I love theatre…just thought I should exclaim that.

The wife and I had the great pleasure of being invited to go and see ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’ at the West Yorkshire Playhouse by my sister and her partner. WY Playhouse, for me, is renowned for high quality, fresh and innovative theatre. I have longed to see a show at this venue for many years but never made it. I was excited as we travelled down the A1(M) heading towards the familiar busy and complicated roads of Leeds.

As we sat in the courtyard theatre, with traditional red curtains covering the stage and equally conventional footlights, I was struck by how, woven in with these forced traditions were glimpses of 21st century living, ‘birdies’ (a small spotlight) were nestled into the footlights and Mumford and Sons playing in the background. All of this, despite being, on the face of things, ‘old hat’ established a strong atmosphere for this adaptation of a classic.
Lots of things in this show were strong and successful but there two things to note here.

The first one is the writing. Joel Horwood, the adapter of the show, has done an excellent job here. In my previous life as a director (if I can call it that now) I specialised in classic texts and often struggled to get good adaptations and translations. Bringing a classic into the ‘here and now’ is difficult and Horwood has done this subtly and successfully. The language, at times, was rooted in the style of the book but beautifully knitted into this language was the language of ‘Skins’ (for which Horwood writes). The script rapidly runs with ease and smoothness between the traditional and the 21st century that marks this script out as superb.

The role of an adapter/writer is really important for theatre and it should be in the Church. The script is really central to successful theatre and in churches, when wanting to do sketches, etc., they rush the script writing and the time is not spent on this. To lead worship, you need both gifted musicians but this means nothing if the songs are not written well. The same is true of theatre worship. Actors are important but if the script is poor it means nothing. Adapting the Bible for performance needs to have an understanding of the text but also of the theatre. Too often the Biblical text is known but not how to translate the story telling to the stage. This is something that artists like Horwood can offer the church in their worship.

The second point that needs to be raised is that of the overt Christian themes in the play. Having not read the 1200 page book I don’t know how clear this theme comes through but Horwood and Alan Lane (the director) have chosen to focus on it in particular. “I began to think about how as much as the story is about revenge, it’s also about forgiveness, and the nature of religion, and specifically Christianity.” Horwood comments, “…Edmund Dantes basically becomes an extremist; he becomes a Christian fundamentalist, and that’s a story that is fascinating to tell in today’s climate.”

The same idea and belief was commented on by Peter Brook as he explained why he wanted to tell
the story of two fundamentalists who struggle for tolerance and discover sacrificing their very life is the way to freedom. These two plays, both excellently executed, are a sign that theatre can express what society is wanting to communicate but struggling to find the way and the words. God’s gospel and Truth were vibrating through both texts and their delivery. At the back of the stage throughout the majority of Count of Monte Cristo was the three words ‘God is Love”. I was fascinated by this choice. It was unclear whether this was trying to be ironic or if it was drawing from Edmund’s Dantes religious call a stark comparison that should him to be a violent fundamentalist rather than truly Christian. I think and hope it was the latter.

This play was a great example of how theatre can be used as an evangelistic endeavour of telling stories of God whether biblical or secular. It showed God present in life and, despite the seeming decline of Christianity in Britain, speaking and moving and calling people to Himself. That’s why I love the theatre!

I’m left with one question, however…

Did this play need the Church to speak of the reality of forgiveness and its power, to remind people that the God seen and felt in this performance was real, alive and yearning for relationship? Does society to hear this? No… Let’s rephrase that… does society need to hear this? Rhetoric! What a wonderful tool!

Interrupting my reading of ‘Why Men Hate Going to Church’ was a thought about my placement next year.

The end of term has peeked its head over the horizon with part of everyone jumping up and down and another half dreading the looming deadlines that go along with it. As we all suffer from a kind of split personality the basic truth stares us in the face; it’s another round of ‘big change’! Some of our community will be leaving and new comers will be arriving. Stuck in the middle of mourning and welcoming are those of us staying (some, like me, will do this again next year). What do we do with our summer?

