I said I had some issues with the name “Redeeming The Arts”. Jeni offered up an explanation, but I think I should probably expand on it slightly, just to make things slightly clearer.
Before I start, I should make a couple of important points. Firstly, I’m not arguing against Christians using art as a form of worship or expression or whatever – I’ve seen wonderful pieces of art produced as acts of worship, and I think that’s just as valid a form of praise as jumping up and down and singing “Jesus Love Is Very Very Lovely” or whatever. Secondly, neither do I think that “Christian Art” is necessarily any ‘worse’ than “Secular Art” (although listening to a selection of CDs down in Wesley Owen may colour your opinion on this one somewhat). And thirdly, I’m not claiming that it’s not the case that a lot of art in the world either speaks against Christianity or, far more often, utterly ignores it (whether this is actually a problem or not is something to be considered, certainly in the second case). It’s specifically the use of the word “Redeeming” I have a problem with.
Redemption, in the context of Christianity, (ignoring the arguments about the mechanics of atonement for a moment) basically means something being brought back to God: according to Christian theology, mankind was redeemed through Christ’s death and resurrection on the cross – thus, mankind can now again approach God and be restored in a relationship with Him. Importantly, there is a presupposition of a previous “higher” state for mankind from which he has fallen, and then through the redemptive act he is able to return to this higher state – and thus be considered “redeemed”.
When a Christian talks of “Redeeming the Arts”, therefore, there is the same implicit presupposition that the arts have, in some way, “fallen” and need restoring to God. Now, leaving aside for a moment the dubious arrogance of the idea that, were this the case, they could be redeemed by human work alone (in the context of mankind’s redemption, nothing man could do could possibly bring about his own redemption) I’m not entirely convinced that “art” can be fallen – and therefore, whether it can be redeemed. Is any art produced by a fallen human automatically displeasing to God? Because that’s effectively what is being claimed here.
If we argue, though, that art is human expression and therefore, as it’s a product of mankind and as mankind has fallen, it is also “fallen” or “ungodly” (I really don’t like that word) then surely it is redeemed by exactly the same process as that which redeemed mankind?
I guess what I’m saying is that I have a problem with two things: first of all, the idea that the arts need redeeming at all, and secondly, that if the arts are fallen along with the rest of mankind, whether the works of man can redeem them. So, that’s my piece. Thoughts?
I don’t like the name either, for similar reasons. I only comment here to ask if you’ve read ‘How Shall We Then Live?’ by Francis Schaeffer – it’s superb on the history of science, philosophy, culture and the arts from a Christian perspective.
…there is a presupposition of a previous ‘higher’ state for mankind from which he has fallen, and then through the redemptive act he is able to return to this higher state – and thus be considered ‘redeemed’.
I agree that that is often the presuposion of many ‘bible’ believing christians. This is augustines fault and is not in the bible.
Irenaeus believed that humanity was created in a child like state and that Christ would have to have come anyway to lead us to maturity.
Richard
nayf: No, but a brief google suggests that it might be very interesting. I’m still waiting on a fairly chunky TF Torrance tome that Richard has directed me to, though, so it may have to wait a while.
Richard: That may be the case (and to be fair, you’d know better than I would 🙂 but I think my point still stands irrespective of the presupposition of a pre-existing ‘higher state’, either for the arts or mankind: is redemption of art desirable, necessary or even possible?
If art is the work of man (and I’ll ignore the turtle that paints as I don’t call that art), then it can neither be redeemed by man, nor can it be recognised as needing redemption by man.
In fact the only thing man can do is say that art has fallen to a level below man’s level, and needs to be brought back to man’s level. However this supposes there is a level below man, and that man is in a position to judge, which I don’t think their is or he is (if that makes sense).
Art is merely a reflection of man, so the best one can say, is that if art needs redeeming, it is just reflecting that man needs redeeming, which from what you say is one of the basic tenants of Christianity anyway.
Point taken.<br> Forget what I wrote last time, so no reference to it. Whatever the title of the thing is though, what it is attempting to do surely must be good. I was considering the other day where I might be if I hadn’t been brought up to think that I mustn’t be proud, or ‘blow my own trumpet’ as someone at school once said. <br>Perhaps I would be creating masterpieces with a load of BS to accompany them, and having them displayed in galleries across the country. <br>Maybe I would be selling paintings because I wouldn’t be so scared to promote myself.<br>
RTA has given me a chance to start showing people what I can do, and has encouraged me that actually it’s not something to be ashamed at, the fact that I can paint, or write songs, or sing, or play piano, or bass, or whatever.<br> Whatever I do, I know that I ultimately do it for God’s glory, so it should be of the highest standard I can manage. It’s worship, after all. Eeek. I guess I ought to practise more…
Hi, I just found this on the RtA website, don’t know if you’ve seen it or not. I’ll read it now I’ve linked it in here.