The other day I received an email from someone asking how I would recommend incorporating the arts into the church and what steps could be taken. While I believe the question is one motivated by genuine concern, the only intelligible answer that might satisfy is one that must be given within the programatic and institutional paradigm within which the question was asked. This is the problem. The question exposes the paradigm and presses for an answer that conforms to that paradigm. We must realize that the question rarely reaches beyond itself. The question normally asserts its present paradigm and is usually a dogmatic statement seeking confirmation disguised as intellectual interest. The questioner may be trapped inside a paradigm that the mind hasn’t dreamed must perish.
So the normal way to answer the question would be something like this:
First of all, get permission from the leadership to start encouraging the arts. Then maybe start an art appreciation class. Then maybe an art instruction class. Ask the pastor if creative elements can be added to the church service. This will involve some “creative types”. Request that the leaders allow art to be displayed in the lobby. Set up an editorial committee that determines which art is appropriate for church. Etc., etc..
Just shoot me! Let me show you a better way. The church is generally a censorious community. In this environment art is sanitized, tame and conformist. It is still art, but functions as a reinforcement of the system. Expression is controlled and edited from start to finish. This kills art because it kills creativity because it kills freedom. Instead, allow people to be free without scrutiny. (I even hate the word “allow” because it assumes it needs to be given when it is already ours.) In due time, after people begin to realize that they are loved and accepted unconditionally, the creative spirit will surface and artistic diversity will abound. This is the harder but more genuine way. It means taking care of the roots. If the root is unfettered freedom, then fruitful and artistic living happens. It is the diversity of human expression of personality that makes the artful life. Until this is nurtured art will be repressed.
The fine art photograph titled “Fusion” is the creation of my friend Howard Nowlan.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
No liturgical dance though, please!
“Instead, allow people to be free without scrutiny.”
Let me see now, we shouldn’t scrutinize the artist, but we can scrutinize the art critic!
I guess the artist is IMMUNE from Philippians 2:4.
fishon
I think I would have just said, “Give the creative and artisitic people in your community the resources they need.” This could be why Leadership magazine never calls me…
I’ve been in a church where that response would be the “appropriate” answer, and now I’m part of a church where arts are just part of the culture. There definitely is an element of freedom necessary, but it’s a good freedom…the kind that Jesus talks about when he talks about bringing us life to the fullest. The kind of freedom that allows us to dance, to think, to dream. The kind of freedom that God has to create something out of nothing. The same creative freedom that we’ve been given to utilize to God’s glory!
excellent.
artists will get plenty of scrutiny if they suck,
but first they need freedom to not have to suck.
“Incorporating” the arts makes it sound like it’ll need a tax ID.
how about embracing and celebrating people and their creative gifts?
- oh… wait… embracing people might require an oversight committee.
What’s good will be patronized and glorified, what’s not will not.(unless the govt. gets involved)
Being an artist is a dangerous job. Your art is often not appreciated until after you’re dead. Kind of like Someone else we know about…
good one richard.
Maybe a way the church could support artists is to help them appreciate their gift from God and discover how they can use that gift to honor him. That does not mean that the church gets to decide what is God honoring and what is not; the artist can learn to use some discernment for themselves.
I know people who have gone through “The Artist’s Way” as a way to find direction. There is another book out called “The Creative Call” which is descrbed as being a Christian approach to “The Artist’s Way” (which is more generic spirituality). I bought “The Creative Call” recently and look forward to going through it.
Lots of thoughts in the area regarding creative imagination. If we worship God we are tapping into an unstoppable creative force. Everything is eternally new nano second by nano second. Scientific and religious institutions need creative thinking in general to move into the next era and get beyond the polarizing dogma shaping these institutions. Just as living can become an art, so might science and faith become arts filled with creative and explorative expression. Both have foundational truths – but the peripheral elements are non static, in motion, a journey. It would be great if science and faith could more fully realize the visible and invisible non changing attributes along with the radical creative attributes of God. The church needs to get a much bigger picture of the arts, culture, and God’s creativity in general. It needs to decide if it values true creative expression or not. Creative thinking and activity thrives on chaos. If chaos is not there it will create it – since art initiates cultural change.
I completely agree with your post. Very well said!
I have used the Artist Way and think it’s a GREAT book! Won’t be buying “The Creative Call” that’s for sure… I find it odd though when people have to “christianize” things like that in order to think it’s some how more legitimate for Christians.
rant over.