Dear Young Women

Dear Young Women of God,

     Let me tell you a story of sorts.

     Fashionable. Attractive. Personality. Modest. Comfortable. Cute. Maybe these words describe some imaginary, "perfect" outfit. For me those words have often meant war. In the past, I struggled to find which facets of my identity to dress. On top of that, I was taller than average with big hips. In my mind, I looked like a Frankenstein assortment of body parts. On top of that, I wanted to know, even if I was not interested in "pulling" guys, that guys would in fact find some interest in me. On top of that, I wanted to appear at least somewhat on scale with the trends other cute girls wore--trends they wore seemingly without a care in the world. On top of that, I wanted to be comfortable! I played sports! And I didn't want anyone to think I really cared about any of this stuff at all. The battle of who could care less is often a popular competition. On top of all of that, my school, my God, and my family also required a little something called modesty. Really? I had so much to worry about. These were no small worries. The battle for defining my identity was not easily won. I settled for a T-shirt and jeans more often than not. Nothing really wrong with that. But the fact is, I didn't want to fight the battle. I gave up caring. I wanted to be able to say "I couldn't care less" and actually mean it. So I intentionally stopped caring. And like a plant that gets no love from sun or water, I shriveled. My lack of care turned to hate. I hated everything that made me frustrated with myself. Shopping was just painful. Often I knew what I wanted to look like and how I wanted to present myself, but the challenges of ever making that happen were mounted in the back of my mind, without my realizing exactly what was going on. Something like modesty was not even a thought anymore. How could I think of presenting myself modestly, which requires a respect for the person God made me to be, if I could not care about the person He made me to be?

     Years later, God continues to work on me in new and surprising ways. But the real miracle He revealed to me was that I am in fact His work of art. Imperfect? Yes. But His! And my worst imperfections only serve to bring Him glory.

     Oh how easy it is to hear that statement and miss its power. My IMPERFECTIONS serve to bring HIM glory.

     Many times when we go to pick an outfit, we ask "Does this make me look pretty?" or "Does this make me look fat?" or "Does this make me look attractive?" We try to find out if our outfits are telling the story we want the world to know about us. Wait. The story we want the world to know about us? Here's the problem. In all my hurt and fear and frustration, I couldn't look up to the heavens and see God through the clouds of my own self-hate. The story the world should know about us is that we are saved and redeemed! The story the world should know about us is that once we were lost and now we are found. The story I should be telling with my clothes is that God is God is God and I am His child. Wow. Well what would an outfit like that look like?

     Start with the personality He gave you--creative or thoughtful or fun or quiet or loud. Maybe all of these characteristics at different times. And then look to the actual physical body He gave you as well. Appreciate it. Appreciate it! Be grateful for every curve and straight line and wrinkle and freckle. See yourself as His creation. Be cautious of how you adorn your curves, so that you aren't bringing glory to yourself. Rather glorify Him in the juxtaposition of strength and softness with each curve. Maybe you're not curvy at all. Maybe you've been given that dubious body title boy shape, a term that is complete non-sense to me. But, see the beauty of each lean line and humble contour. Dress wisely, again, glorifying God for so seamlessly combining grace and structure in one form. Then through all the steps come back to that big notion of modesty. If you've already seriously gone through the steps of seeking your personality in Him and also appreciating the body He gave you to dwell in, then modesty will be in its perfect place. But consider it further all the same. Is anything you are wearing going to make your brother stumble? Are you starving yourself, whether hurting your person-hood literally or figuratively, to adorn yourself in something that is not true to God's calling over you? Are you fulfilling the standards in place for you?

     G.K. Chesterton said that his favorite part of every painting was its frame. What does that mean? He was appreciating a remarkable facet of all true art. A work of art, when still a blank canvas, has the potential to express all the beauty of all the world and every world. It can tell the glories of an infinite number of possibilities, and yet it ends right at the edge. All the potential power and beauty of creation is contained with just a handful of precious limits. These limits cause the artist to create more miraculously than compared to a piece without limits. These artists are made more creative by their limits. Young women, please see modesty as a tool of strength not weakness. Modesty isn't easy. If it were, we could all wear the styles of the most fashionable nuns and not think anything of it. But we are all called to very different portrayals of God when we dress. Don't give up. Don't stop caring, and please don't pretend you do not care. Care about the story your clothes are telling. Make sure that it's God's story. Live intentionally. And remember unquestionably, you are beautifully and wonderfully made.

Your sister in Christ,

Kala Ellis

More than the Surface, Please

More Than the Surface, Please.

Unwilled observation is soon satiated and goes to sleep. Willed observation, vision with executive force behind it, is full of discernment and is continually making discoveries which keep the mind alert and interested. Get a will behind the eye and the eye becomes a searchlight, the familiar is made to disclose undreamed treasure. –Robert Traina (Grant, 1985, p. 140)

