Aphoristic Commentary: 1 John 4:9-11

1 John 4:9-11, In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

Penal-Substitutionary-Atonement = Love of God

Liquidated Debts (i.e., Sin)

"Christ discharged the debt of sin. he bore our sins and purged them. he did not make a token payment which God accepts in place of the whole. Our debts are not cancelled; they are liquidated. Christ procured redemption and therefore he secured it" (John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, 58).

Once-for-Allness of Atonement

"It is indeed highly necessary to recognize the continued high priestly activity of Christ in heaven. . . . We must distinguish between the offering of sacrifice and the subsequent activity of the high priest. What the New Testament stresses is the historical once-for-allness of the sacrifice that expiated guilt and reconciled to God (cf. Heb 1:3; 9:12, 25-28). To fail to assess the finality of this once-for-allness is to misconceive what atonement really is" (John Murray, Redemption - Accomplished and Applied, 54).

Atonement of which Scripture Speaks

"Our definition of atonement must be derived from the atonement of which Scripture speaks. And the atonement of which Scripture speaks is the vicarious obedience, expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption performed by the Lord of glory when, once for all, he purged our sins and sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high" (John Murray, Redemption - Accomplished and Applied, 55).

The Historic Objectivity of the Atonement

"The atonement is objective to us, performed independently of us, and the subjective effects that accrue from it presuppose its accomplishment. The subjective effects exerted in our understanding and will can follow only as we recognize by faith the meaning of the objective fact" (John Murray, Redemption - Accomplished and Applied, 52).

Romish Theology: Advocate an Imperfect Atonement

"According to Romish theology, all past sins both as respects their eternal and temporal punishment are blotted out in baptism and also the eternal punishment of the future sins of the faithful. But for the temporal punishment of post-baptismal sins the faithful must make satisfaction either in this life or in purgatory. In opposition to every such notion of human satisfaction Protestants rightly contend that the satisfaction of Christ is the only satisfaction for sin and is so perfect and final that it leaves no penal liability for any sin of the believer" (John Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, 51).

###

We live in strange times. Belief in purgatory within Protestantism is currently on the rise, see Christianity Today's guest column - "Purgatory is Hope" - by Kevin Timpe. The column begins:

A recent study suggests that belief in purgatory among Catholics in the United States is on the decline. But there is also reason for thinking that belief in purgatory is on the rise among Protestants. My own attraction to the doctrine comes primarily from the work of a Wesleyan philosopher, Jerry Walls. While Walls' Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, 1992) is one of numerous extended philosophical treatments of hell, his Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy (Oxford, 2002) is a rare book-length treatment of the philosophical issues surrounding heaven. Heaven also contains a chapter providing the best philosophical defense of purgatory that I'm aware of. Walls there argues that the Christian doctrine of "salvation must involve changing us to love God as we ought [for] the aim of salvation is to make us holy, and this is what fits us for heaven." Walls completed his trilogy with Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation (Oxford, 2011). It is dedicated to defending the doctrine of purgatory "as a rational theological inference from other important biblical and theological commitments … for those who take seriously the role of human freedom in salvation."

 Wesleyan-Arminian theology and Romish theology are kissing cousins: both advocate an imperfect atonement. Since their understanding of the atonement is not fully biblical, so too inferred doctrines, e.g. purgatory, human participation in salvation, etc., are not fully biblical.

God Frustrating the Pagans

"It was the particularity of biblical faith that frustrated paganism: this God, this elect people, in this time and place. The typical pagan would (and still does) find such a restriction on sacred manifestation offensive. Still scandalous is the notion that God reveals himself as our Savior in the history of redemption through Jesus Christ and not just anywhere we happen to look for him" (Michael Horton, A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship, 41).

