John Calvin: Pastor. Preacher. Reformer. Tyrant? Part 4
Reformers Wall in Geneva, erected in 1909 on 400th anniversary of Calvin’s birth. Image courtesy of Expedia.
This is part four in a series considering the claim that John Calvin was a tyrant. If you are just joining this journey, I encourage you to check out part 1, part 2, and part 3.
What will people five hundred years in the future think about Mark Driscoll? It might seem like an obvious question: he was an angry bully who basically got fired from his prominent church and prominent network leadership position for being an angry bully. That’s the current (predominant but by no means universal) perspective. It all depends, though, on the sources used in the future. What if all they have available are pre-2014 publications? What if they rely only on easily accessible material, say from TGC council members? What if they only pay attention to Driscoll’s public messages and writings from his new church in Arizona (assuming there isn’t a “Rise and Fall 2.0”)?
Recognizing the dangers of anachronism, I think this question has merit with regards to 16th century perceptions of John Calvin.
However, there’s a big difference in comparing Calvin and Driscoll: imagine there is no press, no news reporters, no blogs, no social media, no podcasts with first person accounts, just printing presses and publishers. Now imagine that groups like TGC and Acts 29 control the majority of big name printing presses and publishers, and you’ll have something closer to 16th century Europe. According to Bruening,
“the Calvinists managed not only to avoid the dustbin of history [unlike anti-Calvinist Protestants] but also become the winners who would write that history…[T]he Calvinists dominated the largest, most important cities in francophone Switzerland…With the main cities largely under their influence, the Calvinists had at their disposal two related institutions that reinforced their control in the region: the printing press and the academies. The Geneva printing press allowed the Calvinists to control the dissemination of Protestant books throughout Europe, at least in the crucial early years of the Reformation.”1
In the words of two scholars, “the trouble with Calvin research was that Calvin had fallen into the hands of his friends,” and, “Too much Calvin research had all too often been left to Calvinists, who sometimes lacked the critical distance to ask uncomfortable questions about Calvin.”2 William Naphy concurs:
“the current historical picture of Calvin and Geneva is, for the most part, a construct which largely accepts Calvin’s interpretation of the events and issues.”3
As a corrective, Naphy builds his study, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, on the wealth of primary source data available in largely overlooked documents, including Calvin’s sermons. These are typically studied for biblical and theological material, neglecting what they reveal of the more day-to-day events in Geneva. According to Naphy, these sermons—preached from the most prominent pulpit in that city—display “Calvin’s control of the only effective means of mass communication in Geneva.”4
To me, that’s a fair analogy to how pastors like Driscoll are able to influence, shape, and even manipulate their public persona and how others perceive them. With this analogy, we return to my list of individuals who, as Bruening puts it, “had been friends before becoming foes of the Calvinists.”5
Subscribe
Jacques de Falais (1543-1551)
Jacques de Falais was a friend of Calvin and a nobleman who lived in Veigy just outside of Geneva and had converted to the Reformed faith.6 Falais hired Jerome Bolsec as his personal physician, and for those familiar with this history, one could not be friends of both Bolsec and with Calvin. Here is Bruening’s account:
“Falais’s relationship with Calvin was one of the first casualties of the Bolsec affair. From 1543 Calvin had corresponded with both Falais and his wife Yolande van Brederode, and he had been instrumental in the process of helping them immigrate to Veigy [fleeing persecution]. From the beginning of the Bolsec affair, however, Falais supported his doctor against what he saw as the Genevans’ heavy-handed attempt to quash doctrinal debate: [Quoting a letter from Falais to the Geneva Council:] “The reason for his [Bolsec’s] detention is nothing other than that he had spoken freely at the congregation about doctrine, which should certainly be permitted to all Christians without being imprisoned for it”…For humanists such as Zébédée and especially Castellio…the suppression of debate was a betrayal of the intellectual honesty and openness fostered by the Renaissance…Falais, too…shared this view and abandoned his old friend [Calvin]. In December 1551, even before Bolsec’s sentence [of banishment] had been handed down in Geneva, Johanes Haller in Bern described Falais as ‘completely alienated from’ Calvin on account of the controversy.”7
Jean Saint-Vertunien de Lavau (1540-1550?)
Very little historical data is available for Jean Lavau (or perhaps La Vau). Bruening indicates that Lavau at one time lived in Geneva and supported Calvin. He probably would have been in Geneva prior to the 1550’s, for in 1555 Calvin wrote to the church in Poitiers warning them against Lavau and a letter he had circulated that attacked Calvin and the Calvinist movement.
