The real issue is the unbalanced emphases of modern Protestant thinking.

I agree with Marty that the 18th Century revivals and the growth of modern Pentecostalism have both reshaped Protestant styles, while post-modernism has loosened our links with the intellectual underpinnings of reformed Christianity (in the broader sense of the term.) However, I think that these, rather than remove the influence of the magisterial reformers, have merely papered over it. So we keep wondering what that lump on the wall is all about.

There are two strong forces acting on us. One draws us away from the basic agreed tenets of Christian faith — such as the deity of Christ, judgment to come and so on. The other, in panic, seeks to bind us to a fixed point in history, viz the Reformation. Those who wish to develop a truly radical approach to practical Christianity will always battle both forces.

We need to realise that the one acts out of ignorance and hubris while the other acts out of fear.

The result is that modern Protestantism does contain a large contingent which very clearly looks back to a largely imagined Reformation era, when Christianity was, so the theory goes, brought back to a proper footing. Everything else is nothing but fine tuning.

That strand needs to be reminded of the dark side of Calvin and Luther and of the compromises the Reformers countenanced in order to push some kind of change through.

The radicals in the Anabaptist tradition in many ways took a more valid approach to basing their beliefs on scripture than the Magisterial reformers did. I hasten to point out that both the Münster group and the Zwickau Prophets/ Karlstadt were were about as much part of Swiss Anabaptism as the Levellers were part of the Quaker movement.

Luther, Zwingli and Calvin declared the Bible their basis, but were content to make it a sourcebook for beliefs without letting it challenge social behaviour too far, as distinct from personal morality.

The Reformers called for a church semper reformata, semper reformanda, but it was the radicals who took that to heart.

It seems to me that there are two very basic issues which must be addressed.

First, we have allowed a distorted view of the cross to dominate. We readily accept the idea of substitution, while almost completely rejecting the idea of identification.

Balanced Christianity entails both. Without the idea of identification, we can look at the cross and not see that we are called to go down the same path.

This makes it comparatively easy for us to persecute our enemies, as long as we don’t identify them as our enemies — as opposed to the State’s, for example.

This leads to a second area where our vision is sadly limited, which is that we have a limited concept of faith.

Jesus makes it clear that those who say, “Lord, Lord!” and do not do what he says are not true disciples. Yet evangelicalism from Anglican to Pentecostal and beyond (drawing on the traditions of the magisterial Reformers) has redefined faith in terms of assent rather than faithful discipleship.

Where older style Protestantism tended to press for assent to a creed, the change brought about by the Evangelical Revivals has reduced this further, to assent to an implicit creed, that “Jesus is (my) Saviour.” We produce many believers this way, but few disciples, and Jesus told us to make disciples as we go.

Because both lacks — identification and discipleship — are so prevalent, it is easy for people on the one hand to declare their Christian belief and, on the other hand, to countenance such abominations as the Iraq war.

Pentecostalism, for its part, seems to have picked up on the emptiness of much modern main-stream evangelicalism and is providing experiences in order to fill that emptiness, in much the same way as Rebel Sports provides an experience for shoppers, with an almost party atmosphere in their stores.

Christian conversion should be strongly experiential. The models provided in Acts are of people who experience emotional pain when they recognise their role in the crucifixion, who speak in tongues and prophesy when the Holy Spirit comes on them at conversion, who are filled with awe in the presence of Christ. Not much of that happens today, because conversions are not particularly comprehensive.

I am not saying that we should aim to generate “manifestations”, but that we should aim to bring about conversions which recognise both aspects of the cross and call for obedient faith.

Well at least Hitler and Stalin were the last words of the post Sorry bro, I may’ve been unclear in what I was saying. My point was that we can get captivated by people’s brains when in fact they may not be good (in the heart).

Both Hitler and Stalin were obviously very intelligent, but they were hideously evil. History is strewn with smart people who did much damage. So I don’t want to judge simply by whether someone was a genius.

Christianity is head, heart, and hands; if any one of these is missing, it’s no longer Christian.

God bless you bro,

Marty.

Google ‘Godwin’s Law’

Thanks for your reply brother. I didn’t know you were off to Indo. I’m assuming it’s got nothing to do with surfing … Anyway, here are some further thoughts in reply to yours.

Firstly, I’m not with you that we don’t need to discern what is good. The Bible is explicit about this:

Hebr 5:12 (NIV) In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Here is the nexus between having a mature knowledge of Christian truths (orthodoxy) precisely so as to distinguish bewteen “good” and evil (orthopraxis).

Heck, this is precisely how Paul prays for:

(i) the Colossians (1:9-11), that they would learn God’s will [desire, i.e. what is good], and

(ii) the Philippains (1:9-11), that they would discern what is “best” (i.e. the supreme good).

Love in our culture has become meaningless, precisely because it’s not concerned with what is good.

I’m not quite sure why you raised Plato in all this.

