When Calvin wrote his Institutes, a great persecution had broken out in his home country of France. King Francis encouraged and supported this persecution of French Protestants and it was a cause of great grief and concern to Calvin. Animated by these troubles, he took it upon himself to address this preface directly to the King in hopes of setting forth a defense of the Reformation against those who had stirred up the King's heart against it. Others before him, such as Zwingli, had written similar addressed to royalty, and Calvin apparently thought it a good idea.
The Prefatory Address is divided up into 8 sections. In the first, Calvin describes his purpose in writing, in light of the persecutions. His original intent for the Institutes was to "transmit certain rudiments by which those who are touched with any zeal for religion might be shaped to true godliness." But as word of the severity of the French persecution reached him, he considered a second purpose. "...it seemed to me that i should be doing something worth-while if I both gave instruction to them and made confession before you with the same work."
He then goes on in this first section to describe his view of the causes of persecution. As is often the case when subjects speak to their monarchs, the speech we find here on the part of Calvin goes beyond simple respect. Calvin writes in such a way as to give Francis every benefit of the doubt, assuming him to be a good and honorable man who, if he only knew the facts of the matter, would demonstrate a different attitude toward his Protestant people. Whether Calvin really believed this about the King is certainly questionable. It would certainly not help his cause to write in any other tone, however, and it is a Christian virtue to assume the best of a man no matter what personal reservations may be held.
And so Calvin sets forth his case. There are those who, by falsehoods, subtleties, and slanders, have turned the King's heart against his loyal Protestant subjects, and Calvin's desire is to set forth the truth. This he proceeds to undertake in the remainder of the Prefatory.
He begins this process in section 2, A Plea for the Persecuted Evangelicals, by setting forth, in brief, his views as to the responsibilities of a King.
Calvin asserts, "Indeed, this consideration makes a true King: to recognize himself a minister of God in governing his kingdom. Now, that king who in ruling over his realm does not serve God's glory exercises not kingly rule but brigandage."
I'd be interested to have your input on this. How does Calvin define a "true King", for instance. Does he equate "true" with "legitimate", or does he have something else in mind? How are we to reconcile Calvin's vision of a "true" king with Paul's discussion of civil government in Rom. 13?
We'll be delving into this more deeply when Calvin deals with Civil Government in his very last section of the Institutes. At that time, I'll be curious to see if Calvin provides a rational for his placement of that discussion. But for now, I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on the quote above.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems that Calvin here makes a distinction between true kingly rule and corrupt kingly rule. He states very clearly that a true king recognizes himself as a minister of God. What exactly does that entail? I think Calvin alludes to this a few sentences earlier when he suggests to King Francis that he should not close his ears to Calvin’s defense because some serious questions are at stake. If Calvin wants the king to be attentive here, it is probably because Calvin believes the king is instrumental in the fulfillment of what the questions ask. The questions Calvin asks are these: how God’s glory may be kept safe on earth, how God’s truth may retain its place of honor, and how Christ’s Kingdom may be kept in good repair. I believe Calvin is saying that the king has some duty concerning the blaspheming of God in his kingdom, the respect of God’s word in his kingdom, and the general welfare of the church. This is what I believe Calvin means by a true king. Indeed the future kings of England would take on the title “Fidei Defensor” or “Defender of the faith”. If a king does not do this (note Calvin does not say a Christian king) he then becomes a brigand, a plunderer or an outlaw. This brings us to Romans 13. Paul here says very clearly that God establishes the authorities that exist, they are his ministers for good, and they bear the sword to punish wrongdoers. Who gets to define wrongdoer here? I think Paul does. And I think he would define them as ones who do things the Bible defines as crimes (see 1Tim 1:9,10 for a short list). The authorities then exist to protect and execute justice. Obviously this would include protecting the Church and believers. Therefore any king or ruler who does not defend the church and its people may have the title of king but is actually a plunderer. And Calvin states that if this king does not rule by God’s Word, he and his kingdom will not prosper. Calvin’s statements should give us pause to consider the actions of our rulers today.
ReplyDeleteThanks, John. Great summary. I think you're correct in what you have written. The issue that I struggle with, however, is the application of these things to our political system, and to Christians living in a political context in which our civil leaders may be judged as "brigands", to use the words of Calvin. Is his civil authority lessened in any way? Is our responsibility to submit to him mitigated somehow? Paul didn't seem to think so, and neither did Peter.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the long post, but I believe the answers to these questions are critical for developing a Biblical response to our political leaders today.
ReplyDeleteIndeed Christians have struggled with these issues for centuries. However I do think we can draw some conclusions from Paul and several other Christian writers, notably Samuel Rutherford in his work Lex Rex. First, Paul does say that we should submit to the governing authorities. But to what extent should we submit? Surely the king cannot compel his subjects to sin. I believe Paul would agree. But notice what Paul says a person should do in Rom 13. These verses speak of an active obedience toward the magistrate in doing good and right. They are not speaking about passive submission to the magistrate. Rutherford in Lex Rex seems to suggest in Question 30 that passive obedience is not commanded in the Bible but the law of self defense is in fact commanded. We do not have to submit our lives to the king’s cut-throats who are coming to murder us. He goes on to show that in some circumstances passive obedience, while not commanded, might be warranted for the furtherance of the gospel. Rutherford finally seems to suggest that the principal resistance a person is to undertake to preserve their safety is to flee from the tyrant. Notice in Rom 13:3 that the king is to hold no terror for those who do right. Certainly there have been numerous times in history where the king does hold terror for those who do right. But if the king no longer does right, is he still God’s legitimate servant? The question then becomes what course of action can people take, other than flight, when a brigand terrorizes them? Rutherford (drawing on the work of Calvin, Grotius, Knox and others) answers these questions biblically in Lex Rex. He will argue that the king is under God’s Law and therefore obligated to obey it. He will point out that the king is not only from God but from the people and therefore subject to the people. He also shows that there are lesser magistrates and judges acting as God’s vice-regents in the land that can refuse to submit to an evil king and have a legitimate godly right to depose him. Therefore, people acting through lesser magistrates can resist the king and his tyranny. In fact, this is one of the theories relied upon by our founding fathers in the American Revolution to justify opposition to King George III. So, is our submission to our leaders mitigated? I think in certain circumstances yes, within biblical bounds.
I do not have time to cite all of Rutherford’s Biblical examples, but they can be found here: http://www.constitution.org/sr/q30.htm.
Thanks John. Great post, and very helpful.
ReplyDeleteIf I can, let me try to separate the issues, as I see them in your post.
First, the obvious exception to our submission is, I believe, in the case of coercion to sin. Clearly, at that point we say, "Sorry. Can't do it."
Secondly, there is the case of direct governmental attack. No, we don't have to "submit our lives to the Kings cutthroats". I wholeheartedly agree that there is a biblical right of self-defense, as well as the defense of one's neighbor. However, I do think that things change when the "cutthroats" are coming after me specifically due to the fact that I am a Christian. At that point I follow the example of Christ and the NT martyrs who did not resist.
The third aspect is the sticky one. How are Christians to respond to a king who is behaving unjustly? Flight is certainly a legitimate option. And in those situations in which the king, ruler, president, etc., is under subject to the people, there is political recourse.
How does this work itself out in specific situations? Lex Rex deals with a specific cultural and political situation. But what about a nation and culture in which there is no sense of Kingly submission to his people? What about a nation in which Christians are a powerless minority?
I'll admit that its been decades since I read Rutherford, so maybe you can help me here. How was Rutherford's views manifest in the early church? Where was this resistance to tyranny in the first centuries of the church when Christians were being fed to the beasts?
Thanks again, John. This is certainly an important conversation to pursue.
