Calvin And Theocracy Teaching Essay, Research Paper

When we think of a theocracy, we usually think of a political system, governed

and legislated by a religious body with religious beliefs. For the most part

this is true. Historically, theocratic governments have successfully existed

throughout the world, from ancient Egypt to modern Middle-Eastern Islamic

states. For centuries even the Christian Church enjoyed a theocratic diversity

which encompassed most of the civilized world. As well, the unprecedented spread

of Islam has seeded new theocracies at a tremendous rate. Most theocratic

governments had one thing in common, however; their political ideologies did not

just originate from the church, they were the church. Church leaders were the

political leaders. Typically, a strong theocracy was one with a superior church

hierarchy in which the political system was deeply entrenched. But not all

theocratic structures were intended to be this way. In Chapter XX of his

masterpiece The Institutes on Christian Piety, John Calvin logically outlined

his view of a theocracy. Consistent with his scripture-based reasoning, Calvin

eloquently described how civil and ecclesiastical governments were different,

yet uniquely related. In his classic reformation style, Calvin metaphorically

compared Catholic to Protestant theology by framing his theocracy not on the

church as the government, but rather he separated civil government from

spiritual government into a divinely ordained, segregated Protestant theocracy.

Subtlety expressed and masterfully executed, Chapter XX is dripping with

figurative language, suggesting that Calvin went to great lengths to insure that

his distaste for the Catholic papacy would not go unnoticed. The first third of

Chapter XX concentrates on the duties and responsibilities of the magistrate.

This after two opening sections which clearly divide government into two parts,

and then claim these parts not to be antithetical. Indeed such a preamble is

necessary since the remainder of the document is to be a separation, yet

cross-self-reliance on these parts. Calvin made no attempt to separate local,

regional, or national magistracy. In fact, most of the scripture references are

Old Testament passages which refer to either the kings of Judah, or other

post-king patriarchs. The main focus on the magistrate ?is that they have a

mandate from God, have been invested with divine authority, and are wholly

God?s representatives.? In addition, God has ?entrusted to them? the

authority ?of exercising judgement not for man but for God.? This sounds

very theocratic. However, no where did Calvin mention the source of this divine

position to be the church. Rather he asserted, quoting Psalms 2:12, that the

magistrate should ?kiss the Son of God? yet not lay aside their authority.

With this he follows, ?By these words he entrusts the condition of the church

to their protection and care.? Calvin clearly separates the church from

directly engaging in the politics related to the office of the magistrate. By

assigning to the church the responsibility of caring for the magistrate, Calvin

allows the church to be associated with government while not actually becoming

part of the government, as his Catholic adversaries did. Beyond divine

appointment, however, Calvin also outlines the duties of the magistrate in a way

which uniquely joins the government to God. Calvin continued his blend of civil

and spiritual government through a discourse on the duties of the magistrate,

issues of war, and the levying of taxes. On the duties of the magistrate, for

example, he returns to the question of divine appointment. ?And that their

sole endeavor? Calvin asserts ?should be to provide for the common safety

and peace of all.? Continuing, he states that, ?in administering punishment,

[the magistrate] does nothing by himself, but carries out the very judgements of

God .? In this, Calvin begins to solidify his argument concerning the divine

nature of the magistracy. It is no coincidence, however, that he includes no

reference which joins the magistrate to the corporate church. Supported by

additional references to Old Testament kings, Calvin implies that it is

inappropriate for the magistrate to be a church leader, in that King David, for

example, had priests dedicated to occupying those positions. On the topic of

war, Calvin makes his position crystal clear. ?But kings and people? Calvin

states, ?must sometimes take up arms to execute such public vengeance.?

