Francis Schaeffer has been, for most of my adult life, a person of considerable interest.  As a curious teen, Schaeffer introduced me to the world of reformed theology and the provided reasonable explanations to the often challenging doctrines of predestination and grace.  Even apart from his theological ideas, Schaeffer had a gift for communication; his writing is substantive yet very approachable and his various speeches are indicative of an Oxford education.  One cannot help but be reminded of CS Lewis when reading Schaeffer — their style, intellectual capacity, and heart for the Lord seem to me very similar.

Each of these traits and impressions have left me with a certain fondness for his writing.  On somewhat of a whim, I have decided to re-read through many of his books I rushed through as a high-school student and have long since forgotten.

The first of these books — or in this case a small pamphlet titled “Art & The Bible” — is an overview of Schaeffer’s understanding of Art and it’s place in the Christian worldview.  The entire first half of the book is essentially a recitation of all the references to art in the Old Testament.  Shaeffer systematically points out that much of the art God commanded of the Israelites was for purely asthetic purposes.  Schaeffer references certain elements of the Temple in particular:

Then in verses 16 and 17 [of 2 Chron 3:7]we read, “And he made chains in the oracle, and put them on the tops of the pillar; and set the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.”  Here are two free-standing collumns.  They supported no architectural weight and had no utilitarian engineering significance. They were there only because God said they should be there as a thing of beauty.

I think Shaeffer’s point here is that even in the Old Testament, God was ‘sanctifying’ “Secular art”.  Schaeffer is careful not equate “secular” art with”sacred” art, but he is very clear that art need not be sacred to have value.

After having established that secular art can be pleasing and acceptable to God (in fact, Shaeffer goes as far as to say that a work of art is “a doxology in itself”), Schaeffer then begins to establish a framework with which Christians should approach art.  His first approach: Art as Art.

You see, for Schaeffer, art has a certain intrinsic value; its worth is in the fact that it is a product of creativity and that creative impulse mirrors the character of God:

As a Christian we know why a work of art has value.  Why?  First, because a work of art is a work of creativity, and creativity has value because God is the Creator.  The first sentence in the Bible is the declaration that the Creator created… so too the first words of the prologue of the Gospel of John…

He continues:

…[I]t is part of the image of God to be creative, or to have creativity…  All people are to some degree creative.  Creativity is intrinsic to our manishness.

Schaeffer’s next framework has to do with art as worldview.  He posits that a person’s ideas are inexorably linked to their worldview (although he seems to make a certain exception for purely abstract art).  Schaeffer explains that all art uses a certain language or vocabulary that is universally understood… in many cases, the created world we In some cases this “subtext” or implicit communication is sometimes more powerful than the image itself:

When Giacometti pictures the awful alienation of man, he makes figures which are alienated, but he is still living in God’s world and is still using the common symbolic forms no matter how he distorts them.  He plays with the vocabulary, but the vocabulary is still there.  So there is a communication between Giacometti and me, a titanic communication. I can understand what he is saying and I cry.

One wonders if we all would have such strong reactions if we really understood the ‘language’ the artists are speaking.  Music has certainly had this effect on me, and perhaps art could as well if I had the training.  I suppose there is a reason we build massive monuments to house, display, and protect art… it is perhaps the purest form of communication — and therefore the most valuable.

Interestingly, Schaeffer is not at all hesitant to make astetic value judgments as to the quality and value of a particular work of art.  In fact, he puts forth several criterion by which we should judge a work of art: 1) technical excellence, 2) validity, 3) intellectual content, and 4) the integration of content and vehicle.

Technical excellence is an objective inquiry and I will not elaborate on it here.  Validity, on the other hand, is worth explaining.  To Schaeffer, a work is valid if the work in question is a natural outflow of an artists own creative ideas and philosophy.  In other words, it is valid if it is representative of an artist’s OWN creative impulse.  According to Schaeffer, “commercial art would” would be an example of art lacking in validity.  Unlike ‘pure’ art, commercial art does not require an artists’ worldview to be incorporated in the work and therefore, the work lacks the same ‘power’ it otherwise might have.  Now, I must say I’m not entirely sure I agree with Schaeffer on this point:  Whether or not the artist’s own ideas come through does not mean that there is not the communication of a worldview.  I would at least argue that a work of commercial art could communicate any philosophy to any viewer with as much effect as the artists may himself be capable of.  These creative impulses and their relation to the message is certainly an interesting aspect of the creative process, but I am not convinced on the basis of Schaeffer’s argument that there is an objective difference between the communication in each instance.