It was four in the morning. I pulled back my hair from my face and looked intently upon the photograph in hand. I knew at that moment, as I corrected an angle, darkened a shadow, and perfected a shape, that I was about to pull an all-nighter. I was completing a rather important art project, due in the afternoon of that same day. The stress was mounting and the picture was overwhelming. Yet despite all the pain of pressure, the sketch of my grandmother, standing before a Spanish-influenced cathedral, angled in such a way that the distant, neo-classic, modern buildings were included, was speaking to me. Pushed by more than the oncoming deadline, I was moved. At some point, the thick paper before me became a pallet of emotion and reality, all at once. At some point, the manipulations of lead became more than smudged powders and hard lines. At some point, the rushed manifestations of my creative thought process became art. But I had to ask myself, what is art? Was I coming close to creating something worthy of that title "art"? When does a simple vision of creativity and communication become art? Art is a powerful commodity. It has the rare capacity to envelop humility and pride. It tells stories, unveils cultures, communicates ideas, and reveals the human heart (Day, 1992, p. 34). In all its greatness, art has its flaws. Occasionally, art is little more than “pretty,” “interesting,” “shocking,” or downright “ugly.” All in all, none of those adjectives are bad, none communicate disaster, and all are viable characteristics of a culture (Henley, 2004, p. 79). Yet when they stand alone, they fall short of certain greatness. They fall short of substance. They fall short of something called true art.


 

Thank you, Mr. Stossel 

Not what man knows but what man feels, concerns art. All else is science. –Bernard Berenson (Kren, 2006)
John Stossel. Known for telling it like it is. He certainly rides a high horse; but oftentimes, his opinions are waist-high in ethos, logos, and pathos. On 11 March 2005, Stossel broadcast yet another Give Me a Break story, this one begging the question, “You Call That Art?” His argument is as simple and as complex as the question details. Who decides where to draw the line between that which is art and that which is junk? “How do they determine that Damien Hirst's embalmed shark and sliced cow carcasses are art?” (2005, ¶10). Stossel’s angle of persuasion was represented through a quiz available in this article, which was an excellent way to argue with the intent to find truth and make a point, rather than simply fight to be right. Stossel inquires:Do people really know what's art and what's just stuff? We ran a test. On ABCNews.com, we showed four reproductions of art works that are considered masterpieces of modern art along with six pieces that will never make it into any museum. We asked viewers to decide which work was art and which was not (2005, ¶3-5).

The pieces shown covered everything from the work of four year olds to a five dollar find at the thrift store to Willem de Kooning’s “A Tree in Naples.” The thrift-store-find won out as the most likely to be considered art. Even the professionals, artists and art historians, could not hit the nail on the head. The article clarifies, “One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as ‘a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art’” (2005, ¶19). Sometimes a search for answers leads to more questions, as exemplified when Stossel came to the notion that maybe, “it's just all in the eye of the beholder?” (2005, ¶14). Art historian, Hoover explains, "I wouldn't say it's all in the eye of the beholder […] you need to know the story behind the work to understand its full impact and meaning” (2005, ¶15). In which case, Stossel had yet to arrive at a definition for modern art. Then he came across one artist’s definition of art. He states, “An artist who calls himself Flash Light told me, ‘The function of art is to make rich people feel more important’” (2005, ¶26). Which led Stossel to conclude his argument with the idea that “whether you think it's art or junk, the real deal is that you're contributing your money too. The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things” (2005, ¶29-30).
The main objective of Stossel’s argument was to address two issues: 1. To point out that much artwork, specifically modern artwork, is lacking definable and substantive signs as to its qualification to be considered “art”, 2. And to make known that taxpayer dollars are funding these illusive “masterpieces.”
Stossel’s argument was lacking, but fitting for his purposes. Art ought to be definable. “Look art” bases everything on emotionality. The story is lacking, while emotions abound. Purpose is unfounded, while action sets forth. Relief is void, while longing continues. True art is not just feeling. True art is not just knowing. True art is balance. Stossel faced the argument of when and where art becomes art, but he only stopped at your wallet. When you face down the totality of art, you should be able to reach right down into the soul. 



True Art

Truth in art does not mean doing accurate copies, but that the artist’s insight is rich and full, that he really has a good view of reality, that he does justice to the different elements of the aspect of reality he is representing. Truth has to do with the fullness of reality, its scope and meaning […] It is artistic truth! –H.R. Rookmaaker (1971, p. 237)
One of the most beautiful aspects of art is the portrayal of truth. The unique thing about truth is its multifaceted antithesis. Truth can be painful and precious. Truth can be coarse and courtly. Truth can be emotional and tangible. The portrayal of that truth all depends on the worldview of the artist. Everyone, whether or not they know, like or understand it, responds and behaves in accordance to a personal worldview. The author, J. F. Baldwin explains:
Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may be in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (1998, p. 29)

There exists a balance between the right to question art and the right to create art. With those rights comes the need for understanding. No matter how subjective art is capable of being, the reality portrayed in art is the same reality despite its portrayal, despite the worldview glasses of its portray-er.
Modern art often places a strong focus on “me, myself, and I” and sometimes altogether dismisses the objective of art. Art should express a balance between the fatality and the hope of humanity. It should both delve into the imperfection and the longing for perfection. It is the good and the bad. An excellent standard for the balance between the hurt and the hope of reality is Jan van Goyen’s "Landscape" done in 1646. Jan van Goyen was “possibly the greatest of all landscape painters” (Rookmaaker, 1971, p.19). In this specific painting, now held in Groninger Museum voor Stad en Lande, Holland, Goyen portrays a beautifully peaceful sea stretched out beside the coast, interrupted only by distant boats and harbor jetties. The piece is more or less simple, but the abilities to create a substantive statement of truth, as displayed in this picture, are astounding. This vast sky radiates great light while simultaneously yielding to dark storm clouds. The painting shows true art because, first, it does not picture reality as only that which we can tangibly know while. At the same time, it does not dismiss tangible reality by vying for a solely emotional reality. Second, since "Landscape" places the calm sea together with the violent storm clouds all as the arena in which the sailors live out day-to-day life, the piece makes a clear connection with reality. The brooding sky, the peaceful waters, the depiction of individuals living out life, every aspect of the painting speaks to the connection of the ephemeral with the physical sides of reality. (1971, p. 20). 
He paints reality with a fullness, rather than how perhaps another artist would like it to be or would hate it to be. Much of modern art deals with either emotions or physical realities alone. In addition to only displaying one side of the coin as it pertains to the physical and metaphysical, it is often void of a balance between the two realities of pain and hope. Much of modern art focuses on only one aspect of life, either pain or hope. There are two realities that, when combined, make our world. Although these two realities are both real apart from each other, they cannot be truth apart from each other. There are times where an artist only realizes the hope of a moment and forgets despair. And other times, artists cannot see past the despair of a moment and bypasses hope. Although both understandings of reality are valid and real and worth understanding, they cannot fulfill the whole of reality. They cannot be truth.
After deciphering which pieces of reality a piece of is embracing or ignoring, another important issue is recognizing the audience. Modern art is often depicted as being in touch with the common man, but that is not necessarily the case. Unless a common person knows the complexities of the history behind the piece of work or the complexities of the style, content, skill, creativity, et cetera of the piece of work, then the only use a modern artwork has for the common person is how it looks. Onlookers may respond, “That’s pretty; that’s ugly; that’s weird; that’s a black circle, etc.” All one can do is state the obvious and maybe hypothesize what it could possibly mean. And if it could possibly mean anything to any person, then what if, just what if, it could mean nothing altogether. Beauty is more than canvas deep. If all the “beauty” retrieved from a piece of art is found on the surface alone, then can it be true beauty? The surface alone cannot properly identify the artwork (Sylva, 1988, p. 5). Art comes with a strong legacy. Art comes with a past. Art comes with a drum role. The history of art is vital. (Yates, 1998, p. 3). When looking at any piece of art, the artwork should be held against the standards of time, through all cultures from Antiquities and on. Then and only then can Modernity come up to bat. The problem with much of modern art is that it is viewed without the breadth and depth from which it was born. Without its past, modern art is just “look art” and therefore misses out on great substance. Without an understanding of its history, it cannot be true art.



 
True Art Requires a True Artist
  
[…] we must not love in word or speech, but in deed and truth; that is how we will know we are of the truth –I John 3:18,19
 Rookmaaker defines creativity as “acting in love and freedom within given structures” (1971, p. 226). This notion is very different than how many modern day artists would be likely to define creativity. If you were to step into any museum of modern art you would see multiple pieces doing all that is possible in order to step “outside of the box.” The goal of modern art seems to be an attempt to out-do, out-shine, and out-shock the art of a metaphoric yesterday. If there is nothing new under the sun, then even the work of the avant-garde is simply a manipulated expression of feelings and ideas that existed at the onset of human culture. Looking at creativity as an act of love and freedom within given structures seems an ironic combination of terms. So perhaps art aficionado, Greg Wilbur, can lend some aid. In an excellent lecture on medieval art and its effects on art, past to present, Wilbur outlines six concepts that make way for true art. He states that these effects exemplify a standard for all art and makes the possibility of truth in art a realistic goal. He refers to artists as craftsmen. The first aspect a craftsman must live out in order to create true art is understanding truth. This seems a bit redundant, and at the same time it is so rare an occurrence that we as a people forget that in order to live out truth we must find a source of truth within life. Wilber understands truth as being the adherence to the Spirit of God. No one can tell an individual what to believe as truth, that is something that no one can simply reveal to another in an instance. It must be the result of a personal revelation of the truth. However, this does not mean that there are different truths for different people. If there is to be a truth that is true, it must be true beyond contest, despite how often it is in fact contested. That is the nature of truth verses simple facts, which are but accepted statements of information upon limited capabilities of research. (Rookmaaker, 1971, p. 234-237). We can utilize what we call facts in addition to experience in order to realize truth. It is a never-ending endeavor. But the closer to truth an artist or craftsman can arrive upon in his or her worldview, the closer that artist will get to creating true art. The second piece of the puzzle that Wilbur follows in defining true artists is ability. This talent is not exclusively something you are born with, but it is a gift that one can better through discipline. It is a gift that must be trained. Third is intelligence. The ability to reason and apply common sense allows for a backbone to deny irrationality. Wilber explains, “G.K. Chesterton spoke of the artist’s need to care for laws and limits. He said, ‘Art consists of limitation. The most beautiful part of every picture is the frame’” (Wilber, 2005). Limitation is not the constriction of creativity. It is the ability to be creative in such a way the artist invents progress without resorting to the ease of creating without limits. Creativity without guidelines is not nearly as masterful as creativity with. Forth is knowledge. The “pursuit of knowledge” is the “mandate for the artist.” This brings great substance into any work of art. Fifth is craftsmanship. The artist has dominion over the craft. It requires submission to the truth “in order to subdue the media.” And last is the artist’s ability to teach. A true artist is a teacher. This passing on of the baton divorces art and ego. The true artist exhibits a “desire to prepare the rising generation […] A true teacher desires his students to surpass his works.” (Wilber, 2005). This is the context for true art and the calling of the true artist. Under these pretenses, the artist can reach truth. And the artwork must find need to follow its creator. 


 
Concluding Beauty

Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. –The Astronomer (Johnson, 1985, p. 129)
It was ten in the morning. I rubbed my eyes to keep from squinting. The night had come and gone without my sleep. I took in deep breaths as I set my large sketch upright to compare it with its photographic predecessor. It was done. I took in my handiwork and recognized what had occurred. The past, the present, and the future. They all had a role to play in this little depiction of reality. There in my grandmother’s face, I saw hope, strength, frailty, failure, triumph, and truth. I saw the world before her, yet only through her forward-looking eyes. I saw the world behind her, yet only in a glimmer of architecture and culture. I saw myself in her shoes, yet only by the curiosity of my imagination. I saw life as it was, as it is, and as it could be. So again, what is art? Yes, art is a powerful commodity. It has the rare capacity to envelop humility and pride. It tells stories, unveils cultures, communicates ideas, and reveals the human heart (Day, 1992, p. 34). Once an artist understands this power, utilizing reality invokes knowledge and integrity. The two forces work in tangent to develop true art. Art can be done by anyone, but true art requires true artists. It leads to a sort of wonderful and traumatic responsibility, a responsibility wonderful in its aspirations and traumatic in its ardor. The author and artist H.R. Rookmaaker describes this responsibility as a calling:
Realizing one’s possibilities, acting in love and freedom within given structures, fighting against sin and its results, all this is also what creativity means […] We are called to be creative in this sense. And we are called to bear the cross that often goes with it, for mankind often prefers darkness to light […] (1971, p. 226).
Through this identity as an artist, the objective of portraying true art is an excellent fight. This is the source of passion in art, this is the source of legacies in art, and this is the source of power in art. The stories told, the realities illustrated, the cultures identified, the worlds made known, they are all the results of an excited warfare of the best kind, the kind in which right and wrong are antithetical (Rookmaaker, 1972, p. 21). Once the battle lines are drawn, the difference between art and true art is clear. As many onlookers are drawn away from true art for the temporary satisfaction of art without truth, as Rookmaaker said, preferring “darkness to light,” the great poet of Wales, Dylan Thomas offers stalwart advice. The calling of true artists to depict true art:
“Do not go gently into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

References

Baldwin, J.F. (1998). The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen.
In The Deadliest Monster, Baldwin uses an analogy to address the issue of worldviews. Mr. Hyde symbolizes the character of a Christian worldview and Frankenstein symbolizes the character of all other worldviews.
This insightful book gives a brief explanation into many diverse worldviews. He defines the applicable terms and sets the stage for a brilliant review of culture, human nature, and the way by which one ought to form a worldview.

Day, M.D. (1992). Cultural Diversity and Discipline-based Art Education. Discipline-Based Art Education and Cultural Diversity, 34-36. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
Day reports on the way by which we take in art, in the context of cultural diversity and fine art. He addresses the direction of his program DBAE as it directly adheres to the multifaceted identities of cultural differences.
He finds that art is driven by a past, one that will bring more clarity to art and the disciplined application of art.

Grant, G. (1985). Bringing in the Sheaves. Atlanta: American Vision.
This book delves into the issues and developments of poverty in the USA. Grant addresses the problems, the facts, the contexts, and the realities of modern poverty. He also brings up strong points of hope and possibility.
Throughout the work, Grant uses powerful quotes to make convincing connections. This book wraps around terms like discernment, worldview, culture, etc. and gives persuasive clarity to the issues of poverty.

Johnson, S. (1985) The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia. London: Penguin Classics.
The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia is an old classic. In this tale, the young and spoiled prince Rasselas begins to yearn for a normal life, one of adventure, disappointment, success, and failure.
In this story, the prince learns a great deal about life and sets an excellent stage for the communication of many philosophical, weighty theories, ideals, identities, and worldview questions.

Henley, D. (2004). Responding to Art from Preschool to Postmodernism. The Meaningful Critique, 22 (2), 79-87. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
Henley deals with the personal effects of criticism in art. He uses multiple examples and experiences to express the fact that when judgment is passed on a piece of art, the artist is impressed with a personal attack. Despite the emotions of the artist, art criticism does not necessarily translate as a personal attack.
For a good criticism to take place, the judgments must be meaningful and based in a strong understanding of art.

Rookmaaker, H.R. (1971). Modern Art and the Death of a Culture. London: Inter-Varsity.
H.R. Rookmaaker is a talented artist, author, and philosopher. In this book, he deals with the relevancy of the past as it adheres to the visual art, the problematic character of modern art, the reality of art, the messages and meanings of artistic truths, and the foundation of Christian art.
With his brilliant understanding of art history and philosophy, he creates the perfect venue for delving to truth in art.

Stossel, John. (2006) Gimme a Break. ABCNews.
.
Stossel’s “Gimme a Break” article addresses the issue of what actually constitutes a piece of art. He runs an online test to find out what onlookers believe to be art. He checks with many professions, artists, art historians, etc. to arrive at some sort of conclusion. His journey results in more questions. In the end, he does not reach a true definition but does appease his own point of understanding with relevance to the taxpayer’s pocketbooks.

