History Maker Mondays-04

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself.
(I am large. I contain multitudes.)
--Walt Whitman “Song of Myself”


Know Thy History

There is a shared belief among some, particularly those accepting the premise that an understanding of who we are as Americans and a knowledge of our past are essential to the kind of common civic memory that ensures a strong and vibrant democracy. I would put myself firmly in that camp.

Back in 1999, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) commissioned the Roper organization to poll college seniors at 55 of the countries top liberal arts colleges and research universities. Their questions were to be based on U.S. history and the nation’s founding principals. The questions, not remarkably difficult, or so it was thought, were drawn from a basic high school curriculum, with many of the questions being the same ones used on the National Assessment of Educations Progress (NAEP) tests that are given to high school students.

How did these seniors, from America’s top schools do? They flunked. Four out of five seniors, 81 percent of them, got grades of D, or F. They couldn’t identify Valley Forge, words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic principals of the U.S. Constitution.

I’m not going to belabor this report, but I begin this week’s history post highlighting what I think is a major issue in our country today—widespread historical illiteracy.

It matters because in a culture where information overload is prevalent, having some basis of determining fact or fiction is important. At a time when more and more citizens are relying on the internet, a cauldron of dubious information, and half-truths, for their research (if in fact they research anything that they hear on television, or anywhere else), or take the word of demagogues and other spinmeisters as the gospel truth, the lack of historical veracity is damning to our country.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the midst of our nation’s ideological divide. Republicans on the right are sure they are correct, merely because their favorite talk show host tells them so. On the left, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and other organs of Democratic thought fortify opinions tending toward the left end of the political spectrum.

This week, and next, I’m playing fast and loose with the letter D, since that’s where we’re at in week four, for History Maker Mondays. The challenge thus far has been finding time to do some research, and write something relevant. I may dispense with the alphabet, and even tweak the weekly nature of these posts, only because I don’t want to just cut and past information from Wikipedia, although many of the entries found there on many topics are great jumping off points for additional research on subjects of one’s choosing.

D is for Davis

Since we’re at the letter D, I’m using the late biographer and novelist, Kenneth S. Davis as my tether.

Davis, a biographer of Eisenhower, Lindbergh, and Adlai Stevenson, compiled one of the most vivid portraits of Franklin Roosevelt in his five volume series on FDR. A combination of history with a flair for literature, Davis’s FDR: The New Deal Years 1933-1937, has been some of my reading material for the past week.

The Davis book is one in a list of books that I’ve been poring through since early fall about the Great Depression. Given our current economic woes, with the only parallel being that period 70 years prior, having a grounding in the history of the era, as well as understanding the politics and the key figures is serving me well. I say “serving me well” because it’s grounding me in history, and allowing me to form my own ideas about where we’re at with the election of Barack Obama, and his own indications of what he might be willing to do to address the economic crisis we’re facing at the moment.

The second benefit that my historical orientation is providing me with is a built-in bullshit detector, warning me when a commentator, political pundit, or anyone else begins shoveling fecal matter in my direction about what’s going on at the moment.

A case in point—among certain quadrants on the ideological right, it’s become fashionable to formulate historical revisionism regarding the legacy of Herbert Hoover. The context most often involves Mr. Obama’s association with FDR, and the New Deal. The argument goes something like this; Obama is a socialist in the FDR/New Deal tradition. His stimulus package is like many of the FDR programs, which, by the way, conservative Republicans start foaming at the mouth at mere mention, so by way of association, Obama is immediately suspect with these folks, because they are quite sure that FDR’s policies didn’t work, and in fact, Hoover’s follies suddenly have taken on a new luster, reversing 70 years of history, and countless books about Hoover and his failed policies. The latest revision goes something like this. FDR’s policies are what plunged the nation into the Great Depression, not Hoover’s. FDR was a socialist, and his administration’s overly intrusive, big government programs helped prolong the misery. Hoover on the other hand, was a true Republican, and kept government from meddling in the economy. I kid you not.

Hoover’s Legacy

I’ll end this week’s post with a review of the conditions that the good work done by Herbert Hoover visited on the country, resulting in Hoover losing his bid for reelection in 1932, to Franklin Roosevelt.

It’s hard to fathom the misery and human toll visited on American by the economic collapse that became the Great Depression.

