Jarrod McKenna has written a very interesting post entitled “Orthodoxy and heretics like Calvin?” which is worth your attention, especially if you claim the Reformed tradition as your tribe. I’m just in the middle of studying for my Calvin take home final, so it was good timing that I read the article now. Jarrod dialogues with Greg Boyd on the topic of Calvin and his support for the execution of Servetus. Jarrod has some great points in the article, and eventually asks this questions:
“Why is it that the litmus test for orthodoxy for many evangelicals has been frozen in the 16th century in the thought of brilliant men who never the less had theologies that made it possible to disobey Christ’s commands to put away the sword, love our neighbour and even enemies like God has loved us (ie. not drowning, beheading or burning those who disagree with us).
How do we answer this question? Why have we made the thoughts of 16th century theologians the litmus test for those of us in the 21st century. This is something that Doug Pagitt constantly goes off on, and for good reason I think. Did theological creativity and thought end with Calvin in Geneva in the 16th century? Or at the Wartburg Castle with Luther? Surely we can learn great things from these theological giants – but why the focus on their theology being the theology that seminarians and future pastors focus on and are examined on before we can do ministry?
I’m interested in your thoughts on this, especially those of you who are currently in seminary?
Related posts:
- History
- Focus on the Family Puts Families First…?
- Coffeehouse Theology: A Review
- A Theology of Play in Youth Ministry: What About Youth Group Games?
Share This Post:
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Those that have withstood the test of time seem to the be ones who are seen to be worth studying. Plus, as you know it takes a lot of time to be historically validated by the theological community. I certainly hope that in due time there will be folks who are studying the theologians of the 20th century and taking it as seriously as the 16th century reformers. Plus, any time you have a As far as being Reformed, while Calvin will have a lasting impact upon Reformed theology there is another theologian of the 20th century that needs to be considered. And that is Karl Barth. While Princeton Theological Seminary does a good job of exposing their students to Barth this is not the case in all places (or so I hear from my friends at other seminaries.) In general I think it takes a more or less “completed” theology to be able to be studied. As far as I know there are only a few theologians who have done this in the 20th century (Jensen and Grudem aside)
Josh — I’d have to disagree about there not being many who have put together a “completed” theology…
What about Moltmann? Tillich? Brunner? I think there are plenty who constructed systematic theologies during their lifetime…surely enough for us to study. Of course, the biases of professors must have some influence over who and what we study here at Princeton…
Well, I’d have to say the reason that Calvin and Luther are the theological litmus test for seminarians is that, deep down, Protestants are afraid that if they disagree with the magisterial reformers, they will be required to become Catholics. And that would just never do… right.
I’m all for recognizing that we need to know our theological tradition; to understand how we got from point A (Jesus, the early church, Paul) to point B (today). One of the major points was Luther and Calvin. But there have been a number of others since then, and let’s not forget that the anabaptists were a much more interesting lot anyways… ;)
If the litmus test is in the 16th century and not the first and if theological “creativity” is the goal and not understanding Christ’s teachings then I think we’ve taken our eye off the ball.
We all have our idols.
Very interesting question. There are, I think, multiple answers or at least many influencers to answers.
I have always thought that “reform” efforts begin when the laity is feeling distant or disconnected from what is going on in the institution. Usually that means we have allowed tradition to step in the way of the divine. Isn’t it interesting that reform efforts are always present, in all times, but ignite in certain times and places. Wartburg was one, Geneva was another.
We don’t, as reformed theologians, have to buy lock, stock and barrel into every element of any theologians doctrine. One example is Calvin – I personally agree with his doctrines of depravity and the salvation through faith – but like many in the reformed tradition am having a real problem with the limited atonement doctrine. That doesn’t get talked about much today does it? But it seemed to be important in Calvin’s time… My struggle is does my dislike of limited atonement driven by my own desires or by what scripture tells us? I haven’t come to that decision, and recognize I might not ever, at least in this life!
At my trials in front of the Presbytery I was given the question about infant baptism. I addressed it first by saying that the New Testament practice was adult baptism and that this was a perfectly acceptable and even a more meaningful way to address what baptism actually does in response to faith. I was also thinking that they argued for infant baptism because it was probably too cold in the unheated naves of these churches and a trickle of water was easier to do, but I skipped that for obvious reasons. I could tell the questioner was uneasy about that so I quickly amended a loud BUT… and gave him the answer about circumcision blah blah blah… So I had to give in both cases answers I thought were theologically outdated and not helpful in pastoral function just to pass the test.
I continue to question the assessment of what passes for someone ready to enter the ministry versus the realities of the world that ministers actually face. The methods and the outcomes need to be re-evaluated. How old were the previous ordination exams you used for review purposes? Have they changed over the past 30 years or so? It just seems that we have these spankin’ new wine skins and continue to be forced to fill them with old wine that is more like vinegar at this point.
I know of no one who idolizes Calvin or Luther. They happen to be the first in a line of protestants so we can go back no further, but as a reformed believer I look to them no more than I do great 20th century theologians such as Warfield, Machen, or Lloyd-Jones.
Drew-
If you do not believe in infant baptism, why would you serve in a denomination that does, that is dishonest and I for one would not want you as my pastor. There are denominations that do not practice this you could serve in.
Wow, I thought Jesus was a protester but I guess I was wrong.
Alan, i never said that I was against infant baptism, only that adult baptism comes with a better package of theological and scriptural arguments from my view.
BTW, don’t be so quick to judge. I was baptized Catholic and a “re-baptism” has never crossed my mind. :-) Finally, Presbyterians fully accept adult baptism so that is not a problem either. The illustration was simply to say that what was going through my head at the time was to say the circumcision argument never really sat well with me and I knew that’s what he wanted – in fact after I gave him that answer he said, and I can hear it clear as day, “That’s what I was looking for”. Now is that the best way to determine best of fit for ministry? I have very strong doubts that it is.
Peace.
BTW – one last follow-up to the issue of baptism, Hughes Oliphant Old’s text on the Historical roots and development not only is, in my mind, the source on the Reformed baptismal rite. Not only that, the accompanying class was the first time that I felt I truly understood the nature of the Reformation – from the perspective of worship as opposed to just political/doctrinal change.
I think it is ironic that those “always reforming” do so very little of it today. I really appreciate Greg Boyd’s thoughts on the subject – I think so little is put into perspective when we only get one side of history.
Drew,
My mistake, I guess I assumed from your comments you were against it. I am sorry, you seem to be exactly where I am then.
You know, I’ve always thought this little trial was more about showing a respect for the reformed language more than “getting all the right answers.”
I think, by and large, ministers and elders want to hear that a candidate has enough respect for their tradition to study it, assimilate it, employ it. Therefore, speak all you want about x, y, and z in regard to baptism but also tell me that you know where we stand historically.
I also think, by and large, Presbyterians have a great respect for other theologians and their languages, and once you’ve demonstrated a fluency with reformed thought, no one gets too touchy if you want to employ something else. Essentially, I find that in practice there is much more freedom in theology than there is during an exam (which is why I think it’s about showing everyone you respect the tradition enough to know its standard responses).
As a Calvinist who gets repeatedly p.o.’d at Pagitt’s snarky comments on this subject, I just simply want to thank you for asking this question in the way that it needs to be asked, without have a witty, rhetorical response handy. But of course I don’t have an answer.
Personally, I don’t think any serious theologian or minister should use any particular person’s thoughts as a “litmus test” for orthodoxy. That terminology is problematic in that there are various measures of orthodoxy to which the reformers themselves pointed. Calvin, in particular, pointed to various ancient & medieval thinkers as well as the creeds and, primarily, scripture itself. I think the reason that we still study and hold as orthodox thinkers from the 16th century has little to do with the fact that there are no “completed systematic theologies” but, rather, that there are few completed systematic theologies that are not simply a re-hashing of what Calvin, Luther, Aquinas or Augustine have said. For example, even today if you pick up any serious theological, critical, or any sort of commentary on scripture you’ll likely find that Calvin is a figure whose thought must constantly be dealt with even today. I am not attempting to discount the thought of other thinkers from the period, but I do believe that there are some who, in many ways, just got it right and, therefore, we need still to study and wrestle with their thought, regardless of particular moral failures. After all, all have sinned…
{ 2 trackbacks }