Whatever is Lovely Part III - Dr. Strangetruth: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Limits

Dr. Strangtruth: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Limits

The second doctrinal lens that I believe will be helpful in interpreting Paul’s Philippian encouragement is that of the “extra-propositional” nature of truth. Paul’s list after all begins with “whatever is true.” I believe truth here doesn’t hold any primacy over the other virtues in his list; however the other virtues aren’t virtues if they aren’t true; that is if they don’t accurately correspond to the physical/spiritual reality in which they’re rooted. This lens is important because in my experience, and this is entirely anecdotal, if there is an erring, it’s often an erring in the direction of confining the idea of truth to the propositional which results in a definition of the virtues listed by Paul which is limited to the denotative and closed to the connotative, particularly when discussing purity and loveliness. As a result when considering purity and loveliness their definitions are often idealized and abstracted instead of incarnated (which as I proposed previously is essential to understanding the Old and New Testaments). Thus loveliness is regularly reduced to prettiness, and purity is commonly reduced and limited to the sphere of sexuality. Of these two, the concept of purity presents the more significant roadblock to understanding the passage, not that the potential for ugliness in beauty isn’t a topic in need of tackling, but I’ve tackled it briefly previously in other blogs, and may come back to it later, so let’s take a look at the concept of purity and how it plays here.

Now I am in no way a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but I’m going to attempt to play an armchair scholar in my blog for the sake of fleshing this out. If you are an authority in Greek or Hebrew, I welcome any input or correction you have to offer. The Greek word Paul uses here in Philippians which we translate “pure” is hagnos. According to Strong’s Concordance it carries several denotative valences. It’s rooted in the ancient Greek word hagios, which we translate as holiness, the concept of being set apart, I would suggest for a purpose. The reason I suggest this is because something that is holy or sacred isn’t set apart for the sake of being separate, but is set apart for a reason or to accomplish some function. Hagnos then plays off this concept of holiness and encompasses the idea of being free from ceremonial defilement and set apart, thus in a condition and prepared for Hebrew Temple worship, all concepts rooted in the Hebrew law of the Old Testament which would require ceremonial cleansing before people could participate in Temple rituals including worship, offerings and animal sacrifices. The idea here is of a freedom from contamination. Envision the feeling of stepping out of the shower after hours of yard work in August (in the Northern Hemisphere anyway). All the sweat and dirt and grass have been washed away, and you feel clean and refreshed. This is how the Hebrews were instructed to enter worship, metaphorically. The ceremonies and rituals were a recognition of God’s work in the cleansing, and were done ideally in recognition that these practices were momentary expressions of the worshiper’s on-going set apart-ness for God’s purposes in their heart and daily actions. This idea of being undefiled by the grime of sin then was conveyed into the area of sexuality at some point so that hagnos also came to take on the concept of chastity and virginality. The connection is easy enough to see. Someone who sets themselves apart for the purpose of their vows to their spouse will remain committed, unadultered and sexually faithful to that spouse, and thus be uncontaminated by the act of adultery.

The purity that Paul speaks of here then, I would suggest isn’t primarily sexual spotlessness but incorporates this idea of something being set aside to accomplish God’s purposes. In that case you could read the translation “Whatever is pure” as, “Whatever is set apart to accomplish God’s purposes” as well. Now you may ask, “What does this rabbit trail have to do with the nature of truth?” I’m glad you asked. If we approach the propositional concept of purity strictly through the denotative door of sexual spotlessness or sinlessness, we miss the rich philological connotations encased in hagnos, and thus limit our understanding of Paul’s encouragement to simply sexual morality when the net of truth thrown by Paul covers a far wider area. Truth then isn’t the proposition itself, but is the reality the proposition is trying to articulate, and thus truth is “extra-propositional”. If we perceive articulation’s limitation we often also perceive it as something regrettable, because this means the articulation of truth is curbed by the ambiguities of language. Thankfully, because the fullness of truth is far greater than can be articulated through language, the truth isn’t limited by our limitations, only its communication and understanding through propositional language is limited. So how does this relate then to the arena of the arts and pop culture?

This notion of the “extra-propositional” nature of truth relates to the arts in many ways, but this is turning into a novel, so I’ll only write of one, which is this: The notion that any proposition is the truth is not true, and thus is not among the thoughts we should be thinking of or meditating on. I acknowledge this is sounding very anti-propositional, but I want to suggest it’s not. If you’ve noticed I am using propositions to try to attempt to make my case for the weakness of propositions. Propositions are necessary in trying to articulate truth; however my point is that they are not the truth themselves. They participate in the truth, they do not embody or encapsulate it. Even when the Bible speaks propositionally it points to a truth larger than author’s language can contain. Thus, the trump card of a strictly denotative understanding of truth, which by its nature limits the arts with their tendency to tread the waters of connotation, should not be taken at face value.

Whatever is Lovely Part II - Skin, Bones, and Vision

Skin, Bones and Vision
The first doctrinal lens that I believe would be helpful in placing Paul’s admonition toward truth, purity and loveliness into focus is the lens of the Incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. More specifically I would suggest the Father’s sending of the Son in the flesh into the world reveals something very insightful and useful in helping us understand Paul. In fact I believe it’s absolutely essential that Paul’s writing (and the rest of the New Testament; even all of scripture) be viewed in the context of the Incarnation given the centrality of that narrative to both Christian doctrine and identity. With that in mind let’s take another look at this passage.

