Idolatry
In the second Commandment, God directs us, "You shall not make for yourself an idol . . . You shall not bow down to them or worship them" (Exod. 20:4-5 NRSV). In Chapter 11 of the Institutes, Calvin wholly concurs - don't do it. Calvin makes several well-founded points:
* "God himself is the sole and proper witness of himself" (p. 100).
* Humans create idols, which is contrary to God.
* God is not on a level with inanimate objects.
* God, who is immeasurable and incomprehensible, cannot be reduced to material goods.
Calvin goes on say that images displease God because they dishonor his majesty. Calvin points out that God is never actually depicted in the Bible. Images of clouds, flames, smoke, and mercy seats are areas in which God moves, but they do not represent God.
Lane, in A Reader's Guide to Calvin's Institutes, asks the question, "What is Calvin's attitude toward images of God?" Calvin uses many and varied references from Scripture to inform the reader that idolatry is a revolt against the true God (p. 99). In other words, God should never be downsized to fit our minds, nor molded by our hands. Anything we create would be a container far too small for God.
Idolatry is a timeless issue, no less important today than in the times of Calvin and Moses. I have a question for further reflection. Calvin concentrates heavily on physical objects and artwork. I have heard many sermons on the topic of the second Commandment call attention to abstract idols such as power and wealth. In your reading of Calvin on this topic, would you consider Calvin's treatment of idolatry to include such "idols?"
The Trinity
Just as Calvin's treatment of idolatry proceeds from Scripture, so, too, does his treatment of the Trinity. From John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Calvin, in Chapter 13 of the Institutes, uses this verse of Scripture to show that Jesus was distinct from God and yet also God. In the same way, Calvin uses Scripture to show that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but is also God (Rom. 8). The Trinity is quite a mind-boggling concept to come to terms with, but until we do so, Calvin contends, "only the bare and empty name of God flits about in our brains" (p. 122).
Calvin alternatively uses the words 'hypostases' and 'persons' to name the three parts of the Trinity. Likewise, he uses the words 'subsistence' and 'substance' to describe how they relate. Calvin was less concerned with the words than with the concept. Lane asks, "How does Calvin relate together the oneness and the threeness of God?"
In Calvin's words, "when we profess to believe in one God, under the name of God is understood a single, simple essence, in which we comprehend three persons, or hypostases" (p. 144). In my words, Calvin goes on to say that we can call the Father "God," or Jesus "God," or the Spirit "God" when we speak of oneness, but when we speak of threeness, we must use the relational terms - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I would agree with Calvin that the Three-In-One is essential to the understanding of Christianity, however difficult it is to put into our heads. Perhaps Calvin would agree that feeling the majesty of the Father, the wisdom of the Son, and the power of the Holy Spirit in our hearts will be sufficient.
My question is this: Given the modern aversion to patriarchal language, and Calvin's affinity for using various means to impart knowledge of a concept, do you think that the Trinitarian words, "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer" are in keeping with his teachings?
First off thank you so much for your comprehensive post!
ReplyDeleteIdolatry:
In answer to your question with regard to Calvin's position on idols such as power and wealth, so far in my reading I have not come across a clear statement that would include an individual's mental focus on wealth or power. However, in Chapter IX [I have the wrong issue of the Institutes, still waiting for the correct one to arrive, and so am unable to give a comprehensive page number. My page number is 91]… I read ",…we must hold it as a first principle, that as often as any form is assigned to God, his glory is corrupted by an impious lie." And so, by this comment I would venture to say that Calvin would consider any form which assigns 'attention to as if it were glorious' an idol. Including but not limited to, wealth and power.
Trinity:
On one hand I do think Calvin would embrace the "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" word usage, as these are Scripturally sound descriptive terms. And I think to, that Calvin very much likes to be clear and descriptive himself. Thank you again for summarizing rather difficult text to navigate.
Trinity 2:
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Calvin might be too rigid and fear confusion with the terms "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer". Since these terms are used, but often in the 'more contemporary' versions of the Bible. And so, I am waivering.. I'd like to think Calvin would embrace these terms.
Very helpful, Sharon. Here are a few extra resources on these topics:
ReplyDeleteHypostasis is an ancient theological term we talk about in Early and Medieval Church History. Here's a primer on some of those terms:
http://evergreen.loyola.edu/fbauerschmidt/www/th246_terms.html
On Protestant iconoclasm:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2014/07/the-breaking-of-images/
On different notions of the Trinity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
This article has lots of good information. I'd call your attention especially to the images "The Shield of the Trinity," near the top right, which is a classic Western (Catholic and Protestant) conceptualization, and the Rublev icon, near the bottom left, which is a classic Eastern conceptualization. These images don't map exactly onto your question of using alternate terms for the persons of the Trinity, but I find them helpful anyway.
