I have just enough time to set up my camera gear and prepare to capture the sun breaking across the horizon; spilling light onto the forest and this mountain streambed that it holds. The mist that hangs in the air beneath the waterfall is suddenly illuminated orange. The trees of the forest reflect auburn in the stream as they are bathed in the warm light of the rising sun. I hustle from rock to water in a frantic effort to capture this splendorous demonstration of the beauty of God’s creation. As the sun rises higher and loses the intensity of it’s warm color, I look downward, and begin to photograph the early spring flowers that line this mountain stream. I focus on a patch of painted trillium. They point up cheerfully with their three white petals, and fuchsia center, as though to invite the attention of my camera, and any pollinators that happen to buzz along. Next is the wild geranium; with its purple petals forming a satellite dish. Upon further inspection I see a crab spider making its home in this flower’s center. This tiny spider, with web woven of the finest strands. Were it not for the morning dew hanging in the web, its existence would not even be known. It is at this moment that I am once again struck by the incredible wonder of God’s creation. I am amazed at His creativity in forming our natural world. From the granite mountain peaks that reach towards the heavens, to the microscopic dew laden web of the crab spider that makes its home in the wild geranium; God’s fingerprint is on each.

            All of nature declares the Glory of God, and as a nature photographer I feel privileged to witness it regularly. These moments spent in the solitude of creation, exploring its intricate and grand design, awaken something within my heart. God has created the natural world in such a way that it inspires the peruser to see His creativity and praise Him for it. Nature photography is the ideal medium for encouraging the viewer to get out and spend time exploring God’s creation; to engage in this same type of curiosity and thankfulness for the beauty, detail, and interconnectedness that God has blessed us with, through the natural world. Furthermore, nature photography bears the potential to inspire the viewer not only to first hand nature experience, but also to a celebration of the God-designed creativity of humanity. God’s creation universally declares His glory and reveals His divine power, and thus, as Christians we should be better leveraging the art of nature photography to inspire others to interact with God’s creation and praise Him for it.

            In beginning to explore the topic of why Christians should engage in the art of nature photography, it is first necessary to reflect upon what the Bible has to say about creation and our interaction with it. There is a strong biblical directive to care for God’s creation, and to witness God’s glory through it. The appropriate place to start would be the very beginning. God created the earth and everything in it. This alone imbues nature with value. The fact that the almighty God authored it should make us think twice about failing to enjoy it, protect it, and learn from it. In fact from the beginning of the creation account, in Genesis 2:15, we are called to interact with nature. The Hebrew words “’abad” and “shamar”, which are used to describe our role in the garden, are a call to serve and to keep it (DeWitt 100). This is a far cry from, what seems to be, our track record of abusing and ignoring it. This biblical mandate for creation stewardship is quite clear, and it sets the basis for the posture that we should take towards the natural world.

            Moving forward in search of a biblically informed understanding of creation, we find one of the most clear teachings about a theology of nature in Romans 1:19-20.

That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse (NASB).

           This passage demonstrates that God has made himself evident to us through His creation, and that, because of this fact we are without excuse if we choose to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. Reading this chapter in its entirety leads to an even more robust understanding of what is conveyed through creation, and what we are then accountable for. This passage should be seen as both a revelation into the powerful story that creation tells about the creator, and a warning to those who would distort that story. If God is so clearly seen through nature, to the point that it is enough to hold every individual accountable, then it is a source that we should be using to learn about God ourselves, and to share with others. Notice that our passage in Romans is not speaking of Christians only when it says that “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse”, but rather, it is a universal statement that deals with every individual that sees His creation. This is what theologians would refer to as general revelation. God’s work of creation that displays His “eternal power” and “divine nature” is commonly available to all humans. This general revelation, that is available for all who look, is only one way that God reveals Himself, however. The other way is through “special revelation”, which is the inspired Word of God. God speaks to us through the Holy Scriptures that have been given to us for instruction, correction, and edification. Thus God reveals Himself through, what the church has historically confessed to be, the “two books”. This terminology conveys the importance of neglecting neither of God’s modes of self-revelation (DeWitt 94). Martin Luther put it well when he stated that, “God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars” (The Green Bible I-103).

            One final cog in the underpinnings of a biblically informed understanding of creation, is the way that the Bible’s countless appeals to nature speak to its exemplary power and representational capabilities. The Bible contains countless examples of using nature to teach us about God; directly, metaphorically, and in representational art. In Job chapter 40, God challenges Job’s sense of self-righteousness by appealing to nature. He challenges Job to “Behold Behemoth”; to look upon the power and majesty of the created beast, and to ask himself if he was able to design such a creature. In the book of Job, God repeatedly challenges Job to behold creation and see his own helplessness. Does Job have the ability to tell every lightning bolt where to strike(Job 38:35)? Can Job cause snow or rain, or can he guide the mother bear with her cubs (Job 38:22-32)? The answer, of course, is a resounding no. The book of Job demonstrates God’s use of creation to teach. Matthew 10:29-30 is another example of God’s sovereign orchestration of nature. It teaches us about His care for it when Jesus says that not a single lowly sparrow “falls to the ground apart from the Father”. Through this He teaches us that we should not worry, because we are valued even higher than these sparrows that He provides for.

            Furthermore, God reveals truths about Himself and the Christian faith through scriptures that use nature metaphorically. Psalm 1 describes the righteous man as being like a “tree planted by streams of water” which is fruitful and steady, while it portrays a wicked man as being like chaff that is blown in the wind. In John 15, Jesus describes Himself as being like a vine, and us the branches, in order to portray our connection with Him, and our reliance on His life giving sustenance. There are a plethora of examples such as these in the scriptures. They assume our understanding of, and connectedness to nature in order for us to comprehend their breadth.

            Lastly, we see a license for the use of the representational use of nature in artwork in the scriptures. As Francis Schaeffer explains in Art and the Bible, God not only condoned the use of representational art of natural elements in the tabernacle and temple, but commanded them (Schaeffer 21). In Exodus chapters 25-28 there is an explanation of the God-ordained blueprints for the Tabernacle. Included in these blueprints are the command for light stands in the shape of branches and in the form of almond blossoms.  The description also calls for pomegranates made in various colors, both natural, and un-natural. Understanding this will help us get beyond the point of needing to justify the use of nature in arts like photography. Now that we have an understanding of nature in the Bible, let us shift gears into a discussion on the human interaction with nature.

            As we have seen through the scriptures, God’s creation tells of His divine power, not only to Christians or particular people groups, but to all people. This universality of God’s general revelation is evident in the human response to creation across cultural borders. There is something innately spiritual to the human interaction with nature. Creation’s spiritual nature is seen, although often misplaced, in the way that the entire spectrum of people groups have affirmed its spiritual nature. It is important that we approach nature through a scriptural lens, so that we do not fall prey to “worshipping the creation rather than the creator” as it says in Romans 1:24. This worshipping of the creation is exactly what we find in the worst cases of humans’ spiritual interactions with nature. This type of relationship to nature is obviously not what we are after, but a quick look into human tendencies to spiritualize nature will be helpful in showing that we are created with a desire to read from God’s book of nature.

            Throughout the ages, all types of people have seen the natural world through a spiritualized lens. From unreached groups of rainforest dwellers that worship the puma, to Christians that stray from orthodoxy into pantheistic views that God is actually the creation; nature spirituality takes on many appearances. This penchant for seeing nature as a spiritual entity may be misplaced, but it flows from the way that God created us to stand in awe of His divine power that is evident in creation. We cannot get to know God through His creation, but rather, we learn about God’s attributes through what He has made. When we fail to live by this biblical mandate, it is a quick and slippery slope of falling into pantheism and creation worship.

            Additionally, we can learn from the anthropological interaction with creation, that God created us so that human interaction with nature leads to refreshment and reflection. Spending time in nature is therapeutic. The famous and intrepid naturalist, John Muir, has some of the most insightful writings on the subject of man’s interaction and enjoyment of nature. He once said that “Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul.” You can read more quotes that are pulled from his writings Here. John Muir’s childlike curiosity for exploring God’s creation and standing in awe of its grandeur, beauty, and detail, is very inspiring indeed. When we approach the reading of God’s “book” of creation, we would be well served to do so with this childlike curiosity.

            We have seen that there is a strong biblical mandate for caring for God’s creation, and we have seen that God has made Himself evident through what He created. Additionally, we see that God created us in a way that nature is refreshing to our souls. If this is really the case, then choosing to forsake the reading of God’s book of creation by neglecting to studying it would be akin to forsaking fellowship with God through the reading of the scriptures. It would be ignoring a method by which God intends to reveal Himself to us. God has chosen to communicate to us through the written word and through His creation. Spending time perusing God’s creation should, in no way, replace our time devoted to communing with God through the scriptures or prayer. Spending time in nature should inspire us to prayer and the reading of God’s Word. This has proven itself true through my experiences in God’s creation. The more that we study the splendor and intricacy of what God has made, the more that we are motivated to praise Him. All creation declares the glory of God, and thus, time spent in that creation is worship inspiring. All of nature is partaking in the doxology of creation. The trees of the forest clap their hands, and we should join in the praise of our creator. However, there seems to be a disconnect. The church of Christ does not seem to be partaking in the doxology of creation. Many go for months, and even years without taking the time to stop and study what God has made evident to us through His creation. The people of God seem to have neglected the reading of God’s book of creation. We must change this.

            As Christians, we must get out and from the musty buildings that we spend so much time in, and interact with God’s creation. We have already seen that God makes Himself evident to all through His creation, not merely Christians, and not only certain people groups. His general revelation transcends cultures and borders. We, as Christ’s church, should be about the business of both partaking in God’s revelation through nature for ourselves, and encouraging others to do likewise. Nature photography lends itself ideally to promoting interaction with nature, in that, much like nature itself, it speaks cross-culturally, and is not dependent on language. We live in a day and age where the primary means of communication is visual. We have gone from being a dialogue and reading based society, to being an image based society. As Neil Postman argues in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, we live under a new visual epistemology (Postman 26). This new way of communicating and understanding, further makes photography the perfect catalytic tool for motivation.

            We are also living in a society that is becoming more and more urban. People are flocking to cities in record numbers. As of 2010, the CIA’s World Factbook shows that 82% of the United States population now live in cities. This trend of urbanization has only fueled our society’s disconnect with creation. Many people rarely get away from the urban sprawl to enjoy the serenity and refreshment of God’s creation. This disconnect only appears to be getting worse. When we take a look at the next generation of urban youth, this lack of interaction with nature is even more of an evident issue. With the explosion of technology, both in the classroom and at home, in addition to the urbanization of populations, we see a new generation of youth that are nature illiterate. In a study done by Nicole L. Migliarese, she speaks of a “nature deficit” that is prevalent, and problematic to the health of our nation’s youth and adults alike. Lowell Monke sheds further light on the negative effects of children’s new use of technology in place of time spent outdoors in nature, in an article titled Charlotte’s Webpage. These developments are concerning, to say the least, but we must not give in to the hopelessness of this situation. One tool that is perfectly suited to bridge the gap between the new technological and visual epistemology of our culture and the appreciation of God’s creation is nature photography. Nature photography is able to take advantage of modern technologies, while presenting nature in a visually stunning manner that can be used as a catalyst to encourage the viewers personal interaction with nature. Nature photography, in this case, is not to be viewed as the ultimate ends, but as the means by which to re-engage the urbanized and technologically sheltered with the wildness and beauty of God’s creation. We ultimately must encourage the viewer to get out and explore God’s creation for themselves, and nature photography is the ideal tool for that end.

           Since its advent, photography has been an agent for change, and has been a powerful tool for influence. Take Dorothea Lange’s “Migrant Mother” for example. It is an iconic image that portrays the plights of a single mother during the great depression. This image was used in media outlets throughout the country and sparked a public outcry that was responsible for the government sending aid and supplies to dust bowl refugees (Rosenblum 368). It would not be an overstatement to say that photography made the world a smaller place. As soon as photography came on the scene, there was a clambering for images from far off lands, of exotic locals, and of current events from around the world. What used to require weeks and months of travel, was now able to be seen in the comfort of one’s own home. Photographs of wars drove home the somber realities of death and violence. Photographs of the battle for civil rights aided in depicting the offenses of those whom downplayed the plights of African Americans. Photographs of the American west inspired the adventurous to travel to the bountiful land by the western sea. And photographs of our natural wonders by photographers such as Ansel Adams and Elliot Porter have been influential in inspiring the viewer to appreciate our natural treasures, and protect them for future generations. Ansel Adams is a poster child for the potential power and reach of nature photography. His images moved governments to make conservation policy changes, and establish national parks (Adams 146). His images were on display from California Art Galleries to coffee cans in New York. He quickly became a household name, and was able to inspire generations to an appreciation for the natural world. If Ansel Adams was able to lobby for the enjoyment of nature, as he did in fact do, then we as Christians, should be striving to advocate for God’s creation through the art of nature photography. If God’s creation truly does proclaim His Glory, eternal power, and divine attributes, like the Bible says it does, then we should be the loudest voice in advocating for people to get out and spend time in nature.

            Beyond nature photography’s purpose as a catalyst for experiencing nature, it is a creative art form that taps into our creative abilities that are God-endowed. There is something powerful about the fact that, through nature photography, the photographer is highlighting God’s creative act both of His creation of nature, and of His creation of man’s creativity. This is a beautiful reality.

            All of this leads to the conclusion that Christians should be the foremost proclaimers of God’s creation through the medium of nature photography. There are several ways that this can be done. Christians should support arts within the church, as well as out from the church and to the rest of the world. There is a place for nature photography within the physical church building. Whether it be accompanied by music arts and displayed on powerpoint slides, or hanging in frames on the wall, the church should create an environment where artists can express their God-given creativity, especially when those creative passions directly Glorify God, as is the case with nature photography. However, there are very few examples of nature photography being used well within the church or outside of it. Most of the few examples that are available, are poorly done. Whether it be framed artwork of nature photographs that are for sale in the Christian bookstore, with poorly designed, cliche scriptures overlaid, or powerpoint slides accompanying sunday morning worship that still have the “Shutterstock” watermarks imbedded; showing that they have been illegally downloaded from the internet. The church does not seem have caught the vision for glorifying God through an artistic presentation of His creation. One glowing exception to this generalization is the Seeing Creation Blog. It is run by Chuck Summers & Rob Sheppard. Both are very good nature photographers that have a passion for glorifying God through their work. These two do an excellent job of marrying their photographs to text that aids in teaching the reader about nature, photography, and theology. The body of Christ needs to get behind artists like these, who are using their creative gifts, to not only glorify God through creativity, but who also encourage individuals towards a greater connectedness to God’s creation

            We have learned through a study of God’s Word that His creation is a powerful testimony to His divine nature and creativity, and we have also seen that the Bible encourages us take part in the doxology of creation by caring for it, studying it, and praising Him for what He has done. Further discussion showed us that God created man in a way that we garner refreshment from time spent in nature. We have also seen, through looking into history, that photography is the perfect tool for telling a story and inspiring the viewer to action. More specifically we have seen that when photography is applied to nature it can reap great results. Since God’s creation universally declares His glory and reveals His divine power, let us, as Christians, harness the creative potential of photography to take part in the declaration of God’s glory for his work of Creation. Let us encourage the body of Christ to spend time reading from His “book” of creation. Furthermore, let us create an environment where arts like nature photography can flourish within the community of the Church.

          If you are interested in seeing an outworking of my nature photography for the purpose of glorifying God for His creative work, please feel free follow my photography on Facebook, check out my Main Website, or follow my musings on the new Creationographer Blog

Works Cited

Adams, Ansel, and Mary Street Alinder. Ansel Adams, an Autobiography. Boston: Little, Brown, 1985. Print.

DeWitt, Calvin B. Song of a Scientist: The Harmony of a God-soaked Creation. Grand Rapids, MI: Square Inch, 2012. Print.

“John Muir Quotes.” BrainyQuote. BookRags Media Network, 2001-2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012. 

New American Standard Bible: Text Edition. Anaheim, CA: Foundation Publications, for the Lockman Foundation, 1997. Print.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking, 1985. Print.

Rosenblum, Naomi. A World History of Photography. New York: Abbeville, 1984. Print.

Schaeffer, Francis A., and Francis A. Schaeffer. Art and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006. Print.

Summers, Chuck, and Rob Sheppard. “Seeing Creation.” Reflections on God & Nature by Chuck Summers & Rob Sheppard. N.p., 2012. Web. 31 Oct. 2012. http://www.seeingcreation.com/>.

The Green Bible. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008. Print.

Beginnings:

Art, along with the artists producing art, should be at home within the community of the Church. More than that, the community that the faith of Christians calls them to should provide valuable collaborative community so strong, sure, and beneficial that the Arts Community will turn to it for salvation from the harmful production principles of our culture and society. It is more than possible for this to be true of churches, The Church, and Christians in community everywhere. An act of culture redemption should take place as the Church changes focus and begins to incorporate art not only into its worship services and liturgy once again, but also into the daily life of its people. Christians should be in support of artists and creatives in an act of steady, comprehensive, and redemptive defiance of the fundamentally non-collaborative, harmful models of art creation and consumption that exist in the culture outside of the Church. How can such a change take place? What is it exactly that exists already that needs to be changed?

Community: There are several definitions of community that range from the broadest inclusion of all things that a people, culture, and system(s) in a specific geographical, demographical, socio-economic class, or worldview share (and do) in common to the smallest group of people doing something together for a common cause. For example, the “Christian Community” could refer to all people who share a common belief in Jesus Christ of the Bible throughout the world, while the “Community Group” in a small town or neighborhood could simply be a handful or people who get together to discuss ways to enhance their shared area of living.

A community that would benefit art, creativity, and creativesmust exist among Christians, must be influenced by the Gospel-inspired aspects of the Kingdom Community (the Church), must be intentionally created and sustained by its members, must understand the significance of cultural artifacts (including technological goods, values, beliefs, ideas, and behaviors) it generates, and it must be intentioned for the benefit of both those already within it and those outside of it.

Arts: The arts are all aspects of creative production performed by human beings with the intention of producing a product that communicates a message in a particular fashion. This can include fine arts like painting and sculpting, modern arts like video and film, dramatic arts like spoken word performances and theatre or dance, writing, story-telling, public speaking, the writing and producing of music, poetry, and much more. There usually exists around each of these and among all of them a community or sets of communities of like-minded and gifted people who will from now on be referred to as creatives. Creatives are intentional creators and producers of artistic forms of communication.

Culture: Culture is a reference to the comprehensive set of systems, values, beliefs, intentions, technologies, and preferences of a set of people. There are large cultures and small ones. There are cultures within cultures. For instance, there is an American culture that is defined as pertinent or true to all those within it that is shaped by and shapes the values of Americans as well as their behaviors, beliefs, and choices (of all things – religion, consumer goods, jobs, education, inventions, politics, etc.). Within this American culture there is a Christian culture that is different from any other geographically determined (e.g. South Asian or European) Christian culture because of the American culture that it exists within. This Christian culture, however, may have (but does not necessarily have) fundamentally different values, beliefs, behaviors, and choices than the American culture wit exists within. Each culture creates and responds to its own cultural artifacts over time, to the point that the shape of the culture as it changes and redefines itself can be observed throughout a given period of history.

There is a culture around and among the Arts and artists/creatives outside of the Christian culture. There is a response to this Arts Culture that is normative to Christian Culture. There is also a separate, but sometimes overlapping Arts Culture within Christian Culture.

True Community and the Arts Community

This article considering aspects of a functioning, local Christian community is helpful for understanding the kinds of Church-community principles that must be present in order to create a collaborative, beneficial community for the arts. We will focus our attention on how several of these aspects can benefit the members of a community, and why such benefits are better and different for artists than what the Arts Community is used to experiencing from the culture outside the the walls of the Kingdom. While it would be nonsensical and entirely less than useful to say that all art should become “Christian”, or “Gospel-centered” art, it is definitely true that artists and art itself would be better served within a community that is Christian by nature. Artists should not bear a new responsibility to be the Church or to represent it in full through their work. Instead, the underlying principles of true community which are necessary for the Gospel Community of Christians to function properly are also necessary for the arts to flourish properly. The end result should be that the true community of Christ’s Kingdom should attract, support, and benefit artists and creatives through the benefits to their person, calling, talent, and production that such a community creates and provides.

Community also exists in all areas of culture and society, and at many levels. Browse through the key aspects of community and community influence in this lengthy outline and you will find that there is much that makes a community exist and function; there is also much that plays into a community’s growth and change.

Principal characteristics of the Church community that ought to define the art community within the Church are all based on collaborative effort on the part of each for the good of all. These characteristics are:

1) The community must be characterized by voluntary redistribution of time and resources for the mutual gain of all who are part of the community. This is collaboration for the purpose of physical success.

2) Those within the community must exercise consistent, associative discipleship of the more junior community members by those more experienced. This is collaboration for the purpose of community development.

3) Those within the community must share and exercise a singular, shared focus on bringing those outside the community into it. This is collaboration for the purpose of community expansion, so that the community’s positive influence increasingly reaches more creatives.

