Bavinck in Brief: The Gospel and Social Action

Fourth of a series

While Herman Bavinck (1856-1921) is best known as a Reformed theologian, his interests and expertise ranged much further than that area. He was sought after as a speaker at academic conferences in the fields of psychology and of teaching and learning theory, or pedagogy. And he also served in the Parliament of Holland, being deeply concerned with government and society.

Bavinck’s views on social practices and politics are outlined in three chapters in a collection of articles that he himself chose shortly before his death. The translated collection, entitled Essays on Religion, Science and Society (Baker, 2011) features studies on a broad range of subjects (see the guide elsewhere in this issue), of which these three chapters (7, 8 and 15) on social ethics are considered by its modern editor John Bolt to be highlights of the volume (p. 10). We will look at the 24-page seventh chapter, “Christian Principles and Social Relationships.”

Two views: Of the many opinions held by Christian thinkers and activists concerning what constitutes the primary aim of the Gospel, Bavinck begins by outlining two contrasting views from his day. The first sees Jesus as a social reformer whose Gospel message was directed to the poor, the oppressed and the wretched of the Earth. He battled “…against the patricians, the profiteers, the priests: and in that battle he perished.” Likewise, in our own time, to follow Jesus and spread the Gospel means that the church must abandon its fine buildings and “…go out into the highways and byways of life and seek those who are lost. Christianity must become socially minded or else it will perish” (p. 120).

To illustrate the second position, he points to a German politician who became disillusioned with the characterization of Jesus as a radical social reformer (although Jesus was still important for morality) and adopted the view that politics had an independent life of its own, with its own rules. Bavinck sums up the view this way: “Politics, for instance, has nothing to do with moral principles; it is only concerned with the interests of the state and the people. As such it ought to be pure ‘Realpolitik [politics based on practical and material factors].’” Bavinck adds that some go even further than simply separating religion and politics, arguing that Christianity is not only “completely indifferent toward culture,” it can even be “hostile to it” (121).

In addition, regarding Jesus’ teaching, it was contended that the social structures and practices in his day were much too different from those in ours, rendering it irrelevant today. His message was a product of its own time with no application to contemporary social practices.

Of course there are many variations on these two views. Regarding the first, only a few weeks ago I heard a message in church on the Sermon on the Mount that attempted to show that the real meaning of Jesus’ preaching lay in the social background context of his imagery rather than in God’s patterns, and that it was intentionally subversive of its contemporary culture. (The main thing that I got from the message was that Jesus was a remarkably inept social crusader if he relied on such background subtlety to get his critique of his society across to ordinary folk!) With respect to the second outlook, Christian proponents of today’s Benedict Option, among others, are opting for a retreat from society at large as much as possible, while governments such as that in Quebec are actively preaching that religion has no place in the public square, only in the hearts of individuals.

So we are faced with several questions. Is the Gospel primarily a message about building an ideal human society? Or is it so “religious” that it has no relevance to practical, everyday political and social structures and even liberates Christians from them? What does the Bible have to say on the subject of the Gospel and social action? Bavinck proceeds in this essay to summarize the relevant teaching in the Scriptures, which he takes as God’s revelation to humanity. While conceding that the Bible by no means explains everything in this regard, nevertheless its “main issues can be spelled out clearly enough so as to give us a solid and practical result” (p. 121).

Key themes: Bavinck organizes his observations of the Biblical evidence under three key themes. First, that God willed at the time of creation that human society should be based on a framework of fundamental concepts or ordinances, none of which is optional for humanity if His will is to be observed. Second, that both religion and civil government are God-ordained as separate, independent areas of human responsibility. They have their own particular social arrangements within the overall creation framework, and are always open to internal development in God’s providence as the centuries pass. And third, that Jesus’ Gospel message of spiritual rebirth was directed at individuals and not civil society. Nonetheless, once men and women were regenerated by faith, their Christian moral beliefs and behaviour could be a leavening force in the world to make it more like what God intended it to be.

(1) God-given social structures: His review of the first chapters of Genesis provides him with information on God’s order and purpose regarding the world and social relationships. The Scriptures, he contends, because they are God’s special revelation of his will, offer us something that science, which deals only with observed phenomena, cannot. This revelation of God’s will in Creation is of fundamental importance because “what it teaches about the origin of creatures determines our entire worldview” (p. 121).

Bavinck lists seven principles that he derives from the opening chapters of Genesis: first, all things, including both spirit and matter, are created by God; humanity is distinguished from all creatures by being image bearers of God; the two genders, male and female, were willed by God, and marriage was immediately instituted; marriage implies family, the family implies society, and implied in society is “the unity, community, and cooperation of the human race;” difference and inequality were part of God’s plan; humans are called to work, and “cultural work has a divine origin”; and finally, labour and leisure alternate, with serving God and entering into his rest rather than labour alone being the ultimate goal of humanity. “The origin of man determines his destination: [being] from God, he has to return to God; God is the highest good for man and humanity” (121-122).

Of course, sin is also a feature of the opening chapters of Genesis. For Bavinck, sin is what distorts the original divine framework and it is sin that must be resisted. The ordinances themselves must not simply be overthrown by revolution. Social structures stand in need of reform to combat the corrupting power of sin, and this since the time of the first sin by Adam and Eve. It is the continuing dependence upon God’s grace, especially in the regeneration of the human spirit, that empowers people for this work of reform.

God calls humans to a humble acceptance of the creation framework for the world, even with its sin. The Gospel does not do away with His will for human society in this world.

(2) Independence of religion and civil society: Bavinck’s second theme is derived largely from his study of God’s people, the nation of Israel. Israelite society was based on two institutions, one civil and one religious.

The religious leaders did not normally govern the nation; that was left to elders, judges, kings and other ruling bodies. Governmental leaders protected and led the nation, fostering its religion without themselves having charge of its conduct.

Religion, in its role, did not seek to rule the everyday life of Israelites, enforcing its will on them by coercion. The priests upheld the religion of God through their sacred observances, and did not normally take part in matters of governing. As for the prophets, while they were vocal in their criticism of Israel’s people and its leaders, they did not seek to overturn their society’s structure or themselves to lead in its governance. Their role was to call Israel to reform itself in both civil and religious matters in keeping with God’s express will as found in the Scriptures. Their focus was not at heart on doing away with corrupt, sinful practices. They were instead dedicated to showing the people how to live lives that respected and upheld God’s laws, which would then lead to social and religious reform.

Having established the value and independence of civil society, Bavinck stressed that respect for human institutions was something that was fundamental to a Christian’s way of life. It was a way to bring glory to God and to witness their faith in Christ. And it was not only divine ordinances such as family and government that had to be respected. Such deference extended even to the legally-protected and tolerated human institution of slavery that was widespread during the Biblical period.

Bavinck explains that slavery, involving household as well as field agricultural slaves, was not an institution that Israelite prophets or early Christianity criticized and opposed with social action. Slavery was not ordained by God. However, it was present in Israel and regulated in the Old Testament laws, where punishments for mistreatment of slaves and various procedures for their redemption and indenture were specified. In the New Testament, it was accepted as a normal practice, although if one could avoid it and be free, that was commended. Christian leaders did not call for its abolition.

Nor did they permit believers to claim that their freedom in Christ freed them from slavery. Just as they were to pay their taxes, honour their political leadership, continue to live with a non-Christian spouse, associate socially with non-believers and not seek to become circumcised or uncircumcised, they were to remain in their bondage unless they had a legal way to end it. Their continuing duty was to both their earthly master and to their heavenly lord while they were in service, just as their Christian master’s duty was to treat them fairly and with respect in fear of the Lord, his or her master (135-137).

Freedom was to be found in Christ in the church, where all people were equal and in joyful bondage to Christ. In Him there were no gender or social distinctions. If anything, God had a preference for those who lacked the rights and the material wealth of this world: “…if there is any preference, then the poor, the ignoble, the unlearned, the oppressed are the ones who are considered first for the Gospel. God chooses the poor, the despised, and the ignoble, so that no one should boast before him” (p. 140).

