Calvin, Dictator of Geneva, Myth or Fact?

This entry is part 2 of 2 in the series Calvin & Servetus

This post has 766 words. It will take approximately 3 minutes, 49 secondes for reading it.

I had occassion to come across some strange beliefs about John Calvin and Michael Servetus earlier this year. At one point when discussing Reformation theology with this group, I rather stupidly or naievly used the term “True Religion” which set some fires raging. For anyone who witnessed that discussion who didn’t not understand why I used that term, I suggest this quote of Thomas Watson’s gives a clear, concise explanation. But they sure did see Michael Servetus through rose-coloured spectacles while choosing to believe ill-founded propaganda about John Calvin. In this post I am setting a few things straight. The facts of which can easily be varified by various historical sources.

Isn’t that what most people are taught or hear? Isn’t that what the ill-informed or those who are strictly against Reformation Principles are happy to embrace as the truth as it often aids there anti-reformation beliefs? Didn’t John Calvin murder Michael Servetus, isn’t that another string to the bow of anti-Calvin-anti-Reformation lines of beliefs and thought?

Yet, what is the truth of these matters?

John Calvin himself far from having any power in Geneva was banished from it, by the authorties (the council in this case) for adhereing to strict church discipline and when he wasn’t able to enforce that, because the authorities denied him being able to do so he withdrew from adminstering the Lord’s Supper along with William Farrel and they were both banished. Both seen as spies for the French who had been bough in to Geneva to infiltrate and eventually over-throw it.

When after years in exile after his banishment the authorities in Geneva begged Calvin to return because of the moral decline it had taken, Calvin wrote in a letter to William Farrel with his former experiences in Geneva in mind, which had included his house being stoned, harassment and persecution: “Whenever I call to mind the wretchedness of my life in Geneva, how can it not be that my very soul must shudder at any proposals for my return?” Calvin endured his house being stoned and harassment etc, while suffering chronic ill health. The last thing anyone needs with his various maladies is external stress that can be avoided. These included but is not an exhaustive list: Gout, kidney stones, Tuberculosis, lying in bed was painful for him, eating was distasteful to him, wine was bitter to him.

But Calvin the powerful megalomaniac tyrant and dictator of Geneva, is what we often hear bandied about. Yet despite the charges that he had great wealth, Calvin wrote that he did not possess one foot of land and had not enough money to buy one acre, and said he was still using someone else’s furniture. “Neither the table at which we eat, nor the bed on which we sleep is my own” and neither did he own the house he lived in.

Michael Servetus though he had a brilliant mind and was the first man to map out the arterial system of the body being a medical doctor, was a heretic and a dangerous one. He was an anti-trinitarian who also translated in part his own edition of the Bible in which he stripped out from the Old Testament all prophecies of Christ. Calvin tried unsuccessfully to witness to Servetus throughout his life. If Michael Servetus had have had his way, he would not have just overthrown the Reformation before it even began he would have also done away with Roman Catholicism, and left a city and ultimately a fire to spread that left a world bereft of all faith. Eventually Servetus was arrested and tried and found guilty and sentenced to be executed by burning. Calvin pleaded and entreated the authorities to choose a more humane way of executing him than by fire. But Calvin had so little influence in the running of Geneva or sway with the authorities that even this plea went unanswered. If the man had have had the power to arrest and ultimately execute Servetus he would have had no problem in stating the form of execution to take place. But he had no power with them at all. He never held public office of any kind, he couldn’t arrest or sentence anyone.

So, the dictator of Geneva as many like to bandy about willy nilly about John Calvin is unfounded and frankly quite an ignorant and ill-informed, maybe in some cases willfully blind because to believe he was suits anti-reformation principles with Calvin at the helm of their antagonism cos Reformation faith bears his name.

The Puritan Way

This post has 2074 words. It will take approximately 10 minutes, 22 secondes for reading it.

The puritans and Puritanism has a bad rap! Even in our day and age, in this age of
information, they still have a bad rap, and a lot of misperceptions about who they were,
what they were like and what they believed and/or how they behaved towards others.

