By all accounts, Stratford Caldecott is an unassuming man. Reserved in public, he dresses the part of an English intellectual–an actual English intellectual, not the over-tweedy stereotype. He thinks far more than he talks, the mark of a true philosopher. A cursory review of his work or a judgemental observation of his person might even lead one to assume he’s a conservative, a traditionalist, a reactionary of quietly strong pedigree. In a phrase, one who is “stuck in the past,” yearning in the present to return to something better. If one didn’t know better, one might accuse him of intellectual and artistic nostalgia.
But one would be utterly wrong.
There’s nothing glittery or avant garde about Caldecott or his new book, Beauty for Truth's Sake: On the Re-enchantment of Education, but this pivotal piece in contemporary thought simply shines.
This luminous and restrained quote by Jean Leclercq (quoted in Caldecott), illustrates the difference between those who know beauty an those who merely quote it, the difference between a universal philosopher of beauty, and one who feigns it by cultural curiosity rooted in the contemporary,
They loved the authors of the past, not simply because they belonged to the past but because they were beautiful, with a beauty which defies time.
I urge you to read this book. It quietly stands for the renewal in art, culture, education and faith that is the mission and vision of Ruah. I’m grateful for Caldecott’s vision, intelligence and quotidian grace, because it’s through the ordinary lived with great inspiration that beauty will save the world.
But don’t take my word for it. Friend, art historian and fellow blogger Matthew Milliner summarizes his thoughts on the book here:
…there is Stratford Caldecott’s Beauty for Truth’s Sake, which places these more vaulting projects in immediate reach. In addition, it’s far more wide-ranging. Caldecott aims to not only redeem theology with beauty, but quite literally everything with beauty – hence his book will appeal to those outside professional theological circles in ways that the aforementioned books probably (and most unfortunately) won’t. My review of Caldecott’s book was put up at Public Discourse yesterday. I urge you to read it simply because I think it’s a very important book. Better yet, skip my review and just buy the thing[my emphasis].
More reviews here:
Fr. Dwight Longnecker (Standing on My Head blog)
Matthew Milliner (Millinderd blog)
He writes page turners to sell his “theology”. It’s not a big surprise to faithful and well-formed Christians–and in particular, Catholic Christians–but it seems to be news to the millions who read and love him into theological and historical delusion.
Read NY Times Op-Ed Columnist Ross Douthat here. He opens up the cancerous body of work and operates from head to toe, noting that Brown isn’t just your run of the mill anti-Catholic bigot, but an avant garde DIY hater of organized religion in general:
“Piggybacking on the fascination with lost gospels and alternative Christianities, he serves up a Jesus who’s a thoroughly modern sort of messiah — sexy, worldly, and Goddess-worshiping, with a wife and kids, a house in the Galilean suburbs, and no delusions about his own divinity.
But the success of this message — which also shows up in the work of Brown’s many thriller-writing imitators — can’t be separated from its dishonesty.”
That’s right folks. Douthat’s calling him a liar. In the NY Times. Sweet.
As a side note, I went to this Theology on Tap last week that, contrary to its description, was a thorough treatment of the book and movie, “Angels and Demons,” along with a fantastic overview of the Church’s teaching on art and film. Dr. Daniel VanSlyke, Associate Professor of Church History at Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis, was great, if not an eensy weensy bit long-winded. I’ll post the audio when I get it.
Follow me on Twitter 