctification, but to work within the entire creation, preparing it for the glorified creation that is to come,22 a point also made by Kuyper himself: “the work of the Holy Spirit consists in leading all creation to its destiny, the final purpose of which is the glory of God.”23 That intra-Trinitarian distribution of labor is quite consistent with classical Reformed theology. God’s totaliter aliter relationship is preserved. The earthly Incarnation of the Son is held within temporal bonds. And the Spirit is the immanent presence of God in the creation, joining the whole cosmos to the Triune God even as the Spirit also joins the believing community in particular to fellowship with the living God in Christ. Neo-Calvinism, then, seems to have a perfectly adequate framework for accounting for what defenders of “the Catholic imagination” claim for their own perspective. We noted earlier that Bryan Hehir sees the earthly Incarnation of Christ as having been expanded “in time and space,” so that it can now “touch and transform” human reality, allowing the believing community to bear witness to the way in which the continuing Incarnation “carries the transforming grace of Christ in history.” We neo-Calvinists can certainly find functionally equivalent ways of making similar points in pneumatological terms. Christ has commissioned the Spirit to join Christ’s heavenly rule to the transforming grace at work on the earth, as all creation anticipates the newness of the eschaton. But, we must ask the important question: does this really allow Calvinists to possess, in its own terms, all that is claimed for “the Catholic imagination”? It is interesting to focus on this question by looking at two examples of persons who have moved toward the Catholic outlook precisely because they believe that Protestantism is intrinsically defective in this regard, especially with reference to the artistic imagination. One such person is Christian Wiman, a well-known poet who served for ten years as the editor of the prestigious magazine Poetry. Wiman had abandoned the Christian convictions of his Southern Baptist upbringing when he became an adult, but he recently experienced a profound spiritual renewal. In reflecting on the relationship of his faith to his artistic endeavors, Wiman observed in a recent interview in a Catholic periodical that when believers engage in serious creative art, their work “tends to become more Catholic.” The reason 22 23

Geerhardus Vos, “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit,” in Biblical and Theological Studies, edited by the members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 209–259. Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit. Transl. Henri de Vries (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1900), 22.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination”

287

for this, he says, is that “Catholicism takes the sacralization of matter seriously,” whereas the Protestant outlook, by way of contrast, “is allergic to mysticism, because it thinks of God as absolutely beyond.”24 A similar point has been made by the evangelical-turned-Catholic writer Thomas Howard, who has argued that genuinely Christian creative writing is typically produced by writers from “a highly sacramentalist posture.” This is because, Howard insists, “[y]ou cannot ordinarily get literature like theirs from the radically verbalist, propositionalist, discursive religion of the Reformation.” It is simply the case, he says, that “the decree-oriented, non-sacramentalist cast of Reformed theology can never find shape in mythic terms.”25 We could, of course, play a name-game here. Do writers shaped by Calvinism—John Milton, George McDonald, and Walter Scott, from the past, and such contemporaries as Frederick Buechner and Marilyn Robinson— really deserve to be deemed as having less of a creative imagination than, say, Dante, Chesterton, Tolkien and Graham Greene? That would likely be a contest Calvinism would finally lose if the citing of examples went on at length. Rome and Florence, to cite two obvious examples, are cities that breathe “the Catholic imagination.” Is there any comparable Calvinist center? Perhaps Amsterdam—but even there we would need to point, for example, to Protestant buildings inherited from the Catholic past. But the more basic issue is this. Calvinism, at least in its neo-Calvinist convictions regarding the cultural development of the creation, can account in positive theological terms for Rome and Florence—and also for exquisite Chinese “eggshell” pottery created a millennium and a half before Christ, and for the “polyrhythmic” dances of Sub-Saharan Africa. That Calvinism has actually inspired much less creative art than Catholicism is a matter of historic record. That neo-Calvinism, on the other hand, is capable of fostering a more robust “Calvinist imagination” is a plausible hypothesis about future cultural developments. There is no theological reason what a neo-Calvinist could not create a film depicting a young Calvinist wife, Bess, who enjoys her love-making with her husband—not in spite of, but because she believes in the deep places of her being that the Lord of all creation wants husband and wife to exclaim in delight to each other: “flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone.” The kind of “Calvinist imagination” that can inspire that kind of film can celebrate the mythical, the mysterious and the mystical. We have the resources, in 24 25

