From my blog, but I'd love to hear your thoughts ...

Here is a recent article from Touchstone Magazine that I’ve seen rewritten under various titles for most of my Christian life. It starts out like this:

The modern Christians who are important writers are all from liturgical churches: Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox. The closest thing Evangelicalism has to a name that could rank with these is probably Walter Wangerin, Jr., who is not really a mainstream Evangelical but a Lutheran—again, from a liturgical tradition.

Try to think of a conservative Baptist, a Free or Wesleyan Methodist or a Nazarene, a conservative Presbyterian, a Plymouth Brother, a member of the Evangelical Free Church or the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a Pentecostal, or a member of an independent Bible church who belongs in that company. (Some have mentioned writers who used to be in those churches—but the phrase “used to” in the observation is telling.)

The liturgical churches foster a lot of schlock and kitsch of their own, but they also nurture great writers and great writing. So far, we Evangelicals have not. In fact, we often positively discourage “literary” writing as being of questionable spiritual value.

This is something of a mantra in Christian academic circles, and I typically encounter this lament at least once every six months: where are the evangelicals, and why does their art suck? The kindly professors probably wouldn’t state it quite so baldly, being nice, proper academics, but the evangelicals would comprehend the question better because they don’t understand big words, so we’ll let the crudeness slide.

I've read these sentiments, and others like them, so frequently that they’ve become cliches. There's only one problem: they’re not true. They bear little relationship to reality.

Look, I love Flannery O'Connor as much as anyone. Kate will attest that I lobbied long and hard to name our first-born daughter Flannery in honor of Ms. O’Connor. She and the other High Church literary cherubim and seraphim – Graham Greene, Walker Percy, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien – have enriched my life tremendously. But Percy, the most contemporary of those writers, has been dead for fifteen years, and O'Connor, Greene, Lewis and Tolkien were writing fifty or more years ago. And you know what? In the intervening half century, evangelicals have actually produced some worthwhile work. Two of the most celebrated Christian novelists working today, Marilynne Robinson and Leif Enger, are writing from a decidedly evangelical perspective. Enger's Peace Like a River was named the 2002 Book of the Year in the L.A. Times, and was lauded in almost every review. Robinson's latest novel Gilead won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005. This does not suck. And when you add in contemporaries such as Frederick Buechner, Annie Dillard, John Updike, and Anne Lamott, who really don't fit into either the High Church or the Evangelical categories, it seems fairly clear to me that non-liturgical, non-High Church Christians have as much of an impact on literature as their High Church contemporaries, and maybe more. And the odds are even more lopsided in the popular music world, where it is evangelicals like U2 and Sufjan Stevens who have arguably released some of the best and most popular albums created from a Christian worldview. In other words, the argument in Touchstone was valid thirty years ago. It doesn’t apply now, and it hasn't been true for a long time.

I will confess that part of it is that I don’t understand the categories. Why is it, for instance, that “liturgical” and “evangelical” are presented as mutually exclusive terms in the Touchstone article? In my church we incorporate elements of the liturgy and fixed-hour prayer into both our public and private worship, but theologically we would align ourselves along evangelical lines.

I also don’t know what to make of the many stereotypes found in the article – that evangelical art is often little more than religious propaganda, for instance. Sure, there is no lack of horrendous schlock out there. Just walk into the Christian Family Bookstore of your choice and peruse the puppy and kitty posters with Bible verses, or the rack of Precious Moments figurines. But the world the author describes is simply not the world I encounter. My church is heavily skewed, nay, infested, with artists – painters, poets, photographers, musicians, writers, standup comics, graphic designers. I would guess that artists make up 40 to 50 percent of the adult population, and many of these folks make their full-time living through art. They are not making “Christian” art or religious propaganda; they’re creating art, and they’re out there in the marketplace competing with everybody else. What I don’t know is how typical or atypical my church is. I don’t have any way to gauge how this compares with the evangelical world as a whole. So do me a favor. I’d love to hear from those of you in other evangelical churches, and find out how the arts are viewed in your church. Are they valued in and of themselves? Or are they viewed as “witnessing” tools? And for those of us in my church, I’d love to hear your thoughts on what you think the variables are within our church that seem to lead to a high view of the arts. Thanks.

"Marilynne Robinson and Leif Enger, are writing from a decidedly evangelical perspective. Enger's Peace Like a River was named the 2002 Book of the Year in the L.A. Times, and was lauded in almost every review. Robinson's latest novel Gilead won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005. This does not suck. And when you add in contemporaries such as Frederick Buechner, Annie Dillard, John Updike, and Anne Lamott, who really don't fit into either the High Church or the Evangelical categories, it seems fairly clear to me that non-liturgical, non-High Church Christians have as much of an impact on literature as their High Church contemporaries, and maybe more."


--Maybe they're "non-High Church," but can these writers aptly be described as Evangelicals? Most are mainstream Protestants of a decidedly liberal theological stripe, I think.

Yeah, I don't think any of the writers Andy mentions would fit the Touchstone author's definition of "evangelical," and I'm not even sure Bono and Sufjan would either. They both have evangelical backgrounds, but I'm not sure either one has been handing out checklisted doctrinal statements of late.

From what you've said here and elsewhere about your church, Andy, I'd have no problem calling it "evangelical," but it's highly unusual for one church of any kind to have such a high percentage of working artists.