For me, certainly, I will need to prepare for next year’s placement. It has been almost six months in the praying stage and it seems it’s finally time to make some positive actions. But how do you successfully transfer theory into practice?

Last time, I laid down some possible avenues for action; a resourcing of future ministers of the church and discussing a large scale resourcing via Riding Lights Theatre Company. I discussed with the Administrator at college a time to run a workshop on drama worship… there’s no time! Do I leave this for next year? I think it is an important task and something I should be looking at doing; making sure that my fellow students feel they can use drama effectively and not either shy away from it or overuse it. The other avenue will need to wait til Riding Light’s Theatre Summer School at the end of July.

These avenues, however, are not productive in the new community I feel called to oversee. How do you call people to join a community? I don’t want to feel like I have to do a big marketing scheme (somehow it lacks God fingerprints!) nor do I want to just passively wait for people to guess that’s what I’m doing. The balancing act has begun. I will need to push for some sort of space or time to openly invite anyone who wants to come along. I need to be clear and honest about the intention and yet make it open and flexible for others to bring what they need to bring. What space or time would suit the drama community here in Durham?

After Any Given Friday, I had a chat with some of the actors involved. We talked about the nature of rehearsals in the Durham Student Theatre group; the fast turnaround, the lack of momentum in experiences and the quickly made quickly passed relationships. What is God wanting me to introduce to this already packed market?

Space and Time.

For me, the process of rehearsal is where the most spiritual and profound discoveries are made. It is in the vulnerability of the rehearsal room that an actor and director make fresh discoveries about themselves and each other. This space needs to be a place of vulnerability and trust. This cannot be made in a short period of time with actors who are not fully committed to each other. Therefore for me to facilitate deep discoveries for these actors, to give them time to reflect on themselves and their story, I need to introduce a space and the time for a committed group of actors to meet and ‘play’.

To set up a theatre company or not to set up a theatre company, that is the question?

The negative to doing this is the connotation for production rather than process. If I do set up a ‘theatre company’ then I need to be extra clear as the purpose of its creation; to be a committed company with longer rehearsal times and continuation of process. I need to contrast it with the current theatre companies in Durham by highlighting a year long process of discovery and exploration. Yes, we will produce work but the work will stem from the process rather than the process necessary for the production.

The other negative to doing this is a personal one. Do I want to set up a theatre company because I know how to do it? Is this me running off shouting back to God “I know how to do this. I’ll meet you when I get stuck!” Or am I going into this with God? I think a theatre company would give stability and commitment for the actors and will give them a framework in order to explore, acting like a playground in which to play but is this what God wants?… the million dollar question!

Thinking back to ‘11&12’ (see Wrestling with Truth (part VII)) I am really keen to take the work I was doing in the theatre, which stems from Peter Brook’s work (naturally), and use it here. The techniques and theories I was developing in my personal processes of direction do lend themselves, in part, to exploration of faith. I have not seen the style of theatre that I produce here in Durham and I think people will be interested in trying a new style. Just because I see a ‘gap in the market’ does that mean it’s a God thing? Not necessarily but it’ll be worth trying and praying as I do so that God will quickly close doors and guide me.

Over the summer, therefore, I will be planning and preparing workshops on different practitioners (see Any Given Friday (part VII)) and I can feed into these sessions a call to anyone who wants to do some exploration and coming on board to commit to a theatre company that will be doing interesting and innovative work.

Just a final thought… I may try and adapt ‘The Flood’ by David Maine, which I did for some scenes at the start of my time in Durham. A modern telling of Noah.

Too Christian?

As I travel back up to Durham I can see the sun setting and flashing colours across the sky. Great worship has led me to re-appreciate the God who created us. I have spent tonight in the wonderful company of a community in York, who started life as a Pioneer Fresh Expression led by a colleague at college. The community has started to consolidate and grown from an outreach into an established community. It’s great to see a storng community which started off by one man and his God now heading towards maturity.

