But on the other and very real hand, in Calvins mini-theocratic state of Geneva all dancing, singing (other than hymns), bells, incense, playing cards, entertainment and even laughter were proscribed by harsh punishments, even execution.
Women, the traditional bearers and images/agents of beauty, were forbidden to wear lace, rouge, jewelry, or fine, colourful clothes.
Meanwhile under his theocratic regime Calvins own stepson and daughter in law were both executed for adultery—plus their two lovers. And Calvin had his former friend, the polymath Michael Servetus, burned at the stake because he MS publicly criticised Calvin.
For the record, I’ve quoted this not because I am 100% for Calvin (for I am not) but to demonstrate to Calvanist friends that I am not 100% against Calvin (for I am not) … and hopefully to stimulate some thinking about the immanence of God.
Given previous diatribes I have launched against both captial punishment and theocracy, both here and elsewhere, I don’t think regular readers would have too much difficulty in seeing that I am highly critical of the man. Just as critical as you even. But, having stirred the Reformed pot quite a bit over the last few weeks, I would like to show that I am not incapable of finding redemptive value in some of what Calvin had to say. Call it a balancing post if you will.
And what I find interesting about these comments relating to God’s immanence is that they originate with the man many would see as least likely to champion it, the man more often associated with statements about God’s transcendence and sovereignty. I find they get me thinking.
Curious Christian
But on the other and very real hand, in Calvins mini-theocratic state of Geneva all dancing, singing (other than hymns), bells, incense, playing cards, entertainment and even laughter were proscribed by harsh punishments, even execution.
Women, the traditional bearers and images/agents of beauty, were forbidden to wear lace, rouge, jewelry, or fine, colourful clothes.
Meanwhile under his theocratic regime Calvins own stepson and daughter in law were both executed for adultery—plus their two lovers. And Calvin had his former friend, the polymath Michael Servetus, burned at the stake because he MS publicly criticised Calvin.
LikeLike
For the record, I’ve quoted this not because I am 100% for Calvin (for I am not) but to demonstrate to Calvanist friends that I am not 100% against Calvin (for I am not) … and hopefully to stimulate some thinking about the immanence of God.
Given previous diatribes I have launched against both captial punishment and theocracy, both here and elsewhere, I don’t think regular readers would have too much difficulty in seeing that I am highly critical of the man. Just as critical as you even. But, having stirred the Reformed pot quite a bit over the last few weeks, I would like to show that I am not incapable of finding redemptive value in some of what Calvin had to say. Call it a balancing post if you will.
And what I find interesting about these comments relating to God’s immanence is that they originate with the man many would see as least likely to champion it, the man more often associated with statements about God’s transcendence and sovereignty. I find they get me thinking.
LikeLike