Geneva was a city in turmoil when John Calvin arrived in 1536. The desire for self-governance had been growing for centuries. Geneva’s bishop extended his power over spiritual and civil affairs in 1444, and the city eventually expelled him. By 1526 Geneva was without a bishop and, by 1533, she had rejected Roman Catholicism.

Powerful changes swept across Europe in the 1520’s, and in Geneva, none of those changes were theologically motivated. Unrest inside the city and strategic alliances on the outside are the forces that pushed Geneva towards Protestantism.1 When Calvin arrived on a few years later, he encountered a strong city council whose power extended over a nominally Protestant church.

Much has been written in recent decades on the relationship between church and state. Why look to John Calvin? The reason is simple: His thoughts on this subject were driven by a well-developed ecclesiology. One may disagree with Calvin at times (and certainly should), but the Institutes and his commentaries were not the work of a pragmatist.2 His commitment to Scripture makes his thought worthy of great consideration.

Calvin’s influence upon Geneva is undeniable,3 and it was during these years that he synthesized his ecclesiology in the Institutes. Though he never wrote a work on church and state, his views rose to the surface when church and state clashed.4 One can easily see that Calvin believed in a separation between church and state, that the two should bless one another, and that neither is inherently secular.

The intent of this article is to further examine Calvin’s views on the relationship between church and state. A biblical critique will follow a brief overview of his political theory. It is the author’s hope that this article will serve as a starting point for further discussion.

I. CALVIN’S POLITICS

Church and state had been involved with one another for centuries prior to the ministry of John Calvin. In some eras, the state ruled over the church; in others, the church ruled over the state. Geneva in the 1530’s was more like the former than the latter.

Geneva became Protestant by vote, and her new Protestant churches were allowed to function under the oversight of the city council.5 This meant that the city appointed all ministers and handled every case of spiritual discipline. In fact, when Calvin was dismissed from his pastoral duties after two years, it was not the church but the city council that made this decision.

Upon his return, Calvin fought against the city council. He believed that society should be governed by church and state, the two working synergistically “as two hands washing each other under God.”6 A separation was necessary in which the two had distinct duties within their own God-given sphere of authority.7 One institution should not rule supremely above the other.

George Gatgounis has summarized Calvin’s position as follows:

The state rules the church’s environs, maintaining domestic tranquility so that the church can execute a mission to evangelize and make disciples of all citizens. By fostering the maturity of its Christian flock, the church nurtures the state by producing model citizens; thus church and state are mutually inclined.8

In order for Geneva’s city council and churches to work together, Calvin introduced a body called the Consistory.9 The city appointed this board of ministers to handle all cases of spiritual discipline. This allowed church leaders to warn and admonish the unfaithful as opposed to city leaders. Matters normally went no further than the Consistory, except when the admonished brother or sister refused correction. In these cases, the Consistory reported the unrepentant to the city council. He or she was then excommunicated from the church and fined, imprisoned, exiled, or executed.10

As opposed to the U.S. Constitution, Calvin did not envision a “high and impregnable” wall of separation between church and state.11 Joseph Gatis has stated:

In Calvin’s vision, a society that was composed of a Reformed church, and a church comprised of Reformed citizens were a fist that beats back the world and all its evil manifestations spiritually, morally, culturally, legally, and politically.12

Calvin did not conceive of a godless state, but one whose leaders would live in submission to the Lord. In other words, separating church and state should not mean separating God from state.13 Key to Calvin’s political theory is that the church, the state, and all institutions therein should draw their laws from God and recognize His sovereignty.14 The church is a sacred institution, but so is the state. Both owe their existence to the Living God and should overtly honor Him.

This raises an important question: How should the state draw its laws from God? Calvin was not a forerunner of Reformed theonomists.15 He taught that the Mosaic Law was only for Israel.16 He was, however, theonomistic in his thinking. The role of the state is not to uphold a manmade standard of good and evil, but God’s moral standard found in Scripture. Calvin believed that “laws are preposterous which neglect God’s right and provide only for men.”17

God’s moral standard is provided throughout Scripture. Murder, for instance, is not wrong on the basis of the Ten Commandments (the Christian is not under the Law). Murder remains wrong and always will be wrong because God’s moral standard does not change.18

Calvin appealed to moral or natural law, God’s law, as the highest standard for organizing society. Every government should strive to reflect it. Calvin writes:

It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws. Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to the goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves.19

According to Calvin, the standard for all good legislation is God’s moral law. In addition to upholding this standard, the state should not shy away from worshipping the living God, protecting His church, and punishing false doctrine.20

Whether the state functions as a monarchy, democracy, or some other form, Calvin cared only that it was God-honoring.21 Due to man’s depraved condition, the reformer favored democracy due to the limits it places upon any one man’s power.22 The wicked may be elected, but their power will be limited, and good leaders will be elected to counter them.