“Earlier, Lavau had been in Geneva and, according to Calvin, he had initially been a zealous opponent of Castellio [discussed in part 3]. Like so many others, however, Lavau turned against Calvin. Calvin tended to blame such defections, as he does in the case of Lavau, on Satanic influence. By contrast, Calvin’s letter to Poiters reveals his conviction about his own divinely sanctioned prophetic calling. He explains to the church that he is zealous in his defense of his own doctrine ‘because,’ as he writes, ‘I know it is from God.’”8
Calvin wrote the letter to Poitiers because, according to Calvin, Lavau was trying to bring them over to Castellio’s views. Why would Lavau be motivated to influence these Christians toward a more tolerant expression of reformation? “Lavau resented the power that Calvin and Geneva claimed over Protestant churches in France. ‘He says,’ Calvin complains, ‘that everyone here has to kiss my slipper.’”9
In return, Calvin criticized Lavau as “only blinded by his vain-glory,” that he was “a man of such extravagant self-conceit as to be quite ridiculous,” and was possessed by “that most mortal bane of the church of God, a vainglorious presumption.”10 This appears to be the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. To illustrate, consider how Calvin sidesteps Lavau’s accusation that “every body here must kiss my slipper”:
“For what he calls kissing my slipper is that people do not rise up against me and the doctrine which I teach, to grieve God in my person, and trample him so to speak under foot. Those who shew themselves so hostile to peace and concord, prove that they are actuated by the spirit of Satan.”11
Criticizing Calvin’s doctrine is equated (by Calvin) with grieving God and trampling God underfoot. This is a good example of Balserak’s work on Calvin’s prophetic sense of self12, and looks very much like what he accuses Lavau of. And it continues the pattern we’ve seen of how other one-time Calvinists criticized Calvin.
Jean Trolliet (1545?)
Jean Trolliet was a Genevan and former monk. Like everyone discussed in this series, Trolliet had embraced the reformation, and he desired a pastoral position in Geneva. But it was not to be.
“In 1545, Calvin had opposed Trolliett’s application to become a pastor in the city…Calvin also rankled many of the city’s leading politicians by refusing to provide the city council with a reason for his rejection of Trolliet. Later, in June 1552, Calvin accused Trolliet of having publicly criticized his Institutes and his teaching on predestination.”13
Trolliet’s accusations led to a case before the Geneva Council in which Calvin was vindicated in no uncertain terms. Here is the statement that the Council issued, demonstrating that naysayers like Trolliet would not be tolerated:
“[The Council] has pronounced and declared, and pronounces and declares the said book of the Institution of the said Calvin, to be well and holily done, and his holy doctrine to be God’s doctrine, and that he be held as good and true minister of this city, and that henceforward no person dare to speak against the said book, nor the said doctrine. We command both parties, and all concerned, to observe this.”14
While the Council acknowledged Trolliet as “as good citizen”15, Calvin had a different view of him. Three years later in 1555, in the letter to the Poitiers church mentioned above, Calvin recalled the Trolliet incident, believing it to be relevant to his counter-attack on Lavau. Calvin described Trolliet as “a vain-glorious man” and equated his “calumnies against the Institution” and his “defamatory reports” against “my doctrine” with blasphemy: “What is the object of this poor man, in vexing himself so much on that account? None, except the desire that everyone might be allowed to blaspheme the truth.”16
Henri de la Mare
The story of Henri de la Mare is amply told by William Naphy.17 I’m pushing the limit on these posts, but I think de la Mare’s story is worth some detailed study. Calvin had a grudge against de la Mare stemming from 1538 because he “refused to share [Calvin’s] exile,” and the “tacit approval” of that exile demonstrated by de la Mare’s decision to stay in Geneva.18 Calvin’s animosity led him to severe and intentional neglect of de la Mare. In 1543 de la Mare was moved from his city church to a rural parish (along with other ministers deemed less qualified by Calvin, who were replaced by French pastors of higher learning and financial means). The conditions in the country parish were deplorable: the parsonage house was missing a wall, and the church didn’t have a pulpit, a door, or windows. De la Mare complained against the move due to those conditions, and despite the Council committing to pay for repairs, he had to endure those conditions for two years. Imagine trying to get people to attend church services in winter! During that time Calvin petitioned the Genevan Council to increase pay and financial assistance to almost all of the Genevan pastors (both city and rural). But de la Mare, along with two other pastors who fell out of Calvin’s favor, was overlooked. (Some might and do object that Calvin was just one vote among a plurality of elders on the Consistory, and that he didn’t have any political power as a foreigner. However, many scholars agree that Calvin could pretty much always get the Company of Pastors to follow his lead, and it was his voice that petitioned and influenced the magistrates to do better at meeting the material needs of the Geneva pastors; at least, the pastors who were in lock stop with Calvin’s program).19
According to Gordon, “When Calvin returned in 1541, de la Mare was in his sights. Over the next five years he waged an unrelenting campaign, never missing an opportunity to make the man’s life a misery.”20 While de la Mare does not appear to have ever been a friend of Calvin (and although we know little about their relationship from 1536-1538 before Calvin and Farel’s expulsion), his desire to be a Genevan pastor signals his commitment to the reformation. The only problem was—and we’re reading between the lines of history here—de la Mare’s commitment was not fully aligned with Calvin.
Henri de la Mare’s story is related to the case of Pierre Ameaux, which I discussed two years ago in John Calvin: Scandal, Cover Up, and Clergy Bias. I won’t go into detail regarding Ameaux, so see that post for more context. The crux of the case, vis a vis Calvin’s alleged tyranny, is that Calvin was not satisfied with the magistrates’ proposed censure of Ameaux (a fine, and a private apology to Calvin before the Council). Instead, Calvin refused to preach until the Council acquiesced and
“Ameaux was forced to parade through town clad only in a shirt with a torch and be pardoned in the centre of Geneva. He was ordered to give details, in a [loud and intelligible voice], of each charge he had made against Calvin, repudiate each criticism, and beg forgiveness from God, Calvin and the magistrates.”21
Reformed scholar R. Scott Clark has a blog post titled The “Calvin as Tyrant” Meme in which he criticizes using the Ameaux episode as evidence of Calvin’s tyranny. He writes,
“On the surface this seems to be another example of Calvin’s alleged tyranny but there was more happening beneath the surface. Certainly Ameaux was humiliated because Calvin insisted [on a harsher sentence], but technically it was the city council who effected the sentence and, more importantly, it was part of a metaphorically bloody political fight, dating to the mid-40s, over the direction of the city and the church. This was less about Calvin’s person than it was about the authority of the church to make ecclesiastical policy. Those interested in a balanced account will notice that Ameaux was made to apologize for criticizing the city’s pastors (an office), not for insulting Calvin’s person.”
Clark cites the biography by Parker, who writes, “Calvin would have none of this [leniency]; until Ameaux had made suitable reparation for his insult against the name of God (for he had said that the Word of God was false doctrine), Calvin would not enter the pulpit again.”22
But Parker does not mention evidence from Henri de la Mare used in Ameaux’s case. De la Mare was asked by Benoit Tixier, a doctor and a French refugee, “if Ameaux had spoken directly against God or only against men?”
“I think,” replied De la Mare, “that he said something against Calvin; However, if there is something else and he is wrong, it was after drinking. I have always known him to be a good man, virtuous and of great mind. Calvin is a little too subject to his affections (passions), an impatient, hateful and vindictive man; when he has a grudge against someone it is never done.”23
This evidence suggests that criticism of Calvin was very much a part of the case against Ameaux. Balserak, noting the scholarly differences on this case without rendering his own conclusion, writes, “This [case] may seem prima facie to support the charges of tyranny and intolerance about which Bauduin complained.”24
Theological and political differences certainly played a role in de la Mare’s and Ameaux’s stories, but that does not negate or explain away Calvin’s response to criticism. De la Mare knew from personal experience that “when [Calvin] has a grudge against someone it is never done.” Indeed, for siding with Ameaux and calling Calvin “an impatient, hateful and vindictive man,” de la Mare was imprisoned for 28 days. Despite the Council’s push for reconciliation, the Company of Pastors (defending Calvin, it would seem) made a unified stand against retaining de la Mare, and the Council “had no choice but to sack him on 15 April 1546.”25
What’s the point?
There will be one final post for this series, but for now I think we’ve explored enough material to zoom out and reflect. Dear reader, you’re free to draw your own conclusions, if any. The point of all of this is to give a respectful ear to Calvin’s original critics, those who perceived and claimed to have experienced his tyranny. Those who wanted to reform the church, but are largely unknown because of their criticisms of Calvin. In this way, the point is not answering the question, “Was Calvin a tyrant?” Remember, my original criticism of Matt White’s claim in Part 1 was that the perception of Calvin as tyrant is not “wildly inaccurate,” nor a “silly stereotype.” Rather, the point is to practice wisdom and love of neighbor when a trusted religious leader is criticized. That can only be done by listening to the critics in their own voice. In the final post in two weeks we’ll lend ear to one final critic who, as far as I can tell, happens to be the one person who complained of Calvin’s tyranny and yet is also represented on the Reformers Wall in Geneva (pictured above).
