Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Thought Life

Home
Evangelical
Is the Bible Blind to Womanly Beauty?

Is the Bible Blind to Womanly Beauty?

Last updated on: June 7, 2011 at 4:35 pm by Owen Strachan

Is the Bible Blind to Womanly Beauty? 2011-06-07T16:35:23-06:00 Owen Strachan

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Don’t know if you’ve followed this, but Tim Challies kicked up a bit of an Internet storm recently when he helpfully suggested that it was a good thing for Christian wives to give attention to their appearances for the betterment of their husbands. He was responding to a post a few months ago by blogger Rachel Held Evans, who registered disagreement with Challies’s post. In response to Evans, Southern Seminary professor Mary Kassian suggested something of a middle way in which womanly attractiveness matters but only as a reflection of God’s far more lustrous beauty.

I found the discussion interesting and worthwhile not because this is a matter of outsized theological importance but because it relates closely to issues surrounding men, marriage, and beauty, all topics that interest me. Kassian’s theocentric rendering of womanly beauty jibes with material I published with Douglas Sweeney in the book Jonathan Edwards on Beauty (Moody, 2010), part of the five-volume Essential Edwards Collection. Edwards was an aesthetician if there ever was one. Wherever he saw earthly beauty he saw a reflection of God, who was not only beautiful but was beauty himself.

Here’s a snatch from the book which quotes Edwards’s notebook on “types” (page 49-50 of JEOB):

There are some types of divine things, both in Scripture and also in the works of nature and constitution of the world, that are much more lively than others. Everything seems to aim that way; and in some things the image is very lively, in others less lively, in others the image but faint and the resemblance in but few particulars with many things wherein there is a dissimilitude. God has ordered things in this respect much as he has in the natural world. He hath made man the head and end of this lower creation; and there are innumerable creatures that have some image of what is in men, but in an infinite variety of degrees. Animals have much more of a resemblance of what is in men than plants, plants much more than things inanimate. (Works 11, 114)

One day, the pastor took a walk that unfolded the way natural beauty reflects spiritual beauty (pp. 41-42 of JEOB):

God’s excellency, his wisdom, his purity and love, seemed to appear in everything; in the sun, moon and stars; in the clouds, and blue sky; in the grass, flowers, trees; in the water, and all nature; which used greatly to fix my mind. I often used to sit and view the moon, for a long time; and so in the daytime, spent much time in viewing the clouds and sky, to behold the sweet glory of God in these things: in the meantime, singing forth with a low voice, my contemplations of the Creator and Redeemer. And scarce anything, among all the works of nature, was so sweet to me as thunder and lightning. Formerly, nothing had been so terrible to me. I used to be a person uncommonly terrified with thunder: and it used to strike me with terror, when I saw a thunderstorm rising. But now, on the contrary, it rejoiced me. I felt God at the first appearance of a thunderstorm. And used to take the opportunity at such times, to fix myself to view the clouds, and see the lightnings play, and hear the majestic and awful voice of God’s thunder: which often times was exceeding entertaining, leading me to sweet contemplations of my great and glorious God. And while I viewed, used to spend my time, as it always seemed natural to me, to sing or chant forth my meditations; to speak my thoughts in soliloquies, and speak with a singing voice. (Works 16, 794)

This material reveals that Edwards felt free to find resonances of a much greater beauty in the eye-catching things of this world. In fact, the pastor-theologian made the case for finding “types” in this world. If we buy Edwards’s argument–and I think we should–then surely we can find images of a greater luster in a flower, a sunset, and the face of a loved one.

I love Edwards’s aesthetics. He has a major place for beauty in his theological-philosophical system, so much so that some view him as the theologian par excellence of beauty. By the way, this is part of why he is so relevant for today. We live in an image-obsessed culture (part of the problem Evans rightly decries), and we can use Edwards to point people to a better way, a far more fulsome and healthy vision of attractiveness than one can find in the ambient culture.

