The Highest Form of Hope

Well, its been a nasty sort of week. I went into the hospital with false labor on Monday afternoon. Then I caught a case of the stomach flu. I only have two weeks to go... I want this baby out NOW!

But luckily I have a husband who knows how to brighten my day.

Paul sent me this article - apparently Thomas Kincade is in trouble with the FBI. I thought the "bad-taste" police would nab him before the feds. I hope you find this article as amusing as I did.

Labels: art

Who or what determines the direction of the North American church?
Clearly there are many answers to this question.

Lately I've been wondering about the power of the "Christian" publisher. Is the NA church guided by the Spirit, the words and teachings of Jesus or is it guided by the latest fad that rolls into the local Christian bookstore. The obvious problem I see in the amount of power "Christian" publishing companies have is that all material is made to be marketable - from curriculum and fiction to Bibles. Everything is designed to sell. Books are targeted to those who will buy them - suburban, white, middle class - leaving scores of people out of the loop.

This marketing fools North American Christians into thinking that Christians must fit a certain mold - the mold they see portrayed in every self-help, christian romance, purpose driven, prayer of whoever book that graces the shelves of a book store decorated with Thomas Kincade "prints"(don't get me started).

It all comes down to the fact that in order to make money, an interpretation of the gospel has to have a certain amount of marketability in order to be successful - it is an interpretation of the gospel that will hopefully encourage Christians to buy more books.

Problem: the gospel is not marketable - its upsidedown and difficult to accept for those in the status quo - and easily accepted by those who are not target markets.

Thoughts anyone?

Labels: church, faith, politics

The war on crows continues.... July 24, 2006: On a summers morning at approximately 5am, Jessica and Paul Morgun awoke to their new reality. A large male crow sat outside their bedroom window cawing at the top of its lungs. The couple lay in bed for a few minutes, hoping that the bird would leave. But the minutes slowly turned into hours. When asked why they did not simply close the window, Jessica Morgun replied, "I am seven months pregnant and I can barely sleep as it is. It's very important that we maintain air flow in the bedroom."

But it's not only Paul and Jessica that have suffered. The crows have claimed an even younger victim: their three-year-old son, Sasha. "One day Sasha went outside to play and the crows began to caw. They were jumping from branch to branch, flapping their wings menacingly. We heard Sasha crying and immediately raced into the backyard. He was really scared - talking about the 'squawker birds'. That's when those birds crossed the line!" explained Paul Morgun angrily.

So the Morgun's decided to take matters into their own hands. The next day when the birds returned for their morning serenade, Paul grabbed his BB gun. Though the crows had never actually injured any of the Morgun family, Paul decided that a pre-emptive strike was necessary. "It's clear that they have it in for us. It's only a matter of time before these birds decide to peck someone's eye out. We're really taking a defensive position on this issue." Paul began to shoot at two large crows in the trees surrounding the Morgun's backyard. The male crow, the one to blame for most of the noise, flew away. The female was mortally wounded by several pellets. "You never go out there intending to take an innocent life. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time," explained Paul after the incident.

Since the more aggressive crow is still on loose, Paul has woken up early to try and catch him in the act. "I saw him once in the trees, but I didn't have the gun with me. I went back to the house, got my gear and ammo. The minute he saw the gun he fled. He's clearly a coward."

So until the noisy "squawker bird" is either killed or apprehended, the Morgun's must live day to day in fear. Reflecting on the traumatic events of the summer, Jessica Morgun remarked: "We've really had to adjust our way of life. All the early mornings, never knowing if your husband may return home missing an eye.... You could say that we are adapting to a 'new normal'".

Labels: family, humour

Makoto Fujimura: Still Point

Recently the MBHerald put out an issue dedicated to the arts. They had various articles on the subject and showcased work by artists within the conference. It was a happy surprise for me; the arts are often ignored or misunderstood by the institutional church. In the most recent Herald, an article by the anonymous "Faithful Skeptic"(Art: the patronage sequel) responded to the art issue asking "Where's the money?" In the article he explores the history of patronage between artists and the church. True enough, the world has changed quite a bit since Michelangelo and Medici. The church is not longer the political powerhouse of Europe. Our capitalist and individualistic society provides an interesting dilemma for artists as in order to make a buck they must create for a market - not exactly artistic freedom. Very few ever have the privilege of being allowed to just create (I dream about it all the time...) - this freedom is not achieved by selling their work, it's achieved through patronage. It is this type of work that can be the most powerful - engaging society in an honest and fearless way. Thoughtful and provoking art engages people in a way that the church has failed to do so - it honestly asks people to surrender and receive:
We sit down before the picture in order to have something done to us, not that we may do things with it. The first demand any work of art makes upon us is surrender. Look. Listen. Receive. Get yourself out of the way.
CS Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

There is no manipulation here. No slow, melancholic chorus to get us in the mood to receive. There are no hidden agendas. Couldn't the church learn some important lessons here?


The Faithful Skeptic suggests that the church should consider providing patronage to artists for several reasons: cultural redemption and financial stewardship. But there are several roadblocks along the way. The Skeptic gave this quote to sum up the state of the arts in the western church.

In my ten years as a fundraiser for Image I've learned a great deal about the state of patronage in America, as least as far as the nexus of religion and the arts are concerned. I've found that institutions such as churches, universities, and foundations are, more often than not, timid and confused. The institutional church hasn't been a serious patron of the arts for a couple centuries now, and it hasn't been doing much to make up for lost time. Powerful, arresting art is simply too controversial to please everyone in the pews, so the lowest common denominator usually wins out.

Gregory Wolfe

The Skeptic's argument that support of the arts is good financial stewardship is relavent, but is almost besides the point. In order to reap the financial benefits of the arts churches will have to wait, and I can't really see many "regular" churches trading in the immeadiate stresses of the yearly budget to become a patron of the arts unless some significant arts education of the congregation takes place.
The first step towards supporting the arts is by understanding the role of the church in our culture and the role of the art in our culture. If the church begins to understand that its role is to be a redemptive force in culture - to engage it, rather than pull away from it - than the role of the arts takes up a greater significance. The arts are at the vanguard of shaping culture. Shouldn't the church want to get on board?

Labels: aesthetics, art, faith

"Impressionism Study" - Acrylic on canvas

"Study on Klee" - Oil Pastel

This summer hasn't been the most productive as far as creating artworks, but I've managed to do a few things here and there. I got some much needed time to practice and work on projects during the two art classes I did this summer. It was so much fun - I look forward to doing it again!

Another art discovery - if you want to read some interesting thoughts on DaVinci's "Last Supper", check out the link under the artist of the month, then go to Fujimura's blog - I can't seem to get a link directly to his blog.

Labels: art

Happy 3rd birthday little buddy!

Labels: family

I have the feeling that I am becoming a very boring person to hang out with - especially for my little guy. He seem to have more and more energy every day while I have less and less. It is a few days before his third b-day, so today we made a cake.

Labels: family

Well, I've got 6 or so weeks to go!
I've been taking it easy most of the time, but that can be hard when you have a high-energy almost three year old around.
This week I've been putting on a painting class in the church basement. This has really been fun. Everyone's excited to be there and I've had a wonderful time getting to know other "artsy" types. This is definitely something I want to continue in the future.

Since I am too placenta-brained to read any more this summer and our satellite TV has bee turned off, I've taken to watching DVD box sets. We recently bought the original BBC "The Office". We had been religious watchers of the American version with Steve Carrell. It's interesting to see the differences between the two series. For one, the BBC series focuses much more on the boss, David. The BBC version also is more documentary style and a bit darker than the American version. The American version is lighter and gives more time to other interesting characters in the office, though Michael (Steve Carrell) is the star of the show.
These difference got me wondering... Who would I rather work for - Michael or David?

David:
Though he is clearly an idiot, I think he is slightly more intelligent than Michael. There is a plausible explanation for why he is the boss - he is manipulative, self serving and a liar - though Micheal is also these things, he is not as good at it. David is clearly convinced he is the funniest man in the universe. Though always looking for attention and admiration, David is not desperate for a friend. Therefore, you would not get roped into feeling sorry for him - I find that I often feel sorry for Michael. David reminds me of an evil professor I had once - arrogant, creepy, and clueless.
Michael:
Not as pervish as David, but just as selfish. I really have no idea how Michael ever came into his position because he is so stupid and clueless. Michael is a tad more childish than David, but overall he is slightly more likable than David because of his insecurity. His arrogance is more a facade - deep inside he is a lonely, sad person. This has its pitfalls. Feeling sorry for Michael, one might be manipulated into protecting his fragile, ridiculous, hierarchy of the office.

I think that I would probably rather work for Michael just because he's not as creepy and pervish as David.
Who would you rather work for?

Another question: Dwight or Garreth?

Labels: humour