Musings: Steve's Articles

Was John Calvin a Dictator?

The mere mention of the name John Calvin stirs up contrasting reactions from different people. To some, he is the hero of the Christian Reformation. In the words of William Cunningham, the man who “next to St Paul, has done the most good to mankind”.[1] In a similar vein, Church historian Philip Schaff asserts that Calvin “must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best men whom God raised up in the history of the Church.”[2]

To others, however, Calvin was a cruel and unopposed dictator who saw Geneva as nothing more than a spiritual laboratory on which he could unleash his theological experiments. The 20^th century German-born American psycho-analyst and social philosopher Erich Fromm regards Calvin as belonging “to the ranks of the greatest haters in history”.[3]

Indeed, the tendency of history in general has been to portray Calvin as a “humourless, dogmatic tyrant of Geneva who when he was not teaching a rigid loveless doctrine of predestination, busied himself depriving his flock of all the pleasure of life.”[4] Some, such as Father Andre Favre-Dorsaz have gone so far as to portray Calvin as a cruel, sadistic dictator, a superficial theologian and a believer whose religious feeling was of doubtful character.[5] When Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541, he would never have imagined his efforts in the French city would centuries later be labelled a “religious terror”[6] or a “rigid theocracy.”[7]

But was Geneva really a theocracy, and Calvin its ruthless dictator? This is question which has not so much been asked, but accepted as fact in a very uncritical way throughout the ages. A prime example of this is Aldous Huxley putting forward the old and groundless legend that Calvin’s theocratic rule in Geneva resulted in the public beheading of a child for striking its parents.

However, these assertions have to be weighed against the evidence; the evidence of the man, the city, and the very context of sixteenth century Europe.

Even before Calvin commenced his ministry, the signs were there that his views were anything but dictatorial. Calvin’s first book was a commentary on De Clementia, Seneca’s attempt to persuade the emperor Nero to be more benevolent to his subjects.[8]

His subsequent works display a reinforcing of this view. Based on his study of Scripture, Calvin believed that man was created to be a servant-ruler under God. For Calvin, man could not be properly understood, or understand himself apart from his relationship to his Creator.

Thus, man was commanded to subdue and cultivate creation under the wise and loving direction of the Lord, for God’s glory and the blessing and benefit of his fellow man. “We possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on condition that being content with a frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. Let him who possesses a field, so partake of its yearly fruits, that he may not suffer the ground to be injured by his negligence; but let him endeavour to hand it down to his posterity as he received it, or even better cultivated.”[9]

Furthermore, service was an integral part of Calvin’s view of man. As he writes, “even kings do not rule justly or lawfully unless they serve.”[10] It is clear that tyranny was neither something Calvin condoned, nor aspired to.

Another issue critics of Calvin raise to support the idea that he was a humourless tyrant is his supposed rejection of joyful living altogether. However, this is far from the case. For instance, while Calvin did reject much ecclesiastical painting and sculpture due to its idolatrous tendencies, Calvin asserted “…yet I am not gripped by the superstition of thinking absolutely no images permissible. But because sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I seek a pure and legitimate use of each, lest those things which the Lord has conferred upon us for His glory and our good be not only polluted by perverse misuse but also turned tour destruction.”[11] Indeed, as Vos states, “…in spite of all the presentations of Calvin as an austere and rigid sort of person, it must be said that Calvin promoted joyful living. Our happiness he claims is in the Lord.”[12] Calvin himself concludes, “…we have never been forbidden to laugh of to be filled…or to delight in musical harmony, or to drink wine.”[13]

In addition, contrary to the portrait painted by his detractors, Calvin was a loving husband. Of a forced separation from his wife due to an outbreak of plague in Strasbourg in 1541, Calvin wrote to his friend and colleague Farel, “…night and day my wife is in my thoughts, deprived of advice since she is not in her husband’s presence.”[14] These are the words of a man of deep feeling, not a stoic.

Concerning friendships, Stauffer observes that no other reformer had the personal attraction that Calvin had.[15]Calvin’s faithfulness and steadiness of character allowed his friendships to be deep and lasting. Even where there were differences, as Calvin had with his lifetime friend Farel who had married a very young woman when 69, he remained gracious. In his last letter to Farel, he demonstrates his love for a friend with whom he had such a strong difference.[16]

Calvin’s attitude in returning to Geneva as a pastor for the second time reveals much of his character. In 1538, Geneva’s Council of Two Hundred had exiled Calvin for not celebrating the Lord’s Supper with those Calvin thought unworthy to partake of the Lord’s Supper.[17] However, a year later, the Council was already missing the presence of Calvin in Geneva. On 21 September, 1540, the Council charged one of their members to find means to bring back Calvin, and on 13 October, they wrote a letter to “Monsieur Calvin that he would assist us.”[18]

These letters and requests served as reminders of the painful struggle Calvin had experienced in Geneva, and he wrote to Farel, “Who will pardon me if I do not willingly throw myself into a whirlpool which I have found so dangerous?”[19] To Calvin, Geneva was a torture chamber. However, his friend Martin Bucer reminded him of the punishment of Jonah for refusing to go to Ninevah, and Calvin reluctantly agreed to return to Geneva. On 13 September, 1541, Calvin arrived at the gates of Geneva and walked down the city’s main street.

