I went to my old church to see a concert with a friend. It was an open event (not a church arranged event) but I didn’t con myself into thinking there would be absolutely no Christian message or overtures – I think to walk into a church, no matter the occasion, and be blindsided by Christian rhetoric would be stupid and deserved – after all, you are on Christian home turf, as it were, and what other point is there for an open event than to at least give it a go at spreading the gospel one way or another?
Still, it’s one thing hearing the usual fare (Christ is the way/truth/life etc.) even when not all but a majority of those present are Christian – it’s another thing entirely hearing that anyone who doesn’t share that worldview is somehow deficient. That’s just rude!
Before the concert began, another performer came up and recited a poem. Of course creative talents ‘as gifts from God’ were mentioned, but the speaker ended off addressing the audience through the poem, saying that as an artist, if your creative pursuits are not executed with God in mind, then they are ‘just a hollow parody of your intellect’. The strangest part was, this was all delivered with smile of sincerity – and I can only imagine by the comfort of the audience that they saw nothing wrong with what was said – which to me speaks volumes about what at least a majority of the religious people there are comfortable believing about non-believers.
“Hollow parody of your intellect.”
One minute I was sitting there, thinking, this isn’t so bad – the next I was reeling.
I find that idea offensive, and if you claim to have a heart for all mankind then it would be contradictory to feel any different.
As a creative human being who deeply experiences things like wonder, joy, pain, desire, loneliness, awe and ecstasy – as well as the urge to express those feelings and thoughts artistically, without God coming into it at all – this is not only an insulting idea, but a grievous falsification. At its heart, it suggests a kind of cold objectivity in the expressions of those who do not believe in a God, which of course is an outrageous lie, and all it takes is a gander through a few books, galleries, and a few clicks online to discover quite easily that not all who write, sing, dance, paint, design and perform (and do so successfully communicating some deep emotion so as to be felt by those watching – who in turn feel deep emotion and resonance regardless of their religious beliefs) are religiously inspired.
As a person who has been touched, amused, enthralled and entertained equally by artistic endeavours, whether music, art or writing created from both religious and non-religious sources, I find this idea to be dehumanising.
It does not surprise me to discover that the religious have claimed the very human to make up their very divine. After all, God is made in man’s image.
I, as many others however see acts of mercy, kindness, generosity, love and selflessness as much as part of being human as I do pain, anger, hatred, deviances and selfishness – and I do not see these things as being opposite to each other. That is the sort of dangerous black & white thinking that through resulting repression, has hounded humans from Bible to Baghdad.
The experience of being human is so vast and varied and intimate to each one of us, that to imagine that art, music or writing should be created to express nothing but ‘nice’ or ‘hopeful’ emotions or sentiments as a sign of ‘God’s inspiration and individual spiritual wholeness’, ironically ignores a great portion of what life on this planet really entails.
It’s just another way of brainwashing people into seeing those who don’t believe in a God as somehow not only morally deficient, but also devoid of the ability to experience the kind of deep and meaningful human emotions and feelings that inspire art. It splits intellect and emotion, science and art down the middle like they’re incapable of existing together. Funnily enough, it doesn’t split the other way. Got God? You got it all. You can be anything you want. Don’t have God? You’re lacking, incapable of truly experiencing or feeling or understanding – and your creations are ugly and cold.
Sometimes, though you may not choose to watch it, or even like the idea of it, to regard the expression of the negative or taboo as an indication of ‘brokeness’ or ‘incompleteness’ is incorrect and repressive.
And since it’s understandably the non-religious who explore more bleaker landscapes of emotions, urges, desires, situations and philosophies – precisely because they are unshackled by the religious ideologies that stifle experiencing the range of subtle and extreme human emotions or considering them objectively – it seems as though many believers have this idea that things created by the creative irreligious are somehow an indication of the ‘broken, hopelessness’ of those living without God.
It’s strange how a lot of religious people feel the need to kick you down before they pick you up. There only seems to be 3 ways of viewing non-Christians – disgust, pity, or a mixture of the two. Then they wonder why people are not interested in hearing about their religious bent.
Art doesn’t belong to religion. It may be inspired by any number of things, one of which may be religion – directly or indirectly – but not exclusively. Creative expression does not belong to the religious. Funnily enough, in the end, it’s not those of us who accept evolution and reject the idea of a supreme being who depreciate human-beings to the class of animals or soulless robots, but the religious themselves.







What say you: