Part One – Part Two – Part Three

Are Christians who watch Marvel movies endangering their eternal souls? What about those who watch The Lone Ranger, Merrie Melodies, or Cuties? However innocent or repulsive, these works of art were made by imperfect men and are therefore imperfect in beauty, goodness, and truth. Each could be more factually correct. Each could be more morally staunch. Each could be more aesthetically excellent. Further, by name or by category, Godly men have warned the church against such works. Because the art carries an imperfect message, the argument generally runs, to view it is to compromise one’s own soul. Most, nowadays, are fine with Merrie Melodies (for children) or The Lone Ranger, apart from concerns about screen time. Conversely, only the most radical will justify watching pedophilia-apology like Cuties for enjoyment or spiritual benefit. Clearly a line exists, a standard, voiced or unvoiced (for even silence is a judgement). The question, then, is where the line lays- for complete abnegation of art would rule out the Psalms, a clear non-starter. The Biblical course, which is meet for all men, is to assess the costs and benefits of the art to the soul, approaching the art as art only when the benefits of such outweigh the costs for the particular person and circumstance.

Before the standard can be formed, two terms must be defined: ‘art’ and ‘approaching art as art.’ Fundamentally, art is the result of a creating person. The artistic act, most easily seen by man’s cloudy eyes in other men, finds its origin in God, the Supreme Artist, particularly His creation of the world in the first two chapters of Genesis and in His creation of the Scriptures (Lee 2:40; Van Til 62, 107). In men, therefore, art is an imitation of God’s art, of which man is a part. From this origin the components of art can be derived: truth, goodness, and beauty. Truth is the nature of God and reality reflected; goodness the character of God and reality reflected (sometimes via contrast and not facsimile). The third, beauty, is the “shining forth of the majesty and glory of… God,” “the light of an ever-working wisdom and an ever-creating will,” reflected in man and his work (Van Til 107-109). This third, in its original form, is the inspiration for art and delineation from the remainder of culture, its means, as per Kuyper, of fulfilling the task of anticipating God’s coming glory in the eyes of man (Van Til 108-109, 129). These three are, moreover, evident in the character of God and His art, the world, particularly as seen in the pages of the Bible (Ps. 8:1-4, 67:2; Rom. 1:19-23). In this origin art is delineated as the result of personal intent, not random chance or impersonal mechanistic force. These facts, then, create the following complete definition: art is a created work of personal intent with a central (organizing) purpose of beauty.

This established, what does ‘approaching art as art’ mean? Another question will help here: what delineates The Lord of the Rings from Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics? The essential difference, already hinted above, is that art has different emphases from didactic works. The didactic requires that beauty only which is necessary to convey the truth and goodness it bears. Art, by contrast, focuses on beauty, not to the exclusion, supersession, or diminishment of truth or goodness but as their apotheosis (Van Til 108). To illustrate by means of the first work of man, the tending of the Garden of Eden, consider: truth is keeping the plants alive, goodness is cultivating sufficient for man’s thoughts to be occupied with higher matters than rest or food, and beauty is creating a land which communicates God’s character even without speech (Lee 7:20). Beauty seeks to show God’s attributes in effectual harmony by portraying Him and His creation, and thus relies on truth and goodness for its existence and value (false beauty being ephemeral and essentially ugly (Van Til 109-110)). Art, then, when approached as art, is approached in a search for beauty, with an eye that sees truth and goodness also but sees them as a part of beauty rather than the inverse.

That art is a work of personal intent has consequences, unfortunately. Human art, as a result of its creator’s turpitude, is flawed. Human ignorance is not without influence here, of course, but at its core, the true faults in human art are a result of sin (Van Til 60). Pervasive depravity (also called ‘total’ or ‘radical’ depravity) is the universal state of fallen man; as Charles Spurgeon said in his commentary on the Psalms, “Without exception, all men have apostatized from the Lord their maker… from the eternal principles of right” (48). Even the holiest believer sins, as Paul declares of himself in Romans 7:15-25, so that it would be incredulous to assign even inerrancy to the work of man’s hands. These flaws manifest in all three parts of art: in truth, in goodness, and in beauty. Goodness, though, receives the first assault, being most proximate to the root of the issue. Man despises God’s law, particularly its moral aspects, both behavioral and religious (Ps. 14:1-3). This hatred leads him to distort, deny, or ignore the character of God, starting in that which most irks him, God’s right to his fealty, and its outworking, the moral law. Then, in support of this assault, man twists the truth, by intent, by motivated neglect, or by external deception. Here too his creaturely finitude becomes a tool to obscure the truth he essentially knows (Rom. 1:19-23; Van Til 62).

Beauty, the last domino, is injured by four intertwined reasons, though it may stand less marred than the rest for its apparent distance from the center of man’s rebellion, preserved also by his instinctive draw to it. First, beauty dies before the destruction of goodness and truth, for without the headwater the river dries. Second, beauty is unreached as a result of human ignorance, motivated or otherwise. Third, beauty plateaus at imperfection simply because man’s polluted mind cannot produce a pure stream without divine intervention, nor judge aright to see if the stream before him is indeed perfect (Van Til 59-60). Fourth, as a result of man despising the goodness and truth from which beauty flows, he often grows in his swelling iniquity to hate beauty itself, condemning the pinnacle as he condemned the foundation, replacing it with false standards inimical to God (Van Til 62). Thus, all human art is simultaneously the imitation of God’s artistry and universally flawed, imperfect in goodness, in truth, in beauty. The question must be asked: can the Christian consider art aught (in either sense) but kindling in light of this?

The first problem to get out of the way is the base permissibility of creating or interacting with art, in light of its imperfect nature. Biblically speaking, this statement, bearing ‘imperfect’ rather than ‘totally corrupt,’ has no barring power, for two reasons. First, all human deeds and creations- each family, each back-hoe, each building, each meal, each sentence- are flawed, particularly those which flow from the unregenerate. The same reasoning, different in specifics but congruent in basis, applies to them as to art. To outlaw any interaction with the imperfect, therefore, would outlaw any interaction with the world at all, including the individual’s interaction with himself. Such a demand would be absurd, as thinkers from Augustine to Van Til have recognized (Van Til 87). Second, Christians have a calling to interact with this world. Both Genesis 1:28, the dominion mandate, and Matthew 28:18-20, the Great Commission, demand that Christians advance into the world in triumph, to reform and to sanctify, which, in this sinful world, necessitates interaction with the imperfect. For both these reasons, building on each other as they do, mere imperfection does not itself bar, though art’s goodness is yet unproved.

Thankfully for the artist, the Bible does provide solid positive direction towards artistic endeavor and interaction. At the most basic level, God called man to live in His image, an image which includes the greatest artistic work ever produced. He called him to produce works of art, from carving to poetry to song and beyond (Ex. 36:1; Eph. 5:19). To demand that any art so produced immediately be destroyed or cloistered from human eyes due to its inevitable imperfection would be absurd, a denial of God’s good gifts. Furthermore, God called man to create a culture which honored Him, separate from sin (holy). This command did not lapse with man’s ability to fulfil it, and art is a part of it (Lee 2:00; Van Til 57, 59-60). This responsibility necessitates interaction with the culture as it is (within the bounds of prudence), in order to draw a course from Is to Should Be. In order that this understanding might be complete, though, the Christian must approach art as art, according to its purpose. Therefore, Christians have a responsibility, insofar as their individual callings comport, to approach art as art, in addition to assessing it on other grounds (financial, educational, etc.), in order to see the good and the bad within it, in order to turn more closely to God.

This Christian prerogative to interact with art does not end with the end of art made by Christians. Pagan art, while generally morally inferior (if often more beautiful than the banal ugliness of some ‘Christian’ artists), still contains, by the grace of God, a measure of truth, goodness, and beauty (Van Til 108, 118). After all, though man is depraved and fallen, he still has an innate longing for and awareness of God, overwhelmed as it is by his hatred for Him (Rom. 1:20; Van Til 120). This innate knowledge of God’s character, both in the man’s own heart and as he sees the world with his senses, can produce in his art real virtue. Of course, much of what pagans make will be too immoral or too ugly to be worth the time it would take, but that does not make the entire grouping illegitimate. By God’s grace, good exists within the art, unwilling homage to the Lord of heaven and earth, homage which will someday open redound to him (Rev. 21:24). Thus, the Christian has the right and the duty to interact with some section of the art of both the regenerate and the unregenerate for these reasons at least, besides others unenumerated.

