What is “Christian Art”? – #2

When it comes to the difficulties of defining Christian art, The Lord of the Rings is a case in point. As much as Tolkien’s epic trilogy is embraced by Christians, LotR is usually not considered Christian fiction. Wikipedia, in defining Christian literature, illustrates the sticking point:

Christian fiction is sometimes harder to define than Christian non-fiction. Christian themes are not always explicit. There is sometimes argument as to whether the works of a Christian author are necessarily Christian fiction. For example while there are undoubted Christian themes within The Lord of the Rings, many would not consider this to be a work of Christian fiction. . .

In the last few decades the existence of a Christian subculture, particularly in North America, has given rise to a specific genre of Christian novel, written by and for Christians and generally with explicit Christian themes. Such novels are often marketed exclusively to Christians and sold in Christian bookshops. The Christy Awards honour excellence in this genre.

Here, Christian fiction is defined as something “written by and for Christians” and characterized by its “explicit Christian themes.” Those three earmarks — author, audience, message — serve as a barometer of contemporary Christian art. Furthermore (and maybe even more integral to the examination), is the recognition of “a Christian subculture” that “has given rise to a specific genre of Christian novel.”

But who is this Christian subculture and what role do they play in defining, driving — and/or policing — Christian art?

By current standards, Tolkien is only 1 of 3. He was definitely a Christian author. (In fact, J.R.R’s greatest accomplishment may, in the end, not be his fantasy trilogy, but his role in C.S. Lewis’ conversion.) Yet in regards to audience and message — two pivotal planks in the prevailing argument — he strikes out.

David Dark, in his book Everyday Apocalypse, expounds upon Tolkien’s “moral aversion” to message-driven fiction:

In his efforts to overcome the popular misreading of his work on Middle-Earth as a project in allegory, J.R.R. Tolkien expressed a distaste for the domineering quality of the allegorical while offering a helpful distinction: “I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader; and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

“Purposed domination” is a wonderfully illuminating phrase in Tolkien’s explanation not only in regard to what he assures us he isn’t doing in The Lord of the Rings but also concerning a mode of creative expression to which he feels an almost moral aversion. Purposed domination, we might say, is the method of propaganda. It leaves the audience with no room for “applicability,” and the propagandist wouldn’t have it any other way. The tightly controlled “message,” after all, was the point in the first place, not the dignity of the reader or the story (if we can even call it a story).

Dr. Ralph Wood, Professor of English at Baylor University and a Tolkien expert, in his wonderful essay, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings: A Christian Classic Revisited, states that Tolkien, “. . .called The Lord of the Rings ‘a fundamentally religious and Catholic work.’ Its essential conflict, he insisted, concerns God’s ‘sole right to divine honour’ (Letters, 172, 243).” But despite the author’s stated intent, Wood affirms that “Tolkien’s work is not self-evidently Christian.”

And herein lies the rub.

Even though J.R.R. Tolkien was a Christian, an expert at his craft, and his work “fundamentally religious,” it is the subtle, nuanced, non-explicit presentation of those themes that keeps him outside the camp of “Christian fiction.” In other words, the very thing Tolkien decried — i.e., “the purposed domination of the author” and unwillingness to allow “the freedom of the reader” — are the very things that cause many Christians to paint his masterpiece as secular.

I fear that we have collapsed the boundaries of Christian art so far, there’s no turning back. Unless there is “explicit Christian themes” and images or a “tightly controlled message,” the artist, no matter how Christian she is or how “fundamentally religious” her work, fall outside the pale of Christian art. What’s wrong with this picture? I can’t help but wonder how many great Christian writers, musicians and artists are not embraced by the “Christian subculture” simply because their work does not adhere to a predetermined template. Well, if it’s any consolation, neither was Tolkien.

In my next post, I’ll conclude with a suggested paradigm for judging Christian art. Peace.