I. The Sword and the Shaving Brush
II. A Brief History of Clothing
III. The Three Aesthetic Problems
IV. Relativism, Immodesty, Evanglism
V. Solving the Three Aesthetic Problems
VI. Towards an Incarnational Aesthetic
VII. Nature and the Aim of Fiction
VIII. What’s So Bad About Immodesty?
IX. Look Good and Sin Not

X. Personhood, Not Propoganda

I’d like to thank Timothy Bartel for gracing us with the preliminary essays exploring a uniquely Christian approach to art, fashion, and dress. These thoughts serve as the germ of a book we certainly hope he writes, but we are happy and immensely grateful to publish the ‘world premiere’ of his initial explorations here on Mere Orthodoxy.

This insightful and playful tour de force analyzes the present attitudes and views on fashion, carefully identifying the root of our modern misunderstandings about clothes. It puts the blame where blame is due, on aesthetic relativism, rather than any of its symptoms, such as widespread immodesty of dress and the bastardization of fashion used as propaganda.

Having so diagnosed the problem, Bartel does not wallow in self-pity or vague invective, but proposes a cure: we must turn whole-heartedly to an incarnational aesthetic. 

Rooted in what might be called the “Mosaic aesthetic” of the First Temple Priest’s garb, it finds the fullest expression of God’s view of fashion in the act of the Incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity. Not only does the incarnation radically effect our view of the body and the physical world as a whole, it affirms the use of clothing as an “imaging forth” of the clothed body and person. With this view of redeemed matter, and only with this view, can fashion be understood in its true light, as a matter of objective beauty or ugliness. With this fundamental misunderstanding corrected, modest dress, and the appropriate use of dress, become a matter of course. 

Timothy Bartel is a Califonia naitve and graduate of Biola Univeristy and the Torrey Honors Institute with a BA in philosophy. He currently teaches for Torrey Academy, a classical high school program, and is working on an Masters of Fine Arts in Poetry at Seattle Pacific Univeristy. His academic interests include poetry, aesthetic theory, and classical philosophy. In his spare times he acts and writes fiction and poetry.

The Amsterdam whores were polite enough to remain behind glass so that they wouldn’t too unnecessarily intrude upon the passing gentlemen; of course, they were mostly naked and gyrated freely in their window shops in hopes of catching the interest of passersby. Still, there remained some proprietary rules even in that notoriously licentious world neighborhood, one of which was, apparently, intruding physically upon the sovereign sphere of another’s body.

No loud music throbbed through the air to move the crowds to a wild and orgiastic beat. Rather, the air was filled with the derogatory jibes and catcalls of the packs of men moving between the alleyways, while pimps vied with one another to attract attention with a ribald and explicit vocal cataloguing of their wares. No pretense, no attempt to set a mood, nothing but a simple and unabashed proclamation of sex for sale characterized the entire district. The Dutch were the world leaders in trade and commerce in the 16th and 17th century and their entrepreneurial and mercenary heritage lives on in their sons today.

The striking absence of the usual aids to sensuality—the mood music or facade of beauty—framed the sins of sexual immorality and sensual indulgence in a different light. Perhaps the striking difference was lost on the men who were deluged with Pinocchio’s pleasure lust: the overwhelming opportunity for sensual pleasure seemed adequate to negate all rational thought removing completely sin’s need to take on the appearance of light and beauty—an appearance usually so important when seeking to persuade men in a more rational frame of mind.

The benefit of seeing sin without its rouge and lipstick is that, to the virtuous soul, it can be nothing but repulsive. Such an exposure and opportunity see sin as it really is removes much of its power to overwhelm and persuade. (more…)

Marshall McLuhan on the predominance of visual perspectivism since the advent of the printed word. (Bonus! It’s effect on global tribalism and the imperial position of advertising)

Note: Rather than pen new completely new thoughts this year, I thought I would revise this post from Easter 2007.

He is risen.

Among the litany of thoughts that will doubtlessly be posted this Easter Sunday, I offer only this brief addition.

It is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that we live, move and have our being. The Christ of history, the Christ who lived, died and rose on the third day, is the Christ in whom our lives are hidden.

The unique and irreplaceable truth of Christianity is that our salvation, our strength, our goodness lie not in us, but outside of us. Death, sin, and evil are overcome by the inward working of God in us as we fix our eyes and mind on Him.And what we find when we look toward Him in whom we live is foundational affirmation and inclusion into the covenant–”And all the promises of God are ‘yes’ and ‘amen’ to the Glory of God.” The Resurrection, which we celebrate this day, is the overwhelming ‘yes’ from God that restores not only our own lives, but someday will complete the renewing of the cosmos.

Finding our life in Christ, however, hardly frees us from responsibility. Rather, we are called to carry a burden too heavy for most of us–the burden of a joy we did not earn, and that we do not deserve. It is understandable that many reject this joy. Our capacity for such joy is so small–our ability to celebrate so stunted. And the resurrection of our Lord is ultimately a call to celebrate the power, the love, and the joy of God–to join with Him in saying “yes” and “amen” to his covenants and creation, to celebrate His glorious faithfulness. When we echo back our “yes” to God–”Glory to God in the highest!”–we abide in the resurrected Lord, and partake of his glory. It is a difficult burden–who can bear it except by His grace.

This Easter, as you find your life in the Christ who has overcome sin, death, and the Law, take up the cross of joy that you did not earn and life that you do not deserve. Evermore, Lord, help us have the joy that you have in Heaven and hid from us on earth. Amen.

TS Eliot, from Four Quartets:

“The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That quesions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer’s art
Resolving the enigma of the fever chart.

Our only health is the disease
If we obey the dying nurse
Whose constant care is not to please
But to remind us of our, and Adam’s curse,
And that, to be restored, our sickness must grow worse.

The whole earth is our hospital
Endowed by the ruined millionaire,
Wherein, if we do well, we shall
Die of the absolute paternal care
That will not leave us, but prevents us everywhere.

The chill ascends from feet to knees,
The fever sings in mental wires.
If to be warmed, then I must freeze
And quake in frigid purgatorial fires
Of which the flame is roses, and the smoke is briars.

The dripping blood our only drink,
The bloody flesh our only food:
In spite of which we like to think
That we are sound, substantial flesh and blood-
Again, in spite of that, we call this Friday good.”

“If I could prescribe one thing for all the ills of the modern world, I would prescribe silence. For even if the word of God were proclaimed in the modern world, no one would hear it; there is too much noise. Therefore, create silence.”

Soren Keierkegaard

Fasting is like silence for your body. Not-eating entirely, or restricted eating, is a way to give your body a break. Your digestion slows down, catches up, and breathes a sigh of relief.

Sure, the body fights back (for not giving it what you usually do), but after a period of pouting, it starts giving back (in the form increased energy, clearer skin, a cleaner colon, better sleep, better circulation of the blood).

Cramps, stomach aches, feebleness, light-headedness, these are the mild symptoms that your body might kick up at you to intimidate you, like a two-year-old testing your limits. But if you are in close communication with your doctor, then these minor symptoms can be treated as they are — minor, and harmless. They must be pushed through for the sake of the clarity shortly to follow.

Similarly, our ears need a break. More so, our internal ears, our mental ears need a break from the endless snacks of chatter and ten o’clock news and passing fancies. They definitely need a break from the full meals of conversation, work discussions, regretful or nostalgic memories of last week, hopeful or fearful plans for next week.

Even “talks” with God must not be endless… Sometimes we must simply sit with him, and listen, and be. The internal chattering self will kick up intimidation, just like the body, but more subtle and seductive. “You forgot to email…!” “Did that bill get paid?” “Whose birthday is it this week?” “I can finally get that spot out…” The moment you sit down to silence you’ll find a hundred and one tiny, useless, yet tyrannically-”urgent” thoughts that have been waiting for a chance to ambush you in a moment of peace.

The twin-disciplines of fasting (bodily) for health and fasting (verbally) for listening ought to be undertaken, if possible, at the same time. It’s a two-edged sword striking the root with twice the force.

They stakes are by no means low, nor the rewards mean. For if we cannot listen well to our families, how can we love them well? If we cannot listen to our God, how can we follow him well?

