Christ for Culture

T. M. Moore

Enduring Standards in a Confused Age

How can we explain the phenomenal success of television’s American Idol? As I see it, the show is so wildly popular because it represents the quintessential culture-shaping exercise for a generation with no higher standards than what they like at any particular moment. Transient taste rules the roost on American Idol. A contestant—who was the greatest thing since sliced bread last week—chooses the wrong song, dresses over the top, flubs a line, or otherwise offends Simon, and—zap!—end of the road. Then comes the feeding frenzy of the final couple of weeks, when callers from all over the country, flexing their personal preferences on the touch-tone phone, assert their individual cultural standards into a computer, and, Voilà! out pops the latest cultural icon. Contracts. Album. Commercials. Fifteen minutes of fame stretched out to a year or so. Then . . .

Do any of us remember the names of the last few “American idols”?

It’s the way of idols, isn’t it, that they must be regularly reinforced, added to, or replaced because they don’t have sufficient staying-power to satisfy the cultural hunger of their devotees. The idols we exalt are as fleeting as the standards we use to select and anoint them. And what is true for these “American idols” is true for much of contemporary culture. Little in the way of abiding beauty, goodness, or truth has emerged from America’s cultural forges in recent years. A few groups and stars, an occasional writer, and perhaps a handful of works of art or architecture manage to extend their time in the spotlight to something just short of a generation, but then they, too, go the way of the “American idols” as the fickle tastes of a mundane age, tethered to nothing more than momentary titillation—measured in terms of willingness to part with a buck—go searching like a snake’s tongue for the next meal.

Surely there is a better way to do culture?

Cultural confusion

American Idol illustrates the chaotic, democratic, and fleeting state of contemporary culture as a whole, which partakes of four dominant characteristics. There is first the profusion of culture: books and MP3 downloads by the millions, hundreds of TV channels, satellite radio, seasonal fashions, films, songs, cars, furniture, on and on and on, seemingly ad infinitum. We are awash in culture, overwhelmed and inundated by it.

This profusion of culture also features a far-flung diffusion. American culture is not concentrated in a few cultural hot zones; it’s everywhere. There is no escaping it, even if one wanted to. We head out to the woods to break away from the cultural drone only to have our ears assaulted by jet trails, the rumble of trucks on a highway, and noise leaks from other hikers’ headphones, and our view disturbed by trailside trash and signage marking our journey and telling us how far we have to go.

Moreover, we have become trapped in the suffusion of contemporary culture. We are so immersed in culture that we can’t begin to define ourselves apart from the culture to which we are addicted. We are what we do for a living, or how much we make, or where we live, or what kind of car we drive, or our favorite music, films, and TV shows. Thus culture begins to make us after its own image, and we give names to whole generations based on their identities as defined by the culture they imbibe: Boomers, Gen-Xers, Gen-Yers, and so forth.

All this indicates that ours is a time of cultural confusion. All culture is so jammed up, on, and in us that we scarcely know how to sort out the trash from the true. The only generally accepted standard guiding the cultural choices of our day is “Whatever!” We like what we like for the time that we like it, and we’re likely to like something else, like, whenever. This is no way to build a cultural legacy. It is not hard to imagine that future archeologists, unearthing the detritus of our mundane age, will conclude that the whole vast dig once known as America was just an enormous garbage dump.

A radical proposal

People who relish mindless mundanity may be quite content with the fleeting forms and self-referencing standards of contemporary culture, but those who inhabit the Kingdom not of this world aspire to something more permanent, certain, and sure. In all matters of life Christians are called to “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). In the arena of culture we must learn to look beyond mere personal preference, corrupted as it is by the lingering effects of ignorance and sin, and past the spirit of the world, with its sensual and materialist agenda, to discover divine standards for beauty, goodness, and truth.

We find those standards outlined in the pages of Scripture, and represented in the great works of art, literature, and music that have come down to us from our Christian past. In this vast treasury even our contemporaries who do not share our faith can recognize abiding forms of cultural permanence to be preserved and shared. Christians engaged in culture matters may look to the Word of God and the accumulated heritage of their venerable past as they take up their culture-making activities in our mundane age.

But above all we may discover the abiding cultural norms we seek in the One who is himself the great creator and source of all beauty, goodness, and truth. Jesus Christ is the supreme standard for all of life, including all culture. In him we may discern norms of abiding value to help us in learning to create and appreciate works of culture that possess lasting appeal.