Calvin views war as a ?lawful? undertaking, as long as the magistrate

follows some fundamental Godly guidelines, namely restraint and humanity. On

restraint, Calvin warns the magistrate against, ?giving vent to their

passions, even in the slightest degree, not giving in to headlong anger, or

be[ing] seized with hatred.? In a continuing effort to weave into his

discourse his dislike for the papacy, Calvin follows with a reference to, ?the

heathen philosopher? who attempts to wage war prematurely, rather than trying

everything else first. War, for Calvin, is a final recourse. The only

philosophers Calvin had in view were those philosophers of religion which

embodied Catholic theocracies. With respect to levying tribute, Calvin pulls an

unusual shift which is very inconsistent with his frequently repeated emphasis

on humble living. Calvin asserts that the government has the God given authority

to lay and collect taxes. This comes as no surprise, considering the abundant

scripture which supports such a claim. What is quite astonishing though, is his

use of the Old Testament Prophets and Kings as, ?portrayals of the spiritual

Kingdom of Christ.? Calvin frequently describes these kings, especially King

David, as metaphorical types of Christ, or perhaps even figures of the New

Testament church. This symbolism, however, is always within the strict context

of Christian piety, and never ventures into the arena of personal, worldly

satisfaction. Yet this section gives allowance for the magistracy to live

lavishly, since, ?he seeks the pattern for a picture from a lawful human

kingdom.? Calvin then justifies his opinion by implying that a ruler?s only

possessions are those which came from the people. ?Their revenues are not so

much their private chests as the treasuries of the entire people.? This is, of

course, in sharp contrast to the generously lined bursaries of the

papacy?those repositories exclusively owned by the Catholic church. Calvin

next shifts to issues of law, including its correct and incorrect usage, and the

application of this law within his uniquely framed theocracy. He begins buy

distinguishing law as moral, ceremonial, and judicial. Moral law is twofold,

?which commands us to worship God with pure faith and piety, [and] to embrace

men with sincere affection.? Ceremonial law was, ?the tutelage of the Jews .

. . and show[ed] the truth of those things which then were foreshadowed in

figures.? The judicial law, ?imparted certain formulas of equity and

justice, by which they might live together blamelessly and peaceably.? These

three characteristics of law lack the fortitude found in similar systems of

theocracy. In Catholicism, without The Church as the foundation of government,

legal systems, however prudent, loose their credibility to individual wants and

desires. Calvin conversely maintains that only the Catholic church possesses the

attributes to corrupt an otherwise sensible, threefold legal structure.

Continuing with his thesis on law, Calvin focuses on the believers proper use of

the established legal system. He does not specifically forbid Christians to

engage in legal disputes. Calvin does, however, qualify this litigation by

saying, ?if one is permitted to go to law with a brother, one is not therewith

allowed to hate him, or be seized with a mad desire to harm him, or hound him

relentlessly.? Rather, Calvin asserts that the ?principle for all Christians

[is] that a law suit, however just, can never be rightly prosecuted by any man,

unless he treat his adversary with the same love and good will as if the

business under controversy were already amicably settled and composed.? Though

he admits this is a rare, almost impossible occurrence, Calvin quickly and

tactfully follows with the reassertion that, ?all Christians are forbidden to

desire revenge?–a useful way to remind his readers of the vengeful attitudes

which so often accompany Catholic theocracies. To conclude his section on law,

Calvin summarizes with a very poignant statement which contains strong

anti-Catholic overtones. Believers are not prevented from ?using the help of

the magistrate in preserving their own possessions, while maintaining

friendliness toward their enemies.? Calvin new well that those governments

under the control of the Catholic Church expect their subjects to not only give

up much of their material wealth, but also consider their enemies as under the

control of the evil one, and treat them as you would the devil. Since the

magistrate, to Calvin, is ordained by God, his divine position is sufficient to

insure only God-willing legal protection, along with a Christian attitude of

piety. In his final section, Calvin addresses the attitude and behavior of the

people, sighting deference and obedience, and relying heavily on Jeremiah?s

account of King Nebuchadnezzar. On deference, Calvin classifies reverence for

the office of the magistrate as, ?the first duty of subjects . . .? With

this, though, they, ?should obey ?not only because of wrath,? . . . but

because they are showing obedience to God himself when they give it to them;

