GO BACK
|
Part
2 of 2 Creativity:
|
| We
are well aware that man cannot create in the
absolute sense...We use the word
"create" to convey an extension and
amplification of something we do know, and we
limit the application of the metaphor precisely
as we limit the metaphor of fatherhood. We know a
father and picture to ourselves an ideal Father;
similarly, we know a human "maker" and
picture to ourselves an ideal "Maker." |
| And
God said, "Let us make man in our image, in
our likeness...So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God he created him...(Gen
1:26-28) |
This Maker/maker analogy, affirms Sayers, is located in the concept of man created in image of God (the "imago deo"). Scripture does not specifically say what comprises the imago deo, rather the immediate context of Scripture in Genesis one leads to the conclusion that God "created" (Gen. 1:1); therefore mankind is fundamentally a maker. That is what the Genesis one is about and that is what the imago deo is about:
| How
then can he [man] be said to resemble
God?....when we turn back to see what he says
about the original upon which the
"image" of God was modeled, we find
only the single assertion, "God
created." The characteristic common to God
and man is apparently that: the desire to make
things. |
She also rejects theories that art is a "copy," an "imitation," or a "representation" of forms. She believes in an Incarnational approach to the arts (poetry, music, fine arts, etc.), citing that Christ enfleshed was not an inferior imitation but a mirror image of God:
| Suppose
having rejected the words "copy,"
"imitation," and
"representation" as inadequate, we
substitute the word "image and say that what
the artist is doing is to image forth something
or other, and connect that with St. Paul's
phrase: "God...hath spoke to us by His son,
the brightness of his glory and express image of
his person." (Heb. 1:3) The Christian revelation set free all the images, by showing that the true Image subsisted within the Godhead Itself--it was neither copy, nor imitation, nor representation, nor inferior, nor subsequent, but the brightness of the glory, and the express image of his Person--the very mirror in which reality knows itself and communicates itself in power. |
May I interject here? The words translated "express image" above (Gr. "charakter"), are translated as "exact representation" in the NIV and NASB versions. We find, however, the word "image" (Gr. "eikon") used elsewhere in reference to Christ, which corroborates the thrust of her argument. For example:
| "Christ,
who is in the image of God." (2 Cor. 4:4) "He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God..." (Col.1:15) "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son..."(Rom. 8:29 NASB) |
My study suggests that the words "image" and "imitate" are employed differently in Scripture. The word "imitate" is used by Paul and the writer of Hebrews in reference to behavior modification:
| "I
exhort you therefore, be imitators of me."
(I Cor. 4:16, NASB) "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ... (I Cor. 11:1, NASB) "You also became imitators of us and of the Lord... (I Thess. 1:6 NASB) "And we desire that each one of you... [be] imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6:11-12 NASB) |
In other words, the word
"image" in Biblical useage, seems to be used
more in relation to communication processes. The word
"imitate" is used for behavior modification, as
when a son watches his father and learns by doing what he
does, or when a student copies a particular musical or
sermonic style, or performs the way his teacher does.
Stravinsky sums this up well:
"the object of music is not and cannot be
imitation," but "imitation is in itself
something useful and even indispensable to beginners who
train themselves by studying models." The mature
artists, however, have an idea and then use the materials
available to "image," embody, or flesh out
their intent. In that sense art is incarnational, just as
Christ is God incarnate.
Sayers further believes the concept of the Trinity suggests a model for the human creative process. Though the Trinity enjoys a reputation for "obscurity and remoteness from experience," a Trinitarian structure in the Creative Mind of God parallels a Trinitarian structure familiar to the creative mind of the human artist:
| In
the extraordinary set of formulae about the
Trinity-in-unity...[there emerges] an artistic
analogy...of the human artist at work--a picture
exact to the minutest detail, familiar at every
point, and corroborated in every feature by
day-to-day experience. For every work [act or performance] of creation is threefold, an earthy trinity to match the heavenly. First, [not in time, but merely in order of enumeration] there is the Creative Idea, passionless, timeless, beholding the whole work complete at once, the end from the beginning: and this is the image of the Father. Second, there is the Creative Energy [or Activity] begotten of that idea, working time from the beginning to the end, with sweat and passion, being incarnate in the bonds of matter: and this is the image of the Word. Third, there is the Creative Power, the meaning of the work and its response in the lively soul: and this is the image of the indwelling Spirit. And these three are one, each equally in itself the whole work, where none can exist without the other; and this is the image of the Trinity. So the act of the poet in creation is seen to be a threefold trinity--experience [the Father], expression [the Son], and recognition [the Spirit]. |
To reiterate, for the
writer the Idea is equated with having an
"idea" for a book, or the book as thought; the
Energy is the incarnation of that idea in words or the
book as written; and the Power is the communication of
the image in power or the book as read.
Instead of a book, the Trinitarian model could be applied
to sermon making or music performance and composition.
Her idea is certainly an intriguing application of a
great and central theological doctrine, don't you think?
In fact, thinking of the Trinity this way assigns value
to the concept, and brings what has been felt as an
obscure and difficult concept, closer to our human
experience. Positive! Denis de Rougement uses three verbs
to evoke the same artistic functioning in the Trinity:
"to create [Father], to incarnate [Son], to inspire
[Holy Spirit]."
Sayers enlarges on the theological implications:
| Theologically,
the Word is said to be "equal to the Father
as touching His Godhead and inferior to the
Father as touching his manhood"--which may
be translated into the language of our analogy:
"Equal to the Idea as touching its essence
and inferior to the Idea as touching its
expression." It is inferior, not only in the
sense that it is limited by form as the Idea is
not, but also in the sense that its form is
creaturely and therefore subject to the
Idea--"I do the will of My Father." [Concerning the nature of creative mind] there is a difference only of technical phraseology, and between the mind of the maker and the Mind of his Maker, a difference, not of category, but only of quality and degree. |
Sayers insists the Biblical concept of creativity envisages the production of something new, a unique aspect of the Christian world view in contrast to the Greek world view:
| The
true work of art, then, is something new...
neither circumcision availeth anything nor
uncircumcision, but a new creature. Something has
been created. This word--this idea of Art as creation is, I believe, the one important contribution that Christianity has made to aesthetics. Unfortunately, we are apt to use the words "creation" and "creativeness" very vaguely and loosely, because we do not relate them properly to our theology. But it is significant that the Greeks had not this word in their aesthetic at all. They looked on a work of art as a kind of techne, a manufacture. Neither, for that matter was the word in their theology. |
A study of the eighty-six
occurrences of the word "create' in Scripture
supports Sayers contention does that newness centrally
characterizes creativity. In eight instances the word
"new" occurs in immediate conjunction with the
word "bara". Furthermore "new"
(chadash), like the word bara, is used sparingly in
reference to significant events.
What kind of newness is involved? How can it be
described? What are its features, its criteria? A study
of the context of in which "create" occurs
indicates at least five features that characterize bara
newness.
Practically, these
criteria can guide human endeavor, help us recognize when
we onto something significant. Feature three is
particularly useful in avoiding unproductive forays. I
find myself thinking of these criteria often as I pursue
my own work!
Is it possible, then, that
the Bible envisions a creative capacity in man that is a
reflection of God's activity, even though bara is used
exclusively for God? Sayers has answered "Yes."
Sayers would locate the creative urge in man in the imago
deo, and would see analogies in the Maker/maker,
Trinity/trinity correspondences.
Is there other support for her view? Other grounds for
considering a human-divine interface include (1) man's
naming of the creatures, (2) the Psalm eight passage, and
the concepts of (3) "newness" and (4)
"wisdom." Wilkinson points out that God allows
Adam to share in the activity of Genesis creation: He
brings the animals before Adam and waits "to see
what he would name them" (Gen. 1:19). Wilkinson
says,
| "To
name a thing is not only to exert power over it,
it is also to recognize its true nature--even to
shape and release that true nature, to direct it
into what it could not become without the namer.
We see God often naming people in this way.
Abram, for example, becomes Abraham, and so
reveals his destiny as father of a
multitude...[Adam's naming] is a kind of creative
power, over creation, by words. In it, God
invites man to participate with him in shaping
the world." |
In Psalm eight, written after the Fall, a close linkage is forged between man and God:
| Yet
Thou hast made him [man] a little lower than God
[Elohim], and dost crown him with glory and
majesty! Thou does make him to rule over the
works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things
under his feet. (Ps. 8: NASB) |
And Romans suggests that man has a cooperative role to play in "reconciling" creation:
| ...the
anxious longing of creation awaits eagerly for
the revealing of the sons of God...that the
creation itself also will be set free from its
slavery... (Rom. 8: 19-21 NASB) |
Moreover, God creates by exercising wisdom, and man is enjoined to get wisdom:
| But
God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding [Jer10:12] How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. [Ps104:24] Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding... By wisdom the Lord laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; [Prov 3:13,19] |
Please do not
misunderstand! Nowhere would Sayers nor does any
Scripture teach that man is God or a god! Rather, the
suggestion is that there is correspondence.
Let's review for a moment
what the Reformed and Sacramentalist exponents have each
contributed to our understanding of Biblical creativity.
The Reformed exponents have emphasized a respect for the
materials of creation, given dignity to the concept of
man as a worker, clarified and extended the meaning of
the creation mandate, and have provided a healthy caution
to the dangerous concept of a "heaven storming"
creativity. The Sacramentalists have contributed the idea
of art as incarnational, and have related the process of
creativity to theology--given artistic process some
theological underpinning in the concept of the Trinity.
Both are valuable.