Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Dutch Systematics for English Readers



Van Genderen and Velema. Concise Reformed Dogmatics. Philipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008. 944pp. $59.99
Reviewed by Ryan M. McGraw
This single-volume work by two former professors at the University of Apeldoorn in Holland is a welcome addition to the field of Systematic Theology for English-speaking readers. The purpose of this work is to present Reformed Dogmatics with Scriptural simplicity. As the title suggests, the authors are loyal to the Reformed confessional tradition, particularly as embodied in the so-called “Three Forms of Unity.” To this reviewer’s knowledge, they have not written anything that is contrary to the doctrinal standards to which they adhere. However, this does not mean that they have twisted the Scriptures in order to justify doctrines that are a foregone conclusion. The authors have listened carefully to the voice of God in Scripture and the sufficiency, authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of the Bible is evident on every page. In addition, they have proceeded on the premise that the purpose of theology is to serve the Church and, in particular, to promote the practice of godliness (9-12).
The authors have accomplished much in the space of a single volume, and it is impossible to treat their work adequately in a single review (for an extensive review that highlights very different features of this work than this current review, see James E. Dolezal, The Confessional Presbyterian, vol. 5, 2009, 278-283). Van Genderen wrote most of the chapters, while Velema wrote the chapters on “Man as the Image of God,” “Sin,” and “The Doctrine of Salvation.” Their doctrine is grounded in careful expositions of various texts of Scripture, coupled with thorough interaction with recent literature, as well as in light of the historical theology of the Church. This is in line with their preliminary assertion that theology should be pursued while interacting critically with the previous findings of the Church (6-7, 14-18). As is common in Reformed Dogmatics, there is a paucity of interaction (though not entirely lacking) with the theologians of the Middle Ages. The authors have drawn much attention to twentieth-century Dutch theologians such as H. Berkhof (not to be confused with Louis Berkhof, who is more widely known to English readers), and they have presented a wide array of useful critical interactions with Karl Barth. For English readers, this volume may serve as a concise introduction to Dutch theology in the twentieth century. The work as a whole follows the standard loci of Reformed theology, progressing logically through fifteen chapters ranging from the doctrine of revelation to Eschatology. The text is simultaneously written on two different levels, with large print text marking off the primary portion of the narrative, and smaller font text addressing more detailed matters of investigation. The small font text is not essential to the general argument, but neither is it parenthetical to it, thus fitting naturally into the flow of the book. Finally, one endorsement on the dust jacket has correctly identified Calvin and Bavinck as primary influences upon the authors.
Several positive features of this volume are worth noting. The Scripture references are not relegated to proof texts or to footnotes. Each chapter begins by stating the nature and importance of the topic at hand, followed by a section examining the relevant Scriptural data. Only after hearing what the Scriptures have to say do the authors turn to the theology of the Church. They tend to proceed with a few carefully selected passages of Scripture that are exegeted thoroughly, followed by numerous other full citations of Scripture texts as corroborative evidence. Many of these sections will be useful to ministers in their systematic exposition of Scripture, enabling them to connect the preaching of the Word to the theology of the Scriptures as a whole. The chapters addressing matters related to Prolegomena, the Doctrine of God, Christology, and Eschatology are especially clear, simple, and useful. In this reviewer’s estimation, perhaps the most notable feature of this book is the distinctively Trinitarian emphasis that pervades the entire text. The doctrine of the Triune nature of God is treated prior to the attributes of God in order to give it a central place in theology. The doctrine of the Trinity is not proven only to be laid aside in the remainder of the work, but it is carried along throughout. One notable example is Van Genderen’s treatment of the Church as “the people of God,” “the body of Christ,” and “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (695-705).
Although this work is to be recommended highly for the features listed above, some very noticeable weakness should be stated as well. First, there is a paucity of common theological terminology in the text (Dolezal also addresses the author’s mild rejection of Protestant Scholasticism at length in his review mentioned above). The simplicity of this work, which is one of its highest virtues, has become one of its greatest weaknesses. Some important terms such as “supralapasarianism” and “infralapsarianism” have been retained, yet other terms such as “traducianism” and “creationism” (in reference to the origin of the soul) have largely been omitted. If students read this work as a beginning text in theology, then they will not be readily prepared to interact with terminology that has become common to theological literature in general and that has stood the test of time. This has resulted in great ambiguity in many areas, including what position the authors actually hold respecting the origin of the soul (356) and the nature of the original covenant between God and man (358). With respect to the former question, Velema appears to reject both of the traditional options presented in Reformed theology, only to conclude by attempting to incorporate both views (356). In this reviewer’s opinion, this results in an insurmountable obscurity by leaving the original question unanswered. An overuse of theological terminology has sometimes resulted in splitting hairs over non-essential matters, but too little theological terminology results in ambiguity at crucial points. In addition, this practice has a tendency to divorce present theological formulation from the history of theological reflection in the Church, which in contrary to the declared purpose of the authors (see above).
