Books
Group avatar

The Theology of G.C. Berkouwer

Berkouwer is a writer from whom I have learned a great deal. I hope that this group will introduce others to his writings.

« more discussions

  • Berkouwer's Theology - Systematic and Experiential

    For many years, G C Berkouwer (1903-1996) served as the Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free Univesity of Amsterdam. He wrote many substantial books on Christian doctrine. These books are known collectively as his 'Studies in Dogmatics'.
    In his work as a systematic theologian, Berkouwer emphasized that Christian faith is to be experienced. It is not simply a faith to which we must give intellectual assent.
    He was very aware of the danger of attaching the wrong kind of importance to the theological system.He emphasized that, in the work of expounding Christian doctrine, we must not lose sight of its connection to Christian experience.
    By drawing attention, throughout his writings, to the importance of Christian experience, he was not suggesting that we are to retreat into sheer mysticism. He was, however, emphasizing that true faith is always something which takes hold of us, something which changes us, something which leads us to give glory to God. The life-changing and God-glorifying dimensions of faith in Jesus Christ must be at the centre of any exposition of the Christian faith.
    For Berkouwer, placing an appropriate emphasis on the significance of Christian experience did not involve moving away from the work of systematic theology to focus on producing devotional literature. Rather, it meant viewing our theological work as an expression of our faith, worship, witness and service.
    We may give a flavour of Berkouwer's approach to theology by highlighting a few comments made by Jack Rogers in his book, Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical. (An American Presbyterian, Rogers did postgraduate work at the Free University of Amsterdam under Berkouwer's supervision. His thesis - Scripture in the Westminster Confession was published by Eerdmans in 1967. He translated Berkouwer's work on Holy Scripture into English.)
    (1) Berkouwer's approach to theology does not create a great distance between the professional theologian and the ordinary believer.
    Commenting on a definition of theology given by Berkouwer to first-year students - 'Theology is scientific reflection on the normativity of revelation for faith' - , Rogers writes, 'The scientific theologian and the simple believer both begin from a personal faith commitment to God revealed in Jesus Christ. They both accept revelation as normative for them ... they treat the biblical data as having ultimate value and valid
    application to their lives ... The professional theologian is distinguished from any other believer only in that the theologian has the training and tools for doing "scientific" reflection' (p.56).
    (2) In his approach to theology, Berkouwer emphasized the importance of the sense of wonder which lies at the heart of both true worship and profound theological understanding.
    Describing his first impressions of Berkouwer's theological lectures, Rogers writes, '(H)e was excited and dynamic! I began to hear certain words repeated again and again. One of them was boeiend , which means 'fascinating'. Everything about theology fascinated Berkouwer. His enthusiasm was catching. After listening to him, you wanted to grab the nearest theological book and devour it. Talking to him was even more stimulating' (p.52).
    (3) In his approach to theology, Berkouwer emphasized the importance of the pastoral context within which the Word of God is to be brought to the people of God.
    Describing a visit made by Berkouwer to a church in the USA, Rogers writes, 'The worshippers were disappointed by his sermon. They could
    understand it! They expected the great professor to be profound (i.e. abstract, dull). Instead, he preached a simple gospel sermon of pastoral comfort and affirmation. For Berkouwer, theology is always and only the servant of the church. Theology is good only if it can be preached!' (pp. 141-142).
    * Following on from these observations concerning the vital connection between theology and believing, worshipping and preaching, we must note the breadth of the context within which Berkouwer developed his systematic and experiential theology. He carefully avoided the narrowness of outlook which refuses to listen to and learn from those whose theological perspective was considerably different from his own. Alongside this listening to and learning from others, he emphasized that our highest priority is listening to and learning from God's Word.
    (a) Berkouwer was willing to listen to and learn from those whose theological perspective was quite different from his own.
    'In America we often do theology as if it was a game of cops and robbers. We choose ... sides, thinking that the 'good guys' (those we agree with) say and do all the good things and that the 'bad guys' (those we disagree with) say and do all the bad things. Life isn't like that. I can remember
    how puzzled I was when I started reading G C Berkouwer to discover him quoting Rudolf Bultmann, for instance, with great approval in one place and then a few pages later vigorously disagreeing with him. He didn't seem to need to add a footnote to remind us that Bultmann was a bad guy. He dealt with the issues instead of putting down the people' (Rogers, p.60).
    (b) Berkouwer emphasized the importance of a continuing commitment to this demanding yet promising task of listening and learning.
    'I believe that without genuine curiosity ... theology will not do well. I regret every sign that theologians have lost their curiosity. It happens when we are satisfied with a small territory we have created for ourselves and lose our feel for new perspectives and new opportunities for enrichment. Besides, without the tensions of curosity there is little hope for any essential corrections in one's own insights. A complacency sets in, a feeling that the gospel has been adequately thought about and understood, and that we can restfully settle down with what has already been said. A curiosity that works itself out in passionate study and serious listening to others promises surprises, clearer insight and deeper understanding - no matter from which direction they come. And so curiosity brings a certain joy as we walk through the challenging terrain' (A Half Century of Theology, pp.7-8).
    (c) Berkouwer emphasized, as the most important thing of all, listening to and learning from the Word of God.
    On being personally attacked because of his involvement in ecumenical affairs, Berkouwer cited 'II Tim. 2:9 ... "The word of God is not bound"', emphasizing that 'as long as we read the same Bible with conservatives or liberals, Catholics or sectarians, we can't predict the outcome. God's Spirit will work through his Word' (Rogers, p.142).”

