The NYTimes posted an article this week about Mark Driscoll and his church, Mar’s Hill, which they conveniently entitled, “Who Would Jesus Smack Down?”  Actually, the article is just as much about Calvinism as it is about Driscoll, in particular what the author calls “New Calvinism.”  She writes of Driscoll:

What is new about Driscoll is that he has resurrected a particular strain of fire and brimstone, one that most Americans assume died out with the Puritans: Calvinism, a theology that makes Pat Robertson seem warm and fuzzy.

Now, maybe it is just me and I am misreading, but I was surprised to find this author writing of the “resurrection” of Calvinism.  As a Presbyterian, I was pretty sure Calvin was alive and well in my own reformed tradition, which traces its roots back to Calvin and the church in Geneva.  

Turns out there is this movement that folks are calling “New Calvinism,” which is described in the article as a fight against a “limp-wristed Jesus” that has been coopted by the feminists.  Driscoll apparently rails against the mainstream church, which he says

has transformed Jesus into “a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell.”

Hmm.  Interesting.  But he goes further than this, decrying the “feminization” of Jesus (Apparently there are just too many pictures of Jesus cuddling babies and lambs).  Jesus is supposed to be manly, a warrior, blah blah blah.

Nevermind that Calvin himself devoted a great deal of his Institutes to admonishing Christians against forming an image of God, or Christ for that matter.  Any image, he warned, becomes an idol that stands between you and the true God.  It becomes a crutch, a thing to worship in lieu of the God who is a mystery beyond the reach of our minds.  As another theologian, I believe Barth, said, the minute you think you have fully conceived of God, it is in that moment that you have truly lost sight of God.

But I digress.  The article goes on to make assumptions about Calvin, everything from painting this “new Calvinism” as the only Calvinism to re-asserting the mostly false myth of Calvin that he was directly responsible for the deaths of his detractors.  The author writes,  ”John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness.”  Now I can’t speak with certainty as to the dinner party incident, but if I had to guess, the heretic she is referring to Michael Servetus, whom Calvin likely wanted to see dead.  However, he never ordered the death of this theologian–Calvin was not a political authority in Geneva, and did not have the power to make such decisions.  Maybe I am parsing hairs, but I hate to see Calvin’s history distorted.

Furthermore, the author makes the jump to claiming that questioning authority is equal to sinning.  Describing Driscoll’s leadership style, she goes to lengths to show that Driscoll is a power-hungry religious authority.  She describes incidents in Mars Hill’s past in which Driscoll dealt severely with those who disagreed with him.  In reference to such incidents, she writes of Driscoll:

“They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

Again…. Calvin himself questioned authory.  That is what the reformation was all about.  I don’t understand therefore how these sorts of claims can be thrown out in a NYTimes article as though they were commonly held fact.  

So I guess we get the picture by now that I take issue with this reading of Calvin.  Ultimately it seems more like a rush job on Driscoll’s church and theology more than anything else, but it is the case that Calvin seems to get caught in the crossfire.  Just because us Presbyterians aren’t constantly screaching about spiders on the edge of a precipice or eternal damnation, doesn’t mean that providence and Calvinism are passe.  Just because we don’t ascribe to a manly Jesus doesn’t make us wimpy.  False dichotomy, duh!

So yea, I am a bit peeved.  A bit discouraged.  A bit frustrated that my own Calvinist heritage can be so easily distorted.  Ultimately, however, I give it to God, trusting that God is working through and in all this, helping push us (gently or otherwise) past our assumptions about who God is and is not and towards a more holistic and healthy understanding of the mysterium tremendum.

Peace be with you

I had an epiphany today…. I was goofin’ off on my guitar playing Colbie Caillat and loving her lyrics… and suddenly I realized something.  I think, in all sincerity, that if Calvin were alive today he would write mellow surfer guitar music like Colbie Caillat– or at least he would like it alot.

And this is how I got here–  I was thinking about Calvin, and how in Book 1 of the Institutes he goes into detail about how beautiful this world is, and how God’s imprint is everywhere, from the mountains to our very own toenails, and how the problem is that we are so dull that we don’t even see it.  And how we mistake things of our own invention (what Barth calls images of ourselves) for God, and end up not only missing God but worshipping idols in God’s place and often in God’s name.

And then I was playing Colbie’s “Realize”, which if you have heard the song, the voice of the song is someone who believes that if the audience could only realize what they realized then everything would be perfect, and I found myself thinking not of a romantic love interest (sorry alex!) but rather of Calvin and his writings on knowledge of God and self.  And then I started tinkering with the lyrics, and found that it took little to no effort to make a song about a love interest into a song that pretty closely mirrors the spirit (if not the letter) of Calvin’s theology on the beauty of God which surrounds us.

SO anyways…thats my thought for the day.  I am debating whether to work this into a sermon… but we shall see.  it might be too much for my very New England Presbyterian church… but then again, perhaps I should give them more credit.