Proto-Protestantism: What is Good Art? Dominionist Aesthetics versus the Detachment-Discernment Ethos of New Testament Pilgrim Christianity (II)

04 February 2025

What is Good Art? Dominionist Aesthetics versus the Detachment-Discernment Ethos of New Testament Pilgrim Christianity (II)

Rather than reduce art to the Hellenistic categories of the good, true, and beautiful our understanding needs to be both wide and nuanced.

Some will appeal to Philippians 4.8 as a kind of guide and yet this is to divorce the verse from its context. Paul is not talking about art and if so, then his readings of Aratus, Epimenides, and (presumably) Menander were not in keeping with this. One is hard pressed to find Aratus to be edifying and yet Paul evidently was able to pull out something salient and true enough from his works. Of course he could also have familiarised himself with such works as a means of contact with his larger cultural context. His purposes were not aesthetic but apologetic but either way it suggests there's a time and place for us to examine and reflect on the ideas of the world around us - which would certainly include art. But like Paul, our primary focus is in a completely different direction and we partake of such things in a spirit of detachment.

I remain convinced that the drive to shape a Christian or 'worldview' understanding of art is related to the Dominionist project and the misguided desire and need to shape and steer culture. If this project itself is discredited and dispensed with as indeed a study of the New Testament demands, then we can approach questions of art and aesthetics from a very different angle.

Except in the most banal and mundane forms, art and aesthetics deal with the dynamics of eternity and time, questions of the holy and profane, the tensions between linear progress and circularity, the subject-object problem, and of course the mysteries of freewill and Providence. This touches on nature and the Fall, spiritual forces, revelation, and the limits of epistemology.

I appreciate Aniol's commentary on holistic thinking which can allow for the disorderliness or seeming dissonance of individual parts, but I am far less optimistic when it comes to any philosophical attempt at discovering the truth on the basis of holistic ideals. And of course this immediately touches on a series of larger debates within the spectrum of philosophy on the nature of truth and epistemology. Whether he means to or not, Aniol is touching on what might be called a Continentally-driven aesthetic which lends toward Idealism and in art movements such as Symbolism and Impressionism. Personally, I'm fine with this line of thought and find much to appreciate and yet I often find that those deeply rooted in Anglo-American Analytic philosophy (and there are many Christians who have an epistemological (and thus theological) commitment to this school) would take exception (at least in part) to what Aniol is suggesting.

Again, the choice with regard to art is clear - we can either invalidate it entirely as a Fundamentalist or someone in the Holiness tradition might do, or we can embrace it in a spirit of detachment - even indifference.

If revelatory knowledge drives our attachments and affords us the tools to approve the things that are excellent (Philippians 1.9-11), then in many ways this represents what must be formally termed an anti-aesthetic. The common notion is that education and training in art appreciation will lead one to the place of discernment and the ability to determine what makes a good painting, symphonic piece, novel, or poem. Is this what Paul was suggesting? Should Christians have been flocking to the Lycaeum or the Academy in Athens? I think not. So why are Christians today relying on such argumentation and appeals?

Our discernment must not be merely affirming even when it comes to the kinds of art we think (perhaps erroneously) represent our values or the supposed aesthetic trifecta. Discernment implies nuance and more likely than not, we're going to find that a great deal of art, literature, and music is a mixture of both the good and the bad. It is not redeemable as some Dominionists think but something we interact with and use (or not use) with discernment - knowing that in the end it is a vapour. The truths conveyed are at best flawed and imperfect - the result of the duality that emerged with the fall. The true, beautiful, and good are transcendent and thus cannot be properly expressed in the art of this world or age. Art can at best allude to them - which is certainly desirable. Will we have art in heaven? There is no reason to think so. We will have the actuality. Our expressions will be truth - not symbols or representations of it. There is no sacred art.

The examples in the Old Testament (in connection with the Temple system) were flawed symbols of heavenly realities - even though they were also inspired. The system could not save because it was not the actual. The New Testament itself teaches this. The Temple system could not save but hinted at the True Temple. We might say the True Temple is intrinsically holy while the Mosaic order was holy because it was commanded - not because it was holy in itself. As such it could be dispensed with when it was fulfilled and no longer needed.

That said it had a degree of beauty and glory and it was directly inspired - something that cannot be said about any subsequent art. Carved altarpieces, sculptures, and icons may or may not stir the soul but they are not inspired in the sense of being revelatory. The Old Testament order has been fulfilled and there is no suggestion whatsoever that the Church is to try and imitate its example and by means of innovation create supposedly sacred art and architecture which augment New Covenant ecclesiology. For some these man-made traditions become necessities, a sine qua non for proper worship. To put it simply, they are deceived. There is no sacred art in the New Covenant or Last Days.

