Quincentennary, I

So two Fridays ago (July 10) was John Calvin's 500th birthday. It seems fitting then, to offer a few thoughts on the man and his legacy, both of which were considerable.

There's a great deal to appreciate with Calvin, as well as a good bit I'd like to take issue with, but let's start by dispensing with one unpleasant aspect of Calvin's legacy that's not his fault. I'm referring to the insistence of some of his most vocal disciples that the world can and must be divided neatly in two between Calvinists and not-Calvinists, and that everyone in the latter, much larger, category, can be accurately squeezed into the box labeled "Arminian."

Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian?

Um, I don't know. Both?

You can't be both.

Well, then, I guess neither.

You can't be neither.

St. Paul was neither.

The apostle Paul was a Calvinist.

That seems chronologically unlikely …

Which are you?

Do I have to choose?

That's the question, isn't it? But you have to be one or the other. Which are you?

I'm a Mets fan, a Mac user, a gemini, a Baptist …

So you're an Arminian then.

Did I say that?

If you're not a Calvinist, then you're an Arminian.

I'm not even sure Arminius was an Arminian, the way you're …

Anyone who isn't a Calvinist is an Arminian.

Oh, then OK, I guess he probably was. But still I …

Which are you? Which are you?

I don't see why anyone finds such conversations helpful.