With Due Respect: Did the 2024 Olympic Opening Ceremony mock Christianity?

 

Comparing a scene from the opening ceremony and The Last Supper

Every four years, I enjoy watching snippets from my second favourite sporting event -- the Olympics. [My favourite is the FIFA World Cup.] 

While I overall did enjoy the games (I enjoy watching fencing and wrestling) and many moments were meme-able and memorable, the 2024 Paris Olympics kicked off with controversy. In one particular performance, the actors seemed to parody the painting The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci. Da Vinci painted that during the Renaissance as a tribute to the last meal Jesus had with his disciples before his execution.

This caused uproar from the Christian community including the Vatican and Orthodox bishops, and secular entities like the Italian government and C Spire (a technology company).

Almost immediately, Thomas Jolly, the artistic director of the opening ceremony quickly claimed that his critics were mistaken and that his ceremony was a tribute to the painting The Feast of the Gods by Dutch artist Jan van Bijlert. (Note that both paintings are the property of France.)

The Feast of The Gods portrays the Greek Gods having a party. Since the Olympics were originally conceived to be a tribute to the Greek gods, thus Jolly saw fit to have it in the opening ceremony. According to him, Christians were overreacting to his artistic direction.

Comparing a scene from the opening ceremony and The Feast of the gods 

How should Christians respond?

Christians should expect mockery

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." -- John 15: 18-19

Firstly, Christians should not be surprise when non-believers mocked them. After all, Jesus predicted that (as stated in the quote above). In fact Christianity has been researched to be the most persecuted religion in the world.

Christians should not be naive

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." - Matthew 10: 16-20

Secondly, Christians should not be so trusting. The actors were obviously portraying the Last Supper and not the Feast of the Gods. Look at the positioning of the actors and the popular image it invokes. The Last Supper is way more popular in the human psyche than the Feast of the Gods. 

Even the actors themselves thought they were portraying the Last Supper. To pretend that it was something is else is simply asinine. In addition, the organisiers have apologised for the portrayal, fully that there is validity to the claim of the similarity to the Last Supper.

In the words of Judge Judy, "don't pee on My leg and tell me it's raining". Such an action would be equivalent to wear a Buddhist swastika to a Holocaust museum and laugh at the offended people who were uneducated on the difference between a Buddhist and Nazi symbol.

Christians should not resort to violence

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them." - Luke 6: 27-31

Nevertheless, Christians should not be violence over this. In fact, Jesus Himself said to bless those who cursed you. When Jesus was a arrested, he instructed Peter to sheath his sword (John 18:11) when Peter tried to defend him.

Conclusion

Christians should be aware that Jesus call us to live a life foreign to the world, and not to be shocked when the world persecutes us, either directly or indirectly. 

For more information
The issue covered by Salt and Light

With Due Respect: Christianity has not stopped violence

 

Screenshot from Attila Total War

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
-- Matthew 26:52

One of the new criticism I heard of Christianity is that it has not stopped violence. This is especially prominent during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. After all, both Russians and Ukrainians are mainly Eastern Orthodox Christians, and the Russian Church has endorsed the invasion.

However, this is myopic political and philosophical position. Just because one major church supports the war, it does not mean that Christianity as a whole has never stopped violence. We would not apply the same standards elsewhere. For instance, just because the Imperial Japanese of the 1940s were Buddhist, it does not mean all Buddhism is violent.

Furthermore, prominent church individuals have condemned the invasion of Ukraine. The former Archbishop of Canterbury (Head of the Anglican Church) condemned both Russian Premier Putin and the Russian Church for their actions. The Anglican Church has offered to open discussion with the Russian church with regards to peace.

Let me go back further and show some examples on how the Church as a system attempted to reduce violence in the world.

A) Papal mediation between Chile and Argentina
While I am not a Roman Catholic, I have to recognize the times when Roman Catholic Church has stepped up. In 1983, the Pope mediated a potential conflict between Chile and Argentina (both countries are majority Roman Catholic) and both countries renounced the use of force.

B) Just War theory (Thomas Aquinas)
In Medieval Europe when most nations claimed to be Christian, there were academic attempts to restrict violence. By giving clear criteria, nation states would need to meet a certain standard when waging war. 

Thomas Aquinas distilled a Just War to three conditions: the authority of the sovereign, the purpose of the war must be just, and finally the conduct and intent of the involved warriors 

C) Inquisition
Unlike popular portrayals on how violent the Inquisition (a church judicial system to root out heresy), the Inquisition was an attempt to reduce violent and rampant accusations of heresy.

In fact the Inquisition is considered to be the first attempt at a universal court system, where evidence is needed for a guilty verdict, and biased testimonies were dismissed. Some historians have even argued that the Inquisition laid the foundation for the modern legal systems of Europe. As a Singaporean, it is interesting to note that Singapore law is based on English Common Law which has parts of its origin in the Inquisition.

Conclusion
While one can claim that the culture of Christianity has led to violence, one must also acknowledge the efforts the church took towards towards peace.

HMS Hermes in flames, 1943

For more reading:
God's Philosophers (2009)

With Due Respect: What about the Crusades?

[The editor and author of this post is not a history major. He also does not endose violence against people with differing views, nor seek to justify the Crusades. The purpose of this post is to encourage deeper thinking on whether Christianity is an inherantly violent religion that led to terrible atrocities, in this case the Crusades.]

Map of Medieval Europe, Asia and Africa from the game, Medieval 2:Total War

I often heard from my friends that Christianity is violent. They point out that during the Crusades, the Christians rode into the Middle East unprovoked and slaughtered both Jews and Muslims. This seems to concur with Richard Dawkins's (2006) assertion that Christianity is a violent religion For instance, King Richard I mercilessly executed 2,700 Muslim soldiers captured at Arce in 1191.

For this post, I will be focusing on the Crusades of the Middle East, and not other campaigns, such as the Northern Crusades and the Reconquista.

What are the Crusades?
The Crusades were a series of Christian military expeditions to the Middle East that started in 1095 to 1272. These soldiers were blessed by the Pope and aimed to return capture the Middle East for Christianity.


How do you justify such violence?
I don't. The Crusades was a horrific event that happened and etched the horror of Christianity in the minds of its opponents.

I do not deny that the Crusaders did in their zeal and greed led to the massacre the residents of Jerusalem and the sack of Constantinople.

Misconceptions of the Crusades

A) The Crusades were an unprovoked attack on the Middle Easterns
In 1095, much of the Byzantium Empire (aka the Eastern Roman Empire) had fallen to the Muslim Arabs. Looking at the map, this included cities like Nicaea, Antioch, Arce, Alexandria, Damascus and of course, most importantly, Jerusalem. Facing anniliation, the Byzantium Emperor Alexois I appealed to Pope Urban II to aid him in the interest of Christian brotherhood (The Byzantines were Orthodox Christians, while the Pope was the head of the Roman Catholic Church). This kicked off the First Crusade, where Pope Urban II's rousing speech (and promises of instant paradise for those who perished in the expedition) convinced a force of 35,000 men to embarked on this venture.

Furthermore, Western Europe was not untouched by the Arab aggression. In fact, Arab pirates had threatened Rome (where the Pope resides) before. To the Western Europeans, the Arab attackers were not far away, but near.

In other words, the Crusades were a response to the aggression against Christians in the once-Byzantium lands. 

French Medieval armour, taken at the French Imperial War Museum in 2011

B) The Crusades was a period of constant warfare
The Middle Eastern Crusades lasted from 1095- 1272. This seems to suggest that the Christian soldiers were actively attacking the Holy Lands for about 200 years. However, about 90% of those years were spent organising and travelling.  For instance, the Third Crusade (the longest campaign) lasted for six years (1187 to 1192), but the actual fighting in the Middle East only started in 1189 (with the Siege of Arce).

C) The Crusader Kingdoms mistreated the non-Christians
Another criticism is that the Crusader Kingdoms that were established abused and mistreated the non-Christians inhabitants. The Crusaders did segreate their community from Jews, Muslims and Eastern Christians (Prawer, 1981). While slavery of non-Christians was allowed, Crusaders had to free slaves who chose to convert to Roman Catholicism.

However, it has to be stated that the Crusaders generally allowed a degree of autonomy among the non-Christian inhabitants. Ibn Jubayr (an Arab Muslim chronicler) complained

"Many Muslims are sorely tempted to settle here when they see the far from comfortable conditions in which their brethren live in the districts under Muslim rule. Unfortunately for the Muslims, they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks [Crusaders], whose justice they can always rely on."  (Pernoud, 1963)

In fact, the Crusaders relations to the non-Christian inhabitants was not regarded as especially special for that time period. It was "neither friendly, nor hostile" (Ellenblum, 2006)

Conclusion
The Crusades were an example of the misuse of Christianity. In fact any idea can be manipulated to violence. Even the belief in no God (i.e. atheism) had led to the despotic regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (Mcgrath , 2004).

To pretend that the Crusaders were particularly worse than their contemporaries is misleading.


References
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

 Ellenblum, R. (1998) Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem

Mcgrath, A. (2004) Twilight of Atheism

Pernoud, R. (1963) The Crusaders

Prawer, J. (1981) Crusader Institutions

For further readings

Aren't Christians responsible for most wars?

Theology 1.0: What were the crusades?

What were the crusades?

Every now and then, one must deal with the question of the Crusades. The Crusades were a military expedition sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church to invade and annexed territory from Muslims, pagans and heretics. Due to horrific atrocities committed during such expeditions, the Crusades are often used as a sore point to show that Christianity promotes violence.

The word "Crusades" have a negative connotation till this day. The Campus Crusade for Christ changed their name to Cru to avoid the controversy. The Roman Catholic and Orthodoxy churches had bad blood with each other because of the actions of the Fourth Crusade (the Crusaders sacked Orthodox churches during that Crusade).

For this post, I will be focusing the expeditions to the Holy Land (Judea and the surrounding territory) that lasted from 1095 to 1291.

Whose land?
Judea (roughly Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Egypt) once belonged to the Christian Eastern Roman Empire.

With the rise of Islam, Judea fell to Muslim armies during the 600s and 700s. In 1095, the Eastern Roman Emperor Alexios I asked Pope Urban II for military aid. Stirring religious emotion, many knights, nobles and even peasants committed to the cause.

Due to the success of the First Crusade (against overwhelming odds), the attractiveness brought more and more adherents to the cause. This resulted in escalation of violence, which included the massacre of 60, 000 Jerusalem inhabitants during the First Crusade and execution of 2, 000 Muslim prisoners during the Third Crusade,

Points to think about
While the Crusades left a dark stain on the perception of Christianity, let us note the following:

1) The Crusades was a military response to the loss of land
2) Wars have been fought in the name of religion, and Christianity is hardly immune to it
3) Atrocities were committed by all sides.

For further reading:

wikipedia

With Due Respect: What about the Inquisition?

[Editor's note: The author and editor of this post does not support violence. He is merely highlighting the events leading up to the Inquisition, and what it intended to do.]

Mass execution of Harvestmen? No, they were already dead.

Say Inquisition, and immediately images of people burning at the stake instantly enters the minds of many. Some may even mouth the name "Torquemada", the most cruel of the Inquisitors. Torquemada influenced Spanish royalty to banish Jews and burn heretics

The violence of the Inquisition is sometimes raised as evidence of the violence of Christianity.

In this post, I will examine Inquisition in the Medieval era.

An advancement in law and order
With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, Western Europe was ruled by a various, fleeting warlords. As such, the church was seen as a continuity of government as was given authority in civil affairs (Hannam, 2009).

Due to internal conflicts, many individuals and groups were accusing each other of being a heretic, witch or practising magic. If one was from a noble family, one could abuse his reputation to get his enemies persecuted.

As a result, the church came up with a law system called the Inquisition. It was a novel attempt to create an evidence-based legal system. This prevented wanton finger-pointing. For instance, several witnesses were required to justify a testimony. Furthermore, the witness had to be independent of the involved parties.

In addition, confirmed heretics were not sentenced to death. They were given a chance to recant their false beliefs, and avoid being executed. Only repeated heresy resulted in execution by secular authorities.

But it was not perfect
As with any human system, it is not perfect, and prone to influence from politics and corruption. The Spanish Inquisition was especially violent because the desire to remove Islam and Judaism from the Spain and Portugal, the political placement of the Inquisition under royal authority and the ongoing wars.