Sylva, R. (1988). The Parameters of Art. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
Sylva discusses the four dimensions of art engagement: 1. creation, 2. response, 3. historical inquiry, and 4. philosophical inquiry. After which he describes nine aspects of these four arenas: 1. area (fine, environmental, pragmatic); 2. medium (immediate, technological, conceptual); 3. mindset (spontaneity, precision, ingenuity);4. dimensions (four, three, two); 5. process (manipulate, add, subtract, transform); 6. approach (juxtapose, realize, synthesize); 7. intention (interpretive, expressive, formalistic);8. imagery (realistic, abstract, non-objective); and 9. subject (people, surroundings, ideas, emotions). These definitions and classifications are the tools he uses to define art.

Wilber, Greg. (2001). Medieval Art: A Seamless Theme. Unpublished dissertation, Franklin Classical School.
Wilber does an excellent job outlining the basic foundation of medieval art and the influences that this period of art had and has on art today. He discusses the worldviews and mindsets of the times. The structure of his argument compares and contrasts art from different time periods and defines how art can better depict truth. His strong viewpoint, well-grounded discussion, and cogent support made for a persuasive, understandable, and powerful presentation.

Yates, C.A. (1998). A Procedural Model for Research. Regional Art History. Abstract obtained from ERIC database.
This article looks at a model for research specifically in the region of Central Ohio. Yates uses tables, research, and analysis to arrive at some conclusions concerning the way by which one can research and study regional art. While attending to the specifics of Central Ohio, he finds the utilization of historical context, literature reviews, analyses, and resourceful sampling of artworks (from 1945-95) imperative. His methods of research show the importance of context and content.

Accepting Monsters

I wrote the following paper in an attempt to see the other side of the debate. The emails shown in the entry below concerns this assignment: to make an argument for truth, make an argument for the almost-truth, then after having covered both sides of the debate, make an argument for the arrived upon conclusion. The paper listed below, titled "Accepting Monsters," is my idea of the other side of the debate, the almost-truth. I don't agree with it. I feel I could argue against each point. But it is the other side. In order to better understand my point of view on truth, I jumped into the contrary mindset. It felt ugly. But all the same, here it is below. To see the other side of this debate, the argument for truth, go to my entry titled "Defeat Monsters." All in all, I'm proud of my conclusions and feel more secure in my own understanding of truth. I have to admit that my work arguing for almost-truth isn't my best. The paper feels unorganized to me. But my paper for the truth feels much more substantial to me. If the debate of truth and almost-truth intrigues you, I suggest you read The Deadliest Monster by J.F. Baldwin. And if you get into the intrigue of monsters, I suggest you read The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Stevenson and Frankenstein by Shelley. Great books.

Accepting Monsters

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley tells the horrific tale of a scientist who raises a hodge-podge, lifeless body to life. This life is forced, by the rigid, unloving race of human kind, into becoming a monster. This life began in beauty. This life began in innocence. But this life was no match for the wearying rages of humanity. An environment of isolation, loneliness and disdain creates a murderous beast. In an attempt to earn back his creator’s love, the monster appeals to Frankenstein saying, “Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other, and trample on me alone […] Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous […] If the multitude of mankind knew of my existence, they would do as you do, and arm themselves for my destruction. Shall I not then hate them who abhor me? I will keep no terms with my enemies. I am miserable, and they shall share in my wretchedness” (98 Shelley). The poor beast had a pure heart driven to cruelty since cruelty was all he was even shown. His environment provided for a monstrous lifestyle. He had no opportunity to become anything less than a monster. This misunderstood creature embodies a reality that the majority of human kind takes for granted. The monster of Frankenstein mirrors the monster of almost truth. The almost truth is shunned for its inability to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But this poor beast is a misunderstood creation of necessity. When the almost truth is turned away and repudiated, it can lead to a slew of grievous happenings. If our world was more receptive of monsters, what might that look like? The almost truth is a necessity of existence, as shown by examples of personal experience, media, and culture.

Before being able to see the almost truth monster at work, the foundation of understanding almost truth must be established. Understanding the almost truth begins with comprehending the three terms: worldview, discernment and convenience. Everyone, whether or not they know, like or understand it, responds and behaves in accordance to a personal worldview. The author, J. F. Baldwin clarifies:

Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may be in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (29)

If the “framework for understanding existence” does not make room for almost truths, then large portions of one’s worldview glasses will be clouded. This world is filled with almost truths; and if they are left alone and are turned away, the world will appear severely distorted. With a clouded worldview, the ramifications of what almost truth has to offer will be unclear. This notion reveals a greatly under-appreciated concept. The difference between the almost truth and outright lies is vital to the issue. Renowned orator, Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said that, “Discernment is not telling the difference between right and wrong; rather it is telling the difference between right and almost right” (Grant). Discernment values almost truth, because it has a closer link with reality than that which is falsehood. The truth works like the body of a human; the almost truth acts as the appendages of that human. “Right” and “almost right” relate strongly with one another; so if you completely cut off one from the other, it would be as if you were cutting the arm off a man. Accepting the almost truth is a headway for the truth. As a result, almost truths are then found acceptable and often incontestable. Fortunately, a false reality created by almost truth is often easier to face and therefore found desirable. It can be comforting or enjoyable to live at hands of this monster. This perception, when acted upon, becomes an issue of convenience. Author of Do You Think I’m Beautiful?, Angela Thomas writes, “I have concocted a few lies to make life hurt less and then forced myself to live them” (6). If Angela Thomas had recognized those lies as almost truths, then perhaps she could have become more comfortable living out a less truthful, less painful existence. If she were capable of accepting a supposed monster, the beauty of living out almost truth would be ever apparent. Through a better understanding of worldview, discernment and convenience, the almost truth monster is pinned down. Now through examples of personal experience, media, and cultural conducts, the monster of almost truth can be found worthy, beneficial and acceptable.

