Scenes from “The Way of the Cross” – Good Friday service at Covenant Lutheran Church on April 2, 2010. This was a modified version of the stations of the cross that included Scripture readings, prayers, reflections, hymns, and choir. Each station was presented in tableau.
It’s disturbing and could frighten children, argue church elders, who declined to display it in the church’s art gallery alongside the work of other artists depicting the remaining 14 stations (the 15th depicts Christ’s resurrection).
There is a fine line between the sacred and profane.
In my opinion, even the most profane piece of art is by it’s very nature showcasing the creative nature of God. We are created in God’s image – as creative beings. So any creative output (even the most blasphemous) is reflective of the creative nature of God.
I understand the leadership’s decision: they placed the children’s mental safety and ability to process art over the artistic expression. It was an editorial decision. But is that decision reflective of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God? Is being a disciple and citizen of the Kingdom always easy and safe?
Is child abuse horrendous? Yes.
Was Christ’s brutal death (sacrifice) any less horrendous? No.
Is there room for “art for art’s sake” in the church?
Shipping the official, cotton paper, library reserve theses off to @iwsfla (@ FedEx Office Print & Ship Center) http://t.co/jIdrlaxC - posted on 05/21/2012
RT @WillimonTweets: Very little of what it takes 2b a Xtian is innate. Radical turning is required that is initiated by a power external. - posted on 05/21/2012
“I don’t feel like God ever intended for a fear of hell to be the driving factor in His relationship to humanity. I vaguely remember Jesus saying some stuff about love.”
Most of what we know about hell comes from the words of Jesus himself. The topic can be overemphasized, truly, but it seldom is these days. The apostle Paul persuaded men because he knew “the terror of the Lord.” When we shy away from it, we’re unbalanced.
Yeah that sounds like awkwardness abounds. Paying a key leader/pastor and not the rest of the band is different. And I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to strictly use volunteers in the band. But the church has a responsibility to equip and utilize all the talents it’s been given. So even if a musician isn’t up to the level where they can hang with the band, they should be finding them a place leading kids, youth, prison outreach, etc. or equipping them with training if their heart is in the right place.
What do you think about churches that insist on not paying their musicians irrespective of talent, time, etc. and will only take the best musicians who will play for free? Is the church, in that case, denying some of the “gifts that they’ve been given?”
And for context, the particular church and the particular situation to which I am referring has a volunteer policy that’s focused on an “unfettered” worshiper. And by that they mean they want people whose motivations to play on Sunday morning aren’t going to be about money.
But some of the musicians are hurt by that because 1) they spend as much as time and have as much talent as the lead worship leader, and he gets paid 2) They actually REALLY need the money most of the time, and 3) Motivation being questioned is offensive.