The Nature of Beauty (Part 3)

In the first two posts on The Nature of Beauty (Part 1, Part 2) I argued for the possibility that beauty at its core is an objective property of an object.  That is, unless very carefully qualified, statements like 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' do not explain our deepest and most obvious intuitions about art and beauty.  So if beauty is an objective property, why is it so intrinsically connected to our subjective experiences?

There is another model that might be instructive in how to see this relationship more clearly.  In seminary when you walk into a course on biblical interpretation, they will teach you different variations of a model that incorporates both the subjective and objective components of biblical interpretation (e.g. Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hays).  Naturally, the bible is supposed to speak personally to us in a subjective way.  It is supposed to change our lives and draw us closer to God in a very personal way.  But you will also be taught that before you get to that point, you need to understand the meaning the author originally intended to convey.  In other words, the text itself has its own meaning outside of your experience, which relates to the background and context of the author himself.  It is a meaning we have to discover -sometimes with lengthy research.  There is an objective and subjective component here continuously intersecting together.

So in this case, the same scripture can rightfully be applied in multiple ways and impact people subjectively in very different ways.  But that doesn't mean the objective meaning of the scripture has been pushed out.  In fact, it is the objective meaning itself found in a given scripture that rightfully grounds any variety of appropriate subjective applications.

I want to purpose that a similar model can explain the objective-subjective relationship in art and beauty.  There are foundational objective properties within objects and pieces of art themselves, one of which could be the quality of beauty.  But there is also a second level, where we step into the experience of its beauty subjectively.  Like proper biblical interpretation, the subjective component is always explanatorily grounded in the objective qualities that stand underneath it.  Notice, my subjective experience does not create its beauty (contra subjectivism) in this model.  My subjective experience discovers its beauty.  My subjective experience can either see the true features of the object for what they are (like its beauty), or not see those features for whatever reason.

So, if a bird sings a beautiful song in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, is it still beautiful?  Yes, in the same way if the bible lies on a table unread and unexperienced, it still remains a beautiful story of redemption!  However our subjective experience of beauty might be correlated to the quality of beauty itself, the best explanation for how they relate will ground the existence of beauty outside of the individual experiences of it.  And I wonder if the objective-subjective relationship found for example in standard biblical interpretation models could be a helpful model for beginning to think about how this relationship might work in understanding the nature of beauty.

A Curious Slavery

"You are restricted in your own affections" - 2 Corinthians 6:12

When you ask a person on the street what is limiting them, what restricts them? What is freedom? What is slavery?  ...the answer you will receive is about how people or responsibilities or circumstances have limited and restricted them -a lost job, a controlling spouse, overbearing laws, a bullying boss, uncontrollable children, etc. And true freedom is the genuine lack of external limitations like these.  And thus slavery is those very limitations being imposed on us.

But there is a more hidden type of slavery.  It is more widespread, more deeply entrenched, and has deadlier effects.  Buddha once taught that the root of suffering is desire.  Our cravings actually destroy us.  They enslave us.  The bible says something similar here, but with a little different nuance and different implications.  It says, you are restricted in your own affections.  We could also say, you are limited by what you love.

So when I was 9 years old a baseball coach approached me.  I had not met him before.  He said, "I just drafted you to be on our Majors Division Dodgers team next year.  You were one of my first picks.  I've seen you play even when you were in T-ball."  I felt something in that moment.  A sense of worth and value that felt so good.  I was a part of something special.  The Dodgers were 4-time returning champions.  Years later I found my heart longing to receive that same feeling in very curious ways.  But instead of sports (it turned out I wasn't very good at sports anyway) I sought the accolades of others through more mature contexts, as it were.  Being financially savvy, intellectual prowess, adventurous travels, etc.  There was intrinsic value to all of these of course in my mind, but if I was honest, at its pinnacle I wanted to feel that feeling again.  To be weighed and to be valued, appreciated, even admired.  To feel that old feeling again through another "ata-boy."  It pulled me in.  In reality, it tainted every corner of my life.  I was what Ayn Rand calls a second-hander.  The appraisal of others being the subtle guiding hand that pulled my strings.  Now don't misunderstand.  I didn't need a self-esteem book.  Just like all of you, I swam everyday in an ocean of our self-esteem-first culture.  But of course it was empty platitudes, and I knew it.  The believe-in-yourself doctrines were much too shallow to pull me out of this diseased spiral.  I developed efficient patterns of bending the truth to serve this feeling.  I closed in on myself socially, so as to limit potential feelings of humiliation.  Humiliation, after all, is the opposite of being honored and admired.  It was like I was backing into a dark cave for protection, but in the end the cave became my prison.  A prison of my own making.  I was restricted by my own affections.  A curious slavery no doubt.

