Just read a blog post by R. Scott Clark at Heidelblog.

As Clark points out, there is a popular proclivity these days to vilify Reformation theologian John Calvin. Clark does an admirable job of carefully refuting that far-too-simple characterization of Calvin and concludes his blog post with this observation,

The true moral of this story, however, is of the danger of the Constantinian church-state alliance wherein civil authorities have the power to punish heresy. Nowhere in the New Testament or in the moral law is theological heresy a ground for civil punishment. The only sphere authorized by God to correct theological error is the visible church (see Matthew 18) and their means are purely spiritual: Word, sacrament, and discipline (e.g., rebuke, censure, excommunication).

While our culture tends to read history with an eye toward dramatizing the stories of it's heroes and villains, to do so without learning a life lesson through accurate and rigorous analysis of the underlying historical context relegates history to the status of storybook philosophy. Morals drawn from historical events and their consequences are invaluable tools for improving the wisdom of our modern day behavior. Why? Because history really happened. And because, of course, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. My observation is that history in today's popular culture is often used to make us feel better about our flawed characters. We inexorably paint complex historical figures as one-dimensional and incomprehensively evil, thus helping us - who are clearly leas evil than Hitler or Stalin or Calvin - feel better by comparison. R. Scott Clark astutely degreased Calvin's character but then went on to demonstrate the best way to handle history; as a telescope into the past through which genuinely valuable moral lessons can be discovered.