John Calvin’s Theology: Incrementalism or Abolitionism

The positive externality of Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism is the renewed renaissance for reading the Reformers, Puritans, and other historic Christian thinkers. This coincides with the rise of the Dissident Right, who are willing to read extrabiblical influences regarding politics like Bertrand de Juvenal, Carl Schmitt, John C Calhoon, James Burnham, and others—some fairly controversial. This rising intellectualism is predominated by young men of Millennial and Gen Z age which contrasts with the pitiful excuse for intellectualism that passes within the realm of Big Eva. No longer are people interested in academics that embrace Third Wayism, Post War Consensus, or an effeminate theology, but rather the rising tide emphasizes a more historical approach to life, incorporating the teachings of dead men to fight back against modern liberalism, to fight for a future in a nation that is actively hostile. In short, the system is broken and the world is unstable; the young men of the next generation are seeking something better.

John Calvin is arguably the most influential theologian of the past thousand years. In the Reformers there is found much wisdom, not only in their writings, but the means by which they arrived at their conclusions. They did not discard theories of Natural Law; instead, they relied heavily on these things and further utilized the historical teachings of the Church, most consistently Augustine. They viewed Scripture as one continuous flow, that the Old Testament was the Church, albeit a different age, so thus they employed the totality of God’s word to form their theology. Yet they had no qualms about citing the Greeks, just as their spiritual descendants should have no qualms referencing the aforementioned political theorists insofar as their reason conforms to Scripture.

In modern America, there is an ongoing debate regarding the issue of abortion, and true Christians are divided as to the strategy by which to approach the issue. Some incrementalists favor the approach of increasing restrictions on abortion however possible, with the ultimate goal of complete abolition. This camp is filled with subversive elements who, colloquially called Big Baby, seek to fundraise off the issue of abortion rather than enact legislation or counteract bills of complete abolition. But there are also genuine believers in this camp that should not be discounted. Then there are the abolitionists who favor bills of equal protection or complete abolition with nothing in between. While this camp is composed of passionate Christians, they are accused of purity spiraling on the issue of abortion, that their approach of all-or-nothing will inevitably lose on the issue of abortion (and any other issue).

The question becomes, what does the Reformed Tradition state about strategy with regard to issues like abortion? For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that both incrementalists and abolitionists desire the same outcome, but the only difference is the means.

The final chapter of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is entitled Of Civil Government in which the Reformer outlines the roles, duties, and limitations of the civil magistrate.

The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane [non-Christian] writers, for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care…Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. (Institutes 4.20.9)

Calvin presumes that religion is first and foremost with regards to the office of magistrate, something that was true for the pagans as well as clearly taught from Scripture. In modern times, it is often said that every “government is a theocracy” which infers that there is a State religion, with the only question being which god is worshiped. Not only does Calvin assert that both tables of the law are enforceable by the magistrate, he also presumes that religion be the foremost priority, inferring that one who does not enforce the first table will not be righteous in the second table.

Obviously, times have changed, and the State religion is secular progressive humanism, gay race communism, or the Zionist Occupied Government. Regardless of how one characterizes the modern State religion, it is not Christianity. Nevertheless, to combat any issue in the public square, religion must be at the forefront. The first table must be first, which is to say the magistrate must lead and orient their nation towards God.

With the scope being broad in the moral and spiritual authority of princes, Calvin does not neglect the principle of particularity, which is a presupposition of this chapter. He assumes that nations are different, that they have different laws, customs, and cultures, rather than presuming a one-size-fits-all approach to governance.

Equity, as is natural, cannot be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end. (Institutes 4.20.16)

Basically, the laws of individual nations should reflect the general equity of the Law of Moses; diversity is fine so long as the laws of each nation seek the same end goal. Abolitionists have the stronger camp regarding their interpretation of general equity in that they are more consistent with how abortion should be punished. Truthfully, the largest players in the pro-life industry do not propose laws with the general equity of God’s law in mind, since they might view women as victims or settle for trivial bans that are statistically meaningless.

Calvin goes on to exegete the second table to explain the variance in punishing the crimes, advocating that it is permissible for diversity of enforcement to exist. This passage exemplifies particularity which runs contrary to common perceptions of Theonomy. He presumes that the Jews were different from the Greeks who were different from his contemporaries while asserting that the punishments prescribed in the Law of Moses were specific for their context.

