Jon Green

The original post from Jon, I thought, was about art and what role it plays in secular and Christian society. I personally hope it plays no role at all when it comes to expressing thoughts about whether there is a God in Heaven that can not let sin go unpunished or paid for. Two thousand years ago Greeks idolized the nude body in sculpture while Jews covered their heads and wore sac cloth. Today we can put a nude male sculpture in front of a building and call it art and sac cloth is for drugies and hippies. There is no accounting for taste when it comes to art.

But what is more important to you? Is your artistic use of crass words that offend elders more important than the elders themselves? Is your artistic freedom more important to you than their feelings? All that they have stood for and fought for their whole lives means nothing because they just can't keep up with "the new world"? Are they supposed to look the other way when a word they find crass and vulgar is used to artistically relate to the world? Well we have to relate to the world. Yes. But do not assume that the world respects a flippant attitude toward gentle self-control or sacrifice. Standing on the edge of falling into sin seems to be the norm now days and tolerance of diversity is demanded. Just because it is a "new original" artistic way of speaking does not mean a thing for there is nothing new or original under the sun. Well, children might think so if it is the first time they heard daddy laugh and say F you to a buddy or mom laugh at homosexual characters on TV or laugh at profane comedians.

Remember that ideas, cultures, attitudes, diversity, integrity, art, or any other philosophical approach means nothing compared to your very own relationship to the all mighty Creator God and ultimate sacrifice Jesus. We are to be a witness and love God first not second. If the world is attracted to a church because it is relaxed about obscenity then of course they will enjoy that church but when it gets serious they will seek solemn advice and leadership. Be the one that God works through when times get rough. Be the one that stood for something even if it was old fashioned decency......and now a little humor: this ping is brought to you by the Society Of Greyhairs, Grouchies, and some other word starting in Y. SOGGY.

Following Christ is a life long growth experience. The author of a song or the creator of art may look back at their work after a few years of walking with God and wonder "what was I thinking". What we say, what we hear, what we produce, and how we present ourselves changes as we grow with Christ.

Art in its many forms can be used to bring people closer to God. This can be in the form of a band or solo, dance, plays, video, and graphics (oil, watercolor, mixed media, etc). It can really work well when all the pieces fit together to dovetail a particular message. The trouble starts when the art gets bigger than God.

Because we are salt, a lamp - we should appear different to the world. But, since we are still sinners, there will be times when we slip and look just like the world. So as our previous writers stated – it’s not all B&W.


Creative endeavors from a follower of Christ must come from the heart. And who gives us that heart? Jesus. The more you build your relationship with Christ, the more your work will become sacred. It’s very simple really, but oh, so hard to do!

Also, if anyone is really having a hard time with this conversation, I would be happy to discuss it more over coffee.

Great comments folks. I try not to comment too much on the blogs because I see it as a way of promoting conversation between you guys in a new way. However, as per Marylee's request, I will weigh in a little bit.

I believe that this is such an expansive subject, that we cannot possibly come to know what the "right" answer is. However, we can know if we are going in the right direction. I think that the real focus of Sunday mornings should not and cannot be on the forms of art themselves. I think that once we start to place lots of importance on these things, we are on a slippery slope of putting the need for forms above the ability to come to God honestly and thoughtfully. Our focus in the church needs to be firmly and unwaveringly placed in Christ.

I was not able to read the entire article you posted Marylee. However, I would say that the use of the words "objectively good," when we are talking about art forms is dangerous. I believe that Harold Best has the most accurate description of this danger. In summary, his stance is that art is amoral in and of itself and it is the "goodness" of the art-maker and the interpreter which determines its quality. Therefore if a "good" person makes art, a "bad" person can misinterpret it,or a morally "good" person can interpret art created by a morally "bad person. The apostle Paul declares in 1 Corinthians that all things are lawful for use, but not all things are worth using or beneficial. I would say that I agree with Mr. Best. While I would not say that there is nothing at stake morally in art, that morality can only be judged on the personal level, not on the forms themselves. To argue that paint on a piece of canvas mounted to wood carries any sort of moral "goodness" of itself would be like saying that granite is a more "objectively good" rock than sandstone. Also the graphic next to Mr. Veith's article fails to address which one of the men finds the color black to be beautiful, thus illustrating what I mean.

In this discussion, we must remember that God created all things and said they were good. It is man and his disposition to sin that perverts those things.

Now that I've written my thesis...

Reading the responses here it looks to be a bit more lively than in October :)

I think the question that this thread really makes people focus on is "what is acceptable in church?" be it art, music or any form of expression. This is not to dumb down Jons original post of what makes something Christian and what makes it secular; in my mind there is no black and white line and the grey area is very wide on this issue. However, what is acceptable is church may be less grey in that we have a specific goal, and that is to bring people together and serve together for the glory of God.

I believe Courtney and Marylee both had very good points about the view of what is acceptable being in the eye of the beholder, and that what one might find offensive is completely acceptable or even beautiful to another. The issue may be more complicated in that as a Church decides to push the boundary to address the issue, is the offensive content the issue or is it our personal view that we think we know what is right the issue.

Personally I think the church as a whole will always stay more conservative than the sum of its members for the reason that to some people, some content will always be offensive (personal value system). To me is like the saying "its the thought that counts" and I think some people think differently about the more borderline content. As the article Marylee posted mentioned "Beauty does involve personal taste, but our tastes need discipline". So the point is that we need to continual check our view to see if it aligns with what God's definition of beauty is... I can GUESS what that is on an individual basis, but it is not proper for me to ASSUME to know without some reflection and feedback from others. Just my 2 cents and ramblings :)

Since, if we decide to join Grace Fellowship, you will be responsible for the musical content of our worship experience we are very interested in anything which would help us understand your thoughts on the subject of art and culture and the Christian's intergation of them into their worship and life.

The article I am sending was in this weeks "World Magazine" and is written by Gene Edward Veith which probably doesn't mean anything to you but we have been reading his articles for years in "World", which is a Christian News Magazine.

It seems to me that the 3rd paragraph gives somewhat of an answer to your question. "Growing in taste means learning to take pleasure in what is objectively good.

I have been amazed by the secular world of music lately; once when we watched a DVD of Denali and the other when we re-watched "Lord of the Rings". The secular world knows what music denotes majesty and stirs reverence to something or someone bigger than oneself. There is "harmony and unity" in the response to that music. I must admit that I don't know what to think of the present situation.

What are your thoughts?

{Couldn't attach the article image. See http://www.worldmag.com/geneedwardveith }

I think I would agree with Karen's point to the extent that we are exhorted by Paul to refrain from vulgar speech as Christians. However, Paul doesn't say what he means by vulgar. Does he mean don't call people names? Or does he mean to tell us not to drop f-bombs? Also, surely we all can agree that vulgar speech is societally defined not biblically defined. What was considered vulgar speech 100 years ago in Rwanda may not be offensive today in Sweden. If this is the case, then as we talk about language, we must ask the question does our society see the use of the word "hell" as vulgar, and is saying "flipping God the bird"(not actually flipping the bird, we wouldn't want to violate any PITA laws at church) considered vulgar in our society at large. As I read Karen's comment, these are the only things I can recall in the last month to be said in church that could be construed as vulgar. Also, if our society doesn't see them as vulgar, are we under some scriptural mandate not to use non-vulgar idioms to relate to the world around us(tongue placed firmly in cheek)?

I have been attending Grace for two years now. Over the course of the two years I have been attending I have not ever heard profanity, by my definition, spoken from the pulpit (or podium - since we haven't a "pulpit"). As Courtney stated, language is flexible.

The following is probably not the best example, but I will use it anyway. For years I have watched/listened to the comedy of George Carlin. A secular and unsacred linguist in every way. He has a scetch in which he describes the various uses of the "f" word. How over time the usage has changed so that it has become a noun, a verb, an adjective, an explative, etc...he cites at least a hundred different uses of the word showing the flexible nature of the word as it has evolved over time. It hasnt always been an expletive - as with so many other words we made it one over time.

Now, this isnt a word I use, but I do think it is important to the "language" question. While we are called to be in the world but not of the world, we do have to be able to understand the world. And most times, in order to reach the world you have to use the language of the world. It's all about context.

In regards to Jon's post (which I responded to originally) and the following statement on "profanity" from our pulpit:

There are two issues I see at play in Karen Douglas' post. One is that there seems to be an assumption of what profane language is. I don't recall hearing any of our pastoral staff drop the "f" or "sh" words from pulpit. I am certain I would remember that. If it was a more mild word then we fall into the realm of taste rather than what is arguable as prudent dialogue based on scripture.

Another larger issue is one that I see recurring constantly in our little sub-culture is the inability or unwillingness (I'm not sure which, but it's probably both depending on the individual) to accept or admit to the flexible nature of language. It seems many people are hung up on the notion of language as having a fixed set of uses or definitions. And what is considered proper or even meaningful to one generation is not the same for the following generation.
A brief example: Anyone who was a teenager in the late fifties or sixties could attest to the use of the words "cool" and "boss" and the changing nature of their meaning. "Cool" no longer means "cold" and is still in use. "Boss" did not just mean "employer" then but has fallen out of use and slang. It still pretty much means what it always has. We can see that context is important, who is saying it and when and why.
While every language in every culture has words that are considered profanity, it should also be recognized that intention behind the words play a large role. And before anyone accuses me of being fast and loose with the sanctity of language (or the pulpit for that matter) let me just say that as culture changes, we as Christians must be able to adjust accordingly. Chances are just as great that a visitor would find such relaxed approach to language refreshing. In my experience non-church goers are hardly ever bothered by colorful language, so much as they may be surprised based on stereotypes that we ourselves propagate based on inflexible interpretations.

Christians do have principles and must draw lines in the sand over certain issues. As culture shifts we must also constantly address which aspects of our belief are cultural themselves rather that biblical.

I would trust our pastors to know the difference between making a point and seeking to offend and hurt intentionally with language. It is our job to know the difference and act accordingly as well.

Regarding your Blog 1/24/08: We are in the world(secular I presume), not of the
world. I believe this is stated in the Bible
Bible. We cannot live isolated.
However, I believe God has spelled
out a standard He would like us to
observe. Our conduct reflects Him
and as an ambassador of Christ's we need
to reflect His standards. This brings
me to the use of profanity that seems
to be more acceptable to express from
the pulpet(?) in the past month.
We hear this language in the world daily
Church is the last place I expect to
hear profanity.
our walk we try to be prudent to refrain
from such dialog in our daily walk, is
it fair to hear this language from our
church leaders? Does this not bring us down to a secular level. How can we explain
thsi usage to our friends we are try-
ing to be an example to.
I only address this issue in your blog John because you brought this subject up. I
do not recall hearing you us profain expressions.