So, how do I ask this question? So while pastors are becoming open to explore and involve themselves in the arts, how far will the interaction be allowed? I have always been involved in the arts, grew up in the arts because of being an artist. (painting, drawing, music)

Should a pastor come to understand and appreciate the arts, will his voice be allowed in the dialogue as to how far is too far? Should a pastor know the forms and methods of the arts, would he be allowed to speak and object to compromise within the arts? Or will they be seen as nothing but an ignorant voice in the current of modern artists who have allowed themselves to be no different than the unbelieving artists around them?

I think the American Church could do some great things in the arts. I believe that we could be a genuine voice in the milieu of culture, social interaction, and in claiming a piece of ground in the presentation of ideas through the arts. But if we get there and the participants are all compromised in their lifestyles, worldviews, and taste what is the point of being there. I could illustrate with many anecdotal stories of what I know is already happening in the music world with believers and the sad condition of those who are becoming famous but what is the point? When believing artists are more known for their drinking and partying than they are for the gospel, what is the point?

Yes, the arts, please. But I for one would prefer to arrive whole and intact when our voice gets into the milieu of voices and competing ideas. No one need be an Amish, so to speak, but in the discussion perhaps we should encourage there being a line where we should no cross or we are no better than anyone else and our voice has no more authority than anyone else’s’.

Who gets to decide what constitutes art - or great art? The world; the church; the Catholic church? The Bible?

"Who gets to decide what constitutes art - or great art? The world; the church; the Catholic church? The Bible?"

Art is art...some of it can be uplifting, some of it can be amusing, some of it can be wonderous, some of it can be foul beyond belief, and in some cases...so boring as to baffle the imagination as to how it got to the gallery in the first place.
But art has been, and always will be a subjective medium wholly dependent on the observer.
So...I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at...great art, imo, is based on the biases of a group of people who say, "oh hey, this is great art!"
I mean, Lady Gaga is consider a great artist...me, m'yeh, she irritates my thinking.
Madonna, another purported great singer...yeah, okay, she's got a voice, but her songs are meaningless drivel, but yet she sells millions to my ever wondering bafflement.
Me, I like classical, and...um...well, thinking music...er...music that has depth...layered...ah forget it.
I can't articulate it right now, but that type of music crosses genre styles, and yet my wife rolls her eyes, and says, "really, this again?"
So...subjective...the arts are very subjective.
I think if pastors want to begin employing the arts more power to them. The Old Testament...very powerful poetry...when read as poetry, it carries visionary emotion that clarifies the passions of both the writer, and of their subject.
So many people miss that part of the bible...um...yeah, I'll leave it at that.

I spent many hours at art school in classroom debates about what constitutes "art", how it is defined, who decides what it is, and so on. The official consensus in the greater Can/Am arts community is, you can't define art, it is whatever the maker decides it is. The unofficial consensus is that you can also fail a project because your definition of "art" counteracts your professor's. :)

In my experiences, where the church community struggles and splits when it comes to defining art is dependent on whether or not the art in question contains elements that are objectionable ("how far is too far", if you will). "Objectionable" elements are not necessarily expressions of sin - they could be expression of disputable issues, or simply things that are objectionable to the particular culture they are being displayed in. That, to me, is the heart of the matter of arts in the church. A widely held definition of "good art" is that it requires the viewer to interact with it on an intellectual, emotional, or visceral level, that it forces one to ask questions that are difficult or uncomfortable and seek out the answers. It is no surprise that art which fits that criteria will be objectionable to some or many. The question is, do the objectionable elements of a particular work make it "un-Christian" or wrong (or, as is often the case, objectionable works are accused of not being "art" at all). In my experiences, this is the question the church community often fails to consider properly before answering, frequently giving knee-jerk judgments of "this is evil and no good Christian would watch/read/play it" as an excuse to avoid examining what it criticizes.

Does anyone remember the fake church protests staged by Electronic Arts as a publicity stunt last year to promote their video game version of Dante's Inferno? So many church communities, instead of being humbled by this, responded by saying "mock us all you want, but of course it's evil, it's a VIDEO GAME. Based on DANTE'S INFERNO. Which takes place in HELL" - both "protests" and judgments occurred months before the game was released. When it was finally released, the silence of the judges who now had a chance to actually critique the game was deafening. I played it, and it turned out to be quite stupid and foolish and not particularly related to Dante's poem at all - but just because the knee-jerk judges turned out to be right doesn't mean anyone should be nodding their heads and saying "A-ha!". Just because justice is blind doesn't mean the judge should be, too.

