More Active Posts
Front Page
Religion: and art
 |
 90 Comments |
I’m just not convinced that the Protestant Evangelical Church can do art. I’m not even sure what I mean by do in that sentence. I’ve spent fifteen years studying religion and its relationship to the imaginative works of Western civilization, from art to literature to music. I’ve read most of the Required Reading List of newer books about art and the Evangelical church: Rookmaker, Schaefer, Seerveld, Ryken, Wolterstoff, Veith, et alium. I’m no art historian, and I’m no theologian, but I’ve written and taught on Christianity and the works of the imagination, and I’ve written a dissertation on how certain theological concepts can be found inside dramatic structures, and I’ve had lots and lots and lots of conversations with pastors and thinkers and writers and artists about the Evangelical church and art. Based on all that, here seem to be the problems, stated roughly and generally (Below, P and E indicate Protestant and Evangelical, which are the only kinds of churches I feel comfortable addressing here, as a member and through my own experience. Other churches have similar problems and solutions, but that’s not to be discussed here).
- Most PE churches are ugly. Even the pretty (and old) ones tend to be iconoclastic.
- Most PE church members seem to enjoy very pedestrian works of art. I say seem. Maybe that’s okay. Maybe that has more to do with our time in history and less to do with our intellectual lethargy as a church.
- Most PE preachers and thinkers and writers speak optimistically and positively of the church’s need to “embrace” and “celebrate” beauty, but there’s little exposition of A) how this is supposed to happen or B) what this means.
- The working worlds of quality art and quality literature and quality music happen quite independently of the PE church. Perhaps this is how it should be, perhaps not.
- PE churches and organizations pay terrific lip-service to beauty and the imagination, but their literature, the writing and design of the publications they produce, the look and style of their facilities, etc., seem to indicate otherwise.
- Beauty and goodness and truth are proclaimed through the imaginative works of literature regardless of the PE church. Great creators don’t worry about sanction or support from the church. Are we in the PE church too consumed with talking about art, and should we concern ourselves with simply participating in it? Which is to say, would the PE church’s “theology of art” work itself out if we would only learn and read and enjoy good art?
- How does an actual, physical church body “support” art? By funding exhibitions in the fellowship hall? By having groups attend good concerts and read good books? Or does all that sound silly?
I could go on. At this point, I am loathe to keep thinking about it. As a writer, my preference at this point is to keep writing my book and making stories and let someone else worry about what it all means for the church.
 |
Topic: Featured, WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: art, church, religion |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Reporters? choice
I don’t care what a protestant church looks like. The days of the Temple are over. I don’t care if there are pomegranites etched on the ceiling. The church can be as ugly as it wants to be as long as the preaching and worship are biblical, church discipline is practiced and the people of the church are being discipled and equipped to evangelize. Our back to Rome church culture takes art way overboard thanks to Romish folks like Doug Wilson and Jim Jordan. It’s really disturbing.
Bianca,
Hey, even I’M not that anti-art! Did we get up in a foul mood this morning or something?
HSK,
Can you define “PE”? Who gets included? Is this one of those “you know it when you see it” concepts or can you be more specific. For instance I would probably include LCMS and maybe the new conservative
Anglican movement. Many wouldn’t. They “do art” more than some of us. Etc.
2 - No, I’m not in a foul mood. Sorry for portraying that. I just get so tired of hearing about how Christians don’t care about art and literature. If we do what we need to do first and foremost, the disciplines of the arts and sciences will follow suit. I just see a trend in the Church to focus too much on things that aren’t foremost.
Yesterday’s Friday poem. No comments yesterday, 1 today. And Chas didn’t get it. Neither do I…
Sigh.
Bianca, I think your attitude is absolutely awful, and unbiblical to boot.
I don’t think even God is that anti-art. I even think it’s blatantly obvious that God is quite pro-art, and here’s why:
HE is our Creator, and I think he is quite pleased when we are creative (as designed). Just what do you think he meant when he said we were made in his image?
Do you think it’s an act of worship for his people to sit around in an ugly building being pleased with the surrounding “Jesus junk”?
Do you think that God was just kidding when he put his stamp of approval on those top of the line craftsmen and artists by specifically requesting them to build the ark and the traveling “temple”?
Do you think Jesus was just kidding when he told his disciples to stop grumbling about the woman who had broken the alabaster jar and spread perfume on him, and that she had done a beautiful thing? The disciples were all concerned that they could have spent the money to feed the poor, and yet Jesus let them know in no uncertain terms that the poor would always be there- and that he would not.
I think our worship falls short when we short change beauty dedicated to God. I think it’s a lopsided view that totally neglects beauty for the sake of truth. In fact I’d go so far to say that our truth becomes a lie if we totally ignore beauty.
Is God not the author of creativity and beauty? Then why short change that aspect of God’s character in our lives?
The above was written before I read your second post Bianca. Sorry. Thank you for the qualification.
