Institute
for Christian Teaching
Jo
Ann Davidson
408-00
Institute for Christian Teaching
12501
Old Columbia Pike
Silver
Spring, MD 20904 USA
Symposium
on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship
Juan
Dolio, Dominican Republic
March
19-26, 2000
I. Issues
Theologians along with philosophers, have long grappled with Truth and Goodness. However theology, unlike philosophy, has neglected serious scrutiny of the study of Beauty or Aesthetics. Frank Gaebelein is one of several noting this phenomenon:
The bulk of the work being done in the field of
Christian aesthetics represents Roman and Anglo-Catholic thought. Its roots go deep into sacramental theology,
Thomism, Greek philosophy, and such great writers as Dante. But in large part it is extrabiblical. There is a radical difference between the
thought-forms of the Bible and those of Western philosophy and humanistic
culture.... [The Bible's] basic insights must provide not only the foundation
for an authentic Christian aesthetic but also the corrective for artistic
theory derived from other sources, however excellent these may be.[1]
Why is the aesthetic dimension excluded?
Concern for those in poverty leads some to the idea that any interest in Aesthetics is objectionable. The "luxury" of Beauty is not appropriate when so many people are still in such desperate need of food, shelter and justice. Others suggest that the urgency of Christian eschatology cannot honestly countenance "unnecessary" or "peripheral" considerations of Aesthetics.
Henton Davies[2] reflects another avenue
of thinking on this issue: "Neither the Old Testament nor the New
Testament has any theory of the beautiful." Peter Forsyth expresses a related sentiment:
The second commandment passes the death sentence
on Hebrew art. In killing idolatry, it
killed plastic imagination. At least it
placed it under such a disadvantage that it could hardly live and certainly
could not grow... Neither painter, sculptor, nor dramatist could live under the
shadow of this stern law, or in the midst of this grimly earnest people. Such is the complaint of both Philo and Origen
in speaking of the Jews.[3]
Others might believe
that since aesthetical concerns emerged with the ancient Greek philosophical
system, it is not a theological concern at all. Moreover, with critical studies dominating most theological
schools much of the 20th century followed now with "Post Modernism",
seeking for any fundamentals (Truth, Goodness or Beauty) for some
theologians becomes impossible.
Church History and Historical Theology are rightly studied in reference to the interweaving of political and intellectual threads that mingle with and affect the life and thought of the Christian Church. Aesthetic considerations are not included. Yet the most obvious manifestation of the Judaeo-Christian religion within Scripture is largely disclosed in aesthetic language or objects.
Whatever the motivation,
it appears that theology's foundational source material, the Holy Scriptures,
is probed for numerous issues with the exception of aesthetical values. Gerhard von Rad insightfully remarks that
"no aesthetic of the Old Testament has yet been written."[4] The same observation could also be made for
the New Testament, and the biblical corpus as a whole. For example, Millard J. Erickson's massive
1247-page Christian Theology includes only one paragraph on the last
page regarding the aesthetics of Scripture.[5]
However, the canon has
no dearth of aesthetic phenomena. For
example, up to 40% of the Old Testament involves poetic language. Disciplines outside of theology readily
acknowledge the aesthetic value of the biblical narratives and poetry of both
psalmist and prophet.[6]
Furthermore, from its
very commencement as a nation, Israel's artistic genius was expended in
religious architecture and its decorations.
Almost 50 chapters in the Pentateuch alone are involved with God
directing the construction of a lavish Sanctuary, involving architecture and
various artistic techniques.
Nearly another 50
chapters within the OT consist of the artistic manifestation of Solomon's
Temple. Ezekiel also devotes several
chapters to the glories of a "third" temple.
The New Testament contains its own unique exposure of the aesthetic within the Gospels, Pauline materials and the Apocalypse. The canon concludes with the book of Revelation and the pointed focus again on (heavenly) sanctuary imagery. Thus Scripture is enveloped with the glories of God's earthly and heavenly sanctuaries.
The manifestation of
aesthetic phenomena in Scripture cannot be brushed aside as an unnecessary
luxury. The exposure is too extensive.
God is rightly
understood with many attributes including that of: 1) Father: Mt 6:9; 1 Ch 29:10f; Is 9:6; Mal 1:6; 2:10;[7] 2) Judge: Dan. 12; 2 Tm
4:1, 8; Heb 12:23; Gen 18:25;1 Sm 2:10; Ps 51:6; Is 11:3-5; 3) Warrior: Bible writers sometime describe our
spiritual lives in terms of warfare, and reveals a cosmic and redemptive
significance to our everyday
struggles. Many books of the Bible in
both Testaments tell about God's warring activity: Gen 3:15; Ex 15:3; Col. 2:13-15; Rev. 12--"war" in
heaven; 19:6-11.
God also has an
aesthetic nature. Evidence for this is
far more extensive than often recognized.
For example, in Scripture God is portrayed as a potter:
"But now, O LORD ... We are the clay, and
You our potter; And all we are the work of Your hand." (Is 64:8)
Jeremiah also:
"Then the word of the LORD came to me,
saying: 'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?' says the
LORD. 'Look, as the clay is in the
potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!'" (Jer 18:6)
The Apostle Paul echoes the same sentiment in
the NT:
"But indeed, O man, who are you to reply
against God? Will the thing formed say
to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the clay
...?" (Rom 9:20-24)[8]
Furthermore, God not
only declares Himself a potter but also reveals Himself as
involved in the creation of human artworks. He commissions lavish works of art, and
commands the Israelites to construct an extravagant Sanctuary. He provides not only the architectural
blueprints, but also the instructions for all its furnishings.[9]
At Mount Sinai God gave not only the Decalogue along with civil ordinances including assistance to the poor, but also specific directions to construct a lavish structure involving almost every type of artistic skill. It wasn't an either/or situation, as Christ's disciple Judas would later suggest regarding an expensive gift offered to Christ: "the money should have been given to the poor."
Israel was commanded to
construct an elaborate sanctuary with precise specifications for the woods,
fabrics, dye colors, costly metals and precious gems. Within these directions, God urges "And see to it that you
make them according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain."
(Ex 25:9). God was architect of it all,
even minute details of construction.
There are more chapters regarding the plans for and subsequent building
of this sanctuary and its furnishings than any other subject in the
Pentateuch. Absolutely nothing was left
to human devising.[10]
Even the garments of the
officiating priests were specifically designed for aesthetic appeal. God instructs Moses:
And you shall make holy garments for Aaron, your
brother, for glory and for beauty.
For Aaron's sons you shall make ... them ... for glory and beauty.
Ex 28:2, 40.
Besides manifesting
glory, the priestly vestments were to be made 'for beauty.' This is specifically mentioned two
times. BEAUTY is thereby perceived as
an appropriate end in itself. The
Creator of colors, form, and textures,
the author of all natural beauty, clearly values the aesthetic dimension. They have a place within the will of God.
Even Solomon's
magnificent temple was also designed by God, as King David insists:
"Consider now [Solomon], for the LORD has
chosen you to build a house for the sanctuary; be strong and do it" Then David gave his son Solomon, the plans
for the vestibule, its houses, its treasuries, its upper chambers, its inner
chambers, and the place of the mercy seat; and the plans for all that he had,
David declares, by the Spirit,
of the courts ..., of all the chambers ..., of the treasuries ..., also for the
division of the priests and the Levites, for all the work of the service of the
house of the LORD, and for all the articles of service in the house of the LORD
... (more details follow, then he concludes–giving the reason!) ... "All
this," said David, "the LORD made me understand in writing, by
His hand upon me, all the works of these plans." (1 Chr 28:10-13, 19).
"... and the work is great, because the temple [[literally, PALACE]] is
not for man but for the LORD God." (1 Chr 29:1).
Thus it is not surprising that the text again
records myriad aesthetic details:
And
he [Solomon] decorated the house with precious stones for beauty, and
the gold was ... from Parvaim. He also
overlaid the house--the beams and doorposts, its walls and doors--with gold;
and he carved cherubim on the walls. ... the great molten sea [with its brim]
shaped ... like a lily blossom. ... He
made wreaths of chainwork, as in the inner sanctuary, and put them on top of
the pillars; and he made one hundred pomegranates, and put them on the wreaths
of chainwork. Then he set up two
pillars before the temple, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 2
Chr 3:5-7, 16-17.
The
text specifies that "[Solomon] also overlaid the house--the beams and
doorposts, its walls and doors--with gold; and he carved cherubim on the
walls." (2 Chr 3:7). Francis
Schaeffer correctly comments:
The temple was covered with precious stones for
beauty [v. 5]. There was no pragmatic
reason for the precious stones. They
had no utilitarian purpose. God simply
wanted beauty in the temple. God is
interested in beauty. ... And beauty has a place in the worship of God.[11]
The passage also
mentions two free-standing columns. They had no utilitarian engineering
significance for they supported no architectural weight. They were there because God said they should
be there as a thing of beauty. Fastened
upon the capitals of the columns
were chain wreathes with pomegranates. Art work upon art work. If we understand what we are reading here,
it is something very beautiful.[12]
Constructing this temple and also the earlier desert sanctuary required a great number of artistic techniques. How was this to be accomplished? We are again informed of God's direct involvement, regarding the desert sanctuary:
"And Moses said
to the children of Israel, ''See, the LORD has called by name Bezalel the son
of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; and He has filled him with the
Spirit of God, in wisdom and understanding, in knowledge and all manner of
workmanship, to design artistic works, to work in gold and silver and bronze,
in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of
artistic workmanship. And He has put in
his heart the ability to teach ... He has filled [him] with skill to do all
manner of work ...'" (Ex 35:30-35)
This is a compelling
passage with intriguing details.[13] It contains several principles concerning
the divine perspective on aesthetic value.