All laws alike avenge murder with blood, but the kinds of death are different. In some countries, adultery was punished more severely, in others more leniently. Yet we see that amid this diversity they all tend to the same end. For they all with one mouth declare against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law of God—i.e., murder, theft, adultery, and false witness; though they not all agree as to the mode of punishment.

Calvin emphasizes the end of the law over the means of enforcement, understanding that conditions arise, like war, unrest, pestilence, or even the age of the offender. These are a host of factors to consider. Because abortion is murder, therefore any law that falls short of punishing murder by blood is by definition insufficient. Yet the Reformers lived in Christendom, or as Aaron Renn would call it, Positive World, where Christian laws were enacted across Europe. Calvin is mostly discussing the variance of these laws relative to the Mosaic Law.

However, Calvin does speak to the state of our laws.

Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honor on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilized life. (Institutes 4.20.15)

This is the age of lawlessness. In modern times, demanding blood for infanticide is impossible. Death penalty is underutilized and rendered costly. Plenty of states have minimal penalties for adultery, but these largely go unenforced. In some cities, theft is even decriminalized. The state of American law is closer to that in Ancient Rome than in Christendom, where abortion or abandonment was rampant, adultery was permissible provided the mistress was not Roman, and divorce was normal.

Of Strategy and Tact

Provided the end goal is the alignment of abortion law with that of the biblically prescribed remedy for murder, the question then becomes one of strategy. As quoted above, the current state of laws is largely illegitimate and “abhorrent to justice.” Abolitionist do argue that even though their proposals lack feasibility towards ratification, theirs is the only biblical approach, that all incremental levels are sinful because they codify some degree of sin. Incrementalist counter by stating proscriptions against some sin is better than none at all.

Abolitionists use the following prooftexts against incrementalism:

“Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions”

Isaiah 10:1 NASB1995

“Can a throne of destruction be allied with You, One which devises mischief by decree? They band themselves together against the life of the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.”

Psalm 94:20-21

Essentially, any law that permits some form of abortion is an evil statute or mischief by decree, amongst other, similar prooftexts. They assert that such laws legalize or legitimize sin, thereby making them sinful.

Is any form of law, however imperfect, better than no law at all? Incrementalists would say yes, abolitionists no. 

In the example of theft, California has decriminalized theft under $1,000 which has permitted the ransacking of businesses and the shuttering of retail outlets. It dehumanizes the workers and the retail experience. California further permits widespread lawlessness regarding personal property, effectively legalizing mass break-ins of personal vehicles. Contrary, another state might be lenient on penalties for theft, which while not as severe in punishment as it ought to be, is verifiably better for society than with no law at all. The same could be said of adultery, where Calvin referenced different statutory punishments being better than “promiscuous intercourse.” Under an abolitionist framework, it could be said that overturning Obergefell and repealing gay “marriage” is sinful because such reversal does not outlaw sodomy. Another example is that of pornography, in which their framework would deem sinful age restrictions against internet pornography because such law does not outlaw all porn.

Murder is distinct in that the prescribed punishment is death (Genesis 9:6), but many places have eliminated the death penalty or otherwise obstructed the legal process of obtaining justice. Does that mean it is sinful on behalf of the judge to condemn a murderer to life without parole if such punishment was the maximum allowable by law? By no means.

Incrementalism would dictate that Christians should seek the maximum achievable outcome. This is the correct and only approach. As is the case with pornography, age restriction laws have succeeded far beyond their perceived scope because PornHub will pull out of states that enact such laws because they want children to see their content and they desire to devour their brains. Despite the law being incremental, it has tangible benefits in practice. Abolitionists might be resolute, but they cannot consistently apply their logic or the consistent application of their logic is verifiably worse in practice. One should not use the aforementioned prooftexts to assert that “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” is morally justifiable compared to rape and incest exceptions.

A war is seldom victorious in a single battle. The Philistines did not cease to pose a threat to Israel because David killed Goliath, yet Scripture still marks the victory achieved through God, this victory being incremental amidst a constant struggle. By comparison, criminalizing abortion is more than a war, but a crusade, one that will endure for decades. Such a protracted war can only be waged incrementally.

Conclusion

Even within modern political discourse, the wisdom of the Reformers proves invaluable. Christians today live in a lawless world. We must adhere to Calvin’s presupposition that there are in fact zero laws regarding abortion, adultery, promiscuity, sodomy, and other depravities the Scriptures condemn. For if a law, however imperfect, does not seek after the equity of the Mosaic Law, it is no law at all. The establishment of any law is superior to lawlessness, which is why Christians must be willing to expand their time horizon and work incrementally toward complete abolition.