A CHURCH WITHOUT GLORY

This first picture, the church at Auvers-sur-Oise, is one of my favorite van Gogh paintings. If you click on the photo you will be able to see an enlarged image of both paintings. You will need to do that to see what I'm trying to show in this blog.

The first picture shows a person at a crossroad outside a church. It is hard to tell what the person has chosen, but it looks to me like they have chosen to walk on the shadow side of the building. The church tower holds a faceless clock, and no light shines from the building's windows. The inside of the church is as dark as the night sky.

Van Gogh was the son of a Reform minister, and Vincent was, himself, commissioned by the Reform church as a missionary to the poor -- then he was fired because he did not minister in the way THEY thought he should. Van Gogh was rightfully disillusioned with the Reform church, as are many today, and he shows us this sad picture of a church in which no luminosity exists for him -- for anyone. The glory of the church was, for van Gogh, no longer visible.

Compare that top picture with his "Starry Night," just below it, and you will see a great contrast between the splendor of the heavens and the darkness of the first painting of the church building. For van Gogh, the splendor of God still existed; it was obvious in nature, but it had ceased to exist in the church. Note the church in the lower center of the canvas in the second painting, "Starry Night." There it is again, there is no light in the church, much like the painting of the church at Auvers-sur-Oise.

Do you think, maybe, Vincent had an opinion about the church? It looks like it to me. To Vincent, the church had not only failed to set forth the GLORY of God, it had obscured it. There was no longer any glory left in the church for van Gogh. The glory had departed. Vincent was alone in the night, but in awe of the splendor of God that he saw in the universe. There is much to think about in these pictures.

Things have not changed in the church in some ways. Many people fail to see the glory of God in the church, and, sorry to say, many churches really know precious little about what it means to "glorify" God in his church.

GLORY is one of those all-purpose words in the Bible, but that does not mean that it is a weak word, quite the contrary. To define it would require a million tongues to sing it, a billion voices to proclaim it, a trillion paintings to depict it, and an infinite flow of creative expression to approach even a pale manifestation of his unfathomable radiance.

The word "glory" feels like an old fashioned word in these days, but the word glory is as relevant today as in every age before. It is we who are out of sync with its relevance. What is "glory?" just one of the coolest ideas in the world.

Just some of the ideas bound up with the word glory are, SPLENDOR, EXCELLENCE, BEAUTY, WONDER, MAJESTY, MAGNIFICENCE, and so many other superlative concepts. Glory is one of those huge little-big-words that takes in a lot of territory.

Do a word study on the word "glory" and its various permutations in the scriptures. It will open your eyes.

What are we commanded to do with glory? We are told to make the name of the Lord glorious. How is that possible when God is already majestic? We do it by "magnifying" the name of the Lord, that is to make it visible and beautiful in the eyes of the church and world. Why should we do it? Because without it, precious and sensitive souls like van Gogh will be lost to it, and as he did in the end, they will dispare and perish.

A church without glory, is the cause of great loss in this world, not only to itself, but to the whole world. There is nothing sadder, nothing more unnatural in the spirit-world than a church which trades the glory of God for cultural relevance, political power, social correctness, legalistic ritualism, propriety and process, or passionless religion; especially when there are an infinite array of ways to glorify God.

This notion of glory is so foreign to some that it seems odd, quaint, and unsophisticated to even think about DOING, ACTING, and MAKING things by which one can glorify God. After all, can't God do that all by himself since he is so great? Can't people look at the created world and "get it" for themselves? The simple answer is, "No." Most often that does not happen, and it will likely not happen, unless we who know the "glory" of God point it out. Are you pointing out the glory of God to others?

Think about what it would take to make the name of the Lord glorious in the eyes of others. What would that look like? What does it mean to "beautify" the name of the Lord, or to make him radiant and "splendiferous" (my word) in the eyes of those who do not know him, or worse, who have despised him. What would it mean to glorify God in your body, and with your mind and soul?

Have you considered on putting this command into practice? If not, let me encourage you to do so. Use your imagination and your resources, your energy and your skills to make something worthy of the glory of God. This requires thinking, work and persistence. It involves loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Do you honor God in that way?

What would Vincent think of your faith? Would he think you demonstrated the glory of God, or not so much? Would he see light in your life, or paint you like he painted this church, dark and empty and irrelevant in his world?

Have you considered how you will make God's dwelling place glorious?

What will you DO to bring this about?

Think beyond mere religion.

Think beyond buildings.

Think beyond church programs.

Think, "Starry Night," and then ask yourself how that majesty can be communicated through the PLACE you worship, through the SONGS you sing, through the lives you TOUCH.

How will you bring "GLORY" into your daily life, into your hopes and dreams, into your fears and failures, and into your works and words. What will you INVENT or EMPLOY that will MAGNIFY the Lord in the eyes of all those who do not yet know him, and could never get to the place of recognizing God's splendor without your expressions of his glory?

What will you say or do that will beautify the name of Christ in this world. Really, think about it, MAKE A PLAN, and do it. I really wonder what would happen if we got serious about bringing back the "glory" of God in this world through the things we make, say, and do.

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

Without a doubt, there is much discussion of the gospel in the New Testament. From Matthew to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, there is an unfolding of the Good News. But, if you could only be left with one explanation of the gospel, whose would you choose?

Would it be Paul and Romans, or Peter and his letters? Would it be master Luke and the Acts of the Apostles? Would it be the teaching about Christ in the book of Hebrews, or the Lord's brother, James and his book to the Jewish believers? What would you select as the best description of the gospel?

This week I will celebrate my 36th spiritual birthday. In over three and a half decades of being a Christ-follower, I can tell you that I can find no words more profound in all the Bible than those spoken by my Lord in his Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew 5:1-7:29, and a similar sermon of his, sometimes referred to as The Sermon on the Plain, in Luke 6:17-49.

I have heard many commentaries on these passages of scripture, some good, some just plain cop-outs. I have read these words, pondered them, studied them, measured myself by them, and wrestled with them for over thirty years - and though I LOVE the entire New Testament, regarding it as the Word of God, the words of Christ are more than sufficient to stand as the gospel for me if no other documents had ever been written.

The bottom line for me is this, Christ Jesus is my savior, and him alone. I need none other. Though Paul and all the apostles write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they are not my savior. They are not the "one and only," as John calls Christ. One word from the mouth of Jesus outweighs all the words of the apostles put together, for they indeed preached the Word of God, but this Jesus IS the Word of God. The words of the apostles are great and wonderful. They lend us much insight and instruction, but Jesus says this of his own words, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." NIV (Matthew. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33) This is not true of the apostles. Paul does not even claim that everything he writes is the Word of God. He sometimes says things like, "this is my opinion," and sometimes he says boldly, "this is the Word of the Lord." The words of the apostles are mixed. The lives of the apostles are not without error. They are not infallible, and never ever claim to be. They are mere men, but Christ is perfect in all things, sinless and without error in all things. This, even the apostles admit.

Can you imagine the apostles turning to each other for a "Word from God" when Christ was in their midst? Can you imagine them deciding for themselves what he meant? No, they asked him, just as should we. Yes, they did debate his words amongst themselves many times, but in the end they always compared the soundness of their own thoughts about his words by asking him directly, and then comparing their understanding to the words of Christ himself. Why do we find that so alien? We must always compare the words of the apostles to the words of Christ, and if there is a dispute in our own minds as to what is a right interpretation on a subject, lean into the words of Christ over what it might appear the apostle is saying. Christ always has the last word on a subject, not a prophet, not a preacher, not an apostle or evangelist, not a pope or a cardinal, a bishop or a priest. Christ's words are the gospel, and only those words that line up with his words are the proper echoes of the gospel message. Nothing else is the gospel. Nothing.

