Performing Arts, Big Business, Pride, Worldliness

[MattY]

I see a big difference between doing something excellently vs. doing something for show. I don't think the two are equatable. And neither do most Plain Anabaptists.

Your wording here ("for show") suggests that there is not much value to what they are doing and that it automatically involves pride, a contention I would contest. Of course there is a difference between doing something primarily to attract attention and doing something very well without seeking attention. But the problem is if a public performance itself is considered as "doing something for show". That's not neutral wording; it normally means doing something ostentatiously to impress people. This can become a circular argument. You may say a public performance is problematic because it's "for show." Why is it for show? Because it's a public performance. The reasoning circles back on itself.

The presence of an audience does not mean that it is "for show" in the pejorative sense. A musician performs for an audience (that's the point of music - it communicates); a preacher speaks in front of a congregation; an artist displays his/her work to guests (i.e. an audience) at a gallery, an art show, etc.; a cabinetmaker or a builder shows photos of his work to prospective customers to evaluate. This doesn't equate to being vain or showy.

Articles have been written about the nature of our work and what it does to us as a person.

Making and selling the most gorgeous kitchen cabinets made of the finest woods available might be "excellence". (That can only be purchased by a few of the most well-to-do.) And it might provide employment for quite a number of households. And the excess income that is generated from such sales might be able to fund a lot of missions.
But what does it do to or do for the people who are involved in the work?

Many have discovered part way through life or at the end of life that the work itself produced an emptiness or a void. They question at some point whether this is really what God intended for human existence on this planet and whether this is really what humans were created for.

In contrast, is the person whose livelihood is meeting a real human need or is contributing to human flourishing. Such folks are more likely to find real value and meaning in their work and feel like their work (not just the proceeds from their work) is a part of God's big plan.

Doctors, nurses, aid workers, ministers, and any number of people who meet a real human need can become burned out, empty, cynical, and questioning their life. That doesn't prove their occupation was meaningless. It has more to do with their perspective on their work, its place in their life (did it become their god?), other people's response to it, the conditions in which they worked, etc. In short, it has much more to do with human fallenness than the value or lack thereof of their work.

I think our deeper disagreement here isn't really about excellence vs. pride anymore. It's about what makes work valuable in the first place. Your argument appears to be separating work into more valuable and less valuable forms - a hierarchy of work. The more directly it meets an identifiable human need or contributes to human flourishing, the more legitimate and valuable it is. My view goes in a different direction. And I think "human flourishing" actually strengthens my case. Things like beauty, music, friendship, scientific discovery, knowledge, and recreation are part of human flourishing. I'm trying to avoid an ascetic dualism that separates the spiritual and the physical and results in Christians being deeply suspicious of beauty and aesthetics because we receive beauty initially through our physical senses. I'm also pushing against identification of beauty with idolatry; idolatry is a problem of the heart, not a problem with beauty itself or with the creation and admiration of beauty. And I'm trying to avoid the modernist separation of the spiritual and the secular, and avoid making "secular" work only valuable insomuch as it provides funding for "spiritual" things like missions and so on.

[joshuabgood]

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.

Maybe it is because of my geography, but I don't see much correlation between "Plain Anabaptism" and an emphasis on keeping business small. I do see "Plain Anabaptists" providing support, education, marketing, HR advice, legal advice, financial backing...etc to the tune of an $800mill operation. Real estate sold and acquired by the Plain community for tens of millions of dollars, etc etc. CEO's/CFO's, even of Plain Anabaptist nonprofits making well into 6 figures, etc. And I don't fault that for the record. In fact I support industry and stewardship of business and community and economy. I am only noting that from my perspective, I don't see Plain Anabaptists in my community really as described above.

[JohnH]

Pursuing excellence in any of these occupations is not fundamentally different than pursuing excellence in music as a classical musician or yes, even producing the best country or contemporary music that I can. Because if I do the best that I can, in whatever occupation I am in, that glorifies God. God is the one who created our abilities to be excellent in music, exceptional in arts, and generally excellent in whatever occupation we have - as part of the creation mandate to fill the earth and subdue it.

