229

Editorial

What does the great reformer John Calvin have to say about the critical issues facing

the Reformed churches around the world today?

The 50 Calvin scholars who gathered in Geneva in April 2007 to ponder this question

went well beyond the tired clichés of Calvin as father of capitalism, the author of double

pre-destination and the champion of moral austerity; instead they offered fresh insights

for the Reformed family worldwide to consider as we approach the 500th anniversary of his

birth in 2009.

The scholars writing here remind us that Calvin continues to offer significant thinking

concerning the glory of God, the place of Christ in our lives, the work of the Spirit, the

importance of scripture, the role of God in the world, the gift of creation, the church’s call

in the face of principalities and powers, and the unity of the church.

We are thankful to the sponsors of the Geneva consultation: the John Knox International

Reformed Center, the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches, the Faculty of Theology of

the University of Geneva and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC). We offer

special thanks to the John Knox Center for hosting the event and to the Swiss churches

for their support.

This should be but the beginning of such a Calvin inquiry. As the theologians said in

their joint statement following the consultation, “We call therefore on theologians and

intellectuals of other academic disciplines, as well as the whole people of God, to re-visit

the heritage of the great reformer.”

May there be many more consultations, perhaps with more voices from women, the

South and the margins, as we collectively ponder what Calvin has to say to the Reformed

family of churches today. It will be good to be reminded of where we have been as Reformed

churches, and perhaps also catch a glimpse of the future.

John P. Asling

230

231

Foreward“What is the significance of Calvin’s legacy?”

Report of an International Consultation

In two years time, John Calvin’s birth in

1509 will be commemorated. In Geneva and

all over the world the celebration of this

anniversary will provide an opportunity to

reflect on his legacy and to discover his

relevance for the pressing issues of today.

To start this process of reflection, 50

theologians from different continents and

countries met from 15 to 19 April 2007 in

Geneva at the invitation of the John Knox

International Reformed Center , the

Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches,

the World Alliance of Reformed Churches

and the Theological Facul ty of the

University Geneva. The following issues

were addressed.

Who was Calvin and what is the

significance of his legacy for today? These

perennial questions arise with special

urgency as the anniversary of Calvin’s birth

in 2009 approaches. Calvin is a continuing

source of inspiration and for the Reformed

churches, who are therefore looking

forward to the celebration with a sense of

deep gratitude and as an opportunity for

their own commitment and renewal. They

would like to share the true legacy of

Calvin with Christians of other traditions

and with society. At the same time they

are aware that the image of Calvin is

controversial and today often presented

in a negative perspective. Like no other

Reformer of the 16th century he has

become the v ic t im of c l ichés . Four

stereotypes invariably return when his

name is referred to in public:

• his grim concept of double predestina-

tion: God elects some for salvation and

destines others to damnation;

• the moral austerity which he imposed

on the people of Geneva;

• his participation in the execution of

Michael Servetus;

• his role in the historical development

of moderni ty , in part icular modern

capitalism. For some he is one of the

fathers of modernity, for others he laid

the ground for a prosperity-oriented

spirituality.

Though these perceptions of Calvin are

widely accepted and taken for granted by

many, they represent a reduction and, in

232

fact, a distortion of the historical reality.

What is more, they lead to an attitude of

prejudice which obstructs access to the true

significance of the reformer. The

consultation came to the conclusion that a

fresh effort of interpretation should be

undertaken. An appeal, therefore, goes out

to theologians and intellectuals of other

academic disciplines, as well as the whole

people of God, to revisit the heritage of the

great reformer. This heritage contains

insights and perspectives which remain

relevant for today. A closer study of Calvin’s

writings, not only of the Institutes but also

his shorter treatises, sermons and

commentaries will reveal unexpected riches.

Calvin belongs to the second generation

of the Reformation movement. Through his

teaching and his l ife , he decisively

contributed to the consolidation of the

Reformation. The range and coherence of

his thinking have made possible the building

up of Reformed churches. At the Reformation

jubilee in 2017, his name must therefore be

recognized for without Calvin the

Reformation would have taken a different

course.

The effort to go beyond the widespread

stereotypes must, in our view, be guided by

the following three principles:

• The point of departure of any valid

interpretation must be the fundamental

impetus of Calvin’s life. What was ultimately

the driving force of his theology and life?

Particular and problematic aspects of his

teaching, such as, for instance, his doctrine

of predestination, must be seen and

interpreted in the framework of his primary

intentions in understanding God, creation,

human salvation and the fulfilment of all

things.

• Often Calvin is held responsible—

positively or negatively—for historical

developments of later centuries. In the eyes

of some, he opened the door to the modern

world, in particular capitalism; in the eyes of

others, he bears the responsibility for the

narrow biblicist moralism which

characterizes certain Protestant churches.

To get an authentic image of Calvin, it is

necessary to be guided by his own intentions

and utterances.

• Calvin lived in a very particular situation

attacked by enemies and also contested in

his own city of Geneva. He had to defend

his perception of the gospel in troubled

times. Calvin was not simply a theological

writer but was drawn—against his personal

inclination and will—into the struggles of his

time. It is essential to interpret Calvin in

this context. Much new research has been

done in recent times on particular aspects

of his l ife , making a more serene

understanding possible.

Calvin was no saint, and any attempt to

draw an idealized picture of him is bound to

fail.

We recognize that his response to

conflicts in Geneva could be harsh and that

his role in the execution of Servetus was,

indeed, more than dubious. Even against

the yardstick of his own convictions, he failed

233

in decisive moments. His use of language

against theological adversaries renders the

reading of certain of his writings difficult. As

we reflect on the relevance of his heritage,

we realize that certain aspects of his

teaching are no longer pertinent and cannot

be maintained. But, in our view, Calvin

remains an outstanding witness of the

Christian message and deserves to be

carefully listened to today.

Here is a selection of eight areas which,

in our view, are of particular interest today

and may provide fresh access to Calvin’s

legacy:

1. Calvin’s commitment to proclaiming

the glory of God.

Calvin believes that God, the sovereign

and gracious Creator of all, desires to be in

intimate relationship.

2. Calvin’s determination to place Jesus

Christ at the forefront of all our thinking

and living. In honouring the name of Christ

who became flesh of our flesh, the glory and

grace of God are attested in our midst. “If we

separate ourselves even by one single inch

from Christ, salvation fades… where Christ’s

name does not sound, everything becomes

stale” (Institutes II .16.1). The Church

depends entirely on the presence of the

living Jesus Christ through the power of God’s

Spirit. Thus it becomes the communion of

the “lovers of Christ” (amateurs du Christ,

preface to Olivetan’s Bible translation). It

cannot rely on tradition or on the strength

of existing structures. Calvin’s critique of the

church of his times was based on this firm

conviction.

3. Calvin’s emphasis on the work of the

Holy Spirit in creation and salvation.

The action of God is universal and all-

encompassing. For Calvin, it expresses the

divine rule over all creatures, human and

nonhuman. Nothing is beyond the wisdom

and parental care of God. The Spirit is a

lifegiving force, sustaining all things in being.

That same Holy Spirit unites us with Christ,

inspiring us in our understanding of God’s

word, illuminating and sanctifying us in faith,

and gathering us into the communion of

the church. Calvin always speaks about the

church, with its ministry of word and

sacrament, as the community of believers

within which faith is born, nourished, and

strengthened through the action of the Holy

Spirit. As members of his body we live in

hope for the renewal of our lives and of the

whole world.

4. Calvin’s engagement with scripture.

For Calvin, the Bible is at the heart of

the church’s life, ever to be read and studied

by each one of God’s people. It is to be taught

within the Church, which he describes often

as the “mother” and “school” of our faith.

“Our weakness does not allow us to be

dismissed from her school until we have

been pupils all our lives” (Institutes, IV.1.4).

Calvin’s careful attention to the content and

unity of the Old Testament and the New

Testament, the centrality of the Bible’s

witness to Jesus Christ, the need to wrestle

over the meaning of the text with the help

of the historical and scientific knowledge of

234

his day, and the power of the word of God to

speak afresh to each generation remain

exemplary. His exposition of Christian

doctrine is never undertaken apart from his

interpretation of scripture, which in turn

always takes place in the context of the

daily work of preaching, pastoral care and

civic outreach.

5. Calvin’s determination that God’s

will be brought to bear on all areas of life.

Calvin’s concern was that the glory of

God be celebrated and witnessed to at all

levels of life, that all of creation sing God’s

praises in concrete and vibrant ways, and

that the beauty of God’s will be manifest in

our patterns of life both grand and small.

Calvin holds that the moral law in scripture

both convicts us of our sin against God’s will

and serves as a guide for glorifying God in

every aspect of our daily lives. The law, the

form of God’s purpose for the faithful, offers

a space for human flourishing that is as

welcoming and inclusive as it is binding and

formative. It gives boundaries and order to

our creaturely existence so we might delight

in the good gifts of God and respond with

joyful gratitude.

6. Calvin’s insistence on God’s gift of

creation.

God’s will for creation’s flourishing is the

constant measure of human society and

humanity’s engagement with the created

world in all its mystery and depth. Central

features of this vision are a fundamental

affirmation of human equality and the

celebration of difference between and

among human persons. It includes an

awareness of the profound interrelatedness

of all aspects of creation, the call for human

beings to embody just relations, and an

enduring commitment to the affirmation of

human dignity. At the heart of this vision

lies a compassionate commitment to love,

justice, responsible care and hospitality

towards widows, orphans, and strangers:

those who are defenceless, displaced,

hungry, lonely, silenced, betrayed, powerless,

sick, broken in body and spirit, and all those

who suffer in our globalizing and polarizing

world. “Where God is known, there also

humanity is cared for” (in Ieremiam, cap.

22,16). Calvin claims that we see Christ in

all persons and are uplifted and judged by

his presence in them, ever proclaiming in

our words and actions the integrity of

creation as “the theatre of God’s glory.”

7. Calvin’s realization that the church

is called to discern, in ongoing ways, its

relation to the principalities and powers of

the world.

In our present global context, this

includes both various forms of state and

nation and the ever shifting reality of the

global market. This includes the church’s

confession of its involvement in creation’s

brokenness and human suffering as well as

its desire to prophetically preach and

embody God’s good will towards the world.

Calvin acknowledges, as well, that God’s

glory can be proclaimed and embodied

outside the church and that the Christian

community is called to engage her global

235

neighbours with both humility and bold

vision. The church realizes that the form

and content of this engagement will vary

from place to place and time to time, in

ways as manifold and rich as the faithful,

lived realities of God’s creation itself.

Nevertheless, it cannot but obediently and

gratefully respond to God’s word in the

present, and as such, be a constructive

witness to Christ.

8. Calvin’s commitment to the unity of

the church.

Calvin’s passionate and consistent

commitment to the unity of the body of

Christ was lived out within the reality of an

already fragmented church. In the midst of

division, he acknowledged the one Lord of

the one church, stressing repeatedly that

Christ’s body is one, that there is no

justification for a divided church, and that

schisms within churches are a scandal. Our

current situation is also one of separated

churches and threatened splits within

churches. In particular, Reformed churches

continue to be characterized by internal

division as well as by ecumenical

commitment. Calvin’s thinking about the

nature of Christian community, his

willingness to mediate controversial matters

such as the Lord’s Supper, and his tireless

efforts to build bridges at every level of church

life, stand as a contemporary challenge.

Calvin challenges churches to understand

the causes of continuing separation and, in

accordance with scripture, to strive toward

visible unity by engaging in concrete

ecumenical efforts, all for the sake of the

gospel’s credibility in the world, and the

fidelity of the church’s life and mission.

Participants:

Prof. Dr. Philip Benedict, University of

Geneva; Switzerland

Bishop Dr. Gustáv Bölcskei, Reformed

Church in Hungary

Rev. Thierry Bourgeois, Eglise Evangélique

Libre de Genève, Switzerland

Prof. Dr. Coenraad Burger, University of

Stellenbosch, South Africa

Prof. Dr. Eberhard Busch, University of

Göttingen, Germany

Prof. Dr. Emidio Campi, University of Zurich,

Switzerland

Rev. Prof. Leopoldo Cervantes Ortiz, Iglesia

Nacional Presbiteriana, Mexico

Rev. Dr. Meehyun Chung, mission 21,

Switzerland

Rev. Jean Arnold de Clermont, Fédération

protestante de France

Dr. Wulfert de Greef, Protestant Church in

the Netherlands

Prof. Dr. James de Jong, Calvin College and

Calvin Theological Seminary, USA

Prof. Dr. François Dermange, University of

Geneva, Switzerland

Dr. Edouard Dommen, Switzerland

Prof. Dr. EvaMaria Faber, Theologische

Hochschule Chur, Switzerland

236

Prof. Dr. David Fergusson, University of

Edinburgh, Scotland

Rev. Serge Fornerod, Federation of Swiss

Protestant Churches

Prof. Dr. Martin Friedrich, Community of

Protestant Churches in Europe (Leuenberg

Church Fellowship)

Dr. Pawel Gajewski, Chiesa evangelica

Valdese, Italy

Rev. Prof. Eduardo Galasso Faria, Seminario

teológico de São Paulo, Brazil

Rev. Philipp Genequand, Eglise protestante

de Genève, Switzerland

Rev. Mag. Thomas Hennefeld, Evangelische

Kirche H.B. in Österreich, Austria

Rev. Dr. Martin Hirzel, Federation of Swiss

Protestant Churches

Prof. Dr. Serene Jones, Yale Divinity School,

USA

Prof. Dr. Tamás Juhász, University of Cluj

Napoca, Romania

Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, World Alliance

of Ref. Churches

Ms. Charlotte Kuffer, Eglise protestante de

Genève, Switzerland

Dr. Johannes Langhoff, Evangelische Kirche

H.B. in Österreich, Austria

Rev. Dr. JaeCheon Lee, Presbyterian Church

in the Republic of Korea

Prof. Christian Link, University of Bochum,

Germany

Rev. Dr. Gottfried Locher, Institute of

Ecumenical Studies, University of Fribourg,

Switzerland

Rev. Dr. Odair Pedroso Mateus, World

Alliance of Reformed Churches

Dr. h.c. Gerrit Noltensmeier, Reformierter

Bund Deutschland, Germany

Dr. Peter Opitz, Universität Zürich, Institut

für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte,

Switzerland

Rev. Prof. Seong-Won Park, Young Nam

Theological College and Seminary, Korea

Rev. Solveig Perret Almelid, Conférence des

églises protestantes romandes, Switzerland

Rev. Dr. Lazarus Purwanto, ReformedEcumenical Council

237

Who was and who is Calvin?Interpretations of recent times

Eberhard Busch

In reflecting on the eve of the 500th birthday of the great reformer John

Calvin, Eberhard Busch laments the lack of research taking place at this time on

fundamental questions such as what Calvin perceived as the main differences

between the reformers and the Roman Catholic Church of his time. Busch wants to

see all Calvin’s texts published anew – and those which have never been published

to see the light of day – so that they will be made more available to everyone.

Scholars need to become infected with Calvin so that they truly understand what

this fallible messenger of God has to say to Christians today.

1. Interpretations in former times

A look back at the interpretations of

Calvin about a hundred years ago reveals a

broad diversity of views that for decades

defined the way the reformer was viewed.

According to Albrecht Ritschl, Calvin

confused and combined the Lutheran

differentiation between the church as the

agent of grace and the state as the agent of

“law and order.” Thus, Calvin was able to

say something that is unthinkable to

German Lutherans, namely, that every

person is equal in relation to the law and

that the overthrow of tyrants by the people

is legitimate.1 As recently as 1940, Dietrich

Bonhoeffer repeated this view in his Ethics.2

In contrast to this view, the cultural

historian from Basel Jacob Burckhardt

stated, “The tyranny of one single human

has never been promoted further than it

was by Calvin, who not only made his private

convictions into a general law and who

oppressed or banished all other convictions,

but also constantly insulted everybody

regarding the most innocent matters of

taste.”3 The poet Stefan Zweig in 1937 used

this characterization of Calvin to accuse Adolf

Hitler of being a demonic human.4 Even

Karl Barth wrote that when one knows the

details of the much admired way of living in

Geneva at the time of Calvin, words like

tyranny and pharisaism come nearly

automatically to mind. “None of us . . . would

like to have lived in that holy city [Geneva].”5

The widespread thesis of Max Weber that

Calvin was one of the fathers of capitalism

238

was first repudiated by Ernst Troeltsch,

followed by André Biéler.6 According to

Troeltsch, Calvin’s ideas led to the

emergence within the Reformed tradition

of “religious socialism” at the beginning of

the 20th century, something which was very

different from conservative, antidemocratic

Lutheranism.7 In contrast to Troeltsch,

Charles Hodge at Princeton Theological

Seminary stated that because of his view

that the church as church had nothing to

do with secular affairs, Calvin followed the

Lutheran two-kingdom doctrine. This is true,

Hodge goes on to say, even if politicians

should not silence representatives of the

church who give witness to the truth and to

the law of God.8 Similarly, the Dutchman

Abraham Kuyper stated that, on the one

hand, Calvinism distinguished sharply

between state and church including in the

realm of culture, but on the other hand, both

state and church are directly subjected to

the government of God.9 What is true of

most of these interpretations is that they

speak more generally about so-called

Calvinism than about Calvin himself, or, as

Stanford Reid put it in 1991: that they often

speak about Calvin “without taking great

pains to have a look what he really said.”10

2. The centre of his theology

It is probably true that every age

influences the results of its research by how

its questions are formulated. But one must

also say, with Reid, that scholars in recent

years and decades “have made great efforts”

to listen more carefully to “what Calvin really

said,” first and foremost within the context

of the Reformation, in France and in

Geneva. This has resulted in a growing

understanding that the Reformation of the

church is not to be measured solely by the

figure of Martin Luther, as one sometimes

hears, especially in Germany. It has thus

become clearer that the formulation of the

doctrine of justification is not the only

decisive difference between Protestantism

and Roman Catholicism. Calvin certainly

taught justification by grace alone, but at

the same time insisted, more than did the

Lutheranism of his day, that justification

and sanctification belonged inseparably

together. In doing so, he was expounding 1

Corinthians 1:30: “He is the source of your

life in Christ Jesus, who became for us

wisdom from God, and righteousness, and

sanctif ication, and redemption.” He

demonstrated how pure was his exposition

of the doctrine of justification in 1547 in

what was actually the first differentiated

commentary offered by a Protestant on the

doctrine of justification proposed by the

Council of Trent, which was itself a

substantive statement. Although the

decrees of the council were not published

at the time, Calvin was well informed not

only about the council text, but also about

the discussions conducted by the fathers

on that council. His comment did not appear

in German translation until the study

edition of Calvin was published in 1999. As

Anthony Lane has shown, Calvinparticipated in the run-up to the Council of

239

Trent, especially in the discussions in

Regensburg between Protestant and Roman

Catholic theologians, which dealt primarily

with the doctrine of justification.11 Calvin

scholars continue today to discuss the extent

to which Calvin’s interpretation might make

possible some common understanding

between both confessions with regard to

the Pauline statement in Gal 2:6 that faith

justifies without works and in Gal 5:6 that

faith works through love.

In any case, Calvin stands in his doctrine

of justification on the ground of the

Protestant Reformation. Nevertheless, for

him the decisive difference with Rome was

elsewhere. Bernard Cottret writes in his

biography of Calvin that the so-called Affair

of the Placards at the end of 1534 in Paris

was for Calvin the turning point. These

placards, which were posted at various

places, directed strong criticism against the

Roman Catholic Mass based upon the epistle

to the Hebrews: Christ is the only mediator

and the only priest; by his unique sacrifice

he makes illusory the priestly dignity of

human church officials which was so central

to Roman Catholic thinking.12 This

fundamental difference was etched on

Calvin’s mind at a procession through Paris

at which King Francis I followed the

monstrance, while at the same time along

the streets “heretics” were “sacrificed”, that

is, burned to death because they opposed

this doctrine of sacrifice.13 When defining

his liturgy, Calvin, in contrast to Zwingli, did

not opt for the late medieval preaching

service, nor did he grant secondary

importance to the worship liturgy. Rather,

as Christian Grosse has recently shown, he

infused new life into the liturgy of divine

worship, following the model of the ancient

church.14 At the centre of divine worship,

the Holy Spirit communicates to us in the

Lord’s Supper, the reconciliation with God

accomplished by Christ, and in gratitude for

this we testify in the same event that we

are his community. Calvin, allegedly the

almighty sovereign in Geneva, was, however,

not able to persuade the city government to

follow his profound conviction that the Lord’s

Supper belonged to every divine worship

service, accompanied by public prayers (the

Psalter) and the interpretation of the holy

scripture (not as various pericopes selected

from the Bible, but as lectio continua, the

exposition of whole books of the Bible).15

The amount of discussion devoted to the

proper understanding of the eucharist in

the first edition of the Institutio Christianae

Religionis of 1536 shows that this, in Calvin’s

view, was the most important point of

controversy with the Roman Catholic

church at that time. In the immensely

enlarged last edition of the Institutio of 1559,

the critique is expanded to a dispute about

the understanding of the church, to which

more than one third of the entire work is

devoted. One might say that this is the

theme of the second generation of reformers.

Even if we agree with Wilhelm Neuser that

the composition and structure of the four

parts in the1559 edition are confusing in

detail16, it is, I think, very clear that Calvinin the first three parts wants to speak about

240

God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,

and that in the very long fourth part he

deals with the church, that is, with the

external means by which God invites us into

fellowship with God’s self and with one

another. And in this part of his book, Calvin

deals extensively with the Roman Catholic

doctrine of the church. It is exciting that he

works with the same fundamental material

used by the other side, but he interprets

this same fundamental material in a very

different way, both formally and

substantively . He attacks here the

substance of the Roman Catholic doctrine

about the church, the doctrine upon which

the system of papal organization is based.17

I do not see in the Lutheranism of that

time any substantive contribution to this

debate. For Calvin, this was a substantive

issue.

According to the view shared by both

Roman Catholics and the Calvinists, Christ,

as the mediator between God and

humanity, holds a three-fold office, that is:

as prophet, as king and as priest. But, unlike

the Roman Catholic side, Calvin stresses

that Christ is alive, and therefore, that he

has neither relinquished these three offices

to ecclesial institutions, nor is he ever able

to do so. His relationship to the church is

like that of the head to the body, and there

are no substitute heads. Only he governs

the church, and the church is a community

of brothers and sisters, connected to him

and with one another in mutual exchange,

as expressed in the Catechism of Geneva of

1545.18 Every member participates in the

head, but only as a member of Christ’s body.

All Christians participate directly by faith in

Christ, without the mediation of human

priests, as declared in the Second Helvetic

Confession of 1566.19 In this way, all

Christians participate in the three-fold office

of Christ by faith20, and they show this by

actively confessing, as Zwingli says in his

1530 statement of faith.21 The human leaders

of the ecclesial communion too are

members of Christ’s body, not heads of the

church. This is made apparent by the fact

that the three offices under their leadership

are distributed to different persons who lead

the church collectively. This interpretation

gives new significance to the three offices

exercised by the government of the church

which differs with the Roman Catholic

church’s view: the pastors embody the

prophetic teaching of Christ. They are not

at all priests, and this is perhaps the deepest

point of divergence with the Roman Catholic

church. The elders embody the kingly office

of Christ; they have the task of leading the

communion and ensuring the care of souls

(cura animarum), but they are not the

sovereigns of the church. Lastly, the service

of the deacons to the poor corresponds to

the priestly office, which Christ fulfilled once

and for all on the cross.

But today’s Calvin research scarcely

addresses the question of what the Geneva

reformer perceived as the main difference

with the Roman Catholic church of his time.

I believe that his view in this regard is still

important today when we see even

Reformed pastors trying to act as priests,

241

and the dilemma in which Lutherans find

themselves because their concept of

justification is no longer supposed to

separate them from the Roman Catholic

Church. I am not saying that the doctrine

on the church was the centre of Calvin’s

theology. The centre of his theology can be

summed up by a phrase taken from his

commentary on Jeremiah: “Ubi cognoscitur

Deus, etiam colitur humanitas”, this means

“Where God is taken seriously, humanity is

cared for as well.”22 This sentence clearly

underscores Calvin’s concern, which

contrasts with the tendency in Lutheran

theology to forget the differentiation

between God’s divinity and our humanity

because of the both divine and human

nature of the one Christ, instead of holding

this differentiation in honour.

3. Editions

But to all appearances there is little work

nowadays in Calvin research on these

fundamental questions. The research that

is being carried out is focused on discovering

Calvin anew, but it is proceeding in small

steps. The first great, or rather, huge task in

this regard is to publish all of Calvin’s texts

anew, and in some instances, for the first

time, and to make them accessible to

everyone. There are, in fact, important texts

of Calvin which have not been printed since

the 16th century or since the Leiden edition

in the 17th century, or which have never

been printed at all. In addition to Calvin’s

Institutio , which is available in diverse

editions, there are many other Calvin texts

which were published in the 19th and early

20th centuries, in the original language or

in translations: biblical commentaries,

letters, and polemical documents. The most

important and voluminous publication is the

Calvini Opera, begun in 1877, comprising

59 volumes and edited in the original

language. Later there appeared the smaller

edition, the Calvini Opera Selecta, edited

by Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesel, 1929-

1936. However, some earlier editions

contain gaps, while others have scientific

deficiencies, such as the edition of biblical

commentaries in Latin by August Tholuck

(mid-19th century). New editions are now

appearing that try, on the one hand, to

provide scientifically responsible texts, and

on the other hand, to fill gaps. An invaluable

overview of the new editions is provided by

Michael Bihary in his Bibliographia

Calviniana . Calvins Werke und ihre

Übersetzungen, Prague, 2000.

One such gap was filled in 1961 with the

launching of a collection entitled

“Supplementa Calviniana. Sermons inédits”.

This collection includes 600 previously

unprinted sermons. But in point of fact,

Calvin delivered more than 2400 sermons.23

This edition alone will comprise 15 volumes

or more. Each of those sermons consists of

nearly 10 well-filled pages written in 16th

century French. This edition demonstrates

how Calvin dealt with the interpretation of

the holy scripture in the time of early

Christianity, in the medieval church and in

the Jewish exposition.24 As far as his biblical

commentaries in their original language are

242

concerned, we still must rely on the 100

year-old Calvini Opera. However, a bold new

edition has been initiated. The basic texts

are the last edition of each work printed

during Calvin’s lifetime, or the last version

examined by Calvin himself: Ioannis Calvini

Opera Omnia, published by the Librairie

Droz in Geneva, edited by eight prestigious

Calvin researchers, enriched by helpful

literary references and footnotes. To date,

eight volumes of this edition have been

published. It also contains English Calvin

researcher Thomas C. H. Parker’s edition of

Calvin’s commentary on Romans. It is the

commentary, which Calvin produced with

elaborate care in Strasbourg in 1539 and

which he revised in 1551 in Geneva: it was

his first biblical commentary.

In view of the difficulty many people today

have understanding 16th century French,

but especially classical Latin, which Calvin

wrote so brilliantly, his texts in their original

languages are inaccessible to many people,

including eminent scholars. As a result,

these texts are limited to a small circle of

experts. It would be necessary to be as

familiar with those languages as Calvin was,

in order to understand “his style rich in

detail and his refined theological

argumentation.” But this means that

“whoever wants to let Calvin speak today

will have to translate him”, as Christian Link

remarks in the preface to the Calvin-

Studienausgabe, which he and several other

scholars have been editing since 1994. In

this edition, various, representative pieces

of Calvin’s theology, some of which have not

been translated until now, appear in two

languages: in their original language and in

a German translation. Six volumes have

been published, including two volumes of

the Romans commentary. In Italy a new

edition was launched in 2004 with the

publication by Claudiana in Torino of Calvino,

Opere scelte, Volume I: Dispute con Roma.

It seems that in the future such translations

will be more and more necessary because

of the demise of the knowledge of the

classical languages. It appears that the

English translations are surging ahead of

the German ones.

4. New Interpretations

Apart from the great task of publishing

the texts resulting from new scientific

research on Calvin, a plethora of individual

studies have been produced as well. Peter

de Klerk has listed all new publications since

1971 in the Calvin bibliography published

in the Calvin Theological Journal. It is

striking that in many recent works, half of

the text consists of footnotes that often refer

to a large number of other single

investigations which are unfortunately often

not available to the reader. Furthermore,

there is no lack of studies with such specific

theses that they cannot be substantiated

except by appealing to hypotheses. Three

scholars have presented a work which they

claim, due to a lack of documents, cannot

be more than merely “an experiment that

does not answer many questions”.25 There

243

are also many works exploring with great

effort what is already known. As is the case

in other sciences, Calvin research, beyond

the aforementioned language problem, is

faced with the issue of increasingly

specialized topics being dealt with in ever

smaller groups of experts, while the number

of those ignorant in these matters is growing

even in theologically educated circles. I have

no solution to these problems, only a

question that the experts have to answer

themselves: Who is served by their hard

work? In my opinion this can only be

relevantly answered when in their zeal to

understand Calvin, they let themselves be

infected by him so that they understand

with Calvin, that is, understand with this

fallible messenger what God has placed

before him and before us. “Calvinus

Praeceptor ecclesiae” is the t i t le of

proceedings published from the last

international Calvin symposium. But was

he really recognized and taken seriously

as teacher of the church?

To expect the newer research to deal

only with these critical questions would

be unfair. Indeed, one has to respectfully

recognize that the multiple research

efforts, taking many directions and many

approaches, shed distinctive new light on

many hidden corners of Calvin and his

world,. bringing this world closer to us.

We see Calvin in his relationship with

Mart in Bucer 26 and Bernhard von

Clairvaux27, Melanchthon28, a Lasco29 and

his col leagues in Geneva 30 , wi th

Augustine31, Pighius32, King Sigismund

August of Poland 33 , and so on . We

furthermore see him as a young man34, in

his relationship with women35, children

and young people36, with Baptists37, or

with Greek philosophy38. But of course, he

is presented to us especial ly as a

theologian and as someone occupied with

theological topics such as hermeneutics39,

anthropology 40 , the doctr ine of

predest inat ion 41 , the mediat ion of

salvation42, eschatology43, doctrina44,

prayer45 and so on.

We do not have to complete the long

list of contributions here. Of course, all

these studies do not completely agree with

each other and by far, not all of them refer

to each other. Nonetheless we can put

them together like pieces of a puzzle and

thus get a fairly comprehensive idea of

the Geneva reformator and his work.

More i l luminating with regard to

knowledge about Calvin and his theology

than the long list of Calvin literature is

the recent availability of many sermons

and biblical commentaries. In short: while

formerly Calvin was seen in the light of

his Institutio and in the context of his

polemical writings, today researchers

begin to read him chiefly in his sermons

and biblical interpretations. We are

narrowing in on the exegete rather than

on the teacher of dogmatics. Indeed, not

the Institutio, but the interpretations of

the Bible were the subject of his

theological lectures which were taken

244

down by official note-takers and later

published. To him, theological instruction

meant exposition of the holy scripture.

But sermon meant the same thing to him.

He presents both as doctrina, which,

according to Victor d’Assonville, means

communication commissioned by God, as

opposed to dogma, which is human

teaching.46 Sermon and lecture are not

the same, but for Calvin they do not differ

in principle. The lectures are short

preparations for the sermons, which

express the same thing, but in a more

detailed and, more illustrated fashion,

more directed towards listeners. Both

sermon and lecture belong together

according to Calvin’s doctrine of the

exercise of the prophetic office in the

church. And it is precisely these texts that

have been sought out recently with

greater interest in order to understand

Calvin’s theology. Because of this, his

teaching presents itself in a perhaps not

fully different form but yet in a new light,

in an able interaction, on the one hand,

of observations that focus precisely upon

the text in question and on the other

hand, of statements that speak concretely

to particular listeners or readers.

Max Engammare, for instance, is

preoccupied with Calvin’s interpretation of

Genesis.47 According to him, the figure of

Abraham is exemplary and comforting for

the reformer in Geneva. He shows that

Calvin saw himself his entire life as a refugee,

and as such he addressed himself to other

people, that is to the oppressed in France

who were awaiting the establishment of the

lordship of Christ in their country; to those

who had to flee their homelands because of

persecution and some of whom came to

Geneva; and to those who had to learn the

challenges of faith through these brothers

and sisters in the faith. Wilhelmus H.Th.

Moehn, in the context of his edition of

Calvin’s sermons on Acts 1-7, referred

especially to Abraham as “the father of the

church of God.”48 Moehn, while working

through Calvin’s exposition of Acts 7, had in

view, as he dealt with the figure of Abraham

there, Calvin’s exposition of Genesis which

he was doing at the same time. According

to Calvin, Abraham is the model for the way

in which true faith and obedient discipleship

belong inseparably together. And together

with Abraham, Calvin also had in view the

compelling contemporary problem of

Nicodemitism, that is, the attitude of those

who believe evangelically but who, in

contradiction with that faith, live external

lives adapted to a majority with another

orientation. Based upon the fact that

Abraham lived among pagans in Canaan,

he envisioned the task of the native

Genevans to be “to depart”, not from the

city or their neighbours, but from themselves.

At the same time, referring to Abraham’s

concern for his progeny, Calvin emphasized

that neighbourly love must expand to

embrace subsequent generations. I see

these kinds of works as a promising

indication of all that will come to light when

245

the sermons and exegeses of Calvin are

made more fully accessible.

5. The ethics of Calvin

An illuminating expansion, but also

correction, of the image we have of the

reformer of Geneva lies in the question

raised by Robert Kingdon; it subsequently

stimulated a number of North American

scholars especially, to conduct interesting

studies. The question was: What actually

was new and different in Calvin´s Geneva

in comparison with the medieval period that

preceded it?49 The question applies in

particular to the social and economic

problems in the Geneva of the time.

According to Kingdon, there was minimal

social support for the poor in the city already

in the Middle Ages. What was new in the

16th century was that the social work was

carried out more professionally and by

laymen. But what was Calvin´s contribution

to it? In Mark Valeri´s opinion, for Calvin,

the economy and the ethics of public

welfare must be in harmony.50 By

confronting the competitive thinking with

the idea of togetherness and solidarity, he

stood against the economic trend of his

time.51 He especially fought against usury;

and since usury raises its head again and

again by hiding behind different labels, his

struggle turned against the misuse of

language in favour of trustworthiness. But

he did not fight against it in blind radicalism,

but as a theologian who has the common

sense to know the difference between

granting loans and usury. But in all this, he

promoted practising social solidarity. Valeri

profiles Calvin´s intentions by naming what

he argued against: “Dissolution of the bonds

of communication” isolates “individuals from

others in the body social, resulting in the

misuse of neighbour as an object for gain.”52

And Jane Dempsey Douglass writes:

According to Calvin, “restored humanity is

not individual but social.” All men and

women are created equal and are created

for one another, and when we violate this,

it is the sign of sin and draws God´s anger.53

Certainly, Calvin is interested in individual

responsibility, but at the same time he is

interested in social solidarity. He apparently

sees these as corresponding to the mutuality

of the body of Christ, which he also sees in

the mutuality in which the members of the

political council and those of the church

council (the elders) do their work of public

responsibility.

These aforementioned researchers

showed that there were two concerns in

particular on which Calvin insisted with the

people of Geneva, in the discharge of his

prophetic duty. Or, to put it more clearly: he

recognized that there were two forms of

poverty and misery that disturbed

community life in the city then and seriously

challenged personal responsibility and social

solidarity. The first form concerned the

relationship of the local people to the

foreigners who within a short period of time

came seeking refuge in Geneva. Until then

it was the rule that each city was individually

246

responsible for the needy in its midst. But

now suddenly masses of French refugees

who were expelled from their country came

to Geneva. In a few years, the population of

Geneva doubled, which made the question

of their livelihood particularly urgent.

Therefore it became above all a very

practical matter whether or not the stranger

is really a neighbour. Perhaps at least part

of the resentment within the old established

families of Geneva towards Calvin was based

on his answering this practical question

clearly in the affirmative, that he deliberately

remained, for most of his time in Geneva, a

foreigner himself, to show the significance

of the problem. As Valeri points out, that

anger grew even greater when, after some

time, around 1555, the leadership of the

city fell into the hands of the foreigners.54

These strangers were mostly refugees from

France, but slowly the doors opened to those

from Italy and England as well. Kingdon also

mentions that a Turk and a Jew were

helped.55 In a sermon about Deuteronomy,

Calvin speaks of his encounter with a

stranger and says: although they could not

speak a word to each other, “our Lord shows

us today that we will be brothers, because

Christ is the peace of the whole world and

of all its inhabitants. Therefore, we must

live together in a family of brothers and

sisters, which Christ has founded with his

blood. And with each enmity [which we

encounter], he gives us the opportunity to

withstand this enmity.”56

The other misery that Calvin pointed

out to the people of Geneva as teacher and

preacher and which put their community to

a test, was the disparity between rich and

poor. To be sure, in the Middle Ages, the

good work of giving to the poor was well

established. The fact that the poor remained

no less impoverished was not a problem

with regard to the possibility of doing good

works. Poverty could even become an ideal

for saints. Calvin, however, considered the

poverty of the real poor people to be an

unbearable scandal.