Anthony Domestico, “‘Being Prepared for Joy’: An Interview with Christian Wiman,” Commonweal, Vol. 141, No. 8 (May 2, 2014),15. Thomas Howard, “The Cult of C.S. Lewis,” Crisis, vol. 12, no. 7 (July–August 1994), 33.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

288

Mouw

our own doctrine of common grace, for discerning the workings of the Spirit of God far beyond the boundaries of the church. And a good start toward drawing upon those resources is repentance for the ways in which we have fallen short in our explorations of the divine mysteries. C.S. Lewis observed in The Weight of Glory that typically the problem with our human quests for satisfaction is not that our ordinary desires are too strong, but that they are too weak. Too often, he says, we are like a child who is content to stay in a slum making mud pies rather than grabbing at the chance to go to the sea shore. Thus, Lewis tells us, we are victimized by a lack of spiritual imagination, with the result that “[w]e are far too easily pleased” in our fundamental quest for meaning. 26 The problem for many of us in the Calvinist tradition is that we have seen ourselves as limited in our present lives to the making of mud pies. Sometimes, of course, the mud pies are necessary. But we do need to cultivate the imagination that looks beyond them, probing the deeper yearnings of the human spirit, with a vision of the seashore. Toward the very end of the Second Vatican Council, the gathered bishops released a wonderful document entitled Gaudium et Spes. The document began with words that would certainly serve nicely also as a preface to a declaration of “a Calvinist imagination”: The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the [people] of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in [our Christian] hearts.27 Bibliography Augustine (1991). Confessions. Translation by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Domestico, A. (2014). “‘Being Prepared for Joy’: An Interview with Christian Wiman.” Commonweal, Vol. 141, No. 8 (May 2), 15. Faber, J. (1990). Essays in Reformed Doctrine (Neerlandia: Inheritance Publications, 1990). Gaudium et Spes, Promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, on December 7, 1965. Gonzalez-Balada, J.L. and Playfoot, J.N. (eds.). (1985). My Life for the Poor: Mother Teresa of Calcutta. San Francisco: Harper and Row. 26 27

C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 1–2. Gaudium et Spes, Promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, on December 7, 1965.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Neo-Calvinism and “the Catholic Imagination”

289

Greeley, A. (2001). The Catholic Imagination. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hehir, J.B. (1996). “Personal Faith, the Public Church, and the Role of Theology.” Harvard Divinity Bulletin, vol. 26: 4–5 Higgins, T. SJ. (1958). Man as Man: The Science and Art of Ethics. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company. Howard, T. (1994). “The Cult of C.S. Lewis.” Crisis, vol. 12, no. 7 (July–August), 33. Knight, J. (1994). Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kuyper, A. (1979). To be Near unto God. J.H. de Vries (tr.). Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Kuyper, A. (1900). The Work of the Holy Spirit, H. de Vries (tr.). New York: Funk and Wagnalls. Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/ documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html Lewis, C.S. (1965), The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lewis, C.S. (1964). Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer. New York: Harcourt, Inc. Marshall, B. (1945) The World, The Flesh, and Father Smith. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Muller, R. (1993). “How Many Points?.” Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 28, no. 2: 425–33. Rahner, K. (2002). Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. New York: Crossroad Publishing. Schaff, P. (1996). The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. III. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Schilder, K. (1949). Heidelbergsche Catechismus. Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre. Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, http://www.vatican .va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_decree_19651118 _apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html Sibbes, R. (1862–64). The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes. Edinburgh: J. Nichol. Vos, G. (1912). “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit.” In: Biblical and Theological Studies. Edited by the members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 209–259.

