# Holiness, world culture, and the arts revisited



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 4, 2010)

I’ve written on this topic here at PB once before, and due to a recent thread on TV and Film (shut down, as these sort of threads often are, due to a conscience-binding type of legalism that flares up, even if unintentionally), I have been thinking about it again, two years after my earlier dealing with the subject.

I read the article by Beeke on television posted in that shut-down thread, and also listened to the sermon by David Murray on movies. Both of these items were very powerful in their presentations. Both had a tendency to bind the conscience, purportedly on the authority of Scripture. But there are larger issues involved if one is to sort out these matters, such as the legitimacy of Art in the light of God’s kingdom, and what is it to love the world, or refrain from loving it?

During a time of prayer I asked the Lord for insight into the legitimacy in His eyes as regards the world’s art. By “the world’s art” I mean the gamut of all art the _world_ produces, from the classics in literature to pulp, from dance and song to film and the graphic arts. Has any of it any worth? Note that I distinguish between art produced in the kingdom of God, and that produced by the world, apart from God. (To keep it simple, I do not want to distinguish between worldly religious art and true spiritual art – save sketchily in the cases of Dante, Dostoevsky, and Solzhenitsyn – so that issue will not be part of this discussion.) I will focus my brief inquiry primarily on language arts and modern graphic arts as seen in graphic novels / comics, and film.

Do Homer’s works – _The Iliad_ and _The Odyssey_ – have any value to the kingdom of God? Or because they are out of the Kingdom are they without worth? How about Virgil’s _Aeneid_? Or the Greek tragedians? Closer to home: what of Dante’s _Commedia_? Or Shakespeare (though some do posit he was a Christian)? Nearing our own time, what of Herman Hesse, Franz Kafka, or Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn (these latter two Russian Orthodox, with A.S. strongly anti-Calvinist, though F.D. may have been a believer)? 

What I am asking basically, does worldly art have relevance to the Christian? If it shall not endure the purifying conflagration on the Day of the Lord, “in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Pet 3:10), then what have they to do with us who shall endure and thrive in the fires of that judgment? Which is not to say there will be no art in the kingdom on New Earth and Heaven, for they are likely included in “the glory and honour of the nations” which is brought into the kingdom of God (Rev 21:26). I have said elsewhere concerning the value of worldly literature, its crafts and themes,

Does someone object that these are poets of the world we are building upon? Solomon said, “…the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just” (Prov 13:22b), and their labors in the language are indeed treasure, by which we may glorify God and win the hearts of men and women.​
So it is not untoward I inquire concerning the literary art of “the world”. Let me quote the poet and essayist Dana Gioia in his book, _Can Poetry Matter: Essays on Poetry and American Culture_, from the essay, “The Poet in an Age of Prose”:

If poetry represents, as Ezra pound maintained, “the most concentrated form of verbal expression,” it achieves its characteristic concision and intensity by acknowledging how words have been used before. Poems do not exist in isolation but share and exploit the history and literature of the language in which they are written. Although each new poem seeks to create a kind of temporary perfection in and of itself, it accomplishes this goal by recognizing the reader’s lifelong experience with words, images, symbols, stories, sounds, and ideas outside of its own text. By successfully employing the word or image that triggers a particular set of associations, a poem can condense immense amounts of intellectual, sensual, and emotional meaning into a single line or phrase.

When R.P. Blackmur noted that “when a word is used in a poem it should be the sum of all its appropriate history made concrete and particular in the individual context,” he may have sounded abstract and coldly analytical. But Blackmur was a poet as well as a critic, and his observation reflects the practical problems of writing genuine poetry. A poet knows that the reader will bring the sum of his experience in both life and literature to a poem, and the text must bear the weight of that attention. Good poetry never underestimates its readers. It actively seeks their imaginative and intellectual collaboration by assuming and exploiting a common frame of reference.

Judging exactly what constitutes that common framework at any given moment is part of the poet’s task, since any living literary tradition constantly changes. Defining the tradition becomes—implicitly or explicitly—part of the creative act. Composed from that portion of the reader’s cultural experience that a poet can use assumptively as a foundation for new work, this framework constitutes an era’s available tradition. (p. 221)​
In other words, poetry – as “the most concentrated form of verbal expression”, and I include less concentrated _prose_ with it – rely upon a common cultural framework of shared experience to ensure we are “speaking the same language” and are “on the same page”.

This cannot happen if the writer does not know the culture, the history, literature, arts, the whole gestalt of a generation, as well traditions of former generations. To write only within the framework of the *sub*culture of the Christian community – avoiding “the world” of the larger unregenerate community – would have appeal only to those in that subculture, and would not be much as far as art goes, so stunted is the cultural tradition and milieu of the Protestant community. We may have a godly tradition and subculture, but it has not – not yet in _this_ world – been developed into the richness it shall achieve in the everlasting kingdom on New Earth and Heaven. When I say much of the present “evangelical” culture is of little worth, I don’t think I will find much argument there!

Put yet more simply, if a writer wants to engage the larger community – unbelievers _and_ believers – he or she must know the larger cultural heritage and present milieu. This is almost a no-brainer. We may not be _of_ the world, but we are _in_ it, and we should have _some_ cognizance of it so as to communicate to others in it, it being their native frame of reference.

A brief note on usage here: it used to be that a poet was a seer and spokesman of his people, an honored calling of God. But no more – or most rarely.

Poets who cannot see into hell or Heaven 
having no eyes past the senses
who cannot tell the realms beyond
what humans naturally know
are not poets as the seers of old
treasured by their peoples
and feared, vates and bards keeping alive
that knowledge without which men died.
The ones who cannot see are another breed.​

And so it may be clear that those who desire to communicate deeply with the thought-forms of the larger culture would have some depth knowledge of it, and of its arts. Of which we have mentioned literature. But what of film? Very often the Protestant church has eschewed graphic art – paintings and drawings – of any Biblical subject as detracting from the insights given by the Holy Spirit when simply pondering Scripture. Myself, I will rarely see a film on a Biblical topic because I do not want Hollywood’s images displacing my own imagination while meditating on God’s word. Apart from such concerns, there is nothing at all wrong with paintings and drawings.

