Posted by Siamang on: 08.15.2007 /
Ken Ham’s Creation Museum sports a gorgeous animated advertisement:
An interesting discussion has come up on this spot on Cartoon Brew, especially since the animators of the spot have posted saying that they aren’t creationists but instead accept evolution.
Here’s one of the artists, Soyeon Kim:
But for us, at least, it’s a process of visualizing the concept. If any of you are involved in art, you may understand what that means. I hope that you enjoy this piece as a visual art, describing the beginning of the time. That’s what we were focusing on. I believe that you don’t have to be christians to enjoy michelangelo or da vinci’s art. (Not that I intend to compare myself to those masters)
Which leads to a great discussion about the nature of art in the service of truth, one’s own beliefs, and the intersection of art and commerce when creating a work-for-hire.
Myself, I’m a professional artist and I work in the field of animation. I’m lucky to have never been asked to work on something that I disagree with, but I’d like to think I’d turn down work on a film I felt was racist, sexist, anti-gay or crossed what I’d call my own personal moral boundaries. Working for Answers in Genesis would cross that boundary for me.
It’s particularly compelling because it’s such a beautifully designed and animated piece. I tend to think that hyucksters like Ken Ham don’t deserve to have good art created for them… that the creators of quality artistic endeavors should withold their talents from undeserving patrons who will use the power of that art for nefarious purposes.
I think it’s an unrealistic view I hold. The real world doesn’t work that way, as this piece shows.
-Siamang
Comment by: Mike O
1You sound an awful lot like Christians in your unwillingness to live and let live. Is he undeserving because you think he’s wrong? Are his purposes nefarious because you don’t happen to agree?
What would make Ken Ham “deserving” in your opinion? What would make his purposes non-nefarious?
Say a business hired these guys to promote a product you didn’t agree with, like cigarettes, fatty foods or sugared ceral (take your pick). Are they also undeserving? A lot of people like ‘em and there’s a market for it. Why shouldn’t they be able to hire the best to promote their product?
Who gets to decide who’s deserving and who’s not?
Comment by: Karen
2There are definitely projects I have turned down even though the money offered was great and I thought my portion of the work could be done with integrity. I just didn’t want to associate myself with employers or companies whose products or services I found myself morally opposed to.
In the end, we all have to live with ourselves and the choices we’ve made. Of course, it’s much easier to make the right choices if not accepting a job doesn’t equal not paying the rent!
I agree, btw, the animation there is lovely.
Comment by: Siamang
3He is wrong no matter what I think.
Ken Ham peddles bigoted, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-enlightenment crapola in an attempt to make buttloads of cash while fleecing the flock. He’s a snake-oil salesman just like the federal convict, creationist tax-cheat Kent Hovind.
As an atheist, I really should approve wholeheartedly, as he only steals from believers and only peddles falsehoods to the credulous. The more children who are taught that T-rex’s razor-sharp teeth were for cracking coconuts means more atheists when they grow up and realize the lies they were taught by their churches.
“Geee… if the pastor was wrong about T-rex eating coconuts… what ELSE was he wrong about?”
The Creation Museum is a bona-fide, world-class atheist factory. I dislike it because it’s dishonest, but I guess I should shut up and merely enjoy the outcome.
If he taught real actual science. If you believe in God, then teaching what he’s teaching is mocking Creation. As the Catholic Church has said, this is a form of idolotry. Not that I should care… all it means is more atheists when kids grow up and realize T-Rex wasn’t a vegetarian.
I think that’s a valid question. Obviously everyone draws the line somewhere. Should they do an animated cartoon starring SpongeBob to promote cigarette smoking among children? Probably everyone would agree they shouldn’t.
As an artist, and an artist for hire, there is a kind of code of honor. There are some products I wouldn’t work on. Now that I recall, there was one project I could have worked on… I won’t go into the details, as I still work for the company. But if I had worked on that project, it would have compromised my artistic integrity. There was no moral or legal problem with the project…. it just felt wrong to me. (I can elaborate in private, Mike.)
