[Vision2020] Reply to Ben Merkle

[Nicholas Gier]

I will be happy to answer Ben Merkle's questions in the handy Yes or No format that he has so graciously copied from me.  I will, however, make a few qualifications and comments in the process.  This will be a lot more edifying than the faux sounds of torture that his father-in-law Doug Wilson made in answering my questions.  He could easily have made some qualifying comments as well, but I guess he always wants to be evasive and never direct.

 Over two months ago Ben e-mailed me about the sources for my column on Calvin and Servetus published in the Daily News on Sept. 24.  I told him that my primary source was Laurence and Nancy Goldstones' highly acclaimed book "Out of the Flames." Check out the book reviews on amazon.com for their credentials.

 At first Ben said that the Goldstones' work was a good book, but then he changed his mind and said it was a very bad book.  Initially he said that he would hold me responsible only for my errors not the Goldstones', but now he seems to have taken that back as well.  

 He also said that he would contact the Goldstones about their references, but so far he has not taken that very important step.  Until he does I will not take his attack as very credible, and I will continue to stand by my use of this excellent book.

 For those who saw my letter in the Daily News, some of this will be a rehash of some issues that Ben just won't let go of.

 Now, to Ben's questions:

 1. Dr Gier, do you consider this column to be a scholarly and well

researched work, written in an even handed fashion and intended to build

bridges not walls? Yes or No?

 NO. You will not find this piece or any of my many other columns on my CV.  There you will find my scholarship: four books, six book chapters, 35 articles, 20 book reviews, and 80 regional, national, and international presentations.

 This was a column written to provoke discussion. My own pastor and other congregants thought that it was too polemical.  Because of their hesitation, the column went through many revisions so as to please them.  My suspicions about bridge building were confirmed by Doug Jones' incredible attack on Forrest Church, who came to build bridges and speak about the art of living well.  He did not expect to be hit over the head with the Trinity and all that nonsense about hermit theology.  So I'm glad that I kept my column the way I intended it.

2. Or do you consider this column to be a hack job of research penned after reading one pop book on the subject and full of the sorts of factual errors that would make any PhD blush, written with the intent to whip the good people of Moscow into a religious frenzy? Yes or No?

NO.  Although certainly not my specialty, I did pass my qualifying exam in Reformation Theology.  I did keep up over the years with a special interest in Luther. In fact, I tried to correct a mistake that Wilson made about Luther some time ago, but he ignored me. When I learned that Wilson was now a Calvinist (and no longer a "New Testament Christian"), I started reviewing some material on Calvinism to prepare  for opportunities to debate my infamous former student.

Goldstones' "good book," initially according to Ben, is now a "pop book," but he has failed to contact the authors or to check their references. Ben read the book so carelessly that I had to point out the references that I used that he said he could not find.  I will stand by the Goldstones until Ben does his promised homework.

3. Dr. Gier, did you carefully weigh all of the facts and cheek the primary sources for all of your factual assertions in a manner befitting to your diploma and with the diligence of an autumn squirrel gathering his nuts? Yes or No?

NO, because I was writing a column and trusted the Goldstones as scholars with very good reputations. Do you check every reference of every book that you use to teach your classes?  I didn't think so.

4. Dr. Gier, did you assert that Servetus was the first to debate the

Christian reading of Isaiah 7:14? Yes or No?

YES. I read it in the Goldstones' book.

5. Dr. Gier, did you know that if you had done more than thirty or forty

seconds of research you would have discovered that this debate is as old as the hills and goes all the way back through the rabbinic traditions of the great Kimhis all the way to Trypho, of "Justin Martyr's dialogue with" fame and to credit Servetus with its introduction makes some of us get teary eyed with snickering? Yes or No?

NO.  I wasn't present to confirm whether you and your companions were either crying or snickering.  This is possible mistake that you should offer to the Goldstones, but the scholarly approach to making such a point should be one of humble correction not juvenile one-upmanship.

On this point, Ben shows unusually keen skills in historical-critical scholarship.  Does that mean that he applies similar scholarship to the composition of the Old and New Testaments, scholarship that shows very clearly the very human character of the formation of religious scripture? For example, would he affirm the same ancient rabbinic scholarship that shows that the Christian reading of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah is totally at odds with Jewish tradition and the straight reading of the text?

Fundamentalists such as Ben and his colleagues use historical-critical scholarship only when it suits their purposes, but turn around and reject it as "liberal" when it doesn't.  There is no intellectual integrity in their biblical hermeneutic!

5. Dr. Gier, did you assert that Calvin had "absolute authority in Geneva"? Yes or No? YES

6. Dr. Gier, did you know that even a casual reading of some of the research done in this field would reveal to you that the man didn't even have the right to vote until a couple of years before his death and that he never had the right to hold any civic office? Did you know that when I tell people who actually study Calvin about your assertion, I have to make sure that they aren't in the middle of taking a drink of milk, because I don't want it to come out their nose? Yes or No?

NO.  I'm glad that I was not present to witness such a disgusting sight. Who said that the right to vote gave anyone authority over another?  The people of Geneva once decided to send Calvin down the road because they did not like his authoritarian manner, but, incredibly enough, they invited him to come back.  Calvin came back only on his terms,a generous wine ration being one of those conditions.

In my column I was speaking of Calvin's theological authority, not his political authority. For example, one day a man challenged him during a sermon and Calvin had him arrested.  I'm away from Moscow, so I don't have my books or my notes, so I can't remember whether this man was severely punished or executed outright.  Calvin's Geneva was roughly like present day Iran: there was an elected assembly and then there were the pastors who strictly controlled the moral and spiritual lives of the citizens. Calvin was the head pastor and no one dared to cross him.  Many authorities have documented that the slightest infraction were punishable by stiff fines or imprisonment.

7. Dr. Gier, did you already have to correct the fact that you invented the assertion about Calvin going out to pick the greenest wood in order to make the burning of Servetus really long and painful, because it turned out that Calvin didn't want him burned (which kinda ruins the whole theme of your column)? Yes or No?

YES.  I made that correction in a letter to Daily News, but NO it does not ruin the theme of my column at all.  The theme of my column was to show how Calvin and Luther betrayed the religious freedom of the Protestant Reformation.  Why did hundreds of thousands have to die because Catholics, Calvinists, and Lutherans claim to know who the real Christians were?  I also wanted to celebrate the martyrdom of Servetus and to also acknowledge the fact that Servetus' descendents (many of the Founding Fathers were proto-Unitarians)finally gave the world the religious freedom promised by the Protestant Reformation.

8. Dr. Gier, did you think the previous seven questions were really, really,really, fair and unbiased and that they were written in such a way as to give you a chance to fully explain your position and to clear up any ambiguities in this debate? Did you think that this would be a great venue for you to explain yourself to an audience that was obviously willing to hear your answers and to consider your answers in an open-minded way? Yes or No?

 YES!!!  I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to explain myself.  I wish that your pastor and father-in-law had done the same. I certainly did not say that he couldn't make comments or qualifications. Knowing how evasive Wilson is, I thought requiring a Yes or No first would pin him down, but alas, he just wanted to play with us.  But for future reference, please try to restrain yourself at the end of your questions.

Thanks for the dialogue, Ben.