I was invited to go and speak to them about the vision for theatre and church. In preparation for it I had to consolidate what I’ve been wrestling with over the last couple of months. This is such an important stage in any journey and ministry. When I arrived i had no idea which part of my thoughts would ‘hit home’.

It turned out that what I spent most of the time discussing is how theatre can be used in church as worship. This surprised me because most of my thoughts have been about how theatre does church not how can church do theatre. The congregation were a varied bunch some with no or little experience of ‘real’ theatre and others, who I know, that have huge amounts of knowledge.

I started by telling my testimony and a brief explanation of why I am like I am. Then moved onto talking about theatre in worship and why churches shouldn’t do theatre for the sake of doing theatre. I offered an understanding of gifting in the Chruch and how we shouldn’t treat theatre/drama any less than playing music or preaching or counselling. You need the gifts to go with the ministry. I talked about being honest with what God has gifted you in and how best He wants to use them.

I then offered them a suggestion of how theatre can be used in worship and performed a scene from the Noah service I ran at the beginning of term… (I haven’t published that blog post on this website, have I? If you’re interested I can send it to you. You jsut have to ask!) I led into it by getting them to question what they thought the Noah story was about for them, to start asking questions of the basic teaching of the story in order to find life for them. The worship band sang two songs and I entered the space as Noah. I performed a scene on the ark where Noah has gone through with what God asked and now he’s been left with the silence of God. Noah is a broken man and is struggling to understand what was going on. At the end of the story the band led into another song where people had a chance to just sit and reflect and listen to God and how he may have spoken to them.

Apart from the lack of deep praying and planning about the choice of songs I think the demonstration was useful and powerful. One lady approached me and opened up to me about her struggles which she had been spoken to from the worship. I think people, generally were led to a deeper understanding of the story and how God might be working in their own lives. It was great to try out this sstyle of worship with theatre and made me think about how far this can be used.

One question that did come up was how do churches experience this without any ‘trained’ actors? It’s great if you have the gifts but what if you don’t? The same applies to musicians. Someone may be able to play an instrument but it doesn’t mean they can lead worship. There are, also, some churches that don’t have ‘good’ musicians, how do they sing out praises and get led into worship? When it comes to music, my answer would be you don’t need to have live musicians. If the musicians you have are more of a distraction than a help then use a CD or simplify (I’m not a musician so I don’t know if that works.) With theatre what are the options? I think the solution is two-fold. Firstly ministers need t be empowered and equipped to support and discern gifting in theatre. They need to be aware of the power of theatre and to be honest about what is blessed and what is just good because they’ve learnt some lines. Secondly, actors, or people interested in drama, need to be pushed and challenged by models of good drama worship.

I think it may start by offering, at college, a seminar or session on good theatre practise so that those leaving into ministry can have some tools in their pocket to help and encourage good drama worship; to give them good resources and encouragement to support performers and challenge them. Secondly, I’d like to talk to Riding Lights about what they can do in terms of supporting ministries across the UK. They may not be interested but it’d be good to dream some big vision up with them and see what comes of it.

Sorry this isn’t a poetic end to a blog but I can’t compete with the marvellous God who created this light and this sky and who has walked me on a path of excitement and freshness. Having a time to look back over my journey with God is amazing and encouraging and to be released to get excited about the ministry ahead…God has plans! Great plans!!

I sat down in the Assembly Rooms, Durham, alone again and praying. The last time I sat in this venue it was to see a show with a friend I have found in Durham who is a sensitive performer and a passionate person. He was also in this show along with the President of DST, who I have had a couple of chats with and another male performer who, if he was staying around in Durham, would be on my list to ‘do business with’, i.e. chat through projects and his philosophies, etc. This was going to be a good show. I knew it before it began; the writing is top notch (Art by Yasmina Reza), the three performers were all guys I rated and the director I had heard great things about.

I was not disappointed.

