Article 4 – Natural Man
We acknowledge man by nature to be blind, darkened in understanding, and full of corruption and perversity of heart, so that of himself he has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God as is proper, nor to apply himself to good works. But on the contrary, if he is left by God to what he is by nature, he is only able to live in ignorance and to be abandoned to all iniquity. Hence he has need to be illumined by God, so that he come to the right knowledge of his salvation, and thus to be redirected in his affections and reformed to the obedience of the righteousness of God. [1536 Geneva Confession]

(Note: I use the 1536 Geneva Confession extensively in this post and in the other posts as well because of the concise form in which it presents many of these concepts.  I should point out that it is believed the Geneva Confession was written by Calvin’s colleague Wilhelm Farel so while not directly attributable to Calvin it almost certainly reflects the thoughts and influence of Calvin.)

While the Sovereignty of God is one side of the coin in Reformed theology, the Sinfulness of Humankind is the opposite side.  This is another foundational doctrine on which John Calvin built his theological framework and which influences Presbyterian polity today.

This is also one of the most controversial points of Reformed theology because of the extent to which Calvin considers humans sinful.  We do not just do bad things that are wrong and sinful.  We are not good at heart and can correct our ways by ourselves.  We have been infected by the original sin of Adam and Eve and are born in a sinful condition.  And this original sin is such that our sinful condition taints everything that we do.

(While I do not intend to do an exhaustive discussion of our sinful nature I do want to clarify for those not familiar with Calvin’s view of the sinful condition that he does not say the human beings are “totally evil” or can do nothing good under any circumstances.  He does say that even the good works we do have at least some self-interest embedded in them and are not done completely out of pure and selfless motivation.  As Calvin says in the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

If any are disposed to think more modestly, and concede somewhat to God, that they may not seem to arrogate every thing as their own, still, in making the division, they apportion matters so, that the chief ground of confidence and boasting always remains with themselves. [Inst. 2.1.2]

At least for me that hits a bit close to home.)

It is important to note that Calvin distinguishes between the Natural Man (as in Article 4 above) and the Regenerate Man that has received salvation through Jesus Christ (Article 8 of the Geneva Confession).  Yet, while the Natural Man is blinded and “has no power to be able to comprehend the true knowledge of God,” the Regenerate Man is better but still has no hope of complete perfection. As Article 9 begins:

Finally, we acknowledge that this regeneration is so effected in us that, until we slough off this mortal body, there remains always in us much imperfection and infirmity, so that we always remain poor and wretched sinners in the presence of God.

A point here is that confession once does not clear us but we need to be aware of our continuing sinful nature and need for on-going confession and pardon.
And Article 9 also says:

And, however much we ought day by day to increase and grow in God’s righteousness, there will never be plenitude or perfection while we live here.

So as we consider Calvin’s doctrine of the Sinfulness of Humankind, what are the implications for the Church and our polity?

The most significant point from a Presbyterian polity perspective is that because of this continuing taint of sin, this lack of perfection in human beings, a group collectively making decisions will be better able to discern the will of God than a single individual acting alone.  It is why Presbyterians always hold power and authority in governing bodies rather than in particular individuals.  The wisdom of the group will be better than the wisdom of the one.  They hold each other accountable and help to bring out the best in each other.  The discernment of the group helps to cancel out individual motives and repress personal ambitions.

Does this always work out?  No, for all synods and councils “may err, and many have erred.” (Westminster Confession XXXI.4) but for the most part collective decision making will do better than individual authority.

This does not negate the primacy of a minister of Word and Sacrament having the freedom to preach as they are led by the Spirit.  But, within the community there is still the leadership, governance, and discipline of the ruling elders to hold the preacher accountable and assure that the Word is rightly preached.  And likewise, it is the congregation’s responsibility to elect those who meet the moral and spiritual standards to be elders over them.  And the higher governing bodies have the right and responsibility of review of lower governing bodies, yet are made up of commissioners from the lower bodies.  In all things the different parts of the Body of Christ hold each other accountable so that together we may fight against the taint of sin to best work the will of God.

One application of this is for the officers of the church to take seriously their role in discerning the will of God.  Realize that the goal and objective of the various procedures of review and approval is to help verify that what is being done is what God would be having us do.  It is not to jump through another hoop or for the governing body to “show who is in charge.”  It is a collective discernment and each group that is part of the process needs to take its role seriously.