Oct
29
2009
The Church and the Arts: Some Common Ground and Some Common Sense
The Church and the arts have had an on-again off-again relationship for a couple millennia. At times, the Church has been a patron of the arts, supporting and encouraging sculptors, painters, and musicians out of its largesse. At other times, the church has been standoffish toward the arts, seeing them as a waste of time, or worst, an expression of hedonism and sensuality.
Today, although many churches could hardly be called artist-friendly, there is a resurgence of interest in and advocacy for the arts. In the under-40 church crowd, loving the arts is like loving your grandma, as in, only the most backward philistines don’t. There are two things no young Christian dares to be against: social justice and the arts.
The passion for encouraging the arts is understandable and in large part commendable. Not only does the Church have a long history of commissioning art, but the Bible speaks highly of those with gifts of artistry and craftsmanship (see the famous pair, Bezalel and Oholiab). And let’s be honest, many of our churches are not exactly a haven for the artsy crowd. Church culture is usually more conducive to the bourgeois than the bohemian. So it makes sense that we would have to go out of our way to welcome artists and encourage their work.
Before I go further, let me make clear that I am not about to offer a theology of the arts. I am ill-equipped to do so. For those interested in a fuller treatment of Christianity and the arts, I recommend Philip Ryken’s little book Art for God’s Sake. I am not an artist. By that I mean, I am not a painter, sculptor, poet, or dancer (you don’t want to see me dance). I have been in choirs and received some training in voice, so music is the closest I come to artistic excellence. But for the most part I think I am a pretty average Christian when it comes to the arts (I work hard at the “art” of writing and preaching, so I guess I’m thinking more of the fine arts in these reflections). I like some of it, find some of it boring, and some of it I just don’t get.
As a pastor I think a renewed emphasis on the arts in our churches can be a very good thing or a very bad thing. It all depends on whether the “art is the answer” crowd and the “art is weird” crowd can find some common ground around some common sense. Toward that end, let me suggest several theses on the Church and the arts.
1. We must allow art to be art. Sometimes Christians make the mistake of thinking that for art to be valuable it must share the gospel or try to point people to Jesus. Such an approach usually makes for bad evangelism and bad art. Art is valuable because it can be beautiful and full of truth. We should not expect art to communicate in the same way that discourse does.
2. Art is valuable, but so are a lot of other things. Christians don’t always know what to do with art. We think, “Is there really any value in a beautiful dance or a hard to follow poem?” But done well, the fine arts can inspire us, comfort us, disturb us, and cause different parts of our brain to start firing. Art reminds us that “usefulness” is not the measure of worth. But art is not a god, nor is it God’s favorite major in college. There is nothing intrinsically better (or worse) about being an artist than being an accountant, a computer programmer, or a cashier.
3. Art can do some things, and it can’t do some other things. Christians often struggle with art because it can be so ambiguous, so open to interpretation. It doesn’t traffic in propositions. It encourages us to think, but also to feel. It forms more than it informs. In this way, art can “teach” us about our God who is creative and mysterious. But being an engineer can “teach” us about our God who is orderly and knowable. God is a big God and lots of things and lots of vocations can display his diverse excellencies. We should not make the mistake–and I’ve heard this often–of thinking that “the poets, the artists, the story-tellers, they are the ones who can really teach us about God.” Well, yes, they can. But so can grocers and garbage collectors.
4. Our worship should strive for artistic excellence, but our worship will inevitably be “popular” and propositional. I’m always telling our people that we want “undistracting excellence” on Sunday morning (thanks to John Piper for the phrase). I don’t want us to think that mediocrity is a spiritual virtue. Every church will have different capabilities, but the goal is to have excellent music, excellent sound, and excellent instrumentation, just like we want excellent preaching. The worship service is not usually the time to give little Timmy a chance to play his scales on the piano. It is an opportunity for those who labored hard at a craft to serve God with their labors.
But, on the other hand, churches need to realize that the goal of the worship service is not to display the talents of artists. The ultimate goal is for the congregation to be edified and to worship Jesus Christ to glory of God. This means that the music must be fairly simple for hundreds (or thousands) of untrained people to sing it at the same time. It also means that our worship services will deal with truth in its propositional forms. I don’t want people leaving worship wondering what the point was. I don’t want them exploring different interpretations. I want the message to be crystal clear. In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul argues for shared intelligibility in corporate worship. We aren’t looking for individualized worship experiences. We want maximum clarity, which means we won’t apologize for being heavy on words and light on other kinds of “art.”
5. Churches can learn to welcome artists, but artists should not expect the church to be an art gallery. As I’ve said, the church has a history of supporting the arts. There is something unique about the visual arts (I’m thinking of painting, banners, murals, photographs, etc.) that are well-suited for inclusion in “sacred space.” It’s hard for a mortgage lender to show his wares throughout the church, but with art it can be done. If there are talented artists in your church, consider finding the appropriate space for their work to be displayed and “spruce up” your church.
But artists need to realize that the church is not an art gallery. They need sensitivity to realize that not every piece can be used, and the humility to hear “thanks, but no thanks.” Some art does not fit the context or mood of the church. Some arts gets dated. Some of it is distracting. And some of it isn’t very good. 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.
6. Artists can help us see our idols, and artists have idols of their own too. Bankers may idolize money. Moms may idolize their kids. Academics may idolize the intellect. Pastors may idolize preaching. Artists can idolize self-expression. What’s more, we can all be wrongfully proud that we don’t bow down to other people’s idols. Good art can help strip away pretension and pragmatism. Good artists will always be humble about their own limitations and besetting sins. And good Christians will always be eager to see truth and beauty wherever they can find it.
28 Comments
[...] 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. [...]
Your thoughts seem to me to strike a seldom achieved balance on this issue. Lots to think about. Thanks!
Great post on the proper use of arts within the Christian community.
Jason Harms, a jazz artist/composer, has written a book by an artist for artists on a God-centered approach to art. You can download the book for free at his website.
http://www.thegaiusproject.org/heartinart.html
” 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 him or her, and often subconsciously 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 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.
Excellent, well-balanced comments — some which I had never thought through before (at least with clarity).
Solid and clear thoughts Kevin. 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.
I am an artist by profession. I think Kevin’s comments are pretty spot on. Artists can in fact tend towards self-absorption and believe that they are the “real” teachers, the truly enlightened. That being said, we are all strung a little differently and God speaks to us all a little differently. The artist can speak to and reach that person in the pew that may be hard-wired towards the right side of the brain with truth in a way that the linear, logical thinker cannot. When churches don’t take advantage of the willing artists in their midst, they fail to use another means that God provides to reach everyone. Churches start looking and thinking alike, and the complaint of the emergent christian becomes true. The often oblique way that artists see and resolve things won’t register with everyone all the time, and neither will propositional preaching. But, I think a wise pastor can see the potential, and with guidance and encouragement will see that, although the route may be a little different and less traveled, the destination can and should be the same.
[...] Kevin DeYoung, over at The Gospel Coalition, just put up a succinct and helpful one titled, “The Church and the Arts: Some Common Ground and Some Common Sense.” Be sure to check it [...]
Kevin– what are your thoughts on Liturgical Dance?
http://ryanlday.blogspot.com/2009/10/liturgical-dance-yes-no-maybe.html
What about liturgical pasta-making?
What about liturgical car-detailing?
What about liturgical computer-programming?
What about, what about, what about…..?
What about the Word, bread & wine and some Psalm singing?
I’m a grad student in an art history program who worked a church for a number of years, so i understand your blog and it’s targeted audience but there are few things I think really muddy up the waters. I included some comments to each of the 6 points
1. I understand what I think you are trying to say, but its riddled with all sorts of holes. If you want to say that art is “valuable because it can be beautiful and full of truth” you have negated the very definition of letting art be art. It’s one thing to say that it doesn’t have the same communicative power of a sermon, and it doesn’t have to, but find a better more thought out way to say that it should communicate something. If you really want to see if art can be just art (i.e. just paint on a canvas) you would need Immanuel Kant, Clement Greenburg or even the Zen aesthetic of the somatic experience. Dan Siedell wrote a blog recently called “Rescuing Formalism” that might be helpful.