    Charles C started this discussion 1 year ago. ( reply )

8

replies
expand replies 
Sign in to participate in this discussion.
  • Larry K

    Larry K 

    In his work as a systematic theologian, Berkouwer emphasized that Christian faith is to be experienced. It is not simply a faith to which we must give intellectual assent.
    He was very aware of the danger of attaching the wrong kind of importance to the theological system.He emphasized that, in the work of expounding Christian doctrine, we must not lose sight of its connection to Christian experience.
    ==================
    Do you think we can really "experience" theology without having a "systematic" way of grasping it? It seems to me that you cannot really practice Christianity without DOCTRINE.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    show 5 replies
    • Lance - Author of

      Lance - Author of "Ask James One" 

      Technically I would have ot agree with your question. Theology is systematic doctrine. I do not, however, believe that doctrine or theology would be prerequisite to experiencing God.

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    • Charles C (edited)

      We must always pray that the Holy Spirit will preserve us from lapsing into the kind of barren rationalism of which Paul speaks when he writes, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6). This point has been made very helpfully by J. C. Vander Stelt in his published doctoral dissertation, which was written under the supervision of Berkouwer. Emphasizing the importance of "heart-knowledge, not primarily analytical knowledge", Vander Stelt points out that a real understanding of the Scriptures "implies being conquered by and coming to stand under the compelling, Life-giving Spirit of the living Word of God." When we approach God's Word in this way, we are "enabled to do the Truth, to walk in the Way, and to manifest real Life" ("Philosophy and Scripture", p. 316). Vander Stelt's book is his doctoral dissertation which was written under the supervision of Berkouwer

      posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
    • Larry K

      Larry K 

      Lance,

      Talk a little bit more about "experiencing God". I think when it comes to the salvation of your soul, you must hear, repent and believe and that all involves the application of Bible truth in the soul by the power of the Holy Spirit.

      An elect infant who dies from SID cannot comprehend theological truth but somehow at the moment the soul is separated from the body it is regenerated (I do not understand this mystery). Is this a way of "experiencing God" apart from doctrine? Or is the child miraculously enlightened to the doctrine of Christ in that moment?

      The reprobate may hear the crack of thunder after a blinding flash of lightning or feel the warmth of the sun on his skin and smell the fresh air after a cleansing spring rain and breath in the life sustaining oxygen of the atmosphere never having the slightest notion of the doctrine of God or gospel of Christ and there by "experience God" in his ignorance of divine benevelance. Might this be another way to do what you describe?

      posted 12 months ago. ( reply )
    • Larry K

      Larry K 

      I'm in total agreement that "heart Knowledge" is needed for the Christian experience. I'm not convinced however that "heart knowledge" is ordinalrily attained apart from "analytical knowledge". These things are connectred to what I call the "inward" and "outward" calls of the gospel. The "inward" is the effectual call of the Holy Spirit and always brings with it the desired results. The "outward" is given by us preachers or witnesses and can be resisted or perhaps worse, received in vain.

