John Calvin: Predestined to be Misunderstood

Calvin. The name alone can draw a powerful emotional response from today's Christians. The Young Reformed movement often found on university campuses ensures that many people know about John Calvin and his classic conflict with James Arminius. Tomes of blog posts have probably been written on the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, or the question of our “election.” I dare say I may be one of the few contemporary Christians who does not care about this debate at all! What is frustrating is how much it misses the point of what Calvin was trying to accomplish with his famous Institutes. 

The title page of the 1559 edition of the Institutes.
Calvin's classic work began as a slim, practical volume,
but he added to its content as his career continued. 

Calvin had more important things to say than whether or not we are predestined, or whether or not we have free will. He was above all a practical theologian. He was concerned with living a Christian life. If a theological point could not be used practically, he had no use for it. We often lose that when discussing this great thinker. What I want to do right now is bring up some less known aspects of Calvin’s thought expressed in The Institutes of Christian Religion. Hopefully, that will allow us to not throw the baby out with the baptismal font when we engage with today's “Calvinists.”

Man’s Dependence on God

Arguably, most of Calvin’s theology is dependent on humanity's state of utter dependence. His first writings in the Institutes all disparage the human being’s ability to measure up to God. For instance, Calvin writes: 

“[A]s soon as we lift up our thoughts to God and reflect on his nature and how absolutely perfect he is in wisdom righteousness and virtue, we realize that this is the standard to which we must conform.”

Calvin does not, as is often misconstrued, have a negative view of man, but view's man negatively only in comparison with God's absolute goodness. Abstract theological principles can arise from all of his musings about the absolute goodness and power of God. A philosophy class or two can be evidence of that. But Calvin does not concern himself with such matters! Instead, he focuses almost entirely on why such a position of reverence and self disparagement is necessary for building a relationship with God which focuses on submission and filling the lack all people have in themselves. 

From where does Calvin draw some of his most persuasive proofs on our dependence on God? 

Nature. Echoing the words of all Christians concerned with nature from Augustine to Pope Francis, Calvin attests the glory of God in creation. He seems to gasp in horror that, “Creation lights up all these bright lamps to demonstrate the glory of the Creator to us, all in vain.” Calvin’s theology of man’s dependence, and God’s absolute goodness are not abstract theological principles he is working out. His principles are realizations derived from life experience, and describes these beliefs as crucial for Christians who want to walk with God.

Scripture

Calvin had a lot to say about the Bible. He encouraged constant study of it. He himself was consumed by a constant effort to learn more, to distill more knowledge from the text. It was a tradition that was picked up later by Puritan theologians in the United States. 

Why did Calvin put so much focus on the scripture? Again, it was a practical concern. Calvin saw the Bible as a repository for sound teaching. If we could only learn everything about the Bible than we would no longer find ourselves in the throes of inadequate and dangerous theology. Becoming learned in scripture was a hedge around ungodliness, which would threaten our walk with our Creator

In this, Calvin gives the Holy Spirit one of its most important roles. The Holy Spirit guides the reader through scripture. This is where Calvin famously says, 

“Unbelievers think that religion is a matter of opinion and so demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets were inspired , if they are to sufficient grounds for belief. My reply is that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason.” 

I was always frustrated in college whenever someone who was Reformed would respond to any objection I had with, “Well that’s just a mystery.” Essentially, saying that reason is somehow the enemy. That view it is contrary to everything Calvin stood for. 

After explaining this idea Calvin goes on to dismiss “strange revelations from the Spirit” and praises studiousness of the word. 

Again, Calvin speaks with a practical voice. We might picture him saying something like, “Don’t worry if you don’t have an answer to every objection, keep studying the Word--the Spirit will reveal the answer to you.” Calvin demanded careful study of scripture in order to fully understand God, and this demand was made in order to preserve people’s walks. 

God’s Providence

You may note that I am skipping over Calvin’s discussions of the Trinity by moving on to his teaching on providence. Surely God will reward you for you astuteness. My reason for skipping the Trinity is simply to avoid spending too much time discussing essential orthodox Christianity since Calvin does not tread much new ground in his explanation. Also, providence is more fun. 

As I’ve been alluding to, and hopefully demonstrating, Calvin was concerned with practical theology. We often judge Calvin’s doctrine of providence in the opposite way. Instead, I hope I can contribute to important internet discussions of Calvin by thinking through this doctrine practically. I think a perfect summation of this is the statement by Calvin that, 

“The believer’s comfort in trouble is that everything they endure is ordained and commanded by God and that they are in His hands.”

