Puritans

Historical Perspectives on the Reformed View of the Arts in Worship

by

Of all the theologians and church leaders who are cited as being opposed to the use of visual arts in worship, Protestant Reformer John Calvin is perhaps the most famous. The following article describes the cultural context in which Calvin worked and the specific nature of his views on the visual arts in worship, suggesting that Calvin was more concerned with confronting idolatry than with opposing the visual arts in worship.

Liturgy is a muscular word, an image derived in part from its intrinsic visual quality. The worshiping community gathers around the Table, pulpit, and baptismal font. Water is sprinkled; bread is broken and wine poured; hands are folded and knees are bent; collection plates are passed. Because of the visual nature of liturgy, the church from its very beginning perceived the opportunity to teach and edify itself by producing works of art that would enrich these various aspects of its liturgy. More importantly, there was little distinction, if any at all, between art for life and art for worship, as the church understood that the spiritual was discerned through the material.

But during the sixteenth century, distrust of symbols began to take root in the European church. The Protesters rejected many forms of liturgical art. Leaders of the Reformed tradition, in rethinking the role and use of symbols and iconography, forged so strong an understanding of the arts that it is reflected in almost every Reformed church building to this day. In one of the most astonishing transitions in the history of the church, the church reversed its role from artistic proponent to artistic opponent, all in a time span of less than a generation. John Calvin was one leader responsible for this fundamental shift.

Calvin in Context

In the sixteenth century, Christian belief emphasized God’s immanence. God was believed to be always close to earth working miracles and protecting Christians through venerated relics. The great domes of the basilicas were held in place by large, over-proportioned columns, not because the domes required such heavy pillars to support them, but because the dome, representing the orb of the universe, was being tied down close to the earth and the church. Europe pulsated with expectations of the miraculous. Medieval Catholicism held that the actual body and blood of Christ could be found in the consecrated host. The practice of obtaining and housing icons and relics became big business, for the power of God was thought to be in and around the pieces of bone, wood, canvas, or fabric.

This is the world into which John Calvin was born and a world he would, in turn, shape and change. In particular, Calvin redefined the understanding of God’s presence in the world. For Calvin and the other Reformers, the medieval church limited access to God’s grace to ways that were too one-sidedly “visual” in their orientation. The Reformers, instead, asserted a transcendent understanding of the presence of God. In this awareness, God ruled from Heaven, though his power permeated the world. The centerpiece of Calvin’s theology is not so much humankind grasping for concepts of God, but a gracious God revealing himself to humankind. As such, basing his reasoning in part on John 4:24 and the second commandment, Calvin asserted that true worship of God does not happen through the aid of worldly trappings, but only through the Spirit of God.

The second matter that characterized the world of the sixteenth century was the rise of humanism. The rise of biblical scholarship urged a re-emphasis on the Bible as the standard for worship instead of tradition. The printing press aided literacy and learning. Rhetoric led to the exaltation of the spoken word, encouraging a revival in preaching. For the learned Reformed leaders, these verbal, scholastic expressions came to be invested with greater authority and value in worship than its visual aspects (Philip W. Butin, “Constructive Iconoclasm: Trinitarian Concern in Reformed Worship,” Studia Liturgica 9:2 [1989]: 133-139).

At the root of this theological paradigm shift was a revived interest in Neoplatonism. This phenomenon was an expression of the Renaissance at the time of the Reformation. In the manner of Neoplatonism, Lefèvre, Calvin, and other Reformers seem to have favored the spiritual over the material as a more vital contribution to Reformed worship.

Yet, the Reformed are not primarily antimaterial or antiaesthetic. Rather, as Carlos Eire points out in his recent and thorough treatise on the subject, Reformed iconoclasm was primarily an attempt to avoid all idolatry (Carlos M. N. Eire, War Against the Idols [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986]). Reformed aesthetics, therefore, stems from a broad, theologically motivated concern to avoid all forms of idolatry in worship. Admittedly, it was formed largely as a reactionary defense, in response to various criticisms of perceived liturgical abuses. Calvin argues for simple, direct (i.e., nonvisual) communication with the Deity.

Calvin’s Biblical Understanding of Aesthetics

As Calvin forged his aesthetic theology, he was prone to reference two key Scripture texts. First, Calvin’s theology emphasized the role of the law, as summarized in the Decalogue. In particular, the first and second commandments were persuasive in warranting the expulsion of anything considered idolatrous. A second text, John 4:24, was also prominent. In John 4:24, Jesus, as exegeted by the Reformers, was calling for true worship is worship “in spirit and in truth.” A Reformed liturgic—shaped by the writings of Zwingli, Bucer, and Calvin—is influenced by these two texts. These texts are the basis of the ongoing Reformed concern to avoid idolatry, while also contributing to an essentially positive thrust that promoted the idea of “true worship.” This may be illustrated through a discussion of John Calvin’s development of what constitutes “true worship” and a right understanding of Reformed aesthetics.

