Re-visions and Re-formations: Nature of Humanity from Luther
and Calvin
Tony E Dillon Hansen
Chicago Theological Seminary
In accordance with RH 3440 History of Christian Thought.
Re-visions and Re-formations: Nature of Humanity from
Luther and Calvin
From my youth, I have grown into the Catholic ideas of
free-will and justification. My family has roots in the Lutheran tradition via
my father, but this has not been part of my theological study until
recently. Since I have been called to
serve as pulpit supply for UCC churches with Reformed history, I feel compelled
to review John Calvin. Additionally, the
two reformers, Luther and Calvin, present challenges to the Catholic ideas
(e.g. Erasmus), which altogether, are shaping my personal theology. This is continuously evolving and re-forming where
I sense myself holding onto some of the Catholic ideas of works while
integrating the faith components.
Through Calvin’s (1539) Institutes of Christian Religion and
Luther’s (1520) “Concerning Christian Liberty”, we have a sample view of the
two reformers. In addition, through the discussion of predestination, there is
a sample of the ideas that support notions of sin, atonement and justification. This paper will consider how these inform as
well divert from my perspectives of sin, atonement and justification.
The Catholic Background
Sin can be described as a separation from God or a more
deliberate disobedience of God. (McKim, 1996). From my Catholic catechism sin
is an ever-present temptation and according to Erasmus (n.d.), a person always
has work to do and we have free will as a gift from God (Unger, n.d.) Atonement
is then to align oneself closer to God through overcoming the inclination to
sin. (Miles, 2005, p.301). This process involves a combination of denial,
prohibition or hopeful pre-occupation of other things. Essentially, justification
is then declaring a “sinful” person right with God. (McKim, 1996, p.152). Yet,
we never know if we have done enough to atone or be justified, and I saw the
pain this can cause via my dad’s stated worry during his last months. As a
queer person, I am grateful for this gift of “free will” because it is amazing.
Yet, it has been tainted by religious structures that restrict one’s expression
of that “free will” such as being queer.
Considering Calvin’s Total Depravity and Predestination
Calvin’s theology is the genesis of the Reformed and
Congregational churches of the UCC, however it feels like he preaches from a
core of negativity. His notion of all humanity as totally depraved where we, as
human beings, are sinful and displeasing to God by nature seems completely defeating.
It puts Augustine’s idea of original sin, where we are descendants from the
fall, into overdrive. Further, he fully casts blame upon Adam’s “infidelity”
and “revolt” because we are now irrational and inherent “viciousness.” (Calvin,
1539). This however points away from one’s
own actions. Through Christ’s obedience, we might have forgiveness in the
afterlife; however this theology does not seem to encourage forgiveness today,
especially for Adam.
The atonement then is to “abandon all dependence upon
[one]self” and “meditate upon divine worship” in order to clamor and to crave
the grace. (Calvin, 1539, p. 3). This sounds like Buddhist ideas of
enlightenment paths (if we ignore the craving.) While one must clamor for God’s
grace, this feels fruitless, especially with the idea of divine election where
being elected through Christ is justification. I can see why this would appeal
to people to be part of a select group as it can appeal to ego to be part of
this group. Yet, one would wonder (or
erroneously assume) whether we belong to that people because this is a
coin-flip chance of justification before one/I even took a breath.
As well, through this predestination theory, Calvin
challenges universal equality within humanity. (Beveridge, n.d.). In regard to
history, I see how this has been foundational to abusive slavery policy and
robbing Native Americans because those hateful actions were justified through this
idea of presupposed, elect people. How did birth give one presumed privilege
whereas others are presumed to be doomed? Inherently, this is not hospitable to
social cohesion in an equal society – because such a society does not exist to
Calvin. This explains some of the attitudes towards queer people as well
because we might be automatically assumed as inferior by nature simply because
we are different.
Even without regard to history, this theology raises many
questions for me. God has already made my destination. What else is there for
me to do because obedience and craving for justification feels futile. If we
are elected, one is not compelled to be or to do Christ’s work. I just “praise God from whom all
blessings flow” to give thanks for being selected (or so I hope.)
I do align with Calvin’s ideas that Spirit works through
scripture and we might be “drawn to obey” in part because of the “irresistible”
grace (Miles, 2005, p. 272-273). I agree with the idea that, without Spirit,
the Bible page is “nothing but black marks on a page.” (Miles, 2005, p. 273). The
Scripture is how we know Spirit, sin, atonement, and justification. The Spirit lifts these lessons for us to
learn and to see in our experience.
