I think every five year old child masters the infinite question loop. If you’re a parent, you know exactly what I am talking about. Asking a seemingly straightforward question the child says something like: ‘Dad, why is the sky red at sunset?’ After the parent brain-vomits something vaguely remembered from high school earth science, the child invariably responds: ‘why?’ Thus begins the nightmare. As the near-infinite regress regresses, the parent must invoke a level of causality beyond explanation. Usually God enters the picture as the parent notes that the consistent behavior of celestial bodies represents a manifestation of the divine will. To which the child replies… well, you know.
John Calvin faces a similar situation as he examines God’s role in predestination and providence. He has searched the ancient writings and considered the opinions of the sages. As he opens the topic to his audience, he warns:
"Let us not be ashamed to be ignorant of something in a matter where there is an ignorance which is more learned than knowledge. Instead, let us be quite content to abstain from desiring a knowledge which it is mad and dangerous and even deadly to pursue."
I think Calvin makes an important statement here: At some point, we have to recognize our limitations. For literally thousands of years, philosophers, theologians and regular people have considered the person of God and placed their thoughts on scrolls, papyri and paper. Libraries are packed to overflowing with both good and bad information, enough to spend a thousand lifetimes reading, sifting and debating. At the same time, the advance of theological knowledge often comes from people who question established dogma, asking one more question and spending a lifetime pursuing the answer.
While Calvin warns us to acknowledge our limitations, the absoluteness of his remarks stifle further investigation and should be tempered. Instead of commanding abstinence, he should have urged caution for anyone attempting to understand God’s rule further. Perhaps Calvin’s greatest weakness stems from his inability to accept some who disagreed with him. Sebastian Castellio was one such dissenter on minor points of theology and Bible. As an educated man with considerable facility in the ancient languages, his criticism of Calvin may have opened further investigation. Instead of considering his input, Calvin marginalized him politically and financially.
The unwillingness to accommodate dissent represents a key weakness for Calvin. In a way, it is as if a frustrated father tells his child to stop asking ‘why?’ While we should all recognize Calvin’s important contributions to theology, there may be further questions to ask which don’t actually lead to madness, danger and death.
Your musings on Calvin are just in time for Reformation Day this year, Todd. So congrats.
ReplyDeleteI believe with this latest post you've hit upon a rather fundamental aspect of one's theology/worldview/story. Is the pursuit of knowledge part of fulfilling man's purpose, or is it an endeavor that is distracting, futile, and even perhaps harmful? The Biblical creation story seems to suggest that mankind was designed to learn about (and thereby "subdue") the earth while operating with a certain level of acceptable ignorance (that is, the ignorance of good and evil). The question is, Where are lines drawn? It seems Adam and Eve had it rather easy -- one simple commandment, short, simple, and unmistakable in its intent. Today, however, we have to first interpret the Biblical texts before we can begin to draw lines of appropriate/inappropriate knowledge/experience. Unfortunately for us, the interpretation process itself often requires drawing those lines a priori, as you point out with the example of Calvin and his writings.
As one cursed with the inability to mentally grow up and stop asking, "Why?", I find it amusing (actually rather annoying) that many pastors/teachers/leaders in evangelical circles assume that it is a straightforward process to distinguish "appropriate" questions (controversial, or doctrines they don't think are 100% set in stone) from "inappropriate" questions("orthodox" or unquestionable doctrine), and so they avoid examination and/or explanation of their reasons for selecting their own particular interpretations.
Kudos to you for bringing up such an important question; that is, the question of appropriate/inappropriate questions.