Previously, Calvin had described God as a creator who is close to his creation, a creator who is actively involved in it. He is not sitting back, resting on his laurels while the world plays itself out. No! According to Calvin God is always close, actively sustaining you and everything else in love. So fret not! Even when God seems far, he is close. 

Now that sounds a lot nicer than when that line is quoted to show how Calvin makes God the author of sin, what Calvin was trying to do was God the author of comfort. There is very little evidence that Calvin was concerned with the meta-ethical implications of his view. Calvin connects this idea to Abraham when he exclaims that “God will provide.” Maybe Calvin’s view of providence is more akin to providing for us rather than presiding over us. 

Moreover, Calvin entitles the very next section “How to use this doctrine for our benefit.” Evidently, that’s what Calvin was thinking when discussing God’s ordering of the world. That God designed everything in order to “develop patience in his people, correct their vices, control their impurity, and stir them from laziness.” 

Sin, the Law, and Salvation

The doctrine of total depravity gets a really bad reputation. Are we really totally depraved. Is it really impossible for me to do something good without God. I think what we need to remember is that the doctrine was a tool for self-denial. Its use was to remind people to be humble. More importantly, Calvin has his eyes constantly set upon God, the ultimate creator of the universe, and Calvin implicitly compares everything to the standard of God. Therefore, in comparison to God, we probably aren’t all that great, Calvin’s views on sin and the fall seek to reinforce that. 

All of these insights temper Calvin’s view of the law. It was never meant to be a final solution, it was always meant to point to something else. The law is a tool of learning, to teach us to be more capable of being with God. In fact, practically speaking, Calvin’s view of the law connects very well to popular contemporary teaching on Paul’s view of the law. In a sense, the law was like training wheels, and it is still valuable like all scripture is: as a hedge against immorality which keeps us from our creator. 

Finally, we come to Christ. Christ, through whom God perfects humanity. Christ is God’s way of redeeming us, so that we may be like God. That insight is crucial, because with Christ it is possible to be like God. Not divine, but holy. Holy enough to be in a relationship with him. Calvin’s theology comes full circle. We are constantly told that we are not quite good enough, that God is so holy, but through Christ we experience communion with God. Through all of the other practical considerations of Calvin we can make ourselves ready for a relationship, and that relationship comes to being in Christ. Surely Calvin is not the pessimist that he is made out to be. Surely he is not the deep, complex, abstract thinker he is made out to be. 

Concluding Thoughts

I hope you saw that I never mentioned predestination. Calvin’s theology does not need it in order to be complete. All of our contemporary considerations of Calvin seem to miss the point of his practical theological musings. When we criticize and elevate this man, it ought to be through the lens he wrote. 

Of course there are numerous practical criticisms of Calvin that I did not even mention, and hopefully those will get brought up in the responses to this piece. What I hoped to accomplish in this piece was to reframe Calvin in a way that makes him a fresh theological voice again, he deserves as much. 

Same-Sex Marriage and the Christian Church

First, let me start off by reminding everyone that every blog post ever written is really just an opinion formed by experience, study, and personal values. At least, that’s my opinion. Therefore, please do not read this and think that I am presenting the official position of some church/denomination or other institution. I am simply writing on a subject that was handed to me and I have thoughts on. You are free to agree or disagree.

In light of the recent SCOTUS decision, I will be yet another blogger who presents his thoughts on the issue. In my opinion, it should be a non-issue, but I’ll get to that later.

Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states. Some people are thrilled, and some are very disturbed. I fall into the former category. My understanding of what this legalization entails is simply that gay and lesbian Americans are legally allowed to obtain marriage licenses in all 50 states. It is not my understanding that churches are required by law to perform ceremonies for those couples against the church’s will. Churches can already refuse to marry couples whether gay or straight, and I don’t believe that is changing. The “rights” of the church are not being encroached upon as far as I am concerned, so why is everybody getting so upset?

All of that being said, how should the Christian church respond to this new ruling? Well, I’ll put it simply: how about with love? Shouldn’t that be our first reaction to anyone if we are truly eager to imitate the person of Jesus? It is no secret that the ones primarily calling out against this decision are Christians.

The Bible seems as good a place to start as any. I will share one brief thought on the hermeneutic I use to read the Bible. I read every word in the Bible through the lens of Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. Perhaps I will write another post on this subject in the future.