Although Calvin never explicitly writes about aesthetic theory per se, his approach can be discerned from his writing on liturgical art and icons, particularly from his various warnings about worshiping relics (John Calvin, An Admonition, Showing the Advantages Which Christendom Might Derive From an Inventory of Relics, in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, vol. 1, ed. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983]). In addition, some of his commentaries and sermons provide us with his thought about beauty and the arts.

To understand Calvin’s view of aesthetics, it is necessary to pull together his reflections upon the nature of art and the nature of worship; it is these two areas that Calvin does explicitly address, often in tandem. Understanding Calvin’s view of aesthetics grows out of studying Calvin’s theological reflection upon nature, human nature, and the function of art.

Art is dependent upon beauty, says Calvin, and beauty comes only from God. In fact, Calvin often interchanges the words art and beauty. Beauty, as expressed through the arts, is related to God and his existence as Creator. Calvin believes that God’s beauty is transcendent but that it can be perceived in the created physical world and in the moral order. In describing God as the author of physical and moral creation, Calvin clarifies how God is able to be known as the Trinity. God, the Father, created the heavens and earth; he is the consummate artist since he formed the world and everything in it. These creative acts of God, the paradigm artist, are exhaustive and complete (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1:5 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959], 59). Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, came to earth and exhibited a perfect spiritual beauty. His spiritual presence, self-sacrifice, and love exemplify the lovely. The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, exhibits moral beauty, placing in the hearts of people such virtues as love, justice, goodness, wisdom, and compassion.

In addition to seeing God’s beauty as revealed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Calvin also believes that humankind, in both the physical and spiritual sense, is beautiful. We are the chief creatures of God’s creation. We are made in God’s image: awesome, mysterious, complex, and beautiful. These attributes are vestiges of the imago dei (the image of God) and testify to heavenly grace, even though they are sullied by sin.

True Worship and Aesthetics

Calvin’s understanding of art had implications for the use of art in worship. His view of liturgical art involves an understanding of the worshipers and the effect of beauty upon them. Visual imagery was thought to be too powerful a force, especially in the relic-packed Catholic churches of Calvin’s time, to be used successfully in worship. As beholders of art are sinful and have a natural inclination toward idolatry, the majesty of God was to be guarded against any idolatrous confusion with images used to worship or represent him, the very issue addressed so directly in the second commandment. Thus, in order to resist the temptation to idolize and worship the works of creatures rather than the creator, Calvin railed against the use of many art forms in worship (Calvin, Inventory, 290).

Calvin was more interested in worshiping in “spirit and in truth” (John 4:24); that is, worshiping the Creator directly without relying on the works of his creatures. To this end, Calvin’s worship environments were purged. Altars were removed and plain tables were brought in. The pulpit—representing the preaching of the Word—took central place; the centrality of the Word was represented architecturally by placing the pulpit in the middle of the chancel. Baptismal fonts were brought to the front of the sanctuary, forming a triangle with a pulpit and table. Organ cases were closed (at least during the worship service proper) and relics and icons were removed. All these actions brought the central acts of worship before the congregation in a clear, simplified way (James White, Protestant Worship: Traditions in Transition [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989], 65-66). The result was a re-formed Reformed worship service that simplified the visual and accentuated the verbal.

Later Calvinist Manifestations

Later expressions of Calvinism continued to glean the implications of its original concern to avoid idolatry in worship. The Puritans, for one example, were heavily influenced by the Calvinistic aesthetic. More recently, Dutch Calvinist thinkers such as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd sought to refocus the problem of idolatry by warning against the idolatrous potential of misdirected worldviews. Another Dutchman, Gerardus van der Leeuw, though he takes Calvinism down a different path, nevertheless expresses again the role of Christ as the unique expression of God, who alone is worthy of ultimate loyalty. Karl Barth focused the problem of idolatry on idols of culture, race, and state. Reformed churches, in short, following the model cast by John Calvin, have always intentionally attempted to counteract anything that would replace Christ as the central focus of the church or worship. This can especially be seen in recent attempts to counteract nationalism, militarism, racism, and sexism.

Yet it cannot be denied that the Reformed concern to avoid all forms of idolatry has come with a cost: a cost many perceive to be the loss of imaginative and artistic expressions in worship. In a grand irony, many see the perceived lack of creativity to be unrepresentative of the Creator God—the God so many Calvinists are attempting to worship in a non-idolatrous way. And, though confessionally Trinitarian, many see Reformed worship as predominantly the worship of God the Father, with little emphasis on God as revealed in Jesus Christ or as revealed in the mysterious nature of the Spirit.

Fortunately, this understanding of Calvinism and the practice of it are changing. The ecumenically oriented liturgical movement has facilitated an openness to new expressions from the broader streams of Christian worship, albeit sometimes slavishly uncritical and eclectic in its borrowing.

Calvin’s concerns remain valid for today. Reformed worshipers agree that they must not, in the rampant liturgical renewal, confuse an image with its reality, or a symbol with the reality symbolized. A distinction must be maintained, the Reformed insist, between symbol and adornment. Symbol is necessary; adornment should be used judiciously, if at all. We must not develop an autonomous taste for the sensuous or romantic. Nor can we delight only in the forms we have produced, unable or unwilling to discern the enabling grace of God in and through the forms. Likewise, the iconoclastic urge must continually be tempered so that the connection between the mystery of God and the beauty in creation and in our creativity is maintained.

Thus, the chief contribution of the Reformed tradition is to insist that all imagination and art is a servant to the word of God. The Reformed liturgist is one who asks, “How can every action, color, banner, anthem, sermon point away from itself to God?” And the Reformed Christian is one who sings with the English hymn writer William Cowper, “ … the dearest idol I have known, whatever that idol be, help me to tear it from thy throne and worship only thee.”

Congregational Worship in the Post-Reformation Period

by

Congregational worship was influenced by the radical wing of Puritanism, which stressed worship shaped by biblical teaching alone. Worship was stripped to its New Testament essentials, centering on the exposition of the Word and the observance of the sacraments. Customs and features of worship not expressed in Scripture were dropped.

The movement which came to be known as Congregationalism owes its origin in the middle of the seventeenth century to a revolt against both the “high-church” liturgy and the hierarchical government by bishops in the state-supported Church of England. These objections, which necessarily brought with them a radically different order of worship, stemmed from a Reformed or Calvinistic theological opposition to the remnants of Roman Catholic liturgy and government in the Church of England.

The objectors were themselves divided into a more moderate Puritan wing and a radical separatist wing. While the Puritans wished to remain within the Church of England and purify what they considered unbiblical ceremonialism, the separatists viewed the Puritan cause as hopeless, advocated a “reformation without tarrying for any,” and called for immediate separation. Excepting a few early Puritan bishops, the Puritan cause was further subdivided into two subgroups. One subgroup, the Presbyterians, wished to replace government by bishops with government by regional presbyteries of ministers and elders. The other faction, the independents or “Congregationalists,” argued that since Scripture frequently mentions the pastors, elders, and deacons of the local congregation but is largely silent about any officers or bodies outside the local congregation, neither presbyteries nor bishops were permitted by Scripture to exercise authority over congregations other than their own. Under persecution by the Church of England, the distinction between separatists and Puritan independents tended to disappear, both parties eventually merging into congregationalism under Cromwell’s rule, 1640–1660.

The Puritans were ridiculed by their opponents for supposedly taking this as their creed: “I believe in John Calvin, the Father of our religion, disposer of heaven and earth, and in Owen, Baxter, and Jenkins his dear sons our lords, who were conceived by the spirit of fanaticism, born of schism and faction, suffered under the act of uniformity.” Both John Owen the congregationalist and Richard Baxter the presbyterian were tarred with contempt for their Calvinism, and both were persecuted further under various acts of uniformity for refusal to participate in the legally enforced worship services of The Book of Common Prayer.

Even the enemies of the Presbyterians and Congregationalists recognized the basic unity of their Reformed principles of worship. What are these Reformed principles? As specified by the congregationalist Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order and echoed in the presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith: “The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture” (Savoy Declaration 22:1, cf. Westminster Confession 21:1).

This principle, known as the regulative principle, indicates that Scripture regulates the method by which God may be worshiped. It was one of several issues that divided the Protestants at the time of the Reformation. While Lutherans and Anglicans argued that Protestant worship could retain any Roman Catholic ceremonies which were not explicitly forbidden by the Word of God, Calvinists retorted that man should not worship God in any ways he did not explicitly prescribe in his Word.

