Download Foundations Kelly McBride Yorba Linda

Kelly McBride
Miss Brim
TA Yorba Linda
Foundations
Term Paper 4
May 24, 2011
Word Count: 1,650
Buildings and Beauty
Beauty is a subject that has always been widely discussed within philosophical circles.
Both Athenian and transcendentalist have argued over it, and the conflict that surrounds it does
not find a resolution even among Christian philosophers. According to some, it is a worldly
superfluity, to others, a great good. This battle is observable not only in the philosophical circles
of Christianity, but among the Church’s very buildings, where one sees both Gothic cathedrals
and converted warehouses. If beauty really is a nonessential, the magnificent cathedral is a nice
tourist attraction, but little else. However, while many Christians view beauty as worldly or a
waste of money, a church should always be beautiful because beauty displays God’s nature.
Many Christians see beauty, and especially physical beauty, as a distraction from the
important. John Wesley, a dominant figure in nineteenth century Christian philosophy, holds
such a belief. This can be seen through his views on money. He says, “employ whatever God
has entrusted you with in doing good, all possible good, in every possible kind and degree, to the
household of faith, to all men” (Wesley 250).
Christians should spend their money on what is
good and does people good. He then warns against improper uses of money. One of these
misuses is the spending of money on “the desire of the eye” (Wesley 245). Beautiful things,
such as gardens and paintings, are not good, and do not do people good, but rather are
superfluities sought after by the world (Wesley 245-246). Christians, who have far better things
on which to spend their thoughts or money, should shun them (Wesley 246).
McBride 2
This idea that Christians should not waste money on physical beauty is held today, and
oftentimes carried to Church’s buildings themselves. It is not uncommon to see churches that are
dirty, unpainted, and poorly built – that are, in short, aesthetically offensive in every way. Its
congregation reasons that it would be foolish to spend money on beauty, or “the desire of the
eye”, when they could be spending it on something good or beneficial instead.
Beauty, however, is extremely important, not because it gratifies worldly desires, but
because it is good. This can be seen by looking at the nature of beauty. Jonathan Edwards, a
contemporary of Wesley and a principle force behind the Great Awakening, says, “The beauty of
the world consists wholly of sweet mutual consents, either within itself, or with the Supreme
Being” (14). Things that are agreeable in relation to their parts or to other things are beautiful;
things that clash with themselves or others are not. This definition is somewhat self-evident, for
few would argue that two animals violently killing each other or a song consisting merely of
disharmonious notes was beautiful. Emerson, a leader of the transcendentalist movement,
supports this idea. He writes, “Nothing is quite beautiful alone, nothing but is beautiful in the
whole” (Emerson 47). The beauty of a thing regarded only in light of itself is limited; it lacks
harmony, for there is nothing with which it can “mutually consent.” An example of this idea can
be found in a drawing. If one were to isolate one of the pencil lines that composed the picture, it
would hardly be beautiful; however, when seen together with other lines, it can compose a lovely
drawing. Beauty, therefore, is comprised of harmony.
From this harmony comes beauty’s value. Disproportioned, unrelated things that do not
work together harmoniously to make a pleasing whole are conflicting and at odds. Edwards
argues, “if there are two bodies of different shapes, having no similarness of relation between the
parts of extremities, this, considered by itself, is a deformity, because being disagrees with being;
McBride 3
which must undoubtedly be disagreeable to perceiving being, because what disagrees with being
must necessarily be disagreeable to being in general” (24). Ugly things, because they lack
harmony, conflict with themselves, making them disagreeable and putting them in conflict with
everything else. Edwards continues, saying “Disagreement or contrariety is evidently an
approach to nothing, or a degree of nothing, which is nothing else but disagreement or
contrariety of being, and the greatest and only evil; and entity is the greatest and only good” (25).
Anything that puts itself at conflict with being is not good, for being is that which should be
loved and served – Edwards later defines it as all intelligent life, including God (247). The
converse of this idea is also true. Beautiful things are harmonious within themselves and are
therefore harmonious in relation to being in general, or entity. Thus, beautiful things are good
things, partaking in “the greatest and only good” of consenting with that to which consent should
be given.
A beautiful church is good; furthermore, it does people good, for God’s nature is
displayed in all that is beautiful. While writing of the beauty of the natural world, Emerson calls
it divine (47). Edwards too notes that, “as to the corporeal world, though there are many other
sorts of consents, yet the sweetest and most charming beauty of it is its resemblance of spiritual
beauty” (14). Physical beauty can mirror spiritual beauty. A peaceful day is like a virtuous soul;
the sun, with all its glory and power, shows some of the characteristics of God (Edwards 14-15).
