Unrepentant: Calvin to contemporaries

Fallen Heroes: Calvin to our contemporaries.

 What to Do with the Words of Unrepentant Teachers

Introduction One of the challenging questions that seems to arise all too often is, "What are we to do with the teaching of the fallen preacher? Especially, if they did not seem to repent before death". Some quickly assign all teaching by modern teachers who have fallen to the scrap heap within the week of knowledge, others more cautious. Others simply believe that truth is truth, whoever wrote it.  At present in particular there is a moral vigilance around abuse, misuse of power, and unrepentant sin among Christian leaders, this dilemma is unavoidable.

The problem is not new. In different ways it haunts the legacy of John Calvin and the execution of Michael Servetus, and it remains present in discussions surrounding the ongoing influence of figures such as Karl Barth and Ravi Zacharias.

Importantly, the issue is not whether God can speak truth through flawed people, Scripture is replete with such examples but whether the church applies its moral expectations consistently. Christian teachers are not merely conveyors of ideas; they are called to be formed by Christ. The implications of that calling must apply in the twenty-first century just as much as in the first and sixteenth.

Calvin, Servetus, and Responsibility

The execution of Michael Servetus in Geneva in 1553 stands as one of the most troubling episodes of the Reformation. A Spanish physician and theologian, Servetus was condemned by the Genevan civil authorities for persistent anti-Trinitarian teaching and executed by burning at the stake.

It is true that John Calvin was neither magistrate nor executioner. It is also true that he was not a passive observer. Calvin prepared theological documentation against Servetus, served as a principal expert witness, advised the magistrates, and explicitly approved the sentence. His involvement was deliberate, sustained, and his participation in the judicial process to have him executed clear.

This posture was not merely reactive. Seven years before the trial, Calvin wrote to his colleague Guillaume Farel,

“If he comes, provided my authority is of any avail, I will never let him leave alive.”

The language is striking not only for its severity, but for its legal framing. Calvin had already conceived of Servetus’ death as an exercise of lawful authority rather than personal vengeance.

Modern historians confirm this reading. Bruce Gordon notes that Calvin understood heresy as a public crime and viewed the magistrate as God’s ordained instrument for its punishment. In Calvin’s mind, the execution of Servetus was not merely legitimate but necessary for the defence of both church and civic order.²

Calvin did request that Servetus be beheaded rather than burned, a fact sometimes cited as evidence of restraint. Historically, this is accurate. Morally, it does not alter the central reality, Calvin approved the death penalty itself and defended it as righteous.

Defence Without Repentance

The clearest evidence comes after the execution.

In 1554, Calvin published Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti, a work written explicitly to justify Servetus’ prosecution and death.

In it, Calvin wrote:

“Whoever shall maintain that heretics and blasphemers ought not to be punished makes himself an accomplice in their crime.”

This is not the language of regret, moral hesitation, or reluctant conformity to cultural norms. It is principled defence. Calvin regarded the execution as just, necessary, and godly.

Did Calvin Ever Repent?

On this question, the historical record is striking in its silence.

More than 3,000 of Calvin’s letters survive. Across this extensive correspondence, and across his later theological writings, there is no recorded expression of regret, repentance, or moral reconsideration regarding the execution of Servetus. Nor do Calvin’s closest associates, Theodore Beza, William Farel, or Heinrich Bullinger record any such reflection on his behalf.

This absence has long been noted by historians. Roland H. Bainton states plainly:

“Calvin never retracted his approval of the execution. On the contrary, he justified it at length and to the end of his life regarded it as a righteous act.”⁴

The claim here is not that Calvin was unusually cruel by sixteenth-century standards. Many Reformers shared similar assumptions. But context explains behaviour; it does not remove moral significance. When assessing Calvin as a continuing theological authority within the church, the absence of repentance is a historical fact that cannot be ignored.

Jesus absolutely never encourages such and it contradicts the behaviour and actions of an Elder. The kingdom of God advances through witness, truth, and suffering love, not compulsion. Whatever allowances history may require, the pattern of Christ’s ministry places real pressure on Christian attempts to justify coercion in His name.

From Calvin to Contemporary Figures

The unease Christians feel here is not merely historical. The same question confronts the church today as it reflects on influential modern figures whose lives raise serious moral concerns.

Karl Barth’s decades-long adulterous relationship, sustained alongside his theological work, presents one kind of challenge. Ravi Zacharias’ documented patterns of sexual abuse, deception, and exploitation present another, far more severe, one. Even figures such as Philip Yancey are sometimes invoked in broader discussions about credibility, failure, and trust.

These cases are not identical, and moral distinctions matter. Abuse and predation are not equivalent to personal inconsistency or private sin.

Yet the underlying question remains the same: what should Christians do with the words of teachers who are morally compromised and unrepentant?

Moral Consistency Under Christ

Whatever answer a Christian gives, one principle must not be surrendered: moral consistency.

Christian leaders are not judged merely by the norms of their societies, nor excused by brilliance, influence, or usefulness. They are called to be conformed to Christ.

Scripture ties teaching authority to our character (1 Timothy 3:1–7; Titus 1:7–9, NIV).

Truth may still be spoken by a flawed person, but moral failure, especially when unrepented, damages trust and should forfeit positional authority.

To recognize moral failure in a teacher is not to say that all that they said was untrue, or that God did not work through them at times. Scripture would not let us say such things. But Scripture also will not let us extract truth from all accountability of character. The church needs to learn how to read theologically profit from people while not ignoring sin; and how to profit from those who have gone before us without baptizing their lives.

Discernment is not denial.

To excuse Calvin because “everyone thought this way” while condemning modern figures because “we know better” is inconsistent. To reject Ravi Zacharias while treating Calvin as morally untouchable requires special pleading. The church must reject both. REFLECTIVE QUESTIONS

1. Do I hold historical (dead guys) and contemporary Christian teachers to the same moral and spiritual standards, or do I make exceptions based on influence, tradition, or their usefulness to me?
   

2. Where have I separated truth from Christlike character in ways Scripture does not allow?
   

3. How do my loyalties, to traditions, movements, or favourite thinkers shape my willingness to name sin or demand accountability?
   

4. What does faithful discernment look like for me when truth and moral failure coexist in the same teacher?
   

5. How can my engagement with Christian teaching more clearly reflect allegiance to Christ rather than to His servants?
   

Conclusion: Reading with Clear Eyes

The church honours Christ neither by sanitising its heroes nor by discarding its inheritance wholesale. Scripture itself models a better way, truthfully naming sin, refusing to defend it, and testing all teaching by faithfulness to Christ rather than loyalty to tradition.

Calvin, Barth, Ravi Zacharias, and others place the same demanding task before the church, to read with gratitude where truth is present, with grief where sin remains unaddressed, and with moral consistency that reflects allegiance not to our teachers, but to Jesus Christ alone.

Footnotes

1. John Calvin, Letter to Guillaume Farel, 13 February 1546, in Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, vol. 12, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss (Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1863), 281.

2. Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 208–212.

3. John Calvin, Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti (Geneva, 1554), in Calvini Opera, vol. 8, 461.

4. Roland H. Bainton, Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953), 215.