Christians and High Culture, Again

NickImageRead Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

As Matthew Arnold envisioned it, high culture is the effort to “know the best that has been thought and said in the world” (Culture and Anarchy). It consists of those products of civilization that are deliberately meant to preserve, shape, and propagate human ideals and mores. It is encountered in libraries, academies, museums, and concert halls. It includes philosophy (broadly defined), the humanities, belles-lettres, music, the visual arts, and the performing arts. High culture can be contrasted with traditional or folk cultures as well as with popular or mass culture.

Each major civilization has produced its own high culture. Typically, high cultures have centered upon worship—not surprisingly, since every culture is the incarnation of a religion. From this center, however, each culture has gone on to examine the enduring aspects of human life: birth and death, comedy and tragedy, love and marriage and childbearing, hearth, home, valor and friendship, among others. They also explore answers to the perennial questions such as the nature of existence, truth, freedom, justice, duty, goodness, and beauty.

Christian leaders have been ambivalent in their opinion of high culture. Saul of Tarsus imbibed deeply from the high cultures of his day, but after his conversion he refused to rely upon cultural sophistication as a strategy for advancing the gospel. Even then, however, he clearly employed his cultural skills in the composition of his epistles. Tertullian, rejecting philosophy as only a trained rhetor could, asked “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?” Others, such as Clement of Alexandria, followed by his pupil Origen, virtually subordinated Christian doctrine to the major philosophies of their day.

This ambivalence has a reason. On the one hand, the content of the various high cultures has often militated against Christian perspectives. On the other hand, the articulation of Christian perspectives seems to require mastery of the very disciplines that are perpetuated within high culture. The utterly unlettered or completely bumptious have only rarely made much of a contribution to Christian thought or sensibility.

Some theologians have railed against the philosophers, but they have nevertheless mastered the tools of thought. Similarly, the great hymn writers—the anonymous author of the Te Deum, or figures such as Athanasius, Hus, Weiss, Luther, Tersteegen, Gerhardt, Watts, the Wesleys, Newton, or Cowper—have been individuals who mastered poetic or musical disciplines, or both. In a word, they have been cultured individuals.

Christianity depends upon cultural mastery for its own wellbeing. The understanding and preservation of correct doctrine requires theologians who have spent sufficient time in the academy to master intellectual discipline. The duty to teach one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs requires individuals who have mastered literary and musical disciplines. When such persons are lacking, Christianity enters periods of base and unfruitful expression (such as the present hour). It loses its power to fire the imagination with truth and to appeal to ordinate affection. It must instead resort to inflaming the appetites.

High culture is necessary for the inner wellbeing of the church. This is not to suggest that every Christian must become highly cultured—far from it! Still, unless at least some Christians are able to negotiate the cultured disciplines, then many aspects of faith and life will suffer. Even less-cultured believers ought to value what only the more cultured are likely to contribute.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that high culture is necessary only for the articulation of Christian doctrine and worship. It is also of use for another purpose. Our Christianity is not supposed to be confined to church. It is supposed to affect all of life. Consequently, Christians should look at all of life—including common or mundane things—from a unique perspective, and that perspective should find its place in the expressions of high culture.

High culture itself deals with all of life and thought, whether of mundane activities such as eating and drinking or of such perennial matters as the nature of justice. In addressing these matters, high culture does two things. First, it provides tools of expression and organization through which even non-religious matters can be examined. Second, it preserves the variegated interaction of the resulting perspectives, not merely as a dead record, but as a living embodiment. To participate in high culture is actually to enter into the conversation and to see through the eyes of those who have skillfully given expression to particular points of view.

Christians make a serious mistake when they think that their use of culture applies only to church. It also applies to eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. It is about all of the mundane activities of life, each of which has its own place in the purpose of God and its own luster when it occupies that place. These activities are common to all humans, and so are the enduring questions that arise from the consideration of those things.

One purpose of Christian involvement in high culture is to give expression to Christian perspectives on all of the mundane activities of life, as well as to articulate Christian answers to the perennial questions. Christians should offer these expressions, not because they hope to Christianize the world, but rather because a Christian perspective is worth offering for its own sake. To be human means to be interested in the meaning of the things that humans do; to be Christian means to be interested in God’s perspective on those things.

Articulating Christian insights and fostering ordinate expressions is in the interest of truth, whether or not anyone listens to those expressions. Christians should say some things, not because the masses are likely to listen to them, but simply because those things should not be left unsaid. If the devout never participate in high culture, however, then the Christian voice on these matters will be silenced.

Once the Christian voice is silenced, at least two other calamities are likely to follow. The first will occur when people begin to assume that Christianity has nothing to say about everyday humanity. The result will be a false dichotomy between the sacred (the spiritual activities of life that are governed by God) and the secular (ordinary matters about which—it is now assumed—God is not interested). Christians will fail to recognize the actual Lordship of Christ over significant areas of life or, if they recognize His Lordship in principle, will be uncertain how to apply it. Since they do not live in a social vacuum, Christians will be likely to absorb, and eventually acquiesce to, the perspectives of the anti-Christian civilizations around them.

The second calamity is that thoughtful people will judge Christians themselves to be trite, shallow, and superficial. And they will be justified in that judgment. The matters with which high culture concerns itself are important, even when they are mundane. The tools of thought and modes of expression that high culture offers are the best available for the serious work of the mind and heart. To turn one’s back on these things and to treat them as if they are insignificant is to trample the most distinctively human concerns and endeavors, and is, consequently, to label one’s self a boor. Thoughtful people are not likely to listen to a serious message (such as the gospel ultimately is) when it is presented by those who repeatedly prove themselves to be trivial (such as Christians sometimes do). Once Christians demonstrate that they are frivolous, their message will depend upon propaganda and demagoguery.

There is a balance to be struck here. On the one hand, Christians never bring glory to God by making themselves impressive, for in themselves they are genuinely insignificant. On the other hand, they will never advance truth by rendering themselves trivial, for Christianity is serious. The antidotes to both arrogance and frivolity are the same: humility, temperance, and sobriety. Christianity needs some who will master the cultured disciplines but who will do their work humbly, temperately, and soberly.

Not every Christian needs to be a philosopher, a poet, a composer, or an artist. Some, however, will find that their callings involve exactly these disciplines. They will be called to involve themselves with high culture. Far from opposing high culture, the remainder of Christians should celebrate such callings. Without them, Christian faith and life would be crippled.

The Lamb
William Blake (1757–1827)

Little Lamb who made thee
Dost thou know who made thee
Gave thee life & bid thee feed.
By the stream & o’er the mead;
Gave thee clothing of delight,
Softest clothing wooly bright;
Gave thee such a tender voice,
Making all the vales rejoice!
Little Lamb who made thee
Dost thou know who made thee

Little Lamb I’ll tell thee,
Little Lamb I’ll tell thee!
He is called by thy name,
For he calls himself a Lamb:
He is meek & he is mild,
He became a little child:
I a child & thou a lamb,
We are called by his name.
Little Lamb God bless thee.
Little Lamb God bless thee.

Discussion

Kevin,

Man you are fun to read. I think you like this topic! I’m enjoying your work on culture. Two questions: Do you have an illustration or two from the NT text that supports your hypothesis that the church needs high culture for it to be healthy? Does the NT being written in common Greek vs. Classical work against your hypothesis?

Straight Ahead,

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

[Joel Tetreau] Kevin,

Man you are fun to read. I think you like this topic! I’m enjoying your work on culture. Two questions: Do you have an illustration or two from the NT text that supports your hypothesis that the church needs high culture for it to be healthy? Does the NT being written in common Greek vs. Classical work against your hypothesis?
One answer…
[Kevin’s essay] Christian leaders have been ambivalent in their opinion of high culture. Saul of Tarsus imbibed deeply from the high cultures of his day, but after his conversion he refused to rely upon cultural sophistication as a strategy for advancing the gospel. Even then, however, he clearly employed his cultural skills in the composition of his epistles.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Joel Tetreau] Kevin,

Man you are fun to read. I think you like this topic! I’m enjoying your work on culture. Two questions: Do you have an illustration or two from the NT text that supports your hypothesis that the church needs high culture for it to be healthy? Does the NT being written in common Greek vs. Classical work against your hypothesis?

Straight Ahead,

jt
Joel, Could Philippians 4:8 be used here? I am not sure how broad Kevin defines high culture, but this verse comes to mind.

1. What books would you suggest to provide a beginning instruction for writing spiritual poetry, texts, and prayers for church family meditation?

2. If we wanted to offer our written works to music composers, to whom could we submit our stuff?

3. Christianity needs some who will master the cultured disciplines but who will do their work humbly, temperately, and soberly. Who would you recommend as living mentors in 2011 contributing to the topic of my question #1?

By the way, I like William Blake’s The Lamb.

Kevin, to be honest the very term “high” culture rubs me the wrong way. What would be some examples of “low” culture and is it in any way inferior to “high” culture? I dont necessarily have a problem with classifying types of culture but I am not very comfortable with making it look like some are “better” than others. If you have already spoken to this on SI then I apologize for the question and just point me to it.

Maybe we’ll get Kevin to post some answers yet, but a couple from me FWIW

Todd… maybe Chris Anderson at ChurchWorksMedia.com could help with your music questions.

Craig, about “high culture…” It’s one of those things that is hard to explain to people who don’t already know what it is… or prove to people who don’t already believe in its value. (Sounds snobby I know… true though. :) )

So I don’t envy Kevin his work in that department!

Maybe an analogy would help. If you go to your typical bookstore, I think we’d all agree that the vast majority of what’s there is cheap junk. The phrase “pulp fiction” was invented at a time when people still widely recognized that there is fiction of enduring value and then there’s fiction that is pretty much cheap, mass market junk.

(Or maybe something in between… I think some of the cheap, mass market junk is way better than others and—well, you can’t really blame a writer for wanting to make a living!)

Go to a flea market and you have a similar experience… mostly junk. Some treasures… maybe.

What’s the difference? Well, they say one man’s junk is another man’s treasure but at both flea markets and bookstores there is stuff that, over time, just about everyone recognizes to be treasure… and a whole lot that—mostly by being forgotten—is recognized as junk.

High culture is the treasures. Low culture is the junk.

But there is some info in the essay itself…
[KB] As Matthew Arnold envisioned it, high culture is the effort to “know the best that has been thought and said in the world” (Culture and Anarchy). It consists of those products of civilization that are deliberately meant to preserve, shape, and propagate human ideals and mores.
High culture is generally a subset of what people produce with the intention that it communicate big, lofty, weighty, enduring ideas… as opposed to what they create to “express themselves,” or just make a buck or get famous or “have a good time.”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Todd Wood] 1. What books would you suggest to provide a beginning instruction for writing spiritual poetry, texts, and prayers for church family meditation?
The best instruction in writing good poetry is reading good poetry. I recommend complete works of the following devotional poets.

Christina Rosetti

George Herbert

Isaac Watts

Charles Wesley

Anne Bradstreet

Edward Taylor

William Cowper

Isaac Watts

George MacDonald

Other excellent formal poets include Shakespeare, Tennyson, Blake (whom you already like :) ), Wordsworth, Milton, Dickinson, Gerard Manley Hopkins among many others.

Some modern formalists, invaluable in that they provide us with present day formal idiom (i.e. how to write meter and rhyme that doesn’t twist syntax as much as older writers were able to get away with [this helps the writer avoid looking like he’s trying to sound archaic] ) include Karl Shapiro, Richard Wilbur (especially Wilbur!), Stanley Kunitz (early works), Mark Jarman, among others. These writers are also very good at engaging the imagination.

As to techical help for writers I recommend:

Rules for the Dance by Mary Oliver is a guide for writing metrical verse.

The Poetry Home Repair Manual by Ted Kooser has good advice for a lot of miscellaneous aspects of poetry as well as some really good instruction on using metaphor.

Ultimately, a hymn writer must be a student of literature ready to devote some serious time to becoming an artist.

I wish hope the best for you and all others who so aspire.

Jim, great question on Phil 4:8. Would it be possible for Phil 4:8 to be consistent with manifestation of folk culture? Would it be possible to have High Culture that violates Phil 4:8? Perhaps friends who believe as Kevin would say that “whatsoever is good” rightly understood leads one to “high culture.” Those of you that believe this or close to this - please put it in your own words - not trying to present a straw man. I’m thinking do we really find “high culture” with Jesus and his disciples? Was John the Baptist committed to High Culture? The Roman church with it’s Latin, Gold trappings and such likes High culture. I don’t know……just thinking.

Peace!

