The Church Supporting Art

I think they need to distinguish between goals and failures. Is it automatically the church's job to "engage art and culture"? No, so quit the self-flagellation and realize that it's a goal for the future, something that it would be interesting to get involved with, and make some plans! Shame just holds plans back....

Correction Marie, many of our greatest artists were commissioned by the church.

What about the "Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci which was commissioned by a church? Much of the work of Michelangelo which was commissioned by the church as well.

I think the problem is that there are too many Christians who think they should be paid "artists" when their talent isn't up to par. But the church doesn't know how to set the bar for artists as high as they would for any other professional (i.e. the architect designing their new building). So the church ends up supporting artists that don't deserve to be supported because they feel like God has given them their talent. I mean, look at some of the "top" art-friendly churches in America (i.e. Mosaic). There's a lack of talented people like Sufjan, and the church ends up supporting untalented people instead.

Great post Tim. I would like to address the first comment on this post as I believe it does help qualify understanding the subject completely. Unfortunately, you are misunderstood with regards to the arts being subsidized. In fact for hundreds of years governments and churches have "subsidized" art and artists. In fact, it is a very heated discussion amongst world governments, schools, and the public today whether or not subsidies should increase or decrease. The argument is that history shows us that countries and the societies within them have a much better balanced growth and success when the arts are a priority. Now an abrupt segue to the church(No pun intended). I feel churches have equally benefited when rightly prioritizing the arts. I do believe the question is how the church 'rightly' subsidizes or supports the arts and media within the context of 'The Great Commission'. We are in the 'American Idol' age. Where everyone thinks their a 'rockstar' and wants to be a 'rockstar' without clearly understanding all that comes with that title. Very aptly pointed out by Tim at the end of his post. Although, he left out the more glaring implications of the heart that such a title conjures up.I think this is where the church is having its greatest struggle. In fact, the 'American Idol' has crept its way into more than just the artistic side, but also the pastoral side of things. Pastors are going to need agents soon with the way some of their 'dates' seem to be showing up. Check out a few websites and you'll see what I mean. The 'rockstar' image is one that we all fight. We all want to be 'rockstars' in our own way, and I will bring this long winded comment to an end. Drawing you to Tim's comment about the ones making the loudest cry, are probably the ones that should consider taking up something else. We have enough lobbying in politics, we dont need it in the church. We need to selective and discerning in all areas of the local church and The Great Commission. (whoppie cushion closed)

I completely agree with Seth (#6) and Gregory (#8).

Most artists I know (including myself, if I may be so bold as to put myself in that category) are concerned about the lack of understanding in the Church of what we are seeking to do as artists and followers of Jesus. I think the younger generation of Christians (in their 20s and early 30s) understand art much better than many older Christians. A lot of older Christians seem to be afraid of art, and want to shape it into a mold that they can feel good about. We end up with what gets played on Christian radio and is found in most Christian movies and novels: shallowness and lack of realism. True creativity gets suppressed and misunderstood.

This is what artists care about: being understood and appreciated, just as a fireman or a businessman is understood and appreciated and "supported." In my experience, financial support is the last thing on most artists' minds. To be accepted as equals with valuable contributions to the world would be enough.

By the way, please understand that my above comments are in no way meant to offend my older brothers and sisters. I'm just calling things as I see them.

Tim,

I've been following your series of posts based on the book review "Why we are not emergent". Most of what I've seen is disappointing. Every movement needs its honest critique, but "Why We..." is less of a critique and more of a literary suckerpunch. Ad Hominem, straw man, ad nauseum...

I'm not a big fan of word studies, but count how many times a backhanded, belittling term or phrase is used in the 'brief' excerpt above. Apart from that device getting old quick, its cheap, easy, and lazy on the part of the writers. How hard is it to knock down a movement's themes and tenets when you've already 'dismantled' their credibility through mischaracterization and snarkiness.

That's my general opinion of the book. To address the specific passage you posted here:

"Is it because churches aren’t displaying art on their walls? Neither are insurance companies, but nobody is up in arms about that."

This phrase may be the crux of misunderstanding between the Emerg* world and the *Reformed world (insert prefixes and suffixes as your heart desires). No one is 'up in arms' about the lack of art on corporate walls because they are a place where empiricism, pragmatism, the scientific method, and logic reign supreme. That is the domain of business...where transactions take place. 'You've done this for me, so I'll do this for you'.

