I Don't Think He Should Have Done That to That Guy

It weirds me out when people rally behind a guy who acts all smart and stuff, but also rejects the faith as it's been practiced for centuries.  People actually follow him, and adopt his ideas, and it's frightening. 

I think it would be a good idea to ignore people who identify with him, or quote him, approvingly!  It's scary how easily people can set aside hundreds of years of tradition, and try to fashion things their way.

Not only does he write revolutionary books, challenging long-cherished beliefs, he thinks he can re-think what the church itself should look like!  That takes arrogance.  And there exists an entire movement of "churches" centered around this guy's thinking!  It's scary. 

Is he really a God-ordained authority, from whom we should take our theological cues?  His personal life will tell you what you need to know:  This guy got in a "blog war" of sorts, with another writer, and he didn't handle disagreement very well.  I know this because he had the other guy killed.  Burned him at the stake.  I know it's a rough-and-tumble world of ideas out there, but, to me, that's rude.

Granted, he wanted to chop the other guy's head off, instead, which would have been more humane, but still.  Plus, after he took over a city, he had a couple dozen other people burned at the stake.  Again:  Red flag, folks!   You'd think that would be enough for people to write the guy off as a new theological authority, but noooooo.

Some call him a "theological humanist".  And a rumor:  He doesn't think Revelation should be in the canon! True?  Maybe not, but that's what happens when you decide to reject Truth as we've always known it:  Everything is up for grabs.  And people still follow this guy and read his stuff!

That John Calvin burns me up. 

Comments

[not so sure]

Disclaimer: I don't agree with a lot of what Brian McLaren says.

There...now to the comment:

Interesting how the intimation in some comments here is that Brian McLaren does what he does because he really does not take the Bible seriously.

Just because someone thinks/interprets differently doesn't mean they don't take the texts seriously.

As far as fruit goes, I can say that despite my disagreement with Brian Mac about things, I would rather have the heart and comportment and graciousness of him than some of the folk who are the loudest critics with the highest profiles that disagree with him.

That's fruit too and it speaks volumes.

Bottom line: It's stupid to pit people against each other.

[Brady]

Everything must change! (to Brian's liking, that is).

Although I am on the fence about the whole "election vs. free will" argument, from what I can see Calvin is admired for his ideas, not for his stellar example. (I, on the other hand, am admired for neither my ideas, nor my example! )

Calvin: right message, wrong messenger. McLaren: Wrong message.

[T]

Definitely worthy of more thought in our day: "The important question, of course, to so many, is what your opinions are on the Bible, rather than your manner of living."

[Live fromIL]

I think God intends for all these views to cause controversy and discussion. The establised church should be questioned just as Jesus questioned it. But what this movement and Calvin's is doing is establishing a new "church" instead of missioning the word of God.

[Bob Sacamento]

I'm completely confused.

[Greg]

So my question is: would you agree that Boston's album Boston is far superior to say...Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon and/or Keith Green's "Songs for the Shepherd"?

[Marie]

Also, Calvin was a civil magistrate. Then as now, we have the death penalty. For him to lawfully exercise a death penalty as a civil magistrate is not the same as "killing people who disagree with him."

Maybe we don't agree with the death penalty. Maybe we don't think the death penalty should apply for theological offenses. However, at the time, that was the law. He wasn't running around burning people because he was in a bad mood.

Look at the result of Muslim heresy run rampant. Girls getting their genitals cut off. Children being trained to assassinate our president on puppet shows. Women dying in agony of treatable diseases because they can't let a male doctor see them naked. Is is possible that some heretics should get the death penalty? If not, and millions follow their lunacy, many more of us seem to get the death penalty.

I don't think Calvin was right about everything. But I think you indict with far too broad a brush. I'd rather live under him as civil magistrate than, say, Mohammed.

[From Brant: So he rules a city as a theocrat, and is, effectively, the law, and supervises executing people who don't agree with him, but it's not his responsibility because it's the law...?

Just trying to follow. And, I hadn't thought about it, but by being theological leader and lawmaker, there is some commonality with Mohammed, yes.]

[russ]

Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!

[Steve Sensenig]

Marie wrote: "Is is possible that some heretics should get the death penalty? If not, and millions follow their lunacy, many more of us seem to get the death penalty."

Wow. What New Testament are you reading????

[Brant]

Steve, I *think* she's saying (and correct me if I'm wrong, Marie) that there could be a net savings of lives by killing heretics. Hence, Calvin was on to something.

Now, from my view, I might add that if that were true then, it's true now.

So if, say, we take over a city and call it, oh -- I don't know -- "MacArthurville", we might be acting mercifully by putting to death heretics like, oh -- I don't know -- me.

Or if it's "Driscollville", say goodbye to me and Rob Bell or Brian McLaren or the guy who wrote the novel "The Shack".

If I'm on the gallows with Rob Bell, we'll probably talk some U2. That's my guess. Especially if Bono's there with us.

[sonja]

This seems appropriate:

http://asbojesus.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/433/

[Cory Dean West]

Great post-very creative!

[rob smith]

Looks like I'd go down with the heretics as well. I am so glad some folks have the human experience wrapped up in a neat little package.

[Marie]

Oh, you guys, no fair. My point is, Calvin was a civil magistrate AND a preacher.

I think the "death penalty" stuff he agreed to was within his role as a civil magistrate, not as the preacher at 1st Presbyterian Church of Geneva.

I said we might argue about whether there should be a death penalty for heresy - the reason being, SOME heresies (like the female genital mutilation delights) result in the maiming and death of many innocent people -

not McArthur or Brandt or Marie heresies, that's what not fair, I'm talking about major, murderous heresies (kill all the Jews, you know, that kind of stuff?)-

but that would be in the realm and under the authority of a civil magistrate, not the local pastor.

I am reading the same NT as you are.

[Samuel Jones]

I'm hanging with Marie on this one, as regards Calvin. And sometimes ham-fisted sarcasm only serves to create straw men and burn them, rather than actually engage someone's ideas. Though it is handy for looking smart and right in a short space.

I agree that this post isn't fair to Calvin, not that the 'facts' are wrong, but the terms used are somewhat misleading. In his Historical context, where the separation of church and state was a new idea on the fringes, and where the law, unfortunately, demanded the execution of heretics, Calvin served essentially as prosecuting attorney for Michael Servetus. He should have averted the course of Catholic and Protestent wrath and made one more huge reform against this kind of punishment, but. . . well, he failed to see that. (I'm sure none of us would make that mistake.)

But that's not the point of the post, or I think what really bothers me about it. The point of the post, from what I can tell is, look, McLaren's trying to reform a big, clunky religious establishment, and so was Calvin. Let's think about why we're so upset about what McLaren's doing, when Calvin did things that were a lot meaner, and McLaren is a famously nice guy. Let's not be the religious mob that crucified Jesus, right?

But the comparison isn't fair, not because of what I just said about Calvin, but because while both Calvin and McLaren call for religious reform, their GROUNDS for that call are totally different. I think easing up our position or being 'open minded' for the simple fact of the possibility of good religious reform would be dangerous, and we have to consider the grounds. To contrast: Calvin's ground for reform was, in a word, The Bible. McLaren's grounds for reform are. . . a little harder to pin down. . . and more about being nice. . . you know . . .like Jesus the man . . . except where Jesus said things about Hell. . . that's not really that nice. . . maybe we'll leave that part out?

I guess the irony is that both Calvin and McLaren are products of their age, and both demonstrate a blindness caused by the philosophy they're immersed in. Calvin, in the Church-Power age convicted a heretic who was burned. McLaren, steeped in Postmodern aversion to solid Truth is calling into question a lot of basic principles most Evangelicals would call cardinal. But I guess in neither case, is that really what they are about, and both must lean on the grace of Christ for their blind-spots. Yeah, even Bono and Mark Driscoll too, who incidentally, I believe, still calls Brian McLaren, "Friend."

[From Brant: Well, here's to heretical friends.

From what I can tell, I would hate to be in Calvin's Geneva. My understanding is that he *was*, in large part, the law there, not a lawyer in the system.

Again, my point wasn't that McLaren and Calvin are equivalent in all respects. I think most people got that. I don't have a bad, or good, impression of McLaren, other than you say he's a nice guy, and that's nice.

Attacking what McLaren believes is fair. Proudly calling one's self after a man whose own public behavior was VERY hard to reconcile with the message of Jesus, while attacking McLaren's beliefs -- that should feel awkward.]

[Steve Sensenig]

Marie wrote: I am reading the same NT as you are.

