From 1927 to 1957, Dr. H. Henry Meeter (1886-1963) taught in the Bible (now Religion and Theology) Department at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He had graduated from both Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary, and obtained a B.D. degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. While at Princeton, he was offered two fellowships for scholarly achievement, one by B. B. Warfield in systematic theology, and the other by William Park Armstrong and J. Gresham Machen in New Testament theology. He accepted the former, and went on to study at the Free University in Amsterdam, receiving his doctorate in 1916 cum laude.
His internationally acclaimed book on Calvinism, now entitled The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, has been republished by Baker Book House (available here). The foreward to the second edition was written by Meeter’s colleague, Louis Berkhof, who wrote: “We know of no other work in the English language which offers us such a concise, and yet complete and thoroughly reliable resumé of the teachings of Calvinism.” Beyond the Dutch Reformed community, Meeter’s book received praise from American Lutherans, London evangelicals, and others. His “interpretation of the theology of Calvin is sane and true,” one reviewer observed. The book is now in its sixth edition and has been translated into five languages: Dutch, Korean, Japanese, Spanish, and Russian.
In this and subsequent blog posts, we will reproduce in full that section of Meeter’s book that is entitled, “The Bible and Politics,” found on pages 74-76. This section appears in Chapter 8, “Politics and the Bible,” comprising pages 71-76.
Before turning to Meeter’s material, it should be noted that the purpose of publishing these and subsequent citations is very narrow, very targeted, very specific. It involves one of the fundamental claims being issued today among some advocates of a particular construal of “natural law” and “two kingdoms.” It is the claim that Christians cannot properly use the Bible to guide and govern their non-ecclesiastical communal cultural obedience in the world. An essential part of that claim is the conviction that there is really no such entity as a Christian family, no such thing as Christian education, no such reality as Christian politics or Christian economics, and yes, the notion of Christian plumbing is a joke. Rather, we are told, there are Christian individuals who happen to be married, to be educators, politicians, economists, and plumbers. The only institution or group that may legitimately be called Christian, it is claimed, is the church.
It should be obvious to anyone with discernment that the relevance of Scripture, directly or indirectly, to such disparate endeavors as child rearing, education, politics, and plumbing will vary considerably. Although each activity will be shaped in some way by the worldview of the practitioner, that “some way” will differ according to a number of factors. It would indeed be silly to suppose that shaping a child’s mind is in every respect equivalent to wielding a pipewrench. That’s not the issue, despite the rhetoric and ridicule. The issue lies embedded in the claim that the Bible says nothing normative about all Christian cultural obedience, or to put the claim in its most stark form: the Bible norms Christian living in the institutional church alone, whereas unaided reason and natural law direct Christian communal cultural obedience in the world.
Listen to Dr. Meeter, and see what you think.
That’s enough for now. More to come!
Meeter’s book is outstanding and doesn’t get enough recognition. It is almost every bit as good as Kuyper’s Stone Lecture Series.
I would only recommend that people read the chapter on Economics w/ a jaundiced eye.
I like that Meeter insists that we must wear Scriptural spectacles to understand aright nature.
If Dr. Meeter were writing today, I suspect he’d be attacked by the “Two Kingdoms” people for failing to comprehend Calvin and for “confusing the kingdoms.”
More to the point, however, “Two Kingdoms” people like to pull out an unfortunate quote by J. Gresham Machen, one obviously aimed at social gospel liberals of his day, in which Machen says that people ought to be able to go to church and be free from the wearies of worldly political concerns. Juxtaposing these quotes by Machen and Meeter would seem to show some major differences, but I don’t find that Machen and Meeter were fighting each other. On the contrary, it seems patently obvious that they regarded each other as fellow confessional Calvinists.
I would be quite interested if some of the “Two Kingdoms” people with legitimate historical credentials and research background — I’m thinking specifically of Dr. Hart, but the invitation is certainly open to others — could comment on how Machen and the other “Old School” leaders at the end of historic Princeton and the beginning of early Westminster responded to views such as those of Meeter.
I’m certainly prepared to believe that Machen and others like him stood in the line of the old Southern Presbyterian “spirituality of the church” tradition and feared the reintroduction of Gardiner Spring Resolutions into the church, dividing it based on political principles rather than theological principles. That seems likely given their biographical background and theological affinities. The history of the PCUSA and PCUS is not the same as the history of the GHK and NHK. We simply cannot assume that Hodge and Kuyper agreed on everything, acting as if the Atlantic Ocean did not exist and those men lived in the same church under the same conditions.