After so long a time of following Jesus, after a fair bit of Bible study, and after a sincere desire to live the life of a Christ-follower, I have come to hold the sermons on the mount and plain, as the core of the gospel itself. Though some have said, "If anyone wants to know what Christ meant, let them read the apostles, for they explain the words of Christ," I would prefer to say it just the other way around. This is how I would say it, "If anyone wants to know the meaning of the apostles' teaching, let them read the words of Christ. Let them compare and interpret the apostle's words in the light of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Then, and only then, in my view, can we begin to really know what the gospel is or is not. If we get this rule of interpretation backward how can it lead to anything but error? As for me, I will hold to the words of Jesus as the gospel, and interpret the apostles (and all other words), in the light of his words.

THE BEST MINISTRY FOR YOU

Ephesians 4:7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. Then Paul goes on to describe how this is possible and came about, i.e. his triumph over the devil; what those gifts are about, to bring about unity; and how they are to be used, to build up the Body of Christ in love. Paul is referring to degrees of grace, special abilities, not particularly the daily grace we need to live as Christ-followers. This explains why ministers and ministries are different . . . and they are different, not only in kind, but in degree.

For this reason, it is a good practice to be thankful for two things, first, the fact that God has given each one of us gifts so we can serve Him in this world, and in His church. Second, that there are a variety of gifts and each person is given a specific measure of that gift of grace by Jesus Christ himself. This takes a lot of pressure off of the one ministering. None of us can minister beyond that measure which Christ apportioned to us, and all of us can minister to the fullest degree to which Christ has enabled us, if we will exercise those gifts in faith and in on-going faithfulness.

When we see someone do a great job in their ministry, even though it is limited, we can be thankful and appreciative of them and what they do. We don't need to put more pressure on anyone than Christ has. We don't need to expect more of others than what Christ expects of them. BUT, we CAN encourage others to step up to the plate, as it were, and get busy with the ministry to which Christ HAS called and enabled them. We can hold each other accountable to live up to that grace -- and we do that with love, in the spirit of bringing greater unity to the Body of Christ, so it can grow, be healthy, minister in this world in Christ’s stead, and bring beauty to the name and character of the Savior.

There are enough pressures in ministry to Christ; the unnecessary pressures of either taking on too much, or of doing that for which Christ has neither called nor gifted us, can be dismissed without guilt or shame. The faithful servant does that which Christ has commanded, and to do that in the grace which Christ has given and that is all. Not that one can't do nice things for others just for fun, but the work of one's "ministry" is a specific task, or set of tasks based on one's "portion" of grace received. Only that is "ministry." Beyond that is either ignorance, arrogance or folly. Those are what gets one into difficulties.

Ministry according to the grace-limitations Christ has placed on each one of us will not burn a person out. One only burns out when they work without the grace of God; either through neglect of their spiritual life, or when they are trying to do that for which Christ has not given them grace.

Burn out is usually the result of ministry beyond the grace given. I have personally experienced burn out in my own life, and I learned a hard but wonderful lesson; namely, minister according to the grace given and don't try to do more than that. If you try to work beyond your limitation, you will burn out. That is a certainty. But, if you work within your limits, you will enjoy ministry much more, others will be grateful for what you do, and God will be glorified by your simple obedience. Forget about doing all those superhuman stupendous feats of daring, or engaging in endless labor. It is not godly, and you are not called to that. No one is.

Finally, as you find yourself limited (and you surely will), remember that Jesus Christ has given each of us gifts of grace. Your limitations are where another person's gifts become essential for the work to go forward. So, make room for others; invite others in to do all that which you cannot do. You will discover the wonderful way of Spirit-filled service if you do. What if others won't do their part? I'll comment on that in up-coming blogs.

____________________________

Eph 4:7-14 - 7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.
8 This is why it a says: "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men." 9 What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe. 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. NIV

ON THE LIGHTER SIDE

WHY AM I SO TIRED ?

The population of this country is about 237 million.

104 million are retired.

That leaves 133 million to do the work.

There are 85 million in school, which leaves 48 million to do the work.

Of this there are 29 million employed by the federal government, leaving 19 million to do the work.

2.8 million are in the Armed Forces, which leaves 16.2 million work.

Take from the total the 14,800,000 people who work for State and City Governments and that leaves 1.4 million to do the work.

At any given time there are 188,000 people in hospitals, leaving 1,212,000 to do the work.
Now, there are 1,211,998 people in prisons.

That leaves just two people to do the work.

You and me.

And you're sitting at your computer reading jokes...

STICKS AND STONES . . .

Prov 2:12 - Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men, from men whose words are perverse . . . . NIV

FUNDAMENTALISM:
Everyone is a fundamentalist
No one is a fundamentalist

The way the term "fundamentalist" is used today is so unhelpful and prejudicial in nature that it makes me wonder what kind of purpose it has, other than to divide people and create barriers of communication. I think it generates murkiness rather than clarity, and unfriendly attitudes rather than openness. Anytime we label others, or even label ourselves, we create false unnecessary barriers between ourselves and others, and define limits for our perceptions about who we are, who others are, and about possibilities of communication between people. At present, there is no universal interpretation for the term "fundamentalism." It is merely used as sharp stick to jab and harm people. It has no beneficial purpose that I can tell, and it is certainly not descriptive in any useful way.

Once, in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner, I suggested to a person with whom I was having a discussion about fundamentalism, that the term had a very precise definition, and he needed to be careful about how he used the word, and who he labeled as a fundamentalist. The gentleman agreed with me, and fired back with a definition of fundamentalism based on an early twentieth century description of Protestantism that he had once read. I could tell he felt very proud of nailing me with his knowledge. I did not respond to it or disagree with him. That would have invited an endless argument; not something I'm fond of. I just smiled and let it pass.

But, this encounter underscored for me what I had already suspected, that the term fundamentalism is tossed about without much understanding, and without much relevant contemporary definition. Usually the term is used to indicate someone who is intolerant of others, resistant to ideas that do not line up with their view of reality, resistant to change, closed-minded to new ideas, forceful and persistent in presenting their own views to the exclusion of another's views, and unkind to those who hold different beliefs; maybe even willing to use violence to promote their ideas, or to suppress alien ideas. Of course, this is not a precise definition, only a summation of the way I hear the word being sometimes used.

But that is just my point. There is no completely articulate definition of the word, especially as it is being currently used in the media. It is employed more as a dismissive label about some rube who has no common sense, no connection to the modern plurlistic world; one who wouldn't recognize the truth that there is no such thing as truth, if it jump out and bit them.

If fundamentalism can be described in at least some of the ways I put together in the previous paragraph, then, if I use that as a lens to look at people and groups, families, and governments, church leaders and philosophers, scientists and school teachers, it would seem that everyone I've ever met was a fundamentalist at some point, and many people at numerous points. This is the problem with the use of the word. It has no substantive meaning, other than to indicate, in a rather intolerant way, that some OTHER person is intolerant, but not the one using the term. The term "fundamentalism" itself is an intolerant label. It oozes disgust the way it is employed. That is curious to me in such a culture of tolerance as we claims ours to be.

The word "fundamentalism" is a bomb that whoever uses the term first automatically holds the moral high ground, and the other person (the person being accused as a fundamentalist - and that is what it is, an accusation), must prove they are NOT a fundamentalist. The burden of proof is placed on the so-called "fundamentalist" to deny it in some tangible way. The use of the term is demeaning and coercive in the manner in which it is wielded.

The employ of the word is a kind of labeling, like using the "N" word to demean another person, or like placing "the scarlet letter" on some one's coat, so all can see the "undesirable" person in the midst -- the outcast -- the sinner -- the freak. It marks one in the eyes of others and dialogue becomes pretty much impossible, to say nothing of dignity and camaraderie. The term is pejorative.

