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 |
Trackbacks |
