This is a fascinating study of one particular aspect of Calvin’s thought—his attitude towards the Pauline injunction that women should be silent in church. The subject is put in a broad context. The first chapter reviews the three parts of Christian freedom as expounded in 3:19 of the Institutes, together with an introductory discussion of the question of adiaphora or ‘things indifferent’. The author claims (pp. 9, 21) that this chapter covers briefly the first of the three parts of Christian freedom (justification by grace alone), but the coverage is so brief that it can easily be missed and much more space is devoted to adiaphora (the third of the three parts). This is also the theme for the next four chapters. Chapter 2 puts it in the context of Calvin’s concept of order. Chapter 3 tackles the central question of women’s freedom within church order. The next two chapters set Calvin’s views in their historical context—the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (ch. 4) and the Reformation (ch. 5). These chapters are helpful in showing the extent of Calvin’s distinctiveness. The final chapter considers the second part of Christian freedom, freedom in willing obedience to the law.

The topic chosen is an excellent one. The issue of adiaphora is relevant to the church in every generation, and most definitely in this generation. This particular example is a good one because, as the author observes (p. 22), most of us do not get excited today about candles on the altar or the eating of eggs during Lent, so it is hard for us to enter with enthusiasm into the Reformation debates. But the issue of women’s role in the church most certainly does stir up both passion and debate today. This is also a good topic because Calvin’s attitude is unexpectedly ‘liberal’. I have to admit that, having studied Calvin on and off for twenty years, I had never noticed that Calvin links women’s silence with matters such as kneeling in prayer or the covering of the head that may in some circumstances be put aside. My embarrassment, and that of those like me, at having for so long missed this point is lessened by the author’s confession that she too had for a long time failed to notice it (p. 22).

The approach adopted in the book is good. The author makes her own views clear and points out the support that Calvin offers to those in favour of women’s ministry. But she also acknowledges the limited nature of this support and warns against seeking ‘to make Calvin a hero in the matter of women’s ordination’ (pp. 9f.). The presentation is objective and scholarly, with the aim of ascertaining Calvin’s view as accurately as possible.

How does the author understand Calvin? There are two key theses which can be noted and each of which needs some qualification. First, what for Calvin is the status of Paul’s limitation on women’s freedom? The author has examined the teaching of the Institutes on the place of women and especially 4:10:29–32, tracing the development of this passage through the different editions. In this passage Calvin links women’s silence and women’s head covering with practical matters such as kneeling in prayer, burial rituals and fixed days for celebrating the Lord’s Supper. The author has also examined Calvin’s teaching in his commentaries and sermons, especially on 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. This is compared with what Calvin says about the actual role of women as recorded in the OT and NT. Calvin’s teaching is seen in the context of his views about ‘freedom in God’s order’, as expounded in chapter 2. The author concludes that women’s silence is, for Calvin, not a matter of divine and eternal law that binds the conscience. It is, rather, historically conditioned and time-bound apostolic advice, a matter of human historical judgments belonging to the realm of church traditions. It is a human law relating to human governance, to the political life of the church (pp. 22, 46f., 51, 62, 81, 88, 121).

This interpretation is broadly correct, but needs some qualification. The author notes of church laws that ‘insofar as they derive from the Word they are not to be regarded as mere human traditions, since “they give the impression of being approved, as it were, from the mouth of Christ himself” and help us determine what is right’ (pp. 53f.). Calvin ‘feels the need to point out that church decorum should be patterned after the biblical view of proper order, and that Paul’s advice, because it is recorded in Scripture, lends the tradition of women’s subordination in the church a kind of divine approval which should not be lightly disregarded’ (p. 64). Yet the author still tries to find in Calvin a contrast between ‘the timeless authority of the teachings of Christ’ and ‘the time-bound and provisional advice of the apostles’ (p. 32, cf. p. 64). But, as the quotation above from pages 53f. indicates, it is wrong to suggest such a dichotomy between Christ and his apostles. There is however a contrast here which can be compared to that which Calvin makes between the moral law, which is eternally binding, and the ceremonial or judicial laws which can change. In conclusion, the author is right to show that for Calvin women’s silence is not a matter of divine and eternal law that can never be broken. She is wrong however to reduce it to the level of a historically-conditioned human law, as in the passages quoted at the end of the previous paragraph. The two passages quoted at the beginning of this paragraph are not given their full weight. The implications of this appear in her second thesis.

From the first thesis it follows that the requirement for women to remain silent is not, for Calvin, absolute. It is an area where the church is free to change its mode of life (pp. 9, 42). But on what grounds? It can be changed where circumstances change (pp. 50, 62, 81f., 91) or as culture changes (pp. 36, 50, 88). It can be changed if the needs of the church change (pp. 88, 91) and if the change will serve the edification of the church (pp. 46, 50, 62). As these terms would suggest, the author feels that for Calvin the equality of men and women which is present in the spiritual life can be increasingly manifested in the common life of the church (p. 81). Calvin is open to major change in the future (p. 121). Calvin’s word to women who preached in the sixteenth century would be, the author surmises, that ‘greater freedom for women in the church is a movement in the direction of the equality of the kingdom that will come someday—but not yet’ (p. 107).

The author is certainly right that for Calvin women’s silence is not an absolute law. There are examples to the contrary both in the Bible and in church history. But on what grounds did women exercise such a ministry, according to Calvin? The author states this clearly. Calvin distinguishes between the ‘common order’ which God wishes normally to be observed (women’s silence) and that which God does in a ‘strange fashion’ (calling a woman to teach or rule). The latter happens in exceptional ‘confused’ circumstances (pp. 55f.). It happens because the Spirit is free to break through the common order, and it can be expected to happen in the future too (p. 57, cf. pp. 62f.). But it must be noted that those women who taught were called by the Holy Spirit, who is free from the law. ‘This unusual call by the Spirit “does not conflict with the perpetual and accustomed governance” to which God wishes us to be bound’ (p. 57). Likewise, the author suggests that for Calvin, preaching by women in the early years of the Reformation was ‘permissible during an “emergency” situation but no longer tolerated when the new order was instituted’ (pp. 104f.).

The author has correctly observed that for Calvin the rule of women’s silence can in some circumstances be waived. This is a significant discovery. But even a cursory comparison of the grounds given by Calvin for such an exception (as expounded by the author and set out in the previous paragraph) and the grounds suggested by the author herself (as set out in the paragraph before) reveals a significant difference in emphasis. Calvin saw this as a rule which can be waived by God in his freedom in exceptional circumstances.The author sees it as a historically-conditioned, culture-bound rule which the church can in the future set aside. That for Calvin it most certainly was not.

It is here that the significance of the first thesis can be seen. If women’s silence were purely a historically-conditioned, human, political law, it could indeed be set aside. But it is also part of the teaching of Scripture. This can be seen from Institutes 4:10:29–31. Calvin does indeed list together ceremonies such as women’s head covering and kneeling in prayer and matters of discipline such as women’s silence and set hours for worship. But he is careful to point out which of these are sanctioned by Paul. He goes on to state that he approves ‘only those human constitutions which are founded upon God’s authority, drawn from Scripture and, therefore, wholly divine’. It is in his sacred oracles that the Master is to be heard. God did not wish to prescribe what we should do in this area and has left us scope to change things according to the customs of each nation and age. But he has given us general rules. ‘Traditional practices’ can be changed and abrogated. On the other hand, women’s head covering and silence (i.e. the scriptural ordinances) can be waived in specific situations of need. Calvin does not suggest that the scriptural ordinances can be changed and abrogated in the way that traditions can.

The same picture emerges from his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14. Paul’s teaching in this passage is ‘the undoubted Word of God’. It concerns administrative arrangements and so does not bind consciences. There is not the same compulsion on us to observe them as with God’s commandments. But all that Paul says here is agreeable to the will of God. It is not an inviolable law but a useful form and one not to be ignored (v. 37). The Lord has given us freedom regarding outward rites—but not an unlimited, unbridled freedom. He has put railings round our freedom, he has restricted it so that it is only from his Word that we can decide what is right (v. 40).

Where does this leave us? As the author has rightly shown us, for Calvin Paul’s injunctions concerning women’s head covering and silence are seen as administrative arrangements and are not to be compared with the moral law. They can be set aside when the occasion warrants it. But at the same time, they are scriptural injunctions and not just human traditions. They do not bind the conscience in that other more pressing considerations can take precedence. But they are not human traditions that can be changed and abrogated in different historical or cultural circumstances.

The author has rightly shown us that Calvin is surprisingly flexible and ‘liberal’ on the issue of women’s silence. She goes too far, however, and falls into the trap of seeking to ‘modernize’ him when she suggests that he sees the principle as one that can be dropped as culture changes.

Finally, attention should be drawn to one irritating feature of the book. In the endnotes, passages in Calvin’s works (other than the Institutes) are regularly referred to solely by the page in the Opera Calvini. Thus a typical reference is ‘Comm. John, C.O. 47, 92’. This is intensely annoying if one wishes to trace the quotation but does not happen to have the 59 volumes of the Opera Calvini to hand. Why could the reference not read ‘Comm. John 6:22’, say, which would be far more useful?

---