Church Year: The Annual Cycle

"Perhaps the most important single characteristic of the annual calendar presupposed by the ecumenical lectionary is its Christological center. The annual sequence of seasons is actually a pairing of two Christ-celebrations: (1) Christmas and (2) Easter, (1) Incarnation and (2) Redemption. The Christmas celebration is prepared for in Advent and reflected in Epiphany. The Easter celebration is prepared for in Lent and reflected in the fifty days following, which climax in Pentecost. In this sense the Christian Year may be described as the annual rehearsal of the history of our salvation accomplished in the birth, death, resurrection, and return of Jesus Christ" (Horace T. Allen Jr., A Handbook for the Lectionary, 25).

Justification - Eye of More than One Storm

In Counted Righteous in Christ (going forward CRC) John Piper says, "The doctrine of justification is the eye of more than one storm" (42). In associated footnote Piper expounds,

Three of the major storms, worthy of attention but not treated here, include (1) ecumenical dialogues on Evangelical and Catholic doctrine; (2) the so-called "New Perspective" on Paul and the law; and (3) the relationship of faith and obedience, specifically the conflation of faith and works of faith as the instrument of justification. . . . In my view, a detailed defense still needs to be done on the historic Protestant view of the relationship between faith and obedience, so that the two are not conflated in the instrument of justification, as many in the biblical-theological circles are doing these days. (See note 35 of Chapter Three of this book.) Perhaps, if the Lord should grant time and energy, I will take up this subject in another short book.

John Piper is attempting to provide a historic Protestant response to men like Robert H. Gundry -- who is merely a representative of "many in the biblical-theological circles" (mentioned above). It is Gundry who argued in a series of Books and Culture issues in 2001 (here and here) that "the doctrine that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believing sinners needs to be abandoned." "That doctrine of imputation is not even biblical. Still less is it essential to the Gospel" (CRC, 44).

Piper continues to elaborate on this recent surge. He says,

But there is even more to the challenge. Not only does Gundry regard as unbiblical any positive imputation of divine righteousness to believers, he also says that our faith itself is our righteousness, because God counts it to be such. [Piper begins quoting Gundry] "Since faith as distinct from works is credited as righteousness, the righteousness of faith is a righteousness that by God's reckoning consists of faith even though faith is not itself a work" [emphasis added by Piper]. But this "righteousness"--this faith--is not imputed to us, but really is our righteousness in that we respond to God in faith (by grace) and God counts our faith to be what it is--righteousness (CRC, 46).

John Piper in an attempt to be fair and charitable elaborates on Gundry's position in associated footnote. He says,

This should not be taken to mean that Gundry believes that faith is, in and of itself, righteousness by its nature. In personal correspondence (02-04-02, quoted with permission), Gundry writes: ". . . I myself would rather say that God counts faith as righteousness even though it isn't righteousness in the sense of a performed work. Just as God regards believers as righteous even though they're sinners, he also regards their faith as righteousness even though it's opposite a work of moral rectitude."

In Chapter Three John Piper provides the necessary biblical exegesis to show that "Gundry's arguments do not overthrow the traditional Protestant understanding of Scripture that finds in justification the imputation of divine righteousness and a clear and necessary distinction between this act and God's subsequent and necessary work of sanctification" (CRC, 80).

Cornelius "One Liner" Van Til, Again

In October, I posted a handful of Van Til "one liners" from his Introduction to Systematic Theology. This month I am posting another handful from his Christian Apologetics.

"[S]ystematic theology . . . takes all the truths brought to light from Scripture by the biblical studies and forms them into one organic whole" (21).

"The unity and the diversity in God are equally basic and mutually dependent upon one another" (25).

"No creature can detract from his [God] glory; all creatures, willingly or unwillingly add to his glory" (28).

"God is absolute" (29).

"He [God] is autonomous" (29).

"The diversity and the unity in the Godhead are therefore equally ultimate; they are exhaustively correlative to one another and not correlative to anything else" (29).

"The most basic distinction of Christianity is that of God's being as self-contained, and created being as dependent upon him" (30).

"Christianity is committed for better or for worse to a two-layer theory of reality or being" (31).

