This brings to mind something Fleming Rutledge wrote in her book Advent: The Once and Future Coming of Jesus Christ.
"We have not said anything about hell as a place to which one goes after death. I want to be sure to establish the idea that hell is not a place at all, but a realm. It is the domain of wickedness, of stupidity, of despair, of hopelessness. You will remember the famous words over the gate to Dante's Inferno: "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here." To have no hope is truly to be in hell. How can anyone not believe in hell who has known a person who has committed suicide? I believe that most people who kill themselves do so because they are experiencing hell; they have lost hope; darkness reigns over them".
I would love to trace this connection into the “neo-Reformed” movements. I feel like an interview with you and Mike Cosper on the “Rise & Fall of Mars Hill” podcast could be fascinating along the psychological impact of theology.
It has always puzzled me that the reformers were so harsh on human ability to do good, but then assumed that their own faculties of reason were not corrupt. They elevated their doctrinal “truth” so highly that they lost touch with the actual, embodied existence of people. We continue to live with the distorting effects.
Hmm... we do not want to ignore the important science that may show us that we have limits in our free will, and yet we do need accountability. We know people can make changes in their lives, changing their behavioral patterns. We already see a large percentage of those that call themselves Christians behaving badly and live in a capitalist society that has re-defined who matters and what kinds of behaviors are rewarded and praised. We are in dangerous territory, and so the question, “What would Jesus do?" seems like more relevant than ever.
There is a simple maxim that I strongly believe in that addresses this issue: Responsibility and Authority/Control must be in balance. One should never be responsible for things one cannot control or exercise authority over. All kinds of dysfunction stem from an imbalance of such. Responsibility w/o authority/control leads to madness. Authority/control w/o responsibility leads to tyranny.
On Calvin, and with all due respect to Ms. Lucy, I fear he was a madman. I’m unsure if he was even a disciple of Jesus. Thankfully, I am not his judge. But I don’t see Jesus in the actions of burning any human being alive for their theological beliefs.
Well, back in the medieval day, it was pretty normal to burn your religious opponents at the stake for heresy. The Catholics wanted Michael Servetus dead too, just Calvin got to him first. Servetus denied the Trinity and said that Jesus was not divine so he was a heretic by both Catholic and Protestant standards at the time.
The laws in Switzerland at that time made heresy punishable by death; Servetus’ death was thus justified in the eyes of the Geneva Council. Plus, the councils of Berne, Zurich, Basle, and Schaffhausen were consulted, and they all encouraged the verdict and punishment.
Calvin agreed with the sentence of death passed on Servetus; however, he urged that in mercy Servetus be executed by the sword, not by burning. The council rejected his suggestion.
So the execution of Servetus was legal and he was the only one that was executed during Calvin's lifetime (and compared to how many were executed by the Inquisition, Calvin was pretty lenient for his day). Was it morally right? Well, in our age of toleration, we would say no. We have to be careful not to take our standards on morality and retroactively impose them on medieval European society without understanding the nature of theocracy and how that political system worked. Outside of the anabaptists groups, the Lutherans, Catholics and Reformed and even the Anglicans would have agreed that its fair game to defend the Christian faith and order an execution.
First off, Happy Birthday John Calvin (July 10). I actually like John Calvin. I don't agree on him on everything. And I would argue that morality was already in the basement when Calvin wrote about predestination. The whole debacle over the Catholic practice of Indulgences proves it.
Calvin was originally studying to be a lawyer, so you have to take that perspective when reading him. I used to be a juvenile probation officer so I totally understand what Calvin is talking about when he says people can be reprobate...or in our legal terms today, delinquent or deviant. There were some kids that would not respond to correction no matter what was done and we would wash our hands of them and say "Well, we will see your name in court reports in the newspaper...and in adult court they don't waste time trying to reform you. They will just throw you in jail."
The challenge is to keep yourself from being swept into total hopelessness about the human condition because if you go down that path, you can easily adopt a position of negative universalism, become legalistic and totally forget about grace. You can also go the opposite way and adopt a positive universalism and say that God loves and saves everyone so personal responsibility/morality doesn't matter allow for all sorts of debauchery. Both positions (which are prevalent in America) are incorrect.
I have been much surprised (and delighted) when I kid that I had on probation long ago, comes back to me and tells me of their "conversion" moment, in which they realized they needed to get their life on the right track and are open to a truth greater beyond themselves. It may not lead to a Christian point of view, but they are open to transcendence. At that point, they just might encounter the Holy Spirit who has been waiting in the wings all along...they just weren't aware of it. 😊
I think we get too caught up in the "theories" of the Reformers and miss the "spirit" of what they were trying to convey. Now I am biased, but I think Calvin actually did a better job of it than Luther. However, most people are not going to read the Institutes of the Christian Religion (in fact a lot of seminarians won't read the full thing), nor any of the treaties that Calvin wrote to the commoners to get them to understand the basics of Christianity. The Reformers were meeting a spiritual need of the people at the time and to the ones who were really looking for spiritual sustenance, they received the Word with great joy. It was only then that the Catholic church realized her poverty of spirit and got serious about spiritual renewal.
This would be my gripe about American Protestantism today...we have not taken the time to do intentional spiritual renewal and feed the flock solid spiritual food. The pastor's roll has been switched to being an activist for conservative or liberal political ideologies and it has caused chaos in our society as a result.