First, art is within
God's will. The Tabernacle,
designed by God, involved
"artistic designs.' The God
of heaven was not to be worshiped in a bare, unfurnished tent. Rather, the Israelites were instructed by
God to "make [a] Tabernacle with ten curtains of finely twisted linen and
blue, purple and scarlet yarn, with cherubim worked into them by a skilled
craftsman" (Ex 26:1). The
furnishings were to be constructed of pure gold, delicately carved wood,
elegant tapestries, bronze and precious stones (Ex 25).
God's specifications for the desert Tabernacle, and later for Solomon's Temple, take up a good part of the OT, as mentioned above. The unending details include how many hooks to place in the curtains, how many cubits the frames must be, what to cover with beaten gold, and what to make from bronze. All these numerous chapters are often tedious reading to modern readers.
But it pleased God not
only to precisely instruct the Israelites concerning sacred architecture and
its furnishings but also to record these very details in His holy Word. He could have merely stated that the matter
was accomplished. But instead God
carefully includes within Scripture the particulars of design along with extensive
comment of their detailed accomplishment.
The passage about
Bezalel also indicates that being an artist can be a vocation from God, a
ministry.
We think of people being
called to the ministry or to mission service, but here we find that even artistic
occupations can be God-given callings.
Ex 35 plainly states that God 'called' Bezalel for the work of
constructing and furnishing the Tabernacle. He issued an individual call to a
particular person from a certain family and tribe by name. Bezalel was specifically called by God to be
an artist:
See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel, the
son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah' (Ex 35:30, RSV).
Moreover, we see here
that artistic ability is God's gift:
"And Moses called Bezalel ... in whose mind the Lord had put
ability ..." Ex 36:2, RSV. We are instructed that artistic talent is
not some innate human skill, nor the accomplishment of individual genius, but a
gift of God.[14]
This passage then
continues to detail the specific qualifications Bezalel was endowed with,
providing us with the divine perspective on human artistry.
The first gift given to
Bezalel is arresting. 'He/God has
filled him with the Spirit of God' (Ex 35:31). The ministry of the Holy Spirit is not regularly ascribed to
artistic talent. But here we find it as
the initial gift given to Bezalel.
In fact, Bezalel is the very first person recorded in the OT, in all
Scripture, as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
And he is not a priest or a prophet, nor a preacher, but an artist.[15]
In
the NT, the Holy Spirit is given to all Christians and bears fruit in many
areas of life.[16]
Eph 5:9 "for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness,
and truth."
Elsewhere in Scripture, the Spirit of God came upon certain persons who
thereby became a prophet, a judge, or a preacher.[17]
Here in the book of Exodus, the Spirit of God empowers Bezalel 'to devise
artistic designs.' The implication is
that the works of Bezalel will also express, through the medium and language of
art, the will and mind of God.
The
Exodus 35 passage also describes how God blessed Bezalel with talent [with
skill to create], intelligence [for example, knowing the different ways to
handle different metals: gold--how to
beat it paper-thin, smoothly, without tearing it; silver; also, the many steps
of casting bronze; and how to carve the different kinds of wood], and knowledge [for example, how to weave
"cherubim" into the curtain tapestry, for cherubim are not the cute
baby angels we see on Valentine cards.
Bezalel would need to know how to depict in tapestry these mighty
heavenly beings that have to assure human beings every time they appear,
"Fear not!" "Don't be
afraid!"]
Lastly, this important
verse on artistry in Ex 35 instructs us that God 'inspired him [Bezalel] to
teach' (Ex 35:34). Not only was he
given the gifts necessary to construct and adorn the Tabernacle, but he was
further empowered to instruct others.
Here we find that God's gifts are brought to fruition through divine
enlistment of human teachers!
Just as we have observed
regarding the Israelites' sacred architecture and decoration, Israel's liturgy
was also given by God. King David
insists that the Holy Spirit inspired his psalms:
Thus says David the son of Jesse: Thus says the man raised up on high, the
anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel: "The Spirit
of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue." (2 Sm
23:1-2).
The book of Psalms reveals the prominence of singing in Israelite worship. Phrases such as "sing praises unto the Lord" or "I will sing unto the Lord" occur multiple times. Elsewhere in the OT, when Israelite worship is recounted, music is evident and impressive. For example, 1 Chr. 23:1-5:
... and four thousand praised the LORD with
musical instruments, 'which I made,' said David, 'for giving praise.'
