BOOK REVIEW:
The Legacy of John Calvin. Edited by David Foxgrover. Papers presented at the 12^th Colloquium of the Calvin Studies Society, April 22-24,1999. Grand Rapids: CRC Product Services, 2000. 181 pp. ISBN 0970002807. 

As the authors of this collection are aware, the title “The Legacy of John Calvin” is not exactly a revolutionary thought, especially in Reformed circles. Nevertheless, it is always fascinating to see what each generation makes of its own tradition, and the volume is full of fresh observations and imaginative angles. This is necessary, but is it sufficient? We shall return to this issue again. 

Karin Maag begins the exploration with a piece on Calvin’s academic and educational legacy. We are given a remarkable analysis of the state of public school and college education in Geneva and in comparable cities before and during Calvin’s time. Calvin forced the various interest groups involved to get their act together, and at the same time ensured that the curriculum retained a humanist liberal strand. In his response Fred Graham turns to the Reformation in Scotland. Knox and his colleagues were much concerned for universal education, with considerable success. While it would be nice to think that Scotland was and is a shining example of egalitarian and impressive education, the reality, it has to be said, is much more prosaic, not least in church circles today.

John L. Thompson wrestles with Calvin’s exegetical legacy. Calvin borrowed much from Luther and was inevitably himself much quoted in the reformed tradition. He was consulted more for inspiration than for information, framing an ideal, “an ideal for exegesis in which criticism and faith, text and practice, letter and spirit are one” (p. 53). Barbara Pitkin responds by emphasising the importance of careful historical reconstruction. Calvin’s ethical legacy is explored by Merwyn S. Johnson. Calvin’s approach to the Christian life is an ethic of participation by union with Christ. Repentance happens through participation in Christ, through which the laws of God and nature are interpreted. “With repentance and justification we participate in that ‘perfect gentleness’ which is God’s most complete accommodation to our humanity.” 

Thomas David constructs Calvin’s homiletical legacy. Calvin is usually thought to stress the gulf between God and man. His teaching on the presence rather than the distance of God has largely been lost. The preached word and the eucharistic celebration are there to make Christ present within the community. Randall Zachman in reply emphasises the normative role of scripture in preaching. Calvin’s socio-political legacy is considered by Robert M. Kingdon, under the themes of collective government, resistance to tyranny and discipline—Calvin’s role as Moderator of the Company of Pastors, his critique of monarchs, his attention to discipline. “We estimate that between 6 and 8 percent of the entire adult population were summoned to appear before the Consistory every single year.” Jeannine Olson largely agreed with this perspective. Discipline was especially the discipline of the community, though it did not for Calvin quite constitute a defining mark of the church. 

Worship was central for Calvin, and John Witvliet examines his liturgical legacy. Central is the internal, the worship of the heart. Liturgical sins are disobedience, hypocrisy, superstition and idolatry. Worship is an image or mirrors a response to the divine presence which can be described in many ways. The Lord’s Supper is the only true icon of Christ. Ward Holder emphasises the need for the internal, the scriptural and the theological in our worship. 

The last pair of essays brings the volume to a climax. Brian Gerrish writes on “Constructing Tradition—Schleiermacher Hodge and the Theological Legacy of Calvin.” If anyone can commend Calvin to a wider circle of contemporary Christians, then it has to be Gerrish. He begins from Calvin’s will: virtue receives its due reward. How has Calvin’s legacy as a matter of fact been assimilated? Schleiermacher read the Institutes closely and utilised particular points. Hodge cited Calvin more often, but more selectively in favour of his own views. Calvin said of his relation to Luther that there is a difference between an ape and a disciple. There is a difference between continuity as repetition and continuity as development, as a “Reformed habit of mind.” Philip Butin in response gently resists Dr. Gerrish’s attempt to nudge the Reformed tradition in the direction of modernity, while appreciating the subtlety of his argument. 

Calvin was not the ogre of polemical caricature. In an age in which politicians like President Suharto are able to use the rhetoric of human rights in a seamless apologia for ‘Asian values,’ it is not too difficult to render Calvin at least userfriendly. The gentle sceptic might idly wonder whether there is anything in this volume which could not be subsumed under white male chauvinist Eurocentric heterosexist elitist triumphalism. That would be less than charitable, not to say inelegant. But it might be nice to see some conscientisation of our Reformed heritage, to suggest that repentance as participation in Jesus Christ may be a public and communal as well as a private and individual action. In opening up new dimensions of Calvin’s undoubtedly profound understanding of our faith, perhaps we need to attend again to his civil courage. To say this is only to underscore admiration for “a Reformed habit of mind.” 

George Newlands
University of Glasgow, Scotland 

PUBLISHED IN THE BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE FOR REFORMED THEOLOGY, SPRING/SUMMER 2001, VOL. 2, #2.