Is it possible to celebrate the work or art of somebody who has committed a terrible sin?
I think most of us would agree that being a sinner doesn’t disqualify you from being a good artist—if it did, there would be no art to appreciate at all. But when somebody goes seriously astray, does it retroactively taint the good work they’ve done in the past? Take the example of a convicted child molester who also happened to be a highly respected music teacher and author:
To some within the music fraternity, there are two Brian Daveys.One a devious paedophile jailed last year for sexually abusing girls as young as four. The other was a respected music teacher who wrote books on the recorder that many tutors regard as among the best textbooks for children. [...]
Can you value work produced by someone whose private life and acts you find appalling? Do the proclivities of those responsible for artistic or intellectual works have to be taken into account in their appreciation?
It’s one thing to create art and be a sinner at the same time; but it gets more uncomfortable when there is a link of some sort between the art you create and the sin you commit.
The Brian Davey situation is a pretty extreme example, but I can think of more mundane, but equally serious, questions. For instance, could you listen to worship music performed by somebody whose personal life was a stark contrast to the values in the music? Would you read a well-regarded Bible study, sermon, or devotional by somebody who later abandoned their faith? There have been more than a few high-profile Christian writers and leaders who have jettisoned their faith after writing lots of good Christian material. In a case like that, do you appreciate the work anyway, drawing what good you can from it—or does your knowledge of the author’s moral failings make it too difficult to celebrate their work?
Loading ...
December 11, 2007 at 19:16
Yes I could continue to listen to their works of music and even read their poetry or books. One example i can think of from the Bible is King David.
Throughout his life he made mistakes that we would in our modern context deem – appalling.
We have the benefit of hindsight when it comes to David and his Psalms. We don’t have this opportunity yet when it comes to Brian Davey. But that doesn’t discount the fact that God loves him as much as he does me and you.
December 11, 2007 at 19:30
I think it comes down to their current attitude. David (Israel’s second king) wrote many great poems and songs. He was said to be a man after God’s own heart. But in a short amount of time he allowed himself to be distracted, committed adultery, and was responsible for a man’s murder. Did this negate his previously great works? Did it reflect poorly on his yet to be works? No. But why? Because David repented. He turned from his sin. He asked God to restore the joy of salvation, create a clean heart in place of David’s tainted heart. To let the Holy Spirit remain with David to guide, teach, discipline and comfort him.
The true matter isn’t the sin, but the attitude of the sinner. Is the sinner repentant? is the sinner mortified – not be being caught – but by the act of sin itself? Does the sinner desire to be restored to God?
God’s Word doesn’t return void.
Sin takes things from us. That is why it is sin. Sin deprives us of fellowship and friendship with God. Sin takes away the power of God in our lives. Habitual, unrepentant sin will eventually lead to eternal separation.
While sin doesn’t make all our work meaningless it will remove power from what we do.
December 11, 2007 at 19:53
Google Eric Gill. I stumbled across his name last week. Same story.
I would say that everyone sins to one degree or another, and our sin doesn’t change who God is.
So as long as their work is Spirit inspired it doesn’t lose it’s value.
December 11, 2007 at 20:52
I can think of a number of examples that makes me still seek to appreciate works of people who are mastered by their sin (either now or later).
Whenever I hear “Come Thou Found of Every Blessing” I get a little sad. I know that Robert Robinson’s later in life “wandering” that he felt prone to is possibly apocryphal, but it actually makes the hymn MORE powerful rather than less.
I can also think of a friend of the family who got into metalworking and does some AMAZING work, his wife took a job to support him, he bought a workshop… but it didn’t last well. He went through a “midlife crisis”, left his wife and life in general and last time someone sat to talk to him about leaving his faith (a biblical rebuke) he said that he was “okay living on the pods of the swine”. Again, his work makes me sad when I see it, but it’s still AMAZING and I love to see it when I am able.
December 11, 2007 at 22:19
It is an interesting question. But art and worship or theological literature are very different things. Worship is an outpouring of spirit, and theological literature is education for the spirit. Art, I think, is a communication from the overflow of artist’s spirit. In many ways, art is not too different from hearing an honest confession from the artist. So, if you look at it that way, what you think of an artist’s work is no different from how much you can trust something they say. Now the question is, is dealing with an unregenerate artist’s work any different than dealing with an unregenerate’s words.