Here are some “snapshots” from 1932:

• 15 million Americans with no jobs and no hope of a job (quarter of the nation’s workers)
• In a country of 130 million people, 60 million of them were without any means of support
• Factories lay idol
• Storefronts were vacant
• Fields had been plowed under
• State governments had exhausted their meager funds to assist
• Skilled and unskilled laborers stood together in bread lines
• There were large scales homeless encampments, known as “Hoovervilles”

"The cure for unemployment is to find jobs.”--Herbert Hoover

In 1932, the U.S. industrial powerhouse that had emerged after WWI, lay idle. Farmers were facing a crisis fueled by debt and drought. For most Americans losing a job, first came belt tightening, then despair, and eventually, dcestitution. Millions lost their homes, saw their clothes wear to the point where they became rags, and were forced to forage like animals for their next meal.

Despite all the telltale signs of loss and physical suffering, the greatest loss was to the spirit. People felt fear, shame, and despair. Suicides soared. Their dreams disappeared with the loss of work.

Under the Republican administrations beginning in 1921 and spanning the administrations of Harding, Coolidge and finding culmination under Herbert Hoover; business interests ran the country. Government was denied a central role in addressing social problems. The right data gathered by the govt. would allow banks to adjust their loan portfolios, and manufacturers their production schedules to achieve maximum efficiency. Labor was just another commodity to be inputted, like iron ore, or cotton, to be purchased on the open market, at the cheapest rate.

Up until the Great Depression, this business-oriented way of seeing the world was generally accepted by the majority, with only radical elements putting forth another view.

In 1932, as businesses continued to fail at unprecedented rates, banks closed their doors (the count being at over 600 and continuing to grow), and more and more Americans landing out of work, Hoover had little to offer the citizenry beyond platitudes.

With unemployment skyrocketing, including 200,000 New Yorkers losing jobs between January and October in 1932, Hoover thought job sharing, coupled with a good joke would do the trick.

The president and business leaders, including Standard Oil, came up with a plan to cut the hours of those working, and sharing their jobs with recently laid off workers. This meant that now, even those who had managed to keep their jobs would be sharing in the ever-increasing poverty in the U.S.

At each step downward into America’s spiral into poverty, Hoover maintained an unflinching resolve to maintain a balanced budget above all else. Fiscal responsibility, and an almost psychotic belief that the only thing preventing America’s economic bottoming out after the stock market crash was for its people to suddenly rediscover optimism.

“I’m convinced we’ve now passed the worst,” Hoover told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on May 1, 1930.

“There is one certainty in the future—that is prosperity.”

In January of 1932, Hoover told Father James Cox, who led a march of 25,000 unemployed Pennsylvanian on Washington that a government sponsored work program (one of the provisions Cox was demanding of the Hoover administration to put people back to work and restore their dignity) would not only violate tradition, but cost too much. The real victory is to restore men to employment through jobs.

Hoover’s beliefs were shaped at the nexus of business and technology. The Stanford grad had gotten rich in mining, and was considered a wizard of finance. Hoover believed the lessons of engineering could be applied to society. Since science had made it possible to tame the natural world, by extension, Hoover posited that man and the problems inherent in society should also bend to the whims of scientific business practices.

As a lifelong Republican, Hoover subscribed to the philosophy of rugged individualism. He saw no role for government in providing relief. If individuals and families couldn’t work, then the role of relief fell to churches, and other organizations.

When the Depression stuck, Hoover’s philosophy left no room for bold action to alleviate suffering.

Lastly, Hoover believed in the power of persuasion, in part because as an advocate of business, he has seen the power of marketing and phraseology for moving the masses.

Hoover continued to treat the situation as a crisis of confidence, something to be talked, joked away, or sung about.

“What this country needs is a good, big laugh. There seems to be a condition of hysteria. If someone could get off a good joke every 10 days, I think our troubles would be over.”

Given that the country was mired in its economic woes, with no relief in site, the American people were looking for someone to lead them forth from their misery. Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be the political savior in whom they put their hopes for the future.

Beer better investment than newsprint

The news on newspapers continues to be bad. In fact, rather than waste your weekly paycheck on the daily newspaper, beer makes for a better investment.

According to Digital Deliverance, if three years ago you had purchased $10,000 worth of beer and then got drunk each day ever since, the value of the deposits on the beer kegs would have given you a better Return on Investment than if you had investment that $10,000 in almost any U.S. newspaper company. Moreover, you'd have plenty of beer left and would have had a much better time!

Using today's stock prices as your guide, buying beer and getting drunk night would on average have given you a ROI three times better.

Even worse (or better, depending on your perspective-JB), if you had invested in the McClatchy company, beer instead would have given a seven-times better ROI. Beer yielded a 12-times better ROI than the Journal Register Company. And beer toasted a 41 times better ROI than an investment Gatehouse Media. The executives of those companies are losing advertising, losing circulation, and losing the financial community's confidence. The executives can hardly make a case for being financially sober. In their cases, the 'empties' aren't the beer kegs.

I wonder how much better than three times my ROI would be on beer, vs. investments in Maine's watered-down dailies?

Rush Limbaugh is no economist

America's biggest patriot, Rush Limbaugh, wants our newly elected president to fail. That's what he said, and there's really no way to spin it.

So, if Mr. Obama fails, then that means that the majority of Americans, which would be the other 99 percent of us not in Mr. Limbaugh's top income percentile, fail. Yet, many of his listeners, and the many who lauded his recent WSJ op-ed, think that his idea of stimulus--a corporate income tax cut--is the way to boost our nation's flagging economy.

Interestingly, I found this written testimony, offered by Mark Zandi, from last July, when he was speaking before the House Committee on Small Business. Zandi is Chief Economist, and co-founder of Moody's.com.

According to Zandi, Limbaugh's idea is the third worst, of 13 possible choices that Zandi highlights, indicating bang for the buck as it pertains to GDP. (see the bottom of page 5)

While Mr. Limbaugh is at the top of his field as an entertainer, and certainly isn't shy about stating the importance of the pablum he passes off each day, when it comes to economics, he should leave that field to the experts.

Despite Limbaugh's faux populism, and claims that he wants what's best for the average joe, his meteoric rise to the top of talk radio has more to do with his being first and foremost, a corporate shill.

Of course, Limbaugh's not alone when it comes to carrying corporate America's water--Bill O'Reilly has also shared his vast economic expertise, railing against directing stimulus where it might actually help, which when you carefully consider the facts, neither Limbaugh, or O'Reilly are at all concerned about. What matters to them is ratings. And nothing benefits ratings more, especially for Limbaugh, than having a Democrat in the White House to bash, on a daily basis.

Another journalistic hatchet job on Lewiston, Maine

Most of us, regardless of where we come from, derive a sense of pride, and identity, from that place of origin. That same sense of pride can also exist for many who’ve adopted a new place to hang their hat, also.

I grew up in Lisbon Falls. For better, or worse, it’s the formative place that’s shaped who I am. Some of us run from our place of beginnings. Others, me included, have come to that place where we’ve made peace with whatever shortcomings we once associated with our birthplace, and have embraced that place where our roots go down the deepest. Folks in the big cities chide us local bumpkins for that sense of place; they call it provincial, or parochial, as in narrow.

I haven’t spent my entire life in Maine. There was a time when a calling and a need to get out beyond our borders drew me away. It’s been happening to Mainers forever. When I left in 1982, to go to the Midwest, I still gazed back fondly on the Pine Tree State. Over time, I missed the ocean, the special warm fall days that are unique to Maine, lobster, and most of all, I missed the people that make Maine special, in my opinion. There are good people everywhere, but the qualities that make one a Mainer (some of the same qualities that you’ll also find in other predominantly rural places) were missing in the greater-Chicago area where I had been transplanted. Population density will do that to you. I was happy to return to my home state in 1987, where I’ve been ever since.

One of the things that has never set well with me are people, writers in particular that come to Maine, use their associations with Maine to curry favor with the locals, and then savage them in an article, or produce an NPR profile that pisses on them. What also strikes me as disingenuous, particular a writer with some chops, is writing an article that knowingly misrepresents an area, or a community, only to score ideological points, or garner kudos from urban editors, who never bat an eye about perpetuating the same old stereotypes about rural America.

I don’t know Jesse Ellison (or Jesse Andrews Ellison), the Newsweek writer (represented as a “Brunswick freelance writer” by our local newspaper) that wrote the article, “The Refugees Who Saved Lewiston.” From what I can gather at this point, she once lived in Maine, and if she happened to grow up, or live in Brunswick for a time, it’s not surprising that she knows as little about Lewiston as her bylined article reveals.

