|
The Kingdom of God – John Calvin and Rousas R.
Rushdoony
(Emphases are Ed’s.)
In John Calvin, these (former) concepts (of Roman Catholic
theology) were swept aside by a rigorous biblical theology which
made impossible the presumption of mediating institutions and
voices. The Word (Scripture) interprets the Word (Scripture),
and Christ is the universal mediator. In his
Institutes (III, xlii), (Calvin) discusses the meaning of
the kingdom of God in terms of the second petition of the
Lord’s Prayer, and thus establishes the kingdom of God as
eschatological, not historical; it is to come, but it is
not here in the form of an institution, such as church,
state, or university. It is present in part where
men’s hearts in obedience yearn for the fullness of His reign,
but it has no mediatorial institutions (as in medieval times
under Roman Catholicism).
In its earthly manifestation, this “kingdom consists of two
parts; the one, God’s correcting by the power of His
Spirit all our carnal and depraved appetites, which oppose Him
in great numbers; the other, His forming all our powers
to an obedience to His commands.” Because of Calvin’s’ belief
in total depravity and his antagonism to perfectionism, he ruled
out the possibility of redeemed man claiming to be the kingdom
manifest. For him, man is never the kingdom. A favorite
passage of Calvin, however, was Romans 14:17, 18, and in his
Commentaries on Romans, he stated concerning the man who
fulfilled these conditions “the kingdom of God fully prevails
and flourishes in him… Wherever there is righteousness and peace
and spiritual joy, there the kingdom of God is complete in all
its parts: it does not consist of material things.”
This, his boldest statement on the kingdom, needs this important
observation: Calvin is here emphasizing the total lack of
dependence of the kingdom on any material form, on meats or
drinks, on any human activity. The kingdom of God is thus
the presence or activity of God wherever found, and that
presence or activity is pure grace, totally unrelated to the
works or will of man, and eternity is its origin and its
motive. Thus when Calvin seems to assert the human form of the
kingdom, he is most rigorously separating it from the will of
man. It is a kingdom of pure grace, wholly eschatological and
never institutional and historical.
Because it is eschatological, Calvin tended to distrust some
human activities, such as art, which did not seem to bear
directly on the framework of human daily life under the
expectation, Thy Kingdom Come. But Calvin in part, and later
Calvinists in full, by emphasizing Thy Will Be Done, in relation
to its implications for all of life, brought art into the
circle of the kingdom. Kuyper is thus right in defending
(in Calvinism) Calvinism’s relation to art. Medieval
theology gave art a relationship to God through the mediation
and government of the kingdom, i.e.., the church. Calvin,
despite his distrust, opened the door to a direct and
non-mediated relationship between the artist and the kingdom and
gave art its charter of independent from man and its mandate
from God.
And that commission can gain its full significance only if the
artist realizes that justification by faith places him under the
direct sovereignty of God and with the eschatological
sustentation. His concern therefore is neither realism,
impressionism, expressionism, nor any other school of art, as
such, but an exercise of the creation command to exercise
dominion in obedience, under the framework of redemptive hope.
Calvin’s position, despite his distrust, was the more
significant to art than Rome’s patronage. The Roman Church
can be patron of art; the Reformed church is co-laborer with
art. Berkhof has summarized the Calvinist position on the
kingdom by denying that Christian schools, labor unions,
political organizations, and the like are manifestations of the
church as an organism. “The Kingdom may be said to be a
broader concept than the Church, because it aims at nothing less
than the complete control of all the manifestations of life. It
represents the dominion of God in every sphere of human
endeavor.”
More bluntly stated, Calvinism denies that the church can be
equated with the kingdom: it is not the kingdom, but it
is in the kingdom. Thus Calvin, because he saw
economics, not as an aspect of the life of the church, but of
the kingdom, implicitly denied the jurisdiction of the
church, state, or university over economics. To him, the
just price made no sense whatsoever, imposing as it did an alien
category over economics. As Tawney himself recognized, Calvin
“throws on the conscience of the individual” the question of a
fair rate of interest. It was not, Tawney thought, because
Luther’s eyes “were on the past” and Calvin alert to the future,
but because of Calvin’s conception of the kingdom eliminated the
church as the manifest kingdom and made the individual
Christian, in his activity, the citizen of that eternal order by
virtue of divine grace.
The individual was thus the primary area of responsibility.
If the conscience of the individual made justice impossible,
the state could not supply what the individual lacked. The
state has its jurisdiction, the church its realm, art,
economics, the university, the family, all have their respective
jurisdictions, and the key to the life of each is the Word of
God in the heart of man. The church’s place in the kingdom
does not depend on a Petrine or apostolic succession, nor on any
human conditions. In the Scottish Confession of Faith of 1560
(Arts. 18, 19, 20), it was insisted, after Calvin, that neither
historical primacy, a majority rule, the rule of the elect,
apostolic succession, nor any other authority carried any
weight, but only the Word of God, the church existing with the
kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of Satan only where there
prevailed a faithful preaching of the Word, proper
administration of the sacraments, and correct ecclesiastical
discipline. (Ed—Three pillars that define a true church.)
The individual Christian is subordinate, whatever his position,
to the Word of God, and the kingdom shows itself in the fruits
of the Spirit in the man obedient to the Word. Thus no
instruction can claim jurisdiction where none is granted,
and Calvin accordingly refused to recognize what Scripture had
refused to confirm.
|