I was going to write a post about how annoyed I am with the laziness of Christian musicians (and other artists -- how they all label their work "Christian" to get it sold in Christian bookstores, where otherwise no one would buy it).
But then I realized, I don't have a problem with Christian artists, really. I am glad I'm not one of them, but I realize some have talent, some are creative, and many produce good, edifying material, when they aren't writing in cliches. The only reason I wanted to attack them is because they were easy to fault. I needed a cause, and they were the easiest available. Talk about ironic. I was lazy and uncreative, so I planned to attack the lazy and uncreative.
But I still won't buy their stuff.
Anyway, what I'm thinking about now is similar to what Raj has been mulling. How much criticism is good, and effective? At what point do we become a cause of the disease, instead of the doctor diagnosing it? Is it pleasing to God when we find fault with mediocre artists making mediocre art? Doesn't he judge the heart, while we're stuck criticizing the appearance? Maybe their art is pleasing to him, and maybe their hearts aren't mediocre. In fact, I'm sure they aren't. People generally can't be labeled mediocre. There are mediocre artists and students, and teachers, and pastors, and prophets, but there are no mediocre people.
I'm at a loss of what to do now. It's so easy to criticize the facets of the commercial church. It's such an obvious cause. Any cause I undertake now will require more effort. But maybe by undertaking any cause harder than this one -- maybe when we take on harder causes, we grow, and become stronger, and thereby strengthen the church. Maybe all this criticism is a two edged sword: it cuts down those we criticize, and it leaves us weak and unpracticed as well. And so the weak church attacks its weak. If we leave off attacking each other, perhaps we'll have time to attack things that matter, and thereby we'll matter, and thereby the church, too, will matter.
Oh the things we think of at 2:40am.
cool, you took into account what I said. :) I'm glad.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't categorically call Christian (music) artists all not genuine, but I imagine that some of them can't be that sincere. If God, who so clearly cherishes diversity - as evidenced in everything that he has created, is truly impacting each of these artists' lives, wouldn't their expression of that effect be more diverse? I think that is one of the reasons that I love bands such as U2. They are clearly influenced by the spiritual, yet they are not cliche. And they are also not disengaged from their lives, in this unrealistic, constant state of singing praise songs. Their "worship" (a severely abused word) is through a lifestyle that includes love and politics and business and art and . . .
ReplyDeleteIf every Christian artist is in fact genuine, then I'm led only to the conclusion that Christianity is boring and monochromatic. Since I do not believe that to be the case because I have experience life in Christ and it is quite the opposite, then I am forced to conclude that at least some Christian artists are, even with good intentions, either not genuine or are not talented/devoted enough to make their own expressions into good music.