It was a solid show. I relaxed quickly into it and engaged with the story (a good sign of good direction). The show takes you through a couple of days of destruction in relationship between three life time friends, all of which begins and ends with a ‘contemporary’ piece of art or ‘White S**t’ as one character calls it. I’d recommend watching it if you ever get the chance.

The next day, I sat down in the Rose Theatre, Kingston, this time with my mum and praying. This was by far the most excited I’d been in a long time. Peter Brook returns to England with his latest work and on the topic of religion and faith. As I read the programme notes my interest heightened even more and I thought about how useful this show is going to be.

I was disappointed.

Well, it was, like ‘Art’, a solid show. The aesthetics were, as to be expected, spot on, creative and engaging. The text was simple and concise. The performances were not overly complicated or ‘weighty’. The story was about two Muslim clerics, one who believed this prayer should be said 11 times and one who believed it should be said 12 times. This was a true story and so the mundane nature of an argument that end in bloodshed and destruction of families and clans was slightly comical. Brook had captured this simplistic argument perfectly and you really felt the stupidity of it all as men argued with great passion and righteousness over a petty thing such as this. It lacked a je ne sais quoi. The actors, stripped down their performances but at times it went into ‘lazy’ or unengaged. They weren’t bad performers and the story was told in a simple way and there were moments of great honesty but I wasn’t totally engrossed and in the world the whole time. If this was done by any other director I’d have been impressed but I have seen some of the greatest pieces of theatre from this guy and so he had a high bar to jump (and he’s 85!) I direct you to a summary of six critics reviews at the Guardian website and would respond by saying that I agree with the final critic Michael Billington.

This piece of theatre was meditative and unassuming but like some meditative services you switch off and say ‘Ok. I want to do something now!” This in reflection makes me ask questions on my faith journey.

The first of my duo of theatrical experiences was a play about rational argument where three men don’t see eye to eye and go on a circular argument in which you, as an audience member, get swamped and suffocated by. By the end of the play I was ready to scream and cry. Then the character who was trying to be tolerant and the mediator said the powerful words “Nothing fruitful has ever come from rational argument.” I breathed and found myself agreeing. When impasses are met the worst thing to do is continue on the rational argument! In opposition to this sits ’11 and 12’, with its calm unassuming approach to rational argument. The tolerance of the characters was overwhelming and as one critic described it ‘suffocating’ I agree that the simplistic approach to the impasse was too much the other way. The line that stood out for me, along with Michael Billington, “There are three truths; my truth, your truth and the Truth.” So easy and so pluralistic. Is this the Christian message?

Alongside these two shows sits a discussion with my mum, a self-professed liberal Catholic. We found ourselves in a discussion about the very heart of the Christian faith. Her questions stabbed at the very heart of my faith and left me flailing. I found myself in the same emotional state as when I watched ‘Art’ and the same need to scream and cry. Why? Because issues become murky when two opposing thoughts hit. I am someone who loves to live in the not-knowing, preaching the need to wrestle with God but wrestling with God is about aggressive striving to overcome not just nicely embracing Him. He asks us to put some effort in. I was striving to communicate the doctrine of salvation and of justification by faith. I failed to communicate it any helpful way. Words tumbled from my mouth in aggressive and overly-complicated ways.

In apologetic arguments we need the passion and vigour of ‘Art’ and the meditative voice and outworking of ’11 and 12’. Without the passion the meditation becomes dull and boring. Without the calm, concise voice the discussion becomes fretful and deathly.

What of theatre in church? There’s room for the rational argument of ‘Art’ in proclaiming the gospel and apologetics but equally there is room for the meditative worship of ‘11 and 12’ to allow people to be in a place and to inhabit the story. Too often, I think we go for the posing and the arguing and spend far less time in the worshipful story-telling. I’d like to find a way that theatre is worship in its true sense.

I’m talking tomorrow at a church in York on how we use theatre in the church… First time I’ll get to talk it out with such a large group. I hope they get something from it and not just me on my hobby horse!