Where did this view come from? It is derived from the Reformed emphasis on the total depravity of humanity. If “there is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10), people are certainly incapable of knowing the will of God apart from His revelation in Scripture. In fact, Scripture must clearly indicate the will of God or no one can be saved. Any addition to Scripture will serve only to suit one’s sinful desires, and any subtractions will serve only to salve awareness of one’s sinful disobedience. A specific example is the second commandment, in which God declares “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God” (Exod. 20:5) and curses those who worship him in idolatrous ways. This twin emphasis on human sinfulness and Scriptural authority produced immediate consequences in congregational worship.

Centrality of Scriptural Exposition. First, worship services became centered on Scripture exposition, rather than on liturgical prayers and ceremonies. While some Anglican priests were content to read brief homilies prepared by others and were defended in their actions by leading bishops, Puritan preachers of all stripes insisted on preaching and expounding the Word of God. Sermons were seldom less than an hour in length and often much longer; pastoral prayers sometimes exceeded the length of the sermon. Even church architecture symbolically reflected this emphasis by placing the pulpit in the center of the meetinghouse with a communion table and baptismal font underneath. At times these were further reduced into a flip-up shelf for communion and a small bowl for baptism attached to the pulpit itself.

Care in Administration of the Sacraments. Second, although the sacraments were definitely secondary to the preaching of the Word, they were administered with great caution. The churches practiced either “closed” or “close” communion, restricting participants to members in good standing of the local church or to those known with certainty to be members in good standing of another solidly Reformed church. Baptism was also reserved for the children of church members. Although the “half-way covenant” ideas of Solomon Stoddard relaxed these standards for a time, the evangelistic preaching of his successor Jonathan Edwards and Edwards’ followers soon placed an even higher priority on the need for converted church membership. With this emphasis on conversion came a still stronger emphasis on preaching the Word of God.

Scriptural Reform of Worship. Third, all ceremonies and features not specified in Scripture were categorically eliminated. This meant a refusal to wear the medieval vestments of the Roman Catholic priesthood, which to the Puritans symbolized the Mass as a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. The entire Christian calendar of saints’ days and holy days—including Christmas and Easter—was eliminated and replaced by a strong emphasis on the celebration of the Lord’s Day. Simplicity in worship and removal of anything that might distract from the preaching of the Word were deemed essential. The order of the worship service itself was rearranged; the traditional order of the Mass was replaced with what was thought to be a copy of first-century worship. Here Congregationalists and Presbyterians parted company. Although the two groups cooperated in developing the Westminster Directory for Public Worship, some real differences emerged which are noted in the Directory’s liturgical commentary.

As a result of these factors, the worship of all Puritans, especially that of the Congregationalists who saw themselves as the more rigorous and stricter party within Puritanism, was radically simplified.

The Congregationalists might well have agreed with Donne’s criticism, but they would have taken his description of their plain and simple Genevan worship as a compliment to the ruthlessness of their biblical pruning knife.

Baptist Worship in the Post-Reformation Period

by

Baptists, like the Puritans, desired pure scriptural worship. Early Baptist worship sought to maintain radically biblical worship that the Spirit was free to direct. Later, however, in response to what they considered to be excesses in other movements, Baptists came to place more emphasis on worship according to biblical form and order.

As Baptists developed out of the Puritan movement in seventeenth-century England, they were of two types: General Baptists and Particular Baptists. The General Baptists, who arose earlier, were given their name because of their belief that Christ’s atonement was “general,” sufficient for all persons. The Particular Baptists espoused the view that Christ’s atonement was “particular,” for God’s elect only. Both groups, however, exhibited some of the Puritan concerns for purifying worship. They sought to eliminate the human forms of the established church and to base worship purely on the simple patterns provided by Scripture. But they also sought to involve the congregation in worship and to provide openness for the movement of God’s Spirit.

The first Baptist congregation was composed of a group of Puritans who moved to Amsterdam to escape persecution. In 1609 John Smyth, their pastor, led them to the position that the church should be composed only of regenerate persons and that to attain a regenerate church, baptism should be for believers only. Smyth, who had been schooled at Cambridge but had rejected his former Anglican views, then led the congregation in developing the earliest Baptist patterns of worship. True worship had to be scriptural and involve no books which would inhibit the movement of the Spirit. Not only did these earliest Baptists reject The Book of Common Prayer, but even the Bible also had to be laid aside after the text had been read.