The Bible is just about the only thing that causes Christians to think and act the way they towards the LGBTQ* community. The Bible addresses this subject very vaguely in six places. Let me say that again: the Bible addresses homosexuality very vaguely—in its 66 books—exactly six times. That’s it. Now let me contrast that with the literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of references to things like caring for the poor and the downtrodden, people groups in our country that are largely ignored by the Christian community. It is worth it to add that Jesus—our prime model as Christians—never mentions the subject of homosexuality. Never. Now, of these few references we do have in our Bible, every single one of them refers to the act of intercourse between two people of the same sex. None of them reference any sort of relationship or background.

Seeing as these few places in the Bible are the entire foundation on which Christians against this issue stand, the fact these verses describe and prohibit only the act of sex should be somewhat enlightening. In essence, what Christians are doing when they cry out against the LGBTQ* community, calling them sinful, is taking their humanity out of the picture. Christians reduce a gay man or woman solely to the act of sex. Does sex define a relationship? A marriage? Would you say that about your own marriage? Your parents’ marriage? I sincerely doubt that. So the way I see it is that Christians are taking a small handful of references in a collection of books that is over two millennia old, and twisting them and enhancing them in order to use them for something they were never intended for in the first place.

It is just plain hypocritical to argue for a Biblical law based stance on marriage when our culture has progressed past an enormous number of other laws clearly laid out in the Bible. This includes other laws for marriage that were to be followed. In numerous places in the Pentateuch, these are some examples of laws of marriage: a woman whose husband has died and has not yet borne a son is required to marry her husband’s brother under law; a slave owner could unite a male and female slave and the female slave would then be required by law to submit sexually to her new forced husband; a male soldier could take a foreign woman for his wife if she was a virgin, and this woman would be required by law to submit sexually to her new husband; finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, a virgin who is raped was required by law to marry her rapist. These were all laws at some point in time in the Bible, if we are going to adhere to one prohibiting two males from marrying, let us joyfully adhere to these others as well.

Moving on, let us look at Jesus. I have already mentioned that Jesus never brings the issue up, so the people who read the Bible as a collection of timeless truths on display for all humanity to see and follow are already coming up short.

Jesus is the embodiment of the God of love; Christians of all shapes and sizes typically agree on that. In the Gospels, we read story after story of Jesus showing love, mercy, and compassion to those around him. We see him seeking out the outcasts of society. We see him surrounding himself with prostitutes, with the diseased, with the homeless, and with many other kinds of sinners. We also see Jesus loving those people with abandon. Does Jesus look at the prostitute and think: I am so thrilled with the healthy and loving way you are living your life? No, probably not. Yet those are the ones he seeks out. Never does he call attention to this “sinful lifestyle” they are living. That would be rude, dehumanizing, and unnecessary. That thought process is what caused me to reject “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I have come to realize that is a terribly unhealthy motto. The attempt of that motto is to let the LGBTQ* community know that some Christians accept them but still think that they are living in sin. What does that communicate to the LGBTQ* community? It communicates that even those Christians who will accept them don’t think they are deserving of the love of God. That is not helpful; that is harmful. People who argue that they “accept” the LGBTQ* community and do not “judge” them but still believe they live a sinful lifestyle have in fact already judged them and already deemed them not acceptable to God. That took place before they made a conscious decision to not do it.

Seeing as how Jesus summed up the entire Old Testament law in two commandments, love God and love your neighbor as yourself, it would seem to me that Jesus simplified some things. The word neighbor is in no way exclusive; it means anyone. If the Christian church truly valued the only two commandments Jesus gave, then once they see how harmful these dismissive attitudes are toward the LGBTQ* community, perhaps they will realize they could love their neighbor better than that.

I personally don’t believe in any way that same-sex relationships of any kind are sinful in God’s eyes, unless of course these relationships bring harm and destruction to the people in them, which could just as easily be said of heterosexual relationships. Two loving people in a consensual relationship that bears love and joy are in no way sinning, regardless of the act of sex.

Though most Christians are bound to disagree with that statement, I don’t think it takes much to see the harm the church is doing to the LGBTQ* community with the way they are acting. The Christian community should open their eyes to the fact that they are picking and choosing when it comes to the Bible. Why is this the biggest issue? When there are starving and homeless people all around us, why is the church ignoring them and spending all their energy condemning another minority? Jesus set no example that encouraged that kind of discrimination. Even if the church does not change its stance on the sinfulness of same-sex relationships, it could get a lot better at showing love and acceptance to that community.

