Do We Squander What God Has Given to Us?

"do we squander the gifts that God has freely given to us?"

"Turin," Franz Kline (American, 1910-1962), The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City

To Squander

The Holy Land in the time of Jesus was largely an agrarian culture and so it is no surprise that many of terms we find in scripture have their origins in agricultural practices.

When the grain was harvested, winnowing was a common practice. Winnowing floors were often on the tops of hills or mountains where the breeze blew strongly. The grain would be tossed into the air and the breeze would blow away the chaff, the husk, and the heavier seeds or kernels would fall to the floor.

In Greek this act of winnowing, separating the grain from the chaff, was known as διασκορπίζω or diaskorpizō. In scripture this word means just that, to disperse or throw away. When the word was applied to property it is usually translated as waste or the wonderfully, obscure in its origins, English word, squander.

The Gospel of Luke gives us two parables back to back in which this word is used.

In chapter 15 we have the parable of the Prodigal Son. A younger son demands of his father his share of his inheritance. This is a huge insult to his father. But the father gives in and divides his property between the two sons.

We are then told, “after a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation.” Luke 15:13. This calls to mind Proverbs 29:3 Whoever loves wisdom gives joy to his father, but whoever consorts with harlots squanders his wealth.”

In the next chapter there is the parable of the Dishonest Steward. Chapter 16 verse 1 begins. “A rich man had a steward who was reported to him for squandering his property.”

Both parables convey the consequences that come when we squander what is freely given to us. Do we squander the gifts that God has freely given to us?

A Time of Change

The 19th century was a time of great change in the history of art. Broadly speaking, two ideas of what art was and how it should be used competed with each other. On one side were the artists who built upon centuries of tradition, creating works of great depth and beauty in the classical manner. We might call them “Realists” for their art was grounded in a realistic rendering of the human figure.

Exhibited beside them in the salons were the Impressionists and Expressionists. These artists rejected tradition, rejected all that had gone before, and focused instead on what they perceived as “problems” with art. For example they became obsessed with portraying depth on a flat canvas without using the “tricks” of the Realists. They experimented with form and shape and color. Beauty was not their goal, at least it was not their priority. Nor was there any sense that the purpose of art was to serve the community.

For the Impressionists and Expressionists, art was no longer anchored to tradition and was thus free to explore and experiment at the whim of the artist. This introspection, this “navel-gazing,” led to art that is completely absorbed with the wants and desires of the artist. There is no longer any notion of service. The public is expected to appreciate the artist’s unique vision even if that vision is incomprehensible to the viewing public. We see the results of this philosophy today in so called “modern art.”

If we believe that the artistic gift is given to certain individuals in order to bring people back to God and build up the Kingdom, then these are artists who have squandered their gifts.

There are many reasons why the Impressionists and Expressionists triumphed over the Realists some of them economic and commercial, but it is a myth that these new artists were vilified and rejected by the public. For a time these two or three art forms existed side by side in the Salons and galleries.

But there are many examples, among the Realists, of artists that maintained the traditional aspects of fine art, both in technique and in purpose.

On the eve of the new century, 1900, at the Universal Exhibition in Paris. A reporter asked two of the fathers of Impressionism, Edgar Degas and Claude Monet, who in their opinion would most likely be considered the greatest 19th century artist in the year 2000. After the two conversed for a few moments, they both agreed, William Bouguereau, would be (or should be) considered the greatest artist of the 19th century.

If you do not know the name Bouguereau you have likely seen his work, especially since he has gained a new appreciation in recent years. He was one of the most highly regarded artists of his time, even Van Gough admitted that he fell short of matching Bouguereau’s skill.

And more than a skilled artist, Bouguereau was a man who remembered the purpose of his vocation. As successful as he became, he never turned his back on humanity in favor of making a profit. He took particular interest in the lives of his employees, colleagues, and students. It was widely known that he would help almost anyone in need who had entered his life. At a time, then as now, when many artists struggle to support their families, Bouguereau insured a livelihood for widows of colleagues who had passed on and left little to their wives and children.

After his first wife passed away he married an artist from New Hampshire and was instrumental in the acceptance of women into the annual Salon shows that made artistic careers.

Such a life is reflected in the work of the artist.

Bouguereau painted many scenes from the Bible and from classical mythology, but like all the artists of the time, he also painted people and scenes from everyday life.

He showed the quiet dignity, you might say the light of grace, shining on a peasant girl. His painting of a young Gypsy girl holding her child is executed with such grace and serenity that it is not a difficult jump to contemplate the poverty of Mary, holding the child Jesus.

William Bouguereau is a shining example of one who did not squander his gifts. He was a devout Catholic and saw his work as a form of worship, both in his paintings and in his treatment of his fellow men and women. Even in his paintings which are not explicitly religious, his faith in the goodness of God, man, and the world around us, shines through.

And so we return to the question we asked at the outset, do we squander the gifts that God has given to us so freely?

Pax vobiscum

Lawrence Klimecki, MSA, is a deacon in the Diocese of Sacramento. He is a public speaker, writer, and artist, reflecting on the intersection of art and faith and the spiritual “hero’s journey” that is part of every person’s life. He maintains a blog at www.DeaconLawrence.org and can be reached at Lawrence@deaconlawrence.com

Lawrence draws on ancient Christian tradition to create new contemporary visions of sacred art. For more information on original art, prints and commissions, Please visit www.DeaconLawrence.org

Purchase fine art prints of Deacon Lawrence’s work here.