Category — Dooyeweerdian

“Meaning is the being of all that has been created and the nature even of our self-hood”.
— pg. 4, Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol. I

“It is the custom among ecclesiastical socialists to deny that there is Biblical warrant for private property. Their ground for this is the often repeated Biblical declaration, “The earth is the LORD’S” (Ex. 9:29, etc.). They choose to neglect the total witness of Scripture to private property. The so-called communism of Acts 2:41-47, also cited by ecclesiastical socialists, was simply a voluntary sharing on the part of some (Acts 5). It was limited to Jerusalem. Because the believers took literally the words of Christ concerning the fall of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1-28), they liquidated their properties there. The wealthier members placed some or all of these funds at the church’s disposal, so that a witness could be made to their friends and relatives before Jerusalem fell. Very early, persecution drove all but a nucleus out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1).

The earth is indeed the Lord’s, as is all dominion, but God has chosen to give dominion over the earth to man, subject to His law-word, and property is a central aspect of that dominion. The absolute and transcendental title to property is the Lord’s; the present and historical title to property is man’s. The ownership of property does not leave this world when it is denied to man; it is simply transferred to the state. If the contention of the liberals that the earth is the Lord’s, not man’s, is to be applied as they require it, then it must be applied equally to the state; the state then must be denied all right to own or control property.”

— Rousas John Rushdoony †2001

“Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and, coming into straits (confinement), he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing (Matthew 5:26). But also now concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give“.
— Didache, Chapter One

The Formative or Cultural Aspect
This aspect is often referred to as the cultural mode. I have written elsewhere about the term and the meaning of culture as Biblically understood. The Scriptural definition is much broader and more inclusive than the modern notion. I am aiming at a maximal idea rather than a limiting one. These are preliminary thoughts.

1. The key or kernel notion is the deliberate shaping of a social sphere. This entails planning and goal setting for the sake of change over time. A long-term perspective of change and influence is necessary. This includes not only the artistic projects themselves, but the business side of creating music or design.

2. Influence is more important than leadership. Influence happens from the bottom up. An artist’s work may not have immediate affect upon the social life of the arts or other spheres, but over time, the ideas and projects that are undertaken may influence the work of others. Question: How is influence built within the arts community, and how does that influence affect the broader society?

3. The artist should aim at making a significant contribution to the flow of history. This means that the artist must overcome any scruples about crossing over into the business and promotional side of his or her work. Artists ought to form partnerships with those in business and the broader world of the marketplace. There are numerous examples of this, including the work between Puma and Hvyw8, as well as many others.

4. Formative power within the arts is not coercive. The formative power of the Christian arts is an unfolding of creative power, following upon the pattern of biology found within the creation. “He shall be like a tree…” Psalm 1. This is true of all Christian influence. The sword is not the means of gaining influence, as this is revolutionary, not Biblical.

5. Formative power includes access to, or ownership of the means of production. Ideas can go nowhere unless they can be produced as actual objects or works. This includes printing, sewing, musical instrumentation and recording facilities. etc, etc. Ownership is itself a formative power that allows for control over the direction and formation of artistic works.

I have been on a kind of negative tip over the past few weeks, doing more criticism than building. Perhaps it was my reading of Hitchens and the Four Horseman that set me off. Or, maybe it is just me, the moody artist type. I hope to move on to more positive things, for the sake of my own soul and the glory of my Lord. So, in this post I will attempt a return to my previous little project on the arts. I am running down the list of the Dooyeweerdian aspects and attempting a kind of synopsis of the arts and their place in God’s world, using Herman’s matrix as a means of analysis. This is part four in the series. If you click on any one of the Aspects over in the Categories on the right, you will find my previous entries.

The Symbolic Aspect

1. Every art-form possesses and expands upon a particular grammar. The medium posses a distinct set of syntactical rules that proscribes the message communicated. For example, music involves tempo, pitch, timbre (unique to each instrument), rhythm, melody and volume.