Conclusion
The Inquisition was not intended to be mindless violent reaction to heretics. It was designed to be a lawful (and merciful) response in an age of intolerance.

Even the most violence version in Spain managed about 826 executions out of over 44,000 cases tried (Henning, 1992).

References
Hannam, J. (2009) God's Philosophers

Henning, G. (1992) The database of the Spanish Inquisition in: Monhaupt (Heinz), Simon (Dieter), ed., Vorträge zur Justizforschung. Geschichte und Theorie, 1993, Band 2, pp. 43-85

Further reading
Huffington post

Alternative culture: How theology infuenced ISIS

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, is a terrorist organisation which currently controls some Iraqi, Lebanese and Syrian territories. Claiming to be a Caliphate (a successor kingdom to the one Prophet Muhammad established), ISIS urges all Sunni Muslims to fight the decadent West and recognise its statehood.

ISIS has also claimed responsiblity for the 2015 Paris attacks and 2016 Brussels bombings.

In this post I will be exploring why the theology of ISIS is so attractive to potential recruits.

Why they are convincing
The temptation is to brush off the members of ISIS as gullible fools who were mislead into following a misguided form of a religion. Yet we have educated professionals signing up to ISIS to serve as doctors, military strategists and computer engineers. Why?

To a secular audience it may sound weird, but true religion is not just hobby people share with friends. To a true religious person, God is the most important thing in their lives. ISIS uses this fact well in its recruitment.

If all that is needed to be justified before God and enter paradise is to die for him, then ISIS is the most logical and safest bet for eternity. In the course of life, it is inevitable that one feels guilt on all the mistakes one has done in his or her life. Yet in final judgement, if God brings up one's sins, one could tell God that "I died for you", and therefore is worthy of paradise.

In the light of Christianity
However in Christianity, one could not use that reasoning. Even if we were to give our lives in following God, we do not change the fact that God (in the manhood of Jesus) had died for us. Our only hope is that God would reveal Himself to us in such a way that He chose us.

Conclusion
Any level-headed analysis of any movement must take into the account its theology.

For more information
ISIS

Theology 1.0: Who is Maximilian Kolbe?

Stained glass of St. Maximilian Kolbe. His feast day is assigned to be on 14th August

"Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end." -- GK Chesterton

War does terrible things to people. Despite his best efforts to hide the Jews from the Nazis, Roman Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe was caught by the Gestapo. Assigned to the concentration camp at Auschwitz as Prisoner #16670, Kolbe volunteered to take the place of a man (Franciszek Gajowniczek) who was assigned to be executed.

After two weeks of starving him, the prison guards discovered he was still alive. They gave him a lethal dosage of carbolic acid to finish him off on 14th August, 1941.

Conclusion
In my university days, one of my colleagues often dismissed that martyrs hated life and was merely glorified suicide. But in Kolbe's story I see a person who loves life so much that he was willing to give up his to save the life of another.

And that is something beautiful.

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."
-- John 15:13
For further reading
Wikipedia

Theology 1.0: What is the Inquisition?

Martin Luther, a target for the Inquisition

A dark period for Christianity?

In a period where accusations of heresy and witchcraft were rampant, the Western Churches  (Catholic) started a series of trials in 1184 to combat such claims. Their punishments include imprisonment, banishment and execution. The last execution was carried out in Spain in 1826. This series of actions is called the Inquisition.

This is often raised as a sore legacy of Christianity but is the story really as simple as that?

Law and Order

Regardless of whatever you think of it now, we must remember that the Inquisition was set up as the first attempt at a universal legal system to investigate heresy (Hannam, 2010). Before the Inquisition, a victim could be convicted based on the accuser's reputation. In other words, if a noble accused a peasant of committing theft, the peasant would be found guilty.

The Inquisition (introduced by the Catholic Church) set up the requirement of evidence (in the form of witnesses) in the persecution of a alleged heretic. Furthermore, it provided the accused some level of defence as he/she could name people who had "mortal hatred) for him/her, and this would dismiss the accusations.

