There’s been a bit of a discussion going on in the art & theology blogging world about the (to use Casey’s term) “nexus” between the two. I feel obliged to participate considering my last work “The Gospel of John. The Cross of Christ.” and the overall nature of my blog sometimes being completely art and sometimes completely theology (and sometimes something completely different). I never seem to be able to separate the two. Maybe you’ll understand why through this post, but first off I must tell you I am approaching it first through scripture, then through art. It is only through these two lenses that theology really ever comes into focus.
John 1:3 – “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
John makes his first few statements in his version of the gospel very cosmological including using the same wording as Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning…”
Where Genesis states “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth” John equates the method of creation as something spoken. The Word became flesh.
So when we see that John also includes this one particular narrative that is existent in some of the later manuscripts of John’s Gospel, it fits in nicely. Oh yeah, it’s the story where the woman is caught in adultery and Jesus stoops down and draws in the sand. We don’t know what He wrote (or had drawn), but I think Michael Card has this spot on in the following song.
Art is one way God intimately shares part of who He is with us. Being made in the image of God, we also are creators. Worship being one of the main purposes of our particular creation, we can give back to God in a way that is more intimate, through a process of creating something completely of our own free will. But since our free will can also choose rebellion, we can create wicked works as well.
Casey has asked me to respond to his 10 Theses on Art from a Christian Perspective. On some I agree completely, some only in part, and some I may disagree completely. Keep in mind this is a discussion, not a flame contest. Casey is a great guy and I respect him very much as an artist and as a fellow believer. I will also confess I had to look up words like “didactic” to even hope to respond semi-intelligently. 
But for my reader’s sake here, I’ll use “lehmans” terms…
“As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” – Proverbs 27:17
- Art (etymology=artifice,artificial) is a visual, organic parable. Emotional and conceptual aspects of art are of the soul. Auto-didactic art remains a function of nature.
Too often I think we use the word “nature” without equating it to a particular nature. Eden was perfect nature, being made “good” from the standpoint of God. After the fall of man we see imperfect nature as part of the curse. One is pure. One has a twisted element that resides in it. If art inherent in “the creation” is a visual, organic parable of God’s then I would completely agree. Romans 1:20 would be my basis of this statement. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
What happens is the above statement breaks down in this analysis. Art is visual, organic and based out of emotion, even if we deny it to be so. Even what seems to be “Auto-didactic” from our point of view is planned, purposeful and providential.
- Sacred art is a category of art that involves subject. If art were, or could be, “Sacred,” the Lord Jesus would have drawn the gospel.
Isn’t that why He created the monks and their illuminated manuscripts? Seriously though, I would go the other way and say that Sacred art is that which is inspired by The Creator. In scriptures, we see poetry & songs. I would suppose if it were deemed relevant for us to have visual arts beyond what nature provides, that there would have been visual arts as well.
- At some point, content must always supersede subject in art. Content is the construct and concept of the artist.
I agree. Otherwise the art is completely irrelevant and meaningless. It’s creation is in itself due to the free will of the artist. It must become it’s own apart from it’s subject, but in doing so becomes the subject of the creator.
- Nature is corrupt, but art may rise above nature inasmuch as it may be created in an environment of redemption.
Yet nature was not meant to be corrupt. In our redemptive state as believers, can we create without the impact of corruption? No, but insomuch as we come close determines the nature in us. In this, Art also becomes reflective.
- Making art is a creative act. Individuality is intrinsic to the making of art.
Free will. I agree with Casey here. God sat us down in the midst of this world and entrusted it all to us. Our canvas never ends. It is as wide and high as the Earth. I think this is why I like Andy Goldsworthy’s works.
- The need of art is an act of faith, rather than a scientific quantity.
Agreed. Completely.
- Truth in art is no more self-evident or intrinsic than any other act in nature. We assert that truth is resident in Jesus Christ.
Agreed. Though, at this point I will assume you mean perfect nature (since I addressed this earlier).
