{"id":11589,"date":"2017-02-10T01:48:53","date_gmt":"2017-02-10T09:48:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/?p=11589"},"modified":"2017-02-10T01:48:53","modified_gmt":"2017-02-10T09:48:53","slug":"inconceivable-or-notmycalvin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/inconceivable-or-notmycalvin\/","title":{"rendered":"Inconceivable or #notmyCalvin"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of my favorite stories about John Calvin was relayed to me by one of my seminary professors during a class on Calvin and his writings.
\nWe 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. \u00a0Dr. Achtemeier used this story to highlight, that the limits of an individual pastor – no matter how gifted – on any congregation.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. \u00a0<\/em>Even as Weber himself would often add qualifier like, ‘Calvin himself did \u00a0not 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!<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0Particularly problematic is that, while referencing several different forms or variants of Calvinism, he most commonly references the Puritans as his example. \u00a0While the Puritans were certainly Calvinists, they by no means are the dominant variant of Calvin’s theology.<\/p>\n

That would, of course, be the Reformed movement of Protestant Christianity, notably the Presbyterians (of which, I happily count myself). \u00a0While sharing a theological forefather in Calvin, Reformed Christians – certainly 21st century Reformed Christians – and the Puritans hold very little in common, even theologically. \u00a0While this may seem strange at first, Calvin is often under appreciated as a theologian, especially in terms of his influence. \u00a0Many 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)<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0From 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’.<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0 As a Presbyterian pastor, my official response to that word is: AAAGGGHHH!!!!!<\/p>\n

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’. \u00a0And 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.<\/p>\n

In the interest of length and clarity, I am going to bullet point the responses to Weber’s treatment of this issue. \u00a0But 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). \u00a02 – 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. \u00a0But again – Weber is making broad claims, so it seems fair to retort broadly.<\/p>\n