In the last post, we saw how Calvinism eclipsed Zwingli and Bullinger’s Swiss Reformation.
This post looks at the spread of Calvinism from Europe to the rest of the world.
John Calvin’s logical, legalistic mind helped his adopted home city of Geneva became the nerve centre of 16th century Protestantism:
- Calvin systematised the Reformed Church through his Institutes of the Christian Religion, commentaries, sermons and leadership.
- He transformed Geneva into a city where people adopted a structured way of life with the guidance of Scripture and enforced local ordinances.
- Calvin instituted primary schools so that all the city’s residents could learn to read the Bible.
- His seminary educated and trained Reformers who would be sent throughout Europe to preach and teach.
- Geneva became the printing capital of Europe with 30 companies churning out Protestant literature in various languages.
The Reformed Church then expanded into:
- Germany, specifically Heidelberg, where the Heidelberg Catechism originated. Although much of the country remained Lutheran, a small but strong minority led by Philip Melanchthon found themselves estranged from the denomination and joined the Reformed Church.
- France, where 20% of the population — 2m people — considered themselves Protestant. This included half of the aristocracy and middle class at the time. France could have become a Protestant nation were it not for Roman Catholic persecution of Protestants and civil war. French Protestants — Huguenots — quickly fled to other European countries.
- Hungary and Poland, with Hungary as an enduring stronghold; then Prussia where Huguenots would flee to escape persecution in France.
- The Netherlands, where the Reformed Church had spread throughout the country within a matter of 15 years. However, its numbers were small. It was not until the 17th century when it truly became influential. That was when the Canons of Dort were written (1618-1619). A period similar to Puritanism followed, which was called the Dutch Further Reformation, which lasted into the 18th century.
- Scotland, where Calvin’s pupil John Knox became the country’s most notable Reformed spokesman. In 1560, the Scottish Parliament voted to reject papal authority and reorganise the Scottish Reformed Kirk.
- Ireland and Wales were strongly influenced by what had happened in Scotland and many people became Calvinists.
- England, where Anglicans who thought that church reform should have gone further, became Puritans. They were so called because they established what they believed was a purity in worship, church government and everyday life.
By the end of the 16th century, Calvin’s Reformed Protestantism had evolved into the following groups:
- German Reformed Church
- Dutch Reformed Church
- Huguenots
- Presbyterians (Scotland)
- Puritan Conformists who remained Anglicans (England)
- Puritan Dissenters who became Congregationalists (England).
In the 17th century, Reformed Protestants settled the United States, making up two-thirds of the population:
- Massachusetts Bay: Episcopalians, or Reformed Anglicans
- Plymouth, Massachusetts: Congregationalists
- New Netherlands/New Amsterdam (New York): Dutch Reformed, Huguenots, Presbyterians
- New York, Virginia, the Carolinas: Episcopalians, Huguenots, Presbyterians
- Pennsylvania: German Reformed, Presbyterians
- Middle Colonies: German Reformed.
With the Reformation and expansion into America, confessions of faith also changed. The most notable of these are:
- Continental Reformed with its Three Forms of Unity: the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort
- British-American Presbyterianism: the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism.
It’s worth noting that the British Puritans had a profound effect on the Dutch Further Reformation. Likewise, the Italian-Swiss theologian, Francis Turretin, was influential in shaping American Presbyterianism, especially as it was taught at Princeton University in New Jersey.
Today, one can find Reformed — Calvinist — churches around the world: Australia, New Zealand, South Africa as well as in many countries in Asia, Africa and South America.
Joel Beeke, writing for Monergism, explains Calvinism’s appeal:
Calvinism has a bright future, for it offers much to people who seek to believe and practice the whole counsel of God. Calvinism aims to do so with both clearheaded faith and warm-hearted spirituality, which, when conjoined, produce vibrant living in the home, the church, and the marketplace to the glory of God. It confesses with Paul, ‘For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever’ (Rom. 11:36). That, after all, is what Scripture, Calvinism, and life itself are all about.
For more information, see ‘The Origins of Calvinism’ by Joel Beeke.
2 comments
August 9, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Gabriella
Churchmouse, your two recent posts are an excellent précis of the history behind Calvinism and Lutheranism. I am not going to set out all the valid reasons why and where they are wrong as this has been disputed by many a scholar and many books have been written on this argument (‘Examining Calvinism’ by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, ‘The Other Side of Calvinism’ by Laurence M. Vance, and many more. My favourite being the writings of John Henry Newman). I do not by any means intend to reject everything associated with Calvinism and Reformed theology. I have enormous respect and appreciation for Calvin and the heritage he defined and engendered. Calvinism has for centuries represented a vital tradition of piety that is intellectually and morally serious. The aspects of Calvinism I criticize, however, are central to historic Reformed theology.
Christianity is split into several thousand communions contradicting one another, often in serious matters. Each one supposes that it rightly understands the revealed message adequately, whereas the others do not. This situation obviously raises a serious problem for those who seek religious truth and certitude.
There are four different approaches to the solution of this problem. The first is fundamentalism. In this view Scripture is quite uniformly to be taken in a literal sense. Its meaning is considered to be so clear that historical criticism is hardly needed. One does not have to study early life situations and literary sources, oral and written traditions, redactions and literary forms. All one needs is the inner light given by the Holy Spirit. Fundamentalism therefore avoids dependence either on careful scholarship or on an authoritative, hierarchical, teaching church.
The second approach is personal experience: “Scripture means for me what I get from it and for you what you get.” Like fundamentalism, this view dispenses with academic scholarship and an ecclesial Magisterium. But unlike fundamentalism this subjective bent feels no need to take texts in a literal sense. Rather there is a wide range of interpretations and one’s personal feelings may justify all sorts of outlooks and conclusions.
The third approach is that of independent scholarship. While the critics in this view may and often do belong to a particular Christian community, they consider themselves to lie under no obligation to official teachings of that community. Their understanding is derived from a study of ancient history and the objective texts. They may attempt to be responsive to the needs of their coreligionists and the thought of their professional colleagues, but there is no binding authority that may sit in judgement on the results of their work.
The final approach holds that God has committed his revelation to a teaching Church which presents it with his own authority and in a way that binds the consciences of men and women of all centuries. This position welcomes scholarly research, but it holds that the final word – if a clash occurs – lies with the official teaching office. This latter alone possesses the divine certification which assures that the message will not be mangled by human subjectivity, bias, misinformation and wilfulness.
On the first three approaches: if one word can describe the inadequacy of fundamentalism, that word is simplistic. Neither human life nor the biblical writings are as obvious, uncomplicated and clear as fundamentalism would have them. While the Bible is a divine word, it is also a human word. Though they mean well, they embrace unwittingly what is a naïve and arrogant assumption, namely, that they immediately and clearly know what a text two thousand years old means and how it is to be understood.
I suppose one could write a book on this subject 😉
Enjoy your sunday.
LikeLike
August 10, 2009 at 7:18 am
churchmouse
Thanks so much, Gabriella, for an excellent — and eloquent — refutation of the Reformers’ thinking. Beautifully written.
Have a good day! (And apologies for not having been able to respond yesterday.)
LikeLike