In addition, while torture was used, execution (by handing heretics over to secular authorities) was often avoided by the Catholic as it was seen as a failure to convert.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

A modern person may ask, "why was fighting heresy so important?" Unlike religious disagreements in developed countries now, we must remember that heresy was often associated with rebellions and disorder.

Let's clear the air

Let me state some things clearly before I conclude:

1) I am not justifying the violence or punishment that happened during the Inquisition.

2) Fatalities did happen during the Inquisition, sometimes to innocent people.

3) Sometimes proper procedures are not carried out during the Inquisition.

But if we think about, are our modern secular courts perfect? While we must remain appalled for the wrongly sentenced, we also must recognise the Catholic Church for initiating a system to protect the innocent accused.

References

Hannam, J (2010) God's Philosophers

For further reading

Wikipedia

Theology 1.0: What is a just war?

Battle of Keppel

Just war? Aren't all wars evil?
We have often been told of evils of war. Yet even with the formation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 to promote global peace, there has been more than 200 wars fought across the world. In addition, the UN has participate actively in some of these wars, such as the Korean War and the 1991 Gulf War.

As being members "in the world", Christians are also not immune to war, either as masterminds, soldiers or victims. Genuine Christians in the militant role have to ponder about their duties especially since the Sixth Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder".

In this post, I want to explore the idea of a "Just War", focusing mainly on the ideas of the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas.

What did Aquinas say?
Thomas Aquinas summarised his stand on a justified war based on three conditions

1) Authority of the sovereign. The authority that is going to war has to be divinely appointed and sanctioned. (In other words, the government.)

2) Rightful cause. The action for war must be for a greater good, rather than for selfish gain. For instance, to punish a rouge nation or the restore stolen property.

3) Rightful intention. There must be an aim to end the war from the start. In other words, peace must be a central outcome after the war.

Examples of a Just War?
Let's explore these examples of war, using the ideas of a Just War.

1) 1991 Gulf War.
Reason for war: In 1990, Iraq unilaterally invaded Kuwait to control its oil fields. The United States led a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait.

Participants: USA (and its allies) VS Iraq

Just War: Probably
The aims of restoring Kuwait sovereignty and lost property was fulfilled.

2) 2003 Iraq War.
Reason for war: To rid Iraq of an unjust ruler and weapons of mass destruction.

Participants: USA (and its allies) VS Iraq

Just War: Unlikely
While the purpose of ridding of a dictator (Saddam Hussein) was fulfilled in this war, but the evidence of weapons of mass destruction proved to be false.

3) 1967 Six Days War
Reason for War: Due to constant aggression from its Arab neighbours, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike to reduce the military capabilities of its enemies.

Participants: Israel VS Egypt, Syria and Jordan

Just War: Maybe
It can be argued that the three nations were deserving punished by Israel. Israel's capture of West Bank, Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip ensured reduced attacks from its neighbours.

Conclusion
The fact that we live in such an imperfect world should force all of us to think about our stance on war, or even if we think a "Just War" is possible. To pretend we are immune or above such world arrogance does no good.

With Due Respect: Aren't all religions inherently peaceful?

Introduction
In a secular Singapore (where I come from) inter-religious harmony is greatly promoted. While Singapore is the only non-communist secular state in Southeast Asia, Singapore is not immune to religious or racial tension. Hence there is an idea that all religions promote peace.

In this post, I want to challenge this "peaceful idea".

Some religions are inherently violent
The Aztecs believed that sacrificing human beings (especially their prisoners-of-war) is needed to sustain the universe. The Spanish explorers including Hernan Cortes and Juan Diaz recorded their disgust as Aztecs priests rip the hearts out of their victims and offer it to the sun.

Furthermore, the Aztecs were not a primitive tribe but the most advanced civilisation in the American continent at that time.

Some religions differ on their ideas of peace
Before and during the Second World War, the Japanese government incorporated Shinto Buddhism (which promoted loyalty to the Japanese Emperor) to garner support of the Japanese war effort. Unlike the idea of universal peace that the United Nations promotes, the idea of peace in State Shinto was Japanese nationalism (that the interests of the Japanese state was more important overrides all other interests).

Again, the Japanese were not some primitive people, but one of the major powers of the global war.