"Truth out of all relationship to any mind is a pure meaningless abstraction" (34).

"The idea of disinterested or neutral knowledge is out of accord with the basic ideas of Christianity" (40).

"Christ came to bring man back to God" (46).

"In Christ man realizes that he is a creature of God and that he should not seek underived comprehensive knowledge" (48).

"Christ is our wisdom" (48).

"What Christ did while he was on earth is only a beginning of his work" (51).

"Sin being what it is we may be certain that all our preaching and all our reasoning with men will be in vain unless God brings men through it to himself" (53).

"Belief in the promises of God with respect to our eternal salvation is meaningless unless God controls the future" (53).

"Scripture gives definite information of a most fundamental character about all the facts and principles with which philosophy and science deal" (61).

"They [General and Special Revelation] are aspects of one general philosophy of history" (66).

"It was in the mother promise that God gave the answer to nature's cry (Gen. 3:15)" (75).

"At every stage in history God's revelation in nature is sufficient for the purpose it was meant to serve, that of being the playground for the process of differentiation between those who would and those who would not serve God" (75-76).

"Created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he cannot see exhaustively" (77).

"Nature can and does reveal nothing but the one comprehensive plan of God" (78).

"No one can become a theist unless he becomes a Christian" (79).

"Any god that is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not God but an idol" (79).

"Hodge, following the lead of Calvin, stressed the fact that the whole set of sinful man needs to be renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit" (94).

"For Adam in paradise, God-consciousness could not come in at the end of a syllogistic process of reasoning" (115).

"Roman Catholic notion of authority seems at first sight to be very absolute--in fact even more absolute than that of Protestantism--it is in reality not absolute at all. Its idea of autonomy wins out in every case. And so it comes to pass that the Roman Catholic doctrines of faith are in every instance adjusted to the idea of human autonomy" (181).

"It follows that on the question of Scripture, as on every other question, the only possible way for the Christian to reason with the non-believer is by way of presupposition" (197).

All quotes from Christian Apologetics (P&R Publishing, 2003), edited by William Edgar.

Nov. 6 - Election Day: Prayer

O God our Father, we thank thee that thou hast fearfully and wondrously made each one of us, thy children. May holy purposes direct us, the love of Christ constrain us, and the strength of the Spirit support us to be worthy instruments in thy kingdom. Teach us to walk with confidence and not without humility, with eagerness and not without consideration, with courage and not without reverence. Give us purity in heart when evil surrounds us. Make us brave to prune what is fruitless. Help us to cultivate what is good in thy sight. Increase our helpfulness as we touch the hands of our brethren. So enlarge our usefulness as thy hands bless us, until we lay down the unfinished tasks on earth and by thy grace are fashioned into perfect instruments of love and praise in everlasting glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen (Prayer # 120 from Samuel John Schmiechen's Pastoral Prayers for the Church Year).

Reason and Evidence

"The average philosopher and scientist today holds to a nontheistic conception of reason and therefore also to a nontheistic conception of evidence" (Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 87).

American Churches: Unchurch Christians

From the Conclusion to Part I - Empires in Scripture:

God's empire is founded on the self-sacrificial death of Jesus and of the firstfruits of His people. It is renewed by ritual commemoration of Jesus in Eucharist, which forms a community readied for martyrdom [Leithart uses this term in its original sense of "witness"]. God's empire is not a transhistorical aspiration, an ideal, or a sentiment of fellow feeling among nations. It takes concrete form in a catholic church, where rival rulers and emperors, rival nations and empires, become table fellows and, under the church's discipline learn the Lord's ways of peace and justice. Under Jesus and filled with the pentecostal Spirit, the ecclesial empire is a historical form of international community. The church is the eschatological empire already founded (52).

