Beauty and the Baptists:
the significance for recovering a theology of beauty
Stephen M. Garrett
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Introduction1
Has beauty in a postmodern world lost its sensibility and become the beast as Edward
Farley suggests in Faith and Beauty: A Theological Aesthetic?2 Has the Christian tradition and
even its Hebraic roots inherently suppressed, as Farley further contends, the discourse of beauty
because of its iconoclastic monotheism, moral asceticism, and futurism? Or does the early
Christian tradition offer an aesthetic perspective that needs retrieval?
Considering the current postmodern milieu, philosophical aesthetics has all but dismissed
the motif of beauty as an essentialist notion with minimal explanatory power. Rhetoric regarding
beauty seems to be absent from the academic discussion as Farley and David Hart, in his recent
book The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth,3 suggest. The dismissal of
beauty from the discourse of philosophical aesthetics appears to be in part because of
philosophy’s relegation of beauty to the ornamental and innocuous pleasant, signifying the
beautiful as an escape from the pain of reality. Frank Burch Brown, in his book Religious
Aesthetics: A Theological Study of Making and Meaning,4 further attributes the decline of beauty
to the Renaissance and the progressive secularization of society that insists aesthetics be purified
of all religious content. On a popular level, beauty has lost its force in the marketplace of ideas
1
I am grateful for the dialogue with Tom McCall, Kevin Vanhoozer, and Malcolm Yarnell on a previous
version of this paper that helped to clarify my thoughts.
2
Edward Farley, Faith and Beauty: A Theological Aesthetic (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing House,
2004), 6-12.
3
David B. Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2003), 15-28.
4
Frank B. Brown, Religious Aesthetics: A Theological Study of Making and Meaning (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1989), 5-6, 47-50.
1
since it has come to mean whatever the “beholder” wants the term to mean. On this view, the
concept of beauty loses its objective component and its ability to convey meaning beyond the
realm of personal taste. Despite these trends, current discussions regarding theological aesthetics
and beauty seem to be flourishing; yet, the Christian tradition varies from a murmur to a roar.5
In the midst of the current postmodern situation, it appears beauty is searching for an identity;
and, a renewal of beauty in light of Scripture and the early Christian tradition suggests another
option that prevents truth and goodness from becoming “dull, lifeless, boring, formalistic, and
cold.”6
This paper contends that a renewing of the early Christian tradition of beauty along a
biblical trajectory can access reality in a way that modern science and logic cannot, which has
relevance for at least three essential areas of Baptist life—the ordinances, the nature of Scripture,
and missions. This paper attempts to demonstrate beauty’s relevance to these particular areas
through a comparative analysis of Augustine’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s theology of beauty with
regard to beauty’s definition, function, and significance.7 The early Christian tradition then,
5
Alejandro Garcia-Rivera, The Community of the Beautiful: A Theological Aesthetics (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1999), 11; Gesa E. Thiessen, Theological Aesthetics: A Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
Chris Cain examines Louis Berkhof, Millard Erickson, and Wayne Grudem’s systematic theologies and indicts
evangelical systematic theology for turning beauty into a beast in his article “Turning the Beast into a Beauty:
Towards an Evangelical Theological Aesthetics,” Presbyterion 29 (Spring 2003): 27-41.
6
Ibid., 6.
7
Because we do not have specific extant writings on beauty by Augustine nor Gregory, attempting to
articulate their theology of beauty is a complex task that attempts to read the parts in light of the whole. My
rendering then is best understood as toward an understanding of their theology of beauty. This should not imply
however that nothing can be said about Augustine or Gregory’s theology of beauty only that this rendering considers
these difficulties and tries to be faithful to their intentions as communicated in their writings. Then why compare
Augustine and Gregory? Historians of the early church, such as Edmund Hill, Lewis Ayres, Frances Young, and
Timothy Barnes, often compare these two individuals in their writings, although not with respect to beauty. David
Hart mentions that he draws about Augustine and Gregory for his book The Beauty of the Infinite, but does not
explicitly articulate a comparison. I also felt that it was important to choose two prominent and influential
theologians from the Latin and Greek traditions to further affirm that the common notion of East and West is a false
dichotomy (See Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth, eds. Cambridge History of Early Christian
Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to
Fourth-century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: OUP, 2004); Edmund Hill, ed. The Works of Saint Augustine: A
Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1997)).
2
contra Farley, presents both an objective and subjective notion of beauty with a relational
component fraught with implications for worship, wisdom, and witness.
Augustine’s Theology of Beauty: Definition, Function, Significance
Throughout the corpus of Augustine’s writings, Augustine contemplates the complexities
of beauty in itself and in relationship. In his Confessions, he ponders, “Do we love anything save
what is beautiful? But what then is beautiful? And what is beauty? What is it that allures us and
delights us in the things we love? Unless there were grace and beauty in them they could not
possibly draw us to them.”8 Discerning Augustine’s theology of beauty is elusive and complex
due to the scattered references and intermingled Platonic thoughts of his day.9 Despite these
difficulties, the Augustine corpus presents a theology of beauty, albeit elusive, characterized by
an objective notion apparent to the senses and a subjective notion that attracts and is desirable,
whereby God, being the source of all truth, beauty, and goodness, is seen by the faithful who are
pure in heart.
8
The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21 st Century, ed. John E. Rotelle, vol. I/1, The
Confessions, trans. Maria Boulding (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1997), IV.13.20. Although Augustine wrote a
treatise on beauty entitled, De Pulchro et Apto (380), he admits that he lost the treatise and cannot recall even the
number of books it contained.
9
Any articulation of Augustine’s thoughts on beauty must consider each reference’s literary and historical
context and note how these contexts may emphasize particular aspects or modify his understanding of beauty.
Robert J. O’Connell in his essay, “Art, Wisdom, and Bliss: Their Interplay in Saint Augustine,” in St. Augustine the
Bishop: A Book of Essays, ed. Fannie LeMoine & Christopher Kleinhenz (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994),
125-137 and his book, Art and the Christian Intelligence in Saint Augustine (Oxford: OUP, 1978) as well as Carol
Harrison’s Beauty and Revelation in the Thought of St. Augustine (Oxford: OUP, 1992) offer different reasons for
the various influences on Augustine’s theology of beauty. It is beyond the scope of this paper to interact with these
arguments, yet I offer these secondary sources as an introduction to the issues and as recognition of the difficulty in
understanding Augustine’s thought. What is important to note are the judgments made by Augustine and Gregory
using the categories of their era. I am attempting to understand those judgments on beauty in light of their context
and communicate those judgments to our modern Baptist culture (For further explanation of this approach see David
S. Yeago “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis,” in
The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Stephen E. Fowl (Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003) and Paul Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of
Patristic Thought (Oxford: OUP, 2004), 21-46).
