A Reaction to Frederica Mathewes-Green on Art and Church Tradition

Today, I attended the third C.S. Lewis Conference in Austin, TX on Truth, Goodness, and Beauty with speakers William Lane Craig, Peter Kreeft, and Frederica Mathewes-Green. This blog is a reaction to her speech on "Beauty" in the Christian faith in the form of an e-mail that I just sent to her.

------

Hello!

I didn't get to meet you at the conference. I used to be the person that shot like a laser to the front of the auditorium after the speaker was finished, but in recent years I have tried my best to respect the time of the speakers unless there is something incredibly urgent I need to share or ask.

Thank you so much for your words! It is not an everyday occurance to have a brush with the Eastern Orthodox church. What a blessing!

My e-mail is in regards to your comments on art in the church. I have spent quite a deal of time ruminating on this issue, though I've only scratched the surface. I am about to embark on Masters work in Theology and the Arts, and I am looking very much forward to plowing into this beautiful and rich field. I'm sure you have been asked these things before... in that case please feel free to copy and paste your answers to my questions.

The thought that kept beating in my brain was somewhat of an echo of Craig's speech on Objective Truth. It was mentioned that there is objective truth, and there is subjective truth (e.g., allergies and matters of "taste"). Postmodernism is making the mistake of saying that matters of objective truth are really matters of taste. It seems to me that you are making the opposite mistake.

My reasoning is as follows:

(1) Normative absolutes can sometimes be subjective in Christianity, as we see in Romans 14 in the matter of eating "meat," etc. (we are "many members of one body")

(2) Matters of taste (e.g., art, music, etc.) are also perhaps always subjective

(3) It would seem to follow that music (which is so closely -- perhaps inextricably -- connected to matters of taste) in the church practice would also be subjective

A second, parallel line of reasoning following the history of musical evolution from which I can reasonably draw conclusions concerning other branches of the fine arts:

(1) What I know about music history seems show only a very gradual evolution of musical style throughout the centuries, but as time progresses, the speed of the evolution exponentially increases, and things are "out of fashion" (or "outside the realm of the collective contemporary taste") very quickly.

(2) I would assume that the music of the early church was formed around the collective contemporary taste of their day, though I would also assume that the "collective musical taste" of the Hellenistic church would have differed the Jewish church. Thus, the music in the church at this time would be a descriptive, not normative issue.

(3) Because musical style and collective taste only very slowly evolved at that time, I would postulate that there would be little question or contest over what "style" of music to play in church.

(4) The more time that passes, it seems only natural that what was once only a descriptive issue would evolve into a normative issue by means of the flesh (we are creatures of habit) not necessarily by means of the Spirit, and thus become a normative part of authoritative tradition. (of course, this is all based on the Protestant presupposition that Tradition is not authoritative).

Also, you mentioned that what is important is not that we have a marketable service that is appealing to the masses, but that we truly worship. I think you are making a false dichotomy here, assuming that "what is marketable" cannot be "truly worshipped" to. On the contrary, this "marketable music" is exactly what many people most "truly worship" too (whatever "truly worship" means). Again, this results in matters of taste. To one person, a chant might be most conducive to "true worship"; to another, a contemporary praise song; to another a Charles Wesley hymn. I personally prefer a combination of them all: (1) songs from the past that remind us that there were Christians before us, thus tying us into a sense of historical unity with the Universal Church and (2) newly created songs from the present to acknowledge that we are a living and breathing and growing community of faith, not a record played over and over again, thus following the exhortation of the Psalmist "Hallelujah! Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise in the assembly of the saints." (Ps 149:1. Note that "new song" here is in the context of corporate worship. cf. "new song" Ps 33:3, 40:3, 96:1, 98:1, 144:9, Isaiah 42:10, Revelation 5:9, 14:3).

I suppose that any real dialogue on this subject between an Orthodox and a Protestant would be quite restricted because of the foundational differences in the authority of Tradition. Nonetheless, I felt like I should share my thoughts anyway so that you could hear yet another Protestants perspective on the subject matter of your very eloquent speech.

By the way, I love your voice! I could listen to it all day!

Blessings...

Adam

My Poor Excuses

I have always had the following rationalizations for not giving money to the poor. Mind you, not necessarily because I just wanted to keep my money (though this is probably an underlying motivation), but because I wasn't sure that giving them money is the best thing to do for them. Instead, for a while, I toted several canned foods in my back seat for the sign-holders at street intersections. Perhaps I was right to do that. Perhaps wrong. I still think it is the best thing to do. But I've since made these curious observations about my excuses and Jesus' words and actions. Do with them what you will...

Excuse 1: "But I'm thousands of dollars in debt! I'm technically poorer than them!"

Jesus Response: The Widow's Mite Mark 12:21-44

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,worth only a fraction of a penny.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

Excuse 2: "But they'll just spend it on drugs and booze." Jesus' Response: The Benevolent Father (a.k.a. "The Prodigal Son) Luke 15:11-31

I won't post the whole thing here, but I'm struck by the fact that the Father just gave it to Him, knowing (I'm sure) full well what his son would spend the money on. And yet he gave it to him anyway. He didn't even give his son a "Now, don't spend it all in one place." He just gives, extravagantly, wastefully, non-sensically, and yet lovingly.

Excuse 3: "I've worked for this money! He/she doesn't deserve it." Jesus' Response: Grace on the Cross.

"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter into it." Mark 10:15

Grace is just this: giving to someone something they do not deserve. We did not deserve His grace. We didn't earn it. We cannot earn it. He just gave it. And if we are to enter into the life he offers, we must do so like a child, completely empty of any thought of "earning it" or "deserving it." Likewise, are not we supposed to be Christ to the world, like the Benevolent Father, dispensers of Grace completely undeserved?