CTJ45 (2010): 18-31

Herman Bavinck and Geerhardus Vos

George Harinck When mentioned together, we take the names of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck not as the name of two individuals but as a brand name. Kuyper and Bavinck belong together like Goldman and Sachs or Mercedes and Benz. Together they stand for neo-Calvinism. Like in the other double-brand names, we always mention their names in the same order or rank. Bavinck follows suit, but Kuyper comes first. This is not accidental. The rank reveals a hierarchy. Abraham Kuyper was the architect of neo-Calvinism and the leader of the Dutch neo-Calvinist movement, or, more to the point, he was the general. He was "Abraham the Great," the first in rank, the daredevil and the great consoler, and he was served by a myriad of warrant officers. As a student, Herman Bavinckwho was more than fifteen years younger than Kuyperwas his admirer. This changed over the years when he became a theologian in his own right in 1902 and took over Kuyper's position at the Free University of Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteii). However, he never became Kuyper s equal, and one obituary stated: "he was destined to live in Kuyper's shadow."1 It was always Kuyper and Bavinck and never Bavinck and Kuyper, but even when we accept this order of rank as a fact, it is hard to locate Bavinck in the military hierarchy of the neo-Calvinist movement. A military title does not fit him like it did Kuyper or Kuyper's predecessor Groen van Prinsterer. Dutch theologian Karel Heiko Miskotte, however, stuck to the military vocabulary and, comparing Bavinck to Kuyper, presented him as a man in a military uniformnot as a general but as a "medical orderly in the field" or as a Red Cross worker.2 Another Dutch theologian, Klaas Schilder, looking for a fitting qualification of Bavinck, abandoned the military imagery altogether. He used religious terms and described him as a priestly figure.3 The interesting things about these two qualifications is that both Miskotte and Schilder sharply distinguished Bavinck from Kuyper the general and provided him with functions or an attitude related to sacrifice or reconciliation. I am not sure that these qualifications fit Bavinck. Two things, however, are certain. First, Bavinck did not compete with Kuyper for the leadership of the

1 V. Hepp, "Levensbericht van dr. Herman Bavinck," in Handelingen en mededeelingen van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden, over hetjaar 1922-1923 (Leiden: Brill, 1923), 113: "His greatness would have been brought into brighter light had he not been destined to live in the shadow of Abraham Kuyper." (Translation here and in subsequentfootnotesby John Bolt.) 2

K. H. Miskotte, Christendom en Secularisatie, ed. G. Puchinger (Delft: Meinema, 1968), 242. K. Schilder, "De Reformatie van De 'Reformatie,'" De Reformatie, 7 October 1950.

HERMAN BAVINCK A N D GEERHARDUS VOS

neo-Calvinist movement. In his younger days, Bavinck appreciated Kuyper, especially as a leader. When he did criticize him later, he only addressed his function as leader. Bavinck considered leadership a burdena responsibility he first accepted as the less favored part of his academic position but that he sought to evade later in life because it was too onerous. During the first decade of the twentieth century, the constant pressure of his leadership position undermined his joie de vivre and physical endurance, such that he could not speak out on issues close to his heart. 4 Second, Bavinck was not made for leadership; Kuyper the general was truly fond of a battle. For him, battles were signs of life; he would long for them even when things were calm. Bavinck thought Kuyper too political, noting in 1918: "Dr. Kuyper has put the problems of his times aside (e.g., historical criticism of the Bible at the Free University), returned to history, confession, tradition, the people, the kleine luyden ... but did not provide for the future; [he] became a reactionary."5 Bavinck was a better analyst than general. He, too, fought his battles but never relished them. In his heart, Bavinck was not attracted by conflict; he engaged the problem. He did not want to confront others as opponents but to engage them as partners. Reflecting on this late in life, he told his students: "You should be resolute about yourself, but appreciative of others; this seems to be weakness, but is not."6 The differences were too great for Bavinck to have a place in Kuyper*s military hierarchy. Nevertheless, we locate him in Kuyper's shadow, as we do with many others who shared Kuyper's thought. This only leads to misinterpretations, as it has with Bavinck's Stone Lectures. Conventional wisdom holds these to be little more than a follow-up to Princeton Theological Seminary's initial invitation to neoCalvinism's "star"; Kuyper paves the way at the 1898 Stone Lectures, and others Herman Bavinck, Herman Dosker, Hugo Visscher, Herman Huber Kuyper, and Valentijn Heppfollow in his train. If this is true of the others mentioned, it should not be applied to Bavinck, who visited the United States six years before Kuyper did, had a relationship with Princeton Theological Seminary independent of Kuyper, and was invited to give the Stone Lectures of 1908 in his own right. We should not only reject attempts to separate Bavinck from Kuyper, as if neo-Calvinism had two faces, but we should also object to reducing neo-Calvinism to Kuyperism. This, however, achieves little more than abandoning Bavinck in Kuyper's shadow. In this article, I will describe Bavinck in relationship to another contemporary theologian and friend: the Princeton theologian Geerhardus Vos. I first will

