The Who Not the What
Throughout time, humanity has highlighted certain objects, dates, and people--all of whom are deemed as holy (hieros/agios/sacrum).
A “holy” thing could range from “that which is set aside for a special
purpose” to “that which is perfected” to “that which participates in the
energies of the supernatural/uncreated/divine.” Within Christianity
specifically, encountering holy objects, people and events is
inevitable: Saints, feast days, the Bible, and the Sacraments. The
sacraments (or Holy Mysteries) stand as a central focus of many, if not
all, Christian traditions. However, the Holy Mysteries themselves have
been defined and handled very differently since the beginning of the
Church. Out of the varying perspectives on these Mysteries, the two
most prominent and perhaps influential are those of the Eastern and
Western Churches--more specifically, in the context of this paper,
Calvin and Eastern Orthodoxy. Where much of the West defines the Holy
Mysteries as signs, symbols and covenants, the Eastern Orthodox Church
approaches them as “mysteries” of which we cannot totally define, but
can participate within. Calvin is sorely misrepresented and
misunderstood by many inside and outside of Calvinism today. Given
these things, the Eastern Orthodox “phronema” and John Calvin’s
contribution has been examined via textual evidence in order to explore
the “spermatikos logos” found in Calvin’s sacramental theology and to
introduce Orthodox sacramental theology as being a full and communal
“phronema” on the Holy Mysteries.
Calvin offers two similar
definitions for a “sacrament” in its most general sense. One is that a
Holy Mystery is “an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our
consciences the promises of His good will toward us in order to sustain
the weakness of our faith; and we in turn attest our piety toward him in
the presence of the Lord and of his angels and before men (Bk. IV, Ch.
XIV, pg. 1277).” On a more condensed note, he also says that a Holy
Mystery is simply “a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by
an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward Him (pg.
1277).” In general, Calvin looks upon the Holy Mysteries as indicative
of Salvation and agents of the Holy Spirit, but not entirely necessary
for Salvation. For he says of the Bible, “God’s truth is of itself firm
and sure enough, and it cannot receive better confirmation from any
other source than from itself (pg. 1278).” Many people interpret
Calvin’s words to mean that the Holy Mysteries are merely signs,
but this is far from what Calvin truly believed. Although he did
perceive them as outward signs (which can appear lifeless), they also
were characteristically mystical due to the communication of God’s grace
through them. In addition to this, he firmly believed in sacraments as
covenantal things. Like the covenants in the Old Testament, the
sacraments “point to Christ.” Yet, Calvin was insightful enough to go
beyond even this to say that “Christ is the matter or substance of all
the sacraments, for in him they have all their firmness and they do not
promise anything apart from him.” In essence, the sacraments from
Calvin’s perspective can be divided into two categories--the outward
sign and the inward mystery: each being distinct from the other, but
capable of being united under the preaching of the Word of God, through
faith and by grace.
According to the Orthodox, Calvin
is close to the truth, but not entirely there. He has all the pieces of
a mirror shattered by Catholicism, but he does not have the tools to
put that mirror back together to gain a full reflection of the truth. He
has the sandy ground of the Enlightenment and the untrustworthy glue of
rationalism (orthologistis), not the rock of Holy Tradition and
the superglue of communion. In the Orthodox Church, “sacraments” and
“mysteries” are considered synonymous terms. However, in contrast to
Calvin, “mystery” is preferred due to the depth of meaning which
accompanies it. For a “mystery,” in Orthodoxy, is considered something
outside our realm of understanding--that is, outside of time--and yet it
has managed to pierce time and space in a way that causes us to
acknowledge it. Christ’s Incarnation is considered the greatest
“mystery” or sacrament due to the phenomenal act of the Creator of time
entering time itself as 100% man and 100% God. Either “Christ is the
only Holy Mystery, for all Mysteries are Him, or all things are Holy
Mysteries, for He is in all places” and according to this paradox,
Mysteries take on a different identity in Orthodoxy compared to
Calvinism. They are no longer events or things isolated to merely the
Church, but part of a lifestyle and a “cadence” of living in Christ, who
is present through these Mysteries, as the focus of one’s life. As to
whether or not the Holy Mysteries are necessary for salvation, if our
ultimate goal is to become Christ-like and the Holy Mysteries are
specifically given to us in the Bible as things done in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19) and
His life, then why not use them? How can they not be salvific, if they
were instituted by the One who is salvation? Anything which brings us
closer in communion with Christ is necessary for salvation. Thus, the
Holy Mysteries are necessary for salvation for those who are capable of
receiving them. There are natural exceptions for those who are
incapable. After all, if we are dealing with a Holy Mystery--something
outside of time--we cannot put restraints on it as Calvin did. For the
Mysteries are necessary for Salvation only in the sense that they
restore communion, but Necessity itself does not lord over any aspect of
the Mysteries. Lastly, Calvin focuses heavily on the communication of
the Mysteries rather than participation with them. His perspective is
restrictive to God’s grace and he puts yield signs and traffic lights on
anything that resembles mystical participation (not communication),
which is, to him, characteristically Roman Catholic. However, the
Orthodox perceive the Mysteries as things which can be received,
communicated and participated in simultaneously. They are not simply a
one sided communication, but a two-sided communion. They do not simply
“point to Christ,” they are Christ.
Calvin also focuses with intensity
on “cornerstone” sacraments such as Baptism and the Eucharist in order
to channel his more general theology through specific sacramental
examples. According to him, “Baptism is the sign of the initiation by
which we are received into the society of the church, in order that,
engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God’s children (Ch. XV,
pg. 1303).” Although he addresses quite firmly the materialistic and
gnostic heresies of the Roman Catholic Church regarding Baptism, he also
spends time reiterating how Baptism is a sign of repentance and union
with Christ. It demonstrates repentance and represents union. It is a
claim to “regeneration” and a union with the generations of God’s
children. However, it stops at this. Torn between what a sacrament is and who
it imparts, Calvin does not go beyond simply stating the evident
communication of God’s grace and presence in the sacrament and goes on
to meticulously define the nuances of definition itself with regard to
the exterior nature of the Mystery.
