catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

Christian Theater

Default

BBC
Apr 24 2002
12:33 am

Okay, so I have been directing plays at the high school level for six years, and I have been going to plays actively for twice that time. I know the term Christian play is loaded and may be a misnomer, but assuming we can make any sense of that at all, anyone got an example of a Christian play? Or at least of the sort of play Christians ought to be doing? Any examples of the sort of play we ought not to be doing?

Default

GoDrama
May 29 2002
11:06 am

Is the question you’re asking “what is the definition of a Christian play” then? Is it kind of like the question “what is Christian Literature?”

Default

BBC
Jun 08 2002
02:26 pm

Yes, kinda. What do you think?

Default

Norbert
Sep 20 2002
05:34 pm

Simon brings up an interesting question, probably unintentionally, that I guess is still on my mind. While I was at Dordt (for us Dordt people) a bit of a debate erupted among my theater friends as to whom theater is geared, or perhaps where does the true responsibility lie, if there is one place. Is it playwright intent, director direction, actor whim, or audience expectation? When thinking about a specific “Christian Theater” type, I think all involved have some sort of responsibility, but ultimately where does it lie.
I guess the individual is the most obvious choice, though I hate to individualize everything. It takes away from a community perspective all-to-often. I can’t help but come back to Waiting for Godot. The play can be done in many ways and taken in many ways. The two most obvious deal with a sense of hope. Can this be seen as an example of Christian Theater? Of course. Is this what Beckett intended? Perhaps not. If it is done from a Christian perspective with a hopeful, and essentially Christian intent, and the audience never sees that, is it Christian theater? Is it bad theater? I guess another question is at what point is theater regarded as a success or failure? Again, does it depend on intent or direction or simple personal observation?
I’m beginning to lose my focus. Too many questions. Ouch.

Default

BBC
Oct 06 2002
12:22 pm

This maybe gets us to another question. Why is it that narrative art forms so resist analysis? Sometimes I think they cannot be pulled apart or pronounced about. We know Christian theater when we see it (maybe0 but as soon as we start ot work toward a definition, the form resists. I guess I feel the same way about analyzing fiction. As soon as we start to figure out what makes the patient tick, it up and dies on the table. Either we need to develop better surgical techniques or quick experimenting on live stories. Anybody want to form SPCNF? (The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Narrative Forms)

Default

SamIam
Nov 04 2002
09:27 am

“Anybody want to form SPCNF? (The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Narrative Forms)”

I do! I do! But we should include visual art, for visual art can be narrative as well but it is not only the narrative that can be “cruelized” it is the work in general, in our protection society.

I propose “the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Art” or SPCA.

I think in the very act of proposing this we are striking a blow at post-modern relativism. In order to protect the truth in art we must in effect claim that there is a single truth in the work that defies analysis.

cheese it.

Default

Sheri
Nov 05 2002
05:02 am

Sam—the SPCA? Those initials are already taken.
I do agree, however, that art—I’d argue that it’s art in any form—resists concrete analysis. I think that any form of art that we create is largely subject to interpretation, which, unfortunately, means that it is nigh impossible to create specifically “Christian” art—be it drama, literature, visual art…
On a side note: Your last comment would make you fit in well with my Philosophy class right now.

Default

grant
Nov 05 2002
07:11 am

I certainly would agree that art is open to interpretation. What isn’t open to interpretation, really? An atheist sees a chain of mountains as an unlikely coincidence. The Christian sees them as examples of God’s majesty and skillful creative power.

Being open to interpretation is not an obstacle in the way to a definition of Christian art. Interpretation, rather, makes it possible to see a work of art as Christian. The Bible itself is open to interpretation, yet there are Christian interpretations, Feminist interpretations, Christian-Feminist interpretations, Humanist Interpretations, Jewish interpretations etc.

I believe we can make Christian interpretations of non-Christian art and that we can make Christian art open to non-Christian interpretations. The difficulty is growing to recognize the Christian spirit in works of art as a community of believers (which is what we’re doing right here on this thread, I think).

Default

SamIam
Nov 05 2002
08:47 pm

You?re right Grant, at least to a certain extent. When we do critiques of visual art, or explicate poetry, or any other such analysis we end up using what we know to form what we think the work means.

I understand that, and actually believe that non-Christians can create art that when looked at by someone with a Christian world-view would be considered Christian art. But what I worry about is that these open interpretations can lead to a couple of problems.

One, over-interpretation, actually I think that this is what BC was really arguing against. An example might be something similar to Freud’s interpretations of Shakespeare and such. I think that it is perfectly viable to make our own interpretations and form our own ideas about art but at the same time we must realize what it is and where it is from. We must take into account the context and what the artist knew.

Two, I believe that though non-Christians may be able to miss-interpret the Bible there is truly only one interpretation of the Bible that you can come to when you actually read it. That is the interpretation of the Bible that uses the Bible as its own measure. In essence, the bible is a self-interpreting book. You must know what the bible says to know what the bible means. Without the groundwork laid in the Bible you cannot possibly understand what it means. I don’t know how clear I’m being on this but I can’t think of a better way to phrase it.

I don?t know. As a Christian who uses the worldview shown in the Bible to interpret the Bible I see something inherently wrong with believing that the Bible can be subject to interpretation. Or maybe I just wanted you to say that there are many possible interpretations but only one is truth.

Pardon my jumble of thoughts.

Post Script. Shari, what currently uses the initials SPCA? Also, it?s sad that I will only be able to take required philosophy classes here at Trinity. My schedule is just to packed to do it any other way.

Then again I have always liked this quote. I guess I just can’t make up my mind.

“If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance.”
- Orville Wright

cheese it.

Default

grant
Nov 06 2002
06:28 am

Two things:

First, I don’t believe we need to know a whole lot about the background of an artist’s process or historical context to detect the spirits in a work of art. There’s a great example of this in Seerveld’s “Bearing Fresh Olive Leaves”: A non-Christian performance artist did a silent body-movement performance that reminded all the Christian College students of a passage in the Bible. When the Christians asked about the process, the non-Christian artist said he composed the piece over several weeks while listening to Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto. Bach is one of the finest examples of Christian music! The body-movement performer’s final product revealed the process.

Second, I agree that if one truly understands the message of Scripture, they have read it properly and have come to a Christian interpretation. Coming to a Christian interpretation requires one to receive God’s message as it is given to us. I think we should take this same approach as Christians when we read anything, especially when we experience non-Christian plays. We shouldn’t force our own interpretation on it as Christians, thus making the play “Christian” for us. We should let the work speak on its own terms so that we can respond to it or engage in it as Christians. This graciousness must be part of our Christian interpretation of non-Christian work.

Default

Norbert
Nov 06 2002
09:12 am

Well put Grant. This gets at the very heart of Cari Zylstra’s essay on Demian by Hesse. I made her read that and Steve Lansingh’s article “The rat race, art and inner life”.
A piece of literature, music, art, theater can be a negative example that Christians can take a positive reflection on. Again I’ll bring up Godot. Waiting for Godot is a piece of art that focuses on the hopelessness of an existential perspective. At the same time, the play can be viewed as a beautiful differentiation between a typical existentialist and the hope that Christ brings.