By Ben Costello
“Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have a soul”--Stella Adler
“To send light into the depths of the human heart – this is the calling of the artist!”—Robert Schuman
When practicing my flute or listening to a Rimsky-Korsakov opera and silently enjoying its intoxicating beauty, I often ask myself what the ultimate goal of the music in which I literally live is. I’m not questioning my decision to pursue a career in music, as difficult and uncertain as that path is, since I know that I love it too much to do anything else. Rather, what I find myself pondering is the way in which I can take that love and do something meaningful with it as a Christian. What should the Christian artist try to do with his or her art? What is the particular role of the beauty he or she creates? How explicitly “Christian” does his or her art need to be?[1]
History is filled with artists who were Christian, and in fact many of the most significant, lasting works of art ever created were made by Christians. Michelangelo’s Pieta and Sistine Chapel paintings, Bach’s cantatas and Passions, Dostoevsky’s novels, Mozart’s symphonies and requiem, and even today Martin Scorsese’s film “Silence” all exemplify artistic excellence. Each of those artists was Christian. However, even that extremely small list raises a crucial question: “what is a Christian artist?” Is the Christian artist someone who, like all of the above, was a Christian? Or is the Christian artist someone who, like Bach and Michelangelo, creates works which are explicit representations of Christian history or spirituality and are targeted at a Christian audience? The other artists on that list either intended their works for large-scale consumption (that is, for an audience which is not primarily Christian) or designed then with absolutely no explicit or even conscious connection to their religion. This distinction is significant for someone like me, both a Christian and an artist. If I want to be a Christian artist, which of the above are the kind of works I should strive to emulate? Should my music be as clearly about my faith as Bach’s was, or can I write completely secular symphonies like Mozart did?
One clue to how a Christian artist should go about creating art comes from Saint Paul. In his letter to the Philippians, he writes, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (4:8, New American Bible). Strikingly, Paul does not say that we should contemplate and enjoy lovely and gracious things like art provided that they are explicitly conveying a Christ-centric message.[2] In fact, he emphatically repeats the word “whatever,” so clearly anything which meets his criteria is worthy of aesthetic and intellectual enjoyment. This freedom to enjoy lovely and gracious works of art should be qualified slightly, however. Jesus sternly warns against scandalous things, that is, things which might cause someone to sin (Mt 18:6). So perhaps we should say that, in the case of art at least, whatever is lovely and gracious is worthy of enjoyment and contemplation even if it does not explicitly concern Christian morals so long as it does not contradict or deny them. Paul, then, does not give us complete license to enjoy any art (or other non-artistic things), but only anything which does not contradict Christian morality or which causes us to sin.[3] Thus, we seem to have found a justification for art which is not explicitly “Christian” but does not violate Christian morality or theology.
While there may be a firm Biblical justification for enjoying secular art, my questions have not yet been exhausted. As Christians, we must ask what the value of secular art is when there are innumerable examples of Christian art which meet these same criteria for aesthetic enjoyment. In other words, what redeeming features could secular art have that make it worthy of our attention when we might easily turn to art which is beautiful, thought-provoking, and explicitly Christian?
In response to this question, we can first observe that all art works at both the intellectual and the emotional level, although they often emphasize one over the other. When both of these aspects occur simultaneously, we are in the best position to appreciate the art and be moved by it. If one hopes to achieve the desired effects that Christian art should produce, namely things like inspiration for one’s spiritual life and a greater appreciation of God’s majesty and beauty, then the work in question should contain both aspects to a high degree. Realistically, however, this is not always true. Author and 2017 Wilbur Award winner for “Best Christian Blog,” Jonathan Ryan writes, “I’m often astonished at the superficial theological reflection I find in many contemporary Christian artists.”[4] In other words, we need to beware of Christian artists slapping the label “Christian” on their work and pretending that that equates to creating “quality art” or even “quality religious art.” On a personal level, I often find that much art which is quite explicitly Christian rides the label of “Christian equals quality” when, indeed, it is not of high artistic caliber. For example, I find that whenever a Christian song repeats stock phrases and musical patterns, I am far less engaged with the art and with its potential emotional and aesthetic spiritual benefits than I am with lots of great, moving secular music that prompts me to delve into eternal questions. In the continued case of music, I benefit more from enjoying the music of, say, Chaikovsky, than from a Christian song which fades to background noise, not affecting me at all. Of course, there is a great deal of subjectivity as to which works of art affect each one of us and in what way. That is to say that secular art is not always better than Christian art at moving us or inspiring us to live a more Christ-like life, but neither is Christian art always superior to secular art.
