“On Theology: Herman Bavinck’s Academic Orations,” edited and translated by Bruce R. Pass

On Theology: Herman Bavinck’s Academic Orations
Bruce R. Pass, editor and translator
Brill, 2020
186 pages (hardcover), $119.00

On Theology: Herman Bavinck’s Academic Orations is a curated selection of four speeches by Herman Bavinck, translated and edited by Bruce Pass. Pass, presently a lecturer in Christian thought and history at Brisbane School of Theology in Australia, completed his PhD in systematic theology under James Eglinton at the University of Edinburgh. This translation is a significant addition to the growing literature on and by Bavinck in English. The four speeches range from Bavinck’s early academic days in Kampen to his mature thought in Amsterdam. They were selected for the purpose of providing a significant window into how Bavinck understood the “scope, subject matter, and practice of theology” and how it developed across his lifetime (2).

In Pass’s introduction, the concept of development garners the most attention. The focus on “development” will garner more attention as the field moves beyond an intellectually cleaved Bavinck. Pass notes at least six lines of Bavinck’s development: (1) theology’s approach to secularization, (2) the advent of the principium internum, (3) the parsing of faith’s relationship to theology, (4) movement away from the polemic of “Reformed principles,” (5) the birth of a Christian worldview,[1] and (6) Bavinck’s critical appropriation of Friedrich Schleiermacher.[2]

Pass does well to draw out the historical proclivities of each speech.[3] They are worthy of their own review, just as they were in Dutch newspapers over a century ago. In this review, I will note how Bavinck relates theology to three specific spheres: the academy, the church, and the world. Indeed, here too development can be identified.

The Academy

Bavinck gave his first speech, “The Science of Theology,” on January 10, 1883, at Kampen Theological School. His main claim here is that theology is a “science,” or in particular, a scholarly discipline that belongs among the other sciences. Bavinck defended this approach differently in 1883 than he would later on, partially because his approach to secularization changed (5). In this speech, he first put forth a twofold defense of the religious character of all sciences: “Because it illumines the theological dimension of those disciplines” (8). Then he talked about the scholarly character of religion: “Not only πίστις (faith), but also γνῶσις (knowledge) is a gift of the Holy Spirit” (51). In essence, this defense claimed that all sciences are theological and that theology is scientific.

In 1883, Bavinck argued for theology’s seat at the academic table. But by 1902, he suggested that in order for theology to remain truly theological, it might need to excuse itself (34). In “Religion and Theology,” his third speech given December 17, 1902, Bavinck approached the question of theology’s relationship to the university differently. Pass rightly guides us to consider this against the backdrop of the Higher Education Act of 1876, which basically turned theology faculties into faculties of religious studies. In other words, theology now had to labor even harder to be truly theological.

How did Bavinck identify theology’s relationship to the academy, then, in 1902? He seems to wonder what relationship remains for theology and the academy. The theological encyclopedia (exegetical, historical, dogmatic, and practical parts) of theology could be governed properly only if arranged organically around the revelation of God (137), and the splitting of the encyclopedia between seminaries and universities cut their organic relationship. The loss of the discipline of theology would be a colossal detriment to the academy, for it would have sequestered its animating force. Thus Bavinck’s understanding of the nature, purpose, and task remained stable, but how it related to the university shifted alongside theology’s changing role in the university.

The Church

In the first speech, Bavinck kept theology closely attached to the church. In the third part of this speech, he was concerned with the question, “Who is theology for?” To this end, Bavinck put forth two intermediate goals: the church (the concrete) and the academy (the theoretical). Ultimately, theology is for God, and the end of theology is the glory of God. At the end of the ages, there will only be one science, “knowing all things in God and God in all things” (58). In this speech, Bavinck played with the threefold office of Christ as it relates to the theologian. Although interestingly and perhaps disappointingly, he fleshed out only the idea of the office of priest and prophet.

A theologian is a priest, who serves God day and night in his temple, a prophet who declares him and always speaks unto the honor of his name, a man of God equipped for every good work. Theology is thus truly religion, a serving of God, a working for his kingdom. It is, as it was often described by our theologians, θεοσέβεια, θεοζωία, θεουργία (divine worship, divine life, divine ritual. (55)

Bavinck returned to this theme to close “Religion and Theology”:

A theologian is someone who dedicates themselves to speaking about God because they speak from and through Him. To practice theology—it is a holy work. It is a priestly service in the house of the Lord. It is itself religion, a serving of God in His temple, a devotion of heart and mind to the glory of His Name. (141)

The theologian is connected closely with the office of priest and the office of prophet. Bavinck’s only mention of regality belongs to theology itself and Christ the king, unless the reference to “kingdom” above is a veiled reference to the office of king. Theology as queen is Christlike: “she reigns through service” (9). As it seems, the threefold office of Christ is split between the science and the scientist and between theology and the theologian.

In turning to his second speech, “The Teaching Office,” we get a slightly different viewpoint. Bavinck delivered this speech on December 6, 1899, in Kampen on the heels of a failed union proposal between Kampen Theological School and the Free University of Amsterdam. This speech was an attempt to defend the failed proposal from another angle. Where do professors of theology belong: in the church or in the academy?

