• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

John Calvin's Geneva (Part 1)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I do not usually like to copy and paste a post. In this case however, I think the following excellent piece of writing merits it. This should go a long way to curing anyone of the hero-worship of John Calvin. I hope it also goes toward helping some to reexamine the teachings of such a man. After reading this description of John Calvin's Geneva, we are faced with an interesting question concerning a possible connection between John Calvin and Adolf Hitler, namely, did Adolf Hitler derive helpful information from the experiences of John Calvin to employ toward controlling the German people?

Bob Burns
Southern Baptist


John Calvin's Geneva
Excerpt from "The Right to Heresy: Castellio Against Calvin"
Stefan Zweig, Trans., Eden & Cedar Paul.
Boston: The Beacon Press, 1951.
http://www.schismata.com/html/calvin.html

The Consistory Kicks into Action

From the first hour of his dictatorship (in 1541) this brilliant organizer herded his flock, his congregation, within a barbed-wire entanglement of paragraphs and prohibitions, the so-called "Ordinances," simultaneously creating a special department to supervise the working of terrorist morality. This organization was called the Consistory, its purpose being defined, ambiguously enough, as that of supervising the congregation or the community "that God may be honoured in all purity." Only to outward seeming was the sphere of influence of this moral inspectorate restricted to the religious life. For, owing to the intimate association of the secular or mundane with the philosophical in Calvin's totalitarian conception of the State, the vestiges of independence were henceforward to come automatically under the control of the authorities. The catchpoles of the Consistory, the "anciens," were expressly instructed to keep watch upon the private life of everyone in Geneva. Their watchfulness must never be relaxed, and they were expected to pay attention "not only to the uttered word, but also to opinions and views."

Policing the Flock

From the days when so universal a control of private life was instituted, private life could hardly be said to exist any longer in Geneva. With one leap Calvin outdistanced the Catholic Inquisition, which had always waited for reports of informers or denunciations from other sources before sending out its familiars and its spies. In Geneva, however, in accordance with Calvin's religious philosophy, every human being was primarily and perpetually inclined to evil rather than to good, was a priori suspect as a sinner, so everyone must put up with supervision. After Calvin's return to Geneva, it was as if the doors of the houses had suddenly been thrown open and as if the walls had been transformed into glass. From moment to moment, by day and by night, there might come a knocking at the entry, and a number of the "spiritual police" announce a "visitation" without the concerned citizen's being able to offer resistance.

Monthly Examinations

Once a month rich and poor, the powerful and the weak, had to submit to the questioning of these professional "police des maeurs." For hours (since the ordinances declared that such examination must be done in leisurely fashion), white-haired, respectable, tried, and hitherto trusted men must be examined like schoolboys as to whether they knew the prayers by heart, or as to why they had failed to attend one of Master Calvin's sermons. But with such catechizing and moralizing the visitation was by no means at an end. The members of this moral Cheka thrust fingers into every pie. They felt the women's dresses to see whether their skirts were not too long or too short, whether these garments had superfluous frills or dangerous slits. The police carefully inspected the coiffure, to see that it did not tower too high; they counted the rings on the victim's fingers, and looked to see how many pairs of shoes there were in the cupboard. From the bedroom they passed on to the kitchen table, to ascertain whether the prescribed diet was not being exceeded by a soup or a course of meat, or whether sweets and jams were hidden away somewhere. Then the pious policeman would continue his examination of the rest of the house. He pried into bookshelves, on the chance of there being a book devoid of the Consistory's imprimatur; he looked into drawers on the chance of finding the image of one of the saints, or a rosary. The servants were asked about the behaviour of their masters, and the children were cross-questioned as to the doings of their parents.