Calvin envisioned a theocratic republic—not a state under the Mosaic Law, but one in submission to God’s moral law. Interestingly, he connected theocracy and democracy (two forms of government not often associated).23 Believers in good standing with the church should be able to vote their conscience.24 Such citizens recognize a sacred responsibility in choosing their leaders but also God’s sovereignty over the entire process. In a theocratic republic, the people vote but it is always in submission to the Lord. They recognize that the power is not ultimately with the people, but with the King of Kings.

II. A BIBLICAL EVALUATION

“Power to the people” is an American maxim. Though Calvin leaned toward democracy, he most certainly did not believe the power of any government rested with its people. He rightly understood that church and state exist by God’s sovereign power.

Evangelicals today will heartily agree, even proclaiming that America is “one nation under God.” However, when Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons can pray together, quote Scripture agreeably, and hold rallies as one, “God” cannot possibly hold a clear definition. The worldview of Christians in the political arena today tends to be fragmented, whereas for John Calvin, it certainly was not.

Calvin believed that all of life was meant to be lived directly under the Living God. Church, state, family, commerce—all of society’s institutions exist by the will of this God and owe allegiance to Him alone. In the words of Abraham Kuyper: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign of all, does not cry, ‘Mine!’”25 Christ is sovereign over all of life; thus, all of life belongs to Him. Kuyper, following in the footsteps of Calvin, was right that nothing is secular. The state, for instance, may be in rebellion against God, but it still exists by God’s omnipotent hand.

Calvin was correct to recognize that the church and the state each have God-given roles. Biblically, the state exists to uphold righteousness and thereby, punish evil.26 If left alone in the vacuum of anarchy, wickedness would overwhelm the world, perhaps similar to the days of Noah. The purpose of government is not to change hearts—it is to keep evil in check, to prevent wickedness to fulfilling its every desire.

In order to keep evil in check, governments must legislate and enforce a moral standard. Should the will of the people create that standard? Should a monarch determine it? No, because the state is ultimately accountable to God—not to the people or any leader. Thus, the state must uphold legislation that honors the Lord.

Calvin was correct here and correct regarding the Mosaic Law as well. The Law was given to Israel for the purpose of leading Israel to her Messiah.27 According to the reformer, God never intended the Law of Moses to be for all nations. Its purpose has long past, but God’s moral standard has not. It is an absolute and objective standard, forever in effect.

Calvin advocated a separation between church and state, but he hardly meant the same as America’s founding fathers. The idea enshrined in the American Constitution is that government will neither promote nor prohibit the free exercise of religion.28 In other words, the state must take a laissez-faire approach to the Living God. Calvin would have vehemently disagreed.

God intends for the state to identify with Him by promoting His moral standard as revealed in the pages of His Holy Word. A state that takes no position on God greatly dishonors Him. The state should be theocratic, but only in the sense that it strives to reflect God’s moral law in its manmade laws. Calvin, however, went a step further believing the state should punish false doctrine.29

God expects all men to repent, turn to His Son for salvation, and worship Him.30 State officials are not exempt. Publically and privately, they should reflect Christ. They should evangelize and refute doctrinal error,31 but are these duties of the state? Scripture says nothing about the state dealing with anything other than moral offenses. Theological error is left exclusively to the church.

It is sad that Calvin was no different than the papacy in some respects. Both maintained that the state should punish those who propagated doctrinal error. In the case of Michael Servetus, Calvin was a member of the Consistory when this body determined that Servetus was a heretic. Individual Christians had confronted Servetus to no avail; the Consistory followed. Servetus, however, remained steadfast in his heresy.

What should have been done? According to Matthew 18:15-17, Servetus should have been considered “as a Gentile and a tax collector.”32 The Genevan churches should have viewed him as an unbeliever and done no more. Instead, the Consistory handed him to the city council for an excruciating execution.33

Calvin failed to see that the state has no role in doctrinal matters. God gave government authority to punish immorality even to the extent of capital punishment.34 He did not give it authority to compel belief. This means the state must allow a freedom of conscience. Sinners should not be interrogated by the state for their disbelief and error. One day they will answer to God Himself.