Of course, not everyone can be the person who wades into the art world to determine what is good and right and what is not. Not every Christian is equipped that way, and that's okay; we all have our roles to play. But in my opinion, what the church needs most in this regard is a willingness to listen to the church leaders who are able to boldly learn "what it's all about", and a refusal to listen to those who condemn or uplift out of turn, without cause. This is what I see strengthening the church's involvement in the arts more than anything else.

The believers need to get more involved in media. I am a technician, and I appreciate good art. Where are the good dancers, artists, sound techs etc. that are believers? We need to let the arts glorify the Lord Jesus and give opportunities in the body of believers for people to learn about them and participate in these arenas.

elly says,"...in my opinion, what the church needs most in this regard is a willingness to listen to the church leaders who are able to boldly learn "what it's all about", and a refusal to listen to those who condemn or uplift out of turn, without cause."

So who would these particular 'church leaders' be and who are the folks who will teach them "what it's all about"? And if some church leaders are condemning and others are uplifting, which one do you listen to? If we are going to have these kinds of conversations, there must be a starting point. If I follow sheera's line of thinking to its logical conclusion I come up with this - Since art only exists in the eye of the beholder, then everything is art - and therefore nothing is art. Now where does the discussion go?

"If I follow sheera's line of thinking to its logical conclusion I come up with this - Since art only exists in the eye of the beholder, then everything is art - and therefore nothing is art."

O.o

"Now where does the discussion go?"

I can plainly see where this discussion is going, and it can go there without me.

Melody said "everything is art"

Perhaps that is true. Everything in creation is God-breathed by the creator, the ultimate artist and source of all creativity. Every thought, every breath, every movement is a prayer - be aware - of the art that is around you, and within you, and is you, never unclean of itself, and more than a mere symbol or metaphor of the divine.

"...where does the discussion go?"

Melody, there is no logical conclusion here. Art draws you deeper into its illogical poetry until you and it become of one mind and one heart, eventually even learning to love your enemy (the most illogical art of all).

Melody, I did not express myself well. When I wrote about "listening", I did not mean "obeying" or "agreeing with" - just listening. :) Paying attention, being willing to discuss, being willing to hear. Of course we won't think everyone who speaks is right, for example I generally disagree with Mark Driscoll's comments on film, but generally agree with R.C. Sproul's interpretations of and approach to art and literature. The important thing for me is that each of them makes the effort to watch/read/engage in the arts that they critique, and that I believe is the key starting point of the discussion of where the Church and the Arts intersect. When I say I want to see more leaders learn "what it's all about", all I mean is that I want to see them do something as simple as watch a film or read a book before rendering judgment on its value as a film or book.

elly, thank you for your clarification. As far as it goes it might be good, but if you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion - (and I believe we MUST follow lines in this manner or we are intellectually dishonest)- then no piece of 'art' can ever be criticized without first having been viewed/heard in its entirety. Pornographers claim that what they produce is 'art'. Must the 'leader' who affirms/denies the value of this art form view it first? David Taylor seems to be affirming some 'Christian' actor who makes horror films. I don't get that. I can see how an actor or producer would make uplifting films but he is quite worried that Christians are portrayed in a negative light in pop culture. Duh!

David knows enough scripture to quote a lot of it here so I am puzzled as to why he seems unaware of verses like John 7:7, "The world can't hate you, but it hates me, because I testify about it, that its works are evil." Or John 15:18, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." Or 1John 2:15, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Bear in mind that the world loved a Jesus who created a meal for 5,000 from 5 loaves and 2 fishes; and they loved a Jesus who healed sick people and turned water into wine. But they hated the Jesus who called them to repentance from their own self-righteousness and sin.

"David Taylor seems to be affirming some 'Christian' actor who makes horror films. I don't get that."

Scott Derrickson is a director. And I'm pretty sure that David isn't "unaware" of the scriptures you cite :-).

