Audience of One

Hamlet

In keeping with the “new me” who has recently rediscovered the joys of culture as a good gift from God and not something inherently “unspiritual”, I went to see Hamlet last night. I’ve never seen a live Shakespeare tragedy, so it was something I was looking forward to greatly (particularly as the Tobacco Factory do great Shakespeare). I was going with a friend who’d not ever seen Hamlet, but was a fan of Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (based on arguably pointless characters in Hamlet). So we were both quite excited, though wondering if we were just going to be thoroughly depressed by Hamlet moping for three hours. (Major plot points mentioned in the next paragraph – just in case someone cares.)

Turns out he was a very excitable and – though depressed – lively and almost comic character, so not a stereotypical Hamlet in any way, but brilliant none the less. An incredibly young-looking Ophelia was suitably melancholic; Polonius, (“brevity is the soul of wit”) wonderfully long-winded; and Claudius and Gertrude suitably guilt-ridden, schmaltzy and scheming as the situation demanded. You’re left guessing as to what’s going on in Hamlet’s head, and it makes Ophelia’s death and Hamlet’s reaction all the more poignant when up until then it had seemed that his desire for revenge had made him forget his love for her.

On Sunday we’d been discussing how Christians should engage with art that portrays immoral acts – is it okay to enjoy watching a tragedy like this, where none of the main characters (excepting Ophelia) seem to be those you can sympathise with? Is portrayal of sin outside of the oft-quoted Philippians verse: “whatever is noble and praiseworthy, think about such things”? Maybe I’ll come back to that another time. I did enjoy it, despite the tragic ending – almost because of the tragic ending! The play shows a world tainted by sin, and its consequences. It’s not enjoyable because I’m delighting in the sin shown, but as an act of creative genius that shows us our own natures. God in his grace has restrained human sinfulness in many ways, because if he hadn’t, many more stories would end up like Hamlet’s. If reading or watching such things was wrong, then we couldn’t read much of Old Testament history!

More and more I’m seeing the wonders of God’s gift of creativity. I pray that I won’t now go to the extreme and put art in the place of God (exchanging the giver for the gift). Art was made by God, and points to God: may I never lose sight of that.

Matthew @ 10:49, April 29, 2008 to Reviews | Permalink | Comments (2)

With a busy term ahead...

The student worker at my church had some good words to say to us students while round his house on Sunday – paraphrased and condensed massively here.

Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Colossians 3:23-24, NIV

Two perils when it comes to work:

Being idle. We’re told to work, whatever we do, with all of our hearts, as we are serving Christ through it. The temptation can be to do the least we can get away with, even with a “good” motivation of leaving lots of time to serve the CU. That’s not the attitude we should have. We work hard! We’re serving Christ through our degree work, just as much as our involvement with the CU.

Making work an idol. You’ve got to love homophones. It’s also possible, at the other extreme, to make your work all that you care about. Those particular exam results become your focus, not God – you work to achieve a first, not to serve God. Yet we’re told to work as if for the Lord, because it is the Lord we’re serving. If we understand that, we’ll not idolise our work. As a result, we’ll be able to take time off and rest as well – which God made us to do too! God made work; work is good. It’s only good, however, when it’s in its right place. Money, marriage or music are gifts from God which, if we put them in the primary position, don’t ever satisfy. If we accept them as a gift from God, our ultimate treasure, then money, marriage and music are wonderful and we can appreciate them for what they are. It’s very similar with work. We’re designed to work, but also to take time off.

What’s this mean then in brief? Firstly, don’t be lazy. Secondly, get some rest!

Matthew @ 16:46, April 28, 2008 to Discussions | Permalink | Comments (0)

More on work

I’ve continued to think on the issue of so-called “secular” and “Christian” careers, and was helped yesterday by Vaughan Roberts’ book “God’s Big Design”, particularly the chapter on work. Roberts has what I think is a brilliant way of referring to the “twin callings”, namely “creation” and “new creation” work. So all work is Christian work, but some is more focused on this creation (in obeying the “First Great Commission” as Hardyman puts it – culture, development, conservation etc.) and some more focused on the new creation (evangelism, pastoring, Bible teaching etc.). The categories aren’t distinct (those doing “creation” work are still involved in evangelism; pastors are there to help those in “creation” work; evangelists still do the washing up!) but can overlap, however the essential calling is to “creation” work or set-aside ministry. Both are biblical, both are good, both are worthwhile. To deny the worth of “creation” callings is to say that God’s good creation is not as good as all that; even to say that “new creation” callings have more value is to say something the Bible never does.