Some Christians’ avoidance of secular art stems from fear of works which may contradict morality. While it is true that if you tune in to a popular radio station you are much more likely to hear a song which promotes immoral behavior than on a Christian music channel, that does not mean that every secular work of art produced is immoral. Another fundamental question some Christians ask of secular art is: “how can a work that is not about Christ or the Bible say something true about Him or His message?” To this point, Presbyterian theologian Richard Lovelace writes that the strain of thought which holds such beliefs about secular art
“has its roots in…traditions which…overreacted against the luxurious expression of Christian faith in symbolic, liturgy, graphic art, music, and architecture. As a result...[the] stream has moved away from the sacramental vision of life…in which the created world is not only celebrated as good but recognized as a constant symbolic message about spiritual reality”.[5]
Lovelace suggests then that, at its core, the objection to secular art is based on a rejection of the ability of art and, indeed, all the created world to point to God. In fact, many of the Psalms point to and affirm this truth about creation and even art specifically. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament proclaims the works of his hands,” exclaims the Psalmist (Ps. 19: 1). Later, he expands this ability to declare and proclaim to the whole of creation since “the earth is the LORD’s and all it holds, the world and those who dwell in it” (Ps. 24: 1). Thus, the Psalmist urges it to give praise and witness to its Maker:
“All the ends of the earth have seen the victory of our God. Shout with joy to the LORD, all the earth; break into song; sing praise. Sing praise to the LORD with the lyre, with the lyre and melodious song. With trumpets and the sound of the horn shout with joy to the King, the LORD.” (Ps. 98: 3-6) [emphasis added]
Paul is also clear on this point when he writes, “ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made” (Rom. 1: 20). Thus, all the created world, art included, can and should point to the Lord, even when it does not do so as explicitly as, say, a Christian pop song. Indeed, Jonathan Ryan, who is known primarily for his secular “paranormal thriller novels,” writes that the best artists always endow their works with “theology” in the sense of “exploring how God is in all things, even in terrible things…and tell[ing] it to the world.”[6] Both secular and Christian art can fulfill the same role of revealing God, His beauty, and His goodness to us.
Since we have confronted the principal objections to secular art, we can now look at the second reason why secular art can be useful given the existence of sacred art. Art plays many roles in our lives, at least in terms of the intangible aesthetic and intellectual benefits it gives us but it can also have a more tangible effect. As an artist myself, I am becoming increasingly aware of these tangible benefits. All art of the type Paul recommends has the power to inspire people, especially in the darkest moments of their lives. Art gives people hope amidst despair, reminds us that other people feel and experience the same things we do, awakens noble feelings and compassion in us, and opens our eyes to eternal questions and things we need to address; art helps us gather the strength to make it through the day and its challenges and comforts us when we experience sadness and tragedy; art is always about people and the human condition in one way or another.
My favorite composer, Dmitry Dmitrievich Shostakovich, consistently demonstrated this power of art with his music. During the terror of the Stalin years and under later repressive Soviet leaders, he explicitly chose to write music that reached people in the depths of their torment. He risked his own life to express these things in a way that communicated hope and resilience to the public suffering in silence. While living in Leningrad during the catastrophic Nazi siege of the city, he wanted to write a piece which would both inspire the starving people and remind them of beauty and its ultimate victory over the barbaric forces of evil and murder.[7] That is a perfect example of art which reminds us of things like beauty and transcendence even amidst cruelty and inhumanity. Shostakovich was also willing to suffer political backlash and punishment to reveal the hideous genocidal acts committed against Jews by Hitler and Russia, particularly at the Babiy Yar ravine in Ukraine in his Symphony no. 13 (Babiy Yar). Shostakovich, however, was an atheist composer raised in an atheist nation, yet his work deals with eternal and Christian themes such as suffering and transcendence. Art like Shostakovich’s challenges us to wrestle with eternal questions and, to adapt slightly a line from a Matthew Arnold poem, teaches us how to feel, which is certainly important if we are to be empathetic followers of Christ moved to address injustice and pain.[8]Art then, both Christian and secular, can tangibly affect people in positive ways, such as reminding them of their humanity and their capacity to love in the face of a dark world. Yes, sacred art can fulfill all these same functions but to limit oneself merely to such art is to ignore the impossibly vast body of art which mankind has left and continues to leave us, and would deprive us of the richness of human expression.
I am not trying to argue that secular art is in any way superior to sacred art. Rather, I want to show that both can accomplish the same thing. Both are equally justifiable to enjoy and, consequently, both are equally justifiable to create. That gives the confidence to serve both God and man with my music even if it is not specifically Christian. I, and every other Christian who is an artist, consequently have a calling to fill the earth with beauty which reflects that of its Creator and to use that art to praise that same Creator, even if not explicitly. Whatever sort of music I create or play, secular or Christian, I have the obligation to serve people first, to recognize the effect it can have on them, to understand the questions it can and should leave them, and to share the energy and joy music gives me. I also have the obligation to God to both praise and honor Him with my music and to pray that the Holy Spirit might operate through my work and touch peoples’ hearts as He wills. Perhaps there is even something special about secular art made by Christian artists since it shows that God can work through things which are not openly about Him and in the artists who create them. God can and does appear in unexpected and seemingly unlikely places. Secular art can give us the joy of actively seeking to find God’s presence in it where it is hidden. The opportunity for that wonderful discovery of God’s presence is all the more incredible in secular art because it will always reach a broader audience than strictly Christian art. Thus it can potentially lead more people to experience and contemplate God’s beauty and goodness. Whatever kind of music I make, I can be confident as long as I focus on the author of all beauty, I can serve that same author. As the very last Psalm proclaims: “give praise with blasts upon the horn, praise [the Lord] with harp and lyre. Give praise with tambourines and dance, praise him with strings and flutes. Give praise with crashing cymbals, praise him with sounding cymbals” (Ps. 150: 3-5)
[1] I am using an intuitive definition of art here, as there is certainly plenty of debate about what “art” is, especially post-World War II. I would like to avoid the confusion these debates have generated, as well as the confusion caused by the divide between “high” and “low” art and by the Aristotelian-Aquinian definition of art. For purposes of this article, art refers to what we would intuitively call “art” or “fine art.” If it seems like an artwork to you, in whatever medium it exists, then it probably is here, too.
[2] Hereafter, I will define secular art as art which does not “explicitly convey a Christ-centric message.” This art can of course be made by Christians, as already shown. Secular art will be compared to Christian art, which does “explicitly convey a Christ-centric message.”
[3] An example of something which is demonstrably contrary to Christian morality is pornography. Even if it did provide “aesthetic enjoyment,” as some people might weakly try to argue, Paul would not give us license to view it. There is, naturally, a level of subjectivity to the second category of prohibited things to enjoy, namely those which cause us to sin. For instance, if a particular work is particularly erotic in my estimation, then it could conceivably have the same effect as pornography, and hence I should not contemplate it, even if it does not produce the same effect on another person.
[4] Jonathan Ryan. St. Francis de Sales and the Artist-Theologian. The Sick Pilgrim. Patheos. January 23, 2017.
[5] The Dynamics of Spiritual Life. Richard Lovelace.
[6] Jonathan Ryan. St. Francis de Sales and the Artist-Theologian.
[7] Usually interpreted as the invading Germans during the catastrophic siege. However, interpreting Shostakovich’s music is usually and unfortunately a massive political battle (ie. for or against Communism). So although some commentators also think that the symphony is primarily about the vulgarity of Stalin, keep in mind that such an interpretation is born of a Cold War attitude which is trying to “redeem” Shostakovich’s music, as if it ever needed redeeming.