First, the example of personal experiences shows how almost truth actually enables people simply to make it through a day. Many people face problems and realities too grand, too intense, too much for a single person to swallow. These people often enact the power of almost truth in order to make it through life. Imagine a cancer patient, given slim to nil odds, who gets through the day telling oneself that despite the odds the can and will be all right. Many people call it denial; but case after case shows that a cancer patient using this almost truth has a higher chance at defeating the cancer. If a Frankenstein-type person came into the picture denying the almost truth monsters, the results would be detrimentally discouraging for the cancer patient. In this case, confronting a painful truth leads to no good and therefore makes the truth irrelevant. But if the meek and mild monster of almost truth is given the chance, it will lead an eventual path to the truth.

Within the same thread of personal experiences, consider a person who is battling phobias of all shapes and sizes. For every fear out there, there is a falsehood, a truth and therefore an almost truth. Each battle necessitates certain almost truths in order to face down an average day. Someone facing gerascophobia (the fear of growing old) has to engage the almost truth daily. The falsehood for someone suffering a fear of growing old is that there is something terribly wrong, frightening and evasive about growing old. The truth is that growing old is natural and, in many ways, beautiful. Since the truth is not immediately an obtainable option for the person with gerascophobia, the almost truth is the only viable combatant—growing old is not a big deal. However, growing old means huge changes; it means drastic transformations; it is a big deal. If a Frankenstein-type person were to walk up to one with gerascophobia and refute the humble, well-mannered monster of almost truth, one with said phobia would become incapable of making strides toward the real truth and would be forced into a life of continued fear. The same can be said of almost any phobia. The almost truth, in the case of most personal experiences, is therefore the headway for truth and is necessary for countless people.

Last in the theme of personal experiences shows a clear picture of how the almost truth is capable of operating. The last example of personal experiences confronts the notion of alcoholism and specifically how it is dealt with under the guidance of an organization called Alcoholics Anonymous or A. A. This organization leads people who abuse alcohol through a twelve-step program, after which these sufferers of alcohol stasis should be able to face down their demons and defeat the vice of alcoholism. Yet just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, the alcoholic didn’t put an end to abuse in a day. One of the many notions that A. A. is known for says to take things one day at a time. This idea, upon a closer inspection, proves to be an excellent and simplistic almost truth that is invaluable to many. The reality is that when someone addicted to alcohol goes on an attack against the disease, they are headed in for a long-term battle. The end to alcohol abuse is not found upon sunrise the next day or the day after that. The end to the problem with alcohol abuse may not even be a definable occurrence. Victory has nothing to do with the day to day, yet that happens to be the only way to win the battle against alcohol. Based on an almost truth, alcoholics can crush this debilitating sickness. Yet without this almost truth, the scope of real victory may seem completely out of reach. Throughout the lives of countless individuals, the almost truth monster plays a crucial role.

Second, just as the mild monster of almost truth comes to life in the form of personal experiences, the monster of almost truth can also be found in the workings of American media. A brief look into what constitutes media would present the multiple expressions of propaganda—which manifests itself throughout industries of style, music, politics, sports, news, etc. Each arena is selling something. Often the ideas that the public sees, likes and buys from media identify some sort of almost truth. To help illustrate that point we can zero in on American media and specifically Hollywood. Hollywood has created some pretty strong ideas of what perfection ought to look like. Each idea could easily be called an almost truth. Some of those ideas are tagged with rather negative presuppositions. However many of those almost truths are quite necessary and lead to certain realities possibly unobtainable otherwise. F. Scott Fitzgerald clarifies through what is known as the ultimate Hollywood novel, The Last Tycoon:

I accepted Hollywood with the resignation of a ghost assigned to a haunted house. I knew what you were supposed to think about it but I was obstinately unhorrified. This is easy to say, but harder to make people understand. [Some] who pretended an indifference to Hollywood or its products, really hated it. Hated it way down deep as a threat to their existence. […] You can take Hollywood for granted […] or you can dismiss it with the contempt we reserve for what we don’t understand. It can be understood too, but only dimly and in flashes. (3,4)

Perhaps many people distance themselves from Hollywood simply because they have chosen to refute the gentle almost truth monster. The truth is that the image of perfection created by Hollywood is rather impractical. Perfection in Hollywood is comprised of beauty, riches, love and therefore happiness. But beauty in Hollywood is not always clear, riches can come and go, and love fades like a withering flower. So is happiness even possible? Despite the ephemeral appearance of Hollywood’s idea of perfection, the continuance of these almost truths are important. First, everyday the monster of almost truth in Hollywood has driven people away from seeking out a life that is not their own. Successful careers in Hollywood require and demand a great deal of talent, looks, personality and more. The strict criteria of Hollywood has turned away many, allowing each of those people to seek out a lifestyle better suited to their capabilities, needs and realities. The almost truth that you have to completely fulfill the demands of Hollywood in order to find success and happiness has either driven people to turn away from an unnecessary life path or driven them to work harder to earn their way to the top. Second, on the other side of the Hollywood ideal, we can find another victory in the name of accepting the almost truth monster. Hollywood depicts glimpses of reality the way we long it to be, and therefore gives headway for a greater truth. This greater truth speaks unto how things could be. It foretells the possibility of what happiness can look like. This notion may come across as idealism and utopianism, but rather it is simply the beautiful picture of hope. This is the story of Hollywood. The story of hope is the great enterprise of Hollywood. Without the almost truths of Hollywood, this notion of hope would be but a glimmer in the eyes of countless people. But the profound monster of almost truth has assembled a wonderful adventure within the worlds of film, fashion, fame and fantasy. As shown through the example of media, the almost truth is a beneficial necessity of life.

Third, as with the examples of personal experiences and media, the almost truth proves a vital part of humanity throughout the thread of cultures. Cultures display unique varieties on how human kind partakes in this little thing called life. Each and every culture lives out a very different set of standards and ethics based on a system of beliefs. Oftentimes these differences between cultures are seen as barriers. However, the differences of how we each deal with reality are most likely our strongest ties together. You see, daily each person in this world is living out an almost truth that applies directly to a personal worldview and cultural identity. Now the almost truths may vary throughout the many cultures of the world, but the enactment of almost truth is the same worldwide. To explain this notion, we can pick out several points of interest that will highlight the issues at hand. One example of a cultural issue that points out the power of the almost truth monster is the very basic concept, which bounces around high schools everywhere in America: You must complete your education in order to be successful. In reality, your academic career is not necessarily required for success. Many great entrepreneurs have never attended college, and some did not even complete high school. The almost truth about education has driven many students to seek out a higher education in order to become better in their career-fields. Although the almost truth pushes people to do something that could be seen as unnecessary, it also causes people to work harder and more effectively. A high school and college education offers a number of advantages in the workplace and gives an opportunity for growth and development. If this mild monster were altogether rejected, a great amount of the populace would not be in the places or be the people that they are today. Although you can find success without college, the monster driving home this almost truth has made way for great things. Another cultural almost truth monster that has brought about good things is found in the idea of personal space. In America, personal space is a key element of societal existence. In many other countries, the term personal space is unheard of. Some countries outside of America understand the idea but in alternative ways. For example, when you greet someone, you kiss the new or old acquaintance on the cheeks. It is an expression of compassion. It is a custom the people. In America, a handshake will suffice or even the occasional friendly nod will do. Although the two greetings differ greatly, they both hold the capacity to express the same things. They could both express the extremes of genuine affection or polite disassociation. Both can be patterns of conformity or patterns of respectful courtesy. If the two divergent forms of salutation are capable of communicating the same basic issues, then why do we purposefully and intently teach our children, our future generations to take on these customs. In America, why do we push the idea of personal space upon our children? Is it because America is impersonal and uncompassionate? Not necessarily. Communicating the need for personal space to our young is a way of implementing patterns of behavior that will benefit them in their future workplaces and endeavors. And in Peru, communicating the idea of personal space or possibly the lack there of will also implement a pattern of behavior that will lend for success. Personal space is a good example of a partial truth that is beneficial and in many ways necessary for cultural acceptance. The many cultural almost truths are vital for society. If we deny these endearing little monsters of our cultural heritage, then in turn we deny an element of truth wrapped in the “almost.”

As exemplified by the almost truths found in personal experiences, media and culture, the little monsters of almost truth are deserving of acceptance. They are often necessary and beneficial. Sir Walter Raleigh’s wonderfully passionate poem “The Lie” explains:

Go, soul, the body’s guest,

Upon a thankless errand;

Fear not to touch the best;

The truth shall be thy warrant.

Go, since I needs must die,

And give the world the lie.

The truth is that lies and harmless balderdash are often what our world requires. To stray from the outright harm that the truth is capable of, we must go out into our worlds and do nothing less than offer up our best lies. Anything less would be detrimental. We must avoid a Frankenstein mentality. How will you handle monsters? Will you disown them for their inability to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Or will you be able to take them on for what they are rather than what they are not? Can you accept monsters?

Selected Bibliography

Baldwin, J. F. The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen, 1998.

Bragg, Sarah. Body. Beauty. Boys. Birmingham: New Hope, 2006.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Last Tycoon. London: Bantam, 1976.

Grant, George. “Flash Gordon Worldview.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 29 Nov. 2004.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003.

Thomas, Angela. Do You Think I’m Beautiful? Nashville: Nelson, 2003.

Hope has two beautiful daughters.
Their names are anger and courage;
anger at the way things are,
and courage to see that they
do not remain that way.
~ St. Augustine of Hippo

Faith, belief, meaning, experience, knowledge; these five terms have everything to do with each other. In the same rights, they are also completely distinctive. I must begin with the concept of truth. My experience, my faith, my knowledge, my identity (I use these words selectively) form the belief that there exists a truth which surpasses all we claim to know, to mean, to experience, to believe, and to have faith in. With that context in mind, I can now establish the distinctions and relationships of each word and others as well.
Faith is the active participation of belief in hopes. Hope is believing in unseen things. Both hope and faith necessitate believing. Belief is the application of internal and external action in favor of hopes. Meaning is the perspectives of understanding-- true meaning is different; it is the actuality of definitions and connections as they apply to reality. Experiences are the encounters with reality that differ from person to person and can be translated differently, but are related as they are all connected to reality. Knowledge is the accumulation and containment of accepted facts. Along those lines, another important word to recognize is wisdom. Wisdom enacts knowledge with the power of discernment. "Discernment is not the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, rather it is telling the difference between right and almost right," according to G.K. Chesterton. Each word interludes to a new, equally important word. Each word gives rise to a different, hard-to-describe feeling. Each word is a piece of a bigger, deeper picture--a picture that we can only touch upon, a picture that we often only catch in glimpses at a time. But most of all, each word envelopes the idea of a very balanced yet very antithetical world.
Faith, belief, meaning, experience, knowledge--each term is a bondservant to one very important, very understated word, truth. I know that the rendering of this word verifies that I have but one devotion; but it is important to note that this one devotion is the precursor to a thousand deeper thoughts, ideas, adventures, realizations and worlds! What good are faith, belief and hope without the beauty and goodness of truth? What good are experience, meaning and knowledge without the power and wisdom of discernment? “Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful” (Johnson 129). You could have all the knowledge in all the world in your possession; yet without the ability to know fully what truth is, you really have nothing. Now you are probably saying, “That’s ridiculous, who can fully know what is truth?!” I agree with you there; no one can ever know the truth in full. We are not capable of any sort of all-knowing, omniscient powers (well at least not those of us who have yet to fall into a vat of toxic waste, or make contact with a radioactive meteor, or reign down from the planet Krypton). Although truth will never be subdued on every level, the battle to ascertain truth can offer a glimpse into something great, into something deep, into something. A great deal of insight may be derived from a Bible chapter that focuses on love as it corresponds directly to truth:
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we will see face to face. Now I know in part; then I will know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor. 13.11-13)
Another issue you may be pondering comes down to the notion of “why is it all or nothing; can’t faith, belief, hope, experience, meaning and knowledge have some pretty great outcomes without the ‘almighty truth’ coming into the picture?” To that I must reply with the phrase sure; but; so. Sure, faith, belief and hope can drive people to some amazing things; but faith, belief and hope in anything usually orders some sort of action; so faith in truth brings out good, belief in lies brings out bad and hope in almost truth brings out almost good--no matter how it may struggle, almost good can never be good. What’s wrong with “almost”? The problem is that being “almost” about anything will forever tare you away from being “whole” about anything. It is one thing to acknowledge the inability to fully partake in truth; it is quite another to feel appeased with the inability to fully partake in truth. One gives way to progress; the other to digress. One gives way to substance; the other to inanity. One gives way to a thousand of those paths less traveled by; the other to a path met with a thousand barriers. The truth is a powerful thing which, in the end, will out itself. Truth will either enter in gracefully or hit you in the face like a ton of bricks. It will either be the peaceful resolution to a passionate search or the abrupt collision with an unrealized world.
Faith, belief, meaning, experience and knowledge will all make you speak; but truth, truth makes you right. While the five terms directly above and together are the onset for argumentation and rhetoric, truth is the onset for beauty and goodness. “If our world was capable of facing truth […] well it might just be a good thing. Sure almost truths can be pleasant, but imagine if we had no need of them at all […] That’s what I wish we could all aspire toward. I do not believe it too idealistic a dream. Perhaps it is. But that just makes it all the more worth fighting for.”

Works Cited
Johnson, Samuel. The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia. London: Penguin, 1989.
The NIV Study Bible. Kenneth Barker, gen. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

“The Lie” ~ Sir Walter Raleigh


Go, soul, the body’s guest,
Upon a thankless errand;
Fear not to touch the best;
The truth shall be thy warrant.
Go, since I needs must die,
And give the world the lie.

Say to the court, it glows
And shines like rotten wood;
Say to the church, it shows
What’s good, and doth no good.
If church and court reply,
Then give them both the lie.

Tell potentates, they live
Acting by others action;
Not loved unless the give,
Not strong but by a faction.
If potentates reply,
Give potentates the lie.

Tell men of high condition,
That manage the estate,
Their purpose is ambition,
Their practice only hate.
And if they once reply,
Then give them all the lie.

Tell them that brave it most,
They beg for more by spending,
Who, in their greatest cost,
Seek nothing but commending.
And if they must reply,
Then give them all the truth.

Tell zeal it wants devotion;
Tell love it is but lust;
Tell time it is but motion;
Tell flesh it is but dust.
And wish them not reply,
For thou must give the lie.

Tell age it daily wasteth;
Tell honor how it alters;
Tell beauty how she blasteth;
Tell favor how it falters.
And as they shall reply,
Give everyone the lie.

Tell wit how much it wrangles
In tickle points of niceness;
Tell wisdom she entangles
Herself in over wiseness.
And when they do reply,
Straight give them both the lie.

Tell physic of her boldness;
Tell skill it is pretension;
Tell charity of coldness;
Tell law it is contention.
And as they do reply,
So give them still the lie.

Tell fortune of her blindness;
Tell nature of decay;
Tell friendship of unkindness;
Tell justice of delay.
And if they will reply,
Then give them all the lie.

Tell arts they have no soundness,
But vary by esteeming;
Tell schools they want profoundness,
And stand too much on seeming.
If arts and school reply,
Give arts and schools the lie.

Tell faith it’s fled the city;
Tell how the country erreth;
Tell manhood shakes off pity;
Tell virtue least preferreth.
And if they do reply,
Spare not to give the lie.

So when thou hast, as I
Command thee, done blabbing--
Although to give the lie
Deserves no less than stabbing--
Stab at thee he that will,
No stab the soul can kill.