John Calvin: Pastor. Preacher. Reformer. Tyrant? Part 1
Portrait of John Calvin c. 1550, credit Wikipedia
For newer readers, or for those whom I haven’t reminded in a while, which is everyone, I typically alternate posts each week under two themes. One week I’ll write a Thesis 96 post related to spiritual abuse and reformation, and the next week I’ll write a Theology & Therapy post about, well, theology and therapy. I’m not good with marketing; it would probably help to have some kind of banner to specify what section I’m writing about each week. But I wanted to point this out in case anyone is confused when, say, last week I promised another post about the dark night of the soul, and here this week I post something drastically different. Also, for readers who might be interested in only one of those sections rather than both, you can modify your subscription to receive posts from only one section.
Have you ever encountered a tyrant? If so, you will likely have a different approach to the question I’m exploring in a new series of posts: was reformer John Calvin a tyrant?
I’ve worked for a tyrant before. People absolutely loved him. Well, most people anyway, including me before I became his employee. When he offered me a job, both he and his wife acknowledged what seemed like a humorous dichotomy: “There’s fun Mike,” they said, “and then there’s Work Mike.” I knew fun Mike, and, with a young family toward the end of the recession in 2009, I was desperate for a salaried job. So I took it.
I lasted 2 years under Work Mike; and that was a miracle. I still have trauma flashbacks hearing loud fast-paced feet walking down tiled hallways. I could always tell just by the sound of his feet in the morning if I was going to get yelled at or if he would flash a smile and keep walking past my office.
This post was prompted by The John Calvin Podcast by Matt White. I was curious when I saw this launch, as I’ve done a fair bit of research on Calvin’s life and influence in Geneva because of relevant parallels to today (see Calvin: Scandal, Cover Up, and Clergy Bias; and Thin Skin and Red Flags). The podcast description says, “Calvin’s impact on history, theology and society is both profound and polarizing—admired by many, yet controversial to others.” I myself have moved back and forth along that spectrum between admiration and controversy, and it’s no denying that evaluating Calvin—as with any figure in a different culture and historical era—is fraught with complexity. I have enjoyed Matt’s podcast. It has prompted me to revisit one of my favorite research areas, especially the question Matt covered in his episode “Calvin the Tyrant? (Myth or Reality Series Part 1).”
Keep It Complicated
After listening I gave Matt some soft pushback on Not-Twitter, which he received hospitably, and advised there would be a later “Showdown series” that will discuss Calvin critics like Pighius, Caroli, Bolsec, Castellio et al in detail (actually, since drafting this post, he released the first episode in the Showdown Series). As he might cover some of this material later, my criticism here might be premature, but I hope it is irenic and collegial. (Matt, if you’re reading this, and if you’re not put off by the criticism, I’ll be in Bristol next May and would love to talk about Calvin etc over a pint!).
Here is one of Matt’s summaries:
“[Calvin is] a person about whom it’s very hard to stay neutral, and therefore it’s always interesting to study him. One thing that does become clear, though, when you really start to study Calvin, is just how wildly inaccurate that popular perception is that he was a tyrant.”
My aim here is to show, not that the perception of Calvin as tyrant is accurate, but rather that the perception is not “wildly inaccurate.” There is far too much evidence to shut down this accusation as myth. At best, I will argue, we should be open to more complex perceptions of Calvin than typically presented by his critics and his friends. Matt described himself as a “critical friend” of Calvin, something I can echo and affirm. Perhaps he is emphasizing the friend component and I am emphasizing the critical.
Before going further, it’s important to recognize that Matt’s podcast is providing a popular level overview. There’s a lot that can’t be said in a 14 minute episode, and I recall my college professor’s advice to never critique an author for what he or she didn’t say, focusing instead on what was said. As he is doing a PhD on Calvin, I’m sure Matt has much more detailed and robust evidence he could give for his concluding exhortation: “I think it’s important that…this kind of silly stereotype of Calvin as this oppressive Pope of Geneva is thrown out for good.” However, the evidence in the podcast was missing something crucial that I want to address: hearing from primary source voices of those who accused Calvin of being a tyrant.