If we apply those Jesus sayings (2:5, 7:7, 15:18) personally and inwardly, they become the essence of art: calling us out of our individual darkness, our private stupor, our inability to feel compassion or empathy for others. Our lives can become inspired art - presenting a canvas of hope and even love into a system stuck in consumption and mediocrity.

Perhaps Jesus is the ultimate artist. Recall how Mary wasted an entire bottle of ridiculously expensive perfume on Jesus. Reminds me of Spirit-inspired artists today - wasting time and precious resources on totally illogical acts of foolishness.

But wasn't it Judas who protested Mary's beautiful work of art? Theologian Steve Scott notes that, "arts and creativity have been swept out the door with rationalizations much like the one Judas offered."

Jesus strongly rebuked the disciples for complaining about the "ridiculously expensive" oil on Jesus' hair and body, which was preparing Him for burial. In Matt 26 Jesus said “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a good service for me. 11 For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me! 12 When she poured this oil on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”

Maybe I misunderstood your point, but you seem to be doing more of what the disciples did John, instead of remembering Mary for being the virtuous, giving woman that Jesus wanted her remembered for.

Barbara, I was trying to be ironic. I failed. Mary's "illogical act of foolishness" was seen as profound artistic beauty by the Creator.

When we talk about art in a spiritual context, we need to remember that it's not a black and white conversation, but a deeply nuanced dance of colors and shades and textures that work deep into the human experience.

"When we talk about art in a spiritual context, we need to remember that it's not a black and white conversation, but a deeply nuanced dance of colors and shades and textures that work deep into the human experience." John, at the risk of offending you, your statement reminds me of "The Emperor's New Clothes". If you are unfamiliar with the story you can read it here: http://www.rickwalton.com/folktale/yellow04.htm

Quite some time ago CS Lewis remarked that Christian witness in the arts wouldn't be through the bench of bishops getting together to write plays and novels in their spare time, but simply through Christians who happen to be artists. Obviously it'll be an uphill struggle, because the world is predisposed to hate us and dislike whatever we do.

I've explored some of these issues in my book "Science Fiction and Christianity", which you can find at http://store.i-proclaimbookstore.com/scfiandch.html if you're curious.

Hmmm. . . The conversation between Melody and John strikes me as two completely different frames of reference.

Melody with her seeming love of the binary where everything is a matter of black or white and of following verbal statements to their "logical conclusions" to evaluate them "in light of Scripture" strikes me as listing heavily toward an ultra rationalist mode of left-brain thinking.

Whereas, John's comments reflect a more right-brain recognition of nuances in discussion and the conviction that some real depth of perception is required for accurate discernment to take place. Istm, this recognizes that in light of the fact that every human endeavor, no matter how well intentioned, is likely to contain both good and evil, it is appropriate then to look for and strive for the good, not abandoning the attempt to move in the direction of the creative engagement with our culture even in something as seemingly subjective as art.

Well, obviously God created us with both a left-brain and right-brain for a reason, but I think we are not well served when the left dominates the right to the degree it does in some schools of Christian thought. At any rate, istm the seeming tension between them can be very productive if we all come to things with the right attitude (that is, humility). Being right brained, however, I'm more sympathetic with the side of things John is pointing to in this thread, and I don't think he is seeing something that is not there.

For Melody's consideration as well as others I ask her to consider that God and the authors of Scripture clearly knew they needed to engage more than our logical abilities in order to express and communicate truth in its fullness to the world. Scripture is not a transcription of logical arguments about the nature of God and his plan for salvation of the world, but primarily a book of stories (some of which are deeply disturbing) and a lot of which is expressed in poetic form. All of this requires right brain perception in addition to left-brain analysis. Because of that, Scripture illumined by the Holy Spirit is able to penetrate beyond the logical and analytical brain to the very depths of the heart!

I say, let's try to be whole brain in our faith and use all the gifts God has given us (which involves engaging faithfully in the arts). I believe grace means the logic of love defies the logic of the strict rationalist every time. Istm, there is a difference between being properly and humanly rational (a very good thing) and being a rationalist where our limited human "logical" ability is enthroned to the level of some idolatrous demigod (a sin).

The bottom line for me is that the truth of our Christian faith cannot be adequately contained in a system of logical syllogisms, but only in the Person of Christ, and He has engaged our world in a way that goes way beyond the leaving of a book (even a Holy Book) and beyond logical syllogisms! By His grace, we can do the same.