Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed
Tradition by Kenneth J. Stewart
Last week I attended the “Think” Conference organised by
Andrew Wilson on behalf of the Newfrontiers Theology Forum. Our subject was,
“Is Calvinism Incoherent?” This book could have been written as a direct
rebuttal of that charge.
Calvinism tends to get a bad rap. It is widely viewed as a
sect pursued by dour white men in service of a dour white god. At the same
time, there is the phenomenon of the “New Calvinists”, to such an extent that
in March 2009 Time magazine listed
New Calvinism as one of the “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.” Both these
views are somewhat overblown, and help perpetuate the myths that Stewart deals
with. As it says on the tin, the book tackles ten myths, the first four being
those which “Calvinists should not be circulating (but are)” and then six which
“non-Calvinists should not be circulating (but are).” By way of review, I’ll
simply offer a quick chapter-by-chapter comment…
1. One Man (Calvin)
and One City (Geneva) are Determinative
A simple historical survey demonstrates that this is a myth.
Other men (Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Vermigli) and other cities (Zurich,
Strasbourg, Frankfurt, Emden) had at least equal significance to Calvin and
Geneva during the Reformation. Which means that “Calvinism” is much more
variegated than we might think.
2. Calvin’s View of
Predestination Must Be Ours
Predestination was not a novel idea dreamed up by Calvin.
Indeed, it had been a significant theological strand running back to the
teaching of Augustine – and was taught by men as diverse as Aquinas and Wyclif.
Calvin’s own theology developed, from a place where predestination barely
featured at all, to the 1559 edition of the Institutions
by which point it can fairly be described as “double.” However, other key
leaders of the Reformation did not hold to this view of double predestination.
For example, Vermigli wrote, “I separate the reprobate from the predestinate
because the Scriptures nowhere (that I know of) call men that shall be damned,
predestinate.” Other Reformers, such as Beza, went even further than Calvin in
stating the “double” nature of predestination. So there is a spectrum of
thought, and as Stewart points out, the Reformed standards of the Canons of
Dordt and the Westminster Confession of Faith take a softer view on this matter
than Calvin.
3. TULIP is the
Yardstick of the Truly Reformed
This is perhaps the pivotal chapter of the book,
demonstrating as it does that the TULIP acrostic used to sum up Calvinism
(Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace,
Perseverance of the saints) is an invention of the last century, and hence
relatively novel, and not especially helpful! Stewart quotes Spurgeon as giving
a better example of how to summarize the “five points of Calvinism”:
I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if
we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach
the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the
electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do
I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and
particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out
upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after
they are called.
Amen!
4. Calvinists Take a
Dim View of Revival and Awakening
Another historical survey demonstrates that while some Calvinists
have been (and are) hostile towards revival there has been (and is) a strong
tradition of Reformed revivalists.
5. Calvinism is
Largely Antimissionary
The evidence in this chapter is a logical extension of the
previous one, and again the historical evidence undermines the charge.
6. Calvinism Promotes
Antinomianism
A great concern of Arminianism is that a belief in “once
saved always saved” has an inevitably corrosive effect on holiness. But again,
the historical evidence simply doesn’t support the accusation that Calvinists
fall into antinomianism more than anyone else.
7. Calvinism Leads to
Theocracy
Wrong again! Roman Catholicism in medieval Europe promoted
theocracy, the Reformation undermined it. Key to this myth is the notion of
“Calvin’s Geneva” which purports Calvin as virtual dictator of that city, but
this is simply untrue. Instead of the church governing Geneva, the political
leaders of the city very clearly had authority over the church.
As this is starting to sound repetitive, I’ll cover the
final three chapters in one hit.
8. Calvinism
Undermines the Creative Arts
9. Calvinism Resists
Gender Equality
10. Calvinism Has
Fostered Racial Inequality
In each of these cases Stewart recognises that Calvinists
have been guilty, but that there is nothing about Reformed theology that
justifies such positions. As Calvin records in the Institutes “Sculpture and painting are gifts from God.” And, for
his era, Calvin had a relatively progressive approach towards women. On the
question of racial inequality we need to tread carefully and honestly appraise
the attitudes and actions of the western nations of all theological stripes
during the colonial era, and up to and including American slavery – in doing so
we will find the ugly fact that while the Reformed churches were by no means
exemplary, no-one else was either.
So there we have it. Ten myths, unpacked, faced up to, and
dealt with. This is an extraordinarily helpful book, and should be read by
Calvinist and Arminian alike, as it helps show how we have all tended to get
things wrong!
