Art Actually
I sometimes ask myself how in the world I ended up with a degree in music performance. But really the answer is quite simple: I love music. I always have. However, what sold me was a music appreciation class during my freshmen year at the local state university. The entire class was deeply fascinating. What was most curious about this course was that it actually began inside the church. The first two or three weeks were given wholly to Gregorian chant and the music of the Middle Ages mass. I found this surprising since art and the church are very separate and sometimes confrontational entities in modern society. However, this is not indicative of history.
Last week we considered Abraham Kuyper’s thoughts concerning science. This week we’ll consider his thoughts on the subject of art. In Wisdom and Wonder, Kuyper explains art’s source. After laying this foundation, he explores art’s purpose and value. In so doing, he shows the importance of a well-developed philosophy of art for the conscientious Christian, and its necessity for Christian leaders. Due to the lengthy nature of his arguments, I will only cover his arguments concerning art’s source and its place in Christian worship.
The Source of Art: Wonder
The Church’s appreciation for art has always varied greatly. Due to the close relation of religion and art, this has been inevitable. A prime example of this is found in the earliest pagan religions, which were intertwined with art at almost every level. The Israelite temple also incorporated much art. However, beyond the sacred hallows, art was practically non-existent.
Even today, institutions such as the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church still exalt art for the development and cultivation of religious sentiment. Even the word-dominated worship of denominations birthed in the Reformation cannot wholly escape the use of art through singing, architecture, and music. This interconnectedness is derived from the common source of religion and art—wonder. That is, we express our wonder of the world around us by intertwining religion and art.
To understand this, we must first look to the growth of religion, and subsequently art, in history. Religious awareness matures by two means:
1. God’s creation (General/Natural Revelation)
2. Spiritual revelation (Particular/Special Revelation)
However, both of these means were darkened after the Fall. We no longer receive direct spiritual revelation without Scripture’s aid. And we no longer readily see God’s revelation in creation. Kuyper comments on this: “Had common grace not intervened to inwardly strengthen religious consciousness and to outwardly safeguard the speech of nature from falling silent, all religion would have disappeared in short order” [1].
Thus, due to common grace, nearly all people show a certain need for religion. This need has been manifested throughout history as human beings, even the Israelites at times, have worshipped nature in the sun, moon, stars, and even man himself. The religious practices of the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks illustrate this point well.
Because these pagan religions originated in the external world and grew increasingly apart from spiritual revelation, their worship naturally shied away from the spiritual and inclined more toward external and visible forms. In other words, they required a visual object of worship leading inevitably to various forms of image worship.
This is where art comes in. The aesthetic nature of such worship inherently led to an artistic “arms race” between competing cities and temples. It is for this reason that architecture, music, sculpture, painting, and poetry flourished in the fertile ground of religion. As Kuyper states, “A religion fed in its idolatrous form only exclusively by nature or by human megalomania can seek its glory nowhere else than in external pageantry” [2].
Symbolism Rather than Idolatry
If art arose, at least in part, because pagan religions began in the external, visible world, how should we then understand the Israelites’ synagogue and temple worship, which included art? The difference between the Israelite and pagan temples lay in the purpose of the visible objects. In pagan worship, the visible objects were themselves worshipped. In Israelite worship, the visible objects were not worshiped, but in fact pointed toward the invisible God. In other words, they were symbolic. Kuyper remarks on this:
A symbol declares to you, first, that besides this visible world there exists an invisible, spiritual world as well; second, that between this visible and invisible world a particular connection exists; and third, that visible signs can portray spiritual things for us. So a symbol is always something visible that functions as a sign, image, or denotation of something spiritual and invisible [3].
Thus, the use of visual symbolism can guide and nurture a people dependant on the sensual toward the spiritual.
By understanding art’s purpose in worship this way, we realize that the Israelites’ worship was “definitely and precisely spiritual in its orientation” [4]. Remember, no worshipper ever visibly saw God—not even the high priest. The visible always pointed toward the invisible.
Why then is it that the church puts less emphasis on art and visible forms than the Israelites? The answer lies in the incarnation of Christ. The Israelites symbols in the temple and synagogues pointed toward the coming Messiah. Now that He has come, however, we have no need for these visible images [5]. Part of the incarnation’s miracle is that worshippers visibly saw God (cf. 1 Jn. 1:1-4). Kuyper remarks that “[a]nyone who after Christ’s coming still continued to depend on the symbol and shadow of the Messiah demonstrated that he did not understand his coming, thereby denying and rejecting him” [6].
