Calvin. History and Reception of a Reformation Week 5. Reading Calvin Today Sequence 11. Calvin: classical and Controversial Hello! My name is Denis Müller. I teach ethics here in Geneva (I just became emeritus professor earlier this month). Today's sequence is entitled "Calvin: classical and controversial." Let me start by explaining the meaning of this title. I do not mean to say that Calvin was controversial in his time (the 16th century) and that, having now become a classical author, he no longer is controversial. Calvin was already controversial during his lifetime, in various ways. Over the centuries following his death, Calvin remained controversial. And he remains controversial today, whether you belong to the Protestant tradition and are
sympathetic to his ideas, or reject his worldview entirely. In other words, Calvin's legacy is a legitimate topic for discussion, both within movements that adhere to his principles and within society as a whole. Today, I'm going to discuss some of these legitimate controversies surrounding the life, the work and the thought of John Calvin by looking at a few examples. The first point I'd like to make is a negative one: Calvin is not, and never was, a saint. In the Protestant religious tradition, there are no saints (unlike, say, in Roman Catholicism). More accurately, when Christians in the Protestant or Presbyterian tradition speak of the "communion of saints," this refers potentially to every believer and even, for some, to all
human beings. Anyone and everyone can potentially become a saint. This goes for Calvin as well, but no more and no less than for anyone else. So Calvin is not considered a saint, at least not in the sense of a saint who merits worship and devotion. This does not mean that Calvin does not address the topic of holiness. Quite the opposite: in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" as well as in his sermons, Calvin insists on the dynamic process of sanctification. The word "sanctification" designates a process, a transformation. One is not holy once and for all; rather, one can aspire to holiness by developing a certain attitude, by living a life that points in the direction of holiness, that follows the ideal of holiness. In his works and in his teachings, Calvin describes this positive, constructive dynamic as an opportunity -- a possibility open to all believers and, by extension, to all human beings. So that's the first point I'd like you to keep in mind. My second point is also stated negatively: Calvin was not a prophet, any more than he was a saint. I use this term, which is usually associated with biblical literature and the Old Testament in particular -- prophets such as Moses, Elijah, etc., announcing the coming of the Messiah
(i.e., for Christians, Jesus Christ) -- because in the secondary literature, in the countless scholarly works devoted to Calvin, Calvin is often described as the "prophet" of such-and-such. For instance,
one well-known book is entitled "Calvin, Prophet of Capitalism." I once participated in a debate organized by the International Labour Organization, here in Geneva, on the relationship between Christianity and capitalism in general, and Max Weber's famous
theory in particular. In my address, I suggested that Calvin's ethical and political thought tends more towards the politics of the present-day left than the right. A Catholic attendee came up to me after my speech and said, "What I gathered from reading Max Weber is that Calvin was a capitalist and
that he felt Christianity goes hand in hand with capitalism." Of course, this is an erroneous understanding of the central thesis of Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the 'Spirit' of Capitalism." Calvin was no prophet of capitalism. There is no connection -- and Weber never claimed there is -- between Calvin's life and thought and the emergence of economic capitalism, which originated in the Renaissance. For Weber, there is a connection between Calvinism and the 'spirit' of capitalism, but not its actual history. Nor was Calvin the prophet of democracy, secularism or modernity -- which brings us to the second main theme I'd like to cover today: Calvin's relationship to democracy,
secularism and the ethics of modernity. Let's examine, first, the relationship between Calvin and democracy. Just as Calvin was no prophet of capitalism -- as we've just discussed --, he was no prophet of democracy. This is borne out by close textual analysis of Calvin's sermons and teachings and, of course, his "Institutes of the Christian Religion." In chapter 20 of the 4th book of his "Institutes", where he develops his vision of political life and the role of civil government (the magistrature), Calvin champions an aristocratic, rather than democratic,
vision of the political power structure. "Aristocracy" is derived from a Greek word meaning "government or rule of the best" -- it thus reflects an elitist view. Only a small elite, made up of the most qualified magistrates (whose recognition and selection as such depends on the magistrature itself), is legitimately empowered to rule over society and its members. Calvin viewed democracy in a negative light. Etymologically, "democracy" (also from the Greek) means "rule of the people." For Calvin, "the people" meant the plebeian masses, the common man, and hence the risk of chaos and demagoguery. If everyone has the power, then no one is responsible; no one need obey anyone else. For Calvin, this is synonymous with permanent unrest, civil war or anarchy. And Calvin hated nothing more than chaos and anarchy. Order and organization are absolutely fundamental to Calvin's thought, as regards both the Church itself and society at large. This does not mean that Calvin's heirs, beginning with his close collaborator Theodore Beza, did not perceive the need to reconsider and improve this relationship between