But then we come to the newest art form – if it may be called art – and that is moving and auditory graphics: the film art of movies and television. It surely is part of American (and world) culture, and that for around a century. There are those who say, “You should not watch this, it is not of God, but of the world!” Yet this is the case with very much literature, both classics and pulp. I gather there are those who say we should not partake in any of that either, be it philosophy or fantasy. Though one doesn’t hear that case made too often.

The study of classics and of world and national literatures is part of a classical education, which many Reformed people value highly.

But with the films . . . I have a friend back in the states who is almost addicted (perhaps that “almost” is not true) to television, movies, and graphic novels, really up-to-date on the latest, especially fantasies, superheroes, apocalyptic, and the like. It seems it has almost crowded out his life with the Lord. And this is the danger. But the misuse of a thing does not necessarily annul the value of its proper use.

Here in the Middle East my wife and I have lived for 8 years without a functioning television (we were given one as a gift, but it’s not plugged in), and I love living like this. Occasionally I want to know what a TV show is about and I can download an episode and see; or I can rent or borrow a DVD to see a movie I am interested in viewing. As my wife’s caregiving for her late mom (Alzheimer’s) is finished, we are getting ready to eventually return to New York (waiting now for a “green light” from the Lord). I told my wife I don’t want a TV when we return. But I won’t say it is wrong for others to have one. It may have lawful uses.

Now here is where it gets nuanced. Murray in his sermon said, among other points, that one goes to movies to vicariously experience evil things – or it will happen even if it is not one’s intent. And even if one is able to remain untouched by any evil in it, it is still causing weaker brethren to stumble, and is thus a sin against Christ (1 Cor 8:12). This is a view of separation from the world, which no one can doubt we are enjoined to do. There are, however, other views of what separation is. I know another pastor who is an avid moviegoer, and often refers to the movies in his sermons.

I should mention that this latter pastor is evidently of the postmil persuasion, and sees “common grace” as “the ungodly world [being] capable of producing good movies because of the general operation of the Spirit in the hearts of the ungodly by which sin is restrained and the world enabled to do good.” This it seems is a postmil distinctive, this optimism as regards the possibility of goodness in the unregenerate world and its culture. If this were true, it would fall to reason we could participate in the culture – including its cinema – with ease of conscience, seeing as God’s grace (albeit only common) was in it.

This pastor would say we are to maintain our spiritual integrity before God while in the worldly culture, and we are to partner with the culture in working for its good as “the purpose of salvation is to purify the world . . . [and] make the world a great place in which to live”.

Within this eschatological world view there are things permitted which would not be permitted one holding an amillennial (aka presently realized millennium) view, for with the latter there is a fierce – as in unto death – antithesis of purpose and of spirit vis-à-vis the world. Whereas in the former (postmil) the antithesis has been subsumed in the spirit of cooperation for the betterment – the “Christianizing” – of the world. [It should be noted that some postmillers may not hold this attitude to worldly culture.]

It may well be that this postmil attitude regarding culture has unthinkingly rubbed off on some who hold to the amil or historic premil views. If these godly people can do it, they say, surely I can also.

So much for the anatomy of holding hands with the world.

What is it to be separated from the world? Relatedly, what is holiness? Seeing as this latter is a big topic, I shall narrow it down and keep it personal.

Pastor David Murray said, “If separation from the world isn’t _not going to the cinema_, I don’t know what is!”

What’s so bad about the cinema? Is it because it’s drama enacted by men and women with such technological expertise it is as though real? So that when sin is depicted it has an immense power upon the heart?

Say sexual movies are avoided (or if a scene comes up one turns away quickly), what of violence? Are detective or war movies – with purportedly good guys fighting the bad – wrong? For Christians may be policemen or soldiers. Are fantasy movies evil? With _Lord of the Rings_, although written by a Roman Catholic, is not an antithesis between good and evil made clear? What objections could be made against LOTR, the movies _or_ the books?

I suppose I’m thinking out loud, and seeking to distill from what I know, and from Scripture in my heart. I’ve been pondering two verses from Psalms since I heard Murray use them in his sermon, 119:37,

Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way.​
and 101:3,

I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.​
and I asked the Lord to give me clarity of understanding – to lead me in paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.

I do not believe viewing LOTR would violate those. Would Tolkien’s having been a Catholic bear on this? Apart from some abstruse RC symbolism (it is claimed he inserted into the books) are there theological objections to the stories? We might refer to the matter broached in the beginning of this post, re the classics.

Or take another movie, _I Am Legend_, starring Will Smith. I’m looking at the story and not the actors. It seems that sci fi and fantasy _intuit_ things that so-called realism is dead to. I am referring to the phenomena of zombies now, the living dead. In reality (I speak to Christians, who are supposed to know reality!) what are these but those without the life of God in them, in this life the living dead and in the life to come the undying damned? World literature and myth make of them monsters and project them into the horror genre, _out there!_ – but not _in here!_, not in the human heart, _our_ human hearts! Spiritually speaking, zombies exist. Another time to talk of vampire and werewolf, except to say that these two are progeny of the zombie, and refer to psychic feeding / relating styles of the walking dead.

At any rate, seeing things as I do, I found _I Am Legend_ quite interesting. The scene near the end with the _darkseekers_ overrunning Will’s safehouse in their violent frenzy brought to mind the lines, “and they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city” (Rev 20:9), “and it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them” (Rev 13:7).

