Christian Responsibility and the Arts Bruce Bezaire Assistant Professor of Art Belhaven College What is the responsibility of the Christian engaged in the arts? As a creator? As a critic? What are the “ought to’s” (and which are not) of producing art Christianly, or responding to art as a Christian? “Responsibility” here is used in the sense of “moral obligation” or accountability. To address these questions by emphasizing the moral obligation of artists in general is to run up against the moral relativism of our day which would ultimately make each artist or critic answerable only to the belief system to which she adheres (religious and aesthetic.) The doing of what is right in one’s own eyes is, after all, the subjective fulfillment of perceived moral obligation. Rather, it will be our purpose to examine the moral obligation of the Christian, objectively knowable through Scripture, and to make application in the area of artistic endeavor. This focus - speaking Christianly to Christians about art 0 is not to imply that non-Christian artists are not ultimately answerable to the principles of God’s word as it impacts their discipline. However, one cannot be expected to fully appreciate the significance of those principles or to realize and act upon an obligation to them in any more than a superficial way, if at all, until one actually receives regenerating faith in Christ (Rom 8:7,8). This discussion then does not attempt to convince non-Christians to behave like Christians. But neither is the Christian focus of these thoughts intended to shut out anyone. It is outside the scope of this inquiry to essay a philosophical definition of art by identifying that which is sufficient and necessary to describe how one thing is art and another thing is not. Instead, let us allow that art has the potential of inhabiting to a greater or lesser degree, rather like a spirit, any human activity or product. The art of a thing is that aesthetic component which transcends the raw data of the form and through considered structuring of the physical elements of the work, whether audible tones, colors, movements, shapes or words, appeals in an evocative way to our intellect, emotions, or will. Simplistically, human activities could be thought of as a continuum: one extreme characterized by things in which the aesthetic component is minimal or missing (a toothpick); the other extreme characterized by those things in which the aesthetic is an end in itself (a decorative pattern). Between these extremes lies the variety of human doings in which the aesthetic component is more or less important, often employing a work in service to an inherent functional end, such as commerce, propaganda, entertainment, or utility. It is those things which purport to embody the aesthetic for its own sake that we are most comfortable designating “art”: dance, poetry, drama, music, painting and other visual arts, as such. However, the use of any of those media may also result in artifacts, the aesthetic of which is subordinate to another purpose. Such things are often identified more naturally according to function before the “art” of the thing is thought of: a commercial, coffee mug, religious tract, automobile. Functional ceramics may come out of the fire as low commercial kitsch or esoteric museum piece. Finally, there are those activities we feel safe in identifying as non-art, such as herding sheep; until an artist decides to herd sheep in an art gallery. So, while a more rigorous and reasoned definition of art is the worthy pursuit of the aestheticist, for our purposes art is taken to be a variable characteristic of human doings: more a matter of how things may be, than what they are or aren’t.1 We may envision ways to contain quicksilver, but would concede that driving a nail through it to keep it in place would be futile. Just so, rather than attempt to nail down the idea of art, an effort has been made to contain it within general broad parameters, which will serve as a context for ensuing remarks. It is hoped the principles discussed will apply not only across the spectrum of artistic undertaking as outlined, but to many other areas of life as well, because the real topic is Responsibility. The focus is Christian. Art is merely the area of application. Returning then to the initial questions regarding Christian moral obligation in the arts we must first note that the source of authority to which we will appeal in seeking answers will be the Bible. Within this fundamental frame of reference certain basic pronouncements of man’s primary moral obligations become a foundation to working out our salvation artistically with fear and trembling. Jesus said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Mat 23:37-40).” This most concise statement of our moral obligation before God, who must demand it of His creatures as a function of His holy nature, is an effective death sentence (Rom 7:10,11). Only one person ever did what Jesus asks here. For God to demand such behavior consistent with His character, and then to refrain from executing judgement on failure, is to demand nothing, thereby compromising His character. Sin must result in death. God is not prepared to tolerate it forever. So as the Bible says, we were dead in our trespasses. (Eph. 2:1) But thank God He loved us and prearranged to take care of our problem Himself. Life therefore, is ours in exchange for death by simply taking it by faith that the transaction has been made on our behalf. Through spiritual birth into Christ, our moral obligations are in a very real way already fulfilled, (I Cor. 1:30,31) and the rest of our time is spent in discovering how that works out in deed, artistically and otherwise. (Phil. 2:12) The Christian artist is to know, believe, and act on the revelation of Christ in the Scriptures, first with reference to the heart and then as applied to art. Artistic endeavor is not exempt from the general principles of living in Christ that follow from following the Spirit. For example, yielding to the Spirit in the light of Philippians 2:11-16a, constitutes allowing God to work in us both to will and to do His good pleasure. Every Christian is called to evidence certain behaviors which bear witness of such right-relatedness to God. Christians who create art are, with all believers, admonished to do pursue their gift without murmurings or disputings; to be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom they are to shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of Life. What remains to each Christian artist is a determination of just how to embody these principles in the specific artifacts she produces. Certainly the overriding principle that would characterize work issuing from a total surrender to the Spirit’s leading would be related to His primary job description as expressed by Jesus in John 16:14. “He will glorify me.” That is, the Spirit will reveal and exalt the very nature of God in Christ. As the Spirit’s vessel the Christian is thus to do what he does to the glory of God. First and foremost, this will be reflected in the character of the individual believer as the apprehension of Christ’s glory changes that one from glory to glory into the Lord’s image (II Cor. 3:18. From a Christ-like character will flow Christ-like works. The purest, most sincere form of glorification is simply to be like Him and then do what we do from that renewing nature. Like Bezaleel and Aholiab, the Christian artist is to be filled with the Spirit and then get to work. However, as we speak the language of Paul in Galatians 2:20, “I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me,” we must acknowledge that the individual Christian is not sufficient to contain the totality of the Life of Christ. Believers are not the bodies of Christ; rather, each is a member of His one body (I Cor. 10:17; 12:12-14) - the Church - millions of persons over centuries in hundreds of cultures called to embody in the world all that Christ is. To the artistic members of His body, this is to say that there is no single manifestation of His life, in style or content, that is ’right’ to the exclusion of others. Within the visual arts for example, one member of the body may through distortion or caricature deal in graphic representations of the ugly deceit of sin and hypocrisy; another may non-objectively rejoice in pure color and texture, thus bringing glory to the Creator of both; still another may be inclined toward illustrative realism, consciously designed to positively convey some aspect of the Christian life. As Christians, we are free to address anything so far as we have the mind of Christ toward that thing. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”..."only let us so speak and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." (II Cor. 3:17; James 2:12) One factor that will modify the freedom of the Christian is the principle of deference to a weaker brother found in Romans 14. It is uncharitable for a Christian artist to select subject matter that he is aware will present a fellow believer with a temptation to sin. For example, a Christian may enjoy liberty as a painter to present the human figure as the zenith of God’s physical creation, sincerely desiring to bring glory to Him by expressing a chaste awe at His handiwork. Another Christian who admires the first but does not enjoy, in his faith, the same freedom, may be emboldened by his brother’s example to approach the same subject matter - and fall victim to lasciviousness. The extreme response to this would argue that any subject matter is sure to offend someone, so how can a Christian function in the arts at all? The answer is that the thought of Romans 14 is not to deliberately choose to do anything which we are conscious will directly motivate another known individual to sin. And Paul has a word for those weaker brothers as they consider the liberty of their fellows, namely, “why dost thou judge thy brother?” There are those in the body who will wield their ’weaknesses’ as a club to exercise control over others, just as there are those who will use their liberty as a cloak of maliciousness.(I Pt. 2:16) Both must be renewed in their minds. “Happy is he that condemns not himself in the thing which he allows.” Whatever we take up artistically, let us do it after the Spirit in faith, “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”(Ro. 14:22,23) If then the freedom of a Christian in the arts to righteously do whatever she pleases is contingent on being filled with the Spirit, the consistency of that submission is of critical importance. At this point all Christians must confess to not having already attained, neither being already perfect. Like all Christians, the artist’s calling is to produce good works, as she works out (tangibly) her salvation with fear and trembling. The notion of whether or not something is an ’art’ work is an unnecessary obfuscation of the more fundamental consideration of whether or not it is a good work. God Himself pronounced His works, not art, but good. And Jesus foreclosed the possibility that anything could be good apart from God. (Mt. 19:7) Therefore, the task of the Christian analyzing her art works is to recognize, affirm and build upon the good by faith (“reaching forth unto those things which are before”); and to discern and delete the bad by confession in a continual refining process from piece to piece (“forgetting those things which are behind”). The actual process may be complex and difficult but the principles upon which it is build conform to the simplicity that is in Christ. The critical consideration - ’Is it good?’ - may be given to any artifact as it embodies, i) a degree of technical skill; ii) taste; iii) a testimony; and iv) Truth. These four aspects of the being of a thing are an adaptation and embellishment of Schaeffer’s “Four Standards of Judgement.”2 i) Technical skill addresses the artist’s proficiency at ordering the basic components and concepts of his craft, whether they be words shaping ideas, musical notes forming rhythm and melody, or pigments suggesting light, space and shape on a canvas. In view here is the artist’s degree of virtuosity in his chosen medium. ii) Taste is a word adopted to encompass a concert of related matters. How does a given piece of art embody the artist’s response to the social-historical context out of which he is working? Does his work flow from a consolidated understanding of the forms of the past, and is it infused with a personal innovation which opens new understandings out of which the forms of the future can flow?3 Consideration must be given to how mutually compatible are the three fundamental aspects of an artifact: the medium, subject matter, and style - the body, soul, and spirit of a thing, if you will. Is there integrity among the three? Finally, taste has reference to the artist’s intent to in fact create art as an end in itself, and not something else for which the art form is merely a vehicle, such as propaganda, advertising, or pornography.4 iii) Testimony speaks to the degree of personal integrity and honesty the artist brings to the creative process. Does his work sincerely reflect who he is and what he thinks and feels about the nature of reality? If an artist undertakes to produce something that compromises his beliefs and values for mercenary motives or in order to gain notoriety or acceptance, then his work lacks what Schaeffer refers to as ’validity’.5 There is a certain hypocrisy afoot. The focus here is subjective and consequently a tension can arise with the fourth evaluative category, Truth. For example, we would consider suspect the testimony of a skilled musician, who, though agnostic, has found a market for her talents singing Christian songs. Yet, while the testimony is false, the actual content of the art is true. While the critic of aesthetics might rather wish to see the realization of the artist’s honest world view as a ground for stronger art, the Christian perhaps would say with Paul, “...notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”(Phil. 1:18) iv) For, simply put, Jesus Christ is the Truth. Everything as it really is, is to be understood by and through and in Him. He is revealed in the creation, in the Scriptures, and as the Holy Spirit bears Him witness in the Christian’s spirit (usually through the Scriptures). At no point do these modes of revelation contradict each other. If they appear to, we have failed to understand or believe something. Where the content of an artwork posits a view of reality, that view is subject of an evaluation of its conformity to the revelation of Christ in Scripture.6 Of course, this standard of truth does not rule out the creative use of fiction, exaggeration, abstraction or fantastic symbolism: the invention of ’new’ artistic vocabulary to state eternal verities. The Scriptures themselves contain examples of all of these devices. By way of summary: the premier responsibility of the Christian artist is to be filled with the Spirit to the end that one’s (art) work is to the glory of God by being as good as possible in the four critical areas of technique, taste, testimony, and truth. What constitutes the good in each of these areas is sourced in God. Interestingly, this is true as well for ungodly artists, aspects of whose works are genuinely good: not in the sense attributable to the presence of the Spirit in them, but because they themselves are God’s creations in a physical and soulish way, and are responding to His broader creation,7 perhaps even under the external influence of a Christian consensus. It is true that a sincerely held but erroneously informed testimony can produce a more vigorous art than a hypocritical conformity to the objective truth. But such a misinformed testimony could not be called a good one - just honest and consequently ’effective’ on that front. But, technical skill and the capacity for aesthetic wisdom are gifts of the Creator, whether or not they are ever developed or acknowledged as such. The work of the most committed atheist who is an artistic