Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Introduction Theatre, since its beginnings, has sought to engage with its audience and through varying means entertain them and communicate something to them, usually through a story. However, there are many who throughout the development of the theatre have recognised its affect upon its audience and culture, and its vast potential to be something ‘more’ than entertaining or informative.1 “...the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as ‘twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.” 2 Brook speaks of a theatre that has all a person needs to change their circumstances, a theatre that induces more than a fleeting liberation, but a lasting revolution.3 However, if theatre is to be the mirror for nature it must reveal something of the creator of nature and life itself and, if it is to contain all that is necessary for an individual to change, it must contain essential truths regarding humanity and life. This it cannot do without revealing God, the creator of life and Truth (Genesis 1-2, John 14:6). Therefore this paper will carefully examine the Revelation of God disclosing the parallels between this and the theatre. It will then proceed to argue that the theatre can become revelatory and conclude by explaining practically how the theatre might achieve this. 1 B. Brecht, J. Willet, Trans. Ed. Brecht on Theatre, the Development of an Aesthetic (London: Methuen, 1964), 70-71, 74-75. A. Boal, Theatre of the Oppressed (London: Pluto Press, 2008), 134-135. 2 W. Shakespeare, “Hamlet Prince of Denmark” in The complete Works of William Shakespeare (Ware: Wordsworth Edition, 1996), 689. 3 P. Brook, The empty Space (London: Penguin Modern Classics, 2008), 153-154. 1 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward God’s Communication Mangalwadi believes that modern science has only begun to understand the power and importance of communication and postulates that life is inseparably related to communication. 4 The Hebrew Scriptures record a God who speaks to create and thus sees language as a foundation to reality. The climax of this communication is Jesus who taught that love was central; divine revelation therefore, was in order to communicate love. 5 When exploring The Revelation of God (RG), one is concerned with how God has intentionally unveiled Himself to humanity, specifically self-revelation.6 If one is to understand how the theatre can be a mediator for this one must first understand what RG is and how it is facilitated. Revelation is often divided into two categories; General/Universal Revelation (UR) and Specific/Direct revelation (DR).7 UR is revelation through creation, human nature and history, providing the individual with understanding regarding their ontology and God’s existence and nature (Romans 1:18-20, Psalm 19:1-4). DR includes the Prophets, Apostles, the incarnation and Scripture (Luke 11:49, John 1:1-18, Hebrews 1:1-2, 1 Corinthians 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:16); V. Mangalwadi, “The Bible: Is it a Fax from Heaven?” in Evangelical Review of Theology (January 2012), 36:1, 81. 5 Ibid, 81. 6 N. Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: University Press, 2000), 23-26. 7 See G. Fackre, The Doctrine of Revelation, A Narrative Interpretation (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), 37, 105. P. Helm, The Divine Revelation (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 2-6, 19-21. G.C. Berkouwer, “General and Special Divine Revelation” in C.F.H. Henry, Ed. Revelation and the Bible, Contemporary Evangelical Thought (London: Tyndale Press, 1959), 13-24. 4 2 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward specific instances providing the individual with a unique understanding of God’s nature, including knowledge necessary for salvation. 8 In all of these cases the revelation is intentional and given by God. Wolterstorff defines the moment of revelation as a ‘dispelling of ignorance’ but only in the sense of “unveiling the veiled, uncovering the covered, of exposing the obscured to view.”9 However In order for the covered to be unveiled there seems to be two distinct stages; firstly a communication of information followed secondly by an understanding and consequent revelation. This first stage of communication Grudem terms ‘The Word of God’ (WG). 10 WG consists of God speaking directly (Genesis 1:3, 2:16-17, Psalms 33:6, Matthew 3:17), God putting words in people mouths (Deuteronomy 18:18-20), instances of written communication where God writes himself (Exodus 31:18, 32:16, 34:1, 28)and where humans write words given by God (Deuteronomy 31:9-13, Joshua 24:26, Isaiah 30:8, Jeremiah 30:2, 1 Corinthians 14:37). WG is the first stage, the communication element, and is present in both UR and DR and is essential for RG. Pink asserts that creation is the first RG to humanity and the reason the bible takes God’s existence for granted as the Universe “proclaims God both by its very existence and its wondrous composition.”11 Yet even though this revelation involves no words in its C.E. Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 31-33. Helm, ‘Revelation’, 20-21. Christian Web Foundation, “Revelation of God” in Theopedia, accessed at http://www.theopedia.com/Revelation_of_God on 13/03/2012. 9 Wolterstorff, ‘Discourse,’ 23-34. 10 W. Grudem, Systematic Theology, an Introduction to Biblical Theology (Nottingham: IVP, 2011), 47-50. 11 A.W. Pink, The Doctrine of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 15-16. 8 3 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward communication, WG is present as WG called creation into existence (Genesis 1) and sustains it (Hebrews 1:3). WG is also present in revelation throughout human history, as a covenant with Israel, communicated through God speaking to Moses and Moses then relaying this to the people (Exodus 6:7-9). 12 WG is also consistently present through the prophets; later extending to other nations (Daniel 2:21, Acts 17:26). WG is more obviously present in DR especially in the physical form of Jesus (John 1:14).13 The Two Stages of Revelation Differentiating between these two distinct stages of revelation is important. Wolterstoff differentiates between ‘illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts’ stating that the former is the mere act of commanding or speaking, the latter is the receiving of the knowledge and communication of a revelation to the receivers. 14 This highlights the concept that one can receive WG without receiving a revelation, which happens in the bible (Exodus 6:9, Judges 2:17, 2 Kings 17:14, Ezekiel 12:2, Mark 7:16-21, Acts 4:11). A revelation therefore cannot be demanded or controlled even if WG is present, it must be granted as a gift from God. 15 Applying this to the theatre it seems that simply because the theatre is a means of communication one cannot assume that it is also revelatory. Therefore the theatre cannot simply communicate a ‘good Christian moral,’ or biblical story (even the story of Jesus) and Fackre, ‘Revelation,’105-106. Fackre, ‘Revelation’, 120-121. 14 Wolterstoff, ‘Discourse,’ 33-35. 15 P. Jensen, The Revelation of God, Contours of Christian Theology (Leicester: IVP, 2002), 20. 12 13 4 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward expect people to receive RG; that didn’t happen for Jesus (Matthew 13) and personal experience confirms this is not the case. In order for theatre to become revelatory it must do more than simply communicate, it must find the best possible way to allow God to grant a revelation to an audience. Both WG and RG must be studied in more detail to ascertain how theatre might do this. The Word of God The Legitimacy of WG is important to discern; prophecy, a form of WG, must be tested. Deuteronomy 18 sets out two principles to test prophecy; it may not be spoken in the name of other gods but in the name of Yahweh and it must come true. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 also prescribes the exclusive worship of Yahweh as a test. However false prophecy may be sent by the lord as a test of the hearer’s faith (13:3), and as such a believer would have to practice discernment. There are many prophecies recorded in the bible which were not fulfilled, meaning the ‘wait and see’ test was unable to be applied, emphasising the need for discernment. 