In my line of work
as a creative writing professor at an Evangelical college, I get an up-close
look at the handiwork of the conservative church. My English students are wonderful
young people, possessing curiosity and a fervor in their faith. However, when
it comes to recognizing artistic excellence or how the arts strengthen and enhance their faith, there is often disconnection or perhaps a tabula rasa of sorts.
My beginning genre
classes are not simply for teaching tools and techniques to usher them toward constructing good writing. I first
have to deconstruct what the students have embraced as admirable writing.
Vague, smarmy poems about love or friendship or Jesus. Dull, emotionally
shallow stories, sometimes presented as thinly veiled gospel tracts, where
nothing very bad happens, with family-friendly language and an ending wrapped up like Christmas. Of course, on the other side, there is the
occasional drug-dealer-fueled gun battle at midnight on Christmas Eve in a Perkins Restaurant—written by middle-class kids reared in
the suburbs. Their view of art tends to cater to the bread of less lofty human appetites. If the students have cut their teeth on “art” made within
Christian culture, the deconstruction task is usually greater, as this culture
has the potential to immerse its adherents in a deep and infantilizing level
of sentimentality.
This is both the frustration
and the wonder of my work.
Amid the talks on technique, I’m privileged to
unfold for them the great story of the God of beauty, how artistic enjoyment
and vocation is affirmed at the start of creation, how beauty, truth, and
goodness create the triune qualities of God present in all God creates. Always I
witness a portion of the class eating up these ideas like cake, and I suddenly
have the best job in the world.
The arts are not optional
for the Church to be the Church. They are not here to doily-up our gray little
lives. They are not some peripheral nonsense relegated to bits of our leisure
time, if that.
Dana Gioia, whose
poem I featured in my last post, has some pointed and eloquent words about the Church
and the arts in the current issue of Image.
Three questions and answers were particularly powerful, so I’m sharing them.
Gioia is talking about the Catholic Church specifically, as that is his
tradition, but certainly his thoughts can be broadened to the church as a whole
(and the Evangelical Church, which has no significant history with beauty and
creativity, is likely in a worse place as far as the arts are concerned).
Image: What has been the effect of this divorce between the church and the
arts?
DG: The schism has hurt both faith and the arts. The loss of a
transcendent religious vision, a refined and vigorous sense of the sacred, and
the ancient and powerful tradition of symbolism and allusion have impoverished
the language of the arts. We see the result of this immense loss in the cynical
irony, the low-cost nihilism, the sentimental spiritual pretentions, and the
shallow novelty of so much contemporary art.
Please understand, I
am not asking that all art be religious. That would be a disaster. What I am
suggesting is something more subtle and complex—namely, that once you remove
the religious as one of the possible modes of art, once you separate art from
the long established traditions and disciplines of spirituality, you don’t
remove the hungers of either artists or audiences, but you satisfy them more
crudely with the vague, the pretentious, and the sentimental.
Image: What is the impact on the church?
DG: The loss of a vital aesthetic sensibility in the church has not only
impoverished worship. It has also weakened the church’s identity in modern
society and limited the ways in which it speaks to the world. The graceless
architecture of most new churches, the banal and formulaic paintings and
sculpture, the mediocre music so indifferently performed, and the tone-deaf
language of religious services reveal a Catholic Church that has not only cut
itself off from culture, but also lost touch with its own great traditions of
fostering beauty and creativity. You see this problem in many ways but perhaps
most dramatically in the flight of artists and intellectuals from the church.
Image: Why has this happened? Does the Catholic Church view art as an
unnecessary luxury? There has been such a rich tradition of sacred art.
DG: There are many reasons. The church is rightly concerned with issues
of poverty, health, education, and social justice. In the US, Catholicism has
always been the religion of the poor, especially poor immigrants. These are
communities with huge material needs. But, to quote a relevant old phrase, “Man
does not live by bread alone.” Even the poorest people—perhaps especially the poor—need
beauty and the transcendent. Beauty is not a luxury. It is humanity’s natural
response to the splendor and mystery of creation. To assume that some group
doesn’t need beauty is to deny their humanity.
I think about Gioia's words, and I remember my students. In their earnestness, some try so hard to do the spiritual life "right," to become good girl and boy scouts, their theological ducks all in a row, as if living only by bread in these strictly human measures were sufficient. But that's not the story we're invited into, and maybe my teaching deconstructs more than notions about bad writing. There's something else being offered in the luminous moments of those discussions: beauty, transcendence, splendor, the spiritual riches of the imagination, the face of God in the world.
Gioia
reminds me that the arts vivify us spiritually and humanly, as well as opening a vital voice to a broken world. While his thoughts could be seen
as discouraging—there’s so far to go—I find the way he uplifts the
value of beauty and the arts invigorating to me as a writer and as one
who desires to shepherd young people into a fuller experience of their faith.
As the church, perhaps we've too often tried to live by bread alone when sweet
mystery has been closer than our next breath all along.