As much as some critics may question my personal piety, I do daily attend to private worship and often make use of readings from the likes of the Reformers. (It grieves me to admit this since such public unction seems to be at odds with Christ’s own counsel to his followers in Matt 6: 5.) Just this morning I ran across a passage that I felt I should pass along, especially for those neo-Calvinist readers who do seem to be unaware of the difference between their own piety and the one that Calvin embodied and attempted to cultivate among the citizens and exiles in Geneva.
Here is Calvin’s comment and prayer from his lecture on Joel 2:28: And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.
Calvin writes:
We have explained why the Prophet began with earthly blessings. One may indeed think that this order is not regular; for Christ does not in vain remind us, that the kingdom of God ought to be first sought, and that other things shall be added in their place, (Matthew 6;) for food, and every thing that belongs to this frail life, are, as it were, additions to the spiritual life. But the Prophet designedly mentioned first the evidence of God’s favor in outward benefits; for we see how slow the perceptions of men are, and how slothful they are in seeking spiritual life. As, then, men rise to things above with so much difficulty, the Prophet makes use of the best helps; and we must indeed be dealt with as we usually deal with children. For as there is not so much discernment in them as to be influenced by reasons, we set before them what is suitable to their weak and simple comprehension; so the Prophet did; for he showed first that God would be kind to the Jews in food for the body, and having used this as a help, he then added, Afterwards I will pour my Spirit upon all flesh.
By these words the Prophet reminds us, that people act absurdly when they are satisfied with vanishing things, when they ask of God nothing more excellent than to be pampered like brute animals; for in what do the children of God differ from asses and dogs, except they aspire after spiritual life? The Prophet, then, after having set before them lower things, as though they were children, now brings before them a more solid doctrine, (for thus they were to be led,) and affords them a taste of the favor of God in its external signs. “Ascend, then, now,†he says, “to spiritual life: for the fountain is one and the same; though when earthly benefits occupy and engross your attention, ye no doubt pollute them. But God feeds you, not to fill and pamper you; for he would not have you to be like brute animals. Then know that your bodies are fed, and that God gives support to you, that ye may aspire after spiritual life; for he leads you to this as by the hand; be this then your object.†We now, then, understand why the Prophet did not at first speak of the spiritual grace of God; but he comes to it now. He began with temporal benefits, for it was needful that an untutored people should be thus led by degrees, that on account of their infirmity, sluggishness, and dullness, they might thus make better progress, until they understood that God would for this end be a Father to them.
Then Calvin prays:
Grant, Almighty God, that since we want so many aids while in this frail life, and as it is a shadowy life, we cannot pass a moment, except thou dost continually, and at all times, supply through thy bounty what is needful, — O grant, that we may so profit by thy so many benefits, that we may learn to raise our minds upwards, and ever aspire after celestial life, to which by thy gospel thou invites us so kindly and sweetly every day, that being gathered into thy celestial kingdom, we may enjoy that perfect felicity, which has been procured for us by the blood of thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
I do wonder if neo-Cals ever thought about life on planet earth in this way (a radically biblical one?) then they might come around to a higher estimate of the visible church and a more sober regard for cultural endeavor.
Old Life 
“…Dr. Sproul reminds us of the place we as Christians ought to possess in science, economics and art.” –Renewing Your Mind Announcer, 12/16/10, hocking a 12 part series by Sproul entitled Christian Worldview.
Does anyone know if Sproul’s a neo-cal?
LikeLike
“…Dr. Sproul reminds us of the place we as Christians ought to possess in science, economics and art.” –The Renewing Your Mind Announcer, 12/16/10, hocking a 12 part series by Sproul entitled Christian Worldview.
Does anyone know if Sproul’s a neo-cal?
LikeLike
When I read this passage in Calvin, it seems to justify in my mind the whole concept of incarnational ministry or meeting people’s felt needs, which I get the impression Dr. Hart, you’re not too big a fan of, though I could be wrong.
For example Calvin says, “The Prophet, then, after having set before them lower things, as though they were children, now brings before them a more solid doctrine, (for thus they were to be led,) and affords them a taste of the favor of God in its external signs. “Ascend, then, now,†he says, “to spiritual life: for the fountain is one and the same; though when earthly benefits occupy and engross your attention, ye no doubt pollute them. But God feeds you, not to fill and pamper you; for he would not have you to be like brute animals. Then know that your bodies are fed, and that God gives support to you, that ye may aspire after spiritual life; for he leads you to this as by the hand; be this then your object.â€
This is exactly what I know alot of Church’s mercy ministries do that are directed to people outside the church. There is a penultimate goal and an ultimate one. The former is to meet people’s physical needs, going to where they are in terms of their perception of need, in order that they may come to the latter goal of recieving relief for the ultimate need of hearing the Gospel and believing the Gospel.
