(My eighth grader did an essay from a chapter in Essays On Religion, Science, and Society by Herman Bavinck.  It seemed appropriate to post here because beauty is certainly a common grace.)                                  

   If Herman Bavinck was a philosopher, then why did he decide to spend time studying beauty and aesthetics? Is beauty really something that we ought to study? In reality, though, beauty is an aspect of philosophy. So, as a Christian philosopher, what did Herman Bavinck have to say on it? He believed that beauty is spiritual, all human beings have a sense of beauty, and God is the highest and truest beauty.

   First, Herman Bavinck believed that beauty is spiritual. Beauty is an idea. It is not something that can be contained, but it is something that can be defined. This version of aesthetics (the study of beauty) is called metaphysical. This is a dogmatic type of study that says that beauty has a standard. Bavinck was against empirical aesthetics, which says that beauty is defined by experience and feeling. The enjoyment of it is something psychological. This idea was furthered with the thought that beauty is something that makes us feel a certain way, or awakens sexual lust and love. Charles Darwin was one of the philosophers who supported this idea. After Darwin’s time, the philosopher Immanuel Kant said that we have a sense of beauty that is different than our sense of desire. He thought that we could enjoy the beauty of something without actually wanting it. To him, beauty didn’t actually have content. There was just something in us that decided whether or not a thing is beautiful. Beauty is not something in reality. It’s a fantasy our own souls create. Then, Gustav Theodore Fechner drove empirical aesthetics even further from God’s definition of beauty, by saying that we may never know the essence of beauty, so we need to study what happens to people when they see beauty, so that we can see if there are certain things that appeal to everyone, certain rules that this sense of mankind’s has to follow. Herman Bavinck disagreed. He knew that God was the true Essence of beauty. Beauty is God’s glory shining through His works. It is God revealing Himself through common grace. In Essays On Religion, Science, and Society, Herman Bavinck states all of this, pointing to the fact that beauty is spiritual.

   Second, Herman Bavinck believed that all human beings have a sense of beauty. Because beauty is spiritual, animals don’t have a sense for it, since they don’t have souls. But God has given man a soul, and part of that soul is the sense for beauty. This sense actually relates to the knowledge of God that is written on our hearts. Every man knows that there is a God. And since beauty is God’s glory shining through His works, our sense of beauty is rooted in our knowledge of God. This means that every single person in all of history has a sense of beauty, no matter how basic it is. In reality, our sense of beauty is mankind groaning and longing for Heaven, where there will be no ugliness. Of course, beauty is not the way to Heaven, like creation is not the way to Heaven. They point to God’s glory, but since our sight of God has been marred by sin, they do not usually lead us directly to salvation. However, they are still common graces that everyone can enjoy. They are glimpses of God’s glory that refresh us, Herman Bavinck says.

   Third, and most importantly, Herman Bavinck believed that God is the highest and truest beauty. Since God is the Essence of beauty, naturally, He is the definition of beauty. He doesn’t do or make a thing because it’s beautiful. What He does or makes is beautiful because He did or made it. Evidence of this is found in Genesis 1, the very first chapter of the Bible. What He made, He called, “Very good.” While goodness and truth are separate from beauty, they are all still linked together. And we know that before the Fall, nothing was ugly, bad, or false. So if God said that the world was good, then we can logically conclude that it was beautiful. Because God made it, our world was beautiful. It perfectly reflected His beauty, and we perfectly saw that reflection. Of course, we ruined this perfect world, which is one of the reasons why empirical aesthetics and empathy are pushed on beauty. Herman Bavinck explains empathy like this:

   “In general this refers to the habit of people to ascribe and to transfer their own observations, feelings, moods, and the condition of one’s soul to things outside themselves. We consider beautiful that in which we see an expression or a symbol of our own inner life, so that we feel ourselves as though one with the observed object.” (Essays On Religion, Science, and Society, by Herman Bavinck, Chapter 14, p. 251, [269])    

   Empathy is not essentially wrong. Bavinck uses the example of a little boy or girl playing with a doll or action figure. They enjoy seeing a tiny version of themselves; they pretend to be that doll. I believe that playing with a toy in that way is a God-given common grace. However, empathy is also dangerous, because it is pushing humanity on beautiful things, and enjoying beauty because it reflects us, not because it reflects God. In reality, empathy can become a selfish thing. That’s why, in his book, Herman Bavinck worked to make sure that we knew that we ought to enjoy something because it reflects God.

   Is beauty really an important subject to study? I believe it is, and Herman Bavinck thought so, too. We all must understand that beauty is spiritual, all human beings have a sense of beauty, and God is the highest and truest beauty. Once we understand God’s beauty, all other beauty in the world makes sense. Herman Bavinck believed that beauty cannot be defined by us; beauty must be defined by God.