The Aniol article in question typifies a degree of knowledge and well-meant and certainly noble sentiment meant to glorify God but it does not exhibit the very discernment and wisdom it seeks to proclaim. As such it fails to provide a means by which Christians can form a coherent aesthetic (if such a thing is actually possible) and it certainly falls short of furnishing a cultural one. As expected, there are many assumptions in the statements of Aniol (and Ryken) that not only beg the question philosophically but will not stand up to the very kind of Biblical discernment he demands.

Culture is and is not neutral. This may sound like equivocation but it's a matter of perspective. It's neutral in that it cannot be holy. It may in fact be and to some degree is always unholy (and thus not neutral) and thus a strong case can be made for the Christian eschewal of the arts. The question must be asked - what expectation do we have when it comes to culture? Can we expect morality to flow from the cultures of this age and the art they produce? The Dominionist answers in the affirmative and must labour to that end. The New Testament neither provides nor justifies any such expectation and as such we can approach these questions differently - in the very take it or leave it attitude I've already indicated. I think to ignore the culture and close one's self off from it (like a Fundamentalist) is problematic and there are indications in the New Testament that Paul did not do so. But how then to interact? The answer is not found with the likes of Francis Schaeffer, Ryken, or Aniol but in the New Testament itself in which the world is approached as something that points to God, but is fallen, passing away, and can only be redeemed by fiery judgment and reconstitution. It reveals enough to condemn but cannot save and to root one's epistemology in the structures of the world will at best result in idolatry.

Finally, I have noticed that some of the authors connected with G3 attempt to connect these lines of aesthetic argument to questions of worship and especially music. I believe it is their hope or goal to combat the contemporary pop-culture ethos of Evangelicalism and replace it with something more thought out and elaborated - or they might even say something more historically rooted or even classical. Again, I appreciate the motivation but I cannot agree with the method.

Evangelical worship is to be condemned but the basis for doing so is not found in aesthetics but in doctrine and Scriptural authority. The aesthetic argument is very subjective even though those who make it will likely fail to grasp this. There's always something older and seemingly more rooted and grounded that one can point to. And while Medieval, Renaissance, or even Baroque sensibilities seem so much more sound and grounded to us, they arose in a context, and in every case the new is a reaction to or synthesis with something older. This does not mean that either it or what preceded it are better.

The aesthetic argument with regard to worship will not ground Protestants but rather lead them away from Protestantism and drive them toward a more generic Western ethos or to think in terms of larger Christendom. Many acknowledge this and maybe even celebrate it but that road inevitably leads to Rome as the Protestant pool once probed, is found to be rather shallow and at times short-sighted. This does not automatically discount it as such, but the real issue here is Scriptural authority and sufficiency. New Testament worship requires no aesthetic because it's not symbolic or attempting to depict or dramatically portray something. We're not trying to create an image of heaven on Earth. We are actually participating in the worship of heaven. Our meeting is eschatological and as such the last thing we want is addition or distraction. New Testament worship is in Spirit and Truth and does not rely on anticipatory types but eschatological pilgrim simplicity. We need to condemn Evangelicalism for its ethos and its false claims of Scriptural authority. Despite its claims, the movement categorically rejects Scriptural authority when it comes to its ecclesiology relying instead on pop culture mores, psychology, market-driven strategies, consumerism, pragmatism, and entertainment. The answer isn't to swap out the electrical guitars for an organ, spotlights for candles, or the stage-theatre model for the basilica or Neo-gothic architecture. This kind of argumentation is itself a distraction and its appeal to aesthetics is but another rabbit trail.

The problem is this - New Testament worship does not appeal to the flesh. In fact it is foolishness to the world. The notion that believers meet in an unadorned room with no trappings and conduct a Word-based meeting with little more than the Holy Writings, bread, wine, and sometimes water is strange to say the least - and I'm sure by the world's judgment rather empty or shallow. The few unaccompanied songs, prayers, readings of Scripture, and exhortation would seem particularly uninspiring, and the reverence granted to baptismal waters or the communion meal would seem undue or out of place.

Only in the Spirit will the believer find such a seemingly bland and bare experience to be not only stimulating but a desirable event filled with meaning, beauty, wonder, and transcendence. It requires a discernment that is not the result of education or deduction but rather life in the Spirit - to those with eyes to see and ears to hear, to those who lay up treasures in heaven for that is where their heart is.