This new SCOTUS decision is a marvelous opportunity for the Christian church to do this. We can love all the people around us, even in our disagreements.

Rural Americans and Climate Change

Most rural Americans hold an intense appreciation for the natural world. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and related activities are popular and beloved pieces of our cultural heritage. Many children spend their summer days adventuring in the woods, building forts and only returning home for lunch and dinner. Farming is considered an honorable career choice. Because of this love for nature, most rural Americans have at least a rudimentary knowledge of ecology and conservation. You’re only supposed to hunt during specific times of the year. You should only kill a certain number of a certain type of animal. You shouldn’t throw trash in the local fishing hole. If you go camping, clean up after yourself. Many country folk, especially farmers, have an even more detailed understanding of their local ecosystems. In rural America, nature is an object of deep appreciation and respect. With this attitude towards nature, one would expect most rural Americans to enthusiastically support the Pope's message in his recent Encyclical on climate change.

Despite their intense love for nature, however, most rural folk are stereotyped as being fierce climate change deniers. Although this stereotype does not hold true for all rural Americas, it is grounded in reality. A great many people in America’s rural areas deny climate change, or at least anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change. What accounts for this seeming contradiction? One reason is political. Quite simply, climate change is strongly associated with liberal politics. As absurd as it may be to politicize science, climate change is, for better or for worse, strongly connected to political liberalism. Former Democratic politician Al Gore was one of the most famous and powerful voices regarding climate change in the 2000's. Recently, United States President Barack Obama called climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made climate change a central issue in his political platform. Numerous other liberal voices, both within the government and the media, have endorsed action to counteract climate change.

Conversely, conservatives have been more skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. Unlike the Democratic Party platform, the Republican Party platform avoids any grave pronouncements about climate change. The platform advocates “responsibility” and “common-sense” reactions to environmental issues, but avoids mentioning the causes or severity of climate change. Many conservatives use stronger words. Conservative blogger and columnist John Hawkins flat-out calls climate change a “hoax”. When asked about man-made climate change, Republican politician Rick Perry said, “I’m not afraid to say I’m a skeptic about that.” Unlike liberals, conservatives do not seem particularly united on the issue of climate change, but there is general skepticism of climate change among conservatives. This politicization of climate change is relevant because rural America is significantly more conservative than liberal. Political debates in America tend to be rather heated, and this has put climate change in the unfortunate position of being a fiercely debated political topic, rather than a purely scientific issue to be studied and investigated. Because rural Americans are more likely to be conservative than liberal, this contributes to skepticism of climate change in rural areas.

According to NASA, “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” This statement, unfortunately, loses some of its impact in rural America. It’s not because country people are anti-science per se; the relationship between rural Americans and the scientific community is a bit more complicated than that. Evangelical Christianity is quite popular in rural regions of America, particularly in the South and parts of the Midwest. Unfortunately, the relationship between the scientific community and Evangelical Christians is often tense, if not outright hostile. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, is definitively Evangelical, and they fiercely deny the theory of evolution, despite scientific consensus in favor of the theory. (Keep in mind there is a distinction between belief in evolution and an atheistic worldview, and not all Evangelicals reject evolution.) This conflict between Evangelicals and scientists continues to this day, and runs over into the climate change debate. Evangelical Christians are far less likely than most Americans to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and I believe this can be chalked up to the (unnecessary) conflict between Evangelicals and the scientific community. There is a disturbing trend in Evangelical Christianity towards the belief that there is an inherent conflict between science and faith. This leads Evangelicals, who make up a large chunk of America’s rural population, to reject not only evolution, but climate change as well.

To understand rural attitudes towards climate change, there are several things to be aware of. Rural America is very politically conservative, and rural Americans generally associate climate change with liberal politics. Whether or not this association is fair or accurate is irrelevant; climate change is seen as a major liberal talking point. As a result, many rural Americans deny climate change, seeing it as more of a political issue than a scientific issue. Also, Evangelical Christianity is a major cultural influence in rural America. Because Evangelicals have a rocky relationship with the scientific community, many rural Americans are skeptical of scientific conclusions and theories, especially those that challenge their faith. Rural Americans are less likely than other Americans to accept man-made climate change simply because they don’t trust the people telling them about it. Many rural Americans see climate change as a tool used by their ideological opponents to force a secular and/or liberal worldview. Perhaps Pope Francis can help change all of that.