What's Really Being Said...

I'd like to follow up Steve's excellent post on Calvin and Servetus with a few words of my own about this objection, since both unbelievers and some believers raise this objection. I would add that when unbelievers in particular raise this objection, all they are doing is substituting what they believe to be their more evolved sensibilities in this century for what they believe to be the less evolved sensibiliities of another age. So, they, in the name of their evolved morality simply practice the bigotry of assuming that their modern sensibilities are morally superior to those of the 16th century. How enlightened of them. Isn't this at odds with today's politically correct culture. How is it that they can judge Calvin in the 16th century from the ivory tower of 21st century ethics, which are, I might add, quite fluid. It's not as if a consistent atheist is operating with an absolute standard. If morals are determined by consensus, why then is the consensus of today superior to that of the 16th century? Might not the consensus 300 years hence look at the atheist today with the same kind of disdain as today's atheist does with Calvin?

As to the objection itself, we have to remember that Calvin was a man of his time. In addition, at this time in his life, he wasn't even in power in Geneva. No, he was in disfavor. In addition, Servetus was a known anti-Trinitarian heretic. His death was legal not only in Geneva but everywhere else in Europe. Calvin actually argued that his execution be merciful. Ah, but shouldn't he have opposed his execution? What good would it have done? He had no power to condemn him or save him.

Ah, but doesn't this speak to the character of Calvin? Well, if it does, does it prove that he was immoral or does it prove that he was a man of great mercy? Yes, he agreed with the decision of Geneva. So did all the religious and secular powers of that century, so if it proves Calvin was immoral, it also proves they were all immoral, secular and sacred alike. On the other hand, he pleaded with Servetus for him to recant. He also pleaded the council to make the mode of his execution quick. He was ignored. What's more, he prayed with Servetus and ministered to him in prison, in accordance with that particular axiom of the religion Calvin professed.

Now, I'm a Reformed Baptist, and I have no need to defend the Magisterial system nor the follies of Romanism, but even I can understand this age was the age of the Wars of Religion in which one petty ruler would use religion to excuse his private, petty, plunders of his neighbors territories. The states of Germany and Italy was kept it disarray by France, Spain, Britain, and Holland until the 19th century because of this kind of political behavior, behavior which was condoned by many a Roman Pope. In fact, this behavior resulted in what we know as World War 1 and then, because of the conditions imposed by that treaty, we wound up with World War 2.

In the 16th century, to be an anti-Trinitarian was a worse heresy than to be a Reformed Protestant or Lutheran. Even Anabaptists received more mercy than these individuals. Had the Genevan government not executed Servetus, and Calvin opposed them, then it surely isn't difficult to imagine the Pope inciting France against Geneva. Have you ever been to Geneva? When you leave the train station, if you go one direction, they speak French. If you go another they speak German. Why? Because Geneva is on the Swiss / French border. Ah, but wouldn't the Lutherans intervene? Maybe, but if they had, then all that would do is incite the Romanist states neighboring the Lutheran states in the Holy Roman Empire against them. In addition, if Geneva had fallen, will anybody think Zurich would have remained? The Reformation would likely have ended there.

It's worth noting that our atheist friends can thank the Reformed tradition in particular for the representative government that enables them to live with great freedom today. Look at the map of Europe and the way it evolved politically from the time of the 16th and 17th centuries onward. The Roman states remained monarchial. The Lutheran states were kept down by the Roman states in particular. The states where the Reformed tradition took hold were governed with ever increasing degrees of republican government. In Britain, the Puritans spawned the Congregational and Baptist churches, and they went to America, where the Baptist tradition took hold. The Presbyterian and Baptist traditions colluded to form a great many of the ideals in the Bill of Rights, like the First Amendment that gives our atheist friends the freedom to get away with the things Servetus could not. So, in arguing this objection, our atheist friends are sawing off the very limb on which they stand. That's what makes the objection so baseless.

In addtion to this, Calvinism is an ecclectic tradition. In addition to the traditions that Steve has outlined, I'd add that Calvin does not function for Calvinism the way that Luther functions for Lutheranism. Calvin is one among many. Our theology can be traced beyond Calvin and as having arisen in others like Zwingli and Bullinger, from whom, I might add the Baptists derive their views of the Lord's Supper. In addtion, we have the Covenant theologies from which to draw. So, which brand of Calvinism are our interlocutors wishing to impeach?