![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/picasso_guernica-300x147.jpg\")
<\/p>\nWhat is it that makes visual art worshipful? Is it reliant upon the faith of the artist? Is it the subject matter? Perhaps it must have a Biblical theme? Or maybe it must cause admirers to have a moving experience of God?<\/p>\n
The image below is the famous painting by Pablo Picasso entitled Guernica. It represents his response to the bombing of the Basque town of Guernica by the Nazis in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. Picasso himself was an avowed philanderer and atheist yet, one could easily look upon this work as a challenge to the injustices of war and the destruction of God\u2019s creation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Perhaps Michelangelo\u2019s works are more acceptable as they frequently depict biblical themes or characters. Take his famous sculpture of Moses, yes, the one where he carves Moses with horns on his head. Many art historians suggest that the horns come from a mistranslation of the word for radiance. Is this somehow more worshipful because of the subject matter despite the odd depiction based on a poor textual translation?<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/mose-michelangelo1-867640-225x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Regardless of one\u2019s perspective it seems evident that within the modern Protestant church there is some uncertainty regarding what place the visual arts have as or in worship. William Dyrness argues in \u2018Visual Faith\u2019 that the tension between the visual arts and the Protestant church has its roots in the Reformation and insistence upon \u2018Sola Scriptura\u2019.<\/p>\n
In the culture of the time there may have been a need for some purging and a readjustment away from an icon driven worship experience to something a little more austere. And in a largely oral\/verbal culture the elimination of visual \u2018distractions\u2019 may have worked. However, in our contemporary cultural context which is largely visual\/sensory the elimination of visual arts almost certainly does not. As Dyrness himself argues; \u201cWe live in a generation raised on a steady diet of the visual<\/em>.\u201d[1]<\/a> Further he suggests that; \u201cFor many modern people, aesthetic experience has replaced religious experience in providing an integrative vision of life<\/em>.\u201d[2]<\/a> In other words, the religious life has been supplanted in the lives of many within the emerging generations by the visual\/sensory experience.<\/p>\n If we are genuinely interested then, in capturing the attention of this generation we must reassess our relationship to the visual arts rather than attempt to convince contemporary people of the inherent evil found in them. Many would suggest that we have a greater responsibility to engage with the present culture in order to redeem it or at least help contemporary generations discover where God might be found within it. \u201cThere is no doubt that many (and perhaps most) younger and median-aged Americans are visual learners, and the church that does not take this crucial factor into account will lose a tremendous venue for communicating Christian truth.<\/em>\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0In fact, as Dyrness suggests; \u201cWe may not like the art of our time, but we must deal with the questions it raises, even as we are engaged with the culture that produced it. To avoid this is to deny our Christian responsibility<\/em>.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n Thus, it is my contention that works of art such as Guernica are forms of worship and do communicate powerful messages of truth and conviction regardless of the views of the artist or the subject matter. There may be many who would argue that Dyrness takes things too far when he Again, I believe that Dyrness is helpful; \u201cThe gift of imagination and vision are part of the Christian\u2019s birthright that is frequently overlooked<\/em>.\u201d[6]<\/a> I would suggest that this gift is not limited to Christians and therefore much contemporary art can be utilized to draw people to worship. Surely if we can take a book and use it for our own ends then we are free to interpret or utilize art in a transformative manner that helps contemporary people grasp an experience of the transcendent.<\/p>\n Also, it seems reasonable that we should not limit ourselves to traditional forms of visual art. Certainly, in the culture of today film and drama should be considered as opportunities for For too long much of the church has sought to develop a sanitized sub-culture, one acceptable to Christian tastes. Thus, we have so-called Christian music and film, t-shirts and theater, even Christian themed cruises and The development and sponsorship of excellent visual arts and the redemption of that developed by the culture at large should become a priority for the contemporary Church. \u201cArt, then, may be a means, indeed one of the only means, that will catch the attention of this generation<\/em>.\u201d[8]<\/a> We can no longer afford to rest solely on the use of verbal means of communication if we hope to present the Gospel to the next generation.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a>Dyrness, William A.\u00a0Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue<\/em>. Baker Academic, 2003. P. 87<\/p>\n [2]<\/a>Ibid. p. 22<\/p>\n [3]<\/a>Lemke, Steve W. “Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue.”\u00a0Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society<\/em>46, no. 3 (2003): 567-69.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>Dyrness, William A.\u00a0Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue<\/em>. Baker Academic, 2003. P. 96<\/p>\n [5]<\/a>Ibid. p. 101<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/TK_3310-67_Mount_grande-300x223.jpg\")
suggests; \u201cIn some mysterious sense, all art aspires to be worship<\/em>.\u201d[5]<\/a> Certainly, there are examples of simply vulgar or demeaning forms. Yet, if we continue to hide our heads in the sand afraid of challenging subjects portrayed in the visual arts or suggest that only \u2018nice\u2019 art like Thomas Kincade\u2019s can be used by God in and for worship we will continue to be written off by emerging generations as backward and overly puritanical.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/857000006040-1-zoom-211x300.jpg\")
experiencing God. And again, the suggestion is that we not limit ourselves to only official \u2018Christian\u2019 iterations of film. For, if film depicts life and the human condition as it is than it is arguably akin to what is found in the Christian scriptures with all its messiness.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/arkrainbowfacebook_hdv-300x169.jpg\")
educational amusement parks (Noah\u2019s Ark in KY replete with rainbow lights at night) are available. The difficulty with these is that the vast majority of emerging adults have no idea that they even exist. They are only being consumed by those trying to avoid contemporary culture. There is a great need for the Church to address the culture through its own mediums. \u201cThere is no way for the church to interact constructively with contemporary culture without being rooted firmly both in that culture and in the biblical and Christian tradition.<\/em>\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n