the ruling elite (the aristocracy, the magistrature) and the people. Beza himself belonged to a movement known as the "monarchomaques," who, as early as the late 16th century, defended the idea that if a prince or ruler is unjust, violent and tyrannical,
then people have the right to defy and resist him. The "monarchomaques" thus sought to legitimize the people's right of resistance against unjust rule or oppression. Over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, Protestants who followed in the footsteps of Calvin, Reformed and Presbyterian, continued to gradually develop this notion, which in Calvin's thought
played only a minor, temporary role. They continued to develop this notion all the way into the 19th and 20th century, when it became clearer than ever before that there are much deeper connections than
previously acknowledged between the message of the Gospel and the ideal of democracy. Thus it wasn't until the 19th and 20th centuries that Protestants -- from within their churches, congregations and synods -- ultimately elaborated a truly democratic conception, one
that carried with it a political commitment as citizens. So much so that today, many people associate the rise of democracy with Protestantism, and even Calvinism specifically. Now, let's talk about the relationship between Calvinism and the secular world. The French word for "secular", "laïcité", comes from yet another Greek word meaning "the people." Laïcité, a concept most prevalent in French-speaking countries, became law in France in 1905, and was later adopted by several other European countries, including Switzerland. It entails a strict separation of Church and State; of religion and politics; of faith and ethics. Laïcité means that each of these opposing realms must be carefully separated -- never confused with one another, never considered as equivalent. It is a common belief that Calvin himself insisted on such distinctions in his opposition to the Catholic church of his time, i.e. that he defended the concept of laïcité against the anti-secular
beliefs of his predecessors, and Catholics in particular. Not so: Calvin, being a product of the 16th century, had no such conception of the secular realm. In fact, what he envisioned when he intervened with the rulers of his day was for the Church, through its pastors and ministers, to acquire a much greater influence on society by
gaining some authority over the magistrature. Thus it is a mistake to retrospectively inject any kind of clear distinction between Church and State, or between religion and politics, into the reality of the 16th century. Once again, it is only gradually, over the course of several centuries (and as of the 18th century in particular), that the concept of laïcité gained sufficient momentum to lead to the situation which
prevails today in many European (especially French-speaking) countries, namely, a clear-cut legal
delimitation of the church and the state, of the religious and the political. Let's now delve into the third and last topic of the day: the relationship between Calvinism, on the one hand, and ethics and modernity on the other. Calvin cannot be construed as an apostle of modernity -- he was not a modern thinker. He belongs to the Renaissance, not to modernity. Thus he did not advocate an ethic in any way autonomous from religion. For Calvin, there is no such thing as an ethic that does not depend, to some extent, on one's conception of God, that is separate from the Christian faith. Any ethic that is distinct, or removed, from the Christian faith, or even agnostic, is by definition erroneous in Calvin's view. Today, by contrast, we (including Protestants) believe that men and women of goodwill are perfectly able to develop and adhere to ethical principles without necessarily relating them to
any particular faith, or to Christian faith specifically. So these are the main points I'd like you to consider. In conclusion, let me make one thing clear: nothing I've said about Calvin should be taken to mean that his thought is not a potentially fertile source for present-day reflection on
religion, ethics and politics. Indeed, Calvin's work represents an ideal starting point from which to develop the ideas mentioned in today's sequence, many of which were only just foreshadowed in his work,
introduced without being fully fleshed out or developed. For example, to conclude, Calvin, following Luther, makes a distinction between two realms: the spiritual realm, or kingdom of God and of the Church; and the the temporal realm, i.e., the realm of the magistrature or civil government. Without radically opposing them, Calvin does make a distinction between them. This distinction has led to the development, in modern political science and ethics, of new ways to define the relationship between Church and State -- a development that perfectly illustrates
the impact and legacy of Calvinist Protestantism in the context of modernity. When the focus is placed on the spiritual realm and what it signifies, it follows that the Church need not subject itself to the dictates of political authority. The Church has a right of resistance, a right of inventory, in its relation to the State. The Church's duty is to stay ever vigilant, and it is legitimate for it to criticize the ruling body when appropriate. In short, there is an autonomy of the Church as relates to the political sphere. On the other hand, acknowledging the temporal realm in its autonomy, the Church today recognizes the secular nature of the political process, a process in which Christians are able to participate to
the same extent as any other citizen. Thus the Church may not interfere in political life, at least not in its capacity as Church. Rather, it may encourage its members to become involved, as responsible, autonomous citizens, in the political process and civic life of our modern societies -- or more accurately, our
postmodern societies.
