KB Categories Archives: Sacraments

The Broken Baroque

Donald Richmond:

Duomo-detail-SicilyAccording to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI), in his masterful The Spirit of the Liturgy, the Baroque represents a crucial period in the history of the Church, liturgy, and the arts. It is, according to Benedict, one of the three acceptable artistic frameworks for effective catechesis and liturgical renewal. This said, and not underestimating Benedict’s heart or mind, the Baroque poses significant problems for Protestants. Contrary to Benedict’s Roman Catholic assertion, the Baroque represents a broken system that militates against the fundamental premises of the Protestant agenda. (In fact it might also be argued that it militates against a broadminded understanding and application of Vatican II).

The Baroque emerged as an extension of Catholic renewal in response to the Protestant Reformation(s) throughout Europe. Any appreciation of Baroque liturgy and arts, most especially when considered within a catechetical setting, must be attained through understanding this historic context. As such, when it is evaluated within this framework, it is decidedly counter-Reformation in its priorities, principles and practices. And, importantly, these are precisely why Protestants– even High-Church Protestants– must reject the Baroque narrative while certainly appreciating, in some way, Baroque aesthetics.

There are at least three reasons for rejecting the Baroque as a theological enterprise:

"Sacrifice of Isaac." Caravaggio

“Sacrifice of Isaac.” Caravaggio

The Baroque presents a questionable ecclesiastical perspective. A case in point are the paintings of Caravaggio. There is no doubt about Caravaggio’s tremendous talent. His mastery of light and shadow is almost unparalleled. Nevertheless, his paintings reveal a dangerous orientation. In order to effectively view his works, we must step back twenty to thirty feet. If we were to get too close, all we would see is great masses of color– often unclear and untidy. Proper viewing, proper perspective, requires that that the viewer step back and step away from the visual narrative. And this is precisely the point. Protestant Theology, on all fronts, is based upon a “come unto me” perspective. The Church, and Jesus Christ himself, are meant to be intimately approached without the militating and mediating necessity of distance. The Roman Catholic Church at the time was trying to reinforce the doctrine of a holy (that is untouchable and unassailable) perspective about the Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholic theology, as gloriously but dangerously expressed through Baroque arts, was saying that we must keep our distance, and that it is only this distance (as moderated, mediated and occulated by Holy Roman Catholic Church) that provides proper perspective. That is, albeit briefly, Baroque Art seeks to present an Old Testament (the giving of the Law that required not touching the Mountain) orientation, whereas the Protestant perspective was more in keeping with the Sermon on the Mount (Christ’s disciples came to him). The Law, the Roman Catholic perspective artistically applied, implied “do not touch.” The Gospel, the Protestant perspective, implied “come unto me.” In other words, the Baroque militates against biblical, ecclesiastical, and relational accessibility.

Pope-benedict-XVI-Celebrates-MassFurther to this, the Baroque presents a questionable perspective on biblical simplicity. When we view Baroque art, or hear Baroque music, it is complicated, cluttered and excessively ornate. It is, in my opinion, highly distorting and distracting. It is affected in its Theo-speech, both liturgically and artistically. Does this not reflect, most especially under Pope Benedict XVI’s tenure, an excessive form of Roman Catholicism that sought to return the Church to a pre-Vatican II, which was Tridentine, mentality? The liturgical changes approved by His Holiness shortly before his retirement illustrate this. Is the vessel used at the Eucharist a “chalice” or a “cup”? Although this illustration may appear to be a “splitting hairs” argument, it is not. There are distinct theologies undergirding both the “chalice” and the “cup.” Chalice, reflecting a distorted perspective, presents a Baroque orientation that again asserts affected dignity and piety. Similarly, and supporting my thesis, is this retired Pope’s retrograde interest in the pallium and Prada. These, along with the re-assertion of the so-called “Extraordinary Rite,” that is a more Baroque Rite, illustrates Pope Benedict XVI’s affection for the affectations of the Baroque. His pontificate, personality, and theology were known by a marked distance and inaccessibly very much in keeping with his Baroque proclivities.

