Research & Aesthetics: Part 5

            I recently closed a production of Dancing at Lughnasa by Brian Friel where I played the character of Michael. This character acts as a sort of narrator as he reflects on two weeks in August of 1936. The entire play acts as the memory we all have as we grow older; where we recall something that happened to us as children and suddenly see with a newfound sense of moral identity. My process to find the character of Michael took me through a lot of soul searching; as I established the moral identity of Michael, my own moral identity was refined. This process is referred to in Michael Stauffer’s essay Building Character while Developing a Character: An Investigation of the Integration of Faith and Theater. Stauffer states:

“Theater allows both the depth of understanding and involvement of the characters in the situation, and the distance to observe the action that can lead the student through the journey and subsequently contribute to his moral clarity (49).”

            This journey toward self-knowledge is what I will elaborate on here (Stauffer 48), first by exploring the moral identification factors Stauffer gives us with my exploration in Lughnasa. Secondly, I will look at the factors I connected with as an actor, describing things from my own life that allowed me to better relate and truthfully portrait them. Lastly, I will look at the factors I could not connect with and think of “as-ifs” according to Constantine Stanislavski’s acting system.

            Stauffer uses the eleven moral identification factors of Arthur Holmes and his book Shaping Character as “a basis for the questions posed by any actor as [he or] she attempts to understand and identify with [his or] her character (49).”  I will go through each of these in exploration of the character Michael and according to the text of Dancing at Lughnasa:

1. Consciousness Raising[1]: This is a time of life when one becomes aware of the importance of a significant life event. In the case of Michael, the event was the return of his Uncle Jack from Africa and the purchase of his family’s first wireless radio when he was seven (Friel 9-10).
2. Consciousness Sensitizing: After one becomes aware of the significance of a life event, the response of the world around them sensitizes it for that person, or places a sense of value on the event. For example, Michael’s mother and aunt’s response to Father Jack coming home clearly defined his value in Michael’s life (17). Kate in particular, and the degree to which she was upset about Jack’s new polytheistic faith, showed Michael how important religious belief can be (60).
3. Values Analysis: Michael receives a letter in his twenties from a half brother he never knew existed. He learns through this letter that his father—who was not a significant part of his life outside of the random yearly visits—was actually married and had three children in the south of Whales. The receiving of this letter causes Michael to evaluate his values. His perception of his father has completely changed, thus he takes stock of his value of commitment in relationships (73).
4. Values Clarification: Upon receiving the letter Michael thinks back to that particular summer in 1936 when Gerry Evans, Michael’s father, visits twice within two weeks. During Gerry’s second visit he dances with Agnes, Michael’s aunt, and kisses her (77). This remembrance clarifies his value of commitment in relationships. Michael now sees commitment as something to fear because of the hurt it causes, or doesn’t cause as long there is no communication.
5. Values Criticism: After we clarify a value it is put against society as a whole and is then scrutinized and tested. This puts one’s values in a cycle because often this scrutiny causes values to be analyzed and clarified all over again. Throughout the duration of the play, Michael remembers the proper Aunt Kate’s perception of his father. Michael’s values are scrutinized by the love he knew his mother, Christina, had for Gerry, and the contempt Kate had for him (44).
6. Moral Imagination: Michael idolized his Uncle Jack (17). At the age of seven, hearing Jack’s wild stories of the rituals and ceremonies of the Ryangan people in Uganda caused Michael’s mind to soar (59). He longed to experience this dark cultish world that had so changed the priest everyone in the Mundy family had once known. The kites that boy Michael works on throughout the play are examples of this moral imagination.  It is revealed that the kites have devilish African faces painted on them (82). Michael’s morals up to this point had been strictly set in place by Aunt Kate, the devout Catholic (10). Given the idyllic place Jack had in Michaels head, the talk of Africa causes Michael to rethink his morals.
7. Moral Reasoning: After one tries on new morals, they either fit, or they don’t. It can be assumed that Michael never went to Africa, as he spent most of his younger adult life looking for the two runaway Mundy sisters, Agnes and Rose (72). No moral decision is made at this point, but rather it is a time of searching or perhaps experimentation.
8. Moral Decision Making: Making the character decision that Michael never went to Africa, causes him to reason that he shouldn’t settle on one religion though it is important to believe in something.
9. Responsible Agents: These are the people, places or things that were direct inhibitors of the development of Michael’s moral identity. Michael had five mothers and no real father, essentially. Each Mundy sister had their impact on him as Michael makes connections as an adult as to why each of them behaved the way they did all those years ago. Ireland and the pagan holiday of La Lughnasa was another responsible agent feeding his criticism of Catholic reasoning. And of course, Father Jack had his impact on him as well.
10. Virtue Development: This stage of moral identification is the lump sum of everything that has been acquired in the steps above. It is the development of the positive qualities one has. Michael, because of his past, is a lover of art and beauty despite his bitterness. He is incredibly cultured and accepting of different kinds of people. He’s not afraid to sit down with strangers (like the audience) and talk about his life, hoping they will share as well.
11. Moral Identity: This is the goal, the endgame, the definition of all that has happened in one’s life. This goes beyond just the development of good qualities but the bad ones as well. Michael cannot commit to anything, especially relationships. He took on the wanderer aspect of his father, traveling for place to place and never settling down for fear of becoming stagnant like his mother and his aunts.