Now, is it sin for me to ponder such stories, knowing they have entered the collective consciousness, and use them for grist in my own mill as I bear witness to this generation? Would it be sin for me to ponder the Greek classics? Or Hesse’s _The Glass Bead Game_ [Magister Ludi], in his depiction of – according to his view – the optimal spiritual character? And to offer a Christian alternative, interacting with Hesse?

I am not convinced it would be. Am I not delving into “the larger cultural heritage and present milieu” of my generation? Okay, not all of you are writers, but the principle still applies: is it not fitting we are aware of the larger culture we are in?

Now if I am _given over_ to watching TV and movies so that I am not only “aware of the culture” but am immersed in it to the point that my awareness of the Lord has been washed away – _replaced_ – by this flood of mostly alien “culture”, then something is deadly wrong.

_Awareness of the Lord_. Let me talk about that for a moment. I am not talking about sensations or physical perceptions. What I am talking of is a profound assurance in the depths of my being that the truths of His word present what is actual, and actual for me. Do I have no perception or sensation of His presence? That is an illusion of consciousness (and there is a deceiving spirit who is good at so influencing our consciousness), for He has said, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt 28:20), and “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Heb 13:5). This _profound assurance_ is deeper than sensation or perception, it is the witness of God’s Spirit that His word is true, and true for me.

This awareness of our Lord’s presence is the portion of all His children:

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him” (Jn 14:21)​
If we on occasion are bereft of this awareness, we have but to draw near Him in prayer and we know He will draw near us (Ja 4:8; Ps 145:18; 34:18), and we know that all those who come to Him He will in no wise cast out (Jn 6:37), nor will He ever lose such a one (Jn 6:39)!

Of course we fail to keep His commandments, but there is forgiveness with Him, and cleansing, and restoration to His heart.

It is this intimacy with Him, this ongoing walk in His presence by His word, that is our strength and joy, and will be our grace to endure in time of trouble and affliction. It is a wise man or woman who cultivates this awareness of the Lord’s presence; but there are things we may do which diminish our assurance of His nearness. We may deaden our hearts to His life by opening our hearts to the life of the flesh, and the world, and the devil. There is a mutual antipathy – _hatred_ is not too strong a word for it – between the world and its beauty, and the Lord and His. Between Babylon the blood-drooling whore, and the holy Lord whose dignity and majesty are infinite.

So from this point on, I will be very conscious when viewing television programs (which, as I said, I do but rarely) or movies. I will be aware of the Lord’s presence as I do. It is a fine line we walk as we live in the world and are involved in its life and culture, and at the same time walk before our Lord bearing witness to His name and kingdom.

Such are my thoughts at the moment.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 5, 2010)

I agree with the evangelical statement The Lausanne Covenant:



> 10. EVANGELISM AND CULTURE
> The development of strategies for world evangelization calls for imaginative pioneering methods. Under God, the result will be the rise of churches deeply rooted in Christ and closely related to their culture. Culture must always be tested and judged by Scripture. Because men and women are God's creatures, some of their culture is rich in beauty and goodness. Because they are fallen, all of it is tainted with sin and some of it is demonic. The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture to another, but evaluates all cultures according to its own criteria of truth and righteousness, and insists on moral absolutes in every culture. Missions have all too frequently exported with the gospel an alien culture and churches have sometimes been in bondage to culture rather than to Scripture. Christ's evangelists must humbly seek to empty themselves of all but their personal authenticity in order to become the servants of others, and churches must seek to transform and enrich culture, all for the glory of God.
> 
> (Mark 7:8,9,13; Gen. 4:21,22; I Cor. 9:19-23; Phil. 2:5-7; II Cor. 4:5)




I think, as we engage the world, we must engage and understand the cultures around us. Paul quoted pagan poets. I think this is a call for us to understand the times in which we live.


----------



## PuritanZealot (Oct 5, 2010)

Good 'article' if it was even supposed to be such.
I find myself asking these questions as I look at the world around me through new eyes every morning. I find everything in our modern culture is saturated with the pornographic (be it pornographic sex, violence, or even auditory and visual imagery being so extreme it becomes almost disturbing) bent, twisting everything around us. Television in particular has fallen majorly foul of this corruption. Once the 1960's and 70's had proved sex sells and the 1980's and 1990's took the theory to it's limit we now live in a kind of post pornographic world. Everything is so mired in overt lustful sexuality that a documentary on the lifespan of voles can be interspersed with adverts about the most profane and debauched TV show appealing to the lowest common denominator. In short, TV and movies have become almost unwatchable for the true Christian, I find myself ever more troubled and nervous when watching films or when at an unsaved family members house who have TV. You get bombarded with images and sounds that your mind has been shielded from for most of the week, and the longer the separation from 'the world' the more disturbing it is when we are thrust back into it.
I don't know where the Gospel rests on this issue. We are called to be in the world and to be all things to all men that God may use us for some to be saved, but the very corrupting nature of 'the world' makes it difficult for a Christian to remain untarnished by too much exposure to it. I have a good friend who tries to help and preach to his old unsaved friends who frequent a public house we used to go to before being saved and slowly but surely elements of his faith that were once like great impenetrable bunkers have slowly been worn down and his opinion of certain sins lessened to the extent where they don't seem that bad in his eyes anymore. 
As for the classical nature of culture and is that worthy or not in the sight of God? Well, some art or culture was thrusting itself aimlessly toward the Lord and in some ways the Greek classics are blasphemous and in other ways they are acceptable. I would only question the motive of exposing oneself to such art or culture. There are enough artists, poets, writers and studies to keep a Christian occupied for his entire life so I would be concerned for someone who says they have enough time to study all that the Word has to offer, and yet still surround themselves with Greek myth or Nordic legend.
I don't know, a meaningless rant perhaps, without direction, I think the subject is difficult and one we will not fully understand until the dark glass is removed and we see clearly, everything for what it is.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 12, 2010)

> This pastor would say we are to maintain our spiritual integrity before God while in the worldly culture, and *we are to partner with the culture* in working for its good as “the purpose of salvation is to purify the world . . . [and] make the world a great place in which to live”.
> 
> Within this eschatological world view there are things permitted which would not be permitted one holding an amillennial (aka presently realized millennium) view, for with the latter there is a fierce – as in unto death – antithesis of purpose and of spirit vis-à-vis the world. Whereas in the former (postmil) the antithesis has been subsumed in the spirit of cooperation for the betterment – the “Christianizing” – of the world. [It should be noted that some postmillers may not hold this attitude to worldly culture.]