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

Index of Names Aalders, George Ch. 34, 82, 84 Aalders, Maarten J. 29 Althusius, Johannes 184 Andrew, Christopher 223 Ambrose 125 Ames, William 284 Augustine 24, 53, 201, 203, 205, 239, 281 Aquinas, Thomas 6, 8, 48, 49, 72, 74, 80, 114–119, 121–123, 127, 153, 154, 182, 190, 226, 255, 258 Aristotle 16, 74, 124, 185, 187, 190, 254–257, 260, 273 Bak, Peter 222 Bär, Ronald 264 Barth, Karl 16, 49, 222, 256, 273 Bauckham, Richard 175 Bavinck, Herman 3, 7–13, 23, 25–30, 33, 36, 38–40, 46–61, 69, 72, 75–79, 94, 96, 99, 102, 105, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120–122, 124–131, 140, 141, 162–166, 170–172, 174, 175, 178, 179, 188, 225, 243, 254, 266 Beek, Abraham van de 268, 269, 272 Bekkum, Koert van 10 Belt, Henk van den 41, 47–49, 55, 56 Benedict XV, Pope 29, 30 Benedict XVI, Pope See Ratzinger, Joseph Berger, Peter 173 Berkhof, Hendrikus 94, 114, 115 Berkouwer, Gerrit Cornelis 9–13, 23, 30–33, 40, 94–111, 134, 135, 137–145, 147, 148, 151, 153–155, 253, 259, 266, 271 Beysens, J.Th. 71, 76, 79, 80 Boniface VIII, Pope 229 Borgman, Erik 226 Brandom, Robert 242 Bremmer, Rolf H. 8, 12, 47, 49, 114, 115, 117 Brink, Gijsbert van den 10–12 Brock, Cory 10, 12 Brueggemann, Walter 186 Buechner, Frederick 287 Busch, Eberhard 273 Burger, Hans 10, 11

Burke, Edmund 184 Calvin, John 2, 6, 100, 128, 210, 263, 264, 270, 276 Carnegie, Andrew 221 Carnell, E.J. 258 Caroli, Pierre 264 Cavanaugh, William 14, 198, 200–206, 212–216 Chesterton, G.K. 280, 287 Chirico, Leonardo De 10, 15, 16 Chrysostom 125 Clark, Gordon 258 Clement of Alexandria 125 Congar, Yves 142, 189, 190 Covolo, Robert S. 10 Dalmau, J. 122 Dante, Alighieri 287 Darwin, Charles 77, 110 De Pree, Max 173 Descartes, René 120 Deursen, Arie Th. van 105 Dooyeweerd, H. 47, 68, 84, 115, 138, 139, 185, 188, 243, 251, 258 Dorlodot, Henry de 80, 81 Driel, C.M. van 41 Drucker, Peter 161, 173 Duns Scotus, John 115, 117, 240 Echeverria, Eduardo 10, 12, 13, 58, 265 Eck, Johann 263 Eglinton, James 47, 125, 126, 131 Ewerszumrode, Frank 270 Farel, Guillaume 264 Flipse, Abraham C. 10, 11, 93 Fraine, J.G.F.L. de 36 Francis, Pope 67, 241, 266 Gaay Fortman, J.P. de 78–80, 81, 83 Geelkerken, Johannes G. 12, 29, 30, 80, 81 Geertsema, Henk 285

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

292 Geesink, W. 23 Geisler, Norman 258 Gelderen, C. van 29 Giberson, Karl 67, 68 Gilson, Étienne 117, 141, 148, 153 Gingrich, Newt 265 Gispen, Willem H. 34 Gollwitzer, Helmut 224 Goor, A.C.J. van 78–81, 83 Goudzwaard, Bob 14, 172, 198, 200, 207–216 Greeley, Andrew 278, 280 Greene, Graham 265, 287 Gregory XVI, Pope 23 Griffioen, Sander 186 Groot, J.V. de 71 Guinness, Os 258 Günther, A. 120, 129 Habermas, Jürgen 186, 235 Haeckel, Ernst 73, 75 Hartmann, Eduard von 48 Hegel, G.W.F. 193 Hehir, Brian 281, 283, 286 Heideman, E.P. 47 Henry, Carl 258 Hepp, V. 82, 84 Heppe, Heinrich 100 Hermes, Georg 120, 129 Higgins, Thomas J. 275–277, 280 Hirscher, Johann Baptist von 120, 123 Hittinger, Russell 192 Hocedez, Edward 119 Hodge, Charles 94 Holmes, Arthur 258 Houtin, Albert 24 Houtman, Cees 36, 60 Howard, Thomas 287 Huxley, Thomas 73 John XXIII, Pope 94, 136, 137, 145, 183 John of Damascus 125 John Paul II, Pope 22, 67, 124, 139, 144, 165, 166, 171, 175, 179, 183, 188, 192, 226 Kaemingk, Matthew 10, 14 Kant, Immanuel 16, 50, 254, 256, 257, 260 Kennedy, James 224 Kennedy, Philip 220