In order to demonstrate the possibilities of such a community, take a look at Life in Deep Ellum. Life in Deep Ellum is a Faith Community that exists as an art gallery, creative space, and coffee shop in the heart of an arts district near Dallas, Texas. On the nature of the Christian Community’s purpose (regarding point #3) the founders wrote, “It is our conviction that the Church is the only organization that exists primarily for the benefit of it’s non-members.” You can read more about Life in Deep Ellum here.

How the Arts Will Benefit From Collaborative Community

Collaboration for the purpose of creativity will prove to be a positive influence on artists and their productions. This is not a new thesis. It is actually a very old one. There is a history of collaborative art communities that continues to this day. Why imagine that there is a problem today, then? These collaborative art communities often do not fulfill their own purpose, or they often exist for the wrong purpose, or they are simply the minority when faced with the non-collaborative, consumeristic structures of the surrounding culture.

There is, however, a number of relevant, positive results of these arts communities of history that can be applied to the community that the Church needs to create today. For example, During the rise of the fine arts in the Renaissance era, cities like Florence, Italy became almost entirely devoted to artistic endeavors. Many great works of art of that time, along with the great artists who created them originated in Florence. Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Botticelli all lived, studied, and worked in Florence. Art flourished there for two main reasons that ought to be considered for today’s art community.  The artists of Florence were able to teach other, build upon each other’s work, provide leads for new work, and practice mutually encouraging studies together with the same purpose in mind. Also, The Medici family, which provided the primary support and rule of Florence, was a great patron of the arts. Patronage is a way of identifying the fiscal sponsor of an artistic endeavor. Because of their patronage, artists were able to focus on their craft and skill with avid abandon.

The most impressively focused, locally engaged, mutually beneficial, voluntary, accessible, and edifying community that can be found is only found within the Christian Community. Only in the community where God the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in His disciples (John 17:20-23) can such a uniquely united community ever hope to exist. Do the church communities you have been to resemble this kind of community much of the time? Probably not.  For now, though, let us continue to discuss the defining characteristics of both the one (Church Community) and the other (Arts Community) as they ought to be.The strength of the Church community in relation to the Arts is that it provides the collaborative community that is necessary for creativity to reach is greatest potential.

Harmful Forms of Non-Collaborative Creativity

To reach a full understanding of what must change in the Kingdom for the Arts to be drawn to the Church, we must look at what kinds of communities exist for artists right now. There are modern patrons and modern artistic communities. Culture (with a focus on Western Consumerism within the American Culture) has distorted their purpose and value to artists. The reason for this is simple: Corporate America owns the spheres of creative production and attaches a dollar value and investment potential to creativity, thereby changing the goal of doing creative things. What is the goal of art supposed to be? Effective, authentic, visceral communication of that which is or ought to be true. What is the goal of art in the Corporate-Patronage model of production? Money by way of influencing a public toward a certain interest. TV, music, books, and paintings all represent a world in which art has been manipulated into a new existence as a purely consumer-oriented good. While art has long been supported and commissioned by those with wealth and influence, the end goal was often to adorn a public space or other significant location, or to reveal the value of the art itself to people. It was not and ought not to be to commission art for the sake of resale in order to gain a profit.

Why is this important? It is always true that the intention that determines the creation of any communicative medium or art also governs the nature of the message being carried. For example, as Neil Postman might tell you, the end goal of a Television program is not to inform you so much as it is to cause you to stay tuned. Television networks need viewers to generate advertisement revenue so they can stay on the air. Because their programs are being crafted to cause you to want to keep watching and not simply to benefit you in a particular way, the message, the medium, and the resulting affect on you are all conditioned by the end-goal (money, revenue) – not by the desire to serve you as a customer.

Art is affected the same way in the corporate world. In this system, collaboration is not community based, it is commodity based. People work together on projects like albums, movies, and books because they are paid to do so. They are paid to do so because a network or publishing house is investing in their work in hopes that it generates more money than it costs to produce. The end-goal is money, not great art. Of course, in order to gain the monetary return something akin must be created that resembles great art well enough to replace it in the minds of consumers. Art or something like it is often still created through this system. It is not true art, however. It is damaged. The artists who make it are damaged by the system because of the pressure to create something that will sell rather than something that communicates truth. Art as a commodity is a product without its true purpose intact. The end goal is more consumers buying corporate products, which keeps the market moving. The end goal is not to create better artists. The artists are not served best  by this model. It is fundamentally non-collaborative.

Before we get ahead of ourselves and forget that benefits do exist, please take a look at this argument by Rachel Rounds. In it, Rachel argues that the (corporate) Publishing House model is better for both the author and the reader than when the author attempts to self-publish. Most of the argument hinges on the collaborative effort provided by the publishing house to help the author better craft and deliver their his/her material. This is a valid argument because it is an argument in opposition to the independent model of artistry that is self-publishing. In this instance, corporate collaboration (though inherently flawed by the profit-seeking need to stay in business) is still better than no collaboration at all. As we will see below, the independent model of art production does have some strengths in comparison to Corporate Patronage, but it is also flawed by the lack of community support and collaboration.

The second model or paradigm for art production that has stood against non-collaborative, corporate patronage for some time is the independent or self-produced model. This we will call the “Indie” realm. “Indie” is a term that quite often refers to a form of creative self-employment. In this realm, artists support themselves, take no corporate sponsorship, and keep their art pure from the mainstream profit machine (hopefully). This seems like a solution to the corporate mayhem that does not, as we have seen, generate true and beneficial community. However, the Indie model has a significant flaw. It is not a collaborative community. Despite the community of other like-minded Indie artists that may or may not be available, there are benefits missing. Fiscal support, encouragement, mentorship, security, and the external engagement of those outside the existing community are all impossible without a fully intentional community. What goes wrong in the Indie world without these community benefits? People have to eat, and money is necessary for survival. Without a mutually supportive community, the end goal of art becomes the need to earn a living. In other words, whether in the corporate consumer culture or the Indie creative culture, money quite easily becomes the driving force behind creativity. This deforms creativity.

What about the Church? Doesn’t the Christian culture provide us with collaborative efforts at music production, book publishing, radio hosting, and much more? It certainly does. Yet the largest, most noticeable model of art production in the Christian Church is the same corporate model as surrounding culture. In her analyzation of Christian Worship music and lyric, Melissa Barber briefly demonstrates how the corporate system of music production in the Christian realm actually helps detract from truly intelligent and artistic worship music. The Church is no stranger to profit-seeking, non-collaborative, corporate-sponsored art production, and the quality of “Christian Art” that focuses purportedly on glorifying God has suffered immensely as a result. It is arguable that this detrimental and devaluing view of art production is what has kept many non-Christian artists away from the security and beauty of the Christian community.

The Opposition: A Collaborative, Creative Community

Art should exist for the sake of personal expression, community benefit (even in the form of critique of the community), and depiction of truth. Art should be part of a system of collaborative community that alters the nature of creation and of consumption. Collaborative Creation benefits all participants through learning, giving, receiving, and producing high-value artistic products that exist for the sake of the value of the message they carry. In conjunction with this model of production, Collaborative Consumption is an inherently supportive model in which the audience is determined by the art and not the other way around. The audience is generated by the art community through the creative process and mutual support – especially public support and encouragement of one another. Collaborative Consumption is inherently supportive of the product being consumed. Art is truly valued and supported within this context.

Brittany VanErem argues strongly that the Church should value art in the context of worship in a new and exceedingly greater way. Her work is full of practical examples of local churches that have done well (and some not so well) at valuing art within their communities, and the benefits provided to the community when this is true. To see more examples of art communities large and small that exemplify Kingdom community principles and generate great art as a result, take a look at these: masonjarmusic.com; fracturedatlas.org, lifeindeepellum.com

How is the need for collaborative creation and consumption answered within the context of true community and its archetype, the Church?

1) True community benefits its members in many and varied ways.

2) True community that exists for the sake of members and non-members alike can only be found in the Church.

3) Art and Artists are better served within this community than they are in society’s existing systems for creative production.

4) Existing systems of creative production (including Non-collaborative, Corporate patronage and self-employment or “Indie”) fail to pursue art for the sake of the valuable messages artistic products communicate. Thus, these systems fail both the artists and the art by relegating them to tools for the sake of generating profit.

5) Collaborative Community that supports systems of collaborative creation and collaborative consumption will solve the harms that artists face in society.

6) This Collaborative Community can only be available within the Church/Christian Community.

7) The Church should provide and foster this true community for the arts, so that:

8) Artists of all walks of life and creative practice should run to this “Christian” Arts Community for refuge from the harmful production systems of society.

But what are we to make of this? It is nice to think that just saying “community” will cause the Church to rise and prioritize collaborative support of arts and artists. This will probably not happen all at once or right away, however. This kind of reintegration of art and community within the Kingdom of God on earth will demand ongoing, purposeful actions of His people.  It is important for the arts community within the Church to be an intentionally created and sustained community. People must orient all of themselves to communicate in a specific way about the nature and value of the arts in order for the artists within the community (along with those outside of it) to be served properly. For now, some representation of what it might look like to accomplish this is necessary. Something creative that does not resemble a small group talking about art, but rather a community making art intrinsic to its own existence. For an answer to the need for truly collaborative community, creative initiatives that I am personally invested in are provided below.

1) The Moody Media Lab is a creative concept for collaboration in the Communications Department at the Moody Bible Institute. As the project manager for an advanced team of creative students, I have been working to develop an atmosphere of mentoring, positive critique and engagement, and a furthering of artistic ability through internal and external instruction and practice. You can see some of the projects that students have created within this environment at moodymedialab.com. Soon the Moody Media Lab Agency Team will have a series of projects available for review at behance.net/mml-agencyteam.

2) The Moody Media Lab, under my direction and with support from Moody Campus Radio will be launching a series of speaking and mentoring sessions with professional creatives and communications experts for the benefit of students (entitled Moody Media Live). The Moody Media Live sessions will feature radio hosts, designers, web designers, artists, public relations specialists, video producers and directors, musicians, public speakers, teachers, and other leaders who will speak about their experience, personal knowledge, unique contributions, and artistic endeavors to up-and-coming students at the Moody Bible Institute. These sessions will take place nearly every week beginning January 24th, 2013. The intent is to give the creative community a chance to collaborate in the development of young creatives.

3) If possible, Moody Media Live content, Moody Media Lab creativity, and the disciplining authority of the professors and leaders in the Communications department at Moody will be made available in an online forum (forthcoming initiative) that will allow for online discussion, community building, sharing of resources and ideas, and contemplation/critique of others’ art and production.