However, Edwards suggest that the Divine Nature can only be found in God’s creation, and is
not seen in human creation, such as churches (14). After all, one can usually learn something of
an artist by observing his art, and so it is evident that one could learn of God’s nature through
God’s creation in ways otherwise impossible. However, spiritual traits can be revealed in
McBride 4
beautiful human creation, because such work would be art, and art is a reflection of the physical
world.
Emerson writes, “A work of art is an abstract or epitome of the world. It is the result or
expression of nature, in miniature” (47). Art is a communication or response to the beauty one
sees or feels on the earth. It comes from a love of “the face of the world;” Emerson says that
artists have this love “in such excess, that, not content with admiring, they seek to embody it in
new forms” (47). He then writes, “The creation of beauty is Art” (47). Not only is art a
reflection of the beauty of nature, but it is beautiful itself. Thus, as art is a reflection of creation,
and creation displays the Divine Nature, beautiful man-made things, or works of art, are
reflections of the Divine Nature.
A beautiful church is art and can therefore display spiritual characteristics. Because art
expresses what it displays, such a church could do humans a great deal of good (Emerson 47).
Dorothy Sayers, a Christian philosopher, writes of the response people have upon viewing great
works of art: they think, “‘that is something I obscurely felt to be going on…about me, but I
didn’t know what it was and couldn’t express it. But now that the artist has made its image…I
can posses and take hold of it and make it my own and turn it into a source of knowledge and
strength’” (Sayers 164). A church building might be more limited in its ability of
communication than, say, a poem, but it still is very much capable of displaying truths. This is
exemplified in an account written about the experiences of a non-Christian couple, Sheldon and
Jean Vanauken, after arriving in England. Sheldon Vanauken writes of his awe upon seeing the
splendor of Christian cathedrals, and adds, “The splendor of course did not mean that the faith
was true; but perhaps we felt vaguely that it did somehow hint at a validity” (Vanauken 80).
Later, after looking up and seeing the “tremendous soaring uprush” of a Cathedral spire, its
McBride 5
beauty and grandeur moves him to investigate the religion it represents (Vanauken 82). Because
of this decision, he and his wife become Christians. It would be foolish to suggest that beautiful
churches convert people; however, it is true that they can communicate to people some of the
glory of Christianity and its God.
Ugly churches can be as harmful as beautiful churches are beneficial. Not only are they
bad because they lack harmony and conflict with God, but they alienate people from the religion
they represent. Sayers says, “in Her own buildings…the Church will tolerate, or permit a pious
intention to excuse work so ugly, so pretentious, so tawdry and twaddling, so insincere and
insipid, so bad as to shock and horrify any decent draftsman” (139). Because the Church creates
and permits such ugly and awful objects, Sayers states “the greater part of the world’s intelligent
workers have become irreligious, or at least, uninterested in religion” (138). This is only logical;
no one who really loves to create beautiful things would join a community in which beauty was
ignored.
In conclusion, it is necessary for churches to be beautiful. Although many Christians
view beauty as a worldly superfluity, and therefore of no good to others and a waste of money,
these arguments are not valid. Beauty is not merely a “desire of the eye,” but a good:
harmonious with not only the beings who see it, but with God. Furthermore, beautiful churches
can do great amounts of good, because they can display spiritual characteristics. While it might
seem unlikely that human creation could ever display the Divine Nature, the Divine Nature is
clearly in natural beauty, and as a beautiful church is a work of art and art is reflection of the
world, a beautiful church would display spiritual characteristics. Because it can display spiritual
characteristics, it can begin to turn people towards God. Conversely, the neglect of beauty in
McBride 6
churches is harmful, for it repels unbelievers. Were Christians to realize the goodness and
necessity of beauty, they might live in a world both more lovely and more good.
McBride 7
Works Cited
Edwards, Jonathan. “Beauty of the World.” A Jonathan Edwards Reader. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1995. 14-15.
Edwards, Jonathan. “The Mind.” A Jonathan Edwards Reader. 22-34.
Edwards, Jonathan. “The Nature of True Virtue.” A Jonathan Edwards Reader. 244-265.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Nature.” Nature and Selected Essays. New York: Penguin Group,
1982. 35-82.
Sayers, Dorothy. “Toward a Christian Esthetic.” Letters to a Diminished Church. W Publishing
Group, 2004. 241-275.
Sayers, Dorothy. “Why Work?” Letters to a Diminished Church. 125-146.
Vanauken, Sheldon. A Severe Mercy. New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1977.
Wesley, John. “The Use of Money.” John Wesley. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.
238-250.