This is an older essay that I've chosen to revise and publish
at this time due to its reference in a recent discussion. Most readers will not
find it to be of interest, some will find it baffling. A few may find it to be
stimulating or at least I hope so.
What is a Christian view of the arts? That's a large topic
and one that I cannot fully explore at this time. It is a worthwhile subject to
be sure and yet for all that I would say its value is perhaps more limited than
many would acknowledge.
Most theologically conservative Christians within the
Anglo-American realm have embraced classical forms of art, being generally
hostile to modernity and certainly to post-modernity. One need only think of
the influence of figures like Francis Schaeffer or even CS Lewis in this
regard.
I am a theological conservative in one sense to be sure and
yet as a Biblicist I also (in many ways) fall outside the 'conservative' camp.
That may puzzle some, others will understand what I mean by this. In addition
to a host of other questions I would argue that Biblicist Non-Constantinian
thought demands a serious reassessment of the arts. While I'm not quite ready
to embrace modern art nor endorse the appetites of the avant-garde I am more
than willing to challenge classical views of art, music and literature.
Like many critics I believe the arts are essentially
philosophical. Beauty and aesthetics are ideas and concepts rooted in the
classical philosophical triad of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Some
would grant aesthetics its own category, others place it within the realm of
ethical debate.
Regardless I will grant that art in virtually every case,
even the most personal and individualist forms of expression reflects
philosophical belief... which may or may not be termed 'religious'. Of course
as Christians we understand that even non-religious views are essentially
rooted in some form of faith, even if it is the unnamed and unacknowledged god
of chance. It bears repeating that art reflects philosophical belief.
Philosophical certainty (I would argue) is a chimera, a fictitious pipe dream.*
Art and beauty are questions of aesthetics and since
Scripture does not generally focus on this question we as Christians are left
to try and forge some kind of synthesis between what is known through
revelation and our own finite and subjective experience and inquiry.
Art therefore is (like it or not) a point for philosophical
inquiry. And yet unlike most professing Christians I would argue Scripture
demands a large degree of philosophical scepticism. It is this very scepticism
that drives one to faith and in many ways affirms it. This is admittedly a
minority position in the history of the Church. Of course I would argue the
True Gospel and a right and proper view of Biblical Authority have at least for
centuries been minority positions. I
would without hesitation include the Protestant era as representing this same
deviation. This is despite its claims to the contrary.
Do I believe there is a specifically Christian form of art?
Not in the least. Without qualification I can say there is no such thing as
'sacred' art. This of course includes not only visual representations, but
music and literature as well. Scripture of course would be an exception to the
latter example but it is a mistake (perhaps a grievous one at that) to reckon
Scripture as artistry or literature. This is to demean its Divine Revelatory
character. While written by human authors and stamped by their character,
artistic expression is nowhere recognised, taught, emphasised or promoted. Even
the 'art' of the temple was not 'art' as men would have it. In any case such
'art' has no bearing on the normative practices of New Testament piety or
ecclesiology.
I believe Christians can produce art and it can reflect
Christian ideas and values but this does not 'sacralise' the art itself. It is
not redeemed. It is not made holy. Thus as something 'passing away', something
that is of the form of this world its value is of course severely limited. It
cannot be incorporated into liturgy as it has no place in the Age to Come.
Nevertheless Christians can produce art that reflects Gospel
truths, and it can stimulate thought and emotion toward entertaining
transcendent questions. It is therefore of some
value.
In light of that, while I heartily reject the faulty and
misguided views of people like Francis Schaeffer, Tolkien and CS Lewis, I can
nevertheless envision a series of discussions on the arts, their place and
meaning. As a Christian I can look at art history, the Western artistic canon
and interact with it. Though I must say I believe the Christian 'take' or
assessment will be located largely in the realm of the negative. And ironically
some of the most 'inspiring' art...whatever one means by that... is found in
the periods that have openly challenged the assumptions of Christendom.
We too should challenge such assumptions. The questions are
appreciated even if the answers we find in Scripture are quite different. Once
again, there is a value in such art, but it is we must admit of exceedingly
limited quality.
Poetry, the crafting of words into a form different than
vernacular speech has a rich and varied tradition. And yet there are many norms
both classical and modern that I would argue can and ought to be questioned.
While some Christians are horrified by all things modern, others seeking
'relevance' are quick to turn their backs on the past. I think there are other
ways to wrestle with these points.
This essay on Syllabic Verse touches upon some of these
questions.
*As a Biblicist I believe in Objective Truth but only in the
context of Divine Revelation. Truth is known Spiritually through reflection on
and obedience to Divine Revelation. Unlike many Presuppositionalists and
Systematicians I don't believe Objective Truth is something derived from
revelation and deduced by means of philosophical inference. Objective Truth is
not found in a comprehensive cultural worldview but in the Truth itself... in
knowing Jesus the Christ.
Philosophical inquiry is rooted in man-centred subjectivity
and the limitations of cognition and experience. Metaphysics while real is from
our vantage point a dead end. Ethics is only rescued by obedience to Scripture.
As a system it falters. Epistemology collapses under its own weight and
Scripture alone rescues us from ignorance. As lost people our ignorance is not
utter but what little light is granted only brings condemnation. Scripture
alone makes true knowledge possible and yet we are not rescued from ignorance.
Unable to predicate in the metaphysical realm we are reliant upon revelation
and must learn to be content in a state of informed ignorance. Otherwise (it
could be argued) faith ceases to be a hope or conviction in things unseen but
is instead a mere expression of right logic and deduction, a teasing out of coherent
proofs via an almost scientific from of inference. Faith is transformed from
trust and obedience into philosophical acumen. This runs absolutely contrary to
the prolegomena outlined by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians.