Imagine, for a moment, that there was a great struggle in the ancient church regarding whether or not music was conducive with Christian worship. Thankfully, church history records mercifully few instances of this particular debate, but imagine that there was a great one. Then imagine that an entire wing of the church succeeded in outlawing music. Imagine next that those who (rightfully) argued that music was consistent with Christianity triumphed, and following that hard-won victory, an entire stream of Christianity – a very prominent one – arose around the victorious musicophiles, becoming in turn a tradition that emphasized music in a unique and unrivaled way. This would all be quite natural, as often only when something is threatened do we realize how necessary it is.
Next, imagine that a 21st century music historian, seeking to shed new light on the importance of music in today’s church and in the secular concert hall, wrote a book about music and Christianity entitled “Christ and the Concert Hall.” The author, appropriately enough, found the aforementioned musically-focused ancient Christian tradition to be a dominant inspiration. Finally, imagine that in a review of “Christ in the Concert Hall,” a gifted musician/author came along and pointed out that the author focused on “only one current” within the diverse river of Christianity. The reviewer then went on to criticize the author of “Christ in the Concert Hall” for not focusing on other aspects of Christian history. The reviewer, furthermore, seemed to charitably imply that the author was not enough of a Barthian (because the author used abstract principles) or not enough of an N.T. Wrightian futurist (because the author didn’t focus enough on hope). This review would, I hope you agree, be quite peculiar. After all, when writing a book about music and Christianity, why wouldn’t one bother to emphasize that great tradition of musically-focused Christian faith, drawing upon the resources which, in God’s providence, that tradition alone could provide.
And yet, when the gifted musician/author Jeremy Begbie reviewed art historian Dan Siedell’s book God in the Gallery in the current issue of Image, Begbie appeared – ever so subtly – to take issue that Dan Siedell, in a book about art, limited himself to “one particular current within the Nicene river, the Eastern Orthodox tradition… and the council of Niceae (787 CE), the conference which established the orthodoxy of icons.” Well of course he did! Especially seeing that this tradition has a history of American neglect, Why wouldn’t he? No wonder Siedell, at his blog, seems a bit miffed about the limitations of the Reformed perspective on art and the necessity of engaging the untapped art historical resources of the Orthodox Church.
I certainly hope the Protestant aesthetic [band]wagons aren’t going to circle on the issue of Christianity and art. The Reformed, among others Protestants, have much to offer in this particular conversation. They’ve been contributing, thankfully, for centuries, and especially so in the last few decades (thanks in no small part to Jeremy Begbie). But the Orthodox have been doing likewise for far longer, and they’re far more experienced, and successful, in this volatile arena. To limit oneself to Protestant resources when it comes to art may bring a satisfying sense of intellectual consistency, but it is also to ensure things get very boring, very fast. Not as boring, mind you, as when one limits oneself (as does most of the art world) to strictly secular resources, but still pretty boring.
February 15th, 2010 | 9:56 pm | #1
I was unaware that there was a “Reformed” perspective on the visual arts other than it is questionable for use in worship spaces.
Can you elaborate on your comment: “The Reformed . . . have been contributing, thankfully, for centuries”
I’m interested in learning more about this.
February 16th, 2010 | 12:11 am | #2
Dear Rev. McCain,
The Reformed relationship with visual art is a problematic one, but Bill Dyrness has recently written a good book on the subject: Reformed Theology and Visual Culture: The Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards (Cambridge University Press, 2004). And Jeremy Begbie’s book, Voicing Creation’s Praise (T&T Clark 1991) advances the subject well into the 20th century, making many course corrections along the way.
Also see Christopher Benson’s comments #36 below his “Hosting the Holy One” post for a nice recent bibliography that includes some Reformed thinkers.
February 16th, 2010 | 6:45 am | #3
I’d be a lot more worried that I was immersing myself in post-christian propaganda by learning to enjoy modern art than I would be about violating the commandment against graven images.
The question as to whether iconography is spiritually-profitable is one which balances itself on a lot of presuppositions on either side, and I’d be wary of taking any one book on the matter at face value. The comparison to the modern music wars which Matthew makes here is good in the way it points us to the deep-seated commitments people come to the table with in this discussion.
February 16th, 2010 | 9:53 am | #4
For all interested, we will have a piece by Dan Siedell in the Spring 2010 issue of The City on some of the problems of the Protestant approach to icons. I don’t think it will answer all of your questions, Christopher, but it’ll be a start.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:02 am | #5
I’m delighted to hear that Micah. No doubt everyone who reads evangel will soon have the Spring 2010 issue of The City in hand. Rumor has it that there are still some evangelicals who have not yet subscribed, but I don’t believe it, especially considering the free issue thing:
https://www.hbu.edu/Forms.asp?MODE=NEW&SnID=1163567931&Forms_FormTypeID=-94
Those are great questions Christopher, the exact ones, in fact, that Siedell set to write a book about, so the most efficient way to address them is to read it. The chapter by chapter discussion of God and the Gallery at the Church and Pomo Culture site was helpful, and I hope my review in First Things “On the Square” back in October 2008 was as well, but nothing can replace reading the book. Talented reviewer that you are, I’m sure you would agree.
Regarding question three, the answer is yes in practice, as anything (not merely icons) can be abused. But I believe the answer is no in principle, and I tried to explain why in an article that you might find helpful should you wish to pursue this question further: “Iconoclastic Immunity: Possibilities for Reformed/Orthodox Convergence in Theological Aesthetics” (January 2006).
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/tt-v62-4-abstracts.htm#IconoclasticImmunity
February 16th, 2010 | 2:07 pm | #6
This Touchstone article (http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-07-015-v) is about writing and Evangelicals, but its broader point — that Evangelicals, unlike Reformed, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have failed to put forth a “theology of art” — could as easily be applied to music or the visual arts.
February 20th, 2010 | 12:05 am | #7
I’m glad Begbie said that, and I hope I’ve made clear that I’m a fan of his work (I’m on record lauding Begbie elsewhere in First Things if anyone wants to bother to check.)
But I was not critiquing that particular interview, Christopher, but the review itself, which does indeed show suspicion of the Orthodox tradition, referring to the “somewhat dubious – some would say disastrous” theology of Gregory Palamas. I have shared some of Begbie’s critiques of God in the Gallery, but I think Begbie’s review overlooked the essential contribution of Siedell’s book, which I tried to point out in a playful way.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact