Category Archives: Uncategorized

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.

I have just returned from Spring Harvest, Skegness. There were a lot of personal things to mull over and great teaching and praying. There are two things, however, which relate to theatre and ministry which I want to share.

Firstly, during the main events each day, Saltmine Theatre Company ‘did drama’. I have never watched a Slatmine Theatre show and so all my opinions are based on what they did this week. I want to emphasise my admiration and Christian love for this company and their work. They are travelling the country and abroad with stories that genuinely change lives. With that being said…

The company were supposed to tell the story of Esther for the evening services in order to lay some foundation of understanding so the preachers could do their job. I was disappointed again and again when the story of Esther was transformed into a pantomime. This translation is not necessarily a bad thing. One preacher suggested that the story is a comedy and a pantomime and if this was pushed by all the preachers, or even the majority, I would have no problem. The preachers, however, were drawing serious and challenging interpretations from the text and this just emphasised the comic, flippant and over the top performances that supported the work of the preachers.

I witnessed again, a lack of appropriate use of theatre. The drama was inserted into a service that didn’t compliment it. The drama was like an after-thought. The preachers didn’t seem to appreciate the drama and so we, as a congregation, didn’t either.

The company also struggled to make poignant and challenging moments in the text be what they were. They inserted jokes, inappropriately and belittled the power of the story. The scrounging for jokes is just systemic of the Christian drama being performed in churches up and down the country. Where does this emphasis on jokes in drama come from? I believe it all stems from the pantomime genre in theatre.

Pantomime is a popular genre of theatre aimed at the mass market and used for entertainment. The engagement with the audience is obvious and fun. The actors get a cheap and immediate response from their audience, thus marking success. We all, actors especially, love success. If we can mark it we feel good about ourselves. This style of theatre allows this to happen. It also, however, limits the sacrifice needed for the actor. If the script is funny and the person has the skill and talent they will get a laugh. Comedy becomes structured. I’m not denying the need for a funny script but the commitment and investment from a company is limited.

Paul Merton admitted on Radio 2 last week that comedy is easy if you have the skill and you know if you’ve done a good job quickly. Drama demands investment, self sacrifice. You give with no response. You make a sacrifice, a self offering. There’s no mark of whether it’s had any impact in the immediate. You put yourself in a place and offer all you have with no expectation for a response.

Worship is about this. If drama is to be worship not just entertainment, there needs to be an element of sacrifice, commitment, giving of yourself not just your skill. The actors need to connect on a deep, individual way. The act of worship is for the actor as much as those who are watching. A worship leader must commit to worship and lead others in it. A musician can’t just use their skill and talent and use that to walk into the presence of God. They must pray and offer themselves, all of themselves and connect with God through His Spirit.

The other issue I had was the simple act of telling a story. In the attempts of achieving laughs they missed important plot details picked up on in the sermon. They took artistic licence on Scripture and, if I did not know the story would have a very skewed idea of this biblical narrative. Some nights, luckily, they read from the Bible as well and this helped in aiding the learning of the story. If, however, the drama needed a Bible reading to tell the story, what was its purpose? If it wasn’t to tell the story of Esther and it didn’t add some character interpretation that was to be explored, what was the need for it? Why do it?

The church needs desperately to have appropriate use of drama modelled. Drama is not just entertainment but is a way in which some can worship and others receive revelation from God. Comedy can be helpful but it needs to be balanced and appropriate. If, as a leader, one doesn’t pay attention to these dangers then Christian drama becomes pantomime and entertainment alone and, in an act of worship, belittles the presence of God.

The second thing that I want to share is a question that was raised during a seminar with Graham Cray. Graham Cray is involved in the Fresh Expressions movement in the Church of England and was influential in the ‘Mission Shaped Church’ report. He was doing two seminars on Fresh Expressions and I went to one focussing on the long term discipleship of those who had no church background. He was discussing the need for the second generation leaders in Fresh Expressions of church. He talked about maturing disciples into leadership roles and the long term commitment needed for this. He talked about statistics that showed Fresh Expressions losing their ‘DNA’ when the pioneer leaves the context.

This got me to thinking about my placement next year. I can only be present for two years. The members who may gather into a community will only be in Durham for a maximum of three years. What is the self life for this ministry? Its odd thinking about preparing to leave something before it’s even begun and may seem to be jumping the gun but the truth is I need to be prepared to begin the growth of new leaders and model leadership training to them so they can train the third generation and them the fourth and fifth, etc. If I fail to model good leadership training I could be leading the community that gather into emotionally damaging situation.