Conclusion
It has never been my intention to create inter-religious hatred or misunderstandings. However, peace cannot come at the expense of truth. And the truth is this-- not all our beliefs are the same. We should be encouraged to explore our beliefs and the beliefs of others in more detail.

With Due Respect: My Christian friend is a bad example!

"The worst people I know are Christians"

When I was in the military, one of the reasons I hesitated in becoming a Christian was because some of the worst people I worked with were Christians. They would avoid responsiblities, feign illnesses and were undependable. Their terrible work ethic and moral behaviour were reprehensible to me.

Why should any non-Christian be attracted to Christ in the light of the behaviour of his followers?


Some Christians have done terrible stuff
Now I have to admit this: Some Christians have done terrible stuff in history. Many people have listed the examples of the Crusades and the Inquisition that have caused many deaths in the name of Christ. Torquemada, one of the Spanish Inquisitors, deported more than 40,000 Jews and was estimated to be responsible for the deaths of 2,000 people during the Spanish Inquisition.

If following Christ maybe leads to people doing horrible things, it is little wonder people find Christianity a turn-off.

Some non-Christians have also done terrible stuff
However, we need to be fair. Non-Christians have also done many terrible things in the name of their worldview. During the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao of China caused the death of millions for his view of atheisitic Communism. During World War II, the Japanese killed millions in the name of their divine Emperor or Shinto Buddhism.

If not following Christianity also may result horrific things, where does this lead us?

What about the issue of truth?
However in philsophy, this line of logic (that the argument is bad because the person saying it is bad) is an ad-hoc argument (Sire, 2006). In other words, an argument is cannot be considered invalid just because a person is of bad character.

As someone who is seeking the truth, one must be able to explore statements independent of whoever says it.

Conclusion
In our effort to discern the truthfulness of arguments, one must be wary not to focus on the ills of the speaker. However, in Christianity we have Jesus saying that he is God. Why not spend time discerning his claim?

References
Sire, J. (2006) Why Good Arguments Often Fail

With Due Respect: John Calvin is a murderer!

Calvin's Institute of Christian Religion

John Calvin was one of the major participants of the Reformation. However, like Martin Luther, he was not free from controversy. One of the reasons why many biographies of Calvin tend to be biased is because of his involvement with the execution of Michael Servetus (Reeves, 2009).

Who is Servetus?
Michael Servetus was a Spanish doctor and theologian. Like the reformers Luther and Calvin, he started to have dissenting views from the Roman Catholic Church. Unlike them, he held anti-trinitarian views (he did not believe in the Holy Trinity).

In the 1540s, he began corresponding with Calvin via letters. He published his book, Christianismi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity), which expressed his anti-trinitarian views and criticised Calvin's views on predestination. In reply, Calvin sent his copy of Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutes of Christian Religion)to Servetus. Servetus wrote corrections to Calvin's work and returned it to him.

As their exchange grew, things became more heated. Calvin eventually ended their conversations, and confided in his friend William Farel in 1546,

"Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word; for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive." (Durrant, 1957)

In 1553, Servetus was arrested by Roman Catholic authorities in Vienne, France for heresy. However he escaped. Despite being warned that he would not be guaranteed safe passage in Protestant Geneva. Servetus fled there. Geneva appointed Calvin as his prosecutor, and in 27th October 1553 he was sentenced to death by burning.

Was Calvin a murderer?

Yes Calvin was involved in Servetus's execution. However, to portray him as the mastermind behind the demise of Servetus is hardly fair. Let's put a few things in perespective:

1) Calvin was not in charge of Geneva
Calvin had been driven out of Geneva in 1538, and was asked to return in 1541. He had a frosty relationships with the Genevan city council (Reeves, 2011) till 1555. Due to a legal technicality, Calvin was chosen to be involved in the case against Servetus (he could identify Servetus due to their earlier interactions).

Furthermore, Calvin could not appear in court with Servetus due to poor health (Whitcomb, 1971).

2) Servetus broke the laws of Geneva (and Europe)
By having anti-trinitarian views, Servetus already broke the laws of both Protestant and Roman Catholic Europe. In fact, Protestant Geneva was already seen as heretical by Roman Catholic, and was been watched to see if the Protestants were simply rebelling against Rome for the sake of rebelling (instead of theology as they had always insisted).