Be sure to forward the Touchstone article to Norm Weiss at Remonstrans.net. It'll make his day.

Right. That's why I wrote that they don't fit either the High Church or the Evangelical categories. But Marilynne Robinson's Gilead is written from the perspective of the pastor of a conservative, small-town Presbyterian church. And since the author of the Touchstone piece specifically lamented the absence of conservative Presbyterians in the literary mix, I think it's fair to point to the recent Pulitzer Prize winner. And Leif Enger's book deals with non-denominational Pentecostalism, about as far removed from High Church liturgy as a Christian writer can get. Again, it's not that the High Church writers haven't contributed in very significant ways. They have. But it's simply not true that they have a monopoly on insightful and beautiful Christian writing.

I grew up solidly Evangelical. My wife was 3rd generation Wheaton College; her grandparents and mine knew each other there, as did my parents and hers. When we got engaged, we went up to the Wheaton bell tower and rang the bell. < /Evangelical Credentials >

My entire experience of the Evangelical churches I was raised in was that art was considered to have no purpose other than religious propaganda. Art was not considered a valid "vocation".

It is one of the many reasons I left the Evangelical "ghetto".

I understand that things may be much different now. I know that the Billy Graham Center (of Wheaton College), for several years, sponsored a Sacred Arts competition, which I visited once. The entries were excellent. My belief is that this progress within Evangelicalism has come largely from borrowing things from the Liturgical churches. And I think this is a good thing.

postscript for Andy: Did you consider writing a Letter to the Editor of Touchstone? They might well print it.

But Evangelicals get all the good politicians! (jk)

There's just no way to count these things accurately, and it is inherent in Evangelical Protestantism that membership isn't nearly as big a deal as it is for Anglicans and Catholics. There are a lot of cradle-to-grave Catholics but Evangelicalism just isn't set up that way.

And the problem isn't lack or abundance of Christian/high/low/evangelical/liturgical artists. The problem is more complex and is manifest in many issues such as lack of art education and appreciation with Evangelicalism, lack of doctrinal fidelity among many "liturgical" believers, nominalism, and (certainly not least) the mystery of faith 'declarations' among artists who are not required to register. Compounding all of this is the insidious Christian "ghetto" / marketplace that rubberstamps labels on musicians and artists considered 'safe' for ghetto consumption. Try buying Paste or Sojourners in your typical Zonderstore. Or U2 or Sufjan for that matter.

What many consume as "Christian" art is merely the by-product of contracts and marketing and distribution channels, not necessarily any kind of active engagement between the Word and the World.

Is this off topic? I'm not sure. While it's been interesting here to create threads about "well-known writers/musicians/actors who are believers", the real issue is and always has been: How is art being made in awareness of and faithfulness to Him?

Besides, it's all Jeffrey's fault.

Point of clarification: The book is written from the perspective of a congregationalist, whose best friend is a Presbyterian pastor. Gilead does give a nice picture of Presbyterianism, but through the eyes of someone not directly affiliated with Presbyterianism.

I don't have the time or energy to dig up the numbers for western culture at large just now, but it seems that just on percentages, evangelicals would likely be less common among artist populations. I remember looking at some demographic information for my city a decade or so ago that indicated that about half the population was nominally "Christian" -- but well over half of that (IIRC) was from the largest few denominations; the evangelical churches represented a small fraction of the whole. (I think there were in the range of 10,000 Baptists and/or Pentacostals compared with over 200K Catholics, for example.)

So, maybe evangelicals are making a reasonable contribution in spite of their smaller numbers??

Alan Thomas wrote:
: Compounding all of this is the insidious Christian "ghetto" / marketplace that rubberstamps labels on musicians and artists considered 'safe' for ghetto consumption. Try buying Paste or Sojourners in your typical Zonderstore. Or U2 or Sufjan for that matter.

Ah, so Paste IS a "Christian magazine"!

It is. We have a special deal for Youth Pastors and Worship Ministers; buy a one year subscription, get a This Blood's For You t-shirt absolutely free. Please specify size (L, X-L, XX-L or XXX-L).

OK, bad example (but interesting)...

Still, most Xtian stories I've been in don't carry Sojourners or... The Door (much better example).

Part of this is the OVERWHELMING tendency among evangelicals to pander to complainers. (I run the sound board at church, so *believe me* I know...)

Somewhat tangential to the discussion, but I once worked in a Christian bookstore that carried, in addition to the kitty posters and Precious Moments figurines that paid the bills, the works of Dorothy Sayers and Charles Williams and Annie Dillard and Walker Percy, along with albums by Bruce Cockburn and T Bone Burnett and Tonio K. I miss that place. Naturally, it went out of business.

Furthering the tangent, was the bookstore in Columbus between 1993-1997? Maybe I shopped there!

Back on topic--how much of the art world works through connections? What I mean is, it seems to me as an outsider to the arts scene, that much of art in any environment is put on public display which is enabled by network and connections--there's not much out there that seems to filter to the top unaided in any sense. (Ie., on Tony Watkins' Man Booker long list, which of those novelists submitted their first unpublished manuscripts to a house unsolicited? None, right? All were helped by connections that they made through work or school, right?)

Given the inherent difficulties in getting published, printed, screened, etc, isn't it natural to the artist to make some compromise to the industry by focusing in on 1) a smaller market, 2) a niche market, 3) personal networks? By compromise, which unfortunately is not exactly what I mean, the artist includes content that makes it a more natural connection for 1-3 above.

