The Church as Culture

[Jazman]

What do you offer as alternative?

I was away for a few days and so I'm late with a reply. I love the question! It's been on my mind for days now. Here are a few things that I think we should be doing in public, in our religious gatherings. I think these things would disciple us towards a place of appreciation and practice in the creatives. Individually some of this probably happens already and in some areas, collectively, but I think it takes some sustained, habitual corporate practice to re-shape a community tendencies. So that's why I offer these this way.

• just read poetry without commentary - read long passages of the Bible's poetry, in public, without commentary (yes, even Song of Solomon...) - bring some liturgy or liturgy-lite to your gatherings, read it with drama, expression, emotion! Give the readings or listening some artistic edge... pair it with some classical guitar or harp or piano...

• public playing or listening to instrumental music... no commentary. Bask in the best sounds/harmonies human hands by the power of the Spirit, can produce.

• show and teach that all things are sacred... (except sinful actions of course). Undermine the false sacred/secular divide that we tend to erect... Planting seeds, weeding, eating homemade ice cream (or Fox Meadows ice cream with family/friends), mowing/baling the hay, harvesting honey, biking the trail, cherry pie at the family reunion, talking about astronomy with the homeless guy and on and on and on... are as Spiritual/Sacred as being at church and doing religious things like praying or singing a hymn or teaching SundaySchool... Do the birds sing Jesus' name in English? No, they do not. Yet, what they do is sacred. Speaking for just my church circle, I believe if we had more of this understanding, we would be able to better appreciate, better learn from AND create art of all kinds

• encourage the gifted to aim high (for the hard things, the monumental... the hard road and not the easy utilitarian path or encourage both (one for making a living, one for the sheer joy and challenge of creativity and craftsmanship etc. Be careful about saying to childen/youth that they need to only focus on making the 'practical' or the on-the-nose 'witnessing' product. Let them create, even if it has no immediate practical or didactic end...

• our education (schooling and church edu) should teach, mention, use for life examples the recognized great artists of all time (Bach, Milton, Rembrandt, and many others. Tell their stories, why they made the masterpieces they did - many of those had religious or Christian motivations).

• people with wealth should feel encouraged to be a patron of the art their community makes - I think this can be a God honoring/community honoring wealth "transfer" - a way to balance things a bit between the financially successful and the starving artists (or similar vocations). I think there's probably some of this happening already, but we Mennos tend to be stingy and only want to spend on 'practical' things... But maybe there would be more excellence in art in our community if there was more of an atmosphere of financial support from those who have the means? (I realize too, as someone mentioned earlier, that this can easily slide into status signaling/pride by those with said means... but I'd be willing to settle for that challenge rather than the barrenness that we might have now...

• brighten our meeting places with some real art (beyond the lobby look of carpet, curtains, end tables, light fixtures, etc) Or, if you're planting a church / moving location etc - find that little old mainline building with the steeple and stained glass and bring that dying beauty back to life!

Some of you, like Boot with his list and PeterG with his musings have been hitting some of these notes already. In the area of music, I think many conservative Anabaptists are nailing a high C of excellence with their continued investment in choral music and now even orchestral. I'm really excited by that and also grateful, because it means my church culture won't be able to kill off the best sacred music genres like it seems bent on doing... (I was listening to our local ccm station and they were playing some remake of "It is well with my soul..." Inebriated elephants could make a more joyful, pleasing sound than how whoever was violently violating that wonderful hymn - with their mashed-up off-rhythm, discordant notes, ghastly non-harmonizing in the name of "new!" It felt nearly blasphemous... and I assume most of the young people at my church have heard that and probably think that's what good art is...)
My community (acculturated, low-church protestant with a charismatic sheen) - except for a few individuals here and there or the few kids learning piano or other random instrument (through public school or secular music entity because the evangelical christian schools can't/won't do much more beyond teaching bucket banging and strumming guitars to off-the-wall choruses - is profoundly failing in this area imo... For most of us, it feels like the height of public creativity doesn't go beyond didactic comedic sermons imitating megachurchy sermonizing and/or music that's imitating/regurgitating off-the-wall megachurch/evangelical radio stage music... Imo it's excruciatingly barren and frankly embarrassing...
I hope for better in the future; I am trying to do small things to push / nudge, but Barnhart, your question hits a nerve too!

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I have been slowly taking time to fully read the article posted at the beginning of the thread. I found one paragraph that sums up some things I am sympathetic towards, and which better articulates what I was trying to say earlier.

The church is always and everywhere called to receive from the world the many blessings bestowed upon it by God. For God is the universal Creator; the world he created is good; and he alone is Lord of all peoples and thus of all cultures. As it is written, “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (Jam 1:17). Or as the popular proverb goes, “All truth is God’s truth.” Which means that all good is God’s good and all beauty is God’s beauty. This means not only that the church will find much gold among the Egyptians. It means further that some such gold will be genuinely new to the church. Put plainly, the world is full of vital knowledge and priceless artifacts that in no way have their source in Christian faith (though their ultimate source is in Christ, as St. Paul teaches). Believers ought never to be naïve or uncritical, but in such cases the only thing to do is stretch out one’s hands in humble reception, before giving thanks to God.

I think the topic got off on a trail about creating culture (we talked a lot about anabaptist composers and potters), but what I was getting at was closer to just appreciating culture. I think this paragraph articulates well what I was trying to say, in that I am sympathetic to the idea that much truth and beauty is discovered and created by those who bear the image of God, whether they have bowed the knee to Christ or not. The fundamentalist stance seems to wholly reject this very thought, and it's hard to even talk about finding a middle ground.

For example, I wouldn't wholly affirm everything said in the above paragraph. I like an added caveat of "chew the meat and spit out the bones" rather than a sentence like "in such cases the only thing to do is stretch out one’s hands in humble reception..." But the middle round of "chew the meat and spit out the bones" isn't one considered in the fundamentalist mindset; the default assumption there is that anything that is discovered or created by anyone other than Christians (and, at that, only certain Christians who meet certain criteria) is all bones, end of discussion. Humans have a lot to say and do and make; they have been doing so since God created them in His image, as mini "creators". Some of what they create is good, some bad, and a lot of it (most of it) is a complicated mix of good and bad.

[Thomas_muntzer]

Coming from evangelical baptists, my instincts pull me towards Christian cultural engagement. "We need more Christian singers/actors/teachers/politicians/etc." is the sentiment there, and although I strongly disagree with that now, my instincts still latch on to SOMEthing in there which is different from the instincts of generational anabaptists.

Something I desire more was encapsulated in that quote:

"the encounter between the Church and any culture will be both appreciative and polemical."

I like this. I feel that I bring a lot of "appreciative" to my encounters with other culture, but overwhelmingly my brothers and sisters bring "polemical" to the table. I loved not only engaging in, but thinking about writing about, studying, and overall "deeply appreciating" a lot of things that most conservative anabaptist churches would dismiss as "worldly": movies, books, television, and especially video games.

I feel this way especially in any creative field; less so in fields of governance, politics, etc. I think the Kingdom is essentially a political reality, and we ought not to let other ideas of politics influence our idea of the Kingdom too much. But even there, I have appreciation for some traditions of political ideology. I had a long discussion with someone who had a lot of interest and questions about Kingdom Christianity because he was an anarchist, and I wouldn't have been able to engage with him as deeply if I wasn't an anarchist myself.

Regarding the prohibition of playing musical instruments or listening to any kind of music in some conservative Mennonite churches, I have always considered that they go against the word of God (Psalm 150 and 147). I believe that Christians should not renounce art in all its forms because when we do so, we give space to the enemy to occupy those places and shape the tastes of children and adolescents

[JayP]

When discussions of church and culture arise I am often reminded of an experience I had at the Phila Mueum of Art.
I am a big fan of the Turner Annunciation painting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annunciation_(Tanner)

I was looking at it while a teacher was talking about it to her class. About this technique, and the importance of Turner being African American, etc. etc.
Everything EXCEPT what the paint is actually about.

[Jazman]

I have been slowly taking time to fully read the article posted at the beginning of the thread. I found one paragraph that sums up some things I am sympathetic towards, and which better articulates what I was trying to say earlier.

The church is always and everywhere called to receive from the world the many blessings bestowed upon it by God. For God is the universal Creator; the world he created is good; and he alone is Lord of all peoples and thus of all cultures. As it is written, “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (Jam 1:17). Or as the popular proverb goes, “All truth is God’s truth.” Which means that all good is God’s good and all beauty is God’s beauty. This means not only that the church will find much gold among the Egyptians. It means further that some such gold will be genuinely new to the church. Put plainly, the world is full of vital knowledge and priceless artifacts that in no way have their source in Christian faith (though their ultimate source is in Christ, as St. Paul teaches). Believers ought never to be naïve or uncritical, but in such cases the only thing to do is stretch out one’s hands in humble reception, before giving thanks to God.

I think the topic got off on a trail about creating culture (we talked a lot about anabaptist composers and potters), but what I was getting at was closer to just appreciating culture. I think this paragraph articulates well what I was trying to say, in that I am sympathetic to the idea that much truth and beauty is discovered and created by those who bear the image of God, whether they have bowed the knee to Christ or not. The fundamentalist stance seems to wholly reject this very thought, and it's hard to even talk about finding a middle ground.

For example, I wouldn't wholly affirm everything said in the above paragraph. I like an added caveat of "chew the meat and spit out the bones" rather than a sentence like "in such cases the only thing to do is stretch out one’s hands in humble reception..." But the middle round of "chew the meat and spit out the bones" isn't one considered in the fundamentalist mindset; the default assumption there is that anything that is discovered or created by anyone other than Christians (and, at that, only certain Christians who meet certain criteria) is all bones, end of discussion. Humans have a lot to say and do and make; they have been doing so since God created them in His image, as mini "creators". Some of what they create is good, some bad, and a lot of it (most of it) is a complicated mix of good and bad.

Love this. thanks If I may, I would like to save this to quote sometime. I think this sums up both a wise way to deal with the issue and a tendency to avoid.

[Robert]

Regarding the prohibition of playing musical instruments or listening to any kind of music in some conservative Mennonite churches, I have always considered that they go against the word of God (Psalm 150 and 147). I believe that Christians should not renounce art in all its forms because when we do so, we give space to the enemy to occupy those places and shape the tastes of children and adolescents

Expression of art is a very human thing. Glorifying it is also.

Faith can be expressed through art. It can also be lost in it as the art form begins to dominate the message.

Our purpose as followers of Jesus is to glorify the Creator not the creator or created.

[Thomas_muntzer]

Expression of art is a very human thing. Glorifying it is also.

Faith can be expressed through art. It can also be lost in it as the art form begins to dominate the message.

Our purpose as followers of Jesus is to glorify the Creator not the creator or created.

Yes, I fully understand and support your position. Art can generate vanity in the artist and have a negative impact, diverting us from the purpose of advancing Christ's kingdom. However, the extreme measures taken by some very conservative churches, such as prohibiting the playing of musical instruments inside the home, seem excessive to me

[JohnH]

It’s interesting to see passively listening to prerecorded “music” purveyed as somehow “the arts”.

Perhaps next dining at a McDonald’s drive thru will be described as being an epicurean.

[JayP]

While entitled to your opinion John it is just that…your opinion.


I neither endorse nor condemn the common anabaptist positions of rejecting art, music, etc.
But yes, I find listening to Noght on Bald Mountain or the 18212 Overture on a record to be art.

And given that I am far from alone, don’t be so condemning. What makes your view correct?

I remember a discussion with an Eastern minister that felt reading a Shakespeare play was acceptable but not seeing one.
Now, again, I understand the position against theatre and accepted it when a member.
Nor do I condemn groups that set such a standard.

But a written play is just that. A written list of dialogue, and not the whole work of art.

Another thread discussing the degree of confidence we can (or cannot ) have in terms of our salvation.
I ponder many things, but I suspect someone having attended a performance of MacBeth is not the deal breaker.

I believe the bard is second to the Bible in revealing human nature and the human condition.

[Bootstrap]

Back to the OP, in light of the discussion along the way ...

Before we talk about "church and culture," maybe we should pause and ask what we mean by those words.

1) The Church
It could mean:

• The whole body of Christ across time and space.
• Local congregations in real places.
• Institutions like denominations, schools, and agencies.
• Or the Church as a culture of its own, formed by worship, teaching, and shared practices.

2) Culture
It could mean:

• Everyday ways of life — families, work, habits.
• High culture — art, media, universities.
• Institutions — government, law, business.
• The "air we breathe" without noticing: our language, emotions, and assumptions. We do not usually stop speaking English and start speaking Hebrew or Deitsch when we become Christians — but we do begin to learn a new accent, new desires, and new instincts inside whatever language and setting we live in.

A simple grid
When we live as the Church within any culture, we can only speak and act using that culture’s tools — its language, symbols, emotions, and institutions. The question is whether we simply mirror them, or let Christ reshape them so they carry something new.

• Receive — take what is truly good as a gift from God.
• Redeem — reshape the tools of the culture to serve Christ.
• Resist — refuse what leads away from love and life.

In our own communities, what should we receive, what can we redeem, and what must we resist? Which parts of our culture are the common language we use to reach out to others? Which definitions of Church and Culture are most useful for thinking clearly about this?