[8] Matthew Arnold. Memorial Verses. The original line refers specifically to the death of poet William Wordsworth, and reads, “But who, ah! Who, will make us feel?”
History is filled with artists who were Christian, and in fact many of the most significant, lasting works of art ever created were made by Christians. Michelangelo’s Pieta and Sistine Chapel paintings, Bach’s cantatas and Passions, Dostoevsky’s novels, Mozart’s symphonies and requiem, and even today Martin Scorsese’s film “Silence” all exemplify artistic excellence. Each of those artists was Christian. However, even that extremely small list raises a crucial question: “what is a Christian artist?” Is the Christian artist someone who, like all of the above, was a Christian? Or is the Christian artist someone who, like Bach and Michelangelo, creates works which are explicit representations of Christian history or spirituality and are targeted at a Christian audience? The other artists on that list either intended their works for large-scale consumption (that is, for an audience which is not primarily Christian) or designed then with absolutely no explicit or even conscious connection to their religion. This distinction is significant for someone like me, both a Christian and an artist. If I want to be a Christian artist, which of the above are the kind of works I should strive to emulate? Should my music be as clearly about my faith as Bach’s was, or can I write completely secular symphonies like Mozart did?
One clue to how a Christian artist should go about creating art comes from Saint Paul. In his letter to the Philippians, he writes, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (4:8, New American Bible). Strikingly, Paul does not say that we should contemplate and enjoy lovely and gracious things like art provided that they are explicitly conveying a Christ-centric message.[2] In fact, he emphatically repeats the word “whatever,” so clearly anything which meets his criteria is worthy of aesthetic and intellectual enjoyment. This freedom to enjoy lovely and gracious works of art should be qualified slightly, however. Jesus sternly warns against scandalous things, that is, things which might cause someone to sin (Mt 18:6). So perhaps we should say that, in the case of art at least, whatever is lovely and gracious is worthy of enjoyment and contemplation even if it does not explicitly concern Christian morals so long as it does not contradict or deny them. Paul, then, does not give us complete license to enjoy any art (or other non-artistic things), but only anything which does not contradict Christian morality or which causes us to sin.[3] Thus, we seem to have found a justification for art which is not explicitly “Christian” but does not violate Christian morality or theology.
While there may be a firm Biblical justification for enjoying secular art, my questions have not yet been exhausted. As Christians, we must ask what the value of secular art is when there are innumerable examples of Christian art which meet these same criteria for aesthetic enjoyment. In other words, what redeeming features could secular art have that make it worthy of our attention when we might easily turn to art which is beautiful, thought-provoking, and explicitly Christian?
In response to this question, we can first observe that all art works at both the intellectual and the emotional level, although they often emphasize one over the other. When both of these aspects occur simultaneously, we are in the best position to appreciate the art and be moved by it. If one hopes to achieve the desired effects that Christian art should produce, namely things like inspiration for one’s spiritual life and a greater appreciation of God’s majesty and beauty, then the work in question should contain both aspects to a high degree. Realistically, however, this is not always true. Author and 2017 Wilbur Award winner for “Best Christian Blog,” Jonathan Ryan writes, “I’m often astonished at the superficial theological reflection I find in many contemporary Christian artists.”[4] In other words, we need to beware of Christian artists slapping the label “Christian” on their work and pretending that that equates to creating “quality art” or even “quality religious art.” On a personal level, I often find that much art which is quite explicitly Christian rides the label of “Christian equals quality” when, indeed, it is not of high artistic caliber. For example, I find that whenever a Christian song repeats stock phrases and musical patterns, I am far less engaged with the art and with its potential emotional and aesthetic spiritual benefits than I am with lots of great, moving secular music that prompts me to delve into eternal questions. In the continued case of music, I benefit more from enjoying the music of, say, Chaikovsky, than from a Christian song which fades to background noise, not affecting me at all. Of course, there is a great deal of subjectivity as to which works of art affect each one of us and in what way. That is to say that secular art is not always better than Christian art at moving us or inspiring us to live a more Christ-like life, but neither is Christian art always superior to secular art.
