It may seem odd that in the midst of 60 pages of writing due in the next four weeks, I am taking time to blog. However, it is scientifically proven that:
fun (blog) > fun (paper Dr. Treier will grade)
And if there is a time in the week that ought to be fun, it's 10:30 on a Saturday night. And, I'm thinking about this because I'm stuck on a section of my confession paper.
A couple years ago my small group went on a group date of sorts to see Paradise Lost, a rock/electronica opera written by Eric Whitacre. Whitacre is one of the premier young composers of choral music (among his many talents), and composed the music for one of my favorite pieces I've ever sung, i thank you God for most this amazing (day), using the words of the poet e.e. cummings (yes, my capitalization in that sentence is correct).
{{As a side note, it was one of my more pathetic moments in dating life. By coincidence, ill-fortune, and perhaps because I had bad hair, I struck out (twice), asking six girls who were unable to join us. In the end, I brought a male friend of mine who sang in choir with me. But I digress.}}
The opera was musically stunning, if lyrically inane at points. Although it was not fully staged, the pure aural sensation was overwhelming in itself. In a sense, it was a beautiful piece of art in that it did not reveal its philosophical leanings until the very last. At that point, it became clear that it was the most blatantly humanistic expression of art I had seen. Thus bringing into question my fondness for Whitacre—and the song.
You see, the song had been an important one for our choir the previous year. The words a stunning expressiong of beauty in creation—and thankfulness to God. The music pulls at your heart, working in unison with the lyrics, perfectly emoting a yearning and peaceful thankfulness. It was one we sang at two or three concerts, and would occasionally sing at the end of a rehearsal on a sunny day in spring or at the end of a long week.
Cummings' poem is a beautiful expression of creation and thankfulness. Yet, Cummings was an unabashed Unitarian. Add to that Whitacre's unashamed humanism, and the entirety of the creative process for this work of art was, by my standards, non-Christian. How, then, did it hold such an intimate spot in our Christian choir's heart? How could it have such spiritual value?
First, I think there is a degree to which Cummings' poem is portable to trinitarian Christianity for two reasons. One, it speaks only of creation, of that which can be seen as general revelation. It's religious tone is in the thankful response: "i thank you God". Two, particularly in the artistic community at Wheaton, it is common to give artists quite a degree of liberty in expressing religious ideas. This cannot turn into sloppy theological discernment, where we cling to the words that work for our view and ignore the whole of the composition.
However, there is an underlying theological issue: What is it about anything in particular that makes it an efficacious tool for God to work with? In church history, there has been debate as to whether (and by what means) ordinances (or sacraments) confer grace or have value. One view, ex opere operato, asserts that sacraments have efficacy on the basis of how they are performed (can you botch a baptism if you don't fully submerse the participant?). Another view places an emphasis on the apostolic succession, believing that there is an unbroken chain of apostolic ministry dating back to Jesus' apostles. A third (discarded) view bases the efficacy on the holiness of the minister.
Frankly, none of these positions are officially held in evangelical protestant churches. The power of an ordinance to fulfill its purpose is entirely outside the realm of human control. Baptism is done in the name of the Triune God, not by the name of the pastor who dunks the participant.
That's a bit of a digression, but I think it's important as we consider the function of the song in question. The song and lyrics are not written by properly holy men descended from the Apostles. The lyrics are not Trinitarian, but they do suggest a proper response to God's creation, yet are nothing that would be appropriate for corporate worship in the Church. Still, I would argue that by God's grace, this song became an means by which our choir could reflect upon and properly respond to the beauty of God's creation, in thankfulness for what he has made.
This is not an argument that Christians can and should hijack every possible piece of art for Christ and His Kingdom. Quite the contrary. Many beautiful songs, written by great men of the faith and containing theological truth, are sung and heard without hearts properly orienting to God. No, it is not the beauty of the song, nor the truthfulness of the words that turns a song into pleasing worship. It is clean hands and pure hearts, faithfulness to God's commandments that pleases God. It is God who turns hearts to worship him.
No comments:
Post a Comment