On Vox Nova, there has been much debate on Calvinism and its influence on the United States and American politics. Many who have tried to engage it have shown little to no understanding of Calvinism and its history. First, they confuse what Calvinism is: they think it is what is found in the writings of Calvin, and if you can’t find it there, it is not Calvinism. While Calvinism is tied to the thought of Calvin, it developed many of its core teachings after Calvin died when Calvin’s disciples fought one with another to define “orthodox” Calvinism. Just like the relationship between Luther and Lutheranism, we have Calvin and we have Calvinism. If a discussion is about Calvinism, one needs to know more than what Calvin taught, especially if one is looking at the history and influence of Calvinism in Western society. Many social and political developments occurred after the Reformation, even if they were in part based upon it. Yet this created a cultural situation in which Calvinism was to raise new questions and provide for new, nuanced theological opinions which departed from Calvin. Calvinism as it came into America is a key example of this. As with all organic growth, the change upon Calvinism in America does not make it something other than Calvinism even if it creates a distinct flavoring for it. Moreover, the place of Calvinism in American society has also meant that there is an interdependent relationship where Calvinism and American thought have have influenced each other.
Recently Alister McGrath, a prominent Protestant historian and theologian, wrote a popular book on the impact of Protestantism on Western society entitled Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution-A History From the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First(New York: HarperOne, 2007). His reflections on Calvinism and its relationship to Western culture are quite insightful and helpful; I thought it would be worthwhile to provide to the readers of Vox Nova a small presentation on them. I will provide significant quotes from McGrath to make my points, and they are the primary material any reader should examine (and if you want to read them, read only the text in red). While I would prefer to give everyone a copy of pages 311-349 from the book, this is obviously not possible, and so I will have to provide some summary of his thought in order to contextualize what I do quote. Moreover, my reflection will be only on pages 318 – 38; I would heartily recommend anyone to read the whole section or the whole book if they have the interest and time to do so.
Protestantism, according to McGrath, was in part an urban movement and with the new urbanization, it contested much of the earlier monastic-based theological teachings, thinking that they were incapable of being followed and lived out in the real world. “Protestantism chose to inhabit the more dangerous world of the city and marketplace, exposing its thinkers to pressures and problems their Catholic forebears had not been required to consider” (319). If Protestants rejected a monastic-based spiritual tradition with the monastical ideal of worldly renunciation, then they came to the conclusion that they must become the world’s master (319). Anabaptists are a Protestant group who accepted much of monastic spirituality which explains why they are counter-cultural and have a difficulty with contemporary society (320). Calvin established a system whereby the Christian could be in the world, even if they are above it and must not succumb to its temptations. Indeed, he believed we must, as Christians, be worldly (322-23). There were, of course, two different spheres of existence we experience, the religious and the secular, but he believed that the religious sphere should guide the secular. This did not always happen, and Calvinism was easily transformed and turned upside-down into a secular Calvinism where the secular sphere of existence took mastery. “Latent within Calvinism is a purely profane approach to life, in that the failure to maintain a proper dialectic between God and the world leads to the collapse of the divine into the secular. Calvinist moral, economic, social and political structures and values, although firmly grounded in theology, could all too easily become detached and independent from those theological foundations. The emancipation of such structures and values from faith itself through cultural erosion is one of the most significant aspects of the Western reception and assimilation of Calvinism, especially in North America” (323).
McGrath makes a brief discussion on the questions of slavery and social responsibility and how Protestants dealt with them (323-26). Then he explains the ambivalent relationship between church and state in Protestantism (326 – 329). Both of these are interesting and important in their own right, but are less important to our analysis than what he brings up next, Protestantism and economics. Much of his discussion centers around Max Weber’s work (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). While he does not agree with all of Weber’s thesis, he accepts much of it. He believes that there was indeed a relationship between Calvin, Calvinism, and the rise of Capitalism. As he points out, “Capitalism and Calvinism were virtually coextensive by the middle of the seventeenth century“( 330). Why is this the case? Because one of the differences between Catholicism and Calvinism dealt with the question of what one was to do with capital. Catholicism saw the need for capital to be put to use for the common good while Calvinism did not. “Capital was seen as something to be increased, not something to be consumed” (330). Central to this development was the question of usury and interest, a question Calvin engaged by changing the discourse. “Calvinism is clearly linked to the rise of capitalism in other respects. The most important of these is Calvin’s attitude toward usury – lending money at an interest with a view to making a profit from the loan” (331). What was Calvin’s justification for this? He believed that the commandment against usury was for the Jews, but things changed for Christians following the New Covenant (333). The commandment had a purpose, and we should be kept in spirit, but we were not required to do so accoring to the letter of the law. “For Calvin, the real concern was the exploitation of the poor through high interest rates. This, he argued, could be dealt with in other ways – such as the fixing of interest rates at community acceptable levels” (333-4). Thanks to the influence of Calvin, banking forever changed, it should be of no surprise that one of the earliest and most influential banking systems developed in Switzerland (334).
McGrath next addressed the Protestant work ethic. To understand it and how it differed from traditional thought, he explains that classical Christian thought on work came from ancient Roman society. They saw work as degrading and to be avoided; Christians such as Eusebius agreed with this and their opinions had a major influence on Christian thought (336). Manual labor was inferior to spiritual labor, physical work was inferior to a life of prayer. There was never a rejection of work, because society could not continue without laborers. But manual labor was underappreciated. Originally, vocation was a term used only for those who were called to monastic life; one who had a vocation was one who was called by God to do religious work. The Reformation, in rejecting monasticism, rejected this idea of vocation, and so came to see vocation not as a calling to religious life, but the work one is called to do in the secular sphere. “The idea of ‘calling’ was fundamentally redefined: no longer was it about being called to serve God by leaving the world; it was now about serving God in the world” (337). Calvinism continued with this, by providing an understanding that work was “a dignified and glorious means of praising and affirming God in and through his creation while adding further to its well-being” (337). As a consequence of this, those lands which became Protestant worked more for the goods of the earth, and acquired more of them than Catholic lands (337). Of course this ethic inspired by Calvinism has continued to develop, and has inspired a sense of self-reliance which might surprise Calvin. “The Protestant work ethic is nowadays often described in terms of an ‘ethic of self-reliance’; in this view, work is a thing that is good in itself. The concept of ‘vocation’ or ‘calling’ has been desacralized and now refers to whatever it is that an individual wants to do with his or her life” (337-8). (While McGrath doesn’t make this clear, one can say that as a consequence of this, if one doesn’t work, one’s lack of success in the world is one’s own fault, and therefore, should not be a concern for the general populace.)
Now, McGrath thinks that there is the need for a change in the work ethic itself, while continuing to accept the theological tradition which lies behind it. Society has changed. Our place in the world is no longer static. We are not expected to live and work in one occupation throughout all our life. We might, but it is not necessary. He sees that Protestantism has developed the notion of individual “gifts” where we are called to share our “gifts” or “abilities” with the rest of the world, wherever it is we find ourselves in a given moment. Moreover, he thinks that the Protestant work ethic continues to influence political thought, whereby it is put in opposition to social welfare. “The Protestant work ethic finds its application in many contexts in the twenty-first century. Perhaps the most obvious is the phenomenon of ‘faith based activism’: religious groups using their faith both as a platform and a guiding principle for social engagement and voluntary work” (338). American debates about the relationship between politics and charity continue to reflect the Protestant work ethic in a society which has accepted its general principles without question. And Protestants, of course, will use it to their own advantage. “Protestant activism, expressed in the Protestant work ethic, is clearly a resource that is likely to play a more significant role in the future if government funding for social welfare programs is reduced” (338). (How many Catholics follow through with this kind of reasoning?)
While not everything people on Vox Nova have mentioned about Calvinism and its relationship to American politics has been brought out here (there was no mention of Manifest Destiny and American exceptionism), this is not a problem. The point is for people to realize some of the key features of Calvinism and its social implications beyond a cursory glance of Calvin’s theological positions. The two are related, and that should be examined further later; but it is important for one to get a general understanding of the the social consequences of Calvinism and Protestant thought. Without it, a systematic analysis of Calvinist theology can be easily disassociated from the social implications of that thought, making it seem to be merely an intellectual debate without any practical implications.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In