ARTS,CULTURE & MINISTRY

Just as Bob Dylan proved that one need not have a traditionally well-tuned voice to be considered a singer, Nam June Paik has proven one need not stay with conventional forms to make art.

In fact, it is no longer necessary (or even desirable) to make art that is either beautiful or useful, comprehensible or relevant to anyone but the artist.

There was a time when artists like Leonard da Vinci said that art was about taking one's lessons from nature because nature is the master of the artist; art is about nature. From the Renaissance to today, the fine arts in the west have moved from being associated with the natural world and beauty, to an artist's personal exercise of entirely inward, psychological, and personal expression.

By the time Picasso came on the scene in the twentieth century, (as he states it), "Art is about everything but nature." Nature has no say at all about what art is or should be. Art, to Picasso, was concerned entirely with the internal landscape of the human psyche.

There are reasons why this has happened. These ideas are primarily the results of dramatic shifts in the philosophies in the west. One would need to take an art history or philosophy course to understand these changes clearly, but suffice it to say that art is so different today that it does not resemble the art of the Renaissance in almost every way.

Art today has become entirely the expression of the artist, plus an existential brian-state of the viewer and nothing more. It is a bio-chemical experience without meaning, without virtue and without God. It is frequently anarchistic and cynical at it core. It does not believe in the exsistence of truth or of meaning beyond the personal truth or meaning one gives to it, or receives from it. There is no "big-picture," just an infinite array of "little-pictures," having neither certainty nor hope.

Artists "in the know" are not unaware of this radical shift, but the general public is still in the dark. Confusion and incoherence is the general condition of western culture toward the arts today. There is less continuity, less agreement, less community in the arts today than at any other time before. Considerations once thought important, such as decorum and depiction of the sublime, have been so thoroughly rejected by contemporary artists that one would be laughed out of town to even imply that an artist has a responsibility to either these ideas or to their audience, or to their culture, or to their patrons. This is a core element in the debates that rage over monies spent on and for the National Endowments for the Arts.

Where once the Church was a major patron of the arts, supporting art and artists alike, the past one hundred years has seen precious little activity of the Church in the arts. I don't know of one important artist in the twentieth century who claimed to be a Christ-follower. There may have been, but I don't know of any. If you do, please let me know. I would genuinely like to know about them.

With all due respect for those who have purchased a certain style of painting with which to decorate their home, please do not mention Thomas Kincaid. He is not a serious artist in our culture, and never will be, not on the same level as a Picasso, a Goya, or a Leonardo. Kincaid is merely a commercial artist who sells tons of decorative paintings produced on a production line (much like a car factory), which are designed to exploit the sappy emotions of the generally art-illiterate public for the sake of his own personal profit -- and he is famously successful at it. This is not a criticism as much as it is an observation. Take it for what it's worth. But I must make a distinction between that "sentimental" stuff and the kind of "serious" art that transforms cultures, survives the test of time, and does more than titilate the fickle art-fad-consumption of the masses.

Most of the art produced in the twentieth century, according to art historians and art commentators (see Michael Woods', Art of the Western World, and others), tell us that twentieth century art depicted not only the purely psychological qualities, but also that which was violent, brutal, erotic, cynical, often hopeless and fearful; projecting human alienation, angst, despair and decay. These are not my evaluations; they are the evaluations of people who claim to be in the know. Neither he nor I would laud such content, but it is there nonetheless. It was what was in the psyche of western civilization, and it was mirrored in the bloody wars and civil strife of that century. There was good resons for that century to have such depictions in its art.

Hans Rookmaaker, an art historian who wrote the book, Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, ( read more at http://www.wheaton.edu/learnres/ARCSC/collects/sc18/bio.htm ) tells us much about the art of the twentieth century from this point of view. I commend this work to you. Read it. You will be amazed at what Rookmaaker says. You may even disagree, but you will not be able to refute the validity of what he says without a good deal of thoughtful consideration.

Today, there are many Christ-followers who are emerging as this centuries new "Creatives," and some of them are making some tremendous strides in the contemporary art world. I am glad about this. Believers in Jesus ought to be intensely engaged in ever category of the culture, minus sin (e.g. entertainment, but never as sex-workers; artists, but not anarchists). There are limits to the activities of believing-artists in the arts, just as there are limits to believing-contractors in the building trade. This should not surprise us - BUT - those limits do not hinder the work of the Christ-following-artist at all. God does not need sin, nor does he employ sin, as a means of working in this world, even though he often allows us to be instructed by the destructiveness of sin -- yet he himself is never its author.

All of this to say, gone are those dark days of the twentieth century when Christ-followers were held out of the art world by both churches and curators -- or walked out on their own. Thank God. Today Christ-followers are engaged in all of the arts in our culuture, and working hard at it every day of the week.

From painting to film, from the performance to music, believing artists are fully engaged and making their mark. Many of them are deeply serious about the arts, about engaging the culture and about the incarnational ministry of Christ through their work. Others, unfortunately, are still wandering around, dazed and confused by the insanity of the last century. Some have not yet sorted it out, and some probably never will.

The Church too, or some of it, is still in confusion about the arts, but that is changing. It is my firm belief, and hope, that Christ-followers involved in the arts will find new ways to do thier art, will invent new forms of expression and communication, and will develope new skills with which to express their creative work. There are infinite possibilities by which an artist today can affect the culture for good (and for God), and can produce new kinds of ministry to the world; things no one has yet seen, but it will require courage, resources and persistance. May God grant us the courage, the faith, and the patience to put our money where our mouth is with regard to supporting the re-emergence of the arts in the Church. We all will need to open our purses and wallets and start buying art, attending performances, and supporting artists of faith, if their ministries are going to succeed in the coming century.

There is a truly amazing thing happening in the arts among believers, and there is an amazing thing happening in believers among the arts right now. I can't wait to see what new forms of ministry will appear in this century through "Creatives" who are faithful to both their God and their art.

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.