Learning is education. Whether it is formal in the educational institutional, less-formal in the local church, or personal in one's own expanding library, what you read sets your course. Political blogs can give you a perspective on the political world. And the slant that they bring can be enlightening even if it comes from a direction which opposes your personal convictions.
When it comes to providing for the educational needs of those around me -- that's the challenge which I enjoy. It is my desire to teach and to do so without misrepresenting those who are my opponents or challengers. If I "fight fair" then I either win or I win by learning where I was in error. There is nothing to lose but my misconceptions and misunderstandings.
I like Calvinism. It says a lot about the sovereignty of God. Though there are some today who speak of it in terms of determinism and even fatalism, it is nothing of the sort. Human will is still free -- just without the libertarian sense that the Arminian and Pelagian would allow. Then again, the error of the Arminian and the heresy of the Pelagian help keep me in line theologically. That does sound a bit strange, doesn't it. How do they do that? They force me to continually re-examine myself to know that I am following within God's plan. It is tempting to act fatalistically if God is sovereign and their objection is refreshing.
But there are things that Calvinism is not. Calvinism has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with racism. Take this uninformed remark, for instance.
The doctrines of Calvinism and racism are not that many clicks apart in theory.You know, life is rough enough, and church education is challenging enough, to make me wonder where nonsense like this comes from. And this following paragraph:
Author Charles Kimball reminds us of the link between John Calvin and the Religious Right. Calvin's Geneva was viewed by many on the right as a utopia. Religious Right historians claim John Calvin was the founding father of the United States. They do not mention that people accused of adultery could be executed. Neither do they mention of the case of Michael Servetus who dared to disagree with Calvin and was burned at the stake. The term "Reformed" seminaries or churches is often an indication that these groups are 5-point Calvin followers. Many of them are also R. J. Rushdoony adherents.Oh, so little time. Let's see what we can correct here.
Not too many people are naive about the sometimes harsh character of Geneva, especially after Calvin. One man was, as I understand, punished for naming his dog "Calvin." And that Servetus case -- he was already under a death sentence by Rome and Calvin himself asked for a reduced, painless execution rather than the method used. Calvin was not in charge of Geneva at the time. He was involved, but was not entirely his call. [1]
The author if the cited essay has provided no documentation for his assertion about racism. Feeding his flock of like-minded secularists and leftists a set of false information seems to be his goal.
Now, he might find a particular point where some Calvinists and some racists make a connection. And he did with Christian Identity. But that is not a part of historic Calvinism, and it is not necessary that a Calvinist hold to those positions. This amounts to the most juvenile of fallacies -- broad-brushing. He is saying that if some are x then all are x. I would laugh if it were not a grown man making such ill-informed remarks.
Another silliness in his article would refer to Calvinism as "fatalism." These views are a later addition to Calvin's teaching and are frequently found in a method known as "philosophical theology" where the concept of sovereignty is re-packaged in alternative language. This is what got Jonathan Edwards in trouble. Though there is much more to say here, we should leave it at this: Fatalism does not represent what Calvin taught.
Finally, there is the dubious link between social matters (political control) and Calvinism (esp. the five points). First, these points, from Dort, were not a stand-alone treatise and core test of faith. Rather the council came about as a response to Arminius and his errors. They should not be separated from this history.
Calvin's points have nothing to do with the structure of Geneva. What so many miss is that all societies have structure and can not exist, as the US found under the Articles, under a libertarian system. Libertarianism fails when applied to government. We needed the Constitution and the centralization of power. And while I believe we have to day gone too far beyond the remedy that the Constitution provided, the fact remains simple: Proclaiming libertarian ideals against religious control while ignoring the necessity for control amounts to an ignorance of history. No weak government can survive -- none ever well. They end in either anarchy or as conquests.
Conclusion
It is articles like this that drive me to further education in the local church. We must challenge believers with a world view that will take them past the simple and help them go further -- with their families. Education must include direct Bible study, theology, history, and even political philosophy. A theologically informed and mission-minded church will grow. Let the postmoderns, emergents, leftists, and liberals ignore God. They are already fading from the scene.
[1] http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/calvin.htm
0 comments:
Post a Comment