Here’s a short post on John Calvin and the infamous Michael Servetus (if you don’t know the story read it here). Basically all I want to do is broach this topic, and try to provide some marginal room for what Calvin was about with dealing with Servetus.

Servetus was a highly intelligent guy, a medical doctor, and student of theology who felt the need to challenge Calvin, in particular, on the doctrine of the Trinity — Servetus believed the Trinity to be heretical. He challenged Calvin through various media — the spoken word, and mostly by way of letter — wherein he revealed his true colors. At this point there were many “Reformers” who had concluded — legally — that Servetus was a heretic who needed to be dealt with. An aside, it is important to bear in mind that the socio-cultural milieu of that day was what can be termed ecclesiopolitical; so that the pressing political concerns of that day were very much so intertwined with the intense theological struggles of the day — thus verdicts that we would reserve for murderers today, could be used for theological heretics then (this is the cultural climate Calvin inhabited). Conversely, Servetus was eventually captured and put to death in Geneva (with the full approval of many Christian leaders, not just Calvin). Here is how John T. McNeil characterizes this issue relative to Calvin’s invovlement:

Embittered anti-Calvin writers deny the well-attested fact that Calvin had sought to have the Council decree death by the sword rather than the flames. Farel [Calvin’s compatriot in Geneva] had indeed reproached him (8 September) for his undue leniency in taking this position, though Farel appears to have shared it later. When the sentence was rendered Calvin noted that his effort had been in vain. Calvin wanted Servetus killed, but by a more merciful death than the flames. Yet when challenged by some who deplored the whole business, he followed the event with a book (Defense of the Orthodox Faith, 1554), in which, like the most obdurate inquistor, he declares that in cases of heresy the glory of God must be maintained regardless of all feelings of humanity. [brackets mine] (John T. McNeil, “The History and Character of Calvinism,” 176)

There is no doubt that Calvin ultimately approved of Servetus’ death — albeit he desired a more humane way of handling that — but I often think it is too quick or anachronistic (i.e. to impose our standards of language and culture on another period of time as if they are parallel) to say that Calvin was some sort of murderous shrewd. In fact the indictment might go the other way; it might indict us today, who look at theological things as if they are a game we can play versus a reality that represents real life and eternal consequences. The gravity of this situation with Servetus is probably without parallel in our own historical enclaves, today; therefore, I think it behooves anyone who might want to take Servetus’ case as the mallot that destroys Calvin’s character to do a double-take. While I wouldn’t condone this kind of activity today; Calvin doesn’t live in today, he lives in the yesterday of history wherein the norms and dictates of the day were very much so shaped by an ecclesiopolitical paradigm. Think again!