After consulting several Protestant cities and leaders (including Phillip Melancthon, Martin Luther's successor), everyone (including Servetus himself!) agreed that the punishment for heresy was death.

Furthermore, Servetus tried to persuade anti-Calvin parties in the city to imprison Calvin and have him tried in court (Reeves, 2011).

3) Calvin pleaded on Servetus's behalf
Calvin tried to prevent the burning of Sevetus, and personally visited Servetus in prison to change his views. When Servetus refused to recant,  Calvin recommended the more lenient sentence of beheading (Reeves, 2009; 2011).

While beheading might sound barbaric now, it was considered to be less strict than burning. Calvin himself was reprimanded by his friend Farel for being too lenient (McNeil, 1961).

In summary....
It is unfair to portray Calvin as some sort of despot who took over Geneva and sentenced dissenters to death. Yes, the punishment for heresy at that time was death, and Protestants and Roman Catholics were executing dissenters in the sixteenth century. Why should Calvin be singled-out? Severtus's death should be seen as the fault of the age, rather than the fault of Calvin.

References

Durrant, W. (1957). The Story of Civilization: VI The Reformation.

McNeil, J.T. (1961). The History and Character of Calvinism.

Reeves, M. (2009). The Unquenchable Flame.

Reeves, M. (2011). On Giants' Shoulders.

Whitcomb, M. (1971). The Complaint of Nicholas de la Fontaine Against Servetus, 14 August, 1553. In:  Period of the later reformation (Translations and reprints from the original sources of European history).

Also watch
James White

With Due Respect: Martin Luther is Anti-Semite!

Holocaust memorial in Berlin, 2008

One of the greatest atrocities commited in the history of mankind was the attempted mass extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany. This event, known as the Holocaust, killed about 6 million Jews in Europe (about two-thirds of European Jews), and millions of others whom the Nazis deemed "weak" such as the Slaves, the Gypsies and the infirmed.

In order to sway public opinion against the Jews, the Nazis used On Jews and their Lies (one of Martin Luther's tracts) and advocated it as the epitome of German virtues. Undoubtly, the tract contains slanderous material against the Jews, such as descibring than as being full of "devil's feces" and that their synagouge (place of worship) as a "whore" and "slut". Hence, Lutherean churchs have distanced and denounced the tract.

Often it is easy to conclude that the Reformer Martin Luther was anti-Jew and thus dismiss his theology in one swoop. But not only is this view a lazy representation of his theology, it is also a caricature of it.

Getting a few things straight....
Luther's style
One must understand that Luther's writing style is deliberately provoking. For instance, in his work Table Talk, he argued against the philosophy of Aristole, stating Aristole's reasoning is the "enemy" of Christian faith. While I am not condoning Luther's choice of words, one must understand how he wrote before assessing him hastily (Reeves, 2009).

Supporting the Jews
In fact, in 1523 Luther wrote That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, arguing against the mistreatment of Jews by Christian. He dedicated his work to a converted Jew  (whom he later would support financially and whose son he would house).

So why did Luther have a change of heart?

Anti-Semite?
After years of attemtping to convert Jews to Christianity, he described them as having a certain "hardness of heart" that prevented them from seeing how their own Scriptures led to Jesus. He wrote on Jews and their Lies as a response against attacks by Jewish apologists on Christianity.

Although painful to read (due to Luther's choice of harsh language), he argued that being children of Abraham was a matter of adoption, rather than family line. He went on to show how Jesus is the promised Christ from the Old Testament.

After that he went on to make a list of recommendations of how then standard anti-blasphemy laws show be applied to Jews. To be fair to Luther, he also argued against acts of personal vengenace against the Jews.

Conclusion
So was Luther racist? Not really. He was more against their spirtual beliefs than their genetic makeup. He argued against them, not because of their race (as the Nazis were against), but rather against Judasim (their religion). The harshness of the punishments recommended against them were standard against heretics of that time.

Nevertheless, his harsh tone towards the Jews (or more accurately, Judaism) had made his legacy a tough pill to swallow.

For more, read:

Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame