Then Moses said to the Israelites, "See, the LORD has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts- to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of artistic craftsmanship.So we see that in fact, artistic talent can be a Gift of the Holy Spirit. Somehow, we never seem to hear charismatic/pentecostal types talk about this one. Why is that?
One possible reason is that there is, at least among many evangelicals, a suspicion of the arts. This may have its roots in the history of Protestant reaction against what were considered excesses of Catholicism, but it goes beyond that. In 1992, U.S. Presidential candidate Howard Phillips ran on the ticket of the radically faith-based U.S. Taxpayers Party, whose platform included the statement that he would "not provide a cent to the National Endowment for the Arts." His platform was tailored to win a certain kind of vote, and that statement was no accident or slip, but a deliberate, integral part of the whole. It was part of a larger milieu; about that time, James Dobson of Focus on the Family had published a number of statements highly critical of the National Endowment for the Arts, because they had funded some projects he found morally offensive.
The irony is, Michelanglo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel were, in their day, criticized as morally offensive. The conservative element of that time was scandalized by his depictions of full frontal nudity. Yet nowadays, most would acknowledge the Sistine Chapel as an artistic masterpiece, and millions -- as many as 10,000 a day, many of them devoutly religious -- have visited the Chapel to view the paintings.
Many years ago, in a Christian bookstore, I saw a book entitled Addicted to Mediocrity. I didn't have a chance to read it at the time, but the cover was unforgettable: it showed the Sistine Chapel ceiling being painted over in plain white; the paint roller was covering a certain part of Adam's body. Is it not possible that Howard Phillips, James Dobson, and others of similar mindset are simply philistines, not understanding art?
This possibility was suggested to me in an unlikely way: an Internet community called Gay Christian Network. These are people who have come out of the secular gay lifestyle; or who were already Christians when they realized their sexual tendencies; or who have become disillusioned with "ex-gay" ministries. A thread on their discussion board complained about the kitsch of Christian bookstores -- "John 3:16 printed on any household article you can think of," and suchlike tawdry bric-a-brac, as well as the shallow fluff of self-help books.
I will give those of the Phillips-Dobson school the chance to redeem themselves. Simply give me a five-minute presentation on a museum-quality artist, more recent than Warhol, whose work you enjoy. This will prove that you know enough about art to have opinions on it.
This philistine view of art may also explain some of the adamant Creationist views. An artist's job is to create; but in fact, an artist understands evolution. Consider a sculptor. The sculptor has in mind a completed work; he or she actually "sees" in the mind the finished sculpture. But in order to manifest that image, the sculptor must cut, hammer, solder, and weld the pieces of bronze; at intermediate stages, there may be temporary supports, absolutely needed at the time, but removed later. In short, the sculpture evolves from its earliest form, through innumerable intermediate forms, to its final form. And even then, evolution continues, as the bronze changes its patina and gains in character.
The artist also understands that the final form of a work is affected by its evolutionary origins. A sculpture in glass will differ from one in bronze, even if both are of the same subject, and even if some of the processes, such as annealing, are the same in both. Likewise, the same glass will evolve one way if blown, another if spun -- environmental conditions drive evolution.
At a seaside children's daycamp where I once worked, one of the children took a clear plastic bottle and began painting the inside with watercolors. He would let the drips run down the sides, forming beautiful streaks of many different colors. Of course, by the time he was done, all the colors had mixed together into an ugly shade of brown, but that was not the point. He was not as much interested in the final product, but more in the ongoing creative process, which was truly beautiful. Here we have an example of Jesus' teaching that truth is often hidden from the wise and learned, and revealed instead to children. This is an elegant illustration of what Creationists have missed: evolution is itself a creative process, and much of life's beauty is in this ongoing process, as the diversity of forms changes over time.
What is wrong with taking this view of creation? That the Creator, like the sculptor, had in mind the "end" products; but also enjoyed the ongoing process of manifesting them gradually over time, as the sculptor enjoys seeing the pieces of bronze gradually form the final work of art? Perhaps we ought to recall Darwin's words, "There is grandeur in this view of life." Man's creativity is the reflection of God's creativity. Bezalel received a gift of artistic talent directly from the Holy Spirit -- but he still had to manifest his creations gradually, through physical processes.
"In the beginning, God created" -- and creativity will not be constrained by dogma.