The Consistory was a significant step in the history of separating church and state.35 Prior to Calvin in Geneva, one institution had always ruled over the other.36 Here, church and state were viewed as equals with different jurisdictions of authority.

Jesus distinguished between the realms of civic and religious life when He said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”37 A separation between church and state should be inferred here, but how should the two interact with one another?

Though he wanted a church-state separation, Calvin viewed the two as mutually inclined. The church should actively support the state; the state should actively support the church.38 He pushed these institutions to work so closely at times as to harm their separate identities.39 Nonetheless, these times were the exception and not the norm. The day-to-day operations of the church and state were clearly distinct in Geneva.

By maintaining God’s moral standard, Calvin believed the state would uphold an environment favorable to the church. By making disciples and nurturing the flock, he believed the church would produce better citizens for the state to govern.40 Thus, the church and the state should mutually bless one another. When the church and state function as God intends, certainly this should be true.

The survival of the church depends upon Christ. He will build her, and she will endure whether the state is good or evil.41 Calvin did not believe the same could be said of the state, however. Whereas the church can stand and even thrive against the state, the state cannot “prosper long” without a pure church.42

America, like Calvin’s Geneva, is an example of self-governance, but that may be where the parallels end. America’s founders believed man could govern himself because he is fundamentally good. Calvin believed the very opposite.43 Man is not an altruistic, selfless being. He loves himself and will do what helps others only to the degree that it helps him. The reformer believed that a godless society, one filled with unregenerate men and women, would eventually destroy itself.

Calvin preferred a Republic, but he did not believe this structure was the key to success. Whether a nation is self-governed or led by a monarch, its prosperity depends upon men and women living in submission to Jesus Christ. Should God graciously draw the masses to Himself, regenerate hearts, and renew minds, society should prosper. People who live in submission to Christ are governed by Him. They think according to His Word and desire to love others above self.44

Simply by making disciples and feeding its own, the church may have an impact that extends well beyond its walls. It seems that Calvin was correct to see the church as necessary for the health and prosperity of the state.

However, it is important to understand that the church was not established for this purpose. The ministry of the church helps the state by producing godly citizen, but producing godly citizens is not the church’s mission. Seeing all of Geneva as believers, Calvin seems to have misunderstood the mission of the church within Geneva’s own city walls.

In America today, evangelicals have had a history of political activism. Should the church confront the state? Indeed, it should. When the state goes morally astray, the church should speak up, confronting sin with the goal of making disciples. It is as one God-ordained institution confronting another. This is not the same as confronting sin for the sake of saving America.45

Evangelicals have often entered the political arena with a goal no higher than saving a nation. Hope has been placed in candidates, elections, legislation, and court rulings to accomplish change. The real issue, as Calvin might have diagnosed, has nothing to do with these. The real issue runs throughout American history and thought: godlessness. U.S. Government is structured by the Constitution to avoid identifying itself with the Living God.46 The Lord never intended the state to pretend He does not exist.

Calvin also might have diagnosed a problem throughout churches in America. Evangelicals will personally identify with Christ and hail the authority of His Word, but much of this is left behind when interacting with the state.47 Rather than quote the authoritative Word of God, they cite statistics and the latest studies for support. Sadly, evangelicals have engaged the political arena as godlessly as the state they have longed to change.

When the church makes disciples and the state upholds righteousness, the two certainly would be a powerful force against evil.48 Both, however, are sorely lacking in America, and the fruit of a godless society runs rampant.

When Calvin entered Geneva, it was a nominally Protestant city characterized by misrule, injustice, and all forms of sinful conduct. When he left, he “made Geneva the soberest, the safest, and the most law-abiding community in the world.”49 Even critics such as Rousseau have praised him for this.50

It was the not the form of government nor the laws in themselves that improved Geneva. It was the power of God’s Word at work changing men throughout the church and state. As for Calvin, he was nothing more “than a conscience inflamed with the fear and love of God.”51

III. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ballor, Jordan and W. Bradford Littleton. “European Calvinism. Church Discipline”, European History Online. March, 25 2013. Accessed August 27, 2014. Http://www.ieg-ego.eu/ballorj-littlejohnw-2013-en.

Calkins, Wolcott. “John Calvin’s Calvinism.” Bibliotheca Sacra 66:264 (October 1909): 671-84.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. Trans. by Ford Lewis Battles. Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.

Cole, Garry Z. “John Calvin on Civil Government,” Western Reformed Seminary 16:2 (August 2009): 18-23.

