This article has the modest goal of suggesting that the Japanese aesthetic concept of Wabi Sabi may provide a useful metaphor for Christian perfection. As such, it is neither an exegetical or theological study of Christian perfection nor an in-depth look at aesthetic theory. Rather, in seeing the traditional tendency to link “perfection” to both the ethical and to the aesthetic, the author suggests that a view of perfection that, ironically, embraces transience, impermanence, and imperfection may provide a healthier foundation for Christian life and growth.

1. Better than New: Christian Perfection as
Informed by Wabi Sabi
by Robert H. Munson
Abstract: This article has the modest goal of suggesting that the Japanese aesthetic concept of Wabi
Sabi may provide a useful metaphor for Christian perfection. As such, it is neither an exegetical or
theological study of Christian perfection, nor an in-depth look at aesthetic theory. Rather, in seeing the
traditional tendency to link “perfection” to both the ethical and to the aesthetic, the author suggests
that a view of perfection that, ironically, embraces transience, impermanence, and imperfection may
provide a healthier foundation for Christian life and growth.
“Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” (Matthew 5:48).
Located in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:48 is perhaps the most challenging command in a
sermon of challenging commands. This challenge is mitigated by two interpretative issues. First, the
Greek word translated as “perfection” is teleios. This term has numerous meanings. Aristotle, several
centuries prior to the penning of Matthew, gave three understandings of the term in Classical Greek.
One suggests something that is unimprovable. This is most in line with the English concept of
perfection. The other definitions suggest completeness (needing nothing additional), or fully functional
(achieving the purpose for which it was created). These latter two understandings of the Greek term are
far less “perfect” than the English term would denote.1
Second, in the parallel passage, Luke 6:26, the
term used is not teleios, but oiktirmos. This term could be defined as compassionate. If both Greek
terms inform the same original message, then Jesus was indicating something less than flawless
perfection in Matthew. Jonathan Pennington understands teleios in terms of “wholehearted orientation
to God,” rather than a state of sinlessness.2
Word studies only take one so far, but it is pretty clear that
aspects of the locus of meanings of the English term “perfection” misinform Jesus' command.
Christian perfection is a concept that has bred considerable controversy over the centuries. According
to Lewis Sperry Chafer, terms commonly translated in the Bible as “perfection or perfect” are used in
seven different ways. The first two relate to the ultimate perfecting of the individual or of the church in
heaven. These come the closest to the common-sense understanding of the term “perfection.” The other
five usages according by Chafer do not suggest this – perfection is either progressive, limited, or
pointing to a less superlative quality such as maturity or sincerity.3
Perfection as a Christian concept matters on the basis of Biblical exegesis or theological reflection, but
perhaps moreso due to the perception of many that perfection is a goal for Christians. This, however,
begs two questions. Firstly, how is perfection perceivable by Christians? Secondly, what goal or goals
could be described by the term “perfection?” The two questions are linked, since one cannot aim at a
target unless one knows what the target is, and one cannot reliably hit a target unless it is seen clearly.
Metaphor
The challenge of perceivability of perfection is real because perfection is an abstract concept, and is
outside of our experience. In fact, even if we saw something that was perfect, it would be unlikely that
we have the capability to identify its perfection. Christians, like humanity in general, struggle with

2. abstact or intangible concepts and so commonly find ways to make the abstract more tangible. Consider
God for a moment. We cannot directly perceive God, and we are poorly aided by propositional
statements linking God to certain characteristics or attributes. Take three theological terms used to
describe God — Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence. Being abstract, people cannot directly
imagine these any more than they can adequately imagine God. Being outside of their own experience,
they become attributes by contrast. It is like saying —
“You know how everything we have experience with or can imagine is limited — limited in knowledge,
limited in location, and limited in power? Well, God is simply not like that.”
Many other attributes are also understandable only as contrasts to our experience, such as holiness or
eternality. Inability to correctly link an abstract quality to “the God who is” can leave us stuck with the
“god we imagine.” Does the Omnipotence of God imply that He “can do all things?” Does the
impassibility of God (ignoring here whether this should be considered a theologically sound attribute in
the first place) imply that God has no emotions or, perhaps, only has emotions that are irrelevant to His
behavior? Does sovereignty of God mean that He is fully controlling? Adding more caveats and layers
of description does not necessarily solve this problem. Propositions are inadequate to the task of
describing God who is, in the end, ineffable.
Human beings appear to be designed to think in terms of narrative and metaphor, not abstract concepts
and propositions. We tend to concretize abstract concepts. God is the Good Shepherd, King, Father, and
Refuge. Such metaphoric language can be useful, but also dangerous. In understanding God through
the metaphor of King, some people identify God as tyranical, or abusive, or completely controlling.
The Fatherhood of God has led some to think that the role of mother cannot be used to understand God;
or that God is somehow male, or perhaps more male than female. Care must be made not to extend any
metaphor too far.
Consider the phrase, “The Lord is my Shepherd.” “The Lord” in this case refers to God. While God
may not be an abstract concept, He cannot be directly perceived. The Lord is linked with “Shepherd.”
Shepherd here is a concrete object, something that can be perceived. This metaphoric link is not to be
taken literally. God doesn't wear a robe and carry a staff and wander the Judean Wilderness with a flock
of sheep. On the other hand, according to Paul Ricoeur, metaphors are also not figurative language. The
term “Lord” and “Shepherd” are to be taken literally. It is in the tension between two very different
objects from which meaning derived. Therefore, a metaphor can be thought of as true, if and only if it
is also untrue. Understanding is found in the tension between literal truth and metaphoric truth.4
The
metaphor of shepherd has power, in part, because it resonates with us affectively, not just cognitively.
Perfection also cannot be directly perceived, except in terms of contrast to our own experiences. One
can say,
“You know how everything we sense in this world can be improved in some way or another? Well,
perfection is not like that. That which is perfect cannot be improved.”
Since none of us have experience with anything that cannot be improved – or perhaps it is more
accurate to say that we lack the discernment to identify anything that is unimprovable – unconsciously
we fall back into the process of metaphor. We link the abstract quality to a concrete object. Regarding
perfection, one option would be to follow the metaphor found in the Jewish sacrificial system. The
Jews were to offer animal sacrifices that were “without spot or blemish.” With Jesus seen as a perfect
sacrifice, it is quite natural to link ethical perfection to the aesthetic in an animal that is without spot or

3. blemish. This is, of course, a metaphor. There is no reason to assume that an animal without external
flaws or discolorations comes even remotely close to being perfect. Internally the animals could have
severe problems. In fact, why should spots, for example, identify an animal as less than perfect in the
first place? The answer is that it is metaphoric... the visualization of a concrete object can inform an
abstract concept.
Ethics and Aesthetics
Reflecting on the metaphor associated with a sacrifice without blemish, there is a link between the
aesthetic and ethical, and arguably between both of these and perfection, as shown in the figure below.
The perfect sacrifice is seen in terms of the aesthetic (lacking spot or blemish) as well as ethical (being
blameless). In fact, the Bible uses the expression both ways. Animals for sacrifice were to be without
(perceivable) blemish or defect (Exodus 12:5, Leviticus 1:10). II Peter 3:14 uses it figuratively to
describe moral blamelessness. This is done more fully in Ephesians 5:25-27. In fact, the link is made
quite intentionally in verse 27 where a bride is used metaphorically as describing “a glorious church,
without stain or wrinkle or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.” The aesthetic and ethical
languages are combined. See the figure below.

4. Without stain, wrinkle, and blemish is used to inform and support the idea of holiness and
blamelessness; and both of these qualities appear to be describing a church that through Christ has been
perfected. Note that in this second figure, two of the lines have become arrows. This is because the
aesthetic does more to inform the ethical and the perfect, than the other way around. The perfect church
is beyond our experience certainly and most likely our ability to imagine. Ethical holiness and
blamelessness are equally abstract and beyond our own experience. However, we can perceive and
imagine a bride 'without stain, wrinkle, or blemish.' While aesthetic beauty may be abstract, it is more
easily visualized and so can inform the other corners of the triangle.
The Quest for Perfected Beauty
The link between aesthetics and perfection goes beyond metaphor. Artists often consider themselves as
on a quest for perfection in the activity of creating beauty.5
Nikolai Berdyaev believed that the
disconnect between the artist's desire for perfection, and the imperfectness of the resulting artwork
creates a sort of “creative tragedy.”6
However, to accept the inability to create perfection as a tragedy, one must first assume that perfection
is unachievable, and this returns to the two questions posed earlier – what is the goal or goals aimed for
in the quest for perfection, and how can perfection be perceived. One must link perfected beauty to an
aesthetic model. The Greek ideal of beauty is tied to Platonic philosophy. With this, the goal is to
conform an object to an ideal form. A carpenter making a beautiful, “perfect,” chair is then attempting
to reproduce the idealized form of a chair. His skill as a craftsman is understood in terms of how
closely he is able to conform his creation to the ideal. Since ideal forms cannot be perceived, the
standard for perfection is unavailable for judgment, and the imperfection of a creation becomes, in
essence, an act of faith. In the eighteenth century, this understanding began to be challenged with J. G.
Sulzer and Immanuel Kant, who believed that beauty did not necessarily imply perfection. However,
even with Kant, there is still a serious attempt to see beauty as an objective quality, not simply
subjective, so a form of idealism persisted.7
The Greek ideal for beauty/perfection could be thought of
as otherworldly and superficial. It is otherworldly since the standard is something that does not exist in
the world we live in. It is superficial, because beauty is limited primarily to perception – something that
is quite literally skin deep. Such a metaphor of ideal forms is consistent with the animal sacrifice of the
Israelites, and the Bride of Christ as described in Ephesians 5. However, I Samuel 16:7 reminds as to
the limitations of lessons one can draw from this metaphor since God values more what people are
unable to see, and that appearance (beauty) can misinform as to character.
In time, the quest for a flawless perfection became questioned further in the West. As John Ruskin
noted in the 19th
century.
“...imperfection is in some sort essential to all that we know of life. It is the sign of life in a mortal
body, that is to say, of a state of progress and change. Nothing that lives is, or can be, rigidly perfect;
part of it is decaying, part nascent. The foxglove blossom,—a third part bud, a third part past, a third
part in full bloom,—is a type of the life of this world. And in all things that live there are certain,
irregularities and deficiencies which are not only signs of life, but sources of beauty. No human face is
exactly the same in its lines on each side, no leaf perfect in its lobes, no branch in its symmetry. All
admit irregularity as they imply change; and to banish imperfection is to destroy expression, to check
exertion, to paralyse vitality. All things are literally better, lovelier, and more beloved for the
imperfections which have been divinely appointed, that the law of human life may be Effort, and the
law of human judgment, Mercy.
Accept this then for a universal law, that neither architecture nor any other noble work of man can be

5. good unless it be imperfect...” 8
Returning to the Bible, flawlessness is not the only aesthetic standard for beauty. Another is commonly
seen in the Old Testament. It has been described in different ways. One way could be an “aesthetic of
natural abundance.” This term follows the logic of Gerald Downing who recognizes that natural
abundance is not merely a utilitarian appreciation, but also an aesthetic evaluation.9
The Israelite nation
was primarily an agrarian society, and so were tied to the land economically. But there is more than
this. This writer was raised in an agricultural community and can attest that members of that
community can see a large sow with a dozen piglets, or an apple tree straining under the weight of its
fruit as objects of beauty. As Yeshua Ben Sirach stated, “The eye likes to look on grace and beauty, but
better still on the green shoots in a cornfield.”10
The Hebrew Bible has much appreciation of natural
abundance. Psalm 65 would be good example.
