´óÏó´«Ã½

Move to and you encounter even more controversy. Many have become exercised, in this anniversary year, by Calvin's "big idea". What was that? It depends who you ask, but most think it was the idea of divine sovereignty. Hardly original, I hear you say. Well, Calvin never claimed to be original. In fact, he claimed only to be Augustinian in theology. Someone has calculated that Calvin's major work, , contains more than 1500 references to Augustine of Hippo, the theologian's greatest influence. Augustine taught the doctrine of predestination, and Calvin taught it too. This is the claim -- and it seems outrageous to many modern minds -- that God, before the foundation of the world, chose to save those who would eventually be saved and also -- this is "double predestination" -- he chose to damn those who would eventually be damned. In other words, if you are saved, it is not because of anything you have done in this life; it is because God chose to save you even before you breathed your first breath.

Some later theologians in the Reformed tradition developed the idea of choice (or "election") in other directions. Karl Barth, widely regarded as the greatest theologian of the 20th century, spoke of God electing Jesus Christ to be the saviour of the world. Followers of Christ are, then, saved not because they were elected to salvation before the foundation of the world, but because Christ was elected to be their saviour before the foundation of the world. That idea leaves open another possibility, which Barth resisted to some extent -- since Christ was elected "to save the world", everyone is saved.

Contemporary evangelical thinkers, such as Elaine Storkey, regard the idea of double predestination as morally and theologically questionable. Storkey claims that Calvin taught predestination but not "double" predestination. Though within the Calvinist tradition (or, perhaps, the term "Calvinian" is a more accurate), Storkey says she would think less of the Reformer if he believed in double predestination.

While people pick over these and other controversies on this anniversary, I hope they also do justice to the european humanist context of Calvin's writings. Calvin was not only open to the riches of classical philosophy, he was also convinced that we approach those and all ideas from our human perspective. In the opening sentence of his Institutes, he signals his commitment to anthropology as much as theology: "Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern."

This sentence deserves some examination and its implications are rarely considered in today's debates about Calvin. Human beings when doing theology are unavoidably still human, and that means our ideas about God reflect also our ideas about ourselves.

I'll add a final comment, in response to the claim that John Calvin was a "murderer" This allegation is sometimes made in respect of the . Servetus was, in many ways, an extraordinary person: a doctor, a philosopher-theologian, an inventor, a polymath. He was executed by the Geneva Council after being tried for denying the doctrine of the Trinity.

Servetus has been expelled from many Reformed and Catholic cities. In fact, he was already facing a Catholic death sentence when, for reasons no-one can explain, he turned up in Calvin's church while Calvin was preaching on August 13, 1553. Some historians think Servetus had a death-wish: already a fugitive, why would he challenge the Geneva authorities by entering their jurisdiction? Geneva was a young republic and nervous about its reputation in both the Reformed world and in the minds of Catholic authorities. Not to act in such a notorious case would bring condemnation from Protestant and Catholic jurisdictions alike.

It is clear that Calvin's role in the case was morally questionable by our modern lights. But by the standards of his own day, his role was to report the presence of a known lawbreaker. We would not consider heresy a crime; but it was in the 16th century, and not only in Geneva. The city council held a trial and Calvin played no part in the trial; he gave no evidence, and -- contrary to a common myth -- he did not act as the judge. When the council found Servetus guilty and condemned him to death by burning, Calvin intervened to request that Servetus be executed by a more humane method. The Council ignored the request. It is difficult to claim that Calvin is a "murderer" on the basis of this involvement. That said, no-one today (except in some religious theocracies) would defend the kind of "justice" meted out to Michael Servetus. His treatment under the law of Geneva was a disgrace by our standards today, and Calvin's participation in Genevan civic society implicates him in that judgement. The Servetus affair undoubtedly presents the dark side of John Calvin. Servetus has mocked Calvin's ideas both publicly and in private correspondence, and Calvin passionately resented it. He hated Servetus and vowed, in advance of Servetus's arrival in Geneva, that the Spaniard would regret ever falling into his hands. These are not words one associates with the tender mercies of Christ. They reveal a theologian and pastor who was willing to act out of vindictiveness in defence of his own ideas.