THE developments at Princeton Theological Seminary since its reorganization in 1929 no doubt continue to interest all those who love the Christian faith. These developments have been not merely in the direction of Lutheranism or Arminianism. They have not been merely in the way of unsoundness at one or another point of doctrine. They have rather been destructive of the foundation of the Christian faith itself. It is, to be sure, not the old liberalism that has invaded the ivy-covered halls. It is the new liberalism, the liberalism connected with the names of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, that has found entrance there.
Fresh evidence of this appears in the recent appointment of the Rev. George S. Hendry, B.D., of Bridge of Allan, Stirlingshire, to the Charles Hodge Chair of Systematic Theology.
Charles Hodge was one of the greatest systematic theologians of modern times. The man about to occupy the chair named after him does not believe in systematic theology at all. He is not merely indifferent to systematic theology, but rejects it with vigour. He hails with enthusiasm the movement of thought associated with the names of Barth and Brunner, and says: “The principle feature of this new direction of thought by which it is most definitely distinguished from all philosophy and metaphysical speculation is that it cannot and does not seek to become a completed system” (God the Creator, Nashville, 1938, p. 144)
Hendry does not merely disapprove of philosophical systems. Theological system is for him no better than philosophical system. Hendry does not merely mean that non-Christian systems are evil. Christian systems of theology are for him a contradiction in terms: Christianity and the idea of system, he asserts, are mutually exclusive. Hendry does not merely mean that systems which seek to be comprehensive are bad; for him every system must, in the nature of the case, seek to be comprehensive, and therefore bad.
The reason for rejecting system, argues Hendry, is that it is destructive of the idea of revelation. Revelation itself presents no system. "It is impossible to seek a unified, systematic conception of reality in view of the revelation of God" (Idem p. 146). Revelation does not even furnish the building blocks with which a system of theology might be built. "In Christian faith revelation bears its strict and essential meaning, a drawing back of the veil to disclose something which could not otherwise be known to all. It is not a category or mode of viewing reality, but an event, single, unique, once for all" (Idem p. 24f).
What then will Professor Hendry teach? Will he tell his students that the Bible is merely the record of human experience? Not at all. He will assure them that the liberal view of the Bible, taken by itself, is quite wrong. He will even tell them that there is an element of truth in "dogmatic orthodoxy,” albeit in a perverted form (Idem p. 20). "Thus it is proper to say that the Bible is the Word of God" (“The Rediscovery of the Bible," in Reformation Old and New, ed. by F. W. Camfield, London, 1947, p. 150). But the "perverted form" of the "elements of truth" in a theology such as that of Hodge must be rejected. We must have no doctrines of verbal or plenary inspiration of Scripture. We must have no finished canon of Scripture. We must have no doctrine of a direct revelation of God in Scripture. "For the unity of Scripture is not that of logical consistency, inherent in the text and capable of being presented in the form of a Scriptural systematic. It is rather a unity of direction or perspective, because the unifying centre of Scripture is outside of Scripture itself; it stands at the 'vanishing point of the Biblical perspectives'" ("The Exposition of Holy Scripture" in Scottish Journal of Theology’ Vol. I, No. I, p. 43). “The Scripture belongs to the realm of flesh and blood, and flesh and blood cannot reveal that Jesus is the Christ: ‘no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost' (I Cor. 12:3)” (Idem p. 43). The reality of the revelation of God is not contained in the Bible. "It is present in the Bible only as the centre round which the testimony of the Bible turns; it stands at the vanishing point of the Biblical perspectives" (The Rediscovery of the Bible, p. 154)’
Of two things we may be quite sure. The new incumbent of the chair of systematic theology in Princeton will in effect utterly reject the system of theology as taught by Hodge. He will also reject the view of Scripture as the source of that system of theology.
Of course this does not preclude the possibility of his claiming a kinship with his great predecessor. Dialectical theologians are wont to speak of themselves as working in the Reformed tradition. Hendry himself speaks as though his teaching and that of Calvin about the Holy Spirit and His internal testimony were identical in content (Idem p. 147). Nothing could be further from the truth. When Calvin speaks of the internal testimony of the Spirit to the truth of God's Word, he does not lead us to the "vanishing point of the Biblical perspectives." On the contrary according to Calvin the Spirit testifies to a direct and finished revelation of God that is contained in Scripture. The difference is basic. The theology of Calvin and of Hodge is truly a "theology of the Word." The theology of Hendry, as well as of Barth and Brunner, is that of Mysticism. Hodge led his students into the fullness of the revelation of God and Christ as found in nature and Scripture. Hendry will lead his students to the vanishing point of all intelligent speech, peering into "Chaos and old Night."