I am coming to believe that Christians have two different views of the arts. This perspectival difference is behind much of our wrangling about music, film and fiction. Today’s Christian art industry, for the most part, is being shaped by a specific, dare I say Fundamentalist, worldview.
Perhaps it is wrong to frame this in terms of polarity or divide. Nevertheless, I think it’s obvious that two camps have emerged within our ranks. We saw it in the recent Ted Dekker / Steeple Hill controversy, with one group openly questioning (even scoffing at) the guidelines and restrictions enforced by the other. We see it again in a recent article in the Washington Times entitled A Passion for Christian Films. On the one hand are producers like Kim Dawson who believe that film can be a powerful evangelistic tool for articulating the Gospel. On the other hand are writers and reviewers like Jeffrey Overstreet who believe that art can be hijacked by agenda.
A Christian himself, Mr. Overstreet said he thinks a pointed gospel message makes for a great sermon, but not great art.
“I love sermons, I look forward to them every Sunday, but I go to the movies to explore and have an imaginative experience. There was a time in history when the greatest art was coming from the church, but this was because of its sense of mystery. The greatest art happens when you feel like even the artist is asking questions with you,” he said.
Christian filmmakers seem to think otherwise. In an age of outspoken atheists and nonreligious people, Christian films are an attempt to spell out clear, rational answers for life’s mysteries and challenges. Kim Dawson, producer of “Letters to God,” said, “We keep saying this is not just a movie. It’s a movement. We’re giving the audience an answer, and that’s Christ… ” (emphasis mine)
Kim Dawson and Jeffrey Overstreet are, I think, representative of a great divide. This is the same divide that causes the Ted Dekkers of the world to grate against the Steeple Hills of the world. It’s the same divide that made Facing the Giants and Fireproof surprise hits, while the movies were being panned by film critics across the board. Or as Allison Sanders told The Washington Times after having viewed one of these Christian films:
“The quality of ‘Facing the Giants’ was clearly inferior to a mainstream film. We had to laugh at the cheesy acting and formulaic script. Christians don’t even like these films for their artistic integrity. They like them because they have a Christian message,” Ms. Sanders said. (emphasis mine)
There you have it in a nutshell — “artistic integrity” or “message”. Sure, this may be an artificial distinction on my part. It is possible to have artistic integrity and also have a message. But requiring our films, fiction, and music to have a message is precisely what’s caused so much Christian art to lack integrity. In the world of Christian art, message seems to trump artistic integrity.
Either way, the Christian community has divided. Those camps sunder along these lines:
- While one sees film as a vehicle for exploration and imagination, the other sees film as a vehicle for proselytization.
- While one makes a distinction between art and evangelism, the other sees art AS evangelism.
- While one emphasizes aesthetics, the other emphasizes message.
- While one is tolerant of ambiguity, the other demands clarity.
- While one requires truthfulness, the other requires chastity.
Recently, some friends of ours were visiting and the subject of film came up. They commented on how powerful they thought the movie Fireproof was. Not only did they see the film three or four times, each time they brought couples with them who needed to hear “the message”. I did not have the courage to tell them that the movie has an awful 40% Rotten Tomatoes rating or that it was the butt of jokes among many Christians. This is a great, well-meaning couple. But I’ve seen Fireproof and, frankly, was just embarrassed.
Which puts us in two different worlds.
The only conclusion I can come up with is that Christians have two distinct views of art. That’s it. So while one group judges a work of art based on aesthetics and truthfulness, the other is busy counting cusswords and Bible quotes. Sadly, the majority of the Christian art industry serves this Fundamentalist contingent.
Regarding my personal taste in the arts, I'm firmly in the camp of aesthetics, imagination and exploration. I believe that the Holy Spirit works quite nicely in those areas, in spite of ourselves. God uses what He will use, for His purposes. Christians should stop trying to outpreach Christ, and let the Holy Spirit inspire them to create beauty and truth. In trying so hard to drive home a message, they compromise the art. It sometimes ends up being cheesy, because it's their evangelism tool, instead of The Holy Spirit working through them to do whatever He will, for whatever His purpose. There is a difference, few Christian artists understand it. Sadly, most haven't-rather, it's all about them and what they are doing for God. It's the difference between what I can do for God vs. What God does through me, in His timing, for His purposes.
I'm going to take a somewhat a middle of the road approach. It's approaching reprehensible that Christians tend to extol any "Christian" art so long as it's got that clear message. Like you said, they like the message (perfectly fine), but it's disguised as supporting the art — and the quality of the art is irrelevant. That's how, say, mediocre Christian musicians get jocked only within the church. Non-Christians have little to no idea who these people are and they are wondering why we like them so much.
But I'm also not one to say "Hey, God is in every kind of art." That's a little lazy to me. Non-Christians can communicate truth(s) through art, but I don't think it can be complete spiritual truth. God gave the task (the ability?) of spreading the gospel to the church. While those outside can TESTIFY to it, I don't think they can fully understand the immensity and completeness of it. If they did, wouldn't they be Christians in the first place?
Yes, I appreciate that distinction, Jay. God is not in every kind of art. However, limiting Him to art that has cleared the censors is equally presumptive. A happy medium is probably best.
I'm with Jay in the middle.
Suzan said: In trying so hard to drive home a message, they compromise the art. But I see others that would fit the flip side of the statement: In trying so hard to create art, they compromise the message.
Actually as I was reading your post, Mike, I was thinking about Life. Here are some of my musings.
* Am I to live for exploration and imagination, or to make disciples?
* Is my life to be separate from my witness for Christ; shouldn't everything I do reflect my relationship with God?
* Is my life more about beauty, or truth? Can't it be both?
* Is my life to be lived on shifting sand or on solid rock?
* Am I to value authenticity more than holiness? Or is authenticity actually a part of holiness?
Becky
Agreed, Becky. It's not an either/or issue. Our lives can be about both beauty and truth. However, I'm afraid that the current strictures force Christian art and artists into an either/or ultimatum. So we might live our lives in beauty and truth, but being published requires more truth than beauty.
Excellent thoughts, Becky. Flannory O'Connor wrote:
In the greatest fiction, the writer's moral sense coincides with his dramatic sense, and I see no way for it to do this unless his moral judgement is part of the very act of seeing, and he is free to use it. I have heard it said that belief in Christian dogma is a hindrance to the writer, but I myself have found nothing further from the truth. Actually, it frees the story-teller to observe. It is not a set of rules which fixes what he sees in the world. It affects his writing primarily by guaranteeing his respect for mystery.
Also:
We want competence, but competence by itself is deadly. What is needed is the vision to go with it…