Oct
29
2009
Arts and the Church
Kevin DeYoung’s latest post seems on target to me. Here’s the outline of some principles he offered. For expanded explanation, see his post.
1. We must allow art to be art.
2. Art is valuable, but so are a lot of other things.
3. Art can do some things, and it can’t do some other things.
4. Our worship should strive for artistic excellence, but our worship will inevitably be “popular” and propositional.
5. Churches can learn to welcome artists, but artists should not expect the church to be an art gallery.
6. Artists can help us see our idols, and artists have idols of their own too.
57 Comments
” Besides all this, unless we want to return to a Christendom model of church, it is unlikely that the church will ever be able to support (at least financially) the arts as it once did.”
Yeah, I don’t buy this statement. There are lot’s of church’s out there today who have helped contribute to artist’s financially, and there are still more churches that should. It is tough for many Christian artists to make it financially especially if they have families. This is the case because they are often pulled in two different directions. On one end much of the evangelical church doesn’t get the artist and doesn’t want to take the time to get to know him or her, and often subconsciously just thinks that “they should just get a real job.” On the other hand many in the non-Christian art community may often reject them because they see their faith as a sign that they are just some right wing nut job. If the church just leaves artists in their church on their own, or tells them “they just need to get a real job” they could be in actuality just contributing to perpetuating the cycle of dissonance that already exists between Christian artists and Christians in the church who are not artists.
I also think it is interesting how the same people who shy away from the church financially supporting artists are the same people who are vehemently opposed to the National Endowment For The Arts. How typical.
The idea that churches should financially support artists just so they can “do their thing” is absurd. What about lawyers? Dentists? Mechanics? Why do artists get to be in a special class?
And yes, I’m against the NEA too. You want to be an artist? Great. Get a job (I’m not subconsciously thinking it; I’m saying it!). Then pursue your craft on the side until you can find people who will pay you for it. That’s what real artists do. It’s what everybody does who wants to do something risky. (And incidentally, the hard work is what weeds out a lot of mediocre artists.)
It’s not the church’s job to give you or anybody else money just because you have a dream.
“Then pursue your craft on the side until you can find people who will pay you for it.”
Does everything that is worth doing have value as a commodity? I know this is reductio ad absurdum, but following that line of thinking missionaries and charities ought to be able to support themselves by getting paid for the services they provide.
ZHL,
I understand your dilemma, about the commodity thing. But you do have to come to terms with the economic aspect of being an artist. If you want to create something every so often, as any human being should, that is great. Be a guitar-playing accountant. We need more of them. But, if you want to make it in the arts full-time, you need to take the thing you call a commodity (I would call it economics) and see it as not a dirty word. It is part of being in God’s world, and not a problem, really. It just takes time and energy that you might want to spend drawing or painting or whatever. But, that is just life— and a good part of it.
Cheers,
Chris
“The idea that churches should financially support artists just so they can “do their thing” is absurd. What about lawyers? Dentists? Mechanics? Why do artists get to be in a special class?”
It is precisley because these professions that you mentioned are seen as “respectable” and the artist’s profession of as you put it “doing their thing” (even though they might work just as hard) is seen as not being respectable that warrents some possible financial contribution from the church. Because unlike lawyers and mechanics who have a concrete profession with a concrete return artist’s often do not have that right off the bat, but instead it can take some time for their to be a return. Also some artists are not well equipped to do other things which is why so many of them gravitated towards the arts at a young age to begin with. It is unfortunate that you hold that exact posture which is exactly what perpetuates the assumption and stereotype of what all artists are like. Which then takes it’s toll on Christian artists. So then It becomes all about the bottom line which is why many Christian artist’s get so frustrated and either A. leave the church because of lack of moral or financial support for what they are doing or they leave the arts” to get a real job” which explains why I think is there has been a rapid decline of so few Christian’s having an artistic voice in the public square.
Art is a very respectable profession. And lots of resources get spent on it– billions of dollars a year, in fact. (For example, I’m a music guy, and I spend hours planning how to spend the little bit of music money I get 2 or 3 times a year. I don’t begrudge this money at all; I wish I had more of it!)
Look, everybody has to get a job. Lawyers have to prove that they’re good enough for a firm to pay them, and then keep being good enough to keep their job. My dad’s a small businessman, and he’s spent the last 30 years working his tail off to generate & keep enough business to pay the bills. Pastors don’t just all of a sudden start getting checks once they’re ordained– they have to find a church that wants their services and is willing to pay for them (or find donors who value their “product” enough to invest in it– that’s what lots of missionaries, including myself, do).
Artists have a gift. So do lawyers and accountants and pastors. Having a gift or skill doesn’t entitle you to the church’s money, or anybody’s money. You have to find people who will pay for your skill. That’s what all adults have to do. The problem, as David points out below, is with the mentality that “artists” are a special class of people who shouldn’t have to work to generate money with their gifts like everybody else does.
JMH,
Nicely put, truly. I am a professional designer and doing very well at it, praise the Lord. I am also a musician (well, kind of, a drummer/programmer). The church is the church, She is a place of worship and fellowship (big period there). I am a puritan in this regard.
In my opinion what has happened and continues to happen is a return to a Roman Catholic view of life: a false sacred and secular antithesis. Everything gets turned into a “ministry”, and professional life outside the church is kind of looked down on.
Having said that, churches should hire designers, artists, musicians and pay them well, as they would any other professional. It is kind of a two-way problem, as often churches expect “freebies” from an artist or designer. Believe me, I have been accused of not serving God because I asked to get paid. You get the idea.
From your Northern friend.
Strong, Chris. That’s exactly how the church should support the arts– by paying fairly for excellence when the need arises.
I feel the magnetic pull of the sacred-secular divide. It seems very natural, but not truly spiritual. I deal with it in my own heart everyday, so I hope I didn’t sound accusatory. I think often it is just there, and people go along with the flow. It seems to present a more clear cut way of loving Christ, and promises (wrongly) that one can get away from the messiness of “business” and “money”.
I do not see myself as an elite person because I get to do art everyday. On the contrary, it is tough work. Often, what I want to see happen is the very thing that does not, because it is a service to others first. The elitist thing comes from all that 19th century romanticism and the Bohemian culture that arose in NY in the early 20th. Anyone who thinks that way is still on the outside, and there is something in the heart that wants to escape time and responsibility. Oops, is that too harsh?
Any way, this is a GREAT subject. Love it, love it.
Our modern problem is that we have this idea of a portion of society that is ‘artists’. As human beings made in the image of the first Creator, we are all sub-creators. ‘Artists’ is just a club of snobby people who look down at others that don’t ‘get it’. I think the church should encourage their congregations to apply their ‘creative side’ as sub-creators made in the image of God, but I think that will look different from person to person. Churches also need to recognize that often times creating culture is an overflow of worship of God, and that this shouldn’t be discouraged. Frankly, if the church in the past hadn’t encouraged them, we wouldn’t have the Bach’s, Rembrandt’s, or Flannery O’Connor’s that we have today.
Kevin makes solid and clear points. Thanks for this post. One of the things that strikes me about the arts is the simple fact that they can touch the human heart with truth in ways the spoken word can’t.
We are creating an environment where artists can practice and hone their craft and the good ones will then be able to hopefully sustain themselves because of the excellence and truth their pieces, whether its a song, a painting, a screenplay or the like.
I do understand the argument that artists should not see the church as Daddy Warbucks. Perhaps artists can justifiably be criticized for seeing themselves in a somewhat elitist fashion who then make unrealistic demands upon all else. In this regard I would agree with David Hoops last post.
However, I’ve also observed the horrid consequences when the church steps completely away from art. There seems a place, and perhaps even a need, for such engagement.
But perhaps artists are making the wrong demand. Many seem to want the church to subsidize their own independent activities. Has the church historically ever done that? I know church’s used to hire artists for specific projects, but I’m not sure if the church ever gave an artist a stipend for, well, simply being an artist (that seemed to be something the King did, not the Church). But, I’ll leave that to the more historically astute individuals to confirm/deny.
Exactly. If you produce something that the church is interested in purchasing or if you have a good enough reputation that a church is willing to advance you some money, more power to them, but just because the world rewards lazy artists for garbage artwork doesn’t mean that the church should follow suit.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the arts and I actively participate in them, but I think that we should consider them more as ‘craftsmen’. Craftsmen vary in skill and are compensated according to their skill.