It should be said that Bavinck’s social views are not as conservative as they first appear. He does not, for instance,  think that what is said about the social practices in Bible times is a pattern for our own time. He allows for organic development as the centuries pass in society’s governance and in relationships such as marriage and labour relations. They “each have a certain measure of independence, which they owe to the will of God as it manifests itself in their own nature. In time, by God’s providence, they develop and are changed in accordance with their nature.”  In his opinion, “the gospel fully honors this development, today as well as in  the time of the apostles” (142-143).

And Bavinck rejoices that the Gospel has indeed brought about positive change in society: “What a revolution this gospel brought about in the ancient world, it gave a reforming power to humanity!” The Gospel is “not only a pearl, but it is a leaven as well.”  But Bavinck cautions that even though history has shown that the Gospel has exerted a beneficial influence on civilization, even if there had been no leavening effect on society at all, the formation of the new spiritual and holy Christian community “would still be and remain something of everlasting worth” (141).

(3) Redemption rules! The third fundamental theme in Bavinck’s essay concerns Jesus’ attitude to social change. He is convinced that the social environment of Jesus was not of significant importance to him. Jesus accepted it as a given and was willing to work within the Roman imperial and the Jewish national ruling systems. His calls for change were aimed at individuals and not at social structures. Jesus called for a spiritual revolution in their attitude to God and his Kingdom, declaring that this was of the utmost consequence. Social revolution was not his aim. A new life in Christ begun with redemption from sin was the heart of Jesus’ message of good news.

Bavinck illustrated his view by pointing to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. It was not a call to imitate Christ, nor an impossible ethic. The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11) reveal Jesus’ value system, whereby he “tells us who, in his judgment and in the judgment of the Father, are blessed.” Jesus’ subsequent exposition of attitudes with regard to the commandments of the Old Testament was also evidence of his interest in inner spiritual change on the part of individuals. “Jesus emphasizes the disposition of the heart, inner conformity with the law, and internal spiritual righteousness when he explains each commandment over against the Pharisees” (132-133).

Bavinck’s interpretation of the Sermon the Mount is similar in some ways to that advanced by Joachim Jeremias in a study on the Sermon later published in English in booklet form (Fortress, 1963; see also on the Internet the text of the 1961 Ethel M. Wood Lecture). Jeremias also rejected standard interpretations of the Sermon, advocating for a view that followed the preaching/teaching (kerygma/didache) pattern of ancient Christianity outlined by C.H. Dodd. That is, that the interpretation of this teaching only makes sense if one assumes a prior preaching of the new life in the Kingdom of Heaven that gives rise to it.

Bavinck asserts of Jesus that “…he never stood up directly for the poor and oppressed, the widows and orphans, the slaves and the day laborers as such. He never urges improvement of their lot or pay increases, life insurance or pension plans.” His words were “directed to his disciples and indicates how they are to conduct themselves in their private lives.” But Bavinck does not deny that Jesus’ teaching has the power to make society better: “…one can learn something from his teaching for the organization of state and society” even if  “Christ’s teaching is totally of a religious-moral nature” (130-132).

Conclusion

The case that Bavinck presents to us from his study of the Bible is compelling. He argues that we are constrained in our response to what we think is wrong with society by the limits that God’s will for His creation have imposed upon us. We must work within certain social relationships such as government, marriage, family and labour relations and not altogether reject them and their power over us. Christian witness, following Christ, calls us to humility and patience in our social relationships.

The Gospel is not the good news of revolution in society. It is instead the good news of the change that’s possible in the heart of individual humans. Regeneration in Christ by the Spirit prepares us to confront sin in our local and worldwide communities.

Social action is not forbidden by God, but it is not foremost in the Christian faith or the Gospel. The Gospel of repentance and faith is primary. Yet society is forever open to change. By modelling and sharing the ethics and community values of the Christian fellowships as outlined in the Scriptures, believers can, under God’s providence, improve the lot of their fellow citizens.

Bavinck is firm in his view and he defends it eloquently. He summons his talent as a preacher in the concluding pages of the essay to declare: “In itself the gospel, the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven and his [God’s] righteousness, is the good news of reconciliation and redemption from sin through the blood of the cross. This is the gospel that must remain, first in church and missions, but also beyond, everywhere. It may not be robbed of its contents or dissolved into a political or social program. Only in this way can the gospel be maintained in its everlasting, all-surpassing value” (142).

One can only declare: Amen to that!