My big reading goal for 2011, finished!

The first thing to say is that I am not a Reformed Calvinist. If I were to theologically qualify myself, "Wesleyan" and/or "Anabaptist" would be the terms I would choose. Thus, I came to Calvin with a bit of trepidation. That said, I actually enjoyed (maybe "enjoyed" is a bit of an exaggeration) the Institutes. I realized as I read that even where I disagree with Calvin, even the times I wanted to chuck the book across the room, I was engaged. So many new titles in the Christian bubble appear boring, mundane or inane. I would rather read a dead Calvinist. As a sidenote, I think this is why I have recently been attracted to the medieval mystics (Theresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich).

I was also struck by how easy the Institutes is to read. Not easy in that it lacks substance, but easy in terms of writing style. Much old writing, Christian or otherwise, is in a difficult style for the modern reader (not to mention, paragraphs that last pages and sentences that never seem to end). The Institutes should be approachable for any Christian pastor, which makes sense as Calvin wrote it as a training manual for pastors.

All that said, I am no closer to being a Calvinist than I was in January when I began. I still think that Calvinism leads to determinism and thus makes God the author of evil (obviously, and just to make sure it is said, Calvinists do not believe that). Much is made of the fact that Calvin does not discuss election until late in book three, so to make election (predestination) central to Calvinism is to be un-Calvin-like. But in book one when he discusses the nature of God he basically says all that happens, down to the smallest thing, is due to God's choosing (I think the word for this is meticulous providence). So if a man is hiking in the woods and gets eaten by a bear it is not that God allowed this to happen, but rather God ordained that (I recall Calvin used a similar analogy). I do not see how this can mean anything but God ordained the Holocaust. God did not just allow Hitler to act on his own ideas, rather God put the idea into Hitler's head.

I recall at one point writing in the margin something along the lines of everyone eventually, in studying theology, runs up to the place where they say "I can't explain any more here, chalk this one up to the mystery of God". I think that the difference between me and Calvin (haha, how arrogant does that sound!) is that I appeal to the mystery of God sooner. Calvin attempts to explain in more detail how God's sovereignty relates to human choice; when I read scripture I think there is tension there and we should just live with it (it is both election/predestination AND human freedom...somehow).

It is also clear how different at time Calvin writes from. He is so confident on what many Christians today would say are peripheral issues (baptism, Lord's Supper). I mean that in those days to agree on everything but what the Lord's Supper meant led to huge divisions in the church. Today I can't imagine people caring that much. But I think the reason is that in a world (Christendon) where everyone is Christian you argue about different things than in the world today that is much more pluralistic. It seems the most radical people Calvin met were anti-trinitarians (Servetus), Anabaptists and Catholics. Today most people (in America, that is) would struggle to even see a difference, they'd just say we're all Christian. Most people in America personally know atheists, agnostics, Muslims and all kinds of diversity Calvin never experienced. My point is simply, this causes arguments about different things.

In the end, I found Calvin thought-provoking and enriching. I think people of all theological persuasions should read this book. I am sure I will return to it one day.