We already know that the world will mock, scorn, and laugh at Christians for their seemingly foolish beliefs. I’m ok with that.
We will never be considered to be the intellectual and sophisticated darlings of any age. I’m ok with that.
But do we have to make it so easy for an unbelieving (or believing community, for that matter) world to explode into fits of giggles at our “serious” attempts at cinema?
C Me Dance:
Praise Band: The Movie
Our book group recently finished discussing Paradise Lost by John Milton. It was a fascinating read on many levels. One discussion thread that repeated itself was the issue of problems that arise when God is in the cast of characters.
Any time you set about to describe the ways of God to man in a story, film, hymn, poem or whatever, you inherit some problems. Since God can’t be completely comprehended, he cannot be fully communicated. That’s why metaphors in hymns/songs and descriptions in stories can be confusing; they simply cannot show all of God or even a complete picture of a single attribute. Any of these must be hung against the backdrop of Scripture to be judged as consistent/accurate relating to God.
In the case of Milton, his purpose was, in his words, to “justify the ways of God to man”… Well, the 8-ball is cast directly in front of Milton, as the assumption is that Milton knows God’s ways and can communicate them. Taken to conclusion, this could, in some minds, eliminate or diminish the role of Scripture in the Christian’s life. Granted it was in the late 1600s when Milton wrote and people were learning to read and acquiring their own copies of Scripture (en masse) for the first time. So, I understand the didactic concept involved in culture.
While I tend to see what Milton wrote as generally more consistent with, and reverential of, Scripture, the problem he has is the same one that modern film & novel writers have:
“What would God say in situation X?” Since humans are doing the writing, they fill in the blanks of God’s verbage.
Even as cautious as Milton was, there are many questions in his work. However, looking at portrayals of God by George Burns, Morgan Freeman, etc. and the pithy little black & white Quotation by God books & billboards- I’ll take Milton.
There’s often a problem whenever someone says “God told me……” in a real life, experiential situation.
The problem is a different one, but just as real and sometimes more powerful when someone says in print or in character: “God said….”
What say ye?
Today is my last day of vacation at the beach. Yesterday afternoon I was sitting on the balcony at sunset and watching the waves crash in on the shore and I began to contemplate how beautiful God’s creation is.
Jeff Miller frequently talks about human creativity as being one of those ways in which we’re made in God’s image, which is all very true. But, as I continued to think about God and creativity there on the balcony, it occurred to me that we humans don’t really grasp the immensity and consequences of God’s creativity very much. And I think it’s because we can’t really imagine the nothingness out of which God created all that we see.
For example, most all of us can look at a beach and marvel that God would create something so beautiful. But it goes so much deeper than that. There was no rule book that said that God had to use water in his earth. He simply decided to do so. There was nothing that required God to separate night from day, and to put a light in each. (The full moon over the water has been absolutely stunning this week.) Neither was there anything that said that God had to make the waves move, that there had to be dry land, sand, etc., etc. etc. All of these beautiful things that I’ve been enjoying this week are purely the product of God’s creativity. Isn’t the idea that God could come up with the physical world in which we live mind-boggling?
After considering that, what we refer to as God’s “common grace” - the sun shining and the rain falling on the good and the wicked - doesn’t really seem so common, does it?
I had mentioned in the May Salt & Light that I would post some of the content of my article on Riverblog for discussion.
Here it is, feel free to jump in!
(Greg Wilbur recently posted the following quotation on his blog. If you have opportunity, visit his site, you will find it most enjoyable and full of sound content.)
“People ask what are my intentions with my films — my aims. It is a difficult and dangerous question, and I usually give an evasive answer: I try to tell the truth about the human condition, the truth as I see it. This answer seems to satisfy everyone, but it is not quite correct. I prefer to describe what I would like my aim to be. There is an old story of how the cathedral of Chartres was struck by lightning and burned to the ground. Then thousands of people came from all points of the compass, like a giant procession of ants, and together they began to rebuild the cathedral on its old site. They worked until the building was completed — master builders, artists, labourers, clowns, noblemen, priests, burghers. But they all remained anonymous, and no one knows to this day who built the cathedral of Chartres. Regardless of my own beliefs and my own doubts, which are unimportant in this connection, it is my opinion that art lost its basic creative drive the moment it was separated from worship. It severed an umbilical cord and now lives its own sterile life, generating and degenerating itself. In former days the artist remained unknown and his work was to the glory of God. He lived and died without being more or less important than other artisans; ‘eternal values,’ ‘immortality’ and ‘masterpiece’ were terms not applicable in his case. The ability to create was a gift. In such a world flourished invulnerable assurance and natural humility. Today the individual has become the highest form and the greatest bane of artistic creation. The smallest wound or pain of the ego is examined under a microscope as if it were of eternal importance. The artist considers his isolation, his subjectivity, his individualism almost holy. Thus we finally gather in one large pen, where we stand and bleat about our loneliness without listening to each other and without realizing that we are smothering each other to death. The individualists stare into each other’s eyes and yet deny the existence of each other. We walk in circles, so limited by our own anxieties that we can no longer distinguish between true and false, between the gangster’s whim and the purest ideal. Thus if I am asked what I would like the general purpose of my films to be, I would reply that I want to be one of the artists in the cathedral on the great plain. I want to make a dragon’s head, an angel, a devil — or perhaps a saint — out of stone. It does not matter which; it is the sense of satisfaction that counts. Regardless of whether I believe or not, whether I am a Christian or not, I would play my part in the collective building of the cathedral.”
Ingmar Bergman, Swedish film director who passed away in 2007. From: Four Screenplays of Ingmar Bergman, Simon and Schuster, 1960, Introduction.
This is full of many possible points of discussion. Here are some possible ‘jumping off’ points:
1) The idea of a long-term, artisan/master builder cathedral construction is so foreign to our 21st century American mind. We want results and we want them now. One reason for that is so that way we can go on to the next project, and the next, etc. until we realize that our projects have become consumable commodities.
2) Performers/celebrities have drained (generally) any notion of or attempt at transcendent beauty that otherwise be associated with an artistic endeavor.
3) The segment beginning “The smallest wound…” and ending with “…deny the existence of each other…” is so spot-on as to be immune to any commentary from me.
4) When did art separate itself from worship? Is this what has led to much of the art which has caused difficulty for Christians in the last 100 years or so?
5) Is it beneficial (for either party) for the church to employ/utilize the skill of people regardless of their belief system? That is to say is it good to have a policy by which we (either as individuals or a body) only support other Christians, even if their work is inferior?
6) Nowadays, we would tend to eye the non believer who wanted to help build our cathedral (to stay with that analogy) with much skepticism. While that is understandable on a human level, is there any precept from the Bible about such things?
Feel free to run with any of these, or suggest your own unique ideas spawned from Bergman’s quote.
One of the events I look forward to every Christmas season is the Christmas Festival at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN. It is simply one of the finest presentations of Advent and Christmas music in the country. It was designed as a worship service and employs several different choirs, orchestra and wind ensemble. The recordings are available from St. Olaf’s site, for any interested.
This year’s concert can be heard here. I would encourage any who enjoy quality music- especially seasonal music- to check this out.
A writer friend of mine sent me a poem by Jack Gilbert entitled “Failing and Flying.” This person told me that this was a poem to “savor.” Read on:
Jack Gilbert: Winner of the National Book Critics Award for Refusing Heaven (2005), published in The New Yorker, and winner of the Guggenheim Fellowship. All of these accolades point to critical acclaim and acceptance in the collegial club of Fine Literature. Additionally, this exclusive membership assumes and that good clear thinking has accompanied Gilbert’s creativity, thus, making Gilbert an “intellectual,” as well.
Needless to say, I was bothered by Gilbert’s poem. Yes, it was beautifully written, but it was devoid of coherent thought. Gilbert confused descriptive and romantic prose with good thinking. At first glance, an unwitting reader could sigh and say, “I never thought of it that way; how romantic and tragic!…maybe Icarus had succeeded on some level.” But this ignores some of the cold un-descriptive facts: Icarus did not heed instruction; he aspired to ascend to the gods, and consequently, Icarus descended beneath the waves—dead, failed, and definitely not flying.
Writing is powerful. And one could argue, that creative writing can be even more powerful. However, powerful and creative writing does not guarantee that it makes sense. I can beautifully describe illogical thought, yet, creatively rendered writing:
Regardless of the sensational romantic images that were conjured up by my silly poem, the poem asserts something completely idiotic: It attempts to slip by your normal defense of common sense by announcing that 2 plus 2 is now 5. Stupidity? Of course. And accompanied by lush, descriptive images— it still remains to be stupidity. Unfortunately, the postmodern mind has placed such an emphasis on experienced sensation, that it has literally lost its mind.
There are good reasons why Icarus isn’t among our pantheon of heroes—it’s because he failed and he is dead. Or maybe let me phrase it this way: After his lungs heaved water inward for the last time, Icarus’ limbs jerked in exasperation, finally resting and pointing to the waning light above.
Just as I was in the process of writing a Salt and Light article about chocolate Easter crosses and such, I ran across this. Now the chocolate crosses at the local grocery seem tame. Check it out…or maybe you’d rather not.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/aponreus/chocolatejesus;ylt=AqAtm8WP.pAx8GGJHdDaNGs0NUE
I was trolling through some back issues of Credenda Agenda recently & came across this article about beauty & the lost concepts of architecture as art. Function and form (like science and religion) are not antithetical, but in proper aspects, exponentially complimentary.
We have developed a very narrow and short sighted view of the arts and aesthetics in our culture. It has devolved to the point that architecture is rarely considered among the arts (neither do the works produced don’t demand artistic discussion of late, but I digress).
The above listed article answers the following questions beautifully:
Q. Why should Christians reflect more upon architecture?
Q. How does an architect begin to think about creativity?
Q. How do you answer the pietistic objection that spending time on architecture is laying up “treasures upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt”?
Q. Are there any distinctive aesthetic values of Protestantism, especially the Reformed tradition, which might shape an architectural style or vision?
Consider these questions & then look at the answers in the article. I’d be interested in seeing what discussion this fosters.
Here is the ‘nutshell quote’ from the concluding section:
We must study His artistic work, the universum itself. Before us lie patterns, rules, and principles of design which spring directly from His manifold perfections. Dorothy Sayers observed “As the mind of the maker has been made manifest in a work, a way of communication is established between our mind and his.” The mind of our Maker is manifest in the creation. When we draw from the ordering principles of the architect of the cosmos, we establish a setting in which beauty can emerge. Alas, these principles have been abandoned in our generation. But our buildings, whether in our cities or countryside must again quake with intimations of God’s great Glory through their magnificent beauty, embodiment of eternal principles in fine proportions, a sublime harmony of parts, and carefully crafted, appropriate materials. These are so deeply rooted in the stunning beauty of the created order, they will either serve God’s purposes for the redemption or condemnation of those who suppress the truth of His eternal nature and power.
Beauty- it’s not just for the museum anymore. It’s required of the imagebearers of God.
Jeff