His very first sermon picked up exactly where he had left off when he had been forced into exile. He visited the poor and the sick tirelessly. Indeed, he accepted the guardianship of the children of a friend, saying to Beza, “I owe it to the memory of my wonderful friend to love his children as if they were my own.”[20] Calvin wept with the sorrowful, and rejoiced with those who were overjoyed.

On his deathbed, Calvin sought the forgiveness of each person he had offended, and begged God for mercy. Stauffer concludes, “‘Such a wretched sinner!’ Is not this confession the best proof that Calvin was not the inhuman or anti-human person whom some people have believed him to be? After having offered his heart as a burnt sacrifice to the Lord, after having spent body and soul for the triumph of the gospel, far from shitting himself up in a prideful contemplation of his sacrifice or his genius, he felt a solidarity with sinful humanity which can find justification only in Jesus Christ.”[21]

It is clear that Calvin the man was not, indeed, could not have been the cruel and ruthless dictator of Geneva. Furthermore, Geneva was not the theocracy that critics of Calvin force Geneva to be.

Within hours of returning to Geneva, Calvin addressed the Council and demanded the erection of a court of morals, or ecclesiastical discipline. In a letter to Farel, Calvin wrote, “Immediately after I had offered my services to the Senate, I declared that a Church could not hold together unless a settled government should be agreed on, such as is prescribed to us in the Word of God, and such as in use in the ancient Church. I requested that they would appoint certain of their number who might confer with us on the subject. Six were then appointed.”[22]

By 2 January, 1542, the Council of Two Hundred had adopted a slightly refined version of Calvin’s original Ecclesiastical Ordinances. Through his Ordinances, Calvin created four orders, the Pastor, the Doctor, the Presbyter, and the Deacon. These orders formed the Consistory, which was made up of twelve lay leaders selected by the city officials, and a council of nine Pastors designed to oversee church discipline.[23]

According to Calvin, the Consistory was designed solely for the purpose of adhering to religious orthodoxy thereby maintaining the purity of the Church, Calvinism as a whole, and ultimately, the Reformation. The Consistory was to show the transgressor their sin, and then if the warning had not sufficed, to execute purely ecclesiastical judgment. The Consistory would then transfer the case to civil government which would execute judgment in the form of anything ranging from imprisonment to banishment.[24]

For Calvin, there was a rather distinctive separation between church and state. Gordon Keddie writes that “the civil power, while deriving its authority from Christ…is not to be understood as the earthly representative of the eternal kingdom, for that is the prerogative of the Church.”[25]

Calvin himself said, “We may call one the spiritual kingdom, the other the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have distinguished them, are always to be considered separately…for there exist in man, as it were, two world over which different kings and diverse laws have the power to rule.”[26]

Calvin’s belief that the state is the creation of God has been grasped by some as proof that Calvin created a theocracy within Geneva.[27] However, while a cursory glance could suggest that Calvin instituted a system where a government was subject to a religious authority, closer examination shows that Calvin’s concern was not to bring a theocratic rule to Geneva, but to bring Church and State closely together again in mutual interdependence so that the Church had its spiritual independence restored, and civil government was allowed to retain its full power. It was not a “government according to the Word,” a fully fledged theocracy.[28]

In 1553, an event occurred which would blacken the reputation of Calvin forever in the eyes of the world at large. The burning at the stake of the Spaniard Michael Servetus was considered to be “the event which eventually led to the consolidation of Calvin’s power within Geneva on one hand, and his vilification as a bloodthirsty tyrant on the other.”[29] Servetus chose the fundamentals of Christianity, primarily the doctrine of the Trinity to attack. He denied the existence of the Trinity, as well as aligning himself with the Anabaptists by opposing infant baptism. His works offended those of the Reformation and Roman Catholics alike. In 1546, Servetus wrote to Calvin wanting to “initiate [Calvin] into his new system and assign him the post of leader in that great movement by which mankind were to be led into a grander domain of truth.”[30] With such a blatant announcement of a belief system which bordered on pantheism, the only possible reaction on Calvin’s part could have been one of disgust and rejection.

Why Servetus came to Geneva is unclear, though Wolfgang Musculus wrote that he apparently thought Geneva might be favourable to him since there was so much opposition to Calvin.[31] What is certain is that he was already fleeing the Roman Catholic authorities of France after being condemned for his heresy there and escaping from prison in Vienna. He was seen in the streets of Geneva and arrested on August 13, 1553. On August 21, the authorities in Geneva wrote to Vienna seeking further information regarding Servetus. On receiving this request, the authorities in Vienna immediately demanded the extradition of Servetus to face charges there. At this point, Geneva offered Servetus a choice which is often conveniently forgotten: “he could either return to Vienne, or remain at Geneva and face the outcome of Genevan justice.”[32] Significantly, Servetus chose to remain in Geneva.