Some people don't seem to mind being called a fundamentalist. In my view, this is much like when a dog owner calls their dog unkind things in an pleasant tone and the dog wags its tail, thinking the owner is saying something nice. Some people are just a little too slow to understand the depth of the insult. This is unfortunate, and it is sad. At least to me it is.

Let's face it. We all have beliefs we think are right - or best - as opposed to ideas we think are not as correct, or not as good. How else can one develop any kind of personal opinion at all? One has to make decisions about ideas; which ideas are worthy and which ideas are less worthy. To imply we don't do that is just plain dishonest. It is not possible to have no opinion. Even if one tried, it would indicate that one is of the opinion that that is preferable. So, in that sense, we are all a little fundamentalistic (is that a word?)

We are living in an impossible world today. No one wants to be seen as intolerant, so they down play their beliefs so as not to offend someone else. This will prove itself unproductive in the end. I personally don't mind if someone has views different than mine, even if they think my ideas are crap and theirs are totally right on. I can listen to divergent views in an open and engaging manner without either capitulating or wanting to retaliate. I want people to own their beliefs, just as I would like the freedom and courtesy to own my own beliefs. Is that bad?

I too would like the respect of being allowed to hold my own beliefs without being labeled as cultural-undesirable, or a fundamentalist. Or, here is another solution; I will allow others to call me a fundamentalist for my beliefs, if they will allow me to call them a fundamentalist for the things they believe. Then we might be at least closer to an understanding of how unnecessary the term is. It is one of the many useless words floating about in our language that does more harm than good. Words in my opinion, should be used for good, not for harm. This is what I am striving for, and, perhaps, making some headway . . . I do hope and pray this is true.

There are certain words I think we should call a moratorium on and never use again. One of those is of course the "N" word, as well as slang for Mexicans, Jews, Italians, Polish people, and so on (I'm of Italian decent, so I know the pain words have caused my grandparents and mother - I am not immune to it). But the words I think we should ban from our ordinary speech are words like Right-Wing, Left-Wing, Christian, Conservative, Liberal, and Fundamentalist . . . among numerous others. These words create more confusion than they remedy. They no longer clarify, they only falsify an idea about another human being. All such falsification through labeling is bound to be less productive and more divisive, more intolerant and less respectful, than learning to know each other as people, and being able to share our views openly and freely, even if we have views to which we hold passionately.

Listen for the word fundamentalism in the news, in the speech of others, in the public square, and see for yourself if it doesn't have a prejudicial quality to it. See for yourself if it is not spoken with disdain. Then ask yourself, if the one using the word about others, is doing so because they believe their own views are more "fundamentally" true and better than the one whom they have labeled as the "fundamentalist?" Couldn't such a person also be considered a fundamentalist of their own worldview? I am hoping that we all can start listening to ourselves a bit more analytically, and ask ourselves if the words we use are not only accurate and helpful, but if they are respectful and enlightened. Words really are important.

ARE YOU AN ICONOCLAST?

BREAKING OF IMAGES

We all know what a religious icon is. It's a painting, usually by an artist of the Eastern Orthodox Church persuasion. The painting of icons is an antique practice that survives till today. But the idea of an icon includes MUCH more than religious images. It includes ideas and values of all kinds, religious and secular. An icon, generally speaking, is a symbolic image that represents ideas, beliefs and values. The term icon has even come to include the tiny images on a computer monitor, or a telephone screen.

A person who uses icons is called an iconophile -- image lover, and one who does not like icons and tries to destroy them is called an iconoclast -- or image breaker. When iconoclasts in the past have gotten together and gone around breaking images, these events, and sometimes whole movements, are called iconoclasms.

An iconoclasm happens when one group of people break (destroy) the images of another group of people. This is not just true in the world of religion and art, it is also true in the area of culture. We have all heard the term Postmodernism, and there are many facets of Postmodernism, some good, and some not so good, but one of the central features of Postmodernism is its iconoclastic tendencies.

Postmodernists (at times), tend to through the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. In a wholesale approach to defacing, rearranging, or outright destroying previous notions of culture, Postmodernists occasionally employ iconoclastic techniques to rearrange everyone's world. It can be very coercive, authoritarian, and elitist, while claiming that no one has the right to dictate to others how they should live. It is often self contradictory.

This tendency to "break" the images of others is not just true of Postmodernists today, but it was true also of many groups throughout history, from the Protestant reformers to the revolutionaries of the French, from American patriots to people who burned the records of the Beatles in the 1960s. Some of the English Protestants of the Seventeenth century even took to smashing stained-glass windows, hacking off the faces from religious statues, and whitewashing over artwork in the churches that they found offensive.

There have been lots of iconoclasts through history. iconoclasm is as old as civilization itself. Every time there is an revolution, the old icons are gathered up and destroyed, and new icons take their place; images that are imbued with their own "new" ideas, meanings, and values.

The irony is, every succeeding generation of iconoclasts believes with complete confidence that the old must be removed to make way for the new, only to find that within a very short time (usually within about two generations), the new is not doing as well as it thought it would.

It then becomes the stuff against which the next revolution will rebel. It is a vicious cycle, and one would think we'd learn something from this screwy process. Some optimistic souls believe that each revolution bring us up one more rung on the never ending ladder of human / social / political / religious evolution. You gotta love that kind of optimism.

Iconoclasms may be unavoidable, but there is no guarantee that they are a means to progress. Progress is basically a myth of western culture. To what are we progressing? What does progress mean? Progress is basically an antiquated idea left over from the French Enlightenment that was made possible by the Christian Humanism which preceded it. The idea of progress makes us feel good about ourselves. It gives us a sense that there is meaning in the universe, even if we could not say exactly what that meaning might be.

There is, in fact, no way we can know if we are "Progressing," or "Regressing," or going nowhere at all. The notion of progress is one of those non-scientific left-overs from an age when faith itself was valued because of the influence of the Church on society. The idea of human progress is a construct of faith, not fact, yet it continues to be a deeply held idea in many Western societies - even within our scientific communities. It is an idea that will eventually give way to scrutiny, then ambivalence and ultimately decay. Then a new civilization will replace us with new ideas and will smash our precious icons to pieces, instituting images of their own. History has proven that this is the way of all flesh, in every case, without exception. We Americans will not escape the process. Today we are still safe because progress is a value we continue to hold dear.

It is important, I think, to make a case for the continuity of certain things; for history, for antiquity and for all that came before. The Russian Marxist/Leninist thought to bring about a utopia by sweeping away the icons of Czarist Russia, and what did it do? It left a permanent scar on the face of the earth, and an eternal lament in the hearts of many of the Russian people. Stalin killed millions of his own countrymen and women, in search of the progress that would liberate humankind from the tyranny of Capitalism, so he thought, yet Stalin is dead and Capitalism is still alive and VERY well in this world. So much for that agenda, yet Capitalism is not the savior of human kind, and it is its own kind of tyranny. The story is not fully told.

Sure, things do change, and even more needs to change than has. Change feels like the only constant in the universe, but not all change is beneficial, just as not all iconoclasms are helpful. Much irreversible and unfortunate damage has been done in this world due to such behaviors and attitudes.

Today, however, we are in an iconoclastic age. The images of Modernity are being destroyed "left and right." Maybe some of this is good, but I'm willing to bet we will look back and regret some of the changes we are making these days. For those of you who have time, find Leonard Cohen's song, "The Future," and listen to it for awhile. See if you don't hear the echo of some of the same things I'm trying to get at in this blog.

It is probably important to accept the fact that not all conventions need to be swept away. Only an immature or twisted mind would think such a thing. Not everyone over thirty is untrustworthy, not every young person is irresponsible, not every old person is to be tossed aside for the sake of "hipper" generations. Some categories, like family, authority, virtue, and human kindness, need to remain stable, long-lived, protected, and honored from generation to generation. The gospel is another one of those things. Art, not a particular style, but art in and of itself, is another one, and should remain part of one's spiritual life, both individually and corporately. Many things should, regardless of innovation, remain constant in our civilization.

The next time you feel tempted to trample on an older person because they are in-the-way of your progress, push aside someone from a different ethnicity because you feel threatened by their color or their practices, ignore the values of your parents' generation because you think yourself more enlightened, mock your grandparents for being irrelevant in modern society, reject a pastor's wisdom as outdated or out of touch, or curse your leaders because they represent ideas you do not embrace, think again. Things are not always what they seem.

The next time you feel like smashing an image that represents ideas from before your time, or from before America's time, reconsider your feelings. It is not always necessary to crush an idea the preceded your own. It is not necessary to hate/fear people with whom you disagree.

The next time you feel the urge to join the pack and deface the meaningful images others give to the things they value, ask yourself if you are just being a knee-jerk iconoclast, or a thoughtful contributor to human society.

I am very aware that church folks are just as guilty as any one else in these things, and often more so. It only takes a moment of rashness, unthoughtfulness, religious zeal or personal passion to become an Iconoclast. It take a bit more gray matter, godly virtue and wisdom to know what images need white-washing (if any), and which images simply need a fresh coat of paint.

THE CRISIS OF THE SACRED SPACE

Once upon a time, people took pride, the good kind of pride, in the things they made for God. They gave the best they had and they made the best they could make. They made the name of Jesus beautiful with the works of their hands.

Then came along those who criticized the things made with hands, and they called those works idolatry and wrong. They smashed the beautiful things and replace splendid spaces with bare halls and empty walls, all in the name of being holy. The beauty of sacred places was suppressed.

Today, people meet in gymnasiums and nightclubs for their church services. They believe they are more relevant to the culture this way. They have either forgotten or rejected the notion of the importance of sacred spaces, and of making things with one's hands to beautify the name of Jesus.

As a result, in my personal opinion, the church and the world have become impoverished by this attitude. The world sees religious people who have no love for beauty, not respect for beatutiful things, no interest in aesthetics, and they ask, "Why should I be like that?" Exactly. Why indeed?

FROM SPURGEON'S DAILY DEVOTIONS

"His ways are everlasting."

Habakkuk 3:6

What He hath done at one time, He will do yet again. Man's ways are variable, but God's ways are everlasting. There are many reasons for this most comforting truth: among them are the following--the Lord's ways are the result of wise deliberation; He ordereth all things according to the counsel of His own will. Human action is frequently the hasty result of passion, or fear, and is followed by regret and alteration; but nothing can take the Almighty by surprise, or happen otherwise than He has foreseen. His ways are the outgrowth of an immutable character, and in them the fixed and settled attributes of God are clearly to be seen. Unless the Eternal One Himself can undergo change, His ways, which are Himself in action, must remain for ever the same. Is He eternally just, gracious, faithful, wise, tender?--then His ways must ever be distinguished for the same excellences. Beings act according to their nature: when those natures change, their conduct varies also; but since God cannot know the shadow of a turning, His ways will abide everlastingly the same. Moreover there is no reason from without which could reverse the divine ways, since they are the embodiment of irresistible might. The earth is said, by the prophet, to be cleft with rivers, mountains tremble, the deep lifts up its hands, and sun and moon stand still, when Jehovah marches forth for the salvation of His people. Who can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou? But it is not might alone which gives stability; God's ways are the manifestation of the eternal principles of right, and therefore can never pass away. Wrong breeds decay and involves ruin, but the true and the good have about them a vitality which ages cannot diminish.

This morning let us go to our heavenly Father with confidence, remembering that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, and in Him the Lord is ever gracious to His people.

JUSTICE IN OUR SPEECH - Weighty Words

Who in the world can define justice, yet we all have the feeling that we know what it is. We all complain when something is not fair, when our rights or our dignity have been attacked, but do we show justice to others as much as we desire it be shown to us?

One of the litmus tests of a good person is words. Our words indicate what kind of person we are. Are our words sneaky, meant to hide our intentions and our true feelings? Are our words guarded in such a way as to make us look good, while hiding anger, hostility, pain, or deceit? Nothing is more revealing about a person than the words they choose to use. I don't mean swear words, sometimes swear words are necessary, even fun, though some of my more pietistic brethren would disagree with me, but what the h*** do they know. :-)

There is something far more important than just "making-nice" with our words. Do you hear someone running down another person, you can bet they treat all their acquaintances and friends the same way. If someone gossips about one person, they gossip about all. Gossip is not committed by occasional accident, it is a way of life. It is one of those "gifts" that keeps on giving.

What is gossip? It is speaking of another person's problems, flaws, station in life, habits, weaknesses, viewpoints or actions in a manner that, though possibly true (possibly not), is intended to demean another in the eyes of the one with whom that information is shared. Sometimes this is called slander, but that word is too narrow, gossip is more insidious than straight out slander. Gossip has nuances only hell itself has names for. One thing God's Kingdom lacks is the filthy-pleasure of gossip.

One teacher defined gossip as "Sharing information about a third party with someone who is neither part of the problem, nor part of the solution." There are probably some other good definitions out there as well, but we all know what it is and what it is intended to do to another person. It is always meant for harm. It is never meant for good. It is always satanic, it is always evil. (James 3:13-15)

Has anyone ever gossiped to you about someone? You can be absolutely certain they gossip about you too. Gossip is one of the most unjust acts of violence in existence. It is always against another person. No one spreads rumors about themselves. Gossip is an attack against another person - it is suppose to be as secret and as subtle as an IED; and before long, many are mutilated by the explosion. It is especially bad because the person(s) whose character is being calling into question is not present to defend themselves, and they have no body armor with which to protect themselves. That seems to me, very much like punching someone who's handcuffed -- and when it happens to you, it feels like just about as much fun as being water-boarded. It is sheer gut-wrenching torture. So why do we do it?

Until we recognize that this is the only way a coward knows to fight we will continue to be its victims. The coward feels compelled to say nasty things about others behind their back, because they would never dare to say the things they say about others to their face, in polite company, or in the open public. A coward uses words to harm others by sniping at them. All gossips are snipers. All gossip is cowardly. A gossip's words are calculated to hurt, wound, damage, and diminish others. The terrifying thing is, it works, and it works all too well.

I suggest we stop listening to gossips. We might even speak frankly to their face, that we will not permit them to harm others in our presence. Why do we listen to it? Is it that we share their desire to wound others in secret? Does our listening give us a sense of power, of being on the inside, of being privileged to know the dirt others don't? Does gossiping and listening to gossip give us a sick sense of power over others? Do you like to read the gossip columns, or enjoy the wicked things people say about others on the Internet. May I suggest that we would grow wiser and more virtuous if we stopped reading and believing such things about others - whoever the "others" are?

Think of the gossip as a coward who commits acts of violence against people who cannot defend themselves. Does this sound like what spiritual behavior should look like? NO? Well neither does the Bible. God is very specific that the gossip is living out of sync with God's Spirit. For He has never, and will never, speak evil of anyone, no matter who they are, or what they have done. He may speak the truth, and the truth may hurt, but He will speak it to your face, never behind your back. (Titus 3:1-6)

The tongue is an unruly member in our body, James the Apostle tells us. No one is able to tame the tongue. It is a world of evil, full of poison. (James 3:8-10) It is like the spark and flame that set ablaze hillsides, destroyed homes, and cost individuals their lives and livelihoods in Los Angeles this past autumn. It is, in short, a destructively powerful and terrible weapon that we each wield against others as though there would be no consequences to the things we say.

Yes, I am guilty of gossip, maybe more than most. It has caused me enormous heartache, and has wounded friends and family. May God forgive me -- but more -- may God deliver me from the careless words I speak. This is my prayer. May God teach me the justice of good speech, and may my words become both just and fair, wise and winsome. My I always speak well of others.