The minister began the worship with an extemporaneous prayer and then preached on the text which he had already read. Then as many as three or four laypeople preached or exhorted on the same text, as long as time permitted. Finally, the minister prayed, an offering was taken for the poor, and a benediction concluded the morning service. A similar service followed in the afternoon, and on occasion, it was concluded with the Lord’s Supper. Any singing in these services was done extemporaneously by an individual; no fixed liturgical psalms or hymns were allowed to impede the movement of the Spirit. The General Baptists, who eventually moved back to England, followed the worship practices initiated by Smyth, including the use of more than one preacher. However, they did read the Bible more freely during worship.

Later, in the 1630s, the Particular Baptist movement emerged. These Baptists followed the same principles in worship as the General Baptists. They stressed the necessity of following Scripture in worship, and they rejected all prepared elements or forms because these tended to take the place of the Holy Spirit. Yet, many of them gave a greater role to the congregation by singing psalms in worship, and they often had only one preacher. Still, the loss of preachers did not inhibit the movement of the Spirit; anyone called forth by God and approved by the church could preach or administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Events during the mid-seventeenth century, however, caused both Baptist groups to change their emphases. During this time the Quakers and other more radical Protestant groups arose. Some of these placed greater stress on the Spirit than on Scripture. In the eyes of Baptists, their worship was often chaotic, with little order or form. Not wishing to be associated with these groups, but rather desiring to align themselves more closely with the more respectable Congregationalist and Presbyterian dissenters, Baptists began to place less emphasis on the movement of the Spirit in worship and more on following Scripture. They also stressed that only those officially set apart as ministers by the church could lead in worship.

Although it varied, worship during the rest of the seventeenth century tended to follow a similar pattern among both General and Particular Baptists. The morning worship began with an appointed layman reading a psalm and leading in a time of prayer. Then he read additional Scripture until it was time for the sermon. The minister entered the elevated pulpit in the plain meeting house and preached, concluding the sermon with prayer. The service was concluded with the singing of a psalm, sometimes preceded by an offering. The afternoon service followed the same pattern; once a month, however, the Lord’s Supper was observed before singing the closing psalm.

The Lord’s Supper was celebrated in a manner that became quite common among Baptists. After the sermon and prayer, the minister went to the table (in front of the pulpit) where bread and wine had been placed. He spoke of the deep meaning of the supper and encouraged the members to receive it properly. Then, taking the bread in his hands, he gave thanks and broke it, repeating the words of Christ, “This is my body, which is broken for you”(1 Cor. 11:24, KJV). After partaking of the loaf, he gave it to the deacons to partake and to distribute to the seated congregation. He urged the people to receive the bread as an expression of their feeding on Christ the true bread. In the same manner, he took the wine, gave thanks, and poured it into the cup, repeating the words of Christ, “This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25, KJV). He then partook, gave it to the deacons to distribute, and invited the people to partake. Finally, after a brief meditation on the great blessing Christians have in Christ, the service was concluded with the singing of a psalm.

Baptists had begun with a desire to purify the worship of the church by basing it on what they saw as the simple patterns of Scripture. They also emphasized the role of the congregation and the spontaneous movement of the Spirit in worship. But as Baptists moved through the seventeenth century they had to locate these liturgical emphases between the two poles of the formless worship of the radicals on the one hand and the formal worship of the established church on the other. In the process, they set the course for Baptist worship for future generations.

English Catholics and Separatists

by

No ecclesiastical decision would please all the people because the Reformation encouraged differences of opinion. John Jewel, the bishop of Salisbury, was a representative of those who believed in a national Protestant Church. An exile during Mary’s reign because he would not attend mass, he returned to write an Apology for the Anglican Church, which gave him a reputation abroad and was so acceptable in England that it was distributed among the parish churches. In his book, he maintained the antiquity of the Anglican religion as older than Roman Catholicism. Elizabeth found herself between two extreme factions, neither of which was pleased with the decisions of the queen. The Catholics, disappointed over her failure to approve the old religion, plotted to replace Elizabeth with Mary, Queen of Scots. They accepted invitations to meet secretly in the houses of the faithful for mass and welcomed Jesuit priests from France. On the other hand were Separatists like the Puritans, whose leaders had mostly been exiles at Geneva during Mary’s reign. At first, they applauded the changes that the queen made, but they were not satisfied when she refused to go further. They wished to purge the church of all Catholic influences. One-third of the 98 clergymen in London gave up their livings and renounced their Anglican membership. Thomas Cartwright, a professor at Cambridge, became recognized as the chief exponent of Puritanism, but not all Puritans were ready to follow his desire to abolish bishops in favor of presbyteries. Most Puritans preferred to stay in the Church of England, if possible, but they wished to improve it.

Impact: Neither the Catholics nor the Separatists could gain a strong foothold and many came to the New World where they could more successfully and easily practice their religion.