John Calvin on the Revolution

I originally posted the following on April 20, 2004 but it is a fitting follow up to my review of George Barna's book Revolution.  Barna suggests that the future will bring a revolution in Christendom where believers will be leaving the church in droves in order to be the church.  But, as you can see from these words of John Calvin, this revolution that Barna touts as future has been going on for at least 400 years or more now.

As a follow up to yesterday's post on the church, here are few snippets from Book 4, chapter 1 of Calvin's Institutes - "Of the True Church." These deal with the many reasons that people put forth as to why they wish to separate from the church.

When we say that the pure ministry of the word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and earnest, so that we may safely recognise a church in every society in which both exist, our meaning is, that we are never to discard it so long as these remain, though it may otherwise teem with numerous faults.

Our indulgence ought to extend much farther in tolerating imperfection of conduct. Here there is great danger of falling, and Satan employs all his machinations to ensnare us. For there always have been persons who, imbued with a false persuasion of absolute holiness, as if they had already become a kind of aërial spirits,spurn the society of all in whom they see that something human still remains. Such of old were the Cathari and the Donatists, who were similarly infatuated. Such in the present day are some of the Anabaptists, who would be thought to have made superior progress. Others, again, sin in this respect, not so much from that insane pride as from inconsiderate zeal. Seeing that among those to whom the gospel is preached, the fruit produced is not in accordance with the doctrine, they forthwith conclude that there no church exists. The offence is indeed well founded, and it is one to which in this most unhappy age we give far too much occasion . . . Still those of whom we have spoken sin in their turn, by not knowing how to set bounds to their offence. For where the Lord requires mercy they omit it, and give themselves up to immoderate severity. Thinking there is no church where there is not complete purity and integrity of conduct, they, through hatred of wickedness, withdraw from a genuine church, while they think they are shunning the company of the ungodly. They allege that the Church of God is holy. But that they may at the same time understand that it contains a mixture of good and bad, let them hear from the lips of our Saviour that parable in which he compares the Church to a net in which all kinds of fishes are taken, but not separated until they are brought ashore. Let them hear it compared to a field which, planted with good seed, is by the fraud of an enemy mingled with tares, and is not freed of them until the harvest is brought into the barn. Let them hear, in fine, that it is a thrashing-floor in which the collected wheat lies concealed under the chaff, until, cleansed by the fanners and the sieve, it is at length laid up in the granary. If the Lord declares that the Church will labour under the defect of being burdened with a multitude of wicked until the day of judgment, it is in vain to look for a church altogether free from blemish (Mt. 13).

They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle’s sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors, but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits, and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the Gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order: If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel (Gal. 1:6), and yet among them the same apostle found churches?

But because pastors are not always sedulously vigilant, are sometimes also more indulgent than they ought, or are prevented from acting so strictly as they could wish; the consequence is, that even the openly wicked are not always excluded from the fellowship of the saints. This I admit to be a vice, and I have no wish to extenuate it, seeing that Paul sharply rebukes it in the Corinthians. But although the Church fail in her duty, it does not therefore follow that every private individual is to decide the question of separation for himself.

For when he exhorts us to pure and holy communion, he does not require that we should examine others, or that every one should examine the whole church, but that each should examine himself (1 Cor. 11:28, 29).

Still, however, even the good are sometimes affected by this inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, though we shall find that this excessive moroseness is more the result of pride and a false idea of sanctity, than genuine sanctity itself, and true zeal for it. Accordingly, those who are the most forward, and, as it were, leaders in producing revolt from the Church, have, for the most part, no other motive than to display their own superiority by despising all other men.

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (IV, i, 12-16). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

As a follow up to yesterday's post on the church, here are few snippets from Book 4, chapter 1 of Calvin's Institutes - "Of the True Church." These deal with the many reasons that people put forth as to why they wish to separate from the church.

When we say that the pure ministry of the word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and earnest, so that we may safely recognise a church in every society in which both exist, our meaning is, that we are never to discard it so long as these remain, though it may otherwise teem with numerous faults.

Our indulgence ought to extend much farther in tolerating imperfection of conduct. Here there is great danger of falling, and Satan employs all his machinations to ensnare us. For there always have been persons who, imbued with a false persuasion of absolute holiness, as if they had already become a kind of aërial spirits,spurn the society of all in whom they see that something human still remains. Such of old were the Cathari and the Donatists, who were similarly infatuated. Such in the present day are some of the Anabaptists, who would be thought to have made superior progress. Others, again, sin in this respect, not so much from that insane pride as from inconsiderate zeal. Seeing that among those to whom the gospel is preached, the fruit produced is not in accordance with the doctrine, they forthwith conclude that there no church exists. The offence is indeed well founded, and it is one to which in this most unhappy age we give far too much occasion . . . Still those of whom we have spoken sin in their turn, by not knowing how to set bounds to their offence. For where the Lord requires mercy they omit it, and give themselves up to immoderate severity. Thinking there is no church where there is not complete purity and integrity of conduct, they, through hatred of wickedness, withdraw from a genuine church, while they think they are shunning the company of the ungodly. They allege that the Church of God is holy. But that they may at the same time understand that it contains a mixture of good and bad, let them hear from the lips of our Saviour that parable in which he compares the Church to a net in which all kinds of fishes are taken, but not separated until they are brought ashore. Let them hear it compared to a field which, planted with good seed, is by the fraud of an enemy mingled with tares, and is not freed of them until the harvest is brought into the barn. Let them hear, in fine, that it is a thrashing-floor in which the collected wheat lies concealed under the chaff, until, cleansed by the fanners and the sieve, it is at length laid up in the granary. If the Lord declares that the Church will labour under the defect of being burdened with a multitude of wicked until the day of judgment, it is in vain to look for a church altogether free from blemish (Mt. 13).

They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle’s sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors, but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits, and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the Gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order: If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel (Gal. 1:6), and yet among them the same apostle found churches?

But because pastors are not always sedulously vigilant, are sometimes also more indulgent than they ought, or are prevented from acting so strictly as they could wish; the consequence is, that even the openly wicked are not always excluded from the fellowship of the saints. This I admit to be a vice, and I have no wish to extenuate it, seeing that Paul sharply rebukes it in the Corinthians. But although the Church fail in her duty, it does not therefore follow that every private individual is to decide the question of separation for himself.

For when he exhorts us to pure and holy communion, he does not require that we should examine others, or that every one should examine the whole church, but that each should examine himself (1 Cor. 11:28, 29).

Still, however, even the good are sometimes affected by this inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, though we shall find that this excessive moroseness is more the result of pride and a false idea of sanctity, than genuine sanctity itself, and true zeal for it. Accordingly, those who are the most forward, and, as it were, leaders in producing revolt from the Church, have, for the most part, no other motive than to display their own superiority by despising all other men.

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (IV, i, 12-16). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Comments

[Zeke]

Still, however, even the good are sometimes affected by this inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, though we shall find that this excessive moroseness is more the result of pride and a false idea of sanctity, than genuine sanctity itself, and true zeal for it. Accordingly, those who are the most forward, and, as it were, leaders in producing revolt from the Church, have, for the most part, no other motive than to display their own superiority by despising all other men.

So this is the take-away we are supposed to get from this piece? That those of us who are cutting anchor from local churches have "no other motive than to display" our own "superiority by despising all other men"? That this is a "result of pride and a false idea of sanctity"?

Seriously, this doesn't even address the issue at hand... although I can see that if you believe that it does why you would be dismissive of it.

Well, tell you what. I won't comment further until I read the Barna book. Thanks again for addressing this.

[David Wayne]

Let the apostle Paul be your guide - did he cut anchor from local churches when they were riddled with sin. How does the knowledge of your own depravity affect the way you view the people in those local churches you are cutting anchor from? Do you consider the people in those local churches you are cutting anchor from as better than yourself? Are you as concerned for their spiritual welfare as your own?

Like I said in a prior post - I do believe there are times to separate from a local church, Paul and Barnabas give an example. Sometimes issues arise that make it difficult at best, or impossible at worst, to fellowship with a particular church.

And as I mentioned in my prior posts Barna's rationale that we cut anchor to eliminate people who are obstacles or who we deem less committed than ourselves doesn't cut the mustard.

[Zeke]

Allright, I bought the book today and am well into it so I feel comfortable continuing the conversation.

