Calvinism: What's the Problem?
I am, slowly, reading Calvin's Institutes. I like it. It is a good translation, and the biography I read of Calvin said he more than anyone of his time set the standard for French. So the readability (rare for theological works) helps, and the content is quite invigorating. No holds barred reverence for God. I'm not far but motivated to read on; like the food on the cruise, though, it's quite rich and best taken in a couple of pages a day.
I'm reading it because of the 500th anniversary, but also because I resist being told about books and being expected to form an opinion without having read them myself, whether it's drivel like The Shack or something that matters like this book. I would hate people to dismiss my book because it has the "n" word in it and is about abortion until they read it in context.
To be honest, however, there is another reason for reading Calvin (other than I put it on my professional goals for school in relation to Humanities class). That other reason: the mania over Calvinism.
It amazes me how excited Christians, lay people usually, get over Calvinism, whatever they conceive that to be. They either enthuse over it because it puts God in His rightful place and is more worshipful, or embrace it because they think it relieves them of having to witness (which is bizarre), or get confused over it because they aren't taught it with any precision or Biblical basis, or get angry because it's associated with Reformed or covenant theology, or fear it because of the cultlike behavior of some of its weirder adherents. And in my opinion, all of these people are uninformed. They don't know Calvin, or Augustine, or Paul, they just know about tulips.
The issue is election, clearly taught in Romans 9 and elsewhere. Calvinism was not created, nor its five points, by Calvin. It was created the next century after his death by "followers" who were trying to create a systematic theology out of the Institutes, a Scholastic process Calvin himself would not have done because he eschewed the Scholastics. Read a good biography, like McGrath's, people.
It then got all wrapped up with covenant theology, replacement theology, tulips, state-sponsored religion, etc. Law of unintended consequences and the basic problem with publishing any book: it gets put out in the world to be discussed, dissected, dissed, dismissed, and disunderstood (sorry, I couldn't help that).
One fear that Baptists have about "Calvinism" is that it will dissuade the average Joe's from missions, service, and evangelism. Because I was taught the theology of election at the age of 20 by a professor who was also one of the most evangelistic people I've ever known, I've never understood that idea. We don't evangelize as if it depends on us. All our efforts to evangelize are meaningless if the Holy Spirit doesn't revive and regenerate anyway. Evangelism is an issue of obedience, not results. (I realize this would lead some to say, "Then you would be half-hearted about it," but I would argue that believing in evangelism without election will lead to unethical means and excess and an emphasis on numbers.)
My son has been going through the Calvinism thing; it rears its head every few years and it's an issue with some of the Southern Baptist seminaries, notably Southern in Louisville. My son doesn't like the idea; perhaps he is too secular and thinks humankind has more power over its destiny than it does. I reminded him that very little of our lives is really our choice anyway.
I think it's a stage everyone must go through. My attitude for many years has been, simply, election is God's business. I can no more figure it out than I can fly to the moon, and maybe we will get to understand it in eternity. To dismiss it ignores Scripture and to emphasize it ignores our real work on earth. It is like the second coming: to look only at the second coming and the final redemption of the earth can make us ignore that we are to live the gospel here fully, and that the gospel involves more than a prayer to ensure heaven.
We are to walk circumspectly. I think that means that we wisely avoid theological and practical extremes and yet appreciate the truths that the extremes started with but overemphasized.
I'm reading it because of the 500th anniversary, but also because I resist being told about books and being expected to form an opinion without having read them myself, whether it's drivel like The Shack or something that matters like this book. I would hate people to dismiss my book because it has the "n" word in it and is about abortion until they read it in context.
To be honest, however, there is another reason for reading Calvin (other than I put it on my professional goals for school in relation to Humanities class). That other reason: the mania over Calvinism.
It amazes me how excited Christians, lay people usually, get over Calvinism, whatever they conceive that to be. They either enthuse over it because it puts God in His rightful place and is more worshipful, or embrace it because they think it relieves them of having to witness (which is bizarre), or get confused over it because they aren't taught it with any precision or Biblical basis, or get angry because it's associated with Reformed or covenant theology, or fear it because of the cultlike behavior of some of its weirder adherents. And in my opinion, all of these people are uninformed. They don't know Calvin, or Augustine, or Paul, they just know about tulips.
The issue is election, clearly taught in Romans 9 and elsewhere. Calvinism was not created, nor its five points, by Calvin. It was created the next century after his death by "followers" who were trying to create a systematic theology out of the Institutes, a Scholastic process Calvin himself would not have done because he eschewed the Scholastics. Read a good biography, like McGrath's, people.
It then got all wrapped up with covenant theology, replacement theology, tulips, state-sponsored religion, etc. Law of unintended consequences and the basic problem with publishing any book: it gets put out in the world to be discussed, dissected, dissed, dismissed, and disunderstood (sorry, I couldn't help that).
One fear that Baptists have about "Calvinism" is that it will dissuade the average Joe's from missions, service, and evangelism. Because I was taught the theology of election at the age of 20 by a professor who was also one of the most evangelistic people I've ever known, I've never understood that idea. We don't evangelize as if it depends on us. All our efforts to evangelize are meaningless if the Holy Spirit doesn't revive and regenerate anyway. Evangelism is an issue of obedience, not results. (I realize this would lead some to say, "Then you would be half-hearted about it," but I would argue that believing in evangelism without election will lead to unethical means and excess and an emphasis on numbers.)
My son has been going through the Calvinism thing; it rears its head every few years and it's an issue with some of the Southern Baptist seminaries, notably Southern in Louisville. My son doesn't like the idea; perhaps he is too secular and thinks humankind has more power over its destiny than it does. I reminded him that very little of our lives is really our choice anyway.
I think it's a stage everyone must go through. My attitude for many years has been, simply, election is God's business. I can no more figure it out than I can fly to the moon, and maybe we will get to understand it in eternity. To dismiss it ignores Scripture and to emphasize it ignores our real work on earth. It is like the second coming: to look only at the second coming and the final redemption of the earth can make us ignore that we are to live the gospel here fully, and that the gospel involves more than a prayer to ensure heaven.
We are to walk circumspectly. I think that means that we wisely avoid theological and practical extremes and yet appreciate the truths that the extremes started with but overemphasized.
Comments