Graham Cray highlighted the need to be self sacrificial in our ministry. I need to be showing all those who potentially will join a community that discipleship is about ‘dying to live’. I need to model good discipleship and put it as one of the key aspects of the ‘DNA’. I need to commit to the relationships and as I meet and discuss things I also need to be aware of any potential leaders who are emerging and support them in their growth.

There’s little internet access in Keswick and so I’m not being so prolific in writing. I’m also taking this time away from the need to publish post after post to translate my blog into some sort of document that flows together more…I think they call it a book.

I’m on holiday in Keswick this week having a well earned rest from a stressful and tiring term at college. I spent last week working on essays and assignments that should have been done weeks before so that I could focus on Holy Week and to spend the time reflecting but there was no time. During the week I met with a friend who I’m at college with who has suffered a great deal with the challenges and the stretching that theological study puts upon people. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a chance to chat as friends and it was lovely to see him and his lovely wife who have been great support to me and mine. We both reflected on the extreme pressure that college puts upon people and the bad habits that it puts in place. We both saw an emphasis on producing work, being changed and no real balance to remind ourselves of what God has done and the great things God has planned. The college experience, particularly this term, has been a tough battle with life. It seems we spend a long time considering Lent and then Easter comes, for one day and then we move on. At college we did Holy Week a week early but never did Easter. So we have done Holy Week, the suffering and death of Christ, twice but Easter only once!

Easter Sunday, arrived and I was in Keswick with my wife, the college community dispersed across the country. We had gone through Holy Week together but we never celebrated Easter. My wife and I woke in a foreign town wondering how we were going to celebrate. I was exhausted after the term of work and my wife was enjoying having her husband all to herself with no work leering over us. So we went downstairs and celebrated in our pyjamas, with a worship CD and Common Worship! It was lovely. We danced round the house singing and laughing. I was struck by how important Easter is to Christians.

Our faith is not just about the cross. It’s not just about the fact that Jesus died but that He rose from the dead. Jesus was not the first or the last man to die but He was the first to conquer death. Our last term at college has been all about sacrifice, dwelling in the darkness and unknown of Easter Saturday, suffering and bearing crosses. I started to believe that ministry was about suffering and preaching that Christ is with us in suffering. I am not denying the fact that he is but we hold onto the fact that he is risen. I want to be an Easter person who, in the darkness, preaches light. Christ came to bring life not death. Christ came to bring light not darkness.

In preparation for next year’s placement I have decided to start re-reading old theatre theory books and re-envision myself and the potential of theatre and ministry.  I’m starting with Shomit Mitter’s book ‘Systems of Rehearsal’. In his chapter on Brecht ‘To be or not to be’, I was struck by an argument he posed about the differences in the work of Stanislavky and Brecht.

Stanislavsky is famous for his naturalistic approach to theatre. An audience was to go and witness reality. The stage was a window onto life; hence the term ‘fourth wall’ to indicate that the audience sat where a wall to the house was meant to be. You could say Stanislavsky was the modern day Ricky Gervais with his mock-umentary style… but I’d have to kill you if you did! This, for Brecht, was destructive. It stifled the audience to except the world as it is and to ‘wallow’ in the inevitability of life.

For Brecht, theatre was about evoking change in a person.

‘I wanted to take the principle that it was not just a matter of interpreting the world but of changing it, and applying that to theatre.’ Bertolt Brecht, Brecht on Theatre

The theatre then is a place where an audience sits and reviews how life isled and to see the possibility for different outcomes. Stanislavsky taught the given circumstance; A leads to B leads to C, the path is set and you must walk it, whereas, Brecht saw that after A there were many paths to take and should be explored. The audience were opened up to personal change.

My mind immediately asked the question, what is theatre’s role in the church?

Are my reservations about ‘church drama’ stemming from my understanding of theatre?

It could be said that the ‘church drama’ that I have witnessed are Stanislavskian in style. They pose something as it is (or at least as the particular church thinks it is) and there’s no room for questions. A story, with its seeming inevitability, is put forward and that’s that. The audience are not welcomed in and given a real choice to make changes. This is difficult when the scenes portrayed are historical and the outcome has already been decided but an audience should still be present in the story and understand why an action is decided upon.

