[This is a response to Lauren F. Winner's article "The Art Patron" from "For the Beauty of the Church" Baker Books 2010 - available by clicking the title above.]
Biblical Economics: What Does God Value
What is Economics? Is it about interest rates, percentages, buying and selling? No, it isn’t any of those things. It is about behavior. At its core, it is a philosophy of human action. Personally, I get the most use out of the Subjective Theory of Value which states: Value is subjective.1 Perceived importance, value and meaning by the individual is what drives buying and selling. Commercials exist to make the consumer discontent and desire their product. This is done by assigning to it a value. In my sales training through Xerox (considered one of the best) value comes from three things: Time, Image, and Money. But, these things are in the secular realm. Some of them are, indeed, considerations of the Christian, but ultimately, to the Christian, the question is: “What does God value?” The first rule of Economics still applies, but the measure is the subjectivity of God, himself as revealed in His scriptures.
I was genuinely excited to read Lauren F. Winner’s article “The Art Patron”. I love art. I have quite a bit in my home. Some of it I’ve purchased and some of it I’ve created. To me, art has value. I was anxious to study about those of us who purchase art and how it relates to the church, faith, and whatever the article would say that I hadn’t yet considered.
It didn’t take very long, however, for me to become irritated. Not at Ms. Winner, but at another young lady who served as a catalyst for much of the rest of the article. Ms. Winner had purchased a nine-hundred dollar paper cutting which expressed the myriad of feelings surrounding her conversion from Judaism to Christianity. The young lady came up after a lecture and posed a question, “How in terms of Christian ethics can you justify spending that money on art when there are poor people to be fed?”
This question, to me, illustrates some of the unfortunate attitudes in Christendom about money, responsibility, and the Biblical mandates to help the poor. Yes, absolutely, all of the scriptures exhort those who have to aid those who do not. What seems to happen is that in these exhortations, the idea comes across that money is bad, that the rich are bad, and that the “haves” owe what they have to the “have-nots”. I would, and have in the past, argued that this is not what scripture says. God is not against money itself. Having and spending money is not, in itself, a sin. This is true whether or not poor people still exist.
So, I’m going address money first. Does God value money? No, of course not. Money is often considered a blessing and something with which to bless others. It is a tool. God values hearts. Money can be used in a way which honors God and it can be used in a way which does not honor God.
“But wait!” cries the dissenter. “What about the passage in Acts 4:32 where everyone sold everything they had and shared everything? And what about Ananias and Sapphira?” Those are two very good points and I’d be delighted to answer them. In the passage in Acts, all of the members of that group who sold all of their possessions, elected to do so. They were not commanded (that we know of) by the Apostles to do that. In fact, Paul says the Christian is to give from his heart and not from a sense of compulsion and that the Lord loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor. 2:9-7)
This leads right to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10) They didn’t give all they owned and they were struck dead by the Holy Spirit. If this isn’t enough evidence, then what is? A little redactive criticism and some reading of the text paints a different reason for their demise. The couple sold some (not all) of their land and promised all of the money from the sale to the church. When each of them appeared before Peter, each of them lied. The appearance of giving so generously was their ultimate goal. They were more concerned with appearances of goodness and their hearts were more concerned with money itself. This was their true sin. The lesson in this text is that no one can really ever lie to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will always know. the lesson is not about private ownership of property being, in itself, a sin. God values hearts. Christians are to submit to God’s subjectivity of value.
To be fair, the other comments by the young lady work to address the heart issue. My own offense on behalf of the author was not that a conversation about spending money was occurring; it was the tone of the inquiry. Ms. Winner relays in her article:
“She said she was disturbed by my willingness to spend that much money on a piece of art. I think that she felt I was too glib and flippant in narrating that purchase, that I hadn’t demonstrated any awareness of the privilege entailed in dropping the equivalent of two months’ rent on a piece of art.”
The young woman is not merely having an insightful conversation; she is making an accusation. While this addresses the heart issue of such a purchase, it assumes a violation of ethics in the loaded question. Ms. Winner spends the next few pages justifying her spending the money by explaining how she scrimped and saved for it; how she valued the privilege of being a patron of art. But, I propose that even if Ms. Winner did not have to scrimp for it, she is easily already justified in its ownership as long as the neither the money nor the art are objects of worship, that is to say: idols.
The next issue to tackle is: “Does God value art?” If Christians are to discover what God values, then these questions about specific areas must be investigated. This is where I really started to enjoy the article. Up until this point, I just felt sorry for Ms. Winner for having been put in this position. Now, however, I felt she was making a case for the second half of the Biblical Economics question: Does God value Art?