Diabolic Vice of Cheerfulness

As he walked along the street, this minion of the Calvinist dictatorship would keep his ears pricked to ascertain whether anyone was singing a secular song, or was making music, or was addicted to the diabolic vice of cheerfulness. For henceforward in Geneva the authorities were always on the hunt for anything that smacked of pleasure, for any "paillardise"; and woe unto a burgher caught visiting a tavern when the day's work was over to refresh himself with a glass of wine, or unto another who was so depraved as to find pleasure in dice or cards. Day after day the hunt went on, nor could the overworked spies enjoy rest on the Sabbath. Once more they would make a house-to-house visitation where some slothful wretch was lying in bed instead of seeking edification from Master Calvin's sermon. In the church another informer was on the watch, ready to denounce anyone who should enter the house of God too late or leave it too early.

Guardians of Morality

These official guardians of morality were at work everywhere indefatigably. When night fell, they pried among the bushes beside the Rhone, to see if a sinful pair might be indulging in caresses; while in the inns they scrutinized the beds and ransacked the baggage of strangers. They opened every letter that entered or left the city; and the carefully organized watchfulness of the Consistory extended far beyond the walls of the city. In the diligence, in public rowing-boats, in ships crossing the lake for the foreign market, and in the inns beyond the town limits, spies were everywhere at work.

Voluntary Denunciations Flourish

Any word of discontent uttered by a Genevese citizen who might be visiting Lyons or Paris would infallibly be reported. But what made the situation yet more intolerable was that countless unofficial spies joined their activities as volunteers to those who were properly appointed to the task. Whenever a State inaugurates a reign of terror, the poisonous plant of voluntary denunciation flourishes like a loathsome weed; when it is agreed on principle that denunciations shall be tolerated and are even desirable, otherwise decent folk are driven by fear to play the part of informer. If it were only to divert suspicion "of being on the side of the devil instead of God," every Genevese citizen in the days of Calvin's dictatorship looked askance at his fellows. The "zelo della paura," the zeal of dread, ran impatiently ahead of the informers. After some years the Consistory was able to abolish official supervision, since all the citizens had become voluntary controllers. The restless current of denunciations streamed in by day and by night, and kept the mill wheel of the spiritual Inquisition turning briskly. Who could feel safe under such a system, could be sure that he was not breaking one of the commandments, since Calvin forbade practically everything that might have made life joyful and worth while?

Prohibited Amusements

Prohibited were theatres, amusements, popular festivals, any kind of dancing or playing. Even so innocent a sport as skating stirred Calvin's bile. The only tolerated attire was sober and almost monkish. The tailors, therefore, were forbidden, unless they had special permission from the town authorities, to cut in accordance with new fashions. Girls were forbidden to wear silk before they reached the age of fifteen years; above that age they were not allowed to wear velvet. Gold and silver lace, golden hair, needless buttons and furbelows, were equally under the ban, and the wearing of gold ornaments or other trinkets was against the regulations. Men were not allowed to wear their hair long; women were forbidden to make much of their tresses by curling them and training them over combs. Lace was forbidden; gloves were forbidden; frills and slashed shoes were forbidden. Forbidden was the use of litters and of wheeled carriages.

Large Gatherings Prohibited

Forbidden were family feasts to which more than twenty persons had been invited; at baptisms and betrothal parties there must not be more than a specified number of courses, and sweets or candied fruits must not be served. No other wine than the red wine of the region might be drunk, while game, whether four-footed or winged, and pastry were prohibited. Married folk were not allowed to give one another presents at the wedding, or for six months afterwards. Of course, any sort of extra-conjugal intercourse was absolutely forbidden; and there must be no laxity in this respect even among people who had been formally engaged. The citizens of Geneva were not allowed to enter an inn; and the host of such a place must not serve a stranger with food and drink until the latter had said his prayers. In general the tavern-keepers were instructed to spy upon their guests, paying diligent heed to every suspicious word or gesture. No book might be printed without a special permit. It was forbidden to write letters abroad. Images of the saints, other sculptures, and music were forbidden. Even as regards psalm-singing, the ordinances declared that "care must be taken" to avoid allowing attention to wander to the tune, instead of concentrating it upon the spirit and the meaning of the words; for "only in the living word may God be praised."
 
