Inconceivable or #notmyCalvin
One of my favorite stories about John C
alvin was relayed to me by one of my seminary professors during a class on Calvin and his writings.
We were discussing Calvin’s views on the Eucharist and Dr. Achtemeier told us that Calvin was adamant that the Eucharist should be celebrated weekly during worship – but the Geneva council never agreed to allow it – mostly because it would bring them to close in worship practice to the Roman Catholic church, of which they wanted no part. Dr. Achtemeier used this story to highlight, that the limits of an individual pastor – no matter how gifted – on any congregation.
It is a reminder that I have been comforted by on more than one occasion in my time in ordained ministry and it kept popping into my mind as I read Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Even as Weber himself would often add qualifier like, ‘Calvin himself did not hold this view’ or something of that nature, I found myself wanting to say (over and over again) – that isn’t what Calvin thought, or that isn’t what Calvin meant!
As mentioned, Weber does make clear that he is predominantly dealing with ‘Calvinists’, rather than Calvin himself, but Weber paints his implications with such a broad brush as to impune all Calvinists and John Calvin himself with many of his claims. Particularly problematic is that, while referencing several different forms or variants of Calvinism, he most commonly references the Puritans as his example. While the Puritans were certainly Calvinists, they by no means are the dominant variant of Calvin’s theology.
That would, of course, be the Reformed movement of Protestant Christianity, notably the Presbyterians (of which, I happily count myself). While sharing a theological forefather in Calvin, Reformed Christians – certainly 21st century Reformed Christians – and the Puritans hold very little in common, even theologically. While this may seem strange at first, Calvin is often under appreciated as a theologian, especially in terms of his influence. Many of the the major streams of Protestant Christianity drew much influence and inspiration from him and those that didn’t often defined themselves over or against this theology (I’m looking at you Armenians)
All of this matters, specifically for Weber because in trying to ascertain the ‘why’ of the rapid rise of capitalism in certain locations in our world, he draws a line from Luther and his concept of ‘calling’ to Calvin’s understanding that labor could be included in that calling to glorify God. From there he sees the Puritans (Calvinists) applying that to all areas of life – including business – and in part, thereby giving rise to the birth of the ‘spirit of capitalism’.
Weber argues, comprehensively, that the key element of Calvinism – which he often remarks is ‘dreary’ or ‘gloomy’ – that leads to this development is the doctrine of predestination. As a Presbyterian pastor, my official response to that word is: AAAGGGHHH!!!!!
It is much less common now than it used to be, because we are just much less theologically literate and conversant as a society than we used to be – but Presbyterians and all Calvinists have been painted with the broad brush of being the ‘predestination people’. And Weber, in my opinion, makes similar mistakes to most when asserting these accusations: he both misunderstands the implications of the doctrine and overstates its importance.
In the interest of length and clarity, I am going to bullet point the responses to Weber’s treatment of this issue. But first two important caveats: 1 – While I am fairly familiar with Reformed history – I am not a full fledged church historian, and my knowledge of puritan history is fairly limited (beyond Thanksgiving). 2 – Weber, as mentioned above, does cede that this is not so much Calvin’s view as that of those that followed him and claimed his mantle. But again – Weber is making broad claims, so it seems fair to retort broadly.
- Weber states: ‘ At that time , and in general even today , the doctrine of predestination was considered its most characteristic dogma’ (Weber, Kindle location 1496) I might be willing to cede that that the doctrine is one of Calvinism’s and/or Reformed Christianity’s most recognizable or unique characteristic dogma, I believe that Weber takes this to also mean that it is in many ways a central doctrine of Calvin, and that is not in any way true.
- One of the reasons I have always liked and appreciated John Calvin and the church that his theology birthed, which I now serve in, is that it takes seriously the Word of God written: the Bible. And it takes seriously the intellectual responsibility to ‘continue to work out our faith with fear and trembling’ – we are called to wrestle and grapple with the Word of God, maybe especially when we don’t quite understand it all or like where we believe it to be leading us.
