2014 has been the busiest year yet for the NFfCR. We have been experiencing exponential growth: adding new artists, new patrons, and new audience members, and pushing forward an incredible number of new artistic projects.
I wanted to highlight some of what has happened this year, in case you missed it:
Renew the Arts is regularly asked how we decide which Christian artists we support. Our criteria are actually quite inclusive:
If you meet those four criteria and you want our assistance, we will do everything we can to support you in the way we think will best serve your art, benefit the church at large, and steward our limited resources.
This is the fourth installment in the “Whatever” series on a biblical view of the arts, drawn from Philippians 4:8. If you missed the last three articles, you can read them here: Whatever is True, Whatever is Honorable, and Whatever is Just.
Something pure (ἁγνός hagnos) is set apart or holy; such a thing is “free from ceremonial defilement.” This word indicates two main things about Christ-honoring art: it should not glory in sin, and it should not be tainted by unbiblical worldviews.
Is it possible for art to be unjust? In this installment of our “Whatever” series on aesthetics (drawing from Philippians 4:8), I discuss how to make just art. Because we can’t just make art. We need to make just art. (Groan.) But what does it mean for art to be just or—as most translators put it—right?
The word “right” (δίκαιος dikaios) used in Philippians 4:8 is mostly translated “righteous” or “just” in the rest of the Scriptures, and it indicates guiltlessness or innocence. For our purposes, the phrase refers to art that defends and promotes God’s legal perspective. The first and most obvious denotation of law-keeping would be that just art does not break, or encourage breaking, any of God’s Law(s). But the criterion drives deeper than that.
Last night, I watched the movie God’s Not Dead, and it was a little better than I was expecting. Sure, it had many of the problems most Christian movies have: an “emotional” score that undercuts actual emotion, underwhelming “celebrity” appearances, poor to middling acting throughout, bad writing at times, and an acceptable but unremarkable degree of overall technical craft. But it was also occasionally moving (when the music got out of the way), not incessantly preachy, and every once in a while believably written (i.e., some of the dialogue actually sounded like someone could have said it in reality).
Most unbelieving critics have much the same perspective. Here’s an excerpt from an average review by Teddy Durgin from Screen It:
If you provide your email address, we can get to know one another!
No, it's not a trap. We promise not to bombard your email inbox. In fact, most people complain we don't send enough emails! But here's what you can expect: