The Semester is Wrapping Up While I'm Getting Tangled Up In It

There is only a week and a half left of school, and I have three or four papers to write and six books to read. Here is just a little taste of what I've been up to...


THE ARTS AND THE CHURCH

Introduction

The relationship of the Church to the arts community has changed quite dramatically over the course of the history of the Church. From its beginning years up through the Renaissance, the Church established a reputation as being a place where the arts could thrive, a place where the arts where generally wholeheartedly supported and funded. In fact, society looked to the church to promote and provide good art. However, as philosophical movements began to shape the arts and the art community, the Church found it more and more difficult to maintain interest and investment in the arts community. The arts were on a road toward aesthetical relativism, and the Church which had always promoted aesthetic standards and norms of beauty, could not move with the philosophical trends that were being manifested in the arts.

These philosophical changes began as the humanistic elements of the Renaissance came to full bloom during the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. For the first time in the history of Western culture, society was embracing a completely secular movement with secular ideals and worldviews. Human reason became more valuable than God and the revelation of Scripture. In fact, Man replaced God as the “Supreme Being,” and Deism – a man-centered perversion of Christianity – became a popular option for those not wishing to disregard religion altogether (Veith State of the Arts, 69). In examining the Enlightenment and Deism, it is clear that by this time in Western culture, Biblical principles and the Christian worldview were beginning to lose their influence. No longer were the Scriptures of the God of the Bible upheld as the standard of truth. Rather, humanism became the new religion, planting the seeds for postmodern relativism. Francis Schaeffer notes the inability of humanistic philosophy to fit into a Christian worldview:

Humanism has no final way of saying certain things are right and other things wrong. For a humanist, the final things which exists – that is, the impersonal universe – is neutral and silent about right and wrong, cruelty and non-cruelty. Humanism has no way to provide absolutes. Thus as a consistent result of humanism’s position, humanism in private morals and political life is left with that which is arbitrary (Schaeffer How Then Shall We Live?, 128).

It was during the eighteenth century that philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, George Willhelm Hegel, and Soren Kirkegaard began to realize the impossibility of the humanistic ideal. Rousseau gave up his faith for what he considered to be the ultimate good in life – autonomous freedom – freedom from God, culture, authority, and any type of restraint (Schaeffer How Then Shall We Live?, 155-56). This concept of autonomous freedom became the reigning ideal of the Bohemian movement, which emphasized individualism, self-expression, and the deliberate rejection of conventional standards (Veith State of the Arts, 73). The Bohemian attitude is still present within many artists today. The rejection of conventional standards among artists has ultimately resulted in a rejection of beauty, and many artists have traded in the beautiful for that which is shocking or clever (Veith State of the Arts, 50).

The idea of the autonomous self also manifested itself in the movement known as Romanticism. In art, Romanticism became a means of personal expression. However, the introspective and self-reflective ideals tended to over-glorify the self. The Romantics enshrined selfishness as a moral principle, as self-fulfillment became the goal, and the value of the work was determined by whether it fulfilled the autonomous self by expressing its emotions and contributing to its personal growth (Veith State of the Arts, 71-73).

By the end of the nineteenth century, art had moved from Romanticism to Realism. The artists of this movement were known as Impressionists. They painted only what they could see with their eyes, and boasted that their art portrayed honesty of life and reality. However, by acknowledging only those things which are visible, they denied the one true and honest thing in life – the existence of God and the redemption found in Jesus Christ. Eventually, the reality upon which the Impressionists had based their entire movement became more dream-like, and the movement fell apart. However, Impressionism left the door wide open for modern thought to become manifested in art (Schaeffer How Should We Then Live?, 183).