16 Prophecy can be weighed against the pre-recorded words of Moses as Numbers 12:6-8 states “When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions; I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true with my servant Moses...With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles...” This is also true of the Apostles who had a face to face encounter with Jesus, 16 J. Penney, “The Testing of New Testament Prophecy”, The Journal of Pentecostal Theology, (1997):10, 64-65. 5 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward (however they were taught through narrative, the importance of which will be discussed later). The type of encounter determined the authority of the WG and therefore modern day WG is of lesser authority than the words of Moses and the Apostles.17 Modern WG must also be weighed and tested by the discerning community of believers who receive the prophecy, as has always been the case.18 The bible, as well as being WG itself, also records WG previously communicated to Gods people still used today for teaching and testing fresh WG. Its legitimacy therefore, is paramount. The authority of the scriptures is believed by many to be total, containing the words of God himself and those who have spoken on his behalf.19 However the bible must be interpreted and understood; as the original texts are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek it must be translated and the meaning of the text for the new reader discovered. This often causes dispute over the meaning of certain texts, and could lead to differing revelation.20 Thus it would seem even the authoritative written form of WG is somewhat ambiguous in its meaning and subjective in its revelation, depending on what God reveals to the individual reader. Penney, ‘Prophecy,’ 64-65. M. Turner, “Does Luke Believer Reception of the ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ makes all ‘prophets’: Inviting Dialogue with Roger Stronstad.” The Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association, (2000): XX, 15-17. W. Grudem, ‘Theology,’ 1050-1055. K. Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, A Theology of Encounter (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 140-142. 18 Penney, ‘Prophecy,’49. R.L. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 165. 19 N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God (London: SPCK, 2005), 17-18. W. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings on the Christian Faith (Nottingham: IVP, 2009), 33, 47. Wolterstorff, ‘Discourse,’ 186-187. 20 For the importance of exegesis and the surrounding debate see G.D. Fee, D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, Third Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 18-23. R. H. Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible, Playing by the Rules, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 5-29. L. Goligher, “The Book That Speaks for Itself: Interpreting the Bible” in G. Haslam, Ed. Preach the Word, the Call and Challenge of Preaching Today (Lancaster: Sovereign World, 2006), 75-86. S.L. Black, “Augustine’s Hermeneutics: Back to the Future for ‘Spiritual’ Bible Interpretation?” in African Journal of Evangelical Theology, (2008):27.1, 3-29. 17 6 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Many acknowledge that the scriptures point to and culminate in the revelation of Jesus who is the physical form of WG and God himself (John 1:1-18).21 Barth states the only reason we understand any revelation throughout history is because WG broke into history in personal form; thus the primary form of WG is Jesus, the revelation of God through his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2), to whom all authority on heaven and earth has been given (Matthew 28:18). 22 Mangalwadi ascribes the Church’s belief in the bible as WG to the fact that Jesus died in accordance with it and fulfilled its prophecies.23 As Wright comments, John doesn’t crescendo with the ‘word’ written down, but the ‘word’ becoming flesh.24 Therefore WG is legitimised by adhering and pointing to Jesus and fresh WG, amongst other things (1 Corinthians 13:3, 14:3), including adhering to the bible, would revolve around Jesus the ultimate WG and RG. By applying these concepts to the theatre one can learn that firstly, in order for the theatre to be WG, the performance piece must originate from an encounter with God. Ayckbourn ascribes the importance of the ‘initial idea,’ the genesis of a play and the governor of its message.25 These ‘initial ideas’ must come from an encounter with God. This is not to say non believers cannot have these divine creative ideas, as they can still encounter God unknowingly, discovering certain truths about life. Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the R. Bauckham, “Jesus Revelation of God,” in P. Avis, Ed. Divine Revelation (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 1997), 174. R. Swinburne, Revelation, From Metaphor to Analogy, Second Edition (Oxford: University Press, 2007), 135-136. 22 T.F. Torrance, Karl Barth, An Introduction to His Early Theology 1910-1931 (London: SCM Press, 1962), 109110. 23 Mangalwadi, ‘The Bible,’ 83. 24 Wright, ‘Authority,’ 17. 25 A. Ayckbourn, The Crafty Art of Playmaking (London: Faber and Faber, 2004), 6. 21 7 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward life...” (John 14:16) and therefore, because all truth comes from God, anything that communicates truth about life is WG; which the theatre and the actor have been doing since before Stanislavski. 26 It is then legitimised as it points to and is centred on Jesus the ‘truth and life’. Creators of performance who intentionally wish to create revelatory theatre must be listening and perceptive to God in order that they might have truth revealed to them and build their performances around it. Secondly the fact that theatre is ambiguous (as all art is) does not affect its ability to be WG; many forms of WG seem to have been ambiguous.27 For someone to disregard theatre as WG on the grounds that it is not direct enough in its communication is inappropriate. It seems that God desires those who hear His message to discern its legitimacy. Therefore if the theatre communicates truths that are in line with WG already recorded in the bible and specifically with the person of Jesus, it is itself WG. However it must also be tested by a discerning community which the theatre creates in its audience. From here the process moves to the second stage of revelation, the instance of understanding, ‘where ignorance is dispelled for knowledge’.28 Now that this paper has shown that the theatre can be WG and what it must do to achieve this, it will examine RG and outline how the theatre may create the best possible conditions for a revelation to be granted by God and grasped by the audience. 26 C. Stanislavski, E.R. Hapgood, Trans. An Actor Prepares (London: Methuen, 2008), 12-14. A. Jackson, Theatre, Education and the Making of Meanings (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), 180-181. 28 Wolterstorff, ‘Discourse,’ 23-24. 27 8 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward The Revelation of God An Event Jensen describes a ‘conscious break’ from older views that identified revelation with merely the written word and defines revelation as an “act of God, an event, an episode.”29 Revelation is then in God’s hands and the second stage of revelation is the specific moment when God grants understanding for an individual. Jensen continues to state that “If we identify a book – even the Bible – as revelation, we assert our authority over God, and adopt a pharisaic approach, valuing the letter and not the spirit. By treating revelation as an event, we think about God and the bible in a way that is more true to the bible itself.” 30 What Jensen seems to be stating is not that the bible, incarnation or anything in the past cannot be revelatory today, but of the need for the spirit to cause these WG to become revelatory in the individuals life. The importance of the live event, the encounter with the spirit as it applies the recorded WG. An encounter with God is necessary in order to receive revelation it is not simply a reception of new knowledge.31 Migliore states about the biblical revelation “While God is truly disclosed in these events, the divine freedom or hiddenness is never dissolved. God does not cease to be a mystery in the event of revelation.”32 Thus fresh revelation is possible despite previous revelations and is essential for a culture who are very anti God; they “need more than the words of a book Jensen, ‘Revelation,’ 20. Jensen, ‘Revelation,’ 20. 