What Would John Calvin Say to Rowan Williams, and to Billy Graham for that matter?

Published on by D. G. Hart

David Neff, editor-in-chief at Christianity Today, writes a piece under the provocative title of “What would John Calvin Say to Dick Cheney?” Calvin is hot.  It’s the 500th, after all.  And the Bush administration is as out of favor as Calvin is supposedly accessible.

The point of Neff’s piece is actually quite sensible.  It has to do with the abuses of the Bush administration in asserting to itself powers above the law.  (Pssst.  Real American conservatives know that Congress is the branch to trust, not the White House.)  Granted, Neff may be guilty of sucking up to the new administration when he credits President Obama with understanding that “whether the issue is the torture of detainees, due process for American citizens suspected of terrorism, or eavesdropping on our private communications without appropriate judicial warrants, the President of the United States is bound by law.”  We’ll see how well any American president resists the temptation of imperial power.

Neff goes on to write as if Calvin would have agreed with Obama and opposed Cheney.  According to Neff:

But what about the unfaithful political leader? Calvin wrote that “dictatorships and unjust authorities are not governments ordained by God.” They are no longer “God’s ministers” if they “practice blasphemous tyranny.”

What a striking phrase: “blasphemous tyranny”! And how apt. When rulers place their own goals ahead of protecting God-given laws and liberties, they are not only being tyrannical, they are also blaspheming.

Whether or not Neff (with the aid of John Witte) gets Calvin or the U.S. Constitution right, it is indeed rich for the editor of a “magazine of evangelical conviction” who is also a member (I think) of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. to advocate the binding nature of law upon presidents when the laws binding the church do not seem to matter to either evangelicals or mainline Protestants.  At least, I missed the pieces in Christianity Today that take to task either the archbishop of the Anglican Communion or the most popular evangelist in human history for not playing by the rules established in Scripture for the ministry of the church (or even canon law regarding adultery, divorce, and the seventh commandment).   I mean, if presidents of superpowers may not put themselves above the law, may ministers run rough shod over those God-ordained authorities he established for his church?

I get it.  Most evangelical and liberal ministers think they are following God’s law — they claim the Bible as their authority.  But how different is that from President Bush or Vice President Cheney reading the Constitution in support of their powers and policies?  So what would Neff say if his Calvin-inspired argument were turned on either the evangelicals whom he edits or the Episcopalians with whom he is in fellowship?

31 thoughts on “What Would John Calvin Say to Rowan Williams, and to Billy Graham for that matter?”

  1. Glad to see you point this out!
    Silly question: why do you spell the former Vice-President’s name like that (Cheyney v. Cheney)?

    Like

  2. Pingback: Calvin, Natural Law, and the Imperial Presidency « Heidelblog

  4. Wouldn’t it be easier for Neff to make the case that Cheney needs to watch more Jack McCoy than Jack Bauer? (That’s what I do.)

    Or would that reduce subscriptions to NTJ-ish numbers?

    Like

  5. Pingback: Is Darryl Hart Going Soft? « De Regno Christi - The Reign of Christ

  6. Zrim: you lost me with your cultural references. My knowledge of tv characters runs to about a half-dozen, Omar, Jimmy, Bunk, Stringer Bell, Bubbles, and Dee. I so miss them all.

    Like

  7. DGH,

    Sorry, and yeow (really?).

    McCoy is NBC’s NYC DA and Bauer is FOX’s renegade caca-kicker. McCoy (Sam Waterston) was raised by an Irish beat-cop, enforces justice institutionally, can sift his way through complicated matters with deadly acumen, questions himself and those close to him but is always confident, drinks Scotch in his office when he’s done, has salt and pepper hair, carries a brief case. Bauer (Sutherland junior) runs around by himself hysterically waving his gun saving the world from terrorists and carries a man-purse. I don’t know who raised him.

    Like

  8. Zrim, thanks for the filler. I have heard about Jack B. From what you say, neither McCoy nor Bauer are the equal of The Wire’s Bunk and Jimmy. It is not a series for the faint of heart, the impressionable, or the weak of conscience. But I know of no movie or series as good (may Woody Allen, Barry Levinson, the Coen Brothers and Atom Egoyan pardon me).

    Like

  9. DGH,

    To be fair, one cannot compare premium cable to regular cable (take that, Gandolfini). I’d like to see how McCoy translates in premium cable. And I think you just told Dubya he oughtn’t view The Wire (I couldn’t resist).

    Anyway, yeah, “blasphemous tyranny” sure has a funny way of being applied against those with whom one simply just really disagrees. Odd how it all actually seems to undermine Romans 13. Or maybe I should say it’s chilling.

    Like

  10. Zrim, don’t discount a good video store. Premium cable delivers in ways not requiring a cable. (Rent it. It’s way better than The Sopranos.)

    Also, it’s easier to quote Calvin against Cheney when Cheney is no longer in office.

    Like

  12. Do you think Neff is anachronistically shoe-horning Calvin’s arguments as a theology for democratically elected nice guys who play by the rules? When you think of the powers that reigned while Paul wrote Romans 13, they don’t fit the ‘kissing babies heads’ mold.

    Like

  13. DGH,

    Also, it’s easier to quote Calvin against Cheney when Cheney is no longer in office.

    Yes, for some. Others, though, have just been chomping to bite into the new guy and do so with ease and great pleasure. Bring up the “first official act” and watch the blasphemous tyranny-speak fly.

    Like

  14. So what is it with Reformed academics and politics. Do you just unthinkingly soak up what’s coming over the popular media? Bush is (was) a dictator?

    Didn’t Obama just agree to continue “eavesdropping on our private communications without appropriate judicial warrants”.

    A leftist leader can murder millions and not be called a dictator. A conservative Christian can wake up, get dressed, go to the office, and see himself getting burned and hanged in effigy every day on television.

    And did you say ‘torture’? Did you quote someone who said it? In the aftermath of the 20th century you call what goes on at Guantanamo torture? This is unforgivable because this is the type of unreality that is pushed by the totalitarian regimes that Americans fought with blood and treasure all through the last century. The devil’s kingdom thrives on such unreality. Don’t repeat it and call yourself a soldier of Christ.

    Why so naive, Reformed academics and pastors? Why so little discernment? Why so little sanctified common-sense? Why so little understanding of the ways of the world? Why so little knowledge of history? Why so vulnerable to the incessant propaganda and thought-policing of the world?

    Like

  16. Why so *obsequious* to the incessant propaganda and thought-policing of the world?

    Other than the watered-down bible products and the resort to Romanism-lite ritual and clericalism this theme of Presbyterian and Reformed academics and church leaders sounding like liberals (actually, sounding like British Anglicans) in regards to politics is the most off-putting thing I’ve encountered when I first entered these realms.

    Like

  19. Me: Bring up the “first official act” and watch the blasphemous tyranny-speak fly.

    Christian: A leftist leader can murder millions and not be called a dictator.

    I shoulda bought a Lotto ticket today.

    Like

  21. Christian,

    I’d say that writing problems on top of reading problems are both typical and frustrating for everyone, but that would be snide. Instead, I’d suggest you take a deep breath and try to make it clear to this troubled reader what exactly you’re raving over.

    Like

  22. Rather than stepping back and avoiding – as a tactic – what I’ve already written why don’t you engage *it.* The shallowness in Reformed/Calvinist domains amongst the so-called church leaders regarding politics is telling of the same shallowness regarding little things like the Word of God. Warfield taught you all that those Enlightenment and then those furry 19th century liberal guys were on to something, so why not follow them? Oh, and while you’re at it, this new-fangled evolution thing? We need to go along with that also. I am BB Warfield, your intellectual leader. I’m on-the-mark with everything but the Word of God and creation. Just those two little things. Don’t question it now, it might expose you as one of those God fearers.

    I notice, by the way, you academic Reformed can’t see the irony in your current campaign to downgrade Jonathan Edwards as “not Reformed” while you leave old BB Warfield alone in the temple, a cherished and protected idol.

    Like

  24. This type of brushing off is a bit facile, don’t you think? If I’m a ‘fan’ of anything Reformed it is the apostolic biblical doctrine that Reformed Theology recovered and elucidates. All the great (time-vetted) Reformed Theologians have something to teach, Edwards among them. Having said that, I’m not particularly more a ‘fan’ of Edwards than any of the others. But the same reason Reformed academics are currently attempting to downgrade Edwards from being of Reformed status will have to lead you to a John Owen sooner or later. Your path will also eventually take you to excising the third book of Calvin’s Institutes. You have your work cut out for you.

    Like

  25. Christian: Let’s put it this way. Your manner here — a mix of bravado and inscrutability — means you are going to have trouble having anyone take you seriously. You are simply on a different plane. If it is higher, you need to condescend and find some common ground.

    Like

  26. >Christian: Let’s put it this way. Your manner here — a mix of bravado and inscrutability — means you are going to have trouble having anyone take you seriously. You are simply on a different plane. If it is higher, you need to condescend and find some common ground.

    I admire this response (and not because I take the ‘higher’ seriously). Just the overall sense that you are seeing something.

    Here is good common ground: the pure and whole Word of God. The downgrade of the 19th century of the Word of God didn’t just have to do with replacing manuscripts. It effected how Scripture is seen: as something above one, or as something beneath one. The latter was the goal of the furry characters and their academic followers you all have been in bondage too ever since. A received text is held as being above one. A constructed text is a mere document. Let the scholars work on it, when you come up with something (usually something new) throw it my way. I’ll accept it only in so far as I care too. It’s all got holes in it anyway, so what’s the big deal. And look at those rubes holding to that Traditional Text. Not many seminary degrees over there.

    So I don’t need to condescend regarding common ground. It is the received Word of God. I stand with the reformers and God’s remnant of all eras of the history of redemption on that common ground. Modern day Reformed don’t stand with us there. And the shallowness shows.

    There’s no power in Reformed writings and ‘preaching’ in these times, and it’s because you are not standing on solid ground. The liberals laugh at you. They know they have ‘won’ as long as you maintain your abandonment of the received pure and whole word of God.

    There is power in Reformed Theology, but where do we find it? Yes, in all the pre-nineteenth century Reformed theologians who have lately made a run up the charts once again. In modern day Reformed theologians? In Reformed theologians of today we have the same academic anemia one finds in secular academic environments. The same worldly man-fearing as well. All of the worldly traits one finds in secular academia.

    Of course, in making the common ground the pure and whole *received* (Hebrew and Greek) work of God I am striking at the heart of your vanity, your worldly pride, and your rebellious self-will, and no fallen human being will put up with *that.*

    But it has to be said. Even if you call us trolls.

    Like

  27. “Of course, in making the common ground the pure and whole *received* (Hebrew and Greek) work of God I am striking at the heart of your vanity, your worldly pride, and your rebellious self-will, and no fallen human being will put up with *that.* ”

    Wow, you can see into Darryl’s heart (see what I did there?) You’re either Jesus or a false Messiah.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.