To put it another way, until Jesus’ arrival, art’s highest calling was to symbolize the coming Messiah. However, with Messiah’s coming, we now worship in spirit and truth. The symbol is now obsolete. Kuyper explains the transition this way: “Alongside the knowledge of God from nature, the knowledge of God was available in spiritual revelation, and when that spiritual revelation reached its pinnacle and perfection in Christ, religion had to turn inward so that in worship the expression of spiritual life had to stand in the foreground” [7]. Thus, art is given a more subservient role in the Church than in temple worship. Yes, it is still helpful, but it is no longer primary.
Man, however, has difficulty controlling the sensual and places more value on the visible than he ought. Within a few centuries, the early church began to exhibit the pageantry and extravagance of temple worship. Slowly, Christian churches began to encourage decorative priestly garments, symbols, paintings, and sculptures in the sanctuary. Though there was a vigorous debate at the time over the propriety of these sensual elements to worship, those in favor of opulence carried the day. “Symbolism” was their stated purpose for using these forms of worship. As Kuyper points out, however, “[P]ractically such an ornate symbolism always confronts a fundamentally spiritual religion with the danger that the spiritual will once again be overtaken by the sensuous” [8]. Thus, by continuing in this symbolism, they tempted themselves with falling into worship of the creation rather than the Creator.
The Reformation reacted against this development strongly. While medieval mysticism prepared these reformers’ reactions, it was strengthened by “the concentrated drive of the heart in pursuit of God” to enable “the spiritual to break through the barrier of the sensuous” [9]. Kuyper even suggests that the greater that the Christian religion develops, the more it is freed from sensual forms, and the more it is governed by the invisible. “[A]s long as the religious idea draws its strength only from beholding nature,” writes Kuyper, “religion performed in the idolatrous temples bears a merely sensuous character and art dominates within the temple” [10].
Yet, has God ordained certain uses of symbolism in the church? Yes, Christ commanded that we baptize with water, partake of the bread and cup, and wash the saints’ feet (Mt. 28:19; Lk. 22:19; Jn. 13:14). Additionally, some areas of art are intrinsic to the nature of worship: the architecture of churches, music, and song, for example. These physical and visible images all point toward invisible and spiritual truths [11]. So, does this imply that all other art is evil now that Messiah has come?
Conclusion
The answer to this question is a resounding “no.” The Reformation effectively divorced art and the Church. At that time, art had a firm enough base to exist independent of religion. No longer did it require the financial support of religion to propagate. In some cases, the Reformers overcompensated for the previous centuries of sensuous worship by condemning art on the whole. Still, it did not help matters that art “entered all too quickly into the service of licentiousness and discarded its honor,” when it received is freedom from religion [12].
Regardless of the church’s occasional overcompensation and art’s worldliness at times, art is derived from God’s image in man from creation. Thus, the Christian, in viewing and making art, should understand this: When we view art, we see an expression of creation. And when we make art, we actually mimic God, and should reflect the truth of God’s redemptive work through history. Properly construed, art is not a source of idolatry. No, it should point to God, ultimately. The question to ask: Does this art, by definition an expression of creation, give the Creator glory?
_______________________________________
[1] Abraham Kuyper, Wisdom and Wonder, Nelson D. Kloosterman (trans.), Jordan J. Ballor and Stephen J. Grabill (eds.) (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian’s Library Press, 2011), 109.
[2] Ibid. 111.
[3] Ibid. 111-112.
[4] Ibid. 112.
[5] While it is important for us to realize the change from the visual symbolism of temple worship to the spiritual worship in the church, we must not fall into the traps of Docetism or Gnosticism. Though our worship is now in spirit and in truth, this does not mean that the physical world is evil. The proofs found in Scripture and church history against such views are overwhelming. See also: “Why Being In the Flesh Is a Good Thing” by Matthew Bracey.
[6] Kuyper, 112.
[7] Ibid. 113.
[8] Ibid. 114.
[9] Ibid. 114.
[10] Ibid. 115.
[11] For further reading on these topics see: J. Matthew Pinson, The Washing of the Saints’ Feet (Nashville, TN: Randall House Publications, 2006); “Reclaiming the Supper: A Reappraisal of the Memorialist View” by Jeremy Craft.
[12] Ibid. 119.
April 19, 2012
Thank you for discussing the integration of Kuyper’s content with art. We are interested to see how those in the art community resonate with this material.