Section five is a celebration of Social Calvinism's greatest
innovation and perhaps one of its greatest sins – the fictitious and wicked
doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate – the idea that it's permissible and even
obligatory for men to take up the sword against their ruler as long as they do
it under the aegis of a lesser (or lower ranking) magistrate who is
(supposedly) on the basis of law acting to curb tyranny.
This gives credibility to the uprising and supposedly
divorces it from the chaos of individuals taking up the sword and killing their
masters. As long as they do it as a group with a subordinate master in the
leadership role – then it's permissible. And you can be sure there's always a
Demosthenes waiting in the wings to make the case for war.
Of course this whole line of discussion is absurd as Romans
13 was written during the time of Nero. The passage is tortured by these false
teachers to prescribe a supposed ideal that the Early Church could not practically
pursue or so we're told. But when read (without the artificial chapter
division) with the preceding section in what we call chapter 12, it's revealed
to be no ideal of good government, minimalist libertarian republicanism or even
a Christian state but a description of the realities of this age and how we are
to conduct ourselves. The larger passage contrasts Christian ethics with the
ethics of the state in a fallen world. The state is vengeance and yet we don't take
up the cause of vengeance. Though the likes of Olasky chafe at this suggestion
it needs to be said – it's a necessary evil. The state serves a providential
purpose but we have a different calling and therefore cannot abandon our
Christian vocation and take up the sword. Hiding behind a badge or uniform does
not change this. We must never embrace a kind of consequentialist ethic
thinking we can sin that good may come.
Also note the use of pronouns – 'we' applies to the Church not American
society. We're not really and truly part of that 'we'. We're pilgrims and
strangers. We honour the laws, pay the taxes and pray for the peace of the city
but we live as pilgrim subjects – not citizens. We have no rights, nor do we
claim them.
Contrary to popular Evangelical perception, Paul did not use
his citizenship as a means of gain, a means to improve society, nor did he view
himself as invested in it. He used shame (but stopped short of legal action he
could have pursued) and he used their system to protect himself from mob
violence but he never asserted his rights or expressed a positive belief in
government. In fact he states clearly in 1 Corinthians 5-6, that the state is
part of the 'outside' or the world – and that clearly we have nothing to do
with it. Many focus on the prohibition on Christians suing Christians but the larger
passage represents a rejection of the courts and any attempt by Christians to
seek redress, invest in the state or for that matter hold it accountable.
Contrary to Olasky and Calvin, Paul was not trying to change society and had no
concern for laying the groundwork for some future form of godly government.
We have no stake in their project. We Christians can say that
we're Americans but the Social Calvinism doctrine especially as elaborated by
the likes of Schaeffer and Olasky results in a conflated and confused 'we' –
and a loss of identity as a result.
Calvin (and Olasky) turn New Testament doctrine and ethics on
their head and as a consequence teach holy murder and holy theft. The Founders
sinned in their rebellion and yet in providential terms it happened. They
became the powers that be. I neither sanction it nor reject it. It just is. I
can say that as a pilgrim, stranger and exile whose citizenship is in heaven.
Social Calvinism and in particular the flavour endorsed by Olasky rejects this
very basic New Testament concept. No pilgrims, they would in the capacity of
holy vocation claim real estate, kin and gold as expressions of the Holy
Kingdom – and thus Social Calvinism is revealed to be a rank heresy of the
highest order. This is the tragedy and the sham of the Magisterial Reformation
and why we need to revisit Church History and reconsider the narrative.
The Huguenots were certainly murdered in August of 1572 but
they were not murdered as martyrs – they were politically murdered because they
had taken up the sword and schemed and plotted to control the French crown.
It's tragic and I don't doubt many sincere Christians died but they were wrong
and we shouldn't shirk from saying it.
Olasky overplays Calvin's influence in 18th
century colonial America but I will grant that he's right to a certain extent.
There's a long line of heretics that have perpetuated this teaching – this
sacralising of the sword and coin. This is the dark legacy of Calvin that has
played out on multiple continents and has reaped a harvest of great evil.