Martin Luther taught the controversial message that all work, even street sweeping or looking after a sick child, is something done for God and has value and worth. In recent times, it seems like a bit of the world’s ideas about status have crept into Christian thinking to create a hierarchy of “worthy” professions: church planters and other missionaries at the top, followed by pastors, then people like doctors or teachers, then maybe accountants, and down the bottom politicians, or cleaners. This is unbiblical, and hopefully this isn’t the way we think. But maybe in certain situations we take a look at this list and start comparing things. So I have a choice between a “creation” or a “new creation” job: those advising me might say “being a pastor is more important than being a recording engineer, so become a pastor”. Maybe we’re more hierarchical in our thinking than we thought.

One big thing I haven’t touched on yet (mainly because I’ve no real idea about it) is the issue of “calling”. I might have various gifts which could lead me into creation or new creation work; every book or article I’ve read so far suggests that I assume I’m doing creation work until I’m “called” to be set apart in new creation work. So what constitutes a calling? Does it mean a pastor or other leader taking you aside and saying “you should consider this work”? Does it mean you feel like you could do it and would quite like to do it? Does it mean trying it out in an apprenticeship scheme and seeing by doing whether it’s for you?

More thinking needed, then.

Matthew @ 11:17, April 24, 2008 to Discussions | Permalink | Comments (3)

New Word Alive '09 wish list

Just because it’s been a few years since participating in a meme, and because this one’s actually interesting, here’s what I think it’d be great to see at New Word Alive 2009, focusing on seminar tracks and morning sessions. (For those who didn’t go, there were morning options and afternoon seminars as well as evening meetings; the morning options were slightly longer with less interaction.)

Following from my latest entry, I think the issue of God’s common grace to humanity, including stuff about secular careers, the comparative importance of cultural development given the Great Commission of Matthew 28, and other related issues would be a great topic to look at – not just because I’m trying to figure it out but because other people must be too. Julian Hardyman’s probably the man for this. On a not-entirely-unrelated issue, “Our Missionary God” would be a great topic – get Chris Wright to do it, and make it one of the morning options.

While I’m slightly biased, a series on “Music in the church” run by Bob Kauflin and Richard Simpkin would be great, if unlikely. I reckon something like “Francis Schaeffer for the Stupid” might help me finally finish reading The God Who Is There. Seriously though, Schaeffer’s engagement with culture and philosophy was to a far greater and higher extent than anyone seems to bother with today, and so maybe a track on “how to be a Christian in our culture” or something similar would be good.

Matthew @ 10:54, April 22, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gospel work vs. secular work?

I’m coming up to the end of my second year of uni and so have started thinking about what I want to do when I leave. I’ve always assumed that I would do some kind of apprenticeship, maybe alongside Cornhill or other theological training. In fact, I’ve always assumed that in the long term full-time work for a church or Christian organisation was where I was heading.

Recently, as I’ve got into more depth in certain parts of my degree, I’ve realised that I could now see myself in a secular work environment, whether the media or some part of the music industry. I’ve also realised that the New Testament pattern for finding church leaders was by the pastors and elders appointing them, not themselves volunteering. Secular work has value of itself, and just because I could become a full-time pastor-teacher, youth worker, church music director or whatever, doesn’t necessarily mean that I should.

Contrasting with that is the realisation that the world needs to hear the saving message of Jesus, and that as a member of a UK church I not only have the financial resources but the Biblical knowledge to be of great help in the mission field. When the Christian Union movement started in the UK, the first members went all over the world to reach students of all nations. Maurice McCracken writes near the end about his prayers for students of our time – that they would do the same. How can that not be a good prayer?

Not only that, but this country needs more church leaders. It’s not often you hear about staffing crises for church leaders (though they do happen), so it’s easy to think there’s no great need. That’s probably because we’re not planting enough churches. This country, as much as any other, needs to hear the good news about Jesus.

Howard Guinness, one of the students who left the UK to reach students around the world, was quoted by John Piper at New Word Alive:

Where are the young men and women of this generation who will hold their lives cheap and be faithful even unto death? Where are those who will lose their lives for Christ’s sake – flinging them away for love of Him? Where are those who will live dangerously, and be reckless in His service?

Piper’s implication was: “They’re here”. He was speaking to a group of two thousand students from across the UK. He and Richard Cunningham challenged all of us to be those people, people whose whole lives would be sacrificial worship to the one who deserves it.

There are so many needs all over the country, all round the world, all of which would be great things for me, or my friends, or you, to go and do. We could go as Bible translators, church planters, itinerant evangelists to jungle villages, student workers, relief workers in Muslim or communist areas cut off from missionaries – the list goes on. All would be great things to do. There’s a problem though: what should we do? How can we know?

Is secular work therefore worthless, and not an option worth bothering with, given so many apparently “better” things to be doing? Is it a waste of our lives to go work in an office, or a school, or for a theatre company, or be a politician, or a computer programmer? Or to take two examples, is the only reason it might be worthwhile for me to work as a sound engineer because it would give me opportunities to share the gospel with colleagues in the studio? Or are Christian doctors only doing a worthwhile job if they manage to talk to their patients about Christ? Do secular jobs have value in themselves, or only so far as they allow us to tell others the gospel?

I’m pretty certain the answer is that they do have value in themselves – after all, God created us to work (Genesis 2:15), and while work is now imperfect because of the fall, [the command isn’t taken away (Genesis 3:23). Julian Hardyman’s book Glory Days is on a very similar topic, that of dividing our lives into the “glory bits” (the spiritual stuff we do for God) and the rest (our hobbies, jobs, chores etc.). We live the whole of our lives for God’s glory, so we can’t make this distinction. How does the desperate need for gospel workers worldwide fit in though?

I’m in a situation where I could get a secular job, serve God by working as if working for the Lord (Ephesians 6:7-8), serve my church, pray for the world, and give money to missionaries; or, I could go work for a church, or a Christian charity, whether here or abroad. How do I know what I should do? Is this a matter of Christian freedom (you can serve God either way, so it doesn’t matter), or is one inherently better, or of more eternal worth than the other?

Currently, I’ve got no real answers. Anyone got any wisdom on this?

(Just as an aside, I think this is the first blog entry since I restarted writing that doesn’t sound like I know everything and am trying to pass it on those less enlightened. Either my wisdom ran out, or my arrogance did.)

Matthew @ 16:00, April 19, 2008 to Discussions | Permalink | Comments (2)

Letter

Following on from Hugh, using the rationale that if lots of people write on the same topic they might print one, I’ve written a letter to the editor of EN about an article in the last issue.

Dear Sir,

I much appreciate Josh Moody’s “Letter from America”, but in your latest issue (April 2008) he seems to have written about the Mark Driscoll of many years ago. Moody critiques the Mars Hill pastor for “colourful language”, something that may have been true years ago but I have never come across in recent times. The epithet “Mark the Cussing Pastor” was coined in a book (Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller) published five years ago. Since then, Driscoll has matured, has received mentoring from men such as John Piper in this area, and has repented of many failures in a recent sermon on humility.

As Moody says, Driscoll’s ministry is to Seattle, one of the most secular areas of America. As such, he encourages his church to “go as far into the culture without sinning as they possibly can”. Perhaps there have been occasions when they have gone too far, but it seems that Driscoll is aware of the dangers. He is clear in his teaching that Christians need to be distinctive, but that we cannot withdraw completely. My understanding is that he and Mars Hill Church have come a long way in getting the balance right over the last few years. They’re not perfect, but they are ever improving!

Yours faithfully,

Matthew Weston

For those who don’t know him and don’t want to read Hugh’s entry or the EN article, Mark Driscoll is the pastor of Mars Hill Church, Seattle, a large church in a reasonably anti-Christian city. To engage with the city, Driscoll and his church have been involved in some ventures that more culturally conservative Christians have considered unwise. I’m not really in a position to comment on specifics, but my impression (mainly gleaned from Hugh, but also from what I’ve heard in his talks personally) is that he’s generally on the right side of engaging with the culture without compromising. The problem is that we’re from a very different culture to Seattle (as is Josh Moody, the columnist – he’s a Brit who lives in Connecticut) so it’s hard to assess from the outside.