As an actor playing the role of Michael, it was my job to take all of the above moral identification factors and concluding moral identity, immerse myself in them, and live there for the duration of the play. Some factors were easy for me to play and others were not. I will first look at three that I connected with the most.

My consciousness raising was very similar to Michael’s in that I also received a very significant form of technology at a young age that changed my life. When I was in seventh grade my family bought our first computer. I fell in love with it, learned everything there was to know about it, and it gave me a window to the outside world. I too grew up in the country, miles from civilization and a computer gave me eyes to some dark and some wonderful things, much like the wireless would have done in 1936.

Michael’s values criticism was also very similar to that of my own.  My mother was the never ending voice of reason in our house.  As we watched television or movies with questionable content, we always had my mother’s narration over it, telling us what was bad and what was good. This is comparable to the way Kate narrated Gerry’s actions when he visited, talking inside the house about Gerry where he couldn’t hear her.

The third connection I made easily with Michael was his moral decision making. I was raised in a Christian home and was incredibly influenced in that regard. But when I went college I was faced with my own decisions. I, like Michael, didn’t entirely let go of the religion or morals that were ingrained in me as a child, but I did reevaluate them and make decisions on my own. I had to choose all over again to believe in God and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

There were just as many connections I could not make with the character of Michael. This happens all the time to actors as they play characters who are drastically different than themselves. How does one relate to a murderer or a man who was deeply wounded by his father? The “As-if” concept, “developed by Stanislavski as a stimulus for character development, gives the [actor] an opportunity to explore a character and [their] situation based on the [actor’s] own experience (Stauffer 47).”

My life differs from Michael in that I had a loving father who lived with me while I was growing up. He didn’t have a family that lived in a different country, nor did he pursue romantic relationships with any of my mother’s sisters. I had to treat this aspect of Michael’s life onstage (his values clarification factor) “as if” it were my relationship with my older brothers. I have never had a good relationship with my older brothers until recently. Growing up, my eldest was off at college and would only come home once a year. When he would come home he would promise things and never follow through, very similar to Gerry’s actions toward Michael.

I also did not relate to Michael’s moral imagination factor of moral identity. Michael thought of other gods in the universe and decided that he couldn’t settle on just one.  Instead, I have always believed in one true God. I tend to see people who can’t settle and believe in one God as lost. So I play these emotions “as if” I were in my car in Los Angeles, completely lost and stopping and asking directions, but no one seems to be able to speak good enough English to get me where I need to go.

The last moral identification factor I did not relate to was Michael’s consciousness sensitizing. Michael had an uncle come home after twenty five years of being in Africa, and came home a completely different person. I have always kept in touch with my family, so I had to play this particular moment as if Uncle Jack was my brother coming home from Hawaii after not being home for three years. John came home and announced to our family he had chosen a homosexual lifestyle.  It was a moment in my life where I became aware of something and was immediately sensitized by my family’s reaction to the issue.

In conclusion, playing Michael was a very rewarding experience for me in more ways than one. It was not until I read Stauffer’s essay that I realized I was doing so much soul searching and building on my own character. I feel as though I have yet another reason to commit all that I am to my craft because as Stauffer has pointed out it helps us to find our own moral identity.

Works Cited

Friel, Brian. Dancing at Lughnasa. New York, NY: Dramatist Play Service, 1991.

Stauffer, Michael. "Building Character while Developing a Character: An Investigation of the Integration of Faith and Theater." Journal of Religion and Theatre 3.1 (2004): 37-60. Web. 10 Nov 2009. .

---

[1] For a broader definition of each of the “moral identification factors,” please see Arthur Holmes’ Shaping Character, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company). The definitions used in this paper are my own in reference to how they are used in Michael Stauffer’s essay.

Research & Aesthetics: Part 4

            The film Fireproof (2008), released by Sherwood Baptist Church, has grossed over $33,000,000; which is comparable with movies like Fight Club (1999) and First Knight (1995) which brought in around $37,000,000 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com).  Fireproof received a 40% rating out of twenty mainstream critic’s reviews; not fantastic, but not horrible either (http://www.rottentomatoes.com). That being said, this movie—with  a strong Christian themed message, poorly written script, C-list actors, and a budget of $500,000, pulling in profits over $32,000,000—was intended for a mainstream audience to spread the gospel of how to fix your marriage. I will save my personal views on this film and others like it for the conclusion, but in the meantime I will look at the movie through the eyes of three prominent scholars: I will show how Todd E. Johnson would feel about this film, comparing it to his book Performing the Sacred. I will also critique it from the perspective of Kevin J. Wetmore, Jr. who wrote Intelligent Design (after Julie Taymor): Opposing Darwinism in The Crystal Cathedral's Creation: Once Upon All Time. Finally I will show elements of missional and reason based thinking in Fireproof that is equivalent to information provided by Mark A. Noll in Turning Points.

            Given that Fireproof is a film and Performing the Sacred by Todd E. Johnson has everything to do with the dialogue between theatre and theology, Johnson does not have a lot to defend, in regards to content and themes of the film. His three elements of theatrical performance that show theatre as a prime example of the triune image of God—incarnation, community and presence—are not all three present in the medium of film (75). The actors are incarnate vessels of character, and the finished product—though seen from specific angles, edits, and retakes—is indeed present in all its Christian thematic glory. But film as a medium lacks the community aspect of theatre; the dialogue that is had between performer and audience, since they are separated from each other by the silver screen (56-71).

            Johnson does however make valid points that relate to some of the themes in Fireproof. His summary of what Paul Tillich tells us about the relationship between culture and religion ties directly to the circumstances of the film. Tillich tells us that in culture, our mind offers three kinds of reason: autonomous, heteronomous and theonomos. If we live in autonomy, we create our own “norms, values and laws, unrelated to the laws of the world.” Religion thus becomes a “self-expression and is disconnected from the culture at large.” If we live in heteronomy, we are in a world that is defined by laws separate from ourselves making religion a sort of counterculture, a world to escape to, in essence. Finally, we can also live in theonomy, where the “laws of the universe are the same as the laws discovered within oneself” and “religion is congruent with the laws of the universe, creating a synergy of religion and culture.” (73)

            Kirk Cameron’s character goes from living an autonomous life to a theonomous life; he starts living independently from the covenant of marriage, and in the end becomes one with it. If we look at the circumstances of the movie—an overworked firefighter and his decaying relationship with his estranged wife—we see a situation where faith can be found and God can move. Johnson says, “Whenever issues of ultimate concern are raised, the possibility of faith exists…suggest[ing] an openness to God, providing an opportunity for the Christian gospel to be introduced through the questions raised in art (74).” Fireproof is the story of a man finding God in the midst of his marital crisis. Johnson goes on to say, “Using Tillich’s theonomous understanding of religion and culture, one can see how theatre conveys Christian themes by virtue of its performative nature, even beyond the religious quality of theatre’s potential to communicate issues of ultimate concern (74).” If we view Fireproof from a theonomous perspective, its message essentially becomes clearer.

            Despite the narrow connections made between Fireproof and Johnson, a critique made through Kevin J. Wetmore’s views on today’s popular Christian entertainment could be expansive. Fireproof falls neatly into the same category as the topic of Wetmore’s article, only instead of Crystal Cathedral’s melodramatic stage production of Creation: Once Upon All Time, we see a melodramatic film that also uses the entertainment medium to further its agenda.

            The use of modern day melodrama in contemporary Christian entertainment seems to be a growing trend. Melodrama of the 19^th century was defined by its inclusion of music (like the film score), episodic plot lines, characters that embody one desire (like our fireman’s desire to save his marriage), stories of virtue winning over vice, relationships over the individual, and special effects (much like the burning buildings). Melodrama often supported specific social movements, much like Fireproof and its pro-marriage agenda.

            Creation also has elements of melodrama, especially in regards to special effects. Wetmore says, “A spectacular version of creation is played out combining computer-generated imagery on the screen, recorded music, live dancers and performers on stage and aerialists and wire performers above the heads of the audience. (In fact, more than one reviewer compared the production not only to Lion King but also to Cirque du Soleil. The OC Weekly titled its review ‘Church du Soleil.’) (131).” He also states that the same summer that Creation was being produced, legislation across the United States was being challenged and changed in regards to the teaching of evolution in public schools as opposed to presenting the concept of intelligent design (129). He shows that Creation also had a religious agenda matching up with a current social movement, much like Fireproof, and much like melodrama of the 19^th Century.

            Wetmore would put Fireproof into the same realm as many other grandiose Christian evangelical dramas such as the The Great Passion Play of Eureka Springs, Arkansas, and the Crystal Cathedral’s other two annual productions The Glory of Christmas and The Glory of Easter.  Wetmore would describe a production like Fireproof as “an opportunity to evangelize through [film], celebrating belief while trying to convert non-believers.” He describes these kinds of productions as being “over-earnest recreations” of “modern morality plays, cautioning against the dangers of non-belief (127).”

            Though Wetmore would have the more pessimistic view on Fireproof, considering it an expensive political statement, Mark A. Noll would have still another view. I have shown how the movie reflects the major attributes of melodrama in the 19^th century. Noll would take this perspective a bit further and say that it not only has theatrical elements of the 19^th century but missional and reason based elements that reflect where the church and society was at large during a time of great enlightenment.

            Noll explains that one of the major “turning points” in Christianity was the local indigenization of missional work. Missionaries from the west had their own success through most of the 19^th century, but as the 20^th century began, the local churches planted by western missionaries had begun their own work to reach the lost around them (285).

            This image of the man being taught to fish and that man sharing his skill with others is present in Fireproof. We find out early on in the movie that the fireman’s father has just recently gone through his own marital problems and conversion experience. The plot centers around the father giving his son a forty day journal entitled the “Love Dare.” The son goes through the forty day process, and in the end saves his marriage. As the son is thanking his father towards the end, the father reveals that it was not he who did the “Love Dare” but his wife. So the fireman’s mother learns the skill of the “Love Dare” and saves her marriage.  The father then takes the knowledge of the “Love Dare,” writes the journal in his own handwriting and gives it to his son, who uses it to save his marriage. In this situation the mother would be the western missionaries, the father would be the converted native and the son would be the result of the indigenization.

            During the time of the French Revolution, Europe was going through an incredible dechristianization. No longer was the church the central purpose behind everything. Reason took precedence over an undoubted trust in God. As Noll says, “it was the end of Christendom, or the end of that lengthy period of European history when the interests of church and society were thought to be the same and where it was almost universally assumed that Christian spiritual realities were more fundamental than realities of the temporal world (253).”

