Since my doctrinophobia propelled me over the past couple of days to engage somewhat critically with the latest issue of Christianity Today (which critical engagement I take, generally, to be a good thing), let me not fail to celebrate the other side of the story.
There’s a marvelous, short article by Lauren Winner called “Art for God’s Sake.” She is drawing attention to the work of Greg Wolfe who has been a driving force in the growing appreciation evangelicals have for the spiritual value of art.
Winner suggests, “The most important thing [Wolfe] does is call our attention to the present moment and tell us: Look here” (43). In this, she sees him as imitating his own assessment of T. S. Eliot: “in Eliot we find someone who says, Look at what the broken edge of our fragmentation gestures toward: the wholeness off in the distance” (43).
The nuanced appreciation of faith beyond blatant articulation is one of the things that artists need to continually contribute to the church. Winner speaks of a writing program Wolfe directs. It is not intended “to produce ‘Christian writing’ but to give people a space to work out writing and spirituality together” (42).
From a Protestant point of view, it seems paradoxical that the Roman Catholic church has been able to promote such a rich artistic sensibility while holding onto the kind of doctrine that, in Protestant circles, has squelched artistic impulses. Protestantism has too long a history of finding art too incapable of speaking truly.
Why this disparity? Perhaps it is because of the way Catholic ecclesiology plays itself out in icon and sacrament? Perhaps it’s because doctrinal statements have been one piece of the church in which unity is found rather than the means by which unity and ecclesiology are sought?
“Protestantism has too long a history of finding art too incapable of speaking truly.”
I would suggest instead that
“Protestantism has too long a history of finding art too true and thus have silenced it.”
I think it is rather that Protestantism has too long been scared of the very physical and bodily reality that art so vibrantly portrays and therefore Protestantism has run away scared. All you need to do is go into a Catholic church and you notice the difference immediately. Protestants hang a big minimalist cross whereas Catholics hang the bloody body of Jesus on their cross. For all the doctrine that you cite above it is the daily reminder that Jesus was a real human being that informs their understanding of the body, and by extension art.
As a side note I am interested in checking out Gerard Loughlin’s, Alien Sex: The Body and Desire in Cinema and Theology, http://tinyurl.com/gerardloughlin which I am guessing deals with some of these issues.
Maybe editing both of our statements, “… too powerful, and thus have silenced it”?
To give the Reformers the benefit of the doubt, they were worried that images created mental and emotional ideas that could not be separated from people’s ideas about God. They were worried about idolatry.
“Catholics hang the bloody body of Jesus on their cross.”
Yeah, but that’s not “true” anymore. It shouldn’t be made into a ‘timeless truth”.
The ‘truth” issue comes out in arguments that images lack the theanthropic union that would be present if Jesus were actually in front of you to look at. That moots the issue of the fact that theanthropic union means that a woman gave birth to one who was God, that our retinas and mirrors displayed an image of a man who was God, etc.
They key is that doesn’t make the woman, the retina, the mirror, or the statue any more important than otherwise.
I would agree with that edit and your statement about the Reformers. But to borrow from the thought of Peter Rollins, the Reformers simply made “people’s ideas about God” their idol.
I think you’re right about the Catholic emphasis on the sacraments, both in terms of ecclesial unity and in terms of worldview. In addition, if I may paint with a broad brush, I might also connect it to Catholicism’s greater openness to the learning of the “pagans” – I’m thinking in particular of the medieval emphasis on Plato’s transcendentals, the good, the true, and the beautiful.
Uh oh–doesn’t that tie you to natural theology?! Egads! What would Douglas Campbell say?!
*ahem* Sorry.
Interesting further take on learning from the pagans. I’ll have to ponder that one in my heart a bit more. Thanks!
You say “tie you to natural theology” as if it were a bad thing!