Marilynne Robinson argues in The Death of Adam that John Calvin and his legacy and his followers have been wrongly caricatured in the annals of history. I'm still working through my response to her claims, including the claim that we shouldn't be so hard on Calvin for authorizing the burning of a heretic in Geneva--after all, she writes, other religious leaders were authorizing many more such burnings at the stake in his time.My gut reaction to her argumentation is a skeptical one, but I've been trying to withhold judgment, even of this giant of the Reformed faith whose TULIP (five points) wreaked a certain havoc on my understanding of God, until I have a more informed view of him, since I have not yet read his seminal work, the Institutes.
But then I run across another Calvin quote, this time oddly placed among a Facebook friend's favorite quotes, and Calvin's words keep speaking for themselves: "God preordained, for his own glory and the display of his attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation."
That such a horrible formulation has managed not only to hold together the whole theological framework of a religious movement for centuries but also become a "favorite quote" of a friend is beyond alarming. I think my hesitation about tackling Calvin in my nonfiction work might be soon coming to an end.
14 comments:
SOMETIMES I DO THE SAME THING LIKE WHEN I ORDAIN M&M'S SOMETIMES I ORDAIN THEM TO BE EATEN NOW AND OTHER TIMES TO BE EATEN LATER BUT ALWAY I EAT THEM
Wha??? Are you eating those York-mint M&Ms I left at your place? You sure better NOT eat them all.
:)
Hey Evie, Saw your graduation pics, and that you had a blog, and then I saw a pic of calvin and was like hmmm...I've read Robinson and I think she has some very good thoughts.
We all are radically inconsistent and I think it's dangerous to judge historic figures for disagreeing with our modern conscience - Check out http://www.theroot.com/views/was-lincoln-racist to see what I mean. The great emancipator thought black troops would never last a week. Its a shame that he didn't act differently with Servetus, if your going to define anyone by one set of actions, Lincoln was a racist who though blacks were inferior to whites (I can't imagine something more offensive).
Not sure if this helps but I've read Calvin and I know many calvinist. Many times the two are cut from different cloths.
Love and Peace Your Old Friend. (I cant believe it will be 12 years ago.)
Sam
At the same time, Lincoln oversaw the Emancipation Proclamation. In other words, he did not let his repugnant views on race get in the way of ethical action. Calvin was responsible for the execution of one man and the banishment of countless others, which, while not at all uncommon to Christian authorities throughout history, should disqualify him from any true Christian epistemology. His theology, too, was and is the root of great and unnecessary suffering for superstitious types who just want to believe they'll go to heaven. His theology, like the theology of many religious figures, was a means to power. In other words, it's a false equivalency, which, I have noticed, is a debate tactic common to conservative religious types.
If anyone can point me to a teaching by Calvin that discusses a practical Christian ethos, instead of what hymns to sing or how fucked we are, I would be much obliged.
"we shouldn't be so hard on Calvin for authorizing the burning of a heretic in Geneva..." Really?!?! I'm completely comfortable with being hard on John Calvin.
Our 'modern conscience' and Calvin's social climate have no bearing on God's Character. The only question is: did Calvin's actions conform to God's character as revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ? I can't really see Jesus, who forgave the people who put Him on the cross, condoning and/or being a part of such evil acts.
Thanks to all three of you (Sam, Joe, Jackie) for this dialogue. I've been out of the blog loop for a week or so because I've been moving, but I'll be back in the game soon. Hopefully with some more thoughts on Calvin, etc :)
First of all, Servetus was condemned to die at the stake by the Roman Catholic church and was going to be executed but escaped. Second, the city Council of Geneva gave the sentence of death to Servetus, Calvin could neither vote for or against the execution b/c he was not on the council. Third, Calvin, against all others begged the council not to put him to death via the stake. Fourth, Calvin visited Servetus, prayed with him, and pleaded with him to recant. Fifth, if you are outraged at Calvin for this, you have to recognize that nearly all of Europe, both Protestant and Catholic condemned the man as well.So while this is a sinful, shameful and sad event,let's get our history straight before pronouncing such strong opinions.
OK, Anonymous. But you could have the decency to attach your name to your rant like the rest of us.
And if you read carefully, my original post was not just about his authorization of Servetus' death but about Calvin's legacy as a whole.
And Calvin did write to a friend shortly before Servetus' arrival in Geneva (seen as a refuge), "Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive."
Perhaps I misspoke; Calvin consented to the torture and execution of a man. Ultimately, consent and responsibility are two different things. One suggests murderous intent, the other murderous action. I apologize if this took away from my argument against this ugly, inhumane exemplar of Christianism.
Not only did Calvin make that statement, but didn't he also make this one: "I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."? And did he not one year later write a defense that reaffirmed his approval of the execution?
Saying Calvin had no power over the situation because he was not on the Council is like saying the President has no influence over the Senate because he doesn't have a vote. And perhaps Calvin 'begged' for Servetus not to be burned at the stake but it was only because Servetus begged to be beheaded rather than burned. But that request was denied and he was burned on a pyre made of slow-burning green wood. I see they were definitely aiming towards God's merciful character traits here...
But hey, the Catholics would have done it too so it must have been right...right?
I would have hoped that you would have had the decency to not question my decency for simply not attaching my name to my comment, which I might add was a comment, with some observations, not a “rant” as you have called it. It appears to me that you all are the ones “ranting” “If anyone can point me to a teaching by Calvin that discusses a practical Christian ethos, instead of what hymns to sing or how fucked we are” – that appears to me to be extremely exaggerated, angry, and bitter ranting.
Perhaps some of your ranting energy could be better used on the “enlightened” irreligious, individualist humanists who executed thousands in the French Revolution, or perhaps the irreligious atheists Hitler and Stalin who killed millions. But, it did appear to me as if you has demonstrated a bitterness and anger toward Christianity and its followers, not just toward wrong actions in the past. Christ did said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”
To the author of the original post, Evie, it seems as if you should direct you critiques not so heavily toward Calvin for his legacy and teaching, but go a step further and direct them toward the Holy Bible, from which Calvin derived his teaching. But perhaps it would be foolish to listen to an indecent anonymous ranter... :)
Anonymous, I wasn't calling your comment out when I said "you could have the decency to attach your name to your rant like the rest of us." I was trying to playfully imply that all our comments, including yours, could be perceived as rants in a way.
Know too that I don't see a "rant" as a necessarily horrible thing--there are top-notch writers (Joy Williams, for instance, in her book book of essays, Ill Nature) who openly admit to an element of rant that comes with argumentative nonfiction. A rant, if conducted with intelligence and without taking oneself too seriously, has its place. (Maybe especially when it comes to responding to those historical figures whose "sinners in the hands of an angry god" rhetoric has infused so much fear into people's spiritual lives, including my own.)
I've two book suggestions in response to your statements about irreligious totalitarian regimes--Chris Hedges' I Don't Believe in Atheists (the title of which does not do justice to the complexity of the content) and Atheism: A short introduction.
I shouldn't have used the word "decency" in my initial response to you, and for that I'm sorry. But it does seem strange (though not indecent) to take it upon oneself to correct a openly identified blogger regarding such heated issues and not be willing to share your identity, too. Guess it's my fault for allowing anonymous comments if I have a problem with it, though.
Happy weekend all, and thanks for the dialogue.
Actually, my "rant" was a pointed comment that underscores the intellectual bankruptcy of the unchristian Calvinist movement; but you can score points for style if you have no answer for the content.
And was anyone here discussing humanist movements? For one, Hitler was Catholic until the day he died, and Saddam Hussein was at least nominally Sunni. My points are about Christianism, or Christianity as a rightist ideology. But these points you make are all red herrings, a pissing contest that says "your side is worse." I'm not advocating a side; I'm pointing out that any human movement that decides to speak for the divine had better have noseplugs for the rest of us.
Post a Comment