3
Augustine’s Definition of Beauty
Although Augustine’s treatise De Pulchro et Apto is lost, Augustine alludes to the
treatise’s purpose when he realizes, after contemplating the nature of beauty, a distinction
between that which is beautiful in itself and that which is beautiful in relationship to another
object.10 What then is beautiful, and what is beauty? When considering beauty inherent to an
object and apparent to the senses, Augustine defines beauty in terms of number, form, unity, and
order.
Augustine’s notion of number is best understood by one of his illustrations, “Human
artisans of all corporeal forms have numbers in their art to which they adapt their works: hands
and instruments move in working, until that which is formed without, obtains completion in so
far as is possible, and is pleasing to the internal judge gazing upon supernatural numbers through
the interpreting sense.”11 Number then is Augustine’s reduction of an object to its mathematical
elements and is the irreducible component that leads to form, which entails something’s
existence. Without form and by implication number, something or someone does not exist.
Augustine locates form in two places—in the object itself and in the mind of God. The forms
that exist eternally in God are immutable. When God creates, these eternal forms are actualized
into corporeal existence. Both exist simultaneously, where the corporeal is dependent upon the
eternal.12 For Augustine, nothing exists without some element of unity, which produces
harmony, proportion, equality, and symmetry. These four characteristics are expressions of unity
10
Confessions, IV.13.20-15.24.
Augustine, On the Free Choice of the Will, trans. Robert P. Russel in The Fathers of the Church, ed. Roy
J. Deferrari (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1968), II.16.41-43. See also Emmanuel
Chapman, Saint Augustine’s Philosophy of Beauty (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1939), 13-26.
12
Augustine, Eighty Three Different Questions, trans. David L. Mosher in The Fathers of the Church, ed.
Roy J. Deferrari (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1968), LXXXIII. Augustine illustrates
the relationship between eternal and corporeal form by the idea present in an artist’s mind that is actualized in a
particular art form.
11
4
and to the extent an object possesses these qualities, an object is either more or less unified.13
The final element of an objective beauty for Augustine is order, which “is the distribution which
allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place, and integrates an ensemble of parts in
accord with an end” and thus secures being.14 In contrast, disorder is perverted being yet still
possesses some aspect of order because no order means no existence. Is an object then simply
beautiful or ugly?
Beauty for Augustine is not a simplistic either/or. Rather, Augustine nuances beauty by
recognizing the complexities of corporeal beauty in relationship to the Fall of humanity and thus
contends that corporeal beauty exists in various degrees depending upon the extent to which the
object possesses number, form, unity, and order. A being that possesses these qualities to a
greater or lesser degree is either more or less beautiful. What then of the ugly, does it possess
beauty as well? When making these judgments, according to Augustine, we must consider the
part in light of the whole if we are to make a true judgment. To do otherwise and cling “to a
part, is per se ugly.”15 In one sense then every corporeal thing is beautiful to some degree
because it exists, yet every corporeal thing is ugly to some degree because of sin. Is this then all
that beauty amounts to—the extent to which these objective criteria are inherent within an
object?
Augustine does not succumb to the fallacy of reductionism when assessing the beauty of
an object. Rather Augustine sees an incorporeal or supreme beauty, namely God, from which
13
The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21 st Century, vol. I/8, ed. John E. Rotelle, On
Christian Doctrine: True Religion, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1997), XXX.55,
XXXII.59-60.
14
Augustine, City of God, trans. Gerald G. Walsh and Grace Monahan in The Fathers of the Church, ed.
Roy J. Deferrari (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1968), XIX.8.1.
15
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine: True Religion, XIV.76.
5
corporeal beauty has its meaning and existence.16 Augustine makes this distinction when he
attempts to apply these objective notions of beauty to the soul. He laments his inability to see
the incorporeal but then realizes that these objective notions of beauty “hinged on your artistry,
almighty God, who alone works wonders.”17 Augustine comes to grips with his ineptitude to
rationally grasp God by his own efforts and recognizes what he knows of beauty, truth, and
goodness is revealed by and has its life in God alone.18 How then does beauty function in the
thought of Augustine?
Beauty’s Function in the Thought of Augustine
Since Augustine distinguishes corporeal beauty from the incorporeal, beauty has two
functions. Corporeal beauty functions to point the observer to divine Beauty through the senses,
and incorporeal or divine Beauty functions to transform (reformare) the ugly (deformius) by
inspiring one’s faith, hope, and love. The distinction between these two functions hinges on
Augustine’s understanding of the Fall of humanity.
Corporeal beauty functions as signs or guideposts that should point observers toward
divine Beauty. Because corporeal beauty participates in the incorporeal for its existence, it
possesses number, form, unity, and order, which attract the human senses.19 This attraction
implies a subjective component that is not readily apparent in Augustine’s theology of beauty yet
is an important aspect. The Fall of humanity however distorts this subjective component since
16
Augustine, Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil, trans. Robert P. Russell in The Fathers of the
Church, ed. Ludwig Schopp (New York: CIMA Publishing, 1948), II.19.51; Augustine, Soliloquies, trans. Thomas
F. Gilligan in The Fathers of the Church, ed. Ludwig Schopp (New York: CIMA Publishing, 1948), I.1.2.
17
Augustine, Confessions, IV.15.24.
18
Beauty, according to Augustine, is an inherent quality of an object judged in degree based on how an
object manifests those qualities yet only has its existence in relationship to God. Augustine is able to hold this
tension together using the Latin terms forma and species, from which Latin derives its words for beautiful—
speciosus and formosus. Forma and species are also the words for the transcendental Platonic forms. The
significance for Augustine is not the apparent Platonic connections but the ability of Latin to hold together both
corporeal and incorporeal beauty. See Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, vol.
2, Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles, trans. by Andre Louth, Francis Mcdonagh, and Brian McNeil (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1984), 114-123 for a more detailed discussion.
19
Augustine, Confessions, II.5.10, X.34.55-57; On Christian Doctrine: True Religion, XXXII.59-60.
6
humanity passed “from eternal good to time-bound good, from spiritual to flesh-bound good,
from intelligible to sensuous good, from the highest good to the lowest good.”20 The Fall
severed humanity’s facie ad faciem relationship with God because humanity opted for a
relationship per speculum. In other words, corporeal beauty should point humanity to
incorporeal Beauty. Because of sin however, humanity fell for the pleasures of incorporeal
beauty (and defines beauty by those pleasures) rather than beholding divine Beauty. Humanity is
thus deformis and in need of reformatio.
