Beholding the Image: Vision in John Calvin's Theology
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Beholding the Image: Vision in John Calvin’s Theology by Franklin Tanner Capps Date: ___________________ Approved: ____________________________ Jeremy Begbie, Supervisor _____________________________ G. Sujin Pak ____________________________ Douglas Campbell _____________________________ J. Todd Billings _____________________________ Sarah Beckwith Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology in the Divinity School of Duke University 2018 ABSTRACT Beholding the Image: Vision in John Calvin’s Theology by Franklin Tanner Capps Date: ___________________ Approved: ____________________________ Jeremy Begbie, Supervisor _____________________________ G. Sujin Pak ____________________________ Douglas Campbell _____________________________ J. Todd Billings _____________________________ Sarah Beckwith An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology in the Divinity School of Duke University 2018 Copyright by Franklin Tanner Capps 2018 Abstract The aim of this dissertation is to expound the role of vision in John Calvin’s theology. Given the many-sided and often confusing—sometimes even apparently contradictory— nature of Calvin’s account and use of the category of vision, I set out to illuminate the implicit and deeply rooted coherence of his thought on this topic. Calvin’s treatment of vision consistently intertwines two fundamental elements: (1) a theological interpretation of the literal, bodily sense of sight, and (2) the use of sight as a metaphor for comprehensive, penetrating ‘spiritual’ understanding. A dominant strand of scholarship, along with much popular thinking about Calvin, tends to regard him as either an extreme iconoclast or, if the visual is acknowledged as playing a role in his theology, as always insisting on recourse to ‘the word’ over against the visual. (The word, for Calvin, encompasses both Jesus Christ as ‘Word’ and ‘words’ proclaimed or spoken about Christ, including, for example, the Christian sermon and sacred Scripture.) By contrast, I contend that visual patterns of thinking pervade his thought, even without recourse to the word, which is to say the use of language to describe or clarify the visual. To this end, I propose that his theological use of vision is best elicited according to an implicit distinction between simply ‘seeing’ (frequently, specere) things as they appear to present themselves—that is to say, perceiving a thing isolated from God and all other created things; and ‘beholding’ (frequently, aspicere) things as they truly are—that is to say, understanding a thing in relation to God and, by extension, to all other created things. Seeing indicates the superficial perception of some thing, grounded in mere physical perception, while beholding indicates dynamic vision, which may also be called ‘insight,’ involving the exercise of faith, in which some thing is comprehended in relation to the iv divine and thereby to all other created things. While beholding may or may not entail physically seeing an object, it does require that a thing be understood in relation to its source and end, which, according to Calvin, is God. Seeing and beholding are related in that both are modes of visual comprehension—involving a range of modes of visual encounter, from literal sight to mental picturing to singular visual manifestations of the divine—though seeing is a relatively diminished mode of visual comprehension in relation to beholding. Around this seeing-beholding distinction I organize what I call Calvin’s ‘theology of vision.’ The bulk of this dissertation is occupied with an exposition of Calvin’s theology of vision. After developing an account of it, I close by drawing out some of its implications for current debate in theological aesthetics. I suggest that Calvin gives us theological tools for articulating the mystery of humanity’s visually mediated encounter with divinity in a way that encompasses but is not reducible to the traditional concepts of aesthetic experience and aesthetic action. v Acknowledgements This dissertation started as two papers that were written for seminars with my advisor, Jeremy Begbie, and original committee member, the late Allen Verhey. The ideas were refined and the research expanded in seminars and an independent study under the direction of Sujin Pak. I am grateful to each of them for their patience and the time they spent challenging my original ideas and pressing me further into the relevant literature. I have particularly fond memories of beers with Verhey after hours at The Federal in Durham while we argued and he complained that I was too fond of emphasizing “human corruption.” If he were able to read what I have to say here, I hope he would see that