Engraved from the original oil painting in the University Library of Geneva, this is considered Calvin’s best likeness. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Friend Ken Stewart has a new book out, and Scot McKnight is blogging through it in his inimitable style. Well worth reading. A few samples from today’s “episode”:
We are in Ken Stewart’s debt for his enough-is-enough book, Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition. Non-Calvinists are not always informed about Calvinism, and are sometimes fond of pointed jabs that do not describe Calvinists accurately, and so a book like this that shows both deep commitment to Calvinism and friendly fire is one we all need. He is also concerned as well with those Calvinists who think they’ve got it figured out but don’t. What Stewart’s book will do is humble Calvinists into thinking their family is more diverse than is often supposed.
And a summary of the ten myths exposed by Ken: Continue reading
Over at Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog, a 4-part series has just wrapped up on Harvey Cox’s new book The Future of the Faith. In a summary of the book, “RJS” outlines this former liberal’s not-surprising attitude toward the development of creeds in Christian history. Essentially, for Cox, the Council of Nicea marked the end of true Jesus-religion and the beginning of heirarchical, coercive religion.
While I understand the issue here and agree that the institutionalization of the church was unfortunate in some respects, I think Cox, and many others, miss the point of the creeds.
RJS writes that Cox extends his critique of creedal Christianity into the 20th and 21st century by having a go at that tired old whipping post, “the fundamentalists.” If you want a vivid example of this from within the evangelical fold, check out Roger Olson’s acid rendering of that movement in his Story of Theology. Although Olson captures much that is correct about the movement, I think his critique, and Cox’s less-informed critique, is overdone and in some senses downright wrong. It assumes that fundamentalism is about nothing more than mental assent to propositional formulae. I just don’t buy that.
Thus I responded with a couple of comments on the review of Cox’s book. You’ll find them here, in the comments section, #25 and #27. I’d be interested to hear your perspectives: feel free to weigh in, either there or here.