Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Mormon Evangelists
[Note and warning: today is wax-philosophical day.]
The title of this post may appear a little misleading, if not timely. But considering that evangelism includes zealous dissemination and publication of the gospel, in whatever creative form that may be, the question has always been timely:
What does a Mormon entertainment crusade look like?
The Blogosphere seems to be populating itself with Mormon's who are concerned over or at least interested in the question. For some background, here's the blog entry, over at A Motley Vision, that incited my follow-up entry here at Rhapsidiom, land of the brave.
In essence, the question often seems to amount to "Where is the central front for a Mormon support for the arts?" Notice I did not say Utah front for a support for the arts, even though such fronts exist and are growing. (Here's a newly discovered one, again, gratis Motley.) In other words, I'm implying that Los Angeles and New York and other culture centers of the world seem to be on the verge of propelling Mormons onto the World's stage--not to mention a Mitt Romney run--but where's the tipping point for Mormon-related art? What does a Mormon entertainment crusade look like?
Unfortunately, as I noted over at the Motley post, I think, in our arts for-and-by-the-Mormons approach, we are far too centric. This becomes one of our biggest problems. It seems to be symptomatic of Utah culture, in fact, except that in other places, like New York and Los Angeles, we still can't seem to escape this centric mentality. Our center of gravitational pull causes implosion. Okay, so maybe that's a little hyperbole, but I think there's a simple way to look at it:
Jesus commanded us to be in the world but not of it. Too often we focus on the "not of it" part, forgetting altogether the "be in [it]" part. [Update 12/5: apparently I mistake (see Grettir's comments). Jesus never said this. This is an old axiom that originated elsewhere. But is there still truth to the idea?] From the perspective of the arts, and Christian evangelism, I think this means extending ourselves out there. Our tendency is to want to focus on us, the Mormons way too much. But how about just letting go to some degree? To wax artistic, I kind of picture this gelatinous beauty, the jellyfish, floating freely out in the water, for everyone to see. Or, put more scripturally, we are the salt of the Earth...
A city on a hill...
A president in the running.
Oy vay, don't even get me started on this one. The kind of centric focus we, as a people, are capable of, regarding a Romney bid, frankly, is terrifying. But it's already out there. Oh how this website makes me cringe: http://www.runmittrun.org/ The website, incidentally, is spearheaded NOT by Mitt Romney and crew--he's building his own highly intelligent camp--but by successful Mormon Director, Mitch Davis. The site asks the deep, burning question:
"Could a Mormon be a movie star?"I mean, really, who asks these kinds of questions? Why, oh, why? It's as if we are so insecure that we feel a need to defend our right to exist, our right to run, our right to chill. But that's just another symptom of our centric approach to evangelism and the arts. In confidence, can't we just stand sometimes? Where are we focused? Why do we implode? Well, despite my cringe factor, I suppose some good can come from this website. But I still think it's tacky and, ironically, it distracts from Mitt's purposes. (This is the PR major in me speaking.) He is not running as the Mormon president, even though he happens to be Mormon.
I think, actually, this becomes a very useful way to look at art.
Let me put it another way: when we stop focusing so much on ourselves and start focusing on the bigger picture, I think our efforts will be much more successful. This has always been my attitude. Not that I'm against anything proselytical. Au contraire, my sweet puppy friends. I think the Church vitally needs to perform this labor. And we are it's members. Nevertheless--and it almost seems paradoxical--as the Church enters the world stage, it almost seems that a softer approach works better. The "not in your face" approach. The soft appeal. I mean, how creative can we be? Now, in terms of a crusade, that's a call to arms I can stomach. Walk quietly through the thickets. Love your enemy so well that when you "kill" them, they won't know what hit them. Truly. They won't have a clue. It will be something so profoundly revolutionary, that it will cause Kings and nations to rise in awe and wonder, as our dear ol' prophet Joe predicted.Incidentally, there is one word that I think sums it all up. That word is authenticity.
Or maybe we should just let "the others" (think Lost) tell the story, that is, with dripping sarcasm. You know, like when Evangelists say Mormons aren't Christian. It's terribly entertaining.
