Cornelis van der Kooi
Journal of Economics, Theology and Religion, vol. 6 (2026): #-#
Publication history
First view: 25 March 2026
This conference volume contains a significant portion of the contributions presented at a conference held in Geneva in 2024 under the title: “Calvin, Capital, and the Camel: Thoughts and Practices on Money in Early Christianity.” After first providing a general overview of the volume, this review offers a critical remark regarding the entire work.
The volume is divided into four sections, with the first, “Calvin, Interest, and Usury,” being the largest. Noteworthy is Max Engammare’s observation that the economic reality in Calvin’s time in Geneva had its own dynamics and was not determined by a ban or instruction from the preachers (33-4). Valuable in terms of source research and textual editing are three contributions by Erik A. de Boer regarding the letter Calvin wrote to Claude Sachins (1545) in response to his question about interest. De Boer thoroughly reviews the textual history of the manuscript of Calvin’s response that he found in an archive in Delft; he then provides clear insight into the practice of interest and the advice Calvin gave. De Boer’s second contribution provides the translation of the letters, and the third contains the text and dissemination of the various editions of Calvin’s letter.
The second section, “Reformed Perspectives,” focuses on the broader Reformed world in terms of money and economy. As compact as it is sharp, I found Joost Hengstmengel’s contribution on Dutch commentaries on the Heidelberg Catechism regarding the eighth commandment (111-27) particularly striking. Does Max Weber’s thesis hold? The result is crystal clear. There is not even a trace of a reference to the doctrine of election or a connection between being chosen and personal wealth. In this section, I also found Peter Randewijk’s compelling contribution about the clash between Gisbertus Voetius and Samuel Maresius over the Lombards, or pawnbrokers, noteworthy. Maresius defends pawnbroking by appealing to Calvin, but in his attitude toward poverty and the poor, he has nothing in common with Calvin. In Maresius, we see where the distinction between universal and civil/political laws can lead: to a ruthless disregard of what Calvin would see as the overarching concept, of love or caritas, that embraces both. When reading the contributions of Ard Jan Biemond and Yudha Thianto, I wondered how this was discussed during the conference in Geneva. Biemond enthusiastically presents the essentially positive stance of Calvinist theologians and preachers in the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands regarding overseas trade and prosperity. Thianto clearly shows the darker side of the policy of the Republic’s Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the place the gospel could take within it. Sermons criticized the harshness of the VOC and its pursuit of subjugation of the native population, but this had little effect. Referring to the fifth commandment, the people were taught to obey the new rulers (195). The leadership of the VOC was addressed (199), but their goal was profit—maximum profit—and for that, much, if not everything, had to be sacrificed. Did Biemond and Thianto discuss this with each other during the conference; was this talked about on the spot? It would have been interesting to know, but the reader of this volume is left in the dark.
The third part, on the Catholic world, begins with Emmanuel Phattanasinh’s contribution on money and income among the lower clergy in Paris (219-32). He provides a moving and at times poignant insight into how maintaining a liturgical practice was financially burdensome and led to various forms of severe inequality and poverty among priests. Money, faith, and economy cannot be separated, no matter how much one might wish. And if things are not well-organized or well-regulated, abuses arise. Aris della Fontana discusses Fénelon’s search for a Christian economy (233-62), and Niels de Bruijn offers an informative insight into Molina’s view on private property (263-99). All four contributions, as individual examples of contemporary research, are worth the read, but is there a common perspective?
The same applies to the fourth section, “Perceptions and Practices,” which begins with an interesting contribution from Vadim Dudkin on the imagination of economic and social relations in utopian literature, such as that of Thomas More, Giovanni Campanella, and Cyrano de Bergerac (303-26). They are mirrors of desire and, above all, of how things do not work in the harsh reality. Of an entirely different nature, more biographical, is Jake Griesel’s article on George Carleton’s defense of the iure divino rule regarding tithes as the foundation for the financial management of the Church of England (327-48). It once again reveals much about the church’s struggle to remain financially afloat. Also instructive is Andreas Stegmann’s contribution on Lutheran economic ethics (349-62). The final conclusion is very clear: both Luther and Calvin emphasize the responsibility of the believer concerning worldly matters, and both place this within the horizon of either eschatology or caritas (358). Boundless capitalism finds its limit. The section concludes with a dispute over a loan from Matthias Flacius Illyricus to the city of Regensburg. The author, Luka Illiç, rightly concludes that the debate shows how sensitive the subject of lending at interest still was in the last decades of the 16th century.
As already mentioned, the contributions are individually instructive, expert, and provide insight into the subject; taken as a book, however, this publication lacks cohesion. What is painfully absent is a substantive introduction or concluding chapter by the editors, formulating the coherence, results, and lingering questions. As it stands, the reader is left without a clue. What can be concluded from the presented material, for example, and where did the conversation go in discussions during the conference? A starting point might have been a theological-hermeneutical discussion of what Calvin’s exegesis of the Old and New Testaments texts on interest essentially meant: a renewal of hermeneutics. New circumstances in culture and society did clearly matter, particularly when one wants to remain faithful to God’s Word. For today’s church, this is just as true as it was for Calvin. I know this is a theological reflection, but historiography is never innocent or neutral. Another topic for a concluding article could have been the very dynamics of the economic reality. Both Luther and Calvin recognize this, but also introduce norms. The current debate about empiricism and normativity in economics is still very much alive. And what about the tension I pointed out between the contributions of Biemond and Thianto? None of this was mentioned, wrapped up or analyzed—and in this sense the editors have missed an important opportunity.
