*cino: November 2005 Archives

This will only make sense to two people, but it's our last ditch effort to fix a mistake ...

Last week, you contacted us through the contact form on the *cino site. Unfortunately, due to a technical glitch, we didn't get the e-mail addresses you submitted. If you happen to see this, could you re-submit your information? We'd really like to get back in touch with both of you!

As promised, here are some final additional thoughts on the Messiah College Faith & Popular Culture Conference.

• Over Thai food at dinner one night, someone asked about the place of evil in the discussions at these conferences. There's a lot of talk about "good" art and looking for truth, but what about evil and sin? One of the examples he raised as an example of extreme evil was rape. What does "discernment" look like in the face of so great an evil? In this particular example, I think discernment involves realizing that the action is a distortion of human sexuality, which God created good. But in the context of the general question, I wondered what the role of confession might be at a conference like this. Certainly, some art has a confessional quality to it, but the content of that art is not the content of the conference. Also, I wondered about the role of suffering. If Jesus is God, who becomes human to show us the way through suffering to eternal life, how does suffering relate to the discussion of discerning "popular culture"? Is suffering, in the context of the conference, just an abstract concept represented in art to be deemed true or untrue by us detached discerners or does suffering have implications for the conference itself? It seems like attentiveness to suffering as its manifested in our own lives is essential for understanding sin and evil as artists represent it in their work.
• There seemed to be a very vague understanding of what makes culture "popular," meaning "popular" culture mostly ended up being "things we like" or "things we're currently into." With the exception of U2, there was little discussion of other art that could be considered statistically popular. So what do we mean when we hold a conference on faith and "popular culture"? Should we be talking about Ashley Simpson and The Wedding Crashers? Who decides what work has value for these discussions? I'm not saying that the conference would look any different if we discussed these questions--perhaps popularity and value are assigned by the informal participation of the conference community--but I do think we need to go a step further in defining "popular" and articulating the process of selection.
• Another question that came to mind as we progressed through the weekend was: where are the women? Two out of perhaps 10 speakers were women and 1 out of 6 performers. Not that I care to start bean-counting when it comes to gender, but the situation was noticeable--also in the lack of women participating in the comment times and mentioned as examples of artists who are "getting it." What is it about the nature of this topic that's more appealing as a participatory experience to men? Is there still a tendency to hold women to a higher standard in their scholarship, hence they're less likely to be invited or participate? Is the communication style of women ill-suited to the topic? Is there a perception that a female will have fewer compelling ideas or ideas that will be received with greater skepticism by both male and female listeners? Is there some power element to cultural engagement that makes it more appealing to men as a concept and a practice? I'm not sure what to make of this, but it would be worth discussing I think. In talking about it with someone, he suggested that I host a separate gathering just for women at the next conference. Definitely not a long-term solution, but it's worth thinking about, especially as there are some aspects of being a woman that bear discussing in the context of faithful engagement.
• The unique nature of a conference struck me at this event, particularly in contrast to the sort of 24/7 online work that *cino is doing. There is value in creating a resource that is available whenever, wherever, but there is also unique value to an event that spans an identifiable period of time. A conference is more likely to be remembered as a crucial turning point than a visit to a web site. Also, there is no substitute for cultivating face-to-face relationships. These thoughts convinced me that *cino needs to get back in the gathering business. Thankfully, one of our friends who just moved to a farm in Ontario contacted me the day after we arrived home from the conference with a desire to co-sponsor and plan an event next summer. So watch for more details, if you're into that sort of thing: outdoor experiences, late night discussions, connecting with kindred spirits, story telling and hearing, etc.

I think that's all for now. Thanks to those of you who have slogged through these notes and had enought energy left at the end to comment!

Rob and I had a wonderful opportunity to spend some time this weekend with David Dark, author of Everyday Apocalypse: The Sacred Revealed in Radiohead, The Simpsons and Other Pop Culture Icons and The Gospel According to America: A Meditation on a God-Blessed, Christ-Haunted Idea.

The title of Dark's session was "Jesus Thrown Everything Off Balance," which is an allusion to a line from Flannery O'Connor's story, "A Good Man is Hard to Find." There was so much goodness in this session that I'm going to revert to point form so I don't miss anything.

• Dark identifies a Christian artist with a bit longer name: an artist who aspires to be in continuity with the (biblical witness of the) Kingdom of God. "Christian" is a word that shouldn't be self-applied. Others should put the pieces together and call you a Christian, as was the case in the early church.


• Jesus as a "personal savior" or as a password into heaven belittles the historic, redemptive significance of Christ. As Bruce Cockburn says, "Redemption rips through the surface of time in the cry of a tiny babe."