Much like the aesthetics of idealized forms, the aesthetics of natural abundance is used at times to point
towards ethical holiness and a form of perfection. An example of this is Psalm 1 where a righteous,
godly person is compared to a tree on a river bank whose leaves never wither, and produces abundant
fruit. Isaiah 58:11 speaks of the righteous as being as a well-watered garden. The aesthetics informs the
character of the righteous. Berleant and Carlson note that this sort of “environmental aesthetics,” as
they describe it, has a quality to it quite unlike an aesthetics based on static 'flawless' perfection. Beauty
seen in the form of living abundance has an “engaging, inclusive, dynamic character.”11
Wabi Sabi
If an aesthetic metaphor for perfection may be based on living dynamic abundance, in addition to static
flawlessness, perhaps other aesthetic perspectives may be found relevant to understanding some form
of Christian perfection. Wabi Sabi is a Japanese expression for an aesthetic viewpoint. The term “Wabi”
refers to hermitic existence in nature. “Sabi” mean cold or desolate. Wabi became seen as beauty
identified in the simple and natural. Sabi became seen as beauty identified in decay.12
The combination
of terms grew to describe a perspective of beauty in terms of three overarching principles: Transience,
Impermanence and Imperfection.13
In this context, 'imperfection' most likely means containing flaws.
Thus, beauty in the aesthetic of wabi sabi rejects a static ideal. Things are constantly changing and
moving towards a certain point, while not truly getting there. Beauty is also not seen in terms of
flawlessness. In the aesthetic of wabi sabi, a photograph of a person with evidence of aging – with
laughlines, crowsfeet, scars and more – is evaluated as more beautiful than a picture of someone in
which all such 'defects' are removed by cosmetics, airbrushing, or plastic surgery.
Consider two examples that relate to wabi sabi:
Example #1. A Japanese story tells of a man named Sen no Rikyu from the 16th
century. In his
seeking to learn the 'Way of Tea' He was evaluated by his potential master by caring for his garden. He
carefully pulled all the weeds, diligently trimmed the vegetation, raked up all debris, and repaired all
the paths. Then, as he was about to leave the immaculate garden, he walked over to a small cherry tree
full of flowers, and gave the tree a violent shake. Drifting down, littering the ground around, were
dozens of pink flower petals. Satisfied that his work was done, Sen no Riyu left the garden. It is said
that he truly understood wabi sabi.15
Example #2. Pottery has been connected to wabi sabi, in part through Sen no Rikyu. He went on to
fame as one who simplified, and beauified, the Japanese tea ceremony, removing its high

6. ornamentation. Rather than garish golden tea sets, simple earthenware sets were promoted. With
kintsukuroi, or “golden repair,” gold is used to accentuate rather than hide imperfections in pottery.14
A
porcelain dish that is broken is repaired with lacquer. The cracks are widened and then filled with a
laquer that has gold dust mixed in. This repair makes the porcelain functional again, with large golden
bands along the crack seams. When done well, the end result is often considered quite beautiful as well
as valuable. The repair demonstrates the skill of the artisan and can actually increase the value of the
object. In fact, some potters have been known to make a porcelain dish and intentionally break it, so as
to give them the opportunity to make a beautiful golden repair. This can be thought of as relating to
wabi sabi since the beauty is seen in celebrating its damage rather than hiding it.16
It is possible that this aesthetic perspective may inform a theologically sound view of Christian
perfection. While wabi sabi is seen to have developed out of the philosophy of Zen Buddhism, that
does not mean that it may not reveal something of value in Christian Theology. Darrell Whiteman has
noted the potental, through interreligious dialogue, for the Christian to gain insight from another faith
in his or her own faith, “so that the Gospel itself will be understood in ways the universal church has
neither experienced nor understood before, thus expanding our understanding of the kingdom of
God.”18
To understand how perfection may be revisioned in thus way, one might try working
backwards-- first identifying some things that could be recognized by Christians as perfect. Three
things commonly thought of as being perfect by most Christians are (pre-Fall) Creation, God, and
Heaven. For this exercise Creation as described in the first two chapters of Genesis and God in the
form of Jesus Christ will be considered.
