Doxology, Part 1

In his insightful essay “Art and the Bible”, the late Francis Schaeffer wrote, “An artwork can be a doxology in itself.”

Christians are commanded by Jesus to love God with their heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:28-32). Schaeffer’s quote forces us to use our minds because he is either completely correct and hits the mark cleanly or he is woefully in error.

To many contemporary Christians, the notion of art as a doxology is close to being lost if it has not been already. Many churches see art as something to be used toward an end with an unabashedly utilitarian mentality that actually strips an artwork of its beauty and meaning. We have lost the ability to allow a work of art to be all that it is in the complexity and multiplicity of its meanings. We rush to explain a sculpture so that the audience understands the exact purpose and thought and meaning of the curves and nuances of the piece. We show in our actions what our true philosophy of art and beauty is – a pragmatic tool used to sell faith as part of a niche marketing strategy. We may say as Christians, and especially as Evangelicals, that we agree with Schaeffer’s quote, but our actual conduct and treatment of artistic people in the church reveal that it is mere talk to claim agreement with the concept of an artwork being a doxology in itself.

Biblically, we know from reading 2 Chronicles chapter 3 that God valued art in itself for the sake of beauty. Furthermore, we know that the art of the temple attests to God’s view that art is not for utilitarian purposes. The freestanding columns in the temple had no engineering significance in the structure of the temple since they did not bear any weight. This shows us that God Himself values the creative process and the expression of that creative process. We see also that He is glorified by the process itself as well as the expression in a “work.” It reveals that an artwork can be a doxology in itself.

Why has the modern church missed this? Is it the result of our detachment from the historical, intellectual, and creative tradition of Christianity? Is it the natural consequence of the intrusion of corporate business strategies and pie charts and the selling of the faith?

Indeed, the answer is “yes” to all. The anti-intellectual tide that started in America in two phases, (1) The 1700s up to the Civil War, and (2) The Civil War to the present, have infected Christians to the point that atheist Bertrand Russell is all too painfully accurate when he says that most Christians would rather die than think – in fact they do. From all the great things that were accomplished in the beginning of the two Great Awakenings in America, a by-product of those events was a rise of anti-intellectualism. Christians and especially Evangelicals abandoned the thinking and reasoning that was part of the intellectual tradition of the Puritans in America and Christianity at large in Europe. As my friend, an Anglican Father, is quick to point out, the rational and intellectual heritage of Christianity is rich, especially when one looks at the early years of the Christian church and fathers of the faith such as Augustine of Hippo. Part and parcel of that heritage was an understanding of ourselves as Imago Dei, and the creativity that such a reality brought to the forefront of humanity. To say we are Imago Dei is to say something quite profound. We are not merely made in God’s image; in fact, we simply are His image. Everything that makes us human is derived from God, our Creator.

The intellectual tradition of Christianity meant an appreciation for beauty, a desire for supernatural meaning and the commingling of the intellectual with the artistic. Michelangelo’s David is a fine example of this. And at one time, the Christian church understood and valued art, believing that an artwork can be a doxology in itself.

Related Links:
    “Doxology, Part 2″, James Cordrey
    “Doxology, Part 3″, James Cordrey
    “Art and the Bible”, Francis Schaeffer