Brother, I do not understand this comment. How do we 'partner' with the world and culture in a godly way? Is there not more than a hint of "going down to Egypt for help" when we try to co-opt the culture for God? How do we purify it? We can write Christian novels that illustrate Biblical principles, but this often deteriorates into a Veggie Tales (the newer episodes) type of situation: be nice and be good. Those that stay true to the mission of it are commendable (and rare) but too often this attempted alchemy leads to the poisoning of the alchemist. Does that mean it should be rejected outright? Perhaps not, but let if we are attempting a bait-and-switch "here's some secular entertainment, but we're going to slip in a little Bible message here and there" we are denigrating the power of the gospel. Or becoming a new Rick Warren in preaching to 'felt needs' and trying to remain 'relevant'. While I appreciate the logic of it, I do not see Christ ever approaching the spread of the gospel in that way. He would happily sit with sinners, but he did not do a 'magic trick' (which was well within His ability) to get their attention and then give them a quick 'gospel nugget' while they were enthralled. This seems to be the strategy of too many cultural/Christian 'partners'. Make entertainment, then while the audience is truly enjoying themselves, get in with a quick verse or two.

We cannot purify the world. The Prince of this world is our avowed enemy and while there is nothing new under the sun, we are faced with continual new iterations of wickedness based on the same classical themes, made all the more palatable by the world's increasing narcissism. The gospel will shine away the darkness, no matter how deep, but we need not wade into the morass of these things to aid in proclaiming it. If we are given to using examples from films, and our congregants watch them, how many do not have inappropriate relationships contained within them, how many do not blaspheme God's holy name? We are not to bring one hundred and twenty minutes of that before our brothers' and sisters' eyes in order that we may give them a two minute example of goodness somewhere in the middle, are we?



> I am not convinced it would be. Am I not delving into “the larger cultural heritage and present milieu” of my generation? Okay, not all of you are writers, but the principle still applies: is it not fitting we are aware of the larger culture we are in?



Aware, yes. But how familiar do we need to be in order to be aware? I am still of the opinion that Paul's quotation of the ancient poets was of a colloquial nature rather than a studied one. I remember reading that many a common English man could quote bits of Kipling's poets in his heyday, while never having read the poems; they were in common use and such verses were the source of many of the catchphrases of the day. How many people who have never seen an Austin Powers movie have used the phrase "oh _behave_"?



> Here in the Middle East my wife and I have lived for 8 years without a functioning television (we were given one as a gift, but it’s not plugged in), and I love living like this. Occasionally I want to know what a TV show is about and I can download an episode and see; or I can rent or borrow a DVD to see a movie I am interested in viewing. As my wife’s caregiving for her late mom (Alzheimer’s) is finished, we are getting ready to eventually return to New York (waiting now for a “green light” from the Lord). I told my wife I don’t want a TV when we return. But I won’t say it is wrong for others to have one. *It may have lawful uses.*



Lawful, yes. Beneficial?

What is the object, the endgame of the purveyors of the entertainment that we watch? To give us a good show, full stop? I do think a decent case can be made for its purpose being more consuming than that - what film company does not want its action film to go on to spawn action figures, a TV show, Halloween costumes, the licensing of all of it? This is part of the motivation to making a successful and entertaining movie, is it not? There is not a movie executive alive that would not want their films to expand into every consumer void that exists.



> I read the article by Beeke on television posted in that shut-down thread, and also listened to the sermon by David Murray on movies. Both of these items were very powerful in their presentations. Both had a tendency to bind the conscience, purportedly on the authority of Scripture. *But there are larger issues involved if one is to sort out these matters, such as the legitimacy of Art in the light of God’s kingdom, and what is it to love the world, or refrain from loving it?*



That is a great question. I say this not as a sanctimonious, puritanical, scowling wet blanket, (though I may at times come across as such), but as someone who truly looks on this in light of what my children (and myself) are drawn to. What is it that is being drawn to it in the first place? Is it the old man, slain by Christ and yet reaching from the dark corners of my soul to try and drag me back to the trough of the world? Or is it simply God's providence in allowing my mind and emotions to be relaxed in a manner that is adiaphora? Not sure, but I am more and more convinced it is the former than the latter, as I don't see the light of Christ come shining from it - not in the motivation of its producers, nor in the content of it.



> In other words, poetry – as “the most concentrated form of verbal expression”, and I include less concentrated prose with it – rely upon a common cultural framework of shared experience to ensure we are “speaking the same language” and are “on the same page”.
> 
> This cannot happen if the writer does not know the culture, the history, literature, arts, the whole gestalt of a generation, as well traditions of former generations. To write only within the framework of the subculture of the Christian community – avoiding “the world” of the larger unregenerate community – would have appeal only to those in that subculture, and would not be much as far as art goes, so stunted is the cultural tradition and milieu of the Protestant community. We may have a godly tradition and subculture, but it has not – not yet in this world – been developed into the richness it shall achieve in the everlasting kingdom on New Earth and Heaven. When I say much of the present “evangelical” culture is of little worth, I don’t think I will find much argument there!
> 
> Put yet more simply, if a writer wants to engage the larger community – unbelievers and believers – he or she must know the larger cultural heritage and present milieu. This is almost a no-brainer. We may not be of the world, but we are in it, and we should have some cognizance of it so as to communicate to others in it, it being their native frame of reference.