I’m starting with an apology…Again! What is written below is not dogmatically laying down an easy approach to all things. This, like all my posts, are open to criticism and discussion and I desire so much that people correct me and highlight issues. I can come across at times as strong willed on issues… I can be changed…and that is kind of the point of this particular post. I’m wrestling with how we know Truth and the idea that we do not know ourselves truly. Enjoy!

I’ve been doing an essay on Genesis 22, the ‘akedah’ or binding of Isaac. I have come across an issue that struck me deeply… The majority of Christian teaching on this passage doesn’t strike me as true.

Here’s my reflection…

The God portrayed in this passage commands Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice. Abraham, without any words or confrontation or mention of confusion about this does as his god says. On the way Isaac, a grown man (generally agreed by scholars), carries the implements by which the altar will be built and lies down, without any question, to be sacrificed by his aging father.

My question is; what is this teaching us of obedience?

We generally say, as Christians, that Abraham is a man of faith because he did what God asked, no questions asked. This comes also from Hebrews 11 where this is explicitly said. Are we therefore, as Christians, to just do what God says no matter if it is contradictory to what He has previously told us? Are we to just go along with whims of God? Today we explored briefly the passage in Acts 15 where we see the early church discovering a ‘change’ in the plans of God with the blessing of Gentiles by the Holy Spirit. This, for some, is a sign that God changes goal posts. I disagree with this. God always wanted Gentiles part of His people; you just have to look at God’s call on Abraham to be blessed in order to bless others. Acts 15 does not, as far as I’m concerned, say that God changes His mind. If He did then He would not be trustworthy or reliable. In Genesis 22, God is clearly changing the goal posts. Previously He has told Abraham that it is through Isaac that the descendants will come and now He’s commanding that that hope is to be taken away.

Some arguments have been suggested which do not sit well with me.

Firstly, there’s an argument that suggests that Abraham knew that God wouldn’t allow him to sacrifice his son. This gives a picture of spiritual ‘chicken’; see who buckles first. If Abraham (and Isaac, some argue) knew that God wouldn’t go through with it then it’s not a test of their faith. If Abraham knew the mind of God then the whole performance of the ritual is strange. If Abraham is that in tune with the will of God then why he had to go through with the motions doesn’t ring true.

Then, there’s an argument that suggests that the test was to show God as different from the gods of the time; that the other gods allowed child sacrifice and that this was to show God as different. If this is the case, which I think there might be an element of, then Abraham’s obedience is a failure of character rather than something that is in need of praise. Why is Abraham labelled a man of faith in light of an event that shows him to have no idea the difference between Yahweh and the other gods at the time? Why do we laud the character of Abraham as something to aspire to?

The issue that strikes me about the Christian interpretation of this passage is that we look at biblical ‘types’ and fail to analyse the character. Historical critics of texts like Genesis 22 deny a need of ‘psychologising’ the character, i.e. ‘getting inside their head’ and understanding the motives behind actions and thoughts, because they were not written as ‘characters’ but as ‘types’ (fairytale types); they are merely vehicles in the plot, rather than active characters. It is interesting, therefore, when Christian commentators try and show us how we as fully functioning, pschologising characters should behave like these types who have no inner workings. This would presume, therefore, that the Christian commentators disagree with the historical critics and believe Abraham and other characters are, fully functioning, pschologising characters. Why then do they not see the confusion of actions with the way that they are described?

God, as a character, also is contradictory. Nothing is said about the fact that He was proving Himself different from the other gods. He states that He is pleased with Abraham because Abraham went through with the contradictory command. In this passage God seems to bless the actions of Abraham because he has gone through with the arbitrary whim of God and feared Him. Are we to surmise that as Christians we are to live our life in fear of God and to go along with God who changes his mind and who tests us in such extreme and contradictory ways? The Hebrew term for ‘fear’ is also to be translated as a ‘knowing’ and even then it suggests that we are to know God but if He proves Himself different we should go along with that… this leads, unfortunately, to a God who is unknowable and mysterious.