Genesis 1 and 2 describe the universe created by God as being very good. This goodness in all
likelihood fits at least two of Aristotle's definitions for perfection. First, God's creation was complete,
and so God could rest. Second, God's creation achieved its purpose for being. Perhaps, it met the final
definition as well, being unable to be improved upon, but that could be no more than conjecture. Many
early Reformers linked Christian perfection to the original state of mankind, the Imago Dei, following
the thinking of Augustine that Christ perfects us by restoring us to our pre-Fall state.18
God's creation had diversity and harmonious unity. There was light and darkness, land, water, and air.
There was moon and sun, animals and plants. Assuming that living creatures function much like they
do today, plants benefit from the soil and water and air, along with the cycles of light and darkness to
grow and produce oxygen and complex molecules for animals, fungi and other living entities. Animals
join in the cycle of life as well, benefitting from plants, and presumably also providing fertilizer for
plants and other living things.
God's creation was changing, not static. There were cycles of light and darkness. Animals reproduced
after their own kind. Presumably plants did as well, since they produced seed-bearing fruits. While
many Christians believe that there was no aging or death prior to the Fall, that is not certain. There was
almost certainly cellular death. It is hard to imagine how the first humans, and presumably other
animals, could eat the fruits of the trees without killing the living cells in those fruits. Likewise,
existence of fruits suggest that there were prior blossoms on the trees. These blossoms would, as fruits
develop, lose their petals and scatter on the ground much like cherry blossom petals in the previous
story. Presumably, the cells in these petals would die and break down, enriching the soil. If blossom
petals fall and die, it seems reasonable to suspect that leaves do as well. Adam and Eve stitched
together leaves prior to the pronouncement of a curse, and it again seems reasonable to guess that these
leaves would eventually dry up and die, curse or no, being cut off from the life-sustaining sap of the
fig tree. If Creation was harmonious and changing, it is further likely that these leaves provide a role in
feeding and sustaining life. Finally, as fruit are picked from the trees, their removal would leave a small

7. scar, much as fig leaves picked by the first humans.
The previous paragraph may seem obvious, and perhaps even trite, but it is important in helping us
think of the Creation as it was. Our mental pictures of the world described in Genesis chapters 1 and 2
may be informed more by the embedded theology drawn from children's Bible story books, than by
reality. Pictures in those books often show an idealized well-watered park or garden, carefully
manicured, on a bright sunny day. The world as described in Genesis may have been perfect – truly
beautiful and 'very good,' but this perfection would exist in both light and darkness, with wild
vegetation, ground strewn with dead or dying petals, leaves, and fruit, in a harmonious cycle of life and
death, birth and decay.
Christians also commonly see Jesus as perfect. If Jesus was perfect, being after all divine, then Jesus
was perfect at all times. But if Jesus was perfect at all times, He was perfect as a little baby who could
not speak or walk. Jesus would also be perfect during all points in times covered by Luke 2:52 where it
says that Jesus “ grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” His perfection was in no
way hampered by the fact that He was in the process of learning and growing. Jesus would also have
been perfect while in a mutilated state on the cross. Finally, Jesus would be perfect after His
resurrection. For perfection to be seen in Jesus at all times, then perfection is seen in that which is
transient and incomplete.
