I’ve been thinking of posting something of this sort for quite a while, wishing to clear up many of the myths (or “myth-understandings”) concerning the execution of Michael Servetus in Geneva during the time of John Calvin. Monday, I purchased a copy of a new book by John Piper, entitled John Calvin and His Passion for the Majesty of God. It is a short (about 60 pages) work and highly recommended.
In commenting on the Servetus episode (found in the appendix of the book), Piper writes:
This has tarnished Calvin’s name so severely that many cannot give his teaching a hearing. But it is not clear that most of us, given that milieu, would not have gone along under the circumstances. [Philip] Melanchthon was the gentle, soft-spoken associate of Martin Luther whom Calvin had met and loved. He wrote to Calvin on the Servetus affair, “I am wholly of your opinion and declare also that your magistrates acted quite justly in condemning the blasphemer to death.” Calvin never held civil office in Geneva but exerted all of his influence as a pastor.
In commenting on this event, Piper includes a very helpful footnote from J.I. Packer that lists several details that must be considered before rushing to judgment. While Calvin was not perfect (and none of us are), many have had an historical axe to grind with him, and much of this story has neither been fairly considered nor reported. Packer writes:
The anti-Trinitarian campaigner Servetus was burned in Geneva in 1553, and this is often seen as a blot on Calvin’s reputation. But weigh these facts:
- The belief that the denial of the Trinity and/or Incarnation should be viewed as a capital crime in a Christian state was part of Calvin’s and Geneva’s medieval inheritance; Calvin did not invent it.
- Anti-Trinitarian heretics were burned in other places besides Geneva in Calvin’s time, and indeed later — two in England, for instance, as late as 1612.
- The Roman Inquisition had already set a price on Servetus’ head.
- The decision to burn Servetus as a heretic was taken not only by Calvin personally but by Geneva’s Little Council of twenty-five, acting on unanimous advice from the pastors of several neighboring Reformed Churches whom they had consulted.
- Calvin, whose role at Servetus’ trial had been that of expert witness managing the prosecution, wanted Servetus not to die but to recant, and spent hours with him during and after the trial seeking to change his views.
- When Servetus was sentenced to be burned alive, Calvin asked for beheading as a less painful alternative, but his request was denied.
- The chief Reformers outside Geneva, including Bucer and the gentle Melanchthon, fully approved the execution.
The burning should thus be seen as the fault of a culture and an age rather than of one particular child of that culture and age. Calvin, for the record, showed more pastoral concern for Servetus than anyone else connected with the episode.
Noting the pastoral concern of Calvin, even while an enemy of Christianity sat in prison as a condemned criminal, awaiting his death, William Wileman writes:
And now one man alone stands forth to plead for a mitigation of the sentence, namely, that another form of death be substituted for the stake. That one man was John Calvin. He interceded most earnestly with the judges for this, but in vain. Both Farel, who came to Geneva for the purpose, and Calvin, prayed with the unhappy man, and expressed themselves tenderly towards him. Both of them pleaded with the Council for the substitution of a milder mode of death; but the syndics were inflexible. The historian Paul Henry writes of this matter: “Calvin here appears in his real character; and a nearer consideration of the proceeding, examined from the point of view furnished by the age in which he lived, will completely exonerate him from all blame. His conduct was not determined by personal feeling; it was the consequence of a struggle which this great man had carried on for years against tendencies to a corruption of doctrine which threatened the church with ruin. Every age must be judged according to its prevailing laws; and Calvin cannot be fairly accused of any greater offence than that with which we may be charged for punishing certain crimes with death.”
Calvin’s own enemies have often treated him unfairly — quite ironic, in retrospect.
Great comments on the historical context of the execution of Servetus . . . a much needed perspective.
As an aside . . . does John Piper write a book a week? It’s amazing how often I find out a new book I didn’t know about. I can’t even keep up my blog, let alone write ten zillion books!
And as another aside, concerning Piper . . . have you ever read his book Future Grace? Some folks in our congregation have taken some of the ideas in the book and caused a little bit of a disturbance among a few members of our congregation. I don’t know if these Piperites have an accurate or distorted understanding of Piper’s ideas because I haven’t read the book, but I know what they are saying seems to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
I have not read Future Grace and know almost nothing about it. Could you possible post some comments on your own blog and let me link it here? If you do so, I promise to add you to the rogue’s gallery, er, links, at the side (I’m only putting the blogs of people I’ve personally met there). 🙂
I had a long exchange with a person over at WROLDMAGBlog as my alter ego. She refused to listen to anyone’s seeking to explain, not justify, Calvin’s actions as you, Piper, Packer and a host of others have pointed out. I believe she hates Calvin with such a passion that it tainted all she said. She believes that his un-repentant heart for ‘executing’ Servetus may keep him out of heaven.
I have read Future Grace – but not recently enough to comment fairly on it. But, I would recommend it to you both. Piper seeks to do away with cheap grace and seeks to teach believers what it means to live in grace each day and how to get out of the performance trap. Packer call is a “rich and wise book.”
Her name wouldn’t happen to start with a “V” (sounds almost like “victory”), would it? If so, I had some exchanges with her in the past. She is irrational when it comes to this issue, and she could not even see that she believed the same myths and used the same arguments as the unbelievers.
Yes, Tim you got the right person on the first try! I just gave up trying to dialog with her.
Don’t number 4 & number 6 conflict? If Calvin argued for beheading, he could not have argued for burning, although he did argue for the death penalty.
BTW, what was a Christian state in Calvin’s day? Number 1 could be strengthened by expanding the parameters of a Christian state to include those that were Roman.
I don’t think those statements are in conflict (maybe just careless writing); I think Packer is simply saying that the choice to burn was not just Geneva’s (rather than Calvin’s, since it was a civil matter and he had no real voice in the matter) but had unanimous agreement among other Protestant cities. As far as point one goes, you are correct: Roman states would have agreed (but were not asked for obvious reasons); in fact, Servetus had the Roman death sentence on him when he escaped and fled to Geneva.