So, when we go back to the evangelical ghetto at the start of the thread, how much of this is people making the effort required to get published, etc, and part of that is providing a product that will sell? Or, I guess, another way to ask this is, what pays Philip Roth's bills?

Tying this back to Tim's point of representation by a small sample, without proper distribution of quality art (which is not very profitable until you're dead usually), how can academia actually lament the quality of evangelical art? Doesn't all commercial art suck, per the academy, regardless of religious persuasion?

i wonder what the doctrinal (liturgical/ evangelical) make-up is of the CIVA membership? hmmm...

The label "evangelical" seems to lend itself to a kind of utilitarian outlook on everything, I'm afraid. In this Club, winning souls and fulfilling the great commission are paramount-- art, along with everything else, is viewed strictly in terms of how it furthers that objective. Pardon my ignorance, but aint that part of what originally distinguished evangelicals from other christian streams, i.e. the strong emphasis on proselytizing?

From my vantage, the Touchstone article pokes at what is still a majority view in American evangelicalism.

As an artist who was firmly entrenched in evangelicalism and it's various sub-ghettos for 20 years, I can tell you that as soon as I pursued certain streams of artistic expression and thought, I was ostracized by the Club. By that I mean, the public speaking/ teaching opportunities and performance gigs amongst Club Members dried up-- overnight. Silence. My theology hadn't changed. I didnt get any tattoos or body piercings. But i was met with very firm and often vocal resistance.

Artistic expression is just not encouraged out there, friends. Of course, there are exceptions. But if you look at the three largest evangelical groups/denoms in the country, I think you will see a shared philosophy with regard to the arts. Like it or not, Family Bookstores and their inventory of trinkets and bumper stickers exist (and are usually successful) because they represent the evangelical mainstream. That mainstream only encourages "art" as defined by the Club. Not exactly fertile soil for true, creative enterprises IMO and probably never will be.

So yeah the Touchstone piece makes the same argument we've been hearing for 20 or 30 years. Old hat, i suppose, but still true.

coltrane wrote:
: Pardon my ignorance, but aint that part of what originally distinguished evangelicals from other christian streams, i.e. the strong emphasis on proselytizing?

That, and political activism (witness the abolition of slavery, the prohibition of liquor, etc., etc.).

Thank you! I agree very strongly with what you've said here.

As you mention, there are exceptions, where none of this is true. For those blessed to belong to such exceptional groups, I think it is quite easy to imagine that a sweeping, large-scale change has been effected in the Evangelical world at large, when in actuality it has not.

But is this a specifically "evangelical" characteristic? If I go to B&N, it sure looks an awful lot like a Zondervan. Seems to me its an American corporate business model + utilitarian populace (Walmart effect?) that also plays out in our subcultures as well. What do Christian bookstores look like in Europe? (Sorry Canada, don't mean to ignore you, but well, you're Canada).

Logos Bookstore, at the corner of Woodruff and High St., across from THE Ohio State University. I worked there when I was in grad school in the early '80s. I don't know if it was still around when the intersection of Buckeye Jones and Buckeye Land occurred, although I see the former store owner fairly frequently. I can ask if you're interested.

There was a Logos Bookstore in Northampton, Mass., that I used to shop at. Not bad, and definitely not a Zonderstore. (FWIW, the manager of that store now manages the store at Regent University.)

Bookstores aren't libraries, they exist to make money not raise the cultural bar. I'm cool with that. I imagine bookstores in Europe and Canada mostly cater to the mainstream tastes of their respective cultures, as well they should. (Although I assume the European "mainstream" is several ticks above the US)

I guess my point is, Zondervan or Family Bookstores are neither right nor wrong for carrying an inventory full of utter crap. They simply stock what sells. My lament for evangelicals, is over why they consistently, historically gravitate to drek with regard to art-- and I dont think there's any arguing the fact that they STILL DO.

Why, yes, we are! Thanks for noticing! (Sorry to interrupt.)

From across the street, the Christian bookstore in Victoria, B.C. (it was up around Yates and Quadra, if memory serves) looks dangerously similar to your basic FCS/Zondertrap in the States. Or at least it did last weekend.

But at least Veggie Tales is available in translation (Are You My Neighbour?).

mrmando wrote:
: From across the street, the Christian bookstore in Victoria, B.C. (it was up around Yates and Quadra, if memory serves) looks dangerously similar to your basic FCS/Zondertrap in the States. Or at least it did last weekend.

I don't go to Christian bookstores much, and I haven't been to one in the States in years. But I do know it weirded me out, years ago, to see our stores give prominent placement to books by Oliver North and others that placed "America" or "American" so prominently on their covers.

OTOH, Tony Campolo's Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat? was released in Canada with a completely different title: Was Jesus a Moderate?

The author of the article in Touchstone defined Evangelicalism this way:

I define an Evangelical as a person committed to Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy, a high view of the authority of Scripture, the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the necessity of personal faith in Christ (and therefore the importance for most people of a personal conversion experience, as long as we do not stereotype it) for salvation.

I'll buy that, both as a decent definition of Evangelicalism and as a succinct encapsulation of my particular brand of Christianity. But there's nothing in that definition that would preclude a high view of the arts.