Next, Schaeffer explains how a work’s intellectual content is to be addressed:

If we stand as Christians before a man’s canvas and recognize that he is a great artist in technical excellence and validity — if in fact he is — … then we can say that his worldview is wrong.  We can judge this view on the same basis we judge the views of anybody else…

The ability to objectively assess art is pivotal for Schaeffer because he recognizes the communicative power of art – especially art meeting the aforementioned criteria.  Schaeffer recognizes that when art communicates moral principles contrary to those of scripture, these principles must be addressed from a Christian worldview:

We should realize that if something untrue or immoral is stated in great art it can be far more destructive and devastating than if it is expressed in poor art or prosaic statement.  Much of the crude art, the common product of hippie communities and the underground press, is laden with destructive messages, but the art is so poor that it does not have much force.  But the greater the artistic expression, the more important it is to consciously bring it and its worldview under the judgment of Christ and the Bible.

Finally, Schaeffer distinguishes technical excellence and message from style.  To Schaeffer, “there is no such thing as a godly syle or an ungodly style”.  In fact, he sees the use of modern style as an imperative for the Christian artist.  He is very explicit on this point:

Christian art today should be twentieth-ctentury art.  Art changes, Language changes… [I]f a Christian’s art is not twentieth-century art, it is an obstacle to his being heard. It makes him different in a way in which there is no necessity for difference.

But Schaeffer is careful to provide one important guideline:

“we must use twentieth-century styles [but] must not use them in such a way as to be donimated by the world views out of which they have arisen.

This is a really interesting thought, but I cannot help but to read it without some degree of criticism.  Is a piece of art valueable only because of its message?  Schaeffer himself says that art has value as aesthetic expression alone… would it then be inappropriate for a Christian to paint a still-life with techniques popularized in the 1800′s? — styles which are still displayed in museums to this very day?  Perhaps Schaeffer means to imply that art created with the purpose of communicating a christian worldview should be expressed in a manner designed to be as clear as possible to its audience… and purely aesthetic art need not meet the same criteria.

Schaeffer presents an interesting and helpful introduction to art from a Christian perspective.  Short enough to be finished in a day, it is certainly worth your time should you want to broaden your framework on Christ and the arts.

On Critics:

• I love criticism just so long as it’s unqualified praise. – Noel Coward
• Any fool can criticize, and many of them do. – C. Garbett
• Critics are probably more prone to cliches than fiction writers who pluck things out of the air. – Penelope Gilliatt
• Criticism is prejudice made plausible – H.L. Mencken

On the Creative Arts / Fashion:

• Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. – Bill Vaughan
• On Miniskirts – Never in the history of fashion has so little material been raised so high to reveal so much that needs to be covered so badly.  – Sir Cecil Beaton
• A Dress has no purpose unless it makes a man want to take it off. – Francoise Sagan
• If you have to talk about fashion, then you are not in it – Michaele Vollbracht.
• There will be little change in men’s pockets this year. – Wall Street Journal (1948)

On Modern Art:

• Modern art is when you buy a picture to cover a hole in the wall and then decide the hole looks much better.
• the more minimal the art the more maximum the explanation.
• How vain painting is — we admire the realistic depiction of objects which in their original state we don’t admire at all – Blaise Pascal
• Everyone wants to understand painting.  Why don’t they try to understand the singing of the birds?  People love the night, a flower, everything which surrounds them without trying to understand them.  But painting — that they must understand. – Pablo Picasso
• This is either a forgery or a damn clever original – Frank Sullivan

On Literature:

• There is one good kind of writer — a dead one.  – James T. Farrell.
• Literature is mostly about having sex, and not much about having babies;  life is the other way round. - David Lodge
• An optimist is one who believes everything he reads on the jacket of a new book.

On Drama / Plays:

• I don’t like propaganda in the theater unless it is disguised so brilliantly that the audience mistakes it for entertainment. - Noel Coward
• Opening night is the night before the play is ready to open – George Jean Nathan
• A playwright is a lay preacher peddling the ideas of his time in popular form – August Strindberg.

