Performing Arts, Big Business, Pride, Worldliness

[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.

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?

In general, I think humans are diminished if they give their lives to feeding hedonism and luxury.

In contrast, there are some things are not essential, but they seem to help with human flourishing when done in moderation and at low cost.
e.g.
Making canoes, giving canoe rides.

Making ice cream, serving ice cream.

[seeking-artist]

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.

So how do you define the breakdown in the performing arts? If one wants to perform publicly, obviously in a literal sense they will be "seen of men." But this in itself does't seem to violate any values, any more than a preacher on a podium does. If we're simply misunderstanding you and you aren't trying to insinuate that the performing arts runs a particularly high risk of violating Christian principles, I'd be happy to be corrected. I've taken your writing here to imply a particular danger in the arts.

Of course, I agree that the performances can indeed be used to promote pride, ego, and the like. As can literally anything, though.

[Ernie]

Where is performing on this spectrum? I’m not entirely sure precisely, but it is true that it is not something we have embraced, and I think the reasons for that are understood reasonably well. Whether you find those reasons compelling are another thing.

Indeed. I have a hard time not hearing this as a version of "this is what we've always done, so I guess there must be a good reason for it, so we'll continue in the tradition." On one level, I guess you could say I don't find the reasons compelling, although on another, I feel like I'm not really hearing reasons at all, at least outside of the usual phrases about worldliness and pride. Needless to say, I don't think sticking the "worldly'" label on something automatically proves the point.

I say, "Look at the fruits." That helps us know whether something is prideful or worldly or whether it is something that draws people toward God and becoming his followers.

[seeking-artist]

In general, I think humans are diminished if they give their lives to feeding hedonism and luxury.

Agreed. And just to make sure we're on the same page, you're not implying that performing arts are in this category?

[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.

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.

I think that is what you are concluding but that is not what I am saying.

[Ernie]

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.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to this clause by clause, as I think we actually are fairly close together on most of these points. I don't think we should be separating either.

But if Jesus had decided to come and play a harp as a career, instead of doing what he did and what he taught, this world would be a very different place.

[joshuabgood]

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.

Thanks for clarifying. I think I misunderstood.

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

Thanks for clarifying. I understood you to imply that art is a negative mean...and is unworthy even if the end is justified, ie, some one was converted at, say, a rock concert.

I am not sure though then how the end justifies the means applies...as I am trying to suggest that what some one might generically term a rock concert, for the sake of this thought experiment say a Phil Wickham/Chris Tomlin concert, doesn't fit the "negative mean" lens, or at least that is the question being discussed.

[Ernie]

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.

I see most of these folks in transition to not being Plain Anabaptists anymore. It is the truly Plain Anabaptists that keep the movement and its intrinsic values alive.

[Ernie]

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...

Do practices matter? I think they do. Head and heart shape practices and practices shape head and heart. Or we could say that what we love shapes our practices and our practices shape what we love.

[Ernie]

Enough from me for now. We just left on a trip to visit relatives and I had some time to respond for a bit, but I won't have much more time until about a week from now. We'll see if I can get caught up when I return or whether there will be too many pages.