Addicted to Mediocrity, Chapter 1: Creativity and Beauty

I started reading Addicted to Mediocrity by Franky Schaeffer by the recommendation of Todd. I just finished the first chapter which saught to justify the creation of art.

Basically, the book argues that art, as in human expression, needs no justification because the impetus to create art is from God. Since our God is a creator God, and He created us, we inherited some of His ability to create as well. Whether this is the true meaning of "created in the His image" can be debated. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that statement to be true.

God created everything. That is a fact. He created the trees, flowers, and other fauna that inspire landscape portraits and photography. He created each and every person that is laid out in the Metroplitan or in Playboy. Since everything originates from God, the process of creating something requires no justification. Even if the subject is not a reproduction of His creation, it still requires no justification because the impetus, skill, and talent all come from God. "The ultimate justification is that they come as a good and gracious gift from God above." (p. 20) Of course there are other "justifications" for making art. So what does Scaffer mean by "ultimate"? He is talking about all the other justifications and tracing it back to a "gift from God". Because the skills and talents are a "gift from God", the reason for creating the art is "justi[fied]".

I'm not so quick to buy his thesis. Just because God gave you a "gift" at something, doesn't necessarily mean that you should use it. It all boils down to how you use the "gift". Granted, Scaffer is talking about using "gift[s]" in relation to art, but this is only one aspect where "gift[s]" come in to play; "gift[s]" can be used in a much broader sense.

Am I missing the point? Am I reading too much in to it?

To use "gifts" just because they are given to you, doesn't make sense to me. To do something, just because, sounds almost secular. Not that that's wrong.

I come from the background of the reason why you do something is more important than how or what you do. The difference between murder and killing is intent. Example: You can be driving down the road and hit a person. It's murder if you hated the person so you hit them on purpose.

Not everything that you do can be moralized. Whether you decide to buy a gun or not is not immoral. It's the use of the gun that will determine its morality.

Hopefully, he'll explain his thesis more so I will have more to argue against.