Journal of Sacred Work

   Nicodemus wanted to talk with Jesus. But, he was afraid of being criticized by his colleagues, so he visited Jesus at night.

   Michelangelo was subjected to constant crossfire from various voices within the church about his art. Some compelled him to paint veils across some of his nudes. Fortunately, some of his greatest art, including the David (above,) survives uncovered. As an artist and a genius, Michelangelo's courage is healing for caregivers today. If we allow ourselves to revel in the line and shape and music of his statue instead of acting nervous about its nudity, we will find ourselves in the presence of Love. Life without such art would, for me, not be worth living.

   When plans for the Eiffel Tower were unveiled, many Parisians thought it was ugly. Some sued to block its construction. Fortunately, they failed.

   Fear drives so many life decisions when Love should be our guide. So many of the most gorgeous and important ideas that have found expression across history faced fierce cross-fire when they were first introduced. In our everyday world, caregivers are constantly called upon to decide when to speak up and when to remain silent. Most, fearing the risk of offending others or of facing personal consequences, keep their best and truest thoughts to themselves.

   Fine art illuminates what some consider limited thinking on the part of much of the public. Even though art is supposed to provoke and challenge us, some people insist on wanting to censor artistic expression. When the Impressionists first presented their work, they were not only ridiculed, but their work was barred from all major museums of the time. "Why don't they paint a realistic image of a tree or a pear," outraged Parisians complained. Parochial thinking narrows the universe of what is beautiful to the obvious: a flower, a tree that looks like a tree, a bluebird landing on a fence. All of these can be lovely. But to limit art to such things is to straight-jacket beauty.

   I asked psychologist Dr. Thomas Knowles-Bagwell about this. He told me, "Some people try to block provocative art, including nudes, because it touches their fear." Healthy thinking, guided by Love, calls us to a higher place.

   It's a short distance from suppressing art to suppressing the art of caregiving.

   "Why do we need to see people naked in a painting or a photograph," some complain. "Couldn't the artist have done just as good a job without exposing us to 'everything?'" The simple answer is "no." Fortunately, there are obvious examples like Michelangelo's statue of David. Would this statue be a masterpiece if the artist had been compelled to cover up his subject? Clearly not. The essence of great art, like great religion, is indescribable.

   At the opposite extreme is pornography which, of course, I find disgusting and degrading. Yet, we can say that any mature person who seeks to appreciate true art will come to know that censorship is the enemy of beauty. The line is often hard to fine which the reason courts have leaned toward freedom of expression subjected to reasonable boundaries. For example, age limits have been placed on some exhibits and commercial establishments to protect the young. 

   If art is in the eye of the beholder, what about ugliness? Some think nude images like the David and thousands of other artworks should not, like pornography, be presented because such art might inflame the passions of people with sexual addictions. If we determine what can be created and shown based upon the tastes of the mentally ill, than we will have allowed the insane to determine the tastes of the sane.

   In general, should we keep quiet because what we say, with words or with art, even if right, true, and beautiful, might offend someone? Sometimes. But, not always. The Supreme Court gave a sound answer to this question by determining that speech should be free so long as it does not offend the minds of "reasonable people." So we are not free to shout fire in a crowded theater because that would cause panic. Most other forms of speech are now allowed in this great democracy. 

   One friend of mine said recently that not doing something was not the same as doing something. I believe her implication was that inaction may be less offensive than action. But inaction is, itself, an action of a sort and can be deeply offensive. An oft-quoted phrase is that "all it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing." Millions of people living in my region of the country kept quiet for decades about the injustice being done to African-Americans. "Good people" heard other "good people" admit it wasn't right to discriminate. But, these same "good people" didn't want to upset their friends, so they remained silent – and the tragedy of discrimination continued.

   It is time for all of us to speak up on behalf of the patients and first line caregivers who are, together, mistreated by our healthcare system. Hospital executives, in particular, should be taken to task for the outrageous disdain with which many of them treat caregivers. 

   Of course, this is all very controversial stuff. It's easier, I suppose, to stay quiet in the presence of injustice – to spend our lives suppressing the expression of fairness so we don't offend the status quo. Personally, I find this position offensive. It offends the vulnerable who need for the strong to speak up on their behalf. It forces truth and beauty into the shadows and only allows them to emerge through very narrow doorways. Worst of all, it offends the voice of Love.

   What do you think?

Erie Chapman