Review of Protestant Social Teaching. O. A. Kamel, J. Meador, and J. Minic, eds. Davenant Press, 2022 (271 pages)
This fine primer in what could be an unwieldy volume with disparate threads is divided into three parts, roughly theorizing on the political, the familial, and the social. It is an important topic and one that deserves the growing attention it is receiving. Addressed are subjects such as the role of government, abortion and contraception, just war, work, property, and social ethics.
Part 1’s maiden chapter is an introduction to several strands of Protestantism, primarily Lutheranism, as that tradition articulates the role of law. Most helpful are the distillations on the law’s character (focusing on Martin Chemnitz) as well as summaries of other intellectual definitions. Melanchthon is correctly noted as affirming a proper third use of the law (the teaching role for believers) in early Lutheranism similar to Calvin’s view. Calvin and the Puritans are not as prominent as some might expect. What might be helpful is an additional charting of the consensus between all Protestant traditions (including Anglican, independent, Methodists, and others) on the uses of the law.
The second chapter on the civil ruler recognizes that early Protestant reformers set forth a coherent political vision, albeit one that is noticeably unmodern. If the opening chapter did not focus much on other aspects of the reformed tradition, this chapter is filled with Calvin’s thought on the role of the civil ruler. The governor’s duty, according to this Protestant theorizing, is to assist the church’s diaconal ministry, advance the common good through education, and ensure societal peace and protection of property. The author asserts that this is no mere “libertarian minimalism.” Giving “the great Johannes Althusius” his due, the desacralizing of the ruler, the growth of the rule of law over the rule of person, and a decentralized set of spheres not only advanced the common good but also are seen as the last best hope for governance today.
A fine chapter on the role of civil resistance and rebellion seeks to identify the who, what, when, and why of resistance. Glenn Moots seeks to locate Reformation articulations as flowing from earlier Medieval and Conciliarist thought. Surveying the contributions of Calvin and Luther to the topic at hand, this chapter also draws on some of the magisterial reformers’ disciples to address the question of when and why rebellion is appropriate. This discussion demonstrates a nuanced understanding of other key sixteenth-century contributors (e.g., a helpful digesting of John Ponet and others). Some inclusion of other Huguenot theory (although the Vindiciae is mentioned) could have been a bit more prominent to round out this helpful discussion. Moots’ definition herein defines the title of the book as by a Protestant to a Protestant defending Protestantism. Of course, Calvin’s Preface to his Institutesis certainly not restricted to Protestants, and other treatises do not uniformly present themselves as speaking only to a Protestant family.
The chapter on just war is one of the most helpful advances in the volume. I have long wished for a military professional to combine his knowledge of combat with the previous versions of just war theory. Not only do we have a review of the earlier tradition on this issue, but also an introduction to Luther and Calvin on this topic. While some essays focus primarily on Calvin’s Institutes as a source, this essay and the next one add worthwhile insights from Calvin’s commentaries. A stunning sample quote from this chapter is: “Right intention casts warmaking as peacemaking. Just war is the initiation of the process of forgiveness” (76). Discussing proportionality, discrimination, and ethics, this essay adds a reflection on and a critique of Reinhold Niebuhr on pacificism.
The opening chapter of Part 2 is an exploration of the fairly modern practice (even among Protestants) of contraception. While not attempting to present a formal “doctrine of the family,” Calvin’s and Luther’s view on procreation as early Protestant exemplars is presented. A succinct review and contrast between the Reformers’ and Augustine’s view of the purposes of sex and marriage, along with a brief rehearsal of the grounds for divorce among Calvin and Luther, are provided throughout Part 2.
The chapter on abortion relates that a Protestant consensus on the issue prevailed from the time of the Reformation until the mid-twentieth century—in other words, the apparent divide between liberal and conservative Protestants is a modern anomaly. A substantial review of the Judeo-Christian tradition prior to the Reformation will serve readers well. Calvin and Luther’s views (as in most chapters) are well summarized in these chapters.
The final chapter in this middle section on death and dying is an informed essay by a medical professional, who first presents the pre-Christian view of suicide, followed by a summary of the Christian negation of that. Dying well, rather than either obsession with or aversion toward death, is presented as a Protestant signature. With a bit more attention on modern euthanasia issues, it will remain for others to detail the broad consensus from first generation Protestants on this and other issues.
Part 3 contains four chapters, addressing property, welfare, work, and the environment—topics that are considerably more modern than most original Protestant commentary. The chapter on vocation (despite not citing as much from the Protestant Reformers as one could) is one of the more creative essays. Making the point that work is an expression of love, while also seeking to locate labor between the Fall and Redemption, this essay is artistic but has less reference to Protestant classic texts.
The essay on property is also not as rooted in classic Protestant texts as some other chapters in this volume. While the author describes property as “suspended between heaven and hell,” this essay also makes a valiant effort to be nonprovincial, calling for politics and property law to occupy a middle point between Left (Marxism) and Right (Libertarianism). Some of the earlier Protestant commentaries on the eighth commandment could have bolstered this innovative but philosophical exploration.
The essay on Protestant approaches to social welfare is replete with historical precedent, including the Lutheran (with an emphasis on Nordic state protocols), Calvinistic, and Anglican “best practices” of the sixteenth century. Luther’s homology of word and deed is noted when describing welfare as the “liturgy after the liturgy,” while Calvin’s contributions are described briefly and adequately, even though one of the finest scholars on this subject (Jeannine Olson) is omitted. In this penultimate essay, an attempt to explore the Anglican tradition’s close association with the state is provided, with a bit more emphasis on modern Anglican practices than from the Reformation era.
The final chapter is not so much a comprehensive treatise on the environment (say as the work of E. Calvin Beisner and others) as it is a brief biblical review of the relationship of man to his tools, land, animals, and the creation. It is understandable, with this being largely a post–Industrial Revolution issue, that the earliest Protestants left only indirect commentary on this subject, which has become so prominent recently. Notwithstanding, some helpful insights from Martin Bucer are provided—even paired once with a shot of Wendell Berry—but the recent localism (eating seasonally or with produce from near-agrarians, for example, which can only
be personal preferences) may not be supported principally by earlier Protestantism, except as an exigency.
The editors maintain a noble aspiration in this volume, which is admittedly introductory and has not addressed every detail of every issue. This reviewer found the opening section to be more substantive and on point, with some of the later chapters seeming a bit more trendy in focus. Protestantism, lacking an authority institution, however, allows such flexibility. As a Protestant contribution, this work tends toward the ad hoc—certainly not including the layers of commentary that the Catholic tradition has. Notwithstanding, as a suggestive prologue, we can only welcome moredetailed and organized expositions of Protestant ethics. It might take centuries for a Protestant curia to rival the corpus of Catholic social teaching, but there are certainly ample voices, as this work illustrates, to begin such project.
This review is a revised version of one that appeared in The Journal of Markets and Morality, vol. 26, no. 1 (2023).