Th. Obbink to J. J. Buskes, 15 April 1926: " Bavinck continually had to pull the heavily loaded train for which he had less reason to expect applause (nor did he seek it). He felt that he could not keep this up, and his sense that there were so many things he wanted to say and do but could not undermined his spiritual energy and endurance, and shattered his joy of life." 0 de Bruijn, Brieven aan Buskes [Amsterdam: Historisch Documentatiecentrum, 1990], 16-17). G. Harinck, C. van der Kooi, and J. Vree, eds., "Als Bavinck maar eens kleur bekende. " Aantekeningen van H. Bavinck over de zaak-Netelenbos, het Schrifigezag en de situatie van de Gereformeerde Kerken (November 1919) (Amsterdam: Historisch Documentatiecentrum, 1994), 45. P. N . Kruyswijk to his fiance, 6 February 1921. H. Bavinck Papers. Historisch Documentatiecentrum voor het Nederlands Protestantisme, Free University Amsterdam. (Hereafter, HDC)
6 5

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

introduce Vos and show how his and Bavinck's personal lives and scholarly interests were intertwined. Then I will explore their appreciation for each other. Finally, I will relate this appreciation and understanding to Voss's review of Bavinck's Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Reformed Dogmatics) and to Bavinck's reason for selecting "Revelation" as the topic for his 1908 Stone Lectures.

The Early Years

Geerhardus Vos was born in the Netherlands in 1862. Although he was eight years younger than Herman Bavinck, the boys had much in common, beginning with their family background and religious affiliation. Their fathers were born in the county of Bentheim, close to the Dutch border in Germany and were members of the German Old Reformed Church (Altreformierte Kirchen Deutschlands)a denomination closely related to the Seceder Church in the Netherlands. Even though this small German church counted fewer than a thousand members, it was influential in the Netherlands and in the Dutch immigrant communities in the United States.7 The Bavinck and Vos families belonged to the founding community of this free church, and its members knew each other well.8 Their fathers also received their theological education in the parsonage of Rev. W. A. Kok in Hoogeveen, the Netherlandsbefore Kampen Theological Seminary was founded in 1854became ministers in the Secession Church, and started their careers in the same congregation of Uelsen in Germany.9 The spiritual milieu of Bavinck's parental home, described by their mutual friend Henry E. Dosker, is also a fitting description of Vos's home. These families, Dosker writes, "cherished all the puritanical and often provincial ideas and ideals of the church of the Separation in its early dayssimple, almost austere in their mode of life, exhibiting something of what the Germans call Kulturfeindlichkeit, pious to the core, and teaching their children more by example than by precept."10

7 1, van Dellen, De Wchter, 31 October 1939, wrote the following about the presence of German delegates at the synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, at Sneek: "We too are intimately bound to the Altreformierte Kirchen DeutschUnds and owe them a great debt of gratitude. There is the cradle of the Bavinck, Vos, and Beuker families and a host of ministers of the Word who have blessed our churches in America with their service. Apparently the wood from which theological professors are carved grows well there. Think only of those who presently teach at Calvin Theological Seminary, namely Kromminga and Schultze." 8 G. Keizer, in De Bazuin, 10 October 1929, called Herman Bavinck and Geerhardus Vos relatives ("verwant"). This is a mistake, but it underlines how close they were.

H. Beuker, Umkehr und Erneuerung. Aus der Geschichte der Evangelisch-altreformierten Kirche in Niedersachsen, 1838-1988 (Uelsen: Synode der Evangelisch-altreformierten Kirche in Niedersachsen, 1988), 254. An assistant to the teacher Rev. W. A. Kok, Jan Bavinck taught Jan Hendrik Vos in the early 1850s in Hoogeveen.
10 Henry Elias Dosker, "Herman Bavinck," Princeton Theological Review 20 (1922): 450; reprinted in Herman Bavinck, Essays on Religion, Science and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 13-24.

