Hello Matt –
Well this is a parable – and you’ll not get unanimity here because all we share is an interest in universalism – rather than doctrinal coherence. As far as I can see the wheat are the offspring of God, the tares the offspring of Satan – this we know because Jesus interprets it. The two are entangled feeding from the same soil – so they are not obviously separate. That’s a new idea that the disciples have t grasp – different from say the teachings of the Zealots and the Qumran sect; and I think it is very important not to miss this. So the central teaching of this parable is not that there is to be a judgement and a separation – this was not news to Jesus’ audience. It is that the judgement is at harvest time. Of course Universalist will see in the burning of the tares a metaphor for a refinement of the wheat – the darnel chokes the wheat and stunt its growth; also it’s not good to eat. So this still can be seen as a metaphor for painful refinement as the God seed and seed of the enemy is separated in a way that runs through the centre of all of us. Also I note that Chaff burns quickly – so it takes a lot to see this as a metaphor of Eternal Conscious torment; a believer in ECT has to look elsewhere for convincing proof texts.
But most of all I am convinced that the central message of this parable is that the process of sifting and judgment is God’s process – only at the harvest will the Righteous be revealed in full glory. It’s sifting is not for us to engage in now – or we will fall into wrath. Every tradition of Christianity is flawed and has its dark side as well as its lighter side. I think Calvinism today has learnt much from those Christians who did advocate tolerance – and you too can be grateful to them because they have in a way enabled you to be a Calvinist and also to be the very likeable, witty and compassionate man that you so evidently are.
The thing about historic Calvinism is that it has often been so intolerant and infused with persecuting zeal – seeking to found the purified community of the elect now rather than leaving judgement later to God. When this impulse has been brought under control by other factors I think we see the best in Calvinism – but there are some very bad things in the wide history of Clavinism.
I cannot judge Calvin or Calvinists in the past – but I cannot ignore that past when Calvinists try to persuade me that somehow the light shines in Calvinism in ways that it does not in the wider Church. Calvin was a man of his times – but so was Castellio who opposed him and argued for tolerance. The burning of Michel de Servetus for Unitarianism is still something to be reckoned with. Yes Calvin wanted him beheaded when he proved impenitent rather than burned slowly over green wood as actually happened – but as Tom Talbott says in TILOC there is much evidence to show that Calvin entrapped him in the first place. Calvin also encouraged the killing of Anabaptists in a huge way – and early Calvinists killed huge numbers of Anabaptists (I say this as an Anabaptist sympathiser).
Calvin’s last commentary was on the Book of Joshua and it was Calvinists who overturned any idea of just war theory and showed no mercy against the people they subjected – and there are stories of Calvinist chaplains urging soldiers on to total slaughter when the commanders of troop urged restraint –in Ireland for example. Roger Williams rebuked John Winthrop for his genocidal wars against the Native Americans and rebuked all persecutors as under the judgement of God – he was a moderate Calvinist - his Calvinism had been tempered by the teachings of the Universalist Seeker sect in England.
And the idea of the elect as a separated people has lead to colonial abuses like apartheid (whereas I South Africa Anglican incarnationalism always with a splash of universalism sustained the hope of Black Christians). I understand that the Dutch Reformed church in South Africa has done mush soul searching in bringing their teachings into line with values of universal human rights. Of this I’m glad – Gregory of Nyssa he Universalist did this in the Fourth century and argued against slavery on the basis of the teleological dignity of all in the universal reconciliation.
All of this takes me back to the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. Yes Calvinism has a strong doctrinal base and fine tradition of learning and education has much to give the universal Church. But Calvinism has also learnt about how to live with others in the time of the wheat and tares from the wider Church. And I hope we can continue to learn from each other – and not revive old factions.
None of this is to say that I’m in any way bringing up Straw Men or trying to make out that Calvin and Calvinism are wicked. Indeed I found Marilynne Robinson’s essay on Jean Cauvin in The Death of Adam - which is sympathetic without being proselytising - very welcome. I think we UR bods do always need to reflect upon not being over reactive against ECT versions of Calvinism – just because these are at the opposite end of the spectrum to our beliefs. At the same time there must be ways of trying to express difficult truths about history etc, without trying to offend. Origen was held up by Erasmus as the most temperate and kind debater. When the Pagan Celsus mocked his Christian beliefs and laughed them to scorn, he did not retaliate in kind, or see dark meanings everywhere in Census’ words. Instead he replied with gentle wit - ‘You cook for the elite with refined palates; we cook for the masses’. I want to follow Origen’s example (at least in this matter )
Blessings
Dick