Defining Tyranny
As Matt did in the episode, it’s important to begin with definitions. His working definition of a tyrant is “a cruel and oppressive ruler,” and he gives just a few modern examples of the perception of Calvin as tyrant, eg, an online blog with a picture of Calvin and the caption “wanted for murder: John Calvin.”
From these examples Matt says that “the perception that Calvin was a kind of sinister manipulative tyrant is endlessly repeated, isn’t it?…Is Calvin some kind of ogre, some kind of moral monster casting this shadow over western history?”
Well, I’m not arguing that Calvin was an ogre or a moral monster. But I wonder if those characterizations and the simple definition set up a straw man that is easier to knock down.
The idea of tyrants and tyranny goes back to early Greek philosophy and had a range of meaning, much or most of it focusing on the political realm. But the central issue was character. Quoting from Plato’s Republic, Sophia Connell writes, “The only way to tell a tyrant from a philosopher is to ‘go down into a person’s character and examine it thoroughly,’ rather than being ‘dazzled by the façade.’”1
Tyranny as a psychological trait has many forms and faces: a parent can be a tyrant, as can a pastor, or a boss, or anyone with any real or perceived position of power. As we will see eventually, Calvin was accused of being a tyrant by his contemporaries. While it’s tempting to interpret that as a propaganda trope in the 16th century wars of religion, it’s noteworthy that Calvin himself accused another magisterial reformer of being a tyrant, none other than Martin Luther.2 In the following quote, from Calvin’s letter to Melanchthon on June 28, 1545, we can see an informal description of tyranny which will match later perceptions of Calvin himself. The context for this letter was Luther’s recently published pamphlet on the Lord’s Supper in which, in addition to attacking Zwinglians, Luther also fiercely attacked his co-reformers Bucer and Melancthon.3
“Your Pericles [Luther] allows himself to be carried beyond all due bounds with his love of thunder, especially seeing that his own case is by no means the better of the two [disputing the Lutheran and Zwinglian views of the Lord’s Supper]…Howbeit, in the Church we must always be upon our guard, lest we pay too great a deference to men. For it is all over with her, when a single individual, be he whosoever you please, has more authority than all the rest, especially where this very person does not scruple to try how far he may go…[M]ost certainly we convey a mean example to posterity, while we rather prefer, of our own accord, entirely to throw away our liberty, than to irritate a single individual by the slightest offence [that is to say, avoid conflict rather than raise a complaint]. But, you will say, his disposition is vehement, and his impetuosity is ungovernable;—as if that very vehemence did not break forth with all the greater violence when all shew themselves alike indulgent to him, and allow him to have his way, unquestioned. If this specimen of overbearing tyranny has sprung forth already as the early blossom in the springtide of a reviving Church, what must we expect in a short time, when affairs have fallen into a far worse condition.”4
Calvin’s language of “overbearing tyranny” summarizes these descriptions of Luther: one who believes he “has more authority than all the rest”5; a “vehement disposition,” “ungovernable impetuosity” [ie hot-tempered, fierce]; “violence”; and “all shew themselves alike indulgent to him, and allow him to have his way, unquestioned.” That’s a pretty good description of tyranny as a catchall term which includes specific character traits like anger, arrogance, control, and interpersonal aggression. Eg, see this study which linked “leader trait anger” with “tyrannical leadership” in the workplace.
Study Closely
Matt said, “People decide either because they haven’t taken the care to really read or study Calvin closely, or because they see Calvin as kind of a poster boy for something that they don’t like, that Calvin must be the manipulative tyrant that he’s portrayed as in popular representations.”
On the contrary, I have studied Calvin closely, I like much of his theology, and yet I do believe these “popular representations” merit serious consideration. Here are Matt’s two main points as I understand them:
First, Calvin wasn’t a tyrant because he didn’t have as much power as is popularly believed.
“So why is Calvin not a tyrant? Well, firstly, he didn’t hold any political office in Geneva. Calvin was actually excluded from citizenship for most of his life because he was French, and the city council of Geneva were actually hostile to any loss of their power to a foreigner like Calvin.”