• The life, death and resurrection of Jesus represent a "de-mythologizing" virus. That is, the Gospel breaks down the myths of human culture (that power is permanent, that life is expendable, etc.). The Gospel is Good News for the whole world, except those whose power it interrupts--though the Good News is for them, too, if they repent.


• The key statement coming out of Everyday Apocalypse is that "there isn't a secular molecule in the universe," having all been made by God. Madeleine L'Engle, when asked how one recognizes Christian art, responds, "If it's good, it's Christian." These ideas are based on the conviction that all good comes from God.


• We don't need to qualify truth with "spiritual," which is an over-used word. What is "spiritual" truth? Truth is its own credential and it can exist anywhere--in the Koran, The Simpsons, The Prayer of Jabez, etc.--and wherever it is found, it should be affirmed. Justin the Martyr said that whatever is true among the pagans is the property of us.


• "Interpretation" is different from picking a message--the Bible doesn't even have a clear, singular message.


• Jesus isn't "spiritual." We don't repent "spiritually," but with our bodies, our minds, with who we are.


• We need to be in dialogue with people and with art, rather than always moving toward a final decision: approved or disapproved. To worry about whether something is art, is literature, is objectionable, etc. is like arguing with the word choice of someone who's telling you your house is on fire. They're peripheral questions. Our questions should be, "What is the artist doing? Why?" rather than, "Is this good or bad?"


• We can't experience art without prejudice, but we can experience art with generosity.


• Apocalyptic art reveals the world not as we want it to be, but as it is.


• We are learners of the good, not knowers of the good.

That's all I had for David Dark. He is amazingly intelligent and well-read. Listening to him speak makes me want to immerse myself in the Bible, experience all of the art I can and then write books about what I'm learning. That's a pretty good influence, hm? Gives me something to work toward. If only I had such a cool name...

The first seminar session I went to was led by Andy Whitman, who is, among other things, a reviewer for Paste Magazine.

The title of Andy's talk was "Beyond the Aesthetic Grid: How to Engage Your Heart Without Turning Off Your Brain." He began by talking about Francis Shaeffer, who emphasized the value of art in his writings and created a grid for analyzing art.

The implication is that music that fits into the top right quadrant is to be desired, while music in the bottom left is to be avoided and music in the other two treated with caution. Some problems that Whitman identified with the grid include:

• It proposed that music can be "safe," when good music is rarely safe.


• The message of a song is rarely either good or bad.


• The problem of subjectivity: What is "good" art or a "good" message?

Whitman then proposed a new paradigm that he called "Signs of Life," which is characterized by:

• A commitment to the quality of artistry over the quantity of hype.


• Commiment to substance over image and depth over trendiness.


• Commitment to songcraft over style, meaning that there are no "holy" genres.


• Music that is transformation, that changes us.

Whitman's main point was that a model for discerning music must leave space for joy and emotional experience, which is difficult in an analytical grid. This did come with a warning that we shouldn't idolize emotional experience to the point that we enshrine the music of our youth, like Baby Boomers tend to do with the art of the 60s and 70s.

Whitman concluded with a list of guidelines for approaching art:

• Art is a sovereign sphere. (Been hanging around with neo-Calvinists, Andy? :)


• Art doesn't have to agree with a Christian worldview to be good.


• Christians should keep their convictions when doing work.


• Good art doesn't have to be beautiful (ex. Apocalypse Now).


• There are no exact criteria for judging good art, but there are criteria.


• Good art can be representative, abstract and symbolic.


• We must distinguish between sacred and secular art.


• Enjoy art without guilt as a gift from God.

As you can imagine, I and others took issue with that second to last one. Whitman wanted to justify it by the fact that, even though some of the praise music used in his church is sub-par art, God still works through it to affect his heart. Yes, but...I don't think the ability of the Almighty to work through poorly done art justifies the creation or selection of it in the first place and I don't think we ought to be using different quality criteria for the church than we do for our own CD collections. If there's any value or truth in this guideline, it's for those who cringe at some of their church's music but can't, for whatever reason, play a role in its creation and selection. If worship is central to the life of the Christian community--and I believe it is--shouldn't we desire to offer the best that we, as a broken community, can manage?

As with Turner, this one point didn't detract from what was otherwise a very interesting and well-done presentation. According to David Dark in a later session, there was apparently a gem in the Q&A time that I missed: that art is people. A human being is never entirely objectionable; to believe otherwise is dangerous. If art represents people who are inevitably a mixture of good and bad by virtue of being fallen creatures made in the image of the Creator, a work of art that represents people's ideas and opinions and stories cannot be called wholly objectionable. An interesting thought...more in the next post on Dark's session.