Nicholas Woltersdorff summarized

Calvin’s thoughts about poverty in its terrible

form with the sentence: “The social injustice

and the tears of the social victims wound

also God.” According to him, the creation of

human beings in the image of God also

means that God sees God’s self in our fellow

beings who are tortured victims of

inhumanity. But, as Wolterstorff confirms, it

is precisely upon this vulnerable love of God

that Calvin’s fight for justice is founded.57

Therefore the duty of the rich does not end

with charitable giving, instead, as Valeri

quotes Calvin: “I cannot separate myself from

those who became needy, to whom God has

knit me.”58 In the name of solidarity,

conversely, one can recognize the luxury

enjoyed by the rich in the metropolises as

scandalous. This luxury is an expression of

“egoism”, as shown by Valeri in Calvin’s

commentary on the first letter to the

Corinthians.59 When Calvin’s doctrine of the

sanctification in the Institutio receives its

profile from self-denial, we understand in

247

the light of these findings that self-denial is

neither a worthy virtue in itself nor a

renunciation of the joy of life (although this

was not very visible in Calvin’s face because

of his illnesses!). Instead, self-denial in

Calvin’s understanding represents a helpful

counter-initiative against the “egoism” of the

rich. It means that the rich share their

possessions with the poor, and this with

the hope and the aim that a society built on

solidarity is formed, a society based on

mutual giving and taking. Recent studies

have shown that rich refugees from France

also were included in this sharing with the

poor people. All this aimed at achieving social

solidarity, in which poverty is no longer the

fate of the majority of people as the

consequence of the rule of wrongful

competition. The emphasis on this confirms

what Ernst Troeltsch had already said, that

Calvin’s support of a “balance between

society and individual” in “social policy” ran

in the opposite direction of Adam Smith´s

classical theory of capitalism.60 And he

added: while Calvin’s concern was

understood in Lutheranism as “an attack

on the holy fundament of the God-given

order”, the tradition survives to the present

day in the area of the Reformed church in

the form of social democratic pastors.61 This

has been stated as well more recently by R.

C. Gamble and Stephen Reid: “Calvinism in

Geneva was more an attack on wealth than

a defence of the accumulation of capital.”62

Wolterstorff quotes a sermon by Calvin

about Gal 6:9-11, in which he draws togetherboth sides, the poor and the strangers, and

says: “We cannot but behold our own face

as it were in a glass in the person that is

poor and despised ... though he were the

furthest stranger in the world. Let a Moor or

a Barbarian come among us, and yet

inasmuch as he is a human, he brings with

him a looking glass wherein we may see

that he is our brother and neighbour.”63 I

think that this spiritual insight is the source

of Calvin’s interest in social and economic

affairs . Therefore he wrote in his

interpretation of 2 Cor 8:13 et seq, to which

André Biéler had already referred: “God

wants that there be proportion and equality

among us, that is, each man is to provide for

the needy according to the extent of his

means so that no one has too much and no

one has too little.”64 “God wants”, declares

Calvin here. He declares this as a preacher

of the word of God. He declares this in a

Christian church, which should understand

itself as an assembly of human beings in

community and personal responsibility

under their one head, Christ. From this point

of view, Calvin sees the sphere of the state

as an institution with the purpose of allowing

an existence of common welfare and

freedom, not common welfare at the

expense of freedom, and not freedom at the

expense of common welfare. But, he says it

as an interpreter of the Bible in his sermons

and biblical commentaries, and he says it

not with the desire to misuse the Bible

according to his private taste, but rather, to

take the Bible seriously as the word certified

by God for the present time. He says it in

the name of God, whom he sees not as a

248

tyrant, but as the highest who takes care of

the lowest, as God has shown God’s self in

Christ . I have already quoted what

Wolterstorff says about Calvin’s insight

that the tears of the social v ict ims

victimize also God. Now I would like to

refer also to the work from Randall

Zachman entitled Crying to God on the

Brink of Despair. He speaks about Calvin’s

interpretation of Psalm 22: “My God, why

you have forsaken me?” And the reformer

of Geneva explains it with the words that

Notes

1 Albrecht Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus, Vol . I (Bonn: Marcus, 1880) 61–80.2 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethik (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958) 43 [Neville Horton Smith, trans.Ethics (London: SCM Press, 1955)].3 According to Werner Kaegi, Jacob Burckhardt : eine Biographie. Bd. 5, Das neuere Europaund das Erlebnis der Gegenwart (Basel; Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1973) 90.4 Stefan Zweig, Castellio gegen Calvin oder ein Gewissen gegen die Gewalt (Wien:Reichner,1936).5 “Keiner von uns . . würde in dieser heiligen Stadt gelebt haben wollen”. Karl Barth, DieTheologie Calvins 1922 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1993 ), 163 [trans. Geoffrey Bromily,The Theology of John Calvin (Grand Rapids MI: W.B Eerdmans) 1995)].6 Ernst Troeltsch, Gesammelte Schriften Vol. 1- Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchenund Gruppen, (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1912), 713. On Biéler, cf. Note 63.7 Op. cit. 721.8 Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity (New York: Charles Scribners, 1898), 104-106.9 Abraham Kuyper, Calvinism: Six Stone-Lecture (Grand Rapids MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1931).10 W. Stanford Reid, John Calvin - Early Critic of Capitalism (II), in Richard C. Gamble,Articles on Calvin and Calvinism, Vol 11 (Garland: New York/London, 1992) 169.11 Herman Selderhuis, ed. Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae. Papers of the InternationalCongress on Calvin Research, Princeton, August 20-24, 2002 (Geneva: Droz, 2004) 233-264.12 Bernard Cottret, Calvin : Biographie (Paris: J.-C. Lattès, 1995) [in English: Calvin: aBiography (Grand Rapids MI: W.B. Eerdmans/Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000)] 109.13 Op. cit., 114.14 Eberhard Busch et al. , eds. Calvin-Studienausgabe , Vol. 2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1997) 137-225.15 Christian Grosse, Dogma und Doctrina bei Calvin, in: Calvinus Praeceptor (note 11), 189et seq.

we may be certa in—not looking to

ourselves, but looking to God—”that God is

merciful to us even when God appears to

be against us”. And Calvin writes in

reference to the lamentation in Psalm 77

on whether God has forgotten to be

merci fu l : “The goodness of God is

inseparably connected with his essence

as to render it impossible for him not to be

merciful.”65 This is fortunately a message

which we hear much more clearly in recent

interpretations of John Calvin´s work.

249

16 Wilhem H. Neuser, Einige Bemerkungen zum Stand der Calvinforschung, in: CalvinusPraeceptor (note 11), 189.17 Cf. Timothy George ed. John Calvin and the Church: a Prism of Reform (Louisville KY:Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990) and Stefan Scheld, Media Salutis: zur Heilsvermittlungbei Calvin (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag, 1989), Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für EuropäischeGeschichte Mainz, Vol. 125.18 John Calvin, Catechism of Geneva, Questions 34-45.19 Heinrich Bullinger, Das zweite Helvetische Bekenntnis [The Second Helvetic Confessionof Faith] (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966) ch. 5.20 Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 31.21 Enst Friedrich Karl Müller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche [ReformedConfessions of the 16th Century] (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1903) 85, 11f.22 Calvini Opera 38, 388.23 Hanns Rückert, ed. Supplementa Calviniana. Sermons inédits: Vol. I, Predigten über das2. Buch Samuelis (Neukirchen: K. Moers, 1936-1961) p. XIII.24 Op. cit., XXXII.25 Calvinus Praeceptor (Note 11) 142.26 Marijn de Kroon, Martin Bucer und Johannes Calvin. Reformatorische Perspektiven.Einleitung und Texte, trans. Hartmut Rudolph (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,1991).27 Anthony N.S. Lane, Calvin and Bernard of Clairvaux (Princeton: Princeton TheologicalSeminary, 1996) (Studies in Reformed Theology and History, New Series No. 1).28 Barbara Pitkin, Redefining Repentance: Calvin and Melanchthon, in Calvinus Praeceptor(Note 11) 275-285.29 Wim Janse, Calvin, a Lasco und Beza. Eine gemeinsame Abendmahlserklärung (Mai1556)?. Bericht eines Forschungsseminars mit offenem Ausgang, in Calvinus Praeceptor.,209-231.30 Elsie McKee, Calvin and his Collegues as Pastors: Some insights into the CollegialMinistry of Word and Sacraments, in ibid. 9-42 and Erik.A. de Boer, Calvin and Collegues.Propositions and Disputations in the Context of the “Congrégations” in Geneva, in ibid.331-342.31 Jan Marius J. Lange van Ravenswaay, Augustinus totus noster. Das Augustinverständnisbei Johannes Calvin, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1990) (Forschungen zurKirchen- und Dogmengeschichte No. 45).32 Harald Rimbach, Gnade und Erkenntnis in Calvins Prädestinationslehre. Calvin imVergleich mit Pighius, Beza und Melanchthon, (Frankfurt et al.: Lang, 1996) (Kontexte.Neue Beitr. zur Hist. u. Syst. Theologie, No. 19).33 Mihály Márkus, Calvin und Polen. Gedankenfragmente in Verbindung mit einerEmpfehlung, in Calvinus Praeceptor (note 11), 323-330.34 Jung-Uck Hwang, Der junge Calvin und seine Psychopannychia (Frankfurt et al.: Lang,1990) (Europ. Hochschulschriften, Reihe 23, No. 407).35Jane Dempsey Douglass, Women, Freedom, and Calvin (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,1985).36 Jeffrey R. Watt, Childhood and Youth in the Geneva Consistory Minutes, in: CalvinusPraeceptor (note 11) 43-64.37 Willem Balke, Calvin und die Täufer. Evangelium oder religiöser Humanismus, trans.Heinrich Quistorp, (Minden: Selbstverl. Quistorp, 1985).38 Irena Backus, Calvin’s Knowledge of Greek Language and Philosophy, Calvinus Praeceptor

250

(note 11). 343-350.39 Alexandre Ganoczy and Stefan Scheld, Die Hermeneutik Calvins. GeistesgeschichtlicheVoraussetzungen und Grundzüge (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983); Peter Opitz, Calvinstheologische Hermeneutik (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1994).40 Mary Potter Engel, John Calvin’s Perspectival Anthropology (Atlanta: Scholars Press,1988) (American Acad. of Religion. Academy series 52); Christian Link, Die Finalität desMenschen. Zur Perspektive der Anthropologie Calvins, Calvinus Praeceptor (note 11) 159-178.41 Cf. note 31.42 Stefan Scheld, Media salutis (note 11).43 Raimund Lülsdorff, Die Zukunft Jesu Christi. Calvins Eschatologie und ihre katholischeSicht (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1996) (Konfessionskundliche und KontroverstheologischeStudien, Bd. LXIII, J.A. Möhler-Inst.).44 Victor E. d’Assonville Jr., Dogma und Doctrina bei Calvin in einer begrifflichenWechselwirkung: Ein Seminarbericht, Calvinus praeceptor (note 11) 189-208.45 Jae Sung Kim, Prayer in Calvin’s Soteriology, in op. cit., 265-274.46 Cf. note 44.47 Max Engammare, D’une forme l’autre : Commentaires et sermons de Calvin zur la Genèse,in Calvinus praeceptor (note 11) pp. 107-137.48 Wilhelmus Moehn, Abraham – « Père de l‘église der Dieu ». A Comparison of Calvin’sCommentary and sermons on Acts 7:1-6, in Calvinus Praeceptor (note 11) 287-301.49 Robert Kingdon, Calvinism and Social Welfare, Calvin Theological Journal (1982): 212-230.50 Mark. Valeri, Religion, Discipline, and the Economy in Calvin’s Geneva, Sixteenth CenturyJournal 28/1 (1997):123-142.51 Op. cit., 139.52 Op. cit., 138.53 Jane Dempsey Douglass, Calvin’s Relation to Social and Economic Change, in: Churchand Society, March / April 1984, p. 127.54 Valeri, op. cit. (note 50) 128.55 Kingdon, op. cit. (note 49) 228.56 Calvin, Sermo Deutr. 125, CO 28: 16 et seq.; Valeri, op. cit. (note 50) 139.57 Nicholas Wolterstorff, The Wounds of God: Calvin’s theology of social injustice, TheReformed Journal, Juni 1987: 14-22.58 Valeri, op. cit. (note 50) 138.59 Calvin, „Argument” zum Kommentar zum ersten Brief von Paulus an die Korinther(1546/ 1556), Edinburgh 1960, 6ff., 12ff., CO 49; cf. Valeri, 137.60 Troeltsch, op. cit. (note 6), 676. 717.61 Op. cit. 721.62 Stanford Reid, John Calvin. Early Critic of Capitalism (1), The Reformed TheologicalReview, 77-79, and Richard C. Gamble, op. cit. (note 10) 161-163 .63 Wolterstorff (note 57), 138 et seq., CO 51: 105.64 CO 50, 100f.; André. Biéler, The social Humanity of Calvin, Paul T. Fuhrmann, trans.(Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964) 33; the full quotation in the Foreword by W.A. Visser’tHooft, op. cit. 8.65 Randall C. Zachman, Crying to God on the brink of despair: The assurance of faithrevisted, in Calvinus Praeceptor, 351-358, here: 355 et seq.

251

Calvin between humanism anddiscipleship

Christian Link(translated by D. Dichele)

Christian Link argues that John Calvin stood between the Middle Ages and

the Renaissance, a figure who was inspired by both movements yet was able to

move beyond them both, particularly in his understanding of science and economics.

While he followed closely the new developments of his time like no other reformer,

Calvin held that they were to remain in radical subordination to the will of God and

not be accepted as entities with their own independent interests. Not the least of

Calvin’s achievements was his awareness of the responsibility of humanity for caring

for the miracle of God’s creation.

The question whether we can turn

directly to Calvin with our modern-day

problems and whether he can provide us

with the complete answers to issues

confronting us today—the establishment and

organization of a just form of government,

the enforcement of human rights and the

management of the earth’s ever diminishing

resources—may be debatable. Raising this

question and undertaking serious reflection

along the lines indicated by Calvin is a

worthwhile task. No other Reformation

theologian took on the challenges of the

“new era” with comparable critical

awareness. And as a Renaissance scholar,

Calvin knew what he was speaking about.

Of all places, it was in the very chapter of

his great work the Institutes of the Christian

Religion in which he set forth the doctrine

of the unfree will as the “iron ration” of the

new Protestant faith that Calvin spoke great

praise of the secular sciences:

“Therefore, in reading profaneauthors, the admirable light of truthdisplayed in them [shines upon us] ... Indespising the gifts, we insult the Giver.How, then, can we deny that truth musthave beamed on those ancient lawgiverswho arranged civil order and disciplinewith so much equity? Shall we say thatthe philosophers, in their exquisiteresearches and skilful description ofnature, were blind? … Shall we say thatthose who, by the cultivation of themedical art, expended their industry inour behalf were only raving? … Nay, wecannot read the writings of the ancientson these subjects without the highestadmiration … without tracing it [all this]to the hand of God.”(Inst II,2,15).

252

The Renaissance represented the

rebirth of classical rationalism, the discovery

of the human capacity to use technical

inventions as a means of channelling the

forces of the earth to transform the natural

environment into a developed urban culture.

This is connected with an emphatic interest

in political and social orders as well as the

spirit of modern worldliness. Calvin took

part in all of this, and did not enter into a

conflict with humanism—in contrast to

Luther. Instead, he allowed Luther to

confront him with the problem that the

Reformation, inasmuch as it sought to

maintain a sustainably perceptible voice in

the new era, would undoubtedly come to

face the question of how to shape the world.

This is what accounts for his modernity.

How could the newly established insight,

which Calvin advocated with particular

rigour, that God is “the Lord and no other”

(Is 45:5), that “all of this”—jurisprudence,

science, medicine—”comes from God,” how

could this coincide with the newly awakened

self-awareness of the era, with its will to

autonomy? Calvin devoted a large, and

certainly not the least significant part of his

theological œuvre to this ethical question,

the Reformation’s “question of destiny”

(Barth). If there is one single basic and

underlying theme to Calvin’s theology, an

axis—similar to justification in Wittenberg—

around which all his ideas and concepts

revolve, it was the broadly developed theme

of sanctification. Christian life—as one could

describe this new accentuation—does not

reach its goal simply through the adaptation

of a new concept of justice, but only through

a trial of this justice in the context of social

conflict. By decisively turning to face the

problems of the world, Karl Barth reasoned

that “Calvin and not Luther made the

Reformation capable of dealing with the

world and history … Calvin was the creator

of a new Christian sociology that was so

shaped as to be able to interact fruitfully

with the different social principles of the

new age inaugurated by the Renaissance,

and to play a decisive role in their birth and

development.”1

The best understanding of Calvin the

ethicist is given in the first lines of his

Geneva Catechism. There he provides an

unambiguous, direct answer to the question

of the “chief end” (præcipuus finis) of human

life, this being a knowledge of God: “Because

God created us and placed us in this world

to be glorified in us,” it is right to devote

one’s life to God’s glory.2 All there is to say

about the meaning and goal, the very

mission of human existence, can be derived

from the moment in which God placed us

in this world, God’s creation. God wishes to

portray God’s self in us as in a picture (Inst

I,15,3). Calvin’s anthropology and, therefore,

his ethics are unique in their focus on God’s

place for us, God’s creatures, which thus

results in an unmistakable conflict with the

epochal consciousness of the Renaissance:

In this ethical system, there is not even an

inkling of the “modern” idea of the

deliverance of creation into human hands.

253

Even the concept, so strongly emphasized

by Luther, of human cooperation (cooperatio)

is completely abandoned in this context;

human action becomes nearly exclusively

an “instrumental action” to serve

providence. The world remains the free gift

of God (CO 23,29), even in reference to the

dominium terræ (Gen 1:28), and does not,

under human rule, cease to be “God’s foot

and hand.” (ibid. 11) Each independent claim

of possession is limited by Paul’s constraint

of “having as if one had not” (Inst III,10,4).

This conflict is already written into the

plan of creation itself, and is, according to

Calvin’s defining explanation, the “theatre

of God’s glory” (CO 8,294), the scene of God’s

manifestation in the world, and not merely

as a stage, but as the space in which this

drama between God and humanity unfolds.

Without an awareness of one’s own role in

this “play,” one cannot comprehend what it

is actually about. With this development,

Calvin departs from the natural philosophy

and world view of the Renaissance. J.

Bohatec spoke even of a “reversal of the

creator–creation relationship”.3 Although he

adopts the Platonic Academy of Florence’s

conception of nature and its concept of

organisms (M. Ficino), as well as its

terminology (“symmetry,” “proportion”) and

applies the metaphor of the human being

as a microcosm,4 Calvin does not speak of

the metaphor of the world as a coin minted

by God, the value of which is determined by

the human spirit. This constitutes the

greatest thinkable opposition to his

“theocentric” viewpoint. The manifestation

of God’s “glory,” as inherent in the acts of

creation, points in another direction, moving

past the immanent establishment,

purposefulness and order of the cosmos,

onward towards the final goal , the

glorification of God by his creation. As Calvin

sees it, creation does not only have an

eschatological “edge” (G. von Rad), but also

an eschatological aim, and can only be

understood properly on the basis of this aim.

The nature of God’s creatures only becomes

visible in their state of expecting liberation

in the last days; Paul placed them at our

side as companions in our own hope (III,25,2).

The principle thus also holds in respect to

humankind that “the leading feature in the

renovation of the divine image must also

have held the highest place in its creation.”

(I ,15,4) . The renewal that we are

approaching unlocks for us the very

beginning. Only the vision of the final goal

opens our earthly existence to the purpose

for which it was created. This existence does

not reside in itself; it is limited from the

outside and can only achieve its individual

purpose from outside.

For this reason, the existential question,

“To what purpose (quorsum, à quel propos)

are humans created?” (CO 23,39), that is,

why, according to God’s will, do we dwell

upon this earth, accompanies all reflections

concerning the imago Dei. And, the answer

in the Job sermons and elsewhere is that

our lives are by no means to be lived only

“here below,” but that there is also “an

254

eternal life in heaven to which we are called

by God” (CO 33,509). Without heaven, the

earth can not be a home for us; without the

invisible kingdom, the visible world also falls

to pieces. This point of view, which, in my

opinion, forms the dominant strand of

Calvin’s ethics, took on a dimension of

withdrawal from the world in his famous

piece Meditatio futuræ vitæ. There, he

linked the early church theme of spiritual

wandering (peregrinatio) to the humanistic

legacy of Plato and Cicero5 and formulated

the radical demands of self-denial (Inst III,7)

and the bearing of the cross (tolerantia

crucis, ibid. III,8):

“Let believers, then, in forming anestimate of this mortal l ife , andperceiving that in itself it is nothing butmisery, make it their aim to exertthemselves with greater alacrity, and lesshindrance, in aspiring to the future andeternal life. When we contrast the two,the former may not only be securelyneglected, but, in comparison of thelatter, be disdained and contemned. Ifheaven is our country, what can theearth be but a place of exile? If departurefrom the world is entrance into life, whatis the world but a sepulchre, and what isresidence in it but immersion in death?”(Inst III,9,4; OS IV,174.2-9)

For a long time, statements of this kind

were misunderstood as pure Platonism,6 but

Ernst Troeltsch correctly characterized them

as the “deepest thoughts and meaning of

all Christian asceticism,” that “the life

beyond is … the very inspiration of the life

that now is”.7 Those who focus on the life

beyond, thereby approaching the final future,

see themselves as called upon and able to

realize the gifts given to them by God. This

is a second, complementary strand of

Calvin’s ethics. The hope for the future life

is not an escape from this world; one must

speak of this hope so that we can learn to

use the “present life and its aids” (Inst III,10).

Calvin remains the earth’s advocate. He

defends God’s creation against an “inhuman

philosophy,” that allows us to make use of

only in the most extreme need, as a “lawful

fruit of the divine beneficence” (ibid. III,10,3).

This is the place where we are called upon

to act responsibly:

“What advantage is it to fly in the air,and to leave the earth, where God hasgiven proof of his benevolence towardsthe human race? … I answer, since theeternal inheritance of man is in heaven,it is truly right that we should tend thither;yet must we fix our foot on earth longenough to enable us to consider theabode which God requires man to usefor a time.” (Gen 2,8; CO 23,37)

In this vein, Calvin can unhesitatingly

recognize the efforts of science, not only

because of its obvious usefulness, but also

because it leads us deeper into the mystery

of divine wisdom. This wisdom finds its full

theological expression in divine providence,

which is not merely restricted to the well-

conceived order of the works of creation,

but extends to ethics and social institutions

in particular. As God has reserved for himself

255

the right to rule the world, his will should

represent for us the only guideline for justice

(Inst I ,17,2). Modern critics who feel

compelled to speak here of a complete

“theological appropriation”8, fall far short of

the mark. The “eternal plan,” which is of

such great importance to Calvin, does not

limit human freedom and responsibility

(ibid. 17,4). It is, on the contrary, a signal of

God’s will to stand by creation

unconditionally—especially when it

threatens to distance itself from God the

most. Karl Barth expressed this concisely:

“With the eternal decree of God behind

them, the law of the will of God above them,

and future life ahead of them, Reformed

Christians stood with both feet on the

earth.”9

The conflict described here between

openness for the new developments of his

time and a withdrawal from the world with

deference to the life beyond, has played a

great role in forming the image of Calvin to

this day. This vacillates between the

extremes of dark opposition to life and

intolerance on the one hand, and

enlightened progressive thought and liberal

embracement of the world on the other.

Specifically, the thesis supported in the works

of Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch, casting

Calvin as the “father of modernity,” has had

a considerable impact on 20th-century

research. And yet, if these propositions are

at all accurate, this cannot mean that one

should resolve this paradox in any one

absolute way or another. In all likelihood, it

is more appropriate to say that Calvin sought

to apply Reformation insight as a crisis “to

the horizontal problem of the Middle Ages

and our own time,” that is , to the

increasingly virulent problem of forming the

world.10 Both sides could then be brought

together in a very modern-sounding division

of labour: How can the new cultural and

scientific changes, which he followed with

open interest, be met with biblical tenets

and in such a way as to maintain the order

of creation and to preserve that which is

humane? This is, in any event, the main

question posed by Calvin’s ethics. The surest

way to reach this goal, “of which we must

one day give account,” is an “aspiration to

celestial immortality.” With a view to the

vita futura—a hitherto rarely heeded

methodical “approach”—Calvin develops the

“rules” that are to guide us in our attitude

towards earthly goods (Inst III,10,4-5). The

keys to this are moderation (moderatio) and

boundaries (finis, terminus, meta). He

explains that God has assigned us different

modes of life, in which the meaning and

task of our earthly calling (vocatio) are

fulfilled in such a manner that folly and

rashness (temeritas) do not throw all things

in heaven and on earth into confusion, and

so that “no one may presume to overstep

his proper limits (finis)” (ibid. 10,6; OS

IV,181.1-4). In the precise language of the

doctrine of providence, Calvin stated: “For

he who has fixed the boundaries of our life,

has at the same time entrusted us with the

care of it [and] provided us with the means

256

of preserving it” (Inst I,17,4; OS III,207.9-11).

In Calvin’s exhortations, this basic

concept of his ethical argumentation is

reflected in the relentlessly repeated

admonition that we need to pull the reins

(Latin frenum; French bride) in order not to

go beyond the laws set for us through

creation (and natural law). But how do we

become aware of these “reins”? We can do

this by inquiring into our purpose along the

lines of the meditatio futuræ vitæ, namely

to “descend into ourselves, and consider how

it is that the Lord there manifests his

wisdom, power, and energy” (Inst I,5,10; OS

III,54,2f.25-28). This is indeed an unmodern

reminder, but one worth pondering in a time

in which nature (and especially our

technology and economy) no longer impose

any limits on us.

In a necessary second step, the picture

developed here reappears in an influential

account of the history of ideas that referred

to Calvin as the inaugurator or even the

“father of modernity.” In the question of the

roots of democracy11 or in the field of

economics (to which we will limit our scope),

André Biéler, one of the greatest scholars of

recent Genevan history, is of the opinion

that Calvin “was the first theologian of his

era to recognize, with great clarity, the

providential role that transportation,

economy, and thus all those involved in

trade play in society and for the continuation

of the human race” 12. At the same time, he

is one of the most adamant critics of the

well-known Weber thesis that modern

capitalism derives from the “spirit” of

Calvinist ethics13.

In his decisive argument, Biéler states

that the Calvinism of the English Puritans,

which was analysed by Weber, cannot be

seen to correspond with the doctrines of

the Genevan reformer. The recent work of

Max Geiger, Hans Esser, and Ronald

S.Wallace leaves little to be said on this

matter14. For the sake of historical justice,

however, one should add that Troeltsch put

it much more cautiously. In his view, Calvin

is neither the discoverer nor the inspiration

behind modern economic forms, but he

understood that they are reconcilable with

Christian thought, and practised them in

accordance with the prevailing conditions

in the Geneva of his time15. Troeltsch was

particularly observant in understanding that,

since Adam Smith, classical economic

theory has constructed the fundaments of

the economy from an angle virtually

opposite to that of Calvin. One current

researcher concurs that Calvin, an advocate

of social ethics, would never have approved

of the idea of a competitive society16.

Economy

What did Calvin in fact want in the

sphere of economics? Which doors did he

open in this respect? One can best

understand the strains of his argumentation

when one remembers that God’s providence

also enters into the economic realm—now

in the particular form of a blessing—since allgoods that we come in contact with are

257

deposita Dei, goods placed at our disposal in

a form of administrative trust. Psalm 127

states, in Calvin’s words, that the “order of

society, both political and domestic, is

maintained solely by the blessing of God,

and not by the policy, diligence, or wisdom

of men.” (CO 32,320) For this reason (as

explained above) Calvin replaces Luther’s

clearly defined view of human cooperation

with the view that God uses God’s creatures

as “legitimate instruments” of divine

providence (Inst I,17,9). This excludes “all

independence and autonomy of creaturely

cooperation”17, which by no means renders

human action superfluous.

Humans must orient themselves,

however—Calvin speaks of a recta

dispensatio—towards a standard based in

love, and what this entails, is, tellingly

enough, expressed most clearly in Calvin’s

chapter on self-denial: “How difficult is it to

perform the duty of seeking the advantage

(utilitas) of our neighbour! ... Let this, then,

be our method: … in regard to everything

which God has bestowed upon us, and by

which we can aid our neighbour, we are his

stewards (œconomi), and are bound to give

account of our stewardship ... In this way, we

never shall unite the study of our neighbour’s

advantage with a regard to our own, but

make the latter subordinate to the former.”

(III,7,5) Troeltsch even spoke of a “programme

of Christian socialism.”18

This characterization, though clearly

overstated, is nonetheless correct (and at

the same time demonstrates that Calvin

could never have defined a person as a homo

œconomicus) in that the principle of

egalitarianism (æqualitas), and the ensuing

demand for compensation, is replaced by

two other economic principles, founded in

natural law: justice (rectitudo) and equity

(æquitas):

Calvin answers the question as to “with

which goal and purpose we conduct trade if

we wish to lead a well-ordered life that meets

with God’s approval” with the statement:

“We must adhere to two things,

righteousness and equity (droiture et equité)

in regard to our neighbours … And in order

to serve God in proper piety, we must relate

all of this to him. The aim of this

righteousness is thus that no one goes off

on their own to seek his own profit, but that

we share as we are indeed connected with

one body, … and the equity, that we do not

unto others that which we do not wish

others to do unto us.” (CO 33,66)

While Calvin explicitly stresses the

natural law-based character of these

demands (equité naturelle; regula illa iuris

ipsius naturalis; CO 10/1,248.264), he

expects that they are engraved on our hearts

by God (cf. CO 31,148) and thus only

reproduce that upon which, according to Mt

22:40 “all the law and the prophets” depend.

Equity as a standard for action also forms

“the point of contact between applied natural

law and the commandment of love in the

form of the Golden Rule.” Each person must

enjoy their own rights, and individuals

should approach each other in a brotherly,

258

humane, and loyal manner. This does not

serve as a verdict on the ambitious Genevan

merchant class, which was a necessary and

useful element in the life of the state. In

this respect Calvin opened a door wide that

had hitherto been closed theologically. At

the same time, however, his rules on the

immanent desire for profit set clear limits,

thus demonstrating how far he distanced

himself from the currents of his time.

Interest (tribute)

These characterizations are further

borne out by Calvin’s view of the right to

collect interest, a subject of debate since

time immemorial. Calvin’s rejection of the

scholastic view of the sterility of money19,

which provided the basis for the medieval

prohibition of interest, constituted a modern

if not absolutely novel viewpoint. This

cannot simply be reduced to a reaction to a

situation that had changed in the course of

an expanding economy20 . The

differentiation between consumptive and

productive interest is a trail-blazing concept,

including in the realm of economic theory,

which takes the new developments into

account. It makes a difference whether

people pawn the very shirts off their backs,

or if they invest money in the construction

of a factory. While the basic principle

prevails that “in lending, one should not

make use of one’s neighbour’s distress,”

capital is nevertheless needed for the

business transactions that constitute the

existential basis for merchants and

entrepreneurs. (CO 28,120f.) This does not

constitute a blank cheque for unrestrained

speculation—on the contrary! Calvin drew a

clear line against the likely danger of usury,

in order to protect the social balance. In a

frequently cited letter to Claude de Sachin,

Calvin detailed his instructions for

legitimate interest in that “we do not only

take into account the personal use of matters

at hand, but that we also take into account

what is useful to the general public. It is

entirely clear that the interest a merchant

pays is a payment to all (une pension

publique). One must thus also make certain

that the contract does more good than harm

to the general welfare of society.” (CO 10/

1,249)

His opinions form the primary basis for

the legislative work of the Geneva Council,

which limited interest to a maximum of five

per cent. It is quite clear that a free

monetary economy, as is the case in

capitalism, is not compatible with these

principles. Karl Holl felt therefore compelled

to turn Weber’s well-established view around:

“There has not been a church that has

attempted to live out the word of the Lord

in the Sermon on the Mount as seriously as

the Calvinist church through the middle of

the 17th century, and thus none either that

has fought ‘capitalism’ as strongly21!” A.

Biéler summed up: “Calvin distinguished

himself (here as well) … from the Protestant

ethics of his contemporaries and successors.

Interest was for him neither an overriding

economic issue nor a relevant moral act,

259

but instead a problem that places individuals

before God in their personal actions and

with their full responsibility22”.

Creation

This responsibility—in a broader context—

also includes how we deal with the earth,

which is placed in our trust. We have received

the earth from God “for our use” (CO 28,222);

we are virtually created under the “condition”

that we “subjugate” it. (on Gen 1,26; CO 23,28)

While this mission is limited to the mandate

of agriculture and does not confer upon us

an independence that would compete with

God, Calvin, on the basis of this text, came

nevertheless to the far-reaching and quite

modern conclusion: if nature is subordinate

to humankind, its fate is, come what may,

dependent on people’s action and inaction.

“And we see how constantly the condition

of the world itself varies with respect to men”

(on Gen 3:17; CO 23,73). “The inclemency of

the air, frost, thunders, unseasonable rains,

drought, hail, and whatever is disorderly in

the world, are the fruits of sin” (on Gen 3:19;

CO 23,75). Sentences such as these were of

course not yet written with ecology in mind,

even if we cannot help but read them literally

today:

“We throw heaven and earth intoconfusion by our sins. For were we inright order as to our obedience to God,doubtless all the elements would beconformable, and we should thus observein the world an angelic harmony” (on Jer5:25; CO 37,635).

What Calvin seeks to say that divides

him most deeply from the worldview of the

Renaissance was that we—biblically

speaking, since the fall of Adam—we are no

longer able to fulfi l our commission

concerning creation, that we rebel against

God’s order, and God punishes us and

nature for it:

“What a dreadful curse we havedeserved, since all created things inthemselves blameless, both on earth andin the visible heaven, undergopunishment for our sins; for it has nothappened through their own fault, thatthey are liable to corruption. Thus thecondemnation of mankind is imprintedon the heavens, and on the earth, andon all creatures” (on Rom 8:21; CO 49,153).

The modern ecological drama is thus set

before us as divine pedagogy. In chastising

the faithful, God “does not consider what

they deserve; but what will be useful to them

in the future.” God’s punishments serve as

medicine for future time” (CO 23,76). They

impress upon us the current responsibility

we have for the balance of nature and for a

society prone to hunger and illness. The

key anthropological concepts of integritas

and rectitudo remind us of the proper God-

given order and point once again to the

cosmic horizon within which humankind

finds its home.

There is a “spiritual solidarity” (Biéler)

that connects people with the universe: if

the earth is pulled down together with

260

human defection and rebellion, it regains

its dignity as the site of God’s glory once we

return to God’s ways, which were lost with

Adam. For “which of us would venture to

claim for himself a single grain of wheat, if

he were not taught by the word of God that

he is the heir of the world?” (1 Tim 4:5; CO

52,297). This is where a new manner of

thinking must begin, starting with the

understanding that “the liberal arts and all

the sciences by which wisdom is acquired,

are gifts of God. They are confined, however,

within their own limits; for” (in an argument

characteristic of Calvin) “into God’s heavenly

kingdom they cannot penetrate.” It is the

“wisdom of the world … which assumes to

itself authority, and does not allow itself to

be regulated by the word of God.” (1 Cor

3:18f; CO 49,359f.). Calvin explicitly refers to

the biblical provisions for the sabbatical year

to protect the earth from extreme and violent

“exploitation.” (Ex 23:10; CO 24,585f. and Dt

5:12; CO 24,580). He adds in a sermon on Dt

20:19f.: “If we practise this, i.e. not damaging

(trees), then we do this in the awareness

that the Lord made the earth into our

nourishing mother; and when she opens

herself up to feed us, it as if God extends his

hand to us, revealing the signs of his

goodness.” (CO 27,63923). This does not,

however, exclude that we, by nature, have

an adequate portion of insight and reason,

enabling us “within the boundaries of this

life” to take charge of the exigencies of the

political and social order (Inst II,2,13), as this

is most certainly a matter of maintaining

humanity and its humaneness.

Humanity

As much as Calvin approaches the

Christian humanism of the Reformation era

in the aspects of the Institutes (II,2,12-16)

discussed above, he is still worlds away from

the harmonic development of human

existence, individualistic self-reliance and

the esthetic glorification of the self, ideals

which go back to classical thought. Instead,

he views the meaning of humanity, without

which there is “no acceptable justice before

God” (CO 28,182), in the context of our

situation as strangers and sojourners upon

earth. This, of course, also includes the

external conditions that people are able to

live in a reliable society that makes rightful

commerce possible, and that Christian

worship be well ordered (Inst VI, [1536]; OS

I 259f.), but this in no way reaches the core

of the matter. The heart of our human

existence is , as expressed in the

programmatic introduction to the Institutes,

nothing else than “subsistence in God alone”

(Inst I,1,1), with no autonomy, and without

the ability to speak and defend interests

independently and outside the reality of God.

A greater contrast with the established

opinions of our days is unthinkable. That

our humanity “subsists” in God, and that

God is reflected in humans, indeed means

that humanity cannot be measured

according to an idea or principle that we

ourselves postulate or derive from the

standard of a particular culture or civilization.

The measure of this rather a priori form of

humanity is the righteousness and loyaltyof God. Whereas we cannot do otherwise

261

than form humans according to our own

ideas, moulding them in the image of our

society and marking them with the stamp

of our civilization and our standards, God

sets aside for people as free human beings

a place; they justify and defend their rights

against the force and intolerance of societal

roles and expectations that continually

threaten these rights. They thus exist in

“God’s image,” an image that is neither a

natural predisposition nor a substance that

we could find in the recesses and depths of

our own beings. This is a bonum

adventitium (Gen 2:7; CO 23,35), something

that we can only receive from without, i.e. a

relationship that must be realized and lived

out. “We are the custodians of his precious

image,” Calvin said in a sermon on 1 Tim

3:14 (CO 53,311), not its lords and owners.