Let’s take inventory of our internal ears, this weekend. How well are we listening to ourselves? Not our surface chatter, but our deeper selves? Just as importantly, how well are we listening to our spouses, children, parents, and friends? How well can we if there is no background of silence in which to receive their words?
If the answer is “Not as well as I’d like,” there are probably a hundred thoughts and a dozen unfelt-emotions stuck in the psychic system we need to get past. But remember: There is no way past but through. Like bad food in your long intenstine, crazy, out-dated, pessimistic, irrelevant, and distracting thoughts that clog our systems simply need to go their course, and get out. There is no shortcut; Time is the key. But with perseverance and faith, the storm calms, the thoughts quiet, and a beautiful clarity and openness begin to flower. In this openness and clarity one is able to hear God, the self, and other human beings.Take some time this weekend to fast from words, and if you can’t hear the “still, small voice,” speaking things so sweet and beautiful and true you can hardly believe it.

Here’s a simple exercise I find immensely rewarding: (more…)

I just returned from a rousing discussion put on by my church on immigration. It is a contentious issue, and one that I have very mixed feelings (and opinions) about.

I won’t belabor the argument here, but I am starting to think that those who feel the immigration dilemma most (and hence are most equipped to solve it) do so because they understand the pragmatic optimism surrounding the human condition that seems to exist within the American ethos. The government is acting to preserve the rule of law, while immigrants are seeking to better their lifestyle. They are, in this case, two seemingly incommensurate goods.

Of course, all of that is really a preface (and an unrelated one at that) to this humorous story from G.K. Chesterton’s trip to America. For those who accuse the American government of being lackadaisical in its defense of the borders, there may be some comfort in knowing that it could be–and, apparently has been–worse.

When I went to the American consulate to regularize my passports, I was capable of expecting the American consulate to be American. Embassies and consulates are by tradition like islands of the soil for which they stand; and I have often found the tradition corresponding to a truth. I have seen the unmistakable French official living on omelettes and a little wine and serving his sacred abstractions under the last palm-trees frying in a desert. In the heat and noise of quarreling Turks and Egyptians, I have come suddenly, as with the cool shock of his own shower-bath, on the listless amiability of the English gentleman. The officials I interviewed were very American, especially in being very polite; for whatever may have been the mood or meaning of Martin Chuzzlewit, I have always found Americans by far the politest people in the world. They put in my hands a form to be filled up, to all appearances like other forms I had filled up in other passport offices. But in reality it was very different from any form I had ever filled up in my life. At least it was a little like a freer form of the game called “Confessions” which my friends and I invented in our youth; an examination paper containing questions like, “If you saw a rhinoceros in the front garden, what would you do?” One of my friends, I remember, wrote, “Take the pledge.” But that is another story, and might bring Mr. Pussyfoot Johnson on the scene before his time.

One of the questions on the paper was, “Are you an anarchist?” To which a detached philosopher would naturally feel inclined to answer, “What the devil has that to do with you? Are you an atheist” along with some playful efforts to cross-examine the official about what constitutes atheist. Then there was the question, “Are you in favor of subverting the government of the United States by force?” Against this I should write, “I prefer to answer that question at the end of my tour and not the beginning.” The inquisitor, in his more than morbid curiosity, had then written down, “Are you a polygamist?” The answer to this is, “No such luck” or “Not such a fool,” according to our experience of the other sex. But perhaps a better answer would be that given to W. T. Stead when he circulated the rhetorical question, “Shall I slay my brother Boer”–the answer that ran, “Never interfere in family matters.” But among many things that amused me almost to the point of treating the form thus disrespectfully, the most amusing was the thought of the ruthless outlaw who should feel compelled to treat it respectfully. I like to think of the foreign desperado, seeking to slip into America with official papers under official protection, and sitting down to write with a beautiful gravity, “I am an anarchist. I hate you all and wish to destroy you.” Or, “I intend to subvert by force the government of the United States as soon as possible, sticking the long sheath-knife in my left trouser-pocket into your President at the earliest opportunity.” Or again, “Yes, I am a polygamist all right, and my forty-seven wives are accompanying me on the voyage disguised as secretaries.” There seems to be a certain simplicity of mind about these answers; and it is reassuring to know that anarchists and polygamists are so pure and good that the police have only to ask them questions and they are certain to tell no lies.

“Don’t give into some illusion and lose your power,
but even if you have, if you’ve lost all will and control,
they come back when you fast,
like soldiers appearing out of the ground,
pennants flying above them.”

-Rumi

We live in a world as power-hungry as it is powerless. We are enslaved to our baser desires for salt, sugar, bleached flour, alcohol, sleep, sexual satisfaction, and money, and yet we dream of (and often imagines ourselves being) all-powerful arbiters of truth, justice and reality. The former desires are bestial; the latter are still bad, but they are at least human.