While on this earth though, the Christian must consider the question of whether interacting with a specific work of art will have greater cost or benefit to him (pornography being the most obvious example of excessive cost). The cost, in this case, is the evil influence of the art upon the reader’s soul (and the opportunity cost); the benefit is the good influence upon his soul. These influences come in many paths and types, as will be seen, but fundamentally can be categorized into the good and the evil for their relevance to the question of ‘ought I receive (read, watch, et cetera)?’ That some evil influence will have to be accepted has been shown already; the Bible alone is given to the modern man as art without defect. This evil influence must therefore be weighed against the good influence of the same work, in light of the individual person and the individual methods of interaction, in order that he might benefit himself more than he harms.

What are the potential dangers of interacting with a given piece of art? They come in three general types: opportunity cost, consciously learned lessons, and subconsciously learned worldview. The first, opportunity cost, is the question of whether this piece of art is the best one available and if other concerns besides art are more pressing or worthwhile at the present time, a simple concept but reliant for its analysis on the sum of the other elements. The second, consciously learned lessons, are the parts of the story the reader consciously receives, analyzes (hopefully), and accepts. A man might, for instance, watch Cuties, spend some time in thought, and decide pedophilia is a righteous course. This type of evil influence passes through the mind, through consideration, and is the lesser of the two positive dangers of art because this path is mediated by the mind. A Christian who encounters such an influence is in danger of accepting a lie, certainly, but he is given also the opportunity to see and reject it for what it is under the light of day.

The third category of danger, in contrast, does not ask permission of the man’s reason before making a home in his soul. Art has the ability to provide to its enjoyers a new framework, partially or total, with which to view the world, particularly by means of repeated exposure, particularly to the unguarded or inattentive mind, as can be seen by inspecting the power of one type of art, the story. Stories, “in transforming the elements of Primary Creation which they use, endeavor to show the reader how he ought to view those elements, in his own life and in others. Stories tell of man’s relation to man, to the world around him, and to his God above him” (Potter, Sub-Creating Secondary Creation). This statement applies, through differing mechanisms and to different extents, to every work of art, because every work of art presents a specifically distorted image of the world, distorted in a way that reflects the author’s purposes and character. Art then impresses this into its audience, especially if that audience is giving little consideration to the theological underpinnings of the art, speaking, by virtue of sheer breadth, in a way which the recipient’s reason does not fully comprehend or mediate.

Because of art’s common and justified role as a bringer of pleasure, the ideas art presents are much easier to accept without thought than the ideas a work like a textbook or a syllogism presents (Van Til 110). The ideas are, after all, offered quietly, as part and parcel of enjoyment, not as something to be analyzed but as something to be presumed. Not all ideas are so presented; many stories, for instance, present ideas almost openly, as with Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’s struggle between self-preservation and virtue. Yet all art does so present ideas, simply because any conception of beauty must include the implied, not just the stated, understanding of the nature of God and reality. To the eye, then, which merely consumes without consideration, which accepts without critique the ideas presented and assumed in the story, it can become all too easy to accept D’Artagnan’s adultery as an amusing foible or even a neutral trait, rather than its true character as a vile sin worthy of exceeding censure (Ex. 20:14). This tendency becomes more pronounced, of course, the more the temptation is reiterated; one bawdy romance novel will not pollute a man’s concept of marriage so thoroughly as ten or a hundred will, save he wholeheartedly accept the perversion from the beginning. In sum, to interact with art can all too easily be to walk in the counsel of the wicked, stand in the way of sinners, and sit in the seat of scoffers, not with purpose to understand and rebuke but in ignorance and acceptance, to the grave harm of the soul (Ps. 1:1).