On Film / Acting:

• The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder. – Alfred Hitchcock
• The words “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang,” which I saw on an Italian movie poster, are perhaps the briefest statement imaginable of the basic appeal of the movies. – Pauline Kael
• Hollywood – a town that has to be seen to be disbelieved – Walter Winchell
• A celebrity is a person whose name is in everything except the phone directory
• A celebrity is a person who works hard all his life to become well-known, and then wears dark glasses to avoid being recognized. - Fred Allen

On the Media:

• Newspaper strikes are a relief – Princess Anne
• Journalism is the only job that requires no degrees, no diplomas, and no specialized knowledge of any kind. – Patrick Campbell
• People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with the news. – A.J. Liebling
• Freedom of the press is guaranteed to those who own one. - A.J. Liebling
• If you read alot of books, you’re considered well read.  But if you watch a lot of TV, you’re not considered well viewed.

On Politics:

• Politics is the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
• If God had been a Liberal, we wouldn’t have the Ten Commandments — We’d have the Ten Suggestions – Malcom Bradbury
• What the liberal really wants is to bring about change which will not in any way endanger his position. – Stokely Carmichael.
• Fascism is Capitalism in decay – Nikolai Lenin
• Congress is so strange.  A man gets up to speak and says nothing.  Nobody listens — and then everybody disagrees. – Boris Marshalov

On the Sexes:

• What men desire is a virgin who is a whore - Edward Dahlberg
• A woman reading ‘Playboy’ feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual – Gloria Steinem

The first of these books is called “The Quest for Cosmic Justice” by Thomas Sowell.  Described by David Mammet (screenwriter, playright, director) as “Our greatest living philosopher”, Sowell certainly challenges all who read him and is exacerbates those who don’t.  His book explores the causes of (and failures that result from) a vision of justice held by many on the left — a vision dominated by what Sowell refers to as a pursuit “cosmic” (as opposed to traditional)  justice.  Cosmic, in this instance, refers to a desire to rectify inherent or “natural” inequalities. Sowell puts it this way:

Traditional justice can be mass-produced by impersonal prospective rules governing the interactions of flesh-and-blood human beings, but cosmic injustice must be hand-made by holders of power who impose their own decisions on how these flesh-and-blood individuals should be categorized into abstractions and how these abstractions should then be forcibly configured.

For Sowell, these inequalities are not necessarily desirable, but are realities caused by far more complicated circumstances than any politician can fully understand — or fully prepare for.  Sowell points to scores of examples including welfare, poverty, usually made worse by the policies of the self-appointed elite.

We must begin with the universe that we are born into and weigh the costs of making any specific change in it to achieve a specific end.  We cannot simply “do something” whenever we are morally indignant, while distaining to consider the costs entailed…

What, after all, is an injustice but the arbitrary imposition of a cost– whether economic, psychic, or other–on an innocent person?  And if correcting this injustice imposes another arbitrary cost on another innocent person, is that not also an injustice?

As soon as one starts asking whether the costs to one segment of society outweigh the costs to another segment, the process of creating “cosmic justice” becomes nothing more than a crude balancing of the equities, a fight for federal dollars — a corrupting process that almost never provides real relief.  In fact, the pursuit of social justice is not necessarily even an appropriate term:

In pursuit of justice for a segment of society, in disregard for society as a whole, what is called “social justice” might more accurately be called anti-social justice, since what consistently gets ignored or dismissed are precisely the costs to society.

The Quest for Cosmic Justice is not a learned treatice by any stretch of the imagination, it is in many ways a series of simple explanations about why social justice fails… and how we should approach issues of inequity instead of an analysis OF inequity.  Even so, I think what is so important about the book is the categorical framework Sowell suggests: Social justice is really anti-social justice, cosmic justice has nothing to do with “justice” at all but is instead the re-distribution of wealth to fix natural inequalities.  Conservative need to start approaching the world through the filter of these concepts… and hopefully we will convince others to do the same.

Allow me to begin this discussion by first complimenting Ms. Wolf. First, she just looked great during that interview. I was all about that red thing she was wearing (but I digress!). In all seriousness, I think this book is a valuable addition to the discussion and brings an important (albeit selective) historical context to modern politics. At the risk of cliche, I would remind you that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. By reminding us of the evils of history Ms Wolf is, shockingly enough, being helpful… and I wish to encourage this kind of behavior.