However, it seems equally clear that men like Machen did not have a problem with men like Meeter — or are there documents out there which would show that Machen, et al, were strongly opposed to the principles of men like Meeter but chose to avoid what they regarded as unnecessary fights with allies to focus instead on the primary fight with liberalism and the secondary fight with un-Reformed or sub-Reformed views within Presbyterianism of their day?
I grant that Meeter was a young man living at the end of Machen’s life and perhaps it could be argued that if Machen had lived longer he would have opposed Meeter and the views which have come to be known as neo-Calvinism. It does seem quite obvious that Machen’s spirit was not that of Schaeffer and Buswell, and the division between the OPC and BPC was due not only to the personal nastiness of McIntyre but also due to fundamental differences which Machen and the older leaders tried to paper over but which the younger men blew out into the open after leaving the PCUSA.
But even so, we ought not to forget that Kuyper’s seminal lectures on Calvinism were not delivered at a broadly evangelical forum in America, or at an early convention of the men who later came to lead the Bible Presbyterian Church, but were delivered as part of the Stone Lecture series at Princeton.
I simply do not find the degree of animosity toward “neo-Calvinism” in the late history of pre-reorganization Princeton Seminary and early Westminster Seminary that we find coming from the men today who insist that they are the legitimate heirs of Machen and Old School Presbyterianism.
I’m not the expert here, however. I’m asking questions, not trying to insist on specific answers. Dr. Hart is the expert and I’d like to hear his “take” on how Machen actually viewed Meeter, Kuyper, etc.
Meeter: The Bible is the Calvinist’s rule of faith and practice in everything; therefore it is also his rule in the realm of politics. This is easy to comprehend.
Darrell: If Dr. Meeter were writing today, I suspect he’d be attacked by the “Two Kingdoms” people for failing to comprehend Calvin and for “confusing the kingdoms.”
Of course, Meeter needn’t be alive to be attacked🙂.
That a principle which is “easy to comprehend” is being clouded by men with advanced degrees is remarkable indeed.
“That a principle which is “easy to comprehend” is being clouded by men with advanced degrees is remarkable indeed.”
Actually, the problem is that there are certain people who are educated beyond their intelligence.
“dividing it based on political principles rather than theological principles.”
Can someone show me a political principle that is not first a theological principle?
Yes, Rev. McAtee.
Not every political question has a clear biblical answer, though in a lot of cases the preponderance of evidence may lie on one side or the other side of the question. In still others, the biblical principle should be to leave settled laws alone rather than making constant changes without compelling reasons.
To cite a somewhat silly example — one which comes from former Congressman Paul Henry, the son of prominent evangelical theologian Carl F.H. Henry who represented Grand Rapids for many years in the House of Representatives — there is no Christian perspective on why Americans drive on the right side of the road and British drive on the left, but there are very good biblical reasons why the existing driving practice in each country should not be changed willy-nilly for no good reason.
To cite a more relevant example, think of the debates on how to resolve the political chaos created by the Reformation and how they influenced the decisions of Reformed Christians on whether to support existing monarchies or to create republics. That debate was most prominent in England but happened also in the Netherlands following independence from Spain, was a serious issue in the role of lesser magistrates versus the monarchy in France, and to a lesser extent was an issue in the Palatinate, in Hungary, and in Poland, where at one point much of the nobility was Reformed but had to cope with a Roman Catholic monarch.
I agree with Calvin that the best form of government is an aristocracy or an aristocracy combined with some level of democracy, and I happen to think the US Constitution is a pretty good implementation of that principle of a republic with important checks and balances on popular sovereignty. (Think of the differing roles of the Senate and the House.) I like the system of government devised by our Founding Fathers and have no interest in making any fundamental changes to it. While no human document is perfect and I think there are clear problems which have developed that the Founders did not and could not have anticipated, our Constitution is probably the best that could reasonably have been created given the political conditions of the 1780s, and there are reasons why it has lasted for more than two centuries.