Incorporeal Beauty functions then to reformare the deformius by inspiring one’s faith,
hope, and love in Christ, who is the quintessential form and content of beauty.21 In Christ, God
reveals the source of all corporeal beauty whose role is to lead discordant humanity into harmony
with divine Beauty.22 Christ, incarnate Beauty, accomplishes this harmony by humbling himself
and becoming deformius. How then are we to love that which is deformius if, according to
Augustine, we love that which is formosus? Augustine replies, “What is it we love in Christ—
his crucified limbs, his pierced side, or his love? When we hear that he suffered for us, what do
we love? Love is loved. He loved us, that we might in turn love Him; and that we might return
His love He has given us His Spirit.”23 The incarnation then reveals divine Beauty in the ugly.
It is not seen with the physical eye but is seen by faith deformis formosis through the eyes of the
heart. Augustine exhorts us to listen with understanding “to the song and let not the weakness of
the flesh turn away [our] eyes from the splendor of His beauty. The highest and truest beauty is
that of righteousness; where you find Him unjust, you will not see Him beautiful; if He is
20
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine: True Religion, XX.38.
Augustine, On Music, trans. Robert C. Taliaferro in The Fathers of the Church, ed. Ludwig Schopp (New
York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1947), V.17.56; Eighty-Three Different Questions, XXIII; Augustine, On the
Trinity, trans. Arthur W. Haddan in Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1999), VI.10.11.
22
Augustine, On the Trinity, IV.1-12; Eighty-Three Different Questions, XXIII.
23
Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, quoted in Carol Harrison, Beauty and Revelation in the Thought of
St. Augustine (Oxford: OUP, 1992), 235.
21
7
altogether just, He is altogether beautiful.”24 Christ therefore hung deformed on a tree, but his
deformity is our beauty.
The Significance of Beauty in the Thought of Augustine
Divine beauty revealed deformis formosis functions to transform humanity by inspiring
humanity’s faith, hope, and love not simply to look at it but participate in and through it in order
to bring those who believe face to face with God. Corporeal beauty then should point us to
divine Beauty by arresting our attention and causing us to contemplate God’s majesty in his
creation rather than becoming infatuated with a self-serving pleasure that results in the desire to
possess the fruit for one’s own personal gain or satisfaction.
The significance of divine Beauty is God’s initiative to bring humanity from nonexistence back to existence through his Son who is incarnate Beauty. Christ made himself ugly
for the sake of his bride, the church, in order to make her beautiful. The church attains her
beauty by grace through a turning away from that which makes her ugly to the one who will
make her beautiful. Augustine notes, “The Church herself is confession and beauty. First,
confession, then beauty; confession of sins, beauty of good works.”25 Moreover, “by faith,
Christ then is formed in us, for if we imitate him by love, inasmuch as possible, we receive the
beauty of Christ.”26 Perfect beauty for the church however is not attained in the temporal but in
the eternal when the church possesses perfect form in both body and soul and sees God face to
face.27
When seen through the eyes of faith, the significance of corporeal beauty instructs us to
behold the Creator. The reason creation has a positive role in directing humanity to God is due
Ibid., 237; Augustine, Confessions, VI.16.26. In Augustine’s descriptions of Christ, we begin to see how
he brings together the true, good, and beautiful. See also Augustine, Soliloquies, I.22, Against Academics, II.6-7, and
The Free Choice of the Will, II.41, 45.
25
Ibid., 234.
26
Augustine, City of God, X.6
27
Augustine, On the Trinity, VIII, 4.6, XIV.17.23, 19.25; City of God, XII.18.20-22, XXII.19.
24
8
to the connection between the eternal and created form. Although the created form is not
sufficient for saving knowledge of the eternal form, the created form can build up faith in the
believer because “God made all those natural things which their senses observe all round them in
amazing variety.”28 Augustine warns however that our affections should not remain with the
created, “Let not that which has been made by Him detain your affections, so that you should
lose him by whom you yourself were also made.”29 This is the danger of corporeal beauty in that
we become enamored with the created rather than beholding the Creator. Incorporeal beauty,
when seen through the eyes of faith, should capture our attention in such a way that leads to awe
and reverence of the Creator rather than selfish gratification of personal desires.
Beauty, according to Augustine, exists simultaneously in the corporeal and the
incorporeal. The corporeal has its existence because of the incorporeal and possesses an
objective reality that Augustine describes as number, form, unity, and order. This objective
notion of beauty does not play to our desires but arrests our attentions in order to point us to
eternal beauty. The Fall however has damaged created beauty so that it has become an imperfect
reflection of eternal beauty whereby humanity becomes enamored with its own selfish
gratification of personal desires. The initiative of divine Beauty, veiled by deformius yet
revealed in Christ’s humility and suffering on the cross, demonstrates God’s love for humanity
so that humanity may again behold divine Beauty face to face. Humanity by faith then can
participate in divine Beauty by confessing its own ugliness and turning toward incarnate Beauty
thereby restoring eternal beauty which will be perfected upon Christ’s return. Although
Augustine distinguishes between the objective, subjective, and relational components of beauty,
his theology of beauty intertwines these components so that neither is mutually exclusive.
28
Augustine, Confessions, XII.27.37.
Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, quoted in Carol Harrison, Beauty and Revelation in the Thought of
St. Augustine (Oxford: OUP, 1992), 138.
29
9
Gregory of Nyssa’s Theology of Beauty: Definition, Function, and Significance
Although Gregory of Nyssa offers some objectivity for his understanding of material
beauty in terms of color, his approach to beauty is primarily subjective where supreme Beauty is
close to the ineffable. Because of this view, Gregory’s theology of beauty focuses more on the
spiritual rather than the tangible. For Gregory, visible beauty is miniscule in comparison to the
grandeur and beauty of God and is obscured further by our human condition and situatedness.
Human contemplation however, when given some unexplainable inspiration and denounces the
earthly, sees the Beautiful, although it is encased in the superficial. By participating in the
Beautiful, we become beautiful. God, being the source of all that is beautiful, is thus seen ever
so slightly by the purified “eye of the soul.”
Gregory of Nyssa’s Definition of Beauty
Gregory, although known as the mystic or moral theologian of the Cappadocian Fathers,
recognizes a tangible material beauty derived from the impression of form onto matter that
appeals to the five senses, where an amalgam of color harmoniously arranged is most beautiful.
Commenting in his work, The Life of Moses, Gregory’s description of the tabernacle, a “beauty
of indescribable variety,” centers on the brilliant and radiant colors used in its construction.30 At
the conclusion of his description, Gregory seems overwhelmed by such magnificence that he
remarks, “What words could accurately describe it all?” He continues by asking, “Of what
things not made with hands are these an imitation? And what benefit does the material imitation
of those things Moses saw convey to those who look at it?”31
30
Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses, trans. Abraham J. Malherebe and Everett Ferguson (New York: Paulist
Press, 1978), I.49-50, II.170-172.