“The problem, as David points out below, is with the mentality that “artists” are a special class of people who shouldn’t have to work to generate money with their gifts like everybody else does.”
Yes there are some artists who have thought of themselves as a special class of people but I also think that this is a stereo type that has been over blown and peddled as the norm by many conservative evangelicals when instead I think it is no where near as common as they would want you to think that it is.
“As human beings made in the image of the first Creator, we are all sub-creators. ‘Artists’ is just a club of snobby people who look down at others that don’t ‘get it”
I am so sick of this tired old worn out assumption and stereo type by evangelicals that all artists are a club of snobby people who have nothing better to do than look down their nose at “the common people” and pontificate their esoteric navel. Have you ever thought why so many artists have gotten to that point to begin with? Just maybe, just maybe it might be because many of them were in actuality just coping with growing up as different or having different interests that were never understood or invested in by their parents, their peers or their church. Which is why they submerged themselves into their art and expressed themselves in a different way. In other words maybe because they were just different from “the common people” to begin with that made the “common people” feel uncomfortable and insecure because they didn’t get “it” back than. So in turn why in the world should they bother trying to get it now? So they take the easy way out and label the “Artist” i.e. all artists as snobs. Which is a totally unfair and unfounded assumption, plain and simple.
Why not just say it: “I don’t want to grow up!”. Please, quit your wingeing. It gives us artists a bad rep.
With love,
Chris
It’s an accurate stereotype of many of the worlds artists and it is a phenomena that the ought not to creep into the church. Just watch the academy awards. It’s basically a worship fest for artists and it is absolutely unacceptable for Christians to mimic this sort of crass artist worship. They don’t believe in God and so they congratulate each other for creating some sort of meaning for each others pathetic nihilistic lives. Christians should create real art with real meaning that God has created. Our art should point toward God.
When I think of good Christian artists like I think of good pastors. They are able to make me appreciate and be thankful for God all the more and I think of bad Christian artists like I think of bad pastors or televangelists. They are folks who are putting on a good show but it’s all about them and their own reputation.
Oh, and just because an artist had it rough, doesn’t mean he can be more self-centered than others. Selfishness by artists needs to be repented of the same way that selfishness by anybody else needs to be repented of and not excused. You’re not healing the stereotype, you’re perpetuating it.
David,
Wow. The thing is, many of the folks you described are creating visually stunning and deeply creative work. Yes, there is junk, but there is also a great amount of heavy talent — a short list would include Yoji Yamada, Clint Eastwood, the Pixar folks, and the Coen Brothers. Sweeping them all away as “pathetic” seems like a denial of their God given gifts. We need to really consider a Christian dialectic when looking at the arts and creativity.
Can you be more specific about what constitutes “real” art, with “real” meaning? And, how do you make your art “point” towards God? How is that accomplished?
It seems like we need a blog dedicated to this stuff.
Chris,
There’s a difference between talent in a medium and what story you tell in that medium. Quentin Tarantino has a great amount of talent but he uses it to glorify revenge and violence. While this is a broad brush stroke, I would say that I appreciate art that compliments or supports the Christian story and would not appreciate art that seeks to subvert or undermine the Christian story. Notice I didn’t say that the stereotype applies to ALL of the world’s artists, I just said MANY, and I stand by that. Also, just because somebody in Hollywood has a talent doesn’t mean that they can’t use to to blaspheme God. I agree that there is a lot of talent in the medium of film-making. I also think that what they say is just as important as what medium they use to say it.
As far as the ‘real’ art comment goes, I’ll just say this…
Our God is a real God and has created real people and there are real relationships between them. Christians can attribute real meaning to a painting if it reflects the real meaning that God has infused into this world. Christians believe in truth and as such can seek to tell the truth in art form. From a non-Christian perspective, good and evil are merely nice sentiments that are not grounded in any sort of eternal character of God. Truth is subjective so you just make it up as you go. When I suggest making art point toward God, I don’t think that this means that we need to be explicitly didactic in our art. I just think it means we need to be honest and truth-tellers with our art. People with a skewed worldview will create art that reflects the world through those skewed lenses. Christians need to be better than that because they believe in an eternal unchanging glorious God who all truth is grounded in.