I'm saddened to read about your experiences in the evangelical church, Coltrane. I believe you, and I know your experience can be echoed by many others. But it hasn't been my experience. I was weaned on Francis Schaeffer and L'Abri, and most of my Christian life has been formed by churches that have been profoundly influenced by a man who wrote a book called Art Needs No Justification. These are churches that have taken that idea seriously, and have taught that art has an important place in the Kingdom of God.

Is Columbus, Ohio really that much of an anomaly? Really? Columbus, Ohio? I know of at least five evangelical churches in Columbus that host arts conferences, invite musicians to perform regularly, encourage visual artists to display their works in the church building, and invite artists of all kinds to speak about the importance of art and its integration with the Christian faith. They host writer's groups, poetry slams, open mic nights, concerts. All of them, in one way or another, have come out of house churches full of hippies living communally and talking about Francis Scheffer and L'Abri. Now the hippies are all grown up and have become pastors. I can't believe that there aren't similar groups elsewhere. If nothing else, the conferences I've attended at places like Calvin College and Messiah College tell me that there are similarly minded people all over. So does the very existence of the Arts and Faith community. I've got to believe that things are changing, and for the better.

Thanks for the words, Andy. I think it's very encouraging that you and others on this board live in areas of the country where these kind of churches can flourish. I wish I lived in a place like Columbus, like 15 or 20 years ago. I did live in nashville for three years, back in the 90's, and our Calvary Chapel always encouraged the arts as did many other churches in the area. Miami is the kind of huge metropolitan city that you think would be home to many of these kind of forward-thinking evangelical churches, but I assure you it aint. That may have to do with the cultural make-up of the city itself-- nearly 65% hispanic. Hispanic churches here tend to be either Catholic, very conservative evangelical or neo-pentecostal.

I have a friend who pastors a pretty laid-back Calvary-style church near my house and he encourages the arts to some degree in his congregation. But even HE, would probably be troubled by the "open" view of the arts espoused here on this board, never mind my own more liberal stands on music and movies. I feel like I have to carefully censor myself whenever we talk. I've been doing that for a long time in the evangelical church and i'm tired now.

As to what the national "climate" is in the evangelical church regarding the arts, I think the Family Bookstores are a fair barometer. Hate on them all you want, I think the evangelical spokesmen, like Dobson and others (Baehr? Gasp!), are also an accurate reflection of where evangelicals stand on the issue.

Again, my experiences over the last 20 years were anything but art-affirming. That doesnt mean that all my experiences were neagtive. Far from it. It just means that in order to create and cultivate my artistic endeavors, I felt it absolutely necessary to walk away. Life for me in the evangelical church was not conducive to THAT type of growth.

[EDIT] I dont want to give the impression that my issues with the church are isolated to artistic considerations. In all fairness, my problems with evangelicalism are pretty big and I feel the divide growing every year; art probably being toward the bottom of the gripe list.

Hold on there, partner.

I, personally, think evangelicals are probably ahead of mainstream, middle-class America on the arts. (What a thought!)

The problem is we're perhaps (ya think) too bourgeois. But in my neighborhood of lawn sprinklers and minivans, I can't say the arts are a major priority--but entertainment is. There are exceptions, and there are probably more exceptions within the bourgeois church than there are in mainstream culture.

In what way? Seeing that evangelicals are merely a restrictive sub-set of middle-class America, I don't see how that is possible.

But the concern really isnt, who has better taste in music or literature, us or them? The question is, does this enlightened faction of christendom encourage or discourage true artistic expression among its own? My view is that evangelicals love art only if they see it directly promoting their agenda, which is preaching the Gospel to the whole world. And that rigid agenda usually has stylistic stipulations as well. So if the artist isnt creating something with an embedded religious message and it isnt couched in the list of approved styles, evangelicals have very little use for it.

I hope this is changing. But our local christian radio station tells me it is not.

Andy Whitman wrote:
: The author of the article in Touchstone defined Evangelicalism this way:
: I define an Evangelical as a person committed to Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy, a high view of the authority of Scripture . . .

Wow, he placed scripture after Jesus and the Trinity (for that is what Nicene and Chalcedon were all about). That's a surprise, since I have seen many, many evangelical statements of faith that put the Bible at #1 and put God and Jesus down at #2 or below on their list of things they believe in.

: I was weaned on Francis Schaeffer and L'Abri, and most of my Christian life has been formed by churches that have been profoundly influenced by a man who wrote a book called Art Needs No Justification.

I have a feeling I have made the point here before (and by "here" I mean at A&F) that any book with a title like Art Needs No Justification was obviously written for an audience and/or a community whose default position was probably that, yeah, art DID need justification.

I'll give you an example: At one point in time, believe it or not, I was a well-trained classical pianist. WHEREVER I went (it seemed), folks were always asking me to play something. At friend's house's, scouting trips, you name it--but more from a curiousity perspective, e.g. "Here's that fella who knows how to operate the pianer". When I became a Christian, the folks I met were still interested and supportive, but it wasn't something exotic for them.

The tragedy of Evangicalism missing on the arts isn't because we've fallen behind mainstream culture, on average--although we have fallen way behind the best of culture. The tragedy is that, as Christians, we should be doing a LOT more.

Of course, I agree with that last statement even though this debate about who is more in tune with the arts, mainstream culture or evangelicals, is sorta beside the point. All I know, is that I can have discussions about topics as diverse as Hunter S. Thompson, Prince or Marc Chagall with my coworkers any day of the week, but never with my former Club members. Those aforementioned individuals and their works arent on the Club-approved list. Of course, I can freely talk this way with my closest friends as well, but they're typically as outcast and ostracized from the old Club as I am, so that's no surprise.