HERMAN BAVINCK AND GEERHARDUS VOS

Herman and Geerhardus were clever boys and were destined for the ministry. For their education, the families sent them to public educational institutionsLeiden University and the Amsterdam Municipal Gymnasium respectively. Such a decision was not characteristic of the Seceders of those days and, therefore, not easily made. In 1881, when the senior Vos accepted a call to serve a Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Geerhardus was nineteen years old and had to abandon his projected study of theology at the Kampen Theological Seminary. Bavinck had studied there eight years before and a year later would accept a professorship. Emigrating with his family, Geerhardus studied theology at the Theological School of the Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids and later on at Princeton Theological Seminary. At this point, the similarity in their history ends, for the Bavinck family had not favored emigration.11 While Rev. Vos accepted the call from Grand Rapids and emigrated, Herman's father had declined calls from Grand Rapids in 1873 and 1875.12 The Bavincks may have been disappointed in the Vos s decision to move, but the distance between the families did not prevent personal contacts between Herman and Geerhardus. Both were excellent students. In 1885, five years after Bavinck had earned his doctor of philosophy degree at Leiden University, Vos graduated from Princeton and returned to Europe for postgraduate studies, facilitated by a fellowship awarded by the Princeton faculty for his "penetrating, thorough, balanced"13 thesis on the origin of the Pentateuchal codes.14 Vos studied in Berlin during the winter semester of 1885-1886 and the summer semester of 1886. Bavinck, at that time a young professor at Kampen Theological Seminary, not only visited Vos in Berlin at the end of July 1886,15 he also sat in on classes with some of Vos's professors, one of whom was B. Weiss. The state of the theological disciplines in Germany failed to impress Vos: "Too little reflective and self-confident," he wrote Bavinck.16 Dissatisfied with Berlin, he switched to the small university of Strasbourg in 1886 to study Semitic languages with the famous Orientalist, Theodor Nldeke (1836-1930). Bavinck s friend the

Bavinck's own attitude to immigration can be seen in his comments about pietistic tendencies in Christianity in his 1888 rectoral address, "The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church," translated by John Bolt, Calvin Theohgical Journal 27.2 (1992): 246: "Many withdrew completely from life; they literally separated themselves from everything, and, in some cases, what was even worse, shipped off to America, abandoning the Fatherland as lost to unbelief." J. Noordewier, "De oorsprong van onze Theologische School," in Theological School and Calvin College 1876-1926: Semi-Centennial Volume (Grand Rapids: Tradesman, 1926), 11,12.
13 12

11

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., ed., Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings o Geerhardus Vos (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), ix.
14 G. Vos, The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1886), with an introduction by William Henry Green, Voss Old Testament professor at Princeton. 15 16

Diary, 24-30 July 1886. Bavinck Papers. HDC.

G. Vos to H. Bavinck, 16 June 1887, in The Letters of Geerhardus Vos, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, N.J: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2005), 124.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

famous Dutch Orientalist, Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, had studied with Nldeke in Strasbourg during 1880-1881. It is possible that Vos went to Strasbourg on the advice of Snouck or Bavinck. This much is clear: Geerhardus Vos and Herman Bavinck enjoyed the same background and upbringing, and their contacts intensified after they entered the academic world. From the Church to the A c a d e m y Other friends in international academia may have known each other from childhood and shared the same cultural background, but I know of none whose early years and experiences were so similar. The striking parallels in the lives of Bavinck and Vos during the following years demonstrate that. When the Free University of Amsterdam was founded in 1880, not all of the Seceders in the Netherlands supported this Reformed educational institution. In their opinion, it was still a part of the world of the Netherlands Reformed Church they had left in 1834. Neither was it clear at that time whether Kuyper would include the Seceders in the Calvinistic revival he was planning. This explains why Vos's father did not want Geerhardus to study at the Free University in 1881. Geerhardus himself was in favor of Kuyper, as was Bavinck who had welcomed the new university, "with gladness."17 However, when Bavinck was offered positions at the Free University during the 1880s, he repeatedly rejected them. Although he had accepted a professorship in the Oriental languages in May 1880against the advice of a Seceder friendafter being pressured by Kuyper, he withdrew the acceptance a few days later. His diary discloses the reason: "I would, if I had accepted, only have done this for Kuyper's sake and for his gloriae studio."18 In February 1882, the Free University contacted Bavinck for the New Testament chair, but, rightly expecting an appointment later that summer to teach dogmatics at Kampen, he decided to wait for that call from the Seceder church. Bavinck was not seeking greater academic prospects at Kampen, for on that level the Free University was far more attractive, but he felt obliged by "the interest of the Church I serve."19 The many attempts to convince Bavinck to accept a professorship at the Free University is strikingly similar to Vos's academic career. Impressed by his study of the Pentateuchal code at Princeton, the Free University offered Vos a professorship in Oriental languages and exegesis of the Old Testament in 1886. This put Vos in a position that Bavinck had been struggling with for some years. He could accept this attractive offer, join the Amsterdam university, and cooperate with Kuyper, or he could serve the small Theological School of the Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, an institution without any academic prestige. Like Bavinck, Vos first accepted the call but withdrew it soon after. Like Bavinck, Vos also felt obligated to

17 Bavinck to J. W. Felix, in Herman Bavinck en zijn tijdgenoten, ed. R. H. Bremmer (Kampen: Kok, 1966), 39. 18 19

Bremmer, Bavinck en zijn tijdgenoten, 34. Bavinck to Felix in Bavinck en zijn tijdgenoten, 39.

22

HERMAN BAVINCK AND GEERHARDUS VOS

his Seceder background and decided to accept the less attractive call he had received that same summer from the synod of the Christian Reformed Church.20 In May 1888, Strasbourg awarded him the doctor of philosophy degree, and he left Europefor good we now knowbut not before paying Bavinck a visit in Kampen only three days before he crossed the ocean. In Grand Rapids, Vos would be the third teacher at the Theological School of the Christian Reformed Church, a true copy of Kampen Theological Seminary. There, he taught dogmatics, aimed successfully at lifting the level of education of his seminary, and became primus inter pares, just as Bavinck had done in Kampen.21 Both were unmarried, lived with their parents, and studied day and night. Their lives, choices, aims, and careers were identical. Bavinck soon became involved with the neo-Calvinist revival in the Netherlands. In the United States, Vos supported the orthodox revival in the Netherlands, showing himself to be of a kindred spirit with Kuyper and Bavinck. He soon became their representative in the States. He taught Kuyper's theology, including his supralapsarianism. On behalf of Kuyper, Vos turned to his former teacher at Princeton, B. B. Warfield, for advice on an English translation of Kuyper's projected Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology. On behalf of Warfield, he consulted Bavinck on Dutch books that might be reviewed in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review. This periodical was launched in 1890 by Warfield in reaction to modernist tendencies within the Presbyterian Church. In this struggle against modernism, the neo-Calvinistic movement in the Netherlands was a welcome ally.22 When he recommended Kuyper's work to Warfield in 1889, Vos stressed that the theology of the new Dutch movement was orthodox and modern at the same time: "So far as I know it would be the first modern attempt to write on the Encyclopedia of Theology from a reformedCalvinistic point of view."23 Vos admired the Calvinistic theological developments in the Netherlands but understood that its effects in the United States would be limited:

20

G. Vos to A. Kuyper, 7 October 1886: "The correspondence with my parents made it necessary for

me to make a choice which had become doubly difficult after acquaintance with the Free University. Had not such tender motives as the relation between parents and child mixed up in our consideration and made that choice totally inevitable, that would not have been done. The impulse of undivided sympathy with the glorious principle that your institution represents and seeks to propagate drove me, as it were, within her walls. It would have been an honor and a delight to me to be permitted to serve the Free University with my frail energies. The circumstances, a they have formed themselves under God's rule, apparently do not allow that. My parents cannot view the case in the same light in which I learned to look at it as of late. In case I, against their advice and wishes, dared to follow the inclination of my heart, I would bring grief to them, from which I have to save them at any cost. Taking this into consideration, I see no other way than to choose the field of activity assigned to me in America." Dennison, Letters of Vos, 120-21.
21

Semi-CentennialVolume, 15, 18. See: "Inleiding," in Mijn rets wasgeboden. Abraham Kuypers Amerikaanse tournee, ed. George Harinck

22

(Hilversum: Verloren, 2009), 9-28.

23

G. Vos to . . Warfield, 22 October 1889. Benjamin . Warfield Papers. Special Collections, Princeton

Theological Seminary Libraries (PTS).

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

"My own impression is, that there is not much demand in this country for discussions of this sort, as people are apt to consider theology under an exclusively practical aspect, so that perhaps an 'Encyclopedia of Theological Science' would be received with a certain indifference which would be hard to overcome."24 Nevertheless, he reminded Warfield that Princeton Seminary would be keenly interested in these developments: "I remember very well, however, during my seminary days at Princeton to have heard Prof. Patton speak with great enthusiasm of the difficulties and attractions alike of such a work as Dr. Kuyper has undertaken."25 Here, the contours of Vos's intentions became visible: He wanted to link Dutch neo-Calvinism with Princeton, the orthodox bulwark of American Presbyterianism. Vos did not restrict himself to Kuyper when he worked on forging a DutchAmerican link; he included his friend and colleague Bavinck in the project. Bavinck's own interests in the United States had not been restricted to the Dutch immigrant communities in Michigan and Iowa. Dutch neo-Calvinist theologians knew Princeton Theological Seminary and used Hodges Systematic Theology; they had no personal contacts in the Presbyterian world. During his stay in the Netherlands, Vos undoubtedly informed Bavinck about Princeton and the Presbyterian world in the United States, so that when Bavinck first traveled to the United States in 1892, he not only stayed with his friend in Grand Rapids for three weeks, but also "spent many hours ... in his study"26 and lectured at a meeting of the Presbyterian Alliance in Toronto. He also visited Princeton and met Warfield.27 Vos informed Bavinck of how isolated Reformed theology was in the practical, pragmatic American academic climate. This view strongly influenced Bavinck's opinion of the American academic scene and also reflected his own view of doing dogmatics in the intellectual climate of late nineteenth-century Europe when writing his Reformed Dogmatics. In 1895, he wrote in the introduction: "A sense of isolation is inseparable from its pursuit. Under these circumstances it is gratifying to be able to appeal to the testimony of past generations." Vos turned Bavinck's attention from Grand Rapids to Princeton as one of the few places where Reformed dogmatics was appreciated and where they needed an updated dogmatic opinion to counter the modern German theological influences that were invading the United States, including the Presbyterian Church. Bavinck and Vos, two of the brightest academic minds produced by the Dutch Seceders, not only moved beyond the Kulturfeindlichkeit of their past, but they also struggled to find a way to engage culture. Both sought to develop a catholic or ecumenical perspective, either in a geographical or a historical vein. In Grand Rapids, Vos broadened the perspective within Christian Reformed circles, opened the door to neo-Calvinism, and sought coalitions with Presbyterianism in order to engage

