Philippians 4:8 and Art
http://www.christandpopculture.com/film/whatever-is-pure-movieguides-faith-and-value-awards/
When I attempt a Biblical conversation on engaging art, spefically the “to watch or not to watch” conversation, Phillipians 4:8 will come up every time. This famous passage teaching us to focus on “whatever is pure, whatever is true …” etc. has perhaps been interpreted to “flatly” however.
Have a read on this blog post, and let us know what you think. How do you integrate Phillipians 4:8 with your media consumption.
Perhaps, to put it more broadly, what do you use as a Biblical framework for engaging art?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
After seeing all the formulaic, middle-of-the-road crap in their top 10 of 2007 (for “mature” audiences, of course), I figured this article wasn’t worth my time.
I, along with many others, feel that 2007 was a particularly strong year for film. With that in mind especially, this list is embarrassing:
1. Amazing Grace
2. August Rush
3. Spider-Man 3
4. I Am Legend
5. Strike
6. The Great Debaters
7. The Astronaut Farmer
8. Pride
9. Transformers
10. Live Free or Die Hard
March 24th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Hmmm…the closing thoughts seem to be pretty open minded and not reinforcing traditional “Christian film criticism:
“First, we need to always keep in mind the comprehensiveness of Phil 4:8 as we make aesthetic judgments. We are not commanded only to think on what is “pure,” and to single out this element above the others is to create a standard that is extra-biblical.
Second, while optimistic stories are good, they are not the only acceptable kinds of stories. In a true biblical perspective, justice is fallen in this world, and therefore we should not expect the “good” or “just” to always triumph.
Third, as believers we should try to encourage artists to make works that are commendable, not just works that are profitable.
By God’s grace, believers can make and support works of excellence, but we must be willing to praise what is truly worthy, not just what conforms to our definition of the Christian “worldview.””
I still find it hard to reconcile those comments with their list.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
DISREGARD MY PAST COMMENTS. I REALLY SHOULD HAVE READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. IT’S GOOD.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Truth.
(yeah, that’s right, i capitalized it)
April 9th, 2008 at 6:52 am
April 9th, 2008 at 7:49 am
how soon is “soon”? and could you define what you mean by “discernment”? perhaps you might develop a short questionnaire and ask some people to respond? do you mean the gift of discernment a la 1 cor 12.10, or do you mean discernment a la websters: 1. the cognitive condition of someone who understands; 2. delicate discrimination (especially of aesthetic values); 3. perception of that which is obscure; 4. the mental ability to understand and discriminate between relations; and 5. the trait of judging wisely and objectively?
i think there’s both the spiritual gift of discernment as well as the practical exercising of discernment (one’s intelligence and mental faculties. i like to think that i utilize both aspects for both activities (making and viewing/ “reading”)…in the context of the verse, i think it’s both, but there is an emphasis on thinking theologically about the world - that whole maturity and having the mind of christ thang…i tend to agree that phil 4.8 isn’t about a checklist or shopping list. note, it ends with the command (injunction?) to think/ meditate on those elements of Truth, honour, rightness (or “fittingness”), purity, loveliness (Beauty? - which is more than about simply subjective aesthetics), whatever has a good reputation, excellence and praiseworthiness that are in anything and perhaps even everything. if everything can be (or is already) redeemed, then there is a sense that there is something inherently redeemable in the world and the things we make.
a study of the greek (and dig out the strong’s, thayer, kittel et al) reveals that the [cultural] applications of these terms are less about aesthetics and more about content. i know i have a study on that somewhere — i’ll try to dig it out. this section of scripture is holistic - it requires spiritual thinking and engagement with the world and its objects, not religious judgement.
my own position is simply that art must be about Truth. it must present something that is True, whether in celebration, condemnation or simply for contemplation (and even argumentation). after that, the question becomes whether or not the means for presenting that Truth are up to the task. that may sound subjective, but it’s much less subjective than you would think. again, it involves the exercise of both spirit and intellect (with a dash of emotional subjectivity thrown in at the end, and not the beginning). more later…
on a side note, detweiler and taylor’s a matrix of meanings: finding G-d in pop culture explores some of these ideas through a number of different expressions of cultural creativity. worth a read.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I like this bit …
“that may sound subjective, but it’s much less subjective than you would think. again, it involves the exercise of both spirit and intellect (with a dash of emotional subjectivity thrown in at the end, and not the beginning).”