Some Christians’ avoidance of secular art stems from fear of works which may contradict morality. While it is true that if you tune in to a popular radio station you are much more likely to hear a song which promotes immoral behavior than on a Christian music channel, that does not mean that every secular work of art produced is immoral. Another fundamental question some Christians ask of secular art is: “how can a work that is not about Christ or the Bible say something true about Him or His message?” To this point, Presbyterian theologian Richard Lovelace writes that the strain of thought which holds such beliefs about secular art
“has its roots in…traditions which…overreacted against the luxurious expression of Christian faith in symbolic, liturgy, graphic art, music, and architecture. As a result...[the] stream has moved away from the sacramental vision of life…in which the created world is not only celebrated as good but recognized as a constant symbolic message about spiritual reality”.[5]
Lovelace suggests then that, at its core, the objection to secular art is based on a rejection of the ability of art and, indeed, all the created world to point to God. In fact, many of the Psalms point to and affirm this truth about creation and even art specifically. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament proclaims the works of his hands,” exclaims the Psalmist (Ps. 19: 1). Later, he expands this ability to declare and proclaim to the whole of creation since “the earth is the LORD’s and all it holds, the world and those who dwell in it” (Ps. 24: 1). Thus, the Psalmist urges it to give praise and witness to its Maker:
“All the ends of the earth have seen the victory of our God. Shout with joy to the LORD, all the earth; break into song; sing praise. Sing praise to the LORD with the lyre, with the lyre and melodious song. With trumpets and the sound of the horn shout with joy to the King, the LORD.” (Ps. 98: 3-6) [emphasis added]
Paul is also clear on this point when he writes, “ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made” (Rom. 1: 20). Thus, all the created world, art included, can and should point to the Lord, even when it does not do so as explicitly as, say, a Christian pop song. Indeed, Jonathan Ryan, who is known primarily for his secular “paranormal thriller novels,” writes that the best artists always endow their works with “theology” in the sense of “exploring how God is in all things, even in terrible things…and tell[ing] it to the world.”[6] Both secular and Christian art can fulfill the same role of revealing God, His beauty, and His goodness to us.
Since we have confronted the principal objections to secular art, we can now look at the second reason why secular art can be useful given the existence of sacred art. Art plays many roles in our lives, at least in terms of the intangible aesthetic and intellectual benefits it gives us but it can also have a more tangible effect. As an artist myself, I am becoming increasingly aware of these tangible benefits. All art of the type Paul recommends has the power to inspire people, especially in the darkest moments of their lives. Art gives people hope amidst despair, reminds us that other people feel and experience the same things we do, awakens noble feelings and compassion in us, and opens our eyes to eternal questions and things we need to address; art helps us gather the strength to make it through the day and its challenges and comforts us when we experience sadness and tragedy; art is always about people and the human condition in one way or another.
My favorite composer, Dmitry Dmitrievich Shostakovich, consistently demonstrated this power of art with his music. During the terror of the Stalin years and under later repressive Soviet leaders, he explicitly chose to write music that reached people in the depths of their torment. He risked his own life to express these things in a way that communicated hope and resilience to the public suffering in silence. While living in Leningrad during the catastrophic Nazi siege of the city, he wanted to write a piece which would both inspire the starving people and remind them of beauty and its ultimate victory over the barbaric forces of evil and murder.[7] That is a perfect example of art which reminds us of things like beauty and transcendence even amidst cruelty and inhumanity. Shostakovich was also willing to suffer political backlash and punishment to reveal the hideous genocidal acts committed against Jews by Hitler and Russia, particularly at the Babiy Yar ravine in Ukraine in his Symphony no. 13 (Babiy Yar). Shostakovich, however, was an atheist composer raised in an atheist nation, yet his work deals with eternal and Christian themes such as suffering and transcendence. Art like Shostakovich’s challenges us to wrestle with eternal questions and, to adapt slightly a line from a Matthew Arnold poem, teaches us how to feel, which is certainly important if we are to be empathetic followers of Christ moved to address injustice and pain.[8]Art then, both Christian and secular, can tangibly affect people in positive ways, such as reminding them of their humanity and their capacity to love in the face of a dark world. Yes, sacred art can fulfill all these same functions but to limit oneself merely to such art is to ignore the impossibly vast body of art which mankind has left and continues to leave us, and would deprive us of the richness of human expression.