24 25 26 27

Vos to Warfield, 22 October 1889. Vos to Warfield, 22 October 1889. V. Hepp, De Reformatie, 2 May 1924. See, George Harinck, ed., H Bavinck, Mijne reis naar Amerika (Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 1998).

HERMAN BAVINCK AND GEERHARDUS VOS

that world; in Kampen, Bavinck worked to overcome his isolated position by engaging the Christian tradition of the past. Bavinck provides a fine example of this ecumenicity when he addressed the Presbyterian Alliance in Toronto. There he defended Calvinism as a theology in line with historic Christianity but warned against its tendency to present itself as something special within Christianitya view he shared with Vos. In place of this narrowness, he spoke of Calvinism as an open and ecumenical tradition, one that did not separate from but represented the essence of Christianity. Later historical studies have emphasized Bavinck's praise of Calvinism; they have paid little attention to the ecumenical spirit that lay behind his critique of some Calvinists. That Bavinck's presence at this international meeting in Toronto, which lacked a clear Reformed basis, received comment in Vos's and Bavinck's ecclesiastical circles28 speaks to its unusual character. Warfield read Dutch and followed the developments in the Netherlands by reading Kuyper's weekly De Hraut {The Herald),2** and Vos also kept him informed of developments in the Netherlands. After convincing Warfield of the importance of the Dutch revival for Princeton, Vos was able to reach an audience for Kuyper and Bavinckone much broader than the Dutch immigrant circles by having their articles published in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review. Not surprisingly, Warfield soon published an article in the Review on recent dogmatic thought in the Netherlands. If it was all but impossible to get Kuyper to write articles to inform American Presbyterians on the position of Dutch Calvinism in the Netherlands, it was not so with Bavinck who wrote two excellent articles, requested and translated by Vosone providing an overview of the Dutch theological situation and another of Calvinism's prospects in general. Both were well received.30 It was Bavinck and his thought that was appreciated. If Kuyper was admired like fireworks, in awe and at a distance, Bavinck was respected as a primus inter pares. Warfield did not discuss Kuyper's work but Bavinck's Certainty of Faith. In a 1902 review of this book, he debated the place of apologetics within theology.31 When Bavinck died, sixteen of his publications had been reviewed in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review and its successor, The Princeton Theological Review. Furthermore, of all the Stone lecturers who had been invited during these

28 29

Harinck, Mijne reis naar Amerika, 19, 32.

Vos to Warfield, 12 March 1891: "Have you read the articles of Dr. Kuyper on the subject of infantbaptism in the Hraut? There he gives quite a lengthy discussion of the matter. If you have not read them, and have time to go over these articles, I should be glad to send you these numbers of the Hraut and have your opinion on some of the points involved." Warfield Papers. PTS. Vos to Bavinck, 1 February 1894: "Your article has made a good impression everywhere as far as I can tell. I say everywhere because you will see from the newspaper I sent you yesterday, this is even the case in Scodand. Also, Dr. Warfield received expressions of thanks from England for the excellent content of the January issue, and certainly your article has contributed to that impression." Dennison, Letters of Vos, 182.
31 Henk van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust (Leiden: Brill, 2008), discusses their exchange of opinions. 30