Aristotle might say the problem is moderation.  Buddha might say the problem is desire itself.  The bible has a different diagnosis.  There is one affection, one desire that is the antidote for this diseased spiral.  Read that carefully again....  A desire that cures a desire.  There is one passion that can heal us from our enslaving passions.  There is one affection that is the remedy for enslaving affections.  And contrary to Aristotle and Buddha the more we feed this desire and the more this affection burns hotter and hotter in our lives, the more freedom we feel.  Jesus said it like this, the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.  This is it.  And notice the superlatives.  There is no moderation with this desire.  With every fiber of your being, make this affection unequivocally supreme.  There is also no theoretical cessation of desire.  This must be an undissolvable passion and affection that becomes the final remedy for our 'restricting' affections.  We are indeed meant to feel something profound, not just on occasion and not just with moderation.  But of course it is not any old feeling or desire.  What you love means everything and especially what you love supremely.  It is the difference between internal disease and inner flourishing, internal corrosion and inner thriving.

All those years ago, something was restricting me.  It wasn't others.  It wasn't circumstances.  It was my own affections that restricted me.  And the real problem with my affections and desires wasn't a lack of moderation or the fact of deep desire itself.  It was what I loved, and what I desired.  I was trapped in my cave.  And when the cold and darkness settled in, I had to choose to risk the danger outside or be locked in my own decaying prison... Locked in by own affections. 

The Order of Melchizedek, A Biblical Theological Treatment

Jesus is a priest, says the writer of Hebrews.  So what does that mean?  What sort of priest?  Well, like Melchizedek, answers Hebrews.  Then of course the next question is: How then is the priesthood of Jesus connected to this obscure man named Melchizedek?

There are multiple angles by which many give an answer to this question within the book of Hebrews.  For instance, Melchizedek's priesthood has no beginning and no end (Heb 7:3).  It continues forever.  The priesthood of the Levites has an end.  Also, Hebrews discusses how Jesus' priesthood is superior to the levitical priesthood in that the one who blessed Abraham (Melchizedek) is superior to the one being blessed –the Levitical offspring (Heb 7:6-10).  Furthermore, Melchizedek is not just a priest, he is a regal priest.  He holds two offices.  He is a priest of the most High God and a king, the king of Salem (Heb 7:1-2).  A true priest in the order of Levi cannot be a king.

All these are true and faithful to the text as it is presented.  But more than these, there is also a way to see all of these reasons as connected to one big over-arching reason.  Or, not really an over-arching reason precisely, but rather connected to a bigger story.

Do you remember that dramatic scene in Les Misérables, where Jean Valjean proclaims in public court that he is actually the accused criminal instead of the one everyone assumes?  We are meant to see in this scene a beautiful connection back to the main flow of the entire story.  Namely, we are meant to see the consummation of Jean Valjean's redemption.  A redemption that began years before when a priest was merciful to him.  The same priest who said Valjean's life had been spared for God and how from this point forward he was to make an honest man of himself.  And this courtroom scene is where Jean Valjean shows he has been remarkably redeemed in the exact way the priest declared.  This is kind of what the author of Hebrews is doing.

He is not just giving us abstract theological reasons to connect Jesus to Melchizedek.  He brings us back to a story.  A story that taps us back into the main narrative current of God's big story.  And particularly to that part of the big story where the corruption and poison that entered the world (Gen 3) is beginning to be reformed (Gen 12).  God is subtly setting in motion a process to turn it all back –a project to remake his world.  And the project begins with a promise. “Through you,” God promised Abram “all the families of the earth will be blessed.”  Global blessing is coming, and it is centered on the family of this childless nomad.  The writer of Hebrews is taking us back to this moment –this part of the big story.  He intends for us to see that Jesus and his priesthood complete a narrative stream that stretches back beyond Moses and Israel.  This is not just a priesthood that reinstates the rites and rituals of Moses and the Law.  It is a priesthood that stands over the Mosaic Law, not within it.  It is a priesthood that fulfills all that Melchizedek was intending to bless in Abram.  So what was he intending to bless in Abram?  “But this man [Melchizedek]... received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises,” (Heb 7:6).  He blessed Abram because he recognized that he was the sole owner of some unbelievable promises from God.  As God's priest, Melchizedek affirms and consecrates those promises in a sense, through blessing the man who holds them.