since the ruler?s power is from God.? Continuing with obedience, Calvin

implores the people to intercede with prayer and supplication on behalf of the

magistrate, following with the suggestion to commit all matters, ?to the

judgement of the magistrate, whose hand alone is free.? It is no accident that

Calvin brings together deference and obedience. These are two mandates which

rank high on the list of important matters for the papacy. But Calvin?s

theocracy, unlike those under Catholic rule, places the focus of these two

particulars directly on God, whereas a Cathlo-theocratic system is concerned

exclusively with papal compliance. With respect to Nebuchadnezzar, Calvin uses a

God designed allegory which is framed by Jeremiah?s account of the fall of

Judah, and their captivity in Babylon. The premise is that God, being the

sovereign ruler of all, alone executes judgement. Calvin says this judgement

often comes in the form of a wicked ruler. ?Yet, we need not labor to prove

that a wicked king is the Lord?s wrath upon the earth.? In this, Calvin

allows for the chastisement of His chosen people within the legal framework of a

governmental system. This is absolutely essential if God?s people are to

respect and revere their ruler. The metaphor comes into clear view as Calvin,

surprisingly, explains his position. ?When we hear that a king has been

ordained by god, let us at once call to mind those heavenly edicts with regard

to honoring and fearing a king; then we shall not hesitate to hold a most wicked

tyrant in the place where the Lord has designed to set him.? More directly,

Calvin quotes, ? ? . . . And it shall be that any nation and kingdom that

will not serve the king of Babylon, I [God] shall visit that nation with sword,

famine, and pestilence . . . Therefore, serve the king of Babylon and

live.?? This may seem odd, in that Calvin so strongly opposes adherence to

the whims of any Catholic theocracy. The oddity is false though, in that the

Catholic church, according to Calvin, is not from God. The Nebuchadnezzar

parallel is, without question, one which indicates a divinely appointed (and

curiously non-religious) ruler, though wicked he may be. Divine leadership

demands allegiance? depraved leadership does not. John Calvin?s Institutes

are truly a masterful work of literature. Chapter XX on Civil Government is no

exception to this. Logic, coupled with his well placed allegorical parallels,

give this document a credibility beyond reproach. In his attempt to draw

comparisons of the blasphemous theocracies found under Catholic rule, to a more

Biblical and Godly form of government, Calvin successfully ties together the

benefits of ?his theocracy? with the handicaps of the Catholic system

thereby creating a system whose entire focus is on God. A universal consensus

will never be reached on Calvin?s doctrines and ideologies. His history is

plagued with conflict and tension. Thankfully, though, John Calvin was able to

overcome tremendous obstacles and wrote extensively on those very subjects which

entangled him the most; for without the work of John Calvin, our perspective on

many important issues of the Christian faith would remain abstract at best.

NOTES Dillenberger, John ed., John Calvin. Selections from His Writings. (Garden

City: Anchor Books, 1971), 472 – 506 In virtually all of Jon Calvin?s writings

he emphasizes his strong dislike toward the Catholic Church. Dillenberger,

Calvin, Section 4., 476 Ibid. Ibid., Section 5., 477 The church as the

government was, to Calvin, deplorable. Dillenberger, Calvin, Sections 8 – 13.,

480 – 488 Ibid. Section 9., 483 Ibid. Section 10., 483 Ibid. Section 11., 485

Ibid. Section 12., 487 Religious leaders were commonly known as Philosophers of

Religion. Calvin?s life, as well as his writing, exemplified humility.

Dillenberger, Calvin, Section 13., 487 – 488 Ibid. Ibid., Section 15., 489

Ibid., Section 17., 492 Ibid., Section 18., 493 Ibid., Section 20., 495 Ibid.,

Section 22., 496 Ibid., Section 23., 497 Ibid., Section 25., 499 Ibid., Section

26., 500 Ibid., Section 27., 501 Calvin never condoned allegiance to leadership

which was clearly not the will of God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Dillenberger, John ed., John Calvin. Selections from His Writings.

Garden City: Anchor Books, 1971, 472 – 506