I actually have two things in mind. First, the proponents of theme-less fiction or at best unintentional themes, say that God receives glory because of the artistic quality of the work.
I take issue with that position on several levels. First, when Scripture talks about beauty, the passage that some use as a proof text to support the idea of art intrinsically glorifying God actually says nothing of the kind. I’m referring to the passage in Exodus where Moses receives instructions for the building of the tabernacle and making the priestly garments: “You shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty” (Ex. 28:2)
Clearly, the holy garments served the purpose of glorifying God but they were also to be beautiful. In other words, they were functional and artistic. Their God-glorifying capacity didn’t arise from their beauty. Otherwise, I suspect the golden calf mentioned some chapters later would have been classified as God-glorifying instead of idolatrous.
I also take issue with the position that theme-less stories will glorify God by their artistic merit. I do not believe that theme-less stories are artistic.
When a theme is well-crafted, it is woven into the fabric of a story in such a way that the reader is not clubbed over the head. At the same time, if someone asks what the author was saying, most readers will be able to give their own version of the author’s vision. It’s not a secret, not so subtle as to be missed.
Non-Christians who did not recognize the Christian symbolism in Narnia nevertheless understood Lewis was saying sacrifice triumphs over evil.
A true artist will handle theme in such a way as to preserve and protect it while enhancing it all along the way. It needs a gentle hand and firm intention, subtle strokes and adept suggestions.
Stories with Something To Say take thought and care and planning and patience and … artistic skill. They are more than paint on a canvas. They become pictures that convey life and truth and yes, beauty.
![PowerElementsCharacterDevelopment[1000][1]](https://rebeccaluellamiller.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/powerelementscharacterdevelopment10001.jpg?w=205)
A Christian Worldview of Fiction 
The “true artist” ::nodding:: yep, that’s where the rubber hits the road. Many writers come from a tradition of illustrative sermons where handling theme gently and subtly is not something their audiences would expect. It’s as if they want that tiny bow at the end to finalize the story and to have the aha moment that happens at the end of sermons. Or else they simply don’t trust their readers to figure the theme out. And often their stories are preachy because there’s a heavy legalistic streak (although these writers say they are writing the gospel) they are so focused on good and evil that a story becomes totally polemical and judgmental. And their stories simply do not breathe.
I doubt many Christian writers are true artists because there’s an element in storytelling of letting go of what one knows about sin, evil, etc. Very few are willing to do that because they write in order to teach. -C
LikeLike
Carole, I have to assume by your final two sentences that you haven’t read much Christian fiction in recent years. There are so many novels and authors now that blow up these particular sentences like a flame near a powder keg.
LikeLike
I can understand where you’re coming from, but I have to somewhat disagree. I think while that expressing truth is good, I don’t think it needs to always be planned out that way. I recently read “addicted to mediocrity” by Franky Shaffer (a very good read, the author is son of Christian apologist Francis Shaffer). His main point is that as creations of a creative God we can praise God by showing the wonder of his creation. One quote I thought was particularity good was by Martin Luther (paraphrasing since I don’t have the book in front of me) “A cobbler can praise God by honestly making a good pair of shoes.”
LikeLike
This is a very thought provoking post as usual, Becky. I hesitate to agree with the previous comment, because it quotes Franky Shaeffer who is a very foolish man in my opinion, but I do think beauty alone can be a theme in the sense that it can speak of God.
You mentioned the priestly garments. Let me refer to Francis Schaeffer, the unfortunate Franky’s brilliant father. In Francis’s little book ART & THE BIBLE, he too points to Exodus, but he draws a different conclusion. Here’s a quote: “The temple was covered with precious stones FOR BEAUTY. There was no utilitarian purpose. God simply wanted beauty in the temple. God is interested in beauty.” (emphasis Schaeffer’s).
The central premise of Francis Schaeffer’s book–that art is good and glorifies God–is based on the idea that God is beautiful in the same way He is love. “From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth.” (Ps 50:2 NIV) Therefore to create beauty is to honor the God of beauty just as loving one’s neighbor honors the God of love.
But you speak here of “Christian symbolism,” and in that area, we agree. While I do think a beautiful novel can glorify God without any conscious attention paid to theme, I don’t think we could call a novel “Christian fiction” simply because it’s beautiful. Christian fiction by definition must have something of Christ in it, the specific second person of the Trinity, not simply something of the Godhead. One need not be a Christian to write a beautiful novel. So your point about the necessity of theme in addition to beauty makes sense to me within the context of Christian fiction…just not within the larger context of all literature. I think God can be glorified by things which are made for beauty only, with no subtext of theme intended . . . or again, one might say beauty sometimes IS a theme, and a divinely inspired one at that.
But we must remember Lucifer means “light bringer.” They say Satan is beautiful. So not all beauty is good, and not all beauty honors the God of beauty. As Jesus taught us in his Sermon on the Mount, everything depends on motivation. Perhaps therein lies a vital distinction. Beauty that is consciously created to glorify God can therefore stand alone with no additional attention paid to theme, whereas beauty created merely for beauty’s sake can go either way depending on the artist’s motivation, and a third class of beauty can actually serve evil if deliberately created with that intention. Again, motivation is the critical difference.
Thanks again for opening this topic to discussion, Becky. I so appreciate your striving to explore these things, and inspiring me to think.
Athol
LikeLike