Christian freedom in the church and in the state
Calvin’s approach
is the same in both cases. Justified sinners possess
liberty over the many things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, indifferent matters. This is a two way
freedom, hence 'indifferent'. The freedom to exercise to and claim the right to wear what coloured polo-shirt
you should wear, but also not to insist on always wearing your favourite Postman-Pat
Red. The rich may live in luxury, but they have liberty not to. Those who like
a drink may enjoy one, but it is also a part of their liberty for them to abstain. And
so on. ‘Indifference’ rather than 'liberty’ emphases that the expression of
freedom may go either way.
Even though the State is a divinely-ordained its laws are not divine laws, as
are those which constitute the church, and which regulate its life. This is a rather surprising result, when you think of it. The church is not free to make new laws, but the state is. Are we free to
disobey the state? The matters over which the state legislates may be
indifferent as far as the law of God is concerned. The law of God neither commands nor forbids the imposition of a 30 mph limit. But it must be obeyed
nonetheless. Its laws ought to be kept conscientiously unless they
flout the commands of God.
Having the
Anabaptists in mind, no doubt, Calvin is quite exercised by this point of conscientiously
obeying the powers that be, that the Christian should 'internalise' his obedience of a
law that is not a divine law, when it is enacted by an institution ordained by
God. He notes that Paul teaches (Rom 13.5) that one must respect the state-law, not only for God’s wrath’s sake (because there is a punishment for non-compliance), but also for conscience’s sake, though it may be purely human, and may carry with it all sorts of awkwardness and inconvenience. (And even though, in his day, the proceeds of taxation may be used to fund military conquest.) Keeping the law should be a matter of inner integrity. (Calvin also cites
I Tim.1.5)
So concerned is
Calvin to insist on this point that the more observant reader of the Institutes will recognize that Calvin reproduces
verbatim (or almost so) his treatment of the church and society in Book III in
his discussion of this point in Book IV. For those who wish to check this, consider the
language of III. 19. 16, and its verbatim repetition in IV.10 .4. (I wonder if
a part of the reason is that Calvin thought that some of his readers would be
inclined the skip parts of Book III, moving to the more political themes of Book IV?)
So Christian liberty has nuances to it. Conduct respecting ‘things indifferent’ is not to be indulged or flaunted, and the Christian as a respectful citizen is to keep the laws of men, because they are made law by a God-given power.
Hence
a law is said to bind the conscience, because it simply binds the individual,
without looking at men, or taking any account of them. For example, God not
only commands us to keep our mind chaste and pure from lust, but prohibits all
external lasciviousness or obscenity of language. My conscience is subjected to
the observance of this law, though there were not another man in the world…..’
(III. 19. 16).
This is rather
different from the modern view of liberty according to which we can do what we like provided that it does not harm others. Or from the attitude of those who seem never get over the
novelty of having been emancipated from Fundamentalism, and whose
clothes tend to smell of tobacco and booze as a consequence.
As regards the
church and liberty, Calvin’s treatment is a robust account of what is these days
called the ‘spirituality of the church’. The Christian, made free by Christ, has a spiritual liberty, which must be safeguarded and preserved unimpaired. The
governance of the church is quite different from the governance of the state.
The church is to be structured and ruled by the revealed word of God. All his commands and only his commands are to
inform Christian preaching and to sensitise the Christian’s conscience. This also – paradoxically, it may seem at
first – is to be understood as a Christian freedom, freedom from the impositions
of men. Rome burdens the conscience of worshippers with newly-invented obligations. Even
though Calvin has the excesses of the Papal church in mind his argument is a
perfectly general one, covering churchly impositions of any kind.
Freedom and the
Two Kingdoms
We can see from this that Calvin’s treatment
of liberty is within the overarching structure of his teaching on the two
kingdoms, the church and the state, explicitly so:
Therefore,
lest this prove a stumbling block to any, let us observe that in man government
is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and
divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those
duties which as men and citizens, we are bold to perform. To these
are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal
jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of
the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to
food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live
among his fellows purely, honorably, and modestly. We may call the one the
spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them,
are always to be viewed apart from each other. (III.19.15)
The two are each divine jurisdictions, though they operate differently, and
do not have equal importance. Each should give rise to conscientious action on
the part of the Christian. So it is not the case that the first is God’s
kingdom, the second the godless, purely secular ‘world’. The second a divine jurisdiction too.
The two kingdoms
and Christian activity
In the dust raised
by the current renewed appreciation of the Reformed doctrine of the two
kingdoms, through the work of David Van Drunen and others, it is sometimes asked,
in adopting the doctrine of the two kingdoms, what becomes of the divine
cultural mandate? In the hands of Abraham Kuyper and the neo-Calvinists, this mandate has become the work of the kingdom, as distinct from the church, and part of the Christian's endeavour to transform society by promoting Christian this and that: Christian education, politics, art, literature, care for the environment, and so on. This has become a familiar theme, some being sanguine about the prospects of such transformation, stressing the place that such endeavours have as an expression of God's 'common grace', others from the same stable stressing the 'antithesis' between Christian cultural endeavours and those of the secular world. These attitudes have no more than the status of private opinions, the relevant attitudes and actions being neither commanded by the word of God as a part of Christian worship or conduct, nor required by the state.
To add 'cultural transformation' to Christ's command to his first disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel, would (in Calvin's view) jeopardise Christian liberty, and no doubt we could add that it would be to privilege the educated middle-class Christians over their blue-collar fellow believers. A command, or a kind of culturally-correct pressure on Christians to transform society, could amount to a new law, and if it came to that it would infringe the spirituality of the church and the liberty of Christians.
But one might think of such ambitions as a matter of Christian liberty within society. If someone thinks that what they paint is 'Christian painting', then fine. There ought to be nothing to stop them painting in this vein, whatever they take Christian painting to be. Like choosing to paint the new baby's bedroom pink. Neither kind of painting is commanded or forbidden so neither the colour of the baby's bedroom nor the painting of a 'Christian' still life is a God-given requirement of Christian discipleship. Each may be done to the glory of God. As may sweeping a room. (I Cor. 10.31)
So, the two
liberties -
In respect of life
in the Church, freedom from the observance of man-made traditions or activities which a person
is required (by some religious or other 'authority') to keep.
In respect of
Society, freedom to do (or not to do) matters indifferent, neither
forbidden nor commanded by God, and otherwise to be conscientiously obedient to the
law of the state, except when such obedience would be a sin.