Index of Names Kersten, G.H. 4 Keulen, Dirk van 33, 50, 98 Kidner, Derek 178, 179 Kleutgen, Joseph 117–130 Kloes, Andrew 10 Kloosterman, Nelson 7 Knight, Janice 284 Kooi, Cornelis van der 10, 16 Koole, Jan Leunis 34–36 Korpel, Marjo C.A. 37–39 Koyzis, David 194, 195 Kristensen, W.B. 47 Kruyswijk, Hittjo 96 Kuenen, Abraham 25, 26 Kuitert, Harry 14, 219–221, 223–225 Küng, Hans 255, 256 Kuyper, Abraham 2–7, 9, 13–15, 48, 49, 50, 56, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75–77, 84, 94, 96, 97, 184, 188, 190, 191, 193, 207, 209, 219–221, 225–230, 254, 259, 285, 286 Kuyper, H.H. 23 Kwakkel, Gert 36 Lagrange, Marie-Joseph 24, 26, 28, 31, 34 Leo XIII, Pope 8, 22–26, 72, 74, 114, 116–120, 124, 130, 136, 161, 162, 166, 182–184, 190, 271, 277 Lettinga, Jan 34 Lever, Jan 83–86, 95–97, 99, 106, 107 Lewis, C.S. 278–280, 288 Liberatore, Matteo 114, 117, 130 Linde, H. van der 264 Loisy, Alfred 24, 25, 28 Lonergan, Bernard 137, 255 Lubac, Henri de 135, 141, 190 Lubbers, Ruud 223 Luther, Martin 100, 210, 263 Mackay, Aeneas 225 Maritain, Jacques 148, 152 Marlet, Michael J. 13, 134, 138–141 Mattson, Brian G. 12, 47 Mays, James 178 McCool, Gerald 118, 121, 123 McCready Price, George 82 McDonald, George 287 McInery, Ralph 124 Meisner, Joachim 226

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

293

Index of Names Melsen, Andreas G.M. van 85, 86 Mercier, Désiré-Joseph 71 Milton, John 287 Moor, Johannes C. de 37–39 Mouw, Richard J. 10, 16, 17, 186 Muller, Richard 282, 283 Murray, John Courtney 190 Nash, Roland 258 Neuhaus, Richard John 265 Nevin, John W. 270 Newman, John Henry 119, 251, 264 Nichols, Aidan 120, 135, 146–150 Niebecker, Heinrich 137 Noordtzij, Arie 29, 33, 34 Noordtzij, Maarten 26, 29 Noort, G. van 79 Oberman, Heiko Augustinus 266 O’Donovan, Oliver M.T. 58 Oosterhoff, Berend J. 36, 38  Pannenberg, Wolfhart 143 Parker, Gregory W. 8 Peels, Eric 38, 39 Pera, Marcello 235 Pius IX, Pope 23, 136 Pius X, Pope 25, 29, 30, 32 Pius XI, Pope 144, 183, 192 Pius XII, Pope 13, 22, 32, 85, 134, 139, 141, 223 Plantinga, Alvin 258 Ploeg, J.P.M. van der 36 Poelhekke, Maarten A.P.C. 70 Puchinger, George 4, 5 Rad, G. von 35 Rahner, Karl 9, 32, 190, 281 Ratzinger, Joseph 15, 21–23, 40, 58, 135, 137, 148, 226, 235–242, 244, 245, 273 Ridderbos, Jan 10, 23, 30 Ridderbos, Nico H. 34, 96 Robinson, Marilyn 287 Rogers, Jack B. 99 Rorty, Richard 242 Rushkoff, Douglas 174 Sacks, Jonathan 177 Salaverri, Joachim 189