----------
Incidentally, the word "crusade" is only meant to provoke thought. I really feel an aversion to the implication of an actual "crusade." In some ways, I feel the best art doesn't always take the "in your face" approach. But then, isn't that what I've been talking about?
posted by Rhapsidiomite @ 10:52 PM
Permalink |
9 Comments:
I think it is paradoxical. Underneath it all is a desperate call for approval. From whom? Isn't the Lord's approval of us enough?
For many Mormons, not by a landslide. The deeply desperately felt need many Mormons feel to be on the world stage is narcissistic. What the hell are we going to give to the world if it's all about us? I think the very core of the best Mormon philosophy is extroverted and in love with the good in the world, out there looking for it wherever we can find it. The more we care about the world, the more the world will see that Mormonism, like a whole lot of other things in the world, is pretty dang swell. It's reciprocation.
But it doesn't mean going out and not being Mormon. You hit on another key. Authenticity. I might call it honesty. It's simply being and saying what you believe when it is appropriate. It should neither be with the firehose of preaching on all the time to show ourselves, niether off all the time to examine the world. Besides which, we get things wrong so often that a lot of the time, the firehose should be pointed at us.
You get a drink from the firehose!
Nice touch.
Yeah, sometimes the firehose can be just the right thing.
But not all the damn time, right?
*gasp* you SWORED!
No not all the time. A lot of the time it's the wrong thing. And I use it as an analogy to mock the common Mormon practice of blasting others with LDS religion or culture. A "little stream" is wiser and as you get at, sometimes for Mormons to not call attention to themselves is a better way. We're not the only stream and if we are a stream, it's a nice point but a side one - the grass and trees and the Wild Things are the main point, and those are made and fed not only by streams but by air and little boys and sunshine that Mormons didn't create - and Mormons didn't really create any stream, for that matter, they just joined the course of one. Or if it is a might river "..what power can stay the heavens?" - or for that matter claim credit for what the heavens might do? We would be participants, but we would not be IT. .. hmm.. makes me realize that it all may boil down to rendering credit to the real powers that be, not ourselves, for whatever might be praised.
But it's not necessarily the wrong thing, sometimes, either! - It all depends on where honesty or authenticity heads. I think if it's in a properly, um.. reverent setting, again rendering credit where it is due, it can be the right thing. Just, like, whenever is best whatever whoever, what, you know? Like, totally.
As a wise man once said:
"Hold...
Hold...
Hold...
CHARGE!"
Actually, Jesus never taught us to "be in the world, but not of the world." That little axiom didn't show up for another four hundred years or so, and was usually trotted out when people wanted to excuse their own bad behavior in the early Christian church.
In fact, most of the Doctrine and Covenants (and the entire concept of a Zion society) would seem to say that the exact opposite is the ideal...
Point ceded. I was a little surprised at first, and thought, it must be there, but couldn't find it.
But is it still a true idea in principle? I tend to think there is not only truth to it, but it is inherently true.
I'm thinking of several ideas, including commandments given to Adam and Eve, to the apostles in Jesus day ("go ye into all the world"), to Paul, and so forth.
Concerning the Doctrine and Covenants, I see your point, but there are also those scriptures about the Church rising out of obscurity, fair and clear. This is kind of the idea I'm after.
Come out of hiding, so to speak.
It's really interesting that that phrase was usually an excuse in first usage.
I think I've heard the phrase many times in General Conference, so whatever it means, it might bear the weight of general counsel. Right now this Google search shows it in a Conference address and the New Era. An advanced search with "near words" here led to this Ensign find.
But on the other hand Brigham Young said:
"It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother, being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and bring it to Zion."
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p.282-91
(Other pretty interesting stuff in that speech.)
I can see a place for both, but regard that direct and ardent council of Brigham Young with more weight than regurgitated platitudes :)
Actually, that article you linked to satisfies the question in my mind. Whether or not the axiom is exactly scriptural, it doesn't matter. It is sound doctrine, and supported by scripture, as pointed out in that article.
Nice work!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home