Now pardon me while I go out to my shop and try to make some beautiful stuff with the skills God gave me…
solo Gloria Deo
A couple of years ago we had an elective Sunday School class. One of the topics was the place of art in the world. Intellectuals/artists are/were very important in parts of Europe. Wasn’t a Czech president who was a playwright instrumental in getting rid of Communism there?
Well, I don’t get how important art is. I also don’t get most art.
I do get music. I find the newish praise choruses boring. My wife loves them. I am glad my bum knee gives me the excuse for not standing for the music. I would really rather not even be in the room with it,
The Praise music is bad as far as music goes, BAD!
But so many of the church like it. Oh well, to each his own.
BB,
“The Praise music is bad as far as music goes, BAD!”
Amen! Amen! Amen!
I wonder if the reason for this relates to the linear nature and sometimes heavy emphasis on logic over emotion that can be found in many American protestant churches? Or it could be leftover protestant disdain for the ornateness of Catholic churches?
Bianca & Make It Man - I believe that our churches should look nice or even beautiful. But I also think that beauty can be simple, it doesn’t have to be ornate or ostentatious.
I am so thankful for the beauty that God has created on this earth. Imagine how beautiful the new earth will be!
Well, this is not fair.
A church I used to attend produced REAMS of GREAT MODERN ART in the kindergarten class, every Sunday.
Why, I have seen veritable MASTERPIECES of modern art stacked outside the kindergarten sunday school room in the hall, after class - some of it truly AVANT-GARDE and ARTISTICALLY DARING, you know, having been apparently PEED on, a sort of artistic touch which is ALL THE RAGE in modern art musuems, these days.
So I beg to differ.
It has been my experience that a big part of the problem is that the people in charge of the art in the PE tradition, (publishers, producers, the guy with the money to build the church) are usually not artists. They are cleric and minister types who not don’t understand art but are actually a little afraid of it. The artist often ethier get beaten down or desert to the secular world.
“The Praise music is bad as far as music goes, BAD!”
Bob, my friend, you either haven’t been listening to the right praise music, you have something against against anything other than hymns, or your iPod is loaded with John Mayer.
Tell you what: if you want to truly show an interest in finding better music, try listening to “He Reigns” by Newsboys, “Ocean Floor” by Audio Adrenaline, “O Praise Him” by David Crowder… then come back and tell us all what you think. One of those three songs will appeal to you - or, if they don’t, you sir, are absolutely out of your mind.
Good discussion.
I agree that as believers we should value and celebrate the creativity and appreciation for beauty God has given us (Make it Man).
Most “praise” choruses? Yep, UGH! (Bob Buckles). There are some sound contemporary hymns and music being written, to be sure. But how odd — and what a shame — to go into a Christian book store and not be able to find any of the church’s classic, sacred music in the CD section.
And yes, beauty can be found in the extremely simple (Karen O). The Puritans and other Protestants loved the spare look in what was likely a reaction to the overly ornate and a distancing away from any hint of a graven image. But that also can be executed in a way that transmits a beautiful sense of space and grace.
I’m a member of a medium-sized Presbyterian church that worships in a rented facility in a business park. The surroundings fall short of being inspiring, to be honest, although the solid preaching, teaching and music transcends all that for me. Still, I miss the pews, the vaulted ceilings, a distinctly church “space.”
For many years the Quaker church was my home denomination. I’ve worshipped in some old Quaker meeting houses that are as spare as they come, but absolutely striking, somehow, in their starkness — if that makes sense. No padded pews there — just simple (often very creaky) wood plank floors and benches, nothing but the natural morning light streaming in through the windows.
It all created sort of a hushed sense of awe that pointed heavenward.
And, yeah (DRILL), kindergarten modern art is absolutely the best!
#15 Intellectual Gorgon
I like music with harmony. I rarely understand words to songs I hear. My church has music with a Jazz sort of bent. My new church does the same choruses from a Rock and Roll sort of thing, better but not good.
I got tired of “Just as I am” and I am likewise tired of the same choruses over and over.
I like to read music, not just words.
When I look at the screen, it sure seems that the words are repetitious (vain?).
I prefer instrumental music to choral.
“He Reigns” by Newsboys very nice but…
Repetition? mostly
Harmony? not so much
It seems like something you listen to; something that is sung to you.
I realize this will sound baby, but ever since a previous song leader told us to get off our feet and raise our arms I have never been the same. Yuck!
“Ocean Floor” by Audio Adrenaline
I didn’t like it enough to even finish it.
“O Praise Him” by David Crowder
I didn’t finish this one either.
Yes, I am out of my mind. I really don’t like this style of music, but then I had trouble listening to music during the disco craze too.
#15 Intellectual Gorgon
Who is John Mayer?
I googled him
“Mayer Pal: Jennifer Aniston ‘Fits Right In’ With Concert Tour…”
I have never watched “Friends” either.
Yes, Harrison - a subject that my family and friends discuss often. I wish I had more time to write about it.
You may want to check this out:
http://www.amazon.com/Was-Good-Making-Art-Glory/dp/0978509714/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217703072&sr=8-1
My church only sings hymns. Regardless of whether or not singing contemporary praise and worship music in church is biblical or not, I personally think that hymns are best. My reasoning?
In my own opinion, many praise choruses are repetitious and are either boring or get very old quickly. Also, if the music being sung is praise music, etc., somebody may possibly be going for the “experience.” I say this because I’ve talked to someone who attends a large church that sings contemporary music in church, and she said that she noticed some people who were all “into the worship” during the singing, but all the preaching bounced off their ears. And also, if my church sang praise choruses, I likely wouldn’t be able to accompany the songs with my viola. (specially because I’m not very good…)
One church I’ve attended used mostly “on-the-radio” songs. (Speechless, by Steven Curtis Chapman, and others) The only one I liked (the rest seemed was the non-contemporary song, O, The Deep, Deep Love of Jesus.
My favorite hymns are the one just mentioned, Celtic hymns like Be Thou My Vision; Let All Things Now Living; Morning Has Broken; Jesus, Lover of My Soul; and others.
I am not saying what anyone should do.
Like other things I’ve said before, I’m just pointing out what seems to have worked for me.
Or my church, to be more exact.
I meant to say “especiallybecause I’m not very good, and “The only one I liked (the rest seemed boring) was…”</i?
Sorry for the confusion. The words got rather mixed up when I rephrased the paragraph.
Good grief. Now I forgot to put the “>” after the “i.”
The church can be as ugly as it wants to be as long as the preaching and worship are biblical, church discipline is practiced and the people of the church are being discipled and equipped to evangelize.
Curious sentence. The building is in the active voice, the body of Christ is mostly passive. Unfortunately the buildings “want” to be as ugly as BIANCA and their other occupants want them to be.
It’s time for Abrams to put out a $200 coffee table book about PE architecture & art.
Bianca is right, of course. P-E is a rescue religion. Art is an earthly treasure, a way which seemeth right to a man but the end thereof is death. Beauty radiates from the persons of those who bring the gospel. Buildings are whitened sepulchers.
6 - It’s okay, Make it Man. I’ve done the same!
Most PE church members seem to enjoy very pedestrian works of art.
What exactly is meant by “pedestrian art”? Surely you mean something other than street scenes.
It is obvious reading this that tastes in art and music are as varied as the people posting. It is like tastes in food. Either you like something or you don’t. As for Bianca and her building tastes, I find we need to be good stewards of what the Lord has given us and not build ornate, impractical buildings.
I think that art, for the most part is about discovering new ways of looking at the world. That is what fiction writers, poets, sculptors, painters, etc do best. Along the way, they can also create beauty, which is often confused with art. (Music, I think, is a somewhat different form of art, primarily directed at the emotions).
Finding new ways of looking at the world is NOT what any religion is all about. Religion is all about remaining consistent with the past. It is essentially conservative.
Monet’s gardens, Picasso’s cubist portraits, Warhol’s soup cans or Marilyn portraits or Maya Lin’s Vietnam Memorial all have the ability to show us new ways of looking at and interpreting the world. Even Adams landscapes can do the same. Some of those artistic creations are “beautiful” others aren’t.
Micheangelo’s Pieta, on the other hand, is certainly beautiful, and a technical masterpiece, but I don’t think it really reveals anything new about the world or gives us another way of looking at it. When it was created, the world was already full of beautiful Madonnas; this is just another one. The Vatican simply hired the best technician of the time to express The Vatican’s not the technician’s views of the world. The church was interested in beauty, yes, but not in anything truly new.
When a church hires any kind of artist, s/he is NEVER free to express any kind of heretical, disputatatious, or even controversial thought or interpretation; the charter is to present the church’s ideas skillfully and perhaps beautifully.
But if something is done skillfully and beautifully, it has a particular power, and the last thing any church wants is to have that power lent to the expression of the wrong kind of idea. Above almost anything else, the church knew and still knows the power of images…
Incidentally, governments have the same problem; indeed, I think any time a corporate entity sets about commissioning art, there is a substantial likelihood of failure. True art is often very different from that which has come before, it is revolutionary in some way or another. And revolution is anathema to most corporate, collective, and powerful bodies.
I have pretty much been making this up as I go along; I’m sure some will completely disagree and others will bring some exceptions to my very broad conclusions. But I do think there is more than a grain of truth to what I have said.
HSK: I would imagine that some have suggested to you that most Catholic churches are a) older than the EP churches b) that Catholicism has had a lot more practice at sponsoring and controlling artists and finally that c) the Reformation was at least in part a reaction to what was perceived as the overyly ornate imagery of Catholicism.
Here’s a hypothetical for anybody to consider. Your church needs a new home. The building committee after a long search lands a famous architect, who is instructed to have the exterior of the church illustrate a religious concept.
The architect returns with a gorgeously rendered, dramatic sketch of a spectacular steeple capped by shimmering golden flames of Hell roasting a sinner. Or perhaps by an absolutely gorgeous Mary, holding the baby Jesus to one of two naked breasts.