2. There are a number of principles that are shared across every art form. These include rhythm, contrast, progression & growth (development), proportion, scale, oscillation, movement, energy, equilibrium and its counterpart, tension & release, drama & rest. These elements are a unifying glue between all the art forms — from typography to architecture to music — the basic underlying forms of artistic expression are the same.

3. These basic forms are found in the creational structures that God has put all around us. They exist at both a micro and macro level of life. All art reflects these basic forms, regardless of the intent of the author, as the rules of existence are inescapable given our context. Plato understood this principle as demonstrated in his five forms. A recognition of this basic fact should be the starting point for all criticism of art as well as its appreciation. The artist reflects the glory of the Triune God, whether intentionally or not.

4. As an artist employs these basic forms, in whatever medium they work, they begin to form a deliberate signification that expresses a particular personal or corporate view of themselves, of God and of others. Within this personal language, references and suggestions of known, familiar or communal pieces can be reworked into a newer expression. This is both preservation and development. An altogether new expression seems impossible. Development is organic in any language and this includes the language of art.

5. We ought to avoid the reduction of symbolic communication to the use of words. Avoid aping current idioms without understanding non-verbal intent. Rather, new synthesis of current and past language systems might result in brand new expressions that bring glory to the Creator.

6. Understanding and mastering the grammar of any given medium will inevitably lead to more refined and powerful communication. To know a wide variety of languages is to be a fluid and agile creator of artistic works. Social solipsism is inexcusable in the heart of the Christian. As is aping of currently acceptable styles.

In common evangelical parlance the term culture means art and politics. This is a mistake. Culture is not a social construct, but a power. It is the ability to form and shape society. It is not an afterthought of what is happening at the moment, but deliberate planning to shape the future. It is not sociology, but informs social interactions. The church, the arts, business, and politics are spheres of society, spheres that function on their own. Culture is an aspect of our experience. It entails the drawing of blueprints for each sphere of society as distinct arenas of Christ’s Lordship. The church has its own blueprint, the arts has its own blueprint, and the state has its own blueprint. 

The confusion arises when Christians fail to distinguish between the spheres, and reduce them to an aspect. In this case, the arts are reduced to culture, which is further reduced to a branch of ministry in the church. The church begins to dictate to the other spheres. This is wrong. Well intentioned but ill-fated attempts are made at synthesizing two spheres, the church and the arts, or the church and politics. Each sphere ends up losing it’s essential power. This idea of culture comes to nothing because it is founded in a misguided and reactionary notion, even a non-Biblical ground motive. Scripture distinguishes kind from kind, in the unfolding of the Creation. In our temporal experience we need to the same.

The self-designated “Four Horseman” of the New Atheists are tilting at straw-men in regards to Biblical religion. They assume that faith is the central concern of the Christian. They do not identify the critical issue: pre-theoretical commitments, either their own or others’. 

In their assumptions, they elevate “reason” to the place of deity, while they attribute the elevation of faith to the Christian. This latter attribution is a mistake. They would admit that reason is ultimate in their assumption. But, they make the mistake of assuming that the Christian makes the same kind of commitment to an aspect of experience. In this case, faith. This aspect they designate as non-rational, and thus an enemy of any thinking person. It is true, faith is not reason, but difference does not imply antithesis. As an aspect of temporal experience faith exists in the heart of redeemed man in Shalom with all other aspects, including reason. Faith is not central to my existence, even as ethics, aesthetics or economics are not central. They are all equally ultimate in the temporal realm. Reason is one aspect of my experience, not the dictator of it. 

Within the hearts of the N/A, any aspect that is not reason exists in a religious dialectic with all others. They must, given their commitment to “analysis”, live in constant tension with all other aspects of temporal existence, faith being only one of them.

Modernity is an assumption that men can understand, comprehend in toto, control and manipulate all of human experience. “Science” and its related projects are the means by which this task of “salvation” is to be accomplished.

