Hey.
I have a couple of new books to apply to my thesis: In Praise fo Folly by Erasmus and Christian Humanism and the Reformation: Selected Writings of Erasmus ed. by John C. Olin. I realize that my thesis is about liturgical theology. I know. But I am learning that if I do not understand this brand of humanism, then I may miss what Calvin is getting after. Right now I am fixated on his use of Rhetoric. How much of his liturgical language rhetorical and how much is theological? Would he have distinguished a difference? Why or why not? His theology is rhetorical. That is clear. His philosophy of rhetoric had theological overtones as well. This facinates me. Jesus was not a philosopher to Calvin, but a humanist, a rhetorical genius who knew how to reach people with his message no matter what their social standing. It is facinating on a couple of levels. One, it is a departure from the early chruch in some ways. It relativises (sp) faith somewhat. Two, Calvin may simply be trying to frighten/move/encourage us sometimes in his liturgy. The visceral responses one has are intended by Calvin. How do we deal with this kind of manipulation? Is there a theology behind this that devalues Calvin's ues of Chrysostom? Fun.
So, read Erasmus. Calvin did. They did not always agree but the shared the humanist idea for certain.
Oh, it is the last beautiful day for a while. The windows are open in the apartment. Snow is in the forcast for later this week. Ah, Chicago.
Posted by tripp at March 29, 2004 07:14 AM