25

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

years, only Bavinck was introduced with an article on his life and work in The Princeton Theological Review?2 When Kuyper died in 1920, no obituary appeared in the Review; when Bavinck died the following year, Henry E. Dosker, one of the editors, published an extensive memorial article on his life and work.33 Vos s close relationship with Warfield and sympathy for the Calvinistic character of Princeton moved him to send his best Grand Rapids students to Princeton;34 it moved Princeton to offer him a professorship in 1891. Like Bavinck, Vos was invited time and again to teach at several other universities or seminaries; in 1890, Kuyper had tried to persuade Vos once more to join the faculty of the Free University.35 Even Bavinck himself had urged him to do so, and, when it seemed that one of his Kampen colleagues would resign in the summer of 1891, Bavinck asked Vos to consider a position at Kampen.36 These invitations put Vos in the position Bavinck had also struggled with several times. Both appreciated the academic climates of Princeton and the Free University respectively; they did not want to separate from but to engage the Christian tradition. However, they were hesitant to abandon their seminaries and break with their Seceder background. Thus, Vos declined and explained to Warfield how he had come to this decision: Were I to leave, too little good that has been accomplished during the last four years, and which gives fair promise for the future, would soon disappear. The better part of our people would lose courage, our seminary would receive a blow, that might prove fatal. I cannot but consider it of great importance to preserve our Dutch people for old Calvinistic faith. If this is to be done, it must be done from within and not from without. Though shrinking from too many unpleasant features of this work, I do not feel at liberty before God to abandon it.37 He answered Bavinck in the same way regarding the invitation to teach at Kampen.38 Nevertheless, Vos decided to go to Princeton in 1893 because at that

"Herman Bavinck," Princeton Theological Review 6.4 (October 1908): 529-43. An author is not mentioned ("Trie following account... has been derived from an authentic source"), but the accurate use of Dutch words and the precise description of Dutch circumstances point in the direction of a Dutchspeaking author.
33 34 35 36 37 38

32

Henry E. Dosker, "Herman Bavinck," Princeton Theological Review 20 (1922):

448-64.

For example, Jacob Poppen, see: Vos to Warfield, 8 September 1891, Warfield Papers. Vos to Kuyper, 1 February 1890, Kuyper Papers. Vos to Bavinck, 30 June 1891, Bavinck Papers. Vos to Warfield, 15 March 1892, Dennison, Vos Letters, 170.

Vos to Bavinck, 30 June 1891: "More than once I have been approached concerning how I feel about accepting a chair in a seminary of the Presbyterian Church.... I would rather work in the Seceder Church in the Netherlands than in the Presbyterian Church here. But two things plead against it: 1) my parents are here; 2) there is a certain charm in the American life which is hard to withdraw after first having been under the influence of it." Dennison, Vos Letters, 159. In one sentence, I slighdy altered Dennisons translation; Dennison, 159 has: "I would rather work in the Christian Reformed Church than in a Presbyterian Church here."

HERMAN BAVINCK AND GEERHARDUS VOS

moment he no longer saw a future for himself in Grand Rapids. 39 That same year, he lamented the fact that Bavinck could not make the switch to Amsterdam. Vos would have welcomed the transfer because of their relationship. He had discovered that the climate in Princeton was more positively Calvinistic than it had been in his own student days, and cooperation between Princeton and Amsterdam now seemed more possible to him. 40 Bavinck and Vos, though, did not wait for this moment to cooperate. In 1893, Bavinck sent two students from Kampen to study with Vos at Princeton. This was an important step for Vos, as he wrote to Bavinck: "Their arrival here can serve to strengthen the communication between us."41 In 1894, Bavinck consulted Vos about the Old Testament chair that the Free University had offered him again. Vos stressed Bavinck's responsibility to keep Kampen on the neo-Calvinistic track, and feared that Kampen would diminish if Bavinck left.42 Just as Vos surrendered his plans to improve Grand Rapids, so Bavinck went to the Free University in 1902 when he judged that Kampen had become a dead end for him. Both had started their careers wholeheartedly committed to and at a seminary that was fully a part of their church. Over the years, however, having found that the church had penetrated too much into their schools, they changed their minds and promoted a stricter distinction between church and theology.43 In the meantime, Vos had made plans to bring the leaders of the neoCalvinist movement in the Netherlands to Princeton, and, having convinced the faculty, invited Kuyper to give the Stone-Lectures in 1897 (which were postponed to 1898) and Bavinck to give the lectures in 1908. A Q u e s t i o n o f Personality I am not the first to have noticed the similarities in the lives of Vos and Bavinck. Their contemporaries, too, were struck by these similarities; that is why Vos was nicknamed the American Bavinck. If we take into account their shared background, similar careers, and experiences, Vos and Bavinck were not just two kindred spirits; we might almost call them twins. By examining this close relationship, we can see Bavinck emerging from Kuyper's shadow, especially if we look at Bavinck as a person, which may help to get a better

39 Vos to Bavinck, 3 July 1893: "I am naturally sorry to leave my presentfieldof activity. At the same time, the appeal of the work here would not have been enough to keep me here in the long run. The young people who study are so poorly educated that despite the diligence of instructors the results that they accomplish are so small that you have to lose heart. Again this year the examination was exceedingly poor. If I take that into consideration, I am glad that I am going." Dennison, Vos Letters, 175. 40 41 42 43

Vos to Bavinck, 20 October 1893. Vos to Bavinck, 1 February 1894. Vos to Bavinck, 28 March 1894.