            We are still living in that reason based world and Fireproof shows elements of it. The forty day “Love Dare” is a good example. Reason says that in this day and age, if we are having a problem, all we need to do is buy the self-help book with easy instructions on how to fix it. This movie is one big promotional video for the actual “Love Dare” book written by Alex and Stephen Kendrick, the makers of Fireproof.

            In conclusion, it should be known that I in no way discredit the heart and work of Alex and Stephen Kendrick. I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution of marriage and God’s original intention for it. Divorce is indeed a horrible epidemic sweeping the country. This movie has excellent intentions and is on the better end of quality when it comes to Christian entertainment. I support the cause, though I am disappointed with the result. Though I do not share the pessimism of Kevin J. Wetmore toward all Christian political pursuits, I cannot help but share his perspective on Christian entertainment as a whole. I do not believe the amount of money that was spent on such a production is reaching as wide a range of audiences as it was intended. Despite its success, the only people who will see Fireproof are narrow-minded Christians who will watch it and say, “Look what a great job we did making this film.” The film will not be received outside of this audience because, despite its attempt to go mainstream, the makers are forgetting that we live in a postmodern society where the thrust of absolute truth falls on deaf ears because they cannot accept it. Todd E. Johnson may admire its attempt to combine theatrics and theology, Kevin J. Wetmore would file it away as just another poorly executed extravagant Christian production, and Mark A. Noll might find missional elements and concepts of reason. And I see a film that really needs eight more re-writes, a new director, and actors whose previous work has been more than Sunday morning video announcements.

Works Cited

Johnson, Todd E., and Dale Savidge. Performing the Sacred: Theology and Theatre in Dialogue. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009.

Noll, Mark A.. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2000.

Wetmore, Kevin J. "Intelligent Design (after Julie Taymor): Opposing Darwinism in The Crystal Cathedral's Creation: Once Upon All Time." Journal of Religion and Theatre 6.2 (2007): 124-139. Web. 08 Nov 2009. .

Research & Aesthetics: Part 3

Why we laugh at something is a debatable science, though most experts would agree that we laugh because we relate to what we see before us. Whether that something we are viewing reveals something corrupt inside of us or confirms our suspicions of other’s hidden attributes, we still acknowledge it as humanity and release cathartic laughter; laughter that acts as a sort of grace as we come to terms with what we see in ourselves and as we realize that we are not alone in our transgressions. This is a narrow view of the conclusions made by George A. Scranton in his essay titled Love and Lovers: Mutuality, Sin Grace and the Future in Molière’s Vision of Comedy.

We can affirm Scranton's conclusion that Molière depicts sin as human action that disrupts human relationship because we relate to the humanity of the characters involved. We can relate to the characters of Molière's School for Wives through their Commedia dell’Arte likeness, which is also visible in most comedic television and film of today. To support Scranton’s conclusions I will look at these connections in reverse; today’s film and television commedia connections allow audiences to relate to the characters of Molière because they themselves are commedia types, and because we can relate to these characters we see our own sinful natures in them, thus supporting Scranton’s arguments that Molière’s dramatic comedy depicts sin.

Today’s comedic entertainment is ripe with examples of commedia dell’arte structure and stock characters. Commedia was probably the most important development in acting during the Italian Renaissance. It lasted as a popular performance genre for two-hundred years, from 1550 to 1750. The stock characters were performed in an improvisational nature, taking on scenarios and telling short unscripted stories. These short comedic presentations consisted of the original slapstick comedy (with an actual two sticks on stage making the sound effects for physical altercations) and lazzis, or short repeated bits of comedic business, very similar to that of the Marx Brothers or the Three Stooges (Wilson and Goldfarb 159-161).

Most commedia companies consisted of ten actors—seven men and three women—though that varied at times (Wilson and Goldfarb 159). Some of the more popular stock characters were Pantalone, the Young Lovers, the zanni (servants) Arlecchino and Columbina, and Dottore. Pantalone was a miserly old high status man who was always concerned with his money.  Often his money and greed would constantly get him in trouble and affect his social status in the end. Pantalone is seen today in characters such as Mr. Potter in It’s Wonderful Life (1946), Barney from the television series How I Met Your Mother (2004), and Jack on 30Rock (2005). The Young Lovers are also high status and are usually the children of the older men characters like Pantalone or Dottore. The Young Lovers cannot do bad things so they usually get the servants or others to do it for them. The idea of the young lovers is often seen in every boy-meets-girl comedy situations: Steve and D.J. in Full House (1987), Cory and Topanga in Boy Meets World (1993), and Zack and Kelly in Saved by the Bell (1989). The zanni characters like Arlecchino and Columbina are the crafty servant types. Arlecchino is usually very acrobatic and limber in commedia.  Shawn, friend of Cory and Topanga, is a very good example of an Arlecchino character, given his craftiness and mischief. Columbina is the saucy maid type seen in characters like the Nurse in Romeo and Juliet and Meg Brockie from the musical Brigadoon. Il Dottore is a doctor who is the same age and status as Pantalone who talks a lot but doesn’t really make any sense. The best example of this in contemporary entertainment is the character of Dr. Frasier Crane in the television series Frasier (1993).

 The shows mentioned are all popular shows. Most people without studying the characters of commedia dell’arte would never realize that that is what they were watching. Even the writers of said shows probably didn’t realize that the characters they were writing had direct connections to commedia.  This deeply ingrained relationship between today’s popular entertainment and commedia is what makes the characters of the classics more accessible, including that of Molière’s School for Wives.

The character of Arnolphe resembles Pantalone in that he is mature, high in stature, rich and is the antagonistic force keeping the young lovers of Agnes and Horace apart.  He explains his wealth and stature on line 125 when he says, “I am rich enough, I think, to have felt free/To have my wife owe everything to me.” His speech to Horace on line 291 and again on line 591 when he first tries to deceive Agnes into believing Horace’s intentions are anything but innocent, shows him as quite the sex-craved miser—a dirty old man—which is another common attribute of Pantalone.

Agnes and Horace fall in the commedia category of young lovers. As mentioned before, the young lovers are usually children of the older characters.  Agnes is the ward of Arnolphe, raised in ignorance, to his content. On line 256 Arnolphe describes how he knew Horace his whole life, almost like a son. Horace describes his love for Agnes initially on line 317, “A young girl who, it so befalls/Lives over in that house with the red walls;/…While she, brought up to be an ignorant slave/Shows charms designed to make an angel rave…” The use of others to do “bad” things is another common trait of the young lovers. Horace uses an old woman to deliver a message to Agnes (503) and he later pays the servants Alain and Georgette to let him in to see Agnes (556).

The servants of Arnolphe, Alain and Georgette, are the zanni representations of commedia in Molière’s play.  Alain could be considered an Arlecchino simply because he is the servant to the Pantalone character.  He is also involved in a lot of the slapstick and lazzi humor. This is seen right away on line 217 when he tries to hit Georgette, who ducks, and hits Arnolphe instead. Georgette is the Columbina commedia character and is even called a “saucy knave” on line 224.

The commedia stock characters are what make The School for Wives accessible to today’s audiences. We see these character types in the popular television shows, films and plays produced every year. These are the characters that contemporary audiences enjoy seeing, and they enjoy them because they make them laugh. The reason we laugh at the character’s antics is because we see ourselves in those characters. We see the finite humanity of the characters for what they are, rather than what they claim to be (Scranton 183-84).

This finite humanity being revealed in Molière’s characters is what Scranton concludes is Molière’s depiction of sin.  Scranton says that in dramatic comedy, sin comes about when the normalcy of society is disrupted (183). For Molière the young lovers are considered the norm or the “good element in the world of his plays (165).” Anything that conflicts with or is against the natural progression of the young lover’s relationship is thus considered evil.  Therefore Arnolphe, or Pantalone, is considered the sinful creature in The School for Wives (165).

How Molière’s depiction of sin affects the contemporary audience is all in how we laugh. As Scranton says, “Laughter is often the mirror, whip, and gift that reveals, castigates and allows for transformation of the characters, and us as we see ourselves revealed in the characters of his dramatic comedy (184).”  Because the Characters of commedia are so universal, we are able to see connections between popular entertainment, The School for Wives, and ourselves.  As long as Molière’s characters are depicted as truthful in Molière’s original intentions, the laughter its contemporary audiences will endure will be full of grace. Because Molière wrote the happy ending, contemporary audiences can view his work as redemptive and, according to Scranton, experience “the miraculous intervention of God on humanity’s behalf (185).” As Madeleine L’Engle says:

“We need to be careful about the difference between laughter which is healthy and creative and laughter which, like Satan’s, is destructive—at someone else’s expense. The laughter in the Bible is never nasty…and true laughter is freeing (163).”

In conclusion, I affirm Scranton’s conclusions that Molière indeed depicts sin in The School for Wives and many of his other works. This revelation of the human condition is seen only by the relatable commedia dell’arte attributes seen in the major characters of Arnolphe, Horace, Agnes, Alain and Georgette.  Because the contemporary audience can relate to such characters, this depiction of sin by Molière is received with gracious laughter; a laughter that is caused by the holding up of a mirror as we see ourselves and our own sins. Praise God for happy endings!

Works Cited

L’Engle, Madelein. Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art. Commemorative Edition. Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw, 1972.

Moliere. Tartuffe and Other Plays_. Frame, Donald M. New York: New American Library, 1967. (p. 95-168)

Scranton, George A. "Love and Lovers: Mutuality, Sin, Grace, and the Future in Moliere’s Vision of Comedy" Journal of Religion and Theatre 3 (2004): 161-185. Web. 28 Oct 2009. .

Wilson, Edwin, and Alvin Godlfarb. Living Theatre: A History. 4^th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2004.

Research & Aesthetics: Part 2

            William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice has been called one of his more controversial plays. Because the major antagonist is Jewish and the play ends with his forced conversion to Christianity, it is primarily viewed as anti-Semitic. Nicole M. Coonradt would agree with this generalization. However, she argues that this could not have been Shakespeare’s original intention. Rather she states that, “Shakespeare employs the trope of anti-Semitism ironically to convey a coded message about the moral incoherence in popular Christianity (74).” In light of the historical context of Protestant-Catholic warring that enveloped Shakespeare’s lifetime, it is possible to see how The Merchant of Venice could have been written as a social or religious commentary. Looking at the play from this perspective one can also see elements of postmodern approaches to sharing one’s faith. This essay will elaborate more on the latter by evaluating The Merchant of Venice in its social context, comparing it to the contours of a postmodern gospel (Grenz 167), and finally comparing it to my own approaches toward sharing my faith.