31 Ibid, 20-21. 32 D.L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 20. 29 30 9 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward written for all time on a page. They need the voice of the living God.”33 Revelation as an event is dual-facetted; and both the notion of this specific instance of revelation and the live event of revelation has interesting parallels to theatre. The modern theatre has been increasingly interested in the event or spectacle of the performance piece, relying on movement and representation, to intrigue and excite the eye.34 Possibly due to the experiential nature of modern culture, the theatre has diverged from the naturalistic Stanislavskian style theatre and practitioners like Artaud have sought to infatuate the theatre with the power of spectacle and emphasise the experience of the event of performance for the audience.35 D’Amour states that the theatre is one of the last ventures that demands face to face communication, awareness and immediacy, “saying and doing exist in the same moment.”36 The theatre is only ‘made whole’ once the audience arrives as it then becomes immediate and finds its purpose as a performance. 37 Haring-Smith boldly postulate that “All this attention to spectacle distracts theatre from its essential task of bringing a live human actor together with a live human spectator to explore the issues of common concern through character and narrative.”38 Jensen, ‘Revelation,’ 258. J.R. Wills, The director in a Changing Theatre (Palo Alto: Mayfield publishing, 1976), 12-15. 35 A. Artaud, The Theatre and its Double (Richmond: Oneworld Classics, 2010), 23-26. L. Jamieson, Antonin Artaud (London: Greenwich Exchange, 2010), 23-24, 68. 36 L. D’Amour, “Scavenging for Home (or, How I Learned to Take Refuge in Live Theatre While Worrying About the Bomb)” in M.M. Delgado, C. Svich, Eds. Theatre in Crisis? Performance Manifestos for a New Century (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 165. 37 Ibid, 164-165. 38 T. Haring-Smith, “One the Death of Theatre: a Call to Action” in Delagado, Svich, ‘Crisis,’ 100. 33 34 10 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward This is certainly the bare minimum needed to define an event as theatre, but it is not necessarily the case, as Haring-Smith assumes, that ‘spectacle’ distracts theatre from its essential task.39 Artaud believed spectacle could enhance this and the modern theatre emphasises the performance and spectacle of the piece in order to make theatre a relevant event for a modern day audience, bringing them in contact (through increasingly creative ways) with a live human actor in a way that has a powerful affect on the audience.40 The ‘presence’ of an actor and an audience is essential; the readiness to react to things as they happen is what makes the theatre a live event and provokes both audience and actor. 41 In both contexts, all parties must be ‘present’ at this event; the giver of revelation (in RG this is God, within the theatre this is the performer), must be present and active and the receiver (the individual/audience the performance or revelation is intended for) must also be present and active. If they are not it becomes mere communication and the revelation and provocation to response is missed. This may be described through the difference one experiences when merely reading a play as opposed to seeing the play performed. One cannot know the true effects of a play until it is performed and often simply reading a play will not result in provocation, the play must ‘happen’ and the audience must experience it. The message must be incarnated through story upon the stage so the audience can experience it. This is just the same with WG in physical form as Jesus was incarnated into God’s story of involvement with humanity so that humanity could experience Him. 39 J. Grotowski, E. Barba, Ed. Towards a Poor Theatre (London: Methuen, 1991), 28-33. J. Slowiak, J. Cuesta, Jerzy Grotowski (London: Routledge, 2008), 58. Brook, ‘Space,’ 11. 40 Artaud, ‘Double,’ 23-26. Wills, ‘Changing Theatre,’ 12-15. 41 N. Kaye, G. Giannachi, “Acts of Presence, Performance, Mediation, Virtual Reality” in The Drama Review (Winter 2011): 55:4, 92. 11 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Anthropomorphic Jensen continues pulling the attention away from simply the text and comments that revelation is relational. He states that thinking of revelation as a ‘body of revealed truths’ is to “misunderstand the true heart of the Christian faith.”42 Jensen comments that Dulles statement that RG ‘communicates saving truths to created minds’ is unhelpful for this vary reason.43 Caneday agrees with Jensen’s notion stating that “God’s revelation is anthropomorphic, for it comes to us in the form of speech, whether the heavens’ speech that translates itself, God’s speech through his prophets, or his speech through the incarnate word, it is intrinsically anthropomorphic.”44 This may seem somewhat contrary to the definition of revelation used previously, however intellectual revelation of truths enables an individual to understand and accept an encounter with God and indeed by knowing more about God’s character one is able to have a better relationship with Him. 45 Therefore all revelation is focused on humanity’s relationship with God.46 It also seems that perhaps Jensen has misunderstood Dulles; Dulles seems to believe that these ‘communicated truths’ aid the reception of fresh revelation. He talks of the circular relationship between Scripture, tradition Jensen, ‘Revealtion,’ 21. Ibid, 21. 44 A.B. Caneday, “Veiled Glory: God’s Self-Revelation in Human Likeness- A Biblical Theology of God’s Anthropomorphic Self-Disclosure” in J. Piper, Taylor, J. Helseth, P.K. Eds. Beyond The Bounds, Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (Illinois: Crossway Books, 2003), 197. 45 Wolterstoff, ‘Discourse,’ 23-24. 46 Caneday, ‘Anthropomorphic,’ 198-199. 42 43 12 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward and revelation and how tradition and scripture “...transmit revelation and make it resound in the minds and hearts of believers today.”47 This synthesis is important and getting the balance is essential. Drawing on the previous revelation (communicated through the bible and tradition) to help one interpret the fresh revelation, is a good way to assess legitimacy and authority (as previously discussed) and provides a context for one to understand the God with whom they have a relationship. One must also experience the spirit’s application today within their relationship with God in order to experience a fresh revelation. This relationship was made possible through the incarnation as Jesus fulfilled the old law (Matthew 5:17-18) and ushered in a new covenant between humanity and God (Luke 22:20); yet even some of the most educated in the scriptures missed this (Matthew 23:13-16). The theatre can also relate to this quality of revelation as the theatre is anthropomorphic too, humanity on display for humanity, actors performing for an audience. Savidge comments on the similarities between theatre and theology; “What I see about theatre by looking at your [Todd Johnson’s] three theological principles – Incarnation, community and presence – is that theatre is much more than just actors putting words on a stage; it’s about the relationship it creates. It’s about their relationship with the audience; they are entering into a community...”48 As already stated the bare minimum of theatre is the actor-audience A. Dulles, “Revelation as the basis for Scripture and Tradition” in Evangelical Review of Theology, (April 1997): 21.2, 120. 48 T.E. Johnson, D. Savidge, Performing the Sacred, Theology and Theatre in Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 139. 47 13 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward relationship and is also an important factor in order to test the theatres legitimacy as WG. The modern theatre seeks ‘alternative interaction’ with an audience in order to provoke a reaction, attempting to change the views of those present, but in all forms of theatre the actor-audience relationship is present and the core of the theatre. 49 Narrative RG and theatre are both an event and anthropomorphic but they are also primarily narrative. Without wishing to get into a Narrative Theology debate this paper recognises that narrative occupies a large proportion of biblical literary form, which is of the highest artistic quality among the literary treasures of the world, and is an ‘especially appropriate’ way of expressing God’s revelation. 