Calvin as Theologian Rather than Theoretic: A Response to Naydich

While Calvin was somewhat less severe a theologian
than his reputation suggests, we at Groupthink regret
that he is still not quite as huggable as this Calvin.

Calvin is  one of the greatest Christian teachers thinkers of all times, whether you agree with his teachings or not.I want to thank Naydich for having written a piece that, in "relevant" language, reclaims one of the most influential figures of Christian history; Calvin has too long been demonized by folks in the modern church on the basis of a straw man oversimplification of a small percentage of Calvin's corpus.

I suspect Calvin might even be alright with you telling him that you don't agree with his claims about theology and the Christian life, as long as you were prepared to show him from Scripture where you think he is incorrect. Of course, of his odd bits of writing that seem chauvinistic or anti-Semitic. This, oddly enough, brings me to my first point about what we ought to understand about Calvin and his theology en toto: If "postmodern" thought has taught us anything, it has surely taught us that every text, in fact everything, has a context.

If we were to construct a Hegelian synthesis, Calvin's context forms the thesis and Calvin's work itself, the antithesis. Then, we could find the enduring value of his work in a synthesis taking account of both. Calvin, although his teachings can right be called "timeless" because of this enduring value, was not writing the Institutes for twenty-first century American readers. Calvin did, however, know that the church as it stood in his time in continental Europe was a corrupt and oppressive institution, both ideologically and economically, and that is the context of much of his writing.

Calvin argued that the church of his time was not yet holy because laity was taught to believe that those "in charge" of the church were holy. He spoke of the believer's utter dependence on God in part because people were taught to believe they could depend on divine forgiveness and help mediated through their financial contributions to the church.

Naydich states that "Calvin has his eyes constantly set upon God, the ultimate creator of the universe, and Calvin implicitly compares everything to the standard of God." I would add to this that Calvin has an eye constantly set upon God because he insists on seeing God past the standard of the church authorities of sixteenth century France. 

The reason that Calvin is so adamant about one's personal study of the Scripture is that he knows that in his era that was one of the most freeing acts a person could partake in. True freedom for the captives was available. 

This is my second main point, one to which Naydich rightly alludes: Calvin is one of the archetects of modern "devotional" practice. His Institutes should not be thought of in the same breathe as a sweeping philosophical reflection like Kierkegaard's Works of Love, even if both have the same potential to change a believer's life. The Institutes is meant to be an accessible guide to living a life of devotion to God, more accessible at least than a life of monasticism, which was very much emphasized as a superior mode of holiness in Calvin's day. The only way he saw to teach all Christians to live a holy life was to compose a work of practical theology for all literate people, lay or ordained. 

That legacy of practical theology for all people is one I'm happy to continue by blogging for Groupthink with other members of the Christian family, and I look forward to reading further responses on this topic.