31
Ibid., II.172-173.
10
Before answering these questions, it is important to note how Gregory distinguishes
between aesthetic experiences. In his work On Virginity, Gregory describes three types of
people to make his distinctions. The majority of people, who are superficial in their thought, are
enamored with something beautiful because of the pleasure it brings and are not concerned to
move beyond this. The second type of person, who has a trained intellect, considers not only the
appearance of an object but examines the inherent qualities of an object in relationship to the
whole. Both of these types of people can admire and apprehend this beauty, “yet the archetype
of this beauty escapes our comprehension.” The third type of person, who rises from the visible
to the invisible, glimpses God’s beauty through the power of the Holy Spirit who purifies the
mind. The third person, according to Gregory, espies pure Beauty, God himself, who is without
color or form or size or shape.32
How then does visible beauty relate to the invisible, particularly since visible beauty has
color and the invisible does not? Gregory struggles to make this comparison due to the near
ineffable nature of pure Beauty. He likens the relationship to a tiny drop of water within a
boundless sea, where a tiny drop is beautiful only because it shares in pure Beauty. In other
words, visible beauty attains its beauty from the impressions of pure Beauty where the material
encases yet manifests pure Beauty in its most miniscule and often distracting form.33
For Gregory then, beauty has two forms—the visible and the invisible where the visible
receives its constituent elements from and is only a faint reflection of invisible Beauty. Visible
beauty, according to Gregory, has objective qualities that appeal to the senses of which a tapestry
of harmonious color is of supreme importance. Because of our human condition, however,
people neglect to see beyond the tangible impressions of pure Beauty and revel in the pleasures
32
Gregory of Nyssa, Ascetical Works: On Virginity, trans. Virginia W. Callahan in The Fathers of the
Church, ed. Ludwig Schopp (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1967), 38-40.
33
Ibid., 38-42.
11
of beauty’s lowest forms, even if their mind is sufficiently trained. What benefit or function then
does material beauty have for the observer?
Beauty’s Function in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa
Visible beauty, according to Gregory, serves as a pathway to pure Beauty, yet because of
our “dense minds, it seems . . . difficult . . . to distinguish logically and separate the matter from
the beauty perceived in it, and to come to know the nature of beauty in itself.”34 Humanity’s
beauty akin to divine Beauty is marred by sin and impoverished of the beautiful. Humanity then
seeks what it desires yet misjudges what is beautiful and is unable to comprehend by its own
endeavors invisible Beauty no matter the grandeur found in the visible.35 How then is a person
to glimpse the splendor of pure Beauty?
Recall Gregory’s illustration about three types of people. The third person is able to
glimpse pure Beauty ever so slightly when the Holy Spirit enables the person to remove the filth
accumulated from sin and bring light to the beauty of the soul.36 Gregory also likens color
within visible beauty to the colors of virtue found in the Beatitudes. These virtues are like paints
that every person chooses to or not to paint on the canvas of their life. If we aspire to see pure
Beauty, then we must imitate Christ who became the image of the invisible God among us and
fashioned a beauty consistent with the character of pure Beauty. Pure Beauty will then be
restored to those who imitate Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at the resurrection, when
Christ returns for his people.37
34
Ibid., 39.
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Beatitudes, trans. Herbert Musurillo in From Glory to Glory, ed. Jean Daniélou
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), 98-99; The Soul and Resurrection, trans. Catharine P. Roth (Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993), 77-78.
36
Gregory of Nyssa, Ascetical Works: On Virginity, 44.
37
Gregory of Nyssa, Ascetical Works: On Perfection, trans. Virginia W. Callahan in The Fathers of the
Church, ed. Ludwig Schopp (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1967), 110; The Soul and
Resurrection, 119. To illustrate this point, Gregory likens our imitation of Christ to a young artist’s learning to paint
by imitating their teacher’s beautiful painting.
35
12
Visible beauty then, in the thought of Gregory, functions as a pathway to pure Beauty.
Our filthy condition however perverts our judgment of visible beauty that often results in
becoming captivated by the sensations produced by it. Gregory contends that if we are to move
beyond the visible to invisible Beauty, it will not be by our own rationality but by the power of
the Holy Spirit who enables us to see pure Beauty. This is accomplished by our imitating the
supreme example of Christ who is perfect beauty in form and content and reveals the beautiful
virtuous life we are to live by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Significance of Beauty in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa
The significance of Gregory’s thought of beauty lies in his understanding of the grandeur
of God who is pure beauty and the finitude of humanity who needs God’s grace to even glimpse
pure Beauty. The grandeur of which Gregory speaks of God amplifies our condition as humans
in need of new life because of the sin that we have brought upon ourselves. Gregory however
does not leave humanity in despair but sets forth the beautiful life lived in the power of the Holy
Spirit—a life painted with virtuous colors after the pattern of Christ. The pure in heart will see
God (Mat. 5:8).38
Not only will the pure in heart see pure Beauty, they will also see pure Beauty in
themselves. Those who pursue pure Beauty by denying themselves and earthly pleasures “will
find the only thing that is worth longing for, and, having come close to beauty, will become
beautiful [themselves]. Through his participation in the true light, [they] will be in a state of
brightness and illumination.”39 A person’s true beauty then is found not in the external
proportions of their physical features but found in the virtuous heart submitted to God. Gregory
38
Gregory of Nyssa, The Lord’s Prayer, The Beatitudes, trans. Hilda C. Graef in Ancient Christian Writers,
ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph L. Plumbe (New York: Newman Press, 1954), sermon 6.
39
Gregory of Nyssa, Ascetical Works: On Virginity, 40.
13
intertwines the beautiful with the good so that what is beautiful is characterized by the virtues
endemic to wise living.
Visible Beauty, according to Gregory, exists in miniscule form as part of the created
world in comparison to pure Beauty or God himself. Visible beauty receives its form and
existence from invisible Beauty yet is obscured by the material. Gregory notes the appeal of
visible beauty to the five senses, particularly the harmonious use of multiple colors. He admits
however that most people never move beyond the sensual to pursue the Beautiful, including
those with a trained mind, because of the filth of sin that covers humanity. Gregory contends
that people can glimpse pure Beauty only by the power of the Holy Spirit who enables them to
ascend toward the Beautiful following perfect Beauty, namely Jesus Christ. In turn, the person
who submits to God will become beautiful through virtuous living.
A Comparative Analysis of Augustine’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s Theology of Beauty
Augustine and Gregory share many points of continuity while their points of dissimilarity
are in degree rather than in opposition. Both theologians share a common metaphysic for
conceiving reality that results in similar conceptions of beauty, which hinge on God’s gracious
action in Christ in order to restore beauty to his creation. They differ only in degree regarding
objective and subjective beauty and incarnate Beauty’s redemptive purpose.
Points of Continuity
Augustine and Gregory recognize that beauty has two forms that exist simultaneously—
the visible or corporeal and the invisible or incorporeal. Corporeal beauty receives its being
from incorporeal Beauty as well as its form and content. These physical manifestations then
serve as pointers, pathways, or signs of the incorporeal. Both contend however that corporeal
beauty can be dangerous because of its ability to captivate human desires. Human desires and
14
passions are not evil per se. In fact, humanity’s subjective appropriation of beauty comes
through the senses in accordance with desire. The problem humanity incurs is from its response
to those desires because of a sinful fallen nature. Fallen humanity’s desire to possess,
manipulate, and own the beautiful, even incorporeal Beauty, is an attempt to satisfy personal
desires, which is why knowledge of incorporeal Beauty comes by gracious revelation through
faith and not by human reason or ability. Both acknowledge the dangers of corporeal beauty and
offer the same solution, the incorporeal becoming corporeal, yet with different emphases, as the
next section shows.
Augustine and Gregory also depict a relational component of beauty whereby a person
who participates in the Beautiful by faith becomes beautiful. With respect to corporeal beauty,
humanity relates to the corporeal through the senses yet the purpose of corporeal beauty is to
direct the person to incorporeal Beauty. In terms of incorporeal Beauty, humanity participates in
the incorporeal by faith and imitation. Faith in Christ leads to living a virtuous life in the power
of the Holy Spirit that imitates Christ’s perfect life and sacrifice. Participation then in the
Beautiful by faithful imitation of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, Gregory and Augustine
contend, results in the believer becoming beautiful.
Points of Dissimilarity
Although both Augustine and Gregory acknowledge God’s gracious act in Christ to be
pure Beauty, Augustine focuses more on Christ’s redemptive work on the cross while Gregory
emphasizes Christ’s perfect example, both his moral life and perfect sacrifice. This does not
suggest that Augustine thinks Christ’s work is imperfect or that Gregory believes all Christ
accomplished on the cross was a good moral example. Rather, Augustine seems to be more
concerned about humanity’s depravity whereby incorporeal Beauty functions to reformare the
15
deformius by inspiring one’s faith, hope, and love in Christ. On the other hand, Gregory seems
to be more concerned about the grandeur of invisible Beauty as the quintessential reference point
for all visible beauty whereby the Holy Spirit empowers the believer to imitate Christ and live a
virtuous life. These seemingly disparate viewpoints regarding incarnate Beauty should not be
seen in opposition but as complementary viewpoints birthed from particular situations articulated
to address specific points that find harmony with Scripture.
The other significant point of dissimilarity is Augustine’s emphasis on corporeal beauty’s
objectivity and Gregory’s emphasis on corporeal beauty’s subjectivity. Both would agree that
corporeal beauty receives its objectivity from the incorporeal, yet Augustine goes further by
detailing what that objectivity entails. This level of detail allows Augustine to nuance beauty
into varying levels or degrees of the beautiful. Gregory, on the other hand, simply acknowledges
beauty’s objectivity without speculating on the particulars and turns immediately to the
subjective appropriation of visible beauty through the five senses. Gregory’s emphasis on the
subjective seems in part due to his minimalist understanding of visible beauty in relationship to
the grandeur of God. Both nevertheless agree that corporeal beauty can be dangerous not
because of its inherent objectivity but because of the effects of sin on the subjective
appropriation of visible beauty’s objectivity. An object is pleasing then because it is beautiful
rather than being beautiful because it pleases, yet the appropriation of the beautiful comes
through the five senses, which appeals to a person’s desire. Augustine and Gregory
acknowledge both an objectivity and subjectivity to corporeal beauty but in varying degrees.
Beauty in Concert with Truth and Goodness
Enlightenment and modernist thinking would have us separate the objective, subjective,
and relational components of beauty as well as the true, the good, and the beautiful in order to
16
champion an apparent unbiased reason inherent within the subject that can attain universal truths
through a neutral investigation of the material. Postmodernity continues the Enlightenment
project and critiques the Enlightenment’s turn to the neutral subject by contending for a
perspectival epistemology rather than a foundational one, which when left unchecked leads to
relativism and skepticism. Beauty in this context not only relegates beauty to “the eye of the
beholder” but also considers beauty as an ethical imposition upon even the most perverse
situations as an escape from the pains of reality.40 From a Christian perspective, beauty set along
a biblical trajectory in light of the early Christian tradition finds itself in concert with truth and
goodness and when separated disparages Christian worship, wisdom, and witness.
At times, beauty may be perceived as an abstract notion characterized by and confined to
generalities. A Christian notion of beauty however begins with revelation in a concrete and
particular reality as One who came “without form or comeliness” (Is. 53) to transform the ugly
(Phil. 2:1-18) and is determinative for all truth, goodness, and beauty. From this perspective and
in light of Augustine’s and Gregory’s thoughts, beauty possesses an objective reality that not
only appeals to the subjective senses but also arrests the attention of a person whereby he or she
is drawn by the power of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 6:41-58; 12:27-50) to the One who became
deformius on our behalf.
But how can incarnate Beauty be beautiful if he has become ugly? Does this suggest
some sort of equivocation regarding the meaning of beauty? There is no equivocation when we
understand first that the cruelties of the cross, the suffering, the pain, and the agony of Christ’s
death are not beautiful. To incorporate such a notion after Auschwitz is despicable and
See David B. Hart’s The Beauty of the Infinite, for a more nuanced discussion regarding the location of
beauty with respect to modernity and postmodernity, 1-34 for a summary and 35-124 for more particulars.
40
17
marginalizes the millions who suffer today.41 What then is beautiful about incarnate Beauty’s
suffering on the cross? Recall what Augustine says in accordance with Scripture about why
Christ came, “When we hear that he suffered for us, what do we love? Love is loved. He loved
us, that we might in turn love Him; and that we might return His love, He has given us His
Spirit.”42 Augustine’s response to his own question has at least two significant implications.
First, what is beautiful about incarnate Beauty’s suffering on the cross is not the cruel cross but
the act of love revealed through his suffering. Christ, sent by the Father, went willingly to the
cross so that we might have life. Incarnate Beauty’s act of supreme humility, love, and selfsacrifice is beautiful and is akin to the kind of character Gregory calls us to imitate. Second, the
act of love revealed through incarnate Beauty’s suffering is for our good. Christ on “the cross
[then] is beautiful, not because of some numeric ratio that obtains between the beam and
crossbar, but because it irradiates the splendid form of God’s self-giving love.”43
What however hinders us from loving God and humanity as God intends? Augustine and
Gregory make this point abundantly clear—our sinful nature. Our sinful nature keeps us from
comprehending divine Beauty and seeing corporeal beauty’s purpose. Life without the Beautiful
is an ugly reality full of lies, deceit, and deception, which is why Augustine and Gregory exhort
us concerning the dangers associated with visible beauty. Life however in relationship with the
Beautiful through faith, as Augustine and Gregory contend, is a reality full of truth, meaning, and
purpose (Jn. 10:1-18). It is a virtuous life that imitates, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ’s
41
In the eschaton, there is no more pain, no more suffering, no more dying—pure beauty (Rev. 21-22). The
cruelties of this fallen world obscure the reality of the eschaton. When attempts are made then to incorporate these
cruelties into the beautiful, beauty becomes sadistic. Beauty, in concert with truth and goodness, however provides
hope through the suffering and pain of this world, particularly in light of incarnate Beauty’s sacrificial love for
humanity.
42
Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, quoted in Carol Harrison, Beauty and Revelation in the Thought of
St. Augustine (Oxford: OUP, 1992), 235; cf. Is 53; Jn 10:1-18; 15; Rom 5:1-11; Heb 2.
43
Kevin Vanhoozer “Praising God in Song: Beauty and the Arts” in The Blackwell Companion to Christian
Ethics, eds. Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 119.
18
perfect life. God’s initiative then to bring ugly humanity from non-existence back to existence
through faith in incarnate Beauty suggests what is beautiful and good must also be true.
A provisional understanding of beauty then based on the analysis of Augustine and
Gregory along a biblical trajectory reveals an objective core that compels us to participate in the
beautiful and is appropriated subjectively by being properly related through faith. The objective
center, incarnate Beauty, defines in a concrete and particular way what is authentically beautiful
by his being in action into which all of reality must fit. Beauty is thus “a concordance and
fittingness of a thing to itself and of all its individual parts to themselves and to each other and to
the whole, and of that whole to all things.”44 This objective reality then arrests our attention and
compels us to faithful action by participating in the Beautiful (i.e. what God is doing in Christ)
so that we too might become beautiful (i.e. holy). Our participation then in the Beautiful comes
by God’s gift of faith, which manifests itself in a variety of forms (e.g. worship, service, prayer,
love, proclamation, imitation, etc.) and enables us to see how we fit into God’s redemptivehistorical plan so that we might live wisely in this world.45
Beauty therefore, in concert with truth and goodness, seen through the One who is
beauty, truth, and goodness, reveals an intertwined and interpenetrating triad that should not be
compartmentalized. To separate beauty, truth, and goodness results in distortion and
misunderstanding not only of the triad but also of Christ himself. To see the act of Christ on the
cross as merely beautiful is to turn towards sentimentality. To see the act of Christ on the cross
as merely good is to understand Christ as a good moral example incapable of transforming
44
Robert Grosseteste quoted in Umberto Eco, Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1986), 48. Augustine suggests a similar account of fittingness through his notions of unity and
order.
45
Kevin Vanhoozer discusses a similar notion of aesthetic theory’s concept of fittingness in terms of
theodramtic fittingness and the importance of the imagination in living wisely in accordance with the theodrama
(See Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2005), 256-263).
19
humanity. To see the act of Christ on the cross as merely true is to reduce Christ to a brute
unattractive historical fact that has no relevance for our lives. To keep beauty, truth, and
goodness together however lifts up Christ’s act of love on the cross in order to draw humanity to
himself so that they may live a virtuous life full of meaning. Beauty understood then in concert
with truth and goodness works to glorify and make God known yet when separated from them
disparages Christian worship, wisdom, and witness.46
Beauty and the Baptists: The Significance for Recovering a Theology of Beauty
As alluded to in the introductory paragraphs, when beauty is disentangled from truth and
goodness, it is relegated to the ornamental and the innocuous pleasant, signifying the beautiful as
an escape from the pain of reality. Beauty’s meaning then becomes whatever the “beholder”
wants the term to mean thereby losing its objective component and its ability to convey meaning
beyond the realm of personal taste. For these reasons, among others, Baptists47 typically shy
away from the rhetoric of beauty.48 Baptists tend to focus on truth and goodness to the demise of
46
See also Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, vol. 1, Seeing the
Form, trans. by Andre Louth, Francis Mcdonagh, and Brian McNeil (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1984), 19 and
John Hodges, “Aesthetics and the Place of Beauty in Worship,” Reformation and Revival 9 (Summer 2000): 70-72
for further implications for retaining an interconnected relationship between beauty, truth, and goodness as well as
the dangers of separating them.
47
I acknowledge that various types of Baptists exist with varying beliefs. Baptists, historically defined
however, within the broader Christian tradition, are a missional people who subscribe to the supreme authority of
Scripture, believer’s baptism, religious liberty, priesthood of believers, congregational form of church government,
and the lordship of Christ over church and individual.
48
Baptists, by and large, have not been concerned to develop or articulate a theology of beauty, although
there have been a few dissertations regarding the subject (Darrell Gwaltney, “Beauty and Imagination: ‘Seeing the
Form’ in the thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Wallace Stevens” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 1995); Donnie Auvenshine, “The Theological Significance of Beauty in the Old Testament” (Ph.D. diss.,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1987); Stephen W. Hudson, “The Beauty of the Logos: Hamann’s
Incarnational Aesthetics” (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998). Baptist’s suspicion about
beauty usually manifests itself in relationship to the arts (See Mary Sellers, “The Role of the Fine Arts in the Culture
of Southern Baptist Churches” (Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University, 1968), Robert L. Gambone, “The Old Time
Religion: Painting, Drawing, and the Culture of Revivalism in America” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota,
1985) and William Hendricks, ed. Baptist Reflections on Christianity and the Arts (Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press,
1997)). There does exist however a latent notion of beauty within Baptist life as evidenced by Baptists’ affinity for
music, although a particular style of music, any number of publications concerning God’s glory and worship, and
the numerous Baptist universities whose programs promote the development of the imagination and the arts. I am
merely suggesting that Baptist historically have been adverse to the arts and shy away from the rhetoric of beauty for
20
beauty similar to what John Stackhouse notes about evangelicals, “Evangelicals already prize
truth and goodness. Our tradition emphasizes honesty and charity. We practice doctrinal
fidelity, straightforward evangelism, and plainspoken preaching. . . . But why? . . . Many of us
lack even an adequate vocabulary by which to make beauty part of our shared life.”49 Such
reservations continue to manifest themselves at the heart of Baptist life—the ordinances,
Scripture, and missions. Recovering a theology of beauty then along a biblical trajectory in light
of early Christian teaching by Augustine and Gregory can restore a vitality and attractiveness to
the Baptist faith.