Estep, William. Renaissance and Reformation. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich., 1986.

Everson v. Board of Education. 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Falwell, Jr., Jerry. Interview by Glenn Beck. The Glenn Beck Program. June 25, 2010

Gatgounis II, George J. “The Political Theory of John Calvin,” ChurchMan 110:1 (1996): 60-75.

Gatis, G. Joseph. “The Political Theory of John Calvin.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October 1996): 450-468.

Hopfl, Harro. The Christian Polity of John Calvin. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Horton, Michael. Beyond Culture Wars. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994

Karlberg, Mark W. “Reformation Politics: The Relevance of OT Ethics in Calvinist Political Theory,” Evangelical Theological Society 29:2 (June 1986): 180-192.

Kirsch, J.P. “Unam Sanctam.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. Accessed February 19, 2015. Http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm.

Kuyper, Abraham. Trans. by George Kamps. “Sphere Sovereignty.” Inaugural Address at the Free University. Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 20, 1880.

Larson, Mark. “John Calvin and Genevan Presbyterianism.” Westminster Theological Journal 60:1 (Spring 1998): 44-70.

Lindsay, Thomas. A History of the Reformation. 2 Vols. New York: Scribners’s, 1928.

MacLeod, Donald. “The Influence of Calvinism on Politics.” Theology in Scotland XVI no. 2 (Autumn 2009): 5-22.

 