Maybe this is a good time to sing the praises of this board. For the past three years I have learned, been challenged and enjoyed the myriad of ongoing arts discussions at A&F. Thank God for this place, warts and all. But at the same time I realize that what exists here is an anomaly. It's also not "evangelical" in the strict sense. Thank God for that as well. Sincerely.

I saw that, and I appreciated it as well.


Absolutely true. There's no question that evangelicalism has had a woeful relationship with the arts. But that book was written almost forty years ago. And when you consider the fact that a bunch of evangelicals read the book, believed it, and acted upon the notion that art had value in and of itself, then I think it's reasonable to expect to see what I think we're seeing -- a tug of war between those evangelicals who have embraced a high view of the arts, and those evangelicals who hold to the notion that the arts are suspect, and of real value only when they are used as tools for evangelism. It's not only because of that book, of course. I would like to think that anyone who considers the whole counsel of Scripture, and examines the history of the Christian Church, would readily see the esteem with which the arts are held by both God and the Church. But I do think that Schaeffer has had a significant impact on some corners of the evangelical world.

And I have to say that in some of those corners the evangelical world has outstripped not only the rest of the Church, but also the secular world. Why is it that Calvin College can put together a series of concerts, films, and speakers every year that embarrasses the programs assembled by the Ohio State University, which has fifteen times the number of students as Calvin, and a correspondingly larger budget for the arts? In the next month Calvin will be sponsoring concerts by Shapes and Sizes, Martin Sexton, Denison Witmer, Erin McKeown, Yo La Tengo, and Romantica. The Ohio State University? Tim McGraw and Faith Hill. Astoundingly enough, there is some evidence -- and I would offer Calvin as the prime example -- that evangelicals "get" the arts in ways that the rest of society does not.

Of course, the tug of war goes on, and there is real tension there. Just ask Jeff Rioux at Messiah College how much fun it is to deal with outraged students and faculty members when some non-Christian musician drops the F bomb onstage. God forbid that we should expect non-Christians to act like non-Christians, or that we discover that life outside the ghetto can sometimes be crass and dirty.

In spite of the tension, there really are many evangelicals who believe that art needs no justification. I'm in a church where the pastor attends more rock 'n roll shows than I do (and I attend quite a few), where people routinely go to art houses to view foreign films, where dozens of members are making a full-time living in the arts, and where all of it is discussed within the context of a Christian worldview. It has nothing to do with hipness or people trying to live up to a particular image. It's simply Christians being who they are. It's like Arts and Faith, only with real people you can drink coffee and/or beer with. I realize that that's not normal within the evangelical world. But artists, by and large, aren't normal, and I do think it's great that they have a place to go where they can be who they are and at the same time not be asked to sacrifice deeply-held beliefs about God and the Church. And places like Calvin College and Messiah College give me great hope. God bless Ken Heffner and Jeff Rioux. Thousands of evangelical young adults every year hear the good news -- art needs no justification. Art is a gift. And yes, we need to be discerning, so let's learn how to be discerning, but at the same time let's celebrate the Creator who bestows good gifts on his kids, including the ability to create. The tension won't go away, but I'd like to believe, and I have some evidence to think it's true, that the evangelical world is changing. I'm actually fairly hopeful about the whole mess.

Coltrane, I hear you, but are there any other demographic differences between the Clubbies and the Coworkers? Age? Marital status? Kids? Why is it Evangelical belief and not just a problem with the organizational culture in your Club?

I've got the shoe on the other foot in some ways. I would have a much easier time talking about fine art with people at church that with people at work, with a few exceptions. Probably not some cutting-edge stuff or superficially offensive or grotesque work, sure, but in general, yes.

It's always a good time to praise A&F! You people are amazing!

And of course this board isn't "Evangelical"; that would be like saying an auditorium or town park is Evangelical.

A&F is a meeting place and, labels aside, there are some amazing Christians here, many if not most of whom I'd have no problem calling "Evangelical"--not meaning "conservative Protestant" but meaning that they have in common, as a primary desire, spreading the Good News of God in Jesus Christ. (By that definition, I believe that "Evangelical" means the same thing as "Christian" as I can't imagine anyone being a serious, mature, Christian without that desire.)

Andy, good point about Calvin College. I get their mailings, and have noticed the strength of what they are doing.

But do you see them as being Evangelical? I thought they were more or less Reformed.

Rather than write my own thoughts on this, let me put the question back to you: What's the distinction? (I have my own ideas about possible distinctions, but wanted to hear you out first.)

When I say I envy guys like you and Andy, I mean it. Your current experiences in respective evangelical congregations as well as the goings-on at Calvin College and other places, are so far from anything I've ever experienced it's almost hard to believe. I think we can all agree this openness and encouragement of the arts among these groups is not the norm, at least not nationwide.
It could be both. But mainstream evangelicals happen to promote certain philosophies about the arts that preclude deeper discussion. Does the artist paint nudes? Does the author use profanity? Do the stories or themes lead people to Christ? Does the song mention Jesus or God? Does the film depict and "promote" immorality? These are rudimentary issues most of us at A&F moved beyond many years ago. The mainstream evangelicals are still spinning their wheels there. The dearth of important art coming from the evangelical church echoes the lack of liberal or moderate political views being espoused by Club members. There's a system in place that discourages both true artistic expression and liberal politics and social views.