Existentialism characterized modern philosophy, and to the artist, truth became fragmented from life. This worldview was expressed in the art produced during this modern period. Cezanne, Picasso, and Duchamp were the champions of modern art. With existentialism, reason had been declared absurd, and now art was declared absurd as well. “The philosophers from Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard onward, having lost their hope of a unity of knowledge and a unity of life, presented a fragmented concept of reality; then the artists painted that way… The philosophers first formulated intellectually what the artists later depicted artistically” (Schaeffer How Should We Then Live?, 190). These ideas of fragmentation, isolation, and skepticism produced “chance art” such as Jason Pollack’s canvases of paint drippings, “ready-mades” such as Duchamp’s signed bicycle wheels and urinals (Schaeffer How Should We Then Live?, 190), “minimalist art” such as a solid black canvas, “urine art” such as Mapplethorpe’s crucifix immersed in a bottle of urine, and pornography in the name of art. These expressions of the artist are not “aesthetically successful. Indeed, they are often purposeful violations of aesthetic principles” (Veith State of the Arts, 50).

Somewhere along the way, the Church, and particularly the Protestant church, made a great mistake by giving up the fight for the arts, along with many other aspects of culture. When the battle got tough, the Church handed over the arts to the humanists and secularists. Now, we find the Church in a general position of antagonism towards the arts community. In general, the Church does not value professional artists and their works of art. The reason for this attitude is partly because of the conflicting values between the Church and much of the arts community. The Christian worldview as mandated by Scripture will not allow us to produce and promote art devoid of aesthetic standards. However, the relativistic approach is predominant in the arts community. Another reason for this antagonistic attitude toward the arts is that the Church harbors a worldview approach that presents a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. Therefore, the arts are seen as something outside of the realm of religion.

The Bible, however, teaches us something very different. Human culture and particularly the arts are strongly united to the message of the Gospel and to the model of Creation, Fall, and Redemption. If the Church truly believed and took seriously what the Bible has to say about the arts and creativity, we would see a revolution in how the Church approaches the arts community. Every aspect of creation and culture belong to the Lord, and the arts bring a very special kind of glory to God, our Creator. For this reason, the Church should be a supportive force behind the arts and work to promote good art from within the arts community.


Why Should the Church Support the Arts?

The first reason that the Church should support the arts is because God is interested in beauty, and His word affirms the arts. Scripture specifically speaks to the visual arts, literature, and music. Many argue that the Scriptures forbid visual art, quoting the second commandment – “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God…” – as evidence that man is forbidden to make a likeness of anything and is therefore forbidden to do art. However, the second part of the verse indicates that it is the worship of these graven images that was prohibited, not the creation of them. This is further clarified in Leviticus 26:1 – “Ye shall make you no idols, neither shall ye rear you up a graven image, or a pillar, neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am Jehovah your God.” The idea that this commandment is not a prohibition against creating art is further proved by the fact that Moses received the commandment on Mount Sinai, where God simultaneously commanded him to build a tabernacle that was to include all types of representational art (Schaeffer Art and the Bible,11-12).

Further evidence of God’s interest in visual art and beauty can be found in the revelation of his plan for building the temple. The Bible insists that this plan was not a creation of man but was from God. David received instructions from the Holy Spirit and gave them to Solomon to begin the building project. The Bible indicates that the temple was to be covered in precious stones for the sake of beauty. Schaeffer comments:

There was no pragmatic reason for the precious stones. They had no utilitarian purpose. God simply wanted beauty in the temple. God is interested in beauty. Come with me to the Alps and look at the snow-covered mountains. There can be no question. God is interested in beauty. God made people to be beautiful. And beauty has a place in the worship of God (Schaeffer Art and the Bible,15-16).

God commanded that the temple be very ornate. The outer structure, the beams, the thresholds, the walls, and the doors were all to be covered in gold. Cherubim, palm-trees, and open flowers were to be carved into the walls (bas-relief), and there were also to be two sculptures in the likeness of cherubim (art in the round). God also commanded that there be two beautiful free-standing columns with pomegranates fastened to chains upon the capitals of the columns. There were panels on ten bases of brass that were to be covered in carvings of lions, oxen, and cherubim. The temple had a huge pool or bath that was held up by twelve cast oxen (representational art in the round), and the pool itself was detailed with carvings of lilies. It is quite simple to see from these two examples alone – the temple and the tabernacle – that God is interested in beauty and affirms art.