Pastor Jim said:
ReplyDelete“However, I do think that things change when the ‘cutthroats’ are coming after me specifically due to the fact that I am a Christian. At that point I follow the example of Christ and the NT martyrs who did not resist.”
I believe Rutherford’s point is that flight is a legitimate form of resistance. I think Calvin would agree, especially since he was for a time in hiding and then fled France in order to preserve his life. Rutherford makes a distinction on the non resistance of Christ. He suggests that Jesus’ passive obedience to the authorities cannot be used as an example for us because his was a special case.
Indeed, Rutherford notes, “…a special commandment imposed on him by his Father, was commanded to lay down his life, yea, and to be an agent as well as a patient in dying (Job. x. 18); yea, and actively he was to contribute something for his own death, and offer himself willingly to death (Matt xxviii. 20); and, knowing the hour that he was to depart out of this world unto the Father, (John xiii. 1,) would not only not fly…” Question 30 Assert 2
Rutherford goes on to give numerous biblical verses and examples to support his contention. Later on he points out that Christ did flee his persecutors as did many others in the Bible (Paul, David, Elijah, Mary & Joseph, etc). In fact Jesus told his disciples to flee their persecutors (Matt 10:23). Fleeing persecution for ones faith is certainly an option. If we know the cut-throats are coming we can run away. It is not a sin. I think we have to clarify what it means to suffer for our faith. We are called to suffer for Christ (Phil 1:29). It will come. When the choice is denying him or death, obviously we choose death. However, we are not commanded by God to seek suffering when it is avoidable. If the king captures us, I think we are compelled to try and gain our freedom while not dishonoring Him.
Pastor Jim wrote:
“How does this work itself out in specific situations? Lex Rex deals with a specific cultural and political situation. But what about a nation and culture in which there is no sense of Kingly submission to his people? What about a nation in which Christians are a powerless minority?”
Did you have in mind a specific country such as China?
In sections 31 Rutherford deals with 2 other forms of Godly resistance that precede flight. These are a petition to the king and then self defense. One of the biblical evidences he cites for this is David petitioning Saul through Jonathon and then his subsequent raising of an army. The Christian from Rutherford’s point of view (I believe he is correct) has 3 means of active resistance available: petition, self-defense, and flight. Whether it is prudent to use them is another question. Many Chinese Christians sought refuge in Taiwan rather than be captured by the communists. Some specific questions as to the extent of self-defense are separate issues. For example, can we resist the king to the extent of physical violence if there is an edict stating that it is lawful for all Christian women to be given over to the king’s men? I think Rutherford would say yes. But to what extent can physical violence be used? We can discuss those questions later.
Pastor Jim said:
“I'll admit that its been decades since I read Rutherford, so maybe you can help me here. How was Rutherford's views manifest in the early church? Where was this resistance to tyranny in the first centuries of the church when Christians were being fed to the beasts?”
Rutherford deals with martyrs in the early church in question 35. Refuting the Royalists, who had used Tertullian as an authority against him, he argued that he saw no problem with active resistance. Stating that Calvin and Beza would agree with him, he concludes that resolved resistance is lawful.
I think the situation of how and when we resist is critical here. But I think the fact that we can resist is biblical. Indeed these questions are extremely important for we may find ourselves persecuted for our faith once again.
John,
ReplyDeleteAs to flight, I didn't address that specifically in my previous post, but I agree completely. The book of Acts is full of both "every day" Christians and apostles fleeing persecution.
In regard to my question about how Rutherford's views regarding active resistance were manifest in the early church, I wonder if you could be more specific. I understand what Rutherford argues, and that he believes Calvin and Beza would agree with him. (Whether or not they actually agree with him is another question, but Rutherford believes they would). But what I'm asking for is a New Covenant example or precept of just such resistance.
In other words, i'm interested in whether or not he can defend his position from the NT. And I specify the NT here, not because of any dispensational distinction, but because of the clear contextual distinction between the political situation under which Israel existed, and the political situation under which the New Covenant church exists.
Thanks for pursuing this with me.