Art and the Church
At Ignition, I also attended a session about the problem of evil, in relation to art. It was run by Grant Wildman, who is the Head of Performing Arts at Tabor, in Adelaide. This is some of the stuff we discussed:
Dualism and rationality
One reason why most forms of art aren't traditionally used in the church is because of the Gnostic belief that physical things such as the body are evil, while abstract things, such as the mind and soul were holy. This belief was popular in the early years of the church, and was unfortunately incorporated into Christian spirituality.
This meant that predominantly physical artforms were shunned, in favor of artforms where communication was almost completely verbal. Verbal artforms such as sermons are also favored because they leave less room for individual interpretation or imagination. Unfortunately, it also leaves less room for God to guide an individual in their interpretation.
Utilitarianism
When a more physical medium, such as theatre or dance, is used by a church, it is normally used as a tool, often to try and make people who aren't Christians decide to become Christians at the end of the show. The art is used to try and make the audience think what whoever is in charge wants them to think, rather than letting the audience come to their own conclusions about the piece. This leaves less room for dependance on God to guide the audience in their interpretation.
Dualism and rationality
One reason why most forms of art aren't traditionally used in the church is because of the Gnostic belief that physical things such as the body are evil, while abstract things, such as the mind and soul were holy. This belief was popular in the early years of the church, and was unfortunately incorporated into Christian spirituality.
This meant that predominantly physical artforms were shunned, in favor of artforms where communication was almost completely verbal. Verbal artforms such as sermons are also favored because they leave less room for individual interpretation or imagination. Unfortunately, it also leaves less room for God to guide an individual in their interpretation.
Utilitarianism
When a more physical medium, such as theatre or dance, is used by a church, it is normally used as a tool, often to try and make people who aren't Christians decide to become Christians at the end of the show. The art is used to try and make the audience think what whoever is in charge wants them to think, rather than letting the audience come to their own conclusions about the piece. This leaves less room for dependance on God to guide the audience in their interpretation.
5 Comments:
hmmm... very interesting stuff man i'll have to think about some of that
There is more stuff, which is more confusing.
hey, Chris this goes in with some stuff I'm studying for church history and theology. Would you mind sharing the "more confusing" stuff?
Thanx for that btw.
I'll be posting more when I finish some assignments :)
Yeah, I'm writing it up still. You can read the draft that i ahven't published yet, but I'm not sure if it'll make much sense yet.
Hullo, all. Hope I'm not imposing too badly by chiming in.
This is actually a subject that I've pondered for a considerable time now but sadly, like so many of my interests, have not researched. A few observations though, if you'll bear with me...
I have loved the arts from my childhood because of how they can provoke the mind and it has saddened me to realize, growing up, that so many of the best of the artistic works that I have enjoyed have behind them propoganda geared away from the person of Yeshua|Jesu|Jesus. More often than not, I have been plagued by the frustration that God-honoring ideas are simply not being presented clearly enough. For me, to put something into visual form, whether it be in theatre, storytelling, sculpture, traditional visual arts, (or whatever other artform) could bring a far sharper focus to what is being attempted to communicate. This does not mean bashing them clumsily over the head with our idea until they agree, but rather presenting the concept in a manner that will hopefully be unable to me misunderstood. Any among us who have aspired to teach others will understand this and that the decision ultimately lies still in the hands of the individual.
A few questions have come to my mind over the years, though.
First of all, I do not doubt that outside influences, such as the Gnostics' philosophy have affected the absence of a strong presence in the artistic community of Christian (if we must use that term) truths. As much as I believe that any given medium is not inherently a good or evil thing, but rather a tool with which good or evil can be accomplished, there are actually some fairly weighty things presented inside of scripture which I wonder about when I consider how to carry truth over into film or other artistic expression.
Immediately in my mind are the passages in the Jewish scriptures|old testament dealing with idols. Now please do not dismiss me at once... hear me out. Remember that I am one who has passionately loved drawings and paintings and photographs since I was a young child and I do love the way they impact the mind. I do seriously wonder, though, what to do with verses that implicitly warn us against making any image of God in this day when so many have been more than happy to present their 'Jesus' films.
Is it an enabling thing for us to see a face and hear a voice speak the words we read in red letters or do we lose something to the actor's personal interpretation? Do we become caught up in flaws in acting or cinematography or other production woes to the detriment of listening to the actual message? I'll grant you that I am using an example dealing with a straightforward presentation of scripture, which is a good deal different to what you refer to with the phrase 'Christian art', but even in this limited example, you may be able to see where words can be actually *more* conducive to imagination than being presented with one man or woman's interpretation of what we, I think, all agree to be authoritative truth.
My life has been personally touched by what could be termed 'true Christian art' which others would flat out reject because it does not make a full on unequivocal comprehensive presentation of the good news of God's redemption and forgiveness. I have been one who loves the songs or pictures or what-have-you that make me ask myself questions about what I believe. I think that if we are artists, there is a legitimate place for our talents, but I think that I must cling to the contrast that has been mentioned. The fact is that there is a difference in what God is telling us and what we are telling ourselves and I tire equally of Christians painting a lighter picture than fits reality as well as those who do not yet know God painting the darkest pictures of the depths of human cruelty and wickedness.
For instance (again I go back to presentation of scripture [and others would argue in this case more than scripture]) I was disappointed in Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ'. 'Why?', you may ask. Because its contrast was not enough for me. Our Savior's triumph over sin and death - the climax of our entire human story - the punchline - was almost entirely glossed over. I'll grant you that his style and production values were leaps and bounds ahead of his peers and he did try to present a picture that would let us think outside the box of the story that we've heard until it becomes commonplace and dull in our ears, but alas, the contrast was not there. It felt to me as though it missed the point.
Do I tread on your toes with all of this? I do not mean to, brother. I do not mean that all of our creative works must browbeat our audience into siding with God. We are called to be fishers of men. Implicit in that analogy is the sense that it will require some extensive knowledge of nuance, subtlety, and luring instead of throwing dynamite into the water and waiting for the fish to float to the top as so many of our well meaning brothers and sisters have done in the years before our time. We are called to lead others to God and ultimately whatever we communicate or express fails if we lose sight of knowing Him and communicating Him. I do not argue that we need not present the fallen-ness or lost-ness of mankind, but I suspect that the whole of humanity knows in its heart our own corrupt depths, even if we can only see it in others before God shows us that the same poison flows in our own veins apart from Him. Perhaps that is all that is being discussed here really. Perhaps you simply wish for the freedom to express the part of God that informs lost souls of their lostness. Very admirable, friend, but I hope that they will be able to find hope connected somewhere.
For the despairing soul who can find nothing but utter doom and blackness in life, we are called to be light. For those whose heart is numbed by rejection we are called to be the hands who touch and heal. Alas, we are the miracle that we ask God may be the redemptive and healing in a world so easily blown apart, torn, and smashed. What good then, if we are lost to our own darkness? I know that God must often wound us before He heals us - surgery is needed before life can be restored. I think I most likely say what you already know, so I'll bring this to a close.
Let your love be strong, friends
Post a Comment
<< Home