Later we again are informed: 2 Chr 29:25, when
Hezekiah restores Temple worship:
Then he [Hezekiah] stationed the Levites in the
house of the LORD with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according
to the commandment of David, of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet;
for thus was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.
Music is important in the will of God!
It might be argued that aesthetic dimensions are found in sacred worship throughout history in all nations in worship of their gods. However, Israel alone insists that their God designed every detail of His worship, including architecture, furnishings, priestly attire, and liturgy.
Scripture as Art
God's involvement in
Israel's architecture and liturgy is not the only evidence of His aesthetic
nature. Nor was Israel's artistry
restricted to the representational arts.
There is widely-held recognition that "the supreme expression of
Israel's capacity for beauty is in her gift of language."[18]
Hebrew poetry is highly extolled in
both biblical and secular studies. The
Book of Psalms is the classic collection.
These psalms are generally considered as hymns and prayers to
God. But
even more importantly, the 150 psalms are God's words to humans. As David insists, "HIS word was upon my
tongue." (2 Sm 23:1-2)
The Psalter itself is divided into 5 books. Some have suggested a correspondence between
each one of the five books of the Psalms with each of the first five books of
the Pentateuch. It is now frequently
acknowledged that the Psalter is not just a random collection of songs and
prayers, but rather a carefully ordered structure of key words and themes.
We must not neglect the striking fact that
prophets also spoke in poetic language.
Even the stern rebukes and challenges.
This was harder to recognize in earlier English translations of
Scripture. Newer versions now format
prophetic speech in poetry as it should be.[19]
One can also observe
close ties of prophecy with music: In 1 Sm 10:5, the prophet Samuel informs
newly-anointed Saul: "[when] you come to the hill of God where the
Philistine garrison is, ... you will meet a group of prophets coming down from
the high place with a stringed instrument, a tambourine, a flute, and a harp
before them; and they will be prophesying."
Later, Jehoshaphat inquires
of Elisha for counsel from God in 2 Ki 3:14-15. And Elisha responds: "'... bring me a musician.' And it happened, when the musician played,
that the hand of the LORD came upon him, and he said, 'Thus says the
LORD'"--- and then Elisha proceeds to declare God's future intentions.
The book PATRIARCHS AND
PROPHETS informs us that the chief subjects of study in the Schools of the
Prophets established by Samuel, "... were the law of God, with the
instructions given to Moses, sacred history [this is understandable! but also--], sacred music, and poetry."
(PP 593). This assembly of experienced
pedagogues should find this an intriguing curriculum...
Beyond the considerable
manifestation of biblical poetry, it is now widely acknowledged that even the
biblical narratives or stories have been meticulously crafted.[20] Moreover, the many narratives also seem to
have been carefully woven together in a calculated sequence. Various scholars with literary sensitivity
have begun to appreciate why, for example, the narrative of Judah and Tamar is
suddenly sandwiched within the narratives of Joseph and his brothers in
Genesis.[21] Or why, in the NT, the narrative of the
woman at Samaria's well (Jn 4) follows immediately after that of Nicodemus
seeking out the Messiah late one night (Jn 3).
It is becoming increasingly recognized that the narrative linkages
themselves reveal theological statement.[22]
In the NT, the Messiah
Himself often employs the literary form of parables.[23] For example, when asked to define 'who is my
neighbor', Jesus, rather than providing an abstract definition, recounts the
parable of the Good Samaritan! Ellen
White also mentions that the
"words of Jesus were full of freshness, and truth and beauty."
(DA 139)
In the Pauline materials
one finds profound theological discourse laced with doxology. A good example of this is in the book of
Romans. John Stott is perceptive:
"For eleven chapters Paul gives his
comprehensive account of the gospel, and his horizons are vast. He considers time and eternity, history,
Christ's Second coming, justification, sanctification and glorification. Now he stops, out of breath. Analysis and argument must give way to
adoration. Like a traveller who has
reached the summit of a high mountain, the apostle views the vast panorama of
salvation history and bursts into praise.... Before Paul goes on to outline the
practical implications of the gospel, he falls down before God in worship,
chanting his doxology in poetic strains:
'O, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom
and knowledge of God! How unsearchable
are His judgments and His ways past
finding out!
For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor? ... For of Him and through Him and to
Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen'"[24]
Book of Revelation: Stark warnings and
curses underscore the profound importance of the Apocalypse. The entire book displays an imposing mosaic
of drama, architecture, and vivid panoramas in which God displays His
perspective on Salvation History. There
is hardly an original word. Instead one
finds an extremely complex tapestry of words, phrases and sentences borrowed
from the OT but woven together into an entirely new fabric. This final book in the NT is in a vastly
different style than that which Paul and the Gospel writers use. One instead finds overwhelming aesthetic
display. These 22 chapters are not an
erratic jumble, but rather reveal a carefully structured document hinging on
seven scenes of the heavenly sanctuary--each one opening with deeper access
into the heavenly court.
God did not furnish John with a standard abstract theological or historical document. The phrases "And I saw" ... "and I heard" ... recur over and over again introducing dazzling scenes, and leaving one breathless! The stunning pictorial vistas portray the working out of the Great Controversy, expanding the imposing display given earlier to Daniel and Ezekiel.
The literary manifestation of Scripture also includes the artful construction of sentences, verses, chapters, and entire books with extensive usage of inclusios, chiasms, panel and parallel writing. Sternberg is one of many who suggests that it is the literary nature of the biblical narratives for example, that substantiates its veracity:
In line with his self-effacing policy, the
biblical narrator no more lay any explicit claim to inspiration than he makes
other mentions of himself and his terms of reference. But the empirical evidence, historical and sociocultural as well
as compositional, leaves no doubt about his inspired standing. [25]
The case study below will illustrate this point.
Scripture also instructs
that God continues to restore in fallen human beings, through the process of
redemption, the marred imago Dei.
He has forbidden any material representation of His being. Thus it is startling that His salvific
purpose is for fallen human beings to reflect something of the divine. Paul and Peter both elaborate on this
point: "I beseech you therefore,
brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be
ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that
good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom 12:1-2).[26]
This salvation makes
possible the transformation the human character. Both Testaments are saturated with the exhibition of God's
renowned skills in remolding sinful
human beings into "the beauty of holiness."[27] Moreover, Christ's incarnation into human
flesh itself is a profound aesthetic statement.[28]
This Incarnation is
rarely extolled for its beauty.
However, as a few infrequent theologians have noted, not only Christ and
His Incarnation, but also the Godhead itself is not only true and good, but
also "beautiful." Karl Barth
writes of the beauty of God. He
identifies it as God's glory.[29]
Early American
theologian, Jonathan Edwards also writes of the beauty of God, though he is
usually remembered only for his sermon on hellfire. In fact, Roland Delattre underscores the aesthetic stance within
Edwards' theology:
Certainly one of the distinguishing marks–if it
is not indeed the distinctive feature–of Edwards' theology, when looked
at in relation to the whole history of Christian thought, is his radical
elevation of beauty to preeminence among the divine perfections.[30]
Delattre argues that Jonathan Edwards' focus on the divine beauty should affect the believer's apprehension of God:
It is the genius of Edwards' settling upon
beauty as the most distinguishing perfection or attribute of God that he has
thereby a concept in terms of which to insist at once upon the objectivity of
God and upon his view that God can be fully known only to the extent that he is
genuinely enjoyed. When placed at the
center of his conception of God, beauty has the peculiar merit of offering at
once a way of conceiving of the nature of God in structural and ontological
terms and of so conceiving of that divine object as to make it not only
dogmatically but also philosophically clear that (and why) God can be fully
known only if he is the direct object of enjoyment. Beauty provides Edwards with a perfectly flexible category, at
the very heart of the Divine Being itself, which also constitutes a definition
or specification of the relation between the creature and the Creator.[31]
Edwards appears to be a
rare theological voice attributing such ontological weight to the aspect of
beauty within the Godhead.[32] The biblical perspective indicates Edwards
is correct. As the psalmist David
declares:
One thing I have desired of the LORD,
That will I seek:
That I may dwell in the house of the LORD
All the days of my life,
To behold the beauty of the LORD ... (Psalm 27:4,
emphasis added)
Beauty of the Created
World
Though God had appointed
the great beauty of both the desert sanctuary and the Jerusalem temple, He also
insists that the exquisite lily from His own hand is still more beautiful than
the greatest artworks He commissioned during Solomon's time (Lk 12:27). The beauty of the natural world is thereby
recognized by Christ. Thus it is not
surprising that both the Old and New Testaments include rejoicing for the
beauty of nature. The Psalter, along with
many other biblical books, brim with praise for the Creator and His created world. Accordingly, through the perspective
espoused in Scripture, we are instructed that the study of the natural world
can aid in lifting our minds to our Creator, the Master Artist:[33] God Himself announces to Job:
Where were you when I laid the earth's
foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions?
Surely you know!
Who stretched out a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone–
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy! (Jb 38:4-7)[34]
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Rm 1:20).
However, nature, though
glorious, is never worshiped by any biblical writers. The Creator and created human beings are seen enjoying its
beauty. This is a distinctive variation
from some thinking (past and present) where nature is almost (and sometimes
actually is) deified,[35] positing a
"spirituality" without God.