My mom use to tell me, "Dan, you better sprinkle lots of sugar on those words, 'cause someday, I guarantee you, you will have to eat them." Yes, mom, you were right. I wish now I had put more sweetness in them. Some of the things I've said have been pretty bitter and pretty sad.

Here's to sweet words, and fair speech, and good reports about everyone. Paul says, "Speak evil of no man." May God teach me this lesson, not only for my tongue, but for my heart as well.

GOD IS NOWHERE - GOD IS NOW HERE

Where is God?

Odd, that we don't ask that question very often when things are going well.

"Where is God?" is usually our question in our tough times, not our the easy times. I wonder if it is because we feel that God exists to make our lives better - easier - more successful - more prosperous - more of everything we LIKE and less of everything we fear and loathe.

Years ago, I saw this interesting spelling GOD IS NOWHERE and GOD IS NOW HERE. It stuck with me. Where is God? Where does He live? Where does he work? Some time back, Jone Osborne asked the question in her song, "What if God was one of us?" It was a penetrating lyric with excellent music to match. I have that song on my iTunes playlist, and I play it from time to time. It always moves me, because . . . God IS one of us. The man Jesus is, as the Nicene Creed declares, "is Man of true man, God of true God . . .." Along with that, God tells us clearly where He is, where He lives, where He works, and where He hangs out.

God is in the midst of His people. God speaks to us intimately through the Bible. God is even in nature, showing us His eternal power and deity (Rom 1:18-21), and God is in the world working every day. He is not far from anyone of us, He is near. GOD IS NOW HERE.

But for those who require Him to show up where they want Him to be, there will be only silence and disappointment. Go where God IS. You will find Him in His house. You will find Him in the midst of His people. If you say you love Him, then love His bride, His church, His family, His friends. If you want to be near Him, you can be. Go to God's house this week. Find a church that believes His word and embraces the mystery of intimacy with His Spirit. Go there. Many churches believe and practice "knowing God." Find one. Go with an open heart. You will find God waiting for you with open arms.

ARTISTS; RESIDENT IN THE CHURCH?

The Artist-in-Residence program at Durham Cathedral is a testimony to the enduring legacy of the need for artists in the church. You can observe their program at their website, and get a sense of its history as well as its contemporary relevance. http://www.artschaplaincy.org.uk/projects/air.html

The works of these artists transcend a merely self-centered notion of person creativity; these artists are producing works that are connected to a centuries old tradition that ministers to others and glorifies God.

Their work becomes timeless, because they are joining their lives and their labors to something bigger than themselves. They are, in a sense, hitching their wagon to a star, and because of this their works will remain a testimony of their own creative spirit as it is joined to the work of countless others through the life of the Church.

In these works one sees a continuity with the artists of the past, energetic contemporary expressions of living creativity, and fellowship in an artistic tradition that will stand the test of time. Would to God, more churches employed the arts in their worship, in their sacred spaces, and in their plans for the future.

It would be wonderful if more "artist in residence" programs were established. If you love the arts, talk to your church leaders about including them more integrally into your regular worship. If you are really bold, encourage your church and its leaders to look into creating an "artist in residence" program. It need not be grandiose. You can begin simply. Any enrichment of the worship experience is better than none. Begin where you can, and see the wonderful places that journey will take you.

Look for more information about this subject in coming blogs. Creating such programs is possible, and well worth our time, resources and energy to investigate. Imagine the rich possibilities and the diversity of advantages for humankind if churches returned to the arts, and art was once more created for the glory of God. There is not a single facet of the Church that would not directly benefit. There is not a single area of culture that would not be greatly enriched.

(Painting above: The Annunciation by: Edward Burne-Jones, a Pre-Raphaelite)

ANCIENT - COMPELLING - RELATIVE

There is a kind of mania in the churches today about being relevant to the culture. Frequently that means being new, fresh, trendy, culturally hip, faddish, or edgy. Relevance is rarely that in any case except for those contexts where trendiness is the over-arching paradigm.

Who today would think of St. Augustine as being relevant to the current and prevailing cultures of the west? Probably not many, but a closer look will find this man someone not merely to venerate as a saint, but one who ought to be considered as truly relevant for believers today. His works transcend time and culture, remaining a great source of inspiration and wisdom.

Augustine was, in his early years, a profligate and an intellectual. He was formally trained as an orator and became a teacher, but his personal life was a moral mess. One of his most famous statements often quoted was, "God, make me chaste, but not yet." We smile at the honest foolishness of that request, and see our own desire for God as it is often eclipsed by our reluctance to fully follow Christ.

Augustine is one of those saints who has caused more soul-searching and controversy than most others. That alone qualifies him for examination. Any religious person who wants to fit in and make nice will not like what Augustine has to say. Those who want to be thought spiritual while living like hell will out and out despise what he has to say. But, those who have an open heart, unafraid of the mystical vision he preaches will find in Augustine a fountain of refreshment and inspiration. Read Augustine. He is not just ancient, he is also relevant and compelling for our own day.

Here is a link to a teaching by John Piper about the life of St. Augustine and what it might mean to us today. Piper is speaking to a group of ministers, and he refers to numerous early church controversies with heretics as well as references to the "Reform" churches and Reform theology, but never mind all that . . . those are references intended for that particular audience. Just ignore that, but listen closely to the things he has to say about Augustine himself. I think you might find it a bit more than interesting. I hope you find it compelling as well. http://www.danielriceart.net/AUGUSTINE/

When you get to the folder you will see a single file. Just click on the MP3 file to download or open the subject matter. Note, this is a 40 meg file, so it may take a minute (or four) to download it if you have a cable connection. Piper's entire message is over an hour, but listen to what you can. You will get the feel of it pretty quickly. This is superb content on Augustine, delivered by a passionate and intelligent contemporary public speaker.

PATRON SAINTS OF ARTISTS

There are a number of patron saints of artists. They are St. Catherine of Bologna, St. Bernward, Fra Angelico, Michael the Archangel, and St. Luke, the writer of the gospel of Luke, the book of The Acts of the Apostles, and traveling companion of St. Paul on his missionary journeys.

In Renaissance Florence, St. Luke was a favored patron saint for the painters, goldsmiths, gold workers, stained glass workers, lacemakers, brewers and sculptors.

( http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintl06.htm)

In the 11th century, St. Bernward was a remarkable artist and churchman who accomplished amazing things in the creation of sacred spaces and for the beautification of the worship of God. His story is truly impressive. (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintb44.htm)

I love the idea of having patron saints of the arts, because the arts should be thought of as sacred in nature, and blessed by heaven. This may not seem true in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in the general public - not yet anyway, but it will - especially as common artists like myself and my friends have anything to say about it . . . and we do.

Many believers working in the arts today are beginning to make a difference in the art world. New York City now has the Museum of Biblical Art (http://www.mobia.org/about/), of which I hear some good things - and Gordon College houses the CIVA organization. CIVA stands for Christians in the Visual Arts (http://www.civa.org/), a worthy effort for the arts among believers. Publications like IMAGE Magazine and Relevant Magazine (two very different kinds of publications) are raising the consciousness about excellence in the arts.

There is so much going on that churches too reluctant or too afraid to patronize the arts; or unwilling to become supporters of artists in their midst, and patrons of their works may discover that they missed a great opportunity to be in the middle of what God is doing in this generation. They missed their best opportunity to connect to the culture, to bless their world.

Shortly, I will be sharing more with you about the patron saints of the arts and what that might mean for us today, regardless of one's spiritual affiliations.

REPRODUCTIONS OF THE MASTERS

These reproductions of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling are charcoal on toned board, dimensions: 5.75" x 6.75"; perfect for classical decorative elements in your home or office, and delightfully unique gifts for your cultured friends and family members. Do you have a favorite artist? Daniel can reproduce their work in a variety of ways, from large wall murals to cameo-sized accents like these unique handcrafted translations of great masterpieces.

To see more of Daniel's work, visit http://www.danielriceart.net/

EMBARRASSING AS HELL

Hell isn't what it use to be . . . at least in its place within society. People seem to be embarrassed to talk about hell, and preachers rarely discuss it or talk about it. When asked about one's belief in hell, many people hesitate and blush. It is an embarrassing question, especially for people who think of themselves as intellectually enlightened.

This painting is from an amazing fresco called "The Triumph of the Name of Jesus," by an artist named Gaulli. This is just the lower corner of the enormous ceiling painting. I saw this fresco in 2006, on my last visit to Rome. This portion of the painting depicts devils and the wicked being cast down to their condemnation.

It seems curious that the topic of hell, once so common in churches and theological discussions, has become an almost forbidden topic. It is hard to talk about hell without people expressing their strong emotions, or energetic objections to the subject. Why is this?

Even Evangelicals' ideas and belief in hell has slipped from what it once was. Where once most of Evangelicals believed in hell, now most are conflicted by the subject. There are some very strong feelings about this subject, and it makes me wonder why there is such a strong reaction . . . and reaction it is.

Not all beliefs in hell are identical. There is the eternal conscious punishment version. There is the nihilistic version of it. There is the idea that hell, and/or Purgatory, can be redemptive rather than entirely punitive. Then there is the view that no such place exists at all.

Ask almost any Christian these days, regardless of the denom, and you will find a generally uncomfortable response to the question of one's belief in the existence of hell.

Of course, a belief in the existence of hell is not a requirement for entry into heaven, or at least I don't see it listed as such anywhere in the Bible, but there are, nonetheless, quite energetic feelings about this subject.

Strangely, the subject of hell is one of those topics that can provide one comfort as well as a sense of dread. If one has suffered injustices, or if one has intractable enemies, it is oddly comforting to think that perhaps your enemies will end up in hell.

There are clever statements in films where someone will tell their enemy, "I'll see you in hell!" and there are those witty retorts when told to go to hell, the response is, "You first." Which is usually followed by someone killing the one who insulted them.

Hell can be a convenient doctrine to bandy about. Infidels always end up in hell. Ask any faithful Muslim. Jews, however, have very different views on the subject. Christians have mixed feelings, and various views, and the general population has reached no consensus on the subject at all -- yet people remain very emotional about the subject.

The notion of hell, however, is not relegated to the three Middle-Eastern religions, other cultures and various religions have their own idea of hell. It could even be said that Buddhistic concept of reincarnation is not a happy idea, but is their idea of hell. One really does not want to come back. One is trying to break the cycle and to get out of the endless repetition of life and death. That to the Buddhist is Nirvana . . . which is more about release into nothingness than it is fulfillment of personalty.

I'd love to do a painting about hell, but it is difficult to conceive of an idea of hell that would be meaningful for this generation. The subject matter, as an artist, fascinates me.

I am interested in people's emotions about this topic almost as much as I am in the subject of hell itself.

Why do you think people get so worked up about the idea of hell?

What is it that lies beneath the emotions that provokes such strong responses?

Does the subject bother you?

Have you ever argued one side or the other? If so, why?

What is to be gained by such discussions on the existence of hell?

Why do you think we all feel that this subject is an important subject?

I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

FIFTEEN "NANOSECONDS" OF FAME?

In the later part of the last century, Andy Worhol coined the phrase, "Fifteen-minutes of fame." He was pointing out that media was such a strong force in the world, that everyone on the planet would have fifteen-minutes of notoriety . . . that would be all.

The media is powerful enough to reach everyone on the planet, but it will not provide any single individual with lasting fame. That was then, when the world was slower and less media-intense.

Andy died before the Internet was a available to the masses. I am sure he would have something clever to say about the proliferation of new forms of media these days. Perhaps he would think there would only be fifteen nanoseconds of fame. Fifteen minutes is an eternity by comparison. I mean, just think of how many Youtube spots there are to view. How does any single video rise to the top of that dog-pile? And, who in the world has the time or the opportunity to view them all?

In conversations about the arts and entertainment, I have often heard people comment about how nearly impossible it is to make anything that is meaningful to the masses, in any long-term sense. Ours is a throw-away society that tastes everything and digests nothing. All it seems to produce is massive amounts of waste. I wonder, are we receiving any nutrition from our gluttonous consumption of everything new?

My son-in-law, at lunch today, quoted someone who had said that there use to be one-hundred great bands, each with ten-thousand fans. Now we see ten-thousand bands, each with one-hundred fans. It is true. How can fame find anyone in a world such as this, yet our culture continues to morph in this fashion.

So, is any form of longevity possible . . . for art, for knowledge, for culture, for society, for religion, for individuals? Is it possible to leave a legacy for the generations that will follow us? Or, does this contemporary pastiche mean that all that which was classical and time-honored is no longer relevant? Does relevance exist for anything that is not part of the wave of the nuevo-culture?

If only that which is new and novel is valued, what hope is there for cultural continuity through time? Is cultural continuity even a value in this nation anymore? What will the perpetual-change-machinery of pop-culture, technology, and media produce for our world in the next fifty years? Will this tsunami of the "new" wash away earlier cultures and replace them with anything worthy to be called culture . . . in the old sense of that term? Is history relevant?

I'm reminded of the words of Jeremiah, the Jewish prophet, who said, "This is what the LORD says: Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, 'We will not walk in it.' Jer 6:16 NIV

What does it mean to be out-of-date, old-fashioned, antiquated? Is there such a thing as "going-back" in order to go forward? If one misses one's intended off-ramp on the freeway, is it "progress" to keep going? Is it enlightened to think that all off-ramps lead to the same destination? If you were going to keep something from the past in such a world of change as ours what kind of thing(s) would you keep. What ancient things might one always consider to be contemporary?

Any nanothoughts?

THE ILLUMINATRIUM ART EXPERIENCE

FREEDOM FEST went well, except for the few hours the rain nearly washed us all away . . . BUT, the Illuminatrium Art Experience went pretty well.

I imagine there were probably 300 or more people who went through the Illuminatrium, many of whom stopped long enough to make some pretty cool art.

Between painting, drawing, face-painting, origami, clay and coloring books, there was a ton of art produced in those 50 or so hours. It was inspiring. By the end of Freedom Fest, there was over 120 works hanging on the gallery walls . . . a tribute to the creative spirit of children of all ages.

This is just one of the many cool works produced.

To see more, visit http://www.danielriceart.net/ILLUMINATRIUM/Illuminatrium.html

UNSELFISHNESS IS NOT ENOUGH

C. S. Lewis is a fairly renowned author on a number of subjects. Among his diverse writings are scholarly works about Medieval literature, science fiction stories, theological papers, and even children's books, such as The Chronicles of Narnia.

Over the years, I have returned to one of his works over and over. Actually it was a public address he gave in Oxford in 1941, but has been printed in a variety of places since.

"The Weight of Glory" is still fresh and relevant today, and it is one of the most amazing essays I have ever read. It is about the greater meaning of the Christian idea and experience, as it pertains to the after-life and eternal reward. It is simply profound.

Of course, I try to use the term Christian carefully, because I do not want that word associated with mere denominationalism or anything short of its biblical meaning, i.e. those who follow Christ himself. It is one thing to belong to a religious organization, it is quite another to be a Christ-follower.

People often use the word "Christian" to refer to varoius sectarian approaches to the Faith, such as Fundamentalism, or Evangelicalism, or other "isms" of one brand or another. The word has lost nearly all of its original apostolic meaning. If I could, I would replace it with a different, better, less abused term for following Christ.