THEATRE AS AN ART FORM

Having grown up auditioning for shows and taking classes in acting, singing, and dancing, I am no stranger to the stage. The dichotomy of my life is seen in two different venues: theatre and the church. I grew up in a Christian home, and always had a love for the arts– yet the two never seemed to be able to come together in my mind. It was not until the beginning of my junior year at MBI, that I realized theatre and the church needed each other. I had grown up having a strong community in the theatre. The church had always claimed they had a similar community, but for whatever reason, this was only seen in word and never in deed. I have spent the last year and half specifically trying to understand how theatre (demanding vulnerability and truth in expression from its members) remains so detached from the church (who claims they demand vulnerability and truth in expression from its members). Personally, I want to continue to pursue theatre;  thus the scope of this paper has been to understand how I, being united to Christ, can minister to others and faithfully use my talents.

Currently, the relationship between self-identifying Christians in the church and theatre arts could be described as rocky at best. Theatre is an art form and must be viewed and examined from that categorization. Theatre is incarnational: the vulnerable embodiment of what is true and real, and thus, ought to be embraced by Christians. Theatre is an authentic expression of human life in a broken, yet redeemed world (Brand & Chaplin 144), and it allows for its audience to share the experience of human-ness in the same time and venue.  Furthermore, theatre is an entirely biblical practice and is well supported by the Scriptures.

Theatre is fascinating medium in art, in that there is not a real grade between good theatre and bad theatre. Many art forms, especially in the fine arts category, leave room for discussion and subjectivity in their analyses. Theatre, on the other hand, does not. An audience shares a joint experience of a good theatre performance or a bad one. Not many people debate whether what they just saw was true, real, or vulnerable– they know. This is not to say people will not debate whether or not they liked the performance, as much as it is to say whether the performance objectively was a good one or a bad one. An audience knows when it is being patronized or condescended…or worse, when the show is selling itself out. They can tell when the art form refuses to do the medium justice and presents a cheap and invulnerable piece of pseudo-art (art that claims the title, but refuses to deliver the quality associated with the name). To put it bluntly, everyone knows when they have seen a piece of true art or if they have witnessed the lack of it. This is something distinctive about theatre that is not available in any film or fine arts projection. Theatre is a nearly miraculous experience that occurs every night of the show. An audience of strangers arrive at the same place, gives their time and attention to the actors, and remains present to be affected by the performance. They all share the same experience in the same time and place as each other. This is something entirely absurd that occurs nearly every day in our post-modern, individualistic culture. To have an audience present at the stage is different than having an audience present at the cinema. Theatre is a shared experience between not just the actors onstage, but also with a new and different audience every night. This experience is only enhanced by the vulnerable, raw connections that should be developed through the message of the show. The audience is able to engage with the actors and receive their vulnerability. This cannot occur at the cinema. The actors are not live and in person there; they are present onstage. Thus, theatre remains a uniquely vulnerable media form.

THEATRE IN THE CHURCH…AKA SKITS

 In the 1990s, the church began to realize the ability that theatre had to affect its audience. Expectantly, churches decided to engage the arts in their services. Willow Creek was one of the first out of the gate when it came to drama. Pastors began encouraging their bodies to volunteer for drama ministries. Publishers like Lillenas (A Christian non-profit publisher), began selling ten-minute drama pieces, skits, to churches. Product was made readily available for the church that established a ministry. Then, something happened. When the volunteer actors got on stage, church members sat in their pews and shifted uncomfortably looking at each other. The volunteers onstage realized they were not entirely certain of what they were doing. There was a tragic and real disconnect between the desired message and the actual portrayal in the performance. Congregations felt awkward and uncomfortable while watching the performance. More was being communicated by the act of “putting on a skit” than by what the actual message of the skit was supposed to be. Drama ministry did not deliver what everyone assumed its potential to be. This was for a number of reasons. To begin with, including drama in the service was a new and different experience. Church bodies had trouble adapting. Subject matter was another issue. Many churches wanted the drama to reflect the sermon topic (not a terrible idea) but the degree to which each skit accomplished this was up for debate. Churches had to decide what kind of material they would portray onstage, including pieces that did not include the name of God. Church bodies realized that the audience was unable to receive the purpose of the dramas. For whatever reason, whether it was the subject matter, the cliche scripts, the untrained volunteers, or a combination of all of them, churches recognized that drama was not worth the effort it was to produce.

The irony is that churches were dissatisfied with the medium: drama, when the fact is, churches decided to make the medium: skits. Skits are an entirely separate entity from theatre. Skits are generally short scenes, in which the actors establish their relationship, some kind of conflict, and then find some resolution. There are not miniature plays. They are not one-acts. They are two-fifteen minute scenes in which actors attempt to develop their characters in reasonable ways. For whatever reason, when the church saw theatre and wanted to use it powerfully, they said: “Let’s do skits.” Yet, skits are not an accurate example of theatre, nor should they be expected to communicate as powerfully as a two-hour drama. The expectation on the five minute skit, performed before the sermon, is too high and wrongfully placed. Drama was never meant to be a medium that could effect any kind of audience, on brightly lit Sunday morning, for five minutes, before a sermon. Drama is about the ability to give words flesh, and to embody that which is true and real in vulnerable ways. Developing all of that, takes time and it takes skill. Skits simply are not up to that task. In order to communicate effectively, the medium must be respected. The right to be heard in drama, is a right that is earned (Brand & Chaplin 74). For more information on skits, please go here.

AUDIENCE FEEDBACK LOOP

As one creates and decides what kinds of messages the medium communicates, one has to consider the audience. This was something that most of the drama ministries of the 90s failed to take into account. In mass media, there is a term known as the: audience feedback loop. This is a phrase used to describe the interrelationship between the medium and the audience. In a marketing sense, the medium persuades its audience to think or believe some sort of message. The audience receives that message and either accepts or rejects it, which in turns sends a similar message back to the medium. The audience may accept certain parts of the message and reject others, but regardless, the medium receives a response from its audience. The medium then tailors their message to fit the audience’s response, generating a feedback loop. Although clearly seen in advertising and the television market, this is not a quality unique to the networks. It can and should be considered when looking at theatre and other mediums. The audience and their response must be taken into account when articulating the message.

The use of theatre in the church can be a great example of this loop in action. The audience (the church body) is a determiner for what material should be portrayed onstage (by the actors). Understandably, this can get convoluted– people are selfish and are not always are of what is needed. Yet, this feedback loop can be used to promote healthy discussions and broach difficult topics. The emotions and development of the audience is important to consider when choosing content. Those in leadership of drama should talk with other church leaders about topics that are relevant for the Body.

THE SACRED AND SECULAR

The conversation surrounding themes is easily woven into an examination of the sacred and secular. “Sacred” and “secular” are terms which often seem to weave their way into the church. Yet, there really is not a place for these terms to be held in juxtaposition with each other. Defining theatre as incarnational: that which embodies something else–in this case, things that are true and real–makes it difficult to segregate art into a categories of sacred or secular. The word “incarnation” is primarily used in Christology, and Christ himself reigns as the prime example of the difficulties found in classifying something as secular or sacred. By the Jewish Leaders’ standards, Jesus would have been incredibly secular. He hung out with a group of sinners, worked on the Sabbath, and (in their view) blasphemed. Hardly one Pharisee of the day would have ever called him sacred. Today, Christians would immediately call Jesus sacred. He was the son of God. He has to be sacred. Yet, Christ was not just the son of God, he was the embodiment of God in human in form– as a man. The idea of incarnation is utterly juxtaposed against categories of “sacred” and “secular”. One cannot categorize the incarnation. It was. It is. One cannot simply say: “If man is secular, and God is sacred, then Jesus was both.” It doesn’t work like that. The incarnation is far and above mere categories and appearances. The incarnation is God clothing himself in human flesh — flesh that has only been known as depraved– and reconciling and redeeming it. Words like sacred and secular don’t cut it with Christ.

These thoughts can be reflected in the theatre. It is an art form. Art is art: created by God. Art communicates. True art is holy, good, real, vulnerable, and right. There is no category for poor versions of that. That which is not holy, good, real, vulnerable, and right is not art. The best that it can be labeled is a “pseudo-art”.  Theatre will take on different forms– there is no cookie cutter mold in which it fits. Yet, if it does embody the true and the real, then it will communicate and it will be holy. Ultimately, art is not defined by the word sacred as it lies in comparison to the word secular. It’s not an “either-or” categorization.

In creating content and applying the artist’s individual talents to pre-created content, there is responsibility on the part of the artist: the responsibility to produce and involve themselves in work which is worthy. The artist should be involved in that which is truthful and real. Onstage, this would be a piece that contains truth about humanity and reality, and does so in a richly vulnerable way. There is an essential holiness to this kind of truthful, incarnational expression. One has to rely on the Holy Spirit and trust that he is faithful in one’s using of their talents.

Many Christians fear generating content that is not inherently redemptive or evangelical. With a message as powerful as the cross and as life-changing as salvation, it is easy to only portray stories that are representative of that biblical message. Yet the Bible is filled with stories that are not redemptive. It is full of people who were sinful, depraved, and broken. Now, there is a tension between glorifying these choices and accurately representing them. But, this is a glorious tension to hold. Life is messy and filled with loose ends. Christians are unable to give their content credibility if their content is merely the idealist longings for a perfect world. Christians must live in the tension of “already, but not yet” and depict content that is true and real. This means that Christians will have to wrestle with sin and salvation, brokenness and beauty, and grief and godliness. Christians cannot make pseudo-art if they hope to touch the human spirit. Pseudo-art cheapens the costly grace that is bestowed upon Christians, and cheap grace is grossly offensive. Francis Schaeffer notes:

Once we understand that Christianity is true to what is there, true to the ultimate environment–the infinite personal God who is really there–then our minds can freed. We can pursue any questions and be sure we will not fall off the ends of the earth. (9)

TRUE, REAL, & VULNERABLE

This discussion of the church as venue for which the medium, theatre, generates content is an important one, and leads to the point: Christians in the church should be embracing this medium as one that is powerful to embody the true and real in vulnerable ways. The Biblical Views essay that was mentioned at the beginning of this essay, is a great resource to understand from where these categories of true, real and vulnerable have come. Obviously, this culture needs truth. Truth is what sets people free (Jn. 8:32). Truth is real and it exists. The reality of the world and culture ought to be steeped in truth. The idea of real-ness, is expressive of living honestly. The fake smiles and false personalities that are so often associated with Christians are sad defense mechanisms that have become a large part of the Church’s reputation. Christians must present what is real–even if it is ugly and feels unsafe. Sin is ugly. Life is not safe. A broken world can tell if Christians are faking it or if they are living with integrity. Finally, vulnerability is attractive and needs to be offered to this world that is drenched in cynicism. The example of Christ is enough for Christians to move forward with vulnerability in expressing the true and real.

