Interesting historical glimpse... Johann Sebastian Bach's acceptance letter for the Leipsig Thomas-Schule Cantor position, with my comment below...

May 5 1723

Whereas the Honorable and Most Wise Council of this Town of Leipzig have engaged me as Cantor of the Thomas-Schule and have desired an undertaking from me in respect to the following points, to wit:

(1) That I shall set the boys a shining example of an honest, retiring manner of life, serve the School industriously, and instruct the boys conscientiously;

(2) Bring the music in both the principal Churches of this town into good estate, to the best of my ability;

(3) Show to the Honorable and Most Wise Council all proper respect and obedience, and protect and further everywhere as best I may its honor and reputation; likewise if a gentleman of the Council desires the boys for a musical occasion unhesitatingly provide him with same, but otherwise never permit them to go out of town to funerals or weddings without the previous knowledge and consent of the Burgomaster and Honorable Directors of the School currently in office;

(4) Give due obedience to the Honorable Inspectors and Directors of the School in each and every instruction which the same shall issue in the name of the Honorable and Most Wise Council;

(5) Not take any boys into the School who have not already laid a foundation in music, or are not at least suited to being instructed therein, nor do the same without the previous knowledge and consent of the Honorable Inspectors and Directors;

(6) So that the Churches may not have to be put to unnecessary expense, faithfully instruct the boys not only in vocal but also in instrumental music;

(7) In order to preserve the good order in the Churches, so arrange the music that it shall not last too long, and shall be of such nature as not to make an operatic impression, but rather incite the listeners to devotion;

(8) Provide the New Church with good scholars;

(9) Treat the boys in a friendly manner and with caution, but, in case they do not wish to obey, chastise them with moderation, or report them to the proper place;

(10) Faithfully attend to the instruction in the School and whatever else it befits me to do;

(11) And if I cannot undertake this myself, arrange that it be done by some other capable person without expense to the Honorable and Most Wise Council or the School;

(12) Not go out of town without the permission of the Honorable Burgomaster currently in office;

(13) Always so far as possible walk with the boys at funerals, as is customary;

(14) And shall not accept or wish to accept any office in the University without the consent of the Honorable and Learned Council;

Now therefore I do hereby undertake and bind myself faithfully to observe all of the said requirements, and on pain of losing my post not to act contrary to them, in witness whereof I have set my hand and seal to this agreement.

Johann Sebastian Bach, Leipzig, May 5, 1723

Bach's desire and promise (well-fulfilled!) to compose music "not to make an operatic impression, but rather incite the listeners to devotion" is the perfect ideal for Christians today as well...!    Our goal ought to be to exalt Christ, and to minimize attention to ourselves...   to "incite the listeners" to meditate on Christ, pray to Him, tell Him of their gratitude, and worship Him...

The view out my window is stunning right now -

Interesting article about beauty...  although I think he delves too much into philosophical speculation, and not enough into scripture.  In fact, I sometimes wonder if Edwards and Augustine (whom he quotes) do the same thing.

And now I may be accused of the very same thing, as I propose something (which, nonetheless, is, I think, at the very least "countenanced" by Scripture) - about a related topic/question - "What is art?"

Most people consider Rembrandt's, Da Vinci's, Michaelangelo's work to be "art."  A relatively smaller number consider Marcel Duchamp's work to be "art".  And a much smaller (though growing) number of people consider Marina Abramovic's work to be "art."

And if someone tries to tell one of Abramovic's fans that her work is "not art," they'd better be prepared for a rabidly indignant excoriation in which one is informed that one has no right to impose one's own aesthetic standards on other people.

So here's my thought on this (though it's probably not original)...  the question ought not to be "What is art?"  but rather, "What is good art?"

I.e., related to Mohler's article referenced above, there exists morality in this world, based on God's ultimate/transcendent standard.   Art that reinforces/corroborates/gives-glory-to/affirms God's own standards of truth, morality, beauty, and that promotes worship of God Himself, is "good" art, and ought to be supported.

By "supported," I mean not only that we should buy/listen-to/watch/absorb this "good art," but also that we should actively seek to have this art promoted in the world around us.  We ought to seek to reduce the prevalence of pornography in our nation/world (though carefully, so as to avoid censoring other things like the Bible itself).  We ought to lobby public art museums to sponsor good art.

If someone tells me that I'm "imposing", I can reply, "Well yes, actually, that is part of my job description, to be "salt of the earth" and "light of the world."  And if you are telling me that I 'ought not' to do this, then you're imposing your morality on me.  May I ask what moral basis you have for doing so?"

So that's some of my thoughts on the matter.  Here are a few corollaries...

Are Thomas Kincaid's paintings "good art?"   There is a fierce reaction among Christian youth, I've found, that decries the "plain, simple, beautiful, sugary" in favor of the "stinging, shocking, noir, acidic."   It seems that there is definitely plenty of wiggle-room for "taste", within the morality provided by God's word... e.g. many different types of music recorded in the Psalms, all of which presumably are glorifying to God.   And sometimes the "shocking" is powerful good art!  E.g. many of Jesus' parables... very shocking in their original cultural context.  But never shocking in morally-wrong ways... only in against-the-grain-of-the-culture-but-with-the-grain-of-God's-Law ways.

Next, does art have to be "purposefully good" to be considered good art?  If a sweet old christian lady writes a poem and accidentally uses a phrase that is vulgar in youth-talk, does that make it bad art?  Or if a hard-core secular band writes a dark/nihilistic song that unwittingly/accidentally opens thousands of peoples' eyes/hearts to the message of the gospel of Christ, does that make it good art?  There would seem to be a two dimensional gradient (at the very least!)... both "morality" and "skillfulness"...  the best art is both moral (affirming the truth, glorifying God, explicitly or implicitly) and also skillful (i.e. baby Johnny's stick figures with "God is good" scribbled above may not deserve a place in the world art museums, though of course God Himself may be delighted with Johnny's motives and final product).

A final gradient is the actual lifestyle of the artist... some of the world's finest "art" has been produced by men and women with very low moral standards...  should that factor in to our own valuation of what "good art" is?  I think so... not exclusively, certainly, but it is certainly a factor.

"Soli Deo Gloria."   His glory is all that really matters... we're just passing through this earth briefly.  What, of all our works and words, will last through eternity?

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.... For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

A few random things: First, is anyone else planning to go to "Christianity in the Early Centuries" - the Annual Conference of the Evangelical Theological Society?   Let me know... I'm still deciding whether or not to go... we could hang out and have fun...    And chat about things that thoughtful collegiates love to chat about.

Second:

"All marriage is, is two people with issues coming together in trainwreck-like fashion."   - Borrowed from Kevin, who borrowed it from Matt.

Interesting.   Remind me to comment more about this in a few years.     My choice of analogy might be more along the lines of an strong, tough, ugly old tugboat coming alongside a quaint, beautiful little ferry, and the two of them deciding that they'd tie themselves together for companionship and support as they crossed the sea together.

Third, I noticed something interesting tonight.  About movies.   About why they're so extremely addictive/appealing, in general.  Simply this - movies are basically "fast-forwarded life"... life at ten times the speed of normal... but very selectively-so  -  they skip all the boring parts of life.  So for example, let's say in your normal life or my normal life there are 7 hours of sleep, 11 hours of school or work-related activity, 4 hours of other "stuff" that has to be done every day, and 2 hours of conversation with people.  And of the conversation, most of that time is boring stuff.  "How's your week going?  Pretty Good!™  How about you?  Good... tired, and busy, but good."  etc.    But there's a few moments of pure fascination - the quick, knowing, glance out of the corner of your eye at a friend who's happening to glance at you at the same time for the same reason; the near-crash on your way to work; hearing a child say something hilarious next to you on the bus; the moment in the midst of your dreary and overloaded day when you suddenly see a tree billowing with beautiful fall colors in front of you, and you sigh, and smile, and look at the sky, and think of the One who died on your behalf and is coming back soon.  The streak of ecstatic psychological pleasure that shoots through you when you get an email saying "Unfortunately, class will be cancelled for today...".   The feeling of danger, thrill, fear-of-others'-disgust, and cool logical precision when you go out on a limb in cyberspace defending or attacking something that really ought to be defended or attacked.  Or one of the most thrilling of all - romantic love..

Ok, I got way off track, because most of those things were internal thrills rather than external.  But anyway, movies condense all the external/visible thrilling moments (both 'fast' and 'slow' - e.g. 'Darcy gets down on his knees') down, down, into a very intense brew, and then zip it by you with each little clip calculated for maximum emotional/psychological/physical effect.   Is it "real life?"  Yes and no.  Real life has the same moments of pathos.  But it has lots of "blah time" in between. 

At least it seems like blah time, here to us now, down below...   I suspect that one day we will look back, and realize that there was actually not even one second of "uneventful time" in our lives... God was working His incredible works in every nanosecond of our lives and the lives around us...  So I should live now as if that's true... love Him with all my heart... "with joy inexpressible and full of glory..."

Fourth, just in case you feel like reading yet another opinion about "what's wrong with American Christians and American Churches," here's my take:   IF anything is indeed "wrong" with them collectively, and that's a big IF, then it's simply this - 'affluence'.  No less than 'affluence', and not much more than 'affluence', either.

Finally, in other news, Joel Hollins gets the "Mother Hen" award.  

Does artificial red food coloring fall under the category mentioned in I Timothy 4:4 ?

Wow, this link really sums up well what I was trying to say to some of my friends a few weeks ago about "Christian" movies.  Actually, it might seem to be saying the opposite as what I was telling my friends (I was saying "we need more 'mainstream' christian movies"), but I don't think there's a conflict.  I agree with what the author of the article says - that there is a time and place for "underground" Christianity in the mainstream/public arts, of a breaking-up-fallow-ground-of-nonBiblical-worldviews sort of nature (e.g. the Passion, or perhaps like the Chronicles of Narnia will be??  probably not, but who knows?)

But the main point that the author makes seems very true - it is actually impossible to produce explicitly 'Christian' art that is deemed 'acceptable' and 'mainstream' by 'the world'.  In as much as it becomes mainstream, it is no longer Christian; in as much as it is is pure Christianity, it will be relegated to the 'fringes' of 'fundamentalist evangelicalism.'

Thoughts?