Posted on April 30th, 2023

The Agents of Resistance

It has been established that, for Calvin, there are cases in which it is lawful for a ruler to be resisted, but it has not been shown what concrete forms such resistance can take, and who are the lawful agents in such a resistance. Just because the circumstances allow for some form of resistance, does not mean that anyone is automatically authorized to resist a tyrant by whatever means seems good.

 Building upon his principle derived from God's being a God of order, Calvin insists that any resistance against a tyrant must be done in accordance with the legitimate laws of that particular order. An illegitimate and tyrannical ruler does not warrant an illegitimate reaction on the part of the people, but rather resistance is to seek to restore the status quo and thus must be proceeded with lawfully. 

Private Citizens: What has already been noted regarding the magistrate is also true for the private citizen. Society is made up of both the rulers and the ruled, both subject to God's law. Each is to maintain his specific calling, and may not illegitimately overstep his boundaries. 

What this implies for private citizens, then, is utmost restraint in public matters, so "that they may not deliberately intrude in public affairs, or pointlessly invade the magistrate's office, or undertake anything politically. Even if offences are committed against them, private citizens do not have any independent rights except those allowed by law, and even these may not be pushed privately, but only through the due process of law. Calvin violently disagrees with the modern concept of democracy in which all power is seen as ultimately in the hands of the people. For him, God is the only sovereign, and delegates power to whom He wills. In Calvin's view, the people have primarily responsibilities and duties to fulfill; they are not some sort of check against the magistrate. For those private citizens who would want to rebel and advocate some change of the order, Calvin reserves his strongest rebuke: "These men unblushingly belched forth abuse against the magistrates to take away all respect for public law and order, and this was openly to attack God with their blasphemies. There are many turbulent men of this kind today who boast that all the power of the sword is heathen and unlawful and who busy themselves furiously to overthrow the body politic. Such ragings which upset the progress of the gospel are stirred up by Satan. In another place he writes even more categorically and uncompromisingly: "The wilfullness of kings will run to excess, but it will not be your part to restrain it; you will have only this left to you: to obey their commands and hearken to their word. The only comfort will be that "they who have proudly and tyrannically governed shall one day render their account to God," and that "God, whose prerogative it is to raise the abject and to relieve the oppressed," will come to their help. But as far as individual action on the part of private citizens is concerned, "the very desire to shake off or remove this yoke is tacit proof of an evil conscience that is plotting some mischief. It does not lie in the will of the people to set up princes. We should rather consider that an unjust ruler is God's punishment for the sins of the people and that it is not our calling to supply a remedy, but that we have to wait upon God and implore His help.

The Lesser Magistrates

John Calvin has one long sentence which outlines his views with regard to the right and duty of resistance to tyrants by the lesser magistrates. "For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings (as in ancient times the ephors were set against the Spartan kings, or the tribunes of the people against the Roman consuls, or the demarchs against the senate of the Athenians; and perhaps, as things now are, such power as the three estates exercise in every realm when they hold their chief assemblies), I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know they have been appointed protectors of God's ordinance." In order to understand exactly what Calvin is getting at, it will be necessary first of all to understand what the import of his examples is, especially with regard to the "three estates.

 

The ancient examples are merely illustrative, and are only casually important. The Ephors were five Spartan magistrates whose task it was to exercise restraint upon the king. The Roman tribunes were officers chosen by the people to protect their liberties against the Senate and Consuls.' The Greek Demarchs performed similar functions in Athens. 

The "three estates" was a body of representatives made up of individuals from the three estates of the Clergy, Nobility, and Commoners or Burghers. This political body existed in several European nations, including France, and was permitted, at least in theory, to restrain monarchical absolutism. "Calvin thus seems to be suggesting that rulers are not only not above the law, but that they must be brought to heel by the duly appointed representatives of the law if the need arise."  

Even though in his native France, the Estates had not met for over 50 years when Calvin first penned the above statement, and would not meet until a year after the final edition of the Institutes had come off the press, the strength of his argument lies in the fact that he summons them to a realization of their duty given them in the law. In other words, if the Estates have the constitutional right that he assumes that they have (and he is not alone in so assuming), then they also have a corresponding duty. As has already been shown, this is not an optional duty, but is in fact sinful if neglected, and would thus place them under God's disapproval.