And what does that have to do with Jesus?

The writer of Hebrews wants his readers to see that Jesus' priesthood is superior to any other priesthood.  And it is superior precisely because it is in the order of Melchizedek, not Levi.  And Melchizedek's priesthood is superior, because it is grounded on better promises.  “But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises,” (Heb 8:6).  And the ministry he means of course is priestly ministry (c.f. 8:2).  All this to say: a priesthood is only as good as the promises it uses for its interecession.  A friend of mine told me a story about the intricate plans his kids often formulate in order to get out of bed time.  First, they send the young 3 year old out first.  Because they determine he can intercede on behalf of them better.  His sad whimpering demeanor and the fact that he might not know any better will hopefully engender an empathetic change of mind from mom and dad.  But sadly this intercession fails.  It fails because it is not built on solid promises!  The real promise, so to speak, is that unless there is an emergency or a true need, everyone goes to bed at 8pm.  An effective intercessor has to build his plea on solid promises.  So do you see the argument the book of Hebrews is making?

Christ has a superior priesthood because this priesthood intercedes by using better promises.  What promises?  Its the promise to truly and ultimately draw us near to God (7:25).  It is the promise to truly and ultimately make us perfect (7:19).  It's an unconditional promise to put the law on his people's hearts and minds and to forgive our sins (8:8-12).  Melchizedek's priesthood is superior because this priesthood intercedes by means of promises that are categorically superior (8:6).  And as a consequence, the salvation this priesthood administers is categorically superior.  In his words, it is a type of priesthood that saves to the “uttermost.” (7:25).

And this is at the very center of the main narrative current of the bible.  This is what the author wants us to see!  Salvation was promised.  A type of priesthood was inaugurated around it.  Abraham, the owner of those promises, was consecrated by this priesthood.  Millennia later another priest comes on the scene.  He is not a revived old-covenant priest.  He is a part of an older order.  He is part of an order that intercedes based on more preeminent promises.  They were based on those early and more far reaching promises to Abraham.  It was a promise for global blessing.  Jesus is superior primarily because he (as priest) brings to consummate fulfillment the main redemptive story of the bible, says the writer of Hebrews.

It is true there are abstract reasons the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to other priesthoods.  The ever-enduring duration of the order of Melchizedek as well as the additional component of being a royal priest are significant parts of this order.  But the more foundational reason Jesus' priesthood stands over all other priesthoods is because it performs the one intercession promised from the beginning and the one intercession more extensive and far reaching than any other type.  These other components only stand on the periphery.  The connection to Melchizedek at its core is more about a deep connection with the story of salvation and the consummation of the long-awaited promises.

Remembering the Reformation

Today is the 500-year anniversary of Martin Luther's posting of the 95 Theses.  It is hard to imagine many events more significant in European and church history.  Here is a few of Luther's theses:

11. This abuse of changing the canonical penalty into the penalty of purgatory seems to have arisen when the bishops were asleep.

20. Therefore the Pope, in speaking of the perfect remission of all punishments, does not mean that all penalties in general be forgiven, but only those imposed by himself.

32. On the way to eternal damnation are they and their teachers, who believe they are sure of their salvation through indulgences.

65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets, with which, in times of yore, one fished for the men of mammon.

66. But the treasures of indulgences are nets, with which now-a-days one fishes for the mammon of men.

82. Why does not the pope deliver all souls at the same time out of purgatory for the sake of most holy love and on account of the bitterest distress of those souls -this being the most imperative of all motives- while he saves an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most miserable thing money, to be spent on St. Peter's Minster: -this being the very slightest of motives?

Democracy: General Confusions and Personal Fears

In an article in Christianity, Democracy, and the Shadow of Constantine, Hammerli asks a provocative question. "If individual rights are permitted to overrule the will of the people, can the society still properly be called democratic'?" (42-3).

