skip to content or search.

Christian “art”

First of all, we’ve got to learn as a church to support artists who are respectfully engaging culture with good art. I think one of the reasons the church in this country is irrelevant in a lot of circles is because our art is bad—and it’s always been a primary way of how the church has engaged with culture. Great artists can engage culture, not by getting up on a box and reading off all sorts of laws, but by making tremendous art, doing that work with excellence where the world would be intrigued and engaged with that. Nowadays, we’re not building bridges to culture. We’re building escalators up and down the floors of our own little world. We’re all just trying to get popular and secure our own little living for ourselves, and that’s not kingdom thinking. You have to get beyond all that and think, As an artist, what is my role in culture? How do the decisions I make as an artist really effect eternity? Derek Webb - Caedmon’s Call

hat tip: Ochuk

9 Responses to “Christian “art””

  1. Tim said on: November 15th, 2004 at 10:47 am

    The reason the church is irrelevant is because our art is bad? I really doubt it. The first century Christians had no art. They had passion, conviction, and that essential ingredient of love. That is what turned the world upside down. Not their art. Nice thought though.

  2. Matt said on: November 15th, 2004 at 11:59 am

    No, ONE of the reasons that the church is irrelevant IN A LOT OF CIRCLES is because our art is bad. And the early church had no art? Doubt it… You are correct about what turned the world upside down, but that is not what Derek is talking about. He is talking about artists having kindgom-building as the focus in their art, which many artists don’t. They are more interested in selling art to the masses of Christians who will eat it up. THAT is when our art becomes cheesy, christianese, and irrelevant.

    Ochuk’s article on the point clears up Derek’s last sentance in his quote.

  3. Pat said on: November 15th, 2004 at 2:58 pm

    Right now there are a lot of people selling art made for Christians, as opposed to Christians making art. I think that is the fundamental flaw. I suspect it is also why I don’t listen to ‘Christian’ music.

  4. Tom said on: November 16th, 2004 at 9:19 am

    Good defence Matt.
    I think some of the greatest art of all times has had a christian flare (The Last Supper, David, Handel’s Messiah etc.). I wouldn’t say the artist were actually christians, though I don’t know, but they lived in a culture were catholisism was the norm.
    I think that our art can have an impact on culture, but I think that culture is really what needs to change. I agree with Tim that the early christians had it figured out (Duh!).

  5. greg said on: November 16th, 2004 at 2:21 pm

    Art effects our society way more than we know. Writings, paintings, books…….at almost any time in western history you can look at any art (it’s pretty easy with paintings) and tell something about that culture.
    For instance; we’ve all seen paintings by Picasso using cubism, a form of painting that distorts the nature into an almost inhuman form. Many would argue that this was a result of Darwin’s evolution model, and how we are just another animal that came from primordial ooz. Darwin’s theory dehumanised us, and so did Picasso’s art.
    Another good example is “Contemporary Art”. Artist in this visual genre “artists” try to do away with as many absolute values as possible. More and more are we seeing this impact our culture. The idea that people are born homosexuals is a new idea that I believe is a result of this. Our traditional definition of “family” is trying to be replaced by a definition without boundaries. And instead of trying to forward our own art and show God’s glory through it, we just try to copy what the secular world already has. By the time we figure it out, we are two or three years behind. (didn’t we have this discussion a little while ago Matt…)

    I agree with Pat about the whole “Christian” music thing. I do listen to some, but overall I think that the quality of Christian music (excluding worship) is lower than the secular.

    The other thing in particular about Christian music is that it doesn’t really “bridge” the gap. I remember when Sixpence None the Richer went from being billed as Christian to secular there were a lot of criticisms. I don’t understand this notion that we have now that to be a musician you must be in the Christian industry, but it is really not creating any bridges. The only people that believe it are those who are already Christians. You can’t change the outcome of an election by rallys if you don’t try to appeal to those not already voting for you and get them on your side.

    End Rant (I try not to rant in my own blog, so I’ll do it in yours….)

  6. Heather said on: November 16th, 2004 at 3:43 pm

    -To glorify God.
    -To tell the Truth.
    Like everything else, if there is no foundation, art will fail. It will fail regardless of best intentions, or money making ploys.

  7. Tim said on: November 16th, 2004 at 10:41 pm

    Good thoughts everybody. Hey Matt, I can read words without capitalizing them and get the point just as well. Thanks for showing the tentatives in Derek’s comment.
    I maintain the idea that art is a byproduct of the heart and soul of a people or a movement. I mistyped to say that the first century Christians didn’t have art. I intended to communicate that it wasn’t their art that influenced their world. It was their convictions and passion.
    Therefore, I feel that to categorically call an art form bad because of musical or lyrical content is to question the sincere efforts of a musician to express himself. I think that kind of judging is dangereous.
    It’s well within reason to comment on your musical preferences or on technical qualities, such as mixing or production, though.
    I’ll also add that avoiding Christian music and having a steady diet of “secular” music is detrimental to anyone who wants to obey Phil. 4: 8.

  8. greg said on: November 17th, 2004 at 12:49 am

    I disagree. Everything we do does not glorify God, and there wouldn’t be lies if we always told the truth (DUH!).

    The Godless make art, and their purpose is not to glorify God, so their art technically doesn’t fail….

  9. Heather said on: November 17th, 2004 at 10:07 am

    I think we had two different pictures in mind. This is true, not everything we do glorifies God, but that’s our fault, not His. And, unless people know the Truth, (ie.the gospel) they might never know that grace abounds as well.

    …their art doesn’t technically succeed either.

    As an artist, I can think of no better purpose than to glorify God and proclaim His truth.
    Especially when I have found that most people create out of anger or pain. Ah, studios.