Theological modesty
“[Theology] has often overshot its goal and degenerated into repeating the same empty phrases…. Sometimes it seemed to proceed from the idea that it could answer all questions and resolve all issues. It has often been lacking in modesty, tenderness, and simplicity. This was all the worse inasmuch as theology has to do with the deepest problems and comes into contact with the most delicate stirrings of the human heart. More than any other science, it has to take to heart the admonition ‘not to think of itself more highly than it ought’ (cf. Rom. 12:3). It is better honestly to admit that a thing is not clear than to make a wild guess.”
—Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), p. 605.
How lovely! It should be the epigraph of every theological paper or book. Instead of the rabies theologorum, the modestia et benignitas theologorum.
That's a great Bavinck quote-thanks
great quote!
Hauerwas in his Matthew commentary makes much the same point in relation to the gospels. "Theologians are often tempted to say more than can be said. The mystery of God frustrates us, enticing us to explain what cannot be explained...the reticence of the gospels frustrates us, we want them to say more than they can say..." What Hauerwas calls reticence, and newman calls proper reserve, Bavinck commends as theological humility. I'm all for it!
Yeah, Calvin was big for it too, as a critique of the speculations of the schoolmen. He keeps this theme going in Book 1 of the Institutes. Good to see Hauerwas and Calvin having something in common!
Odd, earlier today I read the Hauerwas passage that Jim Gordon quoted here. It is (perhaps?) not too surprising that Hauerwas ends up sounding a bit like Calvin in this passage, since he certainly sounds like Barth. Perhaps it is Barth that Hauerwas and Calvin have in common!
Hi Dan,
I'm still new to blogging but not to writing - can't believe I didn't give the page ref for Hauerwas - sorry you had to chase it. But given Ben's next post about Aaron's complaint about obese (over-long) dogmatics,isn't it a relief that Hauerwas's commentary isn't the length of Allison & Davies ICC set (2,300+ pages) or Nolland's one volume at 1480 pages?
Post a Comment