John Calvin

I have been thinking recently on the way in which I view the Reformer John Calvin, it seems that the view I hold is somewhat dated, somewhat not in tune with the historical facts, somewhat biased, and somewhat wrong.

I fall into the category of Anglicans that believed that John Calvin was a theocratic dictator in Geneva, guilty of murder. This opinion is a popular view, held by a lot of people, it is thanks to a Jewish novelist of the 20th century that this has become a common view. Stefan Zweig, who had no historical training, no theological training, writing in 1936 on Calvin, makes Calvin a sort of Hitler type character, someone who seized power, was power hungry, and ruled with an iron fist. This simply does not fit the historical character of Calvin, for it is well known that he was invited to Geneva, he held no actual power, and was still considered a French foreigner. I do not blame Zweig for his view, for his narrative reflects the situation that he lived in, it does not however reflect a 16th century context, and this is the problem with looking at Calvin with modern lenses, we must approach Calvin in the context of the 16th century, and we must reassess the later developments of Calvinism, rather than assume that current Presbyterian theology is all the work of one particular man. Additions from people such as John Knox and Theodore Beza.