December 11, 2007 at 23:06
I’ve had an experience with this in a way. I was pretty impressed with a local Christian band and frequented concerts and other venues where they led worship. I then found out from a very reliable source (relative of members) that two of the guys would get high on marijuana or drunk after shows! After that I couldn’t look at them the same and quit listening to them. The band isn’t together anymore and some have gone through counseling processes. Sin does affect how I view\respect\support someone’s art. We all are sinners though! I can’t imagine how perfectly beautiful God’s artwork of creation and the Garden of Eden was without sin. Imagine how God views our lives with the taintedness of sin…He loves us anyways but desires pure, holy lives that are pleasing to Him.
December 12, 2007 at 11:47
My initial answer is “you can’t lead someone somewhere you’re not going” Worship leaders and Christian authors who aren’t following God can’t direct people to follow God. But that doesn’t seem to be the Biblical answer. Paul would rather the Gospel be preached from selfish motivation than for it not to be preached at all.
I don’t think you can discredit someone’s thoughts because they screwed up. Good theology, art, or music is good regardless of its authors intent, thoughts or theology. If an Atheist wants to say “Jesus is Lord” I can’t disagree with him can I?
As to the performing arts/speaking…we can still learn from people who are liars, sinners, and drug addicts. (Every ounce of our learning has come from or through sinners) I think it ruins some of the persons credibility if they are a porn star speaking about sexual purity…but truth is truth. Whether it comes from a donkey, a cretan, a porn star, or even a sinner.
December 12, 2007 at 12:02
Francis Schaeffer often suggested that artistic technique could be appreciated on its own merits, regardless of the message in the artwork, or of the character of the artist.
We are all familiar with talented artists who fail in character and/or message. We are also familiar with persons of high character who fail in technique.
It is important that we are able to recognize the inherent beauty in well executed technique. After all, beauty is from God. When the artist fails in character or message, that is human sin showing itself. We are all sinners.
It is also important for artists of high character to learn from well-executed technique, even if the message is weak. The artist of high-character can apply what has been learned to a ‘more perfect’ expression of faith…that is, perfect their work out of joy of service to God, not for the sake of perfection itself. Naturally, the believer must guard against the influence of weak character and message. But we should also be familiar enough with such messages to know how to engage in a discussion in evangelism and defense of the faith.
Having said this, we should remember a couple things. Character and message are more important respectively than technique. Similarly we should carefully consider whether or not it is appropriate to support an artist of low character or mnssage through the purchase of his/her work.
Here are a few examples as food for thought:
1. JS Bach – Mass in B minor
Character: High, Message: Biblical, Technique: Virtuoso
2. Chopin – Prelude #4 – E minor:
Character: Low – Chopin was an anti-Semite and notorious hedonist, Message: None, Technigue: Virtuoso
3. U2 – Pride in the Name of Love:
Character: Mixed, Message: Secular with Christian foundation; Technique: Well-executed
4. Dali – Persistance of Time
Character: Low, hedonist, Message: Secular, abstract, Technique: well-executed
5. Newton – Natural Laws
Character: High, Message: Natural revelation through science, Technique: Genius
6. Darwin – On the Origin of Species
Character: Humanist, secular, Message: secular, Technique: well-executed, but theoretical, not fact.
December 12, 2007 at 13:23
It is very hard to answer. It involves the time space between the present time and the past time. Because when the person already passed away, it will then be easier to answer. It also involves the causal relationship whether the person actions will effect me and my family or not.
I like what Rob said about the sinner’s attitude. However, I, who is weak in the flesh, still want some proofs in the person deeds while the person is still alive.
How can I be comfortable to let my children going to a camp which is organized by a conficted and also repented child molester teacher? If this repented person never or very few say a word that the past sin is wrong, and if we accept or regard the accomplishment or sort of, then would it mean to us that the person sin is not a big deal anymore?
Let’s take King David and Paul as example. King David had only repented in his own heart and to the Lord, but I had not seen it in his daily deeds. His past sins prevented him to say even a word or disciplined his own family in dealing with the sexual sins.
Unlike King David, Paul repeatedly said in his books about his past sins, and his repentance clearly showed in his deeds
Thus, the attitude and present deeds from the repented person are very important in my opinion
December 12, 2007 at 17:16
Proverbs tells us that a good name is to be valued above great riches (my version). All of us have gifts God has placed within us. However, if we lack character, those gifts will not keep us in a position of authority/influence.
