We have discussed the nature of the Trinity and its relation to Creation. The question then arises, what has this to do with aesthetics? What has this to do with beauty? The Creator God is Beauty, and there can be nothing more beautiful than God. Ultimate Beauty therefore must have the same attributes as the infinite God. If it did not, God could not be the Ultimate Beauty. In this way, we have an objective standard for Beauty. Beauty is not simply and only ‘taste’. Taste has its place, but it does not govern all areas of Beauty. Therefore, something can be truly, biblically beautiful, say a ripe peach, and not be pleasing to every single person on earth. If that example seems trite, think about it again. Peaches are an act of creation. They are created by God. God cannot make what is outside His nature. Hence, peaches reflect God’s nature, and are in that sense, Beautiful. But John doesn’t like peaches. And God has given him the freedom to not like them. Taste is a subcategory of Beauty, and not the other way around. Our modern/postmodern relativists have elevated taste above all, elevating their own decision-making abilities over and above what God has decreed. In this way they can look down on God and decide that He is not their type, just like John does not like peaches. But taste is not the heading, with beauty as bullet point number three, followed by truth, and flavors of ice cream. We must say that Beauty, who is God Himself, reigns and that all things flow from Him.
So in the past four discussions regarding the Divine Abundance, what framework have we given for our understanding of Beauty? We have looked at these each in their own place:
The ‘superfluousness’ of Creation
The necessary love of the Creator
The Triune nature and fellowship of the Creator
The divine dialogue and difference within the Trinity
The distance and immediacy of this Triune God
The identification of God with His people
What can we understand about Beauty from these things? The first thought to take away is that Beauty is real and present. It is not a figment of imagination, nor is it a created substance that will pass with time. Beauty surrounds us because it is emblazoned in creation. It follows then that Beauty does not need a subject to appreciate it to be beautiful. Creation was Good on Day 5. Creation was beautiful without Man. Now in the Almighty’s divine pleasure, it was not complete without man, but the presence of mankind does not suddenly give Beauty its life. Beauty has its life in that it reflects the nature of the Creator. Beauty is the very reflection. The Triune God was beautiful, was Beauty, from before the foundations of the world.
Beauty is real, and present, and independent from us. Beauty also gives and bestows. As the very reflection of God, it gives glory and bestows majesty on God. Acts of beauty then consist of bestowing on others. This is tempered and defined by the selfless love of the Trinity. The act of giving is an act free from selfish ends and desires. Beauty then is a selfless love, giving of itself for the pure reason of blessing others. This can be seen in music, to take an example from the art world. When various lines complement each other, and do not dominate, but harmonize and flow together, achieving a sound bigger than the individual lines, the overall product is beautiful, because it reflects the nature of Beauty, the nature of God, which involves a love which is directed outward, a selfless giving for the benefit and glorification of the other.
Beauty is real, present, independent, giving and bestowing. Beauty also is playful and creative. To look at the diversity of creation, and to speak of God as anything but playful, humorous, and creative, is to look but without seeing and understanding. Beauty then is rich in diversity (allowing for tastes), humorous, creative, and playful. I say playful in order to bring to mind images of delight and joy. God clearly enjoys His creation. Go to any national or international park, landmark, or reserve. From Yosemite, to the Fjords of Norway, to the (fill in your favorite desktop wallpaper). This again, speaks to the unnecessary nature of creation. God did not need to create 300,000 different types of beetles, but He did, and did so out of His own good pleasure and delight in creation. To watch antelopes and gazelles bounce and prance as they do over fields and hills, is a delight. Simply look at the giraffe for conclusive evidence that God is a comedian and enjoys playing. Beauty is a reflection of that playfulness. To watch the sun melt in a rainbow of colors, dripping down into the raising waves of a moving ocean, while the land and mountains behind you are seduced by the dark of night, is Beauty. It is beautiful because it is an exhibition of nature playing and enjoying the game of creation, the game God has given it to play.
