Goran Dragojlovic on Evangelical Art as Propaganda

“I might be wrong, because you folks know more than I do, I’ve not seen profound volumes of significant art coming from the Protestant tradition in America. We’re known for the Left Behind series. Right, I mean that’s our contribution. (Laughter) I’m not even trying to be funny, I know it sounds funny, but that’s our contribution….I see resemblance between the Communist use of art and the evangelical use of art. And having lived in an eastern block communist country the only statues were of General Tito and Karl Marx…the only art that evangelicals are producing are for propaganda reasons, not to express the struggle of human existence and so it gets dismissed” — Goran Dragojlovic

(This quote comes from the audio of a talk from 2006 on Fyodor Dostoyevski at a gathering hosted by Brian Godawa. Goran is a fellow Serbian and former ACC’er. He used to be a pastor at the former Orange County ACC congregation.  I regard him as being an early member of the Reformed (or Reforming) community within the ACC. I remember listening to a sermon by him on the Perseverance of the Saints, which is a doctrine not preached often in the ACC. I also read some of his articles back in the day and I believe there’s a picture of my brother with him when my family visited California. He’s now a elder/teacher at Glendale Presbyterian Church.  I have tried to preserve original wording on this quote as much as I can, though I might have tweaked it a bit to make it flow in written form.)

It’s Amazing How Things Have Changed

“Though I cannot speak to you, yet I pray for you; and hope that my God will hear me, and in due time bring me to live again amongst you, if you shall see such a mercy fit to be bestowed on me or you. However, we must endeavor by patient waiting to submit to his will without murmuring; and not to think amiss of his chastening us, knowing that all his works are the products of his infinite wisdom, his designs are the advancement of his own glory; and his ends towards his people their sanctification and salvation, which certainly shall be accomplished at last, however his great providences may seem contrary to it, as to our apprehensions….”

- Isaac Watts Sr. in a letter to his children (the oldest being 11) [as quoted in a book by Douglas Wilson].

Reading this makes one wonder about our culture as a whole. A few questions pop into my mind. Let’s assume for a minute that we converted the language into modern English (so there wasn’t the difficulty with reading the dated English)

1. How many adult Christians nowadays (let alone young children) have a theological understanding so deep where someone would write to them in this manner and expect them to get it?

2. If you examined your typical sermon today in a typical evangelical church, would it have as much content as this paragraph?

3.  If we send it to a collection of 20 year olds, how confident would we be that they comprehended it fully?

4.  What age-level would we assign it to?

Hockey Literature

“In Canada we have this thing called ‘hockey literature.’ It might be hard to imagine, but it’s true.”

– Frank Ewert in “A Note to the Reader” in Blue Ice: And Other Stories from the Rink

“Our House” vs “Triad”: Longing for Monogamy in the 1960′s?

The 1960′s were, as we all know, a time of great socio-cultural upheaval.  Of course, part of this upheaval was a changing sexual ethic often referred to as “free love”. And yet, it must be said by any honest observer (even if they don’t hold to the Christian sexual ethic) that the rejection of monogamy delivered far less satisfaction than it purported to.

In fact, I believe  that from my Christian standpoint, the “free love” impulse delivered a lot of ugliness. And rather than affirming love and beauty, it led to the denigration of it. More love doesn’t make better love, even if we were to understand love as mere physical passion (which I don’t).

In the counterculture there was simultaneously an impulse toward wild, swinging free-love and a strong (although perhaps sometimes suppressed) impulse against it.  A perfect example of this tension can be found in the songs of CSNY (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young).

One song, David Crosby’s “Triad”, is very dreamy. It was written in 1967 but did not appear on a CSNY album until 1971 (apparently the Byrds thought it was too freaky and wouldn’t put it on their album).   It’s tone is pained and prolonged, a sort of agony, although soft and mellow too.  It bespeaks a dreary enjoyment. Love is plural (“Both love you “, “I love you too”) and an abstract, non-definable notion. Things are non-concrete and flighty, no setting or concrete location.  No grounding.  The love is floating, questioning, selfish, and unsatisfied (it begs for something it doesn’t have–each verse is an entreaty).  While the wording is catchy and the music is fascinating,  there is something scary about the tone of the song. The only external things mentioned are negative (a repressive school,  a cold ghost).  There is a lot of epistemic uncertainty, even in the main thrust of the song (“I don’t really see, why can’t we go on..”) and shame (“You are afraid, embarrased too”, “Your mother’s ghost stands at you shoulder”, “colder”). And all of the blame seems to be heaped on that person that is afraid.  It conveys images and thoughts, but the reality is too flighty to visualize.

Another song is certainly dreamy, but  in a different sense. Graham Nash’s “Our House” carries a sober but happy tone, speaking glowingly of a house with two people, where everything is orderly.  And the love is giving and exclusive (“only for you”, “only for me”), but yet acknowledges and embraces external things (like the sun, the yard, and the cats). Love can be concretely defined and has concrete manifestations or evidence (like flowers and love songs). Each verse bespeaks a certain confidence and satisfaction. There is structure and a home, a life, and a pattern. Above all, the situation is very concrete and grounded in reality, it has a tether to the earth and a context by which we can visualize it.

Clearly, both Crosby and Nash both subscribed to the ethic of “free love” when they wrote these songs, but these songs show greatly divergent assessments of it and perhaps in Nash there was a strong desire to have the stability and love that couldn’t be found in “free love”.

As much as one may seek “liberation” from Biblical norms, rejecting faithful, loving monogamy leaves one essentially bankrupt.  “Free love” sooner or later, leaves one empty and without satisfaction.  The intense struggle of those who’ve rejected the ethic of monogamy is even evident in the music of the 1960′s and 1970′s. It didn’t take a few decades for the fruits to come. They came right away, and I believe you can find a representation of the emptiness of “free love” in Graham Nash’s “Our House” (and it is an especially vivid portrait when one compares it to David Crosby’s “Triad”).

In the Biblical scheme, marital love is concrete and grounded, and definable. And it is exclusive. When the gospel pattern of love is inculcated in us and the Biblical pattern of marriage is embodied, we should expect to see the sort of home that Nash sang rather than the “something or other” that Crosby sang about. The husband and wife are comfortable in their home, comfortable with each other, comfortable with their cats (hehe), everything is in place, they are clearly enjoying each other, there isn’t fear, and the overwhelming tone of their relationship is not longing (though there certainly  is longing!) but rather satisfaction.

I don’t think Graham Nash had the resources to establish the sort of home that he sang about. But, quite frankly, we don’t either. Only by the grace of God is it possible.

Reformational Progress

“Although the Reformation manifested itself in various ways in different areas of Europe, it shared a number of common denominators. The feudal nobility and the Roman Catholic church hierarchy suffered a loss of power and prestige, which benefited the bourgeois middle class and the monarchs of Europe’s emerging nation states. Regions such as The Netherlands, which were formerly under Spanish or German domination, gained independence, and even in areas where Catholicism prevailed, religious independence gelled through the wide dissemination of Christian literature and Bible translations in the vernacular instead of Latin. Education was stimulated through the establishment of numerous schools and became accessible to the new new middle classes. This, in turn, cultivated a spirit of individualism and critical thinking.

This spirit of individualism which Protestantism fostered was to have long-ranging effects on Western culture. It was a catalyst in the development of democratic forms of governments which further undermined the medieval political and ecclesiastical hierarchies. This opened the door to the elimination of religious restrictions on trade and banking, removing a large obstacle to the development of modern capitalism.”

from The Fall of Christendom and the Rise of the Church by Peter Pikkert, p200-2001