The gift of theatre to the church is amazing! Theatre is a medium that is designed to communicate words on a page, and to do it in a vulnerable way. Now, this is not a call for every church to sit down and establish their own drama ministry. There will not be a manual at the end of this page for church leaders. This is a call to acknowledge the power of theatre, to recognize that it can communicate better than a sermon, and to understand that it can touch an audience and motivate them to life change. If a medium like this exists, then it would be foolish to forgo its use out of fear. Drama can be used outside of skits on Sunday mornings. It can be brought into a church by an outside troupe. It can be visited by Christians in the Church at an outside venue. And yes, sometimes it should be produced within a church setting. Finding and producing content that is true and real within a church should not a problem. The major lack that is seen in most churches is the ability to organize and train actors. This is something that can be done easily if there is genuine interest and commitment to the program. The goal must always be to remain a vessel of communication, to allow God’s truth and reality of his created order to be communicated in vulnerable ways. There is risk in vulnerability. Rejection waits behind every turn. Still, God in his omniscience did not refrain from pouring out his divine love, although it received no return. He did not fear and created out of love. This is how theatre must be done. It must be a creation of love and intentional vulnerability. The love for the audience and the message must be so deep that the actor is willing to expose himself to the pain of rejection. It is only by this commitment to the true, real, and vulnerable, that the audience will be truly touched. In an interview with Evan Hill, a Christian actor he notes:

A REAL SHOW– A REAL CREATION

I have witnessed this several times over in churches, theatres, and other random venues. Specifically, over the last three years I have been a member of Ad Vivum: a traveling drama team of Moody Bible Institute. We have gone to various churches and youth groups and have seen firsthand the power of God in theatre. This last year, we did an original show with select songs from various sources that centered on the theme of identity. The script expressed truth and presented real-life situations in a real-life way. We didn’t pull any punches. At the end of the show, many loose ends were left loose. Life is like that. We embodied some of the heartbreaking issues of life and left ourselves emotionally exposed for all to see. It was so difficult. As an actor, it was exhausting. Yet, because we were faithful to doing what God has called us to do, it was worth it. Our audiences were touched and the conversations that were sparked were incredible blessings and times of refreshment and truth speaking. Theatre is truly incarnational, embodying the true and real in vulnerable ways. If we as Christians truly claim that we desire to express what is true and real, and that we desire to be vulnerable, then it would be utter foolishness to remain detached from a beautiful art form that possess those abilities inherently. I believe that theatre only contributes to the beauty of vulnerability that is seen in community with others and with Christ. Thus, theatre as an incarnational expression of the true, real, and vulnerable ought to be embraced by the body of Christ, which is the church.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Works Cited: 

Brand, Hilary, and Adrienne Chaplin. Art and Soul: Signposts for Christians in the Arts. Carlisle, UK: Piquant, 2001. Print.

Hill, Evan. E-mail interview. 9 Dec. 2012.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007. Print.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Art & the Bible: Two Essays. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973. Print.

Visky, András. Porn. 1989. A Butterfly. Trans. Erzsébet Daray and Ailisha O’Sullivan. Romania: Visky, 2012. Print.

Bibliography:

Brook, Peter. The Empty Space. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996. Print.

De Bertodano, Helena. “Brene Brown on the Power of Vulnerability.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2012.<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/self-help/9536381/Brene-Brown-on-the-power-of-vulnerability.html>.

Esper, William, and Damon DiMarco. The Actor’s Art and Craft: William Esper Teaches the Meisner Technique. New York: Anchor, 2008. Print.

Harris, Max. Theater and Incarnation. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2005. Print.

L’Engle, Madeleine. Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art. Colorado Springs, CO: Shaw, 2001. Print.

“Lillenas Drama – Article: LDOL: About Us.” Lillenas Drama. Lillenas Publishing Company, 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2012. <http://www.lillenas.com/nphweb/html/ldol/articleDisplay.jsp?mediaId=2351626&catSecCd=ABOUT&nid=ban&mediaReview=false>.

Melissa Lorraine. “Scenework.” Drama in Ministry Spring 2011 Class. Moody Bible Institute, Chicago. 21 Feb. 2011. Lecture.

McGiven, Erik S. “Vulnerability– The Actor’s Choice to Be Authentic.” EzineArticles. SparkNET, 15 Oct. 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2012. <http://ezinearticles.com/? Vulnerability—The-Actors-Choice-to-Be-Authentic&id=7334694>.

McHugh, Adam. “Why Most Pastors Won’t Tell the Truth.” ChurchLeaders.com. N.p., 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2012. <http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/preaching-teaching/148831-why-most-pastors-won-t-tell-the-truth.html>.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking, 1985. Print.

Praying Skit. Perf. Ana Lopez, Al Piemental, Caral Ann Perez. YouTube. YouTube, 25 Apr. 2008. Web. 13 Dec. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5DbfWD29Es>.

Rookmaaker, H. R. Art Needs No Justification. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1978. Print.

Ryken, Philip Graham. Art for God’s Sake: A Call to Recover the Arts. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print.

Schmoyer, Tim. “The Power of Vulnerability.” ChurchLeaders.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2012. <http://www.churchleaders.com/youth/youth-leaders-blogs/147480-the-power-of-vulnerability.html>.

Taylor, W. David O., ed. For the Beauty of the Church: Casting a Vision for the Arts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010. Print.

Vander Pol, Kelly. “Afraid To Be Vulnerable-Afraid To Be Silent.” Christian Reformed Church. Christian Reformed Church In North America, 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2012. <http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=2270>.

Watts, Murray. Christianity and the Theatre. Edinburgh: Handsel, 1986. Print. Wilson, J. One of the Richest Gifts. Edinburgh: Handsel, 1981. Print.

The local church struggles with the same conclusion.

The church has always had a difficult relationship with the arts, from the dispute over icons at the Council of Nicaea to the construction of large cathedrals, to the Puritan belief that art impeded true worship. Yet, art needs to have a place in the local church, and can be of great value in terms of corporate worship and outreach. The local church needs to continually invest in having an excelling presence of aesthetic beauty that is fitting for their local congregation.

Art is Important

The idea that art has no pragmatic value is not a new one. Whereas it is easy to see the concrete value in allocating funds to feed the homeless, or purchasing a new Sunday School curriculum or installing an elevator so the elderly can participate in the weekly service, art has a sort of nebulous value to the church. It can be difficult to see what value there really is in creating good design, commissioning a mural or even the layout of the church building. Even so, there is biblical evidence to support the need for art in the church.

The design of the Tabernacle shows that the dwelling place of the Lord was to be a beautiful place. It was to be adorned specifically and precisely to the plans that Yahweh gave His people. Yet, in the middle of instructions given for a priest’s garments, God gives one of the most liberating statements for the artist, “on its hem you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet yarns” (Exodus 28:33-34). Pomegranates are most certainly red, and can be shades of purple, however they are never found to be blue. The requirement for a blue pomegranate on the cloth opens up a world for the artist that is prevalent throughout Scripture: that art can be produced and used to the glory of God (For more, read Blue Pomegranates).

Art was commissioned by God Himself to be prevalent in His dwelling place. It is not something that man has created out of thin air, it is a practice that God has created: that we should create for His glory.

This art was not for the individual. It was for the community, it was for corporate worship. God commanded that skilled artisans created something breath-takingly beautiful in order that the nation of Israel would be able to see a glimpse of God’s glory in the design. Art today should be the same way. It has the power to bring the body of Christ to worship their Creator and Savior. It is not for the individual’s glory-it is for God’s.

In one article, Andy Crouch makes the point that worship in itself is “unuseful”. It does not give God anything He does not already have (The Gospel, For the Beauty of the Church). It does not accomplish anything practical, yet God desires and commands that we worship Him, thus, it must hold some value in His eyes. The same is true about art. Though art does not accomplish a pragmatic purpose, nor does it hold inherent value, it has the power to bring a congregation together. Worshipful art has the ability to place the audience in a position of awe towards God. The ornate nature of a cathedral, or even a fresco has the power to turn a group of rowdy students into awe-struck worshippers, and all art in the church should strive to be the same way.

The end product is art that drives the congregation to better worship of God their creator. The work of a thriving church should be inspiring to congregation and to the artist. An artist functioning well in the church will be both beneficial to the craft, and the community. The arts have a way of making the intangible into something tangible that can help the church understand complex concepts, such as Immanuel “breaking through” at advent. Covenant Life Church themed their advent celebration around the idea that Immanuel broke through to be with His people. They created visual reminders such as broken shards of glass, projections and even advent candle decorations that enforced the theme of the service that any other medium would not have been able to communicate. They used their context and season to inform and shape the use of the art in their services, choosing to include a dramatic reading and dancers with props that looked like broken glass. This deepened the congregation’s understanding of the purpose of advent, and turn in worship.

Art does have a home in the local church-both as a means of corporate worship and outward ministry. In the western society, however, it tends to have an individualistic outworking: the artist creates alone, produces alone, and the individual consumes it alone. Yet, the church is a place for true community. A community of believers all saved by a gracious God should produce a community of mutual growth, and perpetual spurring on to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24). Thus, any art program or institution of art in the church needs to be about the community, not the individual. The focus needs to be on helping the community to point their praise heavenward, not towards the artist.

It Needs to Fit

The position that art takes in the local church should neither be arbitrary, nor be merely showmanship. The kind, medium, placement, position and timing need to fit its congregation. One of the first rules in public speaking is to know your audience, and to know them well. If any piece of art should have an impact on its audience, it absolutely needs to fit the context. As much as possible, design, sculpture, architecture, drama, and all forms of art should be created and formed from within the congregation so as to assure that the product is appropriate for the audience. Large mega-churches have the ability to create in-house productions that are grand in scale, because they have the talent and resources present in their congregations (Willow Creek’s Imagine Christmas), but that does not mean that a congregation of 200 should put on that production. That church should work on a program that shows their unique reflection on Christmas to their people and community. The ultimate goal is to have a piece of work that is an honest expression that above all glorifies God in its very nature.

Inspiring Body of Christ, a church in Texas, realized the power of the aesthetic. Somewhere along the way, however, it all went horribly wrong. They installed a $4.7M salt-water fish tank to remind their congregation to be “fishers of men”.  The aquarium is the nation’s largest privately owned tank, two full-time marine biologists along with six dietrists work on the tank. The church saw the impact of a well-designed church, however they went very overboard! $4.7M is far out of proportion for what the church can afford, and how they should be stewarding their resources.