If it sounds like I am passionate about this, it is because I am. I have been the persecuted artist, the poor artist, the navel-gazing artist and I think it is important that people see it for what it is. It’s a lifestyle. People choose it, it isn’t forced upon them.
Point taken. However, I am still even unsure that the notion of “revenge” as cinema does not have some kind of redemptive quality in it. You will probably ask “How so?” Well, perhaps what is often framed as “revenge” is actually a desire for real justice, a longing for the judicial application of law. Which is a good thing.
I understand the need to articulate the Christian artist’s calling. I am in the middle of wrestling with this, and that is why I am asking the questions. Your use of the term “story” is great. Just remember, it includes the “fall” and so must have something of war and violence — “the sword” if you will — as an aspect of it. Imagine if David had not cleaned house when he was made king. Blood is an aspect of restoration.
Any way, I would be the friend that drove you to drink. I could talk about this stuff all day……
David,
Here is a nice little essay by Gregory Baus on the arts.
http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/ideas/baus.art.html
I agree that stories can include revenge in them but the context of the revenge is key. If the revenge itself is being glorified over and above real justice, or while real justice is being ignored, thats a problem. If there are no consequences to someones revenge then it is not being true to the real world. It is not a true reflection of God’s character exemplified in His Creation. I also agree that God oftentimes draws straight with crooked lines and there there is grittiness in life. The problem I see is when people expand that to say grittiness is ALL of life. To say that ALL of life is grittiness is to take God’s story out of context and in some sense to lie about how God works.
I like talking about this stuff as I am working through it too. If you’d like, you could direct message me on Twitter with your email. I’d be happy to continue this discussion over email or something.
David,
I don’t have a Twitter account, but I will go to your web page. You work at Canon Press! That must be fun. I have a friend who just moved to Moscow…. one of the world’s best bass players. I’ll be in touch.
C
“Why not just say it: “I don’t want to grow up!”. Please, quit your wingeing. It gives us artists a bad rep.”
Thank you Chris you just illustrated the point of what I was saying in my last post.
“Oh, and just because an artist had it rough, doesn’t mean he can be more self-centered than others. Selfishness by artists needs to be repented of the same way that selfishness by anybody else needs to be repented of and not excused. You’re not healing the stereotype, you’re perpetuating it.”
I agree with this first statement completely. But as far as perpetuating the stereotype If what I am saying seems to sound like fragments of similar stories that you have heard from other artist’s maybe you should consider the fact that it isn’t just an elitist/snob artist stereotype but that it might actually be a component of why many artist’s have these common elements in their own particular stories.
LC,
I don’t think I did actually. I was just telling you to grow up. You seemed to excuse yourself from being a snob, by blaming so many people’s snootiness on the church’s treatment of them (the victim thing)- the “I am what I am because you made me so” kind of argument. This is pure Phantom of the Opera stuff, and smacks of deep immaturity. So, I say it again “grow up”.
I write, by the way, as an artist. I am an art director of ten years and a drummer since I was eight. I do not blame my “artiness” on a tough life, but thank God for my calling, and do not feel uncomfortable of insecure because of some bad treatment in my past.
PS- You are perpetuating a stereotype that some of us want to leave behind. Please stop.
Chris, I think that it is very possible that Gaston Laroux might’ve created a character like Eric as someone who could’ve been an amalgamation of many different artists that he had already encountered in his life. This had to be the case because the artist as freak had been a common literary type, long before this book was published. Why do you think that was? Hmmmmm. Also can we not assume based on this, that Eric was to be a character
we are asked by Leroux to not only have scorn for because of his horrible deeds but to also have empathy for? As far as I know Chris, based on what I have read in the Gospels Christ did not tell the different or the outcast to grow up or stop playing the victim, but he undoubtedly understood the cruelty that the fallen world had had on them, and had compassion for them. He did not dismiss them as one’s claiming “the victim thing” as you call it. For this I am grateful. Chris I am glad that you have not had the same experiences that others have had. It proves that not everybody’s story is the same. But do understand that being an outcast or being different is a commonality that many artists throughout the ages have had and still do share. If calling it as “not growing up” or “playing the victim” helps you justify your indifference towards people who have had difficult lives and haven’t yet pulled themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps, then I guess your entitled to that stance, but I have yet to feel obligated to recant my particular position on this point.