The reason for this prevailing lack of knowledge about them is that because the years
immediately after the times the puritans lived,  there were many many biographies and the
like about them. However, people were not living in our age of information then that we do
now, so often the things they thought were true, were based on ignorance, lack of knowledge
and them not having a full or rounded or correct view at all about who the puritans were;
what Puritanism actually was; nor how they behaved towards others.   But for many years
dozens of biographies sprang up, written with this veil over their eyes as regards truth.
Many of them were even written by secular historians, who had a bias to start with against
anyone or anything who exulted God. But nevertheless, in those days, it was not all of their
own fault.  They didn’t have the information available to them, that would have made for the
cock-eyed view of the Puritans and Puritanism that their works  did.  But the type of
biographies and histories in this vein were the norm, because of the different ages, lack
of information, and it carried on so long that the pictures they depicted of both the
puritans and their ways, still continue to be often popular opinion. We often see these
same kinds of depictions in our medias today.   The BBC loves nothing more than to add a
puritan character or two into their historical dramas. But when they do so, you can
guarantee that the puritan man will be portrayed as loon almost.  A raving neurotic who
wanted everyone  who believed differently to him, hung drawn and quartered; particularly
dour individuals with gloomy dispositions who wouldn’t know the meaning of the word fun, let alone know how to have fun.    Yet the puritans considered having a sense of humour, a virtue not a vice!

There is an old maxim I came across some years ago; I believe the author of it is
anonymous, but it goes, “A puritan is someone who is afraid someone somewhere is having
fun”  That maxim has cracked me up so many times, yet sadly, it states nicely how people
often perceive the puritans and their way of life.   If you also look at the biographies or
general opinion about John Calvin or John Knox you will find similarly distorted views from
the truth of the matters.  In history with these kind of people we seem to have the same
exact thing that the Prophet Isa spoke of, of calling good evil, and evil good. We see it
time and time again in Christian history this way.  The world loves to hate those God
loves, particularly those who are among his most faithful.

This is my most favourite quote about Puritans and Puritanism, and it was written during
the times they lived. Yet it captured such an image of men and women who were so full of
Christ that it was what first made me fall a little in love with them:

The Old English Puritan was such an one, that honoured God above all, and under God gave
everyone his due. His first care was to serve God, and therein he did not what was good in
his own, but in God’s sight, making the word of God the rule of his worship. He highly
esteemed order in the House of God: but would not under color of that submit to
superstitious rites, which are superfluous, and perish in their use. He reverenced
Authority keeping within its sphere: but durst not under pretence of subjection to the
higher powers, worship God after the traditions of men. He made conscience of all God’s
ordinances, though some he esteemed of more consequence. He was much in prayer; with it he
began and closed the day. It is he was much exercised in his closet, family and public
assembly. He esteemed that manner of prayer best, whereby the gift of God, expressions were
varied according to present wants and occasions; yet did he not account set forms unlawful.
Therefore in that circumstance of the church he did not wholly reject the liturgy, but the
corruption of it. He esteemed reading of the word an ordinance of God both in private and
public but did not account reading to be preaching. The word read he esteemed of more
authority, but the word preached of more efficiency. He accounted preaching as necessary
now as in the Primitive Church, God’s pleasure being still by the foolishness of preaching
to save those that believe. He esteemed the preaching best wherein was most of God, least
of man, when vain flourishes of wit and words were declined, and the demonstration of God’s
Spirit and power studied: yet could he distinguish between studied plainness and negligent
rudeness. He accounted perspicuity the best grace of a preacher: And that method best,
which was most helpful to the understanding, affection, and memory. To which ordinarily he
esteemed none so conducible as that by doctrine, reason and use. He esteemed those sermons
best that came closest to the conscience: yet would he have men’s consciences awakened, not
their persons disgraced. He was a man of good spiritual appetite, and could not be
contented with one meal a day. An afternoon sermon did relish as well to him as one in the
morning. He was not satisfied with prayers without preaching: which if it were wanting at
home, he would seek abroad: yet would he not by absence discourage his minister, if
faithful, though another might have quicker gifts. A lecture he esteemed, though not
necessary, yet a blessing, and would read such an opportunity with some pains and loss. The
Lord’s Day he esteemed a divine ordinance, and rest on it necessary, so far as it conduced
to holiness. He was very conscientious in observance of that day as the mart day of the
soul. He was careful to remember it, to get house, and heart in order for it and when it
came, he was studious to improve it. He redeems the morning from superfluous sleep, and
watches the whole day over his thoughts and words, not only to restrain them from
wickedness, but worldliness. All parts of the day were like holy to him, and his care was
continued in it in variety of holy duties: what he heard in public, he repeated in private,
to whet it upon himself and family. Lawful recreations he thought this day unseasonable,
and unlawful ones much more abominable: yet he knew the liberty God gave him for needful
refreshing, which he neither did refuse nor abuse. The sacrament of baptism he received in
infancy, which he looked back to in age to answer his engagements, and claim his
privileges. The Lord’s Supper he accounted part of his soul’s food: to which he labored to
keep an appetite. He esteemed it an ordinance of nearest communion with Christ, and so
requiring most exact preparation. His first care was in the examination of himself: yet as
an act of office or charity, he had an eye on others.