      I have some friends that are Hardshell or Primitive Baptists and we've gone around and around on this theme. They call me a "Gospel regenerationalist" and themselves "Spirit regenerationalists." In reality, I am in essence a "Spirit regenerationalist" but I DON'T believe the Spirit regenerates apart from the word of God. That is what my Hardshell brethren claim.

      posted 12 months ago. ( reply )
    • Lance - Author of

      Lance - Author of "Ask James One" 

      I suppose how we define our terms means a lot to this discussion. I can try to discuss experiencing God in several ways. For one, as Paul explained, none have excuse since all can observe the glory of Creation. We all experience creation. Beyond that, we are more than our biology. When we experience love and loving kindness we need not have doctrine in the soup for it to taste sweet. To experience love is to experience God since God is love. To experience Truth is to experience God, since God is Truth. To experience light is to experience God since God is light. When we experience the reproach of conscience we experience God. Of course all these experiences are arguably indirect rather than direct.

      I do not mean to take away from the value of doctrine, if you imagine I might want to do such a thing. Rather, I am saying doctrine is merely human understanding. Experience and understanding are related, but they are not the same.

      Your scenario of the elect infant would also qualify. There are those people who have been addressed directly by God in the person of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit who do not "know" him and who have no natural knowledge of him. Such cases are well documented. These would fall into a similar category.

      I'm not sure I answered your request... feel free to rephrase your question.

      posted 12 months ago. ( reply )
  • Charles C 

    Thanks for your reply, Larry.
    Here are a couple of paragraphs from the "Introductory Preface" of my book on Berkouwer: "The Problem of Polarization: An Approach based on the Writings of G C Berkouwer".
    -----
    "With the writings of G C Berkouwer providing its focal-point, this study may be regarded as a study in systematic theology .... attention is drawn to both the use and abuse of systematic thinking in theological reflection. This study seeks to understand the relationships between different aspects of Christian truth. Care is taken to avoid imposing a 'system' on Christian truth, which does not permit the Gospel to be understood and proclaimed in the fulness of its Biblical perspectives" (p. xi)
    " ... this study could (also) be regarded as a study in experiential theology. There is, throughout this study, a concern with the relationship between Christian experience and Christian doctrine. There is a concern to speak of both 'the Christian faith' and 'Christian faith' without the definite article (note: "Berkouwer uses both expressions in "A Half Century of Theology, Movements and Motives", pp. 186-187)"). The aim is to draw attention to both the uniqueness of of the revealing and reconciling activity of God in Jesus Christ and the necessity of faith to be a 'life response of the total person, at the depths of his being, to the summons and opportunity of the Gospel' (This quotation is taken from L B Smedes' article on "G C Berkouwer" in "Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology")" (p. xiii).
    -----
    I hope this is helpful.
    Best wishes.
    Charlie

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • Charles C (edited)

    Larry,
    Here's another quotation from my "Introductory Preface."
    "The experiential character of theological reflection requires to be related to both the normativity of divine revelation and the totality of man's experience. Divine revelation reaches man in his experience but is not derived from man's experience. A proper emphasis on the experiential character of man's knowledge of God requires to be carefully distinguished from the tendency to make human experience the norm by which divine revelation is to be judged. Theology must pay close attention to the significance of human experience in the light of divine revelation. it must, however, resist the temptation of demanding that the Gospel's message fits a particular interpretation of human experience. the accommodation of the Gospel's voice to a particular understanding of human experience ... If theology is to speak adequately of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it must be thoroughly committed to hearing "the powerful witness of the 'tremendous' Word that always speaks against us so that we can learn to stop speaking against it" ("A Half Century of Theology, Movements and Motives", p. 74) .... Recognizing the inadequacy of both its understanding of divine revelation and its response to that revelation, theology must seek to fulfil its privileged responsibility with a humble gratitude to God and a responsible commitment to hearing the Gospel in obedient faith" (pp. xiv-xv).
    -----
    I hope you find this helpful.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )
  • To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top