But I think that artists can and do stand up for things sometimes, and I think it’s cool that yes, if you want someone to do a cigarette ad, you can find someone, but they probably won’t be your first choice of artist, and you may have to look around.
The cigarette vendors of the world will always be able to have ads, but it doesn’t have to be easy for them.
Artists decide for themselves who they’ve got the guts to work for. If these folks can look at themselves in the mirror at the end of the day, that’s their own look out.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
4Wow, that’s very pretty.
It’s interesting that the artists were ok with doing this for the Creation Museum; I think it’s also interesting that the Creation Museum was willing to have evolutionists do an ad for them.
Siamang I can understand why you wouldn’t work on certain projects. I see that as an individual decision. If you want freedom to say no to certain project then the flip side of that freedom is that other people can say yes to them, imo. If there was an across the board honor code, who is to say what you would and wouldn’t get to work on? Maybe it would be written by theists (since they are in the majority) and then you’d have to accept projects for people like Ken Ham and wouldn’t be allowed to work for atheists.
Comment by: Siamang
5Well, I would… just like in all life. I COULD, if I wanted to, decide to use my powers for evil… heheh…
For example, I have a friend who for awhile was seriously considering creating a magazine that promoted local strip clubs.
Now I realize that’s a personal choice… what you like to do, who’s involved and where individuals draw the line.
My wife and I tried to pursuade him not to do that for a living. It’s not that I crusade against strip clubs. It’s not that I think they shouldn’t have freedom of speech and people should be free to do that sort of thing.
It’s just that gut check you’ve got to do in the morning on your way to work. If your gut’s okay with it, work away! If you can live with the “icky” side of life… go for it.
But of course there’s the possibility that your job might change who you are…and if you have friends and who those friends are and if they continue to be part of your life when you begin to change who you are.
Comment by: Eliza
6Lovely animation. Reminds me of Eric Carle’s books (not to offend the animators by suggesting they are copying anyone else’s style!).
It’s interesting, that the animation is lovely, but doesn’t (as far as I can tell, on one view through the clip) hinge on the themes of the creation museum, at least not until the last image, which is presumably a dinosaur foot coexisting with the mammal shown briefly in the clip.
Is it as much of a moral quandary if your part of the work doesn’t itself glorify the product you disagree with, but is part of the presentation/package?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7Siamang - what you did was because you cared about your friend and didn’t want to see him adversely affected by his job choice.
I see that as rather different from someone simply trying to control the behavior of others, as if they had a right to make the rules for everyone else.
Comment by: Siamang
8Obviously I don’t have the ability to control their behavior.
But discussing it is well within the bounds of discourse.
Comment by: Mike O
9I was taking a bit of a different angle on it … of COURSE the artist has the ability (if he has the cojonas) to turn down work for moral or ethical reasons. That would be honorable. I guess what I was saying is that Ham or your friend who wanted to do the strip club mag or whoever also has the right to the same quality of advertising … IF they can get it.
When I read this:
I misunderstood and thought you were saying the hucksters shouldn’t be allowed to have quality product produced for them. That’s what prompted my “who gets’s to decide” response. Sorry!
I am a computer programmer by trade (I’m in management now). I used to do contract work which put me in the same “art for hire” situation. I was never faced with it, but I had made a decision ahead of time that I would not work for a company that I morally objected to … an abortion clinic, for example. I was never faced with actually having to turn down work, but I’m sure I would have. I need to be able to look in the mirror at the end of the day, as you say.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
10Siamang - exactly.
It’s interesting how many people do try to control each other’s behavior, even though it’s not possible!
Comment by: Jim Henderson
11Not to get off course but this touches on an issue I have found intriguing.
IF churches are as consistent in their beliefs as they purport to be. Why do they hire non believing musicians (because they are good and are available) to play the music that supports the sacred “worship” experience?
And why would an atheist musician (I assume some of them are atheists) take such a job and is that a compromise of their values and if it isn’t why isn’t it?
Comment by: Mike O
12I’ve been on both sides of this issue, Jim. As a recovering pentecostal like yourself, I used to think that in order to lead people in worship, you had to be a vessel that could worship. I’m now of the opinion that you only need to be a vessel that can sing or play. Granted, it may be better if they actually bought in to the lyrics, but I no longer think it’s necessary.
Another way of looking at it is this - regardless of whether or not they believe in Him, God has given them a gift … why can’t He use it if they’re willing to let Him?
When I’m in church, I either worship or I don’t … the musicians merely set the mood. But again, I do think it’s better if the musicians are worshipping as well. But with that said, non-C musicians set a much better mood than no musicians at all!
It’s a good gig if you can get it. Why would a musician turn down a chance to play for money? Plus, on a Sunday morning, chances are VERY good that they’re available without giving up anything they care about!! It’s just music (in their opinion). Unless, of course, they’re against Christianity. Then I would agree with your question of “why would you do that?” But most atheists, the way I understand it, don’t care that you believe in God. And if you’re willing to pay them to play, they would have no problem playing for you.
Isn’t that the way is should be??
Comment by: literaghost
13A few years ago I volunteered at a local Christian nursing home, dropping in once a month to play the piano for their Thursday worship service/Bible school. Most of the residents were wheelchair-bound and not quite as mentally present as they used to be. I would come in, talk to them a bit before the service-leader (?) would get there, play a few hymns once she had, and leave before the preaching started.
Sometimes it felt okay - they didn’t get much company, the songs were some of the few they could probably remember, it brought art and stimulation to an otherwise pretty boring lifestyle. Other days, it made me feel restless and hypocritical, and I was on-edge whenever staff would talk to me (What if I said the wrong thing? What if I let something slip? I wasn’t “out” to many people, and being in Kentucky didn’t help). I started to become less shy and closeted as I matured, and the unease only increased with that growth.
After two years (~20 sessions), I couldn’t continue,* and instead moved on to other activities and organizations - progressive and secular ones. I’ve since worked with a few religious organizations for common cause (a Franciscan organization while organizing a Peace and Global Citizenship Fair, for example), but nothing long-term or specifically religiously oriented.
Taken in general, I think a lot of this depends on context and individuals, and the what pros and cons they see. For me, the cons took a lot more fortitude and forbearance than I could muster, so I looked for the pros elsewhere.
- L. W.
–
*Official reason being that “we might move soon.” We’re still in the same house. I blame the current real estate market. :P
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
14Thanks for your comment, literaghost.
I agree with you that from the musician’s point of view a lot it has to do with context and individuals.
I think it is inconsistent of Christians to make a really big deal about the Holy Spirit and then hire musicians who by the Christians’ definition won’t be led by the Holy Spirit. It would be nice if the Christians would admit “they play as well (or better) than the Christians we know - evidently skill and practice counts for more than supernatural enabling of the Holy Spirit, in this case”. Some of the Christians are probably hoping and praying the atheists will get converted by playing in church (by the Holy Spirit, who is there but not in them).
Comment by: Karen
15I sang in the choir at my last church and we often hired contract musicians to play special concerts and at holiday times. There was never any requirement that they be Christians or even theists.
They were just professionals doing a job, and happy to get the work. Our attitude was to be as nice as possible to them and “witness” to them backstage if we had a chance.
It’s interesting how practical concerns in church often trump the ideas about the “leading of the holy spirit” that are preached from the pulpit. I saw a lot of that working behind the scenes.
Comment by: Mike O
16I’ll probably sound paranoid, but I can see it now … if we didn’t allow them to play, we’d be having this same discussion only this time Christians would be closed-minded, separating ourselves from the world, inbred Christianese organizations - no wonder nobody likes you.
It seems like whatever option we choose, the “right” one is always the “other” one. Not a very comforting thought.