The Bible, by the way, has much to say about physical beauty, contrary to what many think. Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was beautiful (Gen. 12:11); Rachel was beautiful “in form and appearance” (Genesis 29:17); David “had beautiful eyes and was handsome” (1 Samuel 16:12); Esther had “a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at” (Esther 2:7!); Job’s daughters were the most beautiful of their day (Job 42:15); the man speaking in the Song of Solomon finds his wife “beautiful” to say nothing but the very least; Moses was beautiful as a child (Hebrews 11:23). Beyond all these realities, the Lord, as Edwards knew, is pictured in Scripture as very beauty himself. David wished only to “to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD,” Psalm 27:4. We could go on.

What does this mean? Well, for starters, the biblical authors and figures are not blind to physical beauty. Far from it. They don’t suggest that it is of great importance in itself. That’s clear. Neither, however, do they ignore it, just as we do not ignore it, try or not. We’re all quite conscious of physical beauty. One could say this is because of our genetic wiring, or our consciousness, or perhaps most satisfyingly, our natural understanding of the way earthly attractiveness prefigures God’s magnificence. All of these reasons have credence.

In the context of marriage, this means that it is no bad thing to celebrate one’s attraction to one’s husband or wife. It is in fact a good thing. We should not make the cultural mistake of grounding our spousal love in physical beauty. Anyone who has ever heard a pop song knows how common this is, and how laughable. Those who think that a relationship can stand firm by physical attraction alone clearly have precious little practical experience in actual relationships. Those who are married know that attraction is an important part of marriage–perhaps very important–but that like any covenantal relationship, marriage requires a continual exercise of the will for its flourishing. It is the Christocentric and Christotelic dimensions of marriage that are most significant. Husbands loving wives as Christ sacrificially loved the church, and wives submitting to their husbands as the church submits to Christ in love are the transcendent, indeed transforming, realities of marriage.

But in landing this plane let’s bring our altitude down a bit. Physical attraction matters in a marriage. The Song of Solomon makes this abundantly clear, as any red-faced teen knows in hearing it read in church. No one is suggesting that Christian women should hold themselves up to the (relentlessly airbrushed and digitally edited) cover-girl. It is, however, a good thing for both husband and wife to take the physical dimension of marriage seriously. Men shouldn’t nurse a gut, and women shouldn’t let themselves go. Both should care for the other by devoting a reasonable–and the world’s standards are often unreasonable!–amount of attention to their bodies.

We are not Platonists. We live in bodies. The body is good. God designed the body, manly and womanly, for his glory. He gave sex and attraction and passion to couples for their good and his renown. Marriage in its fullness is to provide the world with a picture of a far greater reality, the devoted loving union of Jesus Christ and his blood-bought church. We do not obsess over our appearances; we do not worry about physical changes over time; we do not obsess over our frames and forms. But we do love one another by caring well for the bodies God has given us. Whatever we do, we seek God’s glory–whether praying in church, church-planting in an unreached land, fixing a leaky faucet, comforting a crying infant, teaching philosophy in a secular college, or running another mile to keep the pounds off (1 Cor. 10:31).

Previous Post

June 6, 2011

Will Another Ralph Reed Emerge in Evangelical Circles?

Next Post

June 8, 2011 "Men are dogs": Maureen Dowd Scorches Weiner

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "heaven is a world of love" 9Marks abortion academics Adam Sandler adoption adultery adulthood aesthetics aging ajith fernando al mohler alice walker America american education american shaolin apologetics architecture atheism atonement august rush barack obama baseball basketball batman beauty berry mauve or muted wine Bible biblemesh biblical studies biblical theology biblical womanhood billy wolfe blogging bob kauflin body book culture book reviews boston celtics boston college bowdoin college bowling alone boyce college boyhood Brooke Fraser Bruce Ware bullies bullying business business ethics C.S. Lewis calling calvinism canada Capitol Hill Baptist Church carl henry carl trueman carolyn mahaney cbmw celebrity Chicago child's play children Christ Christ and culture Christian education christian hedonism christian ministry Christian vocation christian womanhood christianity and culture church government church history church internships church life church matters blog church membership church planting cities CJ Mahaney colin adams college college admissions college life college ministry collin hansen complementarianism conferences congregational worship conservative thought consumerism conversion council on biblical manhood & womanhood council on biblical manhood and womanhood covenant life church creativity credo magazine credobaptism cross movement crossway books crucifixion culinary culture cultural engagement cultural theology culture culture shift d. a. carson dads daily mail dan barry dancing with the stars daniel dennett darrell bock dating David Barash davy rothbart death death of God debt desiring God developmental league devotional thoughts dick morris dining disability discipleship doug sweeney douglas groothius economics economy education egalitarianism eliot spitzer ella rose strachan enlightenment entrepreneurs entrepreneurship environmentalism Eric Metaxas ethics evangelical theological society evangelicalism evangelism extended adolescence extreme home makeover family fatherhood feminism fiction film flame food foodstuffs football four gospels frank miller friendship gay gay Christianity gender roles genderblog george marsden girltalk gk chesterton God gospel gospel of John gospel risk gq greek mythology guillermo del toro happiness harold ockenga Harvard health heaven height hell henry center herb london higher education hillsdale hip hop historical theology history holidays holiness Holy Spirit home-school homemaking homes homosexuality hope human dignity human flourishing human life image of God imagination intellectual Christianity intellectual life iron man Islam J.I. Packer james mcavoy James Q. Wilson jeremy lin Jesus Christ jim hamilton joe namath John Calvin John McCain john owen john piper john rockefeller jonathan edwards journalism justice justin taylor kairos journal keira knightlet la times leadership lesbian life of the mind Lifeway links literature Lord's prayer louie giglio love male sex drive mall manhood manners Mark Dever Mark Driscoll marriage mars hill martial virtue martin luther masculinity materialism matthew hall maureen dowd memoirs of an ordinary pastor mentoring military millennials ministry missional missions monergism moral argument morality motherhood music national review nba new atheism new england New Testament new york new york times new yorker newsweek nietzsche northeast notre dame npr obedience oprah oprah's big give orphan care overheated prose award owen wilson pain parenting Park Community Church pastor-theologian pastoral ministry pastors persecution philosophes philosophy political philosophy politics poverty prayer preaching presidency presidential race pro-life professors proverbs psychology public school public square public theology publications quebec quilting race racism radical womanhood rap music rc sproul rebecca walker Reformation 21 relevant magazine religious liberty resources revelation revival richard dawkins richistan risky gospel robbie george robert putnam ron chernow Russ Moore salvation salvo magazine sam harris same-sex attraction sanctification scholarship science scripture secularism seminaries seminary life sex sex drive sexual ethics sexuality sexualized culture shooting sacred evangelical cows shootings simple church singleness social justice social media social networking Southern Baptists southern seminary sovereign grace Spanglish spirituality sports sports illustrated sports injuries stanford steve mccoy suburbia suffering superhero t. suzanne ellder Tea Leoni technology television the darjeeling unlimited the gospel coalition the southern baptist theological seminary the wackness theological journalism theology theology of work thinking Thom Rainer tim challies tim keller time magazine titan Together for the Gospel tom carson tom wolfe tragedy transgender travel trinity trinity evangelical divinity school truth twitter ty pennington unashamed workman Uncategorized violence virtue vocation voddie baucham war wayne gretzky wayne grudem weddings wikipedia will smith williams winnie hu womanhood work world magazine worship writing youth sports

Select a Month August 2021 July 2021 May 2021 March 2021 December 2020 October 2020 June 2020 February 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 November 2017 October 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the length of the great flood?

Select your answer to see how you score.

60 days 40 days and 40 Nights 50 days 370 Days