            The English Act of Supremacy in 1534 essentially started the warring between Protestants and Catholics and thus created the dark social and religious context in which The Merchant was written.  Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. Thomas Cranmer was willing to okay the divorce and marry Henry to Anne Boleyn. By doing this, England’s church would no longer have ties to Rome; it had separated itself from the “catholic” church and become its own ecclesiastical entity (Noll 176-178). This separation took Early Modern England through numerous shifts between Catholicism and Protestantism, and with each shift and change of leadership came more violence and terror done under the name of Christian charity. This was the world of Shakespeare and his family.  He saw all of the devastation caused by the violence of the age (Coonradt 82). He understood the need for discretion, disguise and fiction in regards to writing about faith or any other kind of religious content (Coonradt 84).

Seeing the dark world Shakespeare lived in brings light to the reason why so much is unknown about the inner workings of his mind. Theatre became the best place for him to practice “techniques of dissimilation and disguise that guaranteed one’s survival” in Early Modern England (Coonradt 84).  The Merchant is one of the best examples of this.  It is a play that portrays the conflict between Christians and Jews in late 16^th Century Italy, but it is also filled with subtext that would have resonated with its audiences in 16^th Century England. 

There are many sections of The Merchant that serve as examples of these “techniques of dissimilation.”  A conversation in Act III, scene ii between Portia and Bassanio is used in Coonradt’s essay to prove this very point.  In this scene, Bassanio has to choose between the three caskets and attempt at the same to be chosen by Portia as a suitor. This alludes to “the doctrine of the elect” which was a serious point of conflict between Catholics and Protestants.  This conversation includes mention of being “upon the rack,” reference to an early torture device used in 16^th century England. Portia says, “Ay, but I fear you speak upon the rack / Where men enforced do speak anything (3.2.32-33).”  This conversation is essentially about the love they are discovering for each other but looked at through historical context has some very dark political messages as well (Coonradt 85).

But how then does the dark disguise of The Merchant and Shakespeare’s way of alluding to hidden truths relate to post modern approaches to sharing one’s faith? Stanley J. Grenz, in his book titled A Primer on Postmodernism, explains what the gospel looks like in the already present postmodern era.

Grenz begins by comparing this postmodern age to its predecessor.  The modern age has been entirely about objective, universal, and absolute truth. It frightens the church that the up and coming generation disbands the correspondence theory of truth, or “the belief that truth consists of the correspondence of propositions with the world ‘out there’ (163).”  Even more frightening is that postmodern thinkers want to gain an “all-encompassing truth” and that there is no “unified whole” in which we as Christians have aligned our basic theology and doctrine. Grenz puts it this way:

Postmodern thinkers have given up the search for universal, ultimate truth because they are convinced that there is nothing more to find than a host of conflicting interpretations or an infinity of linguistically created worlds (163).

So how does the Christian who believes in absolute truth proclaim the Gospel in such a way that it reaches those who consider our truth just one of many? To show us what this type of sharing your faith looks like, Grenz coins four statements that help the church to “embody the gospel in the context of [postmodernism] (167).”  The church needs to embody the gospel in ways that are “post-individualistic,” meaning it focuses less on the individual and more upon the individual in community (167-168). Secondly, it needs to be “post-rationalistic” meaning it lets go of the concept that we can know everything about God and instead clings to the mystery of God (169).  Thirdly, the church should inhabit a “post-dualistic” mindset and think less about the dualistic nature of soul and body being separate entities but one “unified whole” (171).  And finally, it should take on a “post-noetecentric” mentality which means we should not just accumulate knowledge for the mere purpose of knowing, but to acquire a “wisdom for living so that we might please God with our lives (172-173).”

            It would take many more pages to fully unpack each of these ideas, but the purpose of this study is to relate these postmodern approaches with tactics used by Shakespeare to disguise his own hidden truths about Catholic-Protestant warring. The first point to make here is that Shakespeare knew his audience. As was stated previously, he understood the need for dissimilation and disguise in his work. Just as any postmodern thinker would discredit absolute truth, the religious powers would have the same reaction to Shakespeare writing The Merchant directly about the forced conversions of Protestants and Catholics, regardless of how real and true that was, only on a much larger scale.

As Christians we also need to live by example. We are individuals in community (post-individualistic) living with an absolute truth inside of us (Jesus’ saving grace), and we need to reveal that absolute truth through the example of community.  Shakespeare did this as well in The Merchant.  He was an individual expressing a hidden truth to a community (Early Modern England) in the form of community (theatre).

Keeping a post-rationalistic mindset, we as Christians need to live in the mystery of God.  Shakespeare wrote The Merchant about a different country and culture altogether, shrouding the truths about his own country in mystery.  As post-dualistic Christians, we stop thinking of soul and body as separate and consider our bodies and souls to be one.  Grenz says that this means combining the emotional and sensual with the intellectual or rational in one body (172).  As a stage production, The Merchant would have done just that, as the actors would have physically embodied the characters and truths of the play and applied them to their intellect and any intellect of the audience.  Lastly, as post-noeticentric Christians we acquire knowledge to gain wisdom and live out our absolute truth.  Shakespeare was not just attempting to state intellectual facts, but portrayed a story that contained a message. It hopefully provoked social awareness or wisdom for the audience to live by in accordance with the play’s “absolute truth.”