The Scriptures affirm art in their very existence, in that the Bible is overwhelmingly a work of literature – whether that be in narrative form (hero stories, epic, tragedy, parable, or gospel), poetic form (lyric, proverb, epithalamion, pastoral, encomium, hymn, prophetic oracle, or elegy), oratory, visionary/apocalyptic literature, satire, or street theater. Jesus himself was a wonderful storyteller and poet, and it is clear that he and the other biblical writers had complete confidence in the art form of literature to express religious truth. God chose to reveal his truth through literature. The Bible does not simply allow for communication through literature. Rather, Jesus and the biblical writers found it absolutely necessary to use literary forms, and a vast variety of them, in communicating the truth of God (Ryken The Liberated Imagination, 41-43). C.S. Lewis said, “There is a… sense in which the Bible, since it is after all literature, cannot properly be read except as literature; and the different parts of it as the different sorts of literature they are” (Lewis Reflections on the Psalms, 3). Therefore, in reading the word of God, we must acknowledge it for what it is – a form of art called literature through which God chose to reveal himself. Scripture also affirms the arts through music, whether it be formal or spontaneous, amateur or professional, instrumental or vocal, in the context of daily life or in the context of worship. There are, in fact, more references to music in the Bible than to art or literature (Ryken The Liberated Imagination, 47-48).

So, why is it then that God is so interested in art and beauty? It is because he is a creative God. In fact, he is the Creator. He created the entire universe ex nihilo – out of nothing, from his imagination. As human beings, we are specially created in the image of God, so we are to reflect God’s creative nature. We were made to create, so the imageo dei is a second reason that the Church should be supportive of the arts. When we create we are acting in God’s image, and He receives a very special kind of glory from this activity. The creativity of man relates to the imageo dei in a very interesting and definite way. Dorothy Sayers describes this relationship in the following way:

How then can he (man) be said to resemble God? Is it his immortal soul, his rationality, his self-consciousness, his free will, or what, that gives him a claim to this rather startling distinction? A case may be argued for all these elements in the complex nature of man. But had the author of Genesis anything particular in his mind when he wrote? It is observable that in the passage leading up to the statement about man, he has given no detailed information about God. Looking at man, he sees in him something essentially divine, but when we turn back to see what he says about the original upon which the “image” of God was modeled, we find only the single assertion, “God created.” The characteristic common to God and man is apparently that: the desire and the ability to make things (Sayers, The Mind of the Maker, 22).

The fact that God created man in his image specifically and most directly refers to the fact that man has the capability, desire, nature, and inclination to create. Therefore, the Church should be a safe place for creative people and a support system for those who create. The Church should seek to build relationships with artists and encourage artists to grow in their creativity. “Christians, unlike the secular culture, have a basis for affirming the personal and the beautiful – a personal God who created structure of beauty in the very texture of the universe. Christians, therefore, ought to cultivate what is aesthetically worthy” (Veith State of the Arts, 37). The Church, in a sense, should be fighting for the arts and artistic expression because God loves art, beauty, and creative acts and is uniquely glorified through them. The imageo dei demands creativity from the Church. As Trevor Hart says:

Responsible creativity of an artistic sort is thus not only warranted, but may be viewed as an unconditional obligation laid upon us and called forth by God’s gracious speaking to humankind in the life, death and resurrection of his Son. Indeed we may go further, and suggest that it is not only a proper response to, but also an active sharing in (albeit in a distinct and entirely subordinate creaturely mode) God’s own creative activity in the cosmos (Hart, “Through the Arts: Hearing, Seeing, and Touching the Truth,” in Beholding the Glory: Incarnation Through the Arts, 18).