Another church in Texas, however, did know their demographics very well came to the conclusion that many in their congregation had tattoos. The resident artist that works with Ecclesia Church, Scott Erikson, saw an opportunity to use this medium that would resonate with his audience. For his yearly reimagination of the stations of the cross, Scott designed tattoo art representing each of the ten stations. Over 126 people from the congregation got at least one of the stations tattooed on their bodies. The entire event resonated with a congregation that felt like they had been unwillingly marked by the world, but chose to be marked by their Savior. Scott says “that’s the contextualizing we are striving for…. that there is a place for all who desire to know Christ and His resurrecting grace…. no matter how they are marked” (Cruciformity).

For a small church that is not tattoo-nor-aquatic-animally-inclined, however, the application of this principle could be just starting with the design of the space they are working in. Uptown Baptist church is a small church of around 150 people, very ethnically diverse in an economically challenged neighborhood of Chicago. They have many different micro-churches that operate out of their building every week, representing the many different languages in the congregation. One expression of art that fit their congregation was an installment of banners simply saying “Jesus Christ” in each of the different languages present in their congregation. This expression fit their congregation’s language demographics, economic ability and their space perfectly.

Always Excelling

As Christians, we are to “work with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:23-24). In every endeavor, we are to strive for excellence because we are not just creating for the sake of creating, or for our own benefit-no! We are serving the Lord Christ. Thus, the use of the arts should be program that promotes excellence.

The local church needs to start in a fitting place, but grow with the demographic as it grows. As time progresses, the programs should as well — in both proficiency and excellence. No program or structure will ever be perfect, however it should be striving to be perpetually improving, and growing stronger.

This comes into play in both the administrative level, and the pastoral level. For example, if a church decides to host a gallery, and they see the church benefiting from the installations, they should consider taking the next step by possibly having an open studio night at the church. Thus, the program supporting the arts can excel in its course. The church should be progressing as the demographics of the church progress, and as they see God working through the ministry taking place.

From the pastoral point, it is important to note that the intent is not for anyone who has a sketch on a piece of notebook paper to be published in the bulletin. The leader’s responsibility in the church is to push the artist to excel in the craft. Create an editorial process for publishing in the church. Let the artists go through a few drafts or a peer review to help nudge the individual to his or her best. Set standards of excellence for publishing, and regularly revisit them in order to revise and improve upon them.

A good example of a church that has excelled in their relationship with the arts is MissioDei. Just four years ago, the church went through a major “rebirth”, as they hired a new pastor to the 100 year old traditionally Baptist Church of Wrigleyville.  Major differences can be seen just in the branding alone, but there is much more to their change than that. The community of believers at MissioDei is very largely a young, hipster, yuppie group. Every age demographic is represented, however the church is largely populated by college students, and has a very distinctly artistic bent. Thus, when the church rebranded, they chose a logo that is much more representational of its congregation in its feel, and followed suit with its website. In the following years, they implemented a “Beautiful Advent” art gallery at Christmastime, featuring artists in their congregation. They commissioned t-shirts and works from congregants. The church leadership found ways to recognize and encourage corporate worship through the artists in their community in a way that was fitting to the context, and continually excelling.

The Need to Invest

Like anything else, excellent art, architecture, design and theatre in the church require time and money. Because of the intangible nature of the work, it can be difficult to decide how much money and time should be devoted to the arts, especially in lieu of a homeless ministry, a new curriculum, et cetera. The truth is, however that it is worth the investment for the local church to spend time and money on making beautiful things.

Cathedrals in medieval times took hundreds of years to build, and plenty of revenue from parishioners to complete. They are beautiful and breathtaking, but at the same time, the extreme amount of extravagance surely took a toll on the ministry of the church. Rather than building the church (the body of Christ), they were building a church (a building). The intent is not to advocate for $48 million to build a cathedral, rather the intend it to build something that it fitting and excelling in the unique context of each individual local church. We need to do better as whole, especially in the context of architecture. Examples of modern protestant churches look more like office buildings and schools than the sanctuary described in the Tabernacle or the Temple. The aesthetic is important, for both believers and the non-believers.

Take for example, the use of a website. For many, a website is the first glimpse of any organization. It explains the details of what the company believes, who the main players are, important directions for a visit, and gives a representational standard of what that company values. The same mindset is used when a visitor looks up a church. So many vibrant, thriving churches give a poor first impression when it comes to their online presence (Google any number of the churches in your hometown, the likelihood of stumbling upon an outdated website is fairly high). Churches like Antioch and The Painted Door, however, have not only invested start up money, but also time and resources to keep the site current throughout the year. Their sites are an honest representation of the place they hold for the aesthetic, as well as giving a good first impression.

The investment, just as before, needs to be fitting and excelling. There is a lot to consider- the possible need for a permanent leadership role, volunteers, supplies, time invested. Nevertheless, be creative. Implement a donation policy for supplies, and research how other churches are doing the same thing. As leaders, take time to pray and consider what would be right for your congregation.

Application

There is not a certain percent that every church needs to apply in their yearly budget meeting as a quota for art, nor is there a set of bare-bones essentials that every church must have, because every church is different. Every congregation is unique in their demographics, leadership and service. Yet, the importance of art in the church is clear. The key is to start. Start something that fits where the congregation is at right now, and invest in the power that art can have for the church.

Here is an example of a fictitious church that could use some help updating its church’s relationship with art. In the scenario, they had a few past experiences with using art in their church, however they have not continued with anything of the like for some time. With their context and demographics in consideration, the plan suggests some ideas to get their program off the ground. There are other churches putting into effect very similar programs, but geared toward their unique congregation, and this plan tries to do just that-offer Northbend Evangelical Free Church somewhere to start. Their congregation has many young families, as well as middle aged and older couples. The plan attempts to take their specific congregation, and implement an appropriate fitting and excelling program in their church that they can invest in.

The same idea is needed in many churches. Not a blind adoption of what the church next door, or the church in the nearest big city has done, rather a program that drives the congregation to better worship because it fits, is excelling and can be invested in.

Hilary Brand and Adrienne Chaplin, in their book Art and Soul, note that “The problem of sin is not merely the absence of goodness and truth, but the distortion of it” (50). We have a deadly propensity to be in the business of shaping, molding, forming–of touching up, editing, improving–the wrong things.

We painstakingly plot to, as much as is humanly possible, perfect our pieces. This plotting is–in the main–healthy, for we acknowledge that we are working for the Lord and not merely for men (Colossians 3:23). But we must recognize that certain aspects of creation are not ours to perfect.

Our bodies, for example.

We were knit together in our mother’s wombs. We have been wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14-15). Our bone structure, our complexion, our height, our shape–these have been designed by God, the definer of truth and the definer of true beauty.

Thus we must not say to the One who formed us, “What is this that your hands have made? You’ve made my hips too thick; I shall touch them up by purging. You’ve made my breasts too small; I shall edit them with padded undergarments. You’ve embedded my eyes too deeply; I shall improve them by drawing them out with eyeliner.”

This constant manipulation of our bodies is an insult to our Creator. The One who knit us together with care in our mother’s wombs must be dishonored no longer.

We artists must be cautious about what we shape, mold, form, about what we touch up, edit, improve. Our bodies are not our sculptures, canvases, or manuscripts. They are God’s sacred temples (1 Corinthians 3:17), shaped, molded, and formed with purpose and great delight.

And they are very good, indeed.

Yes, everything in the current created order is temporal, yet there is a major exception, seen in the second half of 1 John 2:17: “. . . but the man who does the will of God lives forever.” The Bible explicitly states that redeemed man is sacred because of God’s presence within him: “. . . for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple” (1 Corinthians 3:17). One aspect that separates the secular from the sacred is eternality.

The most sacred One, then, is God Himself–the eternal God (Genesis 21:33; Jeremiah 10:10). Humans who are sacred are sacred because of the presence of God within them. They shall become more sacred as they are “renewed in knowledge in the image of [their] Creator” (Colossians 3:10). Ultimately, heaven will be indwelled by the most sacred One and by those who have His completely renewed and restored image in them: “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). And heaven itself will be sacred, for it is a new order, one not under the curse of temporality caused by sin.

This distinction between secular and sacred leads to a seemingly dismal view of art: it cannot be sacred. Yet because the created order is passing away does not mean that everything done within this order is meaningless. While the redeemed understand that this order is not our forever home and that we are “aliens and strangers on earth” (Hebrews 11:13), we are given countless exhortations to live holy lives (1 Peter 1:15) while we dwell here. This holy living does not consign us one particular role (i.e. the role of the pastor or the role of the housewife.) Instead, it compels us to use the creative talents God has endowed us with (which are part of His image in us–Genesis 1:27) in an increasingly holy manner as if employed or commissioned by God–the eternal One–Himself.

Sacred vs Secular is an age-old argument. I do not presume to be able to add anything of new significance to this discussion, but I will attempt to articulate my understanding of the issue.

When trying to formulate an opinion on any matter, the primary stop should always be the Bible. As is usually the case, the Bible is not silent on this issue. There are numerous instances in which God designates something as sacred; such as His temple, and the Arc of the Covenant. The biblical commonality between references to sacredness are the attribute that they are places in which God dwells. Under the new covenant, God dwells in the hearts of those who are regenerate, and not in any physical dwelling place or thing. That is my understanding of what the Bible designates as being sacred.

God does not dwell in any thing, whether it be Art or any other thing. God does not dwell in song of worship or in a Gospel tract. This is not to say that He does not use these things to accomplish His will, because He does. God is constantly accomplishing His will in the hearts of people through the working of the Holy Spirit, and He often uses human tools to do such. However, the things that can be used of God to draw people to Himself do not posses any intrinsic sacredness, they are tools.

In competition the goal is to get there first, have the most of something or… the least. When applied to art, winning turns into originality, newness, creating uniqueness beyond all other. Not necessarily different… just skewed enough to make you turn your head. However, in the pursuit of originality in art, we know, just as Salomon knew at a base human level, is the pursuit of the wind. Einstien tells us that the secret of creativity is hiding your sources. So, shall we continue down this masochistic road until we’ve discovered a concept similar to the “idea”? I say no… because really all we would have accomplished is copying the “idea”.

So in our attempt to create art for the glory of the kingdom, why not just mimic the only thing that is truly original. “Truth”

It’s embarrassing to talk about money, embarrassing to talk about having the money to buy a painting or a papercutting. It’s one thing to talk in an abstract or even theological way about “supporting the arts.” It’s quite another to talk about actually having written a check for a piece of sculpture or a tapestry or a nineteenth-century silhouette. This is a very concrete, practical piece of what it means for the church to support the arts: people with disposable income choosing to spend money on art; people budgeting and saving and supporting artists; people, like me, deciding not to buy clothes for a year so that they can purchase a painting.

She goes on to discuss the tension between supporting the arts, while still having an obligation to stewarding her resources wisely. Anyone have any thoughts on this topic?

