Bavinck: ‘Man is an enigma’

Tony Reinke Culture, Herman Bavinck, Sin in Culture

I blog to learn. It’s really that simple. And so I love thought-provoking questions like this one. After reading the last post (“The Gospel + Culture”) our friend Tom asked:

Hi Brother, this is good stuff. I wonder how Bavinck might respond to the cultural phenomena of the 21st century? To what extent should the contemporary Christian expose himself to the ungodliness of cultural expressions in order to appreciate the good they have to offer? How many times must a Christian hear the name of our Lord taken in vain before he gives up on discovering the value of a particular form of art?

What shall we endure in the name of cultural appreciation? Where is the line? How much adultery, fornication, violence and deceit can we wade through in order to find what is genuinely lovely? 60/40? 20/80? 10/90?

I don’t have the answers. In fact, I think culture is very, very important. But I wonder how Bavinck might judge the direction of contemporary culture, and especially Hollywood. How do Christians contribute to and perpetuate the ungodliness of Hollywood (and the ruined lives of actors) by their insatiable appetite to be entertained? As I said, I don’t have the answers.

“Ephraim mixes himself with the nations; Ephraim has become a cake not turned.” Hosea 7:8

Excellent question. And let me concur with you Tom—I don’t have any answers here either. Though I think that anyone struggling to see where worldliness is prevalent in contemporary culture will benefit greatly from the critical thinking and discernment modeled in the new book Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World (Crossway, 2008). There is never any excuse for Christians to be attracted to the sinful standards and practices of the world.

But I think Bavinck himself can help us because, while he was never exposed to a Super Bowl halftime show ‘malfunctions,’ or sleazy MTV videos, he was fully aware of depravity of the heart.

Notice back in the original quote how Bavinck balances an appreciation for culture, and a level of disdain for the sin in culture—“the cross is the condemnation of the world and the destruction of all sinful culture. But it is wrong to educe from this pronouncement that the gospel must be at enmity with culture.” From what I can guess by reading Bavinck, he hesitates to draw a fractional separation between the sin/righteousness of culture. This full black-and-white separation of sin/righteousness, sheep/goats, wheat/tares awaits the return of Christ. Hold this thought.

When I first read your question, Tom, I was reminded of Bavinck’s teaching on anthropology. This is what he writes:

…The conclusion, therefore, is that of Augustine, who said that the heart of man was created for God and that it cannot find rest until it rests in his Father’s heart. Hence all men are really seeking after God, as Augustine also declared, but they do not all seek Him in the right way, nor at the right place. They seek Him down below, and He is up above. They seek Him on the earth, and He is in heaven. They seek Him afar, and He is nearby. They seek Him in money, in property, in fame, in power, and in passion; and He is to be found in the high and the holy places, and with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit (Isa. 57:15). But they do seek Him, if haply they might feel after Him and find Him (Acts 17:27). They seek Him and at the same time they flee Him. They have no interest in a knowledge of His ways, and yet they cannot do without Him. They feel themselves attracted to God and at the same time repelled by Him.

In this, as Pascal so profoundly pointed out, consists the greatness and the miserableness of man. He longs for truth and is false by nature. He yearns for rest and throws himself from one diversion upon another. He pants for a permanent and eternal bliss and seizes on the pleasures of a moment. He seeks for God and loses himself in the creature. He is a born son of the house and he feeds on the husks of the swine in a strange land. He forsakes the fountain of living waters and hews out broken cisterns that can hold no water (Jer. 2:13). He is as a hungry man who dreams that he is eating, and when he awakes finds that his soul is empty; and he is like a thirsty man who dreams that he is drinking, and when he awakes finds that he is faint and that his soul has appetite (Isa. 29:8).

Science cannot explain this contradiction in man. It reckons only with his greatness and not with his misery, or only with his misery and not with his greatness. It exalts him too high, or it depresses him too far, for science does not know of his Divine origin, nor of his profound fall. But the Scriptures know of both, and they shed their light over man and over mankind; and the contradictions are reconciled, the mists are cleared, and the hidden things are revealed. Man is an enigma whose solution can be found only in God. (Our Reasonable Faith, pp. 22-23)

In a similar way, it appears to me that culture is a similar enigma. On the one hand the gifts and powers God has built into athletes, artists, politicians, musicians, etc. far exceed the value a non-Christian can ascribe to them.