It makes me think of St Ignatius of Loyola and his practise of visualisation prayer where the practitioner is to walk into a biblical scene using his imagination and explore it for themselves. Many have criticised this practise as heretical as it means that our imagination can make up things not in scripture and develop theology away from Christian doctrine. Unfortunately, use of the imagination is natural human action and one cannot say with any assurance how they understand the very nature of God or the will of God without, in part, attributing it to the imagination. Theatre itself is imagination and so let us assume that using it is not ‘the work of the devil’ and push on in to its use in religion.

To inhabit a biblical scene is to live within the reality (or supposed reality) and so the audience/congregation must be able to imagine what it was like in that situation. This should include the option of choice and to change the situation. Reality is about choices and free-will, isn’t it? The giving of choice and free will does not, necessarily have to change the outcome. Brecht wanted audiences to dream of possibilities and to see characters as flexible and real not automatons set on one path. The biblical and non biblical characters shown in church dramas are often set on a course (often without any reason) which the audience/congregation must watch. This, I think, is the source of my frustration. As an audience/congregation member I want to be able to see reality not something outside of reality and this involves the potential for change, even if it is never realised.

Is the Brechtian approach to theatre a suitable alternative? I believe, in some part, it is particularly with its clear depiction of both character and actor at the same time rather than the ‘trickery’ of Stanislavsky. I like, however, the complete immersing in the reality which is often missed, I feel, in Brechtian theatre. Peter Brook uses Brechtian techniques but applies them to a mix of Grotowskian, Artaudian and Stanislavskian practises as well.

As I continue to read I get excited about the use of my previous study and formation in the theatre to communicate into my formation in ministry. My own theatre practise speaks into my ministerial practise and, I hope, vice versa.

A week after Any Given Friday and life has returned to normality. I was hit by a cold on Wednesday after a massage told my body it could relax and put down its defences! This led to me taking two days off college rather than the one planned.

On Thursday, still suffering from the cold I’d acquired, I sat down at my computer to start the process of re-acquainting myself with essay writing. For the week or two prior to Any Given Friday I had had to put aside college work in order to focus and dedicate enough time to the event. The schedule, post-Any Given Friday, was tight but do-able. I was half through an essay on Billy graham and alpha and so had planned to finish the essay on Thursday to dedicate two weeks to the two essays needing to be done.

I had written 1000 words of this essay (50%) but after reading it there was some re-writing to do and so stripped it all back and started again. I worked from 10am – 5.30pm (with a break for lunch) when all at once the computer froze. None of the USB ports were responding…

Well, I say none of the USB ports were responding two of them (one with a printer attached, the other with a wireless adapter connected) seemed to still be active but the keyboard, mouse and, as far as I’m aware the USB memory stick and external hard drive were not. I replaced the printer with the keyboard, the wireless adapter with the mouse, swapped them over again…

Nothing!

Luckily I had saved as I went along and it was only 30 mins since my last save, not to mention the Auto Save function. I switched the computer off at the mains, waited the dogmatic ten seconds and switched it back on (I’ve watched the IT Crowd!) All loaded up, there was an error check on all my drives and I opened up Word. It had Auto Saved! When I tried to open it, however, it couldn’t be ‘converted’. I closed it down and opened up the file from my memory stick… it was corrupted! Every other file was absolutely fine, this one was corrupted. 1400 words and a days work gone.

I tried to open the file on both the laptops we have in our house…nothing.

I shouted, I swore (I confess!) and gritted my teeth until they hurt and then I prayed. I’m not sure what to pray in these situations. I prayed that God would work a miracle knowing full well that if God wanted me to keep the work He wouldn’t have done such a cruel trick!

After some time to relax and sit in the presence of the Lord of all things, I started to type the essay…again! None of the words that I had written seemed to be in my head anymore, I was full of cold and I was tired after writing this essay all day. I could only remember the quotes I had used so I went through wrote them down and referenced them and stared at the screen for a good fifteen minutes.

I reflected…

Tuesday had gone well. I had seen God move amongst His people and touch many. It was worthwhile and I believe planted many seeds and watered many more. It was, to put it one way, Kingdom building. My wife and I had prayed after the event that God would protect us both as we know that when you put your head above the parapet and step into the spiritual battle you’re going to get hit. We prayed on Tuesday night and then on Wednesday (my day off) I prayed for others but not for protection. On Thursday I prayed for help with my essay but I had already been hit by a cold and didn’t take note of what was happening. The cold was the first signs of exhaustion and when you’re tired you take your eyes off the ball.

The loss of essay has put me back on my schedule, has added to my stress and work load; it would be easy for me to stop my discipleship and just put my head down and work on the essays (some would say I should) but I haven’t. God is good and I will not be defeated because the Lord is with me. I will not sacrifice important time of rest and recuperation to work myself into the ground for an essay.

