I keep getting hints that the church might be divided into two camps over the inclusion of art in the life of the church.  Kevin DeYoung has offered the mottos 'art is the answer' and 'art is weird' as the championing statements of these two camps.

A couple of weeks ago he, Kevin DeYoung, posted an attempt to lay down some common ground and common sense for thinking about the intersection of the church and the arts.

It's a shame that art, to some extent, divides the church into two camps (art is weird vs. art is the answer).  Of course it's not the fault of art.  It's our fault.  It's a shame that Christians are so confused about the appropriate functions of art in the church.  I appreciate the original post's attempt to bring common sense to this issue.  That's exactly what is needed.

In the end, there's plenty of freedom in the gospel and in God's mission for our local churches to be very involved and intentional about the use of art or not.

We can talk about the relative importance of the individual points he made, but common sense in the context of God's whole purpose for the church is exactly what is needed and his post takes a good stab at that.

His main points were:

1. We must allow art to be art.

2. Art is valuable, but so are a lot of other things.

3. Art can do some things, and it can’t do some other things.

4. Our worship should strive for artistic excellence, but our worship will inevitably be “popular” and propositional.

5. Churches can learn to welcome artists, but artists should not expect the church to be an art gallery.

6. Artists can help us see our idols, and artists have idols of their own too.

I’d like to borrow some of Kevin DeYoung’s points, and mix them with ideas I’ve gathered from other great thinkers like Harold Best and Betsey Steele Halstead to form a revised set of common sense principles for the church’s use of visual art.

I’ll publish the conclusions here soon.  Feel free to comment with principles that you think should guide the church’s use of art.