Over the last few weeks, we have seen that the attitude that rejects the senses, the body, and the physical world and related human experiences such as sensuality, sexuality, and violence as they are presented in the Bible (e.g., Prov 5:18-19; Ezek 23:19-21; Judg 3:21-22; 1 Sam 15:32-33; etc.) arises from a pagan thought system called Platonism, and not from Scripture’s teaching.  We saw that every area of life that is not sinful is good, and that there is thus no neutral zone: a thing is either a sin or it is good (and, if it is good, it is a vehicle for righteousness).

This means that an artist is free to address any theme or area of life as a Christian, provided he does not promote sin.  Indeed, the purpose of doing any vocation, artistic or not, is ultimately to promote righteousness and help inhibit sin, but this is possible even by simply representing life as it is, provided that it is truly represented as it actually is.

For instance, a novel or song that represents life as actively having no spiritual dimension, or promotes the idea that there is no ultimate punishment for wickedness, or that evil is not actually existent, would not be representing life as it actually is, since the infallible and inerrant Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16-18; 2 Peter 1:20-21) teach us that all the aforementioned aspects of life are in effect and do exist.  Thus, to create a work of art that denied these things would be to create a lie about life that fosters sinful beliefs about reality.  We must not, as Christians, do this.

This is not to say, however, that what we create must always make a scriptural connection, or have “Christian” or “Jesus” written in giant letters across it.  Remember that God has created everything that is as “very good” (Gen 1:31; 1 Tim 4:4; etc.), and, so long as those created things and categories are not perverted into sin; by God’s own assessment as Creator, they are intrinsically good in themselves, and need no justification.

The reason that we do not always need to explicitly connect created things and categories to Christ Jesus is because He has already done so, having created everything that is, individually and in concert, to reveal Himself by a mysterious means so that, deep down, everyone knows that created things all point to God.  (Romans 1:18-20; Psalm 19; Genesis 1; etc.—There’s more to be said on this point in the next post, God willing.)  This innate knowledge that all men have about God’s Revelation in the creation (Rom 1:18-20) forms the basic context for meaning and art.  Thus, we do not always need to be explicit in our art, provided we promote no sinful actions or attitudes.

A couple of illustrations from the Bible may be instructive here.  The Song of Solomon is a love-poem written by Solomon the king to his love, the Shulamite.  It is one of the most beautiful and sensual poems ever written, a celebration of courtship, love, marriage, and sex.  It was written to be read (and/or sung) in the ancient Near Eastern society of Israel.

Though the Song is part of our Bibles, it originally was a book of poetry that was presented as a separate art-piece (even though it was inspired).  The interesting thing about this is that though there are allusions to the poem in Biblical places and people in the rest of Scripture, there is no direct mention of God!  Yet this book is justly recognized by both Israel of old and the Church as being inspired Scripture.  It is recognized by Christians as being, on a secondary level, a picture of Christ and the Church, and a manual of principles to govern courtship and the marital sex life.  How can this be, since the poem does not explicitly mention God?

The answer is context.  The Israelite society of Solomon’s time recognized that this poem was set in actual historical circumstance in their culture, a culture which was self-consciously to be ruled over by God’s Covenant Law.  They recognized that it was their Scripture-infused and informed society which gave rise to the backdrop of the love-poem of Solomon, even though it was not explicitly spelled out that this was a “Christian” poem.  The ancient Israelites assumed, because of Scripture, that even things like love and sex and courtship were saturated with spiritual meaning (as indeed they are).  Because of this, Christians, who are the New Israel, share these assumptions, plus realizing that St. Paul in the New Testament explicitly teaches that the marriage relationship is one of the most profound presentations of the relationship between Christ and the Church that exists (Eph 5:22-23), and that, thus, on one level, the Song of Solomon does speak of Christ.

Yet the Song itself, in both its poetic beauty and its exemplified principles of love, is revered as art by huge numbers of people who don’t care a fig for Christ, and either don’t know about or reject the Biblical context for its imagery.  Solomon wrote this poem as a love-poem (despite his being informed by Scriptural contexts), and as a poem alone, it is superlative art.  He didn’t feel the need in this case to be explicit about his whole catalogue of beliefs, because the context of his life and society gave it deeper meaning.  Still, it works on its own, as a prototype of beautiful love poetry.  This is not wrong, or evil.

The same principle rules another part of sacred Scripture, the Book of Esther, a riveting historical account of Queen Esther’s effort to save the Jews from the machinations of the evil Haman.  The book reads like a short story, but, once again, it does not so much as mention the Lord.  Again, it is the context of knowledge about Israel and her history with God that informs its meaning to the Church.  Yet, even someone who knew nothing of Scripture, God, or the Jews could read this tale and be enthralled.  It works, both as a story and as an artful retelling of history.

We see, then, that being explicit concerning our Faith is not always necessary.  To write a song or novel about love, relationships, or history on the terms of the song or novel itself is not only not evil, but may, in many situations, gain credibility for a larger Biblical context by demonstrating the depth and universality of created human experience.  It is alright to simply be human, provided we eschew, and do not promote, sin.  As to the context issue, and questions of General Revelation, we will, God willing, take those up anew in the next post.

For additional teaching visit patreon.com/kempercrabb