The Orthodox do not necessarily
disagree with Calvin on Baptism either, but as with most of the Holy
Mysteries, Calvin does not have the “full picture.” The Orthodox agree
that it is a physical indication of repentance, but they go even further
to say that this “metonia” (the word for repentance, meaning a complete
change of physical, spiritual and mental direction) is a participation
in the event of Christ’s Baptism, thus emphasizing a real connection
with Christ through baptism. The engrafting is not simply symbolic, but
mystically communal--not simply a communication from God to the people
and from the person to God. It is both (not bits and pieces of) the
outward sign and the inward reality. It is a sustained and accepted
paradox. In addition, Calvin focuses on the exterior sign representing
an interior, unseen reality, but the Orthodox perceive the interior
reality as being the source of the equally legitimate exterior reality.
Calvin reasons from the outside in; the Orthodox reason from the inside
out.
Lastly, Calvin shifts his focus
toward the Mystery of the Eucharist as he responds to the heresies which
saturated the Roman Catholic Church and he brings up the famed
“spiritual presence” of Christ in this specific Mystery. Calvin’s ideas
on this subject were highly influenced by the corruption of the Roman
Catholic Church of his time period, so his views on this must be
gracefully understood in the context of the extremities he experienced.
Communion was no longer communal. Instead, it was a power play of the
hot blooded popes who spiritual starved people due to their impertinent
defiling of the Mystery and arrogant deification of themselves. Thus
Calvin conceived the idea of “spiritual presence” and to this day, it
characterizes his theology from all other theologies. He says that,
“when we see wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must reflect on the
benefits which wine imparts to the body, and so realize that the same
are spiritually imparted to us by Christ’s blood (Ch. VXII, pg. 1363).”
Careful not to fall into the heresy of transubstantiation or complete
gnosticism, Calvin tries to walk a high wire between the utterly real
and the utterly spiritual in his theology regarding Holy Communion.
However, in his balancing, he delineates boundaries and logical
constraints to something known since the early church to be a
“mysterion”--something which is certainly not illogical, but simply beyond our logical
abilities. In addition, he puts a weighty emphasis on Holy Communion
as being a sacrifice and our participation in it as being a reflection
of that sacrifice. It focuses primarily on Christ’s death, not on the
life found through His death.
There is a significant difference
between Calvin’s focus and perspective on the Eucharist and the common
Orthodox perspective; the first, misplacing emphasis and the second,
correctly placing emphasis on this Mystery. Concerning his misplacement
of emphasis, Calvin states that the preaching of the Word of God is the
center of worship and that sacraments are illegitimate without this
preaching. The Orthodox also hold similar views about the importance of
scriptural inclusion in the liturgy. However, in contrast to Calvin,
they center their liturgy on the partaking of the Eucharist. Because of
this, the Orthodox and Calvin are both simultaneously different and
similar. Both Calvin and the Orthodox focus on the Word of God with
great energy. Yet Calvin focuses on the Word as a what (scripture, preaching, etc.), whereas the Orthodox focus on the Word as a who
(Christ, the Word of God, the ultimate communication of God’s grace).
By acknowledging the Word of God in His being through the Mystery of the
Eucharist, the Word of God in its written form naturally follows. This
broad difference has multiple implications. For example, Calvin
instructs us to “reflect” on the Mystery, limiting our participation in
the mystery to merely the mind. The Orthodox endeavor to be present
entirely in the Mystery as Christ is also entirely present--with the
mind, the body, and the soul--for it is the whole body which needs life
and healing. There is also a sharp divide between Calvin’s use of
logical distinction and rationalization (which ironically limits a full
understanding of the Mystery) and the acceptance of the
incomprehensibleness of the mystical event which is found in Orthodox
sacramental theology. Knowledge is not as important as relationship and
explanation is not necessary for participation. Lastly, as mentioned,
Calvin heavily emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. The
Orthodox would also agree here--the significance of Christ’s body and
blood is found in the Crucifixion. However, the Orthodox do not use the
Eucharist to focus on what was done, but Who did it and who it was done for.
With a “phronema” that sets
relationships above facts, the Orthodox concern themselves first with
the person and second with the mind--for with the first comes the
second. Calvin, on the other hand, in a defensive position against the
Roman Catholic corruption of the sacraments, fell into the trap of
heavily focusing on the mind and rationalism as tools of healing, due to the abuse to the person
he had the misfortune of witnessing. Based on these foundations,
Calvin’s thorough rational analysis of both Baptism and the Eucharist
stand in sharp contrast with the Orthodox understanding of the personal
and relational aspect of the Holy Mysteries. Calvin, by no means, was
entirely wrong. In fact, his perspective is strikingly similar to
Orthodox sacramental theology, requiring subtle differentiation to
highlight the actual differences, but he only had half of the picture.
With the advent of the age of reason and the subsequent importance
placed on mind and man, Calvin’s writings, although wise at the time,
have become a movement to elevate humanity and to “box in” God Himself.
For the Church, according to the Early Church Fathers, was and is a
hospital for sinners, not a philosopher’s forum and its sacraments are
the medicine given by the Doctor and received by His patients.
Works Cited and Sources
Fr. (Anonymous) Ph.D. (in Patristics) and Protopresbyter
Calvin, John. The Institutes of Christian Religion. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminister John Knox Press, 2006. Print.
The Orthodox Study Bible. ed. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 2008. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment