Art Crucified
Several years ago as I watched Peter Jackson's rendition of the Lord of the Rings it struck me how there were story elements within those movies that existed in the original books but only in much fainter ways, almost as though J. R. R. Tolkien had included certain elements within his books for some simple, half-conscious reason and Peter Jackson had jumped on those ideas and expounded upon them and made them more meaningful to the audience.
I was impressed by the fact that Peter Jackson did not enhance the story so much by adding external ideas as by taking ideas that were already in the story and taking them to their fullest implications so as to create results that were probably not intended by Tolkien but fit within the themes and conclusions his stories embodied. It was here that I concluded that the reason such a series of events was able to take place was because within his story Tolkien utilized principles and themes that were much bigger than he was. Things that existed before he did and will continue to exist long after he passed away. Things much bigger than The Lord of the Rings.
I concluded then that truly great art is art that is bigger than the artist.
For me, the opposite example of this principle is Shrek. I personally dislike that movie for several reasons. The reason that pertains to the immediate topic is that along every turn the makers of Shrek seemed to be screaming out "Look at me!” and “Look what I can do!” From the standup comedian-style dialogue to the cynical way it tore down the very medium of fairytales that it’s deriving power from (a principle I don't have time to go into here), I found its pretentiousness insufferable. A lot of people like Shrek, but I have a suspicion that in order to really enjoy the movie you have to avoid following its propositions to their logical conclusions. (Note: The second Shrek movie fixed many (though not all) of my frustrations with the first movie. It is much more sincere and thoughtful.)
But I'm not writing right now to criticize Shrek. My main reason for bringing it up was because when I contrasted Shrek with The Lord of the Rings it further refined my idea of a good artist by concluding that the best works of art are the ones where its creators fade into the background and the audience forgets that it was even created. I realized that what really bothers me about Shrek wasn't that it was saying “Look at Me”, but that it’s creators were saying “Look at me!”
I like what Christian Bale had to say on this subject of artists and their art:
"I want to be an actor, but I think it's nice to stay invisible. It's the opposite of being a rock star. With rock stars it's just you writing and performing. But an actor should never be bigger than the film he's in." - Christian Bale, Spin Magazine March 1996
I think that is an impressive stance for an artist to take; that sacrifice of ego makes the artist far more effective. But even though I believe there is some value in all of that, the Bible has convinced me that it is not enough for the artist to fade into the background. For Christians the ultimate goal of art is not to glorify art, but to glorify God. Because of this, it is not enough for Christian artists to fade into the background, their art needs to fade into the background as well, so that the primary thing the audience sees is God.
To explain this I will dive into one of my favorite Bible passages:
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:2-5)
In this passage Paul is not simply talking about his strategy for engaging the Corinthians, he is summing up a universal principle that is depicted in many instances throughout the Bible; the idea that God uses the weaknesses of men to display his power.
Paul was arguably one of the most brilliant minds in history and yet here he is clearly setting aside his rich arguments and simply holding fast to the core of the Gospel: Jesus Christ. At first glance this may not seem so remarkable, but it becomes much more remarkable when put in context.
To help put it in context I'll use myself as an example. I love to argue and to search for the truth. Such a drive has its uses, but it can be a weakness because when it comes to arguing I can be helplessly compulsive. I cannot begin to describe how many times I have been in an argument of great importance and then the opposing party raised an objection that was technically a tangent and yet I eagerly took the bait and followed that tangent down it's rabbit hole until the original issue became lost in the far distance and impossible from my limited mental resources to return to within any practical amount of time. It is easy for people who love to argue to center their focus on trivialities.
These Corinthians loved to argue and I can imagine what the discourses between them and Paul looked like on this occasion. The Corinthians would throw some clever question his way and he would say "I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to talk about Jesus." And then they would throw him some highly contraversial fact and he would say "That may be true, but that does not have any immediate relevance to Jesus Christ." Of course that is simply my imagination since Paul does not describe the details of his discourses, but you may notice that I've closely modeled my imaginary conversation after the way Jesus dealt with the intellectual snares the Pharisees laid down for him, and I think it very likely that Paul would follow Jesus through using similar methods.
But that is just the beginning verse two. After that he adds "and him crucified.” Now, there are many verses in the Bible where Paul talks about rejoicing in the cross and boasting in the cross and similar positive references to the cross and crucifixion. This is not one of them. I cringe at the thought that at some place at some time this verse may have been read and several people shouted "Amen!" because I believe that in such an event they would have entirely missed Paul's point. This is not an "Amen" verse. Verse five is an "Amen" verse, but not verse two. This is Joshua and Caleb facing off against legions of men and giants who dwelt with an impenetrable fortresses. This is Elijah challenging the prophets of Baal while pouring water over his alter. This is Sarah laughing at the idea of having a son in her old age. This is Paul saying "We've entrusted our lives to Jesus Christ, and by the way, we tortured and killed him.” This is Paul making it very clear that by human standards his message is foolishness.
In the next verse Paul says that he was with them in weakness, fear, and much trembling. Unlike the previous verse, Paul does not explicitly say that he chose to be in such a state, though he also does not suggest that such a state was in any way sin, nor does he give any reason that his condition of fear and weakness should have been fought against.
Whether or not these were intentional attempts toward humility on Paul's part is not clear. I do know that when people throw intellectual arguments at me and I do not directly deal with those arguments I feel weak and fearful. It makes me look stupid or like I'm holding onto believe that deep down I know I can't rationalize or support. It's like walking away from a fistfight and being labeled a coward. So however Paul's speech and message were not in plausible words of wisdom, it is very possible that this course of action was at the least partially responsible for his state of fear and weakness.
But all of the vulnerability and discomfort conveyed in that verse pales when Paul reaches his punch line:
and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
The word used there for “demonstrate” is αποδειξει (apodeixei) which meant “pointing out”, “showing”, or demonstrating by argument.” Paul was laying down a solid argument, though not on any level the Corinthians were looking for. Paul did not simply speak about relying upon Jesus during this encounter; he lived it. Through his actions of humility his message of “dying to ourselves so that Christ could be magnified“ became tangible. Reliance upon Jesus should not simply be within our message, but within the delivery of our message as well.
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1Cor. 1:27-29)
Now with all that said, I want to ask every Christian artist out there: Are you willing to make art that is weak and foolish? Are you willing to make art that is low and possibly even despised? Are you willing to scrutinize your art and strip away any flash and loftiness that could be distracting its audience from the Gospel? What does your art leave your audience with? Are they left praising God, your art, or you?
I am not saying that Christians should go out of their way to make products of poor quality. Despite Paul’s avoidance of sophisticated debating within these passages, the New Testament is full of his amazing intellectual arguments. Even his description of this encounter with the Corinthians is a link within a chain of very persuasive arguments that run throughout his letter. In fact, Paul explains how such a dichotomy is possible later on within that same letter:
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)
Keep in mind that even though the above passage has a pattern of Paul becoming like someone to assist in his witness to them, his main point in this passage is that he is not doing wrong by being different things to different people for the sake of the gospel. His point does not say that the only way to strengthen your witness is to be like the people you are witnessing to. I say this because in the parts of 1 Corinthians I have been examining in this essay he writes about being simple to strengthen his witness to the intellectuals, which, based upon the general principle he is conveying, is as legitimate an option as being intellectual to intellectuals.
If you are convinced that pouring a large budget into a Christ centered work of art would genuinely enhance that product’s potential to point people to Jesus, then by all means pursue such a course. But do not assume that a large budget and meticulous technical precision will inherently improve a product’s spiritual effectiveness, because in many cases those things will only achieve the opposite end. If you want your art to be as God glorifying as possible, then you must be willing for your art, just as for yourself, to be all things to all men, even if that means lowering your output below human expectations.
I was impressed by the fact that Peter Jackson did not enhance the story so much by adding external ideas as by taking ideas that were already in the story and taking them to their fullest implications so as to create results that were probably not intended by Tolkien but fit within the themes and conclusions his stories embodied. It was here that I concluded that the reason such a series of events was able to take place was because within his story Tolkien utilized principles and themes that were much bigger than he was. Things that existed before he did and will continue to exist long after he passed away. Things much bigger than The Lord of the Rings.
I concluded then that truly great art is art that is bigger than the artist.
For me, the opposite example of this principle is Shrek. I personally dislike that movie for several reasons. The reason that pertains to the immediate topic is that along every turn the makers of Shrek seemed to be screaming out "Look at me!” and “Look what I can do!” From the standup comedian-style dialogue to the cynical way it tore down the very medium of fairytales that it’s deriving power from (a principle I don't have time to go into here), I found its pretentiousness insufferable. A lot of people like Shrek, but I have a suspicion that in order to really enjoy the movie you have to avoid following its propositions to their logical conclusions. (Note: The second Shrek movie fixed many (though not all) of my frustrations with the first movie. It is much more sincere and thoughtful.)
But I'm not writing right now to criticize Shrek. My main reason for bringing it up was because when I contrasted Shrek with The Lord of the Rings it further refined my idea of a good artist by concluding that the best works of art are the ones where its creators fade into the background and the audience forgets that it was even created. I realized that what really bothers me about Shrek wasn't that it was saying “Look at Me”, but that it’s creators were saying “Look at me!”
I like what Christian Bale had to say on this subject of artists and their art:
"I want to be an actor, but I think it's nice to stay invisible. It's the opposite of being a rock star. With rock stars it's just you writing and performing. But an actor should never be bigger than the film he's in." - Christian Bale, Spin Magazine March 1996
I think that is an impressive stance for an artist to take; that sacrifice of ego makes the artist far more effective. But even though I believe there is some value in all of that, the Bible has convinced me that it is not enough for the artist to fade into the background. For Christians the ultimate goal of art is not to glorify art, but to glorify God. Because of this, it is not enough for Christian artists to fade into the background, their art needs to fade into the background as well, so that the primary thing the audience sees is God.
To explain this I will dive into one of my favorite Bible passages:
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:2-5)
In this passage Paul is not simply talking about his strategy for engaging the Corinthians, he is summing up a universal principle that is depicted in many instances throughout the Bible; the idea that God uses the weaknesses of men to display his power.
