Jesus for Governer of South Carolina ?
WE ARE VIOLATED...WE ARE VIOLATED...WE ARE VIOLATED...
is what we keep hearing from our brothers and sisters in South Carolina. If you read:
www.christianexodus.org
you will get a sense of this.
They are calling for Barnabas brothers to move to South Carolina. Ian (our new member) asks "couldn't we do it, like, nine months out of the year?" Actually, they want many, many Christians to move to South Carolina to have a majority.
So, let's say, we all do that...then what? We pass laws that would please all of the Christians? So we pass what laws? Do we pass laws against homosexuals, deers and the arts? Granted, artists like Matthew Barney will want all three of these to be combined (http://www.cremaster.net/) So they would want to forbid Mathew Barney's of the world to make art. We do think Barney's art borders on evil, but if we pass all the laws that we want, would that eradicate all the sins of the world?
Think back to the 50's. Think forward one decade to the 60's. Did the 50's counter against the corruption of culture, or contribute to it? If our brothers and sisters in this movement to move to South Carolina are successful, would that make a better society, or would it cause a huge vacuum in culture in other areas? Are we talking about political Christianity, or are we talking about a Redemptive Christianity?
WE love New York City. We have moved to NYC and plan to raise our families in NYC (except our newcomer Ian, who is called to pastor in Greenwich...) We do that because we believe that God's blessing pours through all people, regardless of whether they believe in Jesus or not. We believe that God loves the cities, because people congregate there, and they are God's creation. Even if they do not know Christ, they still reflect the glory of God. Further, we believe that we NEED non-Christians to learn from, to journey with, because we are "resident aliens" and aliens need friends.
When Constantine (330) came into power, his "Christianizing" of a nation caused Christianity to weaken. Christianity, apparently, is best when marginalized, as an alternative community of God. Perhaps we need to stay in the cities where we are minorities, because we will be more effective.
"I cut myself with a paper...should I be trusted with an automatic weapons?" Was Kevin's last comment as he left.
Food for thought,
Kevin, Bryan. Mako, Ian, and Kirk
posted by Barnabas NYC | 2:00 PM
14 Comments:
Hi Barnabas -
Wow. The South Carolina movement is one of the more disappointing things I've seen from politically-minded Christians in a while. I assume they take themselves too seriously to market themselves as the Xtian Xodus.
So: Barnabus. Can one of you give me a quick explanation why Matthew Barney's work could be evil? I've only seen part of the Cycle, and obviously it's not redemptive work. Could you fill me in?
As you survey the annals of history, if there is one thing that is a guaranteed sure fire success, it is legislated morality. Sign me up! But I understand that I can join this movement, even preside over it, and yet, not live in South Carolina. Hmm.
Milton, its nice to have you aboard ol' chap. I seem to remember your pithy comments from other blogs of the past.
So, that indeed is the question... does evil art exist? and even harder: Does bad art exist?
If all works are fallen, as is their creators...no work can ever reach The Ideal in any way. Does not even the most violent and scary artwork dimly (perhaps very dimly) reflect a bit of God's character? Remember all the ridiculous and terrifying creatures he made on this earth. If evil art does exist, how do we create a true standard that does not rely on our own 'preferences'? "Rock music" was 50 years ago, the Marilyn Manson of ten years ago, and perhaps the Matthew Barney of today.
Perhaps we are better off viewing art 'Horizontally' rather than 'Vertically.'
Hey Milton,
Good to hear from you friend. I was struck by something that Dana Gioia briefly touched on in his speach at the IAM Conference. He was talking about Art as language, and (actually quite flippantly) tossed the idea out that Art can be good or evil depending on the worldview from which the art stems, or which the art posits.
I had not actually thought much about Art in the context of good or evil. Mostly I judge it in terms of good quality or bad quality.
I think that intent, though difficult to determine, has alot to do with the goodness or evilness. In my exploration of the Barney works it seems that he is not seeking to exalt the beauty of the formation of gender in fetal development (i.e. the handiwork of the Creator). But rather he is challenging the very nature of the system; to create an Island of Dr. Moreau. I think that may be part of the reason why this work seems to border on evil. He is presenting a worldview that corrupts the natural order of the world in which we live. But he presents the corruption as goodness rather than seeing it as depraved.
At least so it seems to me. Please Mako or others, correct me if I am offbase.
But how do we know for certain what an artist's intentions are? Does intention negate the participation I have with the object in front of me? Many works of art in history are viewed not from the artists intentions but from the resulting effect the object had on the world. Thomas Aquinas's intentions were to buttress the scientific underpinnings of faith, but his writings sparked the philosophical materialism that still exists today.
If you're right. Then the goodness or evilness of any work is subjective, and dependant on the reaction of any individual to that work.
Eg. Richard Wagner had a large impact on Adolf Hitler as a young man. In fact, Hitler aspired to be an opera composer like Wagner. When Hitler became leader of the Nazi party, Wagner's music was used as a tool, a rallying cry, for the arian and anti-semetic ideals of the Nazis.
So, are his works evil because they helped shape the mind of a genocidal dictator? Or, should his works be understood from a direction that tries to grasp the mind and intention of their creator?
J.R.R. Tolkien was influnced by the mythology of Wagner's RIng Cycle on many levels. So we have an example of Wagner's work being used as a tool of evil and of good.
How then should we view the goodness or evilness of art? I don't think the events, ideologies, or societal effects of the creation of a work of art can be used as the measuring stick, considering the duality of the effects of Wagner's work.
