H. Henry Meeter on the Bible and politics in the Calvinist worldview (2)
December 7, 2012 by Nelson D. Kloosterman
From the previous blog post, you will learn that we are reproducing here a significant orientation penned by Dr. H. Henry Meeter back in 1939 on the matter of “The Bible and Politics,” a section comprising pages 74-76 in his renowned work, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism (6th edition; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990).
It must be kept in mind that before setting forth his ideas about “The Bible and Politics,” Meeter had already presented, in Part 1 of his book, the cardinal tenets of Calvinism regarding its fundamental principle, the place of the Bible in Calvinism, the role of faith, common grace, and human culture. These preceding seven chapters, then, contain his concise presentation of the integrated system known as Calvinism.
Part 2 contains eighteen chapters (three of them added by reviser Paul Marshall) that discuss the “Political Ideas of Calvinism.” The first of these is Chapter 8, from which these citations are drawn.
Again, listen to Dr. Meeter, and see what you think.
In adopting the Bible as his foundation in political science, the Calvinist takes a position which is rather unique. Most other systems do not attempt to base their views on the Bible. As their authority in affairs of state they will appeal, not to the Bible, but to some such ground as the will of the masses, or the individual sentiment of justice, or natural rights; or they will make of the state an autonomous body, which can decide what it will—always some human ground. This does not imply that adherents of such political systems will always object to your having religious views. Some who are atheists will object to it as the Soviet government is doing. Others are quite willing to allow religious opinions, but they maintain that these religious views should be private matters and should not be injected into politics. Others will go even further and allow religion to color certain political activities, such as the opening of political gatherings with prayer or occasional reference to God in speeches. But when it comes to the drafting of political views, they maintain that the Bible may not be the criterion. In politics, human opinions and human theories must decide. The Calvinist goes back to God. The will of God is determinative for the views which he must hold concerning the state.
How are we to understand the statement that the Bible is the Calvinist’s foundation in politics? Does the Calvinist expect the Bible to provide him with a political platform? It would be folly to expect such a thing. A political party in the United States changes its platform every four years. Despite such frequent changes it is a difficult matter to draft a platform which will satisfy all sections of the country. How then could anyone reasonably expect the Bible to supply a platform which would hold good for all ages and all classes? In fact, the Bible does not even offer us any organized political system which we can use. It does not even offer us a unified theological system. There is a more or less developed political plan presented in the Bible, the so-called Mosaic theocracy, that civil-ceremonial system found in the first five books of the Bible. But that system, according to the very words of Calvin, was made for other times and other conditions and does not hold good for today. In fact, the Calvinist does not believe that there is one hard and fast system of government which the Bible advocates. The Bible does not declare that the government must be a monarchy, or an aristocracy, or a demoncracy. The Bible offers eternal principles which should underlie and control all political systems. These principles never grow old, but like all principles they are eternal, changeless, and pertinent for all times and all conditions. When once one has mastered these principles, then one can build systems and construct platforms to meet existing conditions, and can critically analyze them to judge whether or not they are sound.
Next time: Where are these principles to be found? and Are these principles valid only for Christians?
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posting this to get followup comments via email.
ditto.
My observation is that this is a whole lotta theory and not much reality. For example, I carefully watched a Presidential debate and considered what the “Christian” position would be on the various questions. http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/prooftexting-the-presidential-debate/ Not much there.
I’d like to see a quick checklist of the poltical issues that are alleged to have not just generically Christian but Calvinist answers to them. If Meeter is correct and if the neo-Cal perpsective is correct this should be an easy.
But Meeter specifically said in terms of specific application:
Does the Calvinist expect the Bible to provide him with a political platform? It would be folly to expect such a thing. A political party in the United States changes its platform every four years.
Rather, he said in terms of a priori principle:
The Bible offers eternal principles which should underlie and control all political systems. These principles never grow old, but like all principles they are eternal, changeless, and pertinent for all times and all conditions. When once one has mastered these principles, then one can build systems and construct platforms to meet existing conditions, and can critically analyze them to judge whether or not they are sound.
If one refuses to accept this easy first principle {which the R2k folks often do}, then it is a fools errand to engage the exercise of prooftexting a party platform, as if one must find a Bible text with the words “Democrat” or “Republican” in them..
Although it is probably apparent, the last paragraph of my comment above was incorrectly italicized making it appear to be continuation of the Meeter quote, which of course, it is not..
mikelmann,
Why the quest for “not just generically Christian but Calvinist answers”? I should think the more basic disagreement involves the claim that there are no “Christian answers.”
So here are two political issues that involve the application of religious principles, specifically Christian principles: (1) the HHS mandate, which constitutes a direct threat to the exercise of religious liberty in the workplace, and (2) the role of women in the military and in combat.