David, you persist in making this about cutting people off or abandoning them. For me anyway, and for the people Barna is describing, that isn't what it's about. Many of us see the church as demanding a great deal of time and resources for purposes that are not entirely clear, often self-serving, and ultimately not satisfying as an outlet for spiritual gifts. One of the things that Barna has stressed, and that I have experienced, is that there are other ways to fellowship and serve outside the peculiar institution that the church in America has become. Being in fellowship doesn't have to mean enduring 50-100 three-point evangelical sermons in a year. I'm sure yours are fresh and inspiring and well worth the investment of rump time in a pew, but I can get all the Bible teaching I could ever want from other sources. And I can serve through any number of Christian charity organizations. I don't know why I should feel compelled to grant a virtual monopoly on worship, service, giving, learning and teaching to my local church when a variety of alternatives exist that may be a better, more godly use of my resources.

I don't think that the Revolutionary life that Barna is describing is necessarily for everyone, and will certainly not empty out the churches. But could it be--maybe--that God is calling out a collection of people for his own purposes and that it's not just a bunch of haughty, narrow-minded individuals that want to take a meat cleaver to the Body of Christ? That there could be some "there" there?

[cavman]

Sorry Zeke,
I just don't get it. It sounds too much like pragmatism and 'despising' your brother in search of the 'celebrity pastor' who preaches better than the guy down the street who will actually love you (however imperfectly).
Not only that, but you cut yourself off from some of the means of grace, like communion. Unless you want to pop in when they are offered like a disgruntled teenager who only comes home to eat.
How is this submitting to one another? How are you living in a community where there is support & accountability? How will you know if you go off the deep end theologically or morally?
All of us are incredibly able to deceive ourselves and justify our actions.
I agree, we can benefit from books & sermons from the wider body. We can benefit from relationships w/Christians we do not worship with regularly.
But we all need a community of people to whom we commit and who are committed to us.
Isn't the fact that wherever the Gospel went local fellowships focused on community, prayer, teaching, mercy & evangelism popped up compelling? This is no accident. It ought to humble all of us. God provides much of what we need (not necessarily what we think we need) through such local bodies.
The way we 'do church' may be imperfect, but 'church' is an essential part of following Jesus. We can't pick & choose as if we're lords of our destiny.
Please... rethink this.

[Zeke]

Cavman, I am certainly not in search of any celebrity pastors, and I don't see why community=church. There are other paradigms for community that don't involve buildings, boards, and pastors.

Believe me, I too hunger for more community. If you think that Barna's Revolution is about rejecting community, or even the total rejection of the local church, you are just mistaken. Here's a quote from Barna (Revolution, p.61):

A century ago, carmaker Henry Ford professed his willingness to give people choice in their selection of color for his cars. "People can have a Model T in any color they want-as long as it's black." That's pretty similar to the view of many Americans regarding how people should pursue spiritual growth--through any means they want, as long as it is connected to the efforts of a local church.
...[H]owever, the Revolution is changing the way in which people anchor their faith pursuits. For some Revolutionaries, their congregational experience is the linchpin of their faith journey. For many others, a local church plays a minor role in their journey. For millions of others, the local church is nowhere to be found on their agenda. Yet the majority of Revolutionaries are involved in some form of "church."

[Seth]

Zeke,
Please continue to comment because you are showing that you just don't get it.

Even the Barna quote PROVES Davids point. The point is: THE LOCAL CHURCH IS NOT OPTIONAL OR DISPOSABLE. You are saying "Yeah, some people are going to need to local church and its not going away...blah blah blah".

And their are many troubling difficulties in the modern local church. But the Bible NOWHERE holds out lone ranger Christianity as a viable alternative.

Working through those difficulties in fellowship with Christian brothers is part of the job of being a Christian. It makes us better people.

The temptation will be to redefine what a covenant community is. Please tell me, what is a covenant community? What does a covenant community look like? And please tell me, if you aren't going to get "covenant community" from the local church where are you going to get it from?

[dorsey]

David, how are you defining "church?" Are you talking about the universal body of Christ (or where 2 or 3 are gathered), or are you talking about the institution, the tax-exempt corporation?

[cavman]

Zeke,
It is not about buildings. The early church often met in homes.

I'm with you, many congregations spend WAY too much on buildings.

But, what are these other opportunities for instruction? Are you talking about small groups?

Small groups are great, but don't exhaust or satisfy our need for instruction and encouragement.

One of the images of the church in the pastoral epistles is the household of God (1 Tim). This means there is an authority structure (elders) which provides pastoral care of the sheep. This goes beyond the one another care that is also essential. They must give an account, and the people are told to obey them (Heb. 13).

Unlike Henry Ford there are some things we cannot be innovative about. We are, after all, under the authority of Christ thru Scripture. We are not free to pick and choose as we wish. We may choose which church (hopefully based on biblical criteria) but not whether or not church. We may choose which pastor (again, biblical criteria) but not whether nor not a pastor at all.
I fear you are captive to your opinions, instead of taking every thought captive and making it obedient to Christ (2 Cor. 10). Do you have wrongs committed against you by churches that need to be forgiven?

[cavman]

Dorsey,

The 2 or 3 gathered together is set w/in the context of church discipline (Mt. 18). The point of the passage is the ability of the church to excommunicate those who refuse to repent of sin.
When we remove it from this context we have to be very careful lest we believe it says something it does not.

[dorsey]

"The point of the passage is the ability of the church to excommunicate those who refuse to repent of sin."

Do you really believe that's the point of this passage? Holy prooftexting, Batman! Do you believe other people shouldn't be given too much freedom, lest they abuse it?

In your eagerness to eject the troublemakers, you seem to have overlooked the larger context of Matthew 18, which couches your excommunication passage in between the parables of the lost sheep and of the unmerciful servant. When we remove it from this context we have to be very careful lest we believe it says something it does not.

This raises another question: Some translations say "If your brother sins against you," while some omit, "against you." Where do you draw the line between a confrontable offense and one to just let it go?

(tangential question: Exactly how did Jesus treat pagans and tax collectors? hmm..)

[Zeke]

The temptation will be to redefine what a covenant community is. Please tell me, what is a covenant community? What does a covenant community look like? And please tell me, if you aren't going to get "covenant community" from the local church where are you going to get it from?

Seth, you are the one who is talking about 'covenantal community' so perhaps the definition should come from you. And some Biblical support for why a Christian must submit to a local church would be appreciated. Until now, we've pretty much just had our motives impuned. I would welcome some Scriptural instruction.

[cavman]

Yes Dorsey,
I do believe that is what it is about.

This is not prooftexting. It is trying to keep it in context.

Really, how can it be anything but removing the unrepentant (and restoring the repentant).

As you said... the parable of the lost sheep illustrates that we are to seek out our brother who has sinned. Not avoid him/her, pretend it didn't happen or talk badly about them.
Church discipline as Jesus describes it is to seek them out in the hopes of restoration upon repentance.
Jesus' instruction ends with those who refuse to listen should be treated as pagans and tax collectors- those who need the Great News for justification.
Excommunication is not banishment. It is a further attempt to bring them to repentance by saying, as far as we can tell, they are an unbeliever since they refuse to confess their sin.
Lest we go too far, Jesus tells the parable ofthe Unmerciful Servant. We must restore those who repent. They can come back, and we should bring those who come seeking mercy back into the church.
To remove it from this context to mean something like "as long as 2 or 3 are gathered, we have a church" or "as long as 2 people agree with me my prayer will be answered" is to do violence to the context.
The 2 or 3 are the minimum # of witnesses required in a capital case in the OT. There must be ample testimony before we take so severe a step.
I fail to see how you could see me as "eager to eject the troublemakers". I merely addressed the context of the passage. I have had to address people about serious matters- I don't do it eagerly. Perhaps David will start a "church discipline thread" sometime.

[cavman]

Zeke,
once again, as mentioned in one of my previous posts.... Hebrews 13:17.

Obey your leaders, and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Clearly the context is church leaders, not state officials. The whole letter is occupied with the assembly, not its relationship w/the state. That would seem to great a leap/switch w/out some signifiers.

[Keith Brown]

I find it uplifting to see Calvin's words so fitting to our time. What is most uplifitng is his ability to let the light of Scripture shine on dark days in the church. Truly there is nothing new under the sun. Thanks for your blog.