50 There are many different aspects to the narrative of revelation; firstly there is the literary form of recorded revelation which is often narrative. Many of the books in the bible are in historical narrative form, and must be understood as such, raising certain exegetical considerations.51 The Gospels and Acts also contain stories about Jesus and the apostles, and each story or narrative within these books seeks to reveal something different about God, raising varying exegetical considerations.52 One can learn from characters populating particular stories or parables or from specific divine actions within the narrative. One can also look at the overarching meta-narrative of scripture from Genesis to Revelation C. Smith, “There’s a word for people like you, and that word is audience.” In Total Theatre, (Autumn 2011),:23:3, 20. For a good example (owing to the reviews) see M. Barton, “Speaking a Mutual Language, The Negro People’s Theatre in Chicago” in The Drama Review, (Fall 2010): 54:3, 54-69. Boal, ‘Oppressed,’ 134-135. 50 Fackre, ‘Revelation,’ 2-7. S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 9. A. E. McGrath, “The Biography of God, Narrative Theologians Point to the Divine Stories that Shape our Lives” In Christianity Today, (July 1991): 35:8, 22-24. 51 See - M.D. Johnson, Making Sense of the Bible, Literary Type as an Approach to Understanding (Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), 34-53. Fee, Stuart, ‘Bible,’ 90-106. 52 See - Fee, Stuart, ‘Bible,’ 144-145, 151-160. Swinburne, ‘Revelation,’ 137-145. 49 14 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward (with its Christological centre point), looking at the ‘unfolding drama of the divine deeds’ and how God has revealed himself through the meta-narrative.53 Niehaus suggests that the bible is a narrative succession of covenants through which God reveals Himself to humanity thus advancing the story.54 This narrative succession is evident through the sequence of WG discussed; Moses to the prophets leading to Jesus (the crescendo) who then commissioned the Apostles. One can see all these forms of WG and the consequential RG are different parts of God’s meta-narrative. The Meta-narrative revelation of God is important as it helps one gain a more holistic understanding of how God has revealed Himself; to “pick out any one act or activity as the essence of revelation is to miss the total picture...”55 One must then interpret an instance of revelation within the meta-narrative; “Revelation, therefore, is narrative-specific, the story of the triune God’s self-disclosure, the gift of the knowledge of God, given in the history of God with human beings to human beings.”56 Through contextualising revelation as part of a metanarrative one can understand that any revelation is out of a desire for God to reconcile people with Himself, as this is the message and plot of the meta-narrative of scripture. 57 Fackre, ‘Revelation,’ 2-8. J.J. Niehaus, “Covenant and Narrative, God and Time” in Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society, (2010): 53:3, 558. 55 W.J. Abraham, Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 13. 56 Fackre, ‘Revelation,’ 15. 57 Ibid, 14-15. Swinburne, ‘Revelation,’ 241-245. 53 54 15 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward This has obvious links to theatre as theatre is primarily concerned with telling a story. It is widely accepted that the earliest form of theatre was ritual. Participants would form a chorus and ‘perform’ a ritual involving song and dance; this could be a religious act of worship or designed for a festival.58 These rituals developed a narrative form; a re-telling of a myth or legend held by the community and in Greek culture would be centred on the god Dionysus.59 Aristotle later identified the key constructs of literary form and defined a plot as having a beginning, middle and end which are the essential elements to a story, the importance of which the paper will outline later.60 Stories have always had the power to capture an audience and the theatre has been utilising narrative since it began, indeed it is a ‘house built to tell stories.’61 However, as well as using the power of narrative to communicate a revelation (just as RG must be understood as part of a meta-narrative) a revelation within the theatre should occur within a plot so that the audience can understand holistically the message or revelation of the piece. The meta-narrative of the play provides a context for revelation to occur and be understood by the receiver. M. Griffith, “Telling the Tale’: a Performing Tradition from Homer to Pantomime” in M. McDonald, J. M. Walton, The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 13-14. 59 M. Steinhart, “From Ritual to Narrative” in E. Caspo, M.C. Miller, The Origins of Theatre in Ancient Greece and Beyond, From Ritual to Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 216-217. E. Fischer-Lichte, Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual, Exploring Forms of Political Theatre (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), 17-18. 60 Aristotle, M. Heath, Trans. Poetics (London: Penguin books, 1996), xxii-xxv, 13-17. 61 R. Hasnip, The Mystery and the Passion (Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2009), vii-viii. 58 16 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Wilson reveals that ‘storytelling’ has become increasingly popular as a separate art form, and often actors are not thought of as storytellers on stage.62 This is echoed in modern performance where reviews from different performances show a distinct lack of obvious narrative. 63 This seems to be a consequence of modern theatres emphasis on the spectacle and audience experience. Callow suggests that actors and audiences alike feel a disappointment with theatre and turn to musical and ‘physical theatre’ “which can, properly manipulated, whip an audience up into a state of frenetic excitement...” including acrobatics and circus within the performance, leaving the character and language in blackout and bringing lights up on the realm of choreography. 64 Taking Callow’s point further one may state that more than just a loss of interest, theatre, being the ‘mirror to nature,’ is reflecting modern cultures loss of faith in truth and meaning. Perhaps playwrights and practioners believe there is no longer anything left to communicate through a narrative, and theatre’s only use is to bring enjoyment to an audience. Reason and Reynolds explore the audience experience of watching dance. Most of the interviews they include in their study talk of the grace and beauty of a dance and how the individual was moved.65 However not one interviewee is able to articulate what moved them.66 The audience were moved and entertained and recognised that they should be 62 M. Wilson, Storytelling and Theatre, Contemporary Storytellers and their Art (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 4-5. 63 B. Smith, “The Blue Dragon” in Total Theatre, (2011): 23:2, 27. E. Ayers, “Fierce” in Total Theatre, (2011): 23:2, 28. D.M. Prior, “Twist and Shout” in Total Theatre, (2011): 23:2, 29. D.M. Prior, “Transformers” in Total Theatre 2011, 23:1, 26-27. 64 S. Callow, “Foreword” in M. Chekhov, To the Actor (London: Routledge, 2010), xi. 65 M. Reason, D. Reynolds, “Kinesthesia, Empathy, and Related Pleasures: An Inquiry into Audience Experiences of Watching Dance” in Dance Journal, (2010): 42:2, 71-72. 66 Reason, Reynolds, ‘Audience Experiences,’ 68. 