I learned a great deal from him, not least that the Reformed tradition has at its heart the unfolding of our hope in “God’s good future,” as he would say. To Todd Billings I owe a special word of thanks for his willingness to serve on my dissertation committee following Allen’s death. To each of these mentors, particularly to Jeremy Begbie, who has been incredibly generous with his time at every stage, and to the rest of my dissertation committee, I am profoundly grateful. To Justin Ashworth, Christina Carnes Ananias, Carole Baker, Goodie and Jack Bell, Maxim Cardew, Isaac Chan, Brian Curry, Ben Dillon, Julie Hamilton, Joelle Hathaway, Bo Helmich, Matt Jantzen, Jacki Price-Linnartz, Brett McCarty, Will Revere, Claire and Andrew Ruth, Kenneth Woo, David Taylor, Jessica Wong—thanks for making the good times roll. I will look back with fondness on our time in graduate school. While the groundwork for this dissertation was laid at Duke, the majority of the writing took place at St. Andrews University in Laurinburg, North Carolina, where I started teaching shortly after beginning work on the first two chapters. To my colleague vi and friend, Timothy Verhey, I owe a great deal of thanks. He read and commented on sections, argued with me, and introduced me to resources that have indelibly influenced how I will think about our common Reformed theological heritage. Additional thanks is owed to my faculty mentor, Edna Ann Loftus, whose kindness and discipline will always stand as the model for me of what it means to integrate academic rigor and compassion into the classroom. A word of thanks is also owed to my students and departmental colleagues at St. Andrews, especially Professors Neal Bushoven, David Herr, and Stephanie McDavid, for their encouragement, typically expressed in the question, “So, is it finished?” I can now say, yes, my friends, it is. A special thanks is owed to my friend Mary McDonald, librarian extraordinaire, who enthusiastically supported my research throughout this process. I am sure she’s equally grateful that her labors with tracking me down for overdue interlibrary loan books are over (at least temporarily). Profound gratitude is owed to all those who encouraged me from a young age. To my mother and father, Susan and Gene Capps, you have been a stable presence and continue to be that—thank you. The same goes for my wife’s parents, Anita and Barry Swiger—I am grateful. To my brother and sister, Daniel Capps and Julianna Simmons, and their spouses, Tiffany Capps and Stephen Simmons, I thank you, even though you probably think my preoccupation with this thing called “academic theology” is odd. And while one might assume that growing up in a rural community would mean that the list of supportive persons would be brief, anyone who has grown up in such a place knows that the exact opposite is true—there are too many people to name here. So let me just say that it was my earliest teachers, Evelyn Bond, Cindy Lanning, Jean Pitts, and Dot Ramey at Mt. Tabor Baptist Church who originally sparked my theological imagination. To my vii teachers and mentors over recent years, Beth and Nate Bradford, Starla and David Thorsland, John Boyte, Bill Edgar, Pete Enns, Larry Sibley, Mike Kelly, and Karyn Traphagen, you did more than you probably remember to support me on my way. Finally, something beyond thanks is owed to my wife, Hannah Swiger Capps, who started this journey with me some fourteen years ago at Anderson College. To you, our daughter, Ruth, and son, Benjamin, this work is dedicated. viii Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...iv Introduction. The Question of Vision in Calvin’s Theology...………….…………...……1 1. Chapter One. The Theological Problem of Vision…………………………………... 21 1.1 Introduction……...…………………………………………………………...21 1.2.1 Visual Theology in Recent Writing..……………………………………....23 1.2.2 Taking Apart Visual Theology……………...……………………………..28 1.2.3 Articulating a Theology of Vision…………………………………………31 1.3.1 Roots of Theologies of Vision in Aristotle’s De Anima…………………...33 1.3.2 The Vision of the Body, The Vision of the Soul..........................................35 1.3.3 Immaterial Substance……………………………………………………....40 1.4.1 The Treachery of Vision in 16th-century Theology and Practice…………..46 1.4.2 Early Protestant Image Breaking………………………….…..…………...47 1.4.3 From Immanence to Transcendence?...........................................................50 1.4.4 Image-anxieties and the Economy of Salvation……………………….…...59 1.4.5 The Question of Practical Iconoclasm……………………………………..68 1.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………...…71 2. Chapter Two. The Moribund Letter, the Vital Image: Vision in Calvin’s Commentaries on Scripture.………………………………..……………………………...……………..77 2.1.1 Introduction……………………………………………….………………..77