genius can be appreciated - by the Christian - for the God-given skill evidenced in technique and taste, even if the world view must be rejected8. So, from the Christian perspective the good in secular art is rather like an aesthetic manifestation of common grace. However, for those in Christ who recognize that by the grace of God we are what we are and who desire to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called by artistically contributing to and expressing the spirit of Ephesians 4:1-16, a continued refinement of a sense of what characterizes the good in art is required. It cannot be our present task to deal with the specifics of technical excellence in media as different as copper engraving, dance, and glass blowing. Each one of hundreds of disciplines could merit a volume on the mastery of methods and materials. Likewise, abstract principles governing various forms differ somewhat according to whether the art is visual, kinetic, musical, or literary. What constitutes good taste in each of these areas has to do with the histories of the disciplines, and the role each plays in relation to society at a given point; all modified by an understanding of Scriptural constants. Suffice it to say it is the Christian artist’s responsibility to be educated technically and aesthetically to the point of excellence as a priority in the embodying of a Christian world view in his art. For, while attempting to express the truth in an artistically inferior way does not harm the truth per se, it may do damage to the degree of acceptance or credence the truth may enjoy.9 The caveat is that a sovereign God can and does often choose to glorify Himself through the witness of what in a technical or aesthetic sense may be weak or incompetent. (I Cor. 1:27, 28) Therefore, the Christian artist ’in process,’ while striving toward excellence, may trust God to ’choose the base things,’ just as the master artist must also trust God and not feel his or her own level of accomplishment is in itself a valid ground for effective artist Christian witness¾"No flesh should glory in His presence."(I Cor. 1:29. Rather than prescribe specific attributes of good Christian art, our purpose is to nurture in the Christian artist understanding and ownership of what characterizes the good at a general perceptual level and encourage each one to make application to the specifics of her art. I Corinthians 13 states that in the absence of love, the most elevated of human accomplishments amount to profitless vanity. The first recorded fruit of the Spirit is love.(Gal. 5:22) We are admonished to think on things which are lovely (or ’lovable’).(Phil 4:8) Art work that is good - godly -will issue from and exhibit love, in a heart’s desire to glorify God and to minister something to one’s neighbor. A single-minded maturity in Christ - a man or woman of integrity - will act in faith to consistently fulfil this love motive regardless of personal pain or loss, through a grateful, submissive stewardship of talents received. Galatians 5 provides a continuing description of the fruit of the Spirit which ought to epitomize both what motivates a Christian’s art and what she seeks to impart through it. In addition to love, there’s joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance. By contrast, the works of the flesh are delineated and said to be apparent, making it possible for an honest Christian to discern whence her art springs. Note that the works of the flesh are not forbidden subject matter to the Christian artist as long as the truth regarding them is being made manifest. The Bible itself, the quintessential ’artifact’ of the Spirit, unflinchingly presents examples of sin and its consequences. And it does so with God’s redemptive provision set forth patiently in love, ultimately ministering peace and joy if believed unto repentance - and at least serving as a warning to escape God’s wrath. It is less the purpose of art to serve as a primary means of conveying such truths as it is to model the fruits of a life that has assimilated them. Again, the intent of the artist ought to be to produce art first, not a tract. And yet in each fruit there is hidden the seeds of life.10 One suspects that work proceeding from such a mindset will exhibit certain technical and aesthetic distinctives. If style, medium and subject are irrevocably interrelated to where an alteration in any one will mandate adjustments in the other two, then a well defined belief system out of which the artist is laboring to fashion his entire oeuvre could be expected to impact all three. Christians in general are instructed to not be conformed to the world but transformed by the renewing of the mind. How much more ought this to be so of the artist, the outworking of whose salvation is perpetuated in things, which will bear witness to the hearts and minds of people, perhaps for generations or centuries. Ought not these products of a transformed life be both transformed and transforming themselves? Christians are also to be a peculiar people, which is to say ’beyond the ordinary.’(Titus 2:14) So too, Christian artists assume the responsibility to be peculiar as relative to the broader art community. Perhaps this just means to bring a degree of normalcy to an area of human undertaking that has become so given to abnormality. Indeed, the Christian life is the normal, or normative, life, as Watchman Nee has observed. We ought to be those who are so obviously beyond the ordinary as to provoke emulation by the world; although, we are warned that such distinctiveness becomes a rebuke to the world and is more likely to provoke persecution.(II Tim. 3:12) However, to dictate definitive technical and aesthetic distinctives of a Christian’s art would be futile. They will change according to the times and culture in which the artist is working and from artist to artist according to the measure of faith in Christ and the artistic function in His body to which the artist has been called. What is appropriate for each Christian artist as responsible before God, who in Christ has redeemed us, commissioned us as His ambassadors, and who will one day try our works, is to judge ourselves and what we do with utmost integrity, honesty and diligence. “For if we should judge ourselves, we should not be judged.”(I Cor. 11:31) In the light of Galatians 5, see whether we be in the faith and walking after the Spirit. Against such a life there is no law, (’paint it that way’; ’sing it this way’). Hold our works, in the four areas of technique, taste, testimony, and truth up to the standard of good laid out in Philippians 4:8. Are we dealing in the true, honest (or grave), just (righteous), pure, lovely (lovable), well spoken of, virtuous and praiseworthy? -however those concepts may apply to each of the four critical aspects of our art in defining the good. And while our self-judgement ought to be rigorous, constant, confessional and refining, our critical role in examining the work of our brothers and sisters in Christ ought to be tempered with love and grace - believing all things and hoping all things.(I Cor. 13:7) Who are we to judge another’s servant?(Rom. 14:4) Assign to others the most benign motives possible unless there is no question as to the contrary and only then seek to pull down “strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”(II Cor. 10:4,5) Our ultimate goal as critics of self and others ought to be to build up the good where opportunity exists; to admonish, edify, and encourage with a mind towards equipping one another for future victories as the members of Christ’s body entrusted with reconciling the arts to God, under the rightful sovereignty of our Lord. Such is the reasonable service - the responsibility - of the artist as living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. References 1. Seerveld, Calvin, Rainbows for t&he Fallen World, (Toronto Tuppence Press, Toronto, 1980) p. 108. 2. Schaeffer, Francis, Art and the Bible, (InterVaristy Press, Downer’s Grove, IL, 1973) pp. 41-48. 3. Best, Harold, “God’s Creation and Human Creativity”, in The Reality of Christian Learning, ed. Harold Heie and David L. Wolfe, (Christian University Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987) pp. 264, 265. 4. Kilby, Clyde, Christianity and Aesthetics, (InterVarsity Press, Chicago, 1961) p. 34. 5. Schaeffer, p. 42. 6. Gaebelein, Frank, “Toward a Biblical View of Aesthetics”, in The Christian Imagination, ed. Leland Ryken, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI 1981) pp. 49, 50. 7. Maritain, Jacques, The Responsibility of the Artist, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1960) p. 23. 8. Rookmaaker, H. R., Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, 2nd ed. (InterVarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, IL, 1975) pp. 228, 229. 9. Rookmaaker, p. 230. 10. Hazelton, Roger, A Theological Approach to Art, (Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, 1967) p. 76. Bibliography 1. Beardsley, Monroe, Aesthetics From Classical Greece To The Present, The MacMillan Co., N.Y., 1966. 2. Gaebelein, Frank, Christianity, The Arts, and the Truth, Multnomah Press, Portland, OR, 1985 3. Garside, Charles, Zwingli and the Arts, Yale U. Press, New Haven, 1966. 4. Hazelton, Roger, A Theological Approach To Art, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1967. 5. Heie, H./Wolfe, D. - ed. The Reality of Christian Learning, Christian University Press, Grand Rapids, 1987. 6. Hospers, John, Understanding The Arts, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982. 7. Kilby, Clyde, Christian and Aesthetics, InterVarsity Press, Chicago, 1961. 8. Maritian, Jacques, The Responsibility of the Artist, Charles Scribner’s Sons., N.Y., 1960. 9. Nathan, Walter, Art and the Message Of The Church, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1961. 10. Rookmaaker, Hans, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, IVP, London, 1979. 11. Ryken, Leland - ed., The Christian Imagination, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1981. 12. Sayers, Dorothy, The Whimsical Christian, MacMillan Publishing Co., Collier Books. 13. Schaeffer, Francis, Art and the Bible, InterVarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, IL, 1973. 14. Schaeffer, Francis, How Should We Then Live?, Fleming H. Revel Co., Old Tappan, NJ., 1976. 15. Seerveld, Calvin Rainbows For The Fallen World, Toronto Tuppence Press, 1980. 16. Van Der Leeuw, Gerardus Sacred and Profane Beauty, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, N.Y., 1963. 17. Weiss, Paul, Religion and Art, Marquette U. Press, Milwaukee, 1963. 18. Weitz, Morris - ed. Problems In Aesthetics, The MacMillan Co., N.Y., 1959.