Thomas Kinkade, Criticism

Joe Carter, at First Things, had an excellent, thoughtful column on the work of Thomas Kinkade (Thomas Kinkade's Cottage Fantasy), touching upon, among other things, why his earlier art is superior to his later, commercial work.

Another fine article, by Greg Wolfe, can be found at Image Journal (The Painter of Litetm).

Storytelling

I recently watched the pilot episode for a new series on AMC (home of 'Mad Men') called 'Hell on Wheels'. It looks great -- the sets, props, scenery -- but the writing is quite weak. Is it that hard to write a good story?

In the first scene, we see a Civil War soldier stumbling into a church. Cut to that soldier in the confessional booth, heavily burdened by what he saw and did during the war, especially the wickedness perpetrated against the civilians in the South, he having fought for the Union. Surprise! The 'priest' hearing his confession is a Southerner out to seek revenge for those injustices visited upon his kin. He shoots the Union soldier through the  screen, then coolly walks out of the church, with scared parishioners scampering about.

What self-respecting writers can begin a story like that? Sadly, it gets no better as the hour goes on.

Church Criticism, Part 1

I mean criticism in both a negative or adverse sense, and the more neutral, analytic sense.

In the context of an ongoing book discussion with my coworkers, many comments have been shared concerning the practices of one church or another, the way we do it, the way they do it, etc. Some of the critical comments applied directly to my local fellowship, with one coworker declaring that he would never return to my church after visiting once because the sermon was a video shown on a big screen.

This has gotten me to thinking about the criticism of churches -- firstly, how harsh and superficial our assessments can be, how full of the flesh, full of judgement of others and justification of self; and secondly, simply how to critique in a good way, how to analyze, assess, what to consider. It is this second type of criticism, the healthy kind, that I am most concerned with in this post. The first, the ugly kind -- I'm concerned with that, too. I hate it. I want to reject it and fight it in myself, and I want to gently encourage others when they level it at me and my beloved church.

The aspects of a particular local congregation that most immediately present themselves may fall under two broad headings -- beliefs and practices. (These are two of the main aspects of culture, by the way.) These categories overlap, mainly in that practices are both manifestations of beliefs (whether more deliberately or less so) as well as teachers, promoters, encouragers of beliefs. Our practices -- habits, rituals, traditions, formal and informal -- communicate and reinforce our beliefs. They contribute to creating a culture where the professed beliefs are more plausible and meaningful. The most significant venue of practices is what happens when the church gathers for corporate worship on Sunday mornings.

Consideration of the beliefs of a church would include its statement of faith and that of its denomination. The most significant aspect of its beliefs would be what is taught -- in Sunday school and mid-week studies, but especially from the pulpit on Sunday mornings.

And so, the church worship service on Sunday mornings is the most central element of their culture, with the preaching of the pastor being the most significant element of that corporate time together.

Therefore, when evaluating a church, we might begin with the preaching. And there is a place for this.

The real beginning, however, ought to be God's word. What does God say about what his church should believe and do?

An Artist Speaks to the President

When President Obama was in Hawaii, hosting the APEC summit, the Hawaiian musician Makana was scheduled to play some background music, presumably instrumental, during their dinner. Rather than strum along in vocal silence, he chose to play a recently composed song, We are the Many, expressing the sentiment of the 'occupy' movements. (A nice interview and the lyrics are at Democracy Now, but a great interview by Marco Werman is at The World.) He sang it for about 45, repeating the song again and again, trying, as he said, simply to impart a message he considered urgently relevant for the APEC negotiations taking place at the summit.

When I first heard about this 'protest' -- a name I reject -- I looked askance at a performer taking advantage of such a special opportunity in this way. He was asked to play before the heads of state of many nations, how shameful that he would insert such petty politics in this way. How discourteous.

I was reminded, however, of Mother Teresa's noteworthy speech at a National Prayer Breakfast during President Clinton's administration, at which she boldly spoke out against the evil of abortion. With the pro-abortion President and the First Lady listening politely in the front row, she minced no words in condemning the wickedness of the killing of the unborn.

How should her actions (the giving of this speech) and her words (the content of her speech) be described? Was it impolite? I think it was. Disrespectful? I think not. Was it true? Yes, it was true. Loving? Yes, also right, timely, urgent and vital.

I remember no one condemning her for saying what she said at that occasion, that is, no one considered it inappropriate. No one said, "We know you believe these things, but it was wrong of you to say them then and there." Rather, you ask Mother Teresa to speak, and this is what you get.

What of the song of Makana? He is an artist, employing his medium to communicate a message. You ask an artist to come and say something, and this is what you get.

And it's a well written song.

'Society' and 'Culture'

In a brief piece on NPR this morning, discussing the hacker community Anonymous, the journalist being interviewed, Quin Norton, repeatedly confused the terms 'culture' and 'society'. The text is not available online yet, just the audio, so I cannot easily review the exact words, quote them, or comment on them specifically.

When considering matters of culture, it is important to maintain a distinction between the individual people comprising some group -- a society or community -- and the shared values, practices, etc. of that group. Cultures do not exist apart from individuals comprising a group, and all such societies have a culture, but they are not synonymous. I don't wish to get ahead of myself, but for example, we do not evangelize cultures, we evangelize people or groups of people. Can a person 'engage' a culture? Probably not, depending on what one means by the term.

How should we define 'culture'? A good working definition would include the following elements:

• First, elements of culture exist in common. No common, no culture. Cultures do not exist outside of a context of people living in community.
• Second, individuals are parts of many different communities, which each have their own culture, their own set of things they have in common. Inevitably, there is much overlap between what two different communities have in common when the members of those communities overlap. E.g. the culture of a local church will come to reflect the cultures of the individual families that make up that community.

Lastly, what are those things that people in community have in common? More to come.