 From the Conclusion to Part II - Americanism:

Checks and balances among the branches of the federal government are an inadequate guarantor of liberty. No American church is allowed to become independent or powerful enough to challenge American policy effectively; few try. . . . When was the last time an American politician was excommunicated? When was the last time an excommunication had any effect on American politics? . . . Individual Christians do not have the virtues necessary to function as citizens of God's imperium because American churches have discipled them to function as citizens of the American imperium instead (111).

Americanism: Freelance Imperialism

In Chapter 5 ("Chanting the New Empire") of Between Babel and Beast, Leithart strings together a summary of the American "small wars" (e.g., the multiple U.S. Marine landings/deployments of the 1800s, the Commercial Wars/Barbary Pirates, and the 19th century "butcher and bolt" South Pacific hostilities), ending the survey with a sobering reflection (partially comprised of a quotation from Boot's Savage Wars): "'No matter how tiny, the navy had little trouble overawing pirates and tribesmen with its vastly superior technology and training. With the navy's help, U.S. exports soared from $20 million in 1789 to $334 million in 1860. In short, naval captains were doing more or less the same job performed by the World Trade Organization: integrating the world around the principle of free trade.' Freelance imperialism has been a recurring feature of American history" (103).

American Eschatology: Nationalist Typology That Infused American Rhetoric and Damaged Catholicity

"By the time of the Revolution, the residual ecclesial sensibility among the original Puritans had nearly vanished. A sense of national unity was strengthened by the Great Awakening and the French and Indian Wars, and the possibility that the church might function as a counterweight to national sentiment or state power was drowned in waves of revivals, each of which further damaged the catholicity of American Christianity" (Peter J. Leithart, Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective, 72).

America

"Whatever has happened since Obama took office, America is still everywhere with its fingers in nearly everything, and that gigantic fact about our world is not going to change anytime soon" (Peter J. Leithart, Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective (Cascade Books, 2012), x).

 

Woot, Woot! I ordered this book a couple weeks ago and today it finally arrived in the mail. I have no idea how the USPS crammed the Amazon package into my mailbox, but I was able to extract it successfully. Score: 1 to 1. Therefore, I will dedicate all of my posts to the USPS.

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy - Conclusion: John Calvin at "Home" in American Culture

Chapter 11 review here. Chapter 10 review here. Chapter 9 review here. Chapter 8 review here. Chapter 7 review here. Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

Thomas J. Davis, who edited this book, pens the final ado; it is an apt conclusion and he does it in just under four pages to boot! Kudos to Davis for writing a real conclusion; kudos for not giving in to the temptation of penning a verbose editorial tome.

In the Introduction, Davis stated that "the point of this book is that, despite all of the changes and challenges; despite Calvinism's ultimate failure to hold the American consciousness . . . the fact remains that Calvinism in America has had an impact on American society and culture in every century, even if at times it has gone unrecognized. And behind Calvinism stands Calvin" (11). This book has certainly pointed that very thing out; each of the authors has provided an excellent article highlighting Calvin's significance and the permanence of Calvin's legacy in America, a legacy that has made its mark upon American culture, theology, and literature.

Davis' "short conclusion" utilizes the work of Marilynne Robinson--whose "attempt to restore Calvin to a place in the American consciousness free from stereotypes" (13) is a perfect capstone to the proceeding eleven chapters. Davis examines several works by Robinson and quickly tells how she has put forth the effort to have Calvin "reinsert[ed] . . . into the cultural conversation," displaying her "concern for the dignity and well-being of the human creature in Calvin's thought--and the thoughts of his heirs--that could well serve as a bulwark against the dehumanizing and depersonalizing forces of the modern world" (268). In Robinson's work, which oftentimes meditates on the relations between fathers, families, and friends, the "house" and "home" are landscape-ish, they function as the perfect context and backdrop within which to best display Calvin and Calvinism. Davis echoes Robinson's artistic imagination, concurring that: 

Calvinism wrapped up in family rather than abstraction appears more genuinely human and, thus, acceptable. Perhaps through the work of Robinson, it will be easier to think of John Calvin and Calvinism as being at home in the American consciousness--as one of many influences that should have a recognized seat at the family table of American traditions (270). 

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy – Chapter 11 – Cold Comforts: John Updike, Protestant Thought, and the Semantics of Paradox

Chapter 10 review here. Chapter 9 review here. Chapter 8 review here. Chapter 7 review here. Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

Kyle A. Pasewark opens his article on Protestant/Calvinistic thought and author John Updike with a zinger of an observation: “Americans are not a people whose palates are sensitive to the taste of paradox.” Pasewark, unflinchingly, elaborates:

The strong and unambiguous flavors of progressivism, optimism, pessimism—all, in their way, opposites of paradox—are more our style, and we prefer them laid on a plate, or at the buffet stand, clearly distinguished [emphasis CCS] from one another so that we can have one flavor at a time rather than components stacked upon each other or flavors melded to confront us with first salty, then sweet, then both together (257).

If that doesn't make you twinge, then consider the weight of Pasewark's additional observation that Americans, precisely because of their Protestant heritage, ought to have a more developed palate:

This American preference is a little bit unexpected, since the United States is often portrayed—and portrays itself—as a “Christian nation,” and one would think that the key Christian and, even more, the central Protestant category of “paradox” would fare a little better in American culture, that “paradox” would be a word that one hears more frequently (257).

I must interject with affirmation: I rarely hear the word “paradox” when I am out-and-about. For example, I never hear the word “paradox” when I am at the grocery store in the north-most part of the Bible Belt, that is, in Warsaw/Winona Lake, Indiana, both cities with rich and deep heritage in American Revivalism—only miles form my residence is a Monument/Sanctuary dedicated to celebrating Billy Sunday's life and work; and I never hear the word paradox when I am at work where I am employed by a Fortune 500 Company and where I interact with co-workers in markets spread out across 27 of the States . . . okay, that is not accurate, I have heard one individual use the term “paradox” but that was only once in the past two and half years—in that instance “paradox” was a word in cliché phrase he used to describe an intermittent network issue we were troubleshooting, so that doesn't really count. I have only heard the word “paradox” used regularly in Wesleyan-Armenian circles during my days at university (Indiana Wesleyan University, Marion, IN), and then after college in Reformed – G. K. Chesterton-reading-and-chronically-quoting circles, which I now call home, that is, within the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). All of that to simply say, Pasewark is correct—Americans are not a people whose palates are sensitive to the taste of paradox.

Pasewark strings together a collection of zingers like pearls on a necklace in the first 3 or 4 pages of his article. He says, “Nowhere is the American preference for the directness of the nonparadoxical more in evidence than in the American understanding of freedom.” He then goes on to dismantle the uncouthness of how most Americans think about freedom, for we, I mean Americans, “do not approach these contradictions [our use of freedom to indicate many things that we believe are all “good” but are in fact contradictory] as contradictions but as modalities of the same thing” (257). Pasewark, again, shows that Americans are not as sophisticated as we would like to think we are.

These comments prep the ground for Pasewark's ensuing excavation, examining the “cold comforts” of John Updike, Protestant Thought, and the Semantics of Paradox. Pasewark begins with two premises: 1) “paradox is the fabric of John Updike's fiction” (258), and 2) “the classic doctrine of election is paradoxical” (259). To understand the latter premise Pasewark reminds his audience, “one's election [is] the condition for freedom, not its eradication” (259). Pasewark then goes into a couple examinations of characters from John Updike's writings to illustrate what happens when people with nonparadoxical understandings of freedom worship freedom (like Americans often do), “as seekers of freedom, his major characters ask for nothing more than to be alone, but they still require others, and though they begin by demanding freedom, they become ugly dominators of others and, ultimately, self-destructive as well” (260). This perverse and bizarre nonparadoxical freedom is their highest good and becomes their religion, and as Pasewark comments, this type of freedom is “asocial and apolitical” (262). Pasewark also notes:

This lack of political consciousness is not a weakness in Updike's work but an expression of his characters' deepest American contemporaneousness. For them, too, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are personal, not social (263).

Pasewark follows up this thought with an additional comment, “This, too, is a reversal and cancellation of Calvinistic Protestantism from Geneva through the Puritans,” which means when you try to create a just society with men and women who live with the effects of their death nature and the sin of their federal head Adam, “the actualization of social and political life is not ecstatic but effortful” (263). This is why freedom is paradoxical—one's election is the condition for freedom, for effort, for labor, etc., and it will be fruitful, productive. Contrast that with a nonparadoxical freedom, which, according to Pasewark, “devours not only itself but also the others whom it touches” (263).

Paswark then turns his eyes to the contemporary and provides examples of this naughty “freedom” running wild within American Republical political party (e.g. George W. Bush, activities of the CIA of late, etc.) and the resultant destructiveness. Bad “freedom is bad for people, personally, but also corporately, by that I mean bad “freedom” is bad for society. Personal and social havoc occurs when paradox is not the calibrating instrument of freedom, however, Pasewark tries to leave his audience with a hopeful thought:

. . . just how far from Calvin's view of freedom and government “this great roughly rectangular country severed from Christ by the breadth of the sea” has come. We can hope, however, that the full glory of the ultimate destructiveness of the nonparadoxical understanding of freedom is now clear to us, and perhaps the way is clear for a conception of freedom that is both paradoxical and political (265).

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy – Chapter 10 - “Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, Baxter & Co.”: Mark Twain and the Comedy of Calvinism

Chapter 9 review here. Chapter 8 review here. Chapter 7 review here. Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

Joe B. Fulton serves up an article piping hot with Twainian wit and comic relief that is, refreshingly, tossed with a respectable amount of sobriety. The article's sub-heading comes from a comment by Twain:

In modern times the halls of heavens are warmed by registers connected with hell--& it is greatly applauded by Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, Baxter, & Co. because it adds a new pang to the sinner's sufferings to know that the very fire which tortures him is the means of making the righteous comfortable (240).

Early on Fulton comments, “Twain delights in putting Calvinist definitions in the mouths of characters such as drunken miners and Satan” (241), but don't let observations like this mislead you in to thinking that Fulton is leveraging Mark Twain's literary legacy merely to bash him some Calvin. In fact, quite the opposite is at play.

Fulton argues that the “contribution” by Calvin(ism) to American literature has been (largely) misunderstood, e.g., “its [the contribution of Calvinism to American literature] influence is tracked inversely: American literature terminates, thrives, then flowers precisely as it sheds the dead husk of Calvinism in which it had been entombed” (242), and Fulton decries these literary histories written during the early twentieth century, the proponents of hasty inversion.

Contrarily, Fulton argues throughout his article that Mark Twain was “more alike than different” those men who contributed to the Calvinistic “husk” frowned upon by the early twentieth century literary historians, and that instead of being mere husk, “Jonathan Edwards, Calvin, Baxter, & Co.,” because they “[both Calvinist theology and Mark Twain] shared a theological vocabulary, metaphysical assumptions, and a view of God as sovereign. Their disagreements were substantial, but Mark Twain and the Calvinists were partners in the same enterprise” (253), is proof that Calvinism was a contributing (perhaps even a determinable) element of that savory kernel which is Twain's comic voice. (Fulton provides plenty of examples from Twain's catalog, both fiction and non-fiction, in support of his argument.)

Fulton is rather astute in all of this, and mentions, “Twain's criticism of Edwards and Calvinism is so compelling because it is a disagreement among writers who share most of the same fundamental theological conceptions” (252). This is invaluable for understanding the contributory-relationship between Calvin(ism) and American literature. It is, however, important to note that Fulton acknowledges that Twain's Calvinism is a “twisted version of Calvinist theology” (252), but this outlook only reinforces Fulton's argument that Twain was not merely dismissing Calvinism as an author within the American literary tradition but took it seriously.

