Philippians 4:8 and Evaluating Art

Philippians 4:8 says this:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of respect, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if something is excellent or praiseworthy, think about these things. (NETBible).

This is a verse which can and should guide us in the evaluation of art - literature, film, visual - and all of life for that matter.

Alan Noble has an interesting post up over at Christ and Pop Culture wherein he suggests that some of our well-known Christian film critics lift one element of that verse out and make it the litmus test for films, while ignoring others.  He says that these folks tend to be very conscious to evaluate film on the basis of purity, but in regards to truth, respect, just-ness, loveliness and commendability - well, not so much.

I'll just come right out and say that I think he is spot on, but I want to point out one particular point he makes that challenges my own thinking.  I think he makes the point well, but I don't know if I'm 100% sold yet and would love it if we could get some discussion going on this.

I have come to evaluate movies in terms of their redemptive value - good movies have redemptive themes and I look for those themes.  He also mentions the common Christian view that good should triumph over evil - if a movie portrays this then it is better. 

But Alan doesn't think this is required for film to be considered good or for it to conform to Biblical principles. 

But this raises the questions, in what way is the theme of redemption the only judge of aesthetic excellence and should we try to convince filmmakers that these kinds of films ought to be made because they are profitable?

To answer the first question we should look to the Old Testament. Even a cursory reading of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes makes evident a common truth in the Old Testament: the world is unjust. The unrighteous rule, gain wealth, and go unpunished, while the righteous are abused and go unavenged. The Bible gives us no hope for true justice in this life. To demand that all films show good triumphing over evil, or justice over injustice is to go beyond the Bible and lie about the fundamental nature of the world. When Baehr argues that a movie is only good if it properly contains these themes, he either shows an ignorance of the Old Testament, or he is advocating art as pure escapism. While watching a hero win out against incredible odds is uplifting, to claim that any other plot structure is unbiblical and unworthy of praise is nonsense. It is precisely a world where the unjust currently go unpunished that Christ came to save: a fallen world.

A few thoughts come to mind here by way of interaction.  The Bible is one story and we know the end.  Yes, there are stories within the story in the Bible, just as there are subplots within literature and film that serve the main plot.  With the Bible being one story, we know the end is redemptive, good wins over evil, justice triumphs, etc. etc..  Yes, there are many stories in the Bible where justice doesn't prevail, where evil triumphs over good.  I think of the book of Judges in particular.  Yet, the book of Judges does not stand on it's own in the Bible.  We understand Judges in light of the book of Revelation (and the rest of the bible for that matter).  There is one who comes to undo all of the bad that happens in the book of Judges. 

Alan's argument works here - the redemptive themes are less in the book of Judges but the book of Judges does portray the world as it is, and thus portrays truth.  But it is truth in the context of a larger redemptive truth.

But having said that I would argue against myself as follows.  I would say "look Jolly, you have just added another criteria to the evaluation of art - not only must art be judged in terms of truth, respect, just-ness, purity, loveliness and commendability - it must now be judged in terms of it's eschatological purity."  "Jolly, you are saying that for art to be good or 'biblical' (whatever that means) it is insufficient to portray the world as it is (in a lovely, truthful, just, pure, etc. fashion), you must also portray the world as it will be in the consummation - that's asking a bit much dontcha think?"

So, I leave it to you gentle readers - which side of my schizophrenic personality is right here?  Are both wrong, are both kind of right and kind of wrong?  Do I need to tap into a few of my other multiple personalities to find out which way is best here?

And while you are giving me some therapy don't forget to read the whole of Alan's post, and particularly his three suggestions at the end for the application of Philippians 4:8.

Comments

[tigerbotedge]

Off-hand, I'm inclined to agree with Alan. One of the themes that keeps coming up in C.S. Lewis' works (e.g., The Problem of Pain, Mere Christianity) is how pain and injustice served to stir up discontent in Lewis' heart at the rationalism of his age: if there is no God and there are no absolute values, why do we recoil so violently against suffering and injustice?

As an English major in college, I once had to read Toni Morrison's fabulous book The Bluest Eye--which I CANNOT in good conscience recommend to anyone with a frail constitution! The book has no real redemption whatsoever, but it invokes a yearning for redemption, a sense that there MUST BE something better than what we have here that explains why our stomachs churn and protest at abuse and injustice. Indeed, reading the novel in class gave me an excellent opportunity to share with others my own view of suffering in the light of Isaiah 53 and Romans 3:21-26.

One of Rutherford's favorite images (or perhaps this is one I'm gathering from Streams in the Desert) is the notion of the gems of God's Truth glistening most beautifully against a backdrop of darkness...it seems to me that a film can serve to sow discontent with the world as it is, and that affords Christians an excellent opportunity to think harder about Biblical truth for themselves and to enter into conversations with others that give them a chance to bear a strong and fruitful witness for the Truth.

[Keith Schooley]

Hi David,

Looks like we English majors may end up ganging up on you! I think it's a mistake to evaluate art by any single criterion, whether it be moral purity, or redemptive themes, or eschatalogical purity. Frankly, a lot of movies that are extolled as having great Christian values end up looking saccharine. The idea that "good triumphs over evil" is not the only way--perhaps not even the best way--to make a positive moral point. It essentially cuts tragedy out of the canon of acceptable art forms, replacing it with melodrama.

But take a tragedy like Othello. Nothing redemptive here. Both Othello and Desdemona lie dead in the end. But what a powerful way of demonstrating the folly of giving into violent jealousy, of listening to those who want to feed into our worst impulses, and of not being willing to forgive Desdemona's supposed unfaithfulness. Sometimes the most powerful message is the one that is not said: what if Othello had been willing to forgive, or at least to give Desdemona the benefit of the doubt? Would Othello have been a better play if in the end he had done so? It might have been more "redemptive," or "family friendly," but it would have undercut the entire point.

Another point is that we should be wary of redemptive themes when there is no Redeemer present. In Spider-Man 3, Peter gets rid of the black suit in a church. Nice. But then it turns out that giant wind chimes will do the trick just as well as a church bell. The biblical message is that good triumphs over evil only because of the hand of God at work. The idea that good inherently triumphs over evil is positively dangerous. Just be a good person, like Peter Parker, and everything will turn out okay. Pelagius would have approved.

(By the way, I actually liked Spider-Man 3. But on an aesthetic level, not because I think it represents good Christian family values.)

[Ben Bartlett]

Hey David,

I write for Christ and Pop Culture as well, and I'm going to do a post that focuses a little more closely on Phil. 4:8. Thanks for interacting with our thoughts on this issue! I can't speak for the other guys, but in my case Leland Ryken has had some strong influence on my views. As he tells it, a piece of art (even a movie) is pointing to a particular "snapshot" of truth... not all truth, just a picture of one aspect of it. Our job is to ask, "how closely does this correspond to God's truth?", but not necessarily to demand that every snapshot take in all of the entire story.

We're doing a bunch of posts on this topic in the weeks to come, so stay tuned!

Ben