Hammerli is asking this question in relation to an Italian Court's decision upholding the right to hang a crucifix in a public school. Subsequently, the European Commission on Human Rights disagreed, saying the crucifix violated neutrality regarding religious convictions.  The commission continued by saying, the cornerstone of democracy is based on individual rights that include a government not encouraging, establishing, or promoting particular religious convictions regardless of the majority's traditions and beliefs.  Hammerli finds it very ironic that a position claiming to be democratic must decide against the will of the majority, against the demos, the people.  That is the context of the question he asks above.

The true essence of democracy has been a fascinating question for me for a long time.  It seems to be used by many as a catch-all word for a just and free governmental system, but it seems unclear what the specifics often really mean for people.  I remember the Bush administration using the phrase "establishing democracy and freedom" as they thought about assisting troubled regions of the world.  And it seemed like democracy and freedom were virtually synonymous in those contexts.

But what is democracy?  Is it a government set up to protect a set of objective individual rights and liberties for an equitable society, or is it a government set up to insure the will and rule of the people will stand?  Of course in a perfect world those often come together, and a case could be made that historically they do.  But I remember also being forced to think about this question after reading about the 2006 Palestinian elections. In the election for the

first time the party that received the most votes was Hamas, defined by most Western countries as a terrorist organization.  Was this just an unfortunate result of the democratic process?  Can a people ever collectively choose a course for their country (via election) that is unjust, unequitable, and undermines individual rights?  Would we then be forced to say this is the consequence of "democracy?"

But on the other side can (or should) a government set itself up to protect objective individual rights and liberties even if that stands against the will of the people?

In a post-modern world, there is very little room (if any) for something to be considered as a transcultural objective individual right or individual liberty.  Even though this type of vocabulary is widely used.  Nevertheless, in a Christ-shaped world, values are foundationally non-subjective.  That allows me room to say, while democracy (as the rule of the people) might be the scaffolding most likely to lead to a just, free, and equitable society, it is not the essence of such a society.  In fact, it can be the scaffolding for something entirely the opposite. I agree with Hammerli that we seem to have lost the meaning of democracy, when it is used synonymously with whatever is labelled as a good and just government. But I worry about a day when an appeal to the traditions and values of the majority will surprisingly overule the very things Hammerli values (like the beautiful expression and meaning behind a crucifix).  What should our our public policy be then?  I fear a day true justice, freedom, and equality will be something the demos has very different ideas about.  And I wonder if we're not clear what democracy is, and the parts of it we love, whether we will have the categories to navigate such a world well.

The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

In the preface to The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis writes:

“Blake wrote the Marriage of Heaven and Hell... The attempt is based on the belief that reality never presents us with an absolutely unavoidable ‘either-or’; that granted skill and patience and (above all) time enough, some way of embracing both alternatives can always be found; that mere development or adjustment or refinement will somehow turn evil into good without our being called on for a final and total rejection of anything we should like to retain.  This belief I take to be a disastrous error.”

“I do not think that all who choose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road.  A sum can be put right: but only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on.  Evil can be undone, but it cannot ‘develop’ into good.  Time does not heal it.  The spell must be unwound, bit by bit, ‘with backward mutters of disservering power’ –or else not at all.”

Fractional Politics

As the 81-year old Dalai Lama approaches his latter years, China announced again its claims of being able to retain the right to announce which baby will be the new reincarnated Dalai Lama. Chairman Zhu Weiqun of the Ethnic and Religious Affairs committee, which stands as a top advisory body to China's parliament, wrote "The central government has stiffened its resolve to decide on the reincarnation of 'living Buddhas' so as to ensure victory over the anti-separatist struggle."

Let me say that one more time.  The atheistic, communist, government of China says it holds the right to decide who will be reincarnated and when.   Its like a strict orthodox Jew laying out all the parameters for how worship should be offered to Athena.

Of course, this contradiction does not escape them.  China is certainly aware of it.  But noticing the irony doesn't make them hesitate for a moment!  That is because the Dalai Lama's reincarnation "is first and foremost a political matter."  Political expediency is the end game.  Everything else lines up behind that, even if it means laws that assume spiritual realities they already resolutely deny.  It is amazing how fractional and compartmental our convictions and beliefs have become, particularly in the service of political ends.