These connections come from my own observation and understanding of Grenz’s approaches to the gospel message, the perspective that is laid out in Coonradt’s essay and reading The Merchant of Venice. I am inspired by these ideas, so it is relevant for me to explain how my own theories and practices of sharing my faith are very similar to that of Grenz and hypothetically Shakespeare as well.

One of the most formidable times in my life was the two weeks I spent ministering in southern France during the summer of 2006.  The people of France, as well as the missionaries we were working with, are prime examples of living with hidden truths.  As it was explained to us by the missionary on our first day there, the people of France have a very negative and humanistic approach to religion and to the church as a whole.  The mere mention of Jesus, let alone how important his saving grace is, would sever any sort of relationship you could ever hope to have with them.  The missionary said that he had been working on some of the relationships with the people of Aix-en-Provence for five years and had only recently revealed to them that he was a pastor.  It was not because he was ashamed of who he was or what he believed in, he simply understood the cultural context he was living in and knew that his actions would need to exhibit the absolute truth inside him.

Since that time I have seen very similar reactions to outward and outlandish approaches to sharing faith in the States.  Anything that is too outwardly “Christian” is almost immediately discredited by people who are not believers, especially when it comes to elements of the arts. This ranges anywhere from the stigma that all Christian theatre is unprofessional and low quality to the fact that many Christian artists who speak outwardly about their faith are simply not taken seriously.  All of this stems from the new postmodern generation that is encompassing society, primarily in the rejection of absolute truth.  Christians must understand that we live in a world that is different from its modern predecessor.  This is a perspective that has definitely changed for me since that trip to France.

I would not go as far to say that this study has changed my worldview in any way, especially in regards to the worldview approaches that I have written about before.  It did, however, help me apply a more academically-sound reasoning behind what I have seen play out in my own surroundings.  Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, as anti-Semitic as it is in tone, is at its heart a piece written by a man who could not outwardly bring to light the truths of his age for fear of much more than just being discredited. The same is true for us as Christians in a postmodern society: We must understand the way the world around us is thinking and feeling in order to bring credit and validity to the absolute truths that are so needed by the many that are just not willing to listen.

Works Cited

Coonradt, Nicole M.. “Shakespeare’s Grand Deception: The Merchant of Venice—Anti-Semitism as ‘Uncanny Causality’ and the Catholic-Protestant Problem.” Religion and the Arts 11 (2007): 74-97. Web. 25 Sep 2009.

Grenz, Stanley J.. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

Noll, Mark A.. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2000.

Research & Aesthetics: Part 1

I've been doing a lot writing in class so writing actual blog posts has been difficult.  So since my professors were impressed with some of the stuff I was writing, I thought I would post that instead. The purpose of the class Research & Aesthetics is to examine the relationship between the history of Christianity and the history of Theatre and how they were connected and influenced each other, and most importantly how they influenced our worldview of each today.  The following is the first of five short papers I wrote off of prompts given by the professors Scott Hayes and Michael Burnett:

The Middle Ages were the golden time of Christian drama. As ironic and complicated as the relationship between theatre and Christianity has been throughout history, it was never stronger than during medieval times. This affiliation is obvious for three reasons; the Church was responsible for the rebirth of theatre despite its preexisting prejudices, the Church had a huge presence in all aspects of life during the medieval time period, and the relationship between Christianity and theatre during the Middle Ages was especially close when it is compared to the relationship today. 

            The Church had established a huge prejudice against the theatre well before the Middle ages, which continued through the Middle Ages and has survived until today. This prejudice is justified when looking at what Christians had been through in the centuries leading up to the Middle Ages. Roman theatre was considered a form of worshiping pagan Gods, so Christians avoided it as much as possible. Roman persecution of Christians heated up under the reign of Emperor Decius in 249 AD when he created laws that required all citizens to attended Roman religious ceremonies. Those who refused, as most Christians did, could potentially be put to death. Romans persecuted Christians for genocidal reasons, attempting to gain back authority and stability on political and social levels. Because of this strong persecution, church leaders and lead theologians of the time, such as Tertullian denounced the theatre and discouraged Christians from partaking. They even reached the point of excommunicating church members who attended the theater instead of church on Sundays and forcing actors to denounce their profession before they were allowed the sacraments (Bruch 2-4).

            The Church, after it had spent a few centuries pushing theatre and those who partook away, would be the ones to rebirth it and start the relationship anew during the medieval period. The Church did not recreate theater from nothing; it combined the popular forms of entertainment with the liturgies and sacred texts of the time (Johnson and Savidge 35). 