Last edited:

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
In Christian theological studies we have a tendency to enshrine "great thinkers" while looking the other way regarding their moral and ethical turpitude. I tend to think they probably were not great thinkers at all, and their vileness reveals the light in them was darkness.
 
Upvote 0

MrStain

Nobody likes to be the Newbie
Dec 22, 2007
879
121
✟16,632.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In Christian theological studies we have a tendency to enshrine "great thinkers" while looking the other way regarding their moral and ethical turpitude. I tend to think they probably were not great thinkers at all, and their vileness reveals the light in them was darkness.
This is what happens when you trust lawyers. :D

Seriously, Calvin created a police state and his teachings became "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." If you disagreed, then off with your head. There is good reason for the saying that Calvinists looked to erase the sin by erasing the sinner.
 
Upvote 0

Sphinx777

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2007
6,327
972
Bibliotheca Alexandrina
✟10,752.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
John Calvin (or Jean Calvin in French) (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564) was a French Protestant theologian during the Protestant Reformation and was a central developer of the system of Christian theology called Calvinism or Reformed theology. In Geneva, his ministry both attracted other Protestant refugees and over time made that city a major force in the spread of Reformed theology. He is famous for his teachings and writings, in particular for his Institutes of the Christian Religion.


:angel:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
  • Like
Reactions: Sphinx777
Upvote 0

LamorakDesGalis

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2004
2,198
235
Dallas Texas
✟18,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Zweig's book is extremely biased with plenty of loaded terms. The book is not really history, its just Zweig's heavily slanted opinion of what he thinks. Zweig does not provide sources for his questionable statements, and from what I've seen, they even contradict history itself.

For example, Zweig says or implies multiple times that Calvin was an absolute dictator. This is simply not true. During Calvin's time, Geneva was ruled by a council of whom only native Genevans citizens could serve. Calvin never served on the council, and could not anyway since he wasn't a native born Genevan. He was a non-citizen from France and did not even become a citizen of Geneva until the last few years of his life.

The council of Geneva alone held the power to arrest, try, and execute individuals. The council of Geneva alone held the power to excommunicate, not the consistory. While the consistory could recommend, the council of Geneva could deny that recommendation.

Also, since when do dictator's offer to resign? In the months before Servetus came to Geneva, Calvin asked the council to accept his resignation. The council refused, and Calvin remained. So Zweig doesn't present the real historical situation in Geneva, and just biases the reader with the term "dictator" or comparisons to dictatorships.

There are multiple other inconsistencies of Zweig's statements with history, but the above should suffice....


LDG
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Zweig's book is extremely biased with plenty of loaded terms. The book is not really history, its just Zweig's heavily slanted opinion of what he thinks. Zweig does not provide sources for his questionable statements, and from what I've seen, they even contradict history itself.

For example, Zweig says or implies multiple times that Calvin was an absolute dictator. This is simply not true. During Calvin's time, Geneva was ruled by a council of whom only native Genevans citizens could serve. Calvin never served on the council, and could not anyway since he wasn't a native born Genevan. He was a non-citizen from France and did not even become a citizen of Geneva until the last few years of his life.

The council of Geneva alone held the power to arrest, try, and execute individuals. The council of Geneva alone held the power to excommunicate, not the consistory. While the consistory could recommend, the council of Geneva could deny that recommendation.

Also, since when do dictator's offer to resign? In the months before Servetus came to Geneva, Calvin asked the council to accept his resignation. The council refused, and Calvin remained. So Zweig doesn't present the real historical situation in Geneva, and just biases the reader with the term "dictator" or comparisons to dictatorships.

There are multiple other inconsistencies of Zweig's statements with history, but the above should suffice....


LDG
Did the Ayatollah Khomeini rule from the seat of government in Iran. No. Was he their dictator? Yes.

Did Ferdinand Marcos offer to resign? Yes. He agreed to elections and lost.