I submit that such designs could very well be great art and also be considered beautiful but that they would absolutely never be accepted by the church.
how about beauty in character and relationships?
Sort of related to Arcadia’s theory, with a twist, my friends strongly believes that art is created out an inner emootional struggle - trying to make sense of, or express anguish at, the brokenness nad pointless of life. The religious don’t have the anguish or sense of pointlessness needed to create art.
Arcadia,
I think there is some truth in what you say, but I disagree about art being primarily about seeing/showing things in new ways. I would say it is primarily about truth and beauty, but the beauty is not necessarily conventional beauty, and certainly not always “pretty.”
I would say that seeing/showing things in new ways is often an aspect of art but not its defining feature. I think that either trying to imitate what has already been done, or trying to deliberately break the conventions, often leads to something mistaken for art that is not.
The quest for truth and beauty generally combines elements of what has been done before and something new. But it is the truth and beauty that are the goal, as perceived by the artist, not either adherence to or rejection of old forms.
Regarding your church building examples -
Art created to be part of something larger (such as a building) needs to fit its context, unlike art that is made purely for independent display. The beauty of a building is partly in how its parts fit together, and that includes its purpose. As the purpose of a church building is to draw together believers to worship God, the art used in or on the church needs to fit that purpose.
Personally I would consider an image of any human being(s) inappropriate at the top of a steeple. The steeple is pointing us to God - not that it literally points to where God is, but the vastness of the sky and the outer space that we know is beyond it does assist many people in being reminded of God’s greatness.
I know two churches that do a good job, in my opinion, of promoting art. One was the church I grew up in (which, unfortunately, did not do a good job of teaching the message of salvation). The other is a Methodist church here in town. Both have highly regarded music series, bringing in very talented musicians and groups to perform throughout the year, concerts attended by many people who are not part of the congregation. And both have very good paintings on view in the church building (not in the sanctuary, though there is other artwork there).
One final comment - that ornate is not the same as beautiful, as Karen O said above. Ornate is sometimes ugly, and simple is often beautiful. I do think some amount of intentional beauty in a worship space is appropriate, because our God is a God of beauty. And money spent creating beauty as an offering to God can be money well spent. I would not want to be part of a church that considered the only appropriate use for monetary gifts to be specifically on teaching and preaching. The word is important, but our worship is more than words and involves our whole beings, which are beings made to create and appreciate beauty.
“I’m just not convinced that the Protestant Evangelical Church can do art.”
Did the new testament church have this problem as well?
In our post-Constantine religion as entertainment model, we look for religion to do anything that entertains us.
The New Testament church was not interested in the art of their buildings. They understood that art was important to the time of the Temple, and that time had passed away. How much do we hear about artwork in Acts and in Paul’s epistles? Not that they were gnostics, because they had that to fight too, as well as ornamentation and Romanism. They were interested in the preached Word and ministering within the Church. Does it really matter what our churches look like? I don’t think they should be ugly - paint the walls, make the churches accessible to the elderly and disabled, keep the church clean and with heat and A/C. Artists, scientists, and people of other talents will come as the Church is faithful in preaching and worship.
I must say I agree with Bianca. Our mission here on earth is not to have fancy buildings for they will not last. The only thing that will last are the souls of men and the Word of God.
Now I say that and know that you can have a comfortable building to worship in and one that is ‘pleasing to the eye’ but that should not be the focus.
On the other hand, all artists, musicians, and others with the creative mind should use their talents for the glory of God in the church. What is wrong with an artist displaying a work that was inspired by his/her daily reading of the Word? Why cant a musician play a song in church because it was a struggle he was going thru and God gave him inspiration. God has given us different talents/gifts for the building up of the Body of Christ.
29. Good point.
Jesus spent three years giving out HIS Word - preaching the Kingdom of Heaven on hillsides, in homes, anywhere the people were. Jesus didn’t stand in the Temple and preach. The LORD’S Supper was taken in the upper room of a home, it wasn’t in a Temple or Church.
It’s what’s taught in the room, or building that leads men to come to Christ. Think of the Crusades that Billy Graham has had in stadiums across the U.S. and abroad. There are no churches with fine paintings, or wood carved doors big enough to accommodate the vast amount of people hungry to hear the Word of God.
When Jesus spoke and fed the thousands of people performing the miracle of fishes and loaves of bread, there was no Temple that would have been big enough, nor would the Rabbi’s of that day have allowed the LORD Jesus to preach the gospel from the temple of Salvation through HIM, the Son of God.
The early church met in homes, homes that people lived in - I can’t imagine that all these homes were grand, with art work everywhere, find furniture, etc.
I understand how lovely and beautiful it is to have a beautiful Sanctuary in which to Worship, but better it be to have the teaching. So often times the Protestant churches who’s interior is most grand have NO EVENING service, and no mid-week service, in the Sanctuary. Often it’s only one or two services each week on Sunday morning, weddings, and funerals. It is the Church which has all the evening services, who places emphasis on teaching and preaching which are the plainer Churches. Money often is spent in these churches for missions, missionaries, hospitals in very poor areas around the world, sending young people to Bible schools, and seminary’s, taking care of the poor.