In the early parts of the Middle Ages many forms of popular entertainment still existed, such as traveling troupes of comedic, acrobatic and circus style acts that were performed at different festivals. The establishment of the Church had a few roots in theatre as well. Rituals such as mass, vestments for clergy, structures of churches, musical accompaniment and certain symbolic events are all considered theatrical.  Apart from these facts, church drama seemed to grow out of the liturgical music that was sung in Latin, a language not understood by common people, thus creating a need to perform these stories and biblical concepts (Wilson and Goldfarb 121, 125-126). According to Dale Savidge, “The use of stained glass imagery as a visual means to teach in an illiterate world and St. Francis’s creation of the crèche to tell the story of the nativity also point to the use of theatre in religious education (37).” What started as liturgical music grew into liturgical dramas, tropes, cycle plays, and finally morality plays.  Savidge also tells us that,

“By the fifteenth century a robust body of work was in evidence in nearly every European country, from cycles of plays based on the Bible to morality plays to folk dramas. Because of the pervasive influence of the church, in no period in the history of Christianity or the theatre was a closer relationship between the two more in evidence than in the Middle Ages (38).”

There are many theories about how theatre was reborn but the fact that it happened during the medieval period and that it was primarily the Church’s responsibility proves the strength of the relationship between theatre and Christianity. This is not only because of the Church’s role in resurrecting it; the Church and its influence were ever present (Wilson and Goldfarb 124).  This influence covered most aspects of life including “politics, learning, social organization, art, music, economics, and law… (Noll 121)” 

The Church’s most noteworthy influence in the Middle Ages was over the secular rulers (Wilson and Goldfarb 121). The crowning of Charlemagne in 800 AD by Pope Leo III is the best example of Christian influence in the world at that time. How the papacy came to such power is indeed perplexing to say the least, given that there is no clear lineage or special events that mark a clear ascension to power. Nevertheless, by 800 the papacy had reached the height of its power and the coronation of Charlemagne was considered a “strategic alliance” between the pope and political power whose influence was also greatly expanding (Noll 116-117).  Christendom in the Middle Ages was not only affecting the political powers of the time but was unifying the secular and sacred elements of life that we today would require to be separate; something Mark A. Noll mentions is sometimes called the “medieval synthesis (122).”  This molding of the secular and sacred is apparent in the relationship between theatre and Christianity as well. 

Where we once had a grand connection between what was secular and sacred, we now have a great divide.  In this separation-of-church-and-state society, many people in our country tend to let this mindset bleed over into other aspects of life, including entertainment.  A quick glance at Hollywood and Broadway and all of the movies and shows nominated for prestigious awards will tell you that Christ and his saving grace has no place on the big screen or stage.  As a final point, you can see the relationship between Christianity and theatre in the middle ages was the closest it ever was in history simply by viewing the status of that relationship today.

Theatre today is considered secular.  Generally Christian theatre, to the secular world, is considered to be short skits or dramas played during church services that are either depictions of biblical characters or principals that go nicely with that week’s sermon topic. Or it is considered to be a grandiose production of a passion play that has an in-your-face sort of message. To the secular world, Christian theatre is looked at as low quality, no talent, and weak attempts at the “real” thing. Realistically, however, there are a number of Christian touring and resident theatre companies like Riding Lights Theatre in York, England, The A.D. Players in Houston, Texas and The Lamb’s Players in San Diego, California (Johnson and Savidge 44). These companies do put on comparable productions to other non-faith-based theatre companies. But because of the established Christian theatre stigma, without seeing these productions, one would never think they produced anything of quality, let alone know the company existed at all.

Most denominations have people in them who hold true to the philosophy that who we are is in accordance with how we behave. They pattern their behavior based on an endgame of righteousness. With this philosophy in mind, stemming directly from the puritanical views, there are many objections against theatre: The theatre arouses emotions that hurt the spiritual life of those who watch it; it also has no use and does not help people to behave appropriately to establish righteousness. However, there are also those who believe that it is not what you do that makes you who you are, it is who you are that decides what you do.  Christian doctrine today focuses on growth from the inside and helps people understand the world around them and how to interact with it.  Under these goals, Christians do not try to control the world around them but accept it for what it is, thereby allowing theatre to exist, but separate from the church and thus drastically different then what it was in medieval times (Bruch 17-18).

Theatre as a part of the worship service in churches varies from denomination to denomination as well.  The rise of the contemporary church has by and large been interested in being up-to-date and current with the common fads and information media practices. Most theatrics are now being replaced by cheap and easy cinematic shorts that are projected on the screen (Johnson and Savidge 41). 

In conclusion, I have always considered the theatre of the Middle Ages to be the quintessential Golden Age of Christian theatre.  What writing this paper has really helped me to see is the state of Christian theatre today.  From my worldview, it is not the secular theatre that needs to be more sacred.  It is the theatre that we Christians hold sacred which needs to be released into the world of the secular.  As Christians we are called to be in the world.  Our Christian art needs to be in that world, changing it for the better.  We cannot keep separating ourselves from the very people who need us the most.  But because the people of the secular entertainment industry view Christian art, especially that of theatre, with an unprofessional stigma, we need to be doing everything we can to eradicate that stigma and prove ourselves as we did in medieval times.  The Golden Age of Christian theatre existed because of the strong relationship between theatre and Christianity.  That relationship can and needs to be rekindled.

Works Cited

Bruch, Debra. "The Prejudice Against Theatre." Journal of Religion and Theatre 3.1 (2004): 1-18. Web. 19 Sep 2009. .

Johnson, Todd E., and Dale Savidge. Performing the Sacred: Theology and Theatre in Dialogue. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009.

Noll, Mark A.. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2000.

Wilson, Edwin, and Alvin Godlfarb. Living Theatre: A History. 4^th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2004.