Calvin or Burke? D.G. Hart Burke and Eliot are fi…

Calvin or Burke?
D.G. Hart

Burke and Eliot are fine for thinking about cult and culture, but since this is a blog on Christ’s mediatorial kingship perhaps a theologian from the Reformed tradition would be a better guide to the specific consideration of Christ executing the office of a king.

Calvin in book 2, ch. 15 of the Institutes, asserts over and over that Christ’s kingship is spiritual in nature:

“We have said that we can perceive the force and usefulness of Christ’s kingship only when we recognize it to be spiritual. This is clear enough from the fact that, while we must fight throughout life under the cross, our condition is harsh and wretched. What, then, would it profit us to be gathered under the reign of the Heavenly King, unless beyond this earthly life we were certain of enjoying its benefits? For this reason we ought to know that the happiness promised us in Christ does not consist in outward advantages — such as leading a joyous and peaceful life, having rich possessions, being safe from all harm, and abounding with delights such as the flesh commonly longs after. No, our happiness belongs to the heavenly life” [2.15.4]

This understanding of Christ’s kingship has a twofold import. One concerns the sorts of ills our societies now face. Could those be part of the hardships we face in life whether because we as saints are at odds with the world or because to look for solutions to moral and social ills is to immanentize the eschaton. That’s not to say that social conditions are of no concern. But it does mean (to me at least) that Christ is king even when pornography escalates or the Da Vinci Code rules at the box office.

The second and more significant import of this understanding of spiritual kingship is that it makes sense of the cross. The kingdom of God and the reign of Christ came through the great injustice of executing an innocent man who happened to be the very Son of God. If we have an understanding of Christ’s kingship that equates it with the elimination of immorality in our societies or nations, then we have no way of making sense that Christ triumphed over sin, death and the Devil through what appeared to be the defeat of his reign. I don’t see how we can separate Christ’s executing the office of king from his death on the cross. In which case, the evidence that we seek for his kingship may need to be sufficiently broad to include the notion that Christ reigns and his kingdom advances even through the sinful acts of wicked men. Of course, that’s not the basis for a quiet and peaceable life, or for social policy. But it is a foundation for distinguishing sharply between civil and spiritual kingdoms, which Calvin also does at the beginning of his discussion in book four on the civil magistrate.