Section six is about the sacralising of the coin – of course
there's really no Scripture to be found to support this view as the New Testament
militates against it. But Calvin sanctioned and blessed usury and played no
small role in transforming Protestantism into an even worse iteration of the
Sacral abomination that was Medieval Constantinian Roman Catholicism.
Contrary to Calvin and Olasky, the New Testament view is that
work in a fallen world is part of the curse and an exercise in futility and the
things of this world are passing away. This is why we lay up our treasures in
heaven and this world and all its works will burn up. Calvinism has often been
associated with bourgeois values and great wealth – its badge of honour is in
reality its mark of shame – its badge of Scriptural infidelity.
In seeking to eliminate the secular it has in fact
secularised society as any Catholic apologist will point out. Their monistic
structure reaches a tipping point or backfires. Everything is sacred to
Dominionist Calvinism which translates into nothing being sacred. Some have
taken this so far as to literally strip away the sacral meaning from the
sacraments. Not that they deny them but that they start thinking of common or
profane food as forms of communion and in some cases are even able to convey
sacramental grace. Since everything is holy, everything becomes a sacrament.
Again, the extremes of this way of thinking begin to flirt with pantheism.
The New Testament ideal is a secular pluralist society that
allows us to pursue our Kingdom work – worship, evangelism and bearing witness –
the very things Olasky seems to demean as being of lesser value. We know that
this age is a vale of tears and that we're called to bear the cross and follow
the martyr path and so we have precious little hope that any such political
order will have any possibility of lasting more than a moment. And thus we
don't waste our time striving after such things. A hostile society allows for
the Church to retain its distinct identity. The Christendom model (not to
mention Olasky's Theonomic Postmillennialism) confuses everything and goes so
far as to redefine what a Christian is, what the Kingdom is and even what the
Church is. Apart from the heresies which
attack the Incarnation, there is no more dangerous heresy in all of history.
The Pseudo-Zion is nothing more than the Tower of Babel crowned with a cross of
gold. This is the kingdom, the false gospel advocated by Olasky.
Section seven reminds us of the dangers of legalism – a
monster that appears in Roman Catholicism and even in Anabaptist circles.
Calvinism has at times fallen into legalism and thus Olasky here carefully
avoids much of the celebrated Calvinist heritage. But this is where the
prosperity gospel comes in – hard work, moneymaking and success (as the world
defines it more or less) are the holy labours for the Calvinist and today's
Evangelical. In fact on the one hand there's a real libertinism at work partly
fueled by the miscast and misemphasised understanding of Justification by Faith
Alone. But at the same time there is a legalism at work in the sacralising of
middle class values – to have money and a certain standard of living is deemed
moral and men (and women) will work themselves to the bone, sacrificing their
families, their values and even church life in order to get it. And that's
viewed as moral because to not attain to that status would be wrong and exhibit
a defect in character. It's just another form of legalism also expressed in the
fact that in every Reformed church I've ever been to it's the doctors, lawyers,
engineers and the like that end up being selected as elders. There are
exceptions but it's pretty much the rule. They're deemed wise because they're
successful. That's the worldly logic of Social Calvinism to be sure. What they
deem wise, the Scriptures often deem to be foolish, compromised and corrupted.
Section eight is in some ways the capstone to this thought
and in others ways we've come full circle back to the foundation. The Kingdom
is about mammon – which is all the more striking as Christ juxtaposed service
to God and service to mammon. They are two separate religions and irreconcilable.
Olasky attacks New Testament attitudes with regard to work and time and instead
(through bait and switch) transforms New Testament stewardship which is to put
others first and to disregard money, its value and power – to a Dominionist redefinition
of 'stewardship' that has become the contemporary norm, the very orthodoxy of
our day. Do not lay up treasures on Earth
becomes an imperative and holy calling to
lay up treasures on Earth – ignoring the corruption that comes with it and
what money does to the soul and to the larger world. Money cannot be divorced
from power, from the sword. Usury always viewed as sinful by the professing
Church (even the corrupt avaricious Roman communion) up until the time of the
Renaissance and Reformation is sanctified and thus wealth becomes not just a
means but an end. That kind of generated capital cannot be idle and to put it
simply, it makes trouble in the world and generates great evil. Contrary to
Evangelical accolades of money as a positive good and a means to spread human
flourishing – an Enlightenment argument cloaked in the smokescreen of
stewardship – the New Testament is clear about mammon. It chokes faith and
deceives and Social Calvinism has left a legacy of deception when it comes to
their Christian testimony.