Malcolm Yarnell, in a recent published sermon entitled, “The Heart of a Baptist,”
contends that the Christocentric heart of a Baptist and its four chambers—evangelism,
discipleship, baptism, and Scripture—are experiencing trauma and stroke like symptoms.50 Of
the four chambers, he identifies baptism as the beginning Baptist distinctive and rightly connects
it to ecclesiology. A trauma that he does not identify that threatens the ordinances, and hence
ecclesiology, seems to be a latent dichotomy between the spiritual and the material—mental
a variety of reasons (Although I do not agree with all of his reasoning, William Hendricks’s article, “Learning from
Beauty” Southwestern Journal of Theology 29 (Summer 1987): 19-27, is a starting point). In recent days however,
this adverse disposition may be changing as evidenced by the number of Baptist churches that incorporate drama,
movie clips, dance, poetry, literature, paintings, photography, etc. into their worship, discipleship, and preaching, yet
beauty remains distant regarding Baptist theology. Since the mid-1990s, there has been an influx of literature
regarding beauty among the broader evangelical community as William Edgar, “Beauty Avenged, Apologetics
Enriched,” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 107-122 notes in his article. Edward Farley, Faith and
Beauty, 6-8, and Chris Cain, “Turning the Beast into Beauty,” 27-31, both take note of this resurgence, particularly
in reference to the arts, yet both contend that beauty still remains absent from theology. David B. Hart’s recent work,
The Beauty of the Infinite, is a positive sign that a theology of beauty may be emerging. Yet a theology of beauty
seems to remain disconnected from Baptist and evangelical faith and practice, which begs the question as to why
Baptists and evangelicals have not integrated a theology of beauty into their faith. Perhaps there has not been
sufficient time, or maybe Baptists and evangelicals still concede to contemporary understandings of beauty that are
disconnected from truth and goodness and fail to recognize beauty’s significance.
49
John Stackhouse, Jr., “The True, the Good, and the Beautiful Christian,” Christianity Today, 7 January
2002, 60-61.
50
Malcolm Yarnell, “The Heart of a Baptist” (Fort Worth, TX: Center for Theological Research,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005, accessed on 26 April 2006); available from http://
www.swbts.edu/faculty/myarnell/documents/TheHeartofaBaptist.pdf; Internet. Yarnell identifies five traumas that
threaten the heart of a Baptist: biblical illiteracy in the pulpit and pew, a debilitating Calvinist-Arminian debate, the
trend to incorporate aspects of Presbyterian and Quaker ecclesiology, the lack of Trinitarian and Christological
preaching, and a lack of missiological clarity.
21
assent and tangible action. In other words, the spiritual has no relationship to the physical.51 Our
participation then in the ordinances should not remain in our minds, centered on a sentimental
recollection of an historical event, whether Christ’s death and resurrection or our personal
experience of faith, but rather should bring forth action in accordance with the character of those
historical events.52 This inaction is also attested to by the lack of church discipline among
Baptist congregations, and when participation in the ordinances is understood as an individual
experience juxtaposed against a corporate experience.53 When the ordinances function then only
to give further testimony to one’s personal faith, serve as an addendum to a worship service, or
as a trivial entrance requirement and formalistic right of practice, the truth of Christ’s death and
resurrection is championed at the expense of beauty and goodness.
How then can beauty, in concert with truth and goodness, serve as a corrective to these
truncated views of the ordinances? The tangible nature of the ordinances not only appeals to our
senses but also points us to incarnate Beauty, who in an act of love became ugly so that we might
See also Leonard J. Vander Zee, Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for
Evangelical Worship (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 10-11.
52
Scripture calls on believers to “remember,” but what is it that Scripture wants us to remember and for
what purpose? The prophets called upon the Israelites to remember what God had done for them to call them to
obedience. Paul called the believers at Rome to remember their corporate identity in Christ and even their baptism
so that they would act in accordance with Christ. Faith, belief, and trust are not only mental actions for the eternal
but are tangible actions with ethical implications for the present (i.e. a theology of remembrance).
53
To give reason for this dichotomy is a risky and complex endeavor. I do not wish to suggest that the
following reasons are the only reasons but perhaps are the leading contributors to this dichotomy. In Baptist life and
more specifically Southern Baptist life, faith and even salvation has been reduced to a mere individual decision. This
assertion is evidenced by the 19th century pragmatic revivalistic tendencies, which focus more on methodology than
theology. Streams from the Enlightenment’s turn to the subject fuel these tendencies as well as the rugged
individualism of the Western frontier in the 19th century and the solipsistic individualism of the 20 th century.
Science’s continual turn toward the material and abdication of the spiritual in the 19 th and early 20th centuries only
further entrenched this dichotomy in the minds of Baptists. To be sure, other theological, sociological, philosophical,
and cultural factors have contributed to this dichotomy (See George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American
Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (Oxford: OUP, 1980); Michael S. Horton,
Made in America: The Shaping of Modern American Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1991); and Mark
A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994)). Faith is an act of the will but it is
also a gift from God not to exalt but to humble the individual. Moreover, the corporate and communal aspect of
salvation is important to the identity of the believer who is in Christ because being in Christ defines what it means to
be a follower of Christ.
51
22
become beautiful. By faith54 then, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we participate in
incarnate Beauty when we are baptized and partake of the Lord’s Supper. Our participation in
water baptism marks us with the visible body of Christ, witnesses to our spiritual incorporation
into the invisible body of Christ, and exhorts us to faithful action after the likeness of Christ.
Our participation in the Lord’s Supper brings us into the presence of Christ where we commune
both with Christ and fellow believers by which we are blessed to be a blessing to others. Mere
contemplation of the ordinances is not the final state for Christians.
On the contrary, Christian contemplation is a stimulus to something further. The value of
a person’s contemplation of God’s self-revealing approach in love is always measured by
whether it bears fruit in an existence that is an appropriately active response to that
revelation. Such responses are characterized by obedient service of God in lives lived
(and often also deaths undergone) for the sake of truth, goodness, and love; for the sake
of the Church, and thus for the sake of the whole created order . . . . Contemplation flows
into action.55
The ordinances then should not only serve as mental reminders of some sentimental historical
event, whether Christ’s death and resurrection or our personal experience of faith. They are also
tangible aesthetic experiences, the visible Word, that bring us into communion with Christ and
his church by faith, which result in Christ-like actions and draw us into worship of almighty God
through the power of the Holy Spirit.56
Hans Urs von Balthasar has an apt description of what it means to exercise God’s gift of faith: “[Faith]
must be understood not as a merely psychological response to something beautiful in a worldly sense . . . but as the
movement of man’s whole being away from himself and towards God through Christ, a movement founded on the
divine light of grace in the mystery of Christ” (Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord, I.121).