1. William Estep, Renaissance and Reformation (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich., 1986), 232; Thomas Lindsay, A History of the Reformation, 2 vols. (New York: Scribners,’ 1928), 2:63. An alliance with Fribourg was made in 1519 and with Bern in 1526. Military alliances allowed Geneva to expel her bishop-prince and regain autonomy. The city remained Catholic until the Protestant canton of Bern sternly admonished Geneva to become Protestant. [↩]
2. It is the view of this author that evangelicals today place a higher value upon results than biblical fidelity. Theology has become a peripheral matter, which is especially true for evangelicals in the political arena. [↩]
3. “He soon made Geneva the soberest, the safest, and the most law-abiding community in the world” (See: Wolcott Calkins, “John Calvin’s Calvinism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 66:264 [October 1909]: 679). Though Calvin’s reforms have been criticized, even critics such as Rousseau praised him. See: Garry Z. Cole, “John Calvin on Civil Government,” Western Reformed Seminary 16:2 (August 2009): 23. [↩]
4. Harro Hopfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 141. “Right conduct was never for [Calvin] a realm of ambiguity and perplexity in which the services of a problem-solver are called for. His ‘office’ as a theologian and a minister was to remind men of what they already knew and to urge them on to a better performance, and he was certainly doing that day after day, even if not in the form of a single treatise” (Ibid., 150). “State” will be used herein as a generic term for government. [↩]
5. William Farrell and John Calvin had the right to teach Protestant doctrine in Geneva. When they fell out of favor with the city council, the two were forced out. Geneva in the 1530’s is a clear case of the state ruling over a weak church. [↩]
6. G. Joseph Gatis, “The Political Theory of John Calvin,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October 1996): 451-53. [↩]
7. Calkins, “Calvinism,” 675. [↩]
8. George J. Gatgounis II, “The Political Theory of John Calvin,” ChurchMan 110:1 (1996): 60. [↩]
9. Jordan Ballor and W. Bradford Littleton, “European Calvinism. Church Discipline”, European History Online, (March, 25 2013), accessed August 27, 2014, http://www.ieg-ego.eu/ballorj-littlejohnw-2013-en. A Presbyterian form of church government has many parallels to Calvin’s Consistory. For a discussion of these, see: Mark Larson, “John Calvin and Genevan Presbyterianism,” Westminster Theological Journal 60:1 (Spring 1998). Calvin introduced the Consistory in Geneva’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances of 1541. [↩]
10. Lindsay, History, 2:129. The case of Michael Servetus falls into this category. After admonished to repent of his heresy, the Consistory reported him to the city council. He was then sentenced and condemned. Calvin made significant contributions on the roles of church and state, but in some ways he remained a sad product of his times. [↩]
11. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). [↩]
12. Gatis, “Political Theory,” 452. [↩]
13. Cole, “Civil Government,” 18. [↩]
14. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., trans. by Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 2:20.9. [↩]
15. Calvin, Institutes, 4.20.16. [↩]
16. Calvin makes a threefold distinction: moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. The ceremonial law “was the tutelage of the Jews” for the purpose of training them. The civil law “imparted certain formulas of equity and justice, by which they might live together blamelessly and peaceably.” Only the moral law did he consider binding for all nations and peoples (Calvin, Institutes, 4.20.15). [↩]
17. Mark W. Karlberg, “Reformation Politics: The Relevance of OT Ethics in Calvinist Political Theory,” Evangelical Theological Society 29:2 [June 1986]: 186. [↩]
18. Ibid. [↩]
19. Calvin, Institutes, 4.20.16. [↩]
20. Donald MacLeod, “The Influence of Calvinism on Politics,” Theology in Scotland XVI no. 2 (Autumn 2009): 13. See: Lindsay, History, 2:131 for a balanced discussion on the execution of Michael Servetus. [↩]
21. Hopfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin, 153. [↩]
22. Calvin writes: “Therefore, men’s faults or failing causes it to be safer and more bearable for a number to exercise government, so that they may help one another, teach and admonish one another; and, if one asserts himself unfairly, there may be a number of censors and masters to restrain his willfulness” (Calvin, Institutes, 4.20.8). [↩]
23. Gatis, “Political Theory of Calvin,” 451-53. [↩]
24. Ibid., 451. [↩]
25. Abraham Kuyper, trans. by George Kamps, “Sphere Sovereignty,” Inaugural Address at the Free University, Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 20, 1880. [↩]
26. Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17. [↩]
27. Galatians 3:24-25. [↩]
28. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. [↩]
29. Donald MacLeod, “Influence of Calvinism,” 13. See: Lindsay, History, 2:131 for a balanced discussion on the execution of Michael Servetus. [↩]
30. Acts 17:30. [↩]
31. Matthew 28:18-20, 2 Corinthians 10:5. [↩]
32. Matthew 18:17. [↩]
33. Lindsay, History, 2:129. Lindsay says the Consistory created an “illusory” distinction between church and state. This seems exaggerated. When dealing with those who heeded the Consistory’s warnings, the state was not involved. Thus, the church functioned as a separate institution. When dealing with those who repeatedly scorned the Consistory, the church looked to the state. In these cases, the church-state distinction certainly was “illusory.” [↩]
34. Romans 13:4. [↩]
35. Estep, Renaissance, 241. [↩]
36. The Catholic Church had long held that the state is subject to the church. See: J.P. Kirsch, “Unam Sanctam” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), accessed February 19, 2015, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm. Unam Sanctum was issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. It states, “We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal… Both, therefore are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and material sword… the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.” [↩]
37. Matthew 22:21. [↩]
38. Gatis, “Political Theory of Calvin,” 451-53. [↩]
39. Two examples: The church handing heretics to the state for punishment, and the state appointing ministers to the board of Geneva’s Consistory. [↩]
40. Gatgounis, “Political Theory,” 60. [↩]
41. Matthew 16:18. [↩]
42. Cole, “Civil Government,” 23. Calvin believed that “no society could prosper long without a government in submission to God.” [↩]
43. Calvin believed that men are depraved sinners who love only themselves (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10-18, Ephesians 4:17-19). [↩]
44. Matt 22:37-39. [↩]
45. Jerry Falwell, Jr. said in an interview with Glenn Beck, “If we don’t hang together we’ll hang separately, I mean, that’s what my father believed when he formed Moral Majority, was an organization of Mormon’s, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, people of no faith. And there are bigger issues now, we can argue about theology later after we save the country” (See: Jerry Falwell, Jr., Interview by Glenn Beck, The Glenn Beck Program, June 25, 2010). [↩]
46. Ambiguous references to “god” are not satisfactory. [↩]
47. See: Michael Horton, Beyond Culture Wars (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994), 108. Michael Horton is certainly correct when he writes: “When we see the staggering moral crisis of our society, the first thing we turn to is an earthly kind of wisdom when the Gospel, ‘the power of God unto salvation’ is staring us in the face.” [↩]
48. Calvin called this combination, a “fist that beats back the world and all its evil manifestations.” See: Gatis, “Political Theory,” 452. [↩]
49. Calkins, “Calvinism,” 678-79. Calkins continues: “[Calvin] put down libertines and rioters, and created a solemn, temperate, and happy metropolis for godly men from the ends of the earth. And yet, like Savonarola in Florence, Calvin never held a civil office. He was nothing more, but also nothing less, than a conscience inflamed with the fear and love of God.” [↩]
50. Cole, “Civil Government,” 23. [↩]
51. Calkins, “Calvinism,” 678. [↩]