Even so, this modern human deification of nature does serve to
underscore the profound beauty still found in a fallen world constraining even
secular minds (along with the biblical writers) to extol.
Indeed, the overwhelming impression gained from Scripture, the sole document on which the Christian faith is established, is that of the aesthetic nature of God flooding His revealed Word and created world.[36] God is not revealed in Scripture as a systematic theologian.[37] The nature of His revelation in either testament is regularly expressed through artistic manifestation as opposed to analytical treatises and logical discourse.[38]
Implications
Unfortunately, however, the Church has sometimes regarded aesthetics as antagonistic to religion. This attitude was formed prior to the Christian era, gaining entrance into Western and Christian thought through the influence of Plato. And Plato's claims have often been echoed by Christian writers. One result being that aesthetics has often been viewed as a dangerous influence to human salvation.[39] Another perspective suggests that artistic expression is not critically important, being lighter, or more "casual" in "weight" than intellectual discourse. T.R. Wright comments cogently:
It sometimes seems that there are two different
ways of thinking: one that assumes
literary forms, whether narrative, poetic, or dramatic, and another that argues
'systematically' in terms of concepts.
Many theologians, certainly have fallen into this second category but my
thesis is that theology need not be confined to this; it is possible and even
necessary to talk about God in the form of stories, poems and plays.... the Bible itself, the most obvious example
of a text, or collection of texts, which relies on a variety of literary forms
to express theological insight.[40]
Wright's concluding point above can hardly be denied. This raises questions: of what significance is the biblical aesthetic to theology? Why is the aesthetic expression so extensive? Does it have a purpose beyond merely bringing literary pleasure or sating emotional needs? We have argued that the truths of Scripture are expressed more through the aesthetic medium than systematic treatises. But is there reason for this?
Intensification
Many authors in the aesthetic discipline suggest that for a person sensitive to artistic dimensions, aesthetic expression can intensify experience. For example, Harold Hannum writes:
Aesthetic pleasure and a sensitiveness to beauty
does not contradict religion, nor is it a frill or unnecessary adornment. A true appreciation of beauty is a deeper
experience which will enhance all spiritual values.[41]
This aesthetic
intensification could arguably be an important facet of the divine intent.
But beyond this, literary devices may even be
the superior medium to express theological truth, as Wright, among others,
hints:
one of the few principles on which all critics
agree, is the inseparability of form and content, a belief staunchly defended
against the heresy of paraphrase. 'A literary work is its meaning': its
meaning cannot be 'abstracted' from it, cannot be paraphrased without
loss. Any interpretation, therefore,
although it can analyse the various effects achieved by certain formal devices,
cannot say precisely what the work means.
The whole point of reading literature, its importance as a human discipline,
beyond that of giving pleasure (which is by no means unimportant), is that it
says something about life which cannot be said in any other way. Literary devices, in other words, are not
just ornamental, imparting additional eloquence to an otherwise bald and
unconvincing statement or narrative.
They have the capacity to generate new meaning by stretching language
beyond its ordinary uses.[42]
Paul
Brand and Philip Yancey concur:
... a writer employs metaphor to point to a truth, not to its opposite. Abraham Heschel, a Jewish theologian, concludes, "The statements about pathos are not a compromise–ways of accommodating higher meanings to the lower level of human understanding. They are rather the accommodations of words to higher meanings."[43]
intensification:
My thesis says that art and religion do not so
much express fundamental feelings common to mankind as determine these
feelings; they do not so much provide explanations for phenomena which men
cannot otherwise understand as provide those data which men have difficulty
understanding; they do not so much provide security or ways of adjusting to
phenomena which men cannot otherwise handle as interpret the world in such a
way that phenomena are delineated which men seem not to be able to handle. As I have said before: art and religion provide the patterns of
meaning, the frames of perception, by which society interprets its experiences
and from which it makes conclusions about the nature of its world. They tell us what is; they do not respond to
what is.... My thesis suggests a priority, not a parallel [with science]: Art and religion come first; the sciences
follow. The first declares or
determines what is, perhaps secondarily declaring or determining what needs to
be done; the second responds, and does.[44]
This close connection
between Beauty and Truth[45] however has been
struggling since Immanual Kant (1724-1804), perhaps the most influential
philosopher of the Enlightenment. In
his famous Critiques he attempted to establish that human reason and
sensory experience are unavoidably severed.
His discussion has been dominant ever since. So much so that the philosophical realms of truth, goodness and
beauty have remained radically ruptured.
The different properties of the human being are supposedly splintered
into non-communicating faculties of reason, will and emotion.
