Mucky Declarations

Wow, it's been over a week since my last post, as you can tell. The last few weeks have been crazy busy for me. I went and saw The Passion last night, and in lieu of my late non-posting, I will now post some thoughts that I had earlier this week regarding this movie, and Christian art in general. Most of you know that I love music, and listen to all types of Christian music. This is a thread I started in the Derek Webb theology forum. I'll just post it, and let you all pick it apart. Have fun! Many of the criticisms directed at The Passion have been along the lines of "The movie can't (or shouldn't) be used to try to save people because it's not a full presentation of the Gospel." I think I agree with this point.... sort of As many issues do, I think this one falls into a broader category of Christian artforms (music, art, movies, novels, etc.), which, I think falls under the even broader category of worship. Before you start to throw things at me, let me explain. We all know what worship is, and I have seen threads that rail on people claiming that everything we do in life is worship, and asking those people whether they gave God a worshipful poo that morning. I'm not sure if I lean quite to that extreme. I do think, however, that, as scripture says, we are to work at everything as if working for God. This has practical use, since it could potentially open up a door for conversation along the lines of "My, you're a good CounterStrike player." "Why, yes. I play CounterStrike as if I'm playing for God. Let me tell you about him." I also believe that, as scripture says, if Christ is lifted up, he will draw men to himself. Thus we get to the point. I believe that any artform that a Christian, and even any work, should be performed with the attitude of worshipping God, and not with the goal in mind of winning people to God. The latter is a symptom of the former, and will be taken care of if people are truly concentrating on the former. I believe that this standard should be held to Christian artists of all types of art, including art, music, cartoon making, and filmmaking (these are all that I could think of with specific examples in mind) I do not believe that Christian art should be used for the express purpose of evangelizing. I'm going to use music as my art of choice in the following paragraphs, as it is what I have the most experience with. Songs with titles such as "Christ will save you" or "Come to Jesus now, you heathen" are examples of effort pointed at bringing someone to Christ, and not directly glorifying God. This practically produces negative aspects on many levels. First of all, it has the potential to have groups that have made it big feel as if they've done their fill, producing attitudes that say "Well, in my quadruple platinum selling record, I invited people to come to Jesus. Out of all of those that listened, someone must have gotten saved. I've done my good deed. I don't have to worry about talking to anyone about Christ ever again." Granted, it's a bit dramatized, but it's a signifigant point. And if Christians are putting out this type of music, who's doing the most listening to it? Other Christians! Do they need a "Come to Jesus" song? The only ways that a non-Christian is going to listen to a Christian band are 1)if they're popular, but with songs like "Christ will save you," they won't be 2)accident or 3)if they are given the music by their Christian friend. Which brings us to the next maleffect of this type of music, which is complacency in Christians regarding sharing of their faith, which slowly (and sadly) becomes equated with handing the non-Christian a CD, and saying "this band sounds like Pantera, but they're Christian. you'll probably like them." and if the Christian is really pious, he might even suggest the track number of the song titled "Come to Jesus." The Christian will eventually get the CD back, and will ask the non if he liked it, the non will say "yeah" with no elaboration, and the day will continue as normal, and absolutely nothing has happened. It discourages Christians from being knowledgable about their faith, and developing the ability to be able to talk to someone about it. The artist is given some sort of spiritual authority because he made a song, and continues to perpetuate the "here, let me introduce you to my pastor" plague that most Christians have nowadays. [/soapbox] With this said, I do not believe that The Passion (and I believe that Mel confirmed this) was intended to evangelize. It is Christian (if he truly is one) art from someone who had a burden to do something for God after a long and sinful career (watch the first two lethal weapons). It just happened to have achieved popular appeal due to the person doing the work. I will treat this just as I would listening to a Christian band. At the same time, I do feel that this movie, being an attempt to glorify God, does have the potential to draw people to Christ, even though that was not the intention of the film. So, to wrap up, for people who don't like to read long threads. Like me. #1 Christian arts and actions should be directed at the purpose of worshipping God #2 In doing this, people will come to Christ, even though this was not the intended purpose of said arts or actions. #3 Christian arts should not be inherently centered on evangelism, as it is a waste of talent, the time of Christian consumers, and effort, as it could be taken care of point #1. My BSU has discussed using this film as an evangelism event, and I have had serious discussions with the Leadership Team about how this should be done correctly. Tonight is the event that we're doing, presenting the gospel, and having an open forum discussion with nonbelievers about the movie. I'll let you all know how it goes.