A third reason that the Church should support the arts is to participate in God’s plan of redemption. We live in a fallen world, and every aspect of life and culture has been affected by the Fall. Too often, as Christians, we tend to look at redemption in a one-dimensional and solely personal way. We assume that redemption applies only to the salvation of souls. However, Christians are called to redeem entire cultures – every aspect of entire cultures (Pearcey Total Truth, 17). The Church should actively work to redeem the arts, especially since the arts are so tightly connected to the nature of God and his image in man. What the Church says about the arts and how the Church responds to the arts community reflects what the Church believes about God. If the Church ignores the arts, it is failing to acknowledge the presence of the image of God in man. By ignoring the arts, the Church will be refusing cultural redemption and refusing to claim this aspect of culture for Christ.

How the Church responds to the arts community also reflects what the Church believes about man. Harold Best says, “To be human is to be cultural. On this basis alone it is impossible for the body of Christ to ignore culture or to assume that to be a Christian is to be above, separate from or against culture” (Best Unceasing Worship, 175). Although we are living in a fallen world, God’s grace still shines through in the lives of men and women in some very wonderful ways. Men and women all over the world, even those who are not united to Christ, are capable of displaying kindness, goodness, creativity, love, devotion, loyalty, and many other wonderful characteristics. Best summarized the relationship of the scheme of Creation-Fall-Redemption to man’s current condition and his creative capabilities:

Being created in the image of God… gives us the urge to believe, the ability to think up and make, and the ability to decide how believing in and making ultimately relate to each other. These abilities must have been perfectly and grandly evident in Eden. Even so, as much as they were smeared and misdirected in the Fall, God graciously allowed something quite remarkable to remain in us. Otherwise, we would not have the stream of systems, technologies, and artistic delights that come to us from every quarter of the globe (Best Unceasing Worship, 174).

If it is true then that how the Church responds to the arts reflects the Church’s beliefs about the nature of God and the nature of man, would we not to engage the arts all the more? Is it not right to say that it is, in fact, inappropriate and even sinful for the Church to ignore the arts, since they reveal so much about our Creator? We are called to redeem our culture, and we cannot redeem culture by ignoring its individual components, such as the arts. Our beliefs about God and Man should be reflected in our participation in the culture. Schaeffer says:

For a Christian, redeemed by the work of Christ and living within the norms of Scripture and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the Lordship of Christ should include an interest in the arts. A Christian should use these arts to the glory of God, not just as tracts, mind you, but as things of beauty to praise God. An art work can be a doxology in itself (Schaeffer Art and the Bible, 10).

In redeeming the arts, we as Christians are called to create to the glory of God. But what does this mean? What does this require? Best says that we must learn from the way that God imagines and creates, and he offers several points to think about:

1. What we call strange or abstract art may be closer to God’s way of creating.
· God created the world out of his imagination, so the universe is God’s version of “abstract art.” Non-representational works of art are good and glorifying to God. Therefore, there is no reason that we should be uncomfortable with or suspicious of experimental art.
2. With God, there is a difference between replication and continuation.
· God created giraffes in the beginning, and he has since continued to create giraffes. However, these giraffes are not replications. Each one is different and unique, never repeated.
3. God’s inside workmanship is as exquisite as his outside workmanship.
· God’s creations are marked by structural integrity and impeccable craftsmanship. Therefore, our creations should be of quality and integrity, not just an exterior show.
4. God’s idea of quality is the same whether he makes something for quick or for long-lasting use.
· God is honest and does everything well. Therefore, we should do the same. We should display the same kind of integrity while singing a praise chorus during a Wednesday evening prayer service as we do in singing Brahms’ Requiem.
5. God’s handiwork is not divided between doing great things for magnificent display and doing average things for ordinary circumstances.
· We have a tendency to either scoff at putting art to work or to place more value on putting it to work than on its inherent beauty – compare the concert pianist and the church pianist. God, however, has no problem with merging inherent worth, intrinsic beauty and usefulness. To him, function and worth are inseparable.
6. The Creator is not the creation, and the artist is not the art.
· God is above and separate from his creation, just as the artist is sovereign over and separate from his or her handiwork. In other words, the created object is not a part of the artist.
7. God is not especially interested in straight lines, perfect circles and geometric tidiness; his work is more chaotic than symmetrical.
· In creation, we do not find a perfectly straight line of buttercups, standing at the exact height, with exact replicated petals. No landscape displays symmetry or order. Therefore, we should not subject these values onto our human creations.
8. God has the jump on anyone who thinks that cultural diversity is the greatest thing since the automobile.
· Our view of diversity is incredibly limited. We are called to a much greater creative diversity that requires courage and commonsense (Best Unceasing Worship, 130-142).

It is important to note that while Christians are expected to be intentional about creating to the glory of God, God can also receive glory from the creative acts of those who do not know Him. Therefore, we are called to acknowledge the common grace that God has given to all of mankind. This is a fourth reason that the Church should be supportive of the arts community. If we ignore the creativity and artistic acts of non-Christians, if we do not praise God for the talent that he has given these artists, if we do not praise God for the skill, craftsmanship, and artistry displayed in good works of art by unbelieving artists, then we are robbing God of the glory due to Him. Obviously, this type of involvement requires the Church to engage the whole of the arts community, not just the artists who profess to be Christians. It is only proper for the Church to look to the arts community when determining what is going on with the arts. Ryken says:

God’s common grace endows all people, believers and unbelievers alike, with a capacity for truth, goodness, beauty, and creativity. It follows from this that not all truth about aesthetic issues will be contained in the Bible. This means that we should expect many of the principles underlying the arts to come from the arts themselves, just as our knowledge of the laws of science come from science itself. Furthermore, if God’s truth and beauty permeate the work of non-Christian artists as well as Christian one, Christians are free to relish truth and artistry wherever these appear (Ryken The Liberated Imagination, 13).

This freedom allows the Church to observe good art coming from all people and offer up praise to God for it. The Church should, in fact, expect to find and even look for truth, grace, beauty, goodness, and creativity in the whole spectrum of art. The imageo dei assures us that we will find truth even in the works of unbelievers. John Calvin says:

Whenever we come upon truth in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it whenever it shall appear… Those men whom Scripture calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of their inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after I was despoiled of its true good (Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, 1:273-275.3)

A fifth reason that the Church should support the arts is that it is to support and encourage all members of the body. This is a natural outpouring of community and fellowship within the body. Unfortunately, the Church generally does not do a good job of supporting the members’ vocations. However, because of the unique opportunities for community and evangelism available in the art profession, the Church should strive to build relationships with artists and seek to minister to and support the artists within their membership. Mike Cosper of Sojourn Community Church compares the Church’s support of a professional artist to that of a coffee roaster and coffee shop owner.

The church should support the entrepreneurial work of artists within its church – not in some specified way, but as a natural part of the relationships within the church. Along with that comes relational realities and critique, which the church may not be equipped for. A church whose only language related to art is Thomas Kinkade is going to have a hard time understanding an artist who does work like Chuck Close. The church isn’t necessarily responsible for offering critique in art just as it isn’t necessarily required to offer critique in coffee roasting, but those critiques will emerge naturally and pastors should at least be prepared to guard and honor an artist in the same way they would guard and honor a coffee roaster (Cosper, Elder of Worship Arts at Sojourn Community Church. 2005. Interview by author, 17 April, Louisville, KY. Transcript).

A sixth reason that the Church should support the arts community is that the arts provide the Church with an opportunity to proclaim God and share Christ. The opportunity for evangelism lies partly in the fact that the arts are simply a doorway into culture and community, just like any other profession. Cosper compares the opportunities for evangelism in the arts to those that one may find as a professional plumber. The opportunity lies in the fact that that worker is in contact with other people. Relationships are happening. Relationships require communication, and your topic of communication can easily be that of Christ. He says, “Evangelism is most authentic and meaningful when it is the fruit of relationship, when Christ-in-me speaks to another person, facilitated by the Holy Spirit. I don’t think art alone has that capacity. Art opens doors to evangelism in that it opens doors to relationships, and in that, art is no different than any other vocation, be it plumbing, coffee-roasting, engineering, or coaching football” (Cosper, Interview by author, 2005. 17 April, Louisville, KY. Transcript).