I am not trying to argue that secular art is in any way superior to sacred art. Rather, I want to show that both can accomplish the same thing. Both are equally justifiable to enjoy and, consequently, both are equally justifiable to create. That gives the confidence to serve both God and man with my music even if it is not specifically Christian. I, and every other Christian who is an artist, consequently have a calling to fill the earth with beauty which reflects that of its Creator and to use that art to praise that same Creator, even if not explicitly. Whatever sort of music I create or play, secular or Christian, I have the obligation to serve people first, to recognize the effect it can have on them, to understand the questions it can and should leave them, and to share the energy and joy music gives me. I also have the obligation to God to both praise and honor Him with my music and to pray that the Holy Spirit might operate through my work and touch peoples’ hearts as He wills. Perhaps there is even something special about secular art made by Christian artists since it shows that God can work through things which are not openly about Him and in the artists who create them. God can and does appear in unexpected and seemingly unlikely places. Secular art can give us the joy of actively seeking to find God’s presence in it where it is hidden. The opportunity for that wonderful discovery of God’s presence is all the more incredible in secular art because it will always reach a broader audience than strictly Christian art. Thus it can potentially lead more people to experience and contemplate God’s beauty and goodness. Whatever kind of music I make, I can be confident as long as I focus on the author of all beauty, I can serve that same author. As the very last Psalm proclaims: “give praise with blasts upon the horn, praise [the Lord] with harp and lyre. Give praise with tambourines and dance, praise him with strings and flutes. Give praise with crashing cymbals, praise him with sounding cymbals” (Ps. 150: 3-5)
[1] I am using an intuitive definition of art here, as there is certainly plenty of debate about what “art” is, especially post-World War II. I would like to avoid the confusion these debates have generated, as well as the confusion caused by the divide between “high” and “low” art and by the Aristotelian-Aquinian definition of art. For purposes of this article, art refers to what we would intuitively call “art” or “fine art.” If it seems like an artwork to you, in whatever medium it exists, then it probably is here, too.
[2] Hereafter, I will define secular art as art which does not “explicitly convey a Christ-centric message.” This art can of course be made by Christians, as already shown. Secular art will be compared to Christian art, which does “explicitly convey a Christ-centric message.”
[3] An example of something which is demonstrably contrary to Christian morality is pornography. Even if it did provide “aesthetic enjoyment,” as some people might weakly try to argue, Paul would not give us license to view it. There is, naturally, a level of subjectivity to the second category of prohibited things to enjoy, namely those which cause us to sin. For instance, if a particular work is particularly erotic in my estimation, then it could conceivably have the same effect as pornography, and hence I should not contemplate it, even if it does not produce the same effect on another person.
[4] Jonathan Ryan. St. Francis de Sales and the Artist-Theologian. The Sick Pilgrim. Patheos. January 23, 2017.
[5] The Dynamics of Spiritual Life. Richard Lovelace.
[6] Jonathan Ryan. St. Francis de Sales and the Artist-Theologian.
[7] Usually interpreted as the invading Germans during the catastrophic siege. However, interpreting Shostakovich’s music is usually and unfortunately a massive political battle (ie. for or against Communism). So although some commentators also think that the symphony is primarily about the vulgarity of Stalin, keep in mind that such an interpretation is born of a Cold War attitude which is trying to “redeem” Shostakovich’s music, as if it ever needed redeeming.
[8] Matthew Arnold. Memorial Verses. The original line refers specifically to the death of poet William Wordsworth, and reads, “But who, ah! Who, will make us feel?”