Ellison’s article isn’t sitting well with some community leaders in Lewiston, like Chamber of Commerce president, Chip Morrison, and Paul Badeau, marketing director for the Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council, at least according to the local Sun-Journal, Lewiston’s daily newspaper. As of this posting, the comments have been removed, as I can only imagine the kind of vitriolic, and inflammatory stuff being posted, I’m sure most of it done anonymously.

Lewiston is one of those communities that can appear insular from the outside. The former mill town has indeed had its struggles over the past 30 years, with the departure of manufacturing jobs, mainly shoes and textiles, disappearing. That’s just part of the story, however.

In a rural state like Maine, Portland is the closest thing we have to an urban community. Portland and Lewiston couldn’t be any more different than if they were located in separate states. Folks in Portland (and most from away) tend to look down their noses at Lewiston, and rarely venture out beyond their own provincial 10-15 mile radius for their entertainment, shopping, or culture. If they have contact with the community, it’s usually driving through, on their way to Sugarloaf, or via the turnpike.

For those that don’t live in Lewiston (or Auburn, across the river), the area tends to draw outside visitors in from smaller communities to its west, as well as traffic venturing down from the north, in Augusta. If Portland is urban, and sophisticated, Lewiston is gritty, and working class. Ten years ago, if Lewiston was a beer, it would be a Pabst Blue Ribbon, versus Portland, which would be one of the numerous fashionable (and pricey) microbrews that you’d find on tap at one of its many over-hyped dining establishments.

The beer comparison doesn’t work quite as well now, as Lewiston has young (and older) professionals that like microbrews—heck, Auburn even has a Gritty’s—and some of them even know the difference between a Cabernet, and Pinot Noir. Yes, the dual communities of Lewiston and Auburn, intertwined now more than ever before, have gone through their own metamorphoses the past five, or six years. None more so than Lewiston, as Auburn always was higher end on the income scale, where the bosses of industry once lived up Goff Hill, and could see the factories of Lewiston below, with its workers living beneath the shadow of the smokestacks.

Before the economy hit the skids, the communities of L/A had been “happening,” as the LAEGC’s marketing moniker testifies. The community was experiencing the kind of positive economic growth that tends to be lacking in Maine, outside of Portland, and a few other southern Maine communities.

If you’ve taken the time to visit Lewiston, the southern gateway has been developed, eliminating many of the previous eyesores. The Bates Mill complex, at one time a “white elephant” property, has seen revitalization with TD Banknorth, Museum L-A, and other businesses reclaiming the former manufacturing space. Speaking of manufacturing, local firms that are involved in the manufacturing process are thriving. Companies like WahlcoMetroflex, Inc. are growing, and adding to its well-paid workforce. Other small, niche businesses have been able to add as much skilled labor as they could find. The city now has several high-end eateries, including Fuel, Fishbones, and DaVinci’s. Museums, the Community Theater, and Bates College, all offer regular events and reasons for Lewiston to be considered an entertainment destination. Andover College and Oxford Networks have helped revitalize the section of town that the freelancer referred to as the former “combat zone.”

If you read Ms. Ellison’s article, however, you would know none of that. The arrival of Somalis in Lewiston began before the 2001 date the writer arbitrarily assigned. The influx of refugees into the community began several years before that, and it was more than one family that started the migration. Per capita income has gone up, but to use the term “soared” reveals her ignorance about the state’s ongoing economic struggles. While a few in Maine have soaring incomes, most of us struggle to stay afloat in the middle class.

There are so many other things wrong with Ellison’s article that I could easily spend several thousand words countering her inadequate 903. That an editor, at a national magazine would allot the same amount space allocated to local parking issues, and city code violations, for a complex, and multi-faceted issue like immigration, given the community’s prior history, speaks volumes about the kind of “yellow” journalism that Newsweek’s now practicing.

What was her motive in interviewing both Morrison and Badeau, and then discounting the context that I’m sure they offered? While I don’t doubt that there are benefits to Maine’s growing diversity in the long-term, the challenges of integrating large populations of refugees into a 21st century economy, lacking in an abundance of jobs that most newly arrived Somalis and other non-English speaking jobseekers could fill has presented problems. A more honest journalist might have spoken to Phil Nadeau at City Hall, to get a better handle on why 50 percent of this population is unemployed. With all due respect to Richard Florida and others that think all it takes to grow your economy is to import non-English speaking refugees, and presto! You’ve got a diverse economy. There’s much more to it than that.

