Calvin can cause severe reactions. I once read this: ‘The less said about that repulsive person the better.’ Repulsive is a very strong word to use for a respected preacher and theologian. One wonders if it can have any justification.
There is nothing remotely repulsive about Calvin’s life-style. He rose at 4.00 a.m every morning for prayer. There was also prayer at lunch-time and at night. There was also a lot of fasting. He spent the day studying, dictating letters, or attending meetings, or writing. He wrote a lot. From 1550 till his death in 1564 it is estimated 100,000 of Calvin’s words were printed every year. And of course every week, he was preaching. There is no scandal in his domestic life. In the summer of 1540 he married the widow of an Anabaptist, Idelette de Bure, and we know they had one son, who died shortly after his birth. When Idelette died in the spring of 1549 Calvin wrote to his close friends, William Farrel and Pierre Viret, ‘I have been bereaved of the best companion of my life, of one who, had it been so ordered, would not only have been the willing sharer of my indigence, but even of my death.’ Calvin never married again, but lived with his brother Antoinne who, with his wife, looked after the house and any family business affairs. Like many intellectuals Calvin was not a man partial to small talk, as one biographer says, he had a ‘restless urgency’ about him. However he did enjoy a glass of good wine in the company of close friends. It is suggested that the ‘restless urgency’ was because physically Calvin was frail, suffering from migraines and stomach and bowel disorders. He sensed his life could be cut short at any time.
If
the word repulsive finds no home in Calvin’s personal life, perhaps its
explanation rests in a strong reaction to his teaching. For many would recoil
from Calvin’s views on predestination, indeed Calvin shrank from it himself,
calling reprobation that ‘horrible’ decree’. It is of course unfair to shrink
Calvin’s massive contribution as a writer and preacher to Christendom to this
one teaching. The topic barely appears in the 1536 edition of his ‘Institutes
of the Christian Religion’, and there is only a shortish chapter in the 1559
edition. Moreover Calvin warns his readers not to pry too much into this
mystery. It is impossible to think that any fair-minded man would call another
repulsive for having a view on predestination, especially when such a view is
connected to the teaching of Jesus Christ, and St Paul and St Peter.
Another
reason for disliking Calvin’s personality is his reputation for enforcing a
strict version of Christianity on Geneva. This happened through the Consistory,
a morality committee which Calvin dominated. He was very committed to the
Consistory for he saw discipline as being the heart-beat for a successful
Christian and church. So Jeffery Watts writes:
‘…this
towering intellect dedicated the better part of at least one day a week to
listening to the mundane and at times even petty stories about Genevans’
quarrels, insults, blasphemies, illicit affairs, marital disputes, and
superstitions.’
To
this list one can add drunkenness, dancing, gambling, laziness, luxurious
clothing, celebrating Christmas, truancy from church, a family’s sleeping
arrangements – even choosing a non-Biblical name for your child.
Watts
estimates that during Calvin’s time over 5% of Genevans were summoned before
this morality court. Often those summoned would be admonished to mend their
ways, to be reconciled to an enemy, to forgive, and so have a clear conscience.
If the Consistory were not satisfied they could exclude someone from the Lord’s
Supper. There is nothing controversial here. If someone claimed to be a
Christian, then it was the church’s duty to bring discipline when needed.
Moreover visitors noted the positive impact Calvin’s Consistory on Geneva. John
Knox famously called the city, ‘the most perfect school of Christ that ever was on
earth since the days of the apostles.’ And the German pastor, Valentin Andreae, visiting in 1555
wrote:
“There
is in that city as a special ornament, a moral discipline which makes weekly
investigations into the conduct and even the smallest transgressions of the
citizens. All cursing and swearing, gambling, luxury, strife, hatred, fraud,
etc. are forbidden, while greater sins are hardly ever heard of. What a
glorious ornament of the Christian religion is such a purity of morals!”
There
was though a punitive side to the work of the Consistory, and this was more
than banning someone from the Lord’s Supper. For the Consistory worked very
closely with what was known as the ‘Small Council’, which ran Geneva. Calvin
had particular influence over this council because in 1541 they had invited him
back to Geneva to lead the church there. They believed that Calvin’s clear vision
for what a godly society should look like would benefit the city more than what
Calvin’s more worldly enemies were offering. On his return Calvin got the
‘Small Council’ to agree to his ordinances for church life in the city and so a
close partnership began.
That
partnership meant the ‘Small Council’ punished people after an investigation by
the Consistory. This is where for modern readers reading about Calvin becomes
difficult. At the instigation of the Consistory we read of humiliating rituals
of apologies, whippings, prison on bread and water, exile, even executions.
Sadly there is no shortage of examples. In August 1546 Amied Chappuis wanted to
call his son Claude, the name of a popular Roman Catholic saint. but the priest
called the baby Abraham. An enraged Chappuis pulled the infant out of the
priest’s arms before the ceremony was completed. Calvin’s Consistory, which had
initiated the campaign against the use of non-Biblical names, wanted action.
Despite a lot of popular pressure the magistrates came down on their side and
Chappuis had to spend a few days in prison and publicly confess his errors.
Jerome Bolsec, an ex-friar, was appalled at Calvin’s teaching on
predestination, calling it ‘scandalous’ and ‘heretical’. That did not go down
well with the Consistory and in December 1551 Bolsec was banished from Geneva
for life. Pernette Bresson unwisely gave her views about conception to two
daughters of ministers. She told them that if you wanted beautiful children you
should either look at a beautiful picture or think of a good-looking person,
her example was Theodore Beza, Calvin’s protégé and successor. Bresson was
already on the Consistory’s radar because she was meeting a lot with a married
man which was causing gossip. In May 1562 she was whipped and banished from
Geneva.
Fornication
could be easily proved if a wife became pregnant too soon after the wedding.
The usual punishment for this in the 1540s was three days in prison. Later this
increased to six days. For adultery the punishment was much more severe. So in
1562 a rural labourer, Jacques Lombard, was whipped through the streets till he
bled. Sometimes adulterers were also banished. And a few were executed. In
August 1560 Anne Lemoine and Antoine Cossenex were found guilty of having an
adulterous affair. She was drowned; he was beheaded. In January 1561 Nicolas
Lenepveaux was beheaded for adultery with several women. In July the same year,
Bernadine Neyrod was found guilty of again committing adultery. She was
drowned. Her lover, because it was his first offence, was whipped and banished
from the city for life.
Execution
for adultery: and in two cases, execution for heresy. Jacques Gruet, son of a
notary, first got into trouble with the Consistory in 1546 for dancing. He
spent some time in prison for this. On June 27th the next year
a threatening note complaining of too many masters was left in Calvin’s pulpit.
Suspicion immediately fell on Gruet, and his house was searched. From his
papers it was clear he was no fan of Calvin (arrogant, ambitious, sneering),
and he held unorthodox religious views. Christianity was a fable, and all the
laws were made for the pleasure of man. Calvin acknowledged that the
hand-writing of the note was not Gruet’s – but now there was something perhaps
more serious. Heresy. Calvin urged the authorities to be vigorous in their
investigation. Gruet was tortured and pleaded guilty to both heresy and writing
the note. He was sentenced to death, and beheaded on July 27th.
The
other man to be executed for heresy is better known. This was Michael Servetus.
He and Calvin had history. The polymath Servetus had long held colourful
theological views, and back in 1534 had asked to meet Calvin to discuss them.
Though Calvin travelled to Paris, at some risk, Servetus did not turn up. Later
the two had some correspondence which then Calvin shut down, writing to his
close friend William Farel that the Spaniard’s ideas were ‘delirious fancies’.
