Some Perspectives on Art: Part V
Oh man, I hope this post is better than Rocky V.
This post continues my series on Francis Schaeffer’s perspectives by which Christians can evaluate art, from his book Art and the Bible. Perspectives 1-5 can be found here, here, here, and here. Today is another two-for-the-price-of-one day.
Perspective Six: Art Can Be Used for Any Type of Message
Again, file this one in the “duh” file. “That a work of art is in the form of fantasy or epic or painting does not mean that there is no propositional content.” You got that right, Francis. Art can be quite factual, even though it is art.
I often hear Christians apologize for the fact that they read fiction as opposed to devouring work after work of nonfiction theological writing, as if fiction contains less theologically valid or truthful content than works of nonfiction. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we agree with Schaeffer’s earlier perspective that art adds weight to a subject, then it could be argued that a work of fiction can do more for a theological perspective than a work of nonfiction.
I love it when pastors use illustrations from movies and works of art. Some would say they were pandering to the audience, or somehow wasting time that could be devoted to solid theology. But perhaps the best way to communicate an idea is with the added weight that only a work of art can give.
Yes, I am one of those geeks that loves sermons derived from Lord of the Rings. So sue me. I love it because there is so much truth in those stories, even if the events depicted in the books never happened. Truth can exist outside of factual events.
Perspective Seven: Changing Styles
No books in church!
Francis Schaeffer puts it better than I could: “Styles of art form change and there is nothing wrong with this.” There you have it. Just because an art form is new, it is no less valid than an older art form. And there is nothing wrong with a “new” way of doing an “old” art.
Schaeffer draws an appropriate comparison of art to language to illustrate this idea:
“There is no living language which does not undergo constant change. The languages which do not change, Latin, for example, are dead. As long as one has a living art, its forms will change. The past art forms, therefore, are not necessarily the right ones for today or tomorrow.”
When I read this, I immediately thought of the old man in the suit and tie, fist in the air in protest of the “loud” music coming from the drums of the worship band. It’s an easy and appropriate cliche to imagine. For some reason, Christians are very slow to accept new art forms. I think this is because we have trouble separating “tradition” from “theology”. That’s not to say that the tradition should not influence theology. What I mean is that much of what we do in church has more to do with tradition than correct Christian living. There was a point when the organ was a new thing in the church. So there is nothing intrinsically wrong with replacing the organ with a drum set.
Sometimes our paradigm needs a good, swift kick to the stomach. We forget that the way we do church was once new. The pews, the music, the hymnals … they were all introduced at one point. I am pretty sure that pews, modern hymns, and hymnals were absent from the early church. So it is safe to say that there was a point when churchgoers arrived at their Sunday service to see these odd books full of songs. And there was probably an old guy in a suit and tie who thought books had no place in church.
For some reason, many Christians have an obsession with the “good old days”. Ecclesiastes tells us there is nothing new under the sun. When we complain about sin and idolotry in our own culture, a quick review of the Old Testament will tell us that it is not uncommon for man to reject God in big, bold ways. So attempts to get back to the “good old days” are really attempts to get back to an ideal that never existed.
I say this to highlight the fact that a fondness for old styles of art and music because of its association with a nonexistent ideal has no bearing in the here and now. However, there is nothing wrong with enjoying classical styles or appreciating older art forms. All artists should study the masters who advanced the form. But it is foolish to disavow a new take on an old art form because of an unrealistic association with a time that never existed.
That being said, there are no art forms that are “holier” than others, and no art forms that are intrinsically sinful. Even if an art form is predominantly used to express a “non-Christian” world view, the art form in and of itself is not sinful.
Schaeffer’s challenge for Christian artists is to pursue today’s art forms. Not only will the art you produce be relevant, but a living art form is the best way to represent a living God.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
[...] Four Standards of Judgement (Part IV) Perspective Six: Art Can Be Used for Any Type of Message (Part V) Perspective Seven: Changing Styles (Part V) Perspective Eight: Modern Art Forms and the Christian [...]