This influence, unfiltered by the brain but accepted by the assumptions which underlie it, manifests in at least three important areas: normalization, unnoticed imitation, and reduction of ability to discern beauty. First comes normalization. Art, particularly imbibed over a long period of time, can have the effect of re-ordering, subtly, partially, and often inconsistently (there being no organizing force), the standards instinctively applied by a man to the world around him to judge it. Consuming vast quantities of modern television, for instance, could lead him to regard homosexual affairs as relatively normal, condemning them still with his reason but accepting them in his heart. This process also affects his perception of art itself, shaping his desire for the art according to the mold given by his habitual entertainment. Thus, art designed to entertain via stimulation or shock will train him to desire art designed to entertain via stimulation or shock. As Myers points out, this process is not necessarily static: it can converge towards ‘more of the same,’ but very often, especially in modernity, it tends towards ‘more intense and depraved of the same,’ particularly when driven man’s natural proclivity for vice (61).

The second effect is unnoticed imitation, and it flows, very often, from normalization. As a result of the assumptions and half-formed notions borrowed without intent from the art, the behavior of the borrower changes, altering without his note. Man is, after all, very far from being an entirely self-conscious being (Rushdoony 6). He does not fully understand himself, and if he can be tricked by attribution errors, he can be misguided by full-fledged ideas he has accidentally acquired (Snyder 29). Thus, a man who, as above, reads too many tawdry romance novels might assume his understanding of the female sex more thorough and more accurate than it truly was, sabotaging his own romantic efforts not from malice but from assenting to ideas he never truly considered.

The third ill effect of art is the most esoteric, in a way: a reduction in man’s ability to discern the truly beautiful from the superficially beautiful or merely attractive. Beauty is an objective thing, a reflection of the nature of God and therefore a quality man should seek to understand the enjoy (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 1; Van Til 109-110). Man’s perception of beauty is, however, subjective, torn and rent by vice. To the unregenerate heart particularly beauty is only partially visible, only partially understandable (Van Til 107-108). Even the regenerate heart, though, will on this earth be imperfect in recognizing it. Just as vast amount of gunfire tends to degrade the hearing of those exposed to it, so vast amounts of poor art tend to reduce the man’s ability to discern beauty. Not only will the man unused to beauty lack the experience recognizing it, lack the beauty-identification muscles in his mind, he will lack a habitual standard to measure and identify it. He may easily have a false standard too, one calibrated by the false beauty, the flashing lights and pleasurable stimulation, of his accustomed art. He may therefore see the reflection of God’s glory and even the glory itself without recognition, to the harm of his soul.

The benefits of art can be divided into three general categories: pedagogical, revelational, and artistic. These three will vary in proportion between different works of art; some art may be justified by the pedagogical, other by the revelational, other by the artistic. Of these three, none should be discarded entirely, and none should be considered the sole purpose of art. Art will furthermore be of varying value in each category to each individual. Some will get more benefit pedagogically due to lacking the specific understanding taught by the art, where another might already understand sufficiently. Some will have a keen understanding already of the alternate viewpoint a particular work may reveal. Some will have lesser need for the artistic aspect of the art. Nevertheless, in approaching art as art, all three of these must be considered, and their value weighed against the possibilities of the dangers already enumerated.

Art has a pedagogical purpose and aspect (Van Til 110). In this, it has two paths, as well as a secondary type worthy of consideration. The two paths are the overt and the instinctive. Aside from purely factual information, art provides a simulated world which can expand upon truths in a way much more understandable to the human heart than pure didactic text, albeit at the cost of being less organized, less clear, and less overt, teaching in a way pure didactic text simply cannot achieve (Potter, How Much Theology). An example of this can be seen in considering the gradation between Judges, Job, and Romans. In the last, Paul engages in nearly pure didactic (logical) persuasion, using beautiful language and certain metaphorical devices only as subordinate to his purpose in teaching. In Job, the second, story provides much of its meaning overtly, in the arguments of its various characters. In Judges, finally, the teaching happens through the observation of the story’s events, elucidated by the Lord’s intervention and the witness of the rest of Scripture. The stories in Judges provide the reader with a vicarious experience of the good and evil of man, an experience integrally including the acknowledgement and judgement of sin. Art, unlike the purely didactic, shows truth and goodness and beauty in action, not in theory, and thereby can prove a powerful tool for their inculcation, particularly as it motivates the audience not only to see the virtue it presents but to vicariously participate in it.

This ability of art to reach the subtleties of man leads into its second capacity, the experiential, the capacity to teach a habit. While this capacity’s inverse, teaching without rationality, is a danger indeed, if the art has been thoroughly examined, approached as art worthy of careful, reasonable consideration, it can be of immense aid to the person in that it can instill truth, goodness, and beauty into the instinct as well as the mind. A story which presents virtue as virtue and vice as vice, with appropriate reactions thereto on the part of the story and realistic interactions therewith by the characters and the world, that story will teach the heart as well as the mind by engaging the emotional and spiritual aspects of man, not just his reason (reason being important but partial in man (Van Til 171)). This is because, as Benjamin states, “When we submit to the illusion of a piece of art…, [we] allow ourselves to be taken in by its framing and guide our thoughts until the experience ends.” Thus, art teaches by experience, not mere statement, goes beyond facts to start a habit. In this way, it trains the soul the worldview it presents, worked out in a ‘real world’ formed for the purpose (Potter, How Much Theology). This tool, despite the inherent danger of habituating a false worldview, is a powerful tool for good when approached in prayer and discernment.

The third aspect of art is less intuitive, perhaps, than the first two, and somewhat of an unequal partner. Art’s dangers can be to the discerning man a benefit in providing him a static foe with which to grapple. Much as the body may benefit from wrestling with weights appropriate to its stature and circumstance, so the soul may benefit from wrestling with evil ideas appropriate to its wisdom and history. Not all dangers in art, of course, can fulfil this role. Pure temptations, such as those offered by pornography, should not be countenanced; man is to shun temptation, not seek it out (Proverbs 7:25; Van Til 110). Some temptation, of course, will inevitably be found even in the most blameless book, given man’s sinful nature and its ability to twist innocence into opportunity for vice, but works calculated or effectual only in producing temptation are worthless to spar against. The work of Paul in the Bible should instead provide a guide: since Paul related the arguments of his foes towards falsehood in order to be sure they were understood and in order that their refutation might be clear, the Christian may seek understanding of the teaching of the world for a similar purpose, albeit only to a certain extent (Potter, Proverbs 13:3). Works which teach falsehood either explicitly or by stealth can therefore be for a man of discernment sparring partners, albeit ones he leaves bloodier than is generally considered polite, and unlike arguments apart from art, such opponents will present, if the art be good, the argument and worldview in context, in life, giving a more thorough understanding of its nature than pure didactic text, divorced from man’s daily habits as it is, could hope to (and therefore a more thorough teaching in the danger’s practical weaknesses).

This opportunity carries over between both types of danger outlined above. In the first case, the explicit teaching, the believer can gain experience in understanding and refuting the ways of the world, a pursuit God has blessed (Is. 54:17). So, in a work which pleads for socialism, such as Jack London’s Iron Heel, the literary benefits may be enjoyed and the pedagogical aspect countered by means of the Word. In the second case, teaching delivered either intentionally or unintentionally to the heart rather than the mind, the virtue is found in arresting and analyzing the subconscious infiltration. By learning the habits and mindset of the reprobate, in a manner Lewis describes as “learning about what it is to be a [pagan],” the Christian can come to understand the pagan world around him, understand both for the sake of his own self-guarding and for the sake of conquest (Myers 96). For example, he can learn by recognizing the ungodly nature of Orwell’s views on sex as seen in 1984 to recognize similar ideas in other, less useful media and in his daily life. The foe must be known in order to be excised truly and fully; art presents a noble opportunity to see at once a false worldview’s enabling virtues, which allow the falsehood to persist (compassion, perhaps, or dislike of tyrants), and its defining vices, which will eventually bring its downfall, in their stated and expressed forms.