This answer focuses on tyranny in the political realm, ignoring the reality that tyranny can be present in any realm, including religion. Indeed, for Calvin himself the Roman Pope “was a prime example of tyranny.”6 As we will see, that’s how Calvin’s opponents in the cause for reformation in Francophone Europe perceived the “Pope of Geneva.”7
Secondly, Matt believes the accusation of tyranny is inconsistent with Calvin’s benevolent character as seen by his ministry to the poor. After explaining Calvin’s efforts to create the ministerial diaconate, he says that “Calvin cared far too much for the poor and the downtrodden to be fairly described as a tyrant, in my opinion.”
However, as Calvin biographer Bruce Gordon observes, and as we’ll see later in some of Calvin’s original critics, Calvin treated people differently based on the position they took vis-a-vis his self-perceived position as God’s prophet.
“[Calvin’s] inclinations were to find peaceful and just solutions and avoid scandal, and he demonstrated real concern for the plight of women and children. The intention, whether in denouncing, admonishing or counselling, was to apply the appropriate medicine. This, however, had its limitations. Opponents fell into an entirely different ontological category, and to such Calvin revealed how harsh he could be. His response to those he regarded as a threat was to seek total victory and their humiliation. He could explain this in terms of divine justice, but, in the case of a man like Sebastian Castellio, it was unvarnished vindictiveness.”8
In my experience, this is how many modern day tyrants behave. As long as you don’t stand in their way, you can receive love, care, concern, affection, and empathy. But if you stand against them, you see an entirely different face, one that many others might never see. Eg, Mark Driscoll was very generous, hospitable, took people in who were homeless and jobless. But as people at Mars Hill Church learned over time, he was not to be questioned or opposed unless you were prepared to face a tyrant.9 Even if you disagree with applying tyranny to Gordon’s description above10, we need to wrestle with the very real 16th-century perception of Calvin as a tyrant.
On that note, Matt also said that “nearly all of Calvin’s biographers recognize that this accusation that Calvin was a tyrant is not historically accurate.” Again, this claim depends on the definition of tyrant. Furthermore, Gordon explains the polemical use of tracts and biographies to criticize and defame Calvin. This led to supportive Calvin biographies with a twofold aim: “There was need of defence on two fronts: to guard against canonization of Calvin by his followers and to refute the calumnies of hostile writers.”11 The biography by Theadore Beza, who succeeded Calvin, is probably the most well-known, and it reads like hagiography. For example, in an anonymous preface to an American English edition of Beza’s The Life of John Calvin, the editor writes that “The good loved him—the wicked hated [sic], because they feared him. He was the Hercules of the Reformation, a distinguished and commanding leader among the hosts of the Lord, a brilliant ornament of his age, and of the church of Christ.” This is the mirror image of biographies like the one by Bolsec, a Roman Catholic who “simply manufactured stories to discredit Calvin: that he had been convicted of sodomy in Noyon, that he was sexually perverted and that he had died horribly from crab lice.”12 Such blatant libel might make one sympathetic to Matt’s refutation of Calvin the tyrant as a “silly stereotype.” However, Gordon notes another biography which he deems more credible. This biography is significant because the author, Jean-Papire Masson13, was not merely an ecclesial opponent of Calvin, but was a student of Calvin’s former secretary, François Bauduin.
In order to better understand and appreciate Masson’s biography, in the next post we’ll first consider Bauduin and his relationship with Calvin.
Quote from Jeffrey Watt, The Consistory and Social Discipline in Calvin’s Geneva
“Over a year later, on June 27, 1547, someone attached to the pulpit in the church of Saint-Pierre an anonymous message, written in the local patois, which threatened the pastors with death and ended with the words, “We don’t want to have so many masters.” Although no one saw Gruet enter or leave the church on that day, suspicions were immediately directed toward him, and authorities raided Gruet’s abode and seized some writings they found there. In a letter to the reformer Pierre Viret, Calvin conceded that the note in Saint-Pierre was not in Gruet’s handwriting. He and some authorities were nonetheless alarmed at some things in his writings. These included drafts of letters and various thoughts he had jotted down, in which Gruet aggressively criticized Calvin, whom he decried as arrogant, sneering, overly ambitious, and eager to be revered as a pope.”14
Question
What has been your perception of Calvin before reading this post? If you’ve only thought and heard of him as virtuous, are you willing to also consider his vices? And vice versa?