Paul was arguably one of the most brilliant minds in history and yet here he is clearly setting aside his rich arguments and simply holding fast to the core of the Gospel: Jesus Christ. At first glance this may not seem so remarkable, but it becomes much more remarkable when put in context.
To help put it in context I'll use myself as an example. I love to argue and to search for the truth. Such a drive has its uses, but it can be a weakness because when it comes to arguing I can be helplessly compulsive. I cannot begin to describe how many times I have been in an argument of great importance and then the opposing party raised an objection that was technically a tangent and yet I eagerly took the bait and followed that tangent down it's rabbit hole until the original issue became lost in the far distance and impossible from my limited mental resources to return to within any practical amount of time. It is easy for people who love to argue to center their focus on trivialities.
These Corinthians loved to argue and I can imagine what the discourses between them and Paul looked like on this occasion. The Corinthians would throw some clever question his way and he would say "I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to talk about Jesus." And then they would throw him some highly contraversial fact and he would say "That may be true, but that does not have any immediate relevance to Jesus Christ." Of course that is simply my imagination since Paul does not describe the details of his discourses, but you may notice that I've closely modeled my imaginary conversation after the way Jesus dealt with the intellectual snares the Pharisees laid down for him, and I think it very likely that Paul would follow Jesus through using similar methods.
But that is just the beginning verse two. After that he adds "and him crucified.” Now, there are many verses in the Bible where Paul talks about rejoicing in the cross and boasting in the cross and similar positive references to the cross and crucifixion. This is not one of them. I cringe at the thought that at some place at some time this verse may have been read and several people shouted "Amen!" because I believe that in such an event they would have entirely missed Paul's point. This is not an "Amen" verse. Verse five is an "Amen" verse, but not verse two. This is Joshua and Caleb facing off against legions of men and giants who dwelt with an impenetrable fortresses. This is Elijah challenging the prophets of Baal while pouring water over his alter. This is Sarah laughing at the idea of having a son in her old age. This is Paul saying "We've entrusted our lives to Jesus Christ, and by the way, we tortured and killed him.” This is Paul making it very clear that by human standards his message is foolishness.
In the next verse Paul says that he was with them in weakness, fear, and much trembling. Unlike the previous verse, Paul does not explicitly say that he chose to be in such a state, though he also does not suggest that such a state was in any way sin, nor does he give any reason that his condition of fear and weakness should have been fought against.
Whether or not these were intentional attempts toward humility on Paul's part is not clear. I do know that when people throw intellectual arguments at me and I do not directly deal with those arguments I feel weak and fearful. It makes me look stupid or like I'm holding onto believe that deep down I know I can't rationalize or support. It's like walking away from a fistfight and being labeled a coward. So however Paul's speech and message were not in plausible words of wisdom, it is very possible that this course of action was at the least partially responsible for his state of fear and weakness.
But all of the vulnerability and discomfort conveyed in that verse pales when Paul reaches his punch line:
and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
The word used there for “demonstrate” is αποδειξει (apodeixei) which meant “pointing out”, “showing”, or demonstrating by argument.” Paul was laying down a solid argument, though not on any level the Corinthians were looking for. Paul did not simply speak about relying upon Jesus during this encounter; he lived it. Through his actions of humility his message of “dying to ourselves so that Christ could be magnified“ became tangible. Reliance upon Jesus should not simply be within our message, but within the delivery of our message as well.
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (1Cor. 1:27-29)
Now with all that said, I want to ask every Christian artist out there: Are you willing to make art that is weak and foolish? Are you willing to make art that is low and possibly even despised? Are you willing to scrutinize your art and strip away any flash and loftiness that could be distracting its audience from the Gospel? What does your art leave your audience with? Are they left praising God, your art, or you?
I am not saying that Christians should go out of their way to make products of poor quality. Despite Paul’s avoidance of sophisticated debating within these passages, the New Testament is full of his amazing intellectual arguments. Even his description of this encounter with the Corinthians is a link within a chain of very persuasive arguments that run throughout his letter. In fact, Paul explains how such a dichotomy is possible later on within that same letter:
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)
Keep in mind that even though the above passage has a pattern of Paul becoming like someone to assist in his witness to them, his main point in this passage is that he is not doing wrong by being different things to different people for the sake of the gospel. His point does not say that the only way to strengthen your witness is to be like the people you are witnessing to. I say this because in the parts of 1 Corinthians I have been examining in this essay he writes about being simple to strengthen his witness to the intellectuals, which, based upon the general principle he is conveying, is as legitimate an option as being intellectual to intellectuals.
If you are convinced that pouring a large budget into a Christ centered work of art would genuinely enhance that product’s potential to point people to Jesus, then by all means pursue such a course. But do not assume that a large budget and meticulous technical precision will inherently improve a product’s spiritual effectiveness, because in many cases those things will only achieve the opposite end. If you want your art to be as God glorifying as possible, then you must be willing for your art, just as for yourself, to be all things to all men, even if that means lowering your output below human expectations.
Labels: God and Art
posted by Chris Johnson at
9:50 PM
1 Comments:
This is a test
Post a Comment
<< Home