To the right honorable Garrett L. White,

I want to start by applauding you for the well done title of your last letter. Before reading, your title conjured up many strong emotions which made me even more eager to click on it. In the current information age and attention economy, that was a nice touch. I know that intention can be hard to communicate in a written format, so I should probably say explicitly that I mean this genuinely. My approval isn’t meant sarcastically.

At any rate, you did well to look at some of the dangers of my position and their implications if one isn’t careful. For example, you take my argument to its supposed logically extreme by stating that: “a person who is good-looking participates more fully in the Divine, and is therefore better than an ugly person in terms of worth, value, and virtue.” This counterargument assumes quite a lot. If I believe that there is an inherent good in physical beauty, that doesn’t in any way suppose that such a person is better in worth, value, and virtue. In terms of worth and value (which are synonyms), the only distinction God makes is the distinction between His creation and His children, i.e. those who are saved vs those who are not saved. Not to say that the saved are any better or less sinful than the unsaved, rather that Jesus’ righteousness has been imputened on to His children and not to those that are only God’s creation (who He still loves).

I do believe that there are different levels to how bad sin is. It seems obvious to me that murdering millions of people is worse than stealing a pencil, and the mass murder will be punished more severely than the pencil thief. Though, even the smallest and littlest of sin still separates us eternally from God. All sin is equal in the fact that it always separates one from God, but once this threshold has been met, it makes sense to me that there are different levels and severities of different sins. All this to say that the same may well be true in reverse. Physical beauty could be inherently good, but in comparison to the grace of Jesus Christ it pales in comparison, just like anything else that we could do that is good.

Now when it comes to virtue, this is where things get a little more complex. I would agree that virtue involves participation and that it is important to participate in the divine, particularly as a follower of Christ. However, I would not agree that beauty can only be achieved by participation. Beauty may be most fully realized via participation in the divine, but it can also exist without it. God makes the lilies of the field beautiful on His own, without us at all. And I don’t think anyone would say that this beauty is fake or bad. It may be temporary, but it is real. Similarly, God bestows certain people with physical attraction and good looks. Just as one has no say in where they are born or what parents they have, you don’t get to pick how physically attractive you are naturally. Physically beauty in its purest form comes from God.

A lot of comparisons can be drawn between beauty and money/wealth. As Paul says in his first letter to Timothy; “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.” Money itself is not evil and I would even argue that money is a good thing. Beauty is something that, in its proper place and context, can be used for good and for virtue. I am reminded of the parable of the talents as well as what Jesus says near the end of the Gospel of Luke, chapter 12: “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”

Some people are born into wealthy families, and I believe that these people have been given an opportunity and the responsibility to use their wealth for good. Money can do a lot of good in the world, and people who have a lot of money need to make sure that their money is serving the good. This could be checked through the charities that the wealthy support, where they shop, and so much more. It wouldn’t surprise me if there will be a much stronger and harsher eternal penalty to those who waste their money and/or support sinful enterprises.

You could even make the case that something is similarly true to those born into Christian families. It is always a wonderful story to hear from somebody who didn’t have any access to Christ and after a life of sin came to a saving faith, but is it not wonderful that there are many who have had an understanding and access to Christ via their parents? I think that those raised in a Christian family are asked to do more. Instead of having to learn everything from scratch after justification, they can be years down the road of sanctification and becoming more like Jesus. It isn’t acceptable for ‘cradle Christians’ to be lukewarm and less on fire than new converts.

The same thing applied here to beauty. To some God has given the gift of beauty, and it is good. There is nothing that the person could do to be naturally attractive, and yet they have it anyways. It is on them to use it well and for the sake of goodness.

It may sound like a dream to be born as a child to a wealthy and devout Christian family, to then grow up to become physically attractive. Some might even want to be envious or shout injustice, but I see someone who has been given a lot and will be expected to do a whole lot more. It is a bit corny, but true, with great power comes great responsibility. It is not bad if one didn’t have Christian parents, wealth, or physical attraction. Everyone has to make due with what they were given, it is just that some people are given a lot more.

It is completely fair to warn about little and partial truths making a lie much more potent. Often the most evil and heinous lies were ones that contained some kernel of truth. That being said, just because a lie uses truth, that doesn’t mean that the truth isn’t true. For example, let’s say a father stole a painting to give to his son. This is an evil act and made all the more tragic because it twisted something good; giving, and turned it into theft. Sin is bad, wrapping it with a veneer of goodness makes it even more wicked. But when removed from the sin, the little piece of goodness is still good. Stealing to give to someone else is bad, but that doesn’t mean that giving is bad.

You bring up a valid yet tragic point about the pornographic industry in America. This is an incredibly evil industry that is a stain on our nation. May God judge us accordingly for letting it fester. It is reasonable to say that any physical attractiveness of anybody involved in this industry is being used for wickedness. The fact that a person’s beauty can be used for something so ungodly is entirely and completely reprehensible. However, as I have stated above, this doesn’t mean that any individual person isn’t beautiful. Just because they are using a good thing for evil, thereby making an evil act even worse, doesn’t mean that the good couldn’t be good when set apart.

Having looked at those pictures of Japanese suburbs, I do appreciate the idea that you have come to. Ugliness isn’t real in the sense that focus, perspective, and attention are what really makes or breaks what one thinks is ugly in the end. There evidently is beauty in the mundane and in the relaxed views of unremarkable infrastructure. Funnily enough, this does bring us back a bit to postmodernism. The conclusion to this framing could be that everything is somewhat random and it is  impossible to make ultimate conclusions about life and the world. Stories, pictures, and beauty can only be seen through the lens of the author, director, or the self. There are people who find beauty in the mega church, smoke machines, and skinny jeans. Maybe the only real differences between me and them are my camera settings?

If that is the case, then it is as you say that substance must precede appearance. This is where I unfortunately reach the outer boundaries of my knowledge. I have never been a fan of Plato and because of this I also haven’t spent much time researching him or his Theory of Forms. Must substance precede appearance? My gut reaction was and is no. It doesn’t sit right with me. I find it really hard to believe that there are perfect forms of everything and that everything made by God or man has a deeper substance that goes beyond its appearance? Sure, humans can’t create material or the building blocks of creation, but are the things we made not more than the sum of their parts? A cathedral is not just a neat assortment of stone, wood, and glass. It becomes something more, maybe beauty is in fact in some sense created. But again, I am sailing in uncharted waters here.

At this point, it would be a great honor to pause the song, interrupt this play, and throw a hammer through the mirror. As I was going through your last letter, I had a realization. We’ve had this conversation before. Well, maybe not exactly the same, not one to one. This current discussion of beauty is somewhat novel, but the underlying assumptions are often unchanging. We’ve heard this conversation before, in fact we always have this conversation.

You tend to take a very hands off and philosophical approach to discussions like this. You want to know the theories behind everything, and where the conclusion could end up. You like connecting ideas to Greek philosophers from antiquity and applying their thoughts to modern discussions. You seem to always want to get to the heart and soul of the matter at hand. You are concerned with how everything we discuss leads us and others to know and love Christ more. It seems to me that your approach is very pastoral in nature.

Whereas, I always have a different angle. I have always been a fan of Otto von Bismarck and his Realpolitik. I want to know about the practical implications and what ideas will look like on the ground. I am less concerned about the extremes or the theological implications, I just want to see change. I want to learn about practical solutions for the problems we are facing today and I want to put them into practice. I am less concerned about ancient philosophy and more concerned about the actual state of streets right now. Whereas you may be interested in what path we are heading down philosophically, I am interested in the literal path that we are heading down now.

I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. One could accuse you of having your head in the clouds and not really being worried about things in real life. One could accuse me of being too reckless and willing to go for anything that might change things, consequences be damned. In their extremes, we either talk in circles endlessly about everything, yet never do anything. Or we just do things just based on vibes without any deeper consideration or concern for the soul. I am of course hyperbolizing a bit. I do believe that both of us care about the heart behind decisions as well as eventually making decisions. The solution is obviously to meet somewhere in the middle. It is not good to make rash decisions, nor is it good to make no decision.

I do hope you don’t mind me breaking the illusion a bit, but given our many conversations both on and off Being Kindled I have come to notice that we are prone to defaulting to our chosen extremes. With this in mind, it will be interesting to see if the pattern sticks as we continue to parlay into the future. The content of our conversation is valuable, and incredibly edifying, but as you beautifully said, the fact of the conversation itself is the most important part.

Veritas vos liberabit.

Ihr ergebener,

Nate Martin

P.S. The crucifix symbolizes defeat and triumph, ugliness and beauty, order and chaos. The ultimate paradox, and a perfect representation of our faith’s mysteries.