"Christian" Art or Christian "Art?"

Yesterday as I was reading an article on a Catholic website I occasionally visit, I noticed they were accepting inquiries for columnist positions. Deb always encourages me to try to publish what I write, and I've occasionally thought about it too. Aside from a few articles, poems, and book reviews here and there, my writing has mostly been a private panacea by way of blogging, and so I suppose there is some potential to take it outside the confines of where I am currently writing.

As I was crafting my query letter, though, I realized while I may have something to contribute and my beliefs and writing is what I would consider theologically orthodox, my "tone" or "brand", as they call it, is hard to pin down. As such, it doesn't really fit anywhere in mainstream Catholic media. I'm akin to a moderate Republican, or a pro-life Democrat, in the political arena--someone criticized for not taking a hard enough stance by extremists; not being totally trusted by those within the party; and totally foreign to voters outside the party. Hard-line Catholics don't care to read anything I have to say; Christian mediums are skeptical of a Catholic author; and I probably quote too much scripture to be palatable for a secular audience. I have an appreciation for nuance and form, and have never cared that much about being popular. Which is why I write here--it gives me the space and freedom to write what I want, when I want,  without having to whore out for a check or conform myself to a box, and hopefully connect with readers who can benefit from what I have to say. Even if no one read what I wrote, I would probably still write, though maybe that would be a secondary definition of insanity. Welcome to my life...a fox eternally looking for his hole. 

My wife loves Christian music, but I can't listen to it, try as I might. I like having something with a positive message on the radio, but with a few exceptions, it just all sounds the same, and I can't appreciate it. 

I also groan at any Christian movie (with a few notable exceptions) that I do find myself watching. I have an appreciation for art and music, and so I've often wondered why, from an artistic vantage point, Christian contemporary film and music is so, shall we say, ascetically crass, yet still manages to sometimes bring in millions of dollars at the box office despite the one-dimensional characters, bad acting, and hokey story lines; and also why such criticisms when I make them come across as anathema in some Christian circles. 

So I was somewhat edified to know I was not the only one who felt that such criticisms were warranted when I came across this commentary. The question of 'why' still remains, though. One commenter who works in the production field had this to say:

"The issue is that a lot of Christian films aren't treated as art, they're not treated as religion, they're treated as product to be sold for a profit. When you have a built-in audience that doesn't demand anything in the way of production values, it's easy to churn out product quickly and cheaply with a B-actor or two to boost awareness on Christian store shelves and turn a tidy profit. When the content, or the message, completely supersedes any expectation of art (or even basic competency), you'll find audiences with lowered expectations and producers chomping at the bit to exploit them with the best possible margins." 

So a good film is more than just the message, more than just a content-delivery mechanism. But at the same token, the content needs to be on point, orthodox and authentic, so as not to betray the audience. I think this was the failure of Scorsese's recent adaption of Shusaku Endo's historical fiction novel in the film 'Silence'--it was expensive to make, with beautiful cinematography and superb acting. And yet, like many Christians, I didn't go see it (it flopped at the box office), even though I was a fan of the book and had been waiting for it to come to screen for the past few years. Why? Because I didn't trust the content, nor Scorsese's message.

Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, I think it is safe to say, delivered both the message and the form in a powerful and emotive way. It did not sacrifice the message in exchange for form, and likewise did not skimp or regard as unimportant the form over the message. I was profoundly moved by The Passion, and yet I never felt like I was betraying any of my artistic sensibilities in viewing it and letting myself be affected by it. It was, simply, good Christian art. 

Catholic screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi, who also teaches at Azusa Pacific University in California and formed an inter-denominational network training Christian screenwriters, had a great essay at Crisis a few years back that I really appreciated. She quotes Flannery O'Connor, who said that "Christian writers should be much less concerned saving the world than with saving their work." The Catholic Church has always recognized that beauty and truth go hand in hand, and has been steeped in and inspired the arts, music, and literature for centuries. Is there a place for it today in a consumer and product-driven culture? I hope so. 

As for my writing, is there a place for me as a contributor in mainstream Christian media? I'm doubtful, but maybe I just haven't found the right publication yet. Is there a place for me in the secular culture? I'm feeling more an alien there every day as well, and yet this is the world in which I live. Do I even have anything worth saying at all anyway? Writers are probably the most self-conscious people you will ever meet, and I am no exception. It's times like these where I think the book of Ecclesiastes--which itself doesn't really 'fit' neatly anywhere in the Bible in the traditional sense--has wry wisdom to share on all wisdom and folly, and comes circle to what is essential:

"The last word, when all is heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this concerns all humankind." (Ecc 12:13)