Category — Modal Aspects

“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.

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. 

Before I get started again on this little project, let me say up front: these ideas are preliminary, they are unfinished. I do not in any way claim any of this to be the last word, just my own start on a massive subject. Dooyeweerd’s aspects are empowering, not limiting. I would love to see this list grow. If you read back over earlier posts, you will see I have covered the pistic, ethical, juridical, aesthetic and economic aspects of the arts. Please, feel free to add to these lists and make any suggestions you have. There is much more to be said and done. 

Social aspect
1. Every sphere of life might be enriched by the arts, and benefits from the application or performance of artistic works. Art happens at various levels and in varying forms, and these considerations should be taken into account and attuned to the various social spheres. Being appropriate is normative. Led Zeppelin at a ladies luncheon might not work very well. Jazz is better experienced in more intimate settings, and does not translate well in an arena. 

2. The arts are a unique social sphere. The church is not the foundational center for the arts, neither is the state, neither is the family. The arts are a distinctive social sphere that exists cooperatively with the other spheres. Today there is a movement to make the church the center for the arts, or a holding tank for artistic work. Any work that is done outside this sphere is not deemed useful or purposeful. This betrays a denial of the other social spheres as established by the Creator. It is wrongheaded, based in the same magnetic Nature-Grace ground motive of the Middle Ages. Pastors should stop trying to be dictators of art. The idea that we should have “art-pastors” is based in the same “sacred-secular” notion. The church should encourage people in their vocations outside the doors of the church. Pastors, stop ripping the heart of your people in two!! 

3. Artistic production is based on various social interactions that are normative: collaboration, friendship, cooperative initiative. Mentorships and apprenticeships ought to be encouraged and pursued. Students of the arts should be with older, more experienced persons as they pursue their work. The older should take the younger under their wing. The younger should seek out relationships with older artists. Gallery work or doing a load-in/ load-out with an established artist is a simple but powerful way to get young people involved. This was something regularly practiced by jazz musicians, and still is today. Jamaican musicians have a long history of mentorship and training.

4. Some social interactions are of necessity confrontational. There may be at times a prophetic element to artistic works. This is especially true during times of social confusion and state dominance. The period of American Hardcore music, although short lived, was born out of a frustration with the absolutist attitudes regarding social status that predominated in the 1980’s. It may have lacked a well thought out articulation, but it had a heart that expressed a youthful rage toward a growing bourgeois attitude toward the poor and disenfranchised. The film “Wall Street” represented the decadence and way of assent presented to young people in that time. American Hardcore was a response to that. 

5. A social relation is created between the artist and the viewer/ listener. The artist offers their work and the viewer or listener openly receives it or rejects it. The medium of the work creates a connection in one way or another. In some cases, the audience identifies with the work, and as such, identifies with the artist. This has powerful ramifications, both for good or evil. The symbolic power of an artistic work shapes attitudes and values. 

6. Artistic production is socially formative. Art can create harmony among a large group; it can also create disharmony, a bourgeois attitude and cliques based in taste or styles. Inclusive and exclusive attitudes can be shaped and informed by artistic works. 

7. Local artists should be free to form their own associations and unions for the work of production and promotion. Artists should seek to build up the artistic community as an institutional sphere in society. Artists should encourage leaders in their midst and seek further development for the sake of social influence. 

8. Art creates social moods, feeling and atmospheres. Events are enhanced by artistic works. Art introduces a multi-perspectival element into a single event, enhancing social interaction. Art can take people out of themselves and provide the freedom for discourse over a shared experience. 

9. Art has a physical aspect that can enhance an atmosphere. Music is physical and has the power to sooth and stimulate the senses beyond simply hearing. Low and high frequencies in music create various kinds of sensations and moods. 

The Aesthetic aspect
This seems to be the central aspect when discussing the arts, although this is not to say it dominates. It is mutually supports and is supported by the other aspects. I say this because art is often reduced to this aspect, and as such it takes on a very limited notion, wholly removed from everyday life. One of the consequences of this is the idea that “Art” exists in museums and music is something that is done by “professionals” in concert halls. When taken in context of every other aspect, art will be understood more broadly as an everyday event and entails all created objects, something in which we all participate. The mundane can be artistic as well as the “high-end”. 

1. It is related to beauty, but is not identified with it.
2. Dooyeweerd suggests that the kernel notion is harmony.
3. Aesthetics entails rhythm, contrast, progression, growth, and proportion.
4. Coherence or a unifying central theme is often at the heart of a memorable object or piece of music.
5. Seerveld suggests allusivity and suggestiveness, or nuance and allusion.
6. Broken expectations and surprise.
7. Play and fun, which might include improvisation and spontaneity. Jazz provides numerous examples of this. 
8. Tonal fluctuations in both color and sound. These are culturally identifiable across the planet (phrygian, mixolydian, dorian, etc). Each musical mode is dominant in various social settings- Middle East, Japan, the West.

Basden writes: “Art and music is not always qualified by the aesthetic. Much art and music is, but in some logic or mathematics is the driving force, e.g, perhaps twelve tone music”. In this regard, the early work of Brian Eno comes to mind. Peter Gabriel as well. Tones and their inner relationships are the basic musical structure in their early work. 

The Economic aspect 
1. The kernel notion is a frugal use of resources.
2. The poor are not outside the boundaries of artistic expression and very often lay the groundwork for culturally formative works. There are many examples of this, but two that come to mind immediately are Appalachian and Jamaican musicians. I recently read a book called “Dub” about the history of Jamaican studio-based creation. King Tubby was one of the main characters. He was an electrician by trade, but did recording and created “cuts” of songs. He is responsible for the creation of spring reverb- an effect so common we take it for granted in modern music.
3. Leisure (via riches or through a sponsor) might provide more time and energy directed towards artistic production, but does not necessarily need to be present. Nor does it always result in the best work. Bob Marley worked as a welder while writing music; Elvin Jones worked in a tire plant while playing the drums in the evenings.
4. Materials may be limited; time may be limited. But both may be fully exploited by a disciplined and highly creative person. Lee Scratch Perry comes to mind. His early work was done with a two track cassette recorder. He lived in extreme poverty, but he utilized what he had and created music that is still admired for its depth and creative power.
5. Investment in materials and instruments or equipment is a legitimate long-term investment of income. Are the most expensive, high-end instruments necessary? No. Nowadays what is considered a low-level instrument is of the kind of quality that was considered high-level twenty years ago. 

As an aside: a couple of years ago I attended a “worship conference” near Seattle, WA. The general line of thought was “using the best, most expensive, custom made instruments brings glory to God”. This is, of course, a deeply wrong-hearted notion. Blind Willie Johnson is more moving than twenty of those “worship” musicians put together. He sometimes played with one string. Some of the more profound and moving music has been created by artists who used broken down, old or cheap instruments. Jamaican artists once again come to mind. This is not to deny the place of craftsmanship, and quality instrumentation. But, in the case of the so-called “worship” musicians it is a confusion of ownership with artistic expression. 

6. Leverage newer, inexpensive technologies for the sake of the poor, and lead people out of poverty via creative formation. That is a calling in and of itself. Any one want to start a non-profit?
7. Investment in the arts is a long-term commitment that may or may not have any monetary returns. Returns may take many other forms. 

Next… the Social and Symbolic aspects.