55
Ben Quash, “The theo-drama” in The Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar, ed. David Moss
and Edward T. Oakes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 143-144. Emphasis added.
56
Early Baptist Confessions such as the Waldenses Confession (1544), the Short Confession (1610), the
Declaration of Faith (1611), the Dordrecht Confession (1632), the 1 st and 2nd London Confessions (1644/1689), and
the Philadelphia Confession (1742) as a whole are illustrative of this conclusion. Baptist confessions of the 19 th and
20th centuries truncate their discussions of the ordinances and emphasize the commermative. It is also important to
note that the elements of the ordinances are not efficacious for salvation. If that were the case, then the elements
would have to undergo an ontological change, which suggests that the Word’s incarnation was not sufficient as
Scripture contends.
54
23
Baptists rightly champion the supreme authority of Scripture and understand the nature of
Scripture to be true, inerrant, and infallible.57 Some Baptists unfortunately presume a modernist
hermeneutic with these claims, reducing Scripture to mere formal propositions as the means for
revealing God’s truth. This view presupposes Scripture to be logical and rationalistic and thus
contains “data,” which can be marshaled together to formulate a systematic theology. The
theology produced from this approach usually results in formalism that leaves doctrine
disconnected from life. Theology then becomes a body of propositional knowledge to be
communicated rather than lived, which seems to champion truth at the expense of beauty and
goodness.58
What does beauty, in concert with truth and goodness, have to say regarding Scripture?
One way of seeing Scripture in this manner is to understand the role genre plays in
communicating the meaning of a text rather than reducing Scripture to a set of propositions.59
Scripture understood as divine discourse means that God speaks through the Scriptures by using
propositions in a variety of ways to convey truth.60 This does not imply that propositions are
jettisoned altogether, but rather God’s speaking through the Scriptures is more than
propositional. Beauty, in concert with truth and goodness, is seen not only in the variety of rich
literary forms but also in the harmonious message that these literary forms convey.
57
It is beyond the scope of this paper to articulate the varying degrees in which Baptists, particularly in the
last three decades, have come to understand Scripture’s authority. I would hope however that Baptists today can at
least affirm their historic roots that herald Scripture’s supreme authority over all matters that it addresses.
58
See David Kelsey, Proving Doctrine: The Uses of Scripture in Modern Theology (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity
Press International, 1999).
59
Biblical studies have long recognized the role genre plays in interpreting a text, although I wonder
whether biblical studies has been able to move beyond recognition to integration due to the influences of modern
historic criticism. These insights nevertheless have yet to influence evangelical and Baptist theologians for
constructing theology. In addition, Baptist and evangelical theologians who follow a modernist hermeneutic tend to
bypass genre and seek timeless principles to extract or distill from the text of Scripture that can be arranged in a
systematic way. See David Clark, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003).
60
See Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text: The Bible, Reader, and the Morality of Literary
Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998) and Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical
Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
24
Understanding Scripture in this manner, as divine discourse, changes the nature of doctrine from
cognitive to sapiential where God’s speaking in Scripture becomes directive for wise living so
that we may participate “fittingly” in what God is doing in Christ through the power of the Holy
Spirit.61
Baptists are known as a missional people who have a burden to share the Gospel with
people from every tribe and nation. Baptists have sent missionaries around the globe to engage
the cultures of the world with the Gospel. In the United States, however, evangelism seems to
consist of communicating a set of propositional truths to which we must accent before praying
“the sinner’s prayer.” In an increasingly pluralistic society, why believe the Gospel’s truth
claims over any other religion’s truth claims? When the truth of the Gospel is disconnected from
beauty and goodness, the Gospel becomes a formal presentation of facts that has no persuasive
power and is listed with all the other religions to be “tolerated.”62
How does beauty, in concert with truth and goodness, change the nature of missions and
evangelism, particularly in America? The aforementioned approach to evangelism in America—
distilled evangelism—cheapens the Gospel because the Gospel is more than a set of semantic
spiritual laws.63 The Gospel is a way of living no matter the cost. Incorporeal Beauty spared no
expense to become incarnate Beauty on our behalf in order to transform our ugliness back into
loveliness. Our faith in incarnate Beauty through the power of the Holy Spirit changes our
reality from non-existence to existence. If this change is real, then our lives will bear the fruit of
wise living. How do we engage a pluralistic world with this new reality? Our witness must be
Although Kevin Vanhoozer does not speak directly about the beauty of Scripture in his article, “Lost in
Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 48 (March 2005):
89-114, he has in essence articulated what it means for Scripture to be beautiful in light of truth and goodness.
62
Christians rightly practice the virtue of tolerance, but Christians should not stop with tolerance but must
love! Tolerance requires no action. Love goes beyond tolerance and acts lovingly despite disagreement. This is the
beauty of the Gospel, “while we were still sinners Christ loved us.”
63
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book, Cost of Discipleship, trans. Reginald H. Fuller (London: SCM Press, 1964),
gives an excellent rendering of what it means to cheapen the Gospel as well as live it.
61
25
authentic—authentic about our message and authentic about our lives. An unauthentic rendering
of the Gospel separates the triad of beauty, truth, and goodness. A “beauty-only” Gospel is
sentimental. A “truth-only” Gospel is pedantic. A “moralistic-only” Gospel is relative. When
people see however that our lives have internalized what we believe, a compelling portrait of the
Gospel is revealed.
Conclusion
With respect to theological aesthetics, beauty and the vision of God or God’s glory are
prominent themes of the early church. A comparative analysis of Augustine’s and Gregory’s
understanding of beauty, in accordance with the Scriptures, reveals an objective core that
compels us to act and is appropriated subjectively by being properly related through faith.
Beauty however cannot be isolated from the intertwined triad of beauty, truth, and goodness.
When the triad of beauty, goodness, and truth is separated, a distorted picture emerges, which is
evidenced by contemporary views of beauty, truth, and goodness. Thus, “those who lack
aesthetic sensibilities risk being tone-deaf to God’s Word and color-blind to God’s glory. The
fool says in his heart, ‘There is no beauty’, and thus refuses to see the fittingness of the gospel.
Things fall apart; wisdom is no more. Where the capacity to see and appreciate beauty is absent,
the true and the good lack compellingness.”64 The question is, will beauty among Baptists
become the beast or will beauty be becoming of Baptists?
64
Vanhoozer, “Praising God in Song: Beauty and the Arts,” 119.
26