Republican roots in Calvinism

[Captain_Amazing]

Well, Prosperity Theology doesn’t really have Calvinist roots. The Prosperity gospel comes out of Pentacostalism and the Holiness Movement. Also, fun fact…from 1900 to now, 6 of the 8 Democratic Presidents, all but FDR and Kennedy, have been Calvinist, and 6 of the 11 Republicans.

But anyway, I think, like some have said, that you’re misunderstanding Calvinism. For one thing, there’s a strong communitarian streak in Calvinism. Wealth is only valuable to the extent it helps the community, and it’s a positive moral duty for the rich to help the poor. Calvin, at one point, calls the poor, “God’s agents on earth,” and one of his criticisms of the Catholic Church is that it spends too much on ceremonies and display and not enough to help those who are in need.

Here’s Calvin’s commentary on Deuteronomy (bolding mine):

And, indeed, it is not without cause that the Lord says here, "your poor, your indigent which are in your land. He could well have said, "the poor and indigent, but he uses other languages. “Your poor”, He says. It is as “if a man is poor, people disdain him, and each turns his back to him.” And why is that? Oh, it seems to the rich that the poor should not approach them at all, and they would almost want to have the world divided; if it were not that they want to be served by the poor, they would be contented never to see them. Now, on the contrary, in order to destroy such presumption and pride, our Lord says, “And who are you who despise your brother in this way? He is your poor, your indigent.” He addresses our own flesh. Thus, let us weigh well the words which the Holy Spirit has used, in order that no pride may prevent us from having compassion on those who are joined to us.

Wealth isn’t a sign of election for Calvin. Faith in God and Christ, and love and compassion for one’s fellow man and woman is.

To say “material success and wealth was a sign that you were one of the Elect, and thus were favored by God. Who better to shepherd a society populated by God’s wayward children? The poor, the weak, the infirm? God was punishing them for their sins.” is to horribly misunderstand Calvinism; to turn it on its head. Calvin, Knox, Beza; all of them, start with the idea that weakness and infirmity is mankind’s state. At the heart of Calvinism is the idea that God, through love of humanity, offers redemptive Grace to an undeserving world, and that the believer, having become the recipient of God’s Grace is transformed by it and becomes an instrument of God, united now in love of God and love for humanity

@John Calvin

We are not to reflect on the wickedness of men but to look to the image of God in them, an image which, covering and obliterating their faults, an image which, by its beauty and dignity, should allure us to love and embrace them.

[Stringbean]

I honestly have read this thread and know less about Calvinism than when I started.

Are people saying that social darwinism was a modern take on Calvinism? Isn’t that really what the OP is talking about?

[ISiddiqui]

May I point out something regarding the “Protestant Work Ethic”? From wikipedia:

The Protestant work ethic is often credited with helping to define the societies of Northern Europe, such as Scandinavia, Latvia, Estonia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. Germanic immigrants brought their work ethic to the United States of America.

Protestant work ethic

When I think of societies that don’t care about the poor, I immediately think of Scandinavia ;).

Anyways, even if you believe that Calvinism has focused on wealth as a sign of God’s favor, the Protestant Work Ethic indicates that you must gain this wealth through work. Idle richness was frowned upon, as one did not work for the wealth that has been received through the hard work of that person’s ancestors - predestination isn’t hereditary after all ;). (therefore, using the view of the OP, one may look at the re-distributive policies of Scandinavia of having its roots in Calvinism)

And let’s be honest, there are many countries that have far more extensive Calvinist roots than the US. These countries include Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scotland (which is more part of a country, but is fairly distinct). Their viewpoints don’t seem to fit the assertions of the OP at all.

[ISiddiqui]

@ThelmaLou

That’s why I said “roots.” To make it even simpler, the “prosperity theology” (excellent term) of these professional Christians does not tell them to love and care for the poor.

Well, Hell, if we’re talking ‘roots’, the Unitarian Universalists have their roots in Calvinism. No, really. The UUs come from the Congregationalists, which arose directly from the Puritans in the NE United States.

Of course, Calvinism has very much been into loving and caring for the poor in its history (just look at the Presbyterian Church (USA) whose forerunners were the founders of the “Social Gospel” movement, and other European countries strongly influenced by Calvinist theology), so I’m not entirely sure what the second sentence is about.

[drewder]

@SecretaryofEvil

The general narrative favored by most Republicans is the exact opposite of “poor people are destined to be poor because they were condemned by God and there is nothing they can do about it.”

Rather, Republicans favor the idea that poor people are poor because they made incorrect decisions and wealthy people are wealthy because they made the correct decisions. “Poor people are poor because they are lazy, because they do not value education, because they spend their money on flashy cars and clothes instead of prudently saving and investing it, because they have children out of wedlock, and government welfare encourages people to make bad decisions by removing the consequences of behaving rashly. If they didn’t have food stamps to fall back on poor people would have to get jobs and forgo buying gold chains and overpriced sneakers. Whereas wealthy people earned their wealth through hard work, self discipline and wise decisions, and the government should incentivize these behaviors. High taxes on the wealthy discourage hard work and prudent habits.”

I’m not necessarily saying that I subscribe to such beliefs, but that’s far closer to the party line favored by Republicans than the theory the OP is espousing.

I would add to that that at least for many tax based government charity is missing the point. Charity must be voluntary it cannot be forcibly taken on the threat of violence. When done properly Charity benefits the receiver and the giver. The receiver benefits through the action of charity and will likely develop a attitude of gratitude. The giver learns humility and is able to grow into a better person as a result. However when the government steals from a person and gives that money to someone it designates it causes the giver to resent the gift and the receiver will often times develop a feeling of entitlement regarding what they receive as their right rather than receive it with gratitude. This feeling that charity should be done on the individual or organizational (usually church) level rather than the government level is why conservatives have traditionally given far more than liberals of their personal wealth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

[robert_columbia]

@ThelmaLou

Can we discuss the Conservative Republican/Tea Party movement’s roots in Calvinism?

The current Republican notion that if you are poor, it is a sign of God’s disfavor has its roots in Calvinism (follow the link for the full text).

The central Calvinist idea that is being discussed is Predestination. This exists in two notable forms, a strong form that asserts that God explicitly chose the fates of all mortal beings before he created the world, and a weak form that asserts that God could foresee the future fates of all mortal beings in the world he was about to create, but decided to go ahead and create it anyway. So in the strong form, God explicitly made a decision that a certain person would be a bum living in Central Park, and in the weak model, God decided that creating the world was worth it despite the fact that it would result in some guy becoming a bum living in Central Park.

[ThelmaLou]

Some upthread asked for an example of what I’m talking about. Here’s one from John Kasich, quoted in the Washington Post.

The controversial reason tens of thousands of people just lost their food stamps

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who helped author the work requirement as a U.S. congressman in 1996, is among the conservative politicians arguing that able-bodied adults should not receive SNAP benefits if they are not working. At the end of 2013, Kasich decided not to request an extension of the statewide waiver of the work mandate, enforcing the rule in all but its most economically depressed, rural counties.

A spokesman for Kasich, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, said reinstating the requirement would prod people to seek work in the improving economy.

“These are, again, adults — no dependents, physically and mentally capable of working,” said Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich’s presidential campaign, in a recent interview. “Just as much as we believe in the social safety net, we also believe it’s a sin not to help oneself.”

My bold.

We’re talking here about THREE MONTHS worth of Food Stamps.

My whole point has been that this branch of Republicanism sees even temporary poverty as a sign of moral failing, as, in fact, a sin.