A non-Christian fan of Yo-Yo Ma watching his cello sing at a concert can be amazed at his musical gifting. A Christian fan can watch the same concert and be amazed at his divine gifting. The fan aware of divine grace is more capable of appreciating the arts, and actually raises the dignity of the cellist far higher than one unaware of God’s general grace active in the giving of his gift.

So there is a raising of culture on one hand but on the other hand, the Christian fan in the audience is also aware of the deep sin in each of our hearts that requires the intervention of a Savior—famous cellists included.

Culture is an enigma, being both simultaneously a great display of divine endowments and creativity only explained by being made in the image of God and also hellish in it’s filthy depravity.

There are clearly things that are sinful and to be avoided in this world. No question. But culture is an enigma and this makes me wonder if Bavinck would even view culture from a fractional perspective? Thoughts?

The Gospel + Culture

Tony Reinke Culture, Gospel, Gospel in Culture, Herman Bavinck

…The creation of the first man shows this; the subduing of the earth, that is, the whole of culture, is given to him, and can be given to him, only because he is created after God’s image; man can be ruler of the earth only because and in so far as he is a servant, a son of God…Culture, therefore, sinks into the background; man must first become again a son of God before he can be, in a genuine sense, a cultured being. Israel was not a people of art and science, but a people of religion; and Christ is exclusively a preacher of the gospel, the savior of the world, and founder of the kingdom of heaven. With this kingdom nothing can be compared; he who will enter into it must renounce all things; the cross is the condemnation of the world and the destruction of all sinful culture.

But it is wrong to educe from this pronouncement that the gospel must be at enmity with culture. For although the gospel limits itself to the proclaiming of the requirements and laws of the kingdom, it cannot be set free from the organic alliance in which it always appears in history and Scripture. For, in the first place, Christ does not stand at the commencement, but in the middle of history. He presupposes the work of the Father in creation and in providence, especially also in the guidance of Israel; yea, the gospel asserts that Christ is the same who as the Word made all things and was the life and the light of all men. As he was then in his earthly life neither a politician nor a social reformer, neither a man of science nor a man of art, but simply lived and worked as the Son of God and Servant of the Lord, and thus has only been a preacher and founder of the kingdom of heaven, he cannot have come to annihilate the work of the Father, or his own work in creation and providence, but rather to save it from the destruction which has been brought about by sin. According to his own word, he came not to judge the world, but to save it…

The gospel of Christ promises righteousness and peace and joy, and has fulfilled its promise if it gives these things. Christ did not portray for his disciples a beautiful future in this world, but prepared them for oppression and persecution. But, nevertheless, the kingdom of heaven, while a pearl of great price, is also a leaven which permeates the whole of the meal; godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life which now is, and that which is to come.

The gospel gives us a standard by which we can judge of phenomena and events; it is an absolute measure which enables us to determine the value of the present life; it is a guide to show us the way in the labyrinth of the present world; it raises us above time, and teaches us to view all things from the standpoint of eternity. Where could we find such a standard and guide if the everlasting gospel did not supply it?

But it is opposed to nothing that is pure and good and lovely. It condemns sin always and everywhere; but it cherishes marriage and the family, society and the state, nature and history, science and art. In spite of the many faults of its confessors, it has been in the course of the ages a rich benediction for all these institutions and accomplishments. The Christian nations are still the guardians of culture. And the word of Paul is still true that all is ours if we are Christ’s.

—Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation (1909), pp. 266-269.

Herman Bavinck dot Org

Tony Reinke spurgeon

In my opinion, the writings of Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) are some of the most valuable in the long tradition of reformed theology. Thanks to a large financial investment, hard working translators, and the Dutch Reformed Translation Society, Bavinck’s writings have never been more accessible to the English-speaking English-reading world.

For me personally, Bavinck has joined Jonathan Edwards in becoming my life-long theologians of choice—two men I’ve committed an especially large sum of time and money with the goal of garnering all the divine truths their writings offer (note the phrase: “life-long”).

As part of this goal, I’ve accumulated what I believe to be the largest on-line index of Bavinck’s books and articles in the English language. In the future I hope to use the website for a number of other purposes, but for those interested in Bavinck I invite you to have a look and tell me what you think:

www.hermanbavinck.org

The Value of Systematic Theology

Tony Reinke Cornelius Van Til, Discernment, Systematic theology

“Everything is Spiritual”—that was the name of Rob Bell’s speaking tour gaining a lot of attention and headlines in newspapers and magazines as Bell lumbered across the country speaking in theaters to fairly large crowds in various states. I became aware of the tour and the resulting DVD and, with an interest to learn about the tour and its popularity, I watched the video trailer. This is what I saw and heard:

Now, obviously there is a level of truth to what Bell says. Each of us has been given an eternal soul. But as I began watching the Rob Bell trailer my mind began racing and thinking in biblical categories and asking many questions but especially this one: Is everyone spiritual? Drawing from biblical anthropology 101 I knew the answer was “no.” The Apostle Paul tells us believers in Jesus Christ are genuinely spiritual because we have been given (by grace alone!) the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit. Because we have the Spirit, we comprehend and respond to spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:12-13). However there are simultaneously others who are “natural”—that is, they do not respond to the things of God (like the gospel of Jesus Christ) because spiritual truth makes no sense (v. 14).

Contrary to Bell’s assumptions, everyone is not spiritual. Paul makes it very clear there is a spiritual/natural distinction, each distinguished from one another by their responses to the gospel.

This abrupt realization while watching the trailer was prompted—to my best guess—by the excellent anthropological studies in systematic theology I received as a churchgoer in a local church. (Systematic theology is the accumulation of exegetical truth of scripture organized and arranged by theme and topic.) Those years of Wednesday night systematic theology courses have paid off in the past several years, and probably more than I know.

Although I remember begrudgingly at times coming home from work on a Wednesday evening and wanting to stay home and veg rather than attending these courses, I now see the fruit and have come to a deeper appreciation for systematic theology for its value in bringing balance and discernment to my life and thought.

For myself, no authors have better enforced the importance of systematic theology than Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). In An Introduction to Systematic Theology (P&R, 2007), Van Till reminds us the discipline of systematic theology is important in four areas:

1. For personal spiritual balance:

“The unity and organic character of our personality demands that we have unified knowledge as the basis of our action. If we do not pay attention to the whole of biblical truth as a system, we become doctrinally one-sided, and doctrinal one-sidedness is bound to issue in spiritual one-sidedness. As human beings we are naturally inclined to be one-sided. One tends to be intellectualistic, another tends to be emotional, and still another tends to be activistic. One tends to be only prophetic, another only priest, and a third only king. We should be all these at once and in harmony. A study of systematic theology will help us to keep and develop our spiritual balance. It enables us to avoid paying attention only to that which, by virtue of our temperament, appeals to us.” (p. 22)

2. For discernment:

“Moreover, what is beneficial for the individual believer is also beneficial for the minister and in consequence for the church as a whole. It is sometimes contended that ministers need not be trained in systematic theology if only they know their Bibles. But ‘Bible-trained’ instead of systematically trained preachers frequently preach error. They may mean ever so well and be ever so true to the gospel on certain points; nevertheless, they often preach error. There are many ‘orthodox’ preachers today whose study of Scripture has been so limited to what it says about soteriology that they could not protect the fold of God against heresies on the person of Christ. Oft-times they themselves even entertain definitely heretical notions on the person of Christ, though perfectly unaware of the fact.” (p. 22)

3. For faithful preaching:

“If we carry this idea one step further, we note that a study of systematic theology will help men to preach theologically. It will help to make men proclaim the whole counsel of God. Many ministers never touch the greater part of the wealth of the revelation of God to man contained in Scripture. But systematics helps ministers to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work.

The history of the church bears out the claim that God-centered preaching is most valuable to the church of Christ. When the ministry has most truly proclaimed the whole counsel of God, the church has flourished spiritually. Then, too, it is well-rounded preaching of this sort that has kept the church from worldliness. On the other hand, it has kept the church from an unhealthy otherworldliness. Well-rounded preaching teaches us to use the things of this world because they are the gifts of God, and it teaches us to possess them as not possessing them, inasmuch as they must be used in subordination to the one supreme purpose of man’s existence, namely the glory of God.” (pp. 22-23)

4. For preparation to engage in a war of worldviews:

“We have already indicated that the best apologetic defense will invariably be made by him who knows the system of truth of Scripture best. The fight between Christianity and non-Christianity is, in modern times, no piece-meal affair. It is the life-and-death struggle between two mutually opposed life-and-world views.” (p. 23)

Conclusion

My prayer is that we all—Bell included—come to see that any culturally relevant worldview we present and defend must be one build upon a robust systematic theology (not trifles like the absence of a word in the Old Testament!).

For those of you interested in studying systematic theology I highly recommend Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. My friend Jeff has taken this large volume and abridged it for beginner audiences in Bible Doctrine. Both are outstanding. For those familiar with Grudem you should take a look at Herman Bavinck’s Our Reasonable Faith. It’s another gem!