Inauguration, faith and art

Michael Newdow has added a new trick to his show, attempting a lawsuit to prevent the President elect from placing his hand on the Bible during the inauguration as a violation of church/state separation. I find this totally unsurprising these days. Average citizens generally know in an intuitive way that "me-ism" is the prevailing moral law of the land, even if they can't explain why. Many conservatives have attempted to prove that the United States was founded on broadly Christian principles, though not sectarian ones. The best source I know on this topic is that of David Barton.

The recognition that a national church can lead to oppressive coercion did not prevent the founding fathers from allowing and promoting the existence of state churches in individual states of the union and insisting on Christianity as the basis of law. But as with many other issues, history and facts don't really matter to those with an agenda. All that matters is the here and the now, and all the wisdom of ages past is assumed archaic and out of date. It is probably futile to try to prove to Newdow what the founders intended, he probably doesn't care. Many judges don't care either and are intent on pressing a social agenda.

What strikes me, though, is the sheer audacity of having the guts to singlehandedly try to overturn a tradition that is so old and established. If anything hurts the reputation of America in the rest of the world, it is this individualism that comes off as arrogance, that the few feel no qualms about dictating radical change to the many. And rightly or wrongly, this arrogance is attributed to all Americans, regardless of religious or political views.

Speaking of the inauguration, Michelle Malkin has entered the debate about the now in question concert by Kid Rock at the inauguration. She has posted actual lyrics from some of his "art". Be warned, it is every bit as bad as what one might imagine. Yes, Kid did apparently support Bush, but I'm afraid his presence at this official presidential event is ridiculous. This is a troubled individual whose moral compass is not functioning well at all.

Which brings one other issue to mind, that is the controversy over Christian rock bands playing in public schools. Hugh Hewitt has posted on this and given some space to the web sites of a couple of such bands. I could write pages on this subject, being something of a musician myself. On the base question, I did, long ago, play Christian music in a High School. I now have mixed feelings about this whole issue. On the one hand, there should be no issue with free expression of religion in any public sphere. But I do understand the tension many feel about actual proselytizing in a public school sanctioned event. If a Christian rock band can play at a school concert, even if it is optional, shall we also allow a Satanist band to play as well? (Maybe schools already do.) Or what about a band promoting radical Islam? (Or is this limited to actual class assignments?)

It is one thing to pass out tracts on the sidewalk, to allow groups to meet on the premises after hours, to have open debate and discussion. But a concert during school hours somehow seems a bit different, knowing that most Christian rock bands have a singular purpose - evangelism. The standard that the government "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has a different meaning today that it did 200 years ago, simply because there are so many religions represented in this country. Schools will have trouble drawing a line between allowing free exercise and avoiding "establishment".

But my perspective may be skewed. I am a committed Christian, but I really don't like a lot of what is put out by the Christian music industry. Mainly, most of it just strikes me a contrived and shallow. Evangelicals in the arts have typically, in years past, been prone to making propaganda as opposed to art. That is, art is nothing more than a "tool" to advance a message. It then ceases to be art. As propaganda, it becomes subtly insulting and offensive. In recent years, the "worship" phenomena has changed the emphasis, but the lyrical content is often merely a collection of feelings about God very much akin to teenage feelings about a boyfriend or girlfriend. It redefines both "worship" and "art" and diminishes both, in my opinion.

Great Christian art of the past was different. Some have said the reason is that modern evangelicals have gnostic tendencies, that is, they see the material world as evil and the "spiritual" world as pure, so the artistic efforts are totally absorbed in "spiritual" feelings and sentiments that are not connected to physical realities. I think it is a matter of fact that an evangelical could not have made a movie like "The Passion of the Christ", because it would have been difficult for many to think of or support a movie so frankly realistic about the connection between the physical and spiritual suffering of Christ. The good news is that once "The Passion" was made, evangelicals in the arts will intuitively learn from such a film and will be less squeamish about making those connections. As Francis Schaeffer once put it, if we were to put everything that is expressly sinful into a box and lock that box, everything else is spiritual.

If Christians want to be influential in the arts, it is my belief that they must spend more time creating art about ordinary things like love, politics, food, nature, family, life. They should spend less time creating art about exclusively "religious" topics. Then the question would not be about letting a "Christian" band play in a high school and more about letting a good band play, and those who listen can evaluate how Christian values connect to daily life. In the end such an approach would be, in my opinion, much more effective.