Regarding the second, readers will find as relevant to this discussion the fulsome report of the OPC General Assembly (available here) on this subject. Although there is significant disagreement regarding the proper course of action for the church, there appears to have been no disagreement about the relevance of biblical principles to the issue(s) at stake.
For what it’s worth, theonomists and neo-Calvinists join hands against 2k. And yet, when do neo-Cal’s invoke Calvin against theonomists? “There is a more or less developed political plan presented in the Bible, the so-called Mosaic theocracy, that civil-ceremonial system found in the first five books of the Bible. But that system, according to the very words of Calvin, was made for other times and other conditions and does not hold good for today.” Looks to me like something other than ideas is going on here.
NDK, I ask for Calvinist answers because the book is about Calvinism, not about generic Christianity. FYI, it’s been a while but I have read the book.
Regarding opposition to the HHS mandate, it’s common ground among Catholics, fundamentalists and virtually any vitually every stripe of the conservative Christian tradition. Although I think it’s been overstated by the Christian right (http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-hhs-mandate-doesnt-make-catholic-employers-sin-proximate-cause-says-so/ ) I oppose it. But opposition can be well-established by appealing to the conscience in general rather than anything specifically Christian or Calvnist.
I was in attendance at the GA when the OPC voted on women in the military. FWIW a significant driving force behind that vote was the argument that and OPC member would need to have her denomination take a formal stand in our to declare that she could not engage in combat according to her religious conscience. Then other arguments sounded to my ears like natural law arguments about the place of women historically, in the home, etc. They tended to have scriptures appended but they tended to be scripture footnotes on an essentially natural law argument.
Macro-thoughts come up, like how can Calvinism – whose principles are explained as basic priniciple in our system of government – be the only way to set up governments when the OT had kings?
dgh,
Though not invoking Calvin per se, my differences with Theonomy are a matter of public record, even in the OPC! Perhaps this may help. Note the date of publication—it’s been around awhile.
Yet another extremely helpful contribution to this discussion is this material from J. Douma, “What is Distinctive About Christian Ethics?” (available here).
Enjoy!
“The Bible offers eternal principles which should underlie and control all political systems. These principles never grow old, but like all principles they are eternal, changeless, and pertinent for all times and all conditions”
So, Mark, something like the US system is the biblical govenment for all times and all conditions? There are cultural soils in which it does quite well but others in which it is a non-starter.
Then, I tend to think there are few Calvinists today who would really like Geneva to be replicated in our midst. Funny how Calvin didn’t quite understand Calvinism.
“So, Mark, something like the US system is the biblical govenment for all times and all conditions?”
No, and never suggested that is the case. You have moved to application without first dealing with the matter of bedrock principles that “underlie and control all political systems”. Do you believe the Bible offers any?
Mark, if I remember the Meeter book, he brings out principles and then – viola! – by golly, those principles are consistent with our system in the United States. But since you are the one who quotes the bit about principles applying in all times and places, maybe you can explain how that looks. I’m trying to move from lofty generalizations to application. If we have only the former without the latter, it’s just a poetic statement.
mikelmann,
You write: “[Opposition to the HHS mandate] is common ground among Catholics, fundamentalists and virtually every stripe of the conservative Christian tradition.”
But that’s not really the point, is it? Namely, how many other Christians share the opposition to the HHS mandate. Does the fact that a position is shared by non-Calvinists render it any less a Calvinist position? No one—including Meeter—argues that no other Christian tradition holds to biblical principles about Christian cultural obedience. Rather, the claim being made within the context of the entire book is that such biblical principles are integrated most coherently and most comprehensively within Calvinism as the biblical system of teaching for doctrine and (all of) life whose center is the sovereignty of God.
Secondly, please explain the argument opposing the HHS violation of religious liberty/advocating the exercise of religious liberty in the workplace without either referencing principles taught by special revelation or smuggling in assumptions derived from special revelation.
Thirdly, regarding the OPC decision, it is only the written record that we can accept as authoritative, though personal impressions may perhaps be useful.The OPC decision was to “declare that the use of women in military combat is both contrary to nature and inconsistent with the Word of God.” The first ground for this decision states: “This is a ministerial declaration of what is revealed in Holy Scripture, cf. 1 Corinthians 11:14; Report 1, Sections III-VI.”
Therefore, based on Section III., “Foundational Principles of Sexual Distinctions,” and Section IV., “God’s Command as Our Example,” and Section V., “Learning from Judges 4 and 5, and Drawing Conclusions,” and Section VI., “Following the OT Foundational Teachings in the New Testament,” I would again claim that in the OPC report, there seems to be no disagreement about the relevance of biblical principles to the issue(s) under discussion. That is, in this specific OPC discussion, the scope and range of the Bible’s authority for (Christian) living in the world went beyond the life of the institutional church.
