Calvin on the right to resist tyrannical government

John Calvin was, generally speaking, against popular rebellion, even against an oppressive government. He called Christians to respect and submit to the rulers that God has providentially put over them - even the bad ones. He did not permit the people to rebel, even against bad rulers. "The magistrate cannot be resisted without God being resisted at the same time" (Institutes, 4.20.23). If an ungodly ruler persecutes believers, they are to humbly suffer. They may flee, but they are not to rebel.

The one apparent exception is if an ungodly ruler exceeds the bounds of civil authority and coercively legislates false religion. Even in this case, the disobedience must be both passive and limited, so it is not a true exception to Calvin’s general non-resistance. The people must privately refuse to participate in the particular area of false worship. They must not actively, publicly rebel against the ruler, and therefore the whole system of government which God has providentially placed over them.

Calvin authorised the people’s magistrates to act to restrain tyrants. Indeed, he saw that as part of their divine duty. Any action by these people’s magistrates against higher magistrates is categorically different from popular rebellion, because the people’s magistrates have been providentially appointed by God to protect the people. In exercising this power, they are not denying God’s providential government, but upholding it, in the manner God intended. Indeed, to not use their power to protect the people, and thus implicitly side with a tyrant, would be ‘nefarious perfidy’ (Institutes, 4.20.31).

Who did Calvin mean by the 'people's magistrates'? He could have meant unelected aristocrats, or elected parliament. Later Calvinist political theology developed it in the latter direction. This 'popular magistrate's' right of resistance was a crucial basis for the parliamentary war against the king in the English civil war, and the American war of independence.

Comments

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another. Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else. The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it. Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us. Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief: Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...

Multicultural Ministry Matters

Search This Blog