Just as Bavinck drew out the threefold office of Christ across theology and theologian, we might speak of them separately here while also considering them unified. Where does the theologian belong? We can summarize Bavinck’s view with the following five propositions: (1) like the office of pastor, the theologian’s knowledge as a teacher is a gift of the Holy Spirit (98, 103–4); (2) the pastor is of greater prominence (on account of calling) than the theologian (95); (3) the pastor offers wisdom to the church and the theologian offers knowledge, but both teach the same doctrine (94–95); (4) the theologian does not have an ecclesial office (98, 107); and (5) the theologian must serve the needs of the church (107). Bavinck writes:

The theologian or “The doctor is someone qui ecclesiam verbo veritatis format et instituit (who forms and establishes the church with the word of truth), who has the purpose ut ecclesia vere erudiatur (of correctly teaching the church) and always remembers this one thing: ut ecclesiam reddat sua doctrina doctiorem (to make the church more learned in its own doctrine). The purpose of his activity is also the perfection of the saints and the building up of the body of Christ. (107)

How does theology relate to the church? Just as in “The Science of Holy Theology,” the academic character of theology is couched in the more fundamental relationship of theology for the church. As Pass notes,

What one sees in the account of the place of theology in the modern university and the place of theological scholarship in the church are the classic contours of Neo-Calvinist thought: distinction without separation, freedom in mutual dependence, diversity in unity. (14–15)

Theology may have a place in the modern university, but its primary place is in the church: “[she] is the daughter of the church” (103). For Bavinck, the church can flower without theology, but she grows wild. Theology prunes the dead and cultivates life, but theology wilts without the church. Theology is ecclesial and scientific. The relationship of the theologian and theology to the church does not change; the relationship remains fundamental to Bavinck’s understanding of the task of theology.

The World

Bavinck delivered his fourth and final speech, “Modernism and Orthodoxy,” in central Amsterdam at the Gebouw voor den Werkenden Stand on October 20, 1911. In this speech, he articulated neo-Calvinism’s relationship to historic Christianity and modern culture. In essence, this was a response to a book in which neo-Calvinists were charged with being neither “orthodox” nor “modern.” They were said to have taken orthodox terms and filled them with modern content, which kept them from belonging to either. Bavinck’s argument proceeded to first dismantle the terms being used, that both “orthodox” and “modern” were inadequate (156). Then he posited that both he and Kuyper were simply “Reformed,” and that the organic unity-in-diversity of Christian theology was the only true path forward (156–57).

How did Bavinck imagine theology related to the world? Pass notes that this shifted for Bavinck across his corpus. While early Bavinck saw the need for his denomination to “build a dyke,” the later Bavinck saw it as more necessary to present an ecumenical front toward those outside of Christianity (5). Since Bavinck’s approach to secularization is the main thread of development Pass discusses in the introduction, I don’t want to dwell on it much here. But with theology as the queen of the academy and the daughter of the church, I do want to mention how Bavinck illustrated theology’s relationship toward the world: he claimed it was a different path (170):

Christian theology, however, allowing itself to be instructed by the Holy Scriptures, took a different and deeper view of reality and it proclaimed, especially in the mouths of Augustine and Calvin, that all difference and inequality among creatures had its final cause and deepest ground in the one, wise, and holy will of God Almighty. Thus, there is indeed a unity that holds everything together, but this unity is not to be found within the world itself, by erasing the differences and contrasts. It rests in the hand of Him, who as King of kings reigns over all things. . . . In the rich, multifaceted world, special revelation occupies a place of honor, for it bears its own character, has an independent content, is ruled by its own law, and forms the basis and content of the Christian religion, which is ruled by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ, who sets us free from the law of sin and death. Everything is held together by the almighty, wise and holy, merciful and gracious will of Him, who is our Father in heaven—in heaven, in order that we may not think of His heavenly majesty in an earthly way, and yet our Father, in order we should trust at all times with childlike fear and reliance on Him. (175–76)

Thus theology is distinct from the world: it is a transcendent path that undergirds all of reality. Indeed, it provides the unity that the world and humanity desire, but this unity makes way for diversity. It is a unity-in-diversity that reflects the Triune God. Even here one sees a more ecumenical front. Bavinck and Kuyper in neo-Calvinism didn’t offer another path; they offered Christian theology.

In summary, Bavinck perceived theology as having an essential place in the academy. It is the universalwissenshaften (the universal science) that facilitates harmony between the sciences and between the head and heart of humanity. Theology, the “theologian,” and the university are all birthed together (74). Theology is the science that directs the sciences toward their proper end—the glory of God. She is a servant queen who doesn’t reign over the other sciences as a tyrant, but rather fulfills her office through Christlike humility. This is because God is the object of inquiry; and like all sciences, theology is defined according to its object. Preliminary to this scientific calling, however, is theology’s calling to the church. In this dual calling, theology offers a path that undergirds all of reality for the world, science, and humanity.

Bavinck’s reflections on the scope, nature, and practice of theology remain relevant and generative. If imbibed well, his reflections may have an enduring impact on those who practice theology today. Although the expensive price of the translation will be prohibitive for many, it’s my hope this review distilled enough of its salient features to help add it to a reader’s future book budget. Pass’s labor here, as well as his monograph on the development of the central dogma in Bavinck’s theological system,[4] will have an enduring impact on Bavinck studies.

Gregory Parker Jr. is currently a PhD candidate in systematic theology at the University of Edinburgh and the co-editor and co-translator with Cameron Clausing of Herman Bavinck’s The Sacrifice of Praise (Hendrickson, 2019) and Guidebook for Instruction in the Christian Religion (Hendrickson, 2022).