2.I think jury is still out on your second point. The first people filled with the Spirit in the Bible as Ryken points out, in the book you mentioned, were artists and designers.
3. please don’t use the word teach.
4. I would refer you to Kevin Vanhoozer’s Drama of Doctrine and Peter Leithart’s Against Christianity
5. I think it might be helpful to realize that every object you place in the location where you gather for worship is designed and created by someone. There’s a great documentary out that explores this called Objectified. A metal iron folding chair, a music stand, these objects carry with them a kind of narrative. There is no neutrality with these things. You may not have images in your sanctuary, but white walls are still an image. Everything is an interpretative meaning making decision.
6. I totally agree with your comments about idolatry, except this obsession christians have with “truth and beauty” as a definition of art.
PD, how are you defining art? “…Just paint on canvas”?
The question I ask of any issue is what kind of emphasis does the idea have in the Bible, especially the NT. In the NT I can see no emphasis, indeed no mention of ‘artistic expression’ in the local church. The NT stress is really that of Acts 2:42, apostles doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, prayers. Simplicity seems more of a hallmark than anything else.
That we have to look to OT worship for examples for artistic expression is itself telling. The OT worship (a worship pattern for God’s people in their immaturity, as ‘in the flesh’,) is not the pattern of NT worship. In fact, the emphasis in the NT is on the invisible and intangible rather than tangible and audible.
The emphasis on cathedrals, music, etc throughout church history seems to me to be retrograde. It is Judaistic. It seems to mistake the aesthetic for the spiritual, indeed it becomes a substitute for the spiritual. God is known and experienced through the gospel; in the gospel spiritual experience lies.
I worry for I feel the essential simplicity of NT worship and spiritual experience is being lost. It is being drowned in a deluge of aestheticism.
As for ‘excellence’. I agree mediocrity has no virtue, yet, once again when I look at the NT I see no emphasis on ‘excellence’ at least not in the expression of gifts. Gifts exist and that implies a certain level competence, ability; excellence is another matter. Where Paul looks for ‘excellence’ is in ‘the way of love’(1 Cor 14). We need to show excellence in love, bearing each others burdens, persevering in faith, forgiving etc.
I fear not only in music but also preaching we are creating a ‘performance’ mentality that generates stress, creates tensions in church life and puts the emphasis in all the wrong places.
The gospel calls mainly the non-wise, the non-accomplished. It is a message which has at its heart the foolishness of a cross which is the power and wisdom of God. Again, I am not saying that we should champion mediocrity, but neither should we champion ‘excellence’ (this of course is different from doing your best). I suspect our drive for ‘excellence’ and our definition of ‘the excellent’ has more to do with our culture than Scripture.
The NT church flourished without our modern notions of ‘excellence’. I enjoy good preachers, however, even here I suspect we make far too much of rhetoric and personality. Performance in preaching has far to high a value even when we pretend it has not. I wonder if Paul the Apostle would be allowed to preach in many of our churches. We may like his opponents be inclined to say, ‘his bodily presence is weak and speech contemptible’.
Kevin, I know you are trying to seek a balance in all of this. I understand this. Can I say that I often read your blog and thoroughly enjoy it. I find I agree with and learn from most things you write. In this instance, I wonder if you concede a little too much to the ‘artistic’. At any rate, keep writing.
Kevin,
I would suggest that there is no such thing as a “theology of the arts”. Theology is a distinct discipline, and although there is of course analogical relations with the arts, it exists as its own project. The arts and the work of the artist do as well.
There are some scholars (such as P Leithart and DB Hart) who are in some degree pursuing aesthetics in the context of theology, but I am not convinced that this is not a mistake. There is, of course, a Biblical aesthetic, but not a theologic-aesthetic. What seems to be happening is the identity of analogy with the substance of a thing. Artistic work stands under the same Lord, but is not a subset of theology. This is the same old Roman Catholic notion of life that keeps in rearing its ugly head in the church. It might be the very reason why all this confusion about the place of the arts is happening these days.