Usually, I would have been kicking myself and pull an all-nighter, work flat out and run around like a head-less chicken but instead God showed me that life is more than essays. Life is being present for those around you, to receive the peace God gives us and to dwell with Him. I was hit after an important event. When it is finished pray for protection until it settles down.

A week after Any Given Friday and life has returned to normality and there is still work to do. Not academic (although that needs to be done) but Kingdom building discipleship work.

‘Once more unto the breach dear friends, once more!’

Any Given Friday was finally performed yesterday.

It was a strange day before the evening. Four weeks of work and prayer and it all comes down to this. In the afternoon I walked round the cathedral with the cast, choir and the Warden and talked through the evening (which I’m getting very good at doing!) It was the first time that everyone involved met each other. It was also the time when I handed over some of the reigns to other people. I was reminded as I walked around the cathedral how the chief stone mason in a cathedral would stand underneath every arch that he designed so that if it fell he would be crushed. The commitment to his work was a matter of life and death and, although it wasn’t a matter of life and death in such an extreme case, I felt like it was time to take the wooden braces away and see if the work would stand or fall.

I’m aware that I have never painted a picture of what was actually going on in the event.

It would all start in the choir stalls with a ‘normal’ service. After a short reflection Joseph of Arimathea would enter and take his place in the centre of the imposing court like choir stalls. He would talk about his experience of the trial and bring in images of cosmic versus the ordinary, ‘The silence was so loud in the court, like the stars were witnesses, like the moon itself was watching…It was like the cosmos shouted out the truth but they, dust in the vast expanse, could not see’ And this would introduce the idea that everyone seemed to miss out on the importance of the historic and cosmic events happening.

The congregation would then be led, with accompaniment of a harp playing, to another part of the cathedral to see Pilate’s wife who would speak about the boring and mundane life of the governor’s wife. As the congregation moved and gathered round the character there would be the sound of flogging and screams in the distance and, if you were lucky, you could glimpse the flogging of Jesus taking place just in view across from where you were standing. Pilate’s wife would speak as if explaining what her life is like but break through this with a dream that she had and the realisation that there was something special about the man in the dream.

At the end the congregation would be moved round the cathedral to a side chapel where they would meet a priest. As they travelled there would be a choir singing Lamentations and in front of them, about 200yards in front, Jesus is led, with cross, down the vast length of the cathedral. The Priest would speak on the nature of Passover and the need to keep order and peace. It was a political speech and full of rhetoric and ‘factual’ standpoints.

Next they would be hurried to a chapel at the end of the cathedral. By now they would have travelled the length of the cathedral. As they walked they would see Simon of Cyrene, through the huge columns standing either side of the nave, carrying the cross beam and the solider leading Jesus. The choir would sing another part of Lamentations as the congregation would be led into the chapel to meet a woman. The woman would speak on her job as one of the women who offers pain killers to the crucified criminals. The monologue would touch on the pain suffered by all at Golgotha and there’s a small mention of a man labelled ‘King of the Jews’ and how he refused her cup. It is not dwelt upon.

The congregation would now brought back into the body of the church to head toward the cloisters. Before they turn into the cloisters they would a scream from Jesus on the cross and, if they wanted to, could look round the columns and see him crucified. Equally they could not and miss it. They would enter the cloisters to see a small brazier in the courtyard of the cloisters and a man (Peter). The choir would be heard singing at the other side of the cloisters. Peter would talk about Jesus rejection of him and his final words to Peter of anger and rebuke. This would be the impetus for the rejection of Jesus by Peter. Throughout, however, Peter would be tussling with whether he can rightly justify himself.

Entering back into the body of the cathedral, the congregation would be led down towards the centre of the building down the side of the nave. They would see Simon of Cyrene sat, staring at the empty cross. A solo female voice would sing ‘Were you there when they crucified my Lord?’ and they would be welcomed to gather around Simon with their backs to the cross. Simon’s monologue would talk about his visit to Jerusalem for Passover and the abhorrent thing he had to do, carry the cross beam, the instrument of torture, for Jesus. There are brief and implicit images of being profoundly touched by Jesus but the moment is still raw. The congregation, by this point, would have a good understanding of what is happening. They are meeting people in the raw moments of reflection where the memories have not settled in and so you’re not getting fully understood theology. The congregation would be welcomed in to the immediacy of the story without the blessing of hindsight.

The congregation next make the short journey into the final ‘station’ in the last side chapel of the cathedral to meet a Soldier, just off duty at Calvary. They would be crammed into the chapel, like the disciples after the death of Jesus and would hear the soldier’s story. This would be brutal and harsh; a real chance to know what Jesus, and all criminals would face on the cross. The monologue, more than any other, has real tension between the external voice of the character and the internal wrestles.

This monologue is interrupted by the entrance of Joseph of Arimithea, who has been leading the congregation round the different characters but who had slipped away before the soldier’s story. The short and simple line, ‘I have made amends one day to late. I have taken my Lord. Come and see where I have put him.’ He would then lead them along with a solo male voice singing Psalm 22 to the tomb down near to where Pilate’s Wife did her monologue at the start. For those who have been keeping up, you will notice that the congregation have walked the circumference of the cathedral around the point at which the cross has been placed. The congregation have not been into the main part of the story but only kept to the sides, missing out on the focus of the whole thing. The monologues will have a noticeable absence of Christ and there would be a real sense of unfinished business.

As the turn the corner and face a candle lit doorway (which looks like a tomb) they will see, projected onto a screen, a picture of a corpse. They would hear the final monologue by Joseph of Arimathea which I have added below. During the first half, up until the line ‘God went absent and no one spoke.’ There would be modern images of the situations describe in the monologue. This would bring the story into the modern day and ground the thoughts and feelings into the real world. The decision to see the cosmic event of Good Friday is real for us today. We either recognise it or we miss it.

Here is the final monologue:

‘And all around the world keeps on spinning at the same pace and the same direction as it has done since it began. People went home after a day at work and locked their doors behind them while others stayed on the street to face the cold like any other night. Women gathered food for the evening meal and prepared for Passover while some suffered with illness, long past recovery or hope of healing. In lands far away, men continued to trade unfairly and used power to cripple their fellow human beings. We all know we should do better but one day we’ll die and where’s the justice?

And all around the world keeps on spinning at the same pace and in the same direction as it has done since it began. People lit their candles to starve off the darkness while others closed their eyes to embrace the darkness they always feel. Men pulled the blankets over themselves to fight off the cold while some ate the scrapes of food left for the wild dogs to eat. In lands far away, great healers shrug their shoulders and tell the family of death and decay and are baffled again at the cruelty of life and the unknown. We all want to defy the odds but one day we’ll die and where’s the hope?

And all around the world keeps on spinning at the same pace and in the same direction as it has done since it began. He was taken done and thrown away. Another rebel, another hopeful, another death. The heavens went silent and the sky went dark. God went absent and no one spoke.

In the darkness I travelled to the seats of power and demanded justice. I put my neck on the line one day too late. I took his body, cold and beginning to smell, and carried him to his final resting place. As I walked through the streets I passed lepers and cripples unhealed, carrying the great healer in my arms. I passed men embracing darkness of addiction, pain and sorrow, carrying the great light in my arms. I passed those who held power and wealth and near by the poor and destitute, carrying the good news in my arms. And he was silent.

And all around the world keeps on spinning at the same pace and in the same direction as it has done since it began.’

The event would finish with a picture of the empty tomb that would serve as a reminder that we have the gift of hindsight and hymn.

The description would never fully paint a vivid picture of what it looked and felt like but, from the feedback and comments I have already received, some words that the congregation who participated in it used were: haunting, disturbing, stunning, beautiful, breathtaking, uplifting, crushing, moving, imaginative. There were a lot of people outside of our community who had come along who had heard about the event through the Durham Student Theatre website. There were two actors who were not Christian and they had invited non Christian friends. All felt moved by it and were reflective afterwards.

I just pray God met with them and they met with Him!

Now it’s over I am taking a day off to reflect and gather myself for the next step. All the actors involved are excited about future work with me and i spoke briefly about my interest in being a minister in the theatre community and they were all very supportive and excited about being involved. This is great news for next year. I don’t think I’ll know the impact this has truly had until some time has passed. It’s interesting that I was trying to get people to reflect on how people living in the moment of Christ’s redemptive act had no idea what was happening and last night I felt like we all miss cosmic, life changing events. Last night could be something very powerful but it passed like any other night. The sense of holiness about the evening was amazing to be a part of and the silence in the cathedral was so loud, like the stars were witnesses and the moon itself was watching!

I’ll finish with a line from the Joseph of Arimathea monologue which started the event last night:

‘Come, let us go and see what will become of his dreams…’