The topic of humanity which pervades

the modern discussion of human rights can

be traced back to a second strain of natural

law. Calvin was indeed cognizant of natural

basic human rights—freedom of the

individual conscience, the entitlement to

mutual love and mercy, the equality of all

before the law, and (to some extent) the

right of participation in church and political

decision processes. God’s law, in particular

the second table of the Decalogue, which

seeks to protect our humanity from attack,

is, in a way, “written and stamped on every

heart” (Inst II,8,1; IV,20,16). Via this bridge,

the interpretation of the creation in God’s

image can take on classical, and specifically,Stoic thought, and later Calvinists were notin fact on the wrong path when they

interpreted Calvin according to natural law24.

Among Reformed Christians, this was

achieved with particular success, as

exemplified by Hugo Grotius. If nature and

reason are God’s creations, then, according

to Grotius’ argumentation, the Christian

faith is not only revealed truth, but is also

binding as rational and natural truth25. This

provided the basis for the concept of equal

dignity for all people to enter into European

legal thought.

Calvin did not (yet) explicitly venture

down this path. Instead, he connected

doctrinal statements with instructions for

action in such a consistent, theologically

convincing way that faith and conduct of

life cannot, in the end, be separated. The

central term of his theology is sanctification,

which calls for the realization of what we

believe, i.e. the practical functioning of

Christian existence and true service to God.

He thus asks: How do we carry out before

God the mandate to rule over the earth

responsibly, in the future and for the future

as God determined for creation? (on Gen1,26;

CO 23,27) In doing so, we must constantly

ask ourselves whether we are fulfilling our

role as beings created in God’s image, the

reflection of God’s glory. This is a matter of

providing an adequate echo to his virtues

and “his works, by which he draws near,

becomes familiar, and in a manner

communicates himself to us.” (Inst I,5,9)

Calvin impressively described what this

means for human interaction in a largetreatise on the vita Christiana.

Scripture teaches that “we are not to look

262

to what men in themselves deserve, but to

attend to the image of God, which exists in

all, and to which we owe all honour and

love. … Therefore, whoever be the man that

is presented to you as needing your

assistance, you have no ground for declining

to give it to him. Say he is a stranger. The

Lord has given him a mark which ought to

be familiar to you: for which reason he

forbids you to despise your own flesh. Say

he is mean and of no consideration. The

Lord points him out as one whom he has

distinguished by the lustre of his own image

Say that you are bound to him by no ties of

duty. The Lord has substituted him as it

were into his own place, that in him you

may recognize the many great obligations

under which the Lord has laid you to himself.

In this way only we attain to what is not to

say difficult but altogether against nature,

to love those that hate us, … remembering

to look to the image of God in them, an

image which … should by its beauty and

dignity allure us to love and embrace them.”

(Inst III,7,6).

The study undertaken by the WorldAlliance of Reformed Churches on the

“Theological Basis of Human Rights” (1976)

further extended this journey, in its essence,

in identifying the realization of the image of

God in relations between men and women,

individuals and society, and human beings

and their ecological context. The study saw

in this the seed of equal dignity for men andwomen and for the right to life of future

generations.

What does all this mean for the image

of Calvin in the context of two different eras?

The Reformation in Wittenberg marked the

religious end of the Middle Ages, while the

Renaissance marked that end in non-

religious, humanistic ways26. The

Reformation in Geneva stood between

these two great movements, inspired by

both, but in the end leaving both behind.

The Geneva Reformation was, despite its

reverence for the Church Fathers, at no

instant regressive in an historical sense. It

was, however, most certainly not modern in

a sense that would credit it with the penning

of the economical and political theories of

modern times. In the words of Eberhard

Busch, Calvin opened doors, “through which

he himself … did not yet go entirely through,

but which stood open for him to be passed

through one time.”27 He attentively followed

and recognized the new developments of

his time, particularly in the areas of

economy and science, but radically

subordinated them to God’s will, and worked

against any independence of their interests

and goals. He determinedly strove towards

the goal of the coming of God’s promised

world. In the light of providence, looking back

at the first beginnings from the end, Calvin

beheld the miracle of creation, sharpening

his awareness for the responsibility that we

bear for its temporary earthly form. This was

not his smallest achievement in an era that

was coming close to losing its sense of limit

to what can be achieved.

263

Notes

1 Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, transl. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1995) 90.2 Catechismus Ecclesiæ Geneviensis (1545), CO 6,10; Opera Selecta II, 75.3 J . Bohatec, Budé und Calvin, Studien zur Gedankenwelt des französischenFrühhumanismus (Graz: Hermann Bohlaus, 1950) 266.4 Sermons on the Book of Job, CO 33, 481.5 Plato, Phaedo 64A. 80E; Cicero, Tusculan Disputations I,34,75; 49,118.6 Martin Schulze, Meditatio futuræ vitæ. Ihr Begriff und ihre herrschende Stellung imSystem Calvins (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1901).7 Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, transl. Olive Wyon(London: Allen & Unwin, 1931); original: Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen undGruppen (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1923) 797.8 Ernst Saxer, Vorsehung und Verheissung Gottes (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980) 41.9 K. Barth, The Theology . . . 88.10 Ibid. 204.11 Cf. H. Vahle, Calvinismus und Demokratie im Spiegel der Forschung, Archiv fürReformationsgeschichte (ARG) 66 (1975):182-212.12 André Biéler, La Pensée Economique et Sociale de Calvin (Geneva: Georg, 1961) 452.13 Ibid. 477-492. 512ff.14 Max Geiger, Calvin, Calvinismus, Kapitalismus, in: ibid., ed. Gottesreich und Menschenreich.FS E. Stähelin (Basel-Stuttgart: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1969), 231-286; Hans H. Esser,Calvins Sozialethik und der Kapitalismus, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 48 (1992):783-800; Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin, Geneva and the Reformation (Edinburgh: Scottish AcademicPress, 1988).15 E. Troeltsch, The Social Teaching 706, 718.16 Albrecht Thiel, In der Schule Gottes. Die Ethik Calvins im Spiegel seiner Predigten überdas Deuteronomium (Neukirchen: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1999) 265f.17 Magdalene L. Frettlöh, Theologie des Segens. Biblische und dogmatischeWahrnehmungen (Gütersloh: Gutersloher Verl., 2005) 162.18 E. Troeltsch, The Social Teaching 723.19 Cf. the famous dictum ascribed to Aristotle: “nummus nummum non parit” [money doesnot beget money].20 Cf. Sermons on Deuteronomy, esp. on Dt. 23, 18-20.21 Karl Holl, Die Kulturbedeutung der Reformation (1911), in Ibid., Gesammelte Aufsätzezur Kirchengeschichte I, (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1948) 468-543, here 506.22 A. Biéler, La Pensée. 476.23 On this topic in general cf. A. Biéler, La Pensée 431-442.24 Dietrich Ritschl, Der Beitrag des Calvinismus für die Entwicklung desMenschenrechtsgedankens in Europa und Nordamerika, in: ibid. : Konzepte : Ökumene,Medizin, Ethik : gesammelte Aufsätze (München: Kaiser, 1986) 301-315) here 310.25 Heinz E. Tödt, Theologie und Völkerrecht, in: Georg Picht/ Constanze Eisenbart, Friedenund Völkerrecht (Stuttgart: E. Klett, 1973) 13-169, here 66.26 Cf. Jürgen Moltmann, Das Kommen Gottes. Christliche Eschatologie (Gütersloh:Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995) 210.27 Eberhard Busch, Gotteserkenntnis und Menschlichkeit. Einsichten in die TheologieJohannes Calvins (Zürich: Theol. Verl., 2005) 142.

264

Response to Christian Link

Serene Jones

I encounter the legacy of Calvin on a daily

basis, in three very different institutional

and intellectual environments in North

America, a place where these three Calvins

exist side by side.

First, living in the United States, my day-

to-day life is profoundly affected by the

policies of an administration that boldly

justifies its policies with reference to the

Calvinist tradition. While it is true that the

Bush administration and the conservative

evangelicals that support his policies do not

often have Calvin conferences (they don’t

really do much theology or history, in fact),

they nonetheless stand—in very large

numbers—in a pietistic tradition of Calvinism

that has tethered its future to what I consider

to be a virulent version of empire. The

strongest political, military force at work in

the world today is Calvinist, in name, if not

also in substance. In this respect, I live in

the belly of the Calvinist beast.

Second, I teach in a secular university

which began as a Calvinist seminary and

can arguably claim (as it does in its historical

literature) that it has followed its founding

Reformed principles to their logical end bybecoming, in its present form, a devoutly

humanist intellectual community, one that

is devoted to highest learning, is radically

secular, is Calvinist to the core and, in its

secularity, can be at times quite hostile

towards or indifferent to religion—in many

ways, a counter-portrait to the first version

of empire.

Third, living inside that belly and

immersed in secularity, I find Calvin also

continues to be for many others as he does

for me the source of creative and faithful

resistance. I am an ordained minister in

the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

and the United Church of Christ

communities, two of the most prophetically

progressive churches in North America

today. In these communities, I read Calvin

in a manner that is Marxist-socialist,

feminist, post-colonial, queer, anti-racist, etc.

In fact, my own academic interest in Calvin

is fueled by the hope that we might find in

him a version of Gramsci ’s organic

intellectual, albeit in ecclesial garb. Cynthia

Rigby and I participated in the writing of

Feminist and Womanist Essays in Reformed

Dogmatics1, a volume in which Calvin is a

central figure. It is not insignificant that

one of the most important works in feminist

265

theology published in the last several years

in North America was written by a collective

of Calvinists.

These three environments might be

entitled: Calvin as the Beast of Empire,

Calvin as the Grandfather of Postmodernist

Secular Humanism, Calvin as the Trumpeter

of Flourishing Liberationism. In this

threefold weave of influence, we begin to

catch a glimpse of why celebrating the legacy

of this figure is crucial to our global future.

Within this complex legacy stands the logic

of empire, the logic of resistance, the logic

of faith, and the logic of the secular—a

combination as deeply global as it is full of

both threat and promise.

Reflecting on the above and the context

of Professor Link’s paper, my first comment

concerns our collective approach and the

task of this gathering. Why and how do we

celebrate the legacy of John Calvin in the

church today? It is a strong presupposition

that expanding and re-discovering Calvin

should be grounded in historical

investigation. There appears to be an obvious

intellectual “good” that comes from this and

it is a position I embrace whole-heartedly.

It is pragmatically useful, I believe, for

churches that claim the Calvinist heritage

to know something of the traditions and

histories that form them. But still, there is

an additional question we may need to ask:

Why does it matter “theologically” to the

churches that Calvin is retrieved and

celebrated? It may make us a more

historically aware church but does it make

us a better, more faithful church? In other

words, what might be the theological—not

just the historiographical or pragmatic—

rationale for this celebration?

Added to this is another question: Might

there be something particularly Reformed

about the way we approach the task of

reclaiming Calvin’s legacy? Might Calvin

teach us something about how to read his

work? What if we look at his use of the

Fathers, for instance, for hermeneutical

guidance? Here, we find a Calvin who might

approach “himself” irreverently, creatively,

high-mindedly, and low-browedly, a Calvin

guided in his reading of historical figures by

the constant sense that no matter how

esteemed their legacy may be, their truth is

measured by the yardstick of the gospel and

not vice versa.

My second comment turns directly to

Professor Link’s paper where he asks if

Calvin is the father of modernism. I

appreciate and agree with his assessment

of the shortcomings of the Weberian thesis

and the more intuitive wisdom of Troelstle’s

analysis of Calvin’s place in the history of

Western culture. But I am curious as to why

this question matters. Suppose he is the

father of modernity, what does that then

suggest to us? Does that mean his legacy is

responsible for the ravages of the

environment and the exploitive excesses of

capitalism? Or does it mean, conversely,

that we have him to thank for the West’s

deep appreciation for human rights, the

affirmation of the dignity of human persons

266

and the values of liberal democracy? It seems

to me that “modernism” is marked by both

horrors and blessings. Given this, I am not

clear about the upshot of the query about

Calvin’s relation to it, particularly with respect

to why that matters to us, theologically, in

present day churches.

Further, if Calvin is not the father of

modernism, then what? Does that mean

he has nothing to add to contemporary

political conversations about the future of

the modern state or of market capitalism?

Or does it mean, conversely, that his

theology will be somehow able to avoid the

harms of enlightenment imperialism

because of its pre-enlightenment

orientation? Does his non-modernism

make him uniquely modern or postmodern

and as such, somehow more pertinent to

our present global political life?

Therefore, I call into question the

usefulness of the periodization that

Professor Link’s paper presupposes. I was

drawn to Calvin, initially, because I saw

similarities between his pre-modern and my

postmodern sensibilities. I found that the

relation between “the modern” and the

theological “true and virtuous” seemed at

best ambiguous and at worst, too over-

determined to discern.

My third comment is related. Professor

Link refers to “humanism” throughout the

paper, but I found myself wondering which

humanism and again, whose experience of

Calvin? I gather that the principle humanism

for Link is, historically speaking, that of the

Erasmian variety, a humanism that in the

present translates into the humanism of

the modern secular German university.

There is another trajectory, however, worth

exploring here. It is, in historical terms, the

humanism that Calvin encountered in his

early legal studies, his time in southern

France, his involvement in Italian

humanism, and his roots in the rhetorical

tradition. In its contemporary form, this

would not have developed into the German

humanism Link speaks of, but, in the Italian

context, a modernism like that of the

philosopher of religion Agamben (our Italian

colleagues know this material much better

than I) who argues that the logical end of

the Reformed tradition is, in fact, its own

undoing, a radical humanism freed from the

constraints of transcendence, an earthy,

presentist , world-affirming, God-free

humanism. In this tradition, Calvin’s God

himself stands as the last icon that a truly

faithful church is called to topple.

My fourth comment turns to the

substance of Professor Link’s argument

about Calvin’s theological call for humanity

to “shape the world” and his view of

sanctification. I fully agree with him on this

point. It is clearly a central axis of his

thought. Link develops this idea by pointing

to the “world shaping” dimensions of

sanctification. My own interests

supplement this by focusing on its “person-

shaping” dimension. The question here is

not how do we shape the world in grand

267

political terms (and hence, corporate social

ethics) but rather how does faith craft

particular kinds of selves who shape the

world? It strikes me that Calvin’s theology

was very good at doing this, of crafting a

theological identity into which an emergent

generation of the faithful could step. He

scripted a template for Christian

personhood. In between the lines of his

texts, he authored space for a new agent to

evolve into, an agent who then became the

ethical actor that Professor Link describes.

He articulated and formed habits of heart

and imagination, dispositions of spirit,

which in turn changed the face of Europe.

When we adopt this perspective on

sanctification, we are allowed to think about

Calvin’s political and ethical influence in

ways that reach beyond his direct

statements about social issues such as

church–state relations, the environment, or

capitalism’s accrual of interest. This view

does not turn us towards the individual and

hence away from the collective but rather,

it directs our attention towards the political

as it lives in the living tissue of doctrines

and the faithful selves they author.

According to this understanding of

sanctification, politics is everywhere and that

faith is present and grace moves through

flesh. It seems to me that identifying some

of these deeply personal, poetic, imaginative

dimensions of Calvin’s person craft might

be a very exciting way to proceed with ourwork here.

My fifth comment builds on this “person-

shaping” approach to sanctification. Given

the present state of global life, what

dimensions of this self-craft are important

to highlight? Professor Link focuses on one

very important element of that identity—

perhaps the most important moment—the

futuring play of mind. We are not our own

but belong to God. We receive our identity

from beyond. We are extrinsically rendered.

Let me build on this by focusing on a

different dimension of global capitalism

than that which is lifted up by Professor

Link. In the consumer culture of the United

States, it is evermore clear that the way in

which the market insures the steady

production of willing, vigorous consumers is

through its colonization of the self’s desires.

Through its aggressive advertising strategies,

the market trains us to want certain things.

It determines what we consider beautiful,

how it is that we want the beautiful, and

how we go about “getting it” and possessing

or acquiring the objects of our desire.

I f ind it interesting that Calvin

understood this dynamic in its earliest forms

and in doing so, gives us tools for articulating

the theological basis for a different economy

of desire—a different anatomy of the heart

and its passions. At the core of this is his

insistence that first and foremost, the God

we worship is beautiful—glorious, in fact. And

we are called to adore this God. This adoring

is enacted in the form of a desire for God

that is non-acquisitive, non-competitive, and

non-consumptive—as is God’s desire for us.

It is also not passive wanting but engaged

268

yearning, and in this regard, it is as erotic as

it is just. Its pleasure is in the desiring itself,

not its consummation. Further, Calvin knew

what it meant to write theology in a

language beautiful enough to actually

construct this mode of desiring, albeit with

the enlivening assistance of the Spirit and

the guiding truth of scripture.

This raises, I believe, challenges for the

Reformed church as it moves into the world

of this global market in the 21st century.

How might we write poetic theology and in

doing so participate in making more

revolutionarily erotic, desiring selves capable

of contesting the logic of the market head

on? In other words, what (and how) does

Calvin call the church to desire? How does

God’s beauty more powerfully enter not just

our doctrines but our language and practices

as it moves to create space for human

flourishing that resists the dehumanizing

logic of market capitalism?

My next comment adds to this

perspective on sanctifying selves: Calvin’s

God is not only glorious; this God is a

relational God who gives us a social form

to live into—God as law-giver. And that

law is…beautiful. Globally we are seeing

the convergence of movements

committed to forms of l i fe that are

sustainable and just—an emerging world

cul ture whose log ic chal lenges the

damaging forms of life that nations and

markets invest in. In this conversation,

which is certain to grow in the years ahead,

how might Calvin’s brilliant understanding

of the law—as beautiful, as both natural and

constructed, as both confining and free, as a

space as much as a set of rules — as a positive

aid to human flourishing — how might this

vision of law be lifted up and celebrated?

For his birthday, these inquiries and ideas

might be compelling themes to focus on. Or

possibly all of them could be distilled into

one overarching theme: the beauty of law.

How might we reinvigorate a theological

assessment of it? Law as a positive space, a

place of bounded openness, a reality

revealed to us in the Torah because, under

the conditions of sin, we can no longer see

it in the glory of God as it shines in nature.

But once seen in the law of Israel, the law

appears to us in the natural order and is,

according to the logic of nature, engraved

upon our very hearts as well. What rich

imagery for us to ponder!

If we were to follow this path, it might

provide an opening to conversations with

Islam where law stands as a pillar of the

faithful life. It might also give us new

purchase on questions related to church–

state issues, particularly in light of the

destabilization of the nation state, and the

reconfiguring of boundaries around the

emergent political economic units carved

out by the neo-liberal economic programmes

of the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA), etc. How might Calvin’s

view of the Law’s territorial constraints shed

light on these discussions? Similarly, how

might this complex view of Law help us

reflect on the emergence of global mega-

cities, such Sao Paolo, Mexico City, and

269

Beijing, where the boundaries around

religious identity are shifting in profound

and enduring ways. How might it also help

us respond to the issue of immigration and

refugees both of which concern,

theologically , the subject matter of

“boundaries?”

One final comment, when we look atthis person-shaping dimension of

sanctif ication, how does it shift our

assessment of Calvin’s legacy with respect

to those dimension of the self that cannot

be reduced to confessed belief or cognitive

commitment but involves dimensions of

who we are that are “unknown” and

“unsaid.” Is there a Calvinist unconscious?

Is there a Calvinist set of patterned,

embodied practices that push us to see

community in a new way? Are there identity

traits that the worldwide Reformed

community shares? In the end, who does

Calvin call us to become?

Note

1 Serene Jones and Amy Platinga Pauw, eds. Feminist and Womanist Essays in ReformedDogmatics (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006).

270

Calvin’s view of the Bible as the word

Herman J. Selderhuis

It is to John Calvin’s commentaries on the Psalms that Herman J. Selderhuis

turns in order to discover how the great reformer views the Bible. Calvin was a man

of the book who maintained that through the word of God found in the Bible, God

is truly present in the world, he writes. However the scholar adds that Calvin does

not so bind God to the Bible that an identification of God with the Bible could be

mistakenly made. Calvin’s commentaries on the Psalms also reveal a great deal

about the man himself, including his pain, doubt and loneliness.

1. Introduction

John Calvin was the man of one book. I

know it may appear absurd to start with

this thesis, since all of the newer research

refutes it. Calvin is not the man of one book,

so why should I say the opposite? Because

by that one book I do not mean his

Institutes, but the Bible. It is one of the

fruits of this newer research that much more

is known about Calvin’s hermeneutics and

his theology since the study of his

commentaries has completed the picture

of his doctrine, and a lot more is expected,

as there are numerous works of Calvin on

the Bible that have still to be examined1.

Yet, we know that Calvin is a constant and

a consistent theologian, so we will not learn

really new things that we do not already

know from his Institutes. In addition, there

is a continuity throughout his commentaries,

even if the latter are like Dutch windmills:

each has something special although they

all look alike. Because of this, I will focus on

Calvin’s commentary on the Book of Psalms,

in which he says so much about himself,

but also so much about his view of scripture

and it’s relevance for all times2.

2. Calvin and the Psalms

To better understand this commentary

as well as Calvin’s dealing with the Bible in

general, it is important to notice the time at

which it was written. In a letter to Bullinger

dated 27 March 1557, Beza remarks that

Calvin is often forced to endure injustice

and that he finds consolation in his work

commenting on the Psalms3. Having

endured many things, Calvin finds events

in the Psalms comparable to his own

experience. As a result , Calvin’s

271

interpretation sometimes reflects his own

experience more than the historical facts4.

The notion of identification is strengthened

by the fact that Calvin also experienced the

world in which he lived as completely

chaotic. It is a world in which everything

turns around and nothing is sure5, in short,

a world where confusion rules6. This chaos

particularly affects Christians, who live like

sheep among wolves7 and wander about on

this earth8. Not a day passes that we do not

experience pain and trouble, says Calvin9. It

is small wonder, therefore, that his own

experience has so moulded his exposition,

as he himself admits:

“Moreover, if my readers derive anyfruit and advantage from the labourwhich I have bestowed in writing thiscommentary, I would have them tounderstand that the small measure ofexperience which I have had in theconflicts with which the Lord hasexercised me has in no ordinary degreeassisted me, not only in applying topresent use whatever instruction couldbe gathered from these divinecompositions, but also in comprehendingmore easily the design of the writer ineach of the Psalms.”10

Humanistic exposition of texts implies a

subjective involvement of the expositor. The

expositor is more than someone who simply

passes on the meaning of the text .

Therefore, he is not the trait d’union

between the text and the reader of its

exposition, but by involving himself in the

context of the text, he attempts to pass on

the meaning as efficiently as possible11. It

is a matter of communication, not only

between expositor and text, but also

between the expositor and the reader of

the exposition. This humanistic textual

exposition has the consequence that it also

reveals much about the expositor. Hence,

the profit the reader draws from Calvin’s

commentary is mainly due to Calvin’s own

experience. Because Calvin knows that his

audience in Geneva—for a large part

refugees—and the readers in France face the

same sorts of troubles, he continually speaks

in terms of “we” and “us”. Through this

rhetorical style he establishes a relation

with his readers12. When the text describes

various kinds of troubles, Calvin will use his

own experience as a starting point.

Therefore, when he speaks about “us” and

“we”,13 it should be understood as “me” and

“I”, that means “me” and “I” from the

sentence “I do not like to speak about

myself”14. He who reads “I” in many of the

places where “we” is written, expands his

knowledge about Calvin the man15. Calvin’s

comment on the Bible being spectacles that

people need in order to notice God’s hand

in creation is well known16. Similarly it

should be kept in mind that Calvin, while

commenting on the Psalms, is himself

wearing the spectacles of his own

experience. In Calvin’s case it is sunglasses:

even bright things acquire a dark shade.

Calvin attributes a large number of

Psalms to David, even though not all of

these Psalms have the inscription “by David”.He favours this interpretation of authorship

272

and setting because the situation described

in the Psalms often fit David best. He even

applies this to a Psalm where, for instance,

Asaph is cited as the author17. Yet, Calvin

can also question Davidic authorship using

the same argument18.

Calvin reads the Psalms from his

conviction that in Geneva he encounters

the same kind of trouble caused by the same

sort of people as those against whom David

had fought19. He recognizes himself in the

pains that David experienced and, thus, it is

no wonder—and essential for understanding

Calvin—that he writes:

“My readers, too, if I mistake not, willobserve that in unfolding the internalaffections of both David and others Idiscourse upon them as matters withwhich I have familiar experience.”20

With more detail than is permitted by

the biblical text, Calvin considers the scorn

that David had to suffer from those who

simply wanted to vilify his good name. David

vehemently resisted these people—not

because of his name, but because of the

well-being of the church21. The reader of

the commentary will thus understand why

Calvin took up a position in Geneva similar

to that of David and why Calvin had to

condone this position. This identification

also leads Calvin to an interpretation of

David’s circumstances from his own

situation. The enmity that David

experienced according to Psalm 2 is alsoevident, says Calvin, in the novelties (res

novae) his opponents bring, although there

is no mention of this in the text. The same

applies to the remark that David’s appetite

for power was the cause of conflict with Saul.

This accusation is absent from the text, but

is a charge that was issued against Calvin22.

What Calvin passes on to the readers of

his commentary is so coloured by his own

experience that a certain one-sidedness is

apparent. As has been said, Calvin

summarizes mainly negative feelings like

pain, doubt and loneliness. His personal

experience, including his poor health,

evidently contributed to this exposition. As

for this commentary’s exposition of the

religious life and its expression in the

Calvinistic tradition, it owes part of its

character more to Calvin’s experience than

to God’s revelation.

3. The word

For Calvin, the word is equivalent to

God’s promises23 and, therefore, the

emphasis is more on the preached word

than on the written word in the Bible. God

comes to us in the word, and only then may

we expect anything from God24. Since it is

in the word that God comes to us with the

promise of well-being and salvation, we also

have the hope of God’s salvation in no other

way than by looking to the word25. God has

revealed God’s goodness in the word, and so

we must also seek certainty of this goodness

towards us in the word26. Likewise, he who

trusts in the word of God never has to doubt

God’s help27. In contrast, the one who

273

derives no encouragement from the word

will in fact be dead28. In the word one can

find comfort from all sorrows29, and the word

is the best weapon by which we can stand

firm against our enemies. It is “the doctrine

of piety which is a treasury of eternal

salvation.”30

The word is actually a little piece of

heaven on earth. Calvin says that “although

it lives on earth, making its way to our ears

and living in our hearts, it still retains its

celestial nature, since it comes down to us

in such a way that it is not subject to earthly

changes.”31 The word is therefore the only

constant factor in this world, as it is not tied

to any boundary or limit.32 The word actually

frees us, Calvin says, from the confinement

of this world.33 In light of this world’s

turbulence, the word is the only fixed point.

Calvin goes so far as to suggest that the

word’s immutability is the most important

foundation to our faith. Without this we could

not be offered a certain hope of eternal

salvation as God gives us in God’s word34.

Without reference to the Bible, statements

about faith are insipid in content and

impotent in their ability to elicit the praise

of God. This is why, Calvin summarizes, true

piety is found exclusively in the foundation

of God’s revealed word35.

The word is more effective and better

suited for our instruction than any revelation

to our sight could be36. We need the word,

Calvin says, in order that we might recognize

the countless signs of God’s favour. The word,

for example, makes it clear that those things

which are going well in our lives are blessings

from God37. Calvin opposes the charge that

the word of scripture is too obscure as it is

claimed by Rome38. Thereby he turns the

taunt of Rome—that amongst the Reformed

every uneducated layperson reads the

Bible—into a sign of God’s blessing39. Calvin

interpreted the Reformation as the result

of the power of God’s word. The fact that in

such a short time so many people could be

brought under the dominion of Christ was

“solely due to the voice of the gospel, and

that in spite of the opposition of the whole

world.”40 Yet the word does not work

mechanically. Here again though Calvin

guards against necessarily connecting God

with something external. God can bring it

about that, although God’s word is present,

one does not know what to do with it. In

such times, all scripture seems to be turned

upside down and no matter how much one

may long for that word, it is of no avail41.

Although Calvin attributes the

authorship of the Bible to the Holy Spirit

inasmuch as it is the Holy Spirit who moved

David’s tongue,42 there are several finer

points which need to be observed about

Calvin’s doctrine of scripture. First, this does

not mean that Calvin ignores the human

authors—he has no problem for example in

saying that David wrote things down at times

with a special intention43. Secondly, Calvin

states that the author of Hebrews quotes

Psalm 8 (in chapter 2) because the concepts

of “lowering” and “adorning” occur there.

Apparently he is more concerned with the

274

terms themselves than with their meaning.

Furthermore, when Calvin turns to Psalm

88:6 and the line which says that God no

longer thinks of those who are in the grave,

he indicates that the human author here

has let himself go, being so overwhelmed by

his cares that he did not express himself as

thoughtfully as he ought to have done44.

Calvin even states that the light of faith has

been momentarily dimmed, although it

afterwards reappears. Later in his

interpretation of the same psalm Calvin says

once again that the author is going too far45.

These remarks confirm that Calvin had a

very organic view of the inspiration of the

scriptures46.

Calvin is convinced that David knows

about the future calling of the gentiles,47

which is why he can say that all gentiles

will kneel before God. Because David

understands that to Jewish ears it would

sound like “an offensive novelty” that

gentiles would worship together with the

children of Abraham, David chooses to tone

the message down by observing that the

gentiles have also been created by God. On

the basis of this reminder it is more natural

to believe that the gentiles will in the end

also worship God together with the Jews.

Calvin again shows here his conviction that

the Bible writers arrange in their own way

that which the Spirit has inspired—David’s

poetry being just one case of this practice.

Calvin makes a striking comparison in

order to indicate that our thoughts must

always be tested against the touchstone of

God’s authoritative word. He likens those

who do not do this to those “who derive

their knowledge only from commentaries

and do not have the book itself in front of

them.”48 Looking at the papacy, one can

see what happens if tradition is made to

rule over the word, and so Calvin accordingly

rejects the idea that whatever is old must

also be good49. In fact, he calls it foolish to

act as if that which the ancestors said and

did amounts to a kind of law that we must

imitate. If this were so, sins would continue

to be passed on, so that, in many instances

he thinks it would be much better that their

example not be followed at all50.

4. Word and spirit

For Calvin there is a close connection

between the operation of the word of God

and the Spirit of God. The word is presented

to all people alike, but one only comes to a

conviction of its truth when one’s mind is

also illumined by the Holy Spirit51. By this

Calvin does not mean to say that the word

only has power when the Spirit accompanies

it, but that the power of the word is only

experienced by those who are indwelt by

the Spirit. And yet the knowledge of God’s

word precedes the experiential knowledge

of grace. There is no experience without the

word52. “ For if God wants to show God’s self

to us as the ever-present God (as people

usually put it), he must first be sought in the

word.”53 The scriptural word therefore does

lead to experience. Calvin is not trying to

underestimate the experience of faith. Faith

275

comes from the word and rests upon the

word, but it nonetheless derives much

support from experience. Word and faith do

not rest on experience, but the experientia

does confirm the word and faith.54 So also

must God by the Spirit inwardly seal the

assurance given by the word. The Spirit

illumines our minds in such a way that we

see the truth of God’s salvation in the word

as in a mirror.55 This also applies to those

who preach the word. No one can minister

the word of God adequately if they have not

first experienced the word firsthand. The

doctrine of the gospel is not transferable by

the lips if God has not first revealed it to the

heart.56

The connection between the word and

the Spirit enables us through God’s word to

also speak and witness on our own. The

Holy Spirit connects the word of God that

gives hope, with our word in order to confess

the hope.57 We do not, however, receive the

Spirit of God so that we may then proceed

“to despise the external word and to be

carried away by all sorts of spiritual

experiences.”58 Calvin thus rejects the notion

of the fanatici, who reckon that one can be

spiritual only when one rejects the external

word59 and that a true believer does not

need the word any more.60 Submission to

the word of God, however, prevents us fromfollowing our own flights of fancy.61 The

external doctrine must be coupled with the

grace of the Spirit.62 Or, as Calvin also says,

the work of the preachers must be made

effectual, if it does not want to be useless.63

“The word falls upon our ears in vain unless

the Spirit of God effectively pierces our

hearts.”64 When God sets God’s word before

us, God simultaneously teaches us inwardly.

It is not sufficient that the word only sound

in our ears; God at the same time must also

illuminate our mind by the Spirit of

knowledge.65

5. Hermeneutics

Calvin is careful that he does not

prematurely look for Christological meaning

in the Old Testament.66 In fact, he warns

against violating the text by directly relating

it to Christ lest the Jews have proper grounds

for their charge “that it is our aim by means

of sophistry to connect things with Christ

that do not directly relate to him.”67 Thus

Calvin rejects a Christological exegesis of

such passages as Psalm 87:4. The

interpretation that the psalmist speaks here

about Christ—through whom those people

who used to be strangers and enemies

towards one another now want to be

reckoned as residents of Jerusalem—is

dismissed by Calvin as untenable, albeit

clever.68 The meaning is simply that people

are willing to give up their own nationality

to be added into the citizenship of Jerusalem.

Similarly, in his exposition of Psalm 88:6,

Calvin discards the Christological

interpretation of Saint Augustine as astute,

but not in correspondence with the author’s

intention.69

Nevertheless he asserts that the texts

of the Old Testament by themselves

emphatically refer to Christ . The

276

hermeneutical key that Calvin uses for the

Christological interpretation of the text is

this: that which did not come to fulfilment

in the time of the Old Testament, must

indeed refer to Christ.70 If an utterance does

not fit with the historical situation, then it

is a prophecy of Christ.71 This key then opens

a door to an interpretation by Calvin that is

hardly distinct from the Christocentric

exegesis of Luther. When in Psalm 72:10

David foretells that all kings of the world

will bow before Solomon, it is clear from the

course of Solomon’s history that this refers

to Christ. The prophecy of Psalm 2:8—”Ask

of me and I will give peoples to be your

inheritance”—cannot refer to David, and

therefore it also applies to Christ.72 The way

in which Calvin performs such exegesis is

illustrated well by these texts. When David

speaks of his son Solomon, his mention of

“all kings” indicates that the Spirit is lifting

David above his own situation and is making

him speak of the spiritual monarchy of

Christ. Furthermore, from this it follows that

“we” have not received the hope of eternal

life by mere chance since in this text it is

clear that God already had us in mind in

the Old Testament. We can even deduce

from this text that in the church there is

room for monarchs. Calvin interprets the

text this way in order to give support and

comfort from this passage to his readers

and his audience when a literal reading of

the text does not explicitly do so.

Other passages in Calvin’s Psalms

commentary reveal the same pattern of

biblical interpretation. When the author of

Psalm 47 calls God the King over all the

earth, it is indeed clear “from the context of

these words” that here the reign of Christ is

meant.73 When in Psalm 89 there is talk of

an eternal throne, it can only refer to

Christ.74 This also applies in Psalm 96:9

when the entire world is called upon to

worship God despite the fact that in the

Old Testament only Israel can.75 On Psalm

110 Calvin observes that even if Christ

himself had not said in Matthew 22:42-44

that this Psalm is about him the Psalm

would stil l not allow any other

interpretation. The Psalm is shouting out,

as it were, that this is the only possible

interpretation.76 Calvin is of the opinion that

in a discussion with Jews it could be proven

by clear arguments that this song of praise

is about nobody if not the mediator.

In interpreting all of the scriptures, one

must take into account the fact that God

adapts himself to people through his speech.

In Calvin’s thought, therefore, the concept

of “accommodation” plays a rather

significant role.77 David does not speak about

creation in scientific terminology, but in his

speech he adapts himself to the ordinary

people.78 When the scriptures address such

matters as physics, one should keep in mind

that God describes things in such a way

that they may be understood by ordinary

people.79 When the Bible speaks of the sun

and the moon as the two great lights, this

also is an adaptation of God to the readers.

There are, of course, planets that are greater

277

than the moon—Calvin mentions Saturn as

an example, but the moon is more

noticeable since it is nearer to the observer

on earth. “Nor was it the intention of the

Holy Spirit to teach astronomy.”80 The Spirit

wanted to communicate in such a way that

even the simplest could understand. The

Holy Spirit would rather prattle like a little

child, Calvin says, than speak in such a

complicated way that ordinary people are

excluded.81 David realizes that ordinary

people would not understand if he were to

go and speak of the mysteries of astronomy,

and therefore he speaks of the universe in

everyday terms.82 Had he been speaking to

scientists he would have used other words,

but as it is, he adapts himself to simple and

uneducated people.83 Just how far God will

go in his accommodation, Calvin notes, is

evident in Psalm 78:65 when he compares

himself to a drunken man waking up from

his inebriation. This, however, is no

adaptation to the people’s simplicity, but to

their obtuseness.84

Calvin explains that the Spirit has to

choose between two extremes. When God

expresses God’s self too simply in

accommodating to our level, God’s way of

speaking is looked down upon. Should God

speak on a higher level, though, people use

this as an excuse for their ignorance, saying

they cannot understand it. The Holy Spirit

combats these two possibilities however by

speaking in such a way that everyone can

understand it, provided that people are

willing to learn.85

6. The relationship between OldTestament and New Testament

Calvin emphasizes the unity of the Old

and the New Testaments so that between

the times before and after the incarnation

of Christ the difference is more a matter of

degree than substance.86 The unity of the

covenant receives so much emphasis that

history, including the salvation history of

Jesus, threatens to evaporate. The coming

of Christ means that “the times have been

renewed.”87 According to Calvin the period

which has lasted since the coming of Christ

may be designated as “the renewal of the

church.”88 The coming of Christ is therefore

not the beginning of the church but the

beginning of a new era in the church.89

Calvin finds difference as well as

similarity in the two testaments by means

of the “anagogue.”90 He does not use this

word in the sense of the medieval four-fold

interpretation of scriptures which gives the

meaning of a text for the future, but rather

as a comparative application of the text.91

When Psalm 81 says that God has freed

God’s people from the burden of carrying

stones in Egypt, after Christ, this Psalm

means that God has freed us from the

burden of the tyranny of Satan. For

indicating the difference between the Old

Testament and the New Testament, Calvin

uses various concepts and classifications

such as “shadow” and “reality;” “childhood”

and “ adulthood;” and “less” versus “ more.”

