Most of my readers know that I am a Christian, and I like to think about the ramifications of Biblical worldview in the arts. It’s not easy to compete with the various worldviews in art and culture since what’s culturally acceptable is so influential. Popularity usually supersedes morality for patrons of the arts. If the majority of people enjoy something  good or bad, the negative peer pressure throughout culture will excuse anyone to enjoy the morally bankrupt movies, books, music . . . and so forth.

Graphic novel representation of Aragorn of "Lord of the Rings."

Art is a medium (a means by which something is communicated or expressed; whether it be movies, literature, music, etc.). What’s being communicated is governed by a worldview (a particular philosophy of life or conception of reality). Most worldviews don’t get along with each other when it comes down to their nitty-gritty systems. No Atheist wants to make concessions to a Buddhist. No New Ager wants to accept the true Christian Faith. Even the belief of religious pluralism — everything goes because everything is right — excludes the worldview that not everything is right. So if the Buddhist believes the Religious Pluralist is in error, they cannot both be right; somebody is wrong.

Since nothing is neutral in worldview, including the arts, you have to ask yourself which worldview is treated with the utmost respect and regarded as true in any given form of artistic communication. Here is where things get fun.

The human heart and mind are left to discern truth in what’s being communicated in art. Thus, the interpreter is left with somewhat subjective tools to define the objective in what’s communicated. Without authoritative specifications for morality, one person’s subjective standards of right and wrong are just as good as the next persons. People define morality all the time, but not authoritatively. No man has authority in his standards over other people’s.

Including the part cropped off at the bottom of this painting, would this be a painting for good or evil?

The Bible is the least subjective standard for morality there is. As the Word of God, divinely inspired and inherent, Christians have the most reliable source of morality to depend on. If God thinks it’s good or evil, well, so it is. How can man dispute The Being that created everything (including morality itself)?

Using God’s Word (the Bible), we find what is meant to be right from wrong, but with a curve that man would not expect. God often times demonstrates evil and wrong-doing in the very books of the Bible. Murder, deception, witchcraft, idolatry, sodomy, you name it, there’s a story to demonstrate man committing all manner of evil in the Word of God.

I don’t think Christians appreciate the ramifications of God using evil to promote good. Christians tend to pursue righteousness at the expense of a realistic view of the world. When we portray good and evil in art, it might seem the upstanding thing to “sterilize” the evil as to not be “too bad” for the art’s intended audience. We think we’re doing a good thing cleaning up entertainment and art to be honorable to the moral standard (the Bible). And it may be honorable not to stuff art with wickedness, but we miss that the Bible itself does not shy away from using evil to portray and testify to something several times greater than evil itself:

Good.

|

Some Christians want to stamp their approval rating only on “decent, wholesome, uplifting” forms of the arts. Then, they likewise attempt creating art using these qualifications. In error, they paint a picture of the world missing the true depths of depravity; missing the various worldview opponents to Christianity. What is the result? How do audiences, readers, listeners respond to such pieces of “Christian” art?

Failure. Christianity time and again misses appeal and enjoyability in the arts with their watered-down, superficial, spoon-fed, depictions of non-reality.

What’s unrealistic I call non-reality. The world we live in is dark, wicked, and morally bankrupt. Man has a sin nature. A monster lives in all of us; plotting to thwart anything good. This is inescapable to our human condition. We know the truth in our hearts. We have the capacity to do evil, and the capacity to do good. To portray life without the presence of evil tends to seem unrealistic and unrelatable for the human condition. In this situation, the appreciation for any wholesome truth for the greater good is severely weakened.

Is this art good or evil?

So in a sense, if good has nothing to overcome, it is difficult to appreciate and relate to. Wrong provides contrast for right. Why God made this so is His business. I’ve personally considered, would not it have been easier and “better” for God to skip the present age of evil warring with good? Could He not have avoided the bad, and provided/willed only good should happen?

God didn’t choose to manifest Himself to mankind that way, and His way is just and right. God makes no allowances for evil, yet He wills evil exists. It is an inescapable paradox of His nature and method of wielding the world.

This being the case, how should evil be incorporated effectively and honorably in the arts without contradicting the will of God? More specifically, how does God use good and evil throughout the Bible? In the manner in which they are used is also an answer to how good and evil should manifest in the arts.

I will continue this topic in my next post.