Sincerely,
A professional artist.
Praise God for artistic expression. It is a gift of God and if used wisely enhances life – as do builders, cooks, school teachers, lawyers, mothers, fathers etc. All are creational gifts. But that is the point, they are creational gifts, not new creational categories. They do not bring us nearer to God. As Christians we may enjoy good food, good music, a soft seat, a good mother and father etc. We may thank God for them. But we are thanking God for creational gifts.
New creational life is Gospel fed. 1 Cor 8 seems appropriate in NIV reading.
1Co 8:8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
The same can be said for a painting, sex, a cathedral, a musical instrument and so on.
Only in the gospel is the new life nourished and fed. Thus a sermon, a word of gospel, encouragement, fellowship in gospel truths, a gospel song etc can lead us near to God, nothing else.
Pretty dogmatic words I know. I would like you to blog on the nature/grace issue (even if you somewhat disagree with me). Discussion is vital on this. It seems to me essential that evangelicals get a clear two kingdom theology before we get swallowed up in the aestheticism of Catholicism.
[...] relationship between Art & the [...]
John,
You need to understand something: two-kingdom theology IS Roman Catholic. The nature-grace antithesis IS the Roman Catholic world-view. Thomas Aquinas and Siger of Brabant pushed the envelope on this stuff.
On the opposite side: the pattern of creation-fall-redemption takes into account the whole person and the whole of creation. Creation is re-created in Christ. All of life is under His Lordship. This is Biblical teaching.
The aestheticism of the RC is the subjection of aesthetics to dogma, not the Bible.
Chris
On the historical outline I am happy to be enlightened – there I feel vulnerable. Thanks for comments.
Biblically, I understand that all of life is under Christ’s lordship. That does not mean,however, that all of life is the same. It is here I feel we must work with some creation/new creation perspective. I don’t even say there is no overlap, nevertheless aspects of this life are merely for this life. In themselves they have no ability to draw us near to God. They are for this world only (marriage, food etc). A football match does not make me a better christian, it has no intrinsic value in enabling me to grow in faith. The word, prayer, fellowship, communion etc all have. However, we label this distinction, it seems to me it is one that must be drawn.
Any response gratefully accepted.
John,
Adam was made to increase in his knowledge and fellowship with God, and this included the whole of creation. He was not meant to hang out with God in the Garden all the time. The Garden was one spot in Eden and was not the whole world. There were things to do. If you see all things from the perspective of the spiritual-motive of the Word, then all things do increase your faith. The world is not antithetical to faith, just your own heart.
We need to stop imputing “badness” to the things God called “good”. Man fell, not God’s created order. I know you don’t intend to, but you seem to imply that God made a mistake by creating food and marriage. No, they do not possess intrinsic value, I agree (this is the old Aristotelean-Thomistic view of “things”). But, they do possess imputed value and meaning from God – they are “good”.
Take care. Read Dooyeweerd if you can. As the days go by, and more and more people are drawn into the Catholic deception, it is going to get more difficult to extract your heart from this stuff. The Middle Ages were the age of the Nature-Grace antithesis. Lord willing, we will not go back.
God bless.
[...] appreciated his recent post: The Church and the Arts Posted by Dan Warne Filed in links Tags: arts, church, DeYoung Leave a Comment [...]
[...] The Church and the Arts: Some Common Ground and Some Common Sense [...]
Read in relation to this blog.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2009/08/14/two-kingdom-theology-and-neo-kuyperians/
Since I came to Christ and was born-again my attention has been heavily on the Word of God. It is God’s primary way of communicating Himself.
When I see good human made art I just get frustrated because it is beautiful to the eye or the ear but I doesn’t give anything to the soul like the Word of God does by the illumination of the Spirit.
I would get very frustrated in an overly artistic enviroment. Even if the art would have been made to the glory of God by a believing artist. Maybe I’m a bit iconoclasmic.
[...] October 31, 2009 by Maddy A good article about “Art and the Church” by Kevin DeYoung. [...]
[...] DeYoung has some good thoughts about art and the church’s thinking about art. I have set out his main points, but you should really read the post if you’re interested in [...]