- This is how Calvinists came to be known as the ‘predestination people’ – not, as so many people assume – that Calvin – or later, his adherents – were obsessed with the doctrine. But rather, Calvin recognized that the Bible definitely said something about predestination, and faithfully undertook the work to find out what he believed God was saying to us in and through those words and that doctrine
- This is distinctive, because most theologians simply ignore its existence
- This is how Calvinists came to be known as the ‘predestination people’ – not, as so many people assume – that Calvin – or later, his adherents – were obsessed with the doctrine. But rather, Calvin recognized that the Bible definitely said something about predestination, and faithfully undertook the work to find out what he believed God was saying to us in and through those words and that doctrine
- Calvin often described the doctrine of predestination as a pastoral doctrine. My Calvin Professor (again, Dr. Achtemeier) once described Calvin thought on the matter this way: ‘if you are worrying about if you are ‘elect’ or not as one of the predestined, you have nothing to worry about.
- This is certainly not been the case of all Calvinists through history, and definitively not of the Puritans, but it is important to understand where Calvin, himself, is coming from on the topic.
- Again, Weber does note that Calvin was quite strong on the idea that we should not try to understand God’s reasoning as it was quite simply beyond us.
- This is certainly not been the case of all Calvinists through history, and definitively not of the Puritans, but it is important to understand where Calvin, himself, is coming from on the topic.
- Weber time and time again highlights material success as a sign for the Calvinists of their election – and he (Weber) knows this because he mentions the Reformed mantra ‘Faith Alone’ – But while he pays lip service to this idea that Calvinists believe in salvation by faith alone, he also says that:
- In practice this means that God helps those who help themselves . Thus the Calvinist , as it is sometimes put , himself creates his own salvation , or , as would be more correct , the conviction of it . But this creation cannot , as in Catholicism , consist in a gradual accumulation of individual good works to one’s credit , but rather in a systematic self – control which at every moment stands before the inexorable alternative , chosen or damned (Weber, Kindle location 1726)
- Weber is careful to separate earning salvation and assurance of election, but this seems to be mental gymnastics – Does one need to be reassured of their election if they are trusting fulling in God for their salvation? Calvin definitely didn’t think so, and most Reformed Christians don’t either. Again, I suspect this is a case of all Calvinists getting painted with a Puritan brush
- For Weber predestination is central because it provides psychological motivation or fertile ground for the ‘spirit of capitalism’ to develop. But, again, this is a complete misreading of Reformed and Calvinist theology.
- For those of us that are Reformed, all that we do is intended to be a response to God’s initial acts of love and salvation in our lives. We respond to God’s action and presence in our lives with gratitude.
- I have remained a member of the Reformed tribe, in large part due to the commitment to be ‘Reformed and always reforming’…. the idea and belief that we don’t yet have everything figured out and that God is still speaking to us, through us and calling us to continue to work out our salvation and our understanding of that salvation.
- In that vein, two leading lights that have helped me understand more and grow around this issue are Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann…… I can’t recommend them both highly enough.
- Barth – reframed the ‘dreaded’ issues of ‘double predestination’ (if some are predestined to election, then some must also be predestined to damnation) by looking at it Christologically: Because Christ took the condemnation of sinners upon himself on his cross – he died for us – God gave the election of grace in Christ’s resurrection to all sinners.
- Moltmann – said of this topic: ‘In the doctrine of election it is not so much universalism vs particularism, but how to understand condemnation and the election of grace in Jesus Christ’ ref here
- In that vein, two leading lights that have helped me understand more and grow around this issue are Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann…… I can’t recommend them both highly enough.
About the Author
Chip Stapleton
Follower of Jesus Christ. Husband to Traci. Dad to Charlie, Jack, Ian and Henry. Preacher of Sermons, eater of ice cream, supporter of Arsenal. I love to talk about what God is doing in the world & in and through us & create space and opportunity for others to use their gifts to serve God and God's people.13 responses to “Inconceivable or #notmyCalvin”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chip what an excellent post! Honestly, I was waiting anxiously for your post because I knew that you would bring a thoughtful and knowledgeable perspective to Weber. And your post did not disappoint. I agree that one of the greatest weaknesses in Weber’s argument is his “broad stroke” view of Calvinism, and even if I might add the Catholic church. Thanks for speaking from a position of knowledge and experience. Very enlightening Chip!
Jim, Yes! Weber definitely uses the broad brush with the Catholics as well…. It was very interesting that the translators introduction he noted that there is some research now that there was similar economic awakening across religious groups, not limited to Calvinists…. This makes a lot of sense to me.
Great post, Chip. Like Jim I was waiting for your take on Weber knowing that you are a Presbyterian.
Weber’s book was short so I want to cut him some slack for oversimplifying, but there were some things that made me say AARRGGHH!!! too.
As a preacher, not a burgher, Calvin was not controlling Geneva with an iron fist like the typical caricature of Calvin claims.
Calvin’s preaching convicted people. Since we are talking about economics, let’s think about the economic impact on Geneva when so many people stopped going to brothels and other places of vice. The business leaders were so angry they paid people to stand outside Calvin’s window all night banging on pots to keep him awake. Not in great health anyway Calvin returned to France to recuperate. As soon as he left of course there was great rejoicing on the part of those who thought Calvin was such a spoil-sport. It is still the same today.
Calvin backed up his preaching with his actions. He oversaw the care of 200 widows and orphans in his area. The real Calvin presents a better picture than history does.
Ok, well thanks for letting me get that off my chest. I refrained from saying anything about that in my post because I didn’t want to bore everybody but thought that as a Reformed person you might appreciate it.
Mary, yes!
Chip, thank you for the excellent insight. As a Baptist who hangs somewhere in the middle of the Calvinism-Armenian tension, I truly appreciated your views.
You are right to remind us that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were not prophets that received a divine word in a dream. They were pastors and theologians figuring this stuff out. I am sure that their views continued to develop until their deaths.
I also appreciated that your post helps the reader see that Calvin’s view of election was not the same as fatalism. There is a lot to process in the New Testament about the salvation of mankind. None of us has 100% clarity of the inner workings of God’s mind on this.
Chip your approach to your post this week is BRILLIANT!!! I found myself chuckling because you were so clever in how you addressed the major points Weber made in his book concerning John Calvin and Calvinists. I have always found it disappointing that people hold Luther as a protestant savior and Calvin as an outcast of sorts. It wasn’t until I went to seminary that I was able to actually read John Calvin’s writing along with Barth and Moltmann. It was then I realized the extremism that many proclaimed Calvinist had embodied that went so far away from the actual teachings of John Calvin.
I also thought that this was a great summary point and reminder:
“For those of us that are Reformed, all that we do is intended to be a response to God’s initial acts of love and salvation in our lives. We respond to God’s action and presence in our lives with gratitude.” Well said bro!!! 🙂
My understanding of Weber was that he was pointing to the fact that wealth and success and industry were all seen as signs by the Calvinists that they were indeed part of the elect. They were not attempting to earn their salvation in any way, but were looking for evidence of it?
Geoff,
Yes – you are right that is exactly what Weber was saying – and it is, I think an accurate depiction of the Puritans, and maybe some other Calvinists (and possibly what some call the NeoCalvinists in the USA today) but Calvin was very strong on the fact that there was no need to look for ‘signs’, but simply to trust in God…. and the Reformed tradition, and certainly the Presbyterian expression of it, has emphasised grace and God’s primary action
Excellent clarification to an important question, Chip. Thanks for asking it, Geoff, as it seems there is a valid distinction between earning and assurance. And I wonder, Chip, if you’re on to something with the neo-calvinists.
Good Post.
I love to read your viewpoints because they are refreshing to me being in a mixed traditional and nontraditional Baptist church. It confirms my out of the wall views (as some of my clergy members would say) aren’t so off the wall but more toward the truth and not traditions.
I really appreciate your insight on this, Chip. While I agree with Weber that the Protestant work ethic created fertile ground for Capitalism, I am uncomfortable laying this all at Calvin’s feet, or even that of the broad spectrum of Calvinists. It would be like blaming Wesley and all Wesleyans for a church that elevates social justice over the gospel. The Puritans did real damage to the American psyche and ethos, but I have long felt they took Calvin’s teachings and distorted them for power.
“The Puritans did real damage to the American psyche and ethos”– remind me to tell you the story of my ancestor, the Puritan minister of Massachusetts who helped convict the Salem “witches.”
Wow, resident Calvinist, you certainly gave us something to chew on here. I’m going to have to go back and re-read much of this. Thanks for offering an alternative perspective. As a non-Calvinist, I would agree with you that our tendency is to read Weber and place “blame” on Puritans (Calvinists) for the rise of capitalism, rather than 1) giving them “credit” for fueling the spirit, and 2) allowing them to be seen as contributors (among other factors) to the rise of capitalism rather than the sole influence.
On a different note… Achtemeier…. Elizabeth or Paul? I remember meeting Elizabeth Achtemeier when she came to speak for some lectures at my undergrad. I was fascinated that a woman was a homiletics professor and biblical scholar, though I remember falling asleep during one of her lectures.
And… Inigo Montoya… my favorite character in one of my favorite movies. Nice.