Secondly, to say that to determine the good we just have to read the life of Jesus, is of course, the position of Yoder. However, I’m not fully with him here. The life of Jesus alone for ethics is necessarily reductionistic. There’s also the rest of the NT canon. There is more to the NT than the four gospels (central though they are). There’s so much to learn about love from Paul’s and Peter’s letters. And John is the apostle of “love”.

Thirdly, when it comes to Calvin we need to deal with the evidence, and not hearsay. Secular universities in this area are not bastions of truth (from my experience). Just look at biblical studies here! Yes, you linked to Greg Boyd’s website, but there was no mention of primary sources just secondary ones. There are plenty of bios on Calvin. But they’re only as good as their primary source usage. Calvin bashing bugs me because each tradition has it’s dark side, and I have my own logs in my eye. Throwing mud just gets one’s hands dirty and causes one to lose ground .

Calvin couldn’t have put anyone to death because [1] he didn’t have any political power in Geneva ever, and [2] he believed the death penalty was the work of the state (Rom. 13:4); it was not the work of the Church. Contrary to popular belief Calvin was ahead of his time politically, and moved in the direction of separation between church and state. But the Genevan city council wouldn’t allow it. That’s partly why he got kicked out of Geneva the first time in 1539. By the way, my reading of the 16th century Anabaptists is not that they were champions of separating church and state, but that they rejected the state. Again, I wonder if this links with Menno’s belief that Christ did not have human but “celestial” flesh.

Fourthly, yes, of course there is another reading of Servetus. There is another reading of anything we want, because words lifted from their context can be made to say many different things. The issue is not whether there is another reading but how credible the other reading is. Having read Servetus’ own writings myself, he far from impresses me. He denied the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. The worship of Jesus was so integral to the early Church (John 9:38). The Jesus he believed in was closer to the Moslem Jesus than the Christian Jesus. Moreover, his reputation was terrible before he got anywhere near Geneva. Yes, Servetus was a genius, who discovered pulminary blood circulation. But genius doesn’t equal goodness, witness Hitler and Stalin.

Have a great time in Indo dude.

God bless brother,

Marty.

Marty, I’m not sure if we need to define ‘the good’ or study Plato to understand or define love. I think we just need to study the life of our Lord and that all the definition we need. And I agree with you about rebel rousing if it looks like a rebel rousing that rejects the sword and takes up the way of the cross like our Lord.

It’s also worth saying (since no one else has) that Servetus if a very different bloke when read from different sources. I’m not defending him because of him theology (trinitarian understanding of God is very important to me), but I have a friend prof. Ray Gingerich who edited, “Transforming the Powers” (which is fantanstic!), and preached at network Vineyard when he was in Perth who teaches his students about the life of Servetus, his significant contributions to medicine (first bloke in Europe to discover the pulmonary circulation) and his desire to see Jews and Muslims come to faith in Jesus and his reputation of being someone of fine character before he fell fowl (and wrote nasty letters to) Calvin.

And while I agree we can’t judge people out of their context it’s also true that there were many Christians who lived through violent times but refused to kill because of the gospel. We can’t say this of Calvin and Luther however. But there is still much we can learn from them.

http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-calvin-kill-servetus.html

G’day Gav,
If you’re interested Greg recommends this book:

*Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography. Argues that Calvin was directly responsible for 38 executions in Geneva (other scholars argue he was at least indirectly responsible for as many as 58).

and these on this subject:

*”Perez Zagorin, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West.” A very scholarly work that includes a good section on how public outrage toward Calvin’s murder of Servetus contributed to Christianity finally become a religion that tolerated religious differences. Sebastian Castellio played a major role in creating this outrage.

*”Robert M. Kingdon, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva.” Kingdon is one of the foremost scholars in the world on Geneva under Calvin. This book, published by Harvard Press, relies entirely on original sources and presents an incredibly harsh picture of Geneva under Calvin’s rule. For example, a number of children were imprisoned, tortured and even executed for being disrespectful to parents (though I’m not certain I got this information from this work).

Re: reference I thought I made a link to it if not I’ll post it. I remember first seeing it when I took Reformation History at a secular uni as a philosophy unit, (It was very interesting studying the reformation with people that weren’t Christians including the average Aussie agnostic, Muslims, Buddhists and a lecture with a strong like for Marx that was post Catholic.) But I can’t seem to find it again.

I’ll link to where I found the quote resently.

Grace and peace,
Jarrod

I’m not wanting to say that any sort of rabble rousing is out.

Yes, Jesus sounded like a rabble rouser, but there are different reasons for rabble rousing. Rabble rousing for illegitimate reasons in an unstable culture can mean great suffering (including death) for innocent people. History teaches that; some countries now are still a testimony to it.

However, when there is great suffering of innocent people because of corrupt powers that be, rabble rousing may be the best option for change.

God bless you,

Marty.