The modern recovery and renewal of confessional Christianity in evangelicalism welcomes reflection on the construction of confessional standards and the ongoing import the process of their construction has for our relationship to these confessions. While many relate to creeds solely as rooted in and for the past, others today appeal to the creeds and confessions of their tradition as if they exist in a sort of ahistorical, objective space that then binds the church across all times and places. Into this space, the theology of Herman Bavinck on the formulation of dogma, particularly in Christian confessions, is insightful. In this paper, I will argue, along with Bavinck, that dogma is inherently social, “incorporated in the consciousness of the church and confessed in its own language.” I will argue that Bavinck’s consideration of the centrality of individual and communal influence in the formulation of dogmatics allows for a more modest relationship to the confessional standards of the past, while maintaining their importance for the governing and edification of the church today. In the early portions of his Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck begins his dogmatic considerations with how the church’s dogma comes to be formed by these personalities. In his view, there are three factors one must consider: Holy scripture, the church’s confession, and Christian consciousness, understood individually and communally. In Bavinck’s view, dogma, particularly as it comes to expression in the church’s confession, must be attuned to the objective and the subjective. Dogma, objectively speaking, rests on divine revelation and unfolds its contents. It is the knowledge that God has revealed in his word. However, as Bavinck continually emphasizes, it also has a social element. The theologian never comes to scripture without preconceived notions and commitments. The whole person comes to bear on dogmatic formulation. Furthermore, their social environment, notably the church and culture, asserts itself in theological reflection. This is derivative of a wider Bavinckian emphasis in his anthropology that manifests in his distinctive pedagogy. The formation of dogma, like the formation of humans, is an integrated enterprise involving the home, education, culture, age, and more. Bavinck does not highlight these factors in order to call the theologian to divest themself of outside influence. Instead, Bavinck sees Christian communal consciousness as essential to the testimony of orthodox theology, the continued inbreaking of the Kingdom of God in this world, and the work of God across time.