A Christian View of BeautyEssay Preview: A Christian View of BeautyReport this essayBeauty, a term once revered in ancient days as the pinnacle of physical attributes embodied in worldly entities, has seemingly in this day lost much of its meaning. Phrases like “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” have surprisingly become commonplace, and even Christians have begun to subscribe to the notion of aesthetic relativism. Specifically, this is the idea that beauty is purely contained within the observer and objects on their own have no aesthetic value in and of themselves. It is what has effectively stripped the main essence from the old ideal of beauty, and in my opinion a primary reason why there are so many who cannot see or refuse to see God in the world today.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, the oft-heard phrase today, refers to one’s belief in the subjectivity of beauty—that is, aesthetic relativism. This prevailing belief dictates that my own perception of what is beautiful does not necessarily correlate to others’ perception of what they find beautiful. Simply because I find a song inspiring and relaxing does not necessarily mean that everyone will and it’s even pretentious and rude of me to insist so. And since everyone has their own particular tastes in all types of art, it is inferred that those tastes correlate to true beauty in their own eyes. But, this whole concept of beauty in each man’s own perception is severely lacking: it gives our own God far too little credit for the creation itself.
In my opinion, a greatly preferable view for one who professes to believe in a divine creator is the belief in the objectivity of beauty. Perhaps the ancient Greeks were on to something after all when artists such as Polykleitos sought the perfect proportions of beauty. Such a pursuit required one to see beauty as objective: something contained within the object itself. Especially farseeing was Plato’s belief in the “idea” realm, in which perfect prototypes of every living and nonliving thing existed. It was a transcendent realm which we could never quite reach in terms of achieving this perfect “idea form”. Such a theory, old as it is, is not very far from the truth in my opinion. The real truth of beauty lies in none other than our own God. Nevertheless, I think it is necessary to divide beauty into two types to see how God influences it.
There is a physical beauty in each living and nonliving thing; something which can be perceived by the eye. Such beauty, I think, aligns with Plato’s “idea form” concept—that is, we perceive things as the most beautiful when they are closest to that ideal shape from which they were wrought. Among my beliefs is that God really does have ideal forms in His own mind, from which spring forth every single precious creation. God’s creations are often universally seen as beautiful to us—forests, rivers, grasslands, domestic animals and wild animals alike are loved by us and sometimes even worshipped for their beauty. Their forms tend to be very similar among their own kind, and many different organizations strive to find the perfect proportions, coloring, and other attributes of them. A well-known example is the American Kennel Club, which appoints judges in dog shows who determine the ideal proportions of many breeds of dogs. In such competitions, we are striving to find the ideal, most beautiful form of dogs, which strongly hints at a belief in an archetypal “idea form”. Perhaps the human form itself could even have its archetypal roots in Adam and Eve; but regardless, humans who most closely fit this prototypical form are perceived as most beautiful by others. Ugliness is the disfiguration or mutilation of this form, such as severed parts or scars or even obesity. Even so, there is always some degree of the supreme beauty in each and every creation, for God’s own light can shine through even the darkest of places.
Indeed, God’s original beauty shining through us and our own creations is the main source of aesthetic pleasure in this world. God revealed this to us in Ezekiel 16:14, when He declared “And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect”. This constitutes a second kind of beauty, a nonphysical and more conceptual beauty. Such beauty is what normally would be seen in man’s creations and his very personality. It can be witnessed in personalities such as a warm and inviting host, a charitable man who goes out of his way to help others, or something as simple as one who laughs often. And, of course, a massive demonstrator of this kind of beauty is creations of man’s own design such as music, paintings, and
a great number of other things as well, such as the “Holy Church” in Japan (the holy land whose members may still be living in some of the world’s largest cities and towns).
What kind of a beauty is Christ’s?
Christ’s beauty is a form of goodness and power with which he brings about a kind of state of peace and happiness. And this state is to be attributed directly to God and to the Holy Spirit for the sake of Christ, for He who brings the salvation of all worlds to its fullness with His own strength is able to accomplish a supreme and lasting joy which can be called the “Holy Kingdom”. For this state is called the holy kingdom (Wostemburg; see 2 Corinthians 12:7, 9).
The Holy Spirit does not always use that “Holy Kingdom”. However, in many cases the “Holy Kingdom” refers to a certain spiritual state in which the “Bible” (or other mystical teachings) can be understood and the “holy doctrine” (or “church doctrine” or even a “Moral Philosophy”) can be understood in similar terms. For instance, the holy gospel in Jesus Christ and the gospel in the Holy Spirit of Christ is not simply what is described in the Old Testament Scriptures which make up our Lord’s gospel, but the doctrine which is derived from them. And in other instances, a great deal of the “prophetic” teachings of the Church and of God and which Jesus Christ is able today to proclaim to the world through His own words, actions and actions have been found to be true.
I have explained in much detail how the “Holy Kingdom” is not primarily the Holy Word but also the very idea and practice of the liturgy (the “Holy Gospel”, “the Liturgy of My Father and of the Holy Spirit”) that has been preserved (by Jesus Christ in all its original glory, through the holy apostles as they are with all prophets and priests, by his power through the Holy Spirit, and, lastly, within the liturgy) under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I did not define this Holy Gospel (Christ Jesus) as the very idea or practice of the liturgy (Christ Jesus) and I suggest that we not define it to include the idea and practice of the liturgy. I will instead describe the concept and practice of the liturgy primarily in light of some of the many things which have been found to be true of this Holy Gospel.
* * *
Why do we believe the Holy Spirit gives us such “New Doctrine” and such “New Vision?” What of the Holy Spirit “invisible” in these “New Doctrine”; “What is it?”, “What is It not”, “Who is it?”, and “Is Christ the King of Mankind”? What of Jesus Christ’s spiritual vision and “new vision” of “Jesus Christ” as the leader and ruler of mankind? What is the significance of these “new