Writer: Ronald Wong

The “art for art’s sake” mantra is well known, and perhaps passé (it was born in the 19th century). But is it extinct? Or does its ghost haunt us from its grave, even while we go about today thinking we are working on a “modern” edifice of art which has more meaningful purpose? Must we constantly re-examine the purpose of art, or more specifically, our art? Here, reflecting on a few questions I was recently faced with again, I do not seek to propound answers, although I may have my own opinions on the above thoughts—rather, I hope to pose questions which are beneficial and not antagonistic to helping persons such as myself to locate our bearings as followers of Christ.

One actor at a workshop I attended recently said that he was attracted to his form of applied theatre because he felt that most other practitioners in the industry are self-centred, whereas fellow practitioners in this form of applied theatre are more others-centred and “giving”. Must artists be self- or others- centred? Must art be that way?

This question brings to my mind how I was recently led onto a guilt trip. Having been burdened lately by the pressing need for social justice in the local and global community, I have been researching and praying about various areas of needs in our community. I rejoiced when I read about self-sacrificial missions that dedicate time and resources to serving the poor and oppressed. I commiserated when I read about the plight of the latter. Then I wondered, what is the artist’s role in this picture?

Is art useless in this mission? Can it and does it seek to entertain the oppressed? Is its role only to communicate about their plight? Can it and should it advocate socio-political change to address needs? Might it be able to serve a healing purpose? What if the things to be healed are health and nutrition? Is art any good? Or is art’s role confined to being merely a vehicle for the oppressed to express themselves? If so, does it make the art self-centred yet again, since the focus is on the artist’s expression or catharsis?

Another question that I have been grappling with is whether the otherness or selfishness about art lies in its substantive content, or in its form. Is classical theatre selfish because it is only telling someone else’s story, as opposed to playback theatre, which tells an audience member’s story? Is drama therapy others-centred or self-centred by virtue of its form? Is it others-centred because it lacks any fixed substantive content? Is it self-centred because the form is filled by the participant’s subjective content?

Is self-centredness and others-centredness even a worthy distinction? Are those virtues or flaws in themselves? Do these characteristics even guide us to any normative purpose, or theory of the good, which we should strive towards?

The tribal missions video Eetaow[1], produced by New Tribes Mission, documents the story of how the Mouk tribe in Paupau New Guinea was ministered to by an NTM missionary. After the tribe accepted Christ, they were inspired to go on their own preaching mission to neighbouring tribes (who were actually previously warring tribes). What I find significant about this is how this rudimentary tribe ingeniously made use of their limited resources to incorporate the gospel into drama, re-enacting the Biblical narrative as taught to them by the missionary. At the end of the preaching mission (which probably lasted for an entire year), the receiving tribe too accepted Christ and broke out into spontaneous rejoicing for hours, just as the Mouk tribe had done earlier. (I attach below two snapshots from the video that I have on hand.)

What if, hypothetically, the substance of their dramatic teaching was about conspiring to subvert the Papua New Guinea government? What if the content of their “folk art form” was to revive cannibalism (which the tribes have been practising until only recently)?

A sceptical non-Christian might ask: How does the use of “rudimentary” drama, and the subsequent/consequent conversion of these tribes, address their physical needs? Where is the economic development? Yet, are economic development and physical needs everything? Further, do these tribes need economic development?

In other corners of the world, there is extreme poverty, sickness, forced labour, slavery, sex trafficking, illegal property seizure, illegal detention, police brutality, sexual violence, and religious persecution. Can art help the oppressed from these? Should art help the oppressed from these?

Critics of the “integral mission” movement say that the movement has lost its focus in emphasising social justice, forsaking evangelization which should be paramount. That is a sad strawman argument—integral mission is nothing unique; it is but a description of what Jesus himself did in His ministry—preaching, teaching, proclaiming, rebuking, serving, feeding, healing, caring, commiserating, praying, exemplifying, modelling simultaneously. But where does art fit in?

Perhaps all these questions and thoughts have been predicated on false assumptions and false dichotomies. Perhaps it is false to dichotomise the person of the artist into the person qua artist and the person qua human. Perhaps it is false to dichotomise what the artist does into artistic endeavours and non-artistic endeavours. Perhaps the self-centred versus others-centred dichotomy is misconceived; it is merely a question of giving or receiving, and neither is any more right or wrong. Perhaps the dichotomy between substance and form is non-beneficial to achieving the end goal. And perhaps it is pointless to distinguish the various “utilities” and “functions” of art, but rather, we should be distinguishing the normative end goal.

Just as integral mission seeks to erase the false dichotomy between evangelization per se and social justice per se, perhaps an integral following of Christ requires us to rethink labels, forms, boundaries, modes and means, and focus instead on the end goal.

In Mark 8:34, Jesus said, “Whoever wants to be My disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow Me.” The word “follow” is translated from the Greek word akoloutheo which could mean “1” in the sense “as a particle of union” or keleuthos which means “to be in the same way with, i.e. accompany as a disciple”. The absolute command is clear. If we are to be followers of Christ, we must be in union with Him, and walk in the same way as He did on earth. And in the same way that Jesus was not just a teacher, or aid worker, or prophet, or minister, it would do well for us to remember that we are not just an artist, or any particular vocation for that matter. It would also do well for us to acknowledge that art per se is not the only, nor sufficient way. But as to how art, or at least our art, fits into the grander scheme of things, that is perhaps for us to find out or follow.

Not domineering [as arrogant, dictatorial, and overbearing persons] over those in your charge, but being examples (patterns and models of Christian living) to the flock (the congregation). –1 Peter 5:3, Amplified Bible

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” –John 21:15-18, NIV

Photo credit: George Chua

One quiet night, during which my fourteen-month-old daughter lay blissfully asleep, I fell into a certain reverie. It had something to do with the fact that our women’s Bible study was on the first letter of Peter, and the way I meditated in a different strand from usual. By usual surprise, there was the divine jolt based on the concoction of homework and reflection.

The version was simple enough — New Living Translation, one that my husband frowned inwardly upon because it was not NKJV, a “proper” one, but relented because I was me. The meditation was the one that veered. I was more conscious of the history of Peter’s transformation than a verse, a chapter memory or socio-historical background reading; all three did converge at some point because you cannot think of someone in the bible apart from what he says or how he lived, but that was not what I was conscious about. This time, I really imagined Peter the man writing the letter (via Silvanus), and his change moved me to want to be like him.

Peter, at this point, was walking in a wholehearted devotion to Christ, based simply on obedience and in reference to Jesus’ last words to him to feed his sheep. I understood, for the first time in my life (revelation in the sense of a light bulb or settled dust) that obedience to Christ is maturity in Christ.

As I related to someone yesterday, “I enjoy aging.” (This kind of talk is foolish for small group conversations among ladies because so many things can come out that you don’t have time for, therefore, I should not reiterate this statement too often in a year because my patience wears thin, ha ha…). In one aspect, “aging” refers to chronologically accumulated experiences and discerning reflections of oneself, that is, I love the process of becoming wiser. However, this is also silly because age is never more powerful than agelessness. Therefore, I much prefer conversations that potentially look forward to just how I’ve grown in Christ as stated in the doubled edged sword. A good measurement of sagacity should tear down whatever value we’ve made of man-made garlands, like praise, honour, wealth, glory etc. Then again, am I opening myself to Insidious pride maybe, at a growing humility? That is why I am humbled by Peter’s change.

In light of Christ’s last words and his own, Peter had overcome – the younger self of anger, prejudice, and shame, and influential, prophetic personality and leadership — these stages being most popular over the pulpit for a ‘swashbuckling fool made good’ (my paraphrase) when preachers bring up lessons on Peter.