While it may seem a radical proposal to argue that in the contemplation of Christ we can discover lasting norms for culture, it is not a new one. He himself, as we shall see, declared himself to be the proper judge and embodiment of abiding standards of righteousness and truth for every area of life. We may expect, therefore, that more careful and consistent contemplation of Christ, in all his manifestations, will yield guidelines for thinking about culture that can enable us to produce works of lasting beauty, goodness, and truth.

This is not the place for anything like an exhaustive treatment of such a broad claim. Instead, I hope to illustrate, from three facets of Jesus’ life and ministry, that looking at Christ from the vantage point of creating and judging culture can yield fruitful insights into how we may discern true beauty, goodness, and truth amid the confusion of culture that currently obtains in our mundane age. We look first at the question of beauty.

Christ for culture: beauty

In our day the understanding of beauty has been taken captive by the democratic and individualistic temper of the times.1 Beauty has become primarily a subjective element of culture-making and we make little attempt to define any objective or universal aesthetic standards by which any cultural artifact may be judged. Now more than ever before, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But when anyone may be considered a proper judge of beauty, and any object, be it ever so repulsive to some, may be considered beautiful by others, hope of knowing anything like true beauty begins to wane.

Yet in one episode from his earthly ministry we find our Lord Jesus pronouncing on a dramatic act, using the term “beautiful” (in Greek, kalos) to register his impression. Jesus’ anointing at the hands of Mary2 drew from him the assessment of her work in this somewhat peculiar form. While he might have chosen the more readily understandable word “good” (agathos), Jesus preferred instead to describe Mary’s actions with this aesthetic term that has as its primary meaning reference to an outward appearance free of defects, worthy of praise, and excellent. Others present only had contempt for what they regarded as a wasteful act, showing that what Soloviev observed about beauty was as true in Jesus’ day as in ours: “Formal beauty always shows itself as pure uselessness, whatever its material elements. However, this pure uselessness is valued highly by man and . . . not only by man.”3 Clearly Jesus meant to say that the little impromptu drama Mary played out before him was beautiful in the most aesthetic sense of the word. What could he have meant by that, and how does his observation instruct us in thinking about the nature of true beauty?

Let’s observe four features of Mary’s anointing of Jesus that may well have qualified this act as beautiful in his mind. First, this work was accomplished at great sacrifice. It cost Mary something to perform this work. Little of lasting beauty is created in a few moments. Long preparation, thoughtful planning, and careful execution are required, at great cost of time, resources, attention, and strength. As Jesus observed this playing-out of Mary’s sacrifice, it immediately struck him as an act worthy of being described as beautiful.

Second, Mary’s action brought delight to those who experienced it. There can be no doubt but that the overall atmosphere of that house was strongly affected, both by the sudden fragrance of expensive perfume and the shocking drama of this familiar friend administering her gift over the head of her Lord. The sweetness, tenderness, boldness, and olfactory pleasure of it all made this an event to be remembered, as three of the four evangelists prove by including it in their accounts of the life and ministry of our Lord. And the story continues to bring delight today, as Jesus predicted it would. There can be little of real beauty in any artifact of culture where only a few people, and only from a given moment of time, concur in its aesthetic worth. Beauty, to be true, must stand the test of time and bring delight to generations.

Third, Jesus shows us that one need not be an accomplished master artist to produce a work of true and lasting beauty. Beauty is accomplished with simplicity, in humble as well as magisterial ways. Mary is described as doing what she could. Beauty is not a cultural category reserved only to great works of art. Even the humblest everyday work of sacrifice, which brings delight to others and points us to the love of God in Christ, can be a work of true beauty.

A final element of Mary’s act qualifies it as one of true beauty. Mary’s work was fraught with transcendent significance. Her shocking, sacrificial, tender act, which filled the house with such wonder and delight, pointed beyond itself, and its creator, to the larger reality of Christ and his coming death, as Jesus told those present. Thus we have not discovered the true beauty of any work of art until we have brought to light its eternal implications, which may be present even apart from the intentions of the work’s creator. That work is surely more beautiful in which those transcendent references are intended; however, God has given gifts of culture-making even to those who rebel against him,4 and he intends to make himself known even in the works of those who despise him.