Sharon,
ReplyDeleteI so appreciate your summaries of Idolatry and the Trinity. It is laid out in a concise, yet accessible format. Thank you. I love your phrase, “God should never be downsized to fit our minds, nor molded by our hands. Anything we create would be a container far too small for God.” Those comments have me leaning towards expanding the idea of idolatry, even if Calvin didn’t specifically name money and wealth. Any “golden calf” we construct to pay our allegiance is an affront to God and his commandment. Leonard Sweet, a modern day theologian & scholar, uses the acronym EPIC if we want to reach and engage the Millennial Generation. Worship must be Experiential, Participatory, Image-rich and Connectional. I read in Lane, that Calvin says, “The cure for the unlearned in not images but proper teaching.” (p. 50) Initially I wondered if this line of thinking was out of touch and perhaps didn’t transcend time. But then he goes on to say that “Calvin does not prohibit all images, only images of God.” Is this a subtle jab at the Catholic’s Crucifix which leaves Jesus on the cross? Or is it okay to have images/sculptures of Jesus?
Sharon,
ReplyDeleteI so appreciate your summaries of Idolatry and the Trinity. It is laid out in a concise, yet accessible format. Thank you. I love your phrase, “God should never be downsized to fit our minds, nor molded by our hands. Anything we create would be a container far too small for God.” Those comments have me leaning towards expanding the idea of idolatry, even if Calvin didn’t specifically name money and wealth. Any “golden calf” we construct to pay our allegiance is an affront to God and his commandment. Leonard Sweet, a modern day theologian & scholar, uses the acronym EPIC if we want to reach and engage the Millennial Generation. Worship must be Experiential, Participatory, Image-rich and Connectional. I read in Lane, that Calvin says, “The cure for the unlearned in not images but proper teaching.” (p. 50) Initially I wondered if this line of thinking was out of touch and perhaps didn’t transcend time. But then he goes on to say that “Calvin does not prohibit all images, only images of God.” Is this a subtle jab at the Catholic’s Crucifix which leaves Jesus on the cross? Or is it okay to have images/sculptures of Jesus?
Hi Sharon, great summary. With regard to graven images, I have heard arguments that there are differences between icons and idols. To me it is plausible that we can make a distinction between an object which we venerate for its own sake and an object we use as a means of focusing on what is beyond. For me, the problem is distinguishing between an idol and an icon. How can I tell which is which? It might also be that one person's icon is another person's idol. I'm not trying to be squishy here. Just trying to sort the issue out between the classic arguments.
ReplyDeleteAs for the names for the Trinity, I think Calvin would have to think long and hard about your question. But I think there would be room for him to be flexible with the terms you suggest. Even so, I think it would be difficult for him to move away from the "Son" as the name of the Redeemer as there is so much Biblical support for the term.
Bill, you have hit exactly on the second question that I considered posting - the difference or similarities between icons and idols. In my research of "icon," it was sometimes referred to in the context of veneration and sometimes not. I have always been taught that idols were worshipped "to" and icons were worshipped "through." Nonetheless, it does seem like a slippery slope, as you point out. Almost all icons might be used in such a way as to point us to God and not represent God, but at what point does it switch over to being venerated for its own sake? If only religious artwork came with instructions as to how it should be used :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMe & Dulia Down by the School Yard
DeleteLatria is a theological term used in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology to mean adoration, a reverence directed only to the Holy Trinity.
Dulia means veneration or respect paid to the saints and angels as the servants and friends of God.
Dear Calvin, OK so I get that you feel very strongly that all glory and honor belong to God alone… And I get that graven images of God could never/ever capture the true majesty of God and by their imperfection are an insult to God… And that humanity’s desire to create graven images only reveals our sinful nature to create our own gods and once we start down that road we fall away from giving God alone the praise God alone deserves. Our God is a jealous God! But is God so shallow that God cannot understand the difference between Latria and Dulia? I think you are bit of a hypocrite sir!
We have several paintings of you displayed proudly in our seminaries. We have churches and universities named after you. Now the later you had no say in, but of the paintings it does appear that you sat for an artist. And even if you did not, on this matter I think you have made an idol of your hated toward the Roman Church. Are not the Elders of the Church that have set up as mentors in Geneva due honor? Is not setting them above others a kind of Dulia? We respect them (and you) we do not worship them.
I studied Ulrich Zwingli in my Masters work and Zwingli's main concern about images in the church was that the images were misused by the latiy. It is VERY difficult to tell if someone is using an image as an icon or a idol and therefore it is best to get rid of all images. Zwingli's Zurich is known for the extensive iconoclasm, but in reading the texts of Zwingli and city ordinances at the time, it is clear that Zwingli did not see the images in themselves as evil and did not condone their destruction, only their removal. I think Calvin comes initially from a similar concern especially coming off the heels of the Medieval Church where people venerated relics and believed in their power for the remission of sins. It seems that Calvin develops the theology of images further than Zwingli believing that they are counter to scripture. (page 105)His writings clearly reflect the era in which he lived.