Sarot, Marcel 53, 56 Savornin Lohman Esq., A.F. de 5 Schaeffer, Francis 258 Schaepman, Herman 5–7, 9 Scheps, Nico 5 Schilder, Klaas 282 Schillebeeckx, Edward 14, 190, 219–221, 225–228, 230 Schleiermacher, F.D.E. 54 Schmemann, Alexander 238 Schopenhauer, Arthur 50 Schouten, J.C. 265, 267 Scopes, John T. 81 Scott, Walter 287 Shelledy, Robert 189 Sherrard, Joseph H. 10, 15 Sibbes, Richard 284, 285 Smith, James K.A. 15, 235, 236, 238–245 Sölle, Dorothee 224 Spencer, Herbert 50, 75 Stöckl, A. 117 Suárez, Francisco 118, 122, 123 Suhard, Emmanuel C. 39 Sutanto, Nathaniel Gray 8, 47, 48 Talma, Aritius Sybrandus 162–164, 170–172 Taylor, Charles 186, 235, 237, 238, 241, 243 Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre 86, 255 Teresa, Mother 283, 284 Theodosius I 218 Thomas See Aquinas, Thomas Til, Cornelius van 15, 115, 249–260 Tillet, Louis de 264 Tocqueville, Alexis de 184 Tolkien, J.R.R. 287 Tracy, David 14, 278 Trier, Lars von 278, 279 Tyndall, John 73 Urs von Balthasar, Hans 135, 139, 141–143, 148–151, 154, 255, 256 Vander Zee, Leonard 238 Veenhof, Jan 47, 48, 115 Vincent, Louis -Hugues 34 Vincent of Lérins 135, 136 Visser ’t Hooft, Willem Adolph 222

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

294 Vogel, Cornelia de 264 Vollenhoven, D.H.Th. 68, 115 Vos, Antoon 8 Vos, Arvin 258 Vos, Geerhardus 285 Vroom, Henk 33, 47, 49 Walt, S.P. van der 47 Warfield, Benjamin B. 94

Index of Names Willebrands, Johannes 9 Willson, Cory B. 10, 13 Wiman, Christian 286 Wit, Willem Jan de 8 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 242 Wolters, Albert M. 115 Wolterstorff, Nicholas 172, 258 Zeilstra, Jurjen 222

- 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

18 mm

SRT 47

George Harinck (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) is Professor of the History of Neo-Calvinism at Theological University Kampen/Utrecht and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and Director of The Neo-Calvinism Research Institute at the Theological University Kampen/Utrecht. He recently co-edited The Klaas Schilder Reader: The Essential Theological Writings (2022), with Marinus de Jong and Richard Mouw.

N E O  C A LV I N I S M A N D ROM A N C AT HOL IC I S M

James Eglinton (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is Meldrum Senior Lecturer in Reformed Theology at the University of Edinburgh. His most recent book, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (2020), won the History and Biography Book of the Year prize at The Gospel Coalition Book Awards 2020, and was a finalist at the ECPA Christian Book Awards 2021.

T

U

D

I

E

S

.

I

N

.

R

E

F

O

R

M

E

D

.

T

H

E

O

L

J E  G H (Eds.)

In their theological and historical interactions, neo-Calvinism and Roman Catholicism have often met in moments of conflict and co-operation. The neoCalvinist statesman Abraham Kuyper polemicized against the Roman Catholic Church and its theology, whilst building bridges between those traditions by forging novel political coalitions across ecclesiastical boundaries. In theology, Gerrit C. Berkouwer, a neo-Calvinist critic of Roman Catholicism in the 1930s, later attended the Second Vatican Council as an appreciative Protestant observer. Telling their stories and others—including new research on lesser-known figures and neglected topics—this book presents the first scholarly volume on those dynamics of polemics and partnership.

S

N E O  C A LV I N I S M A N D ROM A N CATHOLICISM

Edited by

J E  G H

9 789004 546066

SRT 47 ISSN: 1571‒4799 brill.com/srt

Series Editor: E - 978-90-04-54608-0 Downloaded from Brill.com06/17/2023 01:22:30AM via Western University

V  B

O

G

Y