Theology Matters: Aesthetic Standards, Imago Dei, and Becoming Omnivorous

Jun 11

Jun 11 Theology Matters: Aesthetic Standards, Imago Dei, and Becoming Omnivorous

As a result of Mary Jo Sharp’s excellent book, Why I Still Believe: A Former Atheist’s Reckoning with the Bad Reputation Christians Give a Good God, I’ve been following a long rabbit trail into the field of aesthetics. This trail has led me to several good books on the subject, and I’m currently in the middle of Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste: Aesthetics in Religious Life by Frank Burch Brown. I’d like to share two quotes that stuck out to me so far.

“...contrary to what has commonly been believed in the past, the grounds for evaluating art--including Christian art--can be quite varied, and appropriately so. There is no one set of criteria suitable for all works and in every circumstance. Recognizing that allows us to steer a middle course between indiscriminate acceptance of every aesthetic choice and rigid application of a particular set of aesthetic rules presumed to be universal. Standards can shift, depending on context, without this meaning that one must abandon standards altogether.”

And later:

“It must be said that people of the church are ill-served by the common notion that knowing what they already like should preclude questions as to its relative value. Perceiving, enjoying, and judging--all three aspects of taste have as much to do with stretching and with learning as they do with inherent disposition... Taste is not just in the genes; it is also in communal conditioning, in learning, in expanding what one likes and also judges worthy of others’ attention.”

This is where my experience as a pastor’s wife rears its head: my first thought in response to these quotes was “worship wars.” I think it likely that every Christian has observed or even participated in an escalating argument about church music, decor, or renovation. These quotes are relevant to the underlying issues that cause those arguments and how they can be resolved (or at least debated with less heat).

First, consider, “standards can shift depending on context, without this meaning that one must abandon standards altogether.” Brown is primarily talking about music, but this sentence applies to art, architecture, and what other denominations call liturgy (Baptists like me have a liturgy, too. Ask any worship pastor who has tried to change when the ushers pass the plates). Having been a part of nine different congregations, seven of which were Southern Baptist, I can say that context matters to aesthetic standards. What is considered beautiful and worshipful in Maryland would not fly in Texas, and vice versa. I’m not obligated to accept every worship style wholesale, but it would be equally silly to demand my Marylander siblings adopt Texas norms. That would be the McDonaldization of church! There is a place for cathedrals and “Baptist barns,” for praise dance and solemn assembly, for colorful worship banners and stark white walls, for stained glass under stone arches and exposed ventilation ducts with acoustic panels.

And that’s where the second quote comes in: our tastes can be expanded. “Taste is not just in the genes; it is also in communal conditioning...”

We tend to behave as if our tastes are permanently fixed and that if we don’t like something now, we will never like it. But that’s ridiculous! We are not static as human beings, so our taste cannot be static. I’d even argue that static quickly becomes stagnant. Just look at the worship of a dying church.

I loved hymns growing up. I love praise choruses now. I grew up liking baroque and Impressionist paintings, but I also like Jackson Pollock, Yayoi Kusama, and Makoto Fujimura! I have experienced the transcendence of God’s beauty in the high stone vaults and intricate mosaics of Sacre Coeur in Paris and the worn carpet and simple plaster walls of a tiny Kansas church. The ultimate standard of beauty found in God is not so narrow as to lead to forced uniformity. The human ability to create beauty is part of Imago Dei, and just as Christians have different roles within the body, we also have different aesthetic gifts and tastes. The diversity of our creative work is a reflection of our infinitely creative Father.

We should be an omnivorous people, appreciating beauty wherever we find it. The word “omnivorous” is often associated with consuming without discernment, but we aren’t raccoons digging through the trash. We are children at the banquet of our Father with delights of every shape, color, and size for our communal enjoyment. If a brother or sister shares something they love and find beautiful, can you refuse it or even demand they only consume things you already prefer? That’s toddler-like selfishness.

I’m going to plant a flag on this one: to claim that aesthetics do not matter or to refuse to learn about new forms of art and grow in appreciation and understanding is to deny the outworking of common grace and Imago Dei in the world.

Be aesthetic omnivores, brothers and sisters. There is beauty everywhere, and it all points to the ultimate source of beauty: Christ.