These are in stark contrast with a biblical, and far more Protestant, perspective. Protestant reform sought to return the Church to biblical and liturgical simplicity. Complications and additions, both biblically and liturgically, and on all counts, were minimized. One example of this is Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer as opposed to the far more complicated Roman Catholic rites and rituals. Cranmer sought Protestant simplicity and accessibility, whereas the Roman Catholicism of the time militated against such an orientation and perspective. The so called “stripping of the altars” (E. Duffy), although lamentable and at times politically charged, can also be understood as a means of removing every distortion and distraction that might hinder a genuine and unmediated (broadly speaking) encounter with God. A far more contemporary example of this is when I was asked to help a Roman Catholic parish of 2,500 families for about three or four months. What I found was that the established rituals of Roman Catholicism complicated, and frequently prevented, the establishing of God-centered relationships. Ritual trumped relationship although, ideally, good ritual always enhances healthy relationships. This, in essence, and although removed by time, reflects how Baroque art rejects theological and liturgical simplicity.

Ceiling (detail). Chiesa del Gesu (Rome)

Ceiling (detail). Chiesa del Gesu (Rome)

Finally, the Baroque presents a questionable perspective on anthropology. Baroque content, color, clutter, and clouds also obscure the biblical perspective regarding “man.” To look at a Catholic Baroque painting, or Baroque architecture, is to look at man in the act of aspiring. (I think Baroque music also reflects the same theology of ascension/sanctification/glorification). Often in these images, saints are centrally depicted– and often ascending through blue clouds accompanied by chubby cherubs. Although intended as inspiration to evoke emulation, as “the greatest sorrow is not to be a saint” (J. Maritain), the images often communicate a theology of works over grace. There are, of course, exceptions to this assertion.

"Ascension of Christ." Rembrandt

“Ascension of Christ.” Rembrandt

Why is there a preponderance of mystics, martyrs and saints? Why this emphasis upon ascension? While a diversity of reasons may be cited, they share a common theme contrary to the Protestant doctrine of grace. Although rather simplistic in its analysis, mystics displace the doctrine of revelation, martyrs displace the doctrine of Christology, and saints displace the doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers.” As well, and central to all of this, the idea of ascension suggests a doctrine of achieving instead of a doctrine of receiving. To be sure, this is an exaggeration (*see note below). There is a proper place to be given to mystics, martyrs, saints, and ascension. Mystics alert us to the need of genuine encounter over rote religion. Martyrs assert that Christ and his Church are things for which to live and die. Saints do help us appreciate the need to lead exemplary lives of holiness. Ascension, in keeping with the writings of Thomas á Kempis, asserts that “as is our purpose, so will our progress be.” That is, it is important to be spiritually attentive. There must be method to our passionate madness. These are all important. Nevertheless, within a Tridentine-Baroque perspective, they displace the Gospel narrative of underserved grace. As such, “man” is again left to strive without satisfaction and the Roman Church, and its extreme view of the Sacraments, is elevated as the exclusive means of meaningful meditation. While anachronistic, the Baroque asserts (again as articulated by Emeritus Pope Benedict) that art and the saints are the Church’s most powerful apologetic. Within a Tridentine-Baroque framework this cannot be denied. But what beliefs and behaviors are they defending? How are they offering a defense? Why are they offering such a defense?

As might be guessed, I am not an expert on Baroque art and liturgy. Nevertheless, a significant part of my theological education has been focused upon the intersection of the arts, liturgy and catechesis– and this, partially, through a pontifically-approved institution. I began ruminating on these ideas shortly after I studied with this institute and, later, with one of its instructors. But when a friend asked me my thoughts on the Baroque, I decided to put them to paper.

I am not opposed to Roman Catholicism. I was raised and educated within the warm and welcoming embrace of this robust Christian tradition. I have a deep and abiding respect for Emeritus Pope Benedict. I have enjoyed reading his liturgical and catechetical works, and derived many benefits from them. I enjoy Baroque art as Baroque art– but not liturgically or religiously. As such, if I have any “axe to grind,” it is an “axe” of caution. In this age of renewed liturgical interest, among both Romans and Genevans alike, we must be careful about blithely or ignorantly accepting or rejecting either fixedness or flexibility. The weight of Emeritus Pope Benedict’s (or any other saintly scholar’s) intellect and piety does not automatically provide tacit approval to every form of artistic expression used in a liturgical setting.  In this case, the case of the Baroque, he is wrong. Benedict’s Baroque predilections only serve to remind us that even “good” religious art may not always be utilized in a liturgical or catechetical setting.


*One exception is Bernini’s Ecstasy of Saint Teresa. Here, erotically depicted, is a mystical experience that was entirely generated by God. However, in Bernini’s sculptural interpretation of this event, the sexual emphasis far outweighs the spiritual message. To be sure, as has been said by Charles Williams, “flesh speaks as spirit speaks, but spirit knows of what it speaks.” This said, however, Bernini’s sculpture illustrates an eroticism which is the dangerous underbelly of the Baroque ascension narrative.

Continue Reading 0

Dr. Christopher Montgomery: Sacramentality: A Political Hermeneutic

Video-IconVideo Content: At June, 2016’s annual AFFN Convocation, Network member Dr. Christopher Montgomery presented a thought provoking paper on sacramentality and the Kingdom titled “Sacramentality: A Political Hermeneutic.”

Through a close reading of Mark 6;14-44 Christopher argued that the sacraments are gifts given to the Church to help us understand the way God relates to the world He has created and that the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, hold implications for the meaning we assign to ourselves as the Church and to our mission in the world around us.

Christopher has held pastoral positions in worship and the arts in evangelical and Anabaptist congregations, and now is pastor of Sermon on the Mount Mennonite Church in Sioux Falls, S.D.

Continue Reading 0

How Much is Enough?

Marc Brown:

Communion-Cup_BreadEverything we value we view with purpose and intentionality. Normally-occurring changes happen in everyone’s lives. These changes often challenge our habits and the things we treasure. Depending on how clearly we understand the meaning of the values we place on people, things and habits, these will either survive the changes or be left behind to make way for the new. There was a time in my life that I was sick and tired of being heavy…chubby…fat. I had battled poor fitness my whole life. Now, as the sun was about to set on my 20’s, I embarked on a fitness and diet routine that helped me to become stronger and slimmer than I had ever been. This new reality was made possible by routines of regular and frequent exercise along with habitual and constant positive eating habits. My daily and weekly schedule reflected my values with purpose and intentionality. Three years later we moved. Along with a new job came new responsibilities, new priorities and new stresses. My new schedule seemed to leave no time for exercise, especially habitual exercise. There was also the strong compulsion to salve my stresses through comfort eating. What happened to my habits? My values changed. Taking care of my new responsibilities meant more to me than taking care of my body.

My story makes the point that the value we place on something is based on its meaning. We will craft our daily and weekly schedule to accommodate the things we treasure. However, when change comes into our lives, we will be tempted to surrender the things value, trading them for something that seems more necessary– more meaningful.

Something all Christians agree on as being meaningful is the Lord’s Supper. Mark’s Gospel account of the Lord’s Supper tells us:

“Then he took the cup, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. ‘This I my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many, he said to them.” -Mark 14:23-24

Jesus was eating the Passover meal with his disciples. While sharing this holy observance, he gave it a new meaning and told us to eat and drink. My purpose is not to promote one of the many interpretations different Christian traditions have ascribed to the Lord’s Supper. Instead, I am making the point that whatever way a church understands the meaning of the Lord’s Supper should lead them to intentionality and purpose with regard to the timing and frequency of the Lord’s Supper.