First we’ll have to construct our lens; then we can look through it to see what it reveals. We’ll begin with the incarnation and what it reveals about the Father. Through it we see that the Son’s obedience to the Father’s sending reveals the extent of the Father’s regard for humanity. The Father has such high regard for humanity that the Father sends the Son to communicate that esteem and affection to them through the Son’s presence, words and actions. Of course humanity’s value isn’t self created, and we’ve done nothing to earn the Father’s respect. In fact, the reality is quite the contrary. Humanity has repeatedly and almost constantly driven their collective thumbs into the eye of their creator; but despite all of our collective efforts to carve out some real autonomy, establish some independent identity and reconstruct the gifted divine image apart from our creator, we have not diminished the value of the divine image given to us by our creator. Humanity may have wrecked, dented, cracked, and stained that image, but nothing we’ve done has moderated the value of that image. When the Father looks at humanity the Father sees the inherent nobility, and loveliness that was gifted at creation. Granted the Father is not blind to the damage and ugliness produced by our rebelliousness and sin. In fact it’s so at the fore of the Father’s thought that all of history is bent around its remedy. The Father in looking at a damaged humanity trying to make their lives in a world damaged physically, socially and spiritually by their actions sees beings valuable enough to sacrifice the Son as a remedy to their plight. The Father then sees both the inherent beauty and earned ugliness of humanity simultaneously. This apparent divine both/and view of humanity then is a lens we can use to help in understanding this passage.

Let’s carry this idea of bi-focal vision over then to the arts, and the pieces that Christians create and consume. God’s vision allows God to see humanity’s value in the midst of their sinful ugliness and created beauty concurrently. This of course means that there is loveliness and nobility inherently bound in humanity which can be seen. I would suggest that when humans create, bits of both their loveliness and their ugliness make their way into their creations. Picture a tube of Aqua-Fresh toothpaste. Three separate colors squeeze out of the tube in proportion to the colors that are in the tube. It’s a very crude analogy, but I believe something similar happens when a person creates. Both a person’s ugliness and loveliness are in play and find their ways into what they create. This means that in any person’s creation there is truth, nobility and loveliness to be found, if one has the vision to see it. So then Glee, Lady Gaga and Stieg Larsson may embody much which may be objectionable and ugly from a Christian perspective, but because of the image of God bound up in all involved in the creation of TV shows, and music and novels, there is truth, nobility and loveliness to be found there as well; and according to Paul we should think about such things when we find them. This is not an argument that a Christian has no constraints in the creation and consumption of art and pop culture texts, but it is an argument that the effective loveliness of any given piece is going to be dependent on the individual’s ability to find the inherent truth and loveliness in the piece being consumed. It’s there to be found. The question is whether we see it.

Paul’s urgings through this lens can be seen as an urging to seek and find what is true, right, pure, lovely, and admirable even in the midst of what is false, wrong, impure, ugly and condemnable. This is how the Father sees; bi-focally, creatively and generously. This then leads us to our second doctrinal lens which will help us understand this verse... to be revealed in Part III

Whatever is Lovely - An Introduction

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things – Philippians 4.8 (NIV)

This passage out of Paul’s letter to believers in Philippi is a trump card, or at least it’s used as one from time to time. It’s often the spade laid on the card table of the arts to reign in the creation and consumption of artistic endeavors and pop culture texts which are not regarded as thoroughly and overtly beautiful, noble and pure. Paul’s text is often seen as proof positive that no professing Christian should be watching Glee, or listening to Lady Gaga, or reading Stieg Larsson novels. They are not true, right, or pure, and because they’re not, they’re not lovely, admirable or praiseworthy either. The suggestion that often follows is that the consumption and creation of these songs, shows and novels be replaced with ones that are lovely, admirable and praiseworthy because they were produced and created from a clearly communicated Christian perspective. If all truth flows from God and God is at the heart that all that is true, then Christians who believe in that truth should clearly and obviously bear that out in all they create and consume, the belief follows. Now that I’ve built the straw man, I suppose I now must do a little dismantling, and suggest another possible way of understanding Paul’s text. (In all honesty I hope this isn’t too much of a straw man, and I welcome help and suggestions in providing a more accurate, though brief description of this take on this text.)

I would suggest a principle, or perhaps more accurately a theory, needs to be applied here which I’m coming to believe is Biblical, but not overtly stated in one text or verse: the principle/theory that the shortest most efficient line between two points is typically or perhaps often the least godly/Biblical route to take (I’m still working this one out). So applied in this instance it would mean that just because a piece of art or a pop culture text overtly declares scriptural truths, it doesn’t mean that art or text is in reality an accurate representation of the truth. This would also mean that just because on first blush a piece of art of pop culture text doesn’t seem to be true, noble or pure doesn’t mean it is not lovely, admirable or praiseworthy. I’ll approach this from three different perspectives in 3 following blogs to try to flesh this out a bit. I think I’d prefer to write this one in parts as opposed to writing one long “super blog”. Part 2 to follow soon… stay tuned.