Comment by: Mike O
17In context of the worship leader topic, why are they mutually exclusive? Why can’t “the leading of the holy spirit” “lead” a church to use non-Christian musicians?
Comment by: Julie
18Once I got an acting job that involved going on this big, fun camping trip and making sound recordings of the actors having fun water rafting, sitting around a campfire, riding horses–and we were supposed to get paid $300 a day! Then I found out the recording was going to be peddled in these little catalogs for smokers who got a certain number of points. Like, for example, if you smoked enough, you could send away for your free gift with the proof of purchase from your cigarette packages, and one of the things you could get was this weird recording, made with what, at that time, was incredibly sophisticated recording technology. (It was actually a microphone inside a sculpture of a human head–I don’t think this technology really took off.)
I didn’t do the job.
But then, my boyfriend at the time actually was plugged in as my replacement! He was next down the list! And I really kicked myself for not doing the job. One more person quit, so if I had only stayed on the job, the boyfriend and I could have had a free vacation. More than free–an earning vacation.
So my price is not money. It’s sex. I’ll apparently cross the line of integrity for a fun weekend of sex.
OK, I didn’t cross that line. I just regretted that I didn’t get a fun weekend of sex. I mean, I got one later. Whatever–the point is, as artists, we all make choices. We all have our price, I believe!
Comment by: Eliza
19Julie, am I correct in assuming that activity would have been “off the record”?
;-)
Comment by: Siamang
20Okay, now I’m picturing you, the boyfriend and the human head in a two-man tent.
Comment by: Karen
21Well, in the church teaching I’m talking about, acceptable worship is worship “in spirit and in truth.” So the teaching goes that worship leaders should be filled with the spirit and the truth of the gospel.
Worship led by those not filled with the holy spirit and/or those who are “false teachers” (i.e., not evangelical christians) was considered a “stench” in god’s nostrils. Not acceptable.
So, if you were to stick to that teaching, you wouldn’t have nonbelievers leading worship. And I definitely went to churches that would have agreed with that 100% and used musicians from the congregation for their services.
The last church I went to, however, had high “production values” and the amateur musicians in the congregation simply didn’t cut it, quality-wise. So they hired professionals, many of whom were not Christians. That would have been unacceptable at other churches I attended, and it seemed a bit hypocritical at the time.
Comment by: Mike O
22You know what’s happening here? We’re taking the topic of “worship leaders” and making it a religious thing. This is the same thing non-Christians rail against the church about, looking at how they do things and questioning whether or not the Bible actually said to do it that way, and faulting them for it.
The Bible doesn’t say how we should pick worship leaders. So faulting Christian churches for having different ways of going about it is pharisitical, IMHO. The interesting thing is that in this case, it’s not the christians who are doing it.
Does anyone really think that Jesus is going to say to some churches, “well, you didn’t pick your worship leaders right, so it didn’t count.”
No, worship is personal. Whether the leader is a christian or not, my worship is genuine. It’s fine to have an opinion, but there’s not a “right” answer and a “wrong” answer to this one. It’s simply a matter of method.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
23Mike, let’s look at what the Bible says.
First, it’s the Bible itself which makes worship is a religious thing (i.e. a thing of the Spirit)
The Bible indicates the Spirit is given to people after they become Christians:
.
In other words people who aren’t Christians don’t have the Spirit.
The Bible also makes a point of how people who don’t have the Spirit can’t understand the things of the Spirit:
and
In view of these verses I don’t understand how a church which claims to believe the Bible can think it’s ok to have people leading any part of their worship who aren’t Christians.
For what it’s worth, I wondered if I should resign my role as a musician once I knew I had serious private doubts about what I had believed, because I knew the verses I just posted; and the particular church I was at, as best I knew, whether it was paying musicians or asking them to volunteer (some were paid), didn’t ask them to be involved unless the musicians were believed to be Christians.
My own opinion, before I had doubts, was that a church who believed the Bible shouldn’t bring in musicians who weren’t Christians, because that practice would be in conflict with their stated beliefs.
I continued to be involved for a while in spite of my doubts because a) I wasn’t ready to tell anyone b) I wasn’t ready to resign c) I knew I was giving my best, which was the same as I ever gave - so why wouldn’t it be ok to keep doing that? d) I was not taking advantage of my doubts in anyway, since I was still giving my best - so I was doing nothing intentional to disrupt or compromise the worship at my church. In a weird sort of way, I felt like I was giving more than I ever had before when my (private) view was “Speaking for myself I don’t care about this anymore the way you do. But because you DO care I am going to give my very best.”
I can’t see that most musicians who aren’t Christians would quite have this attitude, although I can see that ethical ones would provide the service they are being paid for, with the excellence they are capable of providing. They would do that but it’s still a job. I wasn’t being paid so it was simply a gift, one I didn’t especially have any reason to give. Not to make more of it than it was, because mostly I was just one of the musicians in the orchestra.
Anyway, by way of analogy regarding churches being inconsistent in what they say and who they involve in worship: I don’t have a problem with the Republican party hiring a caterer whose employees are all Democrats. I would have a problem with it if Republicans regularly pointed out in their speeches a belief that only Republicans can prepare good food.
Comment by: Mike O
24We could go ’round and ’round forever, and I don’t want to do that. That’s the whole problem. We can get the Bible to support virtually any viewpoint, from liberal to conservative, from gays are OK to gays are not, from it’s OK to have money to money is evil, whatever. Being able to back up your position with scripture isn’t hard … I can, too (and I will, just for the sake of the game). But what I think is important is that we don’t let differences divide. You don’t have to go to a church that sees it my way (as if you would!). If it’s a problem, there are plenty of churches out there who see it your way, and that’s fine. But letting these petty debates get in the way of the core message of Christ is one of the problems non-C’s have with C’s in the first place.
But with that said, I’ll answer your points from my perspective and pose one or two of my own. My point isn’t to “win,” but rather to show that there is more than one way to look at things, all of them supportable by scripture. And we can co-exist.
———————————–
The four verses you quoted (post #23 above) are all true, but IMO I don’t think they have anything to do with the question at hand - is it permissable for churches to use non-C worship leaders. You followed up your verses with this statement:
Why? These verses explain how the leader isn’t a “true worshipper,” and I agree with that - a non-C can’t worship because “the spirit is not in him.” True statement.
But that’s him, not me and not the congregation (who do have the spirit).
As I’ve said before, there’s nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. And given that that was their stated belief, you were right. And you were right to question your involvement in it - that was the concientious thing to do. I am currently in a similar situation. The denomination I am currently a part of (and my wife is a pastor of) teaches that drining alcohol at all is a sin. I don’t agree. But given that I am in leadership in a church that does believe that, I do not drink. At all. It’s out of respect for their stated beliefs. Virtually all of my family is Christian, and all of them drink, with the exception of my wife and I. When my son turns 21, he’s pretty much decided that he’ll drink, but not until then out of respect for us. And that’s the way it should be.
Now for a couple of verses that support my position on the subject -
Luke 9:49-50 - “Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
I’m not going to get hung up on teh methods other ministries use to do what God has called them to do. If abortion protestors want to use graphic signs to get their point across, what right do I have to say God doesn’t want them to do that? Sure, I would never do that and I think it’s ineffective or worse yet, destructive. But do I understand everything? Of course not. So I will not say that God has not told someone to do something in a way he has not told me to do it. Who knows, some people may need a harsher message and others may be put off by it. And back to our topic, some people may need Christian worship leaders and others may not care. The point is, both can co-exist, and both can even be right! IMHO, Christian or not, God can use anyone to further his purposes. And if I’m wrong, was any damage done?? No. I’d rather risk trying something to be an effective ministry, and be wrong, than not risk it and miss out. Where I’m at spiritually, right now, it’s more important to try things and hopefully draw more people to Christ.
But that’s me.