Second, the text includes various doctrinal problems. One notable difficulty is that Velema very clearly denies the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin. Citing Calvin for alleged support, he wrote, “[Man] does inherit depravity from Adam. However, he does not become guilty until he actually commits sin” (409). Earlier he stated, “One can only be guilty before God through personal sin” (404. Contra Westminster Shorter Catechism 18, etc.). He asserts that it is neither possible nor just for the sin of mankind’s first father to be imputed to his progeny. His position is that mankind actually participated in Adam’s first sin (“realistic federalism,” as opposed to the traditional choice between “realism” and “federalism”), yet neither by virtue of Adam being the federal head of all mankind nor by virtue of being “seminally” present in Adam (hence his related denial of both traducianism and creationism). His actual position regarding how all mankind participated in Adam’s sin is both complex and unclear, yet he argues that the parallel drawn between Adam and Christ in the fifth chapter of Romans was not designed to be an exact parallel involving the imputation of the guilt of the first Adam as well as the imputation of righteousness through the second Adam (556). From this reviewer’s perspective, Velema’s position is not so much a “realistic federalism” as it is a purported federalism that excludes the idea of imputation, replacing it with the idea of death in exchange for life. He asserts a “realistic” (not imputed) guilt via a vague participation in Adam’s fist sin that does not involve being seminally present in Adam (“realism”) coupled with an inadequately defined “federal” connection to Adam in terms of inherited depravity and death. Thus, he has sought to retain a form of “federalism” by excluding imputation, which has historically marked the most essential element of this viewpoint. This potentially breaks down the necessity of the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is the central argument of the parallel that Paul has drawn between Adam and Christ in Romans 5. While in chapter twelve, Velema affirms the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, his discussion of the imputation of Adam’s sin highlights that ambiguity that often results in this work through a refusal to treat questions in terms of historic theological categories.
Another controversial matter is whether or not gender distinctions should be included in the image of God; Velema affirms that they ought to be (following Barth?). His evidence from the narrative of Genesis two, however, is not decisive. The question is whether being male and female is part and parcel of the definition of man as the image of God, or whether after setting forth the fact that man is the image of God, the text simply affirms that this image is possessed by both males and females equally (see the various critiques of this view by Meredith Kline and John Frame). The natural reading of the text implies that God created mankind in His image, that both men and women possess this image, and that consequently the image bearers of God were given dominion over creation. However, it should be noted that Velema does not deny role distinctions between men and women and that he does not engage in speculations regarding potential gender distinctions within the Divine nature.
Van Genderen’s treatment of the proper mode of Baptism is weak as well. It appears to be a common feature of Dutch Reformed theology to uncritically adopt the assumption of the early Reformers that the primary mode of Baptism is immersion (790. An older example of this practice is Wilhelmus a Brakel, while Bavinck has propagated it in a more recent form). This overlooks the flood of literature that has appeared since the time of the Reformation, which has argued cogently and persuasively that the proper meaning of Baptism is identification with Christ in the washing of regeneration and that no particular mode is imported in the term. Many have argued that while immersion is an acceptable mode of Baptism, yet it is neither the ordinary nor even the most appropriate mode of Baptism. Moreover, while Van Genderen argues that immersion is “the most striking form of administering baptism,” the question must be asked why the pouring out of the Spirit, which is often closely associated with Baptism, is not a more striking form than immersion. A John Murray once noted, this reflects an arbitrary prioritizing of select Scriptural data above others.
Lastly, in the chapter that addresses Ecclesiology, the Presbyterian form of Church government (with which the present reviewer allies himself) is not depicted clearly. Van Genderen infers from the nature of offices in the New Testament that all officers, including deacons, “[work] together collegially” and that the distinction of offices have “nothing to do with ranking” (738-741). This potentially implies that the deacons make up part of the ruling body of the Church, which Scripture never assigns to them either by title or by example. In addition he argues that “this form of church governance has two focal points: the office of presbyter or elder and the ecclesiastical assembly” (743), including both local church assemblies as well as general synods. While a review is not the place to explore the features of Presbyterian polity in detail, yet this is where clear theological distinctions would be useful. Scottish and American Presbyterianism has traditionally argued that presbyters never hold the right to rule as individuals, but that the focal point of Church power is always the joint exercise of power in ecclesiastical assemblies consisting of a plurality of elders, whether in the local church or in the higher courts of the Church. Moreover, Van Genderen assigns authority to “broader assemblies” without limiting the authority of “local consistories” (744). Coupled with the ambiguous term “church federation,” which has admitted a wide variety of practices with respect to the authority of higher church courts, this raises the question as to whether or not the author assigns proper Presbyterian authority to the higher courts. With regard to Synods, the Westminster Confession of Faith (31.3) asserts that when the decisions of such Synods are “consonant to the Word of God,” then they are to be received “with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.”  Again, the point is not necessarily that Van Genderen denies these two fundamental distinctives of Presbyterian polity, but that his treatment of Presbyterianism is potentially ambiguous and raises too many questions.
In spite of various (sometimes serious) shortcomings, Concise Reformed Dogmatics one of the more useful one-volume texts of Reformed Systematic Theology. It is rich with biblical exegesis, it is highly user-friendly, and it provides much helpful instruction for scholars, ministers, and interested lay-people. Due to the paucity of historic Reformed terminology and some theological peculiarities, this work is not as suitable as a beginning text in Reformed Dogmatics as other available volumes, yet a careful and prayerful reading of this text will enrich the reader’s knowledge of Scripture in general as well as serve as a useful introduction to recent Dutch theological literature that is otherwise unavailable to English speaking readers.
_________________
The review above appeared originally in Westminster Theological Journal, Spring 2011.

A Model for Piety



Brian K. Kay. Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2008.

Reviewed by Ryan M. McGraw

This is a very insightful book that seeks to fill an expansive vacuum with regard to the subject of personal piety, namely, a model for piety that is rooted in the historic doctrine of the Trinity. For most believers, the doctrine of the Trinity is an obscure fact lying at the root of orthodox Christianity that possesses no further practical significance. Developing a biblically rooted “Trinitarian spirituality” is a tremendous need of the Church at the present time. Unfortunately, since this book was originally a doctoral dissertation, it is unlikely that it will receive a widespread readership among the average members of the Church. It is incumbent, therefore, upon ministers of the gospel to digest books such as this one and to learn how to develop and communicate a robust Trinitarian piety in the context of their regular pulpit ministries.

In this work, Kay has set forth viable criteria by to promote a genuine Trinitarian Spirituality. It is somewhat misleading to regard Owen as the subject of this book, as the title might otherwise indicate. Owen is referenced for illustrative purposes as well as for his peculiar contribution to the notion of distinct communion with all three divine Persons (6). Kay’s thesis is as follows: “a robust doctrine of the Trinity is able to shape a quality of spiritual response to God that is not otherwise possible” (2). He added, “In this work ‘spirituality’ is used narrowly to speak of the personal response to God of someone who is indwelled by the Holy Spirit and is thus united to Christ and on that basis restored to the Father” (10). Kay’s two tests of Trinitarian Spirituality are an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity coupled with personal experience of the unfolding “drama” of redemption, or historia salutis. Unfortunately, he limits his discussion to “private worship” whereas Owen, who is Kay’s primary model, regarded corporate worship as the climax of his own Trinitarian theology. Hopefully the importance of the topic treated in this book speaks for itself. Without undermining the great value of this book, I intend to focus on some significant areas of criticism in addition to areas of praise.

Kay’s thesis and criteria are introduced in chapter one. Kay assumes that his readers have an extensive knowledge of historic Trinitarian theology and terminology as well as of contemporary debates (e.g. pg. 22).  Chapter two traces the historical growth of Trinitarian orthodoxy as well as the divorce of Trinitarian theology and personal piety in the Middle Ages. In chapter three, he “searches” for a true Trinitarian Spirituality through the Medieval period, finding few positive contributions along the way. His critical analysis of Thomas a Kempis’ still popular work, The Imitation of Christ, is highly insightful. Kay takes into account the curious fact that while a Kempis’ theology and particularly his views of absorption into the divine nature are contrary to both Roman Catholic and Protestant theologies, yet the work has continued to be popular in both traditions. A Kempis, along with several others who are examined, also fails to take the Trinity into account in any meaningful way in his system of piety.