(Part Two forthcoming…)
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Divine Abundance: Part Four
We left off a couple of months ago with the idea of the God of Creation, the God who is infinitely beyond all, stooping into history, and approaching His own. In Christ, the Unapproachable One, becomes approachable, the God of all takes on flesh and tabernacles among us. This brings us to a fourth point in our pursuit of a paradigm for understanding the beautiful and our place in it.
The Lord of all Creation is infinite. This must be so, or else God would have a beginning or an end, and that is nonsensical. There are two sides to this coin. The infinity of God by definition means that God is infinitely above us, beyond us, transcending every thought, concept, imagination, or word we can give. This we know, and have dwelt on already. From this starting point we arrive at our own superfluousness, and the unnecessary nature of Creation.
Infinity also means however, that God is infinitely close to His creation. As far as He is distant, He is also near. In short, He is the distance that separates us. He is the distance that breaks through the Creator/Creature distinction. He is the God who, though being above all, has irrevocably bound Himself to His Creation. He has defined Himself, named Himself, with relation to His people. In Exodus He gives Moses the name by which He will be known, and remembered. “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations,” (Ex. 3:14-15). Even in the very name of God, He involves His purpose, His people. He is to be remembered throughout all generations as the God of a certain, particular people.
This God identifies intimately with His bride. He puts His reputation on the line, if you will. Here we have a clearer idea why the history of God’s people is so important. It is through God’s relation with us that His glory is made known to the nations. Two things we take from this. One, God uses weakness to confound strength. He uses broken clay pots to conquer the iron and steel of His enemies. The second thing we take from this is that God is not using the history of His bride apart from divine foreknowledge. In other words, He is not simply hoping the story of His grace will fall on sympathetic ears. He will be made known to the nations, and He will bring redemption to the world, placing His enemies beneath His feet. This will happen. And in order to accomplish this, He chooses to use us, the fallen and restored Bride.
This however, is more contextual, and tangential to our discussion of aesthetics, though not unimportant. To reorient us, work through this quote from David Bentley Hart’s book, The Beauty of the Infinite:
This is why consideration of the analogy of being concludes this long meditation on Trinitarian doctrine: the Father forever sees and infinitely loves the whole depth of his being in the Son, illumined as responsive love in the fullness of the Spirit, and in the always determinate infinity of His triune being God begets all the riches of being – all that all things might ever be – in the image and light of His essence; and thus God himself is already his own analogy, his own infinite otherness and perfect likeness. All things – all the words of being – speak of God because they shine within his eternal Word. This Trinitarian distance is that “open” in which the tree springs up from the earth, the stars turn in the sky, the sea swells, all living things are born and grow, angels raise their everlasting hymnody; because this is the true interval of difference, every metaphysics that does not grasp the analogy of being is a Tower of Babel, attempting to mount up to the supreme principle rather than dwelling in and giving voice to the prodigality of the gift. (The Beauty of the Infinite, 248)
This is a little thick, so lets work through it. The ‘analogy of being’ refers to the metaphysical concepts of difference and transcendence. Packed in the luggage of those terms are the two sides of the infinite described above. The triune nature of God is in essence, one of love. We have seen how this love overflows in rich abundance into Creation, showing God’s playfulness and intimacy within unnecessary gift. This is seen in “all the riches of being – all that all things might ever be – in the image and light of His essence.” All creation therefore sings in praise of who God is, for He is intimately united, by choice, and not by force, to all creation. “He is before all things, and in Him, all things consist,” (Col 1:17). “For in Him we live and move and have our being,” (Acts 17:28). Because God is infinite, and is the very space that separates us (‘even in the depths of Sheol, You are there…’), He gives life to all things. He is therefore that “open” space in which trees grow and sway in the wind, angels sing their hymns, and the oceans clap their hands in praise. Hence every metaphysic (paradigm, worldview, theology) that does not understand this, is by nature the tower of defiance and rebellion. To not recognize the ruler of heaven and earth, is to declare autonomy, which will necessarily bring confusion and exile. We cannot mount up to God. However, He can stoop down, and has in Christ. This is that gift that we are to dwell in and give voice to. We dwell in God’s bounty whether we like it or not. It is simply the way things are. We can however choose not to give voice to it. Either we refuse and climb Mount Babel, or we accept, and honor God as God, and give Him thanks.
Here is gratitude, the only word on our tongue fit for the Creator God, who is above all, and in all, and through all. Glory and power and dominion are His forever, and ever, world without end. Amen.
The Lord of all Creation is infinite. This must be so, or else God would have a beginning or an end, and that is nonsensical. There are two sides to this coin. The infinity of God by definition means that God is infinitely above us, beyond us, transcending every thought, concept, imagination, or word we can give. This we know, and have dwelt on already. From this starting point we arrive at our own superfluousness, and the unnecessary nature of Creation.
Infinity also means however, that God is infinitely close to His creation. As far as He is distant, He is also near. In short, He is the distance that separates us. He is the distance that breaks through the Creator/Creature distinction. He is the God who, though being above all, has irrevocably bound Himself to His Creation. He has defined Himself, named Himself, with relation to His people. In Exodus He gives Moses the name by which He will be known, and remembered. “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations,” (Ex. 3:14-15). Even in the very name of God, He involves His purpose, His people. He is to be remembered throughout all generations as the God of a certain, particular people.
This God identifies intimately with His bride. He puts His reputation on the line, if you will. Here we have a clearer idea why the history of God’s people is so important. It is through God’s relation with us that His glory is made known to the nations. Two things we take from this. One, God uses weakness to confound strength. He uses broken clay pots to conquer the iron and steel of His enemies. The second thing we take from this is that God is not using the history of His bride apart from divine foreknowledge. In other words, He is not simply hoping the story of His grace will fall on sympathetic ears. He will be made known to the nations, and He will bring redemption to the world, placing His enemies beneath His feet. This will happen. And in order to accomplish this, He chooses to use us, the fallen and restored Bride.
This however, is more contextual, and tangential to our discussion of aesthetics, though not unimportant. To reorient us, work through this quote from David Bentley Hart’s book, The Beauty of the Infinite:
This is why consideration of the analogy of being concludes this long meditation on Trinitarian doctrine: the Father forever sees and infinitely loves the whole depth of his being in the Son, illumined as responsive love in the fullness of the Spirit, and in the always determinate infinity of His triune being God begets all the riches of being – all that all things might ever be – in the image and light of His essence; and thus God himself is already his own analogy, his own infinite otherness and perfect likeness. All things – all the words of being – speak of God because they shine within his eternal Word. This Trinitarian distance is that “open” in which the tree springs up from the earth, the stars turn in the sky, the sea swells, all living things are born and grow, angels raise their everlasting hymnody; because this is the true interval of difference, every metaphysics that does not grasp the analogy of being is a Tower of Babel, attempting to mount up to the supreme principle rather than dwelling in and giving voice to the prodigality of the gift. (The Beauty of the Infinite, 248)
This is a little thick, so lets work through it. The ‘analogy of being’ refers to the metaphysical concepts of difference and transcendence. Packed in the luggage of those terms are the two sides of the infinite described above. The triune nature of God is in essence, one of love. We have seen how this love overflows in rich abundance into Creation, showing God’s playfulness and intimacy within unnecessary gift. This is seen in “all the riches of being – all that all things might ever be – in the image and light of His essence.” All creation therefore sings in praise of who God is, for He is intimately united, by choice, and not by force, to all creation. “He is before all things, and in Him, all things consist,” (Col 1:17). “For in Him we live and move and have our being,” (Acts 17:28). Because God is infinite, and is the very space that separates us (‘even in the depths of Sheol, You are there…’), He gives life to all things. He is therefore that “open” space in which trees grow and sway in the wind, angels sing their hymns, and the oceans clap their hands in praise. Hence every metaphysic (paradigm, worldview, theology) that does not understand this, is by nature the tower of defiance and rebellion. To not recognize the ruler of heaven and earth, is to declare autonomy, which will necessarily bring confusion and exile. We cannot mount up to God. However, He can stoop down, and has in Christ. This is that gift that we are to dwell in and give voice to. We dwell in God’s bounty whether we like it or not. It is simply the way things are. We can however choose not to give voice to it. Either we refuse and climb Mount Babel, or we accept, and honor God as God, and give Him thanks.