Those who think highly of Calvin, use loaded terms, imo. So, those who do not like him, I'm okay with thier use of loaded terms too. Good reading skills require one to see all writers' biases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sphinx777
Upvote 0

LamorakDesGalis

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2004
2,198
235
Dallas Texas
✟18,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did the Ayatollah Khomeini rule from the seat of government in Iran. No. Was he their dictator? Yes.

Khomeini overthrew the provisional government when he came back to Iran. He had the constitution changed so that he could be declared as "The Supreme Leader."

Calvin did not hold sway over the Genevan council. In fact, Calvin was subject to the Genevan council. Khomeini was looked as the "Supreme Leader" over his government. So sorry, there is really no comparison.

Did Ferdinand Marcos offer to resign? Yes. He agreed to elections and lost.

Marcos had already been elected to office many years before. Calvin was never elected, and Calvin never engaged in graft and corruption. So sorry, there is no real comparison here either.


Those who think highly of Calvin, use loaded terms, imo. So, those who do not like him, I'm okay with thier use of loaded terms too.

Sure, there are loaded terms on "both sides." But I'm on neither side. I have no stake in promoting or disdaining Calvin.

What I'm for is the truth. I'm a student of history, and I have a master's degree in church history. What I want are objective facts, not derisive terminology. Using loaded terms only throws a smokescreen around the issues, and that clouds - even distorts - the truth.


Good reading skills require one to see all writers' biases.

Well Zweig's biases are certainly leaping right out of the chapters. ;)

Zweig is uninformed/misinformed about a lot of historical facts. If someone is writing a book on World War II, should we let them slide if they repeatedly say it was the Germans who bombed Pearl Harbor?

Zweig's biased approach makes me think that if he has to add all these loaded terms to persuade others, then that means he thinks the objective argument has to be very weak.


LDG
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm sorry, but in my opinion you are splitting hairs. I know of no objective historians.

I will concede Calvin was not a dictator in the modern sense. He was a proto-dictator and his methods certainly could have served as inspiration to and models for dictators in modern times. Loaded terms certainly. But better are loaded terms which are obviously so than loaded terms which are ostensibly objective and dispassionate.
 
Upvote 0

LamorakDesGalis

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2004
2,198
235
Dallas Texas
✟18,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry, but in my opinion you are splitting hairs. I know of no objective historians.

I will concede Calvin was not a dictator in the modern sense. He was a proto-dictator and his methods certainly could have served as inspiration to and models for dictators in modern times. Loaded terms certainly. But better are loaded terms which are obviously so than loaded terms which are ostensibly objective and dispassionate.

If you claim there is no real objectivity, then there is no real truth.

If there are no objective historians, then what is the difference between those who say there was a holocaust and those who deny it ever happened?

Does one just pick whatever view they want, regardless of the facts? Opinions and theories simply don't work when they fly in the face of facts and reality. And the truth is that the facts are on the side of those who say there was a holocaust.

Zweig doesn't base his judgments in fact.


LDG
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You're making good arguments of a polemical sort.

However, if you re-read the post to which you are replying, you will see the valid points you made are not relevant to the point I was making.

I did not question there is objective truth.

I questioned you're notion that we approach fields of inquiry, specifically history, without bias.

As a for instance, some people, I'm not saying you, feel they must protect the image of Jean Calvin because they have a bias that he is a hero of the faith. The bias that he is a hero keeps those folks from admitting the facts of Jean's depravity. There may also be a host of other motivations as well for defending Jean or not defending Jean. Perhaps someone hates Jean's soteriology, without revealing their bias or beliefs, they may then set out to tear down the reputation of Jean on the basis of his depravity. We all carry biases to the table. No historian is without them.

I love the writings of Roland Bainton. He is a uniquely gifted writer who can combine vast knowledge of the time periods in which he wrote with beautiful prose. Having said this, I feel his biograhic sketches of certain persons borders on being panegyric, that's all.