1 Sophia M. Connell (2018), “Parallels between tyrant and philosopher in Plato’s Republic,” Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 35 (2), p. 26.
2 It is also worth noting Calvin’s more formal writing on tyranny. With reference to Calvin’s Institutes, William Bouwsma writes, “His republican sympathies underlie his outrage at ‘tyranny,’ which offended him on various counts. A tyrant is, in the first place, by definition a ruler out of control, self-control being one of the virtues indispensable to ‘ministers of divine justice.’ Calvin was outraged by the excesses of tyrants: “When tyranny has lost its concern for justice, there are no limits to its wickedness; and lamentations do not soften it but aggravate its cruelty. And flatterers excite it by saying that the shortest way to control subjects and keep them quiet is so to oppress them that they do not even dare to open their mouths, and if they complain or murmur that they should be more harshly treated so that they may be hardened to servitude and, as it were calloused to bondage. Tyrants therefore do not rest from their injuries and contumelies until the wretched people have altogether given up.’ The pope, as we have noted earlier, was for Calvin a prime example of tyranny: ‘He exempts himself from all judgments and wishes to rule in such a tyrannical fashion that he regards his own whim as law.’” William Bouwsma, John Calvin: a Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 207-208.
3 See Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 167-170.
4 Letters of John Calvin, edited by Jules Bonnet, translated by Marcus Robert Gilchrist (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858), volume 1:466-467, emphasis added.
5 Regarding authority, I can hear the objection: “but Calvin didn’t have more authority than the rest; he was just one vote among a plurality of elders.” Sure, on paper. And sure, we can find instances where Calvin’s voice didn’t carry the day. At the same time, as Jon Balserak observes, “The _Vénérable Compagnie des Pasteur_s became a body Calvin could direct with little resistance,” adding in a footnote, “Studies by [William Naphy,] Robert Kingdon, Ray Mentzer, and Philip Benedict also demonstrate Calvin’s clear authority over these men.” Jon Balserak, “Geneva’s Use of Lies, Deceit, and Simulation in Their Efforts to Reform France, 1536–1563,” Harvard Theological Review 2019; 112(1), 76.
6 Bouwsma, John Calvin, 208.
7 See Michael Bruening, Refusing to Kiss the Slipper: Opposition to Calvinism in the Francophone Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 123-124, 157, 206-207. It is perhaps worthwhile here to consider an additional example of Calvin accusing other religious leaders of tyranny (from Bouwsma, John Calvin, 60):
“As with secular society, Calvin chiefly attacked the higher clergy, especially popes. He saw them, like secular princes, as essentially lawless: tyrants in the same sense. Claiming to stand above all earthly authority, ‘they allow no jurisdiction on earth to control or restrain their lust.’ A pope ‘exempts himself from all judgments and wishes to rule tyrannically.’ He ‘regards his own whim as law,’ an attitude ‘surely so unbecoming and so foreign to ecclesiastical order that it can in no way be endured. For it is utterly abhorrent not only to piety but also to humanity.’ Indeed, papal tyranny is worse than secular tyranny because it is ‘raised up against the spiritual kingdom of Christ, over souls rather than bodies.’ The worst exercise of this tyranny, for Calvin, was the claim of the papacy to dominion over Scripture itself, a blasphemous and diabolical assertion that undermined confidence in the promise of the Gospel.”
8 Gordon, Calvin, 146.
9 A Google search of “Mark Driscoll” and “tyrant” shows that has been a frequent term used to describe him.
10 Presumably, based on R. Scott Clark’s comments here, Gordon himself would not associate tyranny with Calvin’s behavior toward his opponents.
11 Gordon, Calvin, 337.
12 Gordon, Calvin, 338
13 Gordon misattributes the biography to Papire’s brother Jean-Baptiste Masson who published it in 1620; Papire died in 1611. See Irena Backus, “Un Chapitre Oublié de La Réception de Calvin En France. La ‘Vita Caluini’ de Jean-Papire Masson (1583): Introduction, Édition Critique et Traduction.” Bulletin de La Société de l’Histoire Du Protestantisme Français (1903-2015), vol. 155, 2009, pp. 181–207. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24309782.
14 Jeffrey Watt, The Consistory and Social Discipline in Calvin’s Geneva (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2020), 18.