Pugnacious Language

Once upon a time, I was having a conversation with a ‘theonomist’ over lunch. You need have no idea what a theonomist is or was to understand the drift of the conversation. My friend was deeply persuaded of his convictions.

Among my criticisms of his ‘theonomic’ position was one which to me revealed something of the problematic fruit of the position. Authors in that camp tended to use quite abusive language when speaking of their opponents, and I found this lack of charity toward fellow Christians to be disturbing.

In defense, my friend made reference to the pointed and pugnacious language that Calvin employed critiquing those whose positions he opposed. Lack of charity was not, apparently the issue. The issue was that I was too sensitive and too wimpy to not see that such language is acceptable, if not absolutely manly and courageous in the heat of battle.

This insipid excuse for a man, this dog, this spineless Calvinistic lemming seemed to be persuaded that…

Oops.

My friend seemed to be persuaded that if it was okay for Calvin, it would be okay for us.

But not so fast.

As I have said time and again, there is much to be appreciated and emulated in Calvin. But not this. John T. McNeill, the editor of the Westminster/John Knox edition of Calvin’s Institutes articulates the same concern. McNeill says:

“On occasion, Calvin shows a typically humanist mastery of the language of disparagement and vituperation. His horror of abuses led him at times to use epithets of abuse, and he sometimes resorts to this in assailing the legitimate views of an opponent. This is a deplorable feature by which in parts Calvin’s work is marred for the sensitive reader, but it is not so prevalent as some critics have charged; and in his case invective is not a substitute for argument, but a misconceived attempt to enhance its force.” (page lxxi)

I began writing this a week ago for the sake of those who would be reading Calvin this year. Now it has taken on a certain unexpected relevance given a recent article in the NY Times about Seattle Pastor Mark Driscoll.

I am a fan of Driscoll. And I am obviously a fan of Calvin. But there are things about both men that need to be heard with discernment. We cannot follow either man completely.

At the same time, both men are in some respects larger than life, and around such men falsehood and error will swirl. We need to take what we hear, especially in newspapers and on the internet with great care.

I hope in an upcoming post to comment more directly on this Times article. Stay tuned. Learn from Calvin; learn from Driscoll, you… good person.

UPDATE: Philadelphia’s Philip Ryken has some brief comments on the NYTimes piece here. I’ll post my more lengthy response tomorrow.