In interacting with Calvinistic theology, Twain's wit and comedy was a true and serated edge, however, he is a far cry from the “shock and awe” which characterizes a villain from contemporary slasher/horror film—Twain's slashes are purposeful, calculated, like the creative activity of the Triune God of Calvinistic Theology--Twain's slashes are not random. This means, as Fulton says, “Twain's grappling with Calvinism is earnest” (245).

My thoughts: I enjoyed this article. I have not read anything by Twain since middle school (and what I read at that time were the three or four classics), but Fulton has inspired to me to “take up and read” Twain, again. A lazy Saturday may be on the horizon, and, if so, then I feel that I may read me some Tom Sawyer.

Book Review: John Calvin's American Legacy - Chapter 8 - "Strange Providence": Indigenist Calvinism in the Writings of Mohegan Minister Samson Occom (1723-1792)

Chapter 7 review here. Chapter 6 review here. Chapter 5 review here. Chapter 4 review here. Chapter 3 review here. Chapter 2 review here. Chapter 1 review here. Introduction review here. Initial thoughts here.

This is the first chapter from Part III, concerning Calvin's legacy in American letters. Denise T. Askin is the author, and she provides a thorough and thoughtful analysis of both published and unpublished writings (sermons, sermon notes, journals and personal reflections, etc.) by Samson Occom, who lived during the eighteenth-century and was an Indian and an ordained Presbyterian minister.

Occom is a fascinating character, and equally fascinating is, as Askin refers to it, his "Indigenist Calvinism". But the true jewel of captivation in this article is Askin's careful attention to the literary nuances found on the fruitful pages preserved from both Occom's pen and pulpit. Askin analyzes that literary fruit, and presents in a concise, well structured article the unique style and voice resident in the writings of Occom, the Calvinist Native American. Also, she provides abundant examples of the literary tools put to good use by Occom in his writings, e.g., his use of "irony and Pauline paradox" -- what Askin refers to as "earnest irony"-- and prophetic voice, which "Measuring Christian society by its own standard--the gospel--Occom finds it wanting" (210).

After inspecting Occom's sermon style, she then "[traces] the scripture-based narrative that Occom evolved over a lifetime to unify his responsibilities and his identity as both Native American and Christian," a two-fold narrative which emphasized, on the one hand, the Creation account, that is, the Genesis narrative, and, on the other hand, the narrative of "Isaiah's prophecy of the regeneration of Israel"; Occom emphasized this over the archetypal Calvinistic narrative--the "covenant narrative". Askin points to this practice in order to illustrate Occom's indigenist Calvinism, which she believes "[served] a typological purpose as significant for the continuance of his people [Native Americans] as Exodus was for the Jews and the errand into the wilderness was for the earliest Calvinists of New England.

To conclude, Askin says,

Occom's writings reveal that he, like the Puritans, also looked through the lens of scripture and saw human events as eloquent both of God's will and of God's interaction with the community. He forged for his people a narrative that paralleled that of the founders of the New England colonies. . . . Occom's indigenist Calvinist imagination saw in the flat surface of life many layers of meaning that connected his present moment to the biblical past and project it forward toward an apocalyptic future. . . . The words of Occom--in sermons, letters, and diaries--reveal the complex nature of his "strange providence" as a Native American and a Calvinist in a fragile and changing world (215).

My Thoughts: Askin's article is great. Occom is such a fascinating character in American Church History, but what makes this article especially enjoyable is viewing Occom from a literary perspective. Oftentimes a Theologian or Church Historian will approach things from within their discipline and with what are more or less ready-made questions. However, when you change your approach, when you are challenged to view and approach a familiar subject matter from a different perspective, then, oftentimes, you find yourself asking different types of questions, or at least asking questions differently. (I'm replaying in my mind a scene from the movie Dead Poet's Society, "I stand upon my desk to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way.") And so, I think that is what Askin has done with her article. She looks at things in a different way, asking new questions and asking old questions differently.