I don’t have it with me right now, but in the forward to Hemant’s book, Rob Bell ended it by asking if God could use Hemant as a prophet to His people, and I think we all thought that answer could be yes. I know I do.
For me, I believe God can use anyone. I don’t think you have to be “good enough,” or “righteous enough.” If a worship leader can lead me in true worship without being a worshipper himself, who am I to say that’s wrong?
If you can show me a verse that actually says I’m wrong, and I’ll change my opinion because I do base all of my beliefs on scripture (or at least I require them to not contradict scripture). That’s my baseline. But I don’t think you’ll find one. Sure, you’ll find verses that support your view (and I’ll find verses that support mine.) And that makes for variety. There are one hundred million zillion different opinions out there …. If all churches did it your way, how many would we miss?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
25Mike, I don’t really mind what position a church takes as long as they are consistent. It would be fine with me if a church had atheists count their offering but NOT if they were also pushing the point in their teaching that atheists have no basis for morals and might as well steal as not. That would be a meaningless teaching since in practice they obviously believe the atheists who are helping them are not motivated to steal.
I’m not saying “Churches must do things a certain way”. I just want the message and the practice to line up, in any given church.
Comment by: Mike O
26Hear hear!
BTW … I edited my comment since you posted. Mostly grammatical stuff, but I’m not sure.
Comment by: Laura M.
27I agree with Mike about worship leadership.
Just curious…Mike, do you feel any sense of conflict or ethical issues about being part of a church and your wife being pastor of a church whose teachings contradict your beliefs?
Can I assume you don’t believe teaching that
‘drinking any alcohol at all is a sin’
is a harmful thing to teach? I was involved in an interesting conversation about this not too long ago on another blog.
The blog owner seemed to think this teaching by the Southern Baptists is harmful, and the requirement that leadership not drink alchol would somehow be destructive to the denomination and that it is an example of legalism, as opposed to a legitimate difference of opinion.
Comment by: Mike O
28No, becasue the points where we differe are not important (IMO). Hypothetically, however, if they required me to profess that teaching rather than just adhere to it, that would be a problem for me because that would require me to lie. But as it stands, we just don’t agree, and that’s OK.
No, I don’t believe it’s a harmful teaching … just inaccurate. In fact, I think I’m better off for not drinking. But to say that “the Bible says it’s a sin” is, IMO, untrue.
I would agree that it’s an example of legalism. But I don’t think it’s a big deal. Any teaching on sin is legalism. I just don’t happen to agree that drinking is a sin. Drunkenness is, but not plain ol’ drinking.
Is the teaching destructive? No.
Unnecessary? Perhaps.
Reasonable? Could be.
Their perogative? Absolutely. God will not smite them for this error! :) It’s a safe, righteous position to take. By that, I mean it’s not wrong to not drink. And it’s not wrong to believe you shouldn’t drink.
Comment by: Mike O
29Oh, I forgot to add that the blog owner you referred to may be better served by changing churches. If it’s a problem for him, rather than being a thorn in their side he should become a part of a church he can get 100% on board with.
Comment by: Laura M.
30I don’t think he actually is a member of that denomination. He was criticizing a statement they released coming down extremely hardline against drinking alcohol.
If I remember right, the Southern Baptist statement didn’t mention that it was a sin (but I might be remembering wrong), just that it was harmful.
Comment by: Laura M.
31Oh, and thanks Mike for answering my questions.
Comment by: Outchurched » Blog Archive » The Monument to Scientific Ignorance
32 09/8/07 11:45 AM | Comment Link |[...] eBay Atheist has an interesting take on the so-called “Creation Museum” and is referring to it as the Monument to Scientific Ignorance. Brilliant, since that’s exactly what it is. [...]
Comment by: A Positive Attitude | Ebay Selling Tips
33 09/26/07 8:23 AM | Comment Link |[...] back I had a post where I said that as an artist I would refuse to work freelance on a project that I felt crossed a [...]