How could Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" have been made 'better' by a more 'worldly' life on his part? He himself confesses to both the 'sins' of bell-ringing and dancing, so it would seem that he turned his back, for the most part, on the secular culture of the day. And yet his story has stood the test of time as a Christian allegory, relevant to people of the present day as well as his own day.



> But with the films . . . I have a friend back in the states who is almost addicted (perhaps that “almost” is not true) to television, movies, and graphic novels, really up-to-date on the latest, especially fantasies, superheroes, apocalyptic, and the like. It seems it has almost crowded out his life with the Lord. And this is the danger. *But the misuse of a thing does not necessarily annul the value of its proper use.*



And here is my issue, brother! This is a tough thing to wrap one's head around fully; gluttony is sin, but do we avoid food that we may avoid that sin? No. But we _need_ food... Here is where I get all bent out of shape as I ponder the implications of your statement.



> What is it to be separated from the world? Relatedly, what is holiness? Seeing as this latter is a big topic, I shall narrow it down and keep it personal.
> 
> Pastor David Murray said, “If separation from the world isn’t not going to the cinema, I don’t know what is!”
> 
> What’s so bad about the cinema? Is it because it’s drama enacted by men and women with such technological expertise it is as though real? So that when sin is depicted it has an immense power upon the heart?



Funny story: I met Dr Murray and spoke to him both about the sermon you reference above and Paul's quotation of the poets of his day. His answer? Something to the effect of the idea that the poets were not engaged in a Caligula type of paganism, but more a philosophical/intellectual type.

Thank you for presenting this in such a balanced way.


----------



## interalia (Oct 12, 2010)

Though very brief, perhaps this posting will assist your analysis: Michael Jewell's Thoughts


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 19, 2010)

Hello Kevin,

I would agree that one cannot “partner with the world” in improving its culture, although there is a movement afoot in the church which posits just that thing. And I would say it is deeply embedded in the postmil strategy (though not all postmillers would hold to it). It removes the antithesis between light and darkness. It joins what ought not be joined, what truly _cannot_ be joined: God and unregenerate man.

Am I hearing from you that it is vain and ungodly to consider – in-depth – the classic arts of the world? And thus all non-Christian art would be shunned? Am I reading you right?

When you say on the “lawfulness” of having a TV: “Lawful, yes. Beneficial?” – you have given away the store. For you assert it to be lawful _and_ subject to individual conscience. Which is what I have said.

With regard to the legitimacy of Art in the light of God’s kingdom. On the one hand, I see that the conflagration of the Day of the Lord will burn up “the earth also and the works that are therein” (2 Pet 3:10), and everything that is unclean and defiles will have no place in the Glorious Kingdom on _New_ Earth. So there will be no “world classics” of art. Homer will be absent, as will Virgil, and also Hesse and Kafka (not sure about Dante, Dostoevsky, or Solzhenitsyn).

But have I learned anything from them? Or from Sartre, Camus, or Nietzsche? I would say yes. I gained perspective on the human condition. Was it essential knowledge? No. I could’ve gotten by without any of it. 

On the other hand, as I indicated in the OP, I learned the writer’s craft from these and other writers. As I noted above, “Solomon said, ‘…the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just’ (Prov 13:22b), and their labors in the language are indeed treasure, by which we may glorify God and win the hearts of men and women.”

I learned much of craft from Walt Whitman the poet (he was homosexual), and from Arthur Rimbaud the poet (a drug user) I learned a kind of courage to be oneself in the face of great opposition. I learned much of the music of language, and the power inherent in it, from a variety of poets (very few of them Christian). This craft is great wealth to me. For I am a poet of the Lord loosed among the literati of the world, and it yet remains to be seen what I will do in His name.

If I have been reading you aright, you have taken a kind of stance that a certain breed of fundamentalist early in the last century took: an abhorrence of the arts, condemning the lot if it. They were anti-intellectual, anti-art, and anti-culture, and they withdrew from the general culture and lived in a Christian subculture, “separated from the world”. But in their absence the world went on without them and became thoroughly secular. The voice of Christians no longer had any currency among them. And so it pretty much is today. As I see it (protestations of the postmils notwithstanding) it is far too late in the scheme of things for that to be reversed and rectified.

If I have any future success as a poet and writer (DV), it will be as an outlaw, but I know the language of the world, and its stories, and I know its heart. There’s nothing more dangerous than a poet with the Spirit of Christ in the heart and depths of the human condition.

At any rate, I aim to walk holy, obliged to no law but the word of God.


*A MARTYR AMONG US*

_“No martyr is among ye now
whom you may call your own”_

-Bob Dylan, I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine​
Whether from the mountains above Woodstock
or by the Mediterranean Sea
in the Middle East,
or even in Babylon the Great
City of New York,
there is a martyr who dwells among you
O generations which meet on the cusp 
of two centuries,
if by martyr we understand the ancient and true
sense of _witness_, and such a one
unafraid to die for his or her testimony
to the great and terrible
reality
we will not tolerate mention of.

Rather than spit it right out
I will spin it out in a tale 
to catch your hearts
either in love
or in judgment
for there is no middle ground
– no fence-sitting – 
when it comes to the blood spilled
by Christ to save your souls
taking your place, your just due
that you wouldn’t have to;
or so the story goes
that marks the destiny of men
for glory or despair.

I spoke truly saying toleration will not come
for those who break the law
of silence, that enforced by the spirit
of the age, zeitgeist 
of Deathworld.
It’s just not done,
a thing shamed
_if_ done,
to speak of holiness 
among sinners,
of Jesus Christ
on the pages of _The New York Times_,
reminding us
of the presence of God.

_3/26/04_​
------


Thanks also for your comments and link, Michael -- and welcome to PB!


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 19, 2010)

Steve, thanks for the reply. I do want to address a couple of things, though.



> I would agree that one cannot “partner with the world” in improving its culture, although there is a movement afoot in the church which posits just that thing. And I would say it is deeply embedded in the postmil strategy (though not all postmillers would hold to it). It removes the antithesis between light and darkness. It joins what ought not be joined, what truly cannot be joined: God and unregenerate man.



Good to hear - it seems that many have lost this and seek to 'redeem' the devil's own work.



> Am I hearing from you that it is vain and ungodly to consider – in-depth – the classic arts of the world? And thus all non-Christian art would be shunned? Am I reading you right?



That's not quite right - I cannot argue so vehemently against what I myself use and treasure. For instance, the mathematics of the classical Greeks brought us a much greater and broader understanding of God's creation. But their system of 'mentoring' also brought us institutionalized pederasty. Thus while I cannot say we should 'shun' it all (where is the godlessness in a2 + b2 = c2?), I likewise must say that it is all too easy to choke on the chicken bones of culture that we are so sure we can easily spit out.



> When you say on the “lawfulness” of having a TV: “Lawful, yes. Beneficial?” – you have given away the store. For you assert it to be lawful and subject to individual conscience. Which is what I have said.



Brother, there is nothing unlawful in owning a box of circuitry with a screen. But let's say that there is a Dr Joel Beeke special on Friday from 8pm-9pm. I am happy to watch that (it is both lawful and beneficial), but there is much devildry in the 30 second bites of time that are sprinkled throughout. Further, how many times does our Lord's name need to be taken in vain before we turn off the rubbish that is the stock-in-trade of even non-cable TV? Do we sit with our finger over the power switch, waiting to instantly turn it off when we are presented with inappropriate content? I would say that almost all of us are more willing to let it wash over us and not do anything about it than we are willing to shut off what is filth put before our eyes. Thus I would indeed advocate that we do not have them (if they are used for cable TV or such things) as there is 99% garbage, and 1% decency on offer. We also have such a box, but only use it for movies that are pre-screened for language and other inappropriate content. We also have a computer, but there is a struggle in even reading the news, for pity's sake! Is it really necessary for the paper to print the salacious details of the conduct of Colonel Williams in his raping and murders up here in Canada? NO! But it tingles the emotions and plays much better to the world than to say that "it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." The public is reviled by these details and yet relishes them.



> But have I learned anything from them? Or from Sartre, Camus, or Nietzsche? I would say yes. I gained perspective on the human condition. Was it essential knowledge? No. I could’ve gotten by without any of it.



Brother, I have previously been a fan of both Camus and Sartre and have gained much insight into both the human condition and life in general by their writings. But was it pleasure you were seeking, or insight? So much of it (in my eyes, anyway) is about motivation. Is this book read to seek pleasure, or is it an apologetic tool of sorts, used in defending the gospel from the detractors who believe such things? I am happy to study Mormonism to better debate a Mormon, but I am not to study it out of recreation or pleasure, am I? Why give voice or credence to such satanic beliefs as theirs for any other reason than to expose its lies in the light of the gospel?



> On the other hand, as I indicated in the OP, I learned the writer’s craft from these and other writers. As I noted above, “Solomon said, ‘…the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just’ (Prov 13:22b), and their labors in the language are indeed treasure, by which we may glorify God and win the hearts of men and women.”



I am not sure that I can appreciate that application of this verse, brother. Can you give me more support on that?




> If I have been reading you aright, you have taken a kind of stance that a certain breed of fundamentalist early in the last century took: an abhorrence of the arts, condemning the lot if it. They were anti-intellectual, anti-art, and anti-culture, and they withdrew from the general culture and lived in a Christian subculture, “separated from the world”. But in their absence the world went on without them and became thoroughly secular. *The voice of Christians no longer had any currency among them.* And so it pretty much is today. As I see it (protestations of the postmils notwithstanding) it is far too late in the scheme of things for that to be reversed and rectified.



Sorry, but I don't think that is quite a correct reading of me - I am in no way advocating monasticism. First of all, my words are already devoid of currency among the ungodly when I say that God created the earth (and in six days, no less), abortion is murder, homosexuality is sin, and God is almighty, and there is no way to Him but by His Son. Those simple confessions would already have labeled you a judgmental homophobe, ruled by superstition, devoid of reason and lacking any worth as a rational being. What currency could I possibly have among them after that? The ability to encapsulate biblical truth in blank verse of breathtaking simplicity will still be hated by the unregenerate if it is truly the Gospel. Christ went out into the world, _as should we_, but quote me chapter and verse where He did not expound Scripture and Truth to those in attendance; where he would 'hang out' with the reprobate to 'gain their trust' for a few weeks and then slip them a little Truth. It simply isn't there. 



> At any rate, I aim to walk holy, obliged to no law but the word of God.



Amen, as His word dictates.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 20, 2010)

Kevin,

I’m glad you pressed me to support my use of Prov 13:22b, as the exercise is profitable. In the first part of the verse, do you imagine the inheritance a good man leaves to his grandchildren is but money or property? It may include these, but primarily it would refer to the riches of godliness – thus figurative – such as sound instruction, knowledge, wisdom, years of prayers on their behalf, and a sterling example: a good manner of life, humility, a repenting heart, graciousness, and prayerfulness (to mention only a few).

Now what do the wicked leave? Nothing of _this_ sort, but they may leave money or property, or things that are equally “treasure”, such as intellectual property, or skills and techniques. Solomon puts it,For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity [skill –NASB, ESV, NIV]; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. (Eccl 2:21)​The righteous labor as well as the unrighteous, and both may have their treasure in realms of science, or finance, or industry, or literature, etc. (The righteous _also_ labor to have riches in Heaven, and to have the heavenly Treasure in their earthen vessels.)