DeleteThank you for your reading and working with Calvin's text. Some of his writing is superfluous and you did a great job of breaking the information down.
ReplyDeleteIn regards the topic of idols and the questioned asked by Lane, I think it is fair to say that Calvin had an attitude of indignation when it came to idols or images. As referenced in 1.11.12 he does not object to all images, but only those actually that depict God. I do believe that his indignation comes from his anger regarding the Catholic Church and the belief that they were doing it wrong. However, I am curious if anyone knows how he felt about the depictions of Jesus. If Jesus is God (albeit different in essence) did he have a problem with that imagery? If not, why? Or can anyone venture a guess to these questions? Also, even though Calvin did not address your wrestling with wealth as an idol directly, I do believe we can call it that as money can very easily take the place of God in our lives if we are not careful - and even then, we might be side swiped by our dependence on it.
I appreciate his take on the Trinity. The Trinity, in its very nature, gets at the heart of one of the things that God is attempting to do; which is community. Looking at the different persons of the Trinity, it gives those of us here a great image for how to be in relationship with others. Obviously we cannot have any relationship that is like the Trinity - specifically because of the Divine nature - but seeing how God is and is in all parts of the Trinity it can give us a small glimpse as to how we are called to live.
Kate, I had those thoughts, also, when reading Calvin. At what point is the imagery okay with regards to Jesus and Spirit? Arguably, they have been depicted more than God over the ages. Calvin makes a point of talking about the dove departing immediately after the Baptism of the Lord and not lingering as a representation of the Spirit. We have a dove in the Presbyterian symbol. I have no answers, but more questions.
DeleteHi Sharon and all,
ReplyDeleteThank you Sharon for your concise and thorough post summarizing Calvin. I would like to spend a few moments thinking about terms regarding the trinity. As I consider the creator, redeemer, sustainer model, though they capture the basic concepts of who God is, there is something missing as compared to the traditional images of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It seems reasonable because of Calvin's continual return to scripture that he prefers the traditional designations. I would tend to agree because they capture the ideas of being in relation, especially the relationship between father and son. These are terms which call to mind - in many but not all cases - the ideas of family and community which to me do not seem to be captured as well in creator, redeemer, and sustainer.
Ric - I agree here. I really like the creator, redeemer and sustainer model for the Trinity, but these aren't truly relational. If humanity is made for God then must we understand God in terms that parallel our human relationships?
DeleteWell done on a very tough subject.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up in a small town Presbyterian Church, I remember having discussions with my Dad about images of God. Interestingly enough, there were no images in the church, but there was a painting depicting Jesus in the Sunday School rooms. I remember him telling me that he felt it wasn't proper to have that painting in the educational building. I think this is another example of how we "compartmentalize" our lives, so that some things are OK in one place, but not in another. In reality, it should be an either/or type decision. Maybe that is what Calvin was saying. No gray areas allowed. Since it feels to me that this chapter was directed toward the Roman Catholics, I don't think he was addressing other idols at this time.
You did a great job of summarizing Sharon. I do get the same idea that Calvin does not like images, but was not ready to make the transition to power and wealth. The more I thought about it, I wonder if there is not something there. I can help but think about hearing the “American dream” of my youth…Big house, fancy car and the other associated items on that list. Looking through the lenses of Calvin, I wonder what he may say today about the American dream? My guess that is the same question you are asking.
ReplyDeleteAs I read, I am not sure that Calvin would be willing to take the relationship aspect of Trinity. The Father-Son relationship seems to me to be closer than a Creator-Redeemer relationship. This is certainly a good discussion to have. Thanks Sharon.
Sharon, thank you for this summary and for your great question. There is a certain sterility to "Creator-Redeemer" language isn't there? I think Calvin would not buy into politically correct language of modern society. To me, it eliminates the idea of familial relationship and sounds so very clinical, separate, and distant. This type of language almost sounds like God is some sort of puppeteer and we are only made to do his bidding. I understand the idea that we should be less patriarchal, but would we be better off to be more gender-neutral or gender-inclusive? There's quite a difference between the two. Thanks again, Sharon, for this discussion.
ReplyDeleteHI Sharon, Pam and all - I hope Dr. Coffman chimes in here, but as I recall there is a distinct difference between showing Jesus in his humanity and Jesus as God. I am not sure when this enters into Reformed tradition, but I have often seen Jesus depicted in his humanity, as the Good Shepherd for example in many Presbyterian churches.
ReplyDeleteI just went to a conference and heard a paper about imagery in 16th century reformed churches. Here, the Reformed churches were of course stripped of images, although many had large postings of the 10 commandments. It was not too long afterward that Moses, Aaron and Joshua appeared with the 10 commandments. http://www.paintedchurch.org/stokesay.htm I'm not sure when the tradition moves from approving Moses to Jesus, but there is clearly a trajectory at least in some Reformed branches.