Perhaps 'intent' is not the most accurate word. But maybe we can agree that IF the goodness or evilness of a work can, and should be determined, the work itself and not the resulting effects of the work should be the determining factor.
But, I guess that doesn't really answer the question of 'how' one determines if art is good or evil. It merely suggests a criterion.
Man, this is hard!
Wait: I think our question is framed incorrectly. The art is not good or evil; the artist is. Or, perhaps: the action of making the art is. Why don't we speak of a finished artwork as we would any other object?
Let's extrapolate. A strawberry cake is not good or evil. If I baked that cake solely for the praise it might earn me ('Why John Milton! You're the best baker ever! Please sign my cookbook!'), then my actions could be evil. But the cake is value-neutral, right? As far as I can figure, only humans, as moral agents, can do good or evil.
Do we think we can assign that kind of value to a socket wrench, or bicycle, or day-long opera cycle, or shark suspended in formaldehyde, or tedious video of Richard Serra flinging hot Vaseline? Sorry, Mr. Speks, I don't think we can judge 'the work itself' on these grounds at all. Or do I oversimplify?
Side note: I'm sorry if I distracted us from the original post.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
How about this people...since Tolkien was mentioned. If you think about his writings and the type of characters and speices he created they were all from a pretty accurate Christian perspective. Think about it...the orcs and goblins were twisted Elves or as he would put it Elfs. The Ogres were twisted Ents, even Sauron, and his master (found in the Silmarilion), were once good "angels" so to speak. All the creatures when they were first created were...good. Sound familiar? So I wouldn't even say that a stawberry cake is even neutral. It could be argued that it is good.
However, there is the possibility that the good can be "bent". So, we can even take an inanimate object...like a cake...which was originally created for good and twist it for evil. Could we not argue this?
BUT, and don't lose me here, EVEN THEN, if the Bible is accurate and true, God can use this for good...YES THAT'S RIGHT GUYS. God can even use evil, for good. Freaky, I know...but nevertheless, true.
I think of the first chapter of Genesis where in verse 31 it says: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
This is referring to the objects of creation. The light, the dark, the sea, the sky, the fish, the birds. God saw all his creation as good. A value judgement placed on an object. Why were they good? Pehaps because He made for a good purpose.
I agree Milton that there can be a difficulty in discussing the value of something innate, a non-moral agent. Maybe the purpose of the created thing might be one frame of reference to discuss its value.
e.g. the socket wrench was invented to facilitate the creation of useful tools and such, but can also be used to murder someone. So the purpose of the object was created for good, but 'bent' toward evil. Does the fact that wrench can be used as a weapon make it evil? I think not. Rather it is a corruption of the goodness of the object.
Or how about the atomic bomb. Evil or good creation? Its sole purpose is to destroy, to kill and molest the earth. (Even if used by the 'good' side.) I might be willing to say that nuclear weapons are therefore evil because of their purpose.
Art created to disturd or twist the 'goodness' of God's world (albeit a world marred by sin, but still possessing of some common grace) could be argued to be evil art.
But, that does not mean we should move to SC and make 'evil art' illegal. For in some sense all of creation is tainted by sin and in need of redemption by Him who is without flaw. Even our own 'good' works of art are not as 'good' as they will be when they pass through his refining fire.
I agree with Barnabas that, God can and most certainly does use 'evil' things to accomplish his will and to bring good into the world. Which i think is one reason that we as Christians shouldn't be so quick to think that if we made all sinful things illegal that we would be making the world a better.
God made the world a better place through his death on the cross, using an instrument of great evil to redeem all of creation.
Your thoughts?
I just get a bit nervous when we start labeling objects as 'evil'... mainly because I would bet that most of the time, we can't site a specific biblical prohibition that justifies the label.
When all of creation is fallen, then can one object be more fallen than another?
Yes, we can have a redemptive cupcake, and we can have a destructive cupcake. But, its still the same cupcake. That, to me, is a very confusing situation. Especially because it doesn't apply to things like, say, pornography. There isn't a redepmptive porn.
So what is the difference between cupcakes and porn?
Do you know why I love you people? Because you can honestly ask why a cupcake is different from pornography, and be serious on some level.
So: what's the answer?
How's this.
If we think about the objects in regards to their purpose, we can say that there is no circumstance where porn can be redeemable. Porn's purpose is to satisfy the sinful lust of flesh.
The cupcake's purpose on the other hand, is to satisfy the tastes of the mouth. But, the tastes of the mouth are not inherently sinful, as the sexual lust of the flesh is.
They are similar in that they both are simply pleasurable things which, in the end, provide no lasting nourishment, in a physical or spiritual sense.
If one were to become addicted to cupcakes and glutonously consumed them regularily, I think it could be argued that there is not much of a difference between cupcakes and porn.
But the consumption/creation of a cupcake is not by its nature sinful. It needs to be corrupted to become a facilitator of sin.
The consumption/creation of porn can be nothing but sinful.
That seems to me the essential differnce.
How this relates to artistic objects, I am no longer certain. But I feel like I can eat a cupcake with impunity again.
Interesting. Porn is the twisting and incorrect expression of a good thing..sexual desire. Some say evil cannot exist without good. I tend to be sympathetic to this thinking.
So art is not neutral. Neither is sex. And neither are strawberry cupcakes. Let us all create, copulate (except me until I am married), and eat cupcakes with impugnity.
Post a Comment
<< Home