Comments on: UnChristian art

By: Serious George

Serious George — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:14:08 +0000

Twilson,

That’s an interesting observation. There is a sacramental earthiness to many of the authors you mention (though I’d add the Presbyterian-of-a-sort Buechner) that attests the significance of embodied/incarnational grace. The spiritual significance of the mundane and profane (not the same as what we popularly term profanity, btw) is probably lost on a Protestantism more in thrall to dualism and soft gnosticism than the monist Hebrew predecessors of our covenant.

Thatsa lotta big words meant to say that traditions that look on the “stuff” of our natural existence with suspicion will neglect the significance of concrete nouns, leaving them at a lack for words. Apparently God thought matter a good idea, and in some cases, very good {:~)

Regards,

By: deetee

deetee — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:49:48 +0000

I have recently participated in discussions at our local Christian High School (non-denominational) about what is appropriate to portray in drama presentations, and what is it we are teaching our Christian students. The bottom line becomes for me “not causing one of these little ones to sin,” and “glorifying God” with our lives. Combining drama and music in a way that teaches a lesson about sin sometimes includes teaching young people how to sin, which I think must be avoided. I don’t want to be the sponsor of temptation. That said, high school students are not empty-headed automatons who simply soak up everything that comes down the pike and in contrast they mostly do make value judgments and use discernment of their own, but they also have a capacity for self-delusion in thinking most evil things won’t affect them. It is the same in the art world, whether in the library, the art museum or the studio. Why expose ourselves and our children to more evil in order to get them to think? Evil is eveywhere present, as well as shallow entertainment, and we as Christians can do better than settle for what is passed around as “good.” Let’s point to the most excellent and praiseworthy things in life and promote it! Let’s not wallow with the hogs in the mud.

By: cicero

cicero — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:21:16 +0000

54.
I think a careful reading of the original language would reveal not a little coarse, or potentially vulgar, language.

By: FowlerClan

FowlerClan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:57:39 +0000

It seems to me that the Bible itself sets the EXAMPLE for godly communication of evil. Is the Bible sanitized? We all understand there is plenty of depravity between its pages. There are certainly passages containing “mature themes” that are better omitted from the instruction of a child until he has the maturity of soul and spirit to safely handle realities of that nature. Nevertheless, the Bible does not communicate evil in such a way that titillates or incites one toward sin.

Furthermore, the literary quality of the Bible, the book that tells the greatest story ever told, is excellent.

I believe Christian writers who strive to honor and glorify God in all they say and do would do well to strive to emulate the Biblical writers.

If the Bible seems to fall short, perhaps Romans 12:2 has the answer: And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

By: Reg

Reg — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:13:59 +0000

52-incarnational theology
That makes sense to me–that sacramental view–produces faith with an eye for how internal grace works through flawed vehicles. It is not unrelated to Ps. 103:17,18 “but the lovingkindness of Jehovah is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and His righteousness unto children’s children; To such as keep His covenant, and to those who remember His precepts to do them.”

By: roberth

roberth — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:23:24 +0000

Although, Willa Cather converted to Episcopalianism (Anglicanism) in 1922.

By: TWilson

TWilson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:20:33 +0000

Tony - As always, thanks for the edification (I posted this to the other article thread by mistake, too). Do you think there is any link between affiliation and greatness in fiction writing? Great Christian fiction writers from the recent past would include O’Connor, T.S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, Tolkien, Chesterton, and others. The common thread - Catholicism or traditional Anglicanism. Even those without much of Christian theme (Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Wilde) or piety (James Joyce, Santayana) were Catholic in upbringing or by conversion. I wonder (developing on the fly), do denominations with a more sacramental (or incarnational?) theology tend to produce writers with an eye for how internal grace works through flawed vehicles - other people, physical objects (bread, water), etc? Certainly there are exceptions - Willa Cather comes to mind - but the pattern seems striking to me. Correlation without causation, or something more?

By: roberth

roberth — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:49:20 +0000

Concerning the reference to “sterile entertainment,” I think this results in many cases due to there being not many quality entertainment options to choose from. Much of modern secular entertainment glorifies violence for violence’s sake, or, generally speaking, depravity for depravity’s sake. This forces the Christian to turn to “sterile” entertainment from the secular media. If entertainment had depravity in it, but at the same time had an over-arching redeeming value, then that would be much better, and probably many Christians would choose not to diet solely on sterile entertainment.

Concerning Christian entertainment, last year I read “Three” by Ted Dekker. While the book was exciting and dramatic, other than a few places that might have referenced Christianity, or the fact that the main character was a seminarian, there didn’t seem to be much that was overtly Christian about it. I suppose one could connect the dots and find some redeeming value or over-arching theme about it, but I could also easily see a non-Christian reading that book and not even realizing that it was supposedly a work of “Christian Fiction.” Wait a minute, wasn’t that made into a movie? I wonder how many people saw the movie without even realizing that the story came from a work of “Christian Fiction.”

By: Tony Woodlief

Tony Woodlief — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:42:32 +0000

SteveG and Cicero,

I think you’ve highlighted an important distinction I neglected, between art and entertainment. I guess part of what I’m saying is that Christians should consume less entertainment and more art.

Joel,
I completely agree with your statement:

“God can use even our feeble efforts to do our best (even if its not so great) for His good. He can use very modest artists (in skill or talent) to glorify Himself, sometimes in spite of our weaknesses.”

That’s why I concluded I was too hard, in an earlier comment, on Lucado, et al. I certainly depend on that grace in my own writing, which doesn’t approach Dostoevsky either.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:02:17 +0000

Coicidentally, I had been thinking about an O’Connor story today. I like her stories because she really seems to put into place that sinners have access to grace while hypocrites are wolves in sheeps’ clothing.