With that said, while “divine right of kings” absolute monarchies are clearly unbiblical, it’s quite possible for Reformed people to defend a constitutional monarchy on biblical grounds. If we don’t think so, look at the agonizing the Puritans went through over whether to execute King Charles I, and then whether to offer Cromwell the crown or to establish a republic with Cromwell as the Lord Protector rather than as the king. I think the weight of the biblical evidence tends toward a free republic, but the case is not crystal clear from Scripture, and great deference needs to be given to existing structures. We are Reformed; we are not revolutionaries, and there is a critical difference between the two.
The bottom line is that many answers to political questions are based on previous commitments to philosophical principles which have religious components, but not all of them, and sometimes there is more than one legitimate answer to the question.
DTM, as far as I know, Machen didn’t interact with Meeter. But your sensitivity to Old School Presbyterian developments, and to differences between the activism of the Bible Presbyterians and the spirituality of the church of Orthodox Presbyterians would go a long way in potting down the attacks on 2k, as if there is no way but the neo-Calvinist way. Dutch Calvinism and American Presbyterianism developed differently and one could say truly that 2k has much more of a standing among American Presbyterians. Dutch Calvinism has dominated 20th century political reflection, ironically through Schaeffer and Colson. But neo-Calvinists really should open their minds to histories and lands before Kuyper.
Dr. Hart, you make several important points. Let’s take them one by one.
Dr. Hart wrote on December 8, 2012 at 8:00 am:
Thank you for this note. You’re a recognized expert on Machen and especially his problems with the fundamentalist movement, and if you say that as far as you know Machen didn’t interact with Meeter, I’ll take that as the closest thing to certainty I can get without a ton of original research.
I continue to find it interesting that, as Dr. Kloosterman noted, “While at Princeton (Meeter) was offered two fellowships for scholarly achievement, one by B. B. Warfield in systematic theology, and the other by William Park Armstrong and J. Gresham Machen in New Testament theology.” It’s obvious that Meeter personally knew and was respected by both Warfield and Machen. It seems clear to me that a key American exponent of what has become known as “neo-Calvinism” was held in high regard by the same men to whom the key modern exponents of the “Two Kingdoms” position look for their definition of classic Old School Presbyterianism. At an absolute minimum, that would appear to indicate that “neo-Calvinism” was not seen as a threat to the Reformed faith.
I appreciate your compliments on this, Dr. Hart.
For whatever it’s worth, my views with regard to the “Two Kingdoms” advocates are still somewhat in flux. I have written with fire in the past on “Two Kingdoms” issues, using words and phrases that I would not use today, mostly because until the last few years I had never seen anything remotely resembling the “Two Kingdoms” position. It appeared at first to be an utter novelty, introduced by people who claimed to be conservatives but were in fact trying to import toleration for liberal politics into the church, using methods very much like those used by Christian Reformed liberals to subvert the synod by familiar-sounding Reformed words infused with new and radically un-Reformed content.
I no longer believe that.
I am extremely hesitant to condemn positions which have deep roots in Reformed theology, even if I find them to be deeply flawed at a fundamental level, and I recognize key affinities between the Southern “spirituality of the church” position and northern “Old School” Presbyterianism, on the one hand, and modern Two Kingdoms viewpoints, on the other. I will disagree quite strongly with some strains of historic Reformed thought, but that’s not the same as saying those strains are illegitimate and deserving of condemnation.
Virtually my only major exception to that belief in respecting historic reformed positions is Kuyperian presumptive regeneration — I unapologetically count myself in the camp of classic Puritanism and I believe Kuyper and his successors did tremendous damage to Reformed Christianity by causing people, in fact though not in theory, to trust in their parents’ bloodlines rather than focusing on the importance of individual and personal conversion. There may come a day that I decide both “Two Kingdoms” viewpoints and presumptive regeneration must be condemned with equal vigor. I’m not there yet.
My current view, for whatever it’s worth, is that a theology rooted in the Southern Presbyterian “spirituality of the church” concept is self-defeating. Who in their right mind should want to defend a theology which, even if it wasn’t crafted specifically to defend slavery and then to blunt criticism by civil rights advocates, had the effect of silencing the church on several of the great sins of the American experience?