By the way, fyi, Keller says the exact same thing in Ministries of Mercy.
LikeLike
John, do those incarnational ministries you advocate, that do “exactly” what Calvin says, actually have two different preaching services each Sunday? And do those churches discipline worshipers for frolicking on Sunday. That is for me a pretty good test of how ultimate the ministry of a church is. It is the exact same thing that Calvin advocated.
LikeLike
DGH, if it’s OK, I’ll move thoughts from the previous thread over here so as to be out of Russ’s way … and because the thoughts have a lot to do with otherworldliness.
I had said:
JRC: But what if … tinkering with Calvin’s view of the state causes other features of Calvinism to break? If you’ve misdiagnosed the impulse that leads Calvin to claim that the magistrate owes allegiance to God first and foremost, then it might be the case that “pc-2k†leaves the orbit of Calvin in more profound ways.
DGH: Jeff, you really need to think this through. There is the theology of Calvin, and there is the polity in which he lived. 2kers, at least this one, agree with Calvin’s theology, even his understanding of the magistrate’s vocation — that he is accountable to God.
You’re right — I do need to think this through. (Hence the bloggery, among other things).
But … so do you.
For one thing, you are divorcing the theology of Calvin from his polity, as if Geneva sprang up independently of Calvin’s theology. But of course, Inst 4.20 is a part of, well, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Note the word “Religion”, meaning “theology.” Sorry to sort of rub that in the face, but you’ve seemed to overlook the fact that Calvin’s arguments for the magistrate are grounded in his read of Scripture, not his admiration for the Roman Empire.
So there’s the theoretical problem with your analysis.
But even worse is the practical problem, which brings us to this current post.
Your critique of neo-Cal and others is that by wedding the state too closely to the church, they are indulging in a theology of glory. Here, I try to following the bouncing ball:
* Calvin is otherworldly and theologically reliable and a champion of grace, and he created Geneva.
* neo-Cals are glory-theologians and theologically unreliable and flirting with legalism, and they’ve created or advocated nothing so thorough-going as Geneva (unless you count Moscow ID).
To quote a famous person: “Huh?”
My bouncing ball appears to have broken the laws of mental physics.
To be clear: you have no ground for arguing from neo-Cal to theology of glory, unless you wish to indict Calvin himself in spades. His theology of the magistrate was a part of his theology.
Wouldn’t it be a lot better to say that Calvin was complex and neo-Cals are complex, and neither can be reduced to simplistic analyses?
LikeLike
“do those incarnational ministries you advocate, that do “exactly†what Calvin says, actually have two different preaching services each Sunday? And do those churches discipline worshipers for frolicking on Sunday. That is for me a pretty good test of how ultimate the ministry of a church is.”
Dr. Hart,
If I’m reading your question correctly, the answer I hope would be “yes.” When we did our outreach to the homeless in Seattle, we always told our Diaconate team that the goal is not simply to provide food for them it was to invite them to church. We had a couple who did come to service, heard the gospel, became, by God’s grace, believers and then became members and attended both our morning and evening service. After coming under review of the session they partook of our weekly communion and came under the authority of our session. They continue to attend our community to this day.
LikeLike
Hi DGH,
I thought I posted something brilliant here earlier this morning. Did it get stuck in a spam filter, or did I simply not hit Submit?
JRC
LikeLike
Forgive my legalistic bent and anachronism, but could you give some examples of modern day activities that Calvin would consider frolicking on the Sabbath? I’m just not used to hearing stuff like this.
LikeLike
John, Glad to hear it. I’m also glad to hear you have a morning and evening service with different Scripture readings and sermons. To my knowledge, that is not Redeemer’s practice.
LikeLike
Nick, historians debate what Calvin permitted on Sundays. But among the activities I have in mind are shopping, dining, and certain forms of recreation or entertainment that involve (at least) employing others. Since this is a day of rest from our worldly duties and set apart for the Lord, it does seem that anything that distracts us from worship or reflecting on our eschatological rest should be resisted.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I do take Calvin’s polity seriously, and the only polity he created was the ecclesiastical ordinances. I’m four office.
But Geneva existed before Calvin, and so did the pattern of magistrates running things, as well as the idea of the state tolerating only one religion. That is not part and parcel of being Reformed. Calvin shared it with Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Lutheran states. So you can’t say that Calvin created Geneva. It’s the reverse. Constantine created the expectations that informed Geneva, Heidelberg, Rome, London, etc.
The other point you are not acknowledging, though, is that for all of Calvin’s views about a Christian civil polity, he did not use the cultural mandate or a dominion theology to get there. His theology of life in this world was the theology of the cross. Russ points out that Bavinck could use that cross theology. But Spykman shows where neo-Cals usually go.
And the other point you keep failing to address is why you are not condemned as much by your reading of Calvin as I am. Do you want the polity of Geneva? Do you want heretics executed? If not, then haven’t you abandoned Calvin’s theology as much as I have?
LikeLike
The existence of Geneva really is secondary to the existence of Inst 4.20. Calvin seems to think that his view of the magistrate is what Scripture teaches, not “what we’ve always done since the time of Constantine.”
DGH: And the other point you keep failing to address is why you are not condemned as much by your reading of Calvin as I am. Do you want the polity of Geneva? Do you want heretics executed? If not, then haven’t you abandoned Calvin’s theology as much as I have?
And the answer is, yes, I think on this point, I probably have abandoned Calvin’s theology. But I don’t create blog posts whose purpose is to tag others with the label “theologians of glory.”
And that’s the point here.
You’ve made a sustained argument that non-pc-2k entails glory theology and tendency towards worldliness. My point is, “What about Calvin?” He’s your posterboy for otherworldliness — AND — he wasn’t pc-2k.
It’s the rhetoric, Darryl, not the otherworldliness, that I’m worried about. You’re binning people, and Calvin himself sits astride your bins.
LikeLike
Jeff, but where does Calvin describe the magistrate in terms of taking every thought captive or by appealing to the cultural mandate? And where do the neo-Cals talk about this world the way Calvin does? There is a disconnect here of significant proportions.
In other words, 2kers acknowledge their differences with Calvin. Do 2k critics acknowledge their differences?
And to be fair to ME SINCE IT IS ALL ABOUT ME! I don’t describe all Christian magistrate folks at theology of glory people. I have great respect for the Covenanters even though I disagree with their political theology. They do not employ the language of dominion that neo-Cal’s do. Covenanters appeal to the history and application of the national covenant (and only recently under the influence of neo-Calvinism at Geneva College have they used different rhetoric). I can see a difference between different folks who argue for a Christian magistrate. All I ask is that anti-2kers see some value in the 2k position, rather than simply dismissing us a Platonic, fundamentalist, or not Reformed.
The caution about putting away the broad brush should go in both directions.
But you still have not shown that Calvin’s views of the magistrate are essential to his theology, or that a tension might exist (the way that DVD shows) in Calvin’s application of his theology to the politics of early modern Europe. Nor do I think that you have accounted for Calvin’s explicit rejection of resistance to tyranny that he encountered among his French Reformed peers, or for the state church politics that even grandaddy of 2kers — the Lutherans — employed.
LikeLike
DGH: I don’t describe all Christian magistrate folks at theology of glory people.
OK, good to know. Since you (and Zrim) have “detected such tendencies” in me, I think I’ll just consider myself special. 🙂
And to be fair: The value I see in the 2k position is to remind us (me!) that our hope does not lie in transforming this world; and that there is severe danger in wedding church to state. Both of those points I join with you in affirming.
DGH: But you still have not shown that Calvin’s views of the magistrate are essential to his theology …
Also fair, but it’s a hard request, since I’m skeptical of “essence/accident” distinctions. All I can say is that Inst. 4.20 is a part of Calvin’s theology, and part of what he considered the “whole counsel of Scripture.”
And indeed, for two centuries, the Reformed churches agreed with him to the extent that (almost?) every Confession had a section on church-and-state.
So is that essential or accidental? Seems at least as important as “union”, if we go by the DGH metric of “has a separate chapter assigned to it.” 😉
I can’t account for Calvin’s rejection of resistance in re: Hugenots. You have far greater access to primaries than I.
As far as the Lutherans go, it appears to me that Luther was more willing than Calvin to make hard categories, like “the kingdoms of the right and left hands.” But in so doing, he himself left tensions, such as “Where do Christian magistrates go to learn what justice is?”
I would also say that 2k-ism seems, to this untrained observer, to have flourished in areas beset by inconclusive Catholic-Protestant armed conflict, whereas in England and the Netherlands, 2k-ism did not flourish as strongly.
LikeLike
Thanks for this Darryl.
LikeLike