On the other hand, should a church resemble a business? I hope I'm not being too presumptious in saying that most people would agree that it isn't. Church on the other hand is the place where we meet together to celebrate the beauty of what Christ has done for us, to become aware of the depravity of our fallen nature, and to recieve the grace God has offered. Art (at least pre-modern art), helps us do these things. The stations of the cross remind us of Jesus last hours. The pagentry of the Tenebrea confronts us with the horror and finality of death. Architechture, stained glass, paintings, sculpture, all can contribute to a greater awareness of the good news of the Kingdom, and why we so desperately need it.

The 'crux' is this: Emerg* and *Reformed people need each other as a corrective for each of their respective excesses. The buisness-like, transactional, systematized theology of the Reformed needs an injection of beauty and metaphor that the emergents appreciate. Conversely, the Emergents could very much benefit from the appreciation of orthodoxy, church history, and leadership that the Reformed world has in (over)abundance.

Polemics of the type 'Why we are not Emergent' do little to bring correction to either side. If you think about it, it really is a juvenile piece of reading. It continues the tradition of trench warfare that is more concerned with defining our boundaries than expanding the Kingdom. It is a tradition that we could do better without.

"I am in that 20s-30s age group, but would exhort you to exercise caution concerning both the statement quoted above, as well as the underlying philosophies and assumptions behind such a statement. Such statements will do little to help these supposedly out of touch folks to understand your position."

Matt, I truly didn't mean to be offensive or turn people off. I apologize if anyone took my statements that way. I certainly don't mean to say that all Christians above the age of 35 don't understand art. I was simply trying to point out that the younger generation of Christians seems to be taking a different and (I think) more Biblical view of art than their parents and grandparents as a whole. To some extent, I think the leaven of the younger generation is slowly spreading through the whole of the Church, challenging us to think more Biblically on this issue.

On the other hand, we would be entirely lost without the reservations, questions and wise counsel of our parents and grandparents. Many of them are firm in their ideas not because of stubbornness or refusal to look at what Scripture says, but because they are convinced they are at the place God has led them to, and to depart from that place would be unwise.

I'm curious and a bit confused, though, Matt. What "philosophies and assumptions" lie beneath my statement? I certainly want to draw people towards a more Biblical view of art, but that's not really my purpose above. I was just articulating my perceptions. Maybe they're wrong.

Now, I'm usually with you on your posts, but this one's just not fair. I'm with Calvin on the music thing. As a 'Christian' who is a musician, I will acknowledge IMMEDIATELY that it's not that Churches don't have 'in-house' artists/musicians that's the issue - it's that most so-called 'Christians' are scared to death of originality and creativity and buy up tons of music that genuinely, passionately and whole-heartedly SUCKS, much of which is made by musicians who are (since I have 'inside connections' into the industry, I can honestly say this) NOT CHRISTIANS, who look the part, and say all the right words, but are not plugged into ANY Body of believers, curse worse that Driscoll in private on his worst day with no remorse, fondle women, are trashed out of their minds most nights of the week, and sing album after album and concert after concert of CCM 'hits' about Jesus written by other professional song-writer, most of whom are ALSO not Christians. It is depressing, in all honesty, especially for all of us musicians who are sincere believers that are trying to really use our music for God.

Anyway, struck a nerve on this one... grrr

I watched a video today about Michaelangelo. It was mostly serious but it poked a bit of fun about the church's role in his artistic pursuits. "Control" is probably a better word. Keep in mind, that prior to the Renaissance, the church pretty much controlled the arts. It wasn't until private patrons came forward that there was much more artistic freedom and many new techniques and genre were developed. Then came the Popes and their control over certain artists, like Michaelangelo. There's a humorous scene in the video where the clergy are all standing around looking at (I think) the walls of the Sistine Chapel with all the nudes and fussing about it. Next thing you know they're painting bright red boxer shorts on all the figures to preserve their modesty (much to the consternation Michaelangelo, who appears to be going emo at this point!)

I think you've got to be careful when asking the church to recognize, subsidize, appreciate, admire, or otherwise embrace your art. That's bound to come with some sort of boundaries at some point - the very thing that many postmoderns and certainly many artists, tend to avoid.

Anthony:

You may be pleased to hear that there a lot of us in the church who share your distaste for what has been done in the past--the strip-mining as you called it. Most if not all who attend conferences like FFM have no interest in 'Jesusizing' songs by whoever happens to be popular so people will be comfortable.

As someone who wants to encourage the arts in the Church I agree with your amazement regarding the homogenization of Jesus. When I write short stories I don't write to make Christians feel safe or to be the 'Christian version' of whomever. When I write I want to challenge my fellow-Christians as well as those who remain outside the Church.