   He endeavored to have the scandalous cast out of communion: but he cast not out himself,
because the scandalous were suffered by the negligence of others. He condemned that
superstition and vanity of Popish mock-fasts; yet neglected not an occasion to humble his
soul by right fasting: He abhorred the popish doctrine of opus operatum in the action. And
in practice rested in no performance, but what was done in spirit and truth. He thought God
had left a rule in his word for discipline, and that aristocratical by elders, not
monarchical by bishops, nor democratical by the people. Right discipline he judged
pertaining not to the being, but to the well-being of a church. Therefore he esteemed those
churches most pure where government is by elders, yet unchurched not those where it was
otherwise. Perfection in churches he thought a thing rather to be desired, than hoped for.
And so he expected not a church state without all defects. The corruptions that were in
churches he thought his duty to bewail, with endeavors of amendment: yet he would not
separate, where he might partake in the worship, and not in the corruption. He put not
holiness in churches, as in the temple of the Jews; but counted them convenient like their
synagogues. He would have them kept decent, not magnificent: knowing that the gospel
requires not outward pomp. His chief music was singing of psalms wherein though he
neglected not the melody of the voice, yet he chiefly looked after that of the heart. He
disliked such church music as moved sensual delight, and was as hinderance to spiritual
enlargements. He accounted subjection to the higher powers to be part of pure religion, as
well as to visit the fatherless and widows: yet did he distinguish between authority and
lusts of magistrates, to that he submitted, but in these he durst not be a servant of men,
being bought with a price. Just laws and commands he willingly obeyed not only for fear but
for conscience also; but such as were unjust he refused to observe, choosing rather to obey
God than man; yet his refusal was modest and with submission to penalties, unless he could
procure indulgence from authority. He was careful in all relations to know, and to duty,
and that with singleness of heart as unto Christ. He accounted religion an engagement to
duty, that the best Christians should be best husbands, best wives, best parents, best
children, best masters, best servants, best magistrates, best subjects, that the doctrine
of God might be adorned, not blasphemed. His family he endeavors to make a church, both in
regard of persons and exercises, admitting none into it but such as feared God; and
laboring that those that were borne in it, might be born again unto God. He blessed his
family morning and evening by the word and prayer and took care to perform those ordinances
in the best season. He brought up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord
and commanded his servants to keep the way of the Lord. He set up discipline in his family,
as he desired it in the church, not only reproving but restraining vileness in his. He was
conscientious of equity as well as piety knowing that unrighteousness is abomination as
well as ungodliness. He was cautious in promising, but careful in performing, counting his
word no less engagement than his bond. He was a man of tender heart, not only in regard of
his own sin, but others misery, not counting mercy arbitrary, but a necessary duty wherein
as he prayed for wisdom to direct him, so he studied for cheerfulness and bounty to act. He
was sober in the use of things of this life, rather beating down the body, than pampering
it, yet he denied not himself the use of God’s blessing, lest he should be unthankful, but
avoid excess lest he should be forgetful of the Donor. In his habit he avoided costliness
and vanity, neither exceeding his degree in civility, nor declining what suited with
Christianity, desiring in all things to express gravity. He own life he accounted a
warfare, wherein Christ was his captain, his arms, prayers, and tears. The Cross his
banner, and his word, Vincit qui patitur.

   He was immovable in all times, so that they who in the midst of many opinions have lost
the view of true religion, may return to him and find it. [John Geree The Old English Puritan or non-conformist

Unlike the dour, gloomy, unloving people that we often associate with today’s view of
Puritanism, the opposite thing is very true.  At Oliver Cromwell’s daughter’s wedding,
(Cromwell of course is a well-known puritan) they had  music and dancing that went on till
three am.  Hardly the picture of people who detest having fun or enjoying themselves, or
enjoying the good things that God has given us.  They did enjoy them, but they still never
took their eyes of the ball in favour of them. Their pleasure and comfort was never more
important or higher priority than their God.  And they didn’t have passive natures as far as  making those truths a reality.  Does that make them dour, gloomy, neurotics?

They are often depicted as being overly-censorious about others.  That they were austere
and severe. Like the folks-lore one hears about anyone found sleeping or  talking in Church
was taken outside and put in the stocks!    The trouble is, we live in the age of
information, and every fool thinks they have an opinion if that opinion has not one thing
to do with truth.