Privatization has consequences on artistic expression
In last weeks article on the new film, The Great Awakening, produced by Sight and Sound Films, I pointed to its exceptional quality in the genre of historical dramas. And it is noteworthy because it’s “common in our secular society to draw a line that divides religious art into its own category."
Most Americans are aware of the maxim, “There are two things we never talk to about: politics and religion.” It would be an interesting study to uncover how the rule became a virtue in our culture. My guess is that the idea emerged from Jefferson’s “wall of separation “ between church and state and morphed from there as empiricism and reason slowly triumphed over religion as the cultural binding glue.
Or maybe it’s just a pragmatic way for diverse modern societies to operate. Either way, the anti-religious fervor of postmodernism sped things along. And now we are at the point where personally held beliefs are subordinated for the sake of cooperation in the public sphere. Even more recent is the emergence of “safe spaces “ for people to air personal grievances.
A descriptive for the reality is privatization, and George Marsden understands it as the “paradox of having so many religious people participating in a culture so detached from religious concerns." Adding to paradoxical nature of privatization is supposed religious neutrality of the arbitrators who wag their fingers and point to the wall of separation.
As Jesus Christ continues to form my identity in Him and I give testimony to his life, death and resurrection, there is ample reason to decry the comfort of privatizing my faith. On the one hand, but the more dominant one, there is the guilt and shame instilled as one who is totally depraved. As Adam covered himself to hide his nakedness, so too I go to great lengths to hide vulnerability, weakness and guilt.
One thing intriguing about Friedrich Nietzsche is in Beyond Good and Evil. It has been many years since opening, but will try to recall. It is his understanding that the human will is guided by the propensity to wear a mask to cover the true self. Of course, Nietzsche takes any semblance of possible insight and goes the ungodly direction of the few who can possess true nobility and escape the plight of human existence.
But we are all naked and exposed, and as much as we try to hide the natural state from others, we cannot hide it from God. Therefore, Christ pleads for the churches in the book of Revelation to buy from Him “white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear.”
Thus, there is a deep underlying basis for the privatization of faith. Humans enjoy the comfort of keeping vulnerability a private matter.
But on the other hand, apart from it being in human nature to privatize even faith and act instead as we possess all the right inner strength and ability, this does not negate the social conditioning of privatization in our secular culture.
It is unfortunate art done by Christians does not spring up like a fountainhead the way it once did. Art expresses the truth and beauty of God when His creatures do creative work and act as image bearers and the pinnacle of creation they are. Christians have a firm basis to strive for excellence in whatever work they do, and art has great potential to magnify the name of the Lord.
In Christless Christianity, Michael Horton suggests that the American church’s adoption of privatization entails “the transfer of truth claims from the objective world to the subjectivity of the individual.” In turn, Christians embrace the secular trend of inner experience. And it becomes a fitting picture that its art often relishes on the subjectivity of inner experience too.
The word of God transcends cultural boundaries and privatization doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t be the norm for God’s people.