What Ms. Ellison has accomplished, beyond showing her lack of skills in digging below the surface as a journalist, is to again kick a hornet’s nest and run, leaving those of us who are committed to the community’s future, dealing with the potential aftermath of her piece. If Ms. Ellison had done any homework, she’d know some of the history of the community, and recognize that strong feelings still run deep in this area, as evidenced by the comments in the local newspaper, and other online forums. Her article has done nothing more, in my opinion, than to fan the flames of anti-Somali, and anti-immigrant sentiment, and give certain elements in our area (and beyond) cover to run with it.

Given the difficult economic climate facing Mainers, and the mounting job losses, having some sense of history should tell her that rather than benefiting the Somalis that she writes about, articles like hers have the potential to set back some of the positive gains that the community has been part of in integrating a new population into the community. There are still many miles to go, but misrepresenting our community, and running back to New York, or wherever Ms. Ellison calls home, shows that if she was in fact a Mainer at one time, she cares little about the state she’s left behind.

History Maker Mondays-03

History is the present. That's why every generation writes it anew. But what most people think of as history is its end product, myth.
--E.L. Doctorow

Calvin, John (1509-1564)


Few historical figures have made such a major impact, yet are as maligned and often caricatured (at least outside religious circles) as John Calvin. The French reformer’s long lasting legacy goes back 500 years, with 2009 being the quincentennial of his birth (July 10).

Next to Martin Luther, there is no more prominent figure in the Protestant Reformation, than Calvin. Yet, most Americans know little about either man. This shouldn’t be surprising. We’ve become a nation that prides itself on pop culture, and the minutiae of the mundane, not historical tenets tied to our nation’s birth.

The summer of 2001 was a seminal time for me. Having left a job in May, and underemployed during the languid days that make up a Maine summer, I read voraciously, taking advantage of the one resource I had—the luxury of time. I didn’t waste it, poring through a variety of classic books, including Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. A monumental work, by one of the Christianity’s great thinkers and theologians, Calvin’s ideas have had a profound effect in the shaping of western thought and ideas beyond theology.

The theology of Calvin, including his much maligned doctrine of predestination, came to America via the Mayflower. George Bancroft, a prominent 19th century American historian, calls Calvin “the father of America,” adding, “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”

The earliest leadership among the Pilgrims, and later, the Puritans, were all avowed Calvinists in their theology. John Endicott, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, the second governor of that Colony, Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut, and John Davenport, the founder of the New Haven Colony, were all Calvinists. It has been reported that at the time of the American Revolution, two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the theology of Calvin. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Calvinists. All of the colonels of the Colonial Army except one were Presbyterian elders. The war for Independence was spoken of in England as “The Presbyterian Rebellion.” While not the kind of stuff found in public school history classes, apparently Bancroft knew something about Calvin’s role in the founding of our nation.

John Richard Green, author of the eight volume, History of the English People, and also an Anglican, had the following to say in the third volume. “It is in Calvinism that the modern world strikes its roots; for it was Calvinism that first revealed the dignity and worth of man. Called of God and heir of heaven, the trader at his counter and the digger in his field finally rose into equality with the noble and king.

John Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Noyon, France, in Picardy, one of the country’s 26 regions. Charlemagne was first crowned emperor at the cathedral at Noyon.

Calvin was born into a respectable family of middle rank. Jerome Bolsec, an adversary of Calvin, who publicly challenged Calvin’s views on predestination, published his unflattering Life of Calvin, in which he provided a glimpse of both Calvin’s father, one who was “a most execrable blasphemer of God,” and young Calvin, who Bolsec wrote had been “surprised in or convicted of the sin of sodomy” and branded with a hot iron, in lieu of being burned at the stake as Bolsec intimated that he deserved.

While Bolsec’s biography makes for interesting reading, much more so than many of the hagiographical accounts of Calvin, his work rests largely upon unsubstantiated anonymous oral reports. Many modern scholars (including biographer Alister McGrath) consider Bolsec’s accounts of questionable merit.

Calvin studied law at two universities: Orléans and Bourges. At both places, he was enveloped bh the spirit of humanism that was prevalent in France, led by the teachings of Erasmus. His background in law (Bernard Cottret mentions Calvin as having the “soul of a lawyer), particularly the habits of thought related to the law would serve him well later, in his role as a Protestant reformer.