Postman speaks greatly as to how media effects epistemology. By definition, epistemology is a subject concerned with ways of knowing and definitions of truth. Form is relevant to the truth that is being propositioned. Take for instance, the courtroom scene: truth is determined by how situations compare to the laws written in law books. Citations are given in a written form, and lawyers’ briefs are written documents. Print media is a socially accepted, relevant form to dictate truth. Yet, print media is not the only form that is acceptable or desired in court. Witnesses are expected to give verbal testimony to that which they have seen. Judges and jurors alike expect to hear the truth given, not merely see it typed on a page. The court system plays both sides of the field when it comes to media forms and truth. On the one hand written documentation is required for legal truth to be upheld, but on the other hand, judges must hear the truth in public speaking in order to make a judgment call. Postman words it eloquently when he says: “Truth is intimately linked to the biases of forms of expression” (22).

This point is fascinating when applied to the media of television. Television brings a visual aspect to public discourse– public discourse being the political, religious, informational, and commercial forms of conversation in which the general public is engaged. Postman firmly believes that maintaining a television-based epistemology pollutes public communication (28). With every new media form, there is a trade-off that occurs; a sacrifice that’s made. Typography brought an individuality to America, but degraded a sense of community and integration. It is foolish to believe that somehow television avoids this exchange. Starting with Samuel Morse and the telegraph, information has slowly disseminated into decontextualized data. Television brought immediacy to news, but sacrificed relevance in the process. The television assumes that information never requires a context and plays fifty-five channels of irrelevant programs to prove it. Just look at the news as an example: every evening for an hour someone comes on the TV and tells you about different events that have occurred– in no particular sequence or context. Now, you cannot do anything (except maybe cast a ballot in the near future) to change or effect any one of the crises that have been described to you. You receive decontextualized information about which you can do nothing, other than regurgitate and repeat it as “news” to someone else. This is not even touching on the concept that mediums themselves are biased. Television really arranges the communication environment in which we live.

Postman calls television a “meta-medium”, a medium that directs the knowledge of the world but also its ways of knowing as well. Yet, the television is described as “myth.” Roland Barthes uses the word not in the typical Greek tragedy epic which one often pictures, but meaning it as a way of thinking that is so deeply embedded in our consciousness that it is relatively invisible. The television fits this category. At one time, Americans were astounded by the machinery of the TV and the effect it would have. Now, no one is surprised by a how the television works or imagines how it will effect its audience. Television has become the culture. Discussions about TV only involve its content– what happened on this episode of The Bachelor– and not how it works or the situation in which we find ourselves watching it. It no longer seems strange or fascinating to sit in front of a glass screen, watching pictures and hearing sounds come from a box that is plugged into the wall. We, as a culture, have adjusted to the epistemology of television. We readily accept television’s definitions of truth and knowledge, so much so that the actual relevance and coherence of that knowledge is no longer questioned. This is scary to realize, especially when you consider the fact that television only speaks in one language: entertainment.

The culture of entertainment has so permeated our thinking that talking about it almost seems abstract. However, it is necessary to consider what this culture looks like, especially when applied to art. The problem with television is not that it presents its audience with entertainment. But rather that all subject matter presented is depicted as entertainment. The overarching assumption is that all is presented for our entertainment and pleasure. Think back to the news example: all the newscasters invite their audiences to come back and “join them tomorrow”, as if the tragedies presented that evening weren’t enough for our ears. The music, the look of the newscasters, even the two-minute long news stories, speak to a culture that expects to be entertained and amused by the news.

This concept of an entertainment based culture was especially riveting to me when applied to the arts. Having also just read Art Needs No Justification by Hans Rookmaaker, I have been trying to understand how this idea of entertainment and amusement has permeated even our art-making. Rookmaaker writes his essay on the premise that art does not need justification, its justification is in its being a God-given possibility (39). Yet, I cannot escape the idea that Postman presents in Amusing Ourselves to Death: that we live in a culture and an age of show-business. I can theoretically hold to the claim that art is art and it should never require a justification, but I cannot escape the culture in which I live. The question for me is: how do I make good art, that people want to see, but at the same time have art that does not attract an audience by making itself into mere entertainment? It seems the only way that this culture knows and accepts truth is if they are entertained or amused by it; I believe Neil Postman would agree with me. So the challenge to the artist becomes, how can I present truth in art as art? I, as an artist, have to protect that art from becoming pure entertainment or kitsch, and even then I do not know if my audience will accept my art as truth, if it does not entertain them. This is a terrifying realization and a legitimate challenge that faces artists in American culture today. Is there a place in culture for the arts? Can we, as culture, break through this epistemology that television has convinced us of, and realize that truth and entertainment are not equivalent?

Works Cited:

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking, 1985. Print.

Rookmaaker, Hans. Art Needs No Justification. Vancouver: Regent College, 2010. Print.

Ruskin

John Ruskin was a man of the British Empire, in the height of her glory. Not just any man but a renaissance man of the Victorian era. From teaching art at Oxford to building his own Utopian philosophy, lecturing at architecture schools to wrestling with religion, Ruskin was thinker commended by Tolstoy and Gandhi alike.

First of all, Ruskin looks at art as the search for truth and communication of that truth, reminiscent of Newton’s approach to science.

At the time design and architecture became a utilitarian business of total obedience to the rules of design. To Ruskin this was a crime and travesty against art and nature. In “The Two Paths” he lays out a plea for designers to reclaim their identity as creators, artist, and leaders of society.

Ruskin lays out his argument in the second essay, he divides art into two paths one founded in nature and the other founded in the mind of man and his imagination.

To prove this point he compares the nations of India and Ireland, starting with their moral character. Being an imperialist of the Victorian era Ruskin shows his biases stating that the Indians are the most base of all people, full of all kinds of wickedness. He also claims that the Irish are the noblest. He then compares the artistic work of these two peoples. Saying the Irish are the most lacking in art, while conversely people of the orient have the richest of art in the decorative sense. If Ruskin’s understanding of these cultures is correct, the question arises: Does the mastery of decorative art equate conversely to the moral aptitude of a society?

Other factors encouraging this question are the fact that tools of war, not tools of peace, receive decoration. Also, nations that reach the pinnacle of artistic prowess during ages of decadence tend collapse. Ruskin refers to great artists as the passing bells sounding the demise of nations.

Back to India and Ireland, while the prior seems to have the best of design Ruskin believes that it is of little value because of it is founded in the imaginings of man, that there is no true nature in it. Almost certainly a deistic Christian, Ruskin finds the root of art in the creator’s work. He believes that the Indians with their simplified designs and distorted figure drawings have ignored nature and poured their human imaginations into their work. The heart of man is wicked beyond understanding. Ruskin does not believe it possible for truth to be found there. They decorate for the sake of decoration, which is contrary to truth finding.

To summarize the major argument of this section: true art is based on the truth of nature interpreted by men, not on their minds.

Ruskin, addressing the staff of the institutes that he was addressing, asserts that a designer is not trained or made from an ordinary man. A designer must be found. He allegorizes the concept with a crop of wheat. Though he can give the makeup of an artist or designer he cannot make one. He can also tell you how to facilitate the crops growth.

Ruskin reacquaints the audience to nature as the basis of art, to the ends of the need of it for the artist to find inspiration in creation. He creates a hypothetical situation in which England becomes completely industrialized, leaving absolutely no room for nature. He claims that in this world good design and art would be fully impossible. He then encourages his audience to seek out nature for inspiration.

The makeup according to Ruskin is: industry, sympathy and imagination (in the context of natural truth). These three are all necessary to a good designer. Industry: working rigorously in all things. Sympathy: seeing truth and relating to the rest of creation. Imagination: the ability to perceive and hold a mental image and understanding.

The fact seems to be that fine art (sculpting, painting, etc) is the most truth-bearing form of art, thus the highest. He states clearly that designers should firstly be artists and consider themselves as such. Designers need to familiarize themselves with more noble mediums. The architect should sculpt. The designer should paint. They do not need to match the work of Titian or Da Vinci, just to understand the truth in nature through the artistic study of it.

He calls it stooping down. Taking the high understandings of the creative process and using them to influence the lower outworking. If you understand the form, emotion, and light of man you can communicate his truth.

The problem as stated near the beginning is that if designers see their main goal as following the rules of design and decorate for the sake of decoration they lose all meaning and purpose. If a designer can simply follow proportion, symmetry, and recurrence, and come out with his finished product, there is no reason for them to be considered artist or of real worth to society. This is because all those functions can be fulfilled by a common builder. Simply put without the artistic element and truth-seeking mentality a designer is no designer at all.

Although there are many other principles to take, the overarching theme I came away with is that a designer must find his identity as an artist in respect to seeking truth of nature, and take that knowledge and stoop to the task that carry less truth, those tasks being less noble, but not less worth doing.