The arts most certainly includes things like drawing paintings depicting naked people, burlesque shows, and directing and acting in semi-pornographic movies. I would argue that an exotic dancer is also engaging in performing arts (particularly at the higher levels of skill of such things) and that pornographic movies / pictures itself are a part of the arts and performing arts, both for the photographers involved, actors & actresses, directors, and so forth.

However, i don't think that when people who work in this occupiations try to do things the best they can that they bring much glory to God, and I think I would be united with other plain Anabaptists in feeling like the Christian should avoid such things.

In many cultures applauding is a polite and respectful way of saying thanks for the investment/gift that was made by whoever made it and affirming said gift/ing. Bowing and curtseying are cultural ways of being gracious receiving said thanksgivings with grace.

Thanking people for their investment/gift is appropriate in my view, and from my perspective there are different way of expressing that that are acceptable.

That's nice. Plain Anabaptists are not such a culture, and have decided that we don't do things like clap in church services. I do not understand the relentless push from some to try to turn plain Anabaptists into not-plain-Anabaptists. Aren't there plenty of other church groups to go be a part of if you don't like plain Anabaptism?

But in the modern era, how many occupations can really be fairly summarized as "meeting the needs of mankind"? A significant number of Anabaptists are employed in trades that provide services that are hardly essential. Is this also problematic?

Yes, it is. The fact this is problematic, or that less-plain Anabaptists are struggling in this area, doesn't mean that also allowing problems with the arts is a good idea.

I see a big difference between pursuing a creative career, and pursuing a career "to be seen of men".

I agree...but it assumes an artists desire is "to be seen of men." One could easily assume the same thing about say, a minister, who speaks every Sunday.

I consider a minister who speaks every Sunday to be suspect as well. Plain Anabaptists like having a plural ministry, partly because it reduces manifestations of pride like this. I personally think there should be a large roster of men willing to teach during church services. Obviously, I wouldn't consider it pride if only one person is willing to teach or is qualified (such as being ordained if the congregation feels teachers need to be ordained) to do so.

Maybe it is because of my geography, but I don't see much correlation between "Plain Anabaptism" and an emphasis on keeping business small. I do see "Plain Anabaptists" providing support, education, marketing, HR advice, legal advice, financial backing...etc to the tune of an $800mill operation. Real estate sold and acquired by the Plain community for tens of millions of dollars, etc etc. CEO's, even of Plain Anabaptist nonprofits making well into 6 figures, etc. And I don't fault that for the record. In fact I support industry and stewardship of business and community and economy. I am only noting that from my perspective, I don't see Plain Anabaptists in my community really as described above.

Plainer groups put restrictions on business, and the plainest groups pretty much don't allow accumulation of wealth, having a large, expensive business, or earning a big salary. My own conference is sort of in the middle on that front. If they feel your business is too big and is leading you to pride, you will be expected to sell off part or all of it. They used to expect people not to earn salaries exceeding $100,000, but that changed during COVID, but at this point, someone earning a $1 million salary would be expected to change jobs. (I am not sure where the exact threshold is.)

Amongst a much more traditionalist group than mine, such as certain Swartzentruber groups near me, they don't even want to see young men earning more than $50 a day (this was a few years ago, so the exact dollar amounts may have changed since then). They didn't want to see farms and operations getting over a certain size either. One of the concerns is that in so doing, someone will be tempted to pride in thinking they are better than their brethren who have smaller farms, businesses, or make less money.

Still more groups of plain people go so far as to eliminate private ownership of large businesses and farms, such as the Scottsvile-type Hoovers, who prefer to have their church own their farm grounds and businesses, and then church members are expected to have equal amounts of farm sizes. It is recognised some people are more productive at farming than others; the most productive are expected to help those who are less able. The farm market has people rotate through various jobs so that there is not much variation in wages people are earning. (An allowance might be made for a disabled person to stick to office jobs, though, and their lack of technology does mean there is office work that needs to be done.)

Some groups take it farther and try to own all things in common, although in my experience those groups have not had much emphasis on avoiding owning a great deal of wealth communally speaking.

[joshuabgood]

Plainer groups put restrictions on business, and the plainest groups pretty much don't allow accumulation of wealth, having a large, expensive business, or earning a big salary. My own conference is sort of in the middle on that front. If they feel your business is too big and is leading you to pride, you will be expected to sell off part or all of it. They used to expect people not to earn salaries exceeding $100,000, but that changed during COVID, but at this point, someone earning a $1 million salary would be expected to change jobs. (I am not sure where the exact threshold is.)