I agree. We fear discernment because it IS NOT a set of rules. It is the law written in our hearts. And our hearts are shaped differently, aren’t they? Discernment is not something that can be penned in a book because it is living and breathing, dynamic in relation to the Creator.
To quote again, “that may sound subjective, but it’s much less subjective than you would think.” I have to believe that he who honestly seeks Truth will find it, and that Truth will in the end flow from the same place, even if it manifests itself slightly differently.
Anyways, I’ve not learned discernment this way, and I think the difficulty of it is often avoided altogether. As Derek Webb sings in “A New Law”, “Don’t teach me about moderation and liberty, I’d prefer a shot of grape juice”. Because that is the road we take so often in church teaching, we raised a generation of believers that knows little of discernment, and much about a law they cannot keep.
So, they watch whatever they want and listen to whatever they want and make sure they only laugh hard and speak openly about it with the right people. And definitely not the pastor.
Jesus would be pleased.
Sorry - am I preaching now? Whoops!
Perhaps since this conversation is running a bit deeper, we could move it over to the forums here …
http://www.bodycreativenetwork.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13&page=1#Item_0
April 9th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
well…to be frank, when i look at my generation and (more specifically) the genration(s) after me, there is a real lack of discernment. primarily because the focus seems to be on “freedom” - which usually means license (which is a very different thing). but it’s not the freedom to NOT do “x”, there is an insistence on the freedom to DO “x”. never mind self-control — i’m free! i refuse, reject and resist religion and its attendant control — i’m free! oh, please. i know too many christians who are led by their emotions, their opinions and their “freedom”.
at the same time, there seems to be a real fear to take stances on anything, lest one’s position be taken as judgemental or intemperate or divisive. so we accept and embrace most anything. and this is, in many ways, the crux of the issue with the arts, pop culture and mass media. we don’t know how to filter, or else choose not to. i guess that’s why i love postman’s amusing ourselves to death. very prescient, that. that’s also why i love schaeffer. we are to knowingly and theologically (biblically) engage the world around us and as we do so, discern what is of G-d, what is of the flesh, and what is of (as a friend of mine says) “the evil one”. the discerning of spirits. perhaps, the discerning and discovery of sources? to ask, “whence came this?” i think that maturity brings with it an ability to discern without having to be all spiritual about it, because hopefully you’ve been formed into the image of christ (in mind and heart).
discernment may not involve “rules”, per se, but it does involve measuring and weighing and determining value and worth because it is looking at and engaging with the world and its many shiny things with the mind of christ, led by the spirit and filled with the Truth (the word). we are not supposed to be unaware of demonic strategy. i like your idea that “discernment…is living and breathing, dynamic in relation to the Creator.” that’s the only measure of discernment, isn’t it? G-d in christ by the spirit?
but there are some “rules”, i think (though i also think “rules” isn’t the right word - it is, as you say, the law written on our hearts; but it is also somehow deeper than that), and these “rules” are revealed by questions. chief among them: is it True? does it bring life? aren’t there plumblines for this? isn’t it [christ's] justice and righteousness? it’s certainly an interesting question to pose.while discernment may sometimes bypass one’s intellect, i think it will ultimately become clear why you [spiritually] discerned what you did. and that will be discovered by the fruit (or not) of your actions (or non-actions). maybe that’s why it seems tied in with faith. trusting that you’re hearing from G-d on that subject/ situation, and willing to submit to that. maybe that’s why the results (i.e. fruits) of discernment often unfold over time, and extend over time.
i think it was eliot who said, “where is the wisdom we’ve lost in knowledge?”
i say, “where is the discernment we’ve lost in our exercise of freedom?”
and now i’m preaching (ranting)…
April 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
a quick little heads up —
the latest issue of geez is entitled:
“art in an age of brutality”
hmmm…
April 13th, 2008 at 9:54 am
(fyi — i’m posting this here rather than the forum, which seems to be about a more personal response to the process of discernment while looking and making). i did a little compare/ contrast word study on phil 4.8 and 1 cor 12.10 (i used my strong’s, thayer’s, vine’s and kittel in case you’re wondering) and here’s what i found:
Philippians 4.8 - Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Whatsoever things really means “as much as” or “as long as” things are ____ think on these things. There’s also the sense that the text could read, “if any [man’s] things are”…
“Think” here is the Greek term logizomai, which means to take an inventory, i.e. to estimate (lit. and fig.). It involves deliberation, judgement, a reckoning. Much of the commentary around Philippians 4.8 revolves around the fact that this is about character and conduct as much as things. Therefore, this is a practical consideration that leads to action. The ideas require an actual response. As a concluding phrase, this can also be stated as “make those things the subjects of your thoughtful consideration”.
So here’s the list of what we need to consider about “things”:
1. True (alethes) – the Greek literally means not concealing. There is also the sense that it conforms to the facts or reality. Truthfulness/ nonconcealment is the core idea, with a secondary association of being authentic or genuine.
2. Honest (semnos) – this is actually a very poor translation of the Greek, which denotes something venerable, honourable, nobly serious, or august. It’s about those things that are worthy of respect. It can refer to objects that are majestic or sublime, but also subjects that are serious and solemn (though not necessarily severe). There is the sense of ”weight”, or import(ance).
3. Just (dikaios) – literally means equitable (in character or act). The implication is that of innocence (from dike – “rightness”, justice). The underlying idea is that things are in order, and therefore fitting.
4. Pure (hagnos) – this is derived from hagios – awe-full, sacred i.e. physically and morally blameless, consecrated. It denotes something clean i.e. innocent. Originally, the term referred to those things which awaken awe.
5. Lovely (prosphiles) – literally friendly towards, or acceptable; that which is pleasing, agreeable.
6. Good report (euphemos) – literally, well-spoken of, and also reputable. It denotes speaking well of something, and therefore avoiding speaking ill i.e. finding the good in things.
7. Virtue (arete) – properly, it means manliness, or valour i.e. excellence (whether intrinsic or attributed). It is derived from arsan – male, implying strength.
8. Praise (epainos) – laudation, concretely, a commendation. It indicates vindication, rather than reward.
1 Corinthians 12.10 – “discerning of spirits”
Discerning (diakrisis) – denotes a judicial estimation. It is derived from diakrino – to separate thoroughly; to discriminate i.e. to decide. Various parallels include separation, distinction, strife, appraisal, and exposition. There is the sense that the process involves work and judgement.
Spirits (pneuma) – breath or air. It implies the spirit, or life; the vital principle, or [mental] disposition. In context, the phrase states that there is a distinguishing, a clear discrimination, which involves judging by the evidence.
to start, the passage in philippians addresses aesthetic considerations, but it also addresses content. in fact, i would suggest that it addresses content (character?) far more than appearance. and i think it suggests that the fruit borne by any “thing” is as important a consideration as well. philippians is a practical exercise in descernment and having the mind of christ i.e. exercising wisdom.
to be honest, as much as we may want to spiritualize the 1 cor passage, it seems that discernment is an ongoing and constant [spiritual] activity in our lives. it seems to me that we are supposed to be maturing and growing in wisdom, having the mind (and eyes? and ears? and mouth? and hands?) of christ, filled with the spirit who is teaching about all things and guiding us, and being transformed by the renewing of our minds. we should be exercising [spiritual] discernment all the time. what i see in 1 cor 12.10 is that there are times when the spirit gives us an added (deeper?) recognition of the source of something. i’m assuming that’s when we are unable to determine that on our own - when the source is so hidden that we can be deceived about it. for the most part, however, i think the 1 cor passage simply denotes that sometimes there is a little extra “oomph” on that discernment we are supposed to be exercising as a matter of course. but then, i’m no theologian.
thoughts?
April 13th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
one more thing — it seems to me that the assumption is that first we need to determine if, in fact, any of these aspects are present or discernible. if they are, then we are to reflect upon them. this requires time, effort, knowledge and engagement…
April 14th, 2008 at 7:42 am
April 14th, 2008 at 7:56 am
So, I think those terms mean more than just “nice” or “not offensive”. They seem to be deeper elements than that, and certainly terms that require thought (and “discernment”).
I guess my question is, if we were to take the scripture first and try and conform our lives to it, rather than take our experience and try and conform the scripture to it, wouldn’t our most obvious reaction be to stay away of a lot of the work that we justify engaging in?
Things can be argued to be “true” or “noble” on a deeper level perhaps, but is a better mode for the follower of Christ to steer clearer than that and engage with what is most obviously fitting with Phil 4:8, rather than watching what we want (I am coming at this from a film perspective, and music, as those are the two arts I engage with most), and then saying, “how can this fit in with Phil 4:8″? I can find some of these characteristics in a lot of work that I don’t think really applies (ie. it may be honest, but it is certainly not noble or praiseworthy).
Conversely, there are certainly pieces that are tame enough, but not really true or noble. So I do think we need to think more deeply than basic moral purity. But really, taking this verse at face value, should we be watching, viewing, reading, listening to half of what we do? I am not saying this from a holier-than-thou stance, but as someone who wrestles with these things myself. I’d love to hear “whatever is honest”.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am
true enough. i struggle with that too sometimes. i wonder how much my past “allows” me to watch or listen to much creative work that many other christians don’t. then again, i have a firm conviction that, as part of where i’m called to and what i’m called to do, there is a reason for that ability to engage with those things. of course, i need to exercise wisdom and discernment, and there are definitely times when the spirit lets me know i’m not being wise and that i need to extricate myself from whatever i’m engaging with (whether film, music, art). i’m too easily seduced by images and ideas, i admit. then again, i don’t trust surfaces - i think much “religious” art (like the stuff you find at many christian bookstores) is as heinous as more graphic work by non-christian artists. that’s because the ideas presented are as damaging to truth and health.
“If we were to take the scripture first and try and conform our lives to it, rather than take our experience and try and conform the scripture to it, wouldn’t our most obvious reaction be to stay away [from] a lot of the work that we justify engaging in?”
well…that IS the question, isn’t it? for us more liberal creative types, anyway. so let’s follow that up with another quewstion. beyond this section of scripture, what are the reasons we should avoid the problematic work? are there results (or fruit) that we should note? i think that there is a very real sense of watching and judging what the fruit of engagement is. so let’s take a look at the scripture, and its conytxt, and see how that affects our lives.
the problem is that “what is most obviously fitting” is about appearances and surfaces and G-d is about deeper things than that. even with a more ‘liberal’ or fluid stance we still can’t watch whatever we want. we never could. or at least we CAN but it may be in disobedience or not to our benefit - that whole “all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful” thing.
i’m not sure if phil 4.8 is a comprehensive checklist. it’s not “if a thing is true and honest (or honourable - see above) and just and pure and lovely and of good report and virtuous (or excellent - again, see above) and praiseworthy” - it’s a consideration of any of these aspects. that being said, there is no doubt in my mind that we could probably steer clear of much of what we do engage with, but perhaps that is more about redeeming the time than it being damaging. again, i think the issue is fruit - the fruitfulness of our engagement with these things (and people).