In Walking on Water, Madeleine L’Engle, a popular young adult fiction author discusses the roles that the various arts can play in the Christian life. As she examines the unique possibilities of the ways that the arts can further one’s relationship with God, she adds various examples from her own life as well as the thoughts of various well known thinkers and artists. As the author journeys through the discussion of the place of art in religious life she comes to the final conclusion that “Art is an affirmation of life, a rebuttal of death” yet that it is also a selfless act because the artist must give up a part of himself in order to create (L’Engle 193).
L’Engle begins by discussing how creating art is part of the process of fostering the spiritual health of an individual, especially a creative. She explains how often the average Christian becomes too busy living their lives the way that we are told they should be lived in a constant state chaos and forgets the need to simply “be”. As she explores this often ignored desire within each of us the author begins to explain the ways that art can be viewed as an important element of religious life. When one initially thinks of “religious” art, the first thing that tends to come to mind is a sentimental, weak, blonde Jesus with blue eyes looking skyward and petting a fuzzy lamb. However, the author clarifies that this is not the case of true, quality religious art. She makes that argument that any art that is created with the purpose of serving others and expressing one’s God-given creative ability functions as religious art that brings glory to God.
The author goes on the discuss the ways that art can help us to draw closer to God and understand the world around us as well as the way that we can take in art without really being able to understand it. The example she uses is that of a girl who read one of L’Engle’s own books as a child and made the comment that although she did not understand the book itself she was still able to know what it was about and the purpose it was to serve in her life. The ultimate goal of the artist ought to be service to his or her fellow humans as well as to bring glory to God through their creative ability. This idea is central to the book and hits upon an often neglected element of creating. Many times, the artist harnesses their creative ability to bring glory to themselves instead of to honor God with their expression and use of the gifts that God has given them.
The author also discusses the fact that “art is communication, and if there is not communication it is as though the work had been still-born” (L’Engle 34). As with all communication, the value of art as communication lies not only in the intentions of the communicator but also in that of the one to which the information is being communicated. If the work is unclear in the message it is supposed to bring to the viewer then the point of the work is completely missed and the artist might as well have not created to begin with. At the same time, there is a balance that is struck between the artist’s need to create and the reader or viewer’s need to consume and digest the work of art. L’Engle analyzes this by bringing up the seemingly unquenchable need to create that lies deep within the inner person of every creative and fights its way out despite the person’s desire to stop writing or painting or drawing or photographing or designing. She says that to begin to uncover and understand this desire, one must reach deep within him or herself in order to come to terms with what makes them desire to create in this way and how they choose to fuel or suppress that fire. Along with the desire to create often comes a seemingly opposing need for anonymity that causes inner turmoil in every creative. This can occur because, while one wants to share his or her talents with other, at the same time, one’s works of art are so personal and represent such an intimate part of oneself that by sharing their creation they open themselves up for the world to examine and speculate upon as well as critique.
L’Engle’s argument that the purpose of all art is to be religious art is somewhat persuasive in that it highlights the fact that all human creativity is the result of the image of God as the Creator that is within every man. However, she fails to address the fact that one of the most important elements of art is the intention of the artist. It is much more unlikely that a work of art will bring glory to God when the mindset of the creator is to dishonor God or bring glory to himself and further the works of the flesh rather than to bring glory to God and further His kingdom. Even completely “neutral” art that does not seem to explicitly dishonor or honor God has the potential to do either, dependent upon the interpretation of the viewer as well as the intentions of the artist. In this respect, the author’s argument fails because she makes the argument that nearly all art honors God while it is more likely that all art has the potential to bring God honor but that does not guarantee that is does indeed bring glory to God.
This book presents a unique and rare perspective on art and the place that it can have in the Christian life. It not only examines the traditionally “religious” art but also shows the way that art that is not overtly created with the purpose of bringing God glory can, at times, be even more effective in its representation of God and His creation as well as of the image of Creator God that has been placed within each of us.

WORKS CITED
L’Engle, Madeleine. Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art. Wheaton: Harold Shaw, 1980. Print.

Calvin DeWitt is an acclaimed author, and environmental scientist. He is most well known for having been responsible, in large part, for increased awareness of the importance of environmental stewardship within the Christian community. Through his most recent book, Song of a Scientist: The Harmony of a God-Soaked Creation, DeWitt celebrates the splendors of God’s creation that have been entrusted to us. Through this book he demonstrates the biblical response to the witnessing of God’s creation. He explains his conclusions through a personal, scientific, biblical, and artistic lens. DeWitt beautifully lays down the ground work for doxologically experiencing God through His creation and praising Him for it, and then he goes on to show, what the Christian response aught to be to God’s gift of the natural world, and His command of stewardship.  DeWitt poetically navigates us through an understanding of how God’s reveals himself to us through His “two Books”; Scriptures, and creation. DeWitt’s end game is to show the Christian reader their three-fold calling as it pertains to creation…

(1) Awareness= seeing, identifying, naming, and locating

(2) Appreciation= tolerating, respecting, valuing, esteeming, and cherishing

(3) Stewardship= conserving, restoring, serving, keeping, and entrusting (DeWitt 22)

DeWitt begins the book with an explanation of the theological understanding of God’s revelation to us through His “two Books”, one being Scripture, and the other His creation. He stresses the importance of studying both books to have the fullest understanding of God.  To this point he stated, “We may study theology and know the Bible through and through, but unless we attend to the testimony of His billions of creatures, we still may not truly know our Creator” (DeWitt 20). DeWitt solidly backs up this stance through Scripture, while at the same time affirming wholeheartedly, the primary importance of a life lived in God’s Word. DeWitt points to Romans 1:19-20 to support His point.

“…that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

Throughout Song of a Scientist, DeWitt carries the reader along in engaging celebrations of God’s creations, both specific and general. He shares personal stories of his boyish curiosity of nature, and then he puts on his environmental scientist’s hat as he explains the complexities of the ecosystem. He shows countless examples of God’s appealing to His creation as evidence of His power, control, creativity, majesty, and divinity. Furthermore, DeWitt demonstrates the complexities and overall impossible orderliness of the natural world, and explains how these complexities all point to the Creator. Through all of this DeWitt affirms the validity of perusing the splendors of God’s creation with a sense of curiosity towards creation, and a posture of praise towards the Creator.

The author writes from a point of view that is steeped in Christian tradition, poetic in his delivery, and scientific in his understanding and explanation. The author does an excellent job of blending these attributes into a well rounded, engaging, and easily digestible dialogue. He not only handles this topic with professionalism and theological depth, but he manages to be rather persuasive in admonishing the reader towards a Godly celebration of creation, and ultimately, the biblical calling of stewardship of the creation. Above and beyond merely persuading the reader into action, DeWitt encourages the reader with examples of successful measures of stewardship in His community.

Although DeWitt manages to deliver his message in an effectively persuasive manner, through an informed point of view, his approach feels rushed at times. I feel as though a greater length book with more time to develop his premises and support would have enriched the effectiveness of this book. DeWitt’s focus on particular points seems, at times, to be repetitious as well. These minor critiques not withstanding, Song of a Scientist: The Harmony of a God-Soaked Creation is an excellent read that challenges the reader towards living a life of Worship for God through praising Him for His creation, and stewarding His creation in. Song of a Scientist leaves the reader with a sense of responsibility for caring for God’s creation, and a desire to get out and take a hike in nature, and to live life studying God’s two books of revelation.

Although Song of a Scientist does not directly address issues of the relationship between media and culture, it does directly inform the understanding of the importance of mediums that are a vehicle for sharing splendors of God’s creation with cultures. DeWitt’s emphasis on the importance of spreading the doxological experience with God through His creation with others lends itself to various mediums of delivery that will influence a member of culture to share in that appreciation, and to take action on behalf of God’s creation. Ultimately, no medium of delivery can replace the experience of full emersion in nature proper. Much like reading books about the Bible can never actually replace experiencing the real thing.  Mediums that share in the praise of God for His creation, such as Nature Photography, Painting, Videography, or sculpting, can however, be used as a catalyst for true experience, and for action on behalf of environmental stewardship.

The first basis I want to lay out is that we are created in the Image of God. This is a weighty statement and I do not take it lightly. This means first of all that we share in the character of God as reflections; we do not share fully in His power but we do show a lesser version. We cannot make from nothing as God did (Ex Nihilo), yet, we have the ability to make from what is already created.

There should be a distinction made between the two forms in which man is an Image of God, the first is the fallen, non-regenerate man. He is able to exemplify godly attributes like reason, creativity, and language, yet all of these things out of place. It is as if one were to use the pipes that move water to a water fountain and instead use them to deliver mud. The systems are there but they are not doing any useful, and are probably receiving undo wear and tear. In this analogy if man is the apparatus, we can understand the water and the mud as the messages, water being the Gospel. The regenerated man will be able to correctly use these abilities the way God intended. The water will flow muddy at first, but with time live giving water will be delivered.

Knowing these things and that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9), we can surmise that we cannot truly be original in our finite, human creativity. Yes, we can stand out for temporal uniqueness, but we are always only rearranging preexisting elements. This is why we end up with movies like “Cowboys vs. Aliens”, and “Twilight” for that matter. Remix is the way it all works for mankind.

This also means that no matter how unique our creations we are still ripping off someone, who also ripped of someone, etc. till you get back to God’s original creation. At first this seems wrong, keeping plagiarism and similar ethics in mind, but God did not copyright creation.

We also see in scripture that not only is imitation of His creation acceptable, God commands it in certain situations. In Exodus 28:33 He commands that sculpted pomegranates be hung in the tabernacle. He also commands Moses to make a snake on a pole (Numbers 21:8). Throughout his book “the Two Paths” of essays and lectures John Ruskin, the premier art critic and historian of the Victorian era, affirms that not only should we imitate creation, but the source of all of our creativity is found in nature. He stresses the need for designers to find time to walk among and ponder on creation.

We have free reign to create and make with some exceptions. Those being that we do not blaspheme, make a false God, or misuse our creativity. A misuse would be similar to any misuse of God’s gifts such as using our fists for violence; if we use our creativity to slander or lie we are in the wrong.

Another dangerous misuse is overinvestment of identity in that single aspect of our godliness. I know very well of the damaging affect this can have on a person’s self image. It leaves one riding the waves of their own creativity. With its valleys and swells, one loses sight their true position in Christ as a child of God. A Christian who is an artist is not primarily an artist the same way a pastor who is a Christian, is not primarily a pastor. Our root is in Christ and who we are stems from Him. First we are Children of God, which means we are not just twisted shadows of God’s attributes the way that the non-regenerate man is. We are ambassadors and Image bearers.

I am not saying that creativity increases with sanctification; I would say that it is refined with better understanding of our relation to the creator. In justification creativity along with all the other godly faculties regain their true purpose, and are renewed in their true meaning.

The second role of a designer is that he is a communicator.

When I wrote my application letter to Moody I stated that when I had chosen to pursue the communications field because I want to follow in the footsteps of Onesimus, Paul’s freedman companion. Onesimus was not the author of the message rather he was the message carrier.  I saw my as one who would not be the producer of a message but the packager. I no longer see this as the case. Paul was a communicator; he didn’t only grasp the truths of the Gospel, he knew how to present those truths to the early Church. He uses rhetoric, sarcasm, and simile, as does Christ.

But there is more to being a communicator than just conveying a message, at the core good communicators are creatives. We can go back to the source on this: God is the epitome of creative; also God is the greatest of communicators. He has created all of creation to communicate His glory and power. If one pays attention to the meta-narratives of scripture we can see clearly that God has been authoring human and pre-human history to convey His messages. We see one message from the beginning: that God is sovereign, and He proclaims this throughout scripture. He also uses nature to communicate His truth (Ps.19, Rom.1)

We see from scripture that God is an artist conveying a message. This too is what the Christian as an artist must understand himself as. So if we share in this identity as designers with God, not just share but our identity is founded in Him, there are some observations to be made. God’s creation is God-centered. Our creations should have this attribute also. God’s creation has purpose, as should ours. In relation to man God’s message always points to the Gospel. Once again our messages should be founded in the Good News.

This does not mean that we should only convey Biblical truth in our creative endeavors. I don’t mean to say that one cannot be frivolous with one’s craft, but one should be a good steward. Practice when it is needed. If one’s church needs a poster for a pot luck don’t think it not part of the Gospel work. The Gospel is more than just an idea and a story. We are to support the message in whatever way necessary. That might just be a church potluck poster.

We are designers because of God. We are artist, and communicators for Him. We should also strive to emulate Him, and follow his examples as a designer.