Shadow / reality92With the coming of

Christ a new era has commenced, and that

278

also has the consequence that what is said

in the Old Testament of Jerusalem is now

connected “with the spiritual Jerusalem

which is spread over the whole world.”93 The

outward glory of Jerusalem has now been

replaced by the spiritual wealth of the

church. Just as Jerusalem was encircled with

walls and towers under the shadowy time

of the law, now the church has been adorned

with spiritual gifts since the coming of

Christ.94 The kingdom of David and his

successors is a shadow which points to the

reality of the kingdom of Christ.95 “By using

the temporary kingdom as a type,” Calvin

writes, “a far better rule is described—a

kingdom which does indeed give full joy and

complete bliss to the church.”96 Elsewhere

he suggests that the kingdom of Christ

begins with the kingdom of David since

David’s reign lays the foundation for that of

Christ.97 The two kingdoms and their

respective kings thus relate to each other

as shadow and reality. There are even many

similar experiences in the paths walked by

each king, including for each, Calvin notes,

a hidden beginning and later an open

rejection.98

Another correlation between shadow

and reality is seen in the temple, which is

the image in the Old Testament

administration which keeps our focus on

the priesthood of Christ, and the palace then

means his monarchy.99 The return from

exile is, according to Calvin, related to the

kingdom of Christ as a prophecy of that

kingdom.100 The land was given to the

people to hold in their possession until the

coming of Christ, since it is a foreshadow

and an image of the heavenly native land.101

Meanwhile Calvin does not consider it a

disaster that no reunification of the Jews

into a single land of their own ever took

place because they have found a much more

fortunate reunification. In the body of Christ,

he continues, they are reunited with one

another as well as with the gentiles who

believe. They are no longer in one physical

land, but instead they constitute one church

that is spread over the whole world and yet

is one through the spiritual bond of faith.102

The dynamic of shadow and reality in

scripture indicates not only difference but

similarity. When the shadows of the law

disappear, Calvin says, “spiritual truth

remains for us.”103 Spiritual truth was thus

also there under the law, and it entails that

God must be praised in those circumstances

as well. If this were not also the purpose of

the outward ceremonies of the Old

Testament, they would have been “a useless

display.” The essence and purpose of

“shadow” and “reality” are therefore the

same, but they do differ according to the

way in which each operates. Canaan is a

“pledge of the heavenly inheritance.”104

However, God shows favour by bestowing

earthly blessings105, after Christ as well as

before. In this regard, Calvin can not be

charged with spiritualizing salvation.

Childhood / adulthood Another way

of describing the difference between the two

testaments is the analogy of differing ages.

279

In the Old Testament the church finds

herself in her childhood, but upon the

coming of Christ her adulthood has

commenced.106 The sacrifices of the Old

Testament are therefore “children’s lessons

for beginners”107 which God had assigned in

order to prepare the people in this epoch

for something else—namely, the sacrifice of

Christ. Earthly blessings also function as

early lessons intended to teach us to seek

that which is higher.108 According to Calvin,

such musical instruments also belong with

the first years of learning.109 After Christ,

however, the church does not need these

teaching tools any more. The functioning of

the law, as well, belongs to the childhood

years. When compared with the situation

in the New Testament, the church under

the old covenant found herself under the

authority of the law as a pedagogue,110 the

slave that used to watch over the children

and that accompanied them to and from

school.111 All of these remarks reflect Calvin’s

understanding of the movement from the

Old Testament to the New Testament as a

change from childhood to adulthood.

Less / more Calvin also describes

the difference between the two

dispensations with the categories of “less”

and “more.” In Christ God is revealed even

more clearly, for instance, as our shepherd.112

Calvin explains that the evidences of God’s

love towards us—even when it comes to living

here on earth—are clearer after Christ than

during the time of the Old Testament. Inthe old dispensation, the knowledge of God

was also more limited with the result that

people were less able to see God in

exaltation.113 Furthermore, the promise of

God now is no longer limited to merely one

people. The distinction between a particular

ethnic group of people and the rest is gone,

“so that the message of the gospel by which

God reconciles himself with the world now

comes to all people.”114 In the covenant God

reveals God’s self as Father first to Israel

and “subsequently more clearly (clarior)

through the gospel that has given us the

Spirit of adoption more abundantly

(uberior).”115

The time of the Old Testament, in

comparison with the New Testament, is

somewhat less civilized,116 and in revelation,

God adapts God’s self to the needs of each

period. The biblical writer, for example,

makes use of the customs of the writer’s

time when threatening a divine curse that

the remembrance of the sinner would be

effaced. One would expect, says Calvin, that

it would be more applicable as a curse for

someone’s name to be erased from heaven.

However, spiritual punishments had in this

time not been as clearly revealed, “since

the fullness of time wherein the complete

revelation took place, had not yet come.”117

The same type of accommodation is also

evident in the blessings. When a man is

wished a fertile wife as a sign of God’s

blessing, the criticism could be made that

this shows a rather earthly preoccupation.

One needs to keep in mind, however, that

he is speaking with those who are still under

the law.118

280

Whereas in the Old Testament the

presence of God is to be sought particularly

in the tabernacle and the temple, “we now

have at our disposal a much more confident

way of coming to God,119 since that which

had formerly been only foreshadowed in the

images of the law, is now revealed to us in

Christ. (By “the images of the law” Calvin

means, for instance, such figures as the ark.)

Whereas God says in the Old Testament

that God lives in Zion, now it is known with

more clarity that God is present wherever

Christian believers worship purely in

accordance with the word.120 The way in

which Calvin verbalizes this difference

creates the impression that before the

coming of Christ the people had to go to

God while after Christ, the case is that God

comes to the people.

The difference also carries various

applications by which present believers can

be exhorted given the time in which they

live. If David, though living “under the

shadowy cult of the law”121 and far away

from the temple, could remain standing by

means of prayer, how much more should

the same be true for us, for whom the blood

of Christ has opened a way, and to whom

God presents such a friendly invitation to

fellowship. New Testament believers ought

to have more trust in God and more

assurance of God’s aid. If the temple was a

sign of God’s presence to Israel that gave a

reason for trusting in God, how much more

ought the church today reflect such trust

now that Christ has come to bind us even

closer to God.122 The same applies to the

worship of God. If David praised God in his

own day for having saved him from death,

how much more ought we, “who by the grace

of Christ have been snatched from an even

deeper abyss of death.”123 In the biblical

accounts, David’s life was prolonged just a

little while, “but we have been brought from

hell to heaven.”124 God required obedience

from Israel as a sign of its gratitude for such

deliverance. Calvin notes that such grateful

obedience applies to us believers in Christ

much more.125

7. Conclusion

For Calvin the vital aspect to God’s

revelation in the word is that through the

word, God really is present in this world.

Nevertheless Calvin does not so bind God

to the revealed word that an identification

of God with the Bible could be mistakenly

made. By denoting the relationship between

the Old Testament and the New Testament

as “less” versus “more,” the question arises

as to the value of Christ’s coming. When

Calvin says that Christ has come “to bind us

even closer to his Father,”126 the question

might be raised as to whether Calvin’s

theology does not perhaps make the

meaning of the incarnation, death and

resurrection of Christ something merely

relative, given how much carries over for

Calvin from the old system into the new.

Calvin’s commentary on the Psalms offers a

good overview of how he sees the Bible and

deals with scripture in general. It is striking

281

that there is so much Calvin in his exegesis,

but in this regard, every honest preacher

will say that Calvin is a colleague in the

field.

Notes

1 It is impossible to give a complete overview but the following works are good introductionsand supply the reader with extensive bibliographical information for further research onCalvin’s work on the Bible: Erik A. De Boer, John Calvin on the Visions of Ezekiel, Historicaland Hermeneutical Studies, in John Calvin’s sermons inédits, especially on Ezek.36-48(Leiden: Brill, 2004); Alexandre Ganoczy and Stefan Scheld, Die Hermeneutik Calvins(Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1983); Donald McKim, ed., Calvin and the Bible (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press ,2006) Thomas H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Old TestamentCommentaries, 2nd edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993).2 See also: Herman J. Selderhuis, Calvin´s Theology of the Psalms (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2007).3 “Calvin qui est très injustement accablé comme tu le sais, se console en écrivant descommentaires sur les Pseaumes” (Correspondance de Thèodore de Bèze, t. 2, Genève:Droz, 1996, 58).4 For examples, cf. William Naphy, Calvin and the consolidation of the Genevan Reformation 84-120.5 “... in rota volvatur mundus ...”, Ps. 18:8 (CO 31, 216); “... hac caduca vita ...”, Ps 23:6 (CO 31,242).6 “... confusa perturbatio ...”, Ps. 25:13 (CO 31, 258).7 “... in medio luporum ...”, Ps. 34:8 (CO 31, 338).8 Calvin speaks about “vagari”, Ps. 37:9 (CO 31, 371).9 “Conditio nostra, fateor, tot miseriis in hoc mundo implicita est, tantaque varietateagitatur, ut nullus fere dies sine molestia et dolore praetereat, deinde inter tot dubioseventus fieri non potest quin assidue anxii simus ac trepidi”, Ps. 30:6 (CO 31, 294-295).10 CO 31, 19.11 Millet, Calvin, 523.12 Regarding Calvin’s use of the rhetoric, cf.: Serene Jones, Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety,Louisville 1995.13 Concerning the way Calvin used the word ‘us’, cf. also: Millet, Calvin, 532-537; Moehn,Wilhelmus H. Th. , “God Calls us to his Service”. The Relation between God and hisAudience in Calvin’s Sermons on Acts , Geneva 2001.14 This approach does not mean a correction, though it offers a significant addition to thedata of Büsser. He restricted himself to the ‘I’-statements.

282

15 Millet refers to passages in other works of Calvin where the latter speaks about ‘us’ butprimarily thinks of ‘me’. (Millet, Calvin, 532-537, has named this section fittingly: ‘Du “nous”ou “je” ’.) Calvin speaks about ‘us’ to mention him-self not explicitly but to include himselfunambiguously. Mülhaupt believes that the same applies to the sermons on the Psalms:‘Wenn irgendwo in seiner Predigt die Herztöne seines Christentums vernehmbar sind,dann ist dies in seinen Psalmpredigten zu erwarten’, Mülhaupt, Psalmpredigten, XXVIII.16 Inst. I.6.1.17 Ps. 73: intro (CO 31, 673).18 Ps. 44:1 (CO 31, 436).19 See inter alia: Ps. 26:1 (CO 31, 264); Ps. 31:12 (CO 31, 307).20 Praefatio (CO 31, 33).21 “Haec ratio est cur tam sollicite et vehementer contendat David in asserenda causaesuae iustitia”, Ps. 18:21 (CO 31, 181).22 Ps. 7:4 (CO 31, 80).23 Ps. 119:49 (CO 32, 235). On the relationship between word and promise, see Wilhelm H.Neuser, “Theologie des Wortes: Schrift, Verheissung und Evangelium bei Calvin” in CalvinusTheologus: Die Referate des Europäischen Kongresses für Calvinforschung, ed. W.H. Neuser(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976), pp. 17-37.24 Ps. 119:65 (CO 32, 243).25 Ps. 119:81 (CO 32, 250).26 Ps. 119:149 (CO 32, 282).27 Ps. 119:85 (CO 32, 252).28 “…nisi animum recipiat ex Dei verbo, se fore exanimem,” Ps. 119:49 (CO 32, 235).29 Ps. 119:76 (CO 32, 247).30 “…pietatis doctrina, quae aeternae salutis thesaurus est,” Ps. 147:19 (CO 32, 431).31 Ps. 119:92 (CO 32, 255).32 Ps. 119:96 (CO 32, 256).33 “Restat ut hanc amplitudinem concipiant animi nostri: quod fiet ubi se in angustiasmundi huius coniicere desierint,” Ps. 119:96 (CO 32, 256).34 Ps. 119:152 (CO 32, 283).35 Ps. 29:9 (CO 31, 290).36 “…sed quia sensus melius excitat sonorae vocis praedicatio, vel certius saltem ac maiorecum profectu docet, quam simplex conspectus cui nulla coniuncta est admonitio…,” Ps.19:1 (CO 31, 195).37 Ps. 60:8 (CO 31, 577).38 Ps. 119:105 (CO 32, 260).39 “Rideant vero papistae, ut faciunt, quod scripturam promiscue ab omnibus legi volumus…,”Ps. 119:130 (CO 32, 273).40 Ps. 110:3 (CO 32, 163).41 Ps. 77:8 (CO 31, 714).42 “…spiritus sanctus, qui Davidis linguam direxit…,” Ps. 8:1 (CO 31, 88).43 Ps. 29:1 (CO 31, 287).44 Ps. 88:6 (CO 31, 807).45 “…excusari tamen non potest excessus…,” Ps. 88:11 (CO 31, 809).46 For an overview of the discussion about Calvin’s doctrine of inspiration, see StefanScheld, Media Salutis: Zur Heilsvermittlung bei Calvin (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1989), pp. 60-65.47 “Nec vero Davidem latebat futura gentium vocatio…,” Ps. 86:9 (CO 31, 794).

283

48 Ps. 119:11 (CO 32, 219).49 “…et vetustas semper aliquam reverentiam sibi vendicat…,” Ps. 95:9 (CO 31, 34).50 Ps. 78:8 (CO 31, 725).51 Ps. 119:64 (CO 32, 242).52 An analysis of Calvin’s Commentary on the Psalms which gives special attention to therelationship between word and experience is found in W. Balke, “The Word of God andExperientia according to Calvin,” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser(Kampen: Kok, 1980) 19-31.53 Ps. 27:9 (CO 31, 676).54 “…non vulgaris tamen verbi et fidei confirmatio est ipsa experientia…,” Ps. 43:3 (CO 31,435).55 Ps. 119:152 (CO 32, 283).56 Ps. 91:1 (CO 32, 2).57 “…verbo spei adiungit verbum confessionis,” Ps. 119:41 (CO 32, 233).58 Ps. 119:17 (CO 32, 222).59 Ps. 119:17 (CO 32, 222).60 Ps. 119:171 (CO 32, 293).61 Ps. 119:171 (CO 32, 292).62 “…sed externam doctrinam cum spiritus gratia coniunxisse…,” Ps. 119:133 (CO 32, 275).63 “…inutilis est doctorum opera donec efficax reddatur…,” Ps. 119:171 (CO 32, 292).64 Ps. 119:133 (CO 32, 275).65 Ps. 119:171 (CO 32, 292).66 On Calvin’s interpretation of the Old Testament, see Wulfert de Greef, Calvijn en hetOude Testament (Groningen: T. Bolland, 1984) and David L. Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesisof the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). According to RichardMuller, it may be assumed that Calvin’s warning must be seen as a reaction to the well-known commentary on the Psalms by Faber Stapulensis where “Christ is taken to be thesole reference of the text, and David disappears entirely as a focus of meaning.” SeeRichard A. Muller, “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulfillment in Calvin’s Exegesis of theOld Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom,” in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, ed.David C. Steinmetz (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990) 77.67 Ps. 72:1 (CO 31, 664).68 “Quod offerunt Christiani, quamquam propter argutiam primo intuitu plausibile est,nihil tamen habet solidi…,” Ps. 87:4 (CO 31, 802).69 Ps. 88:6 (CO 31, 807).70 Ps. 72:10 (CO 31, 669). See also Calvin’s introduction to Psalm 97 (CO 32, 42). De Greefcalls Calvin’s principle “a little whiff of rationalism in his exegesis” (“een rationalistischtrekje in zijn exegese”) in his Oude Testament, 91.71 Ps. 149:7 (CO 32, 439).72 Ps. 2:8 (CO 31, 47).73 Ps. 47:2 (CO 31, 467).74 Ps. 89:31 (CO 31, 822).75 “Unde colligimus Psalmum hunc ad regnum Christi referri: quia donec patefactus fuitmundo, non alibi quam in Iudaea invocari potuit eius nomen…,” Ps. 96: introduction (CO32, 361).76 “Psalmus ipse clamat se non aliam expositionem admittere,” Ps. 110: introduction (CO32, 159).77 See David F. Wright, “Calvin’s Accommodating God,” in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis

284

Vindex: Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, ed.Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong, Vol. XXXVI (Kirksville MO: Sixteenth CenturyJournal Publishers, 1997), pp. 3-19.78 “…non disputat philosophicae David…sed populariter loquens, ad rudium captum seaccommodat…,” Ps. 24:2 (CO 31, 244).79 “…ut se accommodent ad rudissimi cuiusque captum…,” Ps. 148:3 (CO 32, 433).80 Ps. 136:7 (CO 32, 365).81 “…maluit spiritus sanctus quodammodo balbutire, quam discendi viam praecludereplebiis et indoctis,” Ps. 136:7 (CO 32, 365).82 Ps. 19:4 (CO 31, 198).83 “…sed rudissimis quibusque se accommodans…,” Ps. 19:4 (CO 31, 198).84 “…quia accommodatur ad populi stuporem,” Ps. 78:65 (CO 31, 742).85 “…si modo placidam docilitatem et serium proficiendi studium afferant,” Ps. 78:3 (CO 31,722).86 On the relationship of Old and New Testament see De Greef, Oude Testament, pp. 93-154; and Hans Heinrich Wolf, Die Einheit des Bundes: Das Verhältnis von Altem undNeuem Testament bei Calvin (Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins,1958).87 “Nunc, postquam adventu suo saeculum renovavit…,” Ps. 48:8 (CO 31, 477).88 Ps. 48:11 (CO 31, 480).89 Ps. 96:7 (CO 32, 39).90 “Nunc ab illis ad nos anagoge tenenda est…,” Ps. 81:7 (CO 31, 761).91 See Parker, Commentaries, pp. 72-74. According to Parker “anagogue” in Calvin’s thoughtfunctions as “a transference or application of a Biblical person or event to some theologicaltruth,” p. 72.92 Parker gives an analysis of this pair of concepts as it is used in the Institutes and Calvin’scommentaries—Parker, Commentaries, pp. 56-62. See also de Greef, Oude Testament, pp.136-141.93 Ps. 48:8 (CO 31, 477).94 Ps. 48:11 (CO 31, 480).95 Ps. 21:4 (CO 31, 214).96 Ps. 20:1 (CO 31, 207).97 Ps. 118:25 (CO 32, 210).98 “Arcana fuit David electio…Eadem regni Christi fuerunt exordia…,” Ps. 118:25 (CO 32,210).99 Ps. 112:4 (CO 32, 305).100 “…quia restitutio in patriam, cum regno Christi annexa erat…,” Ps. 85: introduction (CO31, 785).101 “…coelestis patriae fuisse symbolum…,” Ps. 69:35 (CO 31, 653).102 Ps. 106:47 (CO 32, 134-135).103 Ps. 66:15 (CO 31, 615).104 Ps. 106:24 (CO 32, 126).105 Ps. 128:3 (CO 32, 328).106 “Quod si tam austera fuerunt pueritia rudimenta, nisi hodie, postquam in virilemaetatem Christi advenu adolevit ecclesia….” Ps. 129:2 (CO 32, 331).107 “…pueritia rudimenta…,” Ps. 40:8 (CO 31, 413).108 “…quia talibus rudimentis altius tunc deduci oportuit,” Ps. 147:2 (CO 32, 430).109 “…ad tempus paedagogiae…,” Ps. 149:2 (CO 32, 438).

285

110 “…instar paedagogi veterem populum serviliter prae nobis regeret…,” Ps. 26:8 (CO 31,268).111 On the law as teacher, see Parker, Commentaries, pp. 63-69.112 “…nobis luculentius quam olim patribus sub lege pastorem exhibuit…,” Ps. 23:4 (CO 31,240).113 “Sicuti enim prius obscurior erat eius notitia, sic minus conspicua fuit exaltatio,” Ps.97:9 (CO 32, 46).114 Ps. 81:12 (CO 31, 765).115 Ps. 67:3 (CO 31, 618).116 “…pro temporis ruditate…,” Ps. 105:4 (CO 32, 99).117 “…quia nondum advenerat maturum plenae revelationis tempus,” Ps. 109:13 (CO 32,152).118 Ps. 128:3 (CO 32, 328).119 Ps. 3:5 (CO 31, 55). Unlike the English (Parker Society) translation “a much easier way”and the German (Weber) translation “einen freieren Zugang,” I prefer “confident” (Dutch:“vertrouewelijk”) as a translation of familiaris. “Confident” better captures that it has to dowith the quality of the way. Moreover, Calvin frequently uses the word familiariter whenaddressing the confidence which believers ought to have in approach their heavenlyFather.120 Ps. 9:12 (CO 31, 102).121 Ps. 61:1 (CO 31, 581).122 Ps. 48:9 (CO 31, 478).123 “…ex altiore mortis abysso…,” Ps. 86:12 (CO 31, 796).124 Ps. 86:12 (CO 31, 796).125 “…multo sanctior est nostra obligatio quam veteris populi,” Ps. 81:7 (CO 31, 761).126 Ps. 48:9 (CO 31, 478).

286

Response to Prof. Herman J. Selderhuis

Park Seong-Won

I appreciate the contribution Professor

Herman Selderhuis has made on Calvin’s

view of the Bible as the word of God. My

response will be from the perspective of

preachers and congregations in Korea who

are sharing the message from the Bible

every Sunday.

I agree with Professor Selderhuis’

statement that Calvin was the man of one

book, namely the Bible. It is true that Calvin

wrote a lot of books, but the Bible was the

central source for all that he wanted to say

in these numerous writings. For him, the

Bible was not merely a religious book, but

the word of God, or even more, the actual

voice and will of God.

Professor Selderhuis’ focus on the

Psalms as a window through which he

contemplates Calvin’s approach to the Bible

was very helpful towards understanding

Calvin by revealing how he used his personal

experience in interpreting scripture. This is

summed up in the following sentence:

“Humanistic exposition of texts implies a

subjective involvement of the expositor.” In

a sense, Calvin had already applied the new

so called “reader’s approach to theinterpretation of texts” which has recently

emerged, as opposed to the author’s or

textual approach of the past.

He also highlighted Calvin’s

understanding of the word as God’s

promises, the relationship between the

word and the Spirit, the relationship between

the Old Testament and the New Testament.

All these were helpful.

However, let me take this first point—

Calvin’s view of the Bible as a means of

celebrating more relevantly—as an entry

point for raising a couple of questions.

But before turning to these questions, I

would like to highlight one of the unique

contributions by Calvin and other reformers,

and that is to have made the Bible the

common reference point for the majority of

Christians around the world, or at least

Protestants, regardless of their confession,

social and cultural background or political

orientation. Without the Bible as a common

reference point, it would have been hard for

the global church to engage in dialogue about

Christian faith, both with regard to points of

convergence and divergence.

In the case of Korea, this is extremely

true. The first characteristic of the Korean

287

Church might be its uncompromising loyalty

to the scripture. The Bible has been placed

in the centre of the lives of Korean

Christians. Missionaries were eager to teach

the Bible and many Koreans became

Christians by participating in Bible

conferences. In the early Korean church,

Sunday worship was celebrated at 2 o’clock

in the afternoon; mornings were fully devoted

to Bible study.

The Bible study tradition remains strong

even today. Korean congregations hold

numerous Bible courses and small Bible

study groups. In some congregations, pastors

train elders or deacons to become Bible

study leaders. All Sunday school students

take Bible courses according to the

curriculum designed by the educational

department of the General Assembly of the

churches. Every summer, Sunday schools

conduct special conferences in which

students can participate in intensive Bible

study courses.

In the Korean Presbyterian church, the

Bible has supreme authority both in

theology and in church polity. No matter

how polemical they may be, theological

arguments are accepted if their biblical

reference is clear. No matter how

understandable they may be, theological

thoughts are called into question, or at least

rendered controversial, if their biblical

reference is not clear. Sometimes, the

Korean church’s biblical perspective is too

tough, legal and literal. However, as far as

the authority of the Bible is concerned, it

stil l keeps its powerful authority in

Presbyterian churches in Korea.

The Bible has made a great contribution

to Korean society. The Korean language,

despised by Confucian intellectuals, was

glorified by the Korean translation of the

Bible. Many illiterate people learned to read

and to write by studying the Bible. Many

women who had no opportunity to go to

school encountered the joy of learning

through the Bible. Liberation, emancipation,

enlightenment and spiritual nourishment

are the precious gifts granted by the Bible.

In this respect, the vision of Calvin

concerning the supreme authority of the

Bible in Christian life and the principle of

intelligibility of the Reformation have largely

been achieved in the life of Korean

Reformed Christians.

However, the authority of the Bible often

became a source of Church division. The

current rift in the church is largely related

to different interpretations of scripture. The

supreme authority of the Bible shaped

Korean Presbyterianism to be highly

stubborn and exclusive.

Now let us turn to some questions:

First, did Calvin promote biblicalism as a

dogmatic ideology, as many Reformed

churches have done since Reformation?

Exclusive fundamental biblicalism has been

one of the main sources of the division of

Reformed churches. Or did Calvin take the

Bible as a text to prove his passionate vision

of reformation of the church? If this is true,

288

his approach to the Bible was a proof text

approach. He confirmed his argument based

on the absolute authority of the Bible.

However, as I listen to Professor Seldernhuis,

I understand Calvin had a tendency to

interpret the Bible from a contextual point

of view. Professor Selderhuis said that Calvin

used his own experience as a starting point.

This may include both his personal

experience and the social context in which

his personal experience was made. Maybe

for Calvin, the social, political and economic

situation of 16th century Geneva was the

main context in which he interpreted the

Bible. So can we say that Calvin was a

contextual theologian, or a contextual

interpreter of the word? This needs to be

one of the barometers by which the legacy

of Calvin is measured.

Second, does Calvin’s interpretation of

the Bible concern only personal faith

and piety and eccelesiology? Or does his

interpretation of the word go further? We

know that Calvin wanted Geneva to be

transformed into a c i ty which was

governed by the will of God. Are we to

understand that Calvin’s view of the Bible

was not determined only by

considerations of personal piety, faith and

eccelesiology, but by a concern which

reaches all spheres of life, including the

political, social, economic and cultural? If

this is true, the view of many Korean

Presbyterians of the Bible needs to becorrected.

Third , in Professor Selderhuis ’

description of Calvin’s understanding of

the re lat ionship between the Old

Testament and the New Testament using

a shadow/reality, childhood/adulthood,

less/more framework , one has the

impression that Calvin has taken the Old

Testament as a preparatory process for

final achievement in the New Testament.

Has this view of Calvin’s influenced

significantly the understanding by biblical

theologians of the two testaments ’

re lat ionship in terms of “promise/

achievement” or “prophecy/fulfillment”.

We, in Korea, had a different framework.

For instance, when we were colonized by

the Japanese imperial power, we interpreted

the Exodus as our story. We saw the Japanese

emperor in the story of the Egyptian

Pharaoh; in the story of Red Sea, we saw

the sea between Japan and Korea; in the

story of the Hebrew slaves, we saw the

Korean people who were enslaved by the

Japanese colonial power; and in Moses we

saw the power of the liberating church. We

believed that this God who liberated the

Hebrew slaves from the Egyptian bondage

would liberate us from the Japanese colonial

rule. I take this as a dynamic interpretation

framework rather than a “promise/

achievement” or “prophecy/fulfillment”

framework. Did Calvin not take the main

ethos of the Bible’s message as a spiritual

source, both historically and politically, to

shape society? Is this not true particularly

with regard to his work on the so-called

solidarity economy in the Geneva of his

289

time?

The final question is for today’s context.

In the light of Calvin’s theology, what would

Calvin, say about neoliberal economic

globalization as well as neoliberalism itself,

the global empire today led by the United

States and the new ecumenical context

affecting the relationship between other

living faiths? I think this is the key question

today to be clarified for celebrating more

relevantly Calvin’s legacy in this time of

history.

290

Calvin’s understanding of the church

Emidio Campi

While first cautioning that 21st century readers of John Calvin ought not put

their own words into his 16th century mouth (though they should feel free to

disagree with him if need be), Emidio Campi plumbs the depths of the great Reformer’s

thinking on the church and its significance for the ecumenical movement of today.

He reminds us that Calvin, who stressed the sinfulness of schism, saw the church

as “mother” and as “school”, hence, the means used by God to approach humanity

and make God’s self accessible. The writer warns that the church that takes Calvin

seriously should not withdraw into private spirituality, but should be yeast for change

in the world.

When I received the invitation to speak

at this consultation on “Calvin’s

understanding of the Church and its

relevance for the ecumenical movement”1,

I was a little surprised. To be sure, being

Waldensian by birth and conviction,

Calvinism has had the greatest theological

influence on my life and thought. It is true

that by profession I am a Reformation

historian, and, having spent 10 years of my

life as secretary of the World Student

Christian Federation, I have developed a

vivid interest in the ecumenical movement.

But over the past decade I have turned my

attention partly to the field of the Italian

Reformation, with special reference to Peter

Marty Vermigli, and partly to Heinrich

Bullinger and the Zurich Reformation. Your

invitation led me to engage in a reflection

which tries to tie together various stages of

development in my own life.

Before turning to the 16th century, let

us first briefly address two methodological

questions. It is always a risky affair to resort

to authorities of the past for advice on things

about which they may have had better

knowledge then we do. There are questions

we must raise for ourselves and answer by

ourselves, to which the voices of other

generations are irrelevant. Nobody would

dream of quoting Zwingli in favour of, or

against, nuclear warfare. No neurobiologist

would rely on Melanchthon’s Liber de Anima

for the study of the nervous system. On the

other hand, certain questions—and these

are the most profound—touch all human

experience and involve us in a dialogue in

which perhaps Paul, Augustine, Aquinas,

291

Luther and countless other eminent

Christian theologians may freshly intervene.

Calvin’s teaching on the church and its

significance for the ecumenical movement

is a case in point. It is true that all the

founders of Protestantism wrestled with this

very issue. In the first period of the

Reformation, Luther, Zwingli ,

Oecolampadius, and Melanchthon came

along with their vigorous challenges to

sacramental practice and papal authority,

and they laid the foundations of Protestant

ecclesiology by asserting the inextricable

link between church, word and sacraments.

Subsequently, Bucer, Bullinger, a Lasco,

Knox, Vermigli, Zanchi and Beza modified

the formulations of the previous generation

through a series of refined distinctions2 or

even added discipline to the notae ecclesiae.

Others like Schwenckfeld and Hubmeier

came to the conclusion that holiness of life

belonged among the marks of the true

church. It is no disparagement of his

predecessors and contemporaries to assert

that Calvin has produced the most

comprehensive and influential reflection on

the church. It is therefore worth taking a

long look at his ecclesiology. However, we

owe him, as to other past thinkers, not to

put our own questions and preoccupations

in his mouth, thus making him a mere

sounding board for our own ideas. If we really

seek a genuine dialogue, it seems quite

reasonable that we should find out first of

all what he says and allow him to intervene,

even if disconcertingly, in our debates. On

the other hand, of course, if we are not

content with what he says, it is perfectly

possible to disagree with him.

My next remarks address the use of the

sources. Many have attempted to trace

Calvin’s conception of the church. Earlier

studies3 have tended to focus mostly on

Calvin’s doctrinal thought in the

Ecclesiastical Ordinances and the final

edition of the Institutes. In recent years we

have become increasingly aware that if we

want to know the range of his thought on

this topic, we must consult nearly his entire

work, considering also the controversial

writings, the catechisms4, the biblical

commentaries and the sermons5, as well as

the correspondence.6 Furthermore, efforts

to clarify the practice of the ministry of word

and sacraments in Calvin’s Geneva7 as well

as new sociological inquiries in popular

religious life have given colour to the picture

of this part of the reformer’s work.8 These

sources are exceptionally fruitful, but must

here be excluded. The purpose of the present

paper is to examine the relevance of Calvin’s

ecclesiology for the ecumenical movement,

and this will best be served if we rely chiefly

upon the locus classicus of his teaching

about the church, namely Book IV of the

1559 edition of the Institutes, which extends

through twenty chapters, if one includes, as

one surely must, the question of the civil

government.

With these two cautions in mind, and

without losing sight of our specific purpose, I

suggest that we now approach a few of the

central themes of Calvin’s ecclesiology under

292

three headings: 1) The church as mother

and school; 2) The marks of the church in

word and sacraments; 3) The church and

the godly magistrate.

1. The church as mother andschool

In the thought of the reformers, Lutheran

and Reformed alike, there is a vivid

awareness of the double aspect of the

church as the invisible or holy and spiritual

society of the truly faithful and the visible or

earthly and imperfect organization of

professed Christians. Already in the First

Zurich Disputation (1523), Zwingli set the

“church of the pontiffs” in contrast with the

true church, “the spotless bride of Jesus

Christ governed and refreshed by the spirit

of God.”9 Bullinger in his Decades (1549-

1551) clearly distinguished between the

“inward and invisible church” which we

profess in the creed and the “visible and

outward church” which is “outwardly known

by men for a church, by hearing God’s word

and partaking of his sacraments, and by

public confession of their faith.”10 In common

with the other reformers Calvin never relaxed

the tension between visible and invisible

church, but beset by a resurgent Catholicism

and a proliferating Anabaptism, he laid more

emphasis upon the church as an external

institution recognizable as true by certain

distinguishing marks. He held the two poles

together, frequently in the same sentence,

but turned his attention more and more to

the visible church and affirmed the necessity

of communion with it: “Just as we must

believe, therefore, that the former church,

invisible to us, is visible to the eyes of God

alone, so we are commanded to revere and

keep communion with the latter, the visible

church.”11 Although by definition it is

imperfect and contains numerous

hypocrites, Calvin insistently stresses the

sinfulness of schism: “For the Lord esteems

the communion of his church so highly that

he counts as a traitor and apostate from

Christianity anyone who arrogantly leaves

any Christian society, provided it cherishes

the true ministry of word and sacraments.”12

It is noteworthy that the very first images

Calvin uses for his discussion of the visible

church are those of mother and school,

which he frequently combines.13 A few

telling sentences must here be quoted, which

have many parallels in the commentaries

on the pastoral epistles14 and in the sermon

30 on Galatians (1557/58).15

…I shall start, then, with the Church,into whose bosom God is pleased togather his children, not only that theymay be nourished by her help andministry so long as they are infants andchildren, but also that they may beguided by her motherly care until theymature and at last reach to the goal offaith. For what God has joined together,it is not lawful to put asunder [Mark 10:9], so that, for those to whom he isFather the Church may also be Mother.16

…But because it is now our intentionto discuss the visible Church, let us learneven from the simple title “mother”, how

293

useful, indeed how necessary, it is thatwe should know her. For there is noother way to enter into life unless thismother conceive us in her womb, give usbirth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly,unless she keep us under her care andguidance until, putting off mortal flesh,we become like angels [Mt 22: 30]. Ourweakness does not allow us to bedismissed from her school until we havebeen pupils all our lives. Furthermore,away from her bosom one cannot hopefor any forgiveness of sins or anysalvation, as Isaiah [37:32] and Joel [2:32]testify. Ezekiel agrees with them whenhe declares that those whom God rejectsfrom heavenly life will not be enrolledamong God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9]. Onthe other hand, those who turn to thecultivation of true godliness are said toinscribe their names among the citizensof Jerusalem [Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]…By these words God’s fatherly favour andthe especial witness of spiritual life arelimited to his flock, so that it is alwaysdisastrous to leave the church.

17

Let me point out in passing that the

usage of these ancient metaphors is not

peculiar to Calvin.18 Luther uses similar

language in his Large Catechism: “Outside

the Christian Church, that is, where the

Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness, and

hence no holiness.. .The church is the

mother that begets and bears every

Christian through the word of God.”19

Bullinger has also a careful discussion of

the church as mother in his Decades20 and

he frequently applies the image of the school

to the church in his commentaries.21 Both

insist that the church as “mother of the

believers” and “God’s school” fulfils a unique

and indispensable function in the work of

salvation. More specifically, Calvin says that

before the fall God intended that nature

should be a school in which we might learn

piety,22 but now the fallen state of humanity

requires a kind of remedial education. The

instructor, or alternatively, the classroom, is

no longer nature, but rather the maternal

church. While his emphasis does not lie

upon the church as an extension of the

incarnation,23 Calvin nonetheless ascribes

to the church a significant role in the

economy of redemption. While the

incarnation of Christ forms the primary and

unique medium through which God

accommodates God’s self to us24, the church

is a subordinate means God also uses to

approach us and make God’s self accessible

to us. And while Calvin leaves God the

freedom to communicate God’s grace in ways

other than through the church,25 the church

ordinarily serves as the society within which

faith is born, nourished and strengthened.

The specific manner in which this occurs is

through the ministry of word and

sacraments, as the following paragraphs and

even more the sermon on Gal. 4: 26-31

clearly indicate.

There is no need to retrace here Calvin’s

clear and distinctive doctrine of the four

orders or offices of ministry. What is at stake

is not the existence of the four offices, but

their status. While the tone is fairly

restrained, the picture that emerges from

these sentences is significantly different

294

from traditional Catholic teaching about the

offices in the church. The latter had tied

the authority of the office-bearer to the office

itself. A bishop or a priest has certain powers

granted by God which are inherent to his

office, regardless of whether he uses those

powers judiciously or abuses them blatantly.

The church Calvin envisions is one in which

God reserves all authority26, though God

chooses to exercise this authority through

the church’s ministers. Just as God is heard

in Christ and in his gospel, so Christ himself

communicates with us through his

ministers. Calvin assigns such a high function

to the ministry of the church that in his

commentary on Gal 4:26 he can say:

…certainly he who refuses to be a sonof the Church in vain desires to haveGod as his Father; for it is only throughthe instrumentality of the Church thatwe are “born of God,” [1 John 3:9] andbrought up through the various stages ofchildhood and youth, till we arrive atmanhood. This designation, “the motherof us all,” reflects the highest credit andthe highest honor on the Church.27

This brief synopsis of Calvin’s conception

of the church as mother of believers invites

two short remarks. First, contrary to some

subsequent developments in Protestantism,

there is according to Calvin a genuine

centrality of the church and a primacy of

the corporate dimension of faith in the

purpose of God’s gracious condescension

towards us. It is a case, I believe, that urgently

needs to be made, because many Reformed

churches are in a state of cognitive

dissonance about it, affirming the centrality

of community l ife , yet retaining an

individualistic understanding of faith. Why

then do Reformed Christians, strong as they

are on individuality in Christ, often appear

weak when it comes to the corporate

awareness that should flow from recognizing

the church as central in the plan of God? To

be sure, the gospel message individualizes,

and faith is always an individual, personal

matter, and within the Christian

community, each person’s individuality is

deepened and enhanced. At the same time,

however, through the ministry of the word

and the sacraments, the self-sufficient

individualism should be snuffed out step by

step, and through the community’s life, the

glory of God should increasingly become the

focus of each believer’s longings and prayers.

Secondly, there is a whole realm of

possibility for beautiful imagery and even

poetry in these metaphors of the church as

mother and school, provided that we do not

interpret them in the sense of mater et

magistra, that is as a magisterium vested

in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, as in the

Professio fidei Tridentina of 1564 28, but

rather return to Calvin’s emphasis on the

faithful teaching of the word of God. Yes,

language in the church has been too

masculine. We have ignored the truth that

the church is the bride of Christ, and the

mother of all believers. By eliminating the

mother from the doctrine of the new birth,

we have forced women to try to find some

295

new place for feminine language. Even

worse, by denying the necessity of the visible

church in the soteriology, we have ignored

the mother—and now she is dying, being

excluded from our understanding as God’s

instrument through which souls are revivified

and sanctified. Yes, God alone is our father,

but it is the church who is our mother, by

whom we are nurtured through the

indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This image

has largely been lost in Reformed theology

over the last 350 years. The only exception

I know of is Jan Amos Comenius and his

most touching work The Bequest of the

Dying Mother (1650).29 Yet, the indications

are suggestive. At the very least, recovery of

the mother/school imagery would reflect a

return to a biblical way of thinking about

the church in her relationship with Christ,

and would hopefully recapture one of the

most fruitful images for understanding the

role of the church in salvation.30

2. The marks of the church: wordand sacraments

How is the visible church to be

recognized? It is well known that Calvin

slightly modified the Augsburg Confession

to give us the classical Reformed statement

on the church: “Wherever we see the word

of God purely preached and heard, and the

sacraments administered according to

Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be

doubted, a church of God exists .”31

Noteworthy in this formula is the

explicitness of language: the word of God is

not only “purely preached” but also “heard”.

For example, Bullinger, the other father of

the Reformed tradition, affirms in the first

sermon of the Decades: “…there are two

special and principal marks, the sincere

preaching of the word of God, and the lawful

partaking of the sacraments of Christ”.32

Calvin’s addition emphasizes the

importance of people actually hearing what

was preached and applying this to their lives,

both collectively and individually.

Of course, this is not a formal definition,

but rather a way of discerning where a

church is. There may be a lot of other aspects

attached to the notion of church that are

incidental to the fulfilment of its essential

purpose, says Calvin, but as long as there is

faithful preaching and hearing of the word

of God and right administration of the

sacraments, there is the church. According

to Calvin, preaching must ordinarily be

accompanied by the administration of the

sacraments which, as “appendices” of the

gospel, serve to confirm and to sustain us in

the faith.33 Speaking of this relationship

between preaching and sacraments, Calvin

notes that communion belongs to the

fullness of worship:

it was not instituted to be receivedonce a year, and that perfunctorily, (as isnow commonly the custom;) but that allChristians might have it in frequent use,and frequently call to mind the sufferingsof Christ , thereby sustaining andconfirming their faith: stirringthemselves up to sing the praises of God,

296

and proclaim his goodness; cherishingand testifying towards each other thatmutual charity, the bond of which theysee in the unity of the body of Christ.34

The awareness of the infirmity of our

faith should lead us to experience the power

of the aids and helps that God has provided

for us in the church, especially in the

preaching and the sacraments, so that our

faith might be confirmed and strengthened

thereby. This argument can lead him to the

emphatic statement:

…Let us therefore carefully keep thesemarks imprinted upon our minds andesteem them in accordance with theLord’s will. For there is nothing thatSatan plots more than to remove anddo away with one or both of these.Sometimes he tries by effacing anddestroying these marks to remove thetrue and genuine distinction of thechurch. Sometimes he tries by heapingcontempt upon them to drag us awayfrom the church in open rebellion.35

Significantly, Calvin did not follow Bucer

and Oecolampadius, as did the Reformed

tradition generally, in considering church

discipline as nota ecclesiae, nor did he accept

the Anabaptist view of the church, imbued

as it was with the conviction of the necessity

of perfect sanctity. Indeed, to insist on

holiness of life as a mark of the true church

is for Calvin a delusory pretension. Conscious

as he is of the problem and importance of

holy living to follow from the gospel,

imperfections of life ought not to be made a

pretext for abandoning the church. In a

strong passage he argues that to condemn

wickedness in the church is one thing; to

judge that no church exists on account of its

lack of perfect purity of life is quite another.

It is vain to expect the church on earth to be

completely purified. Perfection of life is not

itself a characteristic note of the church.

The marks of the true church are the word

of God and the sacraments.36

There are several aspects of this lucid

description of the marks of the church that

are worth commenting on, but one in

particular must be singled out, namely the

relation between preaching and the

sacraments. The ecumenical exchanges of

the past century have heightened

awareness of the ecclesiastical reality that

lies at the heart of these sentences and at

same time of that singular phenomenon of

logocentrism which so often undergirds

present-day Reformed ecclesiology. Starting

from these well-known passages of the

Institutes Martha L. Moore-Keish,37 a North

American Presbyterian theologian and a

member of the worldwide Reformed church

family, has raised some perceptive and

challenging questions. Does Reformed

ecclesiology really look to the word and the

sacraments as marks of the church? It does

indeed affirm that word and sacrament are

the marks by which we know where the

church is, but practice does not fully reflect

this affirmation. Reformed theology has

emphasized the centrality of the word, but

297

what about the sacraments? Has it focused

sufficient time and energy to due

consideration of baptism and the Lord’s

Supper as marks of the church?

This critique is not new. Roman

Catholics, Lutherans, high Anglicans and

even leading ecumenists often remark that

Reformed Christians have a somewhat

inadequate view of the visible church because

of their attitude towards the sacraments. Is

that justified? In theory no, but in practice

the answer is often yes. And if so, what are

the causes? Is it a reaction against

sacramentalist modes that hinder us from

developing an ecclesial existence

incorporating both preaching and

sacraments? But above all, what are the

remedies? Assuming that there is a

tendency to undervalue the inextricable link

between preaching and sacrament in

Calvin’s thought, Moore-Keish goes on to

suggest ways in which our understanding of

the church might be enriched by the re-

integration of sacramental theology into

ecclesiology. Let me summarize them:

• Sacraments present and join us to

Christ and, therefore, frequent reliance on

them helps to better understand the church

as the body of Christ.

• Sacraments draw us into community

and therefore underscore the church’s

identity as the people of the covenant.

• Sacraments call us to acknowledge-

ment of sin and also call the church to

confess its sinfulness and shortcomings.

• Sacraments remind us of our depen-

dence and so too, the church remembers

that it is a dependent reality, founded on

the gifts and actions of God.

• Sacraments acknowledge both our full

humanity and Christ’s full humanity, so the

church, too, is reminded to be a fully human

institution with responsibilities for the

bodies as well as the souls of its members.

• Sacraments are ethical acts and thus

call the church to become a community of

holy living, both in the private and in the

public arena.

• Sacraments point toward God’s coming

reign, and likewise the sacramental church

is an eschatological community, a living

dress rehearsal for the reign of God.

On the whole, Moore-Keish seems to

believe that “for Calvin, sacraments consist

of divine gift and human reception: Jesus

Christ comes to us in and through the bread

and wine and water, but we must have faith

to receive that gift….This may be the most

valuable and the most challenging thing we

can learn from Calvin’s ecclesiology today:

that the church is not something that we

form of our own accord. It is not a product of

our reaching out to God, but a gift of God

reaching out to us.”

I would have nothing major to add to

that except to underline how far our practice

of the sacraments is from Calvin’s

understanding of them.38 To be sure, this is

not to blame Reformed churches for valuingscripture, doctrine and preaching in the way

298

that they do—or, at least, used to do—for even

these aspects of his legacy are currently in

eclipse among us, to our own great loss.

Nonetheless, it must be said that the stress

on text and talking has marginalized and

depreciated the sacraments, so that their

message about the crucified and living Lord

as the life of the church is muffled, and the

Eucharist thus becomes a mere extra,

tacked onto a preaching service, rather than

the congregation’s chief act of worship, as

Calvin thought it should be. The word-

sacrament antithesis adumbrated by Moore

and other critics, most certainly is an

exaggeration, but the disproportionate

logocentrism of Reformed ecclesiology is a

fact, and may even be a significant cause of

an enfeebled Reformed churchliness.

3. The church and the godlymagistrate

In the Institutes, book IV, chapter 20

Calvin clearly elucidates his views on the

relationship between the church and the

magistrate.39 These were in marked contrast

with a number of other positions. He firmly

rejected the papal hierocracy of the late

Middle Ages. He was equally opposed to the

Erastian subordination of the church to the

political authority, be it in Lutheran or

Zwinglian fashion. Although he refused, like

the Anabaptists, any confusion between the

spiritual and the temporal orders, he did

not hold with them that a Christian ought

to remain apart from all offices.40 His ideal

was not the separation of the spiritual and

temporal powers but rather, their mutual

aid and reciprocal collaboration, each being

free in its own sphere. However, the lines of

demarcation were not clear, as a large part

of scholarly criticism tends to indicate. In

various provocative and lively surveys on this

theme, William C. Naphy refers to the

relationship between the two institutions

in Calvin’s Geneva as “incredibly

interlocking”, “extremely complex but largely

consensual.”41

Let us be perfectly clear on this point, if

only to avoid older inaccuracies and

spreading around a romantic picture of the

Genevan Reformer as harbinger of the

formula “a free Church in a free State”. Like

all his fellow reformers and almost everyone

in the 16th century except the Anabaptists,

Calvin held firmly to the concept of a state

church to which all must belong.42 The

hallmark of their contention was that church

and civic community were not two entirely

separate bodies based on fundamentally

different principles, but rather two elements

of the same organism. The magistrate was

not to usurp the spiritual function of the

church. The church, on the other hand, was

not to presume any kind of supremacy over

secular authority. Although their tasks were

distinct, both bodies were founded on

common principles and both had to accept

the principle of scriptural authority .

Following these premises, close state

involvement in church life was built, for

example, into both the Geneva

Ordonnances Ecclésiastiques and the

299

Zurich Prediger- und Synodalordnung. In

Geneva the elders, who together with the

pastors formed the disciplinary body known

as the Consistory, were drawn from the

ranks of all three Genevan councils—the

Petit Conseil, the Conseil des Soixante, and

the Conseil des Deux Cents, while the

chairman was the Syndic. In Zurich all

ministers and seven members of the council

attended the synod which was chaired

jointly by the senior pastor and the

incumbent Bürgermeister.43 The Genevan

rulers like the Zurich magistrates

maintained steady pressure to uphold the

state’s jurisdiction over the church. Over the

obligations of pastors towards the state, the

state’s oversight of pastors and the relative

roles of the clergy and the civil government,

there were large areas of consensus as well

as potential for recurrent discord both in

Geneva and in Zurich. Specifically unique

to Geneva was the involvement of

magistrate-elders in the consistorial

discipline and in the sanction of

excommunication.

The Zurich Reformation was, in contrast

to the Geneva Reformation, very reluctant

to develop its own church discipline and left

it totally—or at least to a large extent—to the

city council. Even if the church was to police

itself through measures of self-government

exercised in the biannual meetings of the

Synod, at no time did Bullinger argue—as

Calvin did in Geneva—that excommunication

be placed in the hands of clerical authority

instead of those of the magistrates. The

Zurich model, characterized by Pamela Biel

as a “reciprocal relationship”44, consisted

essentially in a modus vivendi which took

account of the concerns of both parties.

While the final authority over the church

lay in the hands of temporal rulers, the

prophetic function (Wächteramt) of the

church, with regard to the whole society,

magistrates included, was maintained by

the clergy. In addition, through the person

of the antistes, the ministers had direct

access to the city council and could raise

their voices whenever they felt it important

to make their opinions known to the

government.45 Accordingly, Bullinger

rejected the Anabaptist position, no less

than did Calvin and often more vigorously.

In contrast, Bullinger spoke at times in a

manifestly supportive tone about the

Geneva model, although the confrontation

between the two visions in the Palatinate,

in what later was to be known as the

Erastian controversy, exacerbated the

differences between Zurich and Geneva.

The overriding impression that emerges

from the reading of the weighty chapter 20

of book IV of the Institutes is that Calvin,

like Bullinger46, was anxious to impress on

the secular authority the weighty

responsibility of the cura religionis; but above

all he was zealous to preserve the autonomy

of the church from confusion with the

jurisdiction of the “godly magistrate.” His

model is characterized by a relative degree

of autonomy and independence from the

civil authority within the framework of a

300

state church, in particular in terms of the

social and political implications of the

imposition of church discipline. To use

anachronistic terminology, we might say

that Calvin’s view stresses the role of checks

and balances in a system in which church

and state worked as “a single, national unit,

comprising much of the same personnel and

the same space.”47 One cannot label the

struggle about excommunication as a

constitutional clash for the independence

of the church from state, since there was no

separation between church (Company) and

state (Petit Conseil) , but merely a

“disagreement between one institution of

the State, the Consistory, and another, the

Petit Conseil.” 48 In other words, it was “a

question of jurisdiction and place in the

institutional structure of the state between

one bureaucratic body, the Consistory, and

another, the Petit Conseil.”49

This, let it be said, is a tall achievement.

Calvin’s strongly-held views incite our

admiration, because they have become the

source of pulsating energies constantly

adjusting to the various political cultures.

His model of church organization was

certainly more biblical and less dangerous

than Bullinger’s model of the relationship

between religious and temporal sphere and,

in the long run, more influential both

spiritually and politically.

It must also be said that Calvin was

dealing with a Christian society and with

Christian rulers. The Geneva Reformation

started in a distinct geographical area,

Europe, where the Constantinian pattern

had been imposed and would not have

survived without state support. There

remains the basic question of our attitude

to the medieval and early-modern pattern

of a Christian society emerging from the

Constantinian settlement. Some regard it

as the greatest victory of the church and

would argue that we are still reaping the

benefits of it , while others—and as a

Waldensian heretic I count my self among

them—have seen it as a false trail. As a

Reformation historian, however, I would be

the last to criticize Calvin or Bullinger for

not having challenged the idea of the corpus

christianum.

Yet another problem lurks here. We now

face a pluralistic society and a secular state.

To debate the duties of “godly magistrate” is

fast becoming irrelevant. In this respect,

Calvin’s Geneva may be of historical interest

to us but it is of little immediately practical

consequence. If at all comparable, our

present situation is analogous not to that of

the church in the early-modern period, but

to that of the latter part of the third century,

when the church was still a tiny minority

within the Roman Empire. And the

perennial trouble of minorities is that, by a

process as understandable as it is

regrettable, their care is for their own

survival, and thus concern for the quickening

and renewing of society is considerably

reduced. Such a narrowing of care for society

is a seedbed of sectarianism and ought never

to occur. We must not react against

301

Constantinian politics into an inward,

private spirituality. The church can and

should influence society as a whole, not to

dominate but to serve as innovative ferment.

Bullinger’s Fürträge and Calvin’s

unpretentious system of checks and

balances both involve much more than

defending the interests of the church. They

believed and practised what we have to re-

learn time and time again, namely that the

Notes

1 The theme has been addressed recently by Lukas Vischer, Pia Conspiratio. Calvin’sCommitment to the Unity of Christ’s Church (Geneva: John Knox International ReformedCenter, 2000); Aladair Heron, The relevance of the Early Reformed Tradition, particularly ofCalvin, for an Ecumenical Ecclesiology Today, in The Church in Reformed Perspective. AEuropean Reflection (Geneva: John Knox, 2002) 47-74 and Gottfried W. Locher, Sign of theadvent. A study in Protestant ecclesiology (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004).2 For example: visible and invisible church, true and false church, local and universal, unityin doctrine und diversity in organization, etc.3 Willhelm Niesel, Die Theologie Calvins (München: Ch. Kaiser, 1938) [Engl. The Theologyof Calvin, (Philadelphia PA: Westminster Press, 1956)]; Alexandre Ganoczy, Calvin,théologien de l’Eglise et du ministère (Paris: Éd. du Cerf, 1964); Otto Weber, Calvins Lehrevon der Kirche, in Id., Die Treue Gottes in der Geschichte der Kirche (Neukirchen:Neukirchener Verlag, 1968) 19-104; Léopold Schümmer, L’Ecclésiologie de Calvin à lalumière de l’Ecclesia Mater (Bern: P. Lang, 1981); Harro Höpfl, The Christian Polity of JeanCalvin, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Stefan Scheld, Media salutis. ZurHeilsvermittlung bei Calvin (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag, 1989); Richard C. Gamble, Calvin’sEcclesiology: Sacraments and Deacons (NewYork & London: Garland, 1992).4 Robert M. Kingdon, Catechesis in Calvin’s Geneva, in John van Engen, ed., EducatingPeople of Faith (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004) 294-313; John Hesselink, Calvin’sUse of Doctrina in His Catechisms (unpublished paper given at the International CalvinCongress, Emden, August 2006).5 Peter Opitz, Calvins theologische Hermeneutik (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1994); Max Engammare, Sermons sur la Genèse (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,

Christian message of salvation becomes

futile unless its implications are extended

throughout the whole of human life, into

political, social and international structures.

Perhaps here lies Calvin’s—and let me add

also Bullinger’s—greatest contribution in the

field of political ethics, a contribution which

exceeds by far the confessional borders and

their own time and which embraces the

whole Christian church.50

302

2000); Id., Wilhelmus H. Th. Moehn, God calls us to His Service (Geneva: Droz, 2001);Herman. J. Selderhuis, Church on Stage: Calvin’s Dynamic Ecclesiology, in David Foxgrover,ed., Calvin and the Church (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 2002) 46-64.6 Jean-Daniel Benoit, Calvin and His Letters: A Study of Calvin’s Pastoral CounsellingMainly from His Letters (Oxford: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1986) trans. Richard Haig; WilliamG. Naphy, Calvin’s Letters: Reflections on Their Usefulness in studying Geneva History,Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 86 (1995): 67-89.7 Elsie A.McKee, Calvin and his colleagues as pastors: some new insights into the collegialministry of word and sacraments, in Herman J. Selderhuis, ed., Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae,Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Princeton, August 20-24, 2002(Geneva: Droz, 2004) 9-42.8 William G. Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press, 1994); Id., Church and State in Calvin’s Geneva, inDavid Foxgrover, ed., Calvin and the Church (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 2002)13-28. Since 1987 a team of scholars (Thomas A. Lambert, Isabella M. Watt, Jeffrey R. Watt)under the supervision of Robert M. Kingdon is publishing the Registres du Consistoire deGenève au temps de Calvin and examining important aspects of church life and popularreligious practice. See for a bibliographical overview Jeffrey R. Watt, Childhood and youth inthe Geneva Consistory minutes, in Selderhuis, Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, 43-64, here42.9 Huldreich Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke [= Z], vol. I, 538.10 H. Bullinger, Decades, edited for the Parker society by Thomas Harding (Cambridge:University Press, 1852) vol. IV, 17. On Bullinger’s ecclesiology, see Peter Opitz, HeinrichBullinger als Theologe. Eine Studie zu den “Dekaden” (Zürich: TVZ, 2004) 417-461.11 Inst. IV.1.7. (hereinafter for quotations from the Institutes in English Ford Lewis Battles’translation is used).12 Inst. IV.1.10.13 Cf. Raymond A. Blacketer, The School of God. Pedagogy and Rhetoric in Calvin’sinterpretation of Deuteronomy (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006) 40-42.14 Com. on 1 Tim 3:15, CO 52, 288. The church is the mother of all believers “because shebrings them the new birth by the Word of God, educates and nourishes them all their life,strengthens them and finally leads them to complete perfection.”; Com. on 1 Tim 5:7, CO52, 308. The church is “ God’s school”, the “ pillar and ground of the truth”, because instructs“in the study of a holy and perfect life.” Com. on 1 Tim 4:6, CO 52, 298.15 Com. on Gal 4: 26-31 : “… In the same way, we must be careful today when we speak of ‘thechurch’, to ensure that we ourselves are not of that illegitimate seed; for if we havehypocritically uttered God’s name before men, he will surely reject us and banish us fromhis family. God bestows great honour upon the church here, when he calls her the motherof all believers. It reminds us of the words of Paul in another place, where he says that thechurch is the pillar which upholds God’s truth in this world [1 Tim 3:15]. It does not meanthat the truth needs to be maintained by sinners like ourselves, inclined as we are tofickleness and inconstancy, and prone to falsehood. How could the truth of God rest uponthe shoulders of men, unstable as we are? Yet, through his unfailing kindness, he desiredthat his Word should be proclaimed here below, and committed that responsibility tothose whom he has called. It is for this reason that the church is referred to here as ‘themother of us all’. As the Lord Jesus Christ declares, God alone is our Father [Mt 23:9]. Godis our spiritual Father, and must have no rival. It is he that brings us the hope of eternal lifeby means of his true church, in which he has placed his incorruptible seed. As the prophet

303

Isaiah says, ‘my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, norout of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, fromhenceforth and for ever’ [Isa. 59:21]. Thus, God governs his people through his Word. It isthis message which he has bestowed as a deposit and priceless treasure for the salvationof his church, to bring us regeneration and nourish our spiritual lives.”16 Inst. IV. 1.1.17 Inst. IV.1.4. Cfr. also Inst. IV.1.20. and Com. on Isa 33:24.18 The metaphor of the church as mother goes back to Cyprian, De ecclesiae unitate 6, inPL 4, 519: “Habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem”, andAugustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, 88, serm. 2, in PL 39, 1512. See Joseph C. Plumpe,Mater Ecclesia. An Inquiry into the Concept of the Church as Mother in Early Christianity(Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1943).19 Martin Luther, Large Catechism, part 2, The Creed, third article.20 Heinrich Bullinger, Decades, vol. IV. 90-92.21 For example Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel Sapientissimus Dei Propheta…, Zürich 1565, 3a-5a.22 Inst. II.6.1.23 Against Schümmer, op. cit., 50-53, and Scheld, op. cit., 128.24 For the concept of “accomodation” in Calvin’s thought see John Balserak, DivinityCompromised. A Study of Divine Accomodation in the Thought of John Calvin (Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006).25 Inst. IV.1.5.26 Inst. IV.3.1.27 Com. on Gal 4:26.28 Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum …, ed. Peter Hünermann (Freiburg inBreisgau: Herder, 1991) 1868: “Sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiamomnium ecclesiarum matrem et magistram agnosco; Romanoque Pontifici, beati PetriApostolorum principis successori ac Iesu Christi vicario, veram oboedientiam spondeo aciuro.”29 A tract born of despair at the terms of the Peace of Westphalia, discussing whether theUnity of Brethren in exile should dissolve itself. English translation: The bequest of theUnity of Brethren, trans. and ed. Matthew Spinka (Chicago: National Union of CzechoslovakProtestants in America, 1940).30 See Isa 49; 50; 54; 66:7ff; Jer 3,4. The book of Revelation depicts the Church as a mothergiving birth to the Messiah (Rev 12). Similarly, the Apostle Paul glories that the “Jerusalemabove is free, which is the mother of us all” (Gal 4:26). D. G. Hart, Rediscovering Mother Kirk.Is High-Church Presbyterianism an Oxymoron?, Touchstone, 13 (2000) No. 10, in a generallyuseful overview, though with orthodox Presbyterian pathos, outlines the implications ofthese two metaphors for worship, ethics and church life.31 Inst. IV.1.9. In the Confessio Augustana, art. 7, the church is defined as “congregatiosanctorum, in qua evangelium pure docetur et recte administrantur sacramenta”, inBekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck. &Ruprecht,1967) 61.32 Heinrich Bullinger, Decades, vol. IV,18.33 Inst. IV.14.3.34 Inst. IV.17.44.35 Inst. IV.1.11.36 Inst. IV.1. 13. “In bearing with imperfections of life we ought to be far more considerate.

304

For here the descent is very slippery and Satan ambushes us with no ordinary devices. Forthere have always been those who, imbued with a false conviction of their own perfectsanctity, as if they had already become a sort of airy spirits, spurned association with allmen in whom they discern any remnant of human nature. The Cathari of old were of thissort, as well as the Donatists, who approached them in foolishness. Such today are someof the Anabaptists who wish to appear advanced beyond other men. There are others whosin more out of ill-advised zeal for righteousness than out of that insane pride. When theydo not see a quality of life corresponding to the doctrine of the gospel among those towhom it is announced, they immediately judge that no church exists in that place. This isa very legitimate complaint, and we give all too much occasion for it in this most miserableage. And our cursed sloth is not to be excused, for the Lord will not allow it to go unpunished,seeing that he has already begun to chastise it with heavy stripes. Woe to us, then, who actwith such dissolute and criminal license that weak consciences are wounded because ofus! But on their part those of whom we have spoken sin in that they do not know how torestrain their disfavor. For where the Lord requires kindness, they neglect it and givethemselves over completely to immoderate severity. Indeed, because they think no churchexists where there are not perfect purity and integrity of life, they depart out of hatred ofwickedness from the lawful church, while they fancy themselves turning aside from thefaction of the wicked. They claim that the church of Christ is holy [Ephesians 5:26]. But inorder that they may know that the church is at the same time mingled of good men andbad, let them hear the parable from Christ’s lips that compares the church to a net binwhich all kinds of fish are gathered and are not sorted until laid out on the shore [Matthew13:47-58]. Let them hear that it is like a field sown with good seed which is through theenemy’s deceit scattered with tares and is not purged of them until the harvest is broughtinto the threshing floor [Matthew 13:24-3-]. Let them hear finally that it is like a threshingfloor on which grain is so collected that it lies hidden under the chaff until, winnowed byfan and sieve, it is at last stored in the granary [Matthew 3:12]. But if the Lord declares thatthe church is to labor under this evil—to be weighed down with the mixture of the wicked—until the Day of Judgment, they are vainly seeking a church besmirched with no blemish.”37 Martha L. Moore-Keish, Calvin, Sacraments and Ecclesiology: what makes a Church aChurch, in http://reformedtheology.org/SiteFiles/PublicLectures/Moore-KeishPL.html38 See Inst. IV.17.38.: The Lord intended it [i.e. the Lord’s Supper] to be a kind of exhortation,than which no other could urge or animate us more strongly, both to purity and holiness oflife, and also to charity, peace, and concord. For the Lord there communicates his body sothat he may become altogether one with us, and we with him. Moreover, since he has onlyone body of which he makes us all to be partakers, we must necessarily, by this participation,all become one body. This unity is represented by the bread which is exhibited in thesacrament. As it is composed of many grains, so mingled together, that one cannot bedistinguished from another; so ought our minds to be so cordially united, as not to allow ofany dissension or division. This I prefer giving in the words of Paul: “The cup of blessingwhich we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break,is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many, are one bread and onebody, for we are all partakers of that one bread,” [1 Cor. 10: 15, 16] We shall have profitedadmirably in the sacrament, if the thought shall have been impressed and engraven onour minds, that none of our brethren is hurt, despised, rejected, injured, or in any wayoffended, without our, at the same time, hurting, despising, and injuring Christ; that wecannot have dissension with our brethren, without at the same time dissenting fromChrist; that we cannot love Christ without loving our brethren; that the same care we take

305

of our own body we ought to take of that of our brethren, who are members of our body; thatas no part of our body suffers pain without extending to the other parts, so every evil whichour brother suffers ought to excite our compassion. Wherefore Augustine not inappropriatelyoften terms this sacrament the bond of charity. What stronger stimulus could be employedto excite mutual charity, than when Christ, presenting himself to us, not only invites us byhis example to give and devote ourselves mutually to each other, but inasmuch as hemakes himself common to all, also makes us all to be one in him. For the ethicalimplications of Calvin’s sacramental theology see Brian A. Gerrish, Grace and gratitude,Minneapolis 1993.39 See Josef Bohatec, Calvin und das Recht (Feudingen in Westfalen: Buchdruckereri u.verlagsanstalt, 1934); William Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the GenevanReformation; Harro Höpfl, The Christian Polity of Jean Calvin.40 Hans Scholl, Der Geist der Gesetze. Die politische Dimension der Theologie Calvinsdargestellt besonders an seiner Auseinandersetzung mit den Täufern, in Peter Opitz, ed.Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation. Historische und theologische Beiträge zurCalvinforschung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003) 93-125. For a comprehensivedescription of the Anabaptist view, see Michael Driedger, Anabaptists and the Early ModernState: A Long-Term View, in A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521-1700,ed. John D. Roth and James M. Stayer (Leiden/Boston : Brill, 2007) 507-544.41 Naphy, Church and State in Calvin’s Geneva, 20 & 27.42 See the useful overview by Otto Weber, Kirchliche und staatliche Kompetenz in denOrdonnances ecclésiastiques von 1561, in Id., Die Treue Gottes, 119-130.43 Bruce Gordon, Clerical Discipline and Rural Reformation. The Synod in Zürich, 1532-1580 (Bern: P. Lang, 1992).44 Pamela Biel, Doorkeepers at the House of Righteousness. Heinrich Bullinger and theZurich Clergy 1535-1575 (Bern: P. Lang, 1991) 20.45 I refer to the he peculiar custom of the Fürträge, the formal memoranda to the cityauthorities inaugurated by Bullinger and kept well into 17th century Zurich. See HansUlrich Bächtold, Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat. Zur Gestaltung und Verwaltung desZüricher Staatswesens in den Jahren 1531 bis 1575, Bern: P. Lang, 1982). Most of theFürträge are now available in a modern German translation in Heinrich Bullinger, Schriften,vol.6, ed. Emidio Campi et al., Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006).46 See for the relationship of Church and State in Bullinger’s Zurich, Emidio Campi, BullingersRechts- und Staatsdenken, Evangelische Theologie 64 (2004): 116-126; Id., Bullinger’s EarlyPolitical and Theological Thought: Brutus Tigurinus, in Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi,Architect of the Reformation. An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504-1575 (GrandRapids: Baker Academic, 2004) 181-199.47 Naphy, Church and State in Calvin’s Geneva, 22.48 Ibid., 26.49 Ibid.50 See the standard work by André Biéler, La pensée économique et sociale de Calvin(Geneva: Georg,1959) trans. James Greig, Calvin’s economic and social thought, Geneva,2005), Nicholas Wolterstorff, Until justice and peace embrace (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans,1983); Id., The Wounds of God: Calvin’s theology of social justice, The Reformed Journal 37(1987): 14-22. See also the public statement on “The economic and social witness of Calvinfor Christian life today” issued by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, the John KnoxCenter and the Faculty of Theology of the University of Geneva, Reformed World 55 (2005

306

Views on Calvin’s ethics: readingCalvin in the South African context

Dirkie Smit

For Dirkie Smit, studying John Calvin’s theology in apartheid South Africa was

more than a mere student exercise, particularly since being Calvinist was

synonymous with standing for apartheid. But, he writes, with the arrival of a new

theology professor who understood Calvin’s linking of knowledge of God and care

for humanity, students became inspired and began to wonder about using Calvin’s

theology to support apartheid. Hidden within the writings of Calvin was a conviction

that radically spoke to their context and helped ultimately to drive the anti-apartheid

movement.

Why do we celebrate the legacy of John

Calvin? In South Africa, that is indeed far

more than just a rhetorical question.

I still vividly remember my first experience

reading Calvin’s works, of hearing his voice.1

It was the time of apartheid in South African

society—an oppressive system of racial

classification, exclusion and injustice, a

system partly born within Reformed worship

and the Lord’s Supper2 and also built on an

apartheid ecclesiology and biblical and

theological justification provided by the

Reformed tradition and community.3 I was

a first-year student in theology in a whites-

only faculty where a professor of Reformed

theology heading a section on mission

helped develop the first comprehensive

racial policy on apartheid,.4 Our professor in

doctrine was known as a Calvin expert and

loyal follower, who had written his doctorate

on Calvin while studying with orthodox

Calvinists in the Netherlands. He was also

known, like many others who were proudly

known as Calvinist in church and public

circles in white South Africa, as a staunch

supporter of apartheid in church and

society.5 In our context, being Calvinist was

synonymous with standing for apartheid, for

apartheid politics, apartheid economics and

an apartheid worldview, in short, the whole

ethos and ethics from which apartheid

grew6 and which for many South Africans

still holds.

A new professor, W. D. (Willie) Jonker,

had been appointed to the faculty. He was

known to be deeply Reformed, steeped in

307

Calvin and the Reformed confessions and

deeply critical of apartheid. He also had a

reputation as a dissenter and hence, was

seen as disloyal to the volk, perhaps even

dangerous. He was a personal friend of

Beyers Naudé, Jaap Durand, David Bosch

and others who were known to reject the

pervasive ideology. He was a public voice

arguing for the visible unity of the church,

for reconciliation instead of separation, for

justice instead of self-preservation and self-

privilege.7 In our very first week in the faculty,

Jonker lectured on the nature of theology

and the specific characteristics of Reformed

theology.8 It is about the honour of God, soli

Deo Gloria, we heard, but for the Reformed

understanding of the biblical message, the

honour of God is intimately interwoven with

human salvation, with human life, well-

being, in Calvin’s words “where God is known,

there humanity is also cared for.”9 This

course inspired many of us—and made us

wonder.

In the year I entered theological studies,

Jonker published an essay in Afrikaans

called “The relevance of social ethics”.10 For

that context, it was a radically new

argument, eagerly read and intensely

discussed by many students. He explained

how the contemporary world—it was the

early 1970s—was experiencing a remarkable

upsurge of interest in social ethics. Unlike

personal or individual ethics, which is

interested primarily in individual people and

their relationships with others and with

their environment and social world, social

ethics is concerned with the social structures

in themselves and with the complex ways

in which they structurally, objectively and

systemically have an impact on the lives of

human beings. For centuries, he explained,

even Christian ethics was primarily

concerned with the moral behaviour of

individual believers. Theories of natural law

guaranteed the inevitability and necessity

of existing social structures, simply to be

accepted as the social context in which we

have to conduct our personal lives. One

would expect different views in the theology

of the Reformation, he said, but in Lutheran

thought too most social forms and

institutions were regarded as matters of

reason and common sense, not subjected

to the claims of scripture. The most

important approach to social-ethical

questions during the time of the

Reformation, he said, we find in Calvin.

For Calvin, holy scripture is the ultimate

norm, including with regard to the formation

of human life in community and society.

Natural law is indeed important for civil

justice and public order, but ultimately all

our social institutions should also come

under the criticism of the word of God.

Calvin’s own activities of wide-ranging social

reform provide ample proof of how different

his thought about social questions was

compared to his time; he was not simply

interested in conservative restoration, but

rather was concerned with placing

everything under the discipline of God’s word.

Of course, Calvin was also only a child of his

308

age, and it was therefore impossible for him

to do justice to many aspects of social ethics

that would only come to the fore much later.

His point of departure, however, created

room for an approach to social ethics in

which the social aspect is not reduced to

the individual and in which the existing

order and social and political systems and

structures, the public institutions as they

are, should no longer simply be accepted as

given and eternal. Jonker went on to say

that, unfortunately, Calvin’s approach would

not always be followed and that the history

of Reformed ethics would again show a clear

reduction to individualism and a far too

uncritical acceptance of existing social

institutions and forms of community life as

unchangeable creation orders of God. In our

context, these words were nothing less than

theological subversion.

He quoted at length Biéler’s work on

Calvin’s social and economic thought—

explaining that this study made it very clear

that Calvinism should be a permanent force

towards political and social reformation and

transformation; that Calvin in his day

actively participated in the improvement of

the quality of life of so-called less privileged

classes and that he did this for reasons of

principle, because for him spiritual and

political truth were inseparably bound to

one another; Christians, according to Calvin,

should always be a disturbing element in

their societies by resisting all forms ofinjustice. These are the reasons why Calvinspoke so passionately and so profusely about

poverty and riches, interest and wages.11

In his conclusions, he argued that

contemporary societies face questions that

cannot be solved on the level of individual

ethics alone; that there are forms of injustice

that are caused by the ways in which

societies are structured and how they

function; that it is of no use to appeal to the

attitudes of individual believers under such

circumstances, since society itself must be

transformed for justice to be maintained

and that as Reformed churches in the

tradition of Calvin we simply cannot ignore

these social and ethical challenges.