Turning to Owen briefly by way of anticipation, Kay then argues that Owen took a “bolder approach” than the Medieval scholastics (35), creating some “tension” between his developments and the Western tradition in that he focused more on the personal distinctions of the three persons ad extra than ad intra (36). He added, “I believe Owen represents the closest pastoral appropriation of the theological Trinitarianism of the Reformed scholastics of the prior stage, but Owen’s emphases are somewhat unique when compared with other famous devotional writings of the period” (54). On pages 68-71, Kay addresses insightfully the manner in which Owen focused communion with the Trinity in the person and work of Christ. In particular, the union of the divine and human natures in Christ and the union of believers with the divine-human Christ establish a pattern of what it means to be in communion with God as Triune. Owen’s covenant theology rooted this Trinitarian piety in history, rather than in a mystical self-negation. In other words, rather than leading to an absorption into the divine nature resulting in a loss of individual self-consciousness, Owen’s Trinitarian piety was rooted in looking back to and participating in the historically accomplished facts of a covenant transaction in God’s unfolding plan of redemption.

Chapter four serves as a transition to Kay’s extensive treatment of Owen’s important work on Communion with God. Here Kay seeks to set the stage for further discussion by establishing the “general features of Trinitarian spirituality” (98). There are some significant problems with this chapter. First, Kay does not accurately reflect the Reformed concept of the incomprehensibility of God. Incomprehensibility does not mean, as Kay asserts, “the unknowability of God in himself” (99), but than man cannot know God exhaustively as he is. In the classic Medieval distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology, a difference was made between God’s knowledge of himself versus man’s knowledge of God. God is perfectly comprehensible to himself. Man’s knowledge of God is derivative, finite, and a dim reflection of God’s knowledge of himself. There is both a qualitative and a quantitative difference between our knowledge of God and his knowledge of himself, yet this does not negate the fact that believers do know God as he is in himself in some measure. Eastern theology teaches a kind of agnosticism regarding the essence of God, so that believers know nothing of God’s essence. In Western theology, the Eastern distinction between God’s essence and attributes has not been maintained so sharply. To know the attributes of God is to know something about his essence, albeit in a limited way that is appropriate to creatures. Kay’s definition of incomprehensibility does not accurately represent the theological tradition in which Owen participated, and it threats to call into question the genuineness of the Christian’s knowledge (and thus his communion) with God.

Another difficulty is Kay’s representation of the western Trinitarian formula. He asserts that Owen’s construction of communion with all three Persons was “a somewhat novel emphasis in the West” (106). He then refers to the Western conception of the Trinity as the “unfortunate and explicit development of the indivisibility of the actions of the persons” (107). This conception of the undivided actions of the divine persons is explicit, but it is not unfortunate. Moreover, regardless of whether one concludes that Owen is in harmony with the western Trinitarian tradition at other points, there is no question of his historical grounding on this point. The assertion of the undivided or unified action of the three divine persons (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisia sunt) is the foundation upon which Owen built his entire theology of communion with the three Persons distinctly. This is the entire force of the first chapter of Communion with God and this principle is frequently reasserted throughout the book. If this doctrine is “unfortunate,” then Owen’s entire model for Trinitarian Spirituality crumbles at its foundation. Kay further supports his criticism of the Western tradition through a partial distortion of Augustine’s views (via Alan Spence). Two major problems with his treatment are that Augustine did not deny the distinct operation of the three persons in God’s works ad extra, and that Karl Barth is not an appropriate representative of the views of Augustine (108). Barth had his own peculiarities that should not be imputed to Augustine. It would be more accurate to state that Owen’s emphasis upon communion with the three persons is unique, than to say that Owen’s construction of the doctrine of the Trinity is unique.

In chapter five, Kay moves into an extensive analysis of Owen’s Communion with God. Most of this analysis is useful and accurate, but a few features should be mentioned:

Kay assumes that natural revelation legitimates the use of natural theology (125). This is a common position today, but it cannot justly be imputed to Owen. In The Claims of Truth, Carl Trueman distinguishes Owen’s views of Natural Theology from post-Enlightenment conceptions of the same doctrine. It is always a danger concomitant to historical theology to impute our own views to our subject of study. On other occasions, Kay imposes anachronistic terminology upon Owen, which procures the same results (e.g. 131).

