Bavinck's Organic Motif: Questions Seeking Answers more

CT/45 (2010): 51-71 Bavinck's Organic Motif: Questions Seeking Answers James Eglinton Even the most casual reading of Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) quickly reveals the regularity with which he uses organic language, imagery, and concepts. This exploration of Bavinck's organic motif was prompted by one of the most important and provocative statements in Reformed Dogmatics: In Christ, in the middle of history, God created an organic centre; from this centre, in an ever widening sphere, God drew the circles within which the light of revelation shines... . Presently the grace of God appears to all human beings. The Holy Spirit takes everything from Christ, adding nothing new to revelation... . In Christ God both fully revealed and fully gave himself. Consequently also Scripture is complete; it is the perfected Word of God.1 Here, Bavinck draws together various theological loci—revelation, pneumatology, an account of history, redemption, Scripture—and centers them on the person of Christ who stands as an organic center to the overarching plans of the triune God in the cosmos. Elsewhere, he writes: "For if the knowledge of God has been revealed by himself in his Word, it cannot contain contradictory elements or be in conflict with what is known of God from nature and history. God's thoughts cannot be opposed to one another and thus necessarily form an organic unity."2 In probing the workings of this theological system, one immediately faces a set of questions that must be answered: What does Bavinck mean by organic, and from where do these organic concerns come? Without answering these pertinent questions, one can scarcely lay claim to a nuanced understanding of Bavinck's work. Indeed, without deliberate definition, the various parts of Bavinck's dogmatic system cannot be related with any assurance or specificity. Noting Bavinck's dictum that "the imperative task of the dogmatician is to think God's thoughts after him and to trace their unity,"3 it becomes clear that Bavinck views the dogmatician as an inherently organic thinker. Indeed, if God's thoughts truly come together in an Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics^ 4 vols., ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1.383. 2 1 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.44. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.44. 3 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL organic fashion, one can neither think these thoughts nor trace their unity without probing this organic motif. Although it has not previously been the focus of exclusive attention, Bavinck's use of the organic has been noted in various doctoral theses.4 It is also the subject of an excursus in Jan VeenhoFs seminal work Revelatie en Inspirane? Veenhof's account of Bavinck's organic idea has, until now, been the industry standard.6 While the overall excellence oí Revelatie en Inspirane is beyond doubt, its handling of Bavinck's organic motif has recently been called into question and thus has thrust the topic to the forefront of Bavinck studies. This article will place VeenhoFs description of Bavinck's use of the organic in dialogue with the normative cross-disciplinary accounts of wider organic trends, before attempting critical engagement with both. One hopes that this engagement will yield clear answers to the aforementioned questions. VeenhoFs Account VeenhoFs 1968 dissertation devotes some twenty pages to Bavinck's recurring organic motif. Two general points should be noted regarding VeenhoFs influential description. First, he concedes that the organic motif has ancient origins. Second, he holds that Bavinck's use of this motif also has a more recent history: It is the direct successor of the organicism developed by German Idealism. Conceptually, he notes, organicism's heritage stretches back into antiquity. In this ancient context, theological organicism occurs primarily through reflection on the divine economy. Moving forward two millennia, however, one finds the same story progressing into the nineteenth-century world of Schelling and Hegel. VeenhoFs conclusion is that Bavinck (and his Neo-Calvinist contemporary Abraham Kuyper) inherited the organic idea from three sources: Schelling's idealist philosophy, the history-of-religions school, and the ethical theologians.7 His final sentiment is that, "Kuyper and Bavinck employed the concepts of'organism' and 'organic' in the universal sense of the time."8 It is perhaps most important to note that VeenhoFs work seems to rest on two presuppositions. First, it is assumed that the history of organicism (from antiquity 4 Brian Mattson, "Restored to our Destiny" (PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 2008), 42-49; John Bolt, "The Imitation of Christ in the Theological Ethics of Herman Bavinck" (PhD diss., University of St. Michael's College, Toronto, 1982); Syd Hielema, "Herman Bavinck's Eschatological Understanding of Redemption" (ThD diss., Toronto School of Theology, 1998), 59-60. 5 Jan Veenhof, Revelatie en Inspiratie: De Openbarings-en Schrifibeschouwing van Herman Bavinck in vergelijking met die der ethische théologie (Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn, 1968), 250-68. Ron Gleason, "The Centrality of the 'Unto Mysticd in Dr. Herman Bavinck's Theology" accessed at http://www.hermanbavinck.com/OrganicThinking.doc , 356; Louis Praamsma, review of Revelatie en Inspiratie: De Openbarings en-Schrifibeschouwing van Herman Bavinck in vergelijking met die der ethische théologie by Jan Veenhof, Westminster TheologicalJournal 32.1 (1969): 100. 7 8 6 Veenhof, Revelatie en Inspirane, 267-68. Veenhof, Revelatie en Inspiratie, 268. BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF to the nineteenth century) is a single development possessing a certain degree of homogeneity. The essence of organicism, he posits, has a "universal sense." Second, it makes the related assumption that Bavinck's organic idea is best defined by study of the historical-etymological, cross-disciplinary development of organicism. Generalist Intellectual Histories of Organicism Placing Veenhofs account in conversation with generalist intellectual-historical accounts of organicism yields interesting results. Indeed, one quickly comes to see that while Veenhofs account provides much valuable information, it nonetheless evinces the same interpretative flaws as many of its generalist counterparts. General intellectual histories of Western thought, tracing organicismi development from antiquity to the modern day, have portrayed it as broadly univocal.9 Beginning in the ancient world, one finds an Aristotelian understanding of cause and effect that takes shape and holds sway through the medieval era. However, the Enlightenment (and particularly the advent of Newtonian physics) changes this understanding of movement in the physical world. Scientific determinism begets philosophical offspring, and a generation of mechanical thinkers rise to prominence in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The limits of this mechanical worldview become apparent in the mid-eighteenth century, and the collapse of mechanism prompts the return and development of organicism, the modern avatar of the ancient thought system found in Plato's cosmos-as-macroanthropos10 and the apostle Paul's church-as-corpus (1 Cor. 12:14). Engagement with VeenhoFs Account Veenhof claims that the ancient organic idea, having begun with Aristotle and Kant, has undergone a long process of development, appears in the nineteenth century via Hegel and Schelling, and then passes into Bavinck's theology.11 As has already been noted, Veenhof posits a degree of uniformity and homogeneity spanning the history of organicism. When Aristotle and Hegel talk in organic terms, it is alleged, they are describing substantially the same thing, albeit in a different stage of its development. In addition, Veenhofs methodology attempts to define Bavinck's use of language through the historical usage of organic terminology. The underlying assertion is that one should define a term in relation to its etymological and conceptual history rather than seek definition by its immediate 9 Compare Veenhof s history with that of Louis Dupré, The Enlightenment and the Intellectual Foundations of Modern Culture (London: Yale University Press, 2004); George Mead, Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972); Frederick Beiser, Hegel (New York: Routledge, 2005); Jagdish Hattiangadi, "Philosophy of Biology in the Nineteenth Century," in Routledge History of Philosophy: The Nineteenth Century, vol. 7, ed. C. L. Ten (London: Routledge, 1994); Roland N. Stromberg, European Intellectual History Since 1789 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986). 