A Book Review from Books At a Glance
by Michael D. Mock
We all want to be understood the way we intend. Furthermore, we all want our beliefs to be taken logically to their conclusion and applied wisely and perhaps even beyond our original target audience. The book under consideration has taken this desire to be understood properly and applies much study of a past situation and our present circumstance to see if there’s any abiding relevance. For Rodríguez, the connection is clear and convincing: John Calvin’s unmixed and unadulterated thought speaks to our historical moment.
Commendation: Courageously Thought-Provoking
Taking a look at the table of contents will show the reader that Rodríguez has no problem undertaking some of the hot topics of the day and bringing Calvin to bear on them. Have you ever wondered if Calvin was a Proto-Liberationist? Have you ever considered the Reformer as the Undocumented Calvin? Have you ever viewed Calvin as having any sympathy for Rome? Many have the impression of an intolerant Calvin, and so it may be hard to see Calvin as tolerant of religiously divergent perspectives. Have you ever thought to connect John Calvin’s words with a corrective against Apartheid Calvinism? Have you ever considered the Reformer to be welcome in Latin America? For me, these were mostly new questions, and they became the primary reason I picked up the book. I was intrigued. As someone who’s been studying Calvin for a while, these questions piqued my interest. For the sheer thought-experiments for students and scholars of Calvin, this book is worth picking up and reading.
Rodríguez in a few places tells the reader of his background to write of the connections he seeks to make. Self-consciously, he asserts, “As a theologian shaped by both the Reformed/Calvinist tradition and Latin American liberation theology, I bring these two perspectives together in my work” (114). For those aware of Liberation Theology, knowing that this is his tradition makes sense of the kinds of questions he’s asking. I was first exposed to Liberation Theology as a Philosophy major in college, and it was viewed at that time with suspicion and as a theological-philosophical novelty. As far as I knew the position (having listened to a guest professor), I shared the suspicion and did not believe it told the whole story of Scripture. Returning to today, I did pick up the book, not only intrigued but particularly skeptical.
Rodríguez has found a way both to burn and to build bridges in this work. Hence the courage. In his Introduction, for instance, in offering rationale for the writing of the book, he asks, “More to the point, in the era of dead-White-male backlash, why should we listen to this dead White male?” (xiii). He goes on to highlight the damage done in the name of Calvinism, saying that “it is not surprising that in our day and age Calvinism is equated with intolerance and Calvin himself viewed as a petty tyrant” (xiii). Rodríguez doesn’t buy the painting that the Calvin critics have been painting for centuries, and so his work is in part a work of restoration: to remove the layers of literary and historical redaction and to bring into view the real Calvin. This does not mean that he agrees with Calvin on everything, of course. His words are charitable but critical. He, however, is likely to burn bridges with various groups. For those who see more light than darkness in Calvin’s thought, Rodríguez offers a different view. For those who see more darkness than light in the Reformer, Rodríguez offers another way. For those who think they can affirm Calvinism and support President Trump, Rodríguez offers a corrective. Yes, a book on Calvin that has referenced Trump and January 6: is this a first of its kind? (19). For those who think that Calvin’s views and Calvinism are essentially the same, he offers a different perspective. Rodríguez does write some shocking words from time to time, such as, “The Reformed Calvinist tradition has contributed significantly to the oppression of people and communities of color” (xvi). For those who think the exact opposite, Rodríguez offers some historical food for thought.
At the same time, Rodríguez’s goal is not to burn bridges but to build them. In fact, if I could summarize his literary attempt simply, it would be this: to bridge the gap between Calvin in the past and us in the present without being anachronistic and historically eisegetical. His aim really is to strain out the Calvinistic impurities added in later to the Calvinian waters and to read Calvin with fresh eyes, seeing how Calvin speaks today to pressing political and cultural issues that need to be addressed with the wisdom of the past. The real question is whether he is successful in bridging the gap.
Criticism: Largely Unsuccessful
The object here is not so much to get involved in the nitty-gritty of his argument. And to be clear, I am still mulling over the questions he has raised and the arguments he has put forward. He refers to events in church history that would require more study on my part if I were to offer a critical remark. In general, however, I do not see Rodríguez’s arguments as convincing. No one wants another to put words in his mouth. A major question in reading this book was to what degree Rodríguez was doing this.
I see Rodríguez creating too wide a gap between historical Calvin and historical Calvinism. I do not see Calvin as sympathetic to Rome as Rodríguez seems to suggest. Calvin wrote voluminously against Rome. Rodríguez’s argument for being tolerant of refugees coming into our nation is a case of apples and oranges. For instance, Rodríguez would like to see a greater and wider reception of refugees, and he cites Calvin as a refugee himself and as someone who permitted thousands of refugees in Geneva every year. The major oversight in Rodríguez’s argument, however, is that Calvin and Geneva welcomed Protestant refugees, men and women who fled persecution under Rome. Today’s situation in America is simply not the same thing, and even to suggest a connection is not reading Calvin with historical accuracy.
Early on, Rodríguez says that our major problem is not reading Calvin. To offer a surprising example of how we have failed to read Calvin, Rodríguez writes, “Critics who argue that liberation theology is imposing a Marxist analysis onto the biblical text ought to read Calvin’s extensive commentary on Psalm 82:3-4” (5). Interestingly, I have read Calvin there, and I still view liberation theology as being influenced by Marxism. It appears time and again that Rodríguez is trying to justify his liberation theology with the clout and commentary of John Calvin. The reader, of course, can weigh the arguments, but I remain unconvinced.
Overall: Worth Reading
From the above and brief critical remarks, I would not want anyone to think this book should be avoided. I rarely came to the same conclusions as Rodríguez does, but I am thankful for his hard work and courageous thesis. To put in the mind of the reader the oppressed, the refugee, the poor and neglected, the Black, the Latin American, etc., is commendable because it is biblical. Moreover, if the reader is a Calvin student or scholar, he should certainly pick up the book and consider the arguments. I was pleased to see how Rodríguez briefly handled the infamous Michael Servetus matter (99-104). I rejoiced to learn of Calvin’s influence on Cotton Mather who had an influence on and interest in reaching Latin America through evangelism and a Spanish catechism. It was refreshing to be reminded that the Reformer, who is often viewed as divisive, sought unity and tolerance wherever it could be truly expressed without giving up biblical fidelity. There are many good reminders here. I would say, however, that it should be read alongside other books on the Reformer, to provide differing perspectives and a more biblical balance.
Michael D. Mock