But, for the moment, click on the link below and read the essay for yourself. It is rather long, but "weighty" matters are always worth working through.

To view the pages, you will need to click on each link separately.

These are all JPGs.

Happy reading :-)

http://www.danielriceart.net/BLOG/WEIGHT_of_GLORY

SOURCE for The Weight of Glory
The Essential C. S. Lewis
COLLIER BOOKS
MACMILLAN PUBLISHING COMPANY
866 Third Ave, New York, NY 10022
ISBN 0-002-019550-8

MY KID COULD PAINT THAT!!!

WOW.

Watch this trailer and tell me what you think.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/mykidcouldpaintthat/

ATTACK OF THE GREEN-EYED MONSTER

Over the years one picks up a piece of information or three. This is one I have come to lean on.

I have noticed through my life that when someone is rejoicing, someone else may not like it. They are sour and cannot rejoice with those who rejoice, they refuse to celebrate the happiness of others; but rather feel like saying or doing something to bring the happy-one “down-to-earth,” “back-to-reality,” “in-balance” with the rest of the world.

I truly do not understand why this is part of human nature, but it seems to be true at times. People just get green with envy. They become jealous of others who are doing well. This was part of the dynamics of Cain's hatred of his brother, Able. It led to the first recorded murder. This kind of attitude is not only unbecoming, it can be problematic. Often, it is jealousy that is at the root of quarrels between people. The Apostle James said, "What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2 You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (James 4:1-3 NIV)


Happily, over the past decade or so, I have been conscious enough to recognize those subtle “kill-joy” voices (I believe they are also probably “devilish” voices), and counter them with kind words, sincere congratulations, and heartfelt like-rejoicing to the ones who are in their moment of happiness. The burdens of life will unfortunately return soon enough and often enough, so I enjoy perpetuating “the moment” of joy as long as is possible – especially when it is the moment of someone else’s joy. This is a gift to them. It is a blessing I have the power to grant or to withhold. I choose to grant it . . . with gusto! J And, I am delighted to do so.

Life, as they say, is short, and we all forget that fact from time to time. I have found that celebrating things in which my friends are rejoicing brings me gladness of heart, and a kind of participation in their joy . . . which is often very wonderful. I have found that I must “check my spirit” from time to time and consciously reject negative thoughts . . . or worse, no thought at all about the other’s joy. Someone once said, “Envy is the only way the wicked know how to pay a compliment.” That really hit me. But, rather than envy another’s achievement or station in life, we can celebrate it – which seems to me to be a higher path.

One of the ways I know how to tell if I am walking in God’s Spirit is how I feel about the success of others. I am happy to say that, over the years, Christ has been working this precious gift inside me. Today, I learned of some colleagues who have successfully and beautifully completed a truly amazing building project. I cannot tell you how happy I am for them – for us all, because when one part of the Body of Christ is exalted, all are beneficiaries. This achievement of theirs is truly wonderful.

It may be that I may never personally benefit from their triumph, but I can genuinely participate with them in their happy moment. What a joy and a glory it is for them, and I would not rob them of a single beam of their delight. Rather, I add to it with a hearty “Way to go!!” “Well done!!!” I rejoice with them. I exult with them. I am grateful to see the blessing of God in/on/with/through my brother’s and sister’s lives. Doing so enriches us all. I know it enriches me. In the end, it will all boil down to that final statement that we all so deeply long to hear, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” I choose to echo praise for others in anticipation of its ultimate bestowal. Perhaps, in my congratulations to my brothers, they will hear something of the voice of the one whom they love so dearly.

James 3:13-18 . . . 17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness. NIV

WHY SO LITTLE ART IN THE CHURCHES?

Of course, there are churches that are quite aware of the arts, and they are very active in numerous levels and expressions of art, but there are many more that aren't and don't. This is not an exaggeration, it is pretty much true across the board, regardless of denom.

Arts and culture are popular buzz-words in the many churches today, but there is really not much of either art or culture going on. Again, this is not a criticism as much as it is an simple observation.

To prove the point, just ask the average church leader how much of their budget is dedicated to the purchasing of art, and how many artists are on their staff. You are likely to get some answer that says they encourage the artists in their congregations to "volunteer" for things, but less often will one find churches hiring artists to place on their leadership staff. Most churches simply do not put their money where their mouth is. Many say they value the arts, but do nothing to promote them within their congregations. Often they discourage artists from being taken seriously, relegating the artist's works to "special-moments" of expression, but not to share in the accepted and regular forms of ministry.

Some churches do, however, hire artists, and commission them for various tasks - but these are often punctiliar tasks, works for the moment; irregular. The visual arts is one area that needs to see growth in all churches. It actually is growing in some spots, but in others it is little more than a fuzzy noise in the background.

But in all fairness, how is the church to think of the arts today? For nearly a hundred years the visual arts were almost completely absent from the church, and any one who got involved in the performing arts was suspect. Their faith was very often questioned. The arts were often seen as a backdoor to worldliness and sin. Only ministries of music have grown with any regularity in the Protestant churches during this past century. Music is truly wonderful, but it is not enough if it is the only art form in the church. Though music is essential and necessary, it is too narrow a focus all by itself. It will never be enough until all the arts are seen to be just as necessary for worship as is music.

What is needed to bring the visual arts up to snuff in the church? Several things. First, knowledgeable people in art ministries; people who are not afraid of the visual arts. Second, regular education in the arts for the church, so that congregations can know what is "good" and what is "better." Third, visual artists with education and existing ministries need to be ordained to positions of leadership that carry as much weight as does every other leadership ministry in the church. Fourth, resources. That is as plain and simple as it gets. The arts need money and space. A place for the arts must be created and regularly supported. It may not be that great to begin with, but it's creation and growth must be committed to, or nothing will change.

In short, the arts must cease to be marginalized and take a place at the center of church culture, alongside the rest of the regular ministries of Word and Spirit. Until the visual arts cease being a quaint novelty, or an occasional luxury, and are seen as the essential ministry of communication and worship that they are, not much will change in the church. Without all the arts functioning fully in the church, it will remain impoverished in many ways. It will lack the fullest expressions of God's interaction with humankind.

Church history has shown us over and over that when the arts are at the center of worship and spiritual education, the church grows, thrives and benefits -- not only in the immediate sense, but across time as well.

When the church takes the long view, and invests in the arts as a means of communicating God's presence over time and space (rather than merely a pop expression for the moment), then great things are possible and Spirit-filled artists will emerge from within the church itself . . . but what church leaders have either the vision or the courage for such a commitment as that?

Something to think about. :-)

(NOTE: Painting at top by Scott Erickson - See more of Scott's work at http://thetranspireproject.com/)

WHY HAS ART CHANGED SO MUCH?

Why is the art of today so different than the art of yester-year?

To answer that question adequately, one would have to know something of the philosophy and culture of previous ages. Art both leads and follows the path of a culture's development. It is probably true and most accurate to say that philosophy drives art.

In the west, say, in the Middle Ages, the artist was a crafts person and most art was utilitarian - functional in nature. It was decorative and filled the ordinary lives of people. In the Renaissance the status of the artist changed and they moved from being a servant of the patron to acquire celebrity status. This was a significant change.

In addition to the celebrity status of the Renaissance artist, the artist was called upon to invent all sorts of things -- from the composition of the subject to the ways in which the art would be used, or seen.

As the merchant class grew, more people could afford art, and the Catholic church was no longer the primary patron of the arts. Now, the church, the wealthy, the merchant class and the average person could afford art. In Italy, the Medici family spent fortunes on art, not only buying it, but in creating a market for it. They were shrewd enough to realize that there was real money to be made from the production and purchase of art.

In the twentieth century, some artists think of themselves as as much more than celebrities. They think of themselves as autonomous from the culture, doing what they want and serving nothing other than their own sensibilities.

The old patrons of the arts have all but disappeared - though new ones have emerged. Rather than making art to beautify the world, many artists of today express only themselves for themselves. They say they are making "art for art's sake," but we see that the result of some of their work is not as beneficial for culture as one might think it could be. Much are has become pathologically narcissistic.

Finally, there are so many more areas of the arts than before. Now there is everything from fashion to animation, from computer images to installation art, from painting to hip-hop. Art spans not just the visual arts but performing arts and music as well. The boundaries have been blended and blurred, not accidentally but deliberately under the banner of creative freedom as well as necessity.

Art in the west has evolved and continues to evolve.

What do you think art will become in the future?

Where do you think all this "creativity" is going?

Do you think it is good for the art world to be where it is, or is it not so good, and why?

What are your thoughts on the evolution of the arts in our own culture, or even cross culturally?

(Photo at the top is Raphael's depiction of removing the dead Christ from the cross.)

DRAWING IS THE FOUNDATION OF COMMUNICATION

Drawing is our first language. Before we can form sentences, and long before we learn to write, we draw. It seems to be hardwired into our nature.

We talk with pictures. We represent ideas with images. Why? Probably because our most powerful response to the world is visual.

We see objects and events, and we try to depict the things we see. We mimic what we visualize. We communicate our understanding of the world through the pictures we draw. It is probably true to say that there is no right or wrong way to draw, just successful or unsuccessful ways to do it. Whether one lays down meticulous lines or scribbles and smudges marks together, the only question to ask is, "Did you accomplish what you wanted?"

Beyond that, accuracy and effect are factors that certainly do matter to the process of drawing. From the time we are children we seek better and better ways to draw. There really is no end to it. When people go out for coffee and try to share an idea with a friend, often they will grab a pen and a napkin and will draw a picture of it. The response is often, "WOW!" or "Yup, I get it."

Drawings can clarify what mere words never can. I suppose each has its own limitations. A great drawing is always exciting. I know of very few people who are unmoved by a great drawing. It is important to draw, and it is important to learn to draw better.

There are many WONDERFUL things that happen to the human brain when one draws. Learning to draw is a journey of a lifetime rather than a destination at which one arrives.

Both educational and scientific studies have clearly indicated that people who draw expand their capacity for learning in many areas; from math to science, from conceptual ideas and spacial intelligence to manual dexterity and visual acuity.

In short, drawing is good for us.What makes a drawing great? There are objective things that make it great, and there are personal things that make it great.

What are some of the great drawings you've seen, and why do you like them?

Here is a pencil drawing I did on the beach in Hawaii. I hope you like it.

ART-TENT / Freedom Fest 2007 / August 17-19

HEY - August is Awesome!

If you haven't already looked at the Freedom Fest website, go there after reading this. http://www.freedomfest.org/ It is full of cool stuff about this important event. There you will find a list of bands and talent of all kinds. You don't want to miss this.

From the 17th through 19th you will absolutely enjoy some of the best fun of your entire summer. Beyond the bands, the food and the fun, Freedom Fest is hosting their first ART-TENT, where lots of creative fun will be happening all weekend long. The program is rich in creative material for you and your friends, or for families and kids. There is something for everyone from 2 to 102.

Among the happenings at the ART-TENT will be a TAG-WALL; ART-DEMOS - "how to" draw and paint taught by a professional artist; READINGS from C. S. Lewis by Connie Rice - Chronicles of Narnia and The Screwtape Letters; COMMUNITY-MURAL where you can paint with other friends during the course of the weekend; FACE-PAINTING for the kids; CONVERSATION-PIT where you can sit and chat with your friends about ARTSY subjects and other cool things; RIBBONS for best drawing and painting per related age-group will be awarded; OPEN-SESSIONS where you can just come in and do art till your heart's content; and TONS-MORE. You are gonna totally LOVE the new ART-TENT -- and what is the ART-TENT called? What else . . . THE ILLUMINATRIUM! What is an "Illuminatrium?" It's a place where resplendent light shines on the creative spirit.

Really - if you love music and art and fun in the sun, this event is for YOU!
Go online and get your tickets today. Don't delay!!! :-)

Connie and I will be there the entire weekend, so drop by the ART-TENT and say "Hi!"

ART & CHURCH BUILDINGS

It use to be that Christians took great pride in the arts. It showed up in everything they did, especially in their buildings - be they large or small.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the Christian church heavily influenced all the arts of the western world for nearly sixteen hundred years. That is quite a long time. These days, the church is barely in the arts at all - except perhaps for Evangelical music which has experienced a huge boost in popularity in the past century, especially the last thirty years.

However, other than with a few examples, most church structures have gone from being monuments of the creative-worshipful-spirit to ultra simple configurations.

Some churches today don't even own a building. They meet in warehouses, shopping malls, theaters, and gymnasiums. The idea is often expressed that this is a good thing because more money can be spent on evangelism, social work and missions, and other such things; but that argument sounds somehow hollow to my ears. I am not sure why, but it always makes me feel that the one saying such things has other agenda . . . like the disciples complaining about the woman who broke the alabaster box of ointment on Jesus. They complained that it was a waste of wealth, and that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus did not agree with them.

Yes, sometimes money can go to better things than to buildings. I get it. I know this sounds sensible and financially wise, but is it really the truth? Is it really wisdom? For sure, there can be excess with anything, and money can be spent on useless items, but is putting money into the arts for the sake of enriching spiritual experience unwise? Is it always wrong - is it ever wrong to spend money to enrich one's spiritual experience? How does one decide that?

The nagging questions in my mind are, "Who will remember the gymnasium-churches of today?" "Doesn't their very transience demonstrate an unwillingness to think and plan for the long-term?" "Does choosing the easy low-brow-architecture meeting-place of the gymnasium demonstrate a disdain for the notion of the permanence of the Kingdom of God, to say nothing of the need for enduring creative-arts?" "Is the Church to imitate the pop fad-culture of 'here today, gone tomorrow' - disposable-everything - including the place where the Almighty is said to be worshiped?"

One thing is for sure, the cathedrals of the past still stand as monuments to the historic Christian faith, and every stone of their structures proclaims a richness of faith that has endured through the centuries.

The argument that these structures were built on the backs of the poor does not hold water for several reasons. One is simply that cathedrals were also centers of culture and they belonged to the people. They provided respite from the poverty of a person's common life, instructed the mind, lifted the spirit, and provided comfort for those who used them; and almost everyone used them - from the rich to the most poverty stricken. Cathedrals provided many benefits, despite their obvious expense. In fact, it is their enormous expense that speaks so loudly about their value and their enduring contribution to culture.

I know that some will say that the cathedrals are dead and that no one worships there anymore, and this is true with some of them, but here is a picture of Wells Cathedral, where vibrant worship continues unbroken from the day it was begun until now . . . and so it is with many of these sacred places. Sacred places are important, and continuity with previous generations is vital for the Christian faith. When both are combined, it makes for a compelling story that ought to be respected.

My personal sense is that a false sense of piety has stripped the church, and world, of a very wonderful influence, i.e. magnificent, creative, enduring architecture, as seen in the things made by those who worshiped in previous generations with their whole mind, body and soul.It makes me ask the question, "When splendor in worship is no longer a sacred value in the church, how will the world then associate the brilliance of the Creator-of-the-universe with the people who claim to belong to Him?

How could this phenomenon of prejudice against great architectural structures of worship have happened, and what can be done about it? Does anything need to be done about it? Yes, it is true that one can worship anywhere. That is not my point here. My point is, when one CAN make something to glorify God, and chooses not to do so, what does it say about that choice?
Your thoughts on these questions are welcome here. Even if you think me completely wrong on every point. The purpose of the blog is to respectfully explore ideas together. I look forward to seeing your comments here, and to learning something new. :-)