This brings to mind something Fleming Rutledge wrote in her book Advent: The Once and Future Coming of Jesus Christ.
"We have not said anything about hell as a place to which one goes after death. I want to be sure to establish the idea that hell is not a place at all, but a realm. It is the domain of wickedness, of stupidity, of despair, of hopelessness. You will remember the famous words over the gate to Dante's Inferno: "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here." To have no hope is truly to be in hell. How can anyone not believe in hell who has known a person who has committed suicide? I believe that most people who kill themselves do so because they are experiencing hell; they have lost hope; darkness reigns over them".
I would love to trace this connection into the “neo-Reformed” movements. I feel like an interview with you and Mike Cosper on the “Rise & Fall of Mars Hill” podcast could be fascinating along the psychological impact of theology.
It has always puzzled me that the reformers were so harsh on human ability to do good, but then assumed that their own faculties of reason were not corrupt. They elevated their doctrinal “truth” so highly that they lost touch with the actual, embodied existence of people. We continue to live with the distorting effects.
Hmm... we do not want to ignore the important science that may show us that we have limits in our free will, and yet we do need accountability. We know people can make changes in their lives, changing their behavioral patterns. We already see a large percentage of those that call themselves Christians behaving badly and live in a capitalist society that has re-defined who matters and what kinds of behaviors are rewarded and praised. We are in dangerous territory, and so the question, “What would Jesus do?" seems like more relevant than ever.
There is a simple maxim that I strongly believe in that addresses this issue: Responsibility and Authority/Control must be in balance. One should never be responsible for things one cannot control or exercise authority over. All kinds of dysfunction stem from an imbalance of such. Responsibility w/o authority/control leads to madness. Authority/control w/o responsibility leads to tyranny.
On Calvin, and with all due respect to Ms. Lucy, I fear he was a madman. I’m unsure if he was even a disciple of Jesus. Thankfully, I am not his judge. But I don’t see Jesus in the actions of burning any human being alive for their theological beliefs.
Well, back in the medieval day, it was pretty normal to burn your religious opponents at the stake for heresy. The Catholics wanted Michael Servetus dead too, just Calvin got to him first. Servetus denied the Trinity and said that Jesus was not divine so he was a heretic by both Catholic and Protestant standards at the time.
The laws in Switzerland at that time made heresy punishable by death; Servetus’ death was thus justified in the eyes of the Geneva Council. Plus, the councils of Berne, Zurich, Basle, and Schaffhausen were consulted, and they all encouraged the verdict and punishment.
Calvin agreed with the sentence of death passed on Servetus; however, he urged that in mercy Servetus be executed by the sword, not by burning. The council rejected his suggestion.
So the execution of Servetus was legal and he was the only one that was executed during Calvin's lifetime (and compared to how many were executed by the Inquisition, Calvin was pretty lenient for his day). Was it morally right? Well, in our age of toleration, we would say no. We have to be careful not to take our standards on morality and retroactively impose them on medieval European society without understanding the nature of theocracy and how that political system worked. Outside of the anabaptists groups, the Lutherans, Catholics and Reformed and even the Anglicans would have agreed that its fair game to defend the Christian faith and order an execution.
First off, Happy Birthday John Calvin (July 10). I actually like John Calvin. I don't agree on him on everything. And I would argue that morality was already in the basement when Calvin wrote about predestination. The whole debacle over the Catholic practice of Indulgences proves it.
Calvin was originally studying to be a lawyer, so you have to take that perspective when reading him. I used to be a juvenile probation officer so I totally understand what Calvin is talking about when he says people can be reprobate...or in our legal terms today, delinquent or deviant. There were some kids that would not respond to correction no matter what was done and we would wash our hands of them and say "Well, we will see your name in court reports in the newspaper...and in adult court they don't waste time trying to reform you. They will just throw you in jail."
The challenge is to keep yourself from being swept into total hopelessness about the human condition because if you go down that path, you can easily adopt a position of negative universalism, become legalistic and totally forget about grace. You can also go the opposite way and adopt a positive universalism and say that God loves and saves everyone so personal responsibility/morality doesn't matter allow for all sorts of debauchery. Both positions (which are prevalent in America) are incorrect.
I have been much surprised (and delighted) when I kid that I had on probation long ago, comes back to me and tells me of their "conversion" moment, in which they realized they needed to get their life on the right track and are open to a truth greater beyond themselves. It may not lead to a Christian point of view, but they are open to transcendence. At that point, they just might encounter the Holy Spirit who has been waiting in the wings all along...they just weren't aware of it. 😊
I think we get too caught up in the "theories" of the Reformers and miss the "spirit" of what they were trying to convey. Now I am biased, but I think Calvin actually did a better job of it than Luther. However, most people are not going to read the Institutes of the Christian Religion (in fact a lot of seminarians won't read the full thing), nor any of the treaties that Calvin wrote to the commoners to get them to understand the basics of Christianity. The Reformers were meeting a spiritual need of the people at the time and to the ones who were really looking for spiritual sustenance, they received the Word with great joy. It was only then that the Catholic church realized her poverty of spirit and got serious about spiritual renewal.
This would be my gripe about American Protestantism today...we have not taken the time to do intentional spiritual renewal and feed the flock solid spiritual food. The pastor's roll has been switched to being an activist for conservative or liberal political ideologies and it has caused chaos in our society as a result.