Calvin Against Calvin for the sake of Calvin and of the Arts
My book on Calvin's theology of creation is out. It's a book about the arts. It's also, more particularly, a book about the arts in worship. And thank God for all those things. Thank God also for all the good people that enabled it to see the light of day. What's the book about? Why should anybody care what it's about?
The following is an excerpt from the introduction, which offers a context for the book and a reason why you might wish to purchase it (here), to read it (not only use it as a fine coffee table adornment), to digest it (rather than only to flip through it in non-providential fashion), to write a review of it (again, here), and perhaps even to recommend it to others (because you actually think it might do good in the world, as I do).
You might also wish to buy ten copies of it as stocking stuffers on account of the wonderfully subdued Christmas colors that adorn the front cover.
For those who wish to skip to a picture-book version of the project, please see photographs below.
CALVIN AGAINST CALVIN FOR THE SAKE CALVIN AND THE ARTS
In a paper
delivered at Wheaton College in 2011, titled āThe Future of Theology Amid the
Arts: Some Reformed Reflections,ā Jeremy Begbie observes that
as the theology and arts conversation continues to unfold
apace, resources from the Reformed world ā so often buried beneath an
understandable but exaggerated shame ā have considerably more to offer than is
often supposed, especially if we are seeking to delve more deeply into the
plotlines and harmonies of a scripturally rooted and vibrant trinitarian faith.
The
question is: Which Reformed resources
are those? And might those same resources be helpful to theological reflection
on the liturgical arts? The wager
of this book is that John Calvin, standing at the headwaters of the Reformed
tradition, represents such a resource, even if not in the ways one might
initially suppose. For both supporters and critics of the Frenchman, such a
conclusion will likely be regarded with a measure of skepticism.
Voltaire,
not surprisingly, held Calvin responsible for the dour artistic life of Geneva,
while Orentin Douen believed that Calvin
was the āenemy of all pleasure and distraction, as well as of the arts and
music.ā Philip Benedict blames Calvinās heirs for a kind of āvisual
anorexia,ā even as Peter Auksi argues that āCalvinās systematic removal of the
regenerate Christian away from ā¦ over-sensuous involvement in the earthly arts
receives its seminal inspiration from a reading and interpretation of several
key scriptural models.ā
To these
observations must be added the fact that Calvinās ambivalence towards the
liturgical arts is undergirded by a persistently negative view of materiality,
and that the fate of the former hinges, as it were, on the fate of the latter. Dorothy Sayers, in fact, regards āhatred of the fleshā as one of the āfour
certain marksā of Calvinās legacy. In Calvin Against Himself, Suzanne Selinger insists that āAbstraction in Calvin the
introverted intellectual was above all a dephysicalizing.ā
Such a conclusion is comparable to the one which Carlos Eire draws in
his seminal work, War Against the Idols.
In the oft-quoted comment by Eire: āCalvin forcefully asserted Godās transcendence through the
principle finitum non est capax infiniti [the finite is incapable of
containing the Infinite] and His omnipotence through soli Deo gloria.ā Calvin, it needs to be conceded, supplies plenty of evidence
in his own writings to corroborate the above judgments.
CALVINāS SELF-IMPLICATION?
In his
commentary on the psalms, Calvin maintains that musical instruments not only prompt
the faithful to cling to āearthlyā things, they also contravene Godās
requirement for a simple, spiritual and articulate worship. Now that Christ has appeared, he writes, for
the church to persist in the use of musical instruments is āto bury the light
of the Gospelā and to āintroduce the shadows of a departed dispensation.ā
With respect to the visual shape of worship, Calvin believes that āIt would be a too ridiculous and inept imitation of papistry to
decorate the churches and to believe oneself to be offering God a more noble
service in using organs and the many other amusements of that kind.ā Calvin
insists that to include images in public worship, as Rome does, arises out of
avarice, which is a far cry from the
pleasure which God allows in the enjoyment of paintings of things imagined.
More
bluntly, he dismisses the whole affair with icons as āsheer madness.ā He states
his theological conviction this way:
Godās majesty is sullied by an unfitting and absurd fiction,
when the incorporeal is made to resemble corporeal matter, the invisible a
visible likeness, the spirit an inanimate object, the immeasurable a puny bit
of wood, stone, or gold.
In comments such as this we begin to perceive the close link between Calvinās
worry over the liturgical arts and his worry over the material realm.
While Calvin
concedes that certain embodied āexercises of godlinessā are needed in public
worship, they are offered, to his mind, as accommodations to human weakness. As
he remarks in book four of the 1559 Institutes,
since āin our ignorance and sloth (to which I add fickleness of disposition) we
need outward helps to beget and increase faith within us, and advance it to its
goal, God has also added these aids that he may provide for our weakness.ā
Calvin consistently
considers it a regrettable thing that Scripture and preaching are not enough
for the faithful. If Christians were
āwholly spiritual,ā like angels, they would not have need of material symbols
of worship. And when he exclaims, āHow great is the distance between the spiritual
glory of the Word of God and the stinking filth of our flesh!ā, it is not
difficult to imagine why both friend and foe have deemed Calvin to be an enemy of
the physical body, a pessimist towards creation, and a negative influence on the
liturgical arts.
To imagine this, however, is to
imagine only half the story, through a glass darkly. For even if Calvin is hardly the
first place we go to discover a vision for the flourishing of the liturgical arts,
the above comments do not tell the whole story. As I propose in this book, that
story is both far more complicated and far more interesting than commentators
have often allowed.
THE ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK
In this book
I examine Calvinās trinitarian theology as it intersects his theology of
materiality in order to argue for a positive theological account of the
liturgical arts. I do so believing that Calvinās
theology of the physical creation offers itselfāperhaps surprisinglyāas a rich
resource for the practice of Christian worship, and opens up a trinitarian
grammar by which we might understand the theological purposes of the arts in
public worship.
Using
Calvinās commentary on musical instruments as a case study, generally representative
of his thinking on all the liturgical arts, I identify four emphases that mark
his thinking: that the churchās worship should be (i) devoid of the āfigures
and shadowsā which marked Israelās praise, and should emphasize instead a (ii)
āspiritual,ā (iii) āsimple,ā and (iv) āarticulateā worship, suitable to a new
covenantal era.
A common
feature of these emphases, I suggest, is an anxiety over the capacity of physical
things to mislead the worship of the faithful in idolatrous or superstitious
ways. As it concerns public worship, Calvinās account of materiality is quite
frankly a largely pessimistic one. Here the material creation is seen as an
especial temptation to distort the true worship of God and as a lesser vehicle
by which the faithful offer their praises to God.
Calvinās
account of the physical creation outside of the liturgical context, however, is
distinctly optimistic. A close reading of his views on creation, the resurrected body of
Christ, the material symbols of worship, and the material elements of the
Lordās Supper points to a more integral role for materiality in the economy of
God.
And while a
nearly exclusive appeal to Godās āessentialā nature may dominate Calvinās
thinking on the physical shape of public worship, I suggest that his arguments in
these particular doctrinal loci are
marked by a distinctly trinitarian frame of mind. Here
the physical creation is seen not as especially problematic, nor āmerely
there,ā but rather for something, headed somewhere, caught up in the activities of the Two Hands of God, to use Irenaeusā language.
While
setting aside his concern for āarticulateā worship as an issue more directly
related to the question of metaphor rather than of materiality, I focus this study
on the first three emphases: āshadows,ā āspiritual,ā and āsimple.ā In a careful
investigation of each of these domains of thought in Calvin, I discover a
trinitarian reading of the physical creation which, in turn, opens up the possibility
of a trinitarian reading of the physical creation in public worship.
Though I
follow the logic of Calvinās theology to conclusions which he himself did not
imagine, I believe they remain sympathetic to his best instincts and that a
robust theological account of the liturgical arts is hereby brought to light.
THE GOSPEL OF GOD'S CREATION ACCORDING TO JOHN CALVIN
THE GOSPEL OF GOD'S CREATION ACCORDING TO JOHN CALVIN
Even, then,
as Calvin perceives that God appropriates physical things, such as the
Eucharistic bread or the āaffluence, sweetness, variety and beautyā of creation,
to form and feed the church, so this book
argues, sometimes with and beyond Calvin, sometimes against Calvin, that God takes
the liturgical arts as intensively kinaesthetic artifacts to form and also feed
the Church.
This is actually a picture of the 67% solar eclipse in Houston, TX, on August 21, 2017. Not Guatemala, but glorious. |
![]() |
This is Blythe and a decidedly small tree. |
![]() |
This is a moment flying back in our prop-plane to Guatemala City from our venture to Tikal. |
![]() |
This is a really good dessert, also glorious. |
![]() |
This is artwork that Phaedra and I came upon at Hotel Santo Domingo. Gorgeous stuff. |
![]() |
This is a volcano. It smoked on the first morning of our visit to Antigua. Then an earthquake happened. The usual. |
![]() |
This isn't anything from Guatemala. It's from my visit to St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, MN, but I liked it. |
Comments