The New Calvanism

Comment

Comment by Forrest Curo on April 23, 2009 at 1:15pm

Ah sorry, I hadn't known I could comment on this discussion, without being part of the group. Anyway, while Islam & Calvinism look very much alike from the old Divine Judgement & Predestination standpoint, you do get a range in how individual people see them.

The idea of Hell was something that sounded wrong to me when I first found encountered it--in Mark Twain's accounts of the standard US churches of his day. But after I'd been found (& prodded) by God, and still had to undergo some of the hellist side of God's 'psychedelic' intervention (definitely Grace at work, but Grace With Teeth!) I did, eventually, have to ask, tentatively, "You don't really do that to people, do you?"

I expect that people who find God through Calvinism (and I am sure that there are such) simply say to themselves, "Well, if God needs to make people think that..."

My problem, again, is with the tremendous amount of suffering we know exists in this life. You can't say that God doesn't participate in it! While the defining characteristic of suffering is that we intensely don't like it(!), something else in my own experience has been that overall I've found those occasions helpful to me, that even when I had no idea what purpose there might be, I've been sure there was one!

Job was quite clear that he wasn't suffering because he'd been so Bad that God wanted to Get him for it! God, in the story, made it clear that the neighbors' attemps to blame Job were way off base. Some of us find the key to the whole thing in something Job said at the end: "Before, I had heard of You. But now I see you!"

We don't know, what it takes to see God, to know God as a reality. We'd gladly give this power to each other, if we only knew some way (like for example, putting oneself in people's faces & loudly demanding they 'accept Jesus as their Personal Savior', oy vey!) We don't! But God does know ways. Unfortunately they take some time, & occasionally hurt meanwhile.

God sends what people need to 'the unJust' as well as to 'the just;' but their needs may differ.

Comment by Forrest Curo on April 23, 2009 at 12:48pm

Rumi: "Wicked people in Hell are happier than they ever were in this life, because they can see God."

Comment by Richard B. Miller on January 20, 2009 at 9:48am

I know that some consider theological differences to be arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but that really depends on the difference. Here the difference is profound. I think it is worth emphasizing especially given the fact that many modern people react negatively to Christianity because they associate it vaguely with Calvinism. In their mind that's "real" Christianity. I think it's important to emphasize that Quakerism is a distinctively different kind of Christianity. And like early Friends I'd also argue that we get the New Testament right and that Calvinism gets it wrong.

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on January 19, 2009 at 10:17pm

Hi Simon,

Yes, standing Calvinism upside down on its head is a very good analogy. Whereas Calvinism posited a God who primarily created most humans to be predestined for eternal damnation, Friends felt God was eternal everlasting love. Calvinists were obsessed with intellectual creedal explanations of God and his nature; Friends opposed such head "notions" for the most part, instead wanted to concentrate on experiencing God. Calvinists were very strongly pro-military and pro-war; though a large number of Friends came out of the military, soon Friends became known for the Lamb's War--winning the world via evangelism and love, not killing and capital punishment.

Calvinism has claimed that all revelation and spiritual gifts ended with the apostles, but Friends strongly emphasized continuing revelation and continuing spiritual gifts.

Calvinism was very narrowly focused--only good news to a hidden elect; The Society of Friends was wide as the Infinite Ocean of Light and Love.

And that dear Friends is the Good News:-)

Daniel Wilcox

Comment by Simon St.Laurent on January 19, 2009 at 9:55pm

Historically, yes, Quakers come out of a Puritan period that was heavily influenced by Calvinism. They retained the sense of mission that Calvinism had given Puritans of that period and some other cultural values of Puritanism.

I think, though, that the early Quakers stood much of Calvinism on its head. It feels to me like Fox went deep into the despair of Calvinism, and found Christ preaching a very different message than the "professors" of Calvin.

I can't go so far as to say that Quakerism and Calvinism are opposites, but there's a huge tension there, a tension that I think drove the early Quaker movement forward and stays with us today.

Comment by Richard B. Miller on January 17, 2009 at 4:12pm

Paul, What makes you say that Puritanism was "in many ways the most influential of the three roots of Quakerism"? I see early Quakers as about as far removed from Puritanism as it is possible to get as far as theology goes. Now both are in reaction to Catholicism in a couple of respects--they like simplicity in both worship and church organisation, but theologically Quakerism and Puritanism are opposites not kin.

Comment by N. Jeanne Burns on January 17, 2009 at 12:50am

I've just read some references to Calvanist stuff in some Convergent Friends' blogs, and I wanted some illumination.

I got some.

Comment by Paul Landskroener on January 16, 2009 at 7:44pm

Jeanne -- I don't see any correspondence whatsoever between Driscoll's ministry and anything that I've ever considered to be "convergent" Friends. While the Puritan (i.e., Calvinist) branch is in many ways the most influential branch of the three roots of Quakerism (Anabaptism and what many call "mysticism" are the other two), from what the article says Driscoll emphasizes those aspects of Calvinism that the Quakers most vehemently rejected.

I'm curious what you read in the article that made you think of convergent Friends -- nothing jumped out at me.

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on January 15, 2009 at 3:55pm

I first encountered Calvinism when my youth leader tried to convince me that God was above ethics--that God orders humans to violate biblical laws. And he tried to convince me that I should go to Vietnam and kill communists. Another Calvinist Bible teacher claimed in a Bible study on the N.T. that every murder and every rape was the will of God. Then I read Arthur Pink in his book The Sovereignty of God where he says it was God's will that Adam and Eve sin! That Christ died only for a select few of humankind, etc.
Thankfully eventually I read Elton Trueblood's book on Quakerism, that God is completely the opposite of Calvinism, indeed, God's love is endless for all.

I studied many books of Calvinism in 40 years and still can't fathom why so many people are attracted to such a gospel of despair and hopelessness.
Probably, some are attracted to it because they become convinced that they are 'in,' that God loves them even though God has predestinated most other humans to damnation. Also, when they sin, they know that it was predestined, not their own free choice.

Also, strangely, thinking everything is 'written'--predestined is what gives both Calvinists and Muslims so much daring. In both religions, predestination for the convinced gives them a sense they can't go wrong. They have total security.

When people, don't accept Christ, no worry, they weren't meant to; they were predestined reprobates.

I am so thankful for the contrary message of the Friends--of the overwehming ocean of God's infinite love for all.

Daniel Wilcox
http://infiniteoceanoflightandlove.blogspot.com/

Comment by Richard B. Miller on January 14, 2009 at 11:01pm

Yes, Calvinism is very different from the theology of Friends early or late. I am repelled by it also. But I wonder at its continuing appeal. I think that the Biblical case for Calvinism is so weak that its appeal to people must be psychological. It must be that some people like it so much that they selectively read the Bible in order to find it. What do they like about it? It seems to appeal to people who like to be tough. The appeal is that they can judge everybody to be bad. No need to pay attention to their excuses. No excuses are acceptable. People are evil by nature and there is nothing good in human nature. The denial of free will doesn't get people off the hook because everything we do is evil despite the fact that we don't have any freedom. So there's no namby-pamby worrying about whether we are judging anyone too harshly. You CANT judge anyone too harshly. The comment in the article that Calvinism has almost disappeared from the American religious scene and this sort of preacher represents some kind of a modest revival strikes me as wrong. Around here I detect a lot of Calvinism of a milder tone. It appears as a kind of fatalism that almost but not quite amounts to a blanket excuse for not being better than we are. The ultimate appeal of Calvinism is that it can shift subtly back and forth between rigorous universal condemnation to an all-purpose excuse of "that's just how God made me."

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page