I guess I don't have much to post on the second Steve Turner address. He talked about how he had had an influence on the lyrical content of U2's songs through a friendship with Bono and by sending literature periodically that he thought would interest the band. He played some songs and explained the stories and meanings behind the lyrics. Probably the most interesting thing I learned during this session was that U2 had a vision from the beginning to be a superstar rock band and felt specifically called by God to follow the path that they have.

The question that came up at the bar the night prior to this session was, "Who will fill the space of U2 for subsequent generations?" Sufjan Stevens was suggested, but I guess there are many ways of approaching that question. Would Stevens' brand of folk have the same widespread appeal as U2's music? Is widespread appeal an essential part of the formula? Is U2's social justice work an essential part of the formula? Who is serving this function in other arts and other areas of life?

This past weekend, Rob and I attended a conference at Messiah College titled "Faith & Popular Culture: Reconciling with the Popular Arts." I'm going to post notes from the sessions I attended, followed by some more general comments.

The keynote address on Friday night was given by Steve Turner: poet, rock journalist and biographer. Here are some points from his very good talk:

• We live "culture". We cannot avoid it. The question is not whether we should be involved, but how to be involved as Christians.


• There is a tendency among Christians to denigrate culture and attempt to "separate." Perceptions of culture include that it's worldly, represents idleness, distracts from God, leads to a "slippery slope," represents a source of sin.


• Christians know a lot about redemption, but very little about creation.


• The highest form of life is perceived to be separation from the world through "worship." "The things of earth will grow strangely dim" for Christians who are focused on Jesus.


• J.I. Packer notes that, historically, we are human before we are Christian. We are Christian because of sin and Jesus restores us to full humanity.


• God is a creator who creates us as creators. Therefore, even in avoiding culture, we create culture.


• Christians do harm when they block out culture with messages they don't agree with, because culture is useful for conversation. Philippians 4:8 is used to set artificial limits in denial of the inevitable mix of good and bad, but we can see and make judgments without "thinking on" something.


• We do need to say "no" sometimes to things that are not beneficial. However, too much resistance, as in exercise, leads to a tear in the muscle. But we do need to be aware that we're always confronting an argument (contrary to the "it's just entertainment" argument).


• T.S. Eliot said that the literature we read with the least effort can have the greatest influence (referred to "harmless" television shows like Friends).


• So how do we engage culture?




1. Take it seriously by understanding the meanings of culture around us.


2. Immerse ourselves in the Bible to develop a thoroughly Christian worldview.


3. Visibly confront culture through interviews, reviews, attending lectures, etc. Hold creative people to account and get them to justify their reasoning.


4. Create culture, but love the medium. Don't just "use" culture as a tool for evangelism.




• We share a common humanity with all people and we can celebrate that fact in the creation of culture. Our experiences are shared, but the perspective may be different (gratitude to God, for example). God's world is one (uses the example of Sufjan Stevens, who can make back-to-back songs about fishing, his girlfriend, the transfiguration, etc. flow seamlessly). We should not be afraid of either similarities to or differences from non-Christians.

Turner started with what I thought was a good definition of culture, but seemed to slowly drift toward culture=the arts. Culture is the creative act of the artist, but it is also the creative act of the everyday person, creating their narrative as they construct a life that reflects their deepest values. He used the example of a poem about taking a bath to illustrate the last point about a common humanity, seeming to indicate that the poem was the "culture" in the example. I would argue however that the taking of the bath also fits the definition of culture. He challenged people to get involved, but said that "maybe some of you will" be involved in the cultural transformation of your generation. My impression is that all of us, if we indeed "live" culture even in trying to avoid it, will be involved in that transformation, for better or worse.

When the question and answer time came, I questioned him on whether his definition was not expansive enough. I don't like challenging speakers in front of an audience, but I felt like his limited definition was key misinformation, with very real implications for how we make decision in everyday life. He seemed to mock the idea of taking a Christian bath or boiling an egg Christianly or fixing the plumbing Christianly. however, while we can state the engagement of such mundane things in a silly way, I think it's dangerous to dismiss their weight in the context of a life of faith. I can think of hundreds of questions the discerning Christian might ask as she takes a bath, boils and egg for breakfast and then heads out for the day on plumbing house calls. We run into a dangerous sacred/secular distinction when we declare some things, by our definitions, outside of consideration in a life of faith.

My modifications to the definition shouldn't detract, however, from the very true and excellent points that Turner made. His points were just more broadly applicable--in a good way--than he intended.