Keller, Fujimura Respond to Comments About ‘Artists Build the Church’

As readers can see from The Gospel Coalition’s website in recent weeks, we desire to help church leaders think through the relation between the gospel and the arts. We do not, however, offer prescriptions for how each church in widely differing local cultures should feature the arts, especially in the context of gathered, weekly worship. The arts don’t add to the gospel, as if the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for sinners wasn’t enough. But the arts certainly can help us appreciate the beauty of Jesus’ sacrifice. We should not forsake this God-given aid to enjoying divine reality.

TGC’s Theological Vision for Ministry states that we believe that much of older evangelicalism read across the Bible in an individualistic fashion, focused almost exclusively on personal salvation, resulting in neglect of “cultural production that glorifies God in the arts.” At the same time, we recognize that much of contemporary evangelicalism emphasizes Christianity as a way of life rather than “blood-bought status in Christ received through personal faith.” In the face of this challenge, we must emphasize vigorous evangelism, apologetics, and expository preaching so that sinners might experience the new birth by God’s grace. Proclaiming the gospel and glorifying God in artistic endeavors are not mutually exclusive.

We appreciate the response from so many readers to “Artists Build the Church,” an article posted this week by Kristen Scharold. We hope the discussion will continue. I’ve learned from reading the comments, and I’m grateful for those who have emphasized the need to keep the gospel at the center and root all our pursuits in God’s Word. In order to facilitate further interaction, I thought it might be helpful to share some responses from people who have invested years in thinking about art and the local church.

First, here’s the full section from TGC’s Theological Vision for Ministry about the integration of faith and work:

The good news of the Bible is not only individual forgiveness but the renewal of the whole creation. God put humanity in the garden to cultivate the material world for his own glory and for the flourishing of nature and the human community. The Spirit of God not only converts individuals (e.g., John 16:8) but also renews and cultivates the face of the earth (e.g., Gen 1:2; Psalm 104:30). Therefore Christians glorify God not only through the ministry of the Word, but also through their vocations of agriculture, art, business, government, scholarship—all for God’s glory and the furtherance of the public good. Too many Christians have learned to seal off their faith–beliefs from the way they work in their vocation. The gospel is seen as a means of finding individual peace and not as the foundation of a worldview—a comprehensive interpretation of reality affecting all that we do. But we have a vision for a church that equips its people to think out the implications of the gospel on how we do carpentry, plumbing, data–entry, nursing, art, business, government, journalism, entertainment, and scholarship. Such a church will not only support Christians’ engagement with culture, but will also help them work with distinctiveness, excellence, and accountability in their trades and professions. Developing humane yet creative and excellent business environments out of our understanding of the gospel is part of the work of bringing a measure of healing to God’s creation in the power of the Spirit. Bringing Christian joy, hope, and truth to embodiment in the arts is also part of this work. We do all of this because the gospel of God leads us to it, even while we recognize that the ultimate restoration of all things awaits the personal and bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As I understand it, this is the vision The Line seeks to live out with respect to the arts. That’s why I worked with Scharold to profile this particular church in Chicago. You might, however, disagree with elements of their approach or apply this vision in ways that better suit your local context. But welcoming artists does not mean a church must somehow neglect members who glorify God in their carpentry, plumbing, preaching, counseling, or any other vocation. Carl Trueman expressed concern with one particlar statement from an article written by the artist Makoto Fujimura. Yesterday, Fujimura clarified on his site what he meant by describing artists as marginalized.  

Thank you for your response. With respect I must note that I am afraid you are missing the whole point I was trying to make. But if you just take the paragraph you quoted, I can see how you can come to your points; and I am sure it is my lack of ability to communicate this crucial issue, so let me try to clarify.

What I mean by art is far more than occupation or a category of identity. Art breathes into all of life. Therefore what I am arguing for is far more than advocating for those who say they are artists. What I call art is recorded in Matthew 6 passages of “Consider the Lilies” in which Jesus commands us to not to worry in the way that the world does. We must see, truly see, the lilies, the ephemeral and the beautiful, BEFORE we can “seek” God’s kingdom first. This gap between our problem (of being anxious) and our goal (of seeking God’s kingdom and his righteousness) is where art of observation, careful wrestling, is needed. Jesus is telling us, all of us, to be an artist here, and to stop being artists of worrying, but to be an artist of God’s grace.

One of the key works that we do here with artist types (who actually might be mothers and taxi drivers, by the way . . . as I said in the essay, you just don’t recognize us) is that though they are underemployed and suffering, they can be filled with hope and riches of Christ who, to me, is the ultimate artist. The creative and relational capitals are far more important capitals than material capital (though we do need the material capital, it is limited, the other two capitals are infinite).

Finally, Tim Keller shared a comment on the original article that explained the missiological rationale for arts ministry.

I think what many of us are trying to say is that churches–especially in cities–sometimes give unnecessary offense to artists in the way they go about ministry. We need to bring Christians who are artists into the church and listen to them so we can communicate the gospel in ways that encourage other artists even as they challenge them with the gospel. Don Carson speaks about this, looking at 1 Cor 9:20-23, where Paul says he becomes like a Jew to win the Jews and like a Gentile to win the Gentiles. Don carefully exegetes the passage, and concludes this—

“When in the last century Hudson Taylor, the founder of the China Inland Mission (now the Overseas Missionary Fellowship), started to wear his hair long and braided like Chinese men of the time and to put on their clothes and eat their food, many of his fellow missionaries derided him. But Hudson Taylor had thought through what was essential to the gospel (and therefore nonnegotiable) and what was a cultural form that was neither here nor there, and might in fact be an unnecessary barrier to the effective proclamation of the gospel. . . . This is not to say that all cultural elements are morally neutral. Far from it. Every culture has good and bad elements in it…Yet in every culture it is important for the evangelist, church planter, and witnessing Christian to flex as far as possible, so that the gospel will not be made to appear unnecessarily alien at the merely cultural level.” (Don Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry, p. 122.)

I think some of the commenters are right when they warn against adapting a church’s ministry too far for the sake of artists (or any group!) so as to lose a grasp on the non-negotiables of the gospel. But some of the commenters don’t seem to want to “flex as far as possible” to connect to artists. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that if something we do gives cultural offense and it is not crucial to the gospel, we should we willing to consider changing it. But the commenters seem to feel that if someone has taken cultural offense at the way they do church they are simply whining. I think that is a missiological mistake, and a failure to understand texts such as 1 Corinthians 9, as well as being uncharitable. Nevertheless, I don’t think we should write off the concerns of those who fear that catering to artists will lead to theological compromise. It is always a danger.

This is a worthy discussion that should continue. Thank you for participating! So please share your insight and experience as TGC seeks to publish thoughtful, biblical reflection on the gospel and the arts.