This being said, I think it is fair to say that Ms Wolf’s conclusions are lacking… in any number of ways. It isn’t that she is always wrong, but that her foundational history is in many cases only loosely connected with modern practice. She begins with an assumption of guilt (primarily with the Bush administration… many times implying he is a ‘wannabe’ despot), finds similar parallels to dictators with completely different motivations and purposes, and then imputes those motives to Bush because factual circumstances were the same. Although a stretch, in some cases I found myself thinking that if two people washed their laundry, that would be enough for her to draw a comparison. I am, of course, exaggerating; but I do so to point out that to end one’s analysis at factual similarities without further analysis can lead to very irrational conclusions.

I wish to address some of these loose associations and provide a greater historical context for many of the points she makes. First, let us examine this list of steps:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a prison system outside the rule of law
3. Develop an unregulated paramilitary
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens’ groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. “Dissent = Treason”
10. Suspend the Rule of Law

As an initial matter, this is a great list. Nazi Germany during World War II is easily implicated in all of these steps… as was the Soviet Union (and even modern-day Russia). Naomi references a few more examples I am not quite as familiar with… but I wouldn’t doubt her history is accurate.

She discusses in great length in the youtube clip the first 4 elements, beginning with the first–where a would-be despot invokes a terrifying threat. This first argument immediately raises the problems I have already mentioned. The fact that any ruler/despot/president invokes a threat does not itself, without any other context, mean that that particular country is on the verge of loosing freedoms. In fact, it would seem to me that leaders ignorant or unwilling to acknowledge such threats would be equally at risk for loosing the very freedoms they supposedly champion by non-invocation. Would anyone claim that Churchill or Roosevelt was a would-be-despot by calling a spade (i.e. Nazi Germany) a spade? In fact, Neville Chamberlin’s refusal to invoke Germany as the threat it was… is what caused the German threat to be even stronger then it would otherwise have been–almost resulting in Britain’s defeat. This “judging solely on the facts” causes Naomi to conclude that Bush is a despot when such facts can go both ways.

For example, when Bush invokes radical islamists or the threat of a nuclear Iran, he is warning the free world about very real threats… not some made-up boogyman. Radical islamists REALLY attacked us on 9/11 and crippled the United States economy for a couple of years. They had similar plans to blow up the freedom tower in Los Angeles and have been attacking US troops in Iraq for the past 5 years. We can ignore these threats… avoid dealing with them, or we can address them in public, in the arena of political debate (which is what the Bush administration has done)–or worse: adopt a covert policy of assassination and secret deals). Any leader (i.e. Obama) who does not take these real dangers seriously risks the very freedoms supposedly at stake when their danger is “invoked”. While I understand her concern… I believe that her concern over the Bush administration’s “invoking problem” is misplaced.

Secondly, she discusses the existence of a prison system “outside the rule of law”. Obviously, Guantanamo is the example of this kind of system that can be so dangerous. Furthermore, in many occasions, she references the founding fathers and how this very deprival of due process is exactly what the founding fathers meant to avoid with the bill of rights. This is all well and good-no doubt my readers have read the 5th amendment – but this statement is an incomplete analysis of the bill of rights AND the desires of the founding fathers.

As an initial matter, George Washington used military tribunals in the Revolutionary War. “How can this be!”, you ask? Well, that’s exactly the point; in fact, military tribunals have been used in almost every military conflict the United States has ever engaged in. To say that this was somehow against the wishes of the founding fathers is… well… factually unsound. Additionally, it is not entirely proper to say that war prisoners have no due process rights. While they do not have the same rights of process we enjoy as non-combatants, they do have process… it is just a different process tailored to the needs of the military. In fact, even U.S. military personnel do not have “due process” under the common sense of the term… they are subject to military courts’ jurisdiction under the UCMJ. Now, it is one thing to argue why military combatants should enjoy the same rights as you and I… it is an entirely different thing to say that they have no due process rights… or that they should have MORE than even US military personnel.

