Performing Arts, Big Business, Pride, Worldliness

[seeking-artist]

Except that the fact that plain Anabaptists are struggling in the area of big business, big houses, etc. has been repeatedly proposed as an excuse for why it's OK to start slipping in other area

That assumes that pursuing more music constitutes "slipping," which is certainly up for debate. While there may be some Anabaptist pockets that are opposed to wealth and business, in many cases they are in fact the wealthy in the land. Yet even in these cases, musical performance and higher education can be discouraged, with the rationale that it would promote pride. But how is this consistent considering the activities that are allowed that arguably violate the simplicity principle significantly more? That's the question I was trying to ask that prompted Ernie to start his thread.

[Ernie]

For Plain Anabaptists, the principled objection is that performance art generally fosters pride and a love for the world.

Many Non-Plain Anabaptists believe the opposite is true and they have been "figuring out how to make it work in their communities" since about 1850.

The argument against "pride and a love for the world" is the go-to for basically anything Plain Anabaptists don't like, though. What actually warrants performing arts being put in this category? If playing an instrument in public is a demonstration of pride, how come running a large business isn't seem the same way? Etc.

I and many others think both are the same! There are many of us Plain Anabaptists who thing Christians should avoid showy, luxurious, earthly distracting things of any kind.
And we feel that big business is typically a spiritual detriment for the business owner and the descendants.

In fact, there are so many of us that believe this and teach this that we have such a thing today as a Plain Anabaptist movement.

[Ernie]

But how is this consistent considering the activities that are allowed that arguably violate the simplicity principle significantly more?

It's not consistent. Many Plain Anabaptists are alarmed at these inconsistencies and are speaking up about it. You might not hear it in the settings where you circulate but it is alive and well.

[seeking-artist]

But how is this consistent considering the activities that are allowed that arguably violate the simplicity principle significantly more?

It's not consistent. Many Plain Anabaptists are alarmed at these inconsistencies and are speaking up about it. You might not hear it in the settings where you circulate but it is alive and well.

Fair enough. I can respect consistency. Is it your view that the performing arts violate biblical commands against pride, or at least run a definite risk? Obviously one can be prideful within performing arts, but is it seen as something inherent in the art itself?

[MattY]

Probably no surprise but I agree with Seeking-Artist. Big business, big houses, big cabins, big vehicles don't seem to be problematic, in fact, they are often seen as evidence of God's blessing. And indeed perhaps they are. From my point of view, so is art. Conrad Fisher's music, blues scales, folk music, the afore mentioned tin pan alley, jazz, bluegrass, southern, southern gospel, Baroque, opera, musical theater...everyone from Oasis, Gershwin to Billy Strings to Bono, to R Stanley, to Steve Green, to Phil Keaggy to Forest Frank, to Pavarotti, to Johnny Cash, to Bob Marley, to the Edwin Hawkins singers, to Lyrica Sacra, to Lauren Daigle, to Harmonia Sacra, to congregational singing, to singing in old people's homes (and all the ones in between) have been "God's blessing" for me on occasion.

The more art the more I am able to live a full and enriched life.

I don't doubt your perception but I for one don't believe that the end justifies the means.

In what way do you see joshuabgood as advocating an "end justifies the means" ethic in this post?

[Ernie]

But how is this consistent considering the activities that are allowed that arguably violate the simplicity principle significantly more?

It's not consistent. Many Plain Anabaptists are alarmed at these inconsistencies and are speaking up about it. You might not hear it in the settings where you circulate but it is alive and well.

Fair enough. I can respect consistency. Is it your view that the performing arts violate biblical commands against pride, or at least run a definite risk? Obviously one can be prideful within performing arts, but is it seen as something inherent in the art itself?

Not inherently prideful. But run a definite risk. I think most people fail.

It is hard for rich people to make it to heaven.
I think it is hard for performing artists to make it there as well.

It is hard for anyone to get to heaven but some things make it even harder.

[seeking-artist]

Not inherently prideful. But run a definite risk. I think most people fail.

It is hard for rich people to make it to heaven.
I think it is hard for performing artists to make it there as well.

It is hard for anyone to get to heaven but some things make it even harder.

So what do people spend their time doing in your community? Working but giving most of their money away? Community service? Evangelism and missions? I'm just trying to place where you are.

[Ernie]

Probably no surprise but I agree with Seeking-Artist. Big business, big houses, big cabins, big vehicles don't seem to be problematic, in fact, they are often seen as evidence of God's blessing. And indeed perhaps they are. From my point of view, so is art. Conrad Fisher's music, blues scales, folk music, the afore mentioned tin pan alley, jazz, bluegrass, southern, southern gospel, Baroque, opera, musical theater...everyone from Oasis, Gershwin to Billy Strings to Bono, to R Stanley, to Steve Green, to Phil Keaggy to Forest Frank, to Pavarotti, to Johnny Cash, to Bob Marley, to the Edwin Hawkins singers, to Lyrica Sacra, to Lauren Daigle, to Harmonia Sacra, to congregational singing, to singing in old people's homes (and all the ones in between) have been "God's blessing" for me on occasion.

The more art the more I am able to live a full and enriched life.

I don't doubt your perception but I for one don't believe that the end justifies the means.

In what way do you see joshuabgood as advocating an "end justifies the means" ethic in this post?

Just because Josh feels like all these things have enabled him to live a full and enriched life, doesn't necessarily mean that this is how God intended for him to experience a full and enriched life.

Jesus being killed by the Jews and Romans made it possible for me to have salvation but that doesn't mean that it was right for them to kill him.

A person may get converted at a rock concert but IMO that doesn't mean that God intends for people to have rock concerts and for people to learn about Jesus at such places. (This could be true for getting converted at a symphony as well.)
People tend to cherish the places where they got converted and they keep going to such places to get more of what they experienced. Maybe God wants people to get converted at churches or at places where people are following his commands and principles so that they have a good foundation on which to build their Christian lives.

[Ernie]

Not inherently prideful. But run a definite risk. I think most people fail.

It is hard for rich people to make it to heaven.
I think it is hard for performing artists to make it there as well.

It is hard for anyone to get to heaven but some things make it even harder.

So what do people spend their time doing in your community? Working but giving most of their money away? Community service? Evangelism and missions? I'm just trying to place where you are.

Yes, all of those.

[seeking-artist]

Yes, all of those.

So a couple quick thoughts. First, as I alluded to earlier, I'm not sure what the perceived failure rates of those who pursue a creative career means. There is a possibility that they haven't failed at all, only their actions are perceived as failure within a certain cultural context without violating anything biblically. But it's also quite likely that they have indeed failed, only their pursuit of an artistic career forced them to be at odds with their community, and as their community fragmented, other things went wrong in their lives. I think it should be at least considered that these failure rates--merely perceived or actual--might not prove much.

Second, I wonder about how pride is understood. Sure, a talented virtuoso on stage can swell with pride at his/her own talent. But so can literally anyone, including a faithful conservative church goer who feels superior because of his personal habits. When performing arts are seen as somehow inherently promoting pride, I wonder if we are misunderstanding pride. Why focus on the potential pride that can come from the arts specifically?