These four features—sacrifice, enduring delight, simplicity, and transcendence—hardly exhaust the elements of true beauty. But they outline a field within which we may work to bring more such elements to light. And, we can believe that by contemplating Christ as pre-incarnate Wisdom, incarnate as sacrificial love, risen and exalted in glory, and returning in splendor, majesty, and might, we may begin to recover something of the sense of beauty that informed the works of such great Christian masters of the past as Ephraem, Bach, Rembrandt, Hopkins, and countless others.5

Christ for culture: goodness

As in the realm of aesthetics so also in the cultural arena of ethics Christ provides a standard more reliable than the flux and flow of mundane ethical theory and practice. The arbiters of ethical conduct in our day are making every effort to institutionalize a kind of absolute relativism as the norm for ethical decision-making. School systems teach children from kindergarten to high school to determine acceptable sexual conduct on the basis of what educators refer to as “good touch, bad touch.” Even the Supreme Court, in the famous “mystery clause” of their 1992 decision, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, have declared it to be the very essence of Americanism to be able to choose one’s own worldview and course in life, without outside interference. Pop culture in all its forms celebrates but one universal norm for ethical conduct: tolerance. Anything and everything goes, and no one must judge or impede anyone else in his ethical choices, so long as the freedom of others to choose their way in life is not infringed.

But, again, in a world where one man’s goodness is another man’s bane, where only the narrowest standard of tolerance is to be applied in matters of ethical conduct, we may not hope to create a glorious and harmonious ethical landscape of diverse colors and forms. By insisting that every color and form of ethical choice must be allowed free expression, we instead paint the canvas of American ethical life a kind of dingy grey, all the way to the edges.

Christ provides an unchanging standard of goodness to help us make sense of the best ways of living in community and building a just and caring society. He described himself as the very embodiment of goodness,6 was recognized as such by his contemporaries,7 and clearly indicated that he expected his followers to live good lives, after his example.8 One episode from his ministry in particular can help us focus on the broad outlines of Christ’s standard of goodness.

In the story of Zacchaeus9 we may discern four criteria at work that mark out the broad parameters of a Christ-centered standard for goodness in ethical matters. First is the observation of Christ that good is what conforms to the requirements of God’s Law.10 Zacchaeus had been guilty of stealing from his neighbors through his participation in the Roman government of Judea as a tax collector. His neighbors regarded him as a sinner. When, in repentance for his transgressions, Zacchaeus vowed to repay his neighbors and then some, as required in God’s Law,11 Jesus immediately acknowledged his work as one characteristic of salvation and worthy of praise.

A second aspect of ethical goodness may also be observed, which is that Zacchaeus’s determined course of retribution was designed to restore wholeness and justice to his community. He himself would be made whole by his penitential act, his neighbors would be compensated for their losses, and the fellowship and wholeness of that little community would be restored.

Third, Jesus saw in Zacchaeus’ determined course a work of goodness that would set him on a course beyond what it is reasonable to expect in his responsibilities as a neighbor. Like Jesus’ teaching on the widow’s mite, going the extra mile, loving one’s enemies, and praying for those who persecute us, Zacchaeus showed, in repaying his thefts fourfold and giving half his goods to the poor, that good works are extraordinary and so flow from abundant grace rather than a mere sense of duty or obligation.

Finally, works are good when they refer us to the transcendent God.12 Jesus saw in Zacchaeus’ work the very embodiment of God’s covenant, the outworking of promises motivated and fulfilled by grace, which recalled the grace and abundance of God toward men.

Of course, much more must be said about the nature of goodness, but in this story of a redeemed sinner the Lord Jesus marks out the field of thinking and action for the ethical arena of moral living and cultural endeavor. Contemplating Jesus and studying his teachings can only help us to improve our ability to identify the abiding norms of goodness he embodied and taught. When Jesus becomes the preeminent focus of our lives, it is safe to say that he will begin to form us into his own character, and lead us in his path of righteousness and good works, so that Christ becomes “the hub who orders and integrates every spoke of life.”13

Christ for culture: truth

As in the areas of aesthetics and ethics, where Jesus Christ outlines reliable standards for cultural endeavor, so in the field of epistemology, the foundation of all moral and cultural action,14 he serves to guide us through the morass of relativism and uncertainty to the solid banks of reliable truth.

Of course, Jesus claimed to be truth;15 it stands to reason, therefore, that we should be able to discern from his actions at least the broad outlines of what constitutes truth as a foundation for moral or cultural action. One passage that sheds clear light on this area of culture matters is the account of Jesus’ encounter with the religious leaders of his day.16 Jesus had been casting out demons, and the religious leaders who opposed him were at pains to describe for themselves and the always-astonished crowds an explanation for what they were seeing. They needed, in other words, to persuade themselves and others of a position respecting Jesus which they wanted to insist on as the truth of the matter. Their attempt to set forth the truth about Jesus held that he was in league with the devil and that this explained why he was able to cast out demons. Jesus’ response is a lucid tour de force of the requirements of truth in this or any situation. We may discern four benchmarks outlining Jesus’ interpretation of truth.