Driscoll is a challenge to me, because I’m very good at either withdrawing completely, or compromising, when it comes to engaging with culture. I need to get better.

Update (2nd May): The letter was printed!

Matthew @ 15:06, April 6, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)

Things I need to learn to do better in relation to blogging, part one

Write more concisely.

Matthew @ 15:31, April 5, 2008 to Miscellaneous | Permalink | Comments (0)

Art for art's sake

My plan had been to write a few more entries before heading to New Word Alive, but time has probably got away from me. I’ve been researching an essay on music in the sixties and so have been much occupied by listening to The Beatles. I’ve also been reading a lot of history and philosophy of music to go along with it, so my brain is reasonably frazzled. Modernist (not “modern”) music (the stuff the academics were writing) was getting weirder and weirder post-WWII. First, though, a bit of context.

The nineteenth century was when an idea that we now take for granted hit the world of music: art for art’s sake. This philosophy says that the inherent worth of a piece of art (be it music, painting, poem etc.) is separate from any utilitarian (related to usefulness) or didactic (related to teaching) function. Composers such as Bach (who was writing in the mid eighteenth century) would have found this concept alien. To Bach, he wrote a chorale because his employer wanted a chorale and it helped the congregation take on the words. He wrote his inventions as exercises in composition and as keyboard practice.

Beethoven, on the other hand, wrote symphonies for their own sake – not to teach anyone anything, nor to bring about moral improvement, but so the public could enjoy them as art. They had inherent worth that could be appreciated.

In post-war modernist music, this idea was taken to its logical conclusion. If art is for its own sake, and pure art is that which is unsullied by utilitarianism or anything else, then true art must therefore be something separate even from entertaining or pleasing an audience. Composers pursued “progress” in music, trying to withdraw any human bias from the compositional process, aiming in so doing to create a music entirely separate from human decision. It was a quest for “true art”, or “pure music”.

There were two major schools of thought. One school sought the eradication of human interference by stricter and stricter rules governing what notes must come next in a composition. This became known as “total serialism” and generally sounds not dissimilar to a three year old child playing the piano, only with fewer and some quieter notes. The second school went to the other extreme, composing by chance. The most famous of these composers, John Cage, was responsible for 4’ 33”. Funnily enough, music determined by chance sounds not dissimilar to the above mentioned three year old also.

Into this vacuum of “serious” music that was listenable came popular music that tried also to be art (The Beatles’ later songs and albums for example). The difference was that they were more like Beethoven – the logical conclusion of “art for art’s sake” hadn’t hit yet. They aimed to entertain and be artistically appreciable.

As a Christian my aim is to “do all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). The art I create doesn’t exist for its own sake; it should exist to bring glory to God. It can do that whether or not I consider it art (where its innate qualities give God glory as evidence of his gift of creativity to me, and his gift of beauty to the world), or not as art (where it’s my aim to serve and give others enjoyment that gives God glory). Both of those things applied to Bach. He didn’t think of his music as “art”, but he wrote it to give God glory, and today we can appreciate its beauty, its detail, its genius as signs to the creativity and grace of our God. (As an aside, each manuscript of Bach’s we have ends with the letters S.D.G. – “soli Deo gloria”, or “to God alone be the glory”.)

With God in the picture, aesthetic philosophy isn’t bankrupt, nor does it lead to elitism, where only the educated can understand art. It leads us to thank our God and creator for his great gifts of beauty, taste, texture, colour, rhyme, rhythm, maths and music. When I write music, I’m not trying to create something with an innate worth completely separate from what I or others enjoy listening to. I’m trying to create something that reflects just a little of the beauty and the majesty of the God who gave me the creativity and skill to do it. Art doesn’t exist for its own sake; it exists for God’s glory and our joy.

Matthew @ 15:30, April 5, 2008 to Discussions | Permalink | Comments (0)