How does having the Church financially support artists advance the Gospel that people are sinners and Christ died to save those who believe in him? Not paying them for their artwork as a transaction but actually just giving them money to pursue their art, which it appears is what you suggest.
From what I can gather you just want the church to start giving artists stipends so they can go paint or make music. How is that related to proclaiming the Gospel, either to people outside or inside the Church?
dsc
The problem is not someone being a victim. It’s the victims allowing themselves to never cease being the victim by moving on. If the victim doesn’t work toward moving on, then they are consciously choosing to be the victim and it is no longer something that has happened to them, it is something they are bringing upon themselves. I am more than happy to help people who want to be helped, and I have, but there is nothing more frustrating that someone who claims to be a victim and then refuses help.
The above comment is addressed to loose.
Dan: I’m not necessarily interested in financing individual artists per say. I know realistically that many churches just cannot afford to do something like this, but if they can I think that would be more of a case by case situation. What I am really interested in seeing is more of what churches like Redeemer in New York have. Where they financially support and promote programs for artists within the church community. I think this is where the real need is.
“I am more than happy to help people who want to be helped, and I have, but there is nothing more frustrating that someone who claims to be a victim and then refuses help.”
David I agree with this. However at the same time we have to remember that each one of us move at different paces in our sanctification and not everybody is where we would like them to be. And yet that doesn’t mean that they aren’t exactly where God wants them to be at that moment in time.
David Hoos,
Thanks.
LC,
I am not going to bore anyone here with my “story”, but you don’t know it, and therefore have no clue when you comment on it.
However, the notion that the artist “is” the outcast, or is an artist because of some kind of delinquency in the family or otherwise is a stereotype that might have some truth to it, as all do. But, to perpetuate it, and classify oneself as such is a problem. Bringing in Jesus to the conversation, as though he was specifically the “friend of artists” is silly. He has as much to say about being churlish and self-righteous about suffering to the artist as He does anyone else.
I think much of the confusion arises from misplaced expectations placed upon the body of Christ, and upon the government for that matter (ie the ridiculous NEA).
Friend, I would direct you towards reading Herman Dooyeweerd and Carl Seerveld on the arts. These Christian men have many good things to say that might help you out of the emotional ditch you appear to be in.
Also, John Gardner, though not a Christian has some very insightful comments on the purpose of the arts in his book ‘On Moral Fiction’. I would commend it to any Christian exploring or already involved in the arts.
I likewise agree with what you’re saying, however like every AA chapter across these United States would say, “The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.” I agree we can’t rush people in their sanctifications, but we should know where the standard is so we can measure progress. Without a standard, there is no such thing as progress, it’s just change. It’s like a sick person refusing to believe they are sick. They’re never going to get well if they deny that they are not healthy. That’s what sanctifications is all about. It’s about recognizing that you aren’t healthy. Being patient with someone in their sanctification is different than enabling them to never change.
“Bringing in Jesus to the conversation, as though he was specifically the “friend of artists” is silly. He has as much to say about being churlish and self-righteous about suffering to the artist as He does anyone else.”
Chris I wasn’t trying to be presumptuous about your story I was just commenting on what you had already revealed. If this angered you, I apologize for that. Also I never said that Jesus was a friend of the artist, but what I did say was that Jesus was a friend to the outcast. I merely commented that many artists have historically been outcasts or misunderstood. Also I don’t believe that I am in an emotional ditch, I feel pretty confident in what I believe in about the arts. And quite frankly I agreed with almost everything that Kevin posted today with the exception of the need for possible financial support for arts programs in the church. I also have heard good things about Dr, Rykan’s book as well. I just feel that artist’s for the most part have gotten way too much heat from evangelicalism and before we cast final judgment on all of them we need to try to understand where they are coming from and empathize with them before we assume they are all stuck up elitist snobs who have no concern for the “common people.”
David: Well said, you will get no disagreement from me there.
This is off topic from the post – but I just wanted to say thanks for letting us know about http://goodnewsofchristmas.org/ a while back because our packs arrived in the mail today and they look great – what a great idea!! Thanks.
Looselycult,
You write: “I am so sick of this tired old worn out assumption and stereo type by evangelicals that all artists are a club of snobby people”
I’m not sure if this can correctly be characterized as an “evangelical” opinion. It certainly seems to be a “working class” opinion, but nothing inherent to evangelicals. Perhaps the issue here isn’t one of religion but rather social class.
