Was Calvin a Theocrat?


The word "theocrat" has become commonplace these days -- I've used it myself on occasion. When we speak of Iran, for instance, we speak of theocracy, and point to the role that the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council play in "guiding" the nation. Westerners have been hailing the battles of Mir Hussein Mousavi against the theocratic leaders, but many seem to be ignoring that he supports the idea of an Islamic republic, just not this form. Indeed, he was Prime Minister when the Ayatollah Khomeini was Supreme Leader. We also use the term to describe members of the Religious Right that want to see a cozier relationship between church and state. But the question is -- in what way was John Calvin a theocrat?

I'd like to offer an extended quote from Harro Hopfl's The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge University Press, 1982). Hopfl writes specifically to this question:

If we are to make any sense of a term which in any case was not Calvin's or his century's, we must suppose it to mean the ideal of a commonwealth governed in accordance with the will of God. In that sense there are few sixteenth-century writers, and no evangelicals at all, who cannot be described as theocrats. Again, if by "theocracy" we mean the belief that the authority of governors derives from God rather than (say) the consent of the governed or the antiquity of the established order, then Calvin was a particularly extreme theocrat, who did not even allow that the authority of governors comes from God mediately; more precisely, he was indifferent about the manner in which political power was obtained, and saw the hand of God in the establishment and fall of princes and politics. The only relevant question is whether Calvin's theocratic view of polity was of a biblicist sort; in other words, whether he abandoned the respect for antiquity, for prudence in governors, and for the capacity of reason and experience in favour of Scripture as the only means of access to the will of God, in accordance with which the commonwealth is to be governed. And no unequivocal answer to this question emerges from Calvin's writings. Since experience, conscience, natural law and custom are reliable guides to the will of God only when tutored by Scripture, they are all capable of being construed as redundant for the Christian; on the other hand, they provide enough moral knowledge to enable pagans to sustain a semblance of civility and to condemn them in their own consciences, and may also be treated as supplementary political resources for the Christian. (pages 184-185).


I think it's important to note that most 16th century people would not understand the distinction between church and state that came with the enlightenment. Thus, the only real question has to do with the nature of the relationship. Remember too that Calvin's understanding of predestination surely influenced his understanding of the government -- God is in control. Geneva was an experiment in a Christian Commonwealth, that was built upon the assumption that the state had a responsibility to create a context for sanctification. Thus, in the case of Michael Servetus, Calvin's response was rooted in his belief that Servetus's teachings would undermine the faith and practice of Geneva's Christians. Heresy and blasphemy were both sins and crimes and needed to be dealt with accordingly.

This isn't to excuse Calvin, but simply to better understand his response. It might be helpful to note that Calvin's comments about Servetus emerged out of a lengthy correspondence, in which apparently Servetus wasn't all that complementary to Calvin, then after this, with Calvin having said that Servetus would never leave Geneva alive, Servetus slips into Geneva and then goes to hear Calvin speak. Was Servetus testing fate? What was he up to and did Calvin play into his hands or the reverse? It should be noted that just about every community/prinicipality believed that Servetus deserved death -- Calvin just gets tarred with it.

As a historian I've been trained to look at things as objectively as possible. I make my judgments, but I try to make judgments in context. I may not like what is said or done, but I try to understand that the object of my study isn't a denizen of the 21st century!

Comments

Popular Posts