Vos to Bavinck, 3 July 1893: "I hope wholeheartedly that they will not make the theology all too ecclesiastical. I do not like an excessive churchism, although I myself did that before." Dennison, Vos Letters, 176.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

understanding of him. For example, Bavinck was not as resolute as Kuyper was. His difficulty making decisions has often been interpreted and explained as a character weakness. This might make sense in a comparison with Kuyper who did not know hesitation. Nevertheless, when we compare Bavinck and Vos, it is striking that both were hesitant to leave their humble seminaries and join institutions of academic standing, though neither doubted their ability to meet the requirements of Princeton or Amsterdam. When we compare Bavinck to Vos, and not to Kuyper, light also falls on their similar pietistic backgrounds. When they started their studies respectively in Leiden and Berlin/Strasbourg, they had crossed a deep cultural divide; because of this, they kept themselves in the background in these academic surroundings. Bavinck and Vos were closely attached to their Seceder background, and their hesitation to break with it illustrates how big a step it was to cast off a Weltanschauung that "was practically that of the old Dutch Anabaptists, who sought their strength in separation from the world, in its cultural, social, and philosophical aspects,"44 as Dosker put it. In a way, Bavinck and Vos succeeded in leaving the world of their parents and their youth to cross a mental border, but the world of the Kuyperians they entered with its offensive and antithetical cultural attitude was almost the opposite. No wonder neither Vos in Princeton nor Bavinck in Amsterdam could dominate in their new surroundings. They followed Kuyper's theological track but never became self-confident Kuyperians themselves. They swallowed Kuyper s strict dualism in his Encyclopedia as the logical consequence of the opposition between modern science and orthodox Christianity, but they wondered if that antithesis was too rigid, too cold-blooded, and too theoretical.45 Vos and Bavinck were hesitant about drawing this line; they knew what it meant in practice. Kuyper s cradle was in a vicarage that was the social and intellectual center of the town; Bavinck and Vos carried with them the experiences of their parents, having been outcasts in Dutch society and having been persecuted by the kind of magistrates with whom the parents of Kuyper socialized. Bavinck's hesitation meant that the Kuyperians often distrusted him; for Vos, it meant that the rationalist rabbis in Princeton could easily overlook him. A certain irony is unmistakable: Vos and Bavinck were both raised in a Kulturfeindlich milieu, but they never really dismissed culture in their religion; both were eager to defend theology as a science and both fostered their pietistic roots, as expressed in the Bible text Bavinck quoted now and then in the years he was widely celebrated for his broad scholarship: "I have kept the faith" (2 Tim. 4:7). Historian George Puchinger pointed to this inner tension when he wrote of Bavinck's magnum opus: "There is an irony in the ways of history, but it is undeniable: the most ecumenical protestant dogmatics in the Netherlands was written in Kampen, where they did theology in the most isolationistic way!"46

44 45 46

Dosker, Bavinck, 453. Vos to Bavinck, 22 December 1894. G. Puchinger in De Rotterdammer, 14 May 1966.

HERMAN BAVINCK AND GEERHARDUS VOS

Bavinck and Vos were not only akin as personalities and in their basic view of life and experience but also as scholars. They were both celebrated for their high level of scholarship, their eloquent arguments, and their broadness of thought. On the occasion of the publication of Bavinck's four-volume Reformed Dogmatics (finished in 1895), it became evident as to how close they were in their scholarly opinions too. The publication of Bavinck's Dogmatics was a new challenge for Vos in his enterprise of linking Amsterdam and Princeton. With the translation of Kuyper's Encyclopedia still under way, and without a request from Bavinck, Vos did not propose a translationa mistake that has finally been corrected more than a century later by John Bolt and the late John Vriend.47 Warfield might have written a review, but he read Dutch too slowly, so Vosnot a dogmatician, though he liked the disciplinereviewed volume 1 in 1896 and volume 2 in 1899. Bavinck' s Reformed Dogmatics received many favorable reviews, and Kuyper did not overstate the matter when he celebrated the publication of Bavinck's magnum opus as a groundbreaking event: "The Calvinists in this country, and all over the world may give themselves in to high-pitched gratitude, now that a theological work has been published, that will lift up our Reformed theology from decay, and restore her place of honor within the realm of science, a work that was lacking in this country, as well as in England and America."48 Of all the appreciative reviews and edifying comments on his Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck appreciated Vos's remarks the most. When Bavinck announced the publication of the fourth and last volume of his Reformed Dogmatics in 1901, he included a long quote from one of Vos's reviews, which he introduced as follows: "Among the announcements and reviews of the first three volumes no word was more pleasant to me than Prof. Vos's of Princeton," and then he quoted this passage from the review: What has impressed us most is that, while Dr. Bavinck's standpoint is that of a thorough Calvinist, yet in reading him one is conscious of listening not so much to a defense of Calvinism as to a scientific vindication of the Christian world-view in its most catholic sense and spirit. This is far from saying that the work is not also a vindication of the Calvinistic theology. But it is so in the indirect and for that reason all the more telling way of showing how perfectly easy and natural it is to build upon the foundations of the Reformed principles a system of Christian thought which by its very largeness of grasp and freedom from theological one-sidedness becomes the