On the other hand the very nature of art and the artist in relation to the nature of God opens up very specialized opportunities for evangelism. When Christians create wonderful art, people ask questions – What inspires you? What is the process you go through in creating a piece? What made you want to address this subject matter in your art? What does this piece mean? Many times, these questions will open up the floor for the Christian artist to proclaim Christ through honest answering of these types of questions. When the Church shows an interest in the arts, perhaps by displaying the works of local artists or publishing a literary magazine that includes that writings of various authors, then the arts community tends to ask questions of the Church community. Why are you interested in my art? Why do you seek to use art in worship? Why does this church want to host a gallery? Why is the community supporting my music? Again, these questions allow the members of the church to proclaim Christ and truth about God by honestly answering these questions. We are given a platform to share what we believe about God as Creator, what we believe about man as being created in the image of God, what all this means for artists. We can share that their work is important to us because we believe it is important and honoring to God. These types of conversations stir up all kinds of questions and all types evangelistic opportunities that are not so natural and visible in some other professions.


Conclusion

So what does an arts-supporting church look like? It is a church that has artists in the congregation, whether they be writers, painters, musicians, actors, photographers, sculptors, or whatever. These artists feel welcomed and loved and appreciated. They are encouraged by the church, and are assured that what they do is valuable to the kingdom of God. In order to be a church about the arts, it must be a church that is about artists. The two are nor separable. Cosper says, “Hopefully, the arts-supporting church is a church where artists are conformed to the image of Christ, and their work as artists is neither esteemed above the vocational work of others, nor treated as a waste of time and energy. The vocational artist is the key to the arts-supporting church. Without him or her, the church’s support of the arts will be either be kitschy or vain” (Cosper, Interview by author, 2005. 17 April, Louisville, KY. Transcript).

Secondly, an art-supporting church must incorporate art and the artistic works of it membership into the life and activity of the church. Cosper said, “The church also needs to stretch and see that being ‘about the arts’ isn’t just about incorporating art into a building or into multimedia during a service. It’s about the 7-days-a-week life of the community. If the community isn’t ‘about the arts’ on Thursday, then anything they do that’s ‘about the arts’ on Sunday is just for show” (Cosper, Interview by author, 2005. 17 April, Louisville, KY. Transcript). Some churches display galleries or incorporate art in the actual worship service. Some churches have songwriters and musicians producing music for congregational worship and for listening outside of the gathered congregation. Some congregations have small groups of artists that gather for the unique purpose of creating to the glory of God. Some pastors announce the Scripture that they will be preaching through and invite the members to respond artistically to their meditations over the Scriptures. Some churches offer music lessons, art lessons, dance lessons, and other types of artistic training as part of a ministry of the church.

Thirdly, an art-supporting church strongly affirms the doctrines of Creation, Fall, and Redemption. These themes are what authenticate and validate the efforts of the artists as acts of worship. As the body of Christ, we must glory in the fact that we are created in God’s image, and that he is a creative God by nature. We must acknowledge that we are living in a fallen world, and that it is the duty of the Church to redeem culture. We must live as though we truly believe we are reflections of God’s image. We must do art as though we truly believe in the redemption of culture. This is the message of the church that is about the arts, and that is committed to seeing God glorified through creative acts.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hart, Trevor. “Through the Arts: Hearing, Seeing, and Touching the Truth.” In Beholding the Glory: Incarnation Through the Arts, 1-26. Edited by Jeremy Begbie. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001.
Lewis, C.S. Reflections on the Psalms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1958.
Ryken, Leland. The Liberated Imagination: Thinking Christianly About the Arts. Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Press, 1989.
Sayers, Dorothy L. The Mind of the Maker. San Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1987.
Schaeffer, Francis A. Art and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Schaeffer, Francis A. How Then Shall We Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1976.
Veith, Gene Edward Jr. State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.