In actual fact there were only two aspects of Servetus’ teaching which were
against orthodoxy: denials of original sin and the Trinity. He was also against
predestination and infant baptism, but that opposition cannot be termed as
‘delirious fancies’. He also believed that the papacy was Satanic and the world
would end in the 16th C. While these might be fanciful, this
was fairly standard fare at the time. Calvin continued his letter to Farel,
damningly, with this:
‘He
offers to come here if I agree. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his
safety, for if he does come, and my authority is of no avail, I shall never
suffer him to depart alive.’
It
has been suggested that Servetus had some sort of obsession about Calvin, for
perversely in 1553 he did come to Geneva, even to the very church where the
reformer was preaching. He was recognised and arrested. Calvin then drew up a
document outlining all of Servetus’ teachings, and later appeared in court as a
witness. After consulting the other Swiss cities the magistrates unanimously
sentenced Servetus to be burned at the stake. This happened on October 27th.
For
a defender of Calvin to say these draconian punishments were not directly his
responsibility is disingenuous. They were part and parcel of a system he had
created, all the evidence points to him supporting the harsh sentences, and,
moreover, it is clear Calvin could be active behind the scenes, as with Gruet,
if he thought a more robust approach was necessary.
We
will come to what all of this means for how we view Calvin the man, but first
there are two unpleasant character flaws to consider: self-righteousness and
vindictiveness. Most of the cases that came before the Consistory were the
humdrum conflicts of domestic life and the aim of Calvin and his colleagues was
to try and bring reconciliation, and an emphasis on their proceedings was that both
sides had to bring an apology. Historian Jeffery Watts has this comment
regarding Calvin and this issue of making an apology:
There
was an important exception to the Consistory’s usual assumption that all
parties likely contributed to disputes and accordingly should apologize and
forgive one another: whenever Calvin himself was involved in a disagreement,
the fault was entirely the other party’s. In more than twenty years of
Consistory registers, there is not a trace of Calvin ever issuing an apology, but
there were several instances in which the reformer demanded reprisals against
anyone who besmirched his reputation or challenged his authority.
Of
course it might be there was no genuine need for Calvin to apologize over these
twenty years, but given his tendency to have ‘spasms of anger’ it is extremely
likely that he sometimes fell below the Scriptural standards of ‘letting
everything be done in love’ (1 Cor 16:4)and showing 'perfect courtesy to all
men’ (Titus 3:2) It is not unreasonable to conclude that perhaps some
self-righteousness was at work.
Watts
also refers to the treatment given to those who challenged his authority. This
points to Calvin perhaps having a vindictive streak. Watts gives the example of
Pierre Ameaux who had called Calvin an ‘evil foreigner’ amongst other insults.
The city officials demanded a public apology from Ameaux, but only in front of
their assembly, known as the Council Of Two Hundred. This was not enough for
Calvin. He went to the Small Council and said he would refuse to preach until
Ameaux had done public penance. And this is what happened. Ameaux had to walk
through the streets bareheaded, carrying a torch, and kneeling to ask God for
forgiveness. In his biography of Calvin, Bruce Gordon, tells the story of Henri
de la Mare, a minister, who in Calvin’s eyes had not been completely loyal. So
Gordon writes that Calvin never missed an opportunity ‘to make the man’s life a
misery…He was moved from a parish in the city to the countryside’, his house
and even church building were not properly maintained; his allowance was never
raised. Then for his sympathy with Ameaux he was imprisoned and dismissed. It
would seem that both men were victims not of sensible Christian discipline and
forgiveness, but Calvin’s personal vindictiveness. Self-righteousness and
vindictiveness are not pleasant qualities. However very few of us are
unacquainted with their shadows. Given all of Calvin’s strengths and talents it
would seem churlish to write him off as repulsive solely over these character
flaws, especially when we are looking on from such a distance.
We
are still left though with Calvin’s close involvement in those draconian
punishments. If one envisages Servetus being led in silence to the execution
pyre with Calvin’s lieutenant, William Farel, at his side, and then to hear the
shriek of horror as the fire was lit, the word ‘repulsive’ is surely not out of
place. It was a repulsive sight – deemed so by many others across Europe at the
time. Indeed the whole idea that a Christian minister, preaching God’s love for
sinners, should also be involved in meting out punishments such as whippings,
imprisonment, exile, and execution is surely repugnant.