As Michael Bruening has been one of the main and best resources in this study, I’m going to conclude with a long section from his final chapter:
Quote from Michael Bruening
“Apart from personal animosity toward Calvin, resentment of his role as self-appointed leader of the Reformed movement was the most common criticism [of the “anti-Calvinist brotherhood”]…From their perspective, they had not broken away from Rome to fall under the dominance of a new ecclesiastical lord in Geneva. To many of them, such submission was a betrayal of the core evangelical principle of sola scriptura. Calvin, they believed, was saying, “Scripture alone, but as interpreted by me alone!” How, they wondered, was this different from Martin Luther’s “second wall of the Romanists,” that “only the pope may interpret the Scriptures”? Many of Calvin’s opponents had first-hand knowledge of Calvin's exegetical arrogance, for many—including Zébédée, Falais, Castellio, Bauduin, Du Moulin, Toussain, and Morely—had been friends before becoming foes of the Calvinists. In most cases, their relationships ruptured over a doctrinal disagreement in which Calvin insisted that the other yield to his interpretation…All these individuals had developed an understanding of Christianity based on their own reading of Scripture. Their interpretations, however, were not Calvin’s, and Calvin would suffer no opposition. For him, deviation from his own doctrinal position was evidence of a deficient understanding of Scripture, or possibly the influence of Satan. . . . The legacy of those in the sixteenth century who refused to kiss the slipper of either Calvin or the pope may be largely hidden, but it was the anvil against which Calvin and his disciples forged a new Protestant identity. The legacy of these critics endures as a cautionary warning against religious pride and ecclesial arrogance and a call for the constant reform of the church.”26
Question
What are your thoughts about this series? I promise I won’t get offended or critical if you disagree or have pushback. Matt White, who prompted this series, has been an incredibly gracious dialogue partner on Twitter/X, and I am committed to that same intellectual humility and graciousness here on Substack (indeed, the same intellectual graciousness desired by Calvin’s critics). So, please feel free to share!
1 Bruening, 305.
2 Heiko Oberman and David Steinmetz, quoted in Jon Balserak, Geneva’s Use of Lies, Deceit, and Subterfuge, 1536-1563: Telling the Old, Old Story in Reformation France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024), 41. For an example, consider this quote from the biography by Emanuel Stickelberger which I found at a used bookstore this week: “It is astounding when one considers this profusion of spiritual work of one man who was sick and harassed. And—again I must emphasize it—after such reflection [ie on Calvin’s illnesses and sufferings] one will judge less harshly occasional outbursts of irritability for which he has been so severely criticized” (p. 138, emphasis added). I don’t think that’s an accurate assessment even by Calvin’s words, who in multiple places admitted that “outbursts of irritability” was a more regular sin with which he struggled.
3 See William Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, 9.
4 Naphy, 5.
5 Bruening, 302.
6 Gordon, 205.
7 Bruening, 126.
8 Bruening, 205.
9 Bruening, 206.
10 Letters of Johbn Calvin, 3:139, 140.
11 Letters, 3:145.
12 See John Calvin as Sixteenth Century Prophet by Jon Balserak.
13 Bruening, 128-129.
14 Letters, 2:354-355.
15 Bruening, 129.
16 Letters, 3:146.
17 See Naphy, 59-68.
18 Naphy, 53. The two other pastors in this category were Jaques Bernard and Aimé Champereau. See Gordon, 131ff, who also follows Naphy’s account.
19 Jon Balserak writes, “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.
20 Gordon, 131.
21 Naphy, 96.
22 T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography, 118. (Quote is from either p. 117 or 118, I pulled it from a copy on Archive.org which is currently down so I can’t confirm page #).
23 John-Barthélemy-Gaïfre Galiffe, Nouvelles pages d’ histoire exacte soit le procès de Pierre Ameaux conseiller d’ état de Genève et ses incidents 1546 (Geneva: Imprimerie & Lithographie Vaney, 1863), 41, English translation by Google. See Watt, The Consistory and Social Discipline in Calvin’s Geneva, 19.
24 Balserak, 45.
25 Naphy, 67.
26 Bruening, 302-303, 310, emphasis added.