As long as we believe that Christ isthe Lord and that his reign should beproclaimed over every inch of this earthlyreality—and should we not believe thiswe are no longer Reformed people—thenwe may not close our eyes for theinjustice, poverty, oppression andfrustration under which so many peoplein our world suffer. The biggest dangerfor us is that we resist the criticism ofthe existing social system as if nothingis or can be wrong with it. In fact, weshould be more critical than everyoneelse, because we stand on the basis ofthe holy scripture that opens the eyesfor every form of evil and injustice andcalls towards doing God’s will in everysphere of our lives.12

Should Reformed people withdraw from

these ethical challenges, they reveal that

they are in fact not Reformed in the

tradition of Calvin.

309

We should never comfort ourselveswith the thought that everything is fineenough. The radical critique of holyscripture against every form of injusticeshould alarm us not simply to acceptconditions in which people must sufferinjustice or hardship. Accordingly, theway of pietistic escape from the world byclaiming that church and theology havenothing to do with the burning social andpolitical questions of our day, iscompletely closed to us. Whoever choosesthis way, not only thereby leaves the waythat the Dutch Reformed Church hasalways followed in the past, but they alsoleave the Reformed way and showthereby that they do not understandanything about the concrete implicationsof the gospel for all spheres of humanlife.13

Following in the footsteps of Calvin,however, involves doing in our moment inhistory what he did in his time, in new ways

of obedience to God’s word.

It is obvious that we cannot simply besatisfied to repeat what Reformedethicists have already said in the past.We have to discern and evaluate thesocial, political and public institutions ofour own time. For that, however, we needa norm. We should here follow in Calvin’sfootsteps and unconditionally choosethe holy scripture as final norm. Ofcourse, this makes the responsible useof scripture so utmost important forsocial ethics. In the last instance, thecontemporary relevance of social ethicscalls us back to our rooms (binnekamers)and our studies to bow ourselves onceagain over the one Book that is alwaysalready ahead of us, irrespective of themoment in history in which we maylive.14

Calvin’s ethics and Calvin’s ethos

However, we still had to read Calvin

ourselves. In our very first course in ethics,

we had to read three sections from the

Institutes: the exposition of the moral law

(Book II, 8), the description of the Christian

life (Book III, 6-10) and the discussion of

Christian liberty (Book III, 19).15

Of course, we would later learn that these

are precisely the sections that scholars

dealing with Calvin’s ethics continue to study

and to explain.16 Some focus on his

attention to the law, in particular as seen in

his exposition of the Ten Commandments

as the moral law, as the best framework for

understanding his ethics.17 Others see his

depiction of the Christian life as dying to

oneself and being raised with Christ and

his discussion on discipleship and

sanctification as the best statement of his

ethics.18 Still others regard his analysis of

Christian freedom as the best introduction

to the social and political relevance of his

ethics.19

In a way, the actual content and the

detailed positions of his ethics were for us

of less importance. Calvin was a child of his

time, and his ethics inevitably reflected

that—the impact of his upbringing in a

particular humanistic, scholastic, neo-stoic

and legal tradition; the conflicts with the

Council of Trent and post-Reformation

developments in Catholicism, on the one

hand, and, on the other hand, with the

Anabaptists and their radical potential; the

310

challenges of the new reality of the modern

world that were already breaking through

in various forms and ways.20 Yet, hidden

within these writings there was something—

a vision, an ethos, fundamental

commitments, basic theological concerns

and convictions—that radically spoke to us

in our own situation. This ethos shone

through in passing comments, in rhetorical

remarks, in assumptions simply taken for

granted, and it challenged and moved us.

Calvin on the moral law Calvin’s ethos

was obvious in his exposition of the moral

law. The law itself is good and spiritual—it is

itself the form of grace and gospel; it does

not only forbid, for its content is primarily

positive; it is life-giving and life-affirming; it

calls us to pursue justice and to serve life; it

remains valid as a guideline for our everyday

lives; it moves us to reflect on God’s paternal

kindness; we should practise this kindness

and love towards all and everyone, even if

tradition and authorities urge us to act

otherwise. For us, these were powerful words.

Worship and justice, piety and

righteousness belong together. Our pious

fear of God, which is what the Institutes is

intended to serve, shows itself in the practice

of justice and mercy.21 Doctrine and ethics

belong together, as one. After all,

we are not our own (II/8.2). Our wholelife should be spent in the cultivation ofrighteousness; the only legitimateservice to this God is the practice ofjustice, purity, and holiness(II/8.2). Is itthen true, you will ask, that it is a more

complete summary of righteousness tolive innocently with fellow human beings,than piously towards God? By no means,but … our Lord means, that in the lawthe observance of justice and equitytowards human beings is prescribed asthe means which we are to employ intestifying a pious fear of God, if we trulypossess it (II/8.53).

Behind what is forbidden by the law,

behind the prohibition and the negative,

we should look for what is actually

commanded, positively, for the “principle.”

The commandment ‘Thou shalt notkill,’ the majority of people will merelyconsider as an injunction to abstain fromall injury, and all wish to inflict injury. Ihold that it moreover means, that weare to aid our neighbor’s life by everymeans in our power … I prove it thus:God forbids us to injure or hurt a brotheror sister, because he would have theirlife to be dear and precious to us; and,therefore, when he so forbids, he, at thesame time, demands all the offices ofcharity which can contribute to theirpreservation (II/8.9).

Thus we are called to affirm, protect and

serve the life of others, of the one and whole

human race, to which we all belong.

Therefore,

the purport of this (sixth)commandment is, that since the Lordhas bound the whole human race by akind of unity, the safety of all ought to beconsidered as entrusted to each. Ingeneral, therefore, all violence and

311

injustice, and every kind of harm fromwhich our neighbor’s body suffers, isprohibited. Accordingly, we are requiredfaithfully to do what in us lies to defendthe life of our neighbors, to promotewhatever tends to their tranquility, to bevigilant in warding off harm, and, whendanger comes, to assist in removing it …This commandment, therefore prohibitsthe murder of the heart, and requires asincere desire to preserve our brothersand sisters’ life (II.8.39).

Human beings have dignity, are sacred,

both because they are the image of God

and because we are human too.

Scripture notes a twofold equity onwhich this commandment is founded.Humanity is both the image of God andour flesh. Wherefore, if we would notviolate the image of God, we must holdthe human person sacred—if we wouldnot divest ourselves of humanity, wemust cherish our own flesh. The practicalinference to be drawn from theredemption and gift of Christ will beelsewhere considered [which meansthat later, especially in Book III, similarand even more powerful arguments willbe made based on the gospel of JesusChrist, DJS]. The Lord has been pleasedto draw our attention to these two naturalconsiderations as inducements to watchover our neighbor’s preservation—that isto revere the divine image impressedupon them, and embrace our own flesh.To be clear of the crime of murder, it isnot enough to refrain from sheddingpeople’s blood. If in act you perpetrate it,if in endeavor you plot, if in wish anddesign you conceive what is adverse toanother’s safety, you have the guilt of

murder. On the other hand, if you do notaccording to your means and opportunitystudy to defend their safety, by thatinhumanity you violate the law (II/8.40).

What we obtain, possess and enjoy,

perhaps legally in terms of human laws, may

in fact be the result of social and economic

injustice, even theft and oppression, in the

eyes of God.

The purport of the eighthcommandment, ‘Thou shalt not steal’ is,that injustice being an abomination toGod, we must render to every person theirdue. In substance, then, thiscommandment forbids us to long afterother peoples’ goods. There are manykinds of theft. One consists in violence,another in the more hidden craft whichtakes possession of them with asemblance of justice, another insycophancy, which wiles them awayunder the pretence of donation. But weknow that all the arts by which we obtainpossession of the goods and money ofour neighbors are to be regarded asthefts. Though they may be obtained byan action at law, a different decision isgiven by God. He sees the long train ofdeception by which the people of craftbegin to lay nets for their more simpleneighbors, until they entangle them intheir meshes. He sees the harsh andcruel laws by which the more powerfuloppresses and crushes the feeble, thoughall these escape the judgment of humanbeings, and no cognizance is taken ofthem. Nor is the violation of thiscommandment confined to money, ormerchandise, or lands, but extends toevery kind of right; for we defraud ourneighbors to their hurt if we decline any

312

of the duties which we are bound toperform towards them (II/8.45).

We are called to practise social

compassion and economic justice, through

what we think and what we do.

This commandment, therefore, weshall duly obey, if, contented with ourown lot, we study to acquire nothing buthonest and lawful gain; if we do not growrich by injustice, nor to plunder ourneighbors of their goods, that our ownmay thereby be increased, if we hastennot to heap up wealth cruelly wrung fromthe blood of others; if we do not, bymeans lawful and unlawful , withexcessive eagerness, scrape togetherwhatever may glut our avarice. On theother hand, let it be our constant aimfaithfully to lend our counsel and aid toall so as to assist them in retaining theirproperty. Let us contribute to the reliefof those whom we see under the pressureof difficulties, assisting their want out ofour abundance. Lastly, let each of usconsider how far we are bound in duty toothers. Let every one thus consider whatin their own place and order they owe totheir neighbors, and pay what they owe.Moreover, we must always have areference to the Lawgiver, and soremember that the law requiring us topromote and defend the interest andconvenience of our fellow human beings,applies equally to our minds and ourhands (II/8.46).

We are warned against excessive self-love

and against the self-serving argument that

self-love is actually demanded of us by the

law.

Indeed, since human beings arenaturally prone to excessive self-love,which they always retain, there was noneed of a law to inflame a love alreadyexisting in excess. Hence it is perfectlyplain, that the observance of thecommandments consists not in the loveof ourselves, but in the love of God andour neighbor; and that they lead the bestand holiest life who as little as may bestudy and live for themselves; and thatnone lives worse and more unrighteouslythan they who study and live only forthemselves, and seek and think only oftheir own. Nay, the better to express howstrongly we should be inclined to loveour neighbor, the Lord has made self-love as it were the standard, there beingno feeling in our nature of greater strengthand vehemence. The Lord did not makeself-love the rule, as if love towards otherswas subordinate to it; but whereas,through natural depravity, the feeling oflove usually rests on ourselves, he showsthat it ought to diffuse itself in anotherdirection—that we should be prepared todo good to our neighbor with no lessalacrity, ardor, and solicitude, than toourselves (II/8.54).

Our love towards our neighbour should

not be restricted to those whom we prefer

to love and our respect for human beings

and their human dignity22 should not

depend on their actions or their being

acceptable according to our criteria of

evaluation and judgment.

Our Savior having shown, in theparable of the Samaritan (Luke 10:36),that the term neighbor comprehends themost remote stranger, there is no reason

313

for limiting the precept of love to our ownconnections. I deny not that the closerthe relation the more frequent our officesof kindness should be. But I say that thewhole human race, without exception,are to be embraced with one feeling ofcharity: that here there is no distinctionof Greek or Barbarian, worthy orunworthy, friend or foe, since all are tobe viewed not in themselves, but in God.If we turn from this view, there is nowonder that we entangle ourselves inerror. Wherefore, if we would hold thetrue course in love, our first step must beto turn the eyes not to human beings,the sight of which might oftener producehatred than love, but to God, who requirethat the love we owe to him be diffusedamong all humankind, so that ourfundamental principle must ever be, Leta person be who they may, they are stillto be loved, because God is loved (II/8.55).

This is “the law of grace”—difficult, but

not impossible, for those engrafted into

Christ and renewed by the Spirit:

We are bound to love our enemiesjust as our friends. Those, then, showthemselves to be in truth the children ofSatan who thus licentiously shake off ayoke common to the children of God. Theburden, they say, were too difficult forChristians to bear! As if anything couldbe imagined more difficult than to lovethe Lord with all the heart, and soul,and strength. Compared with this law,there is none which may not seem easy,whether it be to love our enemy, or tobanish every feeling of revenge from ourminds. To our weakness, indeed,everything is arduous and difficult. In theLord we have strength. It is his to give

what he orders, and to order what hewills. That Christians are under the lawof grace, means not that they are towander unrestrained without law, butthat they are engrafted into Christ, bywhose grace they are freed from thecurse of the law, and by whose Spirit theyhave the law written in their hearts. Thisgrace Paul has termed, but not in theproper sense of the term, a law (II/8.57)

.

A particular challenge to us was Calvin’s

claim that this law of God, this call to justice,

should trump all human authority and

power. When custom, tradition or culture

wish to restrict this piety of worship and

justice, we should be willing to resist these

voices of authority, for Jesus Christ is the

only Lord.23

It ought to be observed, by the way,that we are ordered to obey parents onlyin the Lord. This is clear from theprinciple already laid down: for the placewhich they occupy is one to which theLord has exalted them, bycommunicating to them a piece of hisown honor. Hence, if they instigate us totransgress the law, they deserve not tobe regarded as parents, but as strangersattempting to seduce us from ourobedience to our true Father. The sameholds in the case of rulers, masters, andsuperiors of every description (II/8.38).

These are just a few examples, but it

should hopefully be clear why this ethos

spoke so powerfully to us. In our situation,

many of these themes would of course

attain new meaning and relevance and

314

become central motifs in the church struggle

and in anti-apartheid theology—the inter-

relatedness of worship and justice; the call

to protect, defend and preserve the lives of

others; the respect for the image of God in

all human beings; the dignity of all

humanity, the sacredness of life; the

inhumanity of not caring, by which we violate

God’s law; the central importance of social

and economic justice; the all-inclusive

nature of the call to love our neighbour; the

obedience owed to Jesus Christ as Lord who

takes precedence over other authorities.

Calvin’s rejection of the notion of self-

love became particularly controversial. While

we were students, Jonker wrote two short

essays in the official church journal of the

Dutch Reformed Church criticizing the

widespread ideological use of self-love to

justify apartheid, which was so clearly an

ideology of self- interest and self-

preservation. He explicitly and extensively

appealed to Calvin and to the New

Testament. Even before these essays were

published, the editor seemingly invited the

professor of dogmatics of the other Dutch

Reformed Church faculty, in Pretoria, to write

a series of two essays rejecting Jonker’s

critique and defending the importance of

love of self, based on broad principles of neo-

Calvinist philosophy.24 For many of us as

students, the choice became increasingly

clear.

Calvin on the Christian life Calvin’s

ethos was also obvious in his well-known

and historically influential exposition of the

Christian life. For many scholars, this forms

the heart of Calvin’s ethics.25 His

understanding of the Christian life rests on

the knowledge, the confession and trust

that we do not belong to ourselves, but that

we belong to God in Jesus Christ. This is the

sum of the Christian faith and life, and Calvin

uses this almost as a refrain, a motto. In a

way this ethic is the sum of everything that

Calvin considered in the Institutes up to

this point, concerning the knowledge of God

the Creator and the knowledge of God the

Redeemer in Jesus Christ. In the face of Jesus

Christ we learn to know God, the One to

whom we belong, our Creator and Redeemer.

Christian faith is nothing else than faciem

Dei contemplari, continuously to see the face

of God in Jesus Christ and to consider this

wonderful grace, to contemplate this grace,

to seek to understand this grace. In a way it

is also the sum of what Calvin will then

continue to describe, as the work of God the

Holy Spirit, concerning the wonderful ways

in which we receive this grace of Christ,

including its benefits and effects in our lives

and the wonderful means by which God

invites us into the society of Christ and holds

us therein.

Now the great thing is this: we areconsecrated and dedicated to God inorder that we may thereafter think,speak, meditate, and do, nothing exceptto his glory. For a sacred thing may notbe applied to profane uses withoutmarked injury to him. If we, then, are notour own [1 Corinthians 6:19] but theLord’s, it is clear what error we must flee,

315

and whither we must direct all the actsof our life. We are not our own: let notour reason nor our will, therefore, swayour plans and deeds. We are not our own:let us therefore not set it as our goal toseek what is expedient for us accordingto the flesh. We are not our own: in so faras we can, let us therefore forget ourselvesand all that is ours. Conversely, we areGod’s: let us therefore live for him anddie for him. We are God’s: let his wisdomand will therefore rule all our actions.We are God’s: let all the parts of our lifeaccordingly strive toward him as our onlylawful goal [Romans 14:8; 1 Corinthians6:19] (III/7.1)

It is based on this motto that Calvin

develops his ethics—should someone prefer

to call it that—in the chapters to follow.

Belonging to God, we are called to lives of

self-denial , searching for justice and

righteousness in our relations with others

and godliness in our relations with God

(III/7). For that reason, we are called to

take up our cross, as followers of Jesus

Christ , accepting our sufferings and

trusting in God’s power, learning patience

and experiencing God’s comfort and

consolation (III/8). For that reason, we are

called to meditate on the future life, not

in order to escape the present , but

precisely to come to a right and proper

estimation of the present life, and to

receive orientat ion, perspective and

proper priorities (III/9). We are called to enjoy

and appreciate the wonderful gifts of God in

this life, so that they can delight, sustainand support us, and enable and empower

us to live our daily lives of service, love and

well-doing (III/10).

This is the sum, the heart and the thrust,

of the Christian life—according to Calvin.

Belonging to God in Jesus Christ means that

we also belong to one another. The glory of

God depends on how we practise this mutual

belonging, unity , solidarity , inter-

connectedness and sharing with one

another.26

We would later learn that major studies

of Calvin’s thought and work endorse the

centrality of this perspective for also

understanding his own life and work, his

theology and his biography, as preacher,

teacher, and social and economic

reformer.27 From the perspective of his

involvement in the ministry to congregations

of refugees, exiles and strangers, and deeply

aware of the hardships, suffering and daily

worries and fears of widows, orphans, poor

people, refugees, exiles and aliens,28 he

comforted them with the good news that

they belonged to “the Living God and his

Christ,” that they were safe, cared for,

protected, one with Christ, already sitting in

heaven at God’s right hand.

This was of course the ethos of Calvinism

that Ernst Troeltsch would so famously

analyse as religious socialism;29 that Biéler

would call Calvin’s social humanism;30 that

Nicholas Wolterstorff would describe as

world-transformative Christianity in which

justice and peace embrace, in a study of

Reformed social and economic thought

316

dedicated to Allan Boesak;31 that the public

statement on “The economic and social

witness of Calvin for Christian life today”

issued in November 2004 by the World

Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC), the

John Knox International Reformed Center

and the Faculty of Theology of the University

of Geneva would so movingly formulate as a

critical challenge to our economic policies

and practices today.32 It was inspiring to

belong to such a tradition.

This was also the ethos that we would

experience again and again from the circles

of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches;

the concern for justice since its very

beginnings; the commitment to the plight

of the marginalized and downtrodden; the

search for visible unity, for more active and

living ecumenicity, for stronger forms of

belonging, community and solidarity in our

contemporary world; the commitment for

reasons of faith and theology to human

dignity and human rights; the support in

our own struggles against racism, exclusion

and injustice; in short, the spirit shown by

many of the leading Reformed ecumenical

figures and theologians, so that it became

characteristic of this community and

tradition.33 We were grateful for such

ecumenical partners and for being part of

this community.

We would later also learn that major

themes of Calvin’s theology—including the

wonderful election by grace—were not in any

way dependent on us but were to be seen in

the mirror of Jesus Christ; God’s providential

care, covering the whole of creation, the

actions and decisions of free and responsible

human beings and the smallest

eventualities threatening the poor and the

suffering; God’s faithful, covenantal dealings

with the work of God’s hands through all

history, as a living, involved, compassionate

and personal God; the continuous ministry

of the resurrected and ascended Jesus Christ

as prophet, priest and king, even today—are

all related to this fundamental conviction

that we belong to God.34 We were comforted

by these promises. In short, this basic

theological and ethical conviction of Calvin

found major resonance in the Reformed

tradition, from confessional documents to

doctrinal discussions, from ecclesial

decisions to sermons and popular

publications.

By the time that we read Calvin, we in

fact already knew this conviction very well

from the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). The

first question and answer powerfully restate

this central conviction. It is our ultimate

comfort in life and death that we are not

our own, but belong to Jesus Christ. The

whole Catechism is a deeply personal,

comforting exposition of this basic

conviction.35

During the 20th century this central

theme would again find powerful expression

in the Theological Declaration of Barmen

(1934). In words directly from the Heidelberg

Catechism, Barmen claims that the church

that belongs to Jesus Christ may not

proclaim one message, yet practise another,

317

whether by its structure, obedience,

ministries, public witness or mission.36 The

church belonging to Jesus Christ is not free

to exclude others at will.

Other Reformed churches and bodies

would also confess this fundamental

theological and at the same time ethical

conviction. It structures the opening

statement of the Brief Statement of Faith

(1993) of the Presbyterian Church (USA),37

and also the litany by the World Alliance of

Reformed Churches in Debrecen (1997),

presented to member churches for liturgical

use in the face of global injustice and

ecological destruction.38 We do not belong

to ourselves, therefore.

Of course, the concrete implications of

this were deeply controversial—everywhere,

including in apartheid South Africa. In our

case, the struggle for the visible unity of the

church was often called “the acid test”

precisely for this reason. According to many,

the real question was whether the church

belongs to the volk or to Jesus Christ,

whether it was possible to say—with Calvin—

that we do not belong to ourselves, but to

God, yet refuse to accept our brothers and

sisters as members in a church that is visibly

one, irrespective of our backgrounds of colour

and race. When we were students, reading

this description of the Christian life by

Calvin at last removed all possible doubt

from our minds about the answers to these

questions.

Calvin on Christian freedom Calvin’s

ethos was also very obvious in his famous

description of Christian freedom in the short

essay “On freedom.”39 For many scholars,

this is the real key to Calvin’s major legacy

to social and political theory—including the

many controversial claims about his

contribution as the maker of modernity, as

the layer of the foundation of Western

democracy, as the inspirer of capitalism, or

as the real founding father of American

freedoms.40

Indeed, Calvin’s legacy regarding his

understanding of freedom became a long

tradition of conflictual interpretations

among historians, biographers,41 legal

scholars,42 political scientists43 and

theologians,44 and even scholars specifically

concerned with studying Calvin’s personal

views of ethics, politics and social life.45 Also

within the historical context of apartheid

South Africa, his views on freedom would be

central in the overall impact of his ethos.

Calvin himself also regarded freedom as

extremely important. In fact, “unless this

freedom be comprehended, neither Christ

nor gospel truth, nor inner peace of soul,

can be rightly known” (III/19.1). He discusses

human freedom under three aspects—the

freedom of being saved by grace alone, the

freedom of eager and cheerful gratitude and

obedience, and the freedom to be indifferent

towards human, cultural, ecclesial and

religious obligations.

It was the third aspect in particular that

would work so inspiringly for many. This is

the freedom from adiaphora, the freedom

of conscience from all kinds of outward

318

claims which are in themselves indifferent:

the freedom to be indifferent about the

indifferent. In specific historical situations,

this aspect can take the concrete form of

human liberation from the power and

influence of culture and tradition and can

therefore be experienced as something very

dramatic, radical and even revolutionary.

With this third aspect, Calvin emancipates

the Christian conscience from both

particular cultures and particular traditions.

He declared them indifferent in principle,

thereby liberating believers from “the

stranglehold of cultural superstitions”46 For

many of us, this was indeed an experience

of freedom.

Many commentators consider this third

aspect Calvin’s most radical contribution.47

Stevenson remarks that, in a European

society bound in both its ecclesiastical and

its secular aspects by tradition and cultural

authority, this could indeed be regarded as

Calvin’s most revolutionary teaching.48

Christians are free to dissociate themselves

from the cultural and time-bound context

in which they live, and are thereby liberated

both from cultural traditions and customs

and liberated for the following of God’s truth

and God’s call. If the existing social order is

ultimately only temporary and superficial,

then its reconstruction and even its

destruction may indeed be called for,

especially if it perverts and subverts the

purposes of the reign of God in some crucial

way.49

Not only in theory, but indeed also in

historical practice this ethos would lead to

radical and sometimes revolutionary social

and historical action. Calvin himself

assumed that the first two aspects would be

more readily understood, since they

represented basic evangelical teaching, but

admitted that the third aspect introduced a

“weighty controversy.” This was the point

where the spirits parted.50

For Calvin himself, this aspect of human

freedom was the most significant part of all.

“For within the third part lay the church’s

sense of its destiny within history. Christian

believers must inevitably see themselves

as both providentially embedded in

historical context and providentially

destined to emancipation from that context.

If they misunderstand this part of freedom,

they mistake their status and fall prey to

either a debasement of historical order or

an idolization of mere culture.”51

Of course, Calvin himself did not and

could not see all the implications of what

this principle made possible. Much of the

criticism against his personality and

character, his strictness and harsh

administration, the moral legalism of the

city during his time, in fact the “moral terror”

of which the Reformed tradition is still

accused today has to do with this reality—

that we are all children of our own time,

products of our contexts and cultures, and

that we all fail in so many ways to practise

the practical consequences of our own

convictions. Regarding women, Dempsey

Douglass would argue that this is precisely

319

what happened, because Calvin was unable

to draw the conclusions from his own radical

insight.

Yet there were many crucially important

aspects of his thought where he did draw

some of these conclusions in ways that

would also inspire a critical ethos in South

Africa. Originally, this essay on freedom

introduced his thoughts on the government

of the church and on civil government. Even

in the last version of the Institutes, these

ideas about freedom from existing forms and

practices stil l provide the key to

understanding his discussions of the church,

the sacraments and civil government—the

three themes of Book IV. For us, this was

subversive material.

This ethos of freedom means that the

church in its present form is not necessarily

the church as it should be. Precisely because

the church is so important—our mother, with

no salvation outside the church—it is so

important for us to recognize its abuses and

failures, to self-critically discern the marks

of the true church, to long for her visible

unity and renewal. Of course, these thoughts

were developed in the totally different

historical context in which Calvin lived, but

if they were true, they spoke directly into

our own situation, calling us also to self-

critical examination.

Moreover, this article of the Creedrelates in some measure to the externalChurch, that every one of us mustmaintain brotherly and sisterly concordwith all the children of God, give dueauthority to the Church, and, in short,

conduct ourselves as sheep of the flock.And hence, the additional expression, the‘communion of saints;’ for this clausemust not be overlooked, as it admirablyexpresses the quality of the Church; justas if it had been said, that saints areunited in the fellowship of Christ on thiscondition, that all the blessings whichGod bestows upon them are mutuallycommunicated to each other … For if theyare truly persuaded that God is thecommon Father of them all, and Christtheir common head, they cannot but beunited together in brotherly and sisterlylove, and mutually impart their blessingsto each other (IV/1.3).

It was, for example, not without reason

that Jonker’s first published works were all

on the order in the church, on the discipline

in the church, on the mission policies of the

church, and almost without exception by

appealing to Calvin.52 He, together with

several friends, was attempting to reform

the Reformed churches in South Africa by

reclaiming what he saw as true Reformed

ecclesiology.53 It was not surprising that

these so seemingly innocent, technical and

insignificant pamphlets were causing such

an uproar in church and society at the time,

deeply upsetting many and inspiring and

liberating others.54

This ethos of freedom means that the

sacraments as we practise them are not

necessarily what they should be. Precisely

because the sacraments are so important—

and over the years scholarship would help

us to understand much better how crucially

important they really were for Calvin, whose

320

whole theology may be called sacramental—

it is of utmost importance for us to critically

examine ourselves and our own practices

concerning baptism and the Lord’s Supper,

and to long for their reform and renewal.

Precisely because the story of apartheid in

a way started in the celebration of the Lord’s

Supper—when some believers were excluded

based on culture, race and class, until this

exclusion would become the norm,

understood as the will of God and biblically

justified, and the basis of separate

congregations and churches—questions

concerning worship and the sacraments

stood at the heart of the struggles within

our churches. With this in mind, it was

impossible not to be challenged and moved

by Calvin’s ethos.

The Lord intended it (this is my body,take eat) to be a kind of exhortation, thanwhich no other urge or animate us morestrongly, both to purity and holiness oflife, and also to charity, peace, andconcord. For the Lord therecommunicates his body so that he maybecome altogether one with us, and wewith him. Moreover, since he has onlyone body of which he makes us all to bepartakers, we must necessarily, by thisparticipation, all become one body. Thisunity is represented by the bread whichis exhibited in the sacrament. As it iscomposed of many grains, so mingledtogether, that one cannot bedistinguished from another; so ought ourminds to be so cordially united, as not toallow of any dissension or division (IV/17.38).

We shall have profited admirably in

the sacrament, if the thought shall havebeen impressed and engraven on ourminds, that none of our brethren is hurt,despised, rejected, injured, or in any wayoffended, without our, at the same time,hurting, despising, and injuring Christ;that we cannot have dissension with ourbrethren, without at the same timedissenting from Christ; that we cannotlove Christ without loving our brethren;that the same care we take of our ownbody we ought to take of that of ourbrethren, who are members of our body;that as no part of our body suffers painwithout extending to the other parts, soevery evil which our brothers and sisterssuffer ought to excite our compassion.Wherefore Augustine notinappropriately often terms thissacrament the bound of charity. Whatstronger stimulus could be employed toexcite mutual charity, than when Christ,presenting himself to us, not only invitesus by his example to give and devoteourselves mutually to each other, butinasmuch as he makes himself commonto all, also makes us all to be one in him(IV/17.38).

Moreover, as we see that this sacredbread of the Lord’s Supper is spiritualfood to the pious worshippers of God, ontasting which they feel that Christ is theirlife, are disposed to give thanks, andexhorted to mutual love; so, on the otherhand, it is converted into the mostnoxious poison to all whom it does notnourish and confirm in the faith, nor urgeto thanksgiving and charity. For peoplewho, without any spark of faith, withoutany zeal for charity, rush forward likeswine to seize the Lord’s Supper, do notat all discern the Lord’s body. For,inasmuch as they do not believe thatbody to be their life, they put everypossible affront upon it, stripping it of all

321

its dignity, and profane and contaminateit by so receiving; inasmuch as whilealienated and estranged from theirbrethren, they dare to mingle the sacredsymbol of Christ’s body with theirdissensions. No thanks to them if thebody of Christ is not rent and torn topieces. By this unworthy eating, they bringjudgment on themselves. They bearwitness against themselves. Beingdivided and separated by hatred and ill-will from their brethren, that is, from themembers of Christ, they have no part inChrist, and yet they declare that the onlysafety is to communicate with Christ, andbe united with him (IV/17.40).

For this reason Paul commandseveryone to examine themselves beforethey eat of that bread, and drink of thatcup. By this, as I understand it, he meansthat everyone should descend intothemselves, and consider … whether withzeal for purity and holiness they aspireto imitate Christ; whether, after hisexample, they are prepared to givethemselves to their brethren. And tohold themselves in common with thosewith whom they have Christ in common;whether, as they themselves areregarded by Christ, they in their turnregard all their brethren as members oftheir own body, or like their members,desire to cherish, defend, and assistthem, not that the duties of faith andcharity can now be perfected in us, butbecause it behoves us to contend andseek, with all out heart, daily to increaseour faith (IV/17.40).

It was, for example, not without reason

that Allan Boesak would so often quote these

words from Calvin in his speeches and

writings, or that so-called gesamentlike

aanbidding (shared worship) and the visible

unity of the church would be the most

heatedly debated theological issues in the

Reformed churches in South Africa over

several decades. Hidden behind these

issues, the very ethos of Calvin’s legacy was

at stake.

Calvin’s ethos of freedom also meant that

the civil government and its administrative

structures and regulations, the apartheid

state with its hundreds of apartheid laws,

its apparatus and its authority, the political

powers of the day with their taken-for-

granted assumptions, the cultural

domination and the economic oppression

together with their ideological justification,

all these factors which collectively

determined our everyday realities were not

necessarily what they should be. It meant

that public life could also be different. It

meant that these powers are also historical,

human products, that they are also called

to serve the honour of God and therefore

the well-being of all human beings, and that

we are all together called to discern whether

they are indeed fulfilling their true calling.

There were many deeply existential

debates at the time over the legitimacy of

the apartheid government; over ways for the

church to be the voice of the voiceless and

to the limits of getting actively involved in

the public sphere; over the possibility and

nature of civil disobedience, including

conscientious objection; over possible forms

of non-violent resistance;55 even over the

legitimacy of violence56 and of the armed

struggle for freedom—and in many of these

debates Calvin’s convictions concerning the

322

responsibility of the magistrates to defend

the weak and to resist tyrannical rule often

played a major role.57

Calvin’s pathos

Perhaps three brief systematic remarks

can conclude some of what reading Calvin

in South Africa and getting a sense of his

ethics and ethos meant for us. In the first

place, one could perhaps say that this ethos

of his threefold ethics—respect for God’s law,

union with Christ and being freed by the

Spirit—was a response of deep gratitude to

God’s own pathos, to the pathos of the

Triune God, revealed to us in the mirror of

Jesus Christ.58

Nicholas Wolterstorff meditated in a

moving way on this divine pathos in his

1987 essay “The wounds of God: Calvin’s

theology of social injustice.”59 He thinks

there is substantial truth in many of the

claims about the role of early Calvinists in

the formation of the modern world. At the

same time, this world is “pervaded by social

injustice and thick with social misery.” In

Calvin himself, he believes there is “a

pattern of theological reflection that is

r ich , creat ive , provocat ive , and

extraordinarily bold.” It is a pattern that

could help us deal with the social misery

of the modern world. It is a pattern that to

his knowledge “all the Calvin scholars

miss.” It is a theology that could help those

in “privileged corners of the world” to

“genuinely hear the cries of the victims.”He calls this pattern “Calvin’s theology of

the tears of the social victim.”

He contrasts this theological pattern

of Calvin with the thousand years of

medieval mentality on suffering—both

human and div ine—represented by

Augustine. In short, the portrayal of God

by Augustine and the other ancients,

followed by the medievals, was of a God of

blissful apathy. To show that Calvin’s

picture of God was radically different, he

first quotes from Calvin’s commentary on

Genesis 9:5-6.

Human beings are indeed unworthyof God’s care, if respect be had only tothemselves; but since they bear theimage of God engraven on them, Hedeems himself violated in their person… This doctrine is to be carefullyobserved, that no one can be injuriousto their brother or sister withoutwounding God himself . Were thisdoctrine deeply fixed in our minds, weshould be more reluctant than we areto inflict injuries.

Wolterstorf f summarizes his

understanding of Calvin’s words. “To inflict

injury on a fellow human being is to wound

God himself; it is to cause God himself to

suffer. Behind and beneath the social

misery of our world is the suffering of God.

If we truly believed that, suggests Calvin,

we would be much more reluctant than

we are to participate in the victimizing of

the poor and the oppressed and the

assaulted of the world. To pursue justice is

to relieve God’s suffering.” He then quotes

323

from Calvin’s commentary on Habakkuk 2:6

and the words “how long?”

When people disturb the whole worldby their ambition and avarice, oreverywhere commit plunder, or oppressmiserable nations—when they distressthe innocent, all cry out, How long? Andthis cry, proceeding as it does from thefeeling of nature and the dictate of justice,is at length heard by the Lord. For howcomes it that all, being touched withweariness, cry out, How long? except thatthey know that this confusion of orderand equity is not to be endured? And thisfeeling, is it not implanted in us by theLord? It is then the same as though Godheard himself, when he hears the criesand groanings of those who cannot bearinjustice.

He again summarizes. “Not only is the

penetration of injustice against one’s fellow

human beings the infliction of suffering upon

God. The cries of the victims are the very cry

of God. The lament of the victims as they

cry out ‘How long?’ is God’s giving voice to

his own lament.”

“What led Calvin to such a bold theology

of social injustice?” he asks. Calvin rejected

the Stoic view of humanity according to

which we should cast off all human qualities

and act “like a stone not affected at all” by

anything. For Calvin, “we are to let our

wounds bleed, our eyes tear.” We have to be

capable of passion and compassion. He

insists that we should see all the world as

God’s gifts to us, not only to be used but as

to enjoy, with gratitude. “One cannot

overemphasize the pervasiveness of this

theme in Calvin,” says Wolterstorff, “the

theme of world as gift for use and enjoyment,

and the counterpart theme of the propriety

of gratitude. Never, in this regard, was there

a more sacramental theologian than Calvin,

one more imbued with the sense that in

world and history and self, we meet God.”60

Even more important, however, is

Calvin’s view of the divine image in

humanity. The Creator willed that the

Creator’s own glory be seen in human beings

as in a mirror (II/7.6). God looks upon God’s

self, and beholds God’s self in human beings

as in a mirror (sermon on John 10:7).61 “God’s

children are pleasing and loveable to him,

since he sees in them the marks and

features of his own countenance. Whenever

God contemplates his own face, he both

rightly loves it and holds it in honour.”

A consequence of that, says Wolterstorff,

is that we as human beings exist in profound

unity with each other, since we all share in

the image of God. There is no more

profound kinship than this.

We cannot but behold our own faceas it were in a glass in the person that ispoor and despised … though they werethe furthest strangers in the world. Let aMoor or a Barbarian come among us, andyet inasmuch as he or she is a man or awoman, they bring with them a lookingglass wherein we may see that they areour brothers and sisters and neighbors.62

This is essential to understanding

324

Calvin’s ethos. “Calvin grounds the claims of

love and justice in this phenomenon of our

mirroring God. The standard picture of

Calvin is that of obligation and duty and

responsibility and the call to obedience loom

large in his thought, and indeed they do. Yet

for Calvin there is something deeper than

these.”