Maybe you are, but your comments about dealing with heresy have no foundation in that New Testament. I don't remember anything in there about certain heresies a) being worthy of the death penalty, or b) better dealt with in civil courts.

In fact, we are told quite clearly how to deal with false teaching in the church, and it does not include putting the false teachers to death. And we are told not to dispute our matters in civil courts.

Furthermore, I don't buy the dichotomy of "John Calvin the pastor" and "John Calvin the civil magistrate". If he was so merciful as to request that Servetus be beheaded instead of burned at the stake (a request that was denied), could he not have just as easily pleaded for mercy and the sparing of a life? And if his duties as civil magistrate went against his conscience, would he not have stepped down from his duties?

The OT law called for the death penalty for adulterers, and yet Jesus let one go when confronted with it and did not permit her to be stoned. Do you think, then, that Jesus really means for us to go back to the death penalty for certain things?

I'm sorry, but the very notion that there might be certain heresies that you or anyone else can decide are worthy of death is appalling/disturbing to me because that seems to be exactly the mindset that generated many of the atrocities in the name of Christ over the centuries. Who determines the line that gets drawn? And on what basis? Certainly not the New Testament.

[Marie]

Ok Steve.

How about the heresy that Jews are pigs and must be herded up and killed? Should people implementing that heretical notion be subject to a death penalty by a lawful government?

How about the heresy that ten year old girls should have their genitals cut off? Should people implementing that heretical notion be subject to a death penalty by a lawful government?

If you oppose the death penalty completely, which many do, I guess you'd say "no." Still I must believe you'd want some sort of punishment for these heresies?

I am not defending or applauding the beheading of Servetus. I don't know enough about the issue. I am just saying that, to be fair to Calvin, we have to allow for the fact that he was a head of state and did many things pastors aren't called to do.

[Steve Sensenig]

Marie, I really do understand your position. What I'm trying to convey, though, is that one cannot use "civil magistrate" as an excuse for behavior that is un-Christlike.

As a matter of fact, I do oppose the death penalty. But the issue at play in this discussion is that Calvin was not dealing with the types of practices that you are talking about. And the people who are figuratively burning McLaren and others at the stake for asking questions about traditional beliefs are not dealing with those abominable practices, either.

Do I believe those abominable practices should be stopped? Yes, absolutely. But is the answer to murder people? No, I don't believe that has to be the answer.

However, if a civil government decides that is how they are going to deal with it, I do not have to go along with it or support it.

Dealing with "heresy" should be the domain of the body of Christ, not the civil courts, which is kind of the point I was making. And if we are dealing with it as the body of Christ, murder is not an option given to us by Jesus or anywhere else in the New Testament.

That's why I posed the question of who decides what are "capital punishment" heresies, and which ones aren't? And on what basis?

It's easy to pull out the extreme examples, and say, "See? We need to deal with that." But where do you draw the line? And on what basis (to repeat the unanswered question again) does anyone make that decision?

Calvin was not having people put to death because they were harming other people physically. He was having people put to death because he believed that their doctrine was wrong. And he hid behind the "civil magistrate" power to do it.

Note that Calvin left Geneva until there was enough political power for him to rule there. That, in itself, makes his behavior quite suspect, seeing as how Jesus told us NOT to rule over each other "as the Gentiles do".

For people to now excuse or defend his behavior (I'm not sure that you are, or aren't, but many do) and put him on a pedestal as a great "saint" is, in my opinion, rather deplorable.

I think that, in part, was the point of the post Brant wrote.

[Marie]

Fair enough, Steve, I think we basically understand each other.

(joins hands, sings happy song)

The church seems to always be struggling with the role of the civil magistrate. Perhaps we always will be.

Some heresies lead to serious stuff like mass murder and so on, that was my point. So I was asking, are there any heresies that the civil magistrate can legitimately block?
If so, where do we draw the line?

As far as I know, Servetus wasn't in that category, but I'd have to read up on it.

[BamaDan]

Wow - I'm so glad I read all those comments. I thought that was Dave Ramsey's mugshot. I was wondering what was so wrong with getting out of debt.

[John]

Calvin was a creature of his times and couldn't get the burn-the-heretic bug out of his system. He got it from the Catholic Church, not from Scripture.

Interesting, thought-provoking, post.