The working class has never really appreciated higher art. That is nothing new. The church historically only supported the activity of art (only indirectly, btw) because the top leadership of the church was generally from the royal class (or many times a family member of the wealthy business guild–and later in the Reformation individuals who were otherwise highly educated). In what is essentially a ‘free church’ environment (in the United States context, anyway), which lacks an elitist class, wouldn’t it naturally be expected that the vast majority of Christians (who are strongly influenced by American working class values) would not find much of an affinity with art?
Frankly, it is this same “anti-hierarchical” social sentiment that led to “pop art” in the first place (yes, founding fathers—I blame you for Britney Spears! lol).
So now we have:
(1) Bunches of low-class individuals running around producing garbage all the while styling themselves as artists, and
(2) A working-class American value system that is suspicious of anything that smacks of hierarchy or elitism (which “high art” does). Good luck getting them to support the arts.
Josh: Great observation. I think you pretty much hit the nail right on the head.
Josh & Loosely have demonstrated David Hoos’ point well. Only the artists get to decide what art is, not the hoi polloi. “Good luck getting them [those yucky, uncultured working people] to support the arts.”
No, good luck getting them to like the same stuff you do, which is what you think the problem is.
JMH: So when someone paints a picture writes a novel or composes a piece music that we don’t grasp or understand right off the bat we just simply right it off as as pretensious or too esoteric, and just move on? I only say this because this seems to be the general posture of the people Josh and I are referring to. But yet doesn’t the Bible command us to love him with all of our mind, and to take every thought captive? If this is the case doesn’t it stand to reason that if we are following this commandment fully it might entail being challenged both asthetically and intellectually on certain things, where we might have to really dig to fully grasp something? This might mean trying to learn about things like art histroy, art techniques or styles, but once this occurrs our understanding of things becomes broader and more rewarding. But Instead our tendency is to immediately right it off as something we don’t want to work for. That just seems un-thoughtful, lazy, and unbiblical to me. But yet the common defensive posture as you illustrated so well is to always be pointing to the artist as the villain or weirdo instead of holding the reversed-elitist responsible for not taking the time or effort to at least try to get it.
JMH,
As a non-artist, working class individual of blue-collar stock, I think you may have misunderstood my intent. In fact, in my first post I fully agreed with David Hoos. I still do. I am just pointing out a very real social aspect to the issue with the arts. Also, frankly, I am following up with my earlier criticism of artists for making unrealistic demands upon the church (e.g. since the church has never historically supported the artists in the way many now demand, and since American working-class values have never been excited about art, why then would they make such demands now?).
I didn’t say artists were better than working class (I did call them elitist, remember??). I am simply pointing out that artists values and working class values don’t readily align well.
Josh,
You wrote: “The working class has never really appreciated higher art. That is nothing new.”
You should visit NY and walk through any number of the museums there. What will you see? Well, art of course, but also many people taking their lunch breaks from their “working class” jobs to enjoy the pleasures of painting and sculpture. No one, regardless of what ever social class they are from, does not enjoy or do art in some way, shape or form. It is simply part of our created make-up. What you claim to be “a real social aspect to the issue with the arts” is actually just your personal opinion and how you understand things. It is not “out there”, really.
My grandfather, who was a farmer and mechanic all his life, kept dozens of Norman Rockwell and Rembrandt books around his home. He would sit at the kitchen table with his coffee and look at the paintings for hours in the evening.
I think you need to push back from the table and get some perspective. Snobs come in all shapes and forms, elitists do to, such as those who fancy that any artist or appreciator of art is an elitist. It is a difficult task to throw tar. And, this is so far away from the subject of “art” it is not even funny.
I suppose you could fill in the blank with any profession – lawyer, doctor, accountant, soldier, teacher — and come up with a list of reasons why they as a group are trouble. For some reason, ministers never seem to make that list.
Chris,
Thanks for replying. I think you rightly point out that its never possible to pigeon-hole people. Thanks for bringing that point up. I completely agree.
The Rockwell remark is illustrative, since his artist was very intentionally designed to appeal to the working-class, and marked a departure from the norm. As for NYC, they generally see themselves as the brain-trust of America (listen to any Tim Keller video, he speaks often of this), so perhaps you would be better served by finding an example in a place like Toledo (which I’m sure you could).
I am a bit humored at the strong response against my post. It seems my point that working-class values buck against anything that seems elitist is itself seen as an elitist (your word is ’snob’) statement (which is being bucked against). Too funny.
Seriously, I would urge you to reread my post again. I think you are inferring things that are not there (such as thinking I am belittling the working class or saying that they have no appreciate of art at any level, or saying that anyone who appreciates art is an elitist). At least, that is not what I am intending to communicate. BTW, I just read your first three comments and agree with everything you said. I’m not sure our positions are as different as you seem to think.
(ps, what sources have you been reading about the professions? In most polls ministers rank as one of the LEAST respected professions in the United States. LOL).
Josh,
I don’t like Tim Keller. Is that OK? I find him to be a bit too guru-ish. Plus, he denies six-day creation, as a real historical thing. I don’t agree with his sweeping thing about New Yorkers. He can say what he wants, but his thoughts are not monolithic. The guy who works at the deli does not view himself as the “brain-trust”.
Elitism comes in all shapes and forms. In my experience I have found that there is an elitism about being ignorant and uneducated. Whole denominations are built on this notion — like the Calvary movement. But it is always the person looking in who throws that pejorative around. The Calvary folks think the educated protestant to be elitist, and they are elitist for saying so. It is a silly vicious circle. This was my point. We should simply stop using the idea as though it actually says something.
In regard to the minister thing. I was talking about the perspective of ministers of themselves, not of other’s views of them. Ministers often fall into the ditch of thinking that their every thought and opinion is “true” because they spend their days dealing with absolutes. It is a hazard of the profession. The church, being as important as it is, becomes THE center of importance. So, when men like Tim Keller say something, it is taken as gospel. There are few men who avoid this trap, and there is a constant peril of falling into it.
Granted, I’ll give you the deli-guy example.
But, would you deny that a sizeable group of people in NYC see themselves as as the ‘movers and shakers’ of society at large? Would you deny that NYC attracts many of the best educated and most influential political and cultural leaders of our nation? Would you deny that NYC is one of the major centers in the world for culture, politics, influence, and intellect? Since I’m assuming you will not deny that, that was my point with the “brain-trust” comment. And, since they have an abnormally large percentage of such individuals, does it not also make sense that major centers for the arts are located in NYC and not, for example, in Little Rock Arkansas? (a wonderful place, by the way).
As for the ministers, I’m assuming you haven’t met a ton of them. Most no longer hold to absolutes anymore bro—sadly. But I get your point.
Josh,
Actually the highest concentration of PhD’s in the USA is in the Tennessee/ Georgia area. Sure, NYC is a major influence in the world, no doubt. But, that is not what this conversation was about, right? I thought it was about art in the church…
In fact, I have kind of forgotten what this conversation was about. Probably a good time to end it.
Take care,
Chris
Hey dude…you challenged the NYC comment, not me. LOL
Off to better things…:)
Man, you are like a contentious woman. I first mentioned NY, then you said “that is not a good example, try Toledo”. Then you proceeded to speak in your pastoral way about the “brain-trust” thing.
I was just defending my initial words about NY— which you first challenged. And, so went down the stupid rabbit trail to nowhere.
LOL? Man, have a Bronx cheer from the peanut gallery! God have mercy on your church.
chris,
LOL. Your too funny. I was just teasing you a bit. Have a great weekend.
Josh I call it reversed elitism. It is very “cool ” right now for evangelicals to wear this badge as well as loudly espouse this ethos, especially among the Sara Palin, Glen Beck, and Rush Limbaugh crowd.
I can tell that this issue is near and dear to many of you. I was just in a Conservative Jewish synagogue and it was the most beautiful place of worship I have ever seen. I can not describe all of the colors and different forms of art that were there. Mosaics and sculptures that carried through out the entire building. Wow, they even had the St. John’s Bible on display (that is why I was there). My whole attitude change to one of praise to God because He allowed me to see such a beautiful thing. If our churches aren’t inspiring people to worship God than what are they doing? This is were the artist or the designer comes in. Joseph could have gotten a plain color coat and it would have protected him from the elements just fine but it was a coat of many colors to reflect God’s majesty. Why not employ our Christian artist to transform the common areas of our churches into colorful sonnets of God’s glory. Designers and carpenters are also artists. Lets not box in the term artist. An artist isn’t just somebody who smokes Native Spirit cigarettes and listens to Indy rock all the time. We have carpenters, architects, designers, and janitors who all poses creative job skills.
Someone said that missionaries should have to rely on their own skills to pay their way. Paul exemplified this and we call it Tent Making now because of Paul. Many do and it is growing very popular for missionaries to support them selves. As far as Charities go, its kind of given in their name to why they exist. They provide a place for you and someone who is needy to meet, so to speak. Compassion is given to the poor first because we are called to take care of the poor. I wish I could sky dive but I am not holding the church accountable for not letting me sky dive. In Short Paul tells us we are to work harder than anyone else because it is the power of God in us that is working. No matter what your vocation remember “whether we eat or drink do all things to the glory of God.”
Michael,
You bring up a great point, yet I find myself internally divided on the issue. On the one hand, I appreciate the visual display of the sovereignty of God in the great cathedrals, and understand the Temple (Old Testament) was designed (in part) as being an aid to worship.
On the other hand there is the clear scriptural teaching that Christians themselves (their life and conduct) is the new Temple, as well as the clear model of simplicity that comes from the New Testament.
Thus, while I can appreciate the idea of “inspiring people to worship God” with our church architecture, there are other biblical principles at play that seem to directly and clearly counteract that perspective.
I’m not offering that as a criticism, just being honest about my own struggle to come to a decision on the matter. Given unlimited resources to construct a church building, I can’t decide if I would build a cathedral (to communicate God’s holiness in the architecture) or a really large pole-barn (to communicate God’s holiness resides in his redeemed people).
Josh: Why not both?
It looks like the main issue being discussed since I last weighed in centers around class struggles. I don’t think I agree fully with either of the responses yet, so I’ll give my two cents.
Almost all of the artist types I know of are blue collar workers. They are construction workers, school teachers, electricians, and moms. I think a large part of this divide that you guys have described goes back to work ethic. I think that many of the blue collar workers and artists are somewhat resentful of those artists who have gotten where they are purely by who they know and not on the merit of their work or skills. In addition, many of these blue collar workers represent classic conservative Christian values. Their artistry is a overflow of their enjoyment of working with their hands and it seeks to depict their enjoyment and appreciation of the transcendence in world around them. In contrast, many of the “upper class” artists understand that elusiveness is an important element of art and depict it by producing art that focuses on the weird or unusual. It’s not the elusiveness of the transcendent, but instead the elusiveness of the morally bankrupt. Often times, that weird and unusualness is simply a reflections of the lowest common denominator of the human condition. It’s often a reflection of the morally reprehensible or of downright rebellion against God. So, in many ways this divide is as much a moral divide as it is a artistic divide. In the end, there is indeed a resentment of the exclusive artist ‘club’ mentality, but I think it is rooted more in a blue collar view that this ‘club’ mentality is ruining the integrity of real art.
“Almost all of the artist types I know of are blue collar workers. They are construction workers, school teachers, electricians, and moms. I think a large part of this divide that you guys have described goes back to work ethic.”
Yeah the guys that I know that fall into this category (blue collar workers) do it because they have to, but they seem to be okay with this, because they see it as more respectable than the life their baby boomer parents lived in the suburbs. Most of them were raised in middle class suburban homes where they had more things, but their interests were seen as weird (but not necessarily immoral) by their peers, and they just didn’t fit in. In contrast most of the people I know who were raised blue collar like you mentioned generally are still blue collar or have made enough money to become middle class, but still retain the blue collar ethos of disdain for anything intellectual or ecotaric based on much of the same criteria that Josh mentioned. So yes many of them are blue collar now but it is primarily because they have to be. But where I primarily disagree with you on this Dave is in the choice of artistic output. I have seen no division of artists between the elusiveness based on transcendence versus elusiveness based being morally bankrupt. But what I have seen is variety of mixes of both of these all up down the board without any discernable way to compartmentalize or categorize them in such a specific manner as you have . I just don’t think the artistic range of output that it is really a clear cut as your making it out to be.