Because of Kant it has since been assumed that scientific reasoning delivered objective truth. The emotions are the channels for aesthetic perception. Thus the world of actual "facts" is supposedly separated from that of "values." As a result, knowledge and facts have supposedly parted company from faith, and aesthetics becomes a matter of purely subjective judgment. Kant's position has been pervasive and dominant since. Repercussions still reverberate. John Wilson notes this Kantian split:
The eighteenth century
'Enlightenment' was a period of intense philosophical and literary
activity. Reason became the new
god. As knowledge became more
'scientific' the very concept of a God who had to reveal Himself was considered
to be against reason and unacceptable; to believe in such a god, or in
miracles, was dismissed as unreasonable.
Although many of the philosophers still used the concept of God it was
no longer the God of the Bible, but the God of the philosophers, the unknown
God of the Deists, or the 'Supreme Reason' of the intellectuals of the French
revolution.
As knowledge became more
rational and human reason supreme the arts retreated from the findings and
theories of the philosophers and scientists.
The arts became Romantic in their approach and search for truth. Romanticism was a widespread movement,
which, in general, emphasized emotion against reason, intuition against logic
and saw imagination as being of more importance than intellect. It was a reaction, a protest against the
scientific approach of the Enlightenment.[46]
For these and various
other reasons noted earlier,[47] the Christian Church
rarely acknowledges the extensive aesthetic manifestation of God in Scripture
when constructing theological argument.
Instead, it has persistently ordered its theological thinking
philosophically, relegating aesthetic value, even if only implicitly, to the
emotional needs of the believer.
However, this is in noticeable contrast to God's means of revelation in
the canon.
Contra Kant, God affirms
the wholistic nature of each human being as He communicates through the
aesthetic manifestation of Scripture.
Surely, the mind is an important aspect of human nature. However, God rarely limits His communication
to the human being through abstract reasoning or systematic discourse in
Scripture. Rather, He employs aesthetic
avenues, thus affirming the wholistic nature of the human being, assuming the
whole person (even though fallen) as capable of knowing Him and receiving
theological truth.[48] Larry Crabb notes this:
Biblical metaphors–panting after God, tasting
God, drinking living water, eating bread from heaven–make it
clear that finding God is not merely academic.
We are to do more than understand truth about God; we are to encounter
him, as a bride encounters her husband on their wedding night. Finding God is a sensual experience.[49]
There is no emphasis,
within either testament, on the mental cognitive powers as the sole receptor of
truth. Indeed, the primary avenue for
truth-teaching appears to be through aesthetic value. Nowhere in Scripture is there instruction to escape a
"bodily prison" to allow a closer proximity to the mind of God. Rather, in both the Old and New Testaments,
explicitly and implicitly, divine truth is regularly conveyed to the human
being primarily through aesthetic value.[50]
Dangers
God pointedly
established an elaborate system of corporate worship. However, the internal condition of the participant is explicitly
targeted. God rails against outward
aesthetically perfect worship when such glorious expression camouflages inner
motivation. This is noticeably
different from Greek philosophy, and some modern thinking, where aesthetic
beauty is viewed as salvific in itself.
Over and over again God
thunders through His prophets against the glorious worship which He Himself
designed and implemented but which was now being used to disguise a degenerate
life:
I hate, I despise your feast days, and I do not savor
your sacred assemblies.
Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain
offerings, I will not accept
them, nor will I regard your fattened peace
offerings.
Take away from Me the noise of your songs, for I will not
hear the melody of
your stringed instruments.
But let justice run down like a river, and righteousness
like a mighty stream.
(Am 5:23-24)[51]
It was not enough that
the sumptuous sanctuary and ark were in the midst of Israel. It was not enough that the priests in
glorious vestments offered sacrifices, and that the people were called the
children of God. The Lord is not fooled
by those who observe aesthetically-crafted outward worship but cherish iniquity
in the heart. It is written: "he
that turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be
abomination." (Pr 28:9)
Thus we find many of the
OT prophetic messages condemning the worship of God, despite its great beauty.[52] Though designed and commanded by God, He at
times finds it offensive, as when He speaks through Jeremiah:
Comes frankincense from
Sheba,
And sweet cane from a
far country?
Your burnt offerings are
not acceptable,
Nor your sacrifices
sweet to Me. (Jer 6:20)
During the Babylonian
captivity, God instructs the prophet Ezekiel about aesthetic abuse:
As for the beauty of his
ornaments,
He set it in majesty;
But they made from it
The images of their
abominations
And their detestable
things;
Therefore I have made it
Like refuse to them.
(Ezl 7:20)[53]
Again, God speaks through Ezekiel:
As for you, son of man,
the children of your people are talking about you beside the walls and in the
doors of the houses; and they speak to one another, everyone saying to his
brother, "please come and hear what the word is that comes from the
LORD."