Now, this isn’t to say that there is not some danger should these tribunals… and that they could be used for ill purposes. I agree with her in the sense that these must subject to strict scrutiny should they overstep their bounds. However, to view Bush’s military tribunals as some sign of impending catastrophe–tribunals that have been subject to congressional oversight and supreme court review–is simply irrational given our country’s history. For crying out loud, we interned 110,000 Japanese Americans during WWII! Get a sense of perspective! Freedom’s scope fluctuates with the circumstances… and America has always emerges from troubled times with their sense of freedom intact–often expanding it when it no longer feels threatened. To end one’s analysis at “we match a bullet on a checklist” without examining how America reacts and self-corrects it’s own arguably authoritarian policies of history is to create a sense of irrational fear.

During the discussion of due process rights I believe she went a little off track discussing the suppression of free speech. Don’t take me wrong, I’m as big an advocate of free political speech as anybody… Although I can’t recall ever writing as much on this blog, I find the McCain-Feingold legislation an untenable impingement on freedom of speech–precisely because it desires to stifle political speech. I share her concern; but if the best example she can cite is the “don’t taze me bro!” guy… then it is safe to say we have nothing to fear (wasn’t he speaking at a Kerry rally?). In fact, I would argue that the modern media has never been so open and critical as it is today. In fact, papers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have leaked national security secrets–in violation of the espionage acts…(i.e. they broke the law)–without as much as a finger lifted by the justice department. That’s right; even “free speech” that is illegal (not all free speech is “free”, after all)… is still allowed by a president she so fears. (One wonders if she uses this fact to criticize the president for undermining the “rule of law”. Snap!)

Next, she discusses Backwater and the implications of a para-military force. Allow me to loosely quote some excerpts from the interview…

Tomorrow we could wake up and see backwater guarding the state house… backwater menacing congress-people. there is nothing we can do to prevent this… The founders knew how intimidating it is… to have a standing army that is not accountable to the people… That’s why we have the second amendment that says you can’t have a standing army that’s not accountable to the people. We could find ourselves waking up looking at mercenary forces outside our door… we could wake up and find out our kids stuff has been gone through by agents of the state.

I must say, I tend to agree with her as a general matter. I’m not sure what Blackwater does that cannot also be accomplished by U.S. military personnel. Their existence and employment is probably a point of valid concern. If there are indeed powers given the president to use para-military forces in the united states, it should certainly be something to debate within a free society. However, in examining her point, I found, yet again, a lack of desperately-needed context. For example, the bill of rights, particularly the 4th amendment, does not guarantee our houses will never be searched. It is ONLY a right (with an associated remedy), NOT a guarantee of state inaction. Rights exist so that there is something to claim should they be violated. We are at just as much risk of a local law enforcement agency, the FBI, or any other government agent violating our privacy rights than a para-military force… but yet Ms Wolf isn’t concerned at all about the threat a misinformed police officer poses–even though such action is a much more direct, immediate likelihood (I use likelihood in the loosest sense of the term). When the state (or an agent thereof) acts contrary to the constitution, we can challenge this in court and win! A para-military force is not alone a danger… it is only when such force cannot be challenged in court that such a force becomes a danger.

Perhaps I’ve been too harsh… I cannot emphasize enough the fact that I enjoyed listening to the interview and thought she had some excellent points… but when my analytical mind gets going… sometimes it goes overboard. Let me know what YOU think.

The book’s basic outline is well constructed.  First, D’souza systematically questions many of the “new Athiesm’s” presuppositions about Christianity.  He points out that Christianity, far from causing the moral tragedies of the modern world… has, in fact, been the changing force that helped overcome these very moral travesties.  For example, Christianity lifted women out of the second-class status Roman society had imposed upon them; it was the impetus for the great artists of our time: Michalengelo, Da Vinchi, Mozart, Bach, Handel… etc… ; it helped create the concept of western government — a concept based around the Christian principle that society must fight against the inherent sinful nature of man and must keep leader’s actions in check.  These are but a few of Christianity’s contributions to world history…  

D’souza then calls Athiesm out — asking it to provide the same answers it chides Christianity for failing to answer.  When tragedy happens, Where is Atheism?  Atheism cannot console the victims of tradgey… nor can it condemn the aggressor.  When Athiest rulers murder millions of their subjects… where is Athiesm’s defense (or apology?).  When Athiesm claims rationality as their trump card… on what basis can they claim that rationality alone provides all answers?  For all it’s proponents, Athiesm still has much to account for.

What’s So Great About Christianity may be the best piece of Christian apologetics in the past decade;  don’t pass it up!