In my Southern Baptist tradition, there is a great variety in the frequency the observance of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, a 2012 random survey of Southern Baptist pastors conducted by LifeWay Research showed that fifty-seven percent of the pastor’s churches observed the Lord’s Supper once a quarter, eighteen percent monthly and only one percent weekly. Even though it is possible that these churches all came to a conclusion regarding the meaning of and frequency for observing the Lord’s Supper, it is also possible that their practices “developed over the course of history and have been perpetuated with little reflection or rationale” (40 Questions About Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Hammett, John S., 289). Many Baptists might point to an agreed meaning of the Lord’s Supper as being done at Christ’s command and “in remembrance.” Rather than being a means of making a regular deposit into one’s salvation, the Baptist (Zwinglian) view of remembrance may not seem to demand as much frequency. As Keith Mathison stated, “nature determines frequency” (Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Mathison, Keith., 293). An alternate perspective is proposed by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary professor John Hammett: “If the purpose of the Lord’s Supper is solely for us to remember Christ’s sacrifice, perhaps a quarterly observance would be sufficient, through it could also be asked if we can be reminded of the cross too often. But if the Lord’s Supper is given to us as a ‘means of grace,’ by which believing hearts experience communion with Christ, are nourished spiritually, are encouraged by anticipation of the wedding feast of the Lamb, and are renewed in unity and love by partaking ‘of the one loaf’ (1 Corinthians 10:17) and recognizing the corporate body of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:29), then such a gift would naturally be something we would desire more frequently.” (40 Question, 292-293)

Is any church healthier because it observes the Lord’s Supper less often? Has the frequency of the observance of the Lord’s Supper fallen prey to new things we have decided are more valuable? Are our deeply held traditions concerning the periodicity of the Lord’s Supper being kept for the sake of history rather than their meaning? I believe these questions should be prayerfully answered as we strive to be part of His kingdom coming and His will being done on earth as it is in heaven.

Continue Reading 0

Eucharist: Directive or Dispute?

Donald Richmond:


raphael_disputa_altar_detailRaphael’s “La Disputa” is displayed on one of the frescoed walls of the Signature Room in the Vatican. Here the Holy Trinity (the vertical line of the painting) sovereignly supervises and sanctions the process by which the Church receives the graced Eucharistic revelation. Along two horizontal lines, one in heaven and one on earth, angels and saints discuss the nature of this God-given gift.

Of note, along the horizontal earthly line of the fresco, is the clear division between one side of the Altar and Monstrance and the other side. Popes, prelates and people– along with Dante (in the lower right quadrant)– stand on BOTH sides of the discussion. Both attend to the Altar. Both attend to their books. Both have some formal “architecture” of understanding, as illustrated by the divergent structures behind each side of the Altar, to “support” their argument. Both recognize the centrality of Holy Communion– but they are in dispute. Which side is right? To which argument can we affix our name, our signature, our endorsement? Which argument does the Church itself endorse?

Within the Church there are a wide diversity of opinions, and hearty disagreements, about this most holy Sacrament. Some, Roman Catholics in particular, endorse the philosophic concept of Transubstantiation. Lutherans embrace Consubstantiation. Calvin and Zwingli have more spiritualized interpretations. Anglicans and Catholics celebrate the “Real Presence,” but are divided about what, exactly, this means. Evangelicals assert a “remembrance,” but often have little understanding about what it means to re–member an event of such significance. Some Christians, sadly, refuse to participate in this Sacrament altogether because they do not want to add to the divisions in the Church.

Although there are differences, disagreements, and divisions, there is at least one truth to which all Christians subscribe: Participation in Holy Communion is a directive given by God. Jesus instituted the Sacrament, and is identified through this breaking of bread. St. Paul affirmed it, and provided clear expectations for participation in it. The early Church, as articulated in Acts 2:42, was known for its commitment to the Table. “DO THIS” is an expectation of God to be taken with the utmost of seriousness.

Raphael’s “La Disputa” presents both a heavenly and earthly perspective on this most important Sacrament. As both earthly (Bread & Wine) and divine (Body & Blood), Eucharist is complicated. There will be, therefore, differences on many levels. But there is one thing we must not differ upon; there is one thing that is not too complicated. Jesus tells us to “DO THIS” and St. Paul tells us that we must evaluate ourselves and our relationships when we do. Will we DO IT or DISPUTE IT?



Image above: “The Disputation of the Sacrament,” or “La Disputa.” Raphael, c. 1510. Stanze di Raffaello, Apostolic Palace, Vatican.

Continue Reading 0