Hey Joe...
I find it helpful to think of the two extremes you mentioned (those who embrace art and creativity and those who find it unprofitable) using the Israelites at different points in their history as a metaphor. Let's think in terms of exodus and exile. We, as Christians, are aware that we are away from our true place with God, but how do we understand the nature of our absence from "home"? Are we God's people during the exodus... following directions day to day, constantly on the move, anticipating the end of our journey... or are we God's people during the exile... expecting to settle and stay for a time in a foreign land? One's mentality in this regard affects how one invests one's time. In this sense, is art (and other creative outlets and pursuits) a profitable use of time?
My experience with many Evangelicals suggests an exodus-mentality and the idea that art is not practical (unless it has a Bible verse printed upon it somewhere, making it an evangelical tool) and thus not relevant. The issue of time and utility is important because art requires leisure. By this I mean that time which is not already devoted to gainful employment, family, and other commitments is a necessity for the creation of art... it requires time that is devoted to nothing else. Add to this certain lasting puritan notions about how time should be used and about the vanity of art, and the relatively common Evangelical hang-ups on artistic endeavour become evident.
Perhaps an exile-mindset is more conducive to the creation of art. In what way are we, as Christians, held responsible for our use of time? One Israelite response to the exile was to settle and remain in the land, integrating into the community (while resisting assimilation). Would a Christian with such a mindset be more open to issues of art? Perhaps. This is not to denigrate in the least the efforts of faithful men and women who gave their time and money to the practical communication and application of the gospel message. What one can claim, however, is that such a mindset, in which souls must be saved today and today and today and I must constantly share the gospel, does not (in my experience) easily allow for the time that art requires. So is it worth it? Does art possess an inherent value that justifies its existence? Can the time and resources which art requires, as well as the money spent in the acquisition of art, be justified if, as it appears, there is no practical utility to such actions, and seemingly no growing of the Kingdom?
The best commentators on these issues are from L'Abri, with whom you seem to be familiar. I find a lot of what Francis Schaeffer wrote has not aged well... his cursory readings of important philosophers and theologians, and subsequent dismissal of said thinkers, betrays almost a smugness. The man, however, knew art and thought it important that Christians understand art. His pamphlet, "Art and the Bible" is still very good and useful. The Dutch art critic Hans Rookmaaker, who was connected with L'Abri and is featured in a number of the MP3s on the links you provided, thought deeply about Christian involvement in the arts. His book "Modern Art and the Death of a Culture" is a couple decades old, but remains, to my reading, the best word on the subject.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the arts are vital to humanity and to the church. The key, however, is to foster development and excellence in the arts. For this to happen, questions about the utility of art have to be ended. This is not meant to give artists a carte-blanche within the church, but it is a significant step towards growing the arts. I'll explain. Thoughtful criticism improves an artist, who should be able to justify the subject, content, form, and message of an art object. Justifying the utility of art hinders the creation and devlopment of art.
Questions in churches about the utility of the arts or of an art object can typically be reduced to a single idea: how can this be used for evangelism? Can this song/painting/poem/play/quilt/sculpture/dance/etc. be used to communicate the gospel message? Such questions imply a hierarchy of value, in which the more obviously "evangelistic" objects are valued more highly. The veiled message here is that such objects are of greater value to the church, to the kingdom, and to God. Consequently, objects that cannot be readily used for such ends are not valued. Pressure is placed upon the artist who is a Christian to produce what can be used in evangelism (or other church functions), which leads, in turn, to the bland homogeneity we see in much marketable Christian art today. Difficulty and abstraction are discouraged, while one is encouraged to conform (in painting, for example) to aesthetic trends and standards more than 100 years old (are you familiar with William Holman Hunt and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood? These painters inadvertantly defined, through obsessions with realistic detail, the look of much contemporary, marketable Christian art), finished by placing a Bible verse somewhere on the image. Poetry, as well, is more highly valued if it is easily understood and uses Biblical language and phrases. Poetry which is difficult to work out, or not obvious in its message, or questioning of God, is valued less highly and, eventually, ignored.
Rookmaaker helpfully points out that freedom in Christ extends to the arts, and that the Christian artist is free to create whatever he or she wants without worrying about conforming to styles, ideas, forms, or fashions. Such freedom should be encouraged by our churches, who in turn are involved in the critical reception and interpretation of the work. Art is produced by an individual, but it speaks in a community. It is for our edification, improvement, enrichment, and enjoyment. It helps us to question ourselves and our world, helping us to understand our position in God. It challenges with external viewpoints while it encourages us in developing our own critical understandings of the work and ourselves. It reveals us to ourselves while it joins us to our communities. It is a vital aspect of human nature - the urge to create and express - and as such the art object is a second-order reflection of God. God's image, which we bear, is reflected again in art. As such, art can help us to see and understand God (or maybe this is just condemnable humanism?).
I'll come to an end here, though there is much much more to say. The arts are an inevitable product of humanity, wherever it be found. But they do require time and money, in the very least. Perhaps one feels that such resources are better spent on supporting missionaries, translating the Bible, and attending prayer meetings... and no one questions the importance of these activies. But why should such pursuits have a monopoly on being "spiritual" or "God-glorifying" or "acts of worship"? It shouldn't be controversial or divisive to say that some appreciate the arts and others do not - an assertion that implies no hierarchy nor labels like "refined" or "cultured". And for those that do appreciate the arts, the task is to critically work-out how the arts can be pursued in a godly manner.
For what it's worth,
aaron