Post-modernity recognizes the multiplicity and diversity of human experience and concludes that there is no central or higher meaning. The assumption that follows is that any attempt at a singular or certain meaning is futile.

Modernity recognizes “law” within a modal sphere, and absolutizes a single aspectual law as dominating all others. Post-modernity recognizes the diversity of aspects, but assumes a religious dialectic between all aspects, and thus the impossibility of any one “Master-Determiner”. All aspects cancel the others out. Badiou describes the post-modern world as “atonal”. Zizek, following Badiou, characterizes the postmodern mind as “a world of multiplicities lacking a determinate tonality” (In Defense of Lost Causes, 31).

What modernity seems to offer is a singular, certain “answer”, based in the analytical aspect of temporal experience. Modernity, as a project, assumes that empirical evidence provides objective truth. Truth is “out there”, it is possible.

What post-modernity seems to offer is the recognition that experience cannot be reduced to a single, dominating aspect. Post-modernity is a reaction against “the hegemony of scientific discourse” (Defense, 33). Post-modernity appears religiously committed to the sensate or psychical aspect of temporal experience. Foucault’s lifestyle and death are often used as an example of the post-modern life in demonstration. He is the philosopher of bio-politics.

Both assume the autonomy of the mind. Both assume that meaning is dictated by things. Both assume that Being precedes Meaning. The two exist in a religious dialectic, although the two aspects to which they cling are, in reality, relative.

Some initial observations and/or basic presuppositions:

1. The unity of Scripture (a single covenant).
2. Variety of literary modes: narrative, poetry, etc.
3. Historical progress and development of expression.
4. Antithesis between Creator and creature.
5. Antithesis between Adam and Christ.
6. Antithesis between C-F-R and all other ground motives within Scripture.
7. Relative dialectic between 15 modal aspects within/ without text.
8. The historical content is formative in nature, not simply the record of “what happened”. Of all events that could possibly be recorded, these were to the exclusion of all the rest. 

As an aside, I have always been uncomfortable with the designation “literal”. It is ambiguous, imprecise. “Historical” is ambiguous as well, in that not all of Scripture is narrative. I have yet to read a good definition of “literal/historical” that takes into account our historical situation. Nicholas of Lyre wrote: “The literal teaches history”. But, what of the Proverbs? There are so many variations on the same ideas, it is time for some kind of real clarification. The ante-Nicean fathers are helpful in that they were not scholastics. 

In the final portion of chapter one of Roots, Dooyeweerd begins to address the third problem of philosophy: “Who am I?” Here are some propositions from the text. I am attempting to boil some of this down, but often times I am using Dooyeweerd’s language. All emphasis is mine. 

1. Plant and animals have no religious or spiritual root. Man makes their temporal existence complete (p. 30). “Objective visibility exists only in relation to potential visual perception which creatures do not themselves possess”. 

2. It is impossible to grasp the essence of nature completely apart from man. Any formulaic attempt to to grasp the essence of nature “presuppose(s) human language and human thought… Nature apart from man does not exist” (p. 31). 

3. The Mediaeval Scholastic theologians, influenced by the Form-Matter ground motive, held that “inorganic elements, plants and animals possessed an existence of their own apart from man”. But, in the temporal realm all “properties subject to human evaluation and necessarily related to human sensory perception, human conceptualization, human standards for beauty, etc.”. 

4. Properties and perceptions are both created. Properties and perceptions exist as creaturely attributes. Properties and perceptions cannot be attributed to God, as they are based in the limitation of creature-hood. 

5. God related all temporal things to man. Temporal reality comes to full reality in man.

6. There is only one origin of reality, as such it is not dualistic. The world is not at odds with itself. 

7. The existence of man is totally concentrated in his heart. The heart is the unifying center of all temporal experience.

8. Everything is embraced by man in every aspect of temporal reality. Nothing can be reduced to one or two aspects (p. 31). According to Dooyeweerd there are fifteen of them. In my posts on the arts I have attempted to take a walk through each one, demonstrating the constructive use of the philosophy.