First, Jesus insisted, truth must be agreeable to sound reason. Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders can be succinctly summarized: Does your explanation make sense? Would reasonable people find your account of truth to be believable, according to the most fundamental tenets of reason? Jesus demonstrated that the view of the religious leaders could not cohere—it was not logically consistent and was thus offensive to reason and plain sense—because their view required a contradictory proposition: if Satan opposes himself, he is doomed to fail. Does it make sense that Satan would send Jesus to fight against Satan, hoping to defeat Jesus?

Second, Jesus showed that the religious leaders’ account could not be true because it was not congruent with reality. It did not account for all similar facts in a consistent and believable manner. Would these leaders, who claimed that the truth about Jesus was that he was in league with the devil because he cast out demons, be willing to apply that explanation to their own disciples? Had these men, who also cast out demons, and who had learned from Jesus’ opponents, been instructed by the devil and joined his ranks along with Jesus? Their explanation could not be relied upon as true because it failed to give an explanation that was congruent with and made sense of all the available evidence and facts.

Third, the religious leaders’ claim to truth was not sufficiently comprehensive to explain everything else Jesus was doing—healing the sick, raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, teaching of the glories of God’s Kingdom, and so forth. How could one who was in league with the devil in this matter of casting out demons be so plainly a man of abundant good works in so many other areas (as even his enemies acknowledged)? Their “truth” did not fit well with the larger picture of things; it did not lead clearly to a larger and all-comprehending explanation of truth that provided a reasonable and coherent account of all things.

Finally, while the account proffered by the religious leaders led to the conclusion of a Satanic plot, Jesus insisted that his explanation meant that the Spirit of God was at work among men in a new way, the Kingdom of God had come, Satan had been bound, and those who follow in the way of Jesus were now about the business of plundering the “strong man’s” holdings. Truth as Jesus lived and taught it always redounds to the glory of God in the final analysis, acknowledging his sovereignty and rule and seeking his praise and glory in all things.

So once again we may expect that by a more careful contemplation of Jesus, and earnest communion with him, we shall be able to discern standards for truth to undergird and guide all our thinking and actions in the epistemological arena of culture, as in the aesthetic and the ethical.

The barest outline

I have only attempted in this brief essay the barest outline of a project for articulating standards of beauty, goodness, and truth, focused on Jesus. It is, however, one that can help to re-align our cultural activities according to a divinely directed agenda. There is more to be done in elaborating this outline, but the direction of that elaboration is indicated, I think by these few points. I believe that in each of the arenas of culture—aesthetics, ethics, and epistemology—we can see that Jesus stands in the spotlight, declaring himself to be the focus of all standards of beauty, goodness, and truth. Christ is a powerful standard and guide for all kinds of cultural activity. By looking more earnestly and consistently to him, we should be able to discover the day-to-day details of cultural life.

The screen on my PDA consists of a great many dots and points. It occasionally falls out of alignment, and then the cursor fails to perform as it should, documents and schedules become confused, and the whole falls into an increasing mode of chaos and uncertainty. To bring it back to proper alignment I need not spell out in detail where every dot must be assigned. I just have to go to the program for screen alignment aligning and press down the stylus on four primary benchmarks. Everything else falls into place as if by a miracle.

So it is with Christ as a standard for culture. The more we invest our energies in contemplating Jesus, communing with him through Scripture and prayer, preaching and teaching him, talking with one another about him, and proclaiming him to the lost around us, the more his power as a standard for culture will begin to be evident. When Christ is more consistently and intensely the focus of our minds, then the mind of Christ, which we possess,17 will begin to exert more of its power to make all things new, including all of culture in all its forms.  

T. M. Moore is Dean of the Centurions Program of the Wilberforce Forum and Principal of The Fellowship of Ailbe, a spiritual fellowship in the Celtic Christian tradition. He is the author or editor of twenty books, and has contributed chapters to several others. His essays, reviews, articles, papers, and poetry have appeared in dozens of national and international journals, and on a wide range of websites. His most recent books are Culture Matters (Brazos) and The Hidden Life, a handbook of poems, songs, and spiritual exercises (Waxed Tablet). Sign up at his website to receive his daily email devotional Crosfigell, reflections on Scripture and the Celtic Christian tradition. T. M. and his wife and editor, Susie, make their home in Concord, TN.

Features, Arts and Culture, Sun 27 Apr 2008