Ms. Winner “goes there” and I am very glad for it. As she told the story of growing up and what she valued and associated with growing up, I could identify with her having a different image of being a grown up than many. A major component was acquiring art. Like her, I grew up in a home with all different kinds of art and real collectables from all over the world. I grew up with my grandmother who, with my grandfather’s military career had seen Japan, Germany and many other places. We had great books. We had music (and the Harvard music dictionary). There were temple rubbings from India, petit point needlework from across the Iron Curtain, and on and on. When my father, brother and I moved to Ft. Kent, Maine, I was able to claim a watercolor of the steps in Jerusalem with all the faithful on their knees praying each step. I painted on my wallpaper with acrylics all the time.
In relation to art and a value to it, Ms. Winner goes to the source: the scriptures. Specifically, she goes to the Jewish Talmud. I absolutely love the examples she gives in using art to beautify and celebrate the things of God. By things in this case, she means the tools and props and locations of the act of worshipping God. All things God related are purposefully made beautiful because it honors God to have the best – the “first fruits”. (Lev. 2:12)
Now, I’m not satisfied with only this answer to the young woman at the beginning of the article. Ultimately, truly, the young woman’s question was one of money and obligation with that money. Part of the education this woman needed was that art is of value to God. Beautiful things only exist because they were first created by the Creator.
I posted the question about the value of art to God on my Facebook. I received some wonderful answers and one of the most intriguing was that when the Israelites were being punished, God removed their soldiers and their artisans. Both protection and beauty were denied to the people. (2 Kings 24:10-16)
I agree with the author that many in Christendom don’t have a value for art. (In some cases, I just don’t like their art: lots of mauve and fake flowers. Not my taste, really.) I blame John Calvin and other later reformers who felt that any image was idolatry and that to be pure, they must deny themselves this very gift. My mother-in-law was in the sanctuary of a Baptist church nearby and noted that if she didn’t already know she was in a church, she wouldn’t know she was in a church. Being a Presbyterian herself, she didn’t expect lavish decorations, just something of honor, she felt.
As I respond to each point in the article, I find that Ms. Winner is going in much the same direction as my own wandering mind: the décor at various churches. I’ve moved a great deal in my childhood and my adult life. I’ve seen many places of Christian worship (and others). Some were beautified with their woodwork such as the Second Congregationalist Church in Massachusetts where my daughter was baptized. It had those little boxes built in to the pews from the times when each one was for a specific family. The First Christian Church-Disciples of Christ in Fayetteville, Arkansas (where my grandmother lived) was originally one of the cornerstone buildings of the University of Arkansas. It has gorgeous dark woodwork and stained glass. I played handbells, clarinet and sang in that church. I was baptized in that church and both of my grandparents were buried by that church. It has become my personal ideal.
I’m also reminded as I write this of the trend now of “dressing down” at church. Now, neither this nor a plain sanctuary are sins at all. Just, I remember how I had beautiful special church-only dresses. In Tom Sawyer, his church clothes were referred to as his “other clothes” and Mark Twain even hints that Tom may have only had two outfits. But dressing in one’s best for church, for worship is also part of beauty. As a seamstress, I consider clothing as art. Whenever I cook, I consider food to be edible art. I consider home decoration, music, theatre, so many things as art. (I really do!)
As the author starts to wrap up her ideas, the unfortunate concept of art used for ill purposes… it sadly must be addressed. Suffice it to say, any art which promotes suffering and cruelty or glamorizes egregious sin is sinful.
In one more defense of art, I’d like to say something the author referenced about her papercutting. It is its own language. Art can say what words cannot. Her papercutting expressed the flood of the inexpressible in her life. On my own wall is a blind-contour drawing I made in response to Elie Weisel’s book “Night”. The drawing is of my great-grandfather who was taken away by the Nazi SS and also of his wife’s family (my great-grandmother and her brothers and sisters). I drew it in response to their experiences when faced with evil.
But also, on my walls are expressions of pure joy. I have a favorite painter and his name is David Schluss. He is Israeli; his work is done with his fingers, is cubist inspired and is of big, fat, happy, dancing people. The colors are so very bright. Almost all the paintings in my home are bright because I love life. When people are in my home, I want them to enjoy the Joie de Vivre for just a few hours at least. I want their hearts to be adorned like my walls. God made their hearts, and He also wants them to be beautiful places.
ENDNOTES:
1. 1-Subjective Theory of Value-The idea that an object's value is not inherent, and is instead worth more to different people based on how much they desire or need the object. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subjective-theory-of-value.asp#axzz1QEDnxUrK
