I have often also seen, as Dan said, that “The world even, at times, leads the way in the quest for values that Jesus affirmed.” I often feel ashamed as the Church that we aren’t the ones leading the way in some of the major justice issues in our world.

I also really identified with the end of Dan’s last long “comment”:

“…embrace beauty and truth in whatever strange places we may find it, amplify it, and use it to call the world back to its purpose. In doing so, we carry on a dialogue with the world, calling people to be who they were made to be. In not doing so, we carry on a monologue with the world, telling people what they are not (and could only be if they took our brand of Christianity for a turn about the room).”

I have personally felt somewhat stunted in my own growth as an “artist” because of well-meaning things said by well-meaning Christians who criticized me along the way about what they felt was a “holy” use of my gifts or not. I don’t want to be part of putting the same trip on anyone else. Whom am I to tell them how a gift from God should or shouldn’t be used? What makes the use of the gift “holy” or “un-holy” anyways? I want to embrace the gifts I see in others around me – whether sacred or secular – and be part of the dialogue as well!

After spending the last eight years of ministry attempting to purvey this exact message, I find that the fields are vast, and the workers are few. Sadly, there are multiple generations of people taking a strong stance against those younger who would find these ideas “obvious.” Sometimes the bridges are built only 1/2 way, and the other half is left gaping over open water as the “other side” refuses to even discuss making blueprints.

I find it interesting, albeit frustrating, to see evangelical leaders debating whether or not we should embrace or discard aspects of the current culture, while at the same time not even considering the need to address the internal generational divide that seems to grow every year.

I don’t usually think about stuff like this by choice because I often don’t have a clue what they are trying to say. That was true in this case as well. I had no idea what the person in this article was trying to say. What does it mean to be anti-empire? I have to know what that means before I can agree with it and say “yeah, that’s me”, or “no, I don’t agree with that.”
It really needed to be fleshed out a bit more.
So I appreciated your comments on it because then I was able to say, “ok, now I’m starting to see what he may have been talking about.” Thank you for explaining that the world or culture does exhibit or value love and forgiveness, charity and compassion. I think it does because Jesus came into the world and really set it on fire with these values and they have remained, even if people or the world/culture have forgotten their source. Perhaps we as the church just have a fuller understanding or picture of those values?? And then again maybe not – LOL! I also liked what you said about “their values are always mixed- like ours.”

I really appreciated R.O. Flyer’s comments as well. Man you guys can sure dialogue over my head! I must say I had a good laugh the whole way through reading you two back and forth, I haven’t come across so many words I didn’t recognize in a long time!
I need my dictionary! Ahhhhh….who knew I’d find some comic relief here among the philisophical discussion-ing…LOL
Thanks guys.
Suhail, I must say I appreciated your comments as well. Man we’ve got some real thinkers among us – rich in soul and spirit people.
Smiles y’all,
M

The Institute – http://www.theworshipleader.com
SSU – http://www.ssu.ca
Dan Wilt – http://www.danwilt.com
Essentials Blue – http://www.essentialscourse.com

“Whatever the world admires is probably not good, according to kingdom values.” I find this statement in particular to be quite opposite to some of the things that have been reinforced in the essentials course (blue) as of late.

Specifically, we, as Christians, hold that God made a good world, and that creation is good. Furthermore, human beings are created in the imago Dei – they are good creations in this regard. Consequently, it’s hard for me to believe that ANYTHING that the world (comprised of human beings created in the image of God) admires is probably not good – both because human beings must be able to recognize and discern goodness in some form and because the world is replete with goodness – both of these things adhere to the theology of the imago Dei and the goodness of creation, respectively.

With regard to music and the arts, it seems like the world admires a great deal of what I would consider “good” music or art. In fact, to play into the distinction of the sacred and secular, it seems to me that the world’s art and music is often of a higher quality than that of the modern Christian industry.

Finally, I have learned that creativity in and of itself is good because it evidences the fact that God endowed human beings with an aspect (creativity) that he possesses to an infinite degree. If the world admires various forms of creativity, and creativity is good, then it seems to follow that the world is capable of admiring things that are good.

http://www.catholicanarchy.org/cavanaugh/Cavanaugh%20-%20The%20Empire%20of%20the%20Empty%20Shrine.pdf

Also wanted to note that this dialog shouldn’t be lost in your comments – each one of these responses deserves to be a blog post in itself , or a dialog for an article – I’m just sayin’…

Good words, in the truest sense of the word, “good.”

Some level of insularity has its benefits – the slowness to accommodate to the zeitgeist (again, only on some levels) may always be the gift the church brings to any time in which it finds itself. Chilled molasses is hard to reckon with in a world demanding at least some warm maple syrup (forgive me – it’s -20 outside today).

And yet, the narrowing of the mind has made many Christians wild consumers and politically naive citizens, while at the same time slowly transforming those who should be champions of beauty into whiny naysayers in a magical universe.

All of this darkens our witness (and joy) in the world of the arts, sciences, politics and beyond.

You are accurate in your suggestion that we’re coming at this a bit differently – most probably due to both roots and vocation. In my world, I begin each day combatting the greatest evil I can imagine – the blinding of the eyes to the ordo amoris (loving order) all around us, and the dehumanizing of those we are called to love.

In my mind, the lack of embracing of the shared imago Dei in all of humankind, and the “us/them” (covenantal distinctions that we’ve made human distinctions) worldviews that still thrive in the Christian world continue to toxify our thinking in all of the arenas about which you and I would deeply care.

I speak against, then, the dualism – from this vantage point.

I don’t always like it, but I’ve found that I have more natural affinity with the worlds of art (and even science) than I do with the world of politics, but I am on a sacred quest to become as holistic as I am meant to be in this brief lifetime!

For this reason, you rightly suggest, I may have an axe to grind with anti-culture sentiment in the church. It’s either a sense of mission talking, or my brokenness talking, or both.

The opening post statements about empire were less offensive to me than the suggestion that we can create a secular container for all the world’s values to be tossed into, and this will be our basis for “discernment.” I balk at these kinds of simplistic statements, mainly because they have reaked so much havoc in my own journey as an artist.

I.e. My goal is not that we “embrace culture,” or “embrace empire.” It is that we see that human beings actually are not stupid, worthless or without dignity until they pray a prayer. They are broken ImageBearers yet to respond to a covenant made with them. Their values are always mixed – like ours.

The statement made in the opening post that precipitates this conversation suggests that “whatever the world admires is probably not good according to Kingdom values.”

I am only saying that the “world,” though distorted and confused as to “who/what it is meant to be” is not that consistent. Sometimes the world values the “wrong thing” according to the statement above – i.e. forgiveness, healing, justice and mutual dignity. Oops. The world even, at times, leads the way in the quest for values that Jesus affirmed.

Eden is not far from Hollywood, Washington, London, Johannesburg or Baghdad – the attempt to travel between them is simply confusing. This confusion is exacerbated by fear of our own glory, and our illusions of grandeur. Thinking too little of ourselves and others, or thinking too much of the same, clouds our vision equally.

Many times, humans seem to recognize truth when they feel it in their bones – though seared in our conscience we are. All of the “world’s” values are not antithetical to God’s – they are usually distorted and despicable permutations of the truer values that something in the world’s soul is telling them they should hold.

I agree that a theologically “thick” account of the body of Christ would raise the tide in the arts, sciences and politics. We have much to learn, unlearn and re-learn.

Again, for all reading along, I want to say again that I do not want the church simply to embrace culture. In this, we perpetuate “empire” and the land is filled with shadows instead of light.

Rather want to embrace beauty and truth in whatever strange places we may find it, amplify it, and use it to call the world back to its purpose. In doing so, we carry on a dialogue with the world, calling people to be who they were made to be. In not doing so, we carry on a monologue with the world, telling people what they are not (and could only be if they took our brand of Christianity for a turn about the room).

I choose the former. I choose the dialogue. I choose the conversation.

I want us to permeate culture without perpetuating it. This takes love, an eye to see beauty everywhere, a stalwart heart that can confront the empire, and a vision of a future in which all things will be made new.

Thanks Ry, for bringing so many clarifying ideas to this.

Thanks for clarifying. I do wonder if attempting to pull people away from their insularity in order to embrace the wider “culture” or “empire” is really that important. Every “wider world” is just another perspective, and all perspectives are limited. I guess we’re coming at this a bit differently. I’m more concerned that the church has largely accommodated to empire than I am about anti-culture sentiment. I realize that the sort of anti-culture sentiment can be a struggle, especially those who work in the arts. But, I would emphasize the reverse problem more strongly. Personally, I’m not too worried about a sort of provincialism–the problem with conservative evangelicalism, as I see it, is not narrow-mindedness as such, but a dangerous mix of legalism and pietistic spiritualism. I think you’ll agree with me, as I’ve heard you speak about this before, there is a strange sort of anti-fleshliness–a sort of body/soul dualism–that is present in much of evangelicalism. It seems to me that the loss of a theologically “thick” account of the body results not just in an anti-culture sentiment, but also a loss of political witness.

Ry