Leaving aside the desire for power for the moment, let us do as Evagrius of Pontus recommends, and use a bad vice to attack a worse vice. Let us attack our desires for food sleep and satisfaction by invigorating (for a time) our desire for mastery of ourselves, the world, and others.

Let us be global for a moment… How many of the world’s great leaders, activists, and thinkers, Gandhi, Washington, Thomas Aquinas, Maximos the Confessor, Anthony the Great, Paul of Tarsus, Jesus of Nazareth, Socrates, or Buddha, displayed in their lives a remarkable degree of ascetic effort? Further, is it conceivable that they were only able to accomplish such great words and deeds because they were masters of their bodily desires?

Jesus spent 40 days in the desert before starting his ministry, a ministry that made him (whether you love him or hate him) one of the most famous men in human history. Would he have succeeded in the trials of the ministry that followed if he succumbed to the temptations that preceded? Thomas Aquinas had to spend hours upon hours a day in deep thought in order to become one of the most influential and important (and, in modern day scholarship, I am told, one of the most-studied) thinkers of all time. He gave up many, many drinking parties in order to produce his introductory textbook we call the Summa Theologica. As for Gandhi, would India be free, would anyone know his name if he could not resist the overwhelming pleasure of an apple or a pear?

Without spelling out exactly the connection between the superhuman ability to not-eat and the ability to accomplish other superhuman tasks such as moral reform, intellectual insight, or the nonviolent love of your enemies, can we not at least pause to notice the unnaturally high degree of correlation?

Think of your favorite leader, your hero, your example, anyone. Your pastor, father, grandmother, best friend, former president, apostle, reformer… Anyone you want to be like. Could they tell their stomach what to do? Did it obey? Or did their stomach tell them what to do, and they obeyed? If the former, then be like them, as they are like Christ.

After we have mastered the belly, of course, we will have another fish to fry, the love of power, the deep desire to be glorified for our own achievements. But, hey, baby steps to Jesus.

Not as funny as would be (a much hoped-for) “White people like Garfield” post,

But checkout the delightfully sad, somber, existential, anti-climactic commentary on modern life provided by Garfield with all the Garfield taken out.

The Sword and the Shaving Brush

Towards a Biblical understanding of fashion

by Timothy Bartel

Part X Conclusion: Personhood, Not Propoganda

Having reinterpreted fashion as an incarnational art form and modesty as a sort of aesthetic and moral check on that art, we may now turn to the last problem of fashion. It was said before that when aesthetic concerns are ignored, and moral concerns overemphasized, fashion becomes a frame for propaganda. One’s t-shirt is used to advertise and proselytize. Often this is defended as faux-incarnational by those who argue that fashion expresses one’s self. We have discussed above that clothing most primarily images forth one’s body, yet it would be foolish to say that one’s fashion does not also express one’s immaterial self. Without becoming overly metaphysical, I believe it is safe to say that for the Christian, the body is intricately connected with and acts as physical ‘clothing’ to the soul. While it may be too tidy to say that one’s clothing is to one’s body as one’s body is to one’s soul, it is not improper to say that fashion may, when most complete, image forth the whole self of the wearer, not just the body. There is, then, a place for the ideological and verbal in fashion. Yet this expression of ideas must be ruled by the governing principles of incarnational art—that careful attention must be paid to the imaged object if the image is to be of any quality, and that one art form must not be exploited for the purposes of another. I will give some examples.

Take, for instance, the ‘Christian T-shirt,’ which sports Psalm 23 written in a fancy, stylish font across the torso. While Psalm 23 is a masterful piece of poetry, and the t-shirt a garment of simple beauty, when put together, they detract from one another. Poetry is written to be read on a stationary, flat piece of paper, not a moving, folding, curving surface. A T-shirt was made to accentuate and image and move in unison with the bold structure of the torso and shoulders, not be an image of a printed page. Perhaps this is why smaller, bold emblems have traditionally worked best as accents on clothing. An embroidered cross or badge mimics much more the small, bold accents of the human form: the eye, the joint, or scar. Color is another safe and aesthetically consistent method of imaging not only body, but idea or cause. Yet the correct balances of uniformity, complexity, and contrast not only between clothing colors, but also between body and garment must be understood and employed in such designs. Once again, the hard work of looking well and learning from artistic tradition is essential to the art of fashion. (more…)

Nothing profound today.

Instead, given that many of the folks here at Mere Orthodoxy are interested in understanding, critiquing, and improving American culture, Stuff While People Like is quickly becoming a must-read blog.  The attention to detail, and the humorous culture analysis are a prime example of good satire.  Of course, there are no great alternatives to the anomalies, prides, and prejudices of the culture exposed at the website, but it is a good start towards understanding how to write scathing satire while avoiding sounding petty, trite, or mean-spirited.

Of course, one can hardly ever sound petty, trite, or mean-spirited poking fun at white people these days…most white people (at least the yuppie, liberal, American type) are still too overcome with guilt over past centuries of colonialism, imperialism, and racism to ever have the nerve to be offended by anyone making racist comments about them.  Oh, the irony is glorious (and this is probaly one more reason for the popularity of the site).

The Sword and the Shaving Brush

Towards a Biblical understanding of fashion

By Timothy Bartel

Part IX – Look Good and Sin Not

How does one take the body-imaging activity of clothing into consideration when choosing clothes to wear? A wise man, when asked by a student about clothing, once said: “find what looks good on you and wear it.” This is both the best advice I have ever heard about clothing, and the most dangerous. It is good advice because it takes seriously the fact that fashion images body, and when imaged successfully, the body is revealed as attractive. Clothing does not hide a body behind its cloth, but draws the qualities of the human form in its fabric for the world to see. Why would such a mentality be dangerous? Most basically, the well-clothed human is dangerously attractive. As mentioned above it is the well dressed who are considered the most attractive of the young, and not just because the young are shallow. The shallow are awed by beautiful art, yet stop at mere admiration of the medium. They are not wrong that the medium images forth beautifully, yet they are wrong to think that it is only the medium that holds beauty. They forget, as Sayers might say, the Word in awe of the flesh and so in ignorance undo incarnation. They forget that the body is more than clothing. (more…)

The Modern educational experiment has run its course. It does not seem to be working.

Illiteracy is at an all-time high. High school completion continues to lower, especially in areas such as the inner city of L.A., where completion rates regularly dip below 30%. Violent crime is on the rise, and “higher-brow” crimes of financial, sexual, or interpersonal immorality of all kinds seem to become the openly-admitted rule rather than the shameful exception. The manipulative propaganda of increasingly bold advertisers easily compels the unthinking and sub-rational motivations of millions of consumers, who simply do not have the attention span to analyze, comprehend, and evaluate the message of a 90-second commercial.

The universities have fallen and we are amusing ourselves to death.

It behooves us to reconsider our strategy, to repent, to consider the older model. The truly traditional model is the pre-Deweyan format of small group discussion. In this model, people are seen as gardens to be husbanded rather than computers to be programmed. In this model, interpersonal relationship is not a a non-science to be ignored (or pseudo-science to be studied like any other ‘hard science’) but the organic context and natural setting in which human beings engage in scientific inquiry together.
In this model, therefore, the teacher-student relationship remains a proper part of the material of education, on equal footing with the particular material being taught within the context of that relationship. “Physics” becomes “How to live well, and Physics;” “Biology” becomes “How to love other sentient life, and Biology.” “Math” becomes “How to relate to your elders, and math.” If you think this overambitious, or the conflation of educational loci, then consider the alternative: “How to treat others like animals, and Biology?” “How to be socially inept, and Math”? This is what is currently being taught. It is simply a fact that a teacher’s example, as much as his verbal instruction, is a major influence upon the students. We can do it well or poorly; we cannot avoid it.

Since the advent of neo-darwinian educational models, options for moral and scientific education have become scarce, in some places simply unheard of.

However, we appear to be at the darkness before the dawn.

Not only are “classical academies” springing up by the dozens at the middle-school and high school levels, but, for those of us past high school but desirous of a traditional education, for ourselves or our children, options are becoming available.

Here is a list of approximately thirty classical higher education institutions in the United States and Canada where a real educational efort is taking place. These are institutions wherein students are not considered talkative monkeys, but human beings, and where education is not considered cultural programming, but, in Lewis’ gentle patrimonial phrase, “old birds teaching young birds to fly.”