Considering Luther’s Wandering Mind and God’s Will
Luther’s (1520) approach is to understand the person as
twofold: of spirit and of the body. Our
body causes us to wander about in sin where various parts of our lives are
sinful activity or thought. Yet, our spirit can reconcile those and make us
closer to God through faith in God’s divine plan. Then, Luther’s understanding
of atonement to sin is that faith is enough for a person to gain justification,
which solves the enough question. Had I known about this around my father
during his last days, this idea of faith would have provided much comfort,
especially since my father was raised in the Lutheran tradition. From my
perspective also as a Catholic, queer person constantly examining my thoughts,
this feels like it allows me to be queer and spiritual.
Further, Luther (1520) says our nature as free and equal Christians
already positions and encourages us to do God’s work. This equality is in stark
contrast to Calvin’s human nature as shameful and unequal. Yet, faith becomes mere
rhetoric without a need to demonstrate the good of Christ through our actions.
Re-forming My Vision
My evolving vision derives from each of these while arguing
against points in each. Interestingly, there
is a common element, which purpose was meant to help identify the particular
group. Catholics and the reformers each embraced a form of exclusion and
intolerance against other theology. This was partially a result of the violence
and heresies being issued by churches. Of this cordial belief of presumed
supremacy, I find tremendous fault because it has been historically destructive.
Christ was with all people regardless of belief or status like with
“non-believers” like the woman (John 4:4-42), Roman soldier (Matt. 8:5-13), and
on the cross with a thief (Luke 23: 43).
As a member in a progressive Congregational church, I enjoy
that God may foresee but does not dictate nor limit where I or people go, and
this feels like free will. For Plymouth UCC, we may not address notions of sin often,
but examinations, like this here, can help us to understand world history and
how it has come to be. I submit that Calvin, however, is so concentrated upon
innate failure that he limits the potential for success, with or without
Christ. Luther also subscribes to the notion of God’s will but offers a version
of equality and liberty from sin. Luther helps this by giving us access to
grace even though we sin and not just because we were pre-selected for it. Plymouth’s
roots in Calvin do not seem apparent as I do not feel excluded or inferior
here, and in some ways, it feels like Lutheran ideas of equality.
I enjoy the reformers’ reliance upon scripture to inform
them, and as Calvin suggests, the Spirit works through these pages. Yet, the
reformers ought to understand the suffering they have endured via exclusion is
what they proposed for others that do not subscribe to their version. I am
broken and fall short, but God has made us what and who we are. There is a path
to reconciliation, and like Luther and Calvin suggest, faith is a part of that
process. Sometimes, as Aquinas (1274) might suggest, evil is there to help us
understand the good we can do.
Summary
I find myself falling somewhat closer to Luther along with the
Catholic ideas of free will. As a
Buddhist, craving even “irresistible grace” can be a source of problems.
Further in that mindset, evil cannot be my focus or else my being will be
consumed by evil. We fail and we will again. God has revealed to us that God is
forgiving, even during judgment (e.g. exile and return to Israel.) Jesus tells
us in Luke 6:36-38 to forgive because God already has. So, let God be where God
is, and listen to the Spirit speaking to us in scripture for paths that may be
destined for us because God invites us to our journeys.
While not being comprehensive of my theology, the reformers and
I have some shared traits, but I also question the nature of reforms and
traditions lifted. Further, my experience with the abuse of these paths
challenges what they could be. As a young queer Catholic then exposed to Asian
traditions, I view Luther and Calvin with hopeful, but critical, pause - especially
Calvin. I like what he says about Scripture and how he somewhat agrees with
Luther about grace being given to us, yet he put significant conditions upon
that. This has scared me with respect to my role in my denomination, but I
resolve to let Calvin be where he was. The Church is big enough for both of us. I pray that “asking [God’s] blessing …knowing
that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own (Kennedy, Jan 1961).
References
Aquinas, T.
(1274). Summa Theologica. CCEL.org
Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.html.
Beveridge, H. (n.d.) John Calvin, Institutes of
Christian Religion. Retrieved from https://ctschicago.instructure.com/courses/85/pages/required-erasmus-luther-and-calvin-on-free-will-and-predestination?module_item_id=6564.
Cole, H. (n.d.) Luther, The Bondage of the Will.
Retrieved from https://ctschicago.instructure.com/courses/85/pages/required-erasmus-luther-and-calvin-on-free-will-and-predestination?module_item_id=6564
Calvin, J. (1539) Institutes of Christian Religion.
Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.ii.html.
Kennedy, J. F.
(Jan. 1961). Inaugural Address. JFK Library. Retrieved from https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/inaugural-address
Luther, M. (1520). Concerning Christian Liberty.
Retrieved from http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/cclib-2.html.
McKim, D. K. (1996). Westminster Dictionary of
Theological Terms. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Unger, F. (1961).
Desiderius Erasmus, On Free Will. Retrieved from https://ctschicago.instructure.com/courses/85/pages/required-erasmus-luther-and-calvin-on-free-will-and-predestination?module_item_id=6564
