One of the 7 or 8 books that I am reading right now is The Beauty of the Infinite by David Bentley Hart. It is an excellent book by any standard, though thick at times with a temptation towards headiness. Hart is of Eastern Orthodox persuasion, and has taught at many higher up establishments such as Duke Divinity School, so that may explain some things.
Regardless, it is an excellent book. Its purpose is to present a biblical paradigm by which we Christians may understand beauty. This is a topic which I will frequently be posting on, as it is one that is close to my heart and thoughts. But as I said, I am currently reading it, meaning I have not read it fully yet. I would however, like to comment on sections as they are being read.
The first chapter begins where all things begin: the Triune God. His first subheading is labeled the Divine Apatheia. In essence this section is explaining God’s complete and utter satisfaction in Himself, and need of nothing that is not already contained within the Godhead. This thought has at least two ramifications. The first is that God is complete. He needs no one, is dependant on no one, and finds utter fulfillment in the divine community.
Secondly, and logically following the first point, we His creation, are completely unnecessary to God’s existence. Any ontology other than this necessarily denies God’s omnipotence, and to do that denies the existence of God Himself. If He is not above all, who is, and so on. This statement has many implications, but I want to talk about only one.
If we are completely unnecessary, and if creation is completely, in an ultimate sense, unnecessary, what is the purpose of it all? In a very real sense, creation is superfluous. It is extra, it is divine abundance. What does this say about the Triune God we worship? One thing it definitely does not say is that God is a utilitarian pragmatic. If our God is not, why should we?
If God did not create the world out of some sense of duty, or some world shaped hole in His heart, why did He create it? The only other option is to say that God created out of pleasure, desire, and love. This is consistent with the Creation story, and all of Scripture.
It follows then that all of creation was given in love. All matter, both organic and inorganic, speaks to the love and pleasure of our Father. This is how we must understand creation. Out of any number of possible options, God chose to make the world this way. He could have given us one tree that grew one thing, which contained, nutritionally speaking, everything that was necessary to our survival. But He didn’t. He made apples and oranges. He gave us plethora of edible leaves. We only need one type of lettuce. But He gave us Red leaf, Green leaf, Romaine, Kale, Arugula, Red Kale, and so on. How many different types of fruits, vegetables, meats, grains, etc. are there? And those are just food groups. Look at the rock world, the tree world, the animal kingdom. The superfluousness is staggering. To our modern eyes, it is all simply excess or unneeded waste. But in God’s eyes it is Good.
What does this say about the God we worship? God enjoys difference. He enjoys playfulness. He enjoys interaction and community. Developing our understanding of these characteristics, and the many more that creation presents to us, takes us a step closer to developing a distinctively Christian Aesthetic. With this tool we will be able to have a clear understanding of what beauty is, why it is not completely relative, and how we are called to live and worship in such a way that reflects this beauty to the ugly and disfigured world we live in.
Regardless, it is an excellent book. Its purpose is to present a biblical paradigm by which we Christians may understand beauty. This is a topic which I will frequently be posting on, as it is one that is close to my heart and thoughts. But as I said, I am currently reading it, meaning I have not read it fully yet. I would however, like to comment on sections as they are being read.
The first chapter begins where all things begin: the Triune God. His first subheading is labeled the Divine Apatheia. In essence this section is explaining God’s complete and utter satisfaction in Himself, and need of nothing that is not already contained within the Godhead. This thought has at least two ramifications. The first is that God is complete. He needs no one, is dependant on no one, and finds utter fulfillment in the divine community.
Secondly, and logically following the first point, we His creation, are completely unnecessary to God’s existence. Any ontology other than this necessarily denies God’s omnipotence, and to do that denies the existence of God Himself. If He is not above all, who is, and so on. This statement has many implications, but I want to talk about only one.
If we are completely unnecessary, and if creation is completely, in an ultimate sense, unnecessary, what is the purpose of it all? In a very real sense, creation is superfluous. It is extra, it is divine abundance. What does this say about the Triune God we worship? One thing it definitely does not say is that God is a utilitarian pragmatic. If our God is not, why should we?
If God did not create the world out of some sense of duty, or some world shaped hole in His heart, why did He create it? The only other option is to say that God created out of pleasure, desire, and love. This is consistent with the Creation story, and all of Scripture.
It follows then that all of creation was given in love. All matter, both organic and inorganic, speaks to the love and pleasure of our Father. This is how we must understand creation. Out of any number of possible options, God chose to make the world this way. He could have given us one tree that grew one thing, which contained, nutritionally speaking, everything that was necessary to our survival. But He didn’t. He made apples and oranges. He gave us plethora of edible leaves. We only need one type of lettuce. But He gave us Red leaf, Green leaf, Romaine, Kale, Arugula, Red Kale, and so on. How many different types of fruits, vegetables, meats, grains, etc. are there? And those are just food groups. Look at the rock world, the tree world, the animal kingdom. The superfluousness is staggering. To our modern eyes, it is all simply excess or unneeded waste. But in God’s eyes it is Good.
What does this say about the God we worship? God enjoys difference. He enjoys playfulness. He enjoys interaction and community. Developing our understanding of these characteristics, and the many more that creation presents to us, takes us a step closer to developing a distinctively Christian Aesthetic. With this tool we will be able to have a clear understanding of what beauty is, why it is not completely relative, and how we are called to live and worship in such a way that reflects this beauty to the ugly and disfigured world we live in.
5 comments:
Your post reminds me of one of the great tragedies of the Reformation. Obviously the Church had fallen into serious idolitry, but when Christendom was split into a thousand pieces, we lost the ability to see this beauty that you speak of. Obviously one needs to be careful of idolitry, as we are, as Calvin says, idol factories. Nevertheless, an appreciation for beauty shouldn't be "out-of-bounds", as it is in the minds of so many.
At some point I want to post on Eastern Orthodoxy, for this exact reason. They have not gone through the radical pendulum swings as we have in the West. Granted, they have a lot of problems. But one of their strengths is the deep understanding of God's transcendence, which leads to a much more intimite encounter with His Beauty, than our rationalistic, God-must-fit-into-my-box mentality allows.
The pendulum swings, I'm convinced, came as a result of the Enlightenment, not the Reformation. It was the Reformation that opened the doors to the sciences and arts in a way that transcended the 2-dimensional, repressive simplicity of the Middle Ages.
Neitzche's Birth of Tragedy is a must read here. The Appolonian and Dyanisian (sp?) polarities define the ensuing ages.
I agree, but you have to admit that the over-reaction on some parties in the Reformation with "idols" in the Church certainly was one of the catalysts of the pendulum swing...
Post a Comment