This review is about a Dutch theologian with a well-known name. His name is Berkhof, but his theology has little in common with that of our well known Louis Berkhof. In fact, while Hendrikus Berkhof quotes from hundreds of theologians, there is not one reference in the index to his American namesake. Perhaps this is partially due to t he fact that he has worked within the orbit of European theology.
I have especially two reasons for making an extended report on the book Christian Faith by Hendrikus Berkhof. The full title is Christian Faith (an Introduction to the Study of the Faith.) It has been translated from the Dutch by Sierd Woudstra and is published by William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. (1979). As a fairly prolific writer and professor at Leiden the author has had considerable influence. He seems also to represent an interesting theological phenomenon. Coming from within the Reformed tradition, he tries to interpret the gospel in a completely up-to-date way. In trying to make a road between a “rigid traditionalism on the one side and a rudderless modernism on the other” he turns a very learned and sharp mind to a seductive task. As such he joins a long list of “modernizers” who have made this appeal to modern man. He is, moreover, somewhat closer home because much of the “rigid traditionalism” which he criticizes is pretty much our historic Reformed Doctrine. While carrying out this negative reconstruction, he seems to find an innocent and helpful way to be guided by almost every form of modern theology and philosophy.
Berkhof is quite open about his objectives. If some of his followers think of him as more conservative than he really is, this may be explained rather by their efforts to make him “orthodox” than by what he really propounds. There is a similarity here with what happened in the case of Karl Barth who often protested against being made into an orthodox theologian. In Berkhof’s case there is less excuse for such a misunderstanding than in Barth’s case.
In the nineteen twenties Barth began his theological career with a blast against the position of Schleiermacher. Berkhof begins his book by a tribute to the father of modern liberalism. To Schleiermacher goes the honor of making faith the object of theological study. Hence comes the title Christian Faith. The phenomenon of the Christian faith thus becomes the area of theological reflection. Like earlier modern theologians, Berkhof wants to give Christianity a modern format as well as a scientific foundation.
How can Christianity be established as unique and the final truth? How can we know something for sure about God and His relationship to the world? How does the truth about God’s love come to us? Berkhof sets himself to the task of answering these questions in the part of his book called “prolegomena.” He realizes that faith is a matter of believing, but also is very confident that Christian faith is reasonable.
The author is very critical of any appeal to an infallible, propositionally true Bible. He accepts both higher criticism and form criticism. He is therefore forced into a most curious way of trying to establish a reliable revelation of God. While he expresses contempt for the man who thinks that when he has the Bible in his pocket he has God’s Word in his pocket, he too wants to use the Bible. On the one hand, he resorts to a kind of Barthian mysticism. The Spirit creates a revelation event. But he seems to depend much more on a kind of rationalistic effort to find the truth in the traditions found in Biblical history. In fact he sees the very essence of Christianity as the revelation of God’s covenant acts for man, coming to a climax in the death and resurrection of Christ.
Berkhof is confident that he can differentiate the reliable, useful traditions recorded in Scripture from the unreliable and useless ones. To the latter belong the mention of the devil, the legalistic parts of the O.T., the virgin birth, the literal ascension of Christ into heaven and the historical reference of John. The words of Jesus and the other propositional communications are mostly overshadowed by the process of God’s history. From this basic history and the evidence of God’s action in Christ every basic theological position can be derived. Everything must fit into the picture of the covenant love of God being realized in history and beyond it.
Berkhof spends most of his effort in the reconstruction of theology. He finds Barth most helpful here. There certainly are times when he is not happy with Barth. He does not find Barth’s universal election Scriptural. The urgency of decision for Christ and the fact that all men must face the coming judgment is firmly maintained by Berkhof. He even speaks of a final rejection and hell, but ends with the hope that it may prove to be a kind of purgatory.
Berkhof has some radical ideas about God. The historic attributes he considers not worth study. We just do not care about such a picture of a static being. With process theology we rather understand a God who is moving with His world. He is not almighty—not yet. He is defenseless and therefore must suffer. The act of reconciliation is therefore not the offer of the human to a just God, but rather the suffering of God with suffering and helpless man. In this area, he tries to resolve the most profound questions about the origin of evil and proves himself to be often more philosopher than Biblical theologian. In this vein he raises doubts about the ontological trinity and the personality of the Holy Spirit. While rejecting a universalism, he is certain that God will save those who have tried to do right and especially the oppressed. He reserves His condemnation for the oppressors and those who were enemies of God.
Sometimes he lets one “tradition” cancel out another. Thus Paul speaks to the Jews about their condemnation, but also has a teaching of universal reconciliation for the Gentiles. At other times he tries to reconcile two varied “traditions”—especially when portraying the future of the Kingdom in the world. His optimism is reserved for a period after the judgment, but for now the powers of light and darkness continue to struggle.
Although he shows an amazing knowledge of theoologicalliterature, he does not seem to have come in contact with the substantial writings in the U.S. about the future of the Kingdom.
The book has 568 pages. It often seems simpler than it really is. Pres. Hesselink (Western Seminary) has rightly noticed the independence and novelty of his thinking when he wrote “Few will be entirely satisfied, for the author is neither conservative nor liberal.” I might add that few will understand him because of his effort to bring too many streams of thinking together. And if we should follow him we will find ourselves adrift far from the Reformed tradition.
Perhaps it is ironic, but Louis Berkhof quoted in class the same poem that appears on the fly leaf of this volume.
Our little systems have their day They have their day and cease to be They are but broken lights to thee, And Thou Oh Lord, art more than they
There is little doubt in my mind as to which of the Berkhofs took these words more seriously.