As usual I find Olasky's commentary on American culture to be
off-base. He has no problem with what happened culturally and economically in
the 1950's – he just thinks that people were motivated by the wrong thing. If
they had viewed their earthly vocations as holy callings (another Dominionist
redefinition of Biblical terms) then it would have been different or so he
blindly and unconvincingly argues.
Section nine expands the usury issue. Olasky is right about
Calvin but of course the Scriptures aren't interacted with. I was surprised
that he didn't attempt to pull out the Parable of the Talents – one of but many
examples of parables being turned on their heads and twisted in order to
support ideas and concepts that modern Christians wish to embrace.
When the Kingdom is about money and power – then the alchemical
power of usury is a means too tempting to ignore. It's really that simple and
once again what the Protestant nations count as their glory is in fact their
shame – and they've left a terrible legacy as a result. They may have wealth
but they've sold their souls in the process, destroyed their families and
(ironically) their cultures – not to mention many other cultures in the
process.
And of course section 10 is Olasky's grasping attempt to
utilise Calvin in contemporary debate – ignoring the fact that Calvin was
writing in a pre-industrial time when populations were miniscule compared to
what they are now, when cash was not king and when city and countryside were
not (due to lower populations) regulated as they are now – regulations which in
some cases are necessary but nevertheless place a great financial burden on the
average man, especially in the affluent West. Olasky's record on this issue is
long and established and not without controversy even in his own circles as he
was a policy advisor to the GW Bush administration.
The bottom line is they once again subvert and supplant New
Testament teachings about money and the poor because they don't like them. And
they have their own theories which happen to benefit them. And so they read
their ideas back into the text when they bother to interact with it at all.
Olasky appeals to Calvin's Geneva ignoring the fact that the
Church was intertwined with and essentially a department of state. Ironically
under Olasky's influence millions of tax dollars poured into corrupt
Evangelical charities and then these same registered IRS-beholden churches
later complained when the government claimed the ability to regulate. In
Calvin's Geneva that was not the case. The state did have ultimate authority.
The Olasky brand of Evangelical plays fast and loose with the history, the mold
their own heritage into a self-serving narrative and seem to want to have it
both ways.
The blind Olasky cannot see that Social Darwinism was in many
respects as much a fruit of Calvinist influenced capitalism and its resulting
ethics as it was an outworking of evolutionary theory. In fact in the 19th
century mind these principles were but natural law in application. Caveat emptor and the survival of the
fittest are concepts basic to capitalist thought. You're on your own to sink or
swim and those that find a way to survive and flourish deserve to do so. It's in
opposition to what the Scriptures teach as a Christian ethic but that's never
stopped them before.
Olasky can lay claim (in part) to the heritage and legacy of
Calvin and he can have it. He has his reward and many will continue to purchase
his rag. And yet he dishonours Christ and celebrates a sinful heritage. For me
reading this is painful as I was once a diehard advocate of this school. But
continued focus on the New Testament took me away from it and yet I must say
it's good to revisit these issues and I think Olasky did a decent job in
succinctly summarizing Social Calvinism. It's a helpful reminder of just how
erroneous this school of thought is and how blind and unscriptural it is in
terms of doctrine and ethics.
Needless to say, when I received the notices urging me to
subscribe, I threw them away. I could not in good conscience give any money to
support such a work, even if I retain something of a morbid curiosity.
For me this represents a chapter long closed. Once a fervent
Calvinist, I came to reject many theological aspects of the school and its
ethics in toto.
God be praised.