One insightful feature of this chapter is that Kay refers to Owen’s exposition of Proverbs 8 as an “undiscovered” aspect of Owen’s Trinitarianism (136). The reason for this is that Owen highlighted the Father’s delight not only in the Son, but in the Son because the Son delighted in the children of men whom the Father determined to save. This is a potentially fruitful insight into the study of Owen’s Christology.

There is a significant problem with Kay’s treatment of Owen’s views on assurance of the Father’s love. After setting forth the standard Puritan syllogism on assurance (i.e., induction from the effects of sanctification, to the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, to the assurance of justification), Kay formulates what he calls the “Owenian Syllogism:” The Father promises to set his love upon anyone who is willing to believe that he loves them; I believe that the Father can love me and I seek to receive his love; therefore, the saving love of the Father rests upon me (143). Although, in one sense, this argument resembles the close of chapter four of Communion with God, Kay has lost sight of Owen’s overall emphasis in the first four chapters, creating a catastrophic problem. The primary ingredient missing in this syllogism is the Lord Jesus Christ!  Owen was emphatic throughout Communion with God that it is in union with Christ only that there is any possible knowledge of the love of the Father. It is not believing that the Father can love me and that I desire to be loved by him that produces assurance; it is believing that he can and has loved me in Christ. It seems to this reader, that in light of the bulk of Communion with God, Owen would have been appalled by Kay’s “Owenian Syllogism.”

In addition, Kay has not accurately represented Owen’s emphases regarding communion with Christ. Owen divided this section into Christ’s “personal grace” and his “purchased grace.”  Although Kay acknowledges that “personal grace” was a distinctive contribution from Owen (146), he has virtually omitted its significance from his discussion. This has significant ramifications for Kay’s ability to reconstruct accurately Owen’s views. For Owen, the “personal grace” of Christ meant the “grace” that Christ possessed in his Person as the God-man. Part of “personal grace” included Christ’s participation in the gifts and the graces of the Holy Spirit. This means that union with Jesus Christ is the foundation of communion with the Holy Spirit, providing the grounds for sanctification. Kay does discuss the work of the Holy Spirit in distributing Christ’s benefits to believers (156-157, 178-179), but instead of explaining communion with Christ in his “personal grace” in terms of union with Christ (which is central to Owen’s theology), he construes this communion with Christ as the delight that we have in his Person (163). However, Owen treated delight in Christ as the result of communion with Christ in his “personal grace.”  Delight is not the substance of communion with Christ in his “personal grace.”  This omission is probably the most conspicuous fault of this book. Not only does it misrepresent Owen, but it undermines Kay’s own quest to root Trinitarian Spirituality in the historia salutis, since the “personal grace” of Christ in Owen’s thought place a stronger emphasis on participating in the historical aspects of the life and work of Christ than perhaps any other consideration.

In addition, there is a massive missing ingredient with regard to the criteria of Kay’s thesis. Kay searches for a “spirituality” based upon Orthodox Trinitarianism coupled with the historia salutis, but he virtually neglects the ordo salutis. The ordo salutis was as essential to Owen’s views of communion with God as were his Trinitarianism and his covenant theology. This omission results in a lopsided spirituality that allows for no more than contemplating the “drama” set forth in the historical facts of the gospel. The reader almost wonders if Kay’s “spirituality” allows room for the imperatives included in Paul’s epistles. Kay has gleaned some useful insights from Owen, but by neglecting the ordo salutis, he presents only two thirds of what is necessary for a true “Trinitarian Spirituality.”

Lastly, one stylistic feature of this book should be mentioned: Kay consistently replaces the generic “he” with “she.”  This is somewhat agitating and smacks of reverse discrimination or mild feminism.  Moreover, one of the endorsements on the back of the book is from a female minister. If the Scriptures themselves use “he” in a generic sense, and if its use does not in the least impair clarity, then why make the change?  In theological terms, is it really appropriate for mankind to be represented by a “she” instead of a “he” when the entire human race is under the representation of either one of two important men: Adam or Christ?  Can we not avoid demeaning the value of women while not simultaneously acting as though we are embarrassed by the male headship set forth in Scripture?

In spite of the criticism mentioned above, this book partially fulfills the vital need for the Church to be more self-consciously Trinitarian in her worship and piety. If Kay’s treatment is incomplete, at least he sets us on the right track. This book provides many potential building blocks to build an explicitly Trinitarian view of communion with God. If this book is read and digested so that the places where its emphases are correct are disseminated in local churches, then Brian Kay has offered the Church an invaluable service.

_________________

The review above was originally published in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal, Issue 5, 2010.