17 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward affected somehow by this shared experience but were unable to understand and articulate what had happened. The theatre must continue to utilise narrative, as through this the audience are able to interpret what they are experiencing and can receive the message of the piece, stopping theatre being a ‘moving’ experience which no one can articulate.67 The paper has previously stated the importance of truth and affirms the belief that there is much truth to be communicated regarding life but this truth may only be found in God. The Conditions of RG Revelation seems to occur within these three specific conditions. It must be a live, present event concerned with people and their relationship with God (making it anthropomorphic) that is communicated and understood through the context of a narrative. If these conditions are necessary for RG then the theatre is exactly the right medium to facilitate RG. If the theatre communicates a message originating from an encounter with God, that adheres to all the necessary tests and revolves around Jesus, to an audience community under these conditions (which seem to come naturally to theatre), then the theatre provides the best possible space for RG to be granted. Yet this still seems inadequate. If the audience are not present or responsive, then the performance suffers and the WG is missed and RG is not granted. Revelatory theatre then must prepare an audience for revelation. Here the importance of narrative becomes 67 Proved by personal experience through the performance of ShangHi by Cirque Du Ceil at the Norwich Theatre Royal, 14th April 2012. 18 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward paramount and the paper explains the necessity of WG being slightly ambiguous in its presentation that has been alluded to throughout. Through assessing Jesus’ problems with people unable to receive him as WG and grasp a RG and how Jesus responded, the paper will show how theatre might prepare its audience to be ready to play their part. The focus will be upon the parable of the sower and the words of Jesus that follow; this occurs in Matthew 13:1-21, Mark 4:1-20 and Luke 8:1-15, but due to limited word count this paper will primarily deal with the Matthew account. In the Matthew account, when confronted by the disciples as to why He speaks to the crowd in parables, Jesus states that it is because they are spiritually blind and deaf, and it seems that if he didn’t they would understand and turn to him (Matthew 13:11-14). This raises the question as to the intended effect Jesus hoped to achieve by speaking in parables. Achtemeier suggests that the parables were not just ‘especially effective teaching techniques,’ but a means to draw the hearer’s attention to their current state of blindness and deafness rending them clueless as to RG. 68 This was out of a desire to encourage people to change their blind state and to want to understand.69 However Talbert supposes that 11-12 show that one must already have faith in Jesus to understand His revelation as “whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him”(12).70 Some also suggest that the parable is told to show that some are simply not P.M. Achtemeier, “Matthew 13:1-23” in Interpretation, (1990): 44:1, 61-62. M.L. Bailey, “The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13” in Bibliotheca Sacra, (1999): 156:624, 443. 70 C.H. Talbert, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 167. 68 69 19 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward intended to understand the ‘secrets’ of the kingdom and therefore highlight the disciples privileged position. 71 However Talbert continues to make the point that the Matthew account hopes to highlight the need for a change within its audience; it seems Jesus’ audience must change themselves before they can understand his revelation. 72 “... [Jesus] use of parables shifts the focus of their [the audiences] encounter away from the transmission of discursive knowledge and in the direction of life commitments and personal preparedness to receive the kingdom.”73 This is also the message behind the parable of the sower. Jesus prescribes two distinct groups; those that don’t understand for varying reason (3-8) and those (like the disciples) who are privileged and granted understanding because they question and search for the truth.74 Therefore one can conclude, using the meta-narrative of scripture, that because Jesus came to save the world not to condemn it (John 3:17) and because God desires all to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), Jesus’ interpretation of the parable and reason for using parables themselves is not to ‘give a strict didactic meaning but to elicit personal reflection’. This causes his hearer to search after truth and soften their hearts, thereby receiving understanding. 75 Shiner comments that this is the case of most revelation, it must lead readers and hearers to new “visions of themselves and their worlds,” which it does through imagination, the medium for revelatory knowledge.76 A revelation must resound with the person in order for it to be received, it cannot just be mediated. It does this through 71 D.A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 376. Ibid, 168. R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 498-501. 73 Achtemeier, ‘Matthew,’ 63. 74 France, ‘Matthew,’ 507-508. Hagner, ‘Matthew,’ 375-376. 75 Achtemeier, ‘Matthew’, 64. France, ‘Matthew,’ 507. 76 W. Shiner, “Creating Kingdom, The Performance of Mark as Revelatory Event” in S.H. Ringe H.C.P. Kim, Literary Encounter with the Reign of God (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 194. 72 20 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward creatively causing a person to reflect upon themselves and search for the truth within the story, “revelation takes the route of art and rhetoric to enter into the soul.”77 This has an interesting application for the theatre. Scott, when answering questions that were sent to her, outlined her beliefs about the nature of theatre; she described one key attribute of theatre as having a veiled message, causing the audience member to ask questions about the production and go beyond the ‘good experience’ of a show.78 The theatre then portrays truth and the audience are in a position to interpret it, discern its legitimacy and then understand it. Through eliciting self-reflection the theatre prepares its audience to receive RG and because they are ready to receive, God can, if He wishes, grant RG (Jeremiah 9:13, Matthew 7:7). Staging Revelation: Aristotle’s concept of Plot, Anagnorisis and Peripeteia This may work well in theory, but provoking an audience to self-reflect and search for truth in practice is a different matter. The paper will now show how Aristotle’s theories and an inclusion of a specific moment of Anagnorisis and Peripeteia help revelatory theatre be staged in practice. 77 78 Ibid, 194. Mary Scott, e-mail message to author, April 4, 2012. See Appendix. 21 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Aristotle’s first principle of tragedy is ‘Plot’ of which he has a great respect; he outlines how a tragic plot is a series of events that lead to one another, a cause and effect chain with a clear Beginning (initial problem), Middle (an Issue caused by the initial problem which consequentially causes other issues) and End (a resulting solution to the initial problem arrived at through the middle problem). 79 Aristotle labels this as a complex plot which is of greater artistic value and has greater effect than a simple plot which merely follows a series of events based around a character. A good plot must have design to it and not be a succession of coincidences but contain cause and effect, birthed by the situation the character finds himself/herself in. The plot then follows what ‘could’ happen (using the laws of probability and necessity) in a given situation and how the character reacts. 80 The plot is effective when all the elements work as a whole and are unified; concerning one action that follows a probable cause and effect chain to arrive at a solution to the initial problem. Through a well constructed plot the theatre reveals what may and is likely to happen in a situation, allowing the audience to understand (due to the context of the plot) and be moved by the narrative. This may be a practical point directed towards the playwright but any performance that seeks to be revelatory should adhere to Aristotle’s concept of plot (as well as provide the conditions prescribed and communicate within the plot truths gained from an encounter with God) as this allows the audience to interpret and understand the moment of Anagnorisis and Peripeteia. Aristotle, Heath, ‘Poetics,’ 13-14. B.F. McManus, “Outline of Aristotle’s Theory of Tragedy in the Poetics” accessed at http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/poetics.html on 18/04/2012. 80 Aristotle, Heath, Poetics, 16-17. McManus, ‘Outline’, 18/04/2012. 