There are consequences to sin. The music teacher/pedophile loses his job working with youngsters. Maybe he’s repented, but he’s broken trust. The Prodigal Son squandered his inheritance. While he found forgiveness and shelter in his father’s house, his inheritance was gone. Whatever he had after that was due to the generosity of his father.
Even King David, though he repented, experienced consequences. His first son with Bathsheba died. He experienced many sorrows in his family life.
As far as truth being proclaimed by an unbeliever, remember the story of the demonized girl following Paul. What she was saying was true, but it was meant to draw people away from the Lord and focus on her psychic pronouncements.
Paul’s response: He cast the demon out.
Forgiveness is extended, but trust must be earned.
December 12, 2007 at 22:40
@YT – Sending your kids off overnight is a completely different deal than appreciating or learning from somebody’s art. I like some of Bono’s music but I wouldn’t send my (theoretical) kids with him.
@Anna on trust – Yes but trust is not required to appreciate art/learn from someone. Artists don’t earn my trust. Good ones try but they don’t earn it in the same way a pastor at a local church would.
December 12, 2007 at 23:20
Most of us have absolutely no idea about the moral character of the person who designed our favorite outfit, arranged the flowers at our wedding, prepared and plated the meal at our favorite restaurant but we can appreciate those things for the quality and enjoyment they bring to our lives. Everyone created in God’s image is capable of subcreation (as Tolkein calls it) because of who God is and the gifts he’s manifested. So I can listen to Thriller because I think it’s the perfect pop album regardless of how weird I think Michael Jackson has become.
December 13, 2007 at 11:01
The form of art and the interpretation of the art are the most important. Art is an expression through other means of communicating than just verbally. Could it be that a preacher who preaches a word distastefully has sinned and he has no connected to God during that time of presenting? If sin takes us out fellowship with God, would not the art of preaching be the form most affected by sin? It is the form that is not frozen in time or space for later observance, but a here and now form of art.
I think when the form of has a contingency on the character of the person, their sin is more prevalent to their art. If we are talking about a writer, painter or musician we have no idea of their lifestyle or environment that is most comfortable for them to work. We can only look at the finished product and two three times a year we see them. Judgment is for the Lord and we all have our time.
December 13, 2007 at 15:48
This is a hard one for me in that music and art are a part of what I like to do as a hobby. Therefore knowing someone who sins (we all sin) and creates great art and music should not preclude you from the art or music. However, if it is personal and what that person did was against you, then it is best to not continue to associate with that person or their art and music. Example—Pastor lied about and had others lie about someone. That someone left that church, but didn’t leave the church or God. There is so much art and music in the world that ignoring a part will not mean you miss it all.
December 14, 2007 at 16:10
It’s funny how in a response chain like this, the original question seems to get lost. Regarding the question “does an artist’s sin spoil the art?”, I’d like to submit a firm and resounding “it depends.”
Clearly, art in and of itself is a good thing, since our creative tendencies point to the fact that we were made in the image of our Creator. Art can have several purposes: to convey beauty, to convey a message, to recount a story, to elicit a response, etc. Likewise, the same work of art can and will be perceived in different ways and therefore can elicit different responses in different contexts and people.
So, “it depends” because a large part of the value and meaning of the art is naturally placed on the observer of the art (perhaps even more so than the artist himself). If you are disgusted by a piece of art because you aware of the artists sin, then the art is spoiled FOR YOU. However, if his intent was to make you aware of his sin so that you would be disgusted, then the art is not spoiled, but rather, very effective.
That said, perhaps the question should be “Should an artist’s sin spoil his art?”
On a side note, I’d like to disagree with Chris Robinson’s statement: “I think it ruins some of the persons credibility if they are a porn star speaking about sexual purity…but truth is truth.” I think the point he ultimately makes is valid, but on the contrary, I would be much more inclined to listen to a porn star’s stance on sexual purity than a virgin’s, because the porn star [hopefully] knows the true cost of their sin.
December 16, 2007 at 16:38
If the artwork is a true expression and does not bring glory to the “sin” when it can be accepted. Some one the best art, writings, music is an expression of person dealing with the “darkside” of human nature.