Contra how many Reformed folks act….

Reformed thought has a grave weakness- not universal but widespread nonetheless. Reformed thought is a beautiful, austere structure of crystalline logic, flaming with fire, lighting in its holders a high and heroic devotion to God, in the very same a constructive compassion towards men. At least, it does so ideally- but, to its detriment, Reformed thought tends to forget the aesthetic and the importance thereof.

What is ‘aesthetic’ in this sense?

I would speak truly if I equated it with ‘beauty,’ but I generally flinch form doing so. The explanation is too easily misunderstood. The ‘aesthetic’ or (in this sense) ‘beauty of a thing has only some relationship to prettiness, to physical or visual appeal. That appeal is an element, to be sure, but it’s not even always a positive element. Nevertheless, to be ‘beautiful’ is the height of aesthetic; to lack beauty is its worst judgement.

Aesthetic is in this summary the coherence of a thing; beauty is how it coheres not just with itself but with God.

When I speak of coherence, understand, I speak of a comprehensive quality. Every part of an identity comes into consideration in judging a thing’s coherence. A book is judged on its words, its font, its dimensions, its history, its author, everything. A gas station is judged likewise: how does it look; how does it function; who does it serve; who serves it; and everything else. Each element is considered not just in light of its self but of its relationship to the rest, its coherence with those rest, and weighed according to its importance. The aesthetic is the sum of this, good or bad.

‘Beauty’ is the scale on which this aesthetic is then judged, by comparison to God. The question we ask is: how does this cohere to God?

Another idea by which to understand ‘aesthetic’ and’ beauty’ is ‘fittingness.’ That which is coherent is that which is fitting. This ‘fittingness’ is not mere conformity, ‘fitting in.’ Fittingness can be in contrast; as a rule, it is in appropriate difference. Frodo and Samwise are fitting to each other and the wider story of The Lord of the Rings, and they are different characters. If they were the same, they would fit in with each other, but they would no longer be fitting. They would no longer cohere to the story’s whole.

For ‘aesthetic’ and ‘beauty’ (understood this broadly) are wholistic judgements and statements. A thing’s aesthetic is understood only in light of and by consideration of its entirety, weighed according to the importance of the parts to the identity and their influence upon it. Above all, a thing’s identity can be weighed in aesthetic only in relationship to God, in each component’s relationship with God in light of the whole, in the whole’s relationship to God in light of each part: beauty.

This analysis is obviously so complex as to be beyond our ability to accomplish consciously, as a rule; if we wish to do it consciously, we must devote significant time to it, even for the smallest thing. We can ask after beauty and beauty’s elements in part, though; we can consider whether this part or that is appropriate to the rest, if it honors God. In general, however, the analysis and understanding is accomplished by our innate apprehension of God interacting with our perception of the world, an interaction one part of which is our innate, instinctive, trainable understanding-affinity-desire of beauty.

Such an aesthetic thought-process is a good guide in life, when harnessed by logic. It warns that fanaticism is unfitting (but devotion to God is proper). It warns that I act wrongly within the story my life is. It tells me that something is wrong in the world’s narrative. It cannot be the final word on many things, such as knowledge of God, but it forms an aid and extension even of that knowledge, a safeguard many follies which appear right in their first sight.

God bless.