79 22 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Within this overarching idea there are two concepts of significance, Aristotle identifies a specific moment and resulting consequence which help the audience to reflect and begin searching for truth - Anagnorisis and Peripeteia. Anagnorisis is the moment when the protagonist recognises a truth about his/her identity or about their present situation, “a change from ignorance to knowledge, disclosing either a close relationship or enmity on the part of people marked out for good or bad fortune.”81 MacFarlane in his translation emphasises the future state of the person, as in a change from what they were to what they will now become. 82 MacFarlane also emphasises the fact that the characters of tragedy ‘fall’ into bad fortune by mistake, they are not distinguished through virtue or vice, but rather are a victim of tragic fate. Therefore, this recognition is not relevant to a single person but is a change for all characters involved with the plot from good to bad fortune or bad to good fortune. 83 This introduces the concept of Peripeteia which is a reversal of the action of the plot to its opposite, in accordance with probability or necessity.84 Aristotle stated that a complex plot had a moment of Anagnorisis which lead to a Peripeteia. The best kind of plot follows a character that is not distinguished because of virtue or wished ill because of vice, but a balanced character that through grave mistakes changes from good fortune to bad fortune or 81 Ibid, 18. J. MacFarlane, “Aristotle’s Definition of Anagnorisis,” 367, Accessed at http://johnmacfarlane.net/anagnorisis-offprint.pdf on 18/04/2012. 83 MacFarlane, 372-373. 84 Aristotle, Heath, Poetics, 18. O. J. Schrier, "A Simple View of “Peripeteia” Aristotle, “Poet” 1452 A. 29-29” in Mnemosyne, (1980): 4:33, 100. 82 23 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward bad fortune to good fortune, depending on the genre; this, in Aristotle’s opinion is what is needed to excite fear or pity in the audience.’ 85 A good example of this, frequently used by Aristotle, is Oedipus gaining the knowledge that he was the murderer and the consequences this invokes.86 These concepts may also be found within stories in the bible. The Prodigal Son, contains these moments as the son has a realisation of his grave mistake and implements consequential actions that result in his fortune changing from bad to good (Luke 15:11-32). It is then essential to have a good protagonist who responds truthfully to their situation and is not distinguished through virtue or vice as the audience must believe him/her and feel either fear, by aligning themselves with this character imagining how a similar thing may happen to them, or pity, as they feel sorry for the undeserved suffering of this character and translate this on to other members of society. This creates the reflection necessary and, depending on the preceding action and consequences in the plot, the audience will search for truths that they can apply to themselves or others in their society depending on how they have responded to the protagonist through Anagnorisis and Peripeteia. The audience can then understand the truths communicated within the context of the plot and because they are searching, are left open for God to grant a revelation. However not all accept Aristotle’s theory and Boal believes Aristotle’s system to be ‘a powerful system of intimidation’. 87 Boal has two major problems with Aristotle’s theory. 85 Aristotle, Heath, Poetics, 20-21. Ibid, 18-19, Sophocles, D. Grene, Oedipus the King (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010). 87 Boal, ‘Oppressed,’ 40. 86 24 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Firstly he states that it only works if there is a clearly defined ‘social ethos ‘within a society which during a revolutionary period (which he assumes modern culture needs) is not present as right and wrong are being redefined. Secondly he argues that the system only serves to purge all that is not commonly accepted within a society, which causes the spectator to merely accept his/her situation rather than challenging it.88 In response there are certain things that are regarded as universally right or wrong. The bible prescribes a moral code to live by (Exodus 20, Matthew 22:37-40) and states that even for those who do not have the bible God’s law is written in their hearts as a conscience (Romans 2:14-15). Therefore no matter what the ethics of the society there is a certain ethic that a revelatory theatre may encourage universally; a morality that is revealed by God. Secondly Boal is right when he states the system may be used to oppress people or to eliminate anything that is against society, but this is due to the specific characters and actions one fills Aristotle’s template with. It is also possible to liberate people from negative feelings provoking a healthy reflection and facilitate positive revelations; simply because the system is misused does not mean it cannot or should not be used to help the theatre become revelatory. Through an inclusion and emphasis on Aristotle’s concept of plot, Anagnorisis and Peripeteia, combined with all the previously described conditions and communicatory guidelines, the 88 Ibid, 40-42. 25 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward theatre creates the best possible space for RG to be given to an audience; a space which can be practically staged and allows truths to resonate with its audience. Conclusion In conclusion this paper has argued that theatre can mediate RG. The paper described that the theatre has all the necessary conditions for revelation to occur. It is an event, anthropomorphic and Narrative, creating a community of humans that experience a live happening story. If that narrative is well constructed and has an emphasis on a moment of Anagnorisis and Peripeteia, then the audience are provoked to reflect upon themselves and their situation, searching for truth within their situation and leaving themselves open to receive revelation. If the narrative then communicates truths learned from a previous encounter with God, which adhere to previous forms of WG in the bible and points to Jesus, the theatre gives the audience the best possible chance to be granted a RG and succeeds in becoming revelatory. Indeed “the theatre was created to tell people the truth about life and the social situation” and that truth must be revealed by God.89 However the paper maintains that the onus is on the audience as RG is granted by God in his grace, and although an audience can be assisted, they must be ready and willing to receive revelation. It seems that the old theatrical saying is true as revelatory theatre is only as good as its audience. 89 S. Adler, H. Kissel, Ed. The Art of Acting (Michigan: Applause, 2000), 30. 26 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Abbreviations WG – The Word of God RG – The Revelation of God UG – Universal Revelation DR – Direct Revelation Bibliography Books Abraham, W.J. Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Adler, S. Kissel, H. Ed. The Art of Acting. Michigan: Applause, 2000 Aristotle, Heath, M. Trans. Poetics. London: Penguin books, 1996. Artaud, A. The Theatre and its Double. Richmond: Oneworld Classics, 2010. Ayckbourn, A. The Crafty Art of Playmaking. London: Faber and Faber, 2004. Bar-Efrat, S. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Boal, A. Theatre of the Oppressed. London: Pluto Press, 2008. 27 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Brecht, B. J. Willet, Trans. Ed. Brecht on Theatre, the Development of an Aesthetic. London: Methuen, 1964. Brook, P. The empty Space. London: Penguin Modern Classics, 2008. Grotowski, J. E. Barba, Ed. Towards a Poor Theatre. London: Methuen, 1991. Grudem, W. Systematic Theology, an Introduction to Biblical Theology. Nottingham: IVP, 2011. Grudem, W. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings on the Christian Faith. Nottingham: IVP, 2009. Gunton, C.E. A Brief Theology of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998 Fackre, G. The Doctrine of Revelation, A Narrative Interpretation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997, 37, 105. Fee, G.D. D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, Third Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Fischer-Lichte, E. Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual, Exploring Forms of Political Theatre. Abingdon: Routledge, 2008. France, R.T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007. Hagner, D.A. Matthew 1-13. Dallas: Word Books, 1993. Hasnip, R. The Mystery and the Passion. Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2009. Helm, P. The Divine Revelation. London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982. Jackson, A. Theatre, Education and the Making of Meanings. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007. Jamieson, L. Antonin Artaud. London: Greenwich Exchange, 2010. Jensen, P. The Revelation of God, Contours of Christian Theology. Leicester: IVP, 2002. Johnson, M.D. Making Sense of the Bible, Literary Type as an Approach to Understanding. Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002. Johnson, T.E. D. Savidge, Performing the Sacred, Theology and Theatre in Dialogue. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Migliore, D.L. Faith Seeking Understanding. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. 28 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Pink, A.W. The Doctrine of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977. Slowiak, J. J. Cuesta, Jerzy Grotowski. London: Routledge, 2008. Sophocles, D. Grene, Oedipus the King. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Stein, R. H. A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible, Playing by the Rules, Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Swinburne, R. Revelation, From Metaphor to Analogy, Second Edition. Oxford: University Press, 2007. Stanislavski, C. E.R. Hapgood, Trans. An Actor Prepares. London: Methuen, 2008. Talbert, C.H. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Torrance, T.F. Karl Barth, An Introduction to His Early Theology 1910-1931. London: SCM Press, 1962. Warrington, K. Pentecostal Theology, A Theology of Encounter. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Wilson, M. Storytelling and Theatre, Contemporary Storytellers and their Art. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Wilson, R.L. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. Wills, J.R. The director in a Changing Theatre. Palo Alto: Mayfield publishing, 1976. Wolterstorff, N. Divine Discourse, Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. Cambridge: University Press, 2000. Wright, N.T. Scripture and the Authority of God. London: SPCK, 2005. Articles Achtemeier, P.M. “Matthew 13:1-23” in Interpretation 1990, 44:1, 61-65. Ayers, E. “Fierce” in Total Theatre (2011): 23:2, 28. Bailey, M.L. “The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13” in Bibliotheca Sacra (1999): 156:624, 443-451. Barton, M. “Speaking a Mutual Language, The Negro People’s Theatre in Chicago” in The Drama Review (Fall 2010): 54:3, 54-70. 29 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Bauckham, R. “Jesus Revelation of God,” in P. Avis, Ed. Divine Revelation Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 1997 174-200. Berkouwer, G.C. “General and Special Divine Revelation” in C.F.H. Henry, Ed. Revelation and the Bible, Contemporary Evangelical Thought. London: Tyndale Press, 1959, 11-24. Black, S.L. “Augustine’s Hermeneutics: Back to the Future for ‘Spiritual’ Bible Interpretation?” in African Journal of Evangelical Theology (2008): 27.1, 3-29. Callow, S. “Foreword” in M. Chekhov, To the Actor London: Routledge, 2010, xi-xxiv. Caneday, A.B. “Veiled Glory: God’s Self-Revelation in Human Likeness- A Biblical Theology of God’s Anthropomorphic Self-Disclosure” in Piper, J. J. Taylor, P.K. Helseth, Eds. Beyond The Bounds, Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Illinois: Crossway Books, 2003, 149-199. D’Amour, L. “Scavenging for Home (or, How I Learned to Take Refuge in Live Theatre While Worrying About the Bomb)” in Delgado, M.M. C. Svich, Eds. Theatre in Crisis? Performance Manifestos for a New Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002, 160-166. Dulles, A. “Revelation as the basis for Scripture and Tradition” in Evangelical Review of Theology (April 1997): 21.2, 104-120. Goligher, L. “The Book That Speaks for Itself: Interpreting the Bible” in Haslam, G. Ed. Preach the Word, the Call and Challenge of Preaching Today Lancaster: Sovereign World, 2006, 7586 Griffith, M. “Telling the Tale’: a Performing Tradition from Homer to Pantomime” in McDonald, M. Walton, J. M. The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 13-35. Haring-Smith, T. “One the Death of Theatre: a Call to Action” in Delgado, M.M. C. Svich, Eds. Theatre in Crisis? Performance Manifestos for a New Century Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002, 97-102. Kaye, N. Giannachi, G. “Acts of Presence, Performance, Mediation, Virtual Reality” in The Drama Review (Winter 2011): 55:4, 88-95. Mangalwadi, V. “The Bible: Is it a Fax from Heaven?” in Evangelical Review of Theology (January 2012): 36:181, 78-87. McGrath, A. E. “The Biography of God, Narrative Theologians Point to the Divine Stories that Shape our Lives” In Christianity Toady (July 1991): 35:8, 22-24. Niehaus, J.J. “Covenant and Narrative, God and Time” in Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society (2010): 53:3, 553-559. 30 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Penny, J. “The Testing of New Testament Prophecy”, The Journal of Pentecostal Theology (1997): 10, 35-84. Prior, D.M. “Transformers” in Total Theatre (2011): 23:1, 26-27. Prior, D.M. “Twist and Shout” in Total Theatre (2011): 23:2, 29. Reason, M. Reynolds, D. “Kinesthesia, Empathy, and Related Pleasures: An Inquiry into Audience Experiences of Watching Dance” in Dance Journal (2010): 42:2, 49-75. Schrier, O. J. "A Simple View of “Peripeteia” Aristotle, “Poet” 1452 A. 29-29” in Mnemosyne (1980): 4:33, 96-118. Shakespeare, W. “Hamlet Prince of Denmark” in the complete Works of William Shakespeare. Ware: Wordsworth Edition, 1996. Shiner, W. “Creating Kingdom, The Performance of Mark as Revelatory Event” in S.H. Ringe H.C.P. Kim, Literary Encounter with the Reign of God. New York: T&T Clark, 2004, 194-212. Smith, B. “The Blue Dragon” in Total Theatre (2011): 23:2, 27. Smith, C. “There’s a word for people like you, and that word is audience.” In Total Theatre (Autumn 2011): 23:3, 20. Steinhart, M. “From Ritual to Narrative” in Caspo, E. M.C. Miller, The Origins of Theatre in Ancient Greece and Beyond, From Ritual to Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 196-217. Turner, M. “Does Luke Believer Reception of the ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ makes all ‘prophets’: Inviting Dialogue with Roger Stronstad.” The Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association (2000): XX, 3-24. Websites Christian Web Foundation, “Revelation of God” in Theopedia, accessed at http://www.theopedia.com/Revelation_of_God on 13/03/2012. McManus, B.F. “Outline of Aristotle’s Theory of Tragedy in the Poetics” accessed at http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/poetics.html on 18/04/2012. MacFarlane, J. “Aristotle’s Definition of Anagnorisis,” 367, Accessed at http://johnmacfarlane.net/anagnorisis-offprint.pdf on 18/04/2012. 31 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward Appendix The email which I sent to Mary Scott (TouchpointTheatre) and the answers she provided (the three questions in bold are the ones I asked her to answer. Hi Ollie My answers are below – some are cross-overs between questions – you can use them, move them around, edit accordingly! 1/ Could the theatre be a legitimate form of 'The Word of God,' or is it already, and if so why? (Word of God meaning the means God chooses to communicate, such as prophecy, the bible, the incarnation etc.) Firstly I think it’s good to identify what theatre is and what it is meant to be. I guess there are various interpretations of this (practitioners and writers will perhaps differ, as will different ‘spheres’ eg. the commercial sector), however, this is what is generally understood as the purpose of theatre: 1. A Mirror - holding up a mirror and reflecting the human condition, societal, political and cultural issues as well as more ‘cosmic’ issues (eg. science fiction etc.). 2. A search for, or portrayal of Truth- seeking out solutions to life’s problems, trying to find answers to man’s problems, man’s longings, and seeking to bring enlightenment and change (ie. ‘catharsis’ – see Aristotle). Some theatre isn’t seeking truth but seeking to portray a world view that the writer adheres to. 3. Embodiment – theatre attempts to identify with real life and real human beings, their lives and situations and by embodying through the enactment through ‘characters’ in given ‘stories’, theatre attempts to bring clarity and aims at bringing change to individuals or society. 