10 11 Plato, Timaeus (30d, 33b). Veenhof, Revelatie en Inspiratie, 252-66. CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL contextual usage. In this light, Veenhof s analysis of Bavinck's organic motif bears a striking resemblance to the aforementioned generalist history of organicism. Both analyses seem to imply that organicism is essentially a vast but singular movement, whose exponents apparently have enough in common that one could use organicismi generic history to define its specific applications. Thus, Bavinck is explained by Schelling who is defined (albeit by negation) by Newton who is, in turn, negatively explained by Aristotle. Noting the high degree of similarity between Veenhof's analysis and generalist histories of organicism, we must ask how VeenhoFs thesis fares when brought into conversation with the primary critics of general organicist histories. Caroline van Eck is among the foremost challengers of the accepted historical accounts of organicism.12 Writing on the application of organicism to architecture and the arts, van Eck calls for a "clear break with the majority of the existing literature on organicism ... the prevalent opinion about the connections between organicism and philosophy must be substantially revised."13 Her extensive critique has two main points. First, the generalist historical portrait of organicism, centering on its development in the buildup to and reaction against the Enlightenment, is inherently wrong. "Until now, most studies devoted to organicism posited a significant change in the end of the eighteenth century, when developments in natural philosophy led to the rise of biology and the realisation of a fundamental difference between living, or organic nature and dead, or inorganic matter."14 Second, this Enlightenment-centric reading of organicist history is flawed because it misguidedly presupposes the existence of organicism as a singular, generic phenomenon. Central to van Eck s thesis is the claim that organicism is a broad, nonuniform term lacking a universally applicable definition. Veenhof a n d v a n Eck i n Conversation In developing a trialogue among van Eck s critique, the mainstream history of organicism, and VeenhoPs appropriation of Bavinck's organic idea, three points stand out.15 First, the Enlightenment-centric history of organicism, upon which VeenhoPs thesis rests, is deeply flawed. Assigning this crucial place to one event implies an essential uniformity that is inherent to organicism: It asserts that all organicism, before and after the Enlightenment, can be reduced to the influence of a single historical event. Van Eck's claim is that an Enlightenment-centric history of organicism 12 Caroline van Eck, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture: An Inquiry into Its Theoretical and Philosophical Background (Amsterdam: Architectura and Natura Press, 1994). 13 14 15 van Eck, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture, 32. van Eck, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture, 21. As she writes on the relationship between Schelling and architecture, van Eck is a useful conversation partner; van Eck, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture, 24, 114-15, 124, 130, 186. 54 BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF is incongruent with the facts of history: She finds that post-Enlightenment artistic organicism, for example, grew out of the Vitruvian tradition of the Renaissance.16 Particularly through her use of the Renaissance figure Alberti, she demonstrates that artistic organicism, from the Medieval period onward, does not fit into the Enlightenment-centric model.17 Van Eck is justified in beginning a critique of generic historical accounts of organicism by denying the place of the Enlightenment as organicism's defining moment. Bearing in mind that VeenhoPs account of Bavinck traces his organicism to Schelling—and this on the premise that German Idealism's organicism was a reaction to the post-Enlightenment mechanism caused by Newton—van Eck's critique has considerable implications for Bavinck studies. Those who understand Bavinck's organic motif as primarily the product of the Enlightenment's various conceptual revolutions may well be misreading him. Second, van Eck rests a denial of organicism's generic history on the refutation of its generic definition. If marked diversity of definition can be demonstrated among noted organicists, it becomes difficult to maintain that they nonetheless are exponents of a single system with one history. If organicism is not a uniform process moving through a chain of historical events, it logically follows that there can be no single cross-disciplinary definition of organicism. If van Eck is correct, a paradigm shift becomes necessary in all studies of organicism—Bavinck-related scholarship included. Indeed, if her critique is just, studies of Bavinck's organic motif that presuppose and rest on a generic history and definition of organicism quickly appear not simply outdated but factually incorrect. Post-Enlightenment intellectual life is riddled with organicism. In addition to German idealist organicism, many cross-disciplinary examples stand out. Alois Hirt (1759-1839) was the first to use the term organisch in the realm of architecture.18 Samuel Coleridge (1772-1834) set a trend for organicist poetry that was followed by John Ruskin and Isaac Williams.19 The debate between Georges Cuvier and Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire at the Parisian Académie des Sciences in 1830 centered on the use of organicism in science. 16 As such, van Eck's account of architectural organicism is Vitruvian, rather than Enlightenmentcentric. She maintains, nonetheless, that hers is not an all-encompassing study of generic organicism. Her focus is on organicism in the realm of art and architecture; van Eck, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture, 21. 17 18 van Eck, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture, 49-67. "One may consider every work of architecture as an organic whole, consisting of primary, secondary, and contingent parts, which stand in definite volumetric relationship to each other. In the case of organic bodies, nature herself has determined the relationships of the parts to each other in accordance with individual ends. In case of buildings, man is the determinator." Alois Hirt, Die Baukunst nach den Grundgesätzen der Alten (n.p., 1809), 13. "The spirit of poetry, like all other living powers ... must embody in order to reveal itself; but a living body is of necessity an organised one; —and what is organisation, but the connection of parts to a whole, so that each part is at once end and means!" Samuel Coleridge, Coleridge's Criticism of Shakespearean: A Selection, ed. R. A. Foakes (London: Athlone Press, 1989), 52. 