It is important to understand that this representative body that Calvin has in mind does not exercise its authority in behalf of the people," but rather they are so commissioned by God as His lawfully ordained ministers. "What Calvin seems to have in mind is not a democratic, but rather a judicial approach to the question of resistance in which the laws and not the people are supreme and the Estates are thus not so much representatives as guardians of the people and of their rights.

Summary of Calvin's Position

Calvin's position is based primariiy upon legal and judicial argumentation. In Calvin's opinion, the grounds for resistance are not dictated by narrowly conceived theological or religious considerations, but are based in the legal situation as it actually exists in a particular country. Legitimate resistance is not done in the name of some higher order or principle against the established political order, but it is carried out as part of the existing order. 

Calvin sees no place for the private citizen actively to resist the duly ordained authorities. Rather he calls upon those officials whose constitutional power compels them to protect the established order against a usurper or tyrant. It is the duty of these officials to resist lawfully, using resistance to bring order back to the country, and to restore the nation to the constitutional status quo. 

Contemporary Applications

We who believe in the sovereignty of God and in His all ruling providence recognize that there is much to learn from history. History is the unfolding of God's decree, and it is presumptuous for us to cut off our "Hall of Heroes" with the closing of Hebrews 11. By God's standards, John Calvin is a hero of the faith, and with regard to Christian resistance, he should be listened to. 

To begin with, Calvin's division of the agents of resistance into private citizens and magistrates is important. In 20th century America, with the radical egalitarianism that has been popularized as a result of our baptistic moorings, it is important to emphasize that a nation's constitutional basis must be defended by constitutional defenders. Too often the attitude that prevails in many churches is projected into political life. In most American churches, the "people" vote on everything, and make a decision on everything. If enough of the membership doesn't like something, then they band together and proceed to change it. Government, however, doesn't work that way. We may not like the federal funding of abortions, the United Nations, or the huge giveaway programs, but we as private citizens do not have the right actively to resist. In other words, even though the government does fund abortions, we must still pay our taxes. If the time ever comes, and there is the need for armed, active resistance against a tyrannical federal government, then that resistance must come about as a result of the leadership of lesser magistrates. The people must never take matters into their own hands. The duties of the private citizen are primarily obedience to the laws of the land, and deference to the magistrates. It is only when obedience involves one in an actual sin that civil disobedience is acceptable. Active resistance, however, never is. 

The second point made by Calvin that is important for us today is his teaching that the laws of the land are supreme over both magistrates and subjects. The magistrates as well as the people are subject to the law. For Calvin, the definition of a tyrant is one who claims for himself exemption from the laws of the land. In our antinomian culture, law is not appreciated as it should be, but a nation cannot forever harbor a low view of the law before God gives them what they deserve: one just like themselves- a ruler with a low view of the law; that is, a tyrant. 

Third, it is important to underline the fact that Christian; resistance is conducted within the established order, and not against it. In other words, we resist- not revolt. The popularity of modern day revolutionary movements has been a bad example for the average Christian. Christian resistance, however, seeks to bring order back to a country, rather than create disorder for the purpose of overthrowing the reigning government. An act of Christian resistance works to bring the country back to the status quo, and when that is done, the resistance stops, even if all the wrongs haven't been righted. Those unrighted wrongs are then approached through the proper channels via the lesser magistrate. 

Finally, although there is not time to go into detail, with the popularity of Francis Schaeffer's A Christian Manifesto, it is important to touch upon the relationship of the Scottish Reformed tradition and the Continental tradition which was molded largely by John Calvin. Schaeffer has highlighted one work from the Scottish tradition, Lex, Rex (translated - "The Law and the Prince") by Samuel Rutherford, and pointed to John Knox as a preeminent example of Christian resistance in Christian history. There is, however, a genuine divergence of views between the Continental and the Scottish reformed tradition. The Scots, under Knox, John Ponet, and Christopher Goodman, endorsed such things as the right of private citizens to depose an evil governor by force and even to kill a tyrant. Goodman appealed to private citizens to remove an evil ruler from their midst lest they become polluted and guilty of his sins. Knox, who was a student of Calvin's at Geneva, expressed his most radical views in his famous Trumpet Blast Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, where he argues that resistance is legitimate because of an unbiblical government (a female monarch). His view received an even more permanent place in the Scot's Confession of Faith (1560), where "repressing tyranny" is listed under the heading of "Good Works." As can be seen in this very brief view, the Scottish tradition is considerably more radical than Calvin's.

Taken from "The Theology of Christian Resistance Pg. 213-217 on the Gary North Free Books Website