I live in the South. I know a fair number of unreconstructed supporters of the Confederacy — such views are not unknown in conservative political and ecclesiastical circles “down in these here parts” — and some of those people are Reformed. Very few people in modern America will agree with such views once they understand the roots from which they come. If Two Kingdoms people want to cite those roots, fine. I think doing so pretty much defeats their own cause in the public mind.
This may be the best point I’ve seen you make in this entire discussion, Dr. Hart. I think I can agree with you almost unreservedly.
I live and work among Baptists and broad evangelicals. People look at me strangely when I explain my theology until I point out names like Schaeffer, D. James Kennedy, etc. — and then their eyes light up and they say, “Oh, now I understand! You’re one of **THOSE** people!!!!” Suddenly I go from someone of highly questionable orthodoxy because I’m not pre-mil and support baby baptisms to being the first Calvinist they’ve actually met who looks and sounds like authors they’ve read and respected.
The Dutch basically spent a century in America hiding their lights under not just one bushel but multiple layers of bushels.
Calvinism has a tremendous amount to say to the world, and for most of the last century after the collapse of the PCUSA and PCUS, the Dutch had been the primary manifestation of what it meant to be Reformed. The Dutch, unfortunately, by cutting themselves off from the American experience, have failed to note very close parallels in New England and with Cromwell to Dutch views of political engagement. That got left to Schaeffer and others.
Why cut oneself off from willing listeners? I’d rather work on making Baptists and Pentecostals into Calvinists than trying to be so narrowly focused on the intramural Reformed community that nobody knows what I’m trying to say.
DTM, whatever Meeter did as a student at Princeton, it is not clear that Machen knew him as an exponent of neo-Calvinism. Kuyper’s lectures were not published in English (I believe) until the 1930s. By then, Machen was hip-deep in ecclesiastical struggles.
Plus, let’s keep in mind that once Kuyperianism looked more promising than it does now. I have seen what happened to the Kuyper movement in the NL and the U.S. Calling it a threat to the Reformed faith would be too strong. But I’m still waiting for advocates of neo-Calvinism to own up to what is a remarkable resemblance in outcomes on both sides of the Atlantic.
Thank you, Dr. Hart. This is helpful.
I remember reading comments by Machen with regard to fundamentalism that he had no time to spare for fights with fellow conservatives — a spirit that I very much share and wish I saw more often in modern confessionally Reformed circles. Machen was a son of the ruling elite of his day with a long family background of political and community service, he understood how to play politics, and he certainly understood than not every hill is one to die for. I believe that religious and political conservatives today, who have long since been disestablished from the corridors of elite power, very frequently fail to understand what it meant for Machen to be an Ivy League professor.
Narrowness and sectarianism are not unknown in the modern conservative world, but back when Princeton was a conservative Ivy League institution, that and other influences existed which simply do not exist today in conservative circles. In the secular world of conservative politiics, the modern “tea party” movement has far more in common with Jacksonian democracy than it has in common with classical conservative thought, and I think it’s fairly clear that men like William F. Buckley would have recoiled in horror at the radicalism, rudeness, and disrespect for education which are now virtually synonymous with modern populist conservatism. I would hazard a guess that Machen would have similar views toward many of his conservative successors, including some pretty stern words for the lack of fluency in Koine and Attic Greek possessed by most modern Reformed ministers, even those who are confessional Calvinists.
In that regard I can easily see that Machen might have chosen to avoid unnecessary arguments with Meeter which could only antagonize Christian Reformed people whose help he badly needed to get Westminster off the ground and keep it Reformed.
Now with regard to the descent of Dutch Reformed theology into liberalism — I’m a Calvin graduate. You will get no disagreement from me on how bad things are today in the CRC and at Calvin College. If Meeter could return to the theology department of the 1980s, I suspect he would have been amused that of the theology majors in the year I graduated, the only two students who were conservative Calvinists were both non-members of the CRC, and the most conservative professor was a woman who finally left Calvin in part because she couldn’t put up with its liberalism anymore. (Sometimes affirmative action gets a conservative woman by mistake.)
However, are things any better in any other Reformed denomination of any significant size? It seems to take about three generations for a denomination to go from theological strength to liberal collapse, with a middle generation of evangelicals who don’t know their confessions or their history and become prey for liberals. I can’t really think of any modern Reformed denominations except the RPCNA and ARP that have managed to remain orthodox for long periods of time, and the ARPs almost fell apart two generations ago.