Being a musician, I’ve struggled with the issue of contemporary vs hymns for a while, so I always like to see people’s reasons for why they prefer either one. For quite a few years, I was a “hymn-only” kind of gal, for most of the reasons people here have already posted. The words are much richer, the harmony (usually) is beautiful, the focus is God-centered and not man-centered. (Rio, you listed most of my favorite hymns as well). But not long ago, that started to change. It seems to me just a “bit” arrogant to think that the only songs honoring to the Lord are hymns. If I sit down and write a love song to my Savior, is it any less pleasing to Him than the famous hymn-writers just because it has fewer words? My opinion is no.
Now I agree, however, that having “rock-and-roll” music in the worship service is distracting to the message. Those songs are fine to sing at other times, I believe. (I listen to a lot of contemporary Christian when I’m running–Newsboys, MercyMe, Casting Crowns, Chris Tomlin.)
All this leaves those of us in the “music” department in a very difficult position. In my own church, it is literally split in half. Half of the congregation wants to hear only the good old hymns (which I still love, too). The other half wants to sing a little more modern things (which I like as well.) So when I have to decide what to do for prelude, offertory, postlude, special, WHATEVER, it becomes a real struggle. Who do I want to upset this Sunday?? (Today I played a bit more modern song, so I know who my friends are this week! 8*)
Challenge–look up the words and music to “How Great the Fathers Love for Us” by Stuart Townend. Is that (modernish) song not beautiful??
Amen. Jars of Clay and Jennifer Knapp sound great blasting from my stereo in my house or car, but singing their songs during worship would be super creepy.
I think I would disagree that the reason the religious don’t make good art is because the Church wants to control the message, and also the point that the religious don’t make good art because the religious do not experience anguish or pointlessness.
I would posit that partially the religious don’t make good art because many of the religious do not often feel the same anguish and pointlessness that the non-religious do. Perhaps. That’s not to say that the religious do not feel anguish or even sometimes pointlessness. That’s just ridiculous on the face of it. Obviously if you are human you feel some pain, and in this fallen world some things are pointless no matter who you are…
I would argue that mainly though, the religious don’t make good art (these days) because of a poverty of culture, intellect, and theology. The teaching that passes for “good” in many churches I have attended is so cliche, repetitious, and unimaginative that I wonder that anyone could stand for it. Don’t people use their brains any more? Do they not exert themselves when they read the Word? Do they not think deeply and long for answers to questions?
And say, isn’t the cultural depth in many of our churches about kiddie pool deep? (I’m afraid I fall into this category myself.)
How can one make good art when the “artist” and the “observers” are so poverty stricken?
With the attitude displayed even here at WMB, I’m hardly surprised that PE’s make very little good art. It’s obviously not valued.
Suffice it to say, I also disgree with my fellow believers. I believe we should be among the most creative people on the face of the earth. Something is wrong with a redemption that only manifests itself in the “useful” and “religious”. I don’t think God’s approval for the creative went by the wayside when the New Covenent was enacted. Or is Jesus only the redeemer of souls and not of lives?
I wonder what songs Jesus sang?
“The religious don’t have the anguish or sense of pointlessness needed to create art.”
KRM,
Does your friend (and you by extension) then see art as mainly an expression of anguish and pointlessness?
I think Eric Liddle in Chariot’s of Fire express my point the best:
“I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run I feel His pleasure.”
Those who think worship is merely singing hymns and praying have a very limited understanding of worship.
I always think of the “I feel his pleasure” quote when I’m in the zone in my workouts. Keeps me going strong.
KRM,
Or put another way, are the only great artists then, the ones who make their art an expression borne out of the struggle against the anguish and the pointlessness of the universe?
Make It Man,
I’m surprised that you’re questioning KRM’s assumptions about aesthetics rather than the veracity of his statement itself.
Anybody who can say that religious people don’t have inner emotional struggles doesn’t deserve to be listened to. Anybody who thinks Christians don’t see, and feel deeply, the brokenness of life doesn’t understand word one of the Christian faith. What a ludicrous (and drunkenly typed) comment.
29
I think “emootional struggles” are solely confined to the bovine population.
David,
Go re-read my posts more closely. I did question the veracity of that statement. I just wanted to know what he thought art was.
You’re right, Make It Man. I was just reading superficially. The comment *is* ridiculous on its face.
Specifically #38.
Since KRM is not responding, I’ll post my thoughts on his friend’s theory about the lack of Art by the religious.
This friend’s underlying assumption is that the universe is ultimately meaningless, and their idea of great Art is actually a denial of that truth. The “Truth” being that the universe is meaningless and filled with anguish that it’s meaningless.
I would guess that the religious (especially Christians) would not be able to relate to this since God the Creator fills the universe with great meaning and purpose. So if you define great Art in that fashion mentioned above, obviously Christians wouldn’t often make good Art.
However, I’d define Art as any creation that says, in essence, *”This (the Art), is like unto this (whatever the object)”. In some way the Art captures the essence of something and portrays in in various ways.
*As explained to me by Ellis Potter.
Did Jesus tell us to concern ourselves regarding the ‘art’ in our churches? — or did he tell us something else? — was it to spread the gospel, or the brush of paint on canvas?
The LORD Jesus Christ suffered Himself on a cross, beaten, and nailed, the most horrible of all deaths, HE did this so that you and I might have Eternal LIFE if we believed on Him, repented, turned from sin and followed HIM.
Yet we have those who are concerned about ‘art’ as though that matters, HOW, its not redemptive, it has no value as far as Salvation. There are individuals who can’t grasp the divinity of GOD, His awesome power, His Son’s death on the Cross, as reality, —— but rely on paintings, and icons, or other things which have no meaning to Salvation, but add to what?
And who is the Church? We the Believers are the Church of Christ.
Jesus told us:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mathew 28:19
So where is ART? Where’s the sin the church has committed regarding a lack of art?
Exodus 31 opens with the Lord telling Moses that Bezaleel would do the artwork for the tabernacle, being especially gifted by the Lord Himself for that purpose.
Perhaps the Lord is not gifting any Christians in that manner these days.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. - Ephesians 2:10
When we bring a meal to one in need, we try to make it as pleasing to the eye as it is to the palate. It may not be ranked by the world’s critics as great artwork, but we did our best.
This is all rather distressing to me… I have a doctorate in music and teach in the field. I also am a member/elder in a “PE” church. The discussion on beauty as related to the church is pertinent and has been a struggle in many churches (and historically). Any position can be taken to excess! I firmly believe God STILL gives talents to all– we are made in His image– and creating beauty is one quality of God that man reflects. Of course, our attempts are imperfect, nevertheless we can be inspired from time to time. Often, real beauty draws one to God, the author or “real” beauty and of truth. For that reason alone, the church should embrace the creation of art in some way… in architecture, in music, in any of several media, as appropriate. It’s disturbing to me personally to think that God does not care about art… as some in this thread seem to be inferring.
Victoria,
Show where someone is arguing art as the primary mission of the church and your posts here might begin to have a point with their mutually exclusive dichotomies between stained glass and sunday evening services.
Consider instead why we’re saved, what is redeemed, and how redemption extends to all of creation. Art is not the salvific mission of the church, but it might be an important (though often overlooked and even disdained) activity of restored people who having been made in the image of God, share his capacity for and pleasure in creativity.
regards,
SG
Victoria,
Boy do you have tunnel vision.
As a carpenter, do you think Jesus didn’t care about how his creations looked? Or do you think he was a consummate craftsman?
To hear some folks tell it, beauty and pleasure hit the road after Christ’s work on the cross…
Get this Victoria:
Jesus was the Creator of the universe. How can beauty and Art not be important to someone who created something so vast, so detailed, so intricate, and so beautiful?
KRM The religious don’t have the anguish or sense of pointlessness needed to create art.
Victoria: The LORD Jesus Christ suffered Himself on a cross, beaten, and nailed, the most horrible of all deaths, HE did this so that you and I might have Eternal LIFE if we believed on Him, repented, turned from sin and followed HIM…Yet we have those who are concerned about ‘art’ as though that matters, HOW, its not redemptive, it has no value as far as Salvation. There are individuals who can’t grasp the divinity of GOD, His awesome power, His Son’s death
Some folks are just far too busy suffering up there with him to even recognize or enjoy beauty.
What a shame. Jesus seems to have died in order to take all the beauty out of life.
No wonder so many artists don’t like to work with churches.
Arcadia, would you be weirded out if I, say, wildly applauded for a few hours?
Christian artists have a challenge - to create art to the glory of God, not to the glory of themselves - which characterizes today’s art culture. I think you would be surprised at how many are taking up this challenge. See the collection of essays I linked above (full disclosure - the author is a personal friend).
About beauty - keep in mind that sometimes ugliness is used to communicate truth through art. Unfortunately, the ugliness we see in the church is typically not deliberate.
Another thing - the acknowledgment that beauty exists at all is a big concession on the part of our post-modern friends.
Three observations:
1 - Looking through the Old Testament, one cannot deny that art was an accepted (even important?) part of worship. (See the Psalms - “Sing to the Lord a new song,” “Praise Him with the sound of the trumpets,” etc.) Where is the evidence, biblical or otherwise, that this should not also be the case today?
2 - We see this acceptability of art in/as worship in the dissatisfaction some people have with modern music. They complain that it is repetitive, shallow, trite, whatever, but basically what they are saying (possibly unintentionally or unknowingly) is that it is not good art.
3 - My theory professor made the insightful observation that part of the reason some contemporary worship music is so bad is because it is contemporary. The hymns we have today are the ones that stood the test of time, the ones that were artful enough for people to want to preserve them. Similarly, not all contemporary music will be preserved, just the good stuff (I personally think Stuart Townend is amazing).
John Denny - 51
Your words remind me of my mother’s gift for gifting anyone with food. Often times people would come to my parents home and knock on the door, knowing that my father was the pastor. They were hungry, poor and in need of a good meal. My mother would invited them to sit on the porch, and off she’d go to prepare a meal. So often it would be breakfast, scrambled eggs, bacon, fruit, juice, coffee or tea and of course her home baked bread toasted with home made jam. She had a huge tray, much bigger than most trays, she would arrange everything so beautifully.
Yes John, you bring back memories of great beauty in my mind of kindness, food and love for others.
God bless you.
I’ve been thinking about this thread a little more: We and most Christian families we know have members who play musical instruments or who write, draw, paint, quilt, knit, crochet, sew, make candles and soap, and do woodworking. Homeschooling encourages a lot of artwork, and even Christians I know who don’t homeschool are involved in these things. So, really I think Christians are doing just fine in the art department.
I guess what I want to know is, with all of this, what do we need to improve on?
“We and most Christian families we know have members who play musical instruments or who write, draw, paint, quilt, knit, crochet, sew, make candles and soap, and do woodworking. Homeschooling encourages a lot of artwork, and even Christians I know who don’t homeschool are involved in these things.”
But this is not necessarily art for public consumption?
A lot of time it is for public consumption. People sell their work, give work away as wedding, birthday or baby shower gifts, have recitals, give lessons in their crafts and do fundraisers.
DRB - 52
You remind me of the time those who have studied music spend giving of their talents to the LORD by means of music.
I love music and was taught piano, which I never continued. However my mother played beautifully. Our churches have always been blessed with those who are so very talented.
My father knew George Bennard, who wrote “The Old Rugged Cross” - When I was a very small child my father invited Mr. Bennard to come to our church. It was very exciting, I remember him, he had very white hair, and was an elderly man who had written one of our favorite hymns. George Bennard gave my mother two of his song books autographed. I feel very honored to have one, and to have met this dear man, George Bennard passed away in 1958.
One of my cousins was blessed by an operatic voice. She has used it all her life for the LORD, singing not only in her church but with other groups in many countries. She is the only one in our family with such a voice. I have asked her about her voice and her answer to me has been, “it was a gift” and that’s exactly right GOD gifted her with a special gift.
God bless you as you share your talents
“I guess what I want to know is, with all of this, what do we need to improve on?”
Apparently we need to be either obscene, blasphemous, or express some kind of anguish over the apparent meaninglessness of the universe.
Or shut up, quit making art, and go make disciples to the exclusion of all else, because the world’s going to END TOMORROW~!
Sorry. Obviously, I reject both of these extremes.
MIM - 54
Tunnel vision?
Well MIM, one of my dads best friends was a contractor and architect, and he and other men in one of my dads churches built one of the loveliest Sanctuaries. This man who was a great friend of my dads and his wife a friend of my mothers were dear people.
The man who built the church also carved the pulpit, and the Communion table which was magnificent. He did all this in his spare time. All the beautiful beams, etc were finished in natural and it was lovely. It was a wonderful thing to see this church being built, much love, time and effort went into it.
So NO, I don’t have tunnel vision MIM. After seeing the picture of the ’scepter’ you gave Lynn, its obvious you have a gift my friend.
Well apparently I don’t understand at all what you have said in #50. You seemed to be arguing that we don’t need art, God doesn’t want us to make art, and that we should be teaching preaching and worshiping to the exclusion of all else.
Throught this discussion there have been all sorts of comments. I am not against art, nor am I against music or building Sanctuaries, however it is not the main purpose of the church.
The purpose is Christ, and we who believe in HIM are the church, the bride of Christ.
We must remember that there were no church buildings until the third century after Christ died on the cross. People met in homes and out doors.
M I M - I believe the point is that the Christian worldview provides a full explaination of the stuggles of this life. The Christian isn’t in need of creating new explanations for it, nor can he/she do so (as it has already been explained). I don’t know that I fully agree with him (but I see some validity to his point).
As to my typing deficiencies, I’ve noted before that my neck injury interferes with the typing (and I proffread poorly).
“M I M - I believe the point is that the Christian worldview provides a full explaination of the stuggles of this life.”
I believe that’s exactly what I said in post #49. Boy some of y’all aren’t reading what I wrote, or I’m just not expressing myself very well.
“…however it [art] is not the main purpose of the church.”
Who said it was Victoria? Did I say anything like that?
What I’m seeing from several of you is a knee jerk reaction to a longstanding complaint that Christians don’t make good art. The knee jerk reaction is that “It’s not the main point”. So WHAT!!!!??? Quit ignoring the problem by stating the obvious. Of course the work of Christ is the main thing. No one said it wasn’t. My beef is that this excuse is used to justify ignoring lots of issues that shouldn’t be ignored. Everything from intellectual/philosophical issues to cultural/art issues. I still say it stems from an theological and intellectual poverty.
I think that Jesus is the Redeemer of lots of things, not just lost souls.
MIM - 71
YOU WRITE:….”Who said it was Victoria? Did I say anything like that?”
MIM, I didn’t address that post to you, it was a comment.
MIM, the above post you refer to is my post #68 -
Make it man, you’ve made really good points.
I agree that Jesus redeems all things, not just souls. We’re not gnostics, and we have to guard against that as much as we do ostentation and materialism. But as I said in my previous post, most Christians I know are involved in some sort of art or music. And they don’t keep it to themselves. The community and church at large are exposed to their creativity. So really, I think the Church is doing just fine in this area. Could we do better, yes, but that’s true with all sorts of things.
As long as the art in the church building doesn’t violate the 2nd commandment regarding images, I don’t see a problem with it. The problem comes when Christians think that we are bound by rules that our churches have to be prettier or more ornate. That’s scary territory, because as Victoria and I have stated, we don’t want anything to detract from the preached word and other works of the Church. If it doesn’t detract, or violate the 2nd commandment, go ahead like Nehemiah and build.
I think a good treatment of what Christians should be about repairing in this lost and broken world is to be found in Udo Middelmann’s books, starting with Pro-Existence and The Innocence of God.
“MIM, I didn’t address that post to you, it was a comment.”
Well ya sure fooled me… It was made directly after I addressed your comment.
MIM
Don’t know how you’ll find the answers to mans lost and broken lives, and the world at large except through the Word of GOD.
Yes there books, but none cuts to the heart of man like HIS Word.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Hebrews 12:4
MIM - 76
Because I post something after you post doesn’t mean that it is posted to you, kind of touchy today?
Momoffour, (#36)
I like that song, and yes, while that might not exactly be called a “hymn” per se, I think that most people who believe hymns should be sung in church (besides myself) would agree that it is thoroughly acceptable to sing in church even though it’s more modern.
paost 66. “The man who built the church also carved the pulpit, and the Communion table which was magnificent. He did all this in his spare time.”
Here’s another problem. It is hard for Christians artist who are often expected to work for free to compete with secular artists who can afford to give it their all because they are getting paid.
Kbells,
The man who did the work you are referring to in post 80 did it as a gift to the church.
“Don’t know how you’ll find the answers to mans lost and broken lives, and the world at large except through the Word of GOD.”
You keep making this kind of comment. What does that have to do with making bad art?
MIM, yep I wrote those words in #77. “Don’t know how you’ll find the answers to mans lost and broken lives, and the world at large except through the Word of GOD.”
YOU WROTE #77 “You keep making this kind of comment. What does that have to do with making bad art?
I haven’t mentioned “bad art” or bad anything in fact NO ONE HAS except Bob in #8 - RRbar #10 - IG in #15 and JBH #59-
The OT is clear about certain individuals being given the talent to create different aspects of the tabernacle. It was a temporary structure, yet God gave individuals great talents such in woodworking, jewelry making, metal working etc. He also provided for the materials needed. All this for a temporary worship center!
I don’t believe our modern day distain for beautiful churches is coming from a great desire to put all our gifts and talents to spreading the gospel anymore than Judas’ objection to using the perfume on Jesus was that he wanted to give to the poor. John’s Gospel makes the latter plain.
I think a couple of things are really influencing this utilitarinism. First, we are believing those who think there is a limit to resources on the Earth. That is not a biblical view at all. God will provide for much that is beyond subsistance living. He created much more than that! This is not an either/or thing.
Second is a very limited view of how God uses people to be a witness to who He really is. I don’t have time to develope this, but just really wanted to support MIM and #52.
Makeitman: my husband feels God’s presence as he works on making another fiddle. The whole gift of God in making that possible is a story in itself. I agree with you in #71.
Nevermind Victoria.
You seem to have a penchant for missing the point and preaching about something else at the same time everyone else is talking about a particular topic.
The topic of this thread, in case you haven’t noticed, is about why Christians or PEs don’t make good art. In other words, they make bad art. Get it? The opposite of Good = Bad?
In case you don’t understand that, I can draw you a picture.
MIM - 85
I have gone back, read every post I’ve written, answering your posts, even explaining in post #66. It appears you cannot understand what I’ve written, or you are deliberately trying to start some sort of fight -
I thought, maybe wrongly, that we got along fairly well here, but as of today, it appears nothing I can post is right according to you. Maybe it’s YOU who needs to step back?
YOU WRITE:…. “In case you don’t understand that, I can draw you a picture.”
That was completely uncalled for. I don’t agree with everything you have written, but I do understand. Don’t flatter your so called ‘understanding’ of the subject and my lack of it according to you.
what is arguing? what is strife? Those things that we, as the Lord’s servants, are NOT to do?
Victoria,
Thank you for your kind words at #60.
Please note my surname is Denney, though.
John - 88
I did misspell your last name,
I’m sorry.
Victoria,
Yesterday, I was insulting to you on this thread. You were correct, there was no call for that. I am sorry I said those uncharitable things and will try to do better.