But I am not sure they make Calvin
himself repulsive.
For
Calvin was acting wholly within the cultural norms of his own day. One would
have hoped that this man steeped in the Bible would have been able to have
raised his vision beyond those cultural expectations. But he wasn’t able to.
Nor was Philip Melanchthon, nor was Frederick Bullinger – both supported the
execution of Servetus. The irony is that John Calvin, the great opponent of the
Roman Catholic church, was unable to escape the influence of this church when
it came to heresy. In Calvin’s mind to tolerate heresy and blasphemy was to be
their supporter. That was exactly the logic of the Roman Catholic church and
their inquisition. This line of thinking finds no place in the New Testament.
Here the horrors are inflicted on Christians. There is not a whisper of a
minister of Christ seeking to inflict them on others and Calvin is wholly wrong
when he tries to argue that the incident concerning Ananias and Saphira in Acts
5 supports Christians using the death sentence. The root of this thinking goes
back not to Jesus, but to Augustine who believed that people should be
‘compelled’ to enter the church. In the Medieval period this cemented into what
historian Paul Johnson calls the ‘Total Society’. This is the world Calvin was
born into. Everyone, except the Jews, were Christians. The idea that people could
choose to be Christians was not on his radar. Moreover he and the other
reformers were ferociously hostile to those who opposed infant baptism, which
ensured the continuation of the ‘total society’. Augustine and to a certain
extent Luther accepted that once forced into the church, the wheat and the
tares would grow together. For Luther the important issue was that people
understood that salvation was by faith. Calvin though put the emphasis on
discipline, hence his commitment to the Consistory and all that followed from
that, including, when necessary, to apply severe punishments to serious sin and
heresy. In this he was diligently sincere. Calvin believed that if Genevans
followed Christian standards, this would create a happier society, and, more importantly,
be pleasing to God.
This
vision was of course, to use his own words about Servetus, full of ‘delirious
fancies’, not least because Jesus taught that most people will take the broad
road, not the narrow one. However it was a fanciful vision held by nearly every
Christian leader – Protestant or Catholic – in Europe. Hence my hesitation to
use the word repulsive about Calvin as a man because of these severe
punishments. In our day many believe it is right for a woman to be able to
execute her unborn baby. I and many others find such a deed repulsive, however
I would never dream of calling the woman who takes that fatal step, or the
doctor who signs the execution warrant as being repulsive as people. I accept
they live in a different moral paradigm. If we rightly hesitate to call
repulsive those in our own day who act differently to our own mores, how much
more should we hesitate when looking back on those who lived in a different
age.
While
we should perhaps use kinder words for Jean Calvin, nevertheless we should
eschew the tendency of some preachers in the Reformed tradition who refer to
the Frenchman as if he was a perfect saint whose every word is almost on a par
with Scripture. And we should never forget why the word repulsive is used by
his critics. It was because he wanted to impose his morality on an entire
society.
This
is a doomed venture. That is the lesson of history. Think 17th England;
or the prohibition in 20th USA. It is also the lesson of the New
Testament. The new Jerusalem is in the future; not now. So whenever we see this
oft failed vision raising its head, as it has done recently in America,
sensible Christian leaders need to call it out for what it is – delusional
fancy. And they need to call Christians back to what the New Testament asks
them to do – preach the Gospel of God’s love to sinners and serve the poor. If
only Calvin had stayed with that mandate and left the running of Geneva to the
Caesars of his day then nobody in their right mind would ever think that such a
derogatory word as repulsive could have any connection with Calvin. That though
was not the sort of world Calvin was engaging with. Church and state were not
separate, and with that reality in mind, we should be temperate in our language
about Jean Calvin.
No comments:
Post a Comment