19 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL The existence of pre-Enlightenment organicism is also beyond doubt. Even excluding the ancient organicism, of which Veenhof writes, strongly organic elements can be seen in the Early Renaissance period. In 1452, Alberti, of whom van Eck makes much use,20 wrote, "just as the head, foot, and indeed any member must correspond to each other and to all the rest of the body in an animal, so in a building, and especially a temple, the parts of the whole body must be so composed that they all correspond one to another, and any one, taken individually, may provide the dimensions of all the rest."21 The notion that such diverse figures as Aristotle, Alberti, Hirt, Hegel, Ruskin, Cuvier, and Saint-Hilaire, in speaking of the organic, were essentially describing the same thing, is hard to sustain. It seems van Eck is correct; organicism possesses neither generic history nor univocal definition. Different people, writing in different contexts on behalf of different disciplines often mean different things despite their use of the same (or similar) nomenclature. Brian Mattson argues that Veenhofs thesis is flawed in precisely this respect: It operates on the basis that Bavinck s organic motif can be defined by the use of similar terminology in different disciplines and contexts. [VeenhoPs thesis] attempts to explain the meaning of the language, as used by Kuyper and Bavinck, by tracing its historical and philosophical background. While a fascinating study in its own right, from Aristotle to Kant, the Romantics, and,finally,Hegel and Schelling, it is nevertheless to engage in the genetic fallacy. That is, one does not explain the meaning of words by tracing their historical origins.22 Citing Bavinck's critique of post-Enlightenment philosophy's relationship to Reformed theology, Mattson makes a strong case that Bavinck himself was against such a hermeneutic: "No doubt between these two mighty movements of modern history certain lines of resemblance may be traced. But formal resemblance is not the same as real likeness, analogy as identity.^23 Third, if the currently accepted history of organicism requires fundamental revision, the sense in which one goes about defining a particular contextual appropriation of organicism must follow suit. This is particularly relevant to Bavinck studies: The interpretation of Bavinck, built on a now-discredited generic history, cannot be maintained. With what, however, should one replace the old hermeneutic? Mattson's suggestion is that Bavinck, in order to find the organic idea, needed to look no further than his own Reformed orthodox scholastic tradition. Tentatively, he writes of, the possibility that the source of Neo-Calvinism's organic metaphor is not primarily nineteenth-century German philosophy at all, but rather a fresh appropriation of its 20 21 van Eck, Organicism in Nineteenth-Century Architecture, 41-67. Leon Battista Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991), 199, is a translation of De re aedificatoria, trans. Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Robert Tavernor (Florence, 1452), 7.5. 22 23 Mattson, "Restored to Our Destiny," 43. (New York: Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation: The Stone Lectures for 1908-1909 Longmans, Green, 1909), 4. BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF own tradition. Granted, the overall climate of the nineteenth century certainly provided its own situational motivations for using the terms, but it is at least possible that Kuyper and Bavinck were speaking to the critical issues of their day out of resources internal to their own historical-theological tradition. In fact, this hypothesis makes for a far more satisfying account. 24 Engagement with Mattson's Critique Mattson's eschatological reading of Bavinck does not dwell at length on this topic. However, he makes four brief claims that not only must be scrutinized but also merit expansion. First, he argues, Veenhof's account sits awkwardly with Bavinck's own frequent antagonism toward Hegel and Schelling.25 Moving away from Veenhofs thesis removes the tension it posits between Bavinck's open aversion to idealism and his apparent latent dependence on it. Second, Veenhof fails to account for why Bavinck traces a historical lineage from Cocceius to Schelling, by way of Bengel, Böhme, Oetinger, and Beck,26 and fails to identify himself with them.27 The linkage of Böhmes mysticism to Bavinck's organicism is important in Veenhofs analysis.28 In this respect, one may add that Veenhofs work represents the start of a tradition within which Bavinck and Kuyper are portrayed as "semi-mystics" writing "in a manner reminiscent of the Zeitgeist of Neo-Idealism."29 However, as Mattson acknowledges, Bavinck singularly fails to identify his own organic concerns with Böhme's mysticism. To the contrary, Bavinck charges Böhme's mystical theosophy with fuelling the growth of nineteenth-century pantheism.30 The argument that Bavinck stands as Böhme's inheritor at the turn of the twentieth century seems incongruent with Bavinck's own critique of Böhme's mysticism. In the work of Frederik van Eeden (1860-1932), one finds a Dutch intellectual more obviously indebted to Böhme. A socialist Utopian, van Eeden wrote of the cosmos in organic terms31 and was openly influenced by Böhme. However, when one compares the responses to Böhme's mysticism and the respective eschatologies of Bavinck and van Eeden, it becomes hard to 24 25 26 Mattson, "Restored to Our Destiny," 45. Mattson, "Restored to Our Destiny," 45. Veenhof draws this as the line along which organicism developed in German idealism and was transmitted to Bavinck, ReveUtie en Inspiratie, 253. 27 28 29 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.1.64. Veenhof, Revelatie en Inspiratie, 257. John Vander Stelt, "Kuyper s Semi-Mystical Conception," Philosophia Reformata 38 (1973): 186, Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3.211. 190. 30 31 Frederik van Eeden, The Bride of Dreams, trans. Mellie von Auw (Teddington, UK: Echo Library, 2009), 149. CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL sustain claims of a genetic relationship between Böhme's mysticism and Bavinck's organic motif. Third, Mattson suggests that reading Bavinck's organic idea as rooted in historic Reformed orthodoxy accords with Bavinck's own rejection of the Hegelian core of his Leiden education. Fourth, he argues that the relationship of Bavinck to Geerhardus Vos (who strained to differentiate his own use of the organic from that of German idealism32) also points toward Reformed scholasticism as the source of Bavinck's organic idea. Veenhofs account of the organic motif seems somewhat lacking. Indeed, Mattson's critique makes this plain. One must ask, however, whether Mattson's proposal represents a workable replacement when he concludes: It is therefore simply not necessary for Kuyper and Bavinck to enlist the aid of German Idealism to form their concept of the "organic," because it is already latent in their own tradition. This is not to say that nineteenth-century philosophical preoccupation with teleological concepts of history play no role; it likely provided them the motivation to draw on these internal resources to provide a biblical and Reformed answer to what they viewed as the pantheistic and evolutionary thought-forms of their day. In a word: Kuyper and Bavinck did not speak from their times to their tradition; they spoke from their tradition to their times.33 Like van Eck, Mattson demonstrates the failure of generic historical definitions of organicism. This prompts the following suggestion: The best person to define a term is the person using it. A term's meaning is deduced primarily from its immediate use in context, rather than its original etymology or historic usage.34 Indeed, on this point, James Barr inadvertently demolished the foundations of Veenhofs account decades before Mattson's critique came into being.35 In asking what Bavinck means by organic^ it seems odd to begin with Aristotle. One should instead first inquire whether Bavinck ever consciously defined his usage of the word. The same principle applies to movements and disciplines. When probing how the broader Neo-Calvinist movement understood its frequent organic references, one must begin the search for a Neo-Calvinist statement on the subject. The viability of Mattson's suggestions depends on whether Bavinck's self-understanding of the organic motif is demonstrably grounded in Reformed orthodoxy. The Immediate Context of Bavinck's Organic Motif In looking to avoid the pitfalls of Veenhofs account, the search to define Bavinck's organic motif changes its starting point. Veenhofs order will be reversed: one will 32 Geerhardus Vos, "The Idea of Biblical Theology, " Redemptive History and Biblical interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard Β. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 15-18. 33 Mattson, "Restored to Our Destiny," 49. Mattson, "Restored to Our Destiny," 43. 34 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 107-111, 158-60; also see Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 3 5 - 5 1 . 35 BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF move from Bavinck to Aristotle, rather than Aristotle to Bavinck. In that light, the search for a definition begins with Bavinck himself and looks for Bavinck's own writings and theological context to clarify the sense in which he uses organic language, concepts, and metaphors. The backdrop to Bavinck's story is a complex web of historic, intellectual, linguistic, ecclesiastical, and educational factors. Following the threads of these influences is no easy task. Understanding the particular brand of Reformed theology (theological mechanism) taught by J. H. Schölten and L. W. E. Rauwenhoffat Leiden, Bavinck's alma matey·, is of considerable help. The development of post-Enlightenment Reformed theology is generally acknowledged to have taken an unusual path in the Netherlands. Hendrikus Berkhof notes that "whereas in many places in Europe after the Enlightenment theology attempted to determine its position vis-à-vis the new challenges, Dutch theology, exhausted by two hundred years of controversy, slept a deep supernaturalistic sleep."36 Eldred Vanderlaan makes similar observations.37 Prior to the Groningen school's development, the works of Kant, Fichte, and Schelling were largely ignored.38 Schleiermacher became known in the 1830s, initially with very little impact.39 However, developments in Groningen and then Leiden brought considerable change.40 Central to the development of theological mechanism in the Netherlands is Johannes Schölten (1811-1885),41 one of Bavinck's professors at Leiden University. Scholten's theology was deterministic, antisupernatural, and monistic. His Leer der Hervormde Kerkl·2 displays the starkly deterministic nature of his theology. Scholten's worldview can perhaps be fairly labelled as theistic mechanism.43 A well-publicized debate with Cornelius Willem Opzoomer was pivotal in Scholten's development in this regard. His mature theology coupled absolute predestination with the scientific and philosophical determinism of the previous century. As such, his theology made 36 37 38 Hendrikus Berkhof, Two Hundred Years of Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 97. Eldred Vanderlaan, Protestant Modernism in Holland (Oxford: University Press, 1924), 14. K. H. Roessingh, "De Moderne théologie in Nederknd. Hare voorbereiding en eerste Periode" (PhD diss., Groningen, 1914), 22-24. Godgeleerde Bijdragen, the era's leading Dutch theological journal, responded to a Dutch translation of Schleiermacher, "We consider it beneath the office of a Protestant teacher to translate such writings and to publish them without corrective annotations." Cited in Roessingh, "De modern théologie in Nederland," 24. For an overview of the different theological schools of thought in the nineteenth-century Netherlands, see James Hutton MacKay, Religious Thought in Holland during the Nineteenth Century (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911). Schölten published an account of his own theological development: Herdenking mijner vijfentwintigjarige Ambtsbediening (Leiden: P. Engels, 1865). 41 40 39 42 Johannes Schölten, De Leer der Hervormde Kerk, in hare grond-beginselen uit de bronnen voorgesteld en beoordeeld (Leiden: P. Engels, 1848). English translation, The Doctrine ofthe Reformed Church, Set Forth andJudgedfromthe Sources in Its Fundamental Principles. 43 This is further demonstrated in his interactions with S. Hoekstra (Vrijheid in verband met zelfbewustheid, zedelijkheid, en zonde (Amsterdam, 1958) and in his work The Free Will (1859), 257-62. CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL no allowances for special revelation or the miraculous. His basic modus operandi, stemming from the omni-causality of God, was uninterrupted cause and effect.44 It is in discussing this ... that Schölten indicates his argument for theism, thus: From the existence and character of nature we are led to believe in a Cause, which as contrasted with nature, its effect, must be infinite, perfect, and self-existent; if infinite and perfect, then one, omnipresent, eternal, and almighty. From the order observed in nature we conclude that this Cause is understanding—a thinking Being, a Spirit.45 Within this system of absolute determinism, God is the cause and the reason of all else existing as predetermined effect. The combination of Scholten's opening address at Franeker46 and his Leer der Hervormde Kerk provided something of a catalyst for theological change in the Netherlands. Because his thinking was widely popularized in the late 1850s in Conrad Busken Huets' Letters about the Bible, Scholten's theistic mechanism would have practical consequences for the Dutch Protestant piety of the nineteenth century.47 Scholten's personal influence declined during Bavinck's studies in Leiden; Rauwenhoff (1828-1889), representing the Leiden school's shift toward a more ethically centered theology, became the dominant influence. Nevertheless, Scholten's brand of mechanical theism continued. J. Landwehr's biography of Bavinck notes the presence and international reputation of both Schölten and Rauwenhoff during Bavinck's university years.48 Bavinck was aware that Schölten was in some respects influenced by Hegel.49 In a discussion of ontology, he writes, Philosophy, the pure science, specifically logic, is the description of God's being as such. It understands the Absolute in its appropriate correspondent form as thought— in the form of a concept. Along these Hegelian lines, by purifying and deepening the concepts, many thinkers (e.g., Strauss, Biedermann, Ed. von Hartmann, Schölten) attempted to get even closer to transcendent reality.50 However, he then distinguishes Scholten's Hegelian aspects from other interpretations of Hegel. 44 45 46 J. H. Schölten, De Vrije WÎ/(Leiden: P. Engels, 1859); Berkhof, Two Hundred Years, 102. Vanderlaan, Protestant Modernism in Holland, 33. In 1840, Schölten was appointed professor of theology at the University of Franeker. His inaugural address, "The Duty of Avoiding Docetism," was an attack on the Christology of the Groningen school. His time at Franeker was short lived as the university, at this point comprised only of its theological faculty, was closed in 1844 due to lack of students. Its buildings were targeted by the government for use as a hospital for the mentally ill. Later, Schölten became a professor at Leiden University where he taught Herman Bavinck. MacKay, Religious Thought in Hottand, 88-89. 47 48 49 50 This is seen in his discussion of prayer in The Free Will, 257-62. J. Landwehr, Prof. Dr. Herman Bavinck (Kok: Kampen, 1921), 9. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2.43. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2.43. BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF But in the case of others, Hegel's philosophy led to a totally different outcome. They made the claim that a sense-related representation could never be overcome in the idea of God and therefore ended up in atheism. Feuerbach said that the personal God was nothing other than the essence of humans themselves, and theology nothing but anthropology.51 Thus, one has the immediate context of Bavinck's theological education. His professors presented a worldview marked by deliberate, rigorous mechanism, and an idealist interpretation of the Reformed tradition with which Bavinck profoundly disagreed. Such an account is no mere speculation; Bavinck explicitly writes of mechanism's growth in the eighteenth century,52 forming the tradition in which Schölten and Rauwenhoff stood. Undoubtedly, Bavinck's use of the organic was developed to combat the theological appropriation of post-Enlightenment mechanism. In that sense, it is important to frame the development of mechanistic paradigms in the aftermath of the Enlightenment. Insofar as he presents Bavinck's organic motif as developing in protest of this movement, Veenhof is correct. The debatable aspect of Veenhofs thesis is whether Bavinck used German idealism, rather than his own Reformed heritage, to do so. Bavinck's Definition of the Organic A logical implication of Mattson's critique is that the best-placed person to define Bavinck is, invariably, Bavinck himself. Clearly, organic language is a major feature of German idealism;53 it is also commonplace in the history-of-religions school and the Dutch ethical theologians. The advent of Darwinism, with its notion of the organism in evolution, also significantly overlaps the rise of Neo-Calvinism. Mattson writes: It cannot be denied that the simultaneity of Neo-Calvinism's "organic" emphasis with these wider cultural and intellectual movements is indeed striking. What accounts for this? Are Kuyper and Bavinck influenced by these trends? If so, the question arises whether they are self-consciously co-opting the language or whether they are somewhat unwitting "children of their time."54 It is fair to conclude that Bavinck, a careful and deliberate thinker, would be aware of this. Failure to clearly define the substance of his organic emphasis contra Hegel and Schelling would be, in context, a tacit admission that his organic 51 52 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2 A3. "But in the eighteenth century a gradual change took place. Its way was prepared by Deism, and it emerged for the first time clearly and plainly in Baron d'Holbach's Système de la nature, published in 1770, which has rightly been called the bible of materialism. The naturalism it promulgated—which, judging by the time in which the work appeared—was not the fruit of an exact science but the product of a philosophic worldview." Bavinck, "Christianity and Natural Science," 100-101. 53 54 Beiser, Hegel, 80. Mattson, "Restored to Our Destiny," 42-43. CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL concerns are rooted in an idealist worldview.55 The obvious question thus becomes: Did Bavinck define his use of organici If this question can be affirmatively answered, Bavinck's own definition becomes essential in appropriating the sense in which he uses organic thinking. Returning to the provocative quote given at the outset of this article,56 Bavinck s definition will shed much light on the entirety of his theological system. Tapping into Bavinck's self-conscious formulation is also of import in examining his critique of idealist philosophy. Broadly speaking, Bavinck and Hegel are committed organicists. Do they think organic thoughts in substantially the same way? Both attempt to be rigorously organic in style and substance. Hegel's organicism leads to monism and understands the telos of organicism in that light. His organicism is also closely related to his overall panentheistic concerns. For Hegel, organicism also plays a central role in his absolute idealism. Both fundamental aspects of absolute idealism—its monism and idealism—ultimately presuppose organicism. Monism, in the antidualistic sense, is based on the philosophical organicist thesis that the mental and physical, the ideal and real, are only different stages of development or degrees of organization of a single living force. Idealism rests on the organicist doctrine that everything in nature and history conforms to a purpose or an end.57 Does Bavinck's use of the organic resemble this? Bavinck defined the sense in which he uses organic in Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing (1904). 58 That Bavinck felt the need to provide this definition strongly suggests that he is not the uncritical inheritor of Schelling and Hegel. In this work, he asserts that, at the most basic level, only two worldviews exist: the theistic, and the atheistic.59 Bavinck associates a mechanical worldview with the latter, and thus demonstrates his dissatisfaction with the theistic mechanism of his Leiden professors, Schölten and Rauwenhoff. The notion of a closed-system universe operating solely by uninterrupted cause and effect—in essence, a mechanical cosmos—is, for Bavinck, irreconcilable with Christian theism. A worldview founded on a trinitarian doctrine of God must move toward a nonmechanical interpretation of the universe. In this definition, Bavinck provides four guiding principles within his organic 55 Mattson hypothesises that Geerhardus Vos, also a frequent exponent of organicism, keenly felt this potential for misunderstanding; Mattson, "Restored to Our Destiny," 4 8 n n l 5 1 - 5 2 . "In Christ, in the middle of history, God created an organic centre; from this centre, in an ever widening sphere, God drew the circles within which the light of revelation shines... . Presently the grace of God appears to all human beings. The Holy Spirit takes everything from Christ, adding nothing new to revelation... . In Christ God both fully revealed and fully gave himself. Consequently also Scripture is complete; it is the perfected Word of God." Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 1.383. 57 58 56 Beiser, Hegel, 81. Herman Bavinck, Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing (Kampen: Kok, 1904); in English, The Christian Worldview. 59 Bavinck, Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 51; "eigenlijk zijn er dus maar twee wereldbeschouwingen, de theïstische en de atheistische." BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF worldview.60 First, the created order is marked by simultaneous unity and diversity.61 This is essential if God is triune. As the universe itself is a general revelation of God, it must reflect his identity as three-in-one. Reality, therefore, becomes somewhat triniform: life is a unity of different parts. Perceiving the trinitarian contours of created reality is of huge importance to Bavinck: "The Christian mind remains unsatisfied until all of existence is referred back to the triune God, and until the confession of G o d s Trinity functions at the centre of our thought and life."62 Consciously trinitarian thinkers see life in the light of the triune God. Organic thinking begins by seeing the universe as the general revelation of God's Trinity. The theological concern at the core of Bavinck's organicism is his desire for a trinitarian appropriation of reality; for Bavinck, a theology of Trinity ad intra requires a cosmology of organicism ad extra» That Bavinck then found fault with Scholten's doctrine of God, claiming it was more monistic than trinitarian, 63 is hardly surprising, nor is the fact that having begun from a more thoroughly trinitarian foundation, he would go on to form a substantially different worldview. Bavinck claims that his organic motif begins with reflection on the divine economy. Veenhof recognizes that ancient theological organicism presents in the same context. It is unfortunate that his account places such a strong accent on the influence of Schelling, whilst failing to explore the relationship between trinitarian theology and organic cosmology. However, one may say that Hegel's organicism also develops out of a theological concern. In The Spirit of Christianity?A his motivation for organic thinking appears to be John 1:1-4. Second, unity precedes diversity.65 Here, Bavinck is attempting to clarify that unity in diversity is orderly. God creates a singular cosmos. Having spoken time and space into being, he then works to fill this single cosmos with diversity: distinguishing the earth from the celestial bodies, separating land from sea, and creating different species of animals. However, in the relationship of unity to diversity, Bavinck's claim is that unity comes first. This precedence finds its cause in God himself, and Bavinck develops this emphasis in Reformed Dogmatics: There is a most profuse diversity [in the cosmos] and yet, in that diversity, there is also a superlative kind of unity. The foundation for both diversity and unity is in God... . Hielema has produced a helpful summary of the broad characteristics of Bavinck's organic thinking, in "Herman Bavinck's Eschatological Understanding of Redemption," 59-60. Bavinck, Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 50; "erkent zij zowel de eenheid als de verscheidenheid in het geschapene." 62 63 64 61 60 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2.330. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2.115. G. W. E Hegel, "The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate," in Early Theobgical Writings, trans. T. M. Knox (Chicago: Chicago University press, 1948), 182-301; ed. Herman Nohl, Hegeh' Theologische Jugendschrifien (Frankfurt: Minerva, 1966). Bavinck, Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 51; "leert zij, dat het geheel aan de delen, de eenheid aan de veelheid voorafgaat." 65 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Here is a unity that does not destroy but rather maintains diversity, and a diversity that does not come at the expense of unity, but rather unfolds it in its riches. In virtue of this unity the world can, metaphorically, be called an organism, in which all the parts are connected with each other and influence each other reciprocally.66 The notion that, within an organism, the whole precedes the parts is also found in idealist organicism.67 Both were reacting against the mechanistic notion that the parts come first. Third, the organism's shared life is orchestrated by a common idea. Again, this combats the idea that unity in diversity is disorderly. Although bodily organs perform different functions, they also work synchronically to run the same body. In a healthy body, the distinctive organs complement, rather than counter, each other. Here, Bavinck comments that unity in diversity is quite unlike the chaos of multiformity. Last, Bavinck crystallizes his organic thinking by noting its teleological definiteness.69 The organism has a drive toward its goal; in all its unity and diversity, it has been made for the glory of the Triune God. Rather than being well represented in the reduction of the organism's parts into a single, monad-like state, the Trinity is glorified as the organism maintains simultaneous unity and diversity. The last point highlights the major difference between German idealism's organi­ cism and that of the Neo-Calvinists—between Hegel and Bavinck. Hegel's system operates around a panentheistic doctrine of God; he is concerned with the hen kat pan. The becoming of God is not just reflected but is actually worked out in the cosmos: It starts as an ontological singularity, differentiates itself into various parts, and then integrates these parts into a united whole. One might say that for Hegel, the cosmos is organic because God is organic. More precisely perhaps, God is in the cosmos and both are together in this organic paradigm.70 68 66 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2 435-36 G W F Hegel, The Science of Logic (Amherst, Ν Y Prometheus, 1989) For an explanation of Bavinck's appropriation of the Platonic-Aristotelian doctrine of the idea, see 67 68 Ron Gleason, "The Importance of the ' Unto Mystica'," 6 69 Bavinck, Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 65, "De organische wereldbeschouwing is daarom ten slotte ook door en door teleologisch, met in den platten zin van het rationalisme, dat den verstandsmensch als maatstaf en doel van alle dingen beschouwd, maar in dien verheven zin, welken de Schrift ons kennen doet, en waarnaar alwat is door God en tot Zijne eere bestaat De teleologie is met met de causale, maar wel met de mechanische beschouwing in stnjd, want deze kent geene natuur dan de lichamelijke, geene substantie dan de stof, geen kracht dan de physische en daarom ook geene ander oorzaak dan de mechanische Maar de organische wereldbeschouwing neemt de schepping, gehjk zij zieh geeft, in hare eindelooze verscheidenheid van substantien en krachten, van oorzaken en wetten " 70 "Both are the same, becoming, and although they differ so in direction they interpenetrate and para­ lyse each other The one is ceasing-to-be- being passes over into nothing, but nothing is equally the opposite of itself, transition into being, coming-to-be This coming-to-be is the other direction nothing passes over into being, but being equally sublates itself and is rather transition into nothing, is ceasing-to-be (Maiden, Mass Blackwell, 1998), 193 Each sublates itself in itself and is in its own self the opposite of itself" Stephen Houlgate, The Hegel Reader BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF Bavinck, however, differs considerably. While he describes many things as organic, the notable exception to this pattern is God himself. The deliberate intent of Bavinck's system, it seems, is to consistently describe the creation as organic and the Creator as triune. Ontologically, Bavinck posits a rigid separation between God and the cosmos.71 The ontology of one does not naturally merge with the other.72 Bavinck is neither pan- nor panen-theistic. 73 The introduction and conclusion to his organic thought reflect this. Its genesis is not pantheistic, nor is its telos monistic. Rather, its goal is to maintain unity and diversity in perpetuity and that to the glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; three eternally coexistent persons in one Godhead. In relating his doctrines of God and creation to a wider worldview, Bavinck makes a telling statement that reflects the four points given in Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing. Writing against the cosmologies of idealist pantheism and Enlightenment mechanism, he claims, Scripture's worldview is radically different. From the beginning heaven and earth have been distinct. Everything was created with a nature of its own and rests in ordinances established by God... . The foundation of both diversity and unity [point one, unity in diversity74] is in God. It is he who created all things [point two, unity precedes diversity75] ... who continually upholds them in their distinctive natures, who guides and governs them in keeping with their own created energies and laws, and who, as the supreme good and ultimate goal of all things, is pursued and desired by all things in their measure and manner [point three, the organism's members are driven by a common ideal]. Here is a unity that does not destroy but rather maintains diversity, and a diversity that does not come at the expense of unity, but rather unfolds its riches [point four, the organism's telos76]. In virtue of this unity the world can, metaphorically, be called an organism, in which all the parts are connected with each other and influence each other reciprocally.77 Bavinck on Cause and Effect While the organic motif suited Bavinck's needs in responding to the mechanical and monistic theology of the Leiden school,78 his reaction to mechanism was not antithetical. In his rejection of the mechanistic life and world view, however, 71 72 73 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2.30, 158-59. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2.154. "Moreover, with a view to pantheism, which equates the being of God with that of the universe, it is even supremely important to stress the fact that God has a nature of his own, that he is an independent being, whose essence is distinct from that of the universe." Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 2.111. 74 75 76 77 78 Bavinck, Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 50. Bavinck, Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 51. Bavinck, Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 65. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2.435-36. R. H. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck en zijn Tijdgenoten (Kampen: Kok, 1966), 37-76. CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Bavinck acknowledged that the mechanical explanation of the world had a rightful place but not in the exclusive sense in which it had been embraced.79 He demonstrates the rationale behind this critique as follows: "The mechanical explanation of nature is not science but a specific viewpoint among the practitioners of science who are intent on drawing all these phenomena of organic life within the circle of physics, chemistry, and engineering (mechanics) in order to explain them in a purely mechanical and merely quantitative fashion."80 The issue at hand is how one understands God and the cosmos. One's views of the divine and the general revelation of the divine are intertwined. "God s unity," he writes, "brought about the unity of the world."81 Misinterpreting God as monistic, Bavinck argues, leads to the misappropriation of the cosmos as exclusively mechanical.82 Again, one returns to the hypothesis that trinity ad intra leads to organicism ad extra. Bavinck accepts a degree of mechanism as necessary within an orthodox theology of nature: "the first and the second article of the Apostles' Creed are mutually related. Nature is a mechanism in which everything moves according to a fixed order, measure, and number."83 The mechanism Bavinck opposes is typified by Ernst Haeckel.84 Central to his viewpoint is that "Christianity gave to the newer natural science the realisation that nature, however mechanically it may operate, is subject to the Spirit and that the whole world is an instrument, an apparatus, for the realisation of an eternal divine plan."85 Bavinck's response to mechanism reflects his nature as a synthetic, rather than a strictly antithetical, thinker. Refusing to reject mechanism outright, he rather assigns it a limiting nuance and relocates it within the wider scheme of his organic paradigm: to a certain degree, the cosmos operates mechanically, but this operation is carefully reinterpreted by Bavinck. His notion of mechanism lacks the absolute finality of Haeckel's. The Organic Motif in Wider Neo-Calvinism By organic* Bavinck understands the cosmos as a unity in diversity, in which unity precedes diversity and the several parts cooperate toward a shared ideal culminating in a nonreductionist eschaton. Theological organicism is the creation's triune shape. Is this definition of the organic shared by the wider neo-Calvinist movement? In the era of Kuyper and Bavinck, Dutch neo-Calvinism consciously positioned itself against the uniform tendencies of their post-French Revolution, 79 80 81 82 Ron Gleason, "The Importance of the 'Unio Mystica', " 5. Herman Bavinck, "Christianity and Natural Science," in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, 101. Bavinck, "Christianity and Natural Science," 99. Compare Bavinck's critiques of mechanistic science ("Christianity and Natural Science," 97-102) and theistic mechanism {Reformed Dogmatics, 2.115). 83 84 Bavinck, "Christianity and Natural Science," 97. Ernst Haeckel, Riddle ofthe Universe (1901; rept., Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 180-82. Bavinck, "Christianity and Natural Science," 97. 85 BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF post-Enlightenment social context. They did so by way of the axiom of unity and diversity, which was usually expressed in their language of the organic. Among neoCalvinists, unity and diversity describes a deliberate intellectual effort to preserve diversity (by uniting diverse elements, rather than remove their distinctiveness and reduce diversity to uniformity) and to facilitate, rather than to remove, the tension between distinct elements in a system. Why did Bavinck, and the wider neo-Calvinist movement, see unity as so conceptually distinct from uniformity? Perhaps the most useful demonstration of this distinction is found in Kuyper s 1864 speech "Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life."86 Kuyper begins with a profound hamartiological insight: Sin is inherently without creative power—it imitates and distorts God's creation. He portrays sin as God's parodist. "Sin always acts so: it puts the stamp of God's image on its counterfeit currency and misuses its God-given powers to imitate God's activity. Itself powerless, without creative ideas of its own, sin lives solely by plagiarising the ideas of God." 87 As the speech progresses, Kuyper claims that the model by which God builds his kingdom is centered on unity in diversity. "In God's plan vital unity develops by internal strength precisely from the diversity of nations and races." Sin's parody of this divine plan, he asserts, takes the guise of uniformist reductionism; 88 "but sin, by a reckless levelling and the elimination of all diversity, seeks a false, deceptive unity, the uniformity of death."89 Kuyper's rhetoric focuses on the various aspects of Continental uniformity in the aftermath of the French Revolution. At the levels of architecture, fashion, ageappropriate behavior, the distinction between masculine and feminine, and language he charged Europe with becoming a bland, homogenized continent. So here we are. Everything has to be equalised and levelled; all diversity must be whittled down. Differences in architectural style must go. Age differences must go. Gender differences must go. Differences in dress must go. Differences in language must go. Indeed, what doesn't have to go if this drive toward uniformity succeeds? For what I have said so far is barely a beginning of the indictment against uniformity.90 Clearly, Kuyper has a paradigmatic dislike for what has been more recently called "world cliché culture."91 In direct opposition to this trend for uniformist reductionism, 86 Abraham Kuyper, "Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life," in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 19—44. This speech marked a key moment in the development of the Anti-Revolutionary Party, which ultimately led to Kuyper s election as Prime Minister of the Netherlands in 1900. 87 88 Kuyper, "Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life," 22. Kuyper uses the terms true uniformity and false uniformity, and uniformity and unity interchangeably. The pairs convey the same meaning. 89 90 91 Kuyper, "Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life," 23. Kuyper, "Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life," 32. David Wells, No Pkce For Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Leicester: CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL neo-Calvinism valued the uniting of diverse parts while maintaining their distinctiveness. As his thought develops, Kuyper chooses one word to encapsulate this unity-indiversity worldview: organic. "There, in a word, lies the profound difference distinguishing the spurious unity of the world from the life-unity designed by God."92 During Bavinck's adolescence, the fledgling neo-Calvinist movement was articulating its worldview as organic, contra mechanical; and uniting, contra unifying. Is there evidence from within this developing neo-Calvinism to support the hypothesis that Kuyper, and then Bavinck, took these concepts from their own Reformed orthodox heritage? As was noted above, Kuyper's organic motif has elsewhere been referred to as "semi-mystical" and "neo-Idealist."93 Can one substantiate the claim that Kuyper's use of the organic is a rehashed mix of mysticism and idealism? Such a hypothesis fails to account for the development of Kuyper's theology within his own lifetime. While an avowedly liberal student at Leiden University, Kuyper espoused a mystical theology.94 Although he reflected elements of Böhme's mysticism in those early days, his theology soon developed in another direction. In this respect, Kuyper's ecclesiology is of particular importance. The young Kuyper stressed a low ecclesiology,95 emphasising the church as an outmoded, involuntary society.96 However, as Kuyper matured, his ecclesiology underwent a radical change. In 1860, Kuyper wrote an essay on the doctrines of church and state,97 which displays a vastly different view of the church. Rather than being a social gathering with no place in the modern world, it is now the climax of God's plan for the cosmos. Kuyper conceptualizes the church in various ways: The church is social, visible, democratic, and organic. Among these descriptions organic stands out; Kuyper's ecclesiology has, almost literally, come alive. For the first time, Kuyper uses organicist terminology to understand the essence of the church. Inter-Varsity, 1993), 53-92. 92 93 94 Kuyper, "Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life," 24. Vander Stelt, "Kuyper's Semi-Mystical Conception," 186, 190. For a helpful discussion of Kuyper's earlier mysticism, see John Halsey Wood, "Church, Sacrament, and Society: Abraham Kuyper's Early Baptismal Theology, 1859-1874," Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008): 280-81. 95 Indeed, as a young man, Kuyper took a low view of church attendance, according to George Puchinger, Abraham Kuyper: Dejonge Kuyper (1837-1867) (Franeker: Wever, 1987), 113-14. Interestingly, even with a high ecclesiology, the mature Kuyper rarely attended church, preferring to spend Sunday writing. 96 Various reasons have been suggested for this viewpoint, ranging from the influence of J. H. Schölten and Kist, to the ecclesiastical property disputes with which Kuyper's father was so heavily involved; Wood, "Church, Sacrament, and Society," 280; Louis Praamsma, Abraham Kuyper als Kerkhistoricus (Kampen: Kok, 1945), 7-19. 97 This essay was Kuyper's prize-winning entry in a competition run by the University of Groningen according to Henry Zwaanstra, "Abraham Kuyper's Conception of the Church," Calvin TheobgicalJournal 9.2 (1974): 153-54. BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF What prompted Kuyper's shift from a low to a high (and organic) ecclesiology? His essay was on the respective ecclesiologies of John Calvin and Jan Laski.98 While Kuyper did not uncritically accept Calvin or Laski," it is clear that Kuyper's organic idea appears in a move away from, rather than toward, idealism or mysticism. That this change develops through engagement with Calvin is of particular importance. In 1926, Josef Bohatec published an extended reflection on Kuyper's third Stone Lecture, 100 in which he began by recognizing that the organic motif is central to neo-Calvinism and is one of its great merits.101 Regrettably, he lamented, neo-Calvinism's organic contribution has nonetheless garnered a disproportionate lack of scholarly attention. 102 He attempted to redress this balance by arguing that Kuyper first incorporated the organic motif via Calvin's theology of church and state and that theological usage of the organic idea predates Calvin 103 who appropriated organic thinking from philosophical, legal, and constitutional debates of the Middle Ages and earlier.104 Bohatec first examines the organic notion of church and state in the Medieval era,105 explores Calvin's position on the medieval concept of this organic application, 106 and finally probes the relationship of church and state in the light of Calvin's organic idea.107 Bohatec's engagement with Calvin leads to the conclusion that Calvin's organic concept is not without its problems. 108 98 99 Jan Laski or John à Lasco (1499-1560) was a leading Polish reformer. Wood, "Church, Sacrament, and Society," 281. Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931), 78-109. 100 101 "Het is de groóte Verdienste van Kuyper en de door hem aangegeven richting in de théologie, te hebben aangetoond, dat, naar de opvatting van het Calvinisme, de menschelijke samenleving, evenals al het bestaande in natuur- en geesteswereld, een organische eenheid vormt, een samenstel van ordinantiën, die de souvereine God aan al het geschapene heeft geschonken en die Hij door Zijn steeds werkzamen, almachtigen wil onderhoudt." Bohatec, "De Organische Idee in de Gedachtenwereld van Calvijn." Bohatec, "De Organische Idee in de Gedachtenwereld van Calvijn," 32. "Overigens heeft de wetenschap weining aandacht geschonken aan de organische idee bij Calvijn." Bohatec, "De Organische Idee in de Gedachtenwereld van Calvijn," 32. 103 "Calvijn is niet de 'uitdenker' der organische idee geweest." Bohatec, "De Organische Idee in de Gedachtenwereld van Calvijn," 34. 104 "Zij was reeds in de Middeleeuwen en in de Oudheid voorwerp van wijsgeerige, juridische en algemeen-staatsrechtelijke Studien. Men moet daarom zijn (Calvijn's) gedachten in hun geschiedkundig verband plaatsen, om ze in hun wezen te begrijpen." Bohatec, "De Organische Idee in de Gedachtenwereld van Calvijn," 34. 105 106 107 108 102 Bohatec, "De Organische Idee in de Gedachtenwereld van Calvijn," 34-45. Bohatec, "De Organische Idee in de Gedachtenwereld van Calvijn," 153-64. Bohatec, "De Organische Idee in de Gedachtenwereld van Calvijn," 362-77. "Daarover, als ook over de geenszins onder-geschikte plaats van de organische idee in het systeem van den Reformator en haar kultuurhistorische beteekenis, kon hier verder niet worden gesproken." Bohatec, "De Organische Idee in de Gedachtenwereld van Calvijn," 373. CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL In Bohatec's article, we have a recognized neo-Calvinist voice, in an official neoCalvinist publication, claiming that its organic concern has come into their thought world directly from Calvin. This corroborates Mattson's suggestion that Bavinck and Kuyper drew organic thinking from their Reformed heritage, rather than from German idealism. It also suggests that Veenhof's account of the matter stands or falls in response to Bohatec s article. Bohatec presents a compelling case. Context adds much weight to his argument: He was a Calvin scholar of some repute and was well versed in German intellectual history. As a Vienna-based theologian, he wrote with a degree of external perspective on the development of neo-Calvinism. Furthermore, the Antirevolutionaire Staatkundewas a neo-Calvinist publication whose editors included noted Kuyperians such as Anema, Beumer, Colijn, Dambrink, Dooyeweerd, Rutgers, Schuten, and Severijn. Had Bohatec, writing within four years of Bavinck's death, and six years from Kuyper's, utterly misrepresented the organicism of neo-Calvinism, one would expect to find scholarly opposition to his article. However, none has yet appeared. Noting that Bohatec's account was approved by an official publication of the AntiRevolutionary Party, of which Kuyper was Prime Minister and Bavinck a Member of Parliament, there are only two possible conclusions. First, Bohatec's account is accurate; neo-Calvinism did not take its organic metaphor from German Idealism or earlier theological mysticism. The organic idea is a reflection of its Calvinistic heritage. Second, Bohatec has deliberately obscured neo-Calvinism's dependence on Hegel and Schelling and so has attempted to represent its idealist past as historic Calvinism. The facts of history suggest that Bohatec was correct. What cannot be denied is that prior to his immersion in Calvin's theology, Kuyper espoused a mystical, nonorganic ecclesiology. After serious interaction with Calvin, Kuyper's ecclesiology becomes organic and nonmystical. Surprisingly, Bohatec's article does not feature in the analyses of Veenhof or Mattson. However, when placed in conversation with both, it unquestionably favors Mattson's reading of Bavinck. With a measure of reserve, Mattson writes of "the possibility that the source of neo-Calvinism's organic metaphor is not primarily nineteenth-century German philosophy at all, but rather a fresh appropriation of its own tradition."109 Bohatec's account, considered in context, suggests that neo-Calvinists themselves would claim this as fact rather than as a possibility. Conclusion To understand Bavinck, one must grapple with the specifics of his recurrent organic motif. Evidently, this is a live issue in Bavinck studies: The previously accepted account has come under scrutiny and has been found wanting. Initially at least, recent critiques of Veenhof s thesis seem to have some impact. The claim that Bavinck's organic motif is best defined from its immediate rather than its Mattson, "Restored to Our Destiny," 45. BAVINCK'S ORGANIC MOTIF historical-etymological context is an attractive one. This is particularly the case in the light of Bavinck's own emphases in Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, Kuyper's concept of organic unity, and Bohatec's assertion that Neo-Calvinist organicism is an extension of classical Calvinist theology. 71 ^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.