E. Stephen Burnett says:

the idea that “good art” glorifies God is a fallacy.

In one way, yes — in another way, I think I disagree … but with the disclaimer that imbalanced views can result on other side, and one can overcorrect for either.

From what I recall, Ryken in that quote was no opposing more-overt preaching, but reminding readers that God, as the giver of all good gifts, is glorified generally when they are used well. But only a Christian can approach seeing this specifically. Similarly, nature (though fallen) glorifies God intrinsically, but only the Word specifically reveals and glorifies Him. Even sinful, “totally depraved” people sometimes reflect Him and can do “good” things, though certainly not enough to be redeemed.

I wonder if retrieving the quotes’ contexts might add clarity. (Yes, I had posted them up there, and very glad to find they might contribute to a fascinating discussion.)

Science fiction emerges from being made in God’s image? How then do we explain all those who look at science fiction with loathing?

Perhaps similar to those — like me — who are often impressed by the idea of athletic prowess, but can’t stand the thought of personally doing all that “pointless” work?

Is their science fiction still a result of their God image or is it a twist of their God image, more akin to their sin nature?

I would venture the latter. Similarly, music with a rhythmic backbeat is not intrinsically evil, but many people have abused it to endorse all manner of sins.

I believe too many Christian writers claim a mulligan to cover up our unwillingness to work hard at creating a story that neither preaches nor pacifies, but causes readers to think deeply about spiritual things, especially about God.

On that we completely agree. Christians who want to glorify God directly (and all true Christians should!) will not want to jump back to “common grace” and thus skip over echoes of specific grace. And yet it’s also encouraging to know that God can be glorified even when I’m not specifically preaching the Gospel. That article I write about the city council story, if done well (not sloppily, without a God-honoring work ethic) can thus honor Him, just as much as the novel-in-progress whose themes more directly credit Him for Who He is. Yet of course I must admit that I much prefer the novel and more-direct artistry that reveals Him more specifically!

E. Stephen Burnett says:

Of course, if we’re talking about the Ford Pinto, perhaps not so much.

Just now we read that and my wife said: “Well, that was a case in which someone didn’t fulfill his vocation properly!”

Adding to that: if a Christian had designed and built the first Ford Pinto (or the ugly car of your choice), then stamped “John 3:16” on the hood, does that car give glory to God? Or perhaps a Christian mechanic “repairs” a car, and doesn’t cheat the owner, but fails to have studied and applied himself as much as he could and in effect does a bad job — but also stamps “John 3:16” on the hood. I doubt that gives much glory to God.

The question then becomes, I suppose: does a non-Christian engineer/mechanic who ignores the Gospel, but who (in a “common grace” way) applies himself and designs/repairs the car well, glorify God more than the Christian? I would say yes and no: per specific grace, no, but in a general common-grace way, yes.

E. Stephen Burnett says:

If anyone likes, I can find the original paragraph(s) for that quote, from Alcorn’s nonfiction book Heaven (which, by the way, is much more focused on the New Heavens and New Earth then the present-day, “intermediate” Heaven).

Yet your great comments, Amy, have reminded me to dig up the context for the Ryken quote. While someone might still use that to justify avoiding or scoffing at specific Gospel proclamation (because “all a Christian needs to do is do good art,” someone reasons — a notion based on logical inference and a self-consistent System but not consistency with Scripture) I doubt Ryken or his material supports that.

Instead Ryken is writing against the notion that the only way to reflect God’s glory or proclaim His truth is a complete “John 3:16”-style evangelism message. He doesn’t seem to say (as some do, unfortunately perhaps by way of legalism in the opposite direction) that it’s sinful or even tacky to paint “John 3:16” on the hood of a car. But some Christians have the notion that this is the only way art, work or a non-“ministry” vocation can glorify God, by adding specific evangelism to it.

This quote starts on page 50 of Art for God’s Sake and continues through the chapter’s end on page 52 (all boldface emphases added):

Art for God’s sake–this is what the tabernacle [of the book of Exodus] was all about. Every detail in that sacred building was for the praise of God’s glory. The altar and the atonement cover (also known as the mercy seat) testified to his face. The table of the showbread proclaimed his providence. The lampstand spread his light. But even there things that were not symbolic were for God. This is why the tabernacle was made so carefully, with such fine materials and elaborate decorations: it was all for the glory of God.

The same should be true of everything that we create: it should all be for God’s glory. In one sense, this is inherently true of all good art, whether or not it happens to be produced by people who actually intend to glorify God. The doctrine of creation teaches that by God’s common grace, the gift of art inevitably declares the praise of its Giver. Thus non-Christians as well as Christian artists can represent virtue, beauty, and truth. It is important to remember, as Nigel Goodwin has said, that “God in His wisdom did not give all His gifts to Christians.” But even if God may be glorified by art that is not explicitly offered in his honor, he is most truly praised when his glory is the aim of our art.

This does not mean that all our art has to be evangelistic in the sense that it explicitly invites people to believe in Christ. To give an example from another calling, the way in which a Christian who makes cars glorifies God is not by painting “John 3:16” on the hood. Rather, he glorifies God by making a good car. Similarly, the artist glorifies God by making good art, whether or not it contains an explicit gospel message. The sculptor glorifies God in her sculpture; the architect glorifies God in his building; and so forth. Because it works with the materials of creation, the artistry itself is capable of conveying the artist’s commitment to a good, loving, and gracious Creator.

Another way to say this is that art can be Christian without serving merely as a vehicle for evangelism, or for other forms of preaching. Such a utilitarian perspective impoverishes the arts. A more complete perspective on Christian art recognizes that a creation always reveals something about it creator. What artists make tells us something about how they view the world. Thus the art of a Christian ought to be consistent with a life of faith in Christ. This is not always the case, of course, because artists struggle with their fallen nature as much as anyone else. Nevertheless, as Francis Schaeffer wrote, “Christian art is the expression of the whole life of the whole person who is a Christian. What a Christian portrays in his art is the totality of life.” Johann Sebastian Bach is famous for signing his works with the letters “sDg,” standing for the Latin phrase soli Deo gloria— “to God alone be the glory.” This was a pious act that indicated the composer’s sincere desire to present his art as an offering to God. The important thing, however, was not so much the letters that Bach added to his score, but the music itself, which in its ordered beauty was a testimony to his faith in God. In the same way, every artist whose talents are under the lordship of Jesus Christ will produce art for God’s sake.