After graduating from Orléans in 1531, he moved to Paris in the summer of that year, planning to make his mark as a humanist scholar. He finished up a commentary of Seneca’s On Clemency, and self published it in April of 1532. It brought him neither the recognition that he sought, nor profit, instead resulting in a financial disaster, requiring him to borrow money from friends.

Reform in France was not looked upon kindly. The theological faculty in Paris spoke vehemently against the reforms of Luther and humanist philosophy. A man named Nicholas Cop, elected as rector of the University of Paris, gave an inaugural speech on November 1, 1533, embracing moderate reform. It caused a firestorm. Some believe that Calvin wrote the speech, and while unsubstantiated, Calvin was close enough to Cop to realize he was in danger, and he began moving around the French countryside. In May, 1534, he resigned his positions he held in the Catholic Church, which had supported him while in school. Now squarely in the camp of the Protestants, Calvin was associated with Protestants that had posted placards throughout France, attacking the Catholic way of celebrating communion, with one of these being posted on the King’s door. Reaction was swift and 200 arrests made, leading to many executions. Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, beginning an exile that would last the rest of his life, save for a few brief excursions to his home country. It was in Basel that Calvin completed his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

The Reformation shattered the world of medieval Christianity. There may be no other watershed event so grand in the continuum of history, and yet so misunderstood today by a soundbite culture, arrogant in its ignorance of the past. This would include many that call themselves practicing Christians.

A way of viewing Calvin is by comparing him to Luther. They were a study in contrasts. Luther, a rotund man, staunch defender of German liberties and wild appetites, and Calvin, ascetic, given to fasting; gaunt in visage. Luther would be someone that you would relish having a beer with, talking sports. Calvin would be eating alone, hardly touching his food, reading a book.

While in Italy with a friend, Calvin once again found himself needing to make a quick exit, when a scandal related to matters of reform broke out. He escaped arrest, by returning to France to settle some legal affairs, before heading to Geneva, where he hoped he’d have some peace. The city, French-speaking, had been engaged in throwing off the rule of the house of Savoy, and the politically appointed Catholic bishop.

With newfound freedom, Geneva would now be run by councils. Calvin, however, was walking into a volatile situation, with Savoy loyalty still running strong, and a significant portion of the city opposed to religious reform.

After being appointed as Reader of Holy Scripture, and later, as Geneva’s pastor by civil authorities, Calvin, along with his friend William Farel, drew up a confession of faith, which was approved by Geneva’s three councils. As had been the case, time and time again, things did not go smoothly for Calvin in Geneva. A man named Pierre Caroli accused Calvin with heresy, the charge being that of Arianism (a teaching that Christ was not God). Also, elections had been held and some of the new council members were not in favor of Calvin’s theological views. Refusing to have civil authorities dictate his theology, particularly around how communion would be celebrated, Calvin, along with Farel, was exiled from the city.

Calvin spent a brief time in Basel, and then he was invited to come to Strasbourg, France, to minister to French refugees in the city. It was in Strasbourg, where Calvin became the man that history remembers.

Bearing a new, thoroughly revised edition of the Institutes, Calvin’s theology was now fully formed, presenting a clear departure from Luther, Zwingli, and other reformers. His time in the city allowed him to write extensively, producing some of his best material. Calvin now saw the Institutes, more than anything else, as the guide for the proper reading of the Bible. His work presented a broad understanding of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the church. As McGrath wrote in A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture, Calvin’s work had “a new clarity of expression and breadth of vision.

Politics in the 16th century resembled politics in our own time in this way—parties came into power and consequently, fell out of power. Those who opposed Calvin, hastening his period away from Geneva, were gone. The council extended a hand to Calvin, requesting his return in 1541.

Calvin’s Geneva has become a place both revered, as well as vilified. It would be easy to write an equal amount of words detailing life in the city, after Calvin set up a church-based system of rule. That’s not the point of these historical exercises, with this one having gone on well beyond the point of whetting appetites.

Calvin died on May 27, 1564, months shy of his fifty-fifth birthday. His body was placed in an unmarked grave in accordance with his own wishes.

The stereotypes about Calvin continue to this day, though recent scholarship has been surprisingly kind to him, particularly in debunking many of the myths that have portrayed him as the “tyrant of Geneva.” There are those that argue that even the execution of Servetus, when viewed in the context of Calvin’s time, doesn’t seem as vicious as critics of Calvin make it out to be.

Regardless on one’s assessment of the theologian, pastor, and great Protestant mind, there’s no denying the historical force commanded by Calvin over five centuries.