The second paper was delivered by Prof. Andrew McGowan from Highland Theological College: ‘Providence and Common Grace—A Reformed Perspective’.
McGowan's paper suggested that the Dutch Neo-Calvinist explanation of 'common grace' offers the most promising way forward for Reformed dogmatics. Especially, he commended to us the work of Herman Bavinck. Talking to Prof McGowan later, he told me that Bavinck had been a fairly late discovery for him. The recent translation of his works by John Bolt and others has been not before time.
McGowan began by noting how Calvin's doctrine of common grace gave a very positive account of the human arts and sciences even among the reprobate. That is, God's providence serves to ameliorate the effects of the fall to such a degree that it is possible to see his blessing in human civilisation outside the church. For Calvin, nothing takes place without God's deliberation: he is intimately involved in every aspect of the created order. Calvin was of course prepared to attribute both good and bad harvests to God - he was not prepared to countenance any dualism (this was something contested by others at the conference, notably David Bentley Hart). Calvin does have a doctrine of secondary causation of course: and will not allow the Sovereignty of God to absolve us from blame. But the doctrine is a great encouragement to believers. Though our natural and spiritual gifts are somewhat damaged, we do retain a certain aptitude in the arts and sciences. No splitting of nature and grace for Calvin! Everything good we do is the result of grace. Grace is why human beings are not as bad as they could be.
In post-Reformation theology this identification of nature with grace was continued. But the theme of common grace is not picked up or emphasised in the 17th century documents and confessions, McGowan noted.
It wasn't until ABraham Kuyper that common grace was given its due attention as a doctrine. Kuyper developed the theme on a grand scale, but also he pushed the antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian. He developed the idea of Christianity as an entire worldview (following the Scot James Orr in this). He also developed his doctrine of sphere sovereignty.
Bavinck's exposition of common grace is, for McGowan, a superior model. He rejected natural theology while maintaining general revelation. Common grace (not nature) is the basis for special grace. Nature and grace are not set in opposition, but rather grace purifies and restores nature. This is a key to Bavinck's theology! There is 'an organic relationship between nature and grace'. This is also a key to his very interesting doctrine of Scripture (which differs from Warfield's rather problematic one).
The fall damaged but did not eradicate the imago dei. But common grace is not enough to restore us. It compels us, but does not change us. Christ does not create an entirely new order, then, but transforms what is. Bavinck roots common grace in the incarnation...
So, where according to his doc of common grace Kuyper advocated the development of Christian institutions - a Christian university, a Christian newspaper, a Christian political party, Christian schooling and so on - Bavinck, who was much closer to Calvin and much more moderate in this, held that the antithesis was of principles and not of people. Common grace properly understood means that we don't have to listen to Christian music: we can observe the operation of common grace in human music making in general.
McGowan left me wanting to purchase the remaining volumes of Bavinck's dogmatics! I wonder too, if one rejoinder to 'creation' 'science' is that it lacks a proper doctrine of common grace in its outright suspicion of non-Christian scientists. It couples paranoia with all its other problems.
6 comments:
I wonder if Kuyper's emphasis on antithesis didn't actually undo his doctrine of common grace in the end. His followers embarked on a Christian approach to maths, music, arts, fitness, schools, universities, you name it, but they seemed to fail to engage secular culture itself, and see the good of common grace in it that is in it. Kuyper's approach appears to produce a Christian culture, rather than engage with secular culture.
And yes, Bavinck's last volume is only weeks away ... whoohoo.
Well this was exactly McGowan's point. I believe he is heading down your way soon: he mentioned your name a couple of times.
Thanks for posting these Michael.
Cool. Yes, ATB McG is coming over to Perth in July. I'm hoping to come over your way in the same month (DV) for a 6 month Sabbatical ... wanting to sew up the ThD that's been stewing on the side; it's really difficult to do part time :-(
The contrast you draw between Kuyper and Bavinck on Christian institutions is too stark. Kuyper wrote a multi-volume work on "Common Grace" and has been much criticised by some Reformed theologians - then and now - for being such a strong proponent. These critics would claim that he emphasised common grace to the detriment of the antithesis!
Marty’s suggestion that Kuyper was into creating a Christian culture rather than "engaging secular culture" is rather bizarre. His views and practice were too complex to justify such a claim. After all, Kuyper was a member of the Dutch parliament for many years and Prime Minister from 1901-04! Hardly a world flight theologian! Would that more theologians followed his lead in articulating and practising a reformational "world and life view"!
His advocacy of "Christian organisations" was not motivated by some sort of world flight Anabaptism but rather epitomises Niebuhr's "Christ transforms culture".
Perhaps some further reading on Kuyper and Bavinck's writings on "common grace" and the "antithesis" and some of the secondary literature (eg, Mouw’s “He Shines in All That’s Fair” and “When the Kings Come Marching In”) would help to rectify these overdrawn and unjustified contrasts and criticisms of Kuyper.
Is it also too simplistic to suggest that Kuyper's ideas became rather dualistic to the extent that Apartheid could be justified as a policy because racial issues were a matter of common grace and not special grace?
Post a Comment