The second aspect of art is its revelational capacity. Art, by presenting a snapshot of a portion of the world as the artist sees it, can present to man viewpoints other than his own in a way which allows him to enter into those viewpoints, understand them thoroughly from the inside, and then, by retreating to the Word, assess them. Thus, man can “transcend [his] limiting perspective” in order to see from other shoes, a process necessary because of the individual provinciality of man (Myers 97). As Lewis notes, the reason to read old books is that they tend to make different mistakes than their modern readers, simply by virtue of being from another era and having its vices instead of modernity’s (10-11). By this means man can see a less self-circumscribed view of the cosmos, even if many of the sources he used had worldviews which required near total condemnation, as with Homer, or partial but widespread condemnation, as with Lewis himself, although always checking what he sees against what Scripture teaches (Acts 17:11).

Among the benefits of art, the least concrete and the most singular is its capacity to present beauty as a natural result of truth and goodness in a way which reaches the heart to stir up peace, joy, and worshipfulness, which has been termed its artistic benefit. That art presents beauty in a way other categories of culture do not is definitional to its nature. The peculiar benefit of this method, though, can only be understood by a quick outline of the method’s actual mechanics. Whereas beauty in the non-artistic is peripheral if beneficial, in art beauty is central. In other works of man, truth and goodness are presented front and foremost; in art, beauty takes the helm. This priority can, it is true, foster aestheticism, justly condemned by Van Til (Van Til 228). In art’s ideal form, however, this beauty arises naturally, necessarily, and by intention from goodness and truth. In practicality, such as in the work of both reprobates and flawed Christians (the only kind yet on this earth), the ability of man to create beauty can lead to a creation in which the beauty clashes with, outlines, and condemns the lack of goodness and truth underlying it, showing by its presence the imperfection of what purports to be its foundation.

Furthermore, beauty, in art, has a counterpart: ugliness. This quality exists in art in two ways. First, ugliness may exist in art as a true reflection of the world. In this capacity, the ugliness, like the ugliness of our world, serves to increase the beauty by contrast and other means, to His glory. Thereby this ugliness, showing the world in truth, gives a clearer view of it and of its beauty, to the benefit of the receiver. Second, ugliness may be in art as a perversion, unnecessary and undoubtedly deleterious to the art as art. This ugliness is not justifiable, but the recognition of it- and of whatever vice may have occasioned it- will prove good practice for the Christian.

This beauty not only outlines goodness and truth, both in lack and in presence, but stirs up in man a capacity to know and understand the beauty of the world around him and of God. God’s beauty is indubitable; the psalmist aspires, in Psalm 27:4, “to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord”. His creation, in imitation, attains towards the beauty which His perfect sanctuary may attain (Psalm 50:2; Rom. 8:22). Art, by growing in the receiver a greater understanding of beauty, grows in him a greater capacity to see God aright. Furthermore, in art’s role as presenting through beauty goodness and truth, it gives man experience first in seeing the relation between virtue and beauty, vice and ugliness, and second in seeing by the beauty of God and His creation His goodness, His truth (Van Til 108-109).

This beauty, besides fulfilling such an enriching role, also guides man towards joy and towards worship. Art has a proper role in exciting joy (Van Til 110). It has the capacity to produce not merely pleasure but the joy of a deeper apprehension of God’s goodness by displaying His beauty. Even the works of the pagans, by showing the nobility, flawed as it is in man, of God’s image and by arranging their material into fitting order, show this beauty, though only through a very dark glass. This capacity to show beauty, moreover, drives man towards worship, gives him not only a duty but an eagerness to worship, having seen the harmony of truth and goodness in beauty and found in it a praise of God which reaches into his soul, motivating him to search both for his own beautifying and for the beauty of God (Ps. 8:1; Zech. 9:17; James 1:11). Thus, art can, through its characteristic beauty, turn man towards God.

The balance between the dangers and benefits of each piece of art will vary for each person, for a plain and obvious reason: differing discernment and circumstance. Each Christian possesses a differing level and character of discernment; each Christian has a different history and character. The first, his discernment, is his ability to tell evil from good, to detect the evil teachings and ugliness in art and repel it from his soul, to “refute every tongue which rises against [him] in judgement” (Is. 54:17). This is, as the following verse states, the common “heritage of the servants of the Lord,” but each individual servant is given it in differing measure and with differing ability across the millions of topics in which the skill might require application (Is. 54:18). Children in particular lack discernment, by virtue of age, and therefore must be guarded from much greater swathes of art.

The second, his circumstance, is the individual character and history of the person. His character is relevant because it may magnify or diminish the dangers and benefits alike of a work of art. A man given to lust will be well advised to avoid art which to a man skilled in chastity would be without real harm. His history should therefore be taken into account. A man mired in grief after his family’s death may find it prudent to avoid works which could prey upon that grief to smirch his soul. A woman prone to anger will find certain works of art much more beneficial to her, by reason of their addressing that fault, than they would be to a woman more in control of her temper. To all of these factors, discernment, self-assessment, humility, and in some cases external counsel must be applied to determine how they influence the potential dangers and benefits of any work of art.

Ultimately, the Christian’s purpose in coming to art must be to honor God. In this goal, he should seek to better his own soul, for the better glorifying of God. He must, for that purpose, weigh the likely dangers and benefits of the work of art he is considering, including the here-unmentioned societal aspects, such as his witness to the world around him. Art, to the Christian, is a glorious opportunity to see the world through clearer eyes, to find one’s own eye-lumber and set it aside, to understand the eye-lumber of others and avoid its introduction (Matt. 7:3-5). More than this purifying possibility, though, art is an opportunity to grow in understanding of the beauty of God, the beauty which Psalm 27:4 extols, and to see it even hidden by the ugliness of a sinful reality, shining through when wisdom looks, the beauty of Christ in His incarnation, hidden, foolishness to the world, a herald of unending joy to His people, of unending glory to God (Is. 53:2; 1 Cor. 1:18-25).

God bless.

Works Cited

Benjamin, Carl. “The Politics of Warhammer 40K.” Deep Think, Lotus Eaters, 2022, <https://www.lotuseaters.com/the-politics-of-warhammer-40-000-or-deep-think-v-21-04-22>. Accessed 19 Jun 2023.

ESV Study Bible. Crossway, 2016.

Lee, F. N. “Christianity and Art.” PHL110-Lectures, 17.¹

Lewis, C.S. “Introduction.” On the Incarnation, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011.

Myers, K. All God’s Children & Blue Suede Shoes. Crossway, 2012.²

Potter, Colson. “How Much Theology is Too Much Theology?” Creational Story, 2023, <https://creationalstory.com/how-much-theology-is-too-much-theology/>. Accessed 19 Jun 2023.

____________. “Proverbs 13:3.” Get Healthier Blog, 2023, <https://sanctuaryfunctionalmedicine.com/topics/spiritual-health/proverbs-133/>. Accessed 24 Jun 2023.

____________. “Sub-Creating Secondary Creation.” Creational Story, 2023, <https://creationalstory.com/sub-creating-secondary-creations/>. Accessed 19 Jun 2023.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept. Ross House Books, 1978.³

Snyder, J. The Myths of Empire, Cornell Paperbacks, 1993.³

Spurgeon, C. “The Treasury of David.” Parallel Classic Commentary on the Psalms, AMG Publishers, 2005.

Van Til, Henry R. The Calvinistic Concept of Culture. Baker Book House, 1972.⁵

Westminster Shorter Catechism. The Westminster Standard, 2023, <https://thewestminsterstandard.org/westminster-shorter-catechism/>. Accessed 19 Jun 2023.

1 – This source is unfortunately not publicly available, but I find it unnecessary to understand the paper, being reinforcement and not context

2 – A book that I found interesting to read but often came to partially disagree with. It suffers from a refusal of the Christian’s calling to sanctify culture, as well as from being written before the internet came to have the massive influence it now has.

3 – An excellent book I heartily recommend.

4 -An excellent book on history. It is a limited view of history- many of the phenomenon do have other possible or additional causes- but very much worth reading for the sake of geopolitical education. It also has some unintentional humor from being written before the USSR finished collapsing (and published after, if I have the dating right).

5 – Another good book, albeit I have some minor quibbles vis a vis common grace and (as you’ll eventually see) certain parts of art.