So they come to you as
people do, they sit before you as My people, and they hear your words, but
they do not do them; for with their mouth they show much love, but their
hearts pursue their own gain.
Indeed you are to them as
a very lovely song of one who has pleasant voice and can play well on an
instrument; for they hear your words, but they do not do them. (Ezl
30:30-33, emphasis added).
Though aesthetic values are extensive and prominent in Scripture they are never salvific. Many divine messengers rail against an elegant outward worship experience that lacks transparent correspondence to the inner experience of the believer. God rejects aesthetic forms of worship if they cover injustice and other moral evils.
Another inherent danger
seems to be that the power of aesthetic appeal can tend to promote a
"superficial" religion supplanting the true faith it is supposed to
convey. Calvin Johansson is perceptive:
Idolatry, whether it be
a homemade religion of positive thinking or a comfortable aestheticism, can
thus offer a sort of domesticated spirituality. Our human need for transcendence, for meaning, for value, can be
met to a degree, in, for example, a majestic symphony without the pain of
repentance and the cost of discipleship, without what Flannery O'Connor has
called "the sweat and stink of the cross." Properly, the sense of transcendence in a symphony, the sensation
of being swept out of ourselves into something high and beautiful, can and
should make us mindful of the transcendent realm of the infinite Lord. Yet it need not. Many people are satisfied with the 'richness of life' offered by
aesthetic stimulation, which by its nature can make few self-consuming demands.[54]
This is an important point, for the arts and religion have undeniably affected each other. As Harry Lee also observes:
We tend to classify
together our concepts of art and religion as twin institutions, since they
afford experiences to our inner life which resemble each other much more
closely than either resembles our experience of any other social
institution....
In viewing the outside
world as the symbolic expressions of inner reality, art and religion are at
once differentiated as a class apart from the practical, utilitarian
institutions of our daily lives. We
attend to both as exercises of the spirit; they are alike in being experiences
which are noble, passionate, and serene, and which absorb our interest most
fully when we turn to them for solace and with a spirit of humility and
devotion. By employing within formal
frames a mode of thinking which ... makes the freest use of symbol, both
provide in sensible form a focus for our contemplation of something other than
ourselves. Each yields feelings of release
and of elevation, similar in kind. Art,
like religion, expresses the spiritual capacities of our human nature; we judge
them as similar in their intent since they constitute our most salutary refuges
from transient and contingent, from the practical and the pedestrian.[55]
There are also indicators in both testaments that aesthetic expression can be evaluated, and judged. For example, following the Exodus from Egypt, Moses was coming down from lengthy communion with God on Mt. Sinai. He and Joshua heard sounds from Israel's encampment below the mountain. To Joshua, the soldier, the first thought was of an attack from their enemies, and he said, 'There is a noise of war in the camp" (Ex. 32:17). But Moses evaluated more truly the nature of the commotion. The sound was not that of combat, but of revelry:
It is not the voice of
those who shout in victory,
Nor is it the voice of
those who cry out in defeat,
But the voice of those
who sing that I hear. (Ex 32:18)
As they drew near, they
beheld the people shouting and dancing around the golden calf, probably
imitating the idolatrous feasts of Egypt to which they had been so long
exposed. Moses was furious. He had just come from the presence of God's
glory, and had been warned of what was taking place (Ex 32:7-9). Having been trained for forty years in Egypt
as the son of the king's daughter,[56] he was well able to assess the situation
immediately. Accordingly, we are
instructed that music can be expressive of different emotions, and can be
evaluated.
Later, Balak, king of Moab, sought the services of Balaam to curse the children of Israel. He was concerned lest they fall to the same fate as the Amorites. Balaam was determined to curse the Israelites. However, he was so controlled by divine power that he was constrained to utter, instead of the imprecations he intended, sublime and impassioned poetry of blessing (Nm 22-24). Again, God is seen directly involved in aesthetic utterance involving specific emotions.
The Apostle Paul also
instructs us that aesthetic expression can be evaluated and judged. Writing to the Philippian church, no doubt
composed of both Hebrew and Gentile cultures, he counsels in what is sometimes
referred to as an "aesthetic mandate":
Finally, brethren,
whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are
just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely,
whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue, and if there
is anything praiseworthy–meditate on these things. (Phil 4:8, emphasis added)
Paul is instructing
believers that it is important to evaluate and discriminate between worthy and
less worthy aspects of any culture.[57]
This
is also assumed with the award of the Nobel Prize in literature, which suggests
its transcultural value. A Christian is not left floundering in a miasma
of personal choices and standards with no absolutes to guide, as Calvin
Johansson (along with the Apostle Paul), suggests: