An Addendum to Total Truth

Over the past few days, there has been a little controversy on my post, Total Truth. As always, I appreciate the great discussions that go around with these types of posts and I have learned a lot. Since then, Agent Tim has started a series of posts (part one and part two) that discuss my post, as well as this topic.

Please make sure you read my first post on Total Truth so that you fully understand the following.

Some people have perceived our remarks as taking Nancy Pearcey out of context. Agent Tim says in Part Two of his series:

I think what is happening here is simply this: an excellent discussion was started [right here at Spunky Jr.], but the catalyst for the discussion was taken out of context.

When I wrote this post (along with Katie) I did not have the slightest intent to take Nancy Pearcey's book out of context. Nor do I believe we did so. I love Total Truth and the things I have read. I'm not against Nancy Pearcey, nor am I against her book! I have learned a great deal since reading it. Rather, my intent was to read this passage and reflect on its meaning in light of biblical truth. This is a practice that I'm learning to apply to all my reading.

Catez of Allthings2All left the following comment,

You are looking at it from the point of view of what you watch, read etc. Pearcey is looking at it very evangelistically, as part of a process i.e. how do we relate to people? Do we say one dimensionally, "Your work is immoral", or do we say, "I don't agree with everything in your work but I see the gift you have in music, art, etc and would like to discuss the origin of that gift" - or something like that. Depends on the artform and the situation.

I would tend to agree with you here Catez, however, I will not subject myself to disgusting works and apply what you suggest by saying, "I don't agree with everything in your work but I see the gift you have in music, art, etc and would like to discuss the origin of that gift". I'm not going to compliment them on their "work of art" or their "writing" and then try and win them over to its origins.

Some may also assume that when reading, viewing or discussing these things will not have an impact on you. Hardly. The Bible says that bad company corrupts good morals. The same is true here. No matter how hard we try to distance ourselves from it, it can happen. In its application there is the potential degredation of our values.

Catez goes on to say,

Nancy Pearcey doesn't promote double standards. She is talking about how we communicate certain truths. You don't have to like the art, but it will contain something of the creativity that comes from the image of God in a person - creativity doesn't come from anywhere else. How the creativity is used is another matter. I think you may have missed Pearcey's point - she is talking about what we say to people. You are talking about what you personally appreciate.

Catez, I think we're talking about the same thing here, but with two different applications. This post was in regards to personal application of what I read/watch. Even still, I'm not sure I'd go this far to evangelize someone (but that's another post for another time). Some of you may be more willing to consider "works of art" and try and discuss them with others (for personal/evangelicalistic purposes). But I'm looking at this issue from a biblical standpoint.

I think my mom made an excellent point in her comment at Agent Tim's second post,

According to Nancy Pearcey, “Our first response to the great works of human culture-whether in art or technology or economic productivity—should be to celebrate them as reflections of God’s own creativity.”

So is she asking us to evaluate Elvis Presley this way?

In his God given smooth baritone voice, Elvis lures the listener into lust?

I’m sorry but that’s just not something I celebrate as God’s creativity. His talent is indeed from God but in its corrupted state, I don’t thing we are called to celebrate it. No matter what our cultural mandate is.

That was the point of my original post and why I closed with

I agree with Nancy Pearcey, that we need to focus on God's creativity but first we must make sure that the work is from God's hand.

I also mentioned Psalm 101:3 in my first post and I don't take that lightly regardless of how creative something is. Some people are willing to do things that I would consider "over the edge" and that's fine.

Veronika made a statement in the comments earlier that I would have to agree with,

We shouldn't be extremists, but I personally would prefer to be labeled as an extremist or legalist then as an indulger.

Now I guess I'll have no reason to wonder why I may come across to non-believers "as angry and scolding". It certainly isn't my intent to come across that way. Not at all . But if the alternative is the embrace the "creativity" of a talented sinner. I guess I'm okay with that.