Here is gratitude, the only word on our tongue fit for the Creator God, who is above all, and in all, and through all. Glory and power and dominion are His forever, and ever, world without end. Amen.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Hairy Potter
Welcome back Friar. After a long absence, we have all three abbey members posting in the same week. This is great!
Just so everyone is clear, I have not read any of the Potter books. However my opinions are not of the nature that make others think I wear tight pants. To address the fair friar’s first question, yes, there is a difference between Tolkien and Rowlings, and no its not simply a difference in gender. To put it simply, Tolkien and Lewis are 32oz Porterhouses, with AuGratin potatoes and a side of broiled asparagus, finished off with a fine, mellow glass of Pinot Noir. Rowlings is like Slimfast. There is still nourishment there, but of a different degree. This is explained by my response to his next question.
The presuppositionalist will readily see the underpinnings of Christianity in Harry Potter. This is natural, and holds true for any good story. Christianity is the only worldview that works, that is consistent with nature, and our experiences in this world. Science and the demigods in white coats, followed by the relativists of our own generation will say differently in print. However, they will not, cannot live their life consistently, if they wish to live their life. As I said, the story of Scripture is the only story that works. Therefore, if you wish to write a fiction that works, key elements of the Story need to be intact. For instance, if you end a story with a nihilistic death, with nothing afterwards and no meaningful outcome, nobody is going to read the book. It simply wont sell. However, if there is some sort of resurrection following the death, whether actual or symbolic, there is a sense of rest, that resolves the tension of death. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand this. This is something that is hardwired into mankind. Only believers, however, have the resources to explain why this is so.
So back to Harry and Frodo. The reason why Potter works (again, at least from what I have heard) is because it borrows elements from the Real Story, such as good beating evil, though evil is real and nasty. To my knowledge, Rowlings does this unintentionally, mixing in her own thoughts. To use another analogy, the Potter books are like cupcakes made with the flour and baking powder of Christian thought, but mixed with the flavor and frosting of Rowlings own personal worldview. Here is where we Christians practice our discernment. Just because she uses two cups of truth, does not make the whole cupcake good. There might be some redeeming value in reading it, and it can simply be a lark in a park. But if we only see the two cups of truth and not the sprinkles of disbelief, we are setting ourselves up for a fall. This is simply a call for us to be aware. Reading Potter is not a sin, and we should read them. But I agree with the JF that a steady diet, and a narrow diet of Potteresque books is dangerous for the soul.
That said, a few comments on Tolkien and Lewis. I have not read Potter, but I have had a steady diet of these two greats. Similar subject matter, right? So what’s the difference? Tolkien and Lewis both wrote their fictions from within the paradigm of faith. Their own personal convictions were such that they believed Scripture and the Story of the Gospel to be the Story of all Stories. This inevitably shaped and molded their own hand as they wrote. This is clearly evident in reading their works. The more Truth they personally took in, the more Truth came out through their fingers. It is simple proportions. Rowlings swallows two cups truth, and puts out two cups truth. Tolkien and Lewis daily eat loaves and loaves of truth, and therefore put out rich and meaty works, overflowing with the richness of their diet. We cannot separate a work from its author, as some have tried. We cannot separate a creation from its creator. Therefore we must study both, as each informs us of the other. So the call is to read, but to read wisely and with a mind to engage and discover.
Just so everyone is clear, I have not read any of the Potter books. However my opinions are not of the nature that make others think I wear tight pants. To address the fair friar’s first question, yes, there is a difference between Tolkien and Rowlings, and no its not simply a difference in gender. To put it simply, Tolkien and Lewis are 32oz Porterhouses, with AuGratin potatoes and a side of broiled asparagus, finished off with a fine, mellow glass of Pinot Noir. Rowlings is like Slimfast. There is still nourishment there, but of a different degree. This is explained by my response to his next question.
The presuppositionalist will readily see the underpinnings of Christianity in Harry Potter. This is natural, and holds true for any good story. Christianity is the only worldview that works, that is consistent with nature, and our experiences in this world. Science and the demigods in white coats, followed by the relativists of our own generation will say differently in print. However, they will not, cannot live their life consistently, if they wish to live their life. As I said, the story of Scripture is the only story that works. Therefore, if you wish to write a fiction that works, key elements of the Story need to be intact. For instance, if you end a story with a nihilistic death, with nothing afterwards and no meaningful outcome, nobody is going to read the book. It simply wont sell. However, if there is some sort of resurrection following the death, whether actual or symbolic, there is a sense of rest, that resolves the tension of death. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand this. This is something that is hardwired into mankind. Only believers, however, have the resources to explain why this is so.
So back to Harry and Frodo. The reason why Potter works (again, at least from what I have heard) is because it borrows elements from the Real Story, such as good beating evil, though evil is real and nasty. To my knowledge, Rowlings does this unintentionally, mixing in her own thoughts. To use another analogy, the Potter books are like cupcakes made with the flour and baking powder of Christian thought, but mixed with the flavor and frosting of Rowlings own personal worldview. Here is where we Christians practice our discernment. Just because she uses two cups of truth, does not make the whole cupcake good. There might be some redeeming value in reading it, and it can simply be a lark in a park. But if we only see the two cups of truth and not the sprinkles of disbelief, we are setting ourselves up for a fall. This is simply a call for us to be aware. Reading Potter is not a sin, and we should read them. But I agree with the JF that a steady diet, and a narrow diet of Potteresque books is dangerous for the soul.
That said, a few comments on Tolkien and Lewis. I have not read Potter, but I have had a steady diet of these two greats. Similar subject matter, right? So what’s the difference? Tolkien and Lewis both wrote their fictions from within the paradigm of faith. Their own personal convictions were such that they believed Scripture and the Story of the Gospel to be the Story of all Stories. This inevitably shaped and molded their own hand as they wrote. This is clearly evident in reading their works. The more Truth they personally took in, the more Truth came out through their fingers. It is simple proportions. Rowlings swallows two cups truth, and puts out two cups truth. Tolkien and Lewis daily eat loaves and loaves of truth, and therefore put out rich and meaty works, overflowing with the richness of their diet. We cannot separate a work from its author, as some have tried. We cannot separate a creation from its creator. Therefore we must study both, as each informs us of the other. So the call is to read, but to read wisely and with a mind to engage and discover.
Christian Presupposition in Harry Potter?
As the hub-bub about the final installment, (at least in writing), is coming to an end, this Jolly Friar ponders on some things Potter. Views on this subject are as polarized as the ice-caps and no shortage of opinion exists among Christian circles. So for the sake of stirring up the pot here at the abbey, I'd like to pose the question to all those who ponder.
Is there a difference between Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowlings? (Besides the obvious male/female distinction.) Are the Harry Potter series of books the same as "Lord of the Rings" or "The Chronicles of Narnia"?
For instance, the hero in the "Lord of the Rings" is Frodo Baggins, the humble hobit, with great character and self-sacrifice. Is there a reasonable parallel between Frodo and Harry? Gandalf uses magic and so does Harry. Is there a difference between them? Some say that Tolkien is fine, but Rowlings is not. Why? or Why not?
Some assert that the Potter books makes no sense, or could not have been written without a Christian presupposition. See Harry Potter Meets Cornelius Van Til Obviously using the Potter series as a spring board or opportunity to discuss the important matters of eternity is something that all Christians should be prepared to do. We must engage the culture and be able to intelligently speak about what is going on. I don't know how many times I've heard people comment on things they haven't read or seen. That is just ridiculous. If you haven't read something or seen it, you have no business commenting on it as though you know what your talking about.
This humble Friar believes that Christians may freely read Potter, but should always be discerning and understand what is truly Biblical and what is not. Children should indeed find an interest in reading, but if all they read is Harry Potter and nothing else, is that interest in reading a real benefit? I've known many who said their Children are reading more due to reading Harry Potter, but when you examine the content of what they read, there is little redeeming value in the content. In the final analysis, it's not Harry that's the problem in that scenario, the problem is much broader than this simple minded friar's opinion and well beyond the scope of "To Harry or not to Harry," that is the question.
Is there a difference between Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowlings? (Besides the obvious male/female distinction.) Are the Harry Potter series of books the same as "Lord of the Rings" or "The Chronicles of Narnia"?
For instance, the hero in the "Lord of the Rings" is Frodo Baggins, the humble hobit, with great character and self-sacrifice. Is there a reasonable parallel between Frodo and Harry? Gandalf uses magic and so does Harry. Is there a difference between them? Some say that Tolkien is fine, but Rowlings is not. Why? or Why not?
Some assert that the Potter books makes no sense, or could not have been written without a Christian presupposition. See Harry Potter Meets Cornelius Van Til Obviously using the Potter series as a spring board or opportunity to discuss the important matters of eternity is something that all Christians should be prepared to do. We must engage the culture and be able to intelligently speak about what is going on. I don't know how many times I've heard people comment on things they haven't read or seen. That is just ridiculous. If you haven't read something or seen it, you have no business commenting on it as though you know what your talking about.
This humble Friar believes that Christians may freely read Potter, but should always be discerning and understand what is truly Biblical and what is not. Children should indeed find an interest in reading, but if all they read is Harry Potter and nothing else, is that interest in reading a real benefit? I've known many who said their Children are reading more due to reading Harry Potter, but when you examine the content of what they read, there is little redeeming value in the content. In the final analysis, it's not Harry that's the problem in that scenario, the problem is much broader than this simple minded friar's opinion and well beyond the scope of "To Harry or not to Harry," that is the question.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
O My...
My new favorite Modern Evangelical venture into Pop-Relevance:
T-shirt - "California rhymes with Jesus"
T-shirt - "California rhymes with Jesus"
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Jacques and Rich would be proud...
Ah, it's good to be back at the Abbey.
I took a bit of leave to wander North and refresh my soul with my family. How good to see that the dialogue continues to be gracious and stimulating - not to mention diverse! From a Redemptive-Historical overview of Matthew's gospel to John Mayer - good heavens! A wonderfully full-orbed appreciation of the good and the beautiful.
What's with the redesign, though?! One might conclude that someone has been reading too much Derrida and Rorty, what with all the deconstructionist adjustments to the Abbey's appearance! Right-justified titles. Inconsistent margins. You aren't wearing baggy pants sagging below your hips, too, are you? Maybe I just have a touch of OCD, but I had to tidy things up a bit...
I took a bit of leave to wander North and refresh my soul with my family. How good to see that the dialogue continues to be gracious and stimulating - not to mention diverse! From a Redemptive-Historical overview of Matthew's gospel to John Mayer - good heavens! A wonderfully full-orbed appreciation of the good and the beautiful.
What's with the redesign, though?! One might conclude that someone has been reading too much Derrida and Rorty, what with all the deconstructionist adjustments to the Abbey's appearance! Right-justified titles. Inconsistent margins. You aren't wearing baggy pants sagging below your hips, too, are you? Maybe I just have a touch of OCD, but I had to tidy things up a bit...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)