Say I had a relative who taught me skills in real estate and property management, and he died unsaved, he would have left me his knowledge and skills, and these in the sphere of worldly wisdom. I, on the other hand, may use those skills to the benefit of God’s people, and the furtherance of His kingdom.

There have been – and are – many unsaved who have labored in the craft of literature, honing their skills to a fine edge, and in their works we have the fruit of their labors. If one has the ability to extract and learn their techniques and linguistic mastery so as to enhance one’s own command of the language and express oneself in various genres to the glory of God, then is the saying fulfilled, “the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.”

What you say about the television is almost completely true. As I said, I do not want one when we return to the states (I imagine the state of the tube is worse then when we left some 8+ years ago). Yet I would not presume to tell anyone it would be unlawful for them to have one (I know you agree); we all have to come to terms with the technology of the day in the presence of the Lord Christ and the voice of our consciences. If I want to screen a particular show there are other ways to do so than having a TV.

I remember, when I was a young Christian in NYC I went to witness to a couple I’d been friends with who were nudists – no one else was around to bring the Gospel to them (in the Marines we had this marching order, “Eyes front!”, i.e., no lookin' around). I might not so venture today.

I didn’t read Sartre or Camus or Nietzsche for “pleasure”, but for understanding (in those days I wasn’t saved), for light on the human condition. I could read them now if I had a mind to, but don’t have the need or desire. I will read secular authors or poets if it will serve my purposes of gathering knowledge. A few years ago, anticipating some long plane rides and layovers to and from a teaching assignment in Africa, I brought with me Herman Hesse’s _Magister Ludi_ (aka _The Glass Bead Game_) as I remembered loving it as a youth, and wanted to look it over again. In that book he attempted to posit the epitome of a spiritual and artistic character – a saint. He’d tried to do the same in his earlier book, _Siddhartha_ (which I also reread), a remarkable fictional account of Gautama Buddha and a young independent seeker on a different path. This is my field – _what is authentic spiritual character?_ And – _what is the human condition apart from the life of God?_ In this latter area I read with interest stories of the “living dead”, such as Anne Rice’s _Vampire Chronicles_ (until I couldn’t stomach them anymore). I also will watch films in this genre upon occasion, as well as a rare fantasy or sci fi.

Because of financial limits I go the movies very infrequently, or even rent a DVD for that matter (things are tight), but I do if I want to. I am very careful as I hate being defiled. Purity of heart in the presence of my Saviour is of utmost importance to me.

I reckon myself a poet among poets, one of the very few Christian “fundamentalists” (who hold to the essentials of the Reformed faith and its Scripture) in a vast field of unbelievers, often outright enemies of Christ, and hold a burning light in the darkness of the art. I know the field, and I also know the culture of these times. Because of the Spirit and word of Christ I also know the human heart, and exhibit it.

I posit the existence of a global arena of consciousness, where multitudes of voices are lifted up promoting visions of _what is real_. It is like a gladiatorial combat, only the weapons are spiritual and mental. Our Lord Jesus is the Champion and Victor on this vast field, although He is absent personally and is represented by whomever would wield His sword effectively.

There are excellent preachers in the arena but it’s generally the language artists – with poetry the highest of the language arts – who stand tall, as the arts are more suited to the type of combat than preaching. Preachers and their preaching are the most formidable weapon of Heaven on the face of the earth, for they directly attack the strongholds of Hell, seeking to snatch souls from thence that they be translated into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. Poets and writers, on the other hand, function in the realm of the arts and seek to impact entire cultures, having to contend with other individual poets for mastery of the vision of the real. This is accomplished by excellence of craft, power of voice, and the actuality of vision. Only those raised of the Lord to this task can do it. The dust has not settled in the arena, and not all contenders have yet been counted. There may be as long as a decade _or more_ for things to become clear in it. This arena is above all a place of high art and mortal combat.

Note: Poetry can no longer by itself hold the attention of this age, and must be wedded to prose. Two poems:
*IGNORING PROPHECY*

In ancient times
bards sang the feats of kings
and of battles, heroics, and blood
sometimes freely given – for honor, for love
self-preservation flung to the winds
an encumbering cloak
changed for the bright linen of saints

and seers delved into the hidden
meaning of things written by prophets
who saw and heard outside of time
on the open field of omniscience
in the mind of the One who sends his sayers
with wisdom concerning the course of events
that praises might ring above the plaints.

But now, we know few bards and seers, 
few singers as of old, few learned
in things that count, discerning
gems from glass, poets now unwilling to hear
wisdom that separates from the crowd,
approval from peers the honor sought, and acclaim,
few for their truth willing to be burned.

Can it be that among the ranks
of the world’s finest singers
prophecy’s lodes are not mined
but demeaned, and in their conceits
ignored? So be it! We give thanks
You have given the lowly to be bringers,
O wise King, of Your astonishing feats.​-------------
*HIS BRIDE*_a man…shall be joined to his wife,
and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak
concerning Christ and the church._— Paul to the Ephesians​​She is the knock-out of the ages, His bride;
even the angels are astonished, wide-eyed
at a beauty beyond what they see in themselves
and seeing such mysteries desire to delve
into how it could be, this shining like deity
in one once consort with the dark prince, in infamy
before she was redeemed, and party to the deicide.

The price He paid to win her back was steep,
a horrid cost much wondered at in glory’s Keep,
but He got her, and led her through the wilderness
of hearts, through enemies and great distress;
He taught her to stay near to Him,
hold to His word and heart when the way grew dim,
to trust Him, her friend in trouble, her guard in sleep.

It is the story of God the Son’s bride;
she is many, male and female, for whom He died;
she is rugged soldier, little child, woman fair,
all one they are, all dependent on His care.
Safe now in the Kingdom, His glory their reward,
she shines full back the glory of her Lord,
He who ever lives, and for her was crucified.​


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 21, 2010)

Brother, I see your point on godly poetry - it is hard to argue against it when so much of the OT uses exactly that vehicle to convey its messages. I am on the way out the door for work, but I want to revisit your quote from Proverbs, among other things!


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 23, 2010)

> and the wealth of the sinner [is] laid up for the just;
> the riches which wicked men get are laid up in the purposes of God for good men; and in his providence they are translated from the one to the other: so the riches of the Egyptians were designed for the Israelites, and by the providence of God were put into their hands; see ( Job 27:16 Job 27:17 ) ( Proverbs 28:8 ) ( Ecclesiastes 2:26 ) .





> Verse 22
> 
> See here, 1. How a good man's estate lasts: He leaves an inheritance to his children's children. It is part of his praise that he is thoughtful for posterity, that he does not lay all out upon himself, but is in care to do well for those that come after him, not by withholding more than is meet, but by a prudent and decent frugality. He trains up his children to this, that they may leave it to their children; and especially he is careful, both by justice and charity, to obtain the blessing of God upon what he has, and to entail that blessing upon his children, without which the greatest industry and frugality will be in vain: A good man, by being good and doing good, by honouring the Lord with his substance and spending it in his service, secures it to his posterity; or, if he should not leave them much of this world's goods, his prayers, his instructions, his good example, will be the best entail, and the promises of the covenant will be an inheritance to his children's children, Ps. 103:17. 2. How it increases by the accession of the wealth of the sinner to it, for that is laid up for the just. If it be asked, How should good men grow so rich, who are not so eager upon the world as others are and who commonly suffer for their well-doing? It is here answered, God, in his providence, often brings into their hands that which wicked people had laid up for themselves. The innocent shall divide the silver, Job 27:16, 17. The Israelites shall spoil the Egyptians (Ex. 12:36) and eat the riches of the Gentiles, Isa. 61:6.



Steve, this is all I had time to dig up this evening (my eldest daughter is having her birthday sleep over tonight - not much in the way of peace in the home!) But I have a hard time making the application of the verse stretch to utilizing the wisdom/literature of the age. I will keep digging and get back to you. I can't fault you for your desire to use poetry to godly ends; as I said before, it is not uncommon as a vehicle in scripture. But it is the creeping in of the culture of the world which bothers me, and the lengths to which we go to utilize it and 'Christianize' it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 23, 2010)

Hi Kevin,

You said, “. . . it is the creeping in of the culture of the world which bothers me, and the lengths to which we go to utilize it and 'Christianize' it.”

In response I would say that language arts – the craft and techniques of literature and poetry – are skills which are morally neutral, even as a box of circuitry is neutral _apart_ from the uses to which it may be put. The “culture of the world” is surely not neutral, and this I do not consider the “wealth” in question.

Far be it from me to “Christianize” the world’s culture – like a bad paint job – as it is irreparably corrupt. I may use images, or allusions, or otherwise make reference to the world’s art, and would you seek to deprive me of that in the name of godliness? If I refer to “the shadow of Mordor” or the following images (from an above post),

At any rate, seeing things as I do, I found _I Am Legend_ quite interesting. The scene near the end with the _darkseekers_ overrunning Will’s safehouse in their violent frenzy brought to mind the lines, “and they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city” (Rev 20:9), “and it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them” (Rev 13:7)​
are these to be condemned in your view?

There is a difference – perhaps I have not made it clear – between the treasures of literary _craft_ on the one hand, and literary _content_ on the other. The former is treasure of the wicked which may be inherited without blame or harm, while the latter _may_ contain material which is harmful and blameworthy, though discretion may cull out useful material without violating godliness, per my examples in the above paragraph.


----------



## travstar (Oct 23, 2010)

In any of these discussions, we must always be cognizant of weaker members and how to act around them. As far as the Church as a whole, however, the boat doesn't sink because it gets into the water. It sinks when water gets into the boat.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 23, 2010)

It is true, the skills you employ in getting these messages across are in themselves not good or evil, they are merely hammers and chisels. The question is from which carpenter you learned to use them (or which blunt-force-trauma murder, whichever it may be). Children learn skills of communication from their parents (and oral communication is neither good nor evil), but if I as a father do a lot of yelling as I communicate, my child is more likely to yell - an undesirable trait in general communication. The 'eat the chicken but spit out the bones' argument, I find, is often more an excuse than a reason. Thus while we are learning technique from 'the best', we are also taking in their content. For example: 'The Wall' by Sartre includes, as I recall, many harsh comments on the existence of God (shocking, I know, from an existentialist!) and I recall that as I read that as a teenager, my own faith, while not shaken to its foundations, was awoken to the idea of an existence without even the concept of God, and thus that self-actualization is (to eyes covered by scales) the be-all and end-all of an otherwise random and meaningless temporal life. It allowed me to shift a bit in that direction, since, in the culture of the world, this is seen as a rational move in light of our meaninglessness and randomness. In the end, I (taking on the persona of the main character) am allowed to continue on my selfish path towards fully actualizing the wants and needs of the self and Ramon Gris is worm's food, all without meaning, save for the benefit it affords me. While I did learn more clearly the bleakness of the atheist's worldview and how to better write an interesting twist into prose, I had wrestled with a pig and was indeed soiled myself.

I can take Star Wars and turn it into Christian allegory too, but it is best played out as it was intended, a New Age story by a New Age adherent. I have no desire to portray God's message through the lens of the entertainment of the world.



> As far as the Church as a whole, however, the boat doesn't sink because it gets into the water. It sinks when water gets into the boat.



Then we must be certain that the boat is going onto the water for a meaningful voyage and not just to see how much we can do to it before it springs a leak. I see Steve as doing the former, but too many do the latter and sink.


----------