All of us in our daily lives areconfronted with other human beings. Wefind ourselves in the presence of an Otherwho, by virtue of being an icon of God,makes claims on us. Moral reflection canbegin either from responsibility or fromrights—from the responsibilities of theAgent or from the claims of the Other.The degree to which Calvin begins fromthe Other is striking.

A challenging passage from Calvin’s

description of the Christian life illustrates

this pattern.

The Lord enjoins us to do good to allwithout exception, though the greaterpart, if estimated by their own merit, aremost unworthy of it. But scripturesubjoins a most excellent reason, whenit tells us that we are not to look at whatpeople in themselves deserve, but toattend to the image of God, which existsin all, and to which we owe all honorand love. Therefore, whoever be theperson that is presented to you asneeding your assistance, you have noground for declining to give it to him orher. Say it is a stranger. The Lord hasgiven that person a mark which ought tobe familiar to you: for which reason heforbids you to despise your own flesh (Gal.

6:10). Say the person is mean and of noconsideration. The Lord points him orher out as one whom he hasdistinguished by the luster of his ownimage (Isaiah 58:7). Say that you arebound to that person by no ties of duty.The Lord has substituted him as it wereinto his or her own place, that in thatperson you may recognize the many greatobligations under which the Lord haslaid you to himself. Say that the personis unworthy of your least exertion on hisor her account; but the image of God, bywhich that person is recommended toyou, is worthy of yourself and all yourexertions. But if the person not onlymerits no good, but has provoked you byinjury and mischief, still this is no goodreason why you should not embrace himor her in love, and visit them with officesof love. That person has deserved verydifferently from me, you will say. In thisway only we attain to what is not to saydifficult, but altogether against nature,to love those that hate us, render goodfor evil , and blessing for cursing,remembering that we are not to reflecton the wickedness of people, but to lookto the image of God in them, an imagewhich, covering and obliterating theirfaults, should by its beauty and dignityallure us to love and embrace them (III/7.6).

Finally, refraining from injustice is not

enough, we should rather positively act

according to this pattern of God’s pathos.

He quotes from Calvin’s commentary on

Isaiah 58:6-7.

It is not enough to abstain from actsof injustice, if you refuse your assistanceto the needy. By commanding them to

325

‘break bread to the hungry,’ God intendedthem to take away every excuse fromcovetous and greedy people, who allegethey have a right to keep possession ofthat which is their own. And indeed, thisis the dictate of common sense, that thehungry are deprived of their right, if theirhunger is not relieved. He means allpeople universally, not a single one ofwhom we can behold, without seeing, asin a mirror, ‘our own flesh.’ It is thereforea proof of the greatest inhumanity, todespise those in whom we areconstrained to recognize our ownlikeness.

He makes moving conclusions about

Calvin’s ethos, contrasting it with other

ethical positions and arguing that it is

ultimately based in his particular

understanding of God’s pathos, an

understanding that not everyone today can

or will appreciate.

For Calvin, the demands of love andjustice lie not first of all in the will ofGod, which is what much of the Christiantradition would have said; nor do they liefirst of all in the reason of God, which iswhat most of the rest of the traditionwould have said. They lie in the sorrowand in the joy of God, in God’s sufferingand in God’s delight. If I abuse somethingthat you love, then at its deepest whathas gone wrong is not that I have violatedyour command—though you may indeedhave issued such a command. It lies firstof all in the fact that I caused you sorrow.The demands of love and justice arerooted, so Calvin suggests, in what (maybe called) the pathos of God. To treatunjustly one of these human earthlings

in whom God delights is to bring sorrowto God. To wound his beloved is to woundhim. The demands of justice aregrounded in the vulnerability of God’slove for us his icons. God is not apathe …These imposing words, the words of onewho himself was an exile and himselfsuffered a good many indignities … findstriking parallels today in the words ofsome … from Latin America, South Africa,and black North America. Perhaps,indeed only those who suffer the pain ofinjustice and poverty and indignity andexile far more intensely than most of usdo, can adequately interpret them forus.63

In short, this pattern of the pathos ofthe Triune God that informs the threefold

ethos of Calvin’s thought (respect for the

law of God; being united with Jesus Christ

and being set free by the Spirit) is a pattern

to respond to actively. “The call to justice is

the call to avoid wounding God; the call to

eliminate injustice is the call to alleviate

divine suffering. If we believed that, and

believed it firmly, we would be far more

reluctant than we are to participate in the

acts and the structures of injustice. If we

believed that and believed it firmly, we would

ceaselessly struggle for justice and against

injustice, bearing with thankful, joyful

patience the suffering which that struggle

will bring upon us.”64 This naturally leads tothe next concluding remark.

Pathos and ethos embodied In the

second place, there is no doubt that for

Calvin our response of gratitude, of worship

and conformity, of piety and justice, is an

326

ethos that should be embodied; it should

become concrete, practical, visible, it should

be publicly institutionalized, in short, it

should be done. “‘Who will do it?’ is not a

rhetorical question”, according to a

description of Calvin and his witness.65 This

could also partly explain why the Reformed

tradition has been so interested in

questions of power, graceful power over

against graceless power66, since power has

to do with the possibility to act , to

implement, to embody.

At the end of his life, Calvin recalled that

when he came to Geneva there was “only

preaching, no reformation.”67 With

reformation he obviously meant concrete

efforts—whether through church order and

structure, through moral life, through public

institutions and practices, through social,

educational and diaconical policies and

activities—to embody visibly the faith,

preaching, the confession. This would

become the characteristic trademark of his

legacy.68

That is why Calvin himself wrote

confessional documents and church orders

embodying the confession for the worship

and life of the congregation,69 a practice that

would continue in the Reformed tradition.70

Time and again, confessions would be

followed by church orders, so that the

witness of the community through words,

deeds and life could indeed correspond to

the confession, which meant, to the gospelas heard in their historical context.71

Of course, there were different social and

political reasons behind Calvin’s conviction

that even the order of the church should be

reformed according to God’s word and for

his interest in matters of institutional form,

visible structure and discipline. Some

scholars point out that the Reformed

churches could not count in the same way

as the Catholic and Lutheran communities

on their regional and local public and

political authorities to provide their legal

structure. Some scholars underline Calvin’s

own legal background and his continuing

interest and, in fact, involvement in legal

matters and in questions of justice, politics—

even international politics—and public

administration. Some scholars prefer more

psychological explanations and attempt to

reconstruct and study his personality and

temperament, his personal sense of order

and discipline, including harsh moral

discipline, applicable to himself also. Some

scholars very interestingly emphasize the

broader public mentality of the times, the

widespread feeling or crisis and a collapse

of the former public order and structures in

general as a very important backdrop for

these growing tendencies within the

Reformed churches.

There may be elements of truth in many

or all of these explanations, yet the point

remains that in Calvin’s legacy it became a

strong claim and conviction that

embodiment is of extreme importance and

that even the visible form of the church

should be determined by holy scripture, not

by historical circumstance or political

327

authority.72 In South Africa, this became

extremely controversial. This legacy came

to us via the conflicts of the Confessing

Church in Germany and the Theological

Declaration of Barmen . For us, these

represented other moments in the legacy

of Calvin where attempts to structure the

church according to the will of the volk,

represented by the political authorities but

also by church leaders, theologians and

many church members, were resisted in the

name of the gospel. Barmen was for us the

claim that the truth (Wahrheit) of the church

should determine its visible order and form

(Existenzform), that the latter is not arbitrary

and irrelevant—or, in the apartheid idiom,

to be determined by creation and not by

recreation—but indeed central to the

witness and the credibility of the church.

For us, the unity of the church belongs to its

being, not merely to its well-being, so that it

may also, if necessary, be discarded for the

sake of the seeming well-being and internal

peace of the church.73

The smaller writings by Jonker and

others on these issues were therefore

extremely controversial and critically

important. In all of them, he was appealing

to Calvin and his legacy, to plead for the

reformation of the Reformed churches in

South Africa and for—in his words—”the rule

of Christ in his Church.”74 This was and

remains perhaps the most challenging

aspect of the struggle against apartheid—to

put the ethical convictions into practice, to

embody the confession, in the Christian life

of those who confess, in new ways of ordering

the church itself and in public life.75 It is for

this reason that the writing of a new Church

Order for the Uniting Reformed Church in

Southern Africa was such a significant

moment. The black churches in the Dutch

Reformed Church family reunited, on the

basis of the Confession of Belhar. In drafting

a new order, we knew that we could not

simply merge our former church orders, since

they all embodied an apartheid

ecclesiological vision. We rather had to ask

the question as to what kind of church we

believed we were called to be in South Africa

at that moment in our history. The

discussions which ensued were all about

Calvin, about being Reformed, about the

central place of local congregations, the

centrality of worship, the importance of

ordinary believers, the public role and

witness of the church, about the concrete

embodiment of visible unity , real

reconciliation and compassionate justice.76

For many of us, this was an extremely

meaningful experience. The challenge

which followed was even more urgent: to

truly embody this church order in our daily

lives as congregations and believers. This

challenge is integral to the legacy of Calvin.

In the true church, the gospel should be

preached and heard rightly and the

sacraments should be administered properly.

We continuously embody what we hear in

our confession, we embody our confession

in our worship and our order, we embody

our worship and our order in our everyday

328

lives. The self-critical question is, therefore,

whether we really do this, whether our

Christian lives—or some would prefer to say,

our ethics—are responses of gratitude to the

pattern of grace. This naturally leads to the

final concluding remark.

All embodiment critically considered

In the third place, reading Calvin in South

Africa led to an ethos of continuous

discernment and self-criticism, and if

necessary, of remorse and confession,

transformation and renewal. In his now

famous definition, the moral philosopher

Alasdair MacIntyre described a “living

tradition” as an “historically extended,

socially embodied argument, an argument

precisely in part about the goods which

constitute that tradition.”77

In this sense, the legacy of Calvin—

particularly the legacy of his ethics—became

for us “a living tradition.” We became very

conscious that we belong, that we are socially

embodied, that we have fathers and

mothers, sisters and brothers, that we

belong to others, not to ourselves, to a

worldwide community. We were conscious

that this community extended far back in

history, even to Geneva in the time of the

Reformation, but because of that, also further

back, through the history of Christianity to

the sources in holy scripture. And we were

deeply conscious that this community

through history was involved in an argument

about what precisely constitutes, defines,

makes this tradition who we are. We were

at the same time grateful for belonging to

this community and history, and deeply

critical and self-critical about the

embodiment of this community and history,

about its social form and its own role.78

This is precisely what Jonker was so

deliberately teaching us, through his

hermeneutical strategy. He was appealing

to the tradition against the tradition. He

was appealing to the community against

the community. He was appealing to our

deepest identity in order to critique our

actual identity. He did that so often, in his

lectures and in his sermons. He would often

claim in so many words that there was

something different in our tradition, even

in the Dutch Reformed Church itself,

something more than meets the eye, that

there have been other people, other voices,

and although they may now be completely

silenced, temporarily suppressed and

forgotten, their presence and their

convictions are still there to guide us and to

inspire us—like Calvin.79

It was, of course, not only Jonker—so many

of our theologians and church leaders were

doing exactly the same. They were appealing

to the community and the tradition in order

to critique and challenge the tradition and

the community—Allan Boesak, when he

wrote and spoke so passionately about being

both “black and Reformed,” appealing to

Calvin, Kuyper and Barth against the

theology of apartheid;80 Lekula Ntoane,

when in his “cry for life” he appeals to the

tradition against the tradition;81 Russel

Botman, when he calls on Barth against

329

Kuyper but also on Kuyper against Kuyper;82

Beyers Naudé; David Bosch; John de Gruchy,

when he speaks deliberately ambiguously

about “liberating Reformed theology,”

meaning at the same time Reformed

theology that should be liberated and

Reformed theology that is itself a theology

with a liberating message and power.83

It was in this spirit that de Gruchy could

claim that the problem in South Africa,

contrary to what many claimed, was not too

much of Calvin but too little. His work was

therefore a deliberate attempt to retrieve

the tradition anew, as a life-giving and

liberating tradition.84

Sometimes, of course, this ethos can

become so deeply self-critical that it

becomes an ethos of remorse, of confession,

of guilt. As long as it remained based on an

apartheid ecclesiology and theology, Jonker

saw increasing reason for such a deeply self-

critical response within the Dutch Reformed

Church. In 1982, during the 125th year of

the Faculty of Theology in Stellenbosch, he

movingly expressed this self-critical appeal

in a paper arguing that the Dutch Reformed

Church in South Africa found itself as it were

“on a fault line.”85 Eventually, he made the

well-known public confession of guilt also

on behalf of others in the community and

the tradition, during an ecumenical

conference in Rustenburg.

But is all this not precisely the intention

behind the motto ecclesia reformata semper

reformanda?86 Is a community that calls

itself Reformed not always to be reformed

again, by God? Should such a Reformed

church not always be engaged in “a

historically extended, socially embodied

argument about the goods that constitute

that tradition”? Should that not be central

to the communal ethos of such a

community?

Should we not be aware that we are

involved in a socially embedded argument

about what constitutes the goodness of our

living tradition, that we all continuously

answer this question by our preaching and

our listening, by our confessions and our

church orders, by our theological reflection

and our public life, by our everyday actions

and omissions, in short, by the diverse ways

in which we embody our response of

gratitude to the pathos of God—and should

we not remember that all of this

continuously falls short of being proper

responses to the divine pattern?87

Did not Calvin himself teach us this

ethos of self-critical discernment in his

pastoral, rhetorical theology? Was this not

the underlying motive, the true tenor of his

critical reflections on the third use of law,

on the calling of the Christian life, on proper

preaching and hearing, on faithful

participation in the sacraments, on the true

church, on public life in honour of God and

on grateful lives in the world, the theatre of

God’s glory? Was there not always a critical

and self-critical sense to all of this? And was

not Calvin himself more aware than most

others in the history of the church that this

criticism applies to him as well? Was he not

330

continuously pointing us away from himself,

to his Lord and Master?88 Was the heart of

his piety not his deep awareness of his own

failures and shortcomings?89

So, why and how do we celebrate Calvin’s

legacy? As far as his ethics is concerned, not

by praising him,90 but rather by standing in

his living legacy91, which includes seriously

discussing and debating with one another

what concretely embodying gratitude for this

surprising pathos of the Triune God could

mean, today and in our one common world.92

Notes

1 In recent years many scholars have paid renewed attention to the rhetorical nature ofCalvin’s theology. He was very aware of how to address readers, of context and argumentand forms of persuasion. It is therefore important to read him as if he were speaking. Awonderful contribution in this regard remains the study by Serene Jones, Calvin and theRhetoric of Piety (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1995).2 See for example Johannes C. Adonis, Die afgebreekte skeidsmuur weer opgebou(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1982); Christiaan J. A. Loff, Bevryding tot eenwording. Die NederduitseGereformeerde Sendingkerk in Suid-Afrika 1881-1994 (Kampen: Theologische Universiteit,1997).3 Some of the best-known historical reconstructions of the developments of apartheidtheology still remain J.W. de Gruchy, The church struggle in South Africa (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans 1979) revised ed. S. de Gruchy, 2005; Willem A. de Klerk, The Puritans in Africa(London: Rex Collings, 1975; J. Kinghorn ed., Die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk enapartheid (Braamfontein: MacMillan, 1986). For a brief overview, Dirkie J Smit, “Apartheid”,in H.D. Betz et al., eds., Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Band 1 (Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1986), 580-582, translated in Religion Past and Present, Vol 1 (Leiden:Brill, 2007) 293-295.4 See the informative discussion in the major historical account by Hermann Giliomee,The Afrikaners. The biography of a people (Cape Town: Tafelberg, 2003) 476-477. Thewhole study is a valuable background to understanding the nature, historical developmentand role of the Reformed faith in South Africa. Giliomee himself proposes that it wouldhave made a major difference to public life and local history if Reformed theology in SouthAfrica had taken the thought of Reinhold Niebuhr more seriously, which is very interestingin that it already suggests something of the historical importance of different forms ofreception of the Calvinist ethical legacy. It is true that Niebuhr did not really have anyimpact on Reformed thought in South Africa, although Steve de Gruchy wrote his doctoralthesis on Niebuhr during the struggle years, called Not liberation but justice. An analysis ofReinhold Niebuhr’s understanding of human destiny in the light of the doctrine of theatonement, Bellville: UWC, unpublished, 1992.

331

5 F.J.M. Potgieter, Die verhouding tussen die teologie en die filosofie by Calvyn (Amsterdam:Vrije Universiteit, 1939). See also his “A brief characteristic of Calvin’s theology,” in CalvinusReformator. His contribution to theology, church and society (Potchefstroom: PUCHO,1982) 33-47. Potgieter studied with Hepp and stood in the Calvinistic tradition of AbrahamKuyper. The Vrije Universiteit is also where J.D. du Toit (Totius), the famous Afrikaanstheologian and poet who wrote the first biblical and theological justification for apartheid,had studied earlier.6 We knew, of course, the polemics in the newspaper at the time involving J.D. Vorster, avery prominent church leader and theologian, and A.M. Hugo, a classical scholar, whowrote internationally respected studies of Calvin’s first published scholarly work, the 1532commentary on Seneca’s De clementia (including an authoritative edition, translationand discussion together with Ford L. Battles, Calvin’s Commentary on Seneca’s Declementia, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969). This remarkable public controversy thus involvedprominent people who all claimed to stand in Calvin’s tradition, but who had radicallydivergent views of our situation in church and state.7 For J.J.F. Durand, see for example “The prophetic task of the church vis-a-vis the state,” inChurch and Nation (Grand Rapids: Reformed Ecumenical Synod, 1981) 3-15; as well as alonger version, “Kontemporêre modelle vir die verhouding van kerk en samelewing”, Teksbinne konteks (Bellville: UWK, 1986) 13-37. In this essay he dealt with Calvin, Barth andKuyper, as he would do in many other contributions to public debates. For C F B (Beyers)Naudé, see the recent volume in his memory, The legacy of Beyers Naudé, ed. L. Hansen(Stellenbosch: African SunMedia, 2006).8 J.A. Heyns & Willie D. Jonker, Op weg met die teologie, Pretoria: NGKB, 1974, 229-274.9 Both K. Barth, Fragments grave and gay (London: Collins, 1971) 107 and E. Busch, “Whowas and is Calvin? Interpretations of recent times,” background paper for this Consultation,4 quote Calvin (ubi cognoscitur Deus, etiam colitur humanitas), although their translationsof the verb colitur differ slightly—comes into glory, is cultivated, is nurtured, is nourished,flourishes, is cared for. For Barth, this of course became the theme of his well-known titleessay in The humanity of God (Richmond VA: John Knox Press, 1960). The original meaningof humanitas for Calvin is, however, also controversial.10 Jonker, “Die aktualiteit van die sosiale etiek,” Sol iustitiae illustra nos, PA Verhoef, ed.(Kaapstad: NGKU, 1973) 78-107.11 Ibid., 102.12 Ibid., 96.13 Ibid., 97ff.14 (Autor’s note: all quotes translated from the original and abridged, DJS). Ibid., 97-100. It isnot surprising that responsible hermeneutics would become such an important theme forReformed scholars in our context. An influential voice was that of the Stellenboschphilosopher H.W. Rossouw In his doctoral thesis Klaarheid en interpretasie (Amsterdam:Vrye Universiteit) 1963, he critically contrasted the biblical interpretation of the Reformers,including Calvin, with later developments within Protestantism. See also his “Calvin’shermeneutics of Holy Scripture,” in Calvinus Reformator, 1982, 149-180. Another majorinfluence was the New Testament scholar B.C. Lategan. For an interpretation of his legacyas Reformed scholarship, see D.J. Smit, “Interpreter interpreted. A readers’ reception ofLategan’s legacy,” The New Testament interpreted, ed. C. Breytenbach, J.C. Thom & J. Punt(Leiden: Brill, 2006) 3-25; for the influence of Calvin on hermeneutics in South Africa, alsomy “Rhetoric and Ethic? A Reformed Perspective on the Politics of Reading the Bible,”Reformed theology: Identity and Ecumenicity II, eds. W Alston and M Welker (Grand Rapids:

332

Wm B Eerdmans) 2007. Very helpful resources on Calvin and the Bible are Peter Opitz’sextremely instructive Calvins theologische Hermeneutik (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1994)and Donald K. McKim, ed., Calvin and the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2006),which contains several excellent essays.15 The following quotations from the Institutes come from the paperback edition that Iused at the time as a student (published by MacDonald Publishing Company, MacDill,Florida, without translator or date). I went back to this edition to be reminded of my owncomments and exclamation marks at the time of my first reading. I took the liberty toshorten some quotes and to make Calvin’s language somewhat more inclusive than wascustomary during his own day.16 The term ethics is of course somewhat anachronistic. Calvin did not really use that orintend any part of his work as ethics in the contemporary technical sense of a scholarlydiscipline. He and his comtemporaries knew the Aristotelian tradition of virtue-ethics and,soon afterwards, forms of Protestant virtue ethics would indeed be developed. It wouldperhaps be more proper to speak of the Christian life. Still, it has become customary inscholarship to use the term ethics for both the social implications (for example Max Weber,Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, 1904) and the more personal implications ofhis thought and work (for example Georgia Harkness, John Calvin—the man and his ethics(New York: Holt, 1931).17 For example Christoph Strohm, Ethik im frühen Calvinismus (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996);also in his “Methodology in discussion of ‘Calvin and Calvinism’,” in Calvinus PraeceptorEcclesiae. Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, THR 388, 2004, 65-105; as well as Guenther H. Haas, “Calvin’s ethics,” in The Cambridgecompanion to John Calvin, ed. D.M. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2004) 93-105. For a detailed study, also I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s concept of the law (Allison ParkPA: Pickwick Publications, 1992).18 For example Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin’s doctrine of the Christian life (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1959); John H Leith, Calvin’s doctrine of the Christian life (Louisville: Westminster,1989). The same was true of theologians who developed their views of sanctificationfollowing Calvin, like Barth, Otto Weber and Willie D. Jonker (Die Gees van Christus,NGKU: Pretoria, 1981).19 For example William R. Stevenson Jr, Sovereign grace. The place and significance ofChristian freedom in John Calvin’s political thought (New York: Oxford University Press,1999).20 Strohm, Ethik im frühen Calvinismus: Humanistische Einflüsse, philosophische,juristische und theologische Argumentationen sowie mentalitätsgeschichtlikche Aspekteam Beispiel des Calvin-Schülers Lambertus Danaeus is a most instructive source. Thesubtitle already summarizes the whole argument. Danaeus wrote the first ethics in thelegacy of Calvin, is a careful and detailed study of the background and the influences thatmade this development possible but also necessary. He discusses the very strong humanisticbackground, already in Calvin as well, different philosophical influences, namely both fromAristotle and from stoicism, the crucial role of legal training and interests, fundamentaltheological decisions and convictions, and finally the changing mentality of the times,namely a strong sense of social crisis, of the falling apart of social order, and therefore theurgent need for new social order and reconstruction.21 Although there has been a tradition within Reformed ethics to separate our relationshipwith God from our relationship with others and to regard only the latter as ethics, othershave emphasized their inter-relatedness. One such voice has been Nicholas Wolterstorff

333

in works such as “Liturgy, justice, and holiness,” The Reformed Journal (December 1989):12-20; “Justice as a condition of authentic liturgy,” Theology Today , XLVIII/1 (April 1991): 6-21; “The Reformed liturgy,” and “Worship and justice,” both in McKim, ed., Major themes inthe Reformed tradition (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1992) 273-304, 311-318.22 The South African Reformed ethicist J M (Koos) Vorster argues that we should not readCalvin’s views on the rights and responsibilities of people through the eyes of the 20thcentury concept of human rights and the constitutional state, or see him as the father ofhuman rights. That would be anachronistic and false. At the same time, he shows that“Calvin proposed two principles that can be regarded as revolutionary in the political andecclesiastical context of his time: the limitation of the authority of the government andthe rights of subordinates. He based these principles on sound theological-ethicalargumentation and in this sense … he provided a sound basis on which Reformed theologycan contribute to the establishment of an ethos of human rights in the present society,”“Calvin and human rights,” The Ecumenical Review (1999): 209-220.23 The lordship of Christ, which was part of the legacy opf the Barmen Declaration, playeda major role in the struggle against apartheid. For Allan Boesak, for example, this was akey conviction that he often proclaimed. It is invoked in the closing words of the Confessionof Belhar.24 Willie D. Jonker, “Selfliefde en selfhandhawing,” Die Kerkbode, 14 August, 21 August1974.25 Wallace begins Calvin’s doctrine of the Christian life with “The sanctification of thechurch in Christ.” The first chapter describes the vicarious self-offering and sanctificationof Jesus Christ as priest and king, through whom we already participate in the gloriousreality of salvation and all its blessings. Through the Spirit, the people belong to the priest,the church partakes of Christ, the sanctification of Christ is imparted to the church. Thisis the given reality, the point of departure. Through the mystical union between Christ andchurch, of which the Holy Spirit is the bond, the church already belongs to Jesus Christ andpartakes of him through faith. Based on this reality, the church can now offer itself inthankful response to Christ, through the power of the Spirit, also in and through ourordinary, daily activities. This self-offering of the church, this practical and visiblesanctification, takes the form of the life of Jesus Christ, so that cross and resurrection, dyingand rising with Christ, together describe the pattern or outward form of the Christian life.Within this logic—we already belong to Jesus Christ as belonging to his church—we arecalled to practise this belonging concretely in our lives with others, showing our conformitywith the life, the cross and the resurrection, the dying and the rising, of the one to whomwe belong and whose name we carry. He then describes Calvin’s concrete views on the lifeand behaviour of Christian people in relationships and in society, as well as the practicalimplications for nurture and discipline within the church itself, including the many concretedetail with which Calvin dealt. Leith, in his John Calvin’s doctrine of the Christian life, usesthis motto already on the first pages as the best summary of the Christian life. His supervisorAlbert Outler stresses its importance: “The heart of the matter for Calvin was the solagloria Dei. This was echoed in his oft-repeated motto, ‘We are God’s.’ From this it follows,and Calvin never tires of showing how it follows (as a theme and variations), that sovereigngrace and redemptive grace are one and the same reality and that they are revealed intheir full integrity, and supremely, in Jesus Christ. In the Christian life so conceived, our firstand last end as humans really is ‘to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.’ ‘We are consecratedand dedicated to God; therefore, we may not hereafter think, speak, meditate or do anythingbut with a view to his glory. We are God’s; to him, therefore, let us live and die.’”

334

26 See the collection of passionate quotations on the unity of the church from Calvin byLukas Vischer, Pia conspiratio. Calvin’s legacy and the divisions of the Reformed churchestoday (Geneva: WARC, 2000); for more systematic treatments, Willem Nijenhuis, Calvinusoecumenicus. Calvijn en de eenheid der kerk in het licht van zijn briefwisseling (‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1959) and Gottfried W. Locher, Sign of the advent. A study inProtestant ecclesiology, (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2004). Locher first describesthe positions of different 16th-century reformers regarding the visibility and invisibility ofthe church, including Calvin’s, then analyses these positions systematically, and finallyoffers his own proposal based on the essential visibility of the church, with bothtransformative and significative dimensions.27 This is for example the spirit of studies like W. Fred Graham, The constructiverevolutionary. John Calvin and his socio-economic impact (Michigan State University Press,1987) (reprint) and Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation. A study ofCalvin as social reformer, churchman, pastor and theologian (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988);but also the more comprehensive social history of Philip Benedict, Christ’s churchespurely reformed. A social history of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University, 2002), althoughhe deals with Calvin only as one figure within the much broader movement, and in hiscareful evaluation of the role of Calvinism in the making of the modern world argues thatthis influence should not be overly emphasized, as many earlier studies had done, 533ff.28 For the nature of this social ministry, see for example E.A. McKee, Diakonia in theclassical reformed tradition and today, Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans, 1989. In his carefuland informative study on “Calvinism and social welfare,” Calvin Theological Journal 17(1982): 212-230, Robert M. Kingdon already showed that Calvin found to a large extent thehospitals, the social structures caring for the poor and the sick in place when he came toGeneva, where these were indeed based on radical changes to the earlier systems, butthat he provided invaluable theological foundation for the work. “His contributions were ofvital importance to the success of this program. But they were not the contribution of acreator of new institutions. They were rather the contributions of a consolidator. Above allhe consecrated these reforms. He persuaded the Genevans that their new institutionswere holy creations, in unique conformity with the word of God. And this gave theseinstitutions a vitality and a durability that they would not have possessed otherwise,” 220.29 The most widely known statement is probably Ernst Troeltsch, The social teachings ofthe Christian Churches, tr. O Wyon (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), but alsoimportant is his Protestantism and progress. A historical study of the relation ofProtestantism to the modern world (London: Williams & Norgate, 1912). This was atranslation of an original lecture to the Convention of German Historians in 1906 on theimportance of Protestantism for the modern world, the critical response from a theologianto the influential thesis of his friend, the sociologist Max Weber, two years earlier (1904) onProtestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism. Around the celebration of Calvin’s birth after400 years in 1909, Troeltsch published several other important contributions, including“Calvinismus und Luthertum” (1909), “Die Genfer Calvinfeier” (1909), “Calvin and Calvinism”(1909) and “Die Kulturbedeutung des Calvinismus” (1910). These four lectures have allbeen annotated and republished in Ernst Troeltsch. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Band 8.Schriften zur Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die moderne Welt (1906-1913) (Berlin:De Gruyter, 2001) 99-181. For brief but very informative discussions in the same intellectualtradition, see the recent monograph by Friedrich Wilhelm Graf, Der Protestantismus.Geschichte und Gegenwart (München: Verlag C H Beck, 2006), especially 61-117.30 Andre Biéler, La pensée économique et sociale de Calvin, Genève: Librairie de l’université,

335

1959 (tr. Calvin’s economic and social thought, Geneva: WCC, 2005); also Calvin, prophètede l’ère industrielle (Geneva: Labor et fides, 1964); as well as The social humanism ofCalvin, tr. P T Furhmann (Richmond: John Knox, 1964). In the foreword of Social humanism,W A Visser’t Hooft summarized Biéler’s thought by saying “the humanism of Calvin isfounded on the humanism of God and demands a society wherein human beings act ascreatures responsible before God and responsible for their brethren,” 8.31 Wolterstorff, Until justice and peace embrace (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans Jr,1983).32 “The economic and social witness of Calvin for Christian life today. Statement of anInternational Consultation, Geneva, November 2004,” Reformed World 55/1 (2005): 5ff.33 See for example the introductory essays by J Schaeffer, “World Alliance of ReformedChurches,” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. N. Lossky, J. Míguez Bonino, J.S.Pobee, T. Stransky, G. Wainwright and P. Webb (Geneva: WCC Publications; Grand Rapids:W. B. Eerdmans, 1991) 1078-1079; and “WARC’s historic commitment to justice and humanrights,” Reformed World 48/2 (1998): 63-78; also the overviews in “Reformed faith andeconomic justice”, Reformed World 46/3 (1996), “Theology and human rights I”, ReformedWorld 48/2 (1998) and “Theology and human rights II”, Reformed World 48/3 (1998).34 For example convincingly argued in Heikoi A. Oberman, Two Reformations (New Haven:Yale University Press, 2003) especially 97ff. This work is dedicated to the memory of AndréM. Hugo, described as “A Puritan Calvin scholar who lived and died opposing apartheid.”35 On freedom as theme of the Heidelberg Catechism, see Eberhard Busch, Der Freiheitzugetan- im Gespräch mit dem Heidelberg Katechismus (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,1998).36 See Alfred Burgsmüller and Rudolf Weth, eds., Die Barmer Theologische Erklärung.Einführung und Dokumentation (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983); Karl Barth,Texte zur Barmer Theologischen Erklärung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984); EberhardBusch, Die Barmer Thesen 1934-2004 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004);specifically on freedom, Michael Welker, “Die freie Gnade Gottes in Jesus Christus und derAuftrag der Kirche. Die VI Barmer These: 1934-1984-2004,” epd-Dokumentation 29 (2004):9-18.37 See the official Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Volume 1; alsoWilliam C. Placher and DavidWillis-Watkins, Belonging to God: A Commentary on A BriefStatement of Faith (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992).38 See Milan Opocenský, Debrecen 1997. Proceedings of the 23rd General Council of theWorld Alliance of Reformed Churches (Geneva: WARC, 1997).39 This essay was already part of the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion(1536) as an introduction to the explicitly political sixth and final chapter entitled Delibertate Christiana, potestate ecclesiastica, et politica administration, which containedtwo other sections, on the polity of the church and on political government. It remainedunchanged until the very last edition of the Institutes (1559), where it became the conclusionof the explicitly theological chapter on faith and justification in Book III. In this final edition(1559), the essay on church polity was moved to Book IV, chapters 8-12, and the essay “Oncivil government” became Book IV, chapter 20, still the last section of the whole work.40 Willem Balke could claim “In spite of later developments in Calvinism, we may thereforehonour Calvin as one of the best advocates of freedom in the sixteenth century,” in his“Calvin’s concept of freedom,” in Freedom, ed. A van Egmond and D. van Keulen (Baarn:Callenbach, 1996) 25-54. Karl Barth could say that “Calvin has done more for the sake offreedom than all predecessors of modern doctrine of freedom in his time together,” in

336

Church Dogmatics I/2, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark) 748. Jane Dempsey Douglass would concludethat Calvin’s “theology of freedom has proved enduring, giving rise to new generations of‘freedom fighters’ in the following centuries,” in her Women, Freedom, and Calvin(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985). In his very instructive Sovereign grace. The placeand significance of Christian freedom in John Calvin’s political thought (New York: OxfordUniversity, 1999) political scientist William R. Stevenson Jr. argues in great detail thatCalvin’s complex concept of freedom serves as bridge between theology and politics, providingthe foundation for participation in the public arena, in such a way that it both anticipatesand critiques modern ideas of freedom.41 For example William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: a Sixteenth Century Biography (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1988); J Dempsey Douglass, Women, freedom and Calvin;John T. McNeill, The history and character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University,1966); and Michael Walzer, The revolution of the saints (Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1965).42 For example Louis M. du Plessis, “Calvin on state and politics according to the Institutes,”in John Calvin’s Institutes (Potchefstroom: Institute for Reformational Studies, 1986) 174-183; also John Witte, Jr, “Moderate religious liberty in the theology of John Calvin,” CalvinTheological Journal 31 (1996): 359-403.43 For example Ralph C. Hancock, Calvin and the foundations of modern politics (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1989); Harro Höpfl, The Christian polity of John Calvin (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1982); William R. Stevenson, Jr, Sovereign grace (New York:Oxford University Press, 1999). Interesting for example is Alfred M. Davies, Foundation ofAmerican Freedom (New York: Abingdon Press, 1955).44 For example John de Gruchy, Liberating Reformed theology (Grand Rapids: Wm BEerdmans, 1991); and his Christianity and democracy (Cape Town: David Philip, 1995); aswell as Willie D. Jonker, “The gospel and political freedom,” in Freedom, ed. A van Egmond,243-262.45 For example André Bieler, Calvin’s economic and social thought (Geneva: WARC, 2006);W. Fred Graham, The constructive revolutionary (Atlanta: John Knox, 1971); NicholasWolterstorff, Until justice and peace embrace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).46 Stevenson, Sovereign grace, 105.47 See also Heribert Schützeichel, “Calvins Verständnis der christlichen Freiheit,” Catholica(1983/4): 323-350.48 Stevenson, Sovereign grace, 105. He also correctly points out that this conviction wasalready present in Calvin’s work from early on, albeit formulated in different ways. This wasfor example underlying his position in the Prefatory Address in the Institutes since 1536,namely that the truth of God deserves more respect than mere human custom. God’seternal truth liberates believers from being bound to any form of historical event, culturalartefact or time-bound claim or custom, 105ff.49 Stevenson, Sovereign grace, 106. Particularly interesting, although controversial, is whatStevenson discusses as Calvin’s views on “change as progress,” 121ff. He is, however,careful not to claim explicitly that Calvin held such a view. “Perhaps the key significance ofCalvin’s vision of providential hope … concerns the sense in which hope of historicaljudgment and providential redemption imply a ‘progressive’ view of history … [Calvin]inspires a new appreciation for the political implications of such hope within historicaltime, and he does so at a time that a recognition of the full significance of historical changewas beginning to germinate and sprout. Perhaps most important, Calvin challenged head-on the transhistorical ‘antispeculation’ of the medieval/Augustinian vision. As a result, we

337

can with little trouble see in Calvin’s doctrine of providence the theme of historical progress,”122-123.50 The argument of Jane Dempsey Douglass in Women, freedom and Calvin on contemporaryimplications of Calvin’s views for women in church and society is largely based on this thirdaspect of human freedom. “Calvin is the only sixteenth-century theologian who viewswomen’s silence in church as an ‘indifferent matter,’ i.e. one determined by human ratherthan divine law.” She situates this viewpoint, remarkable for his time, within his overallproject. Her reading strategy is to read Calvin against his own practices and against majorparts of his own Wirkungsgeschichte, arguing that at the heart of his theology and insome of his pastoral practices, one may discern a liberating potential that neither he norhis contemporaries fully understood and embodied, namely in this aspect of his teachingon freedom.51 Stevenson, Sovereign grace, 147. It is, of course, this characteristic tension betweenaffirmation and transformation that would lead H. Richard Niebuhr in Christ and culture(New York: Harper & Row, 1951) to describe Calvinism as an example of the Christ-transforming-culture-type in his five-fold typology of possible relations between church andsociety. The continuous challenge for the tradition would accordingly be how to discern ina particular historical moment between affirmation and the need for transformation,between indifferent and no longer indifferent. This challenge would take the form of thequestion when a status confessionis has arrived, a state of confession, a moment of truthin which a certain state of affairs can no longer be regarded as adiaphora, but as threateningthe credibility of the church’s message and the integrity of its witness; see for example D.J. Smit, “A status confessionis in South Africa?,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 47(1984) 21-46.52 Willie D. Jonker, En as jou broeder sondig, 1959; Die Sendingbepalinge van die Ned.Gereformeerde Kerk van Transvaal (Kerk en Wêreld, Teologiese Studies oor die Sendingvan die Kerk in die Wêreld, Nr. 4) (Bloemfontein: Sendingboekhandel, 1962); Aandag virdie kerk (Die stryd om die kerk. No. 1) (Potchefstroom: Die Evangelis, 1965); Om die regeringvan Christus in sy kerk (Pretoria: Unisa, 1965).53 For example the moving study by P.F. (Flip) Theron, Die ekklesia as kosmies-eskatologieseteken—Die eenheid van die kerk as “profesie” van die eskatologiese vrede (Pretoria: NGKB,1978).54 See his autobiographical Selfs die kerk kan verander (Kaapstad: Tafelberg-Uitgewers,1998).55 Leonard Hulley, “The present attitudes of various South African churches to violence,” inListening to South African voices, ed. G Loots (Port Elizabeth: Woordkor, 1990); Ilse Tödt,ed., Theologie im Konfliktfeld Südafrika. Dialog mit Manas Buthelezi (Stuttgart: ErnstKlett, 1976); also the detailed report by the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference,The things that make for peace, Pretoria, 1985.56 Charles Villa-Vicencio, ed., Theology and violence. The South African debate(Johannesburg: ICT, 1987); J.J.F. Durand and D.J. Smit, Geweld—wat sê die kerk?, (Bellville:UWK, 1996) K. Nürnberger, ed., Conflict and peace, Pietermaritzburg; D. E. de Villiers, “Dieevangelie van vrede en vrede in Suid-Afrika,” in ‘n Woord op sy tyd, ed. C.J. Wethmar andC.J.A. Vos (Pretoria: NGKB, 1988), 9-22; also his “Peace conceptions in South Africa in thelight of the Biblical conception of peace,” Scriptura 28 (1989): 28, 24-40; L.J. Sebidi, “Towardsan understanding of the current unrest in South Africa,” in Hammering swords intoploughshares, ed. B. Thlagale and I. Mosala (Johannesburg: Skotaville, 1986) 255-259; BThlagale, “On violence: A township perspective,” in The unquestionable right to be free,

338

ed. I. Mosala and B. Thlagale eds., (Johannesburg: Skotaville, 1986) 136-144; Institute forContextual Theology, Violence. The new kairos. Challenge to the churches (Braamfontein:ICT, 1990).57 See for example W.S. Vorster, ed., Views on violence (Pretoria: UNISA, 1985); J.H. van Wyk,Etiek van vrede, ‘n Teologies-etiese evaluering van die Christenpasifisme (Stellenbosch:Cabo, 1984); Willa Boesak, God’s wrathful children. Political oppression and Christianethics (Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995).58 It is indeed possible to see the pattern to which we are called to respond according toCalvin as an explicitly trinitarian pattern. He himself does precisely that, for example,when he describes why and how we are exhorted to sanctification and to the Christian life.“Ever since God exhibited himself to us as a father, we must be convicted of extremeingratitude if we do not in turn exhibit ourselves as his children. Ever since Christ purifiedus by the laver of his blood, and communicated this purification by baptism, it would illbecome us to be defiled with new pollution. Ever since he ingrafted us into his body, we,who are his members, should anxiously beware of contracting any stain or taint. Ever sincehe who is our head ascended to heaven, it is befitting in us to withdraw our affections fromthe earth, and with our whole soul aspire to heaven. Ever since the Holy Spirit dedicatedus as temples to the Lord, we should make it our endeavour to show forth the glory of God,and guard against being profaned by the defilement of sin. Ever since our soul and bodywere destined to heavenly incorruptibility and an unfading crown, we should earnestlystrive to keep them pure and uncorrupted against the day of the Lord. These, I say, are thesurest foundations of a well-regulated life” (III/6.3). In a very informative and well-documentedargument, Philip W Butin, Revelation, redemption, and response. Calvin’s Trinitarianunderstanding of the divine-human relationship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)describes what he calls “the Trinitarian basis, pattern, and dynamic of the divine-humanrelationship” and then the human response as “the contextuality, comprehensiveness,and coherence” of the “visibility of grace.” It is primarily a study of the life of the church asresponse between revelation and redemption, but for that reason also a very helpfulintroduction to what could be called Calvin’s ethics.59 Nicholas Wolterstorff, “The wounds of God,” The Reformed Journal 37 (1987): 14-22 (forthe following quotations).60 Wolterstorff, “The wounds of God,” 17-18. For an excellent study on the sacramentalnature of Calvin’s theology, see see Brian A. Gerrish, Grace and gratitude (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1993). He integrates several central themes in Calvin’s theology, from the goodgifts of the Father to the grace received in baptism and Lord’s Supper, to argue persuasivelyfor the Christian life as a life of gratitude, according to Calvin.61 Wolterstorff quotes Thomas F. Torrance’s Calvin’s doctrine of man (London: Lutterworth,1949), where this theme is crucial.62 Wolterstorff, “The wounds of God,” 18, quoting a sermon by Calvin on Gal 6:9-11 fromWallace, Calvin’s doctrine of the Christian life, 150.63 Wolterstorff, “The wounds of God,” 20-22. The ethicist from the Stellenbosch Faculty,Nico Koopman, recently gave a still unpublished paper to the Society for Christian Ethics(Annual Meeting, 2007) arguing for “An ethics of vulnerability” as a proper approach toethics for what he calls the vulnerable continent of Africa today.64 Wolterstorff, “The wounds of God,” 22. This has been the kind of Reformed spiritualityexpressed in the third article of the Confession of Belhar, in the Kitwe Declaration, in theDebrecen processus confessionis and in the call to commitment from Accra in the face ofeconomic injustice and ecological destruction. Kitwe explicitly appealed to Calvin, and

339

central motifs from his legacy play crucial roles in the other documents.65 From “The economic and social witness of Calvin for Christian life today. Statement ofan International Consultation, Geneva, November 2004,” quoting Eberhard Busch.66 Peter Opitz summarizes this interest in questions of power very well, “Es gehört zu dencharakteristischen Eigenarten besonders der reformierten Reformation, dass sie ihrVerständnis des Evangeliums im Kontext der Machtfrage expliziert, und damit diese ofterst benennt und thematisiert. Die Frage sowohl nach religiöser wie nach sozialer undpolitischer Macht ist ihr nicht lediglich ein Sekundärproblem, welches sich aus einerfundamental ‘entweltlichten’ Existenz, aus dem religiösen Selbstverständnis eines zwarnoch ‘In-der-Welt-Seins’, im Grunde aber nicht mehr ‘Von-der-Welt-Seins’ (vgl. Joh 15,19)ergibt. Sie ist vielmehr ein ihrer Evangeliumsverkündigung immanentes Problem, das ihrals immer neu zu lösendes gleichsam in die Wiege gelegt ist, das aber auch von Anfang an,und erst recht in den vielfältigen Ausprägungen und Ausgestaltungen des reformiertenProtestantismus, in unterschiedlichen Weise angegangen wurde. Dabei geht es sowohlum aus dem Evangelium abgeleitetete Machtkritik wie um das Einbringen des Evangeliumsals Gestaltungsmacht … An die bleibende Aufgabe eines sich auf die protestantischeTradition berufenden Denkens und Handelns kann ein Blick auf diese Anfänge allerdingserinnern: die Aufgabe, sich der Faktizität von Macht und Mächten zu stellen, und in der jeeigenen Situation in actu zwischen legitimer und illegitimer Macht, zwischen ‘Gottesdienst’und ‘Götzendienst’ – innerhalb wie außerhalb die Gemeinde – zu unterscheiden, ohne dieSpannung in theoretisch vielleicht befriedigender, die Machtkonstellationen aber zugleichverharmlosender Weise aufzulösen. Man könnte geradezu formulieren: Ein ihrer Erbetreuer Protestantismus besteht nur dort, wo der diesbezügliche Streit lebendig ist,” in his“Machtkritik und Gestaltungsmacht. Zum Verständnis des ‘Evangeliums’ in den Anfängendes reformierten Protestantismus,” 13, 27, in Zwischen Affirmation und Machtkritik. ZurGeschichte des Protestantismus und protestantischer Mentalitäten, ed. R Faber (Zürich,TVZ, 2005) 13-28. It is probably against this background that the World Alliance of ReformedChurches some years ago conducted a study project intended to discern between gracelesspower and graceful power.67 John Dillenberger, ed., John Calvin, Selections from his Writings (Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1971) 41.68 According to Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700). TheChristian Tradition, Vol 4, (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984) 217, this would becomethe distinguishing characteristic of the Reformed faith: “The most characteristic differencebetween Lutheran and Calvinist views of obedience to the word and will of God, however,lay outside the area of church dogma, in what has been called, with reference to Bucer, his‘Christocracy’: the question of whether, and how, the law of God revealed in the Bible ...was to be obeyed in the political and social order. That difference, when combined withthe Reformed doctrine of covenant and applied to the life of nations, was to be of far-reaching historical significance, for it decisively affected the political and social evolution ofthe lands that came under the sway of Calvinist churchmanship and preaching” (217) andelsewhere: “In contrast not only to Roman Catholicism, but eventually also to Lutheranism,they were to denominate themselves ‘Reformed in accordance with the word of God (nachGottes Wort reformiert)’ ... (T)he designation ‘Reformed in accordance with the word ofGod’ contained the implicit judgment that although the word of God had been affirmedalso by Luther and his followers, it had not been permitted to carry out the Reformation asthoroughly as it should have” (183-184).69 For a helpful discussion, see Jan R. Weerda, “Ordnung zur Lehre. Zur Theologie der

340

Kirchenordnung bei Calvin”, Nach Gottes Wort reformierte Kirche, Theologische Bücherei.Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert. Band 23. Historische Theologie (München:Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1964) 132-161.70 “Nach reformierter Lehre trägt auch die Ordnung der Kirche bekenntnismässigenCharakter … Die Kirche bezeugt mit ihrem Bekenntnis wie mit ihrer Ordnung, daß JesusChristus ihr Herr ist,” Wilhelm Niesel et al., eds., forward to Bekenntnisschriften undKirchenordnungen der nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche (Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag,1938) v.71 See for example “Die Frage nach den Kirchenordnungen gehört für die reformiertenBekenntnisschriften eindeutig zum Bekenntnis der Kirche,” Paul Jacobs, TheologieReformierter Bekenntnisschriften in Grundzügen (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1959)119 ff.; Wilhelm Niesel et al., eds., Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen der nachGottes Wort reformierten Kirche (Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1938) 136-218.72 Strohm, Ethik im frühen Calvinismus, for example, offers a detailed and persuasiveargument for both the “juristische Argumentationen” as well as what he calls“mentalitätsgeschichtliche Aspekte: Krisenbewusstsein, Verinnerlichung und Tendenzeneines anthropozentrischen Ordnungsdenkens.” Particularly interesting is also thediscussions by Jaroslav Pelikan in his Credo. Historical and theological guide to creeds andconfessions of faith in the Christian tradition (New Haven: Yale, 2003) where he regularlyunderlines the close relationship in the Reformed tradition between faith and order,between the rule of faith and the rule of prayer, the nature of confession as a political act,and in general, as he says, the role of “polity as doctrine in the Reformed Confessions,”95ff., 107ff., 158ff., 220ff.73 See for example the informative discussions by Wolfgang Huber, Folgen christlicherFreiheit. Ethik und Theorie der Kirche im Horizont der Barmer Theologischen Erklärung(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), especially 129-269; also the volumes ofessays by the United Church in Germany on the practical embodiment of the differentBarmen theses, Zum politischen Auftrag der christlichen Gemeinde—Barmen II (1975),Kirche als ‘Gemeinde von Brüdern’. Barmen III, Bd. I und II (1980), Für Recht und Friedensorgen: Auftrag der Kirche und Aufgabe des Staates nach Barmen V (1986), Das eine WortGottes—Botschaft für alle. Barmen I und VI. Bd. I und II (1993), Der Dienst der ganzenGemeinde Jesu Christi und das Problem der Herrschaft. Barmen IV. Bd. I und II (1999).74 Particularly Jonker, Om die regering van Christus in sy kerk (Pretoria: Unisa, 1965).75 This emphasis by Calvin on life and ethics as integral to faith interested Karl Barthmuch during the 1920s, see H. Scholl, “Themen und Tendenzen der Barth-Calvinforschungim Kontext der neueren Calvinforschung,” in Karl Barth und Johannes Calvin, ed. HansScholl, (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1995) 19ff. For Barth, Reformed confession thereforeinvolves ethics, as his well-known definition shows, “Until further action confession defines(the community’s) character to outsiders and gives guidance for its own doctrine and life.”76 The present Church Order of the URCSA therefore represents the attempt to embodythe truth of the gospel, as understood in the historical moment, in the life of the churchthat belongs to Jesus Christ. In ways reminding of Calvin, the worship of the local congregationis seen as the heart of the life of the church (Article 4), but in and through the worship thebelievers are called to serve one another and the world (Article 12). The church’s callingincludes embodying social and economic justice in society, even explicitly using words fromthe Confession of Belhar.77 Alasdair C. MacIntyre, After virtue. A study in moral theory (Notre Dame: University ofNotre Dame, 1984).

341

78 In the Reformed tradition such conflicts are of course very well known, also regardingCalvin himself. This may have to do with the nature of this tradition, for example theabsence of central authority. The only real authority is supposed to be holy scripture—which has always to be read and interpreted anew. In his early essays, republished asVorträge und kleinere Arbeiten 1922-1925. Gesamtausgabe III. (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag,1990), Karl Barth often dealt with these characteristics of the Reformed tradition, forexample in “Das Wort Gottes als Aufgabe der Theologie,” 144-175, “Reformierte Lehre, ihrWesen und ihre Aufgabe,” 202-247, “Die Kirche und die Offenbarung,” 307-348, “DasSchriftprinzip der reformierten Kirche,” 500-544 and the well-known “Wünschbarkeit undMöglichkeit eines allgemeinen reformierten Glaubensbekenntnisses,” 604-643. In SouthAfrica, under the influence of Dutch Calvinism, the two dominant theological traditions ofreception became the legacies of Kuyper and Barth. Not only is there conflict betweenthese two histories of reception, but also within both of them, so that there are majordebates about the exact role of Kuyper and his followers in South Africa as well as aboutBarth and his followers. For “question marks about being Reformed,” see W.A. Boesak andP.J.A. Fourie, eds., Vraagtekens oor gereformeerdheid? (Belhar: LUS, 1988).79 This is most certainly the thrust of his monograph on Reformed confessions, Willie D.Jonker, Bevrydende waarheid, Wellington: Hugenote-Uitgewers, 1994, as well as his essay“Kragvelde binne die kerk,” Aambeeld 26, No. 1 (1988): 11-14 analysing different forcesstruggling for the future direction of the Dutch Reformed Church.80 A. Boesak, Black and Reformed. Apartheid, liberation and the Calvinist tradition (NewYork: Orbis, 1984); see also his recent The tenderness of conscience (Stellenbosch: AfricanSun Media, 2005), in which he again makes a strong and explicit argument based on theCalvinist tradition and piety.81 L. R. Lekula Ntoane, A cry for life (Kampen: Kok, 1983).82 Hayman Russel Botman, “Dutch and Reformed and Black and Reformed in South Africa:A tale of two traditions on the move to unity and responsibility,” in Keeping the faith, ed.Ronald A. Wells, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 85-105; also H.R. Botman, “Belhar andthe white DRC: Changes in the DRC: 1974-1990,” Scriptura 76 (2001): 33-42. Botmanargued that the greatest challenge facing the DRC is theological. So-called Kuyperians andBarthians were so severely beaten by the internal conflicts in the Church that theyresigned from a visible and active role in reshaping “the universe of theological discourse”in the DRC precisely when direction was needed most. Botman’s analysis was followed byP.J. Naudé, “Constructing a coherent theological discourse: The main challenge facing theDutch Reformed Church in South Africa today,” Scriptura 83 (2003): 192-211. Naudé agreeswith Botman and attempts to address the challenge by constructing a theology with “fourco-ordinates, namely being Reformed, ecumenical, critical-public and African.”83 J.W. de Gruchy, Liberating Reformed theology (David Philip, Cape Town, 1991). On theone hand, the book argues that Reformed theology is best understood as a liberatingtheology that is catholic in substance, evangelical in principle and social and prophetic inwitness. This makes the Reformed tradition “liberating,” in a variety of ways and from awhole range of forms of oppression. In order to demonstrate his thesis, he systematicallytreats the most typical Reformed convictions, especially by paying detailed attention toCalvin’s own position. In the first chapter, “A ferment nourished by the gospel,” he attemptsto redefine what “Reformed” really means, in the process “debunking a variety ofmythologies,” und using Ntoane’s words “a cry for life” as a kind of Reformed motto. Fromchapters 2 to 6 he then successively treats the doctrine of Scripture and liberation fromthe tyranny of tradition, custom and philosophy; the doctrine of God and liberation from

342

idolatry, which is “the tyranny of human power acting as though it is divine”; the doctrineof soteriology and liberation by grace alone from the tyranny and terror of bad religion; thedoctrine of the church and liberation from the tyranny of human tradition and falsehood;and the role of the church in society, the political task of the church and liberation fromtyranny and anarchy. On the other hand, it is a major supposition of the book that theReformed tradition has not always in history succeeded in actually practicing this liberatingpotential, but instead, in so many instances, became itself distorted and oppressive, asSouth Africa’s recent history demonstrated. That also explains the intentional ambiguityof the title. Reformed theology itself must be liberated—but how is this possible? It seemsthat de Gruchy is suggesting two strategies. The one is to establish a conversation withcontemporary liberation theologies. The other is to engage in critical retrieval, suspiciousand creative reclaiming, (self-)critical engagement with the Reformed tradition itself,appealling to its liberating moments and trajectories and unmasking and criticizingoppressive moments and trajectories.84 De Gruchy, Liberating Reformed theology, 34.85 Jonker, “Op die breuklyn,” in Op die breuklyn, ed. D J Louw et al. (NGKU: Kaapstad, 1982)5-19, especially 10, 18ff. He concluded passionately with the hope that celebrations of thefaculty in 2009 will find that the church heeded the historical call and challenge. ForRustenburg, see The Road to Rustenburg, ed. Louw Alberts and Frank Chikane (CapeTown: Struik, 1991).86 It seems that this expression itself is not from the earliest time of the Reformation—some claim it is from Voetius, so for example Willem A. Visser ’t Hooft, The renewal of thechurch (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956) 76; some claim it was coined by Schneemelcherand Steck for the 1952 Festschrift of E. Wolf. In spite of this, almost everyone agrees thatthe idea behind the expression indeed goes back to the very nature of the Reformationitself, see for example J. Frey, “Ecclesia semper reformanda—ex fide scripturae sacrae,” inHerausgeforderte Kirche, , ed. C. Dahling-Sander, M. Ernst and G. Plasger (Wuppertal:Foedus, 1997), 365-372; B. Oberdorfer, “‘Ecclesia semper reformanda’—eine Tradition derTraditionsverzehrung?, in Gebundene Freiheit?, ed. P Gemeinhardt & B Oberdorfer,(Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus) 2007; Harold P Nebelsick, “Ecclesia reformata semperreformanda,” Reformed liturgy and music 18 (1984): 59-63.87 This is the reason why it is so utterly in the spirit of Calvin when Eberhard Buschconcludes his very helpful reflection on “Calvin und die Demokratie. Aufsatz für das Projekt‘Religion und Freiheit’ der A Lasco-Bibliothek in Emden” (at http://wwwuser.gwdg.de-ebusch/cdemo.htm) with three self-critical questions, questions which according to himCalvin would raise against us—against our theological foundation of democracy, ourunderstanding of the church and its own social form, and against our actual politicaldemocratic practices.88 This was certainly also the spirit of Biéler’s monumental study, not to adore or toattempt to copy Calvin’s own example, but rather to “help some believers to find onceagain the meaning of a gospel ethic that embraces the whole of life, both personal andsocial.” We should therefore however “beware of seeking to elicit from Calvin’s thought aneconomic and social doctrine that could apply just as it is to our day.” In support of thisapproach, he quotes Barth with approval who wrote in 1948: “We recognize in Calvin amodel or example only to the extent he showed unforgettably the way of obedience to theChurch of his day: obedience in thought and action—social and political obedience. A truedisciple of Calvin has only one path to follow: to obey not Calvin himself, but Him who wasCalvin’s master,” Calvin’s economic and social thought, xxxxiv.

343

89 See for example the selections representing his “pastoral piety” edited by Elsie A.McKee, John Calvin. Writings on pastoral piety (New York: Paulist, 2001) especially her“general introduction,” 1-37 and Gerrish’s preface.90 Both in 1909 and in 1964 many of the speeches and papers during the Calvin celebrationsunderlined the fact, that any form of hero adoration could never have a place in rememberingJohn Calvin. Perhaps the words of Karl Barth represent these views very well, “Whoevertoday commemorate Calvin must make sure that they have Calvin on their side in thismatter and not against them. It was no coincidence that the place of his burial slipped intooblivion only a few years after his death. The monument erected to him and several otherCalvinists of spiritual and secular standing of his time at Geneva was certainly not erectedin his spirit. Calvin was no hero, and is not suited to hero-worship. He desired to be merelythe first servant of the word of God for the Christian congregation at Geneva, as well as forothers who came to him asking to be that. He wanted, therefore, neither to be honourednor applauded, nor even loved. Rather he wanted to be heard. It was not for nothing thatwhen he spoke of the order of the Christian’s existence he placed almost all the emphasison the teaching of the necessary mortification of the self in favour of God’s self, God’s willand pleasure. That is how he lived. That is how he died. And in this, as far as his person isconcerned, he is to be respected,” Fragments grave and gay (London: Collins, 197) 105-110.91 For academic scholarship, of course, this avenue may seem totally unacceptable. It is notwithout very good reason that Richard A Muller, The unaccommodated Calvin. Studies inthe foundations of a theologial tradition (Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1998) has arguedso strongly for historical scholarship, that does not seek to interpret Calvin according tothe “older model, typical of the heyday of Barthian studies of Calvin” but now outdated, oraccording to newer approaches, “dogmatically motivated (studies) of Calvin’s theology”operating from the related assumption that an exposition of Calvin’s theology could provide“significant points of departure for contemporary theologizing.” It is of course necessarythat scholars of history do proper work to lay bare the unaccommodated foundations of thetradition. At the same time, however, if MacIntyre is correct about the definition of a livingtradition, people who actually regard themselves as part of that tradition will inevitablymake use of the results of that scholarship to argue with one another about the goods thatconstitute that living tradition, today. Calvin’s ethics is probably a prime example of suchclaims about goods that challenge everyone belonging to this living tradition to engage insuch an ongoing argument, for life’s sake.92 In South Africa, there have been several recent initiatives to retrieve Calvin’s legacy andin fact to do it together, jointly, overcoming the painful divisions of the past. A majorexample of this was a conference organized by Pieter Coertzen in the Faculty of Stellenboschcommemorating the presence of the Reformed faith on South African soil, with contributionsfrom may different backgrounds and denominations, collected in Coertzen, ed., 350 jaar/year Gereformeerd/Reformed. 1652-2002 (Bloemfontein: CLF, 2002). Another importantcontribution has been the popular monograph by the moderator of the General Synod ofthe Dutch Reformed Church, C.W. Burger, Ons weet aan wie ons behoort. Nuut nagedinkoor ons gereformeerde tradisie (Wellington: Lux Verbi BM, 2001). In the Faculty ofStellenbosch, Robert Vosloo together with colleagues and postgraduate studies fromdifferent racial and church backgrounds have embarked on a research project called“Sharing History: Engagements with the interwoven histories of the Dutch ReformedChurch (DRC) and the Uniting Reformed Church (URCSA) through the lenses of liturgicalpractices and theological reception.” One important strand of this research will be a focuson “The reception of Calvin in South Africa.” This shared research, also engaging many

344

younger scholars, will directly contribute to the local anniversary of Calvin’s life and theologyin 2009, which will also be the year of the 150th anniversary of theology in Stellenbosch.It is perhaps apt that some of the introductory papers in this research have dealt with thework of another French Reformed intellectual—Paul Ricoeur’s work on Gedächtnis,Geschichte, Vergessen (München: Wilhelm Fink, 2004) of which the last almost hundredpages deal with “the difficulties of forgiveness.”

345

Response to Dirkie Smit

François Dermange

1. A century ago, when our predecessors

reflected on the significance of Calvin’s

legacy for their own time, the answer seemed

to be quite evident. Although the Geneva

pastors considered the spiritual and literary

heritage of the reformer to be important

and published an anthology of his texts, this

was not the main focus of their celebration.

For most Christians of that time, Calvin’s

contribution was political rather than

religious, in that he was an advocate of

democracy. Until 1909, no public monument

had ever been erected in memory of the

reformer, but in that year, an international

committee decided to commemorate the

Calvinist reformation and its principles,

which laid the foundations of constitutional

democracies. This is why Luther is not

present and why, apart from Calvin, Beza,

Farel and Knox, only political figures are

represented, whether they were really

reformers or not.

I mention this to emphasize that each

era identifies with certain characteristics of

the reformer that, in retrospect, do not seem

completely evident to us from the historical

point of view. However, from a more positive

perspective, we can say that a

commemoration provides an opportunity to

find in the past the means to better define

the challenges with which we are

confronted today, looking towards the

present and future, rather than the past.

For, after all, our predecessors were by no

means mistaken in their understanding of

the reformer’s legacy when they ascribed to

it both a specifically religious dimension and

an ethical and political dimension, which

could have repercussions beyond the

Reformed family in the narrower sense, but

showed the reformer’s concern for justice.

2. The challenge, therefore, is to dare to

speak a double language. On the one hand,

to say that Calvin wanted to be the minister

of a holy community, devoted to Christ and

obedient to his teachings. Reformed

Christians must be reminded about the

importance that the reformer attached to

the church and the presence of the Holy

Spirit, to radicalism and saintliness. Clearly,

we would find it difficult to follow Calvin and

the many Stoic implications of the ethics

contained in his Very Excellent Treatise on

the Christian Life1. However, in a world that

often unilaterally extols self-fulfilment and

gratification, someone must have the

courage to say that the happiness promised

in the gospel is that of the Beatitudes. The

346

disciple is not greater than his master and

the quest for happiness often encounters

the cross. This jubilee commemoration is

an occasion to question ourselves with

regard to the common witness that

Christians, communities and churches must

bear about the love we experience in Christ.

Church unity, fellowship among the reformed

families, who too often ignore each other,

and perhaps even the reformulation in

common of a treaty of virtues, are challenges

facing Christians.

3. On the other hand, this ethic of love

does not exclude giving due regard to justice.

“There is singular consolation, when we are

persecuted for righteousness’ sake” and that

happens, said Calvin, when we are “striving

for the defence of the Gospel”, and also

when we are fighting “for the defence of

righteousness in any way” by “defending the

good and innocent against the injuries of

the bad.”2 As an external observer, the

philosopher Charles Taylor, remarked:

The reconciled person feels theimperative need to repair the disorder ofthings, to put them right again in God’splan. […] To the Calvinist, it seemed selfevident that the properly regenerateperson would above all be appalled atthe offence done to God in a sinful,disordered world; and that therefore oneof his foremost aims would be to put thisright, to clean up the human mess or atleast to mitigate the tremendouscontinuing insult done to God.3

Christians are not the only ones to

defend the vulnerable and the equity that

protects them, but it is their duty to be

engaged. Reformed Christians must openly

and publicly show that they are involved in

the struggle against injustice and that Calvin,

their prophet, showed them the way.

4. In this respect I completely agree with

Dirkie Smit: those who see the foundations

of Calvin’s ethics in his approach to the law,

or to Christian life or to sanctification are

all correct, and it is not necessary to choose

between these different but complementary

interpretations. Calvinist theology of the law

and the importance it gives to the Decalogue

opened the way for reflection towards a

universalist approach to standards known

to everyone, and that to some extent

foreshadowed contemporary thinking on

human rights. It is indeed the law since the

time of creation and not the Mosaic law

that must serve as the basis for social justice: 4

Since man is by nature a socialanimal, he is disposed, from naturalinstinct, to cherish and preserve society;and accordingly we see that the mindsof all men have impressions of civil orderand honesty. […] Hence the universalagreement in regard to such subjects,both among nations and individuals, theseeds of them being implanted in thebreasts of all without a teacher orlawgiver.5

Those men and women who, like André

Bieler, saw in Calvin one of the fathers of

social justice are right. But by virtue of the

principle of “synecdoche”, the same law as

347

transformed into positive laws such as the

commandments, (Institutes II, VIII, 9) leads

believers to another imperative that

transcends the law itself by revealing to the

believer a knowledge of God that no human

wisdom can completely fathom. It is not

enough to defend widows and orphans,

refugees and the persecuted, ensuring that

they are treated as my equals (Institutes. III,

VII , 3) . In love, justice asks for self-

renunciation and self-abnegation: 6

Poverty, indeed considered in itself,is misery; so are exile, contempt,imprisonment, ignominy: in fine, deathitself is the last of all calamities. Butwhen the favour of God breathes uponus, there is none of these things whichmay not turn out to our happiness. Letus then be contented with the testimonyof Christ rather than with the falseestimate of the flesh.7

There is no need to choose between the

radicalism of the love of the gospels and the

justice that each person, in his or her own

conscience, can know naturally. Nor is there

any need to see them as antithetical. As

Paul Ricœur, a contemporary reformed

philosopher, often insisted, justice needs

love to denounce its utilitarian excesses and

love needs justice, which is the broadest

practical application of love. Is not the golden

rule in the heart of the Sermon on the Plain

(Luke 6, 31)? A Reformed ethic should

therefore be able to say, on a down-to-earth

level, that a minimum order of justice and

equity must be preserved by universal laws,

by both Christians and non-Christians, so

that human life can be genuinely human.

Calvin reminds Christians that they must

have the courage to bear witness to the

radicalism of the gospel and that the call of

love goes beyond simply respect for justice.

Notes

1 The Traité très excellent de la vie chrestienne was published separately in 1545 and in1551 and inserted by Calvin in his Institute (Institutes of the Christian Religion III, chap.VI-X)2 Institutes of the Christian Religion III, VIII, 7.3Charles Taylor, The Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge,Harvard University Press, 1989, p. 228.4 “The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it isabrogated and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd.” (Institutes of the ChristianReligion IV, XX, 16)5 Institutes of the Christian Religion II, II, 13.6 This is the “love of justice, to which we are not inclined by nature” (III, VI, 2). Cf. Augustin,De moribus ecclesiae catholicae, XXVI. 44, XXV. 46, XXVIII.56.7 Institutes of the Christian Religion III, VIII, 7.

348

Reformed WorldVolume 57 (2007)Index

I. Articles by author

Asling, John P. Editorial (June-September 2007) .........................................................................................103Asling, John P. Editorial (December 2007)...........................................................................................................229Busch, Eberhard. Who was and who is Calvin? Interpretations of recent times ............................237Campi, Emidio. Calvin’s understanding of the church ........................................................................................290Carvalhaes, Claudio. Louder please, I can’t hear you - voices, spiritualities andminorities .....................................................................................................................................................................................................45Dermange, François. Response to Dirkie Smit .........................................................................................................345Foreward, What is the significance of Calvin’s legacy? ........................................................................................231Hulbert, Alastair. Milan Opocenský (1931-2007) ..........................................................................................................71Jeremiah, Anderson H. M. Privatization of water - a theological critique andensuing challenges for the church ........................................................................................................................................03Jones, Serene. Response to Christian Link...................................................................................................................264Link, Christian. Calvin between humanism and discipleship ......................................................................251Mateus Pedroso, Odair. Editorial (March 2007) ............................................................................................................01Moiso, Aimee. “How” matters - the case for unity-focused methods of dialogue ................................58Orthodox-Reformed international dialogue. Convergences on the doctrine of theChurch (1996-2005).............................................................................................................................................................................86Park Seong-Won. Response to Herman Selderhuis .............................................................................................286Rawlins, Clifford Reinhold Leandro. Water, source of life - socioeconomic, theologicaland interreligious perspectives .................................................................................................................................................17Roman Catholic-Reformed dialogue. The Church as community of common witnessto the kingdom of God ...................................................................................................................................................................105Selderhuis, Herman J. Calvin’s view of the Bible as the word ........................................................................270Smit, Dirkie. Views on Calvin’s ethics: reading Calvin in the South African context ..................306Thévenaz, Jean-Pierre & Dommen, Edward. André Biéler (1914-2006) ...................................................78Tron, Carola Ruth. Water and the Christian community in a liquid modernity - aLatin-American perspective ........................................................................................................................................................31von Kloeden-Freudenberg, Gesine. Doors of righteousness: reflections on thequestion of justice ............................................................................................................................................................................208

^

349

II. Articles by title

André Biéler (1914-2006), Jean-Pierre Thévenaz and Edward Dommen ................................................78Calvin between humanism and discipleship, Christian Link ......................................................................251Calvin’s understanding of the church, Emidio Campi ..........................................................................................290Calvin’s view of the Bible as the word, Herman J. Selderhuis .......................................................................270Convergences on the doctrine of the Church (1996-2005), Orthodox-Reformedinternational dialogue .......................................................................................................................................................................86Doors of righteousness: reflections on the question of justice, Gesine vonKloeden-Freudenberg ...................................................................................................................................................................208Editorial (March 2007), Odair Pedroso Mateus ............................................................................................................01Editorial (June-September 2007), John P. Asling .......................................................................................................103Editorial (December 2007), John P. Asling .....................................................................................................................229“How” matters - the case for unity-focused methods of dialogue, Aimee Moiso.....................................58Louder please, I can’t hear you - voices, spiritualities and minorities, Claudio Carvalhaes........45Milan Opocenský (1931-2007), Alastair Hulbert .........................................................................................................71Privatization of water - a theological critique and ensuing challenges for thechurch, Anderson H. M. Jeremiah ...........................................................................................................................................03Response to Christian Link, Serene Jones.....................................................................................................................264Response to Dirkie Smit, François Dermange ............................................................................................................345Response to Herman Selderhuis, Park Seong-Won ..............................................................................................286The Church as community of common witness to the kingdom of God, RomanCatholic-Reformed dialogue ......................................................................................................................................................105Views on Calvin’s ethics: reading Calvin in the South African context, Dirkie Smit........................306Water and the Christian community in a liquid modernity - a Latin-Americanperspective, Carola Ruth Tron ....................................................................................................................................................31Water, source of life - socioeconomic, theological and interreligious perspectives,Clifford Reinhold Leandro Rawlins .........................................................................................................................................17What is the significance of Calvin’s legacy, Foreward ............................................................................................231Who was and who is Calvin? Interpretations of recent times, Eberhard Busch..............................237

^

350

FINALLY IN ENGLISH

A MASTERPIECE OF

CALVIN SCHOLARSHIP

Calvin warned that “social disorder

is first and foremost disdain for the

poor and oppression of the weak”.

The Swiss theologian and economist

André Biéler argues that Calvin’s

economic and social thinking is an

application of the teaching of the

Bible to issues of the reformer’s time

that speaks to us with continuous

relevance.

André Biéler. Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought. Geneva: World Council of

Churches/World Alliance of Reformed Churches 2005. 588 pp. ISBN 2-8254-1445-X.

Price: Sfr 65.00, US$ 50.95, £ 28.95 42.50

Available at www.warc.ch “Publications and Subscriptions – Other Publications”

•

351

Subscription Rates-2007

Reformed World1 year 16.00 13.00 20.00 9.00

2 years 29.00 24.00 37.00 17.00

3 years 42.00 35.00 54.00 24.00

Update1 year 13.00 11.00 17.00 8.00

2 years 24.00 20.00 31.00 14.00

3 years 36.00 30.00 46.00 20.00

Combined subscription to Reformed World and Update1 year 28.00 23.00 35.00 16.00

2 years 50.00 42.00 64.00 28.00

3 years 75.00 62.00 95.00 42.00

Update is the quarterly newsletter of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

Published in English and French, it keeps its readers informed of developments in the life of

WARC and its churches. Please say which language you wish to receive.

USD EURO CHF GBP

Payment may also be made through our authorized agents in the following

countries:

Back issues, books and other publications are available from:

Word Alliance of Reformed Churches, 150 route de Ferney,

PO Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland.

Tel 0041 22 791 62 40 Fax 0041 22 791 65 05

e-mail: warc@warc.ch web: www.warc.ch

Prices include mailing.

Acting Editor: John P. AslingAssistant: Frederick SchlagenhaftLayout and cover: emblema idéias visuais - São Paulo, Brazil - marcos.gianelli@gmail.com

Published by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches150 route de Ferney, PO Box 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

Japan: Committee of Ecumenical Relations

2-2 Yoshida, Kawagoe City 350-0807

New Zealand: Church Stores NZ Ltd., PO Box 11-1061

Ellerslie, Auckland 1131

Payment may be made at www.warc.ch or by cheque to the WARC office

or through our postal cheque account: 12-2890-9, Switzerland. Please

mention Reformed World and/or Update as appropriate.