- Beauty in the classic sense is resident in nature, and therefore must be interpreted.
Why? C.S. Lewis writes in his allegory “The Great Divorce” of a man who is entranced with painting heaven so much that he refuses to live there. If our interpretation is all we long to do, than we might want to reevaluate our own pride that we can ever truly interpret beauty. In our human nature, even a redemptive human nature, we still fall short of the glory of God. Our most redemptive act then is worship.
- Art has a long life – longer than human mortality. With perhaps the exception of performance art and conceptual art, Fine Art is a corporeal object of exceptional longevity.
Agreed. In this it also comes closest to our own longing for Heaven and ties into what we are created to be. We are both eternal and physical.
- We reject the theology that God must not be represented in art. God is personal, and art is one of the many (perhaps imperfect) means of relating to Him.
Agreed. But is is also a way He relates to us.
3 Comments
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
Did you send this email?
I received an email today from someone with the following info: William,Hey I was wondering what are the costs, and all that is involved in setting up a website. I'm looking for a site that we can post pics, newsletters, and videos. I
Spiritual Warfare?
My wife and I have started working through reading the Bible together in a year. It comes down to four chapters each night (we each read two) right now. I am not sure if it doubles up chapters later or
The State of Change
Change is hard. We all know it. We get tied into a persona, a name, an idea and we one day find that it's not us anymore. A friend of mine is contemplating changing his domain name. His old domain
Mr. Deity and the Baptist
I can't resist sharing this. I've been watching this show for awhile now. If you have never heard of it, enjoy (and now you have).
This post is great – even nicely curated with a couple of artist’s works.
Can’t be on the PC too much today, so I’ll give some quick ideas.
Trying to be too smart by half, I introduced nature in my first thesis, and then by number four (hwammo!) I hit the reader with the thesis that nature is corrupt. Don’t you agree that nature needs to be correctly understood, and yet 99.999% of contemporary readers may not agree (with me) about the corruption of nature.
So, in the interests of polemics, I bring in nature, but I don’t reveal my full hand until #4, where it becomes evident that nature is not straight. William presents a duality of nature – corrupt versus redeemed. This is a true observation, but I think that, because art is not scripture, it must always bear error.
So, sacred art becomes a key question. And, it is my main subject of inquiry, although this exercise only begins down that road, I guess.
Also, I agree that all theology must begin with God, and proceed to the things of man. When I say, maybe clumsily, that my own theses are art-centric, I am saying that in comparison to the faith bloggers who wrote their theses from the outside of the art world, looking in. I think that each category of theology must stay with it’s category to be on target, so a theology of art should keep art in focus. I think I’ll quit calling it “art-centric” – that is not exactly right.
Oh! I’ll add that when I wrote that Jesus didn’t draw the gospel, it did pop into my foggy head that he scribbled something in the sand. So, I was delighted at Card’s song about art and Jesus’ sand work.
Does an artist immediately think Jesus drew something, and a theologian automatically think He wrote in the sand?
Also, it crossed my mind that it is entirely possible that Jesus did draw something sometime! He was fully man, and what child has never drawn? Like my acquaintance Gordon Fee once said, Jesus’ limitations as a man mean that it is entirely true that he (Fee) could out-dribble Jesus on the basketball court. Do you draw better than Jesus? I’d love to know what he drew…
Casey, Glad you found the post more quickly than I found out I made one of your lists…lol. I would agree most contemporary readers would not consider “nature” something to even need the redemptive work of Christ. Which also lends itself to the idea that humanity is by nature “good”.
We all know that we have to teach our kids to be selfish. Otherwise we’d be saying things like the below statements to our children.
Unfortunately, we know this is not the case. Nature is flawed, but one thing is sure, she still knows her maker.
Casey, I’d love to know what Jesus drew both in that narrative as well as a child. We know that Joseph was a carpenter. Jesus may have created sculptures out of remnants of wood as a child.