Peter has matured because he has grown simpler… so simple that any layperson still fighting for social justice (or struggling to believe that entire Scripture is inspired by God) can pluck faults from the kind of attitude Peter wants believers to have. Because this letter was before martyrdom under Nero and the second letter, the anti-Christian sentiments in Rome, and in reference to some world governments today, make the exhortations to follow authorities difficult to follow. When I was too young, I remembered arguing the fine balance of submission to authority in the contexts of world and church history. The argumentation for “balance” is academically sound but terribly misplaced if that is how we try to read the Bible. In my discerning mind, I cannot yet accept that being at peace with each other in marriage means what Peter said it means in the letter. How I react to church leaders being measured against that famous sermon to look after the sheep, according by example as an elder, is clearly more by intellectual judgment than Peter, who by the first letter, has become the blooming fruit of the Spirit.

So how grating is the word of God against our truer selves, the souls, because true simplicity is unadorned and untainted obedience to Christ! Peter had grown to feed the sheep by yielding to Christian authority and boundaries on earth, as it is in heaven. I repent of a stupid idealism, that the apex of Peter’s reputation is in sermons like Acts 2:14-41 and signs and wonders. Could it be that man, drawn to the same glitter of gold is also prone to salivating at kingdom demonstration than character? My fault lies against the reflection of the word of God. If the Word says the kingdom should grow to be a huge mustard tree, then Peter’s kingdom growth in Acts was powerful but a display of young shoots then; the tree burst at its branches nearer the end of his life than at the beginning of the Pentecost. (If we learn from example, we should see signs and wonders in our young Christian walk!)

I am foolishly insecure when I think my life’s works should be accounted by the performance of some kingdom demonstration, when true obedience stretches longer and deeper than one generation’s opinion or rejection. Peter’s change from fiery passion to the gentleness and lowliness of Christ comes by example via following his Lord. Our fiery passion must be tempered towards Christlike character and not simply demonstrations for fireworks. Because Christlikeness can only be gotten from a true worship of God in spirit and in truth (see John 4:23-24) — permeating all parts of our selves, the body, soul and mind, this kind of worship is exemplified by Peter’s fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:7) as compared to fear of man, which belies our convictions when we honestly assess how much we believe and follow what Peter says about relationships and authority.

Mentoring is leading by example because wisdom is powerful when embodied. Christ is the walking model of wisdom. “What you value, shows”, said the ex-youth pastor Steven of Trinity Christian Centre. I heard this during his exposition of the Ten Commandments. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Ten Commandments (see note 3), and it obviously takes a perfect person to do so. The perfect person is perfect in wisdom. To be wise is to follow true wisdom, not earthly education. I cannot see how I can (begin to) do so without knowing the perfection that is Jesus Christ. What helps in the analysis of daily living according to wisdom, are the people who live by following Christ’s example.

Peter, down the generations, to Christians of today, show by example the fruit of that wisdom which is Christ. I am grateful for the mentors who have invested in my life — Kimberly Creasman, Stuart Gurnea, David Johnson and their spouses. These people modelled for me “discipleship into the kingdom”. When I think about leading my girls at Bible Study or at lifegroup, I often think, “What would Kim, Stuart or Dave say or do?” and follow a logical conclusion. If the sheep does not understand, you did not teach well. And if you did not teach well, you did not show it well. You are not yet understanding the simple devotion to Christ by obedience. If you are not choosing to obey Christ who is the head of all things, you are unwise.

The Bible is clear about who the head of the church is. The apostle Paul said, “imitate me as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor 11:1) whereby the trickle-down effect of the Christlikeness of a mentor is a good gauge of progress — in the sense, my own progress — so that I am following a divine strand that has not been compromised. These pilgrims who go before me are lighting the way through their examples as they see examples before them, and in the culminating authority of Jesus Christ.

Mentoring begins with an oath of discipleship to Jesus Christ because although the cost is great, the change is tremendous. Peter’s commitment to Christ had settled to a certain, blind to worldly trust, obedience that I can identify but not comprehend, because I have not fully yielded. I see now that basic boundaries of commitment like punctuality and accountability are weak medicine. The maturity of Peter the disciple is so simple that it stumbles my intellect, which is just as well.