I am trying to move from lofty generalizations to application
I would be happy to do, but will not do so until I know I am conversing with one who can acknowledge a general principle from which the discussion on application can proceed.
So, I ask again: Do you believe the Bible offers any bedrock principles that “underlie and control all political systems”?
Mark, I would hate for you to defer your happiness. Apply away. Or, the case in chief is yours to present.
“Secondly, please explain the argument opposing the HHS violation of religious liberty/advocating the exercise of religious liberty in the workplace without either referencing principles taught by special revelation or smuggling in assumptions derived from special revelation.”
NDK, my experience with this kind of invitation is that the last bit – “smuggling in assumptions derived from special revelation” is used to swallow up everything that sounds consistent with special revelation. So if an Atheist speaks on behalf of nativity scenes or the dreaded ACLU takes up a case for religious freedom, those don’t count because they are in a culture that is profoundly influenced by Christianity, are still running off the fumes of our Christian heritage, etc.
A prospective juror who refuses to agree there are the principles on which to judge the facts of a case does not get the privilege of sitting on a jury.
Nice, Mark, but the Plaintiff’s attorney doesn’t get to write instructions for the jury…
mikelmann,
Fair enough, you’re declining the invitation, then? That’s okay; I simply want to be clear.
Let me extend another invitation by asking the question in what may be a less problematic way: How does a religious secularist (i.e., one who believes that “the Bible governs the church alone, whereas unaided reason and natural law govern everything else”) oppose the state’s violation of religious liberty?
LOL… Mikelman, there is a quite a difference between a lawyer pointing to instructions written and given by the Judge and a prospective juror who won’t even acknowledge they exist.
NDK, if it’s a decline, it’s a decline for a reason. I mentioned the possibility that pantheism is more coherent and systematic. But pantheism isn’t true. The pantheist has to go through life pushing away diversity that meet us in the created world. He has a desire for unity that’s always in tension with what happens in his life. There’s a similar thing that happens with the quest for unity in the one who treats Calvinism as a comprehensive system that unifies the natural and supernatural, trying to trace all knowledge back to special revelation, all of which is seen through a few basic presuppositions. I don’t know if anyone really lives day to day trying to fit vocation, child rearing, entertainment, church, etc. into a unfied system like that, but there’s a tension there because the Bible isn’t meant to tell us everything about everything and creation resists being pigeon holed like that.
Regarding religious liberty, I support the freedom of the church to preach the gospel and for its members to be able to live without being coerced into sin by the state, ” that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” So there – I quoted a scripture. I then see a system in which Christians have liberty under the law, and can cooperate with non-Christians in preserving a number of other liberties which, in the long run, benefit all of us even if they do allow some messiness of which Calvin would never approve.
mikelmann,
The preferable key word is “integration.” Though not denying that Calvinism is a unified system, for our purposes, the more important claim is that Calvinism is an integrated system—as in: nature and grace, body and soul, creation and redemption, earth and heaven, Christian living in the church and Christian living in the world. As with the two natures of Christ, these dualities are not to be confused, identified, or separated, but integrated—demonstrated for us in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Ascension of our Savior.
This line of discussion is leaving me quite puzzled. I had thought it was a Presbyterian commonplace to speak of the Bible’s “system of doctrine.” Though for some, the phrase might not by itself imply whole life Christianity, I’m surprised by y’all’s reluctance to say that Christianity is either (1) a biblical system of doctrine and life, or (2) an integrated system of doctrine and life, or (3) a coherent system of doctrine and life. I wonder if some fear that the current will jump the rails, from “system” to “worldview”? I don’t get it.
What religion worth its salt would waffle about being systematic, coherent, comprehensive, and integrated?
NDK, your puzzlement over objections to Christianity as system may indeed point to an unfamiliarity with Reformed developments outside the Dutch Reformed world. Worldview language is much more continental and found in Hegelian philosophy. The Anglo-American world used Scottish Enlightenment philosophy — especially conservative Presbyterians. To my knowledge, worldview is not part of the philosophical realist tradition.
dgh,
No unfamiliarity at all; but you’re not reading carefully enough. I’m not puzzled at all by objections to Christianity as a system—not in the least. I am puzzled about why people, like Presbyterians, who talk of “the system of doctrine” in Scripture have been so reluctant to permit talk of Calvinism as a coherent and integrated system of doctrine and life.
The puzzle remains.
NDK, maybe because a comprehensive Christian system does not exist except in the minds of Christians who value post-Kantian idealism.
[...] along from the Cosmic Eye (Nelson Kloosterman’s blog), this is from the very fine book by H. Henry Meeter called The [...]