47 The poor translation of Kuyper's Stone Lectures on Calvinism was no inspiration to get the job started, cf. what Bavinck's friend Henry Dosker remarked in his obituary '"Herman Bavinck," 464: "It is deeply to be regretted that his [Bavinck's] Dogmatics was not translated into English, but the task is herculean, and only very few of men have the idiomatic knowledge of both tongues to make it a success, and no translation isfar better than a poor one." W. E. Griffis' brochure collection on Holland and America, Special Collections, Alexander Library, Rutgers University, holds a review of Bavinck'sfirstvolume of his Reformed Dogmatics from an unknown source, sent to Griffis with "Compliments of the Author." The review ended on p. 303 with the remark: "I close by expressing the fervent hope that this system of'reformed dogmatics' may be made accessible to English readers by a competent translation." Warfield translated a part of the Gereformeerde dogmatie (vol. 3 [19102] 273-91) and published it as, "Christological Movements in the Nineteenth Century," Bibliotheca Sacra 68 (July 1911): 381^04.

De Hraut, 16 June 1895.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

most eloquent witness to the soundness and depth of the principles underlying it. No higher commendation of Calvinism is conceivable than that it lends itself to being made the basis of a structure of truth so universally and comprehensively Christian in all its lines and proportions.49 Bavinck fully recognized himself in this paragraph by Vos, and he added to the words of his friend that the Reformed doctrine should be derived from Scripture without "trick or force," and that presented in this way it would answer the needs of modern times. These remarks are characteristic of both the theologians from a Seceder background. It has been said that Herman Bavinck, together with the well-known prime minister of the Netherlands, Hendrikus Colijn, were the best the Seceders had to offer to modern society. I propose we add the name of Geerhardus Vos to these. In their lives and work, Bavinck, Colijn, and Vos embodied the best of the Calvinistic world and life view for modern society.

Concluding Remarks
Elsewhere, I have argued that the antithesis between modern theology and neoCalvinism may be justifiable from a theological point of view, but for me, as a historian, that sharp distinction between the two traditions is unsatisfactory. The disadvantage is that the distinction implies that one theological tradition is to be preferred and the other rejected. Such a disjunction fails to understand the impact and relationship between the traditions. As a result of this position, we find ourselves saying that neoCalvinism is an orthodox tradition that uses modern meansas if neo-Calvinism is only modern in form and not in content. However, there is another disadvantage for the contemporary historian when forced to describe the history of neo-Calvinism within the frame of nineteenth-century antagonisms even while the historian may recognize other and sometimes more important distinctions that blur the boundaries between modernism and neo-Calvinism. History should no longer be dominated by theological distinctions only. In form and content, neo-Calvinism is wholly a part of modern developments in theology in the nineteenth century. An immediate advantage of this more historical approach is that modern theology looses its monopoly on the word and meaning of modern. The modern character of neo-Calvinism can be fully acknowledged and can no longer be taken as a somewhat isolated movement in Dutch or European culture. On the side of neo-Calvinism, it is mainly Kuyper who is responsible for the sharp distinctionradical dualismas Vos and Bavinck readily acknowledged. By situating neo-Calvinism in its historical context, scholars can now give their full attention to a hitherto neglected field of study. In addition to acknowledging that neo-Calvinism and the so-called modern theology are part of a broader modernist movement, we should also reconsider the relationship between what has been called Old Princeton Theology and Amsterdam. Sometimes the differences between these schools have been stressed and, at other
49 H. Bavinck, "Dogmatiek," De Bazuin, 26 April 1901. The original text by Vos is quoted from his review of the second volume of the Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 9 (1899): 694.

HERMAN BAVINCK AND GEERHARDUS VOS

times, the similarity between them has been stressed. In neither case, is it fully clear what is being compared. Of course, the schools operated with different epistemologies, and they had a common foe. Before siding with one of the two opinions, we first should get more clarity about the criteria underlying any comparison. Are we talking about theological issues, ethnic differences, or cultural positions? Both issues mentioned herethe relationship of neo-Calvinism and modern theology in the Netherlands, and the relationship of Old Princeton and Amsterdamare related, not only when we consider the nineteenth-century context but also when we take into consideration for what the twentieth-century offspring of Princeton and Amsterdam are held responsible: from fundamentalism to apartheid, and from rapid secularization to cultural isolation. For that reason, I propose a transatlantic and interdisciplinary approachby theologians and historiansto the history of Calvinism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

31

^ 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.