“The centuries preceding the French Revolution (1789) are in many ways different from the epoch that followed. The radical change of direction introduced into the life and thought of the nations by this tremendous event shattered the continuity of history. We can project ourselves into the thought and life of those preceding ages only with great difficulty. They were the ages of authority and objectivity, whereas in our era the subject proclaims its freedom and asserts its rights in every area of human existence… After the middle of the eighteenth century this situation gradually changed. The subject came into its own. It became aware of its true or presumed rights and slowly broke all the ties binding it to the past. In an unlimited sense of freedom it emancipated itself from everything the past held sacred. All authority that demanded recognition and obedience had to answer first the foundational question: By what right do you demand my obedience? Critical reason had been awakened, launching an inquiry into the ground of all authority. Naive, simple, childlike faith all but vanished. Doubt has now become the sickness of our century, bringing with it a string of moral problems and plagues. Nowadays, many people take into account only what they can see; they deify matter, worship Mammon, or glorify power. The number of those who still utter an undaunted testimony of their faith with joyful enthusiasm and complete certainty is comparatively small. Families, generations, groups, and classes have turned away from all authority and broken with their faith. Even among those who still call themselves believers, how many must screw up their courage into a forced, unnatural belief? How many believe as a result of habit, laziness or lack of spirit? How many act out of an unhealthy attempt to recover the past or out of a misleading conservatism? There is much noise and movement, but little genuine spirit, little genuine enthusiasm issuing from an upright, fervent, sincere faith.”

Herman Bavinck 
The Certainty of Faith — 1891

Of course the change that Bavinck refers to is what we retrospectively refer to as “The Enlightenment,” or if one prefers not to embrace the enemies nomenclature, “The Endarkenment.”

With the rise of the Endarkenment on the scene of Western Civilization the motif of the Reformation in Europe was turned aside and reversed in favor of the subjectivism of which Bavinck speaks. The Reformation had championed the authority of God as centered in the Scriptures and had moved away from the subjectivism of the Renaissance. The Reformation had removed the autonomy of fallen man as exhibited in the Roman Catholic Magisterium, wherein fallen man was given authority over the Scripture and had returned to the objective authority of Scripture Alone. The Reformation had returned the Church — and consequently Western Civilization — to a time of “authority and objectivity.”

With the rise of the philosophy and theology that drove the Endarkenment individual man was given autonomy to ascend to the most high so becoming his own authority and so his own objective. The subjective (fallen man) had become his own objective. The subjective had been objectivized but this objectification could never change the reality that at its core the objective remained subjective.

The two worlds — the world created by the Reformation and the world created by the Renaissance and later institutionalized by the Endarkenment could never really communicate with one another in any substantive manner. These two movements created two different worlds with two different languages, creating two different kinds of men. Subjective man who takes himself as his own objective can never understand man who stands on an authority that is outside and beyond himself. And so it remains today. There remains a small remnant of people who still believe in an objectively objective world wherein the authority of God’s Word remains the North Star for fallen man. This small remnant lives, cheek by jowl, with the majority of people — both inside and outside the church — who live with themselves as their own objective authority and standard. They can communicate with one another the way that a porcupine might communicate with a Weather Balloon. Ontologically they have all things in common but epistemologically they have nothing in common. They are living in two competing realities. This explains why Bavinck can write; “We can project ourselves into the thought and life of those preceding ages only with great difficulty.” Those of us who belong still to those preceding ages continue to have great difficulty but our great difficulty is projecting ourselves into the thought and life of the current age we now live in.

That Bavinck is correct here one only has to lift one’s eyes and look around. To the person who is conversant with the mindset of the preceding ages, having immersed themselves in those preceding ages via their reading habits, it is a daily reality that we have broke with what was once considered “sacred.” Whether it is the way we speak, the way we dress, or the way we worship as “Christians” all of what was once considered “sacred” is passe. In order for the idea of “sacred” to gain traction there must exist this concept of objective authority but with the disappearance of an objective authority so also has gone into remission any idea of “sacred.” If man is the measure than nothing can be set apart as unto God.

One of the pieces of irony in all this is the rise of “critical reason.” The irony is found in the fact that once the idea of authority and the objective is removed the idea that critical reason can still exist in a completely subjectivized and subjective world is a real knee-slapper. Without an authority or objective outside of us “critical reason” has no basis by which it can defend itself as either “critical” or as “reason.” Without authority to anchor it critical reason is just another subjective opinion. Indeed, “critical reason,” must presuppose what it is denying (objectivity and authority) in order to deny what it is denying. Before it can slap objectivity and authority in the face it must first climb up into its lap. Without objectivity and authority critical reason can be neither critical nor reason.

Do not move on from this quote without considering Bavinck’s final words here. In such an age as which we now live he notes that even most of the remaining Christians are in trouble. The remaining Christians, bitten by the zeitgeist, themselves have trouble returning to any real foundation. They exist as trying to return to a time, via a method (conservatism) which itself has very little eternal substance to it. They are seeking to “keep the faith,” but as Bavinck notes that faith has been planted in very shallow soil. Indeed, Bavinck’s words ring true again in thunderous tones for our day as he concludes; There is much noise and movement, but little genuine spirit, little genuine enthusiasm issuing from an upright, fervent, sincere faith.”