4. Vicarious experience – the audience is moved, touched, even changed (through tragedy and comedy) because of witnessing stories and experiences they can relate to – that challenge their core values and beliefs. 5. A veiled ‘message’ – there is a strong argument against using theatre as ‘propaganda’[1] (or preaching) because people recognise and resist an overtly political or religious approach. Through a 32 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward veiled (sometimes quite obscure) message the audience is challenged to think, seek out, ask questions going beyond the ‘good experience’ of the performance and for the experience to resonate beyond. 6. Various Media: theatre uses various media to achieve the above: story telling is primary in theatre, but in addition there is symbol/symbolism, physical expression, music, visual media (stage sets and projection), poetry and installation. In answer to these points above – here’s a biblical perspective: 1. Mirror: Gen 28:13-26 – Tamar plays the role of a prostitute to show Judah his ill treatment of her. 2 Sa 14: a ‘wise’ woman enacts a role and tells a story to David to show him what he’s doing wrong with his son Absalom, 2 Sa 12: Nathan tells a story to help David see himself as the thief and murderer. Some parables reflect the human condition (weeds, seeds etc.) 2. Truth: The parables were not just ‘teaching tools’, as many in the audience were not given the meaning, so the parables had the effect of causing the audience to seek out and ask questions (Isaiah 6 is quoted) and find the ‘truth’. The parables pointed to truths, but required the watchers to work hard too! a. Note: so called ‘secular’ theatre sometimes seeks to find truth through exploration in the creative process - the difference is that Jesus already had truth. b. All writers will communicate (sometimes unwittingly) their own world view through their creative process and give out a ‘message’ which they may want the world to receive! This may be unknown to them; eg. a writer might say my play has no meaning…. The worldview he is (perhaps unconsciously) conveying is that of meaninglessness! 3. Embodiment: ‘The word became flesh’ (John 1) – it didn’t stay as the ‘word’! God’s whole plan involved an ‘embodiment’ of himself because we needed to touch, see, hear and identify with Him in a tangible way. Jesus in this sense was the consummate ‘actor’ in that he perfectly represented God’s ‘character’ to us! Eg. his baptism: this was an act of theatre: he didn’t need to be baptised but was baptised as an act of identification with humanity and our needs/sins and identification with God’s purposes as well as an act of representation (‘fulfilment of the law’). 4. Vicarious experience: Again the parables are a good example here: Jesus told stories that were culturally/socially relevant to the people of the day involving stories about farming, fishing, education, construction, eating/drinking, family, employment, social issues, health, etc. without skimping on the ‘darker side’ (murder, torture, hustling, etc.) and using different approaches – eg. humour, symbolism etc. By doing this, the audience were drawn in to the ‘story’ – vicariously experiencing the plight of the ‘characters’ in the story and being given a chance to identify their own plight and being introduced to the possibility of change. The audience (whilst some were at times offended) were more receptive to him through this than being constantly ‘preached’ to in a direct way. 5. Veiled message: Ezekiel in some of his actions, and again in the parables depicted rather ‘obscure’ issues. The best example of course is the books of Revelation and Ezekiel – which come across like an apocalyptic mega movie! Much of this is veiled for us – causing us to seek out, and seek God and also having the effect of giving us a glimpse into the greatness and un-fathomableness as well as the mystery of God! These kinds of revelations in the bible are important so that we do not reduce God down to our level and to our ‘understanding’. Some of Jesus words and parables are still veiled to some of us after 30 years of reading the bible! 6. Media: whilst it is clear that there is a lot of music, poetry, art and dance in the bible, it is often not clearly identified that about 75% of the bible is ‘narrative’ (as opposed to ‘didactic’ which is about 10%, the rest being poetry etc.). As God chose to communicate in this way and as theatre primarily works through narrative – this is a strong argument for a much greater use of theatre in the Church! a. The Intercessory aspect: when you read the book of Esther – the climactic moment (‘pivot’ in theatrical terms) of the story is when she approaches the King – a very dangerous and courageous thing. By touching the sceptre and interceding between the King and the people she is a 33 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward ‘foreshadow’ of Christ. As we are also called to be intercessors – we too can through our ‘embodiment’ act as an intercessory conduit between God and man. (This is also what the ‘wise woman’ of 2 Sa 14 was attempting to do) b. Prophetic aspect: In Ezekiel 4 and 5 as well as 12, and Isaiah 20, the prophets were commanded to do various prophetic enactments as a warning to the people or a depiction of what would happen to the people, including cutting hair, digging a hole in a wall, building installations, various positioning, Isaiah was told to walk around naked (who says nudity is wrong???!!!), Hoseah was told to marry a prostitute and so on. God seemed to know that it was more effective to do these things than just to ‘speak’ the word! c. Symbolism: Symbols are very prevalent and pervade the whole of the Bible – not least in the NT; baptism is a strong symbolic and dramatic enactment, as are the bread and wine. Again, God chose to use ordinary everyday things to help us to see and experience life with him (washing, eating and drinking) 2/ What can be done to help the theatre to be revelatory? Theatre Artists (writers, directors, actors, choreographers, set designers, etc.) need to be properly trained and discipled. The church cannot expect these people to automatically know how to make theatre more revelatory! The ‘world’ disciples its own – theatre schools, writing courses etc. all show people how to develop their skills and to portray their beliefs, seek out truth etc. – this is something that Christian training institutions need to step up to – going much deeper than teaching people how to write a script from a parable! Christian artists need to learn how to study the bible from an artist’s perspective, see how their work acts as a cathartic influence rather than a propaganda of the gospel. Artists and Pastors need to be encouraged to see that art is not supposed to ‘preach’ but that job is up to the preachers! Artists need to know they are fully supported in prayer and encouragement by the church as well as held accountable – just like any other part of the ‘flock’. They need to be encouraged to excellence, integrity, discipline and Servant hood, and to be understood (even if their art isn’t). To use a parallel : a church congregation or pastor will not understand the details or work of a molecular biologist – nor would they presume to tell that person how to do their work; however, as the body of Christ they would be responsible to disciple and support that person in their ministry. The Church needs to be encouraging and sometimes even participating in the establishment of training facilities for artists ( eg. writers, producers etc.) – not artistically, but in areas where artists are lacking: financial management, administration, strategy, property management, etc. etc. In order for this discipling and training to take place. If the church leaves these jobs to the secular training establishments, then the artists are left on their own to try and work things out! 3/ Why is theatre such a good medium for God to reveal himself through, if you believe it is? In addition to the above points, there is a biblical precedent that the arts (theatre) are: 1. Intercessory: using Esther and the ‘word made flesh’ example – we see the arts as a two way conduit through which we connect God with mankind. 2. Prophetic: Ezekiel is perhaps the best reference here. As artists we are called to explore and portray deeper and perhaps more ‘obscure’ truth. [1] Ref: Philip Yancy “Open Windows” Chapter on Art and Propaganda 34 Staging Revelation: An Argument for a Revelatory Theatre Oliver Ward 35