Your church, from my perspective, feels atypical of what I think Ernie means by the "Plain Anabaptists." As are the Swartzentruber's.

I think he is referring to the range of folks that would be associated say with CAM or AF.

[joshuabgood]

That's nice. Plain Anabaptists are not such a culture, and have decided that we don't do things like clap in church services. I do not understand the relentless push from some to try to turn plain Anabaptists into not-plain-Anabaptists. Aren't there plenty of other church groups to go be a part of if you don't like plain Anabaptism?

Sure..but perhaps don't also assume it is therefore then about "show" where it exists. If I were attending an ultra church I wouldn't clap after the preacher sits down. In some settings I would...

[seeking-artist]

That's nice. Plain Anabaptists are not such a culture, and have decided that we don't do things like clap in church services. I do not understand the relentless push from some to try to turn plain Anabaptists into not-plain-Anabaptists. Aren't there plenty of other church groups to go be a part of if you don't like plain Anabaptism?

Sure..but perhaps don't also assume it is therefore then about "show" where it exists. If I were attending an ultra church I wouldn't clap after the preacher sits down. In some settings I would...

My thoughts as well. Just to piggyback on this: in conversations like this, I think there can be confusion over what is being argued. On the one hand, there are arguments that certain activities violate biblical principles, and therefore should ideally be off limits regardless of culture. But then there is the more traditionalist line, which simply wants to continue the customs of the culture without thinking they're the only right or biblical way. When these two approaches get mixed, however, things get sloppy. For those who don't like applause, or anything else in the performing arts, I think it's fair to ask for clarification on this front. Are you simply defending a cultural tradition that excludes applause, or do you think this is actually an issue of biblical import?

[Ernie]

I generally agree "the ends don't justify the means," though for the record I don't think that works as a moral axiom. For instance cutting a person's body open is justified when the purpose is to remove cancer...however, if the purpose is to inflict pain and suffering, it is not. (Also for the record I wasn't "converted" at a rock concert. I was raised on the Church Hymnal and the Christian Hymnal and still love those songs and singing them anywhere with anybody.)

The main difference though I have, is that it seems to me your statement begs the question. It seems to assume that the means in question are something "negative."

I'm saying that the means may be negative. Not automatically negative.

But that is the question. Are the means (artistic human expression) negative? I don't think so. I think art for its own sake is good. The fact that it serves no "utilitarian" purpose is its beauty. It's only function is to draw us to an enriched human experience and point us toward the divine.

True. I agree.

People's capacity to innovate and produce art, is a reflection of God's divine image in us.

Do you believe that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder? Do you believe that beauty is of God and that consequently some art points to God and other art obscures or moves people away from God.
Can art be judged and evaluated as to what is indeed beautiful or ugly, and what draws people nearer to God and what pushes people away from him?

[Ernie]

I see a big difference between pursuing a creative career, and pursuing a career "to be seen of men".

I agree...but it assumes an artists desire is "to be seen of men."

How does what I said assume this? I'm trying to say that it is possible to pursue a creative career as an artist without pursuing a career to be seen of men.

One could easily assume the same thing about say, a minister, who speaks every Sunday.

Sure. A minister can do his job from various motivations as well.

[Ernie]

Among other things mentioned, Christianity has long held entertainment in lower regard than other occupations that are more fundamental to meeting the needs of mankind. And this low regard for entertainment is still found overflowing from Plain Anabaptism onto the performing arts.

Art is not merely entertainment. It is the reflection of God in us. The fact that it has no utility is the beautiful part. Its sole function is to draw us to God. And Christianity has a long and friendly relationship with art.

sure.

I am repeating myself, but the "lack of utility" with regard to art, is not a necessarily a denigrating factor. That is the beauty. The beauty of beauty/artistic creativity is that it draws us to the divine.

I agree.

[Ernie]

I see a big difference between doing something excellently vs. doing something for show. I don't think the two are equatable. And neither do most Plain Anabaptists.

So in your view, is high quality music-making inherently "something for show"?

no.

Why can't it be in the "doing something excellently" category?

That is the point I am trying to make.