In the initial stages of Servetus’ trial, he “disowned his books, denied his handwriting…and professed himself a son of his ‘holy mother the Church.’” He was ready to recant until Calvin entered the room. Witnesses claim a sudden change within Servetus at that very moment, calling the Trinity a “three-headed Cerberus, a hellhound.”[33]

It became evident to the authorities that they had two choices. Banish Servetus, or execute him. To guide their decision, the council sent to their sister cities of Berne, Zurich, Schaffhausen and Basle for their counsel. There was a unanimous response from each of the cities. Execute the heretic by burning him alive at the stake.[34] Calvin himself urged the Council to reconsider the method of execution and instead choose the quicker and more merciful beheading as the method of execution.[35] The Council disregarded Calvin’s plea and proceeded with the public burning of Servetus on October 26, 1553. Unfortunately, Geneva did not have a professional executioner, and the burning was completely “a botched attempt” that took a full half hour.[36]

It is strange that this incident should bring such hatred to bear on Calvin. The broad context of the sixteenth century Europe meant that Servetus would have been tried, convicted, and executed for heresy no matter where he was. Indeed, the facts are that mass executions were common place. After the Peasants’ War in Germany, after the siege of Munster, during the ruthless period of Roman Catholic dominance in England, even as late as 1612 the authorities in England burned two men who held views similar to those of Servetus. Between May 1547 and March 1550, thirty nine people were burned at the stake for heresy.[37] Sixteenth century Europe was not a time of great tolerance for heresy.

If the contention is that Calvin was wrong in agreeing with the execution of heretics, then equal indignation should be directed against all other leaders who supported and carried these measures. In sixteenth century Europe, this was a practice condoned by the vast majority, if not the entirety of those in power. Indeed, Thomas Aquinas, the hero of Roman Catholic theology explicitly supported the execution of heretics saying, “if the heretic still remains pertinacious, the Church, despairing of his conversion, provides for the salvation of others by separating him from the Church by the sentence of excommunication and then leaves him to the secular judge to be exterminated from the world by death.”[38]

If Geneva had released Servetus, or even banished him to exile, this would only have been a temporary delay of his inevitable execution. Had Calvin accepted Servetus, this would have spelled the end of the Reformation. Anything less than an execution would have signified Calvin’s acceptance of Servetus’ pantheism. “Belief in the Trinity had been the foundation not only of all the Catholic doctrine, but of Christian civilisation itself. To spread denial of such a doctrine was an act of treason and an attempt to spread anarchy…there was no place in the world of the day either Catholic or Protestant where Servetus would have met with anything but a sentence of death.”[39] The execution had very little to do with Calvin or his implied theocracy. Rather, his execution had more to do with the “verdict of that age on the case of Servetus.”[40]

Furthermore, not only was Servetus “the only individual put to death for his religious opinions in Geneva during Calvin’s lifetime,”[41] Calvin’s role in this entire matter was only that of an expert witness during the trial. The idea that Calvin was “the dictator of Geneva” is one which totally disregards the facts of history. Indeed, Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva at this point. He was technically a habitant – a resident legal alien who had no right to vote, no right carry weapons, and no right to hold public office.[42] The only place where Calvin could exert significant influence was in the Consistory. However, the Consistory was completely bypassed in this matter by the Council.

Was Calvin really the dictator of a theocracy in Geneva? Despite widespread opinion that this was the case, a scrutiny of the evidence points to the fact that the only reasonable answer to this question is a resounding “No!” John Calvin the man was moderate, gentle, humble. There was nothing in his actions, or his thoughts portrayed in his writings which mark him out as a megalomaniac, enforcing a strict and rigid system onto an unwilling and unsuspecting populace. Furthermore, even if Calvin had wished to attain to the position of absolute power in Geneva, this was realistically impossible. As Calvin was not a citizen, but a legal alien with a very restricted voice in terms of the matter of civil governance, Calvin could only exert influence over the Consistory. And even there, his voice and opinion did not hold absolute authority.

In addition, Geneva was not a theocracy. A theocracy requires rule by clergy, or a representative of God, alone. Geneva was clearly a rule by Church AND State. A clear distinction between Church and State, but also an interdependence. In that respect, Geneva was more a commonwealth, rather than a theocracy. The final aspect which demolishes the view that Calvin was a cruel dictator of a theocracy is the very context of sixteenth century Europe itself. Executions were widespread, not unique to Geneva alone. Indeed, it could very well be argued that within the cultural context of the day, Geneva was an example of moderation, only one heretic being executed in Calvin’s lifetime. Thus, ultimately, Geneva was not a theocracy, and Calvin was not her cruel dictator. Rather, Geneva was a place where Calvin attempted to reconcile the different roles of Church and State within an interdependent, but independent, and ultimately biblical framework.

posted by Steve @ 12:40 am