I would hearken back to the definition used by the author of the Touchstone article:

I define an Evangelical as a person committed to Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy, a high view of the authority of Scripture, the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the necessity of personal faith in Christ (and therefore the importance for most people of a personal conversion experience, as long as we do not stereotype it) for salvation.

I think that's a good definition, and it's one that I personally would subscribe to. My guess is that most of the students and faculty at Calvin College would agree with it as well.

It seems to me that many of the negative qualities that folks such as Coltrane are describing are more characteristic of fundamentalists rather than evangelicals. Of course, there is overlap there. But there are many evangelicals who are not fundamentalists. I consider myself an evangelical, but I'm fairly certain that I would be excommunicated from a fundamentalist church within about eight seconds of my arrival.

It seems to me that the Touchstone article is way too broad in its definition of evangelicals. The practical, cultural definition as it plays out in American mainstream is far more strict. I did a quick web search and found this definition of "evangelical christian" from historian David Bebbington (no clue who he is) and this sounds closer to reality, at least for me.
1) Conversionism: the belief that lives of all humans need to be changed by way of a "born again" decision to repent of their sins and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior
2) Activism: the expression of the gospel in various ways, including missionary outreach and social reform.
3) Biblicism: a particular regard for the Bible as the Word of God and the ultimate authority for religious belief and morality.
4) Crucicentrism: a stress on the substitutionary atonement by Christ on the cross.

Mainstream Evangelicals certainly have more than a "high view" of scriptures authority, as the Touchstone article defines. It is the ONLY authority. Bebbington's definition paints a clearer picture, at least of the church I grew up in.

That is fair enough, I guess. I would make a rather sharp distinction (with "Reformed" implying Calvinism, which I think affects almost everything else), but for purposes of this subject, I think that they can safely be lumped together. As you point out, that was certainly Dr. Williams' intent. I believe that the Dutch Reformed (in the Netherlands, I mean), several generations back, had a very strong current of support for the arts. I do not think that this transferred across the Atlantic when the Dutch settled this country. Perhaps they are regaining traction in this area; it certainly seems like it.


Fortunately, this would be a very light sentence, since most Fundamentalist churches (in my experience) only Communicate you about 4 times a year to start with!



That is a huge one, I think. And, of course, not entirely bad. But it hits home to me when a certain unnamed person from my extended family makes his Christmas prayer all about Calvary, entirely missing the lesson of the Incarnation itself.

At least for the circles I run in, this is very true. (I belong to a Scottish Reformed church and hobnob with lots of neo-Calvinists.) Lots of the Dutch Reformed or DR-influenced are VERY supportive of the arts, especially those tied to Calvin College and some other colleges in the Michigan/Illinois/midwest.

Since when do we need to concern ourselves with the norm? Further up and further in, my friend!


In some places sure. Shake the dust off your feet, already.



Ditto, except for the definition.

I'm not sure about the third provision ("Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone") as being definitively Evangelical, as opposed to definitively Protestant (and fundamentalist).

I'm also not so sure about the "personal experience" part of it. What does that really mean? Surely being a Christian (or anything else, for that matter) must involve a personal experience of some kind, but are we talking Saul here? I know many Evangelicals, especially those raised in the Church, who can't nail down a date and time but who definitely had a conversion. While "personal conversion experience" may be characteristically Evangelical, I do not believe it is definitively Evangelical. Does this statement just mean that one must be a Christian intentionally rather that culturally?

Merriam Webster:
evan·gel·i·cal
ADJECTIVE
(1) of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
(2) Protestant
(3) emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
(4) capitalized of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany often capitalized of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : fundamentalist often capitalized : low church
(5) marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic

NOUN (often capitalized)
(1) one holding evangelical principles or belonging to an evangelical party or church

Please note that dictionaries do not contain defitions, but descriptions of usage.

Wikipedia: Evangelicalism, Evangelical Catholic

Evangelicalism is typified by an emphasis on evangelism, a personal experience of conversion, biblically-oriented faith, and a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to some cultural issues.

...

Current media usage of the term (especially in the United States), is often synonymous with conservative Protestant Christians. This is only partly accurate, as the movement embraces a wide range of expressions of faith around the four core characteristics.

...the four characteristics of evangelicals are :

1. Conversionism - Emphasis on the conversion experience, also called being saved, or new birth or born again after John 3:3. Thus evangelicals often refer to themselves as born-again Christians. This experience is said to be received by "faith alone" and to be given by God as the result of "grace alone".
2. Biblicism - The Protestant canon of the Bible as the primary, or only, source of religious authority, as God's revelation to humanity. Thus, the doctrine of sola scriptura is often affirmed and emphasized. Bible prophecy, especially as interpreted according to dispensationalism, is often emphasized.
3. Activism - Encouragement of evangelism (the act of sharing one's beliefs) -- in organized missionary work or by personal encounters and relationships with others.
4. Crucicentrism - A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross as the only means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.

I like this last description the best...you need to come to Jesus, read your Bible, tell the world, and remain focused on Jesus' work.

In the context of this discussion, I think it's very important. When we ask if Evangelicals have a major problem in encouraging/discouraging artistic expressions, we're logically restricting the dialogue to the mainstream. I'm not really concerned with whether small groups in various pockets around the country support the arts. I'm glad they do. That is not, however, the experience of millions of other American evangelicals and I think that's a vital distinction.

I'll save the dust-shaking for my enemies. The Club was a drag, but it wasn't that bad. However, on the personal side, I havent been to any Club meetings in about six months and I am pleasantly surprised to announce that my heart does not have a Club-shaped hole. (And yeah, Peter, I am poking my nose around Eastern Orthodoxy again)

The bottom line for me: Evangelicals, as a whole, are not friendly to the arts. We should not be surprised then, in the slightest, that their crowing achievements are the Newsboys, Thomas Kincade and Jerry Jenkins.

As I already mentioned somewhere else, Reformed implies (to me) Calvinism, at least in Soteriology. Another major distinction is that the Reformed embrace Covenant Theology (the Church is Israel), while Evangelicals are much more likely to see unbelieving Israel as still God's chosen nation. Likewise, the Reformed are likely to be Amillennial or Postmillennial in Eschatology, while Evangelicals seem to be almost universally Premillennial.

Because I grew up straddling these two worlds, the terms Reformed and Evangelical still sound like opposites to me.

Andy Whitman wrote:
: I would like to think that anyone who considers the whole counsel of Scripture, and examines the history of the Christian Church, would readily see the esteem with which the arts are held by both God and the Church.

Hmmm. To a point, sure. But our understanding of "the arts" has undergone profound shifts, especially in the West in the past several centuries. To this day, Eastern artists emphasize that icons, say, are NOT intended as vehicles for individual personal expression. Likewise with the "tones" by which we sing in every service (and the Western church didn't start using musical instruments until around the time of the Great Schism between the East and West, when the Church was already about a thousand years old; the Eastern church still doesn't use 'em). There has always been an artistic ELEMENT to the Christian Church, but I am not so sure that the Church's use of artistic elements down through the years is all that affirmative of "the arts" as we now define the term.

Incidentally, I find myself wondering if ENTERTAINMENT needs justification. To what degree is this discussion restricted to "the fine arts" (and their implicit connection to "the sacred"), and to what degree is it open to artistic forms that are more "popular" (and thus perhaps "secular"), for lack of a better word?

Alan Thomas wrote:
: (By that definition, I believe that "Evangelical" means the same thing as "Christian" as I can't imagine anyone being a serious, mature, Christian without that desire.)

Well, if the whole point of words is to help us distinguish between things, then this definition isn't very helpful -- especially since the article that kicked off this thread uses a very specific and Protestant ("...Reformation doctrine...") definition of "Evangelical". (I would be open to saying that Christians of all stripes can be "evangelical" in a lower-case, adjectival sense, but capital-E "Evangelicals" are a very specific bunch, even if they overlap with other capital-letter categories like "Fundamentalist" or whatever. I vaguely recall SDG making a similar point in another thread some months or years ago.)

coltrane wrote:
: (And yeah, Peter, I am poking my nose around Eastern Orthodoxy again)

Wow, cool (if I can say that).

Interestingly, one of the things that delayed my own conversion to Orthodoxy was my uncertainty about the Eastern church's relationship to Western modes of thought with regard to the arts and sciences -- fields that I value very highly. (The Greek Orthodox Church -- don't know about the other national churches -- reportedly forbids actors from becoming priests; if the Roman Catholic Church had taken a similar line, they would have missed out on one of their best popes, John Paul II.) So when I say "Wow, cool", I hope I don't sound triumphalist or anything. I know that there can be "issues" there.

I don't agree with the idea of a sacred/secular distinction in the arts, nor do I think in "fine arts" vs. "entertainment" categories (good luck with those definitions). So it's all fair game to me. I'm interested in sacred/secular fine art/entertainment that is creative, that tells the truth (sometimes about unpleasant things), and that nourishes my idiosyncratic, very individual soul. Any overarching aesthetic that leaves room for Mozart's Great Mass in C Minor and Bruce Springsteen's "Thunder Road" is fine with me. If it doesn't, I have little use for it.

For what it's worth, I've been immersed in the world of Renaissance art as I prepare for my upcoming trip to Italy. I'm looking forward to seeing Raphael's Madonnas hanging next to his scenes from pagan mythology in the Vatican. Those Popes have been an inconsistent bunch, but in terms of a theory of aesthetics, they got it exactly right.

Andy Whitman wrote:
: I don't agree with the idea of a sacred/secular distinction in the arts . . .

That isn't quite what I said, but I personally have no trouble whatsoever acknowledging that certain artforms and artworks are more conducive to worship and others aren't. It may or may not be going too far to say that musical instruments should not be allowed in church, for example, so there may be some room to negotiate where that line is drawn. But that there CAN be a line, and even SHOULD be a line, makes perfect sense to me. (The term "a cappella", incidentally, means "the way we sing in church", i.e. without instruments.)

: . . . nor do I think in "fine arts" vs. "entertainment" categories (good luck with those definitions).

Fine. But when people come to the defense of "art", what do they usually mean? The point I was hinting at in my previous post is that Christians who defend "art" seem to gravitate towards "fine art" for its transcendent qualities in a way that roughly parallels the Church's historic gravitation towards the "sacred" over the "secular". You can get a lot of respect among such Christians for saying that you're a fan of Robert Bresson and Terrence Malick. Maybe not so much respect for saying that you're a fan of Paul Verhoeven and Mel Gibson. Certainly none for saying that you're a fan of Ron Howard and Michael Bay.

: So it's all fair game to me. I'm interested in sacred/secular fine art/entertainment that is creative, that tells the truth (sometimes about unpleasant things), and that nourishes my idiosyncratic, very individual soul.

Hmmm. Not sure what to do with this emphasis on the idiosyncratic soul. Outside the sanctuary, I'm all for it. Inside, not so much. In church and in worship, our focus is on God, not on ourselves.

But I guess we may need to clarify what we mean when we talk about "the Church" and its "esteem" for "the arts". WITHIN the sanctuary, the Church has historically worked within certain limits (though there has been some loosening up in the West over the last several centuries, in all directions, some more ill-advised than others). OUTSIDE the sanctuary, I don't know. Do we mean that Christians enjoyed playing their musical instruments and singing folk songs etc. when they weren't at church? Or is that too weak an understanding of "the Church" and its "esteem"?

We've gone over this before, more than once, and we're still going to disagree. So I'm going to pass on the whole "how should we worship?" topic.

But I don't think anyone in this discussion has been thinking in terms of "sacred" art. We started off with a well-meaning professor stating that evangelicals don't create very good art, and contrasting evangelical art with excellent art as represented by the works of Flannery O'Connor. Surely Flannery O'Connor wasn't writing for the sanctuary. And certainly everything that I've written in this topic has had a much broader view of the arts in mind.


I assume that when people come to the defense of art, they have the usual suspects in mind -- music, painting, sculpture, literature, dance, photography, film, architecture, theater. That's certainly the broader context I've had in view throughout this discussion. And although I think a knowledge of the "fine arts" is worthwhile in terms of being an educated human being, in practice I find little value in such distinctions because they're usually driven by the kind of cultural snobbery that values, say, Mozart over Bruce Springsteen. And if we're going to toss around terms like "transcendence," then I find that Wolfy and Brooooce have created equally transcendent works.


Again, I'm not talking about art inside the sanctuary, and I'm using the term in its broader context.

It seems to me that to esteem art is to start with the basic assumption that art -- the creation of it, the support of it in terms of time and money -- is worthwhile in and of itself. It is not utilitarian, it does not serve propagandistic purposes, and it may be worthwhile and beautiful even when it expresses a worldview that one does not agree with. To esteem art is to pay attention to it, to view it as an important pursuit during one's free time, as a viable and respectable career, and to spend money on it and the people who create it. To esteem art is to talk about it with others, to share those moments of transcendence that may come from W.A. Mozart or Bruce Springsteen. And to esteem art, from a Christian standpoint, is to see the hand of God in the creative process, to recognize a gracious God who allows incredible beauty to flow from very broken vessels.

And this is yet again why I don't like the "sacred" vs. "secular" distinction. Most evangelical art is horrible precisely because it tries very hard to be "sacred." It is utilitarian, with the goal of winning souls, and it is propagandistic in the extreme. What the world needs, certainly outside the sanctuary, is less sacred art, and more Christians who are committed to creating beauty for its own sake, and who recognize that they serve and honor God when they do so.

Andy Whitman wrote:
: We've gone over this before, more than once, and we're still going to disagree. So I'm going to pass on the whole "how should we worship?" topic.

Fair enough; I have no interest in that question here either. But I do think worship should be different from, y'know, a concert.

: But I don't think anyone in this discussion has been thinking in terms of "sacred" art.

Neither was I, until you appealed to the Church's historic "esteem" for the arts. I am aware of certain roles that art has played within the Church on a "sacred" level, but I am not so sure that the Church has ever been all that directly involved in "secular" art.

: It seems to me that to esteem art is to start with the basic assumption that art -- the creation of it, the support of it in terms of time and money -- is worthwhile in and of itself. It is not utilitarian, it does not serve propagandistic purposes, and it may be worthwhile and beautiful even when it expresses a worldview that one does not agree with.

Can you point to specific examples from across Church history when the Church has "esteemed" works that did NOT serve propagandistic purposes, or works that DID express worldviews that the Church did not agree with?

FWIW, I am aware that some Church Fathers spoke of the value that could be had from studying the literature of Homer. But Homer was a pagan who lived centuries before the Church even got off the ground. That's not quite the same thing as "esteeming" a pagan poet or musician or thespian who lives in the here and now and creates art that disagrees with an existing Christian worldview. But I suppose there may be some sort of precedent there.

: And this is yet again why I don't like the "sacred" vs. "secular" distinction.

I think it's absolutely essential, though I can see why a non-sacramental approach to the faith would take that view. The key point I would make here is that we do not need to set "sacred" and "secular" against each other, the way many evangelicals have, alas, historically done. The "sacred" simply focuses our connection with God in a way that the "secular" does not. All bread is good, but not all bread can be the Body of Christ.

: Most evangelical art is horrible precisely because it tries very hard to be "sacred."

Or, rather, perhaps, because it has an impoverished view of what it means to be "sacred", and of how the "sacred" and the "secular" relate.

Sure. The Vatican Museum is full of such works -- literally hundreds of paintings and sculptures that have nothing to do with the Christian faith and its pictorial representation. Artists such as Raphael and Titian alternated between Madonnas and scenes from pagan mythology. And the Popes were happy to finance both, and hang them on their walls.