Stefan Zweig's attack on the beatified Calvin is on balance right on, despite particular errors in Zweig's explaining of the Genevan org-chart, or how informal lines of political power flowed in Calvin's Geneva.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LamorakDesGalis

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2004
2,198
235
Dallas Texas
✟18,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You're making good arguments of a polemical sort.

However, if you re-read the post to which you are replying, you will see the valid points you made are not relevant to the point I was making.

I did not question there is objective truth.

I questioned you're notion that we approach fields of inquiry, specifically history, without bias.

As a for instance, some people, I'm not saying you, feel they must protect the image of Jean Calvin because they have a bias that he is a hero of the faith. The bias that he is a hero keeps those folks from admitting the facts of Jean's depravity. There may also be a host of other motivations as well for defending Jean or not defending Jean. Perhaps someone hates Jean's soteriology, without revealing their bias or beliefs, they may then set out to tear down the reputation of Jean on the basis of his depravity. We all carry biases to the table. No historian is without them.

True, no historian is without bias. But you also present a couple of extreme biases on Calvin that the majority of historians do not have.

Also since both you and I claim there is objective truth, then that means there is a body of historical facts that we can drawn on concerning events and people. If someone makes an extraordinary claim that Hitler was assassinated in 1944 and replaced by an identical twin, then its easy enough to check out the facts. If the suggested course of events don't concur with the body of historical facts that we already know, then its not something that anyone is going to take seriously.

Its the same thing with Zweig's book. Zweig's arguments do not concur with the body of historical facts we have about Calvin and Geneva.

I love the writings of Roland Bainton. He is a uniquely gifted writer who can combine vast knowledge of the time periods in which he wrote with beautiful prose. Having said this, I feel his biograhic sketches of certain persons borders on being panegyric, that's all.

I like Bainton as well. Biased praise though is one thing, but misrepresenting the facts is something else entirely. While little inaccuracies can be overlooked or forgiven, large inconsistencies cannot. What if Bainton's opinions rested on claims that Martin Luther was an Englishman or that he lived in the 1600s? That would mean Bainton's opinions were misinformed, uninformed or worse, deliberately misleading.

Stefan Zweig's attack on the beatified Calvin is on balance right on, despite particular errors in Zweig's explaining of the Genevan org-chart, or how informal lines of political power flowed in Calvin's Geneva.

If Zweig's 1950s book is supposed to be right on, why haven't historians taken it seriously?

Books on Calvin which are taken seriously are Alister McGrath's A Life of John Calvin and Bertrand Cottret's Calvin: a Biography.


LDG
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
<snip>If Zweig's 1950s book is supposed to be right on, why haven't historians taken it seriously?<snip>
Perhaps because Zweig's position on Jean Calvin is not the popular one.
 
Upvote 0

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian
Perhaps because Zweig's position on Jean Calvin is not the popular one.

Isn't that always the case with any writing about anyone? Isn't it wise always to review the associations of the biographer; why they write what they write? One could be prosperous, live like hell and all the while heap praise upon Ken Copeland for giving him his inspiration.

We have sufficient history to support Zweig's contentions. There is also no doubt sufficient historical writings to support the opinions of others who say Calvin was a holy man, however, given both opinions. With all the evidence in, we can safely say Calvin was a misguided individual, one who did not rightly divide the word of God.

Question: Why place absolute confidence in a man such as this for one's spiritual well being? I don't get it!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Isn't that always the case with any writing about anyone? Is it wise always to review the associations of the biographer; why they write what they write? One could be prosperous, live like hell and all the while heap praise upon Ken Copeland for giving him his inspiration.

We have sufficient history to support Zweig's contentions. There is also no doubt sufficient historical writings to support the opinions of others who say Calvin was a holy man, however, given both opinions. With all the evidence in, we can safely say Calvin was a misguided individual, one who did not rightly divide the word of God.

Question: Why place absolute confidence in a man such as this for one's spiritual well being? I don't get it!
Well said.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.