The conversation between Thomas and Jesus in John 20 is particularly illuminating. Jesus in His
resurrected body appeared and spoke to Thomas. Thomas had earlier noted that he would not believe
unless he saw and touched the scars of torture and execution that would uniquely identify Jesus, not an
imposter or, perhaps, a ghost. When Jesus appeared to him, He specifically encouraged Thomas to
verify His identity by focusing on the healed wounds. The scars were not inappropriate for a
resurrected body of a perfect being. In fact, it could be argued that the scars are a better demonstration
of God's power to heal than having no visible scars. This is like with golden repair (Kintsukuroi),
where the repair of the damage shows the skill of the master craftsman, and in fact adds to its beauty.
This writer recalls visiting the house of an old friend. Walking into the house, I was surprised by the
immaculate white walls and marble floors. It was, in one sense of the term – perfect. Then I was guided
to the living room, and was warned that it was a bit of a mess. Going in, there was a large green rug in
the center of the room that clashed with the overall look of the house. On that rug and strewn about to
other corners of the room were all sorts of toys. Also on that rug was a three-year old boy, the son of
my friend and his wife. The boy was happily playing with his mom and some of the toys. I recall
feeling that the warning I was given was for the wrong part of the house. The rest was cold, sterile, and
even a bit depressing. Conversely, the living room was well-named. It was full of life and vitality. It
had a joy to it that the other rooms lacked. Perhaps the rest of the house could be described as perfect.
The living room, however, arguably had a form of perfection as well – in my mind a better form of
perfection or beauty.
If perfection can be seen in terms of the pre-Fall Creation and Jesus Christ then it seems that such
perfection is transient, incomplete, and embracing diversity. Such a perfection could be said to have a
beauty that is not found in static flawlessness. Perhaps such a perfection (or beauty) can be seen in a
long-used piece of pottery, beautiful mended. Perhaps such perfection can be seen in a young child full
of life and potential, becoming what he or she was created to be. Perhaps it is seen in a cripple patiently
waiting exactly where he is supposed to be – by the pool of Bethesda -- for his redemption. Perhaps it
is seen in a person near the end of life — wrinkled and scarred by decades of challenges —
persevering to the end, having finished the course, keeping the faith.

8. Implications
How might such a metaphor have value. Here are at least a few tentative thoughts.
1.
Perhaps “beauty” should be recognized in our repaired brokenness and our incompleteness.
Perhaps our “ugliness” should be most evident when we take on the role of a hypocrite, hiding
our scars, our weaknesses, our “thorns in the flesh.”
2.
If beauty or “perfection” is dynamic rather than static, then perhaps these qualities may, to some
extent, already exist as a part of who we are-- a work in progress-- even as we are being
perfected. This perspective seems much in line with George Ladd's argument that righteousness
of the Christian is not just a distant hope, nor a present legal fiction. In salvation one is in the
right relationship with God, so every Christian is truly righteous, even as each is in a process of
being sanctified or becoming righteous.19
Oscar Cullman takes a similar idea regarding
sinlessness or holines. “It is the fundamental motif of all New Testament ethics that upon the
basis of the Holy Spirit, and by faith in the work performed by Christ, man is that which which
he will become only in the future, that he is already sinless, already holy, although this becomes
reality only in the future.20
3.
Beauty is disconnected from a single ideal, but is now recognized in unique qualities of
individuals tempered by unique experiences. Therefore, uniqueness is a source of beauty and
perfection, not an impediment.
4.
God's roles of Redeemer, Restorer, and Healer are not part of a process to make as good as new,
but better than new.
But one can speculate further. As noted earlier, Christians understand Heaven as a place of perfection.
Imagine for a moment, walking through the streets of heaven. Now further imagine that a person is
walking in your direction. You notice he walks with a limp, passing by to some unknown destination.
As you look around, you see others nearby enjoying the day. One smiles at you, showing a missing
tooth. Another has pattern baldness, sitting on the bank of the river, watching leaves float by. A woman
greets you with a noticeable stutter, while another with gray hair and a scar on her left cheek waves as
she passes by.
Is such a scenario possible? Who knows? But if a reader thinks this is impossible, why? Is heaven
imcompatible with people with characteristics that we would commonly call defects? If that is seen as
so, is that God's view or our own? St. John in Revelation 7:9 describes a scene in Heaven of people
from every nation, people, tribe, and tongue. This diversity is contrasted by the unity of white robes,
palm branches, and common activity of praise to God. The focus is on God, not their differences.
Maybe this is one of the things that makes Heaven... perfect.
---------------------------------
ENDNOTES
1
Metaphysics (Book Delta) Part 16. Available http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.5.v.html> Thomas
Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, distinguished a twofold perfection: when a thing is perfect in itself — as he put it, in its
substance; and when it perfectly serves its purpose.
2
Jonathan Pennington, The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2017), 205. Also see blogpost by Scot McKnight, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2017/08/21/jesus-demand-
perfection/#HwAK1oeZhwZErv4f.99

9. 3
Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol 6, (Dallas Seminary Press, 1948, 9th
printing 1969), 282-284
4
Eric Steinhart, The Logic of Metaphor: Analogous Parts of Possible Worlds, (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic, 2001), 227-228. Also see Paul Ricoeur The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-disciplinary Studies of the Creation of
Meaning in Language (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1981).
5
Alexander E. Kadaev “The Paradox of Perfection in Nikolai Berdayaev's Aesthetics,” (Russian Studies in
Philosophy, Vol 53 #1 2015 pp 87-95), 87. This article notes that creativity “is driven by the desire for perfection, guided
either explicitly or implicitly by the aesthetic criteria of beauty, symmetry, and harmony.” The article continues, “In fact,
what artist does not aspire to such a coveted, 'holy, unspeakable goal,' often sacrificing not only the best years of his life, but
life itself.”
6
Ibid., 88.
7
Alexander Rueger, “Beautiful Surfaces: Kant on Free and Adherent Beauty in Nature and Art” (British Journal
for the History of Philosophy 16(3) 2008: 535-557), 535-536.
8
John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice, Volume II, Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30755/30755-
h/30755-h.htm, p. 171-172.
9
F. Gerald Downing, “Environmental Beauty and Bible” (Ecotheology 7.2 (2003), 185-201), 193-195.
10
Ecclesiasticus 40:22
11
Quoted by Downing, 199.
12
Josianne Marie Ishikawa. “Transitory Nature” Dissertation. (Iowa State University, 2016), 23.
13
Ibid., 27.
14
Sharon White, “Wabi-Sabi: Simple Imperfection,” http://qstylethebook.com/wabi-sabi-simple-imperfection/
15
Rumiko Handa. Sen no Rikyū and the Japanese Way of Tea: Ethics and Aesthetics of the Everyday, Dissertation.
(University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 2013), 231-232.
16
My Modern Met. “Kintsugi, Centuries Old Art of Repairing Broken Pottery With Gold.” April 25, 2017.
https://mymodernmet.com/kintsugi-kintsukuroi/.
17
Darrell Whiteman. “Contextualization: The Theory, the Gap, the Challenge.” (International Bulletin of Mission
Research. January 1997. 2-7), 4.
18
Pannenberg. Anthropology in Theological Perspective, Translated: Matthew J. O'Connell (Edinburgh, Scotland:
T. & T. Clark, 1985), 50-51.
19
George E. Ladd. A Theology of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 480-481..
20
Oscar Cullmann, "Christ and Time," 75. One could add the quote by Philip Melancthon showing a similar
understanding of perfection. He stated, “Christian perfection is this, to fear God sincerely, and again to conceive great faith,
and to trust that for Christ's sake God is pacified towards us; to ask, and with certainty to look for, help from God in all our
affairs, according to our calling; and meantime outwardly to do good works diligently and to attend to our calling. In these
things doth consist true perfection and the true worship of God;...” R. Newton Flew, The Idea of Perfection in Christian
Theology (Oxford University Press, 1968 (original printing 1934)), 246.