I would be one of the first people to hold up the mystery of God but it strikes me as odd when the Christian faith claims to be a faith that knows God as ‘relationship’; that the incarnation is the good news that God is with us. That God wants to be in relationship with each one of us. He is not distant, aloof, unknowable, but close and calling us to know Him. The mystery of God only goes so far. God is amazingly mysterious, we could never know everything about God but that doesn’t mean we don’t try and discover more of His character. If He were a God that hides from us and misleads us then it destroys any power in the incarnation and the call to relationship with Him. We become like the Muslims who push for the awesomeness of God and some believe God can do anything, including lie and alter. We don’t believe this. We believe that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, which is restricting the awesomeness of God but means that He is able to be understood by us. There are examples, I know, that God changes His mind because of human intervention; Moses and Abraham both argue with God to change things, Jesus, too, changes His mind. I think I’m trying to say that the character of God can’t change. In Genesis 22, however, his character changes and it stands out as odd. What’s also odd is that Abraham is unable to question this change in character when earlier he was ok to question it.

So what’s this all got to do with anything? Well apart from being an outburst of frustration and confusion, I’d like also to suggest where the theatre can help.

If there is anything that the theatre can teach us is that of character and story. Understanding motives of characters in a text is our bread and butter. Characters like Abraham are approached in the same way as any other. If we read the story of Abraham we see events unfolding in a different way altogether. To save a bit of time I want to point you in the direction of Gunn and Fewell’s book ‘Narrative in the Hebrew Bible’ and the chapter on Abraham and Sarah. Here you see characters acting in consistency with true human beings. God is constant and eliminates any confusion. Leonard Sweet, also, in his book ‘Out of the Question…Into the Mystery’ argues a similar point about how the ‘akedah’ is a two-fold test one of obedience but also, and more importantly, a test of relationship. God asking Abraham ‘Do you know me?’ This part Abraham fails. There are, I know holes in some areas but as a theatre director it helps to explain issues of character in the passage. The Abraham in Sweet’s interpretation rings ‘true’

If we approach characters in texts as types rather than human beings then we run into issues of application.The issue I have,as I said at the beginning is it’s not ringing with truth. It feels like those time when someone tells you something you know isn’t true. When someone explains something and it doesn’t feel right.

I want to finish by touching on another issue I’ve come across this week. We are struggling, as a society, with issues raising from the feminist movement. In the current landscape, men now struggle to know what it means to be a man. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, uses the word ‘man’ for all humanity and during the feminist movement, women, quite rightly, changed it to ‘people’. Men were left, however, with a stereotype of what ‘men’ were to be and do. Feminist readers changed some of the ‘men’ to ‘people’ and left others as ‘men’. We are then depicted in the Bible, as a gender group, to be what the feminist critique movement perceived us. This is a swing to ‘anti-men’.

This has implications on what our society communicates to young men. If you do not comply with the accepted understanding of ‘man’ then you stand out. I, like many others in the Arts, have struggled with this gender performance issue. It’s not talked about but there’s no teaching on what it means to be a ‘man’. What is the outcome of such confusion?If the true man acts in a certain way and I don’t fit then am I truly a man?

As a boy growing up I knew I was different from the football playing, beer drinking men around me. Was I therefore a woman? No but I was obviously more like the girls than the boys… I’m gay. This, in hindsight, was not the case. What helped me to discern whether I was gay or not? Open talking with my mum who helped to define what being gay was; the biological, natural response to the sexual act. My relationship with my mum helped me, early on, to discern my sexual orientation. I know I am a rare case to have such an open and willing relationship with my mum. It makes me think… how many boys who, like me, did not fit into the ‘man type’ jumped to the conclusion they were gay?

I have experienced friends who were seen as ‘camp’ and began to embody that understanding of themselves. In their sexual exploration the gender performance spoke into how they related to women and men in a sexual way and soon spoke of themselves as gay. Do pre-adolescent children have a concept of sexual orientation or gender performance? People will communicate, both positively and negatively, to the gender performance a child inhabits; “He’s camp”. If I had listened to what people had said about me in my formative years then my interest in girly things would have been influential as how I saw myself and my male and female friends. I didn’t listen. I am not by any means saying that gay men are making it up. What I am suggesting, however, is that sexual orientation is tied up with a whole heap of issues of identity and psychology and, until biological testing proves otherwise, our sexual orientation is connected with nurture and what we percieve as truth. People influence us and our idea of Truth. The issue is that there are lies. Which is which?

What I am trying to articulate (and not doing a very good job at!) is that we, as the Church, need to start looking at people, not as statistics or trends, but as individuals and to know that when we meet people they have been shaped by experience that we, as mere mortals, have no way of untangling. There’s a thought that the only person who knows you is you. This is a lie! I do not know myself. I have a good idea of myself but I don’t know myself completely. I am changing and being formed all the time and sometimes that’s postive and sometimes that’s negative. I rely on the truth that all things find completion in Christ. In Christ is where we find our true identity. Until we find ourselves in Christ in eternity we are all performing a character of who we think we are and the Christian faith suggests we allow Christ to shape and form us into himself. There are vast swathes of people, me, at times, included, who do not allow the change of identity and character to happen but God is working in us to transform us from who are to who we are meant to be.

You don’t have to be like you are.

In the interpretation of Genesis 22 I don’t find truth. It unsettles me. I am willing to be changed and shaped but only by the Truth. God loves a doubter, he always has. Is there significance in the fact that the nation is named after Israel rather than Abraham? Israel = ‘he who wrestles with God (and Man)’

Is this a cop out? Yes.

Sorry for the lack of posting. This is due to the fact that a) I’ve been invited to speak at St Paul’s Church, Holgate, York at the weekend and I’ve been preparing to talk on how we practically apply the thoughts contained in the blog so far. This is exciting and the pragmatist in me is loving finally putting some sort of flesh on the theory. If you are in York on Sunday night I’d love to see you there… it starts at 6.30pm. It’ll be useful for those who like theatre and those who don’t. I also was invited to contribute to the ‘Share the Guide‘ website which is run by the Fresh Expressions team of the UK. This was a great encouragement at a time when I was questioning what i was doing. please visit the website and read the article… the picture is professionally done and makes me look like a ponse (it was either a ponce or a nonce!). I’m currently embarking on an intensive fortnight of lectures on Sex and Gender. I have been reflecting but not really got to applying it to theatre and ministry yet.

A friend has blogged some thoughts on the fortnight if you wish and my comments are underneath his.

http://riverbankscribe.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/sex-and-the-anglican-church/

I’d like to add to my comments. I think, ministers need to be able to communicate successfully with the culture in which they are apart. The issue raised by my colleague are useful to note but we walk into trouble when we try and speak on their terms. We preach nothing but Christ crucified. Once people see the power of life in Christ then we have common ground and from here fruitful conversations can be had. In terms of Fresh Expressions this need is heightened. Imposing dogmatic legal restrictions on people as soon as they express interest in being involved in a life with Christ is not necessary. Yes, there needs, to be some lifestyle changes but whose job is it? I think the Spirit works and,as leaders/ministers, it is our job to discern when and how the Spirit is confronting issues and not to rush the work of Him who makes all things new.

With the theatre community, as I have said before, there’s a DNA that explores issues and looks for the different perspective. This means there is often clashes with authoritarian, dogmatic approaches to life and work. I’ll speak a little more on this in a day or two when I have finished writing the next post but for the moment I’ll say that for next year’s placement I’ll have to be humble and patient in my leadership and discipleship. I am, to quote the ordinal for the Church of England, ‘a watchman’ for the Kingdom.

What a wonderful priviledge.