Enjoying a beautiful AZ evening from my “Lawn 4000”.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

[Joel Tetreau] Kevin,

Man you are fun to read. I think you like this topic! I’m enjoying your work on culture. Two questions: Do you have an illustration or two from the NT text that supports your hypothesis that the church needs high culture for it to be healthy? Does the NT being written in common Greek vs. Classical work against your hypothesis?
Joel, your question is not phrased quite right. KoineGreek was the lingua franca of the Bible’s day, including the language of literary works (e.g. Josephus, Philo, Strabo, Plutarch). Classical Greek went out of use on the broad scope after Alexander the Great. There are also exceptions to that. Luke wrote Acts in Koine, but shirfted to a more Classical Style in chapter 27, to present the story of Paul’s voyage.

But it is generally agreed (I think) that the writiers of the New Testament generally did not write in literary style. Paul’s letters, for instance, were letters.

Still, and here is another qualifier, even though written in a familiar style, Romans contains phrases as clever as any philosopher could compose. They aren’t all that easy to comprehend at first glance. Paul’s learning came through even in his familiar-style letters, and it was meant from God for our blessing.

So I think that your point is right, that the Bible was written in a style for the common man, not for the reader of fine literature.

(straight ahead after the s-curve) ;)

I ditto your appreciation for what Kevin has written here.

Jeff Brown

One more suggestion for poetry: The Best Loved Poems of the American People, by Hazel Felleman. This was once the best-seller among American poetry anthologies. You can probably get it through Amazon. But if you want to look at it first, you can likely find a copy at the nearest Barnes and Noble. I would be surprised if you don’t like it, and many of the writers selected were Christians. We give it as a gift to our children, when they have children, to encourage them in a love of poetry.

Jeff Brown

[DavidO] I recommend complete works of the following devotional poets.
Can’t believe I forgot David, Asaph, Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.

There have been several studies about how the medium affects the message- from audio to electronic to digital to paper. It has been determined that different modes and methods have a measurable physical effect on the brain and body. When considering what is ‘good’ as far as partaking in culture, I think medium should be considered as much as content.

Phil. 4:8 is a fine nutshell for measuring high/low culture. A Christian is by default going to have a different criteria for determining what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’. So, just because teachers and professors call Catcher in the Rye a classic doesn’t make it a classic in the sense of ‘high’ culture. It may have had cultural impact, but so did Star Wars and Jim Morrison.

As a homeschooler, I am the one teaching the importance and quality of literature, music, and art to my kids. We differentiate between the themes that portray truths, inspire one to consider something greater and outside of themselves, engender gratitude and awe, and messages that glorify or excuse humanity’s baser instincts. We try to examine why certain works are considered classic and yet don’t meet Phil. 4:8 standards. I think when the Bible says that God has given us richly all things to enjoy (1 Tim. 6:17), it isn’t talking about Gilligan’s Island or Robert Plant, but about enjoying those things consistent with the fruits of the Spirit. We may ‘consider the source’, but mostly we look at the actual content, so folk culture still gets a fair shake.

I will check out these suggestions, David and Jeff.

I have been toying with different ideas for worship on Sundays: placing poetry and prayers in the church bulletins and projector slides, featuring a new hymn or spiritual song once a month, and bringing our pocket Bibles and taking Sunday afternoon hikes and walks in God’s creation.

In Idaho, the LDS church monopolizes a great deal of the radio waves where there is high culture. Among the evangelicals in Idaho, Christ’s Kirk (http://www.christkirk.com/) leads the way for high culture in worship. And Douglas Wilson is one of the master wordsmiths and classical gurus.

Kevin,

I have enjoyed your articles on culture immensely and am in agreement. In our music academy I am considering scheduling four classical concerts with the chamber orchestra from the Detroit Symphony Orchestra as a part of our Listen and Learn series. The chamber group would perform at our facility and would be open to the public as well. I am interested in your opinion as to the possible benefits of such a concert series upon our students. Do you think such an endeavor is worth the investment of time and energy?

Pastor Mike Harding

Aaron, dont worry about the snobbery:) I get what it is. So high culture has a timeless aspect to it? Is there value to what is timely but not necessarily timeless? So its the content and not necessarily the form?

The way I have always heard it is that only certain forms are considered high culture like fine arts etc.

Is there more than one view on what counts as high culture?