"...I think any one would wait in vain till the day of Judgment for an Evangelical Church that took itself seriously, unless in all humility he was willing to risk being such a Church in his own place and as well as he knew how."

Karl Barth, 1932

That’s a very interesting comment. Can you refresh my memory where it comes from?

I agree with the first part; I think the second part of that statement illustrates the problem. (That's why I'm curious to check out the context.) I know many fundamentalists and evangelicals who honestly believe they are “being the Church in their own place as best they know how”.

That’s our first hurdle.

It is from the Forward to Vol. 1 No. 1 of Church Dogmatics. I also appreciated something appearing a few paragraphs previous, “Or should I rather weep over the constantly increasing barbarism, tedium, and insignificance of modern Protestantism, which has gone and lost—apparently along with the Trinity and the Virgin Birth—an entire third dimension (let us say once and for all, the dimension of mystery—not to be confused with religiously moral “seriousness”); only to be punished with every possible worthless substitute…”

It was in the context of him addressing the charge of opponents regarding Barth's "Catholicising." Apparently the charge was leveled, in part, because of Barth's appeal to early church fathers. I am not too familiar with Barth's European opponents, but they sound similar to those who this sight seeks to "Orthodoxise" its readers.

I wonder what it is that makes so many Christians so antagonistic to the church of the apostles, fathers, and martyrs.

"Why, in spite of our great wealth and freedom, has the church become so taken with what is cheap, banal and sterile?"

In America, I think the answer lies partly with the concept of an "Everyman." We have an across the board standard of living , which is part of our so-called "success," but is has come at the price of achieving genuine culture. I mean we all eat the same food, shop at the same stores, receive the same education, wear the same clothes, etc. If we accept that kind of banality in our food and clothes, why wouldn't it trickle down to our mentality about church? David Wells explores this correlation in one of his books, but I can't seem to find it. I think my husband and I must of let someone borrow the one I am looking for.

Now that is a fascinating question, De Profundis. Only a few weeks ago my mouth hung open as a Baptist pastor, educated at DBTS, told me that he and his fellows would NOT read Athanasius on the incarnation, nor any other church fathers, because they believed in baptising babies. (It's like a Gap Theory II - God created the Church in the first century, but didn't populate it with real Christians until the 1600's.) Other ideas I hear a lot: that the church fathers didn't understand biblical Greek as well as we do today, that they were unlearned and fanatical and promoted things like self-mutilation.

So a lot of ignorant nonsense is being circulated about the early church at colleges and seminaries, apparently. Possibly to make excuses for the fact that these pastors-in-training do not read very many original sources. But I think it's largely the spectacle of people with conservative instinct finding themselves in the unfortunate position of not actually belonging to the conservative party. And they half-realize it's true and they don't want to turn on the light and find out for sure. What's so desperately sad about all this is that the folks in the congregation are left with no authority on which to base their belief that the scriptures teach Christ's deity, for instance, other than that is how their pastor interprets it.

I'm not desperate for converts to the Church I've chosen. I would be happy if I simply saw more Christians trying to understand what early Christians did, thought, and felt. I would be cheered up all day if I simply heard that some evangelical church somewhere had got into the habit of reciting the creed together every Sunday to remind themselves that they ought to believe what all Christians have always believed. St. Athanasius, like his Lord, belongs to all Christians and gives up his treasures to any who will hear him, to whatever extent they do hear.

de profundis:

Thanks.

It’s really hard to say. In my experience (which obviously is not representative of all stripes of fundamentalists and evangelicals) there is a sectarian animus that informs their passions more vigorously than their knowledge of church history informs their thought. I could point to no better example of this than J. Frank Norris.


WLJ:

I fully agree with the observation that the modern church is completely–and comfortably—submersed in its cultural environment. And insofar as I have read Wells, I think we would take a similar view. If I tried to deny this and someone showed me a current issue of CT or Ooze, my face would turn red.

But cheapness, banality and sterility, though ubiquitous, needn’t be formative. It was the Church under the persecution of Jews, then Rome, and then pagan Europe that gave us the culture we have. (Or had until fundagelicals heaved it.)

I agree that it is difficult to be good and true in an environment where this is a) uncommon and b) embattled, but I still think it speaks to the state of the church as much as the state of the society.

The whole American church, and now especially the emergents, like to dangle historical trinkets around their necks to achieve respectability, but they don’t have the stomach for a genuine Christian culture.

I'm in the middle of my second in a lifetime reading of Christ and Culture, and it seems that Niebuhr makes a similar faux pas when it comes to culture. He tend to see culture as the other side of a dualism (faith - reason, reason - revelation, nature - grace)with culture occupying the organic societal portion of nature or reason. He seems to miss the point that culture is more like the air we breath, not the city in which we make our dwelling.

Well, I’ve been through it three times now and I think it is less helpful with every reading. I need to stop reading the thing.

It was written in 1951, and I think it helps far less than does Eliot’s work in ’48. I’m driven to the conclusion that it just seemed sexier to evangelicals.

AR-

Beautiful.

"It's like a Gap Theory II - God created the Church in the first century, but didn't populate it with real Christians until the 1600's."

Barth mentioned something similar in his forward: that he was attacked for having the audacity to suggest the church began before 1517.

I was tempted to reply to your post that this is a problem that seems particularly rampant among the Baptists. But after thinking about it I realized the Baptists certainly have no corner on the market.

Among the Baptists, however, I think the cause can be traced to a few things. One is their teaching of individual soul liberty and the priesthood of the believer. Both of these teachings can be presented in a biblical way, but seldom seem to be. Baptists, particularly American ones, live and move and have their being in a culture of individual autonomy. I do not know if living in America exacerbate or accentuates this, but...it is there.

I spoke at "my" Baptist church several months ago about theater and made extensive use of Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Augustine and brought it all the way down to Tozer's The Menace of the Religious Movie and the best argument I received was, "Well, I disagree." As if we were having a discussion about Ford vs. Chevy. One thousand nine hundred and fifty years do not mean anything. No theatre? What else are the children supposed to do at Christmas?

Christians come and go to churches as they do shopping malls. There is no fidelity to a local church made up of people they can see, so it is no wonder there is no fidelity to the one holy apostolic church of such a great cloud of witnesses.

We are a branch cut off.

Grace and peace.

de profundis:
I'm glad you decided not to pick on the Baptists, not just because I am one, but because it is a huge problem in evangelicalism at large.
Part of the difficulty with baptist churches, at least in fundamentalism, is that they are usually "independent." Now while that can mean free to act according to one's conscience, because of the liberty of one's soul, as you pointed out, it often, unfortunately, means free to act however one wishes, regardless of history and tradition.


To those who wish to ignore Athanasius(and all the church fathers), they will remain foolishly blind to the mistakes of their age. Posterity will someday mockingly ask "how could they have?" "The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds..." (CS Lewis in his intro to On the Incarnation)

de profundis,

It seems to me the modern adherents of "Reformed Theology" in particular put forth the idea that the reformers founded Christianity.
__

As for theater, I formed my opposition to "religious movies" quite some time ago on my own (I only watched Gibson's movie to confirm that fundamentalist leaders were lying about its content). My reasons are the same as Tozer's points 2, 3, and 5 (I don't like Christian novels for the same reasons), though I think his reasoning is flawed on some of his other points. But, that still does not get us to the idea that theater in and of itself is always harmful. Tozer didn't seem to think movies were always harmful.

From my reading, I see objections based on asceticism, moral content, associations with the kind of people who frequent theaters, etc. I'm still missing the part where church fathers believed the medium itself was inherently harmful.

Dan,

I agree with your first point. On the other hand, a friend of mine recently started sending me "Tabletalk," the monthly of devotionals from Ligonier. I have been pleasantly surprised by the frequent mention of men before the Reformation. In fact, the focus of last month's issue was the 8th century. Calvin is still the most frequently cited source, but I have not found too much myopia.

As for Tozer...I do not get the impression that he was in any way favorable to religious film. Maybe I am missing that part. He speaks neutrally of the motion picture, but I don't find him approving of drama. In particular he cited the potential for using moving pictures as a tool for instruction in schools. From my reading, Tozer would have no problem with a good documentary on the archeology of Palestine, but he would have nothing to do with The Passion.

As far as the immorality of the theater itself two arguments come quickly to mind. First is the fact that it is a form of communication based on deception. That is, the greatness of an actor is dependant upon his ability to convince his audience that he is something he is not. This is Tozer's third argument in Menace, that acting is a violation of sincerity. The Biblical instruction on honesty is quite abundant.

Another argument against theater itself, and especially religious theater, is the origin of the theater. The Dictionary of the Apostolic Church states, "In origin theatrical exhibitions were in honor of the god Dionysus, and were held only on the days of his festivals. Attendance at the theater on such occasions was an act of worship." I believe Tertullian makes much of this in De Spectaculis. Given the origin of the theater, using if for religious purposes clearly violates the command of Deuteronomy 12:29-31 not to pattern worship of the Lord after heathen practices.

You began with a gentle rebuke of some of those who hold to "Reformed Theology." But if all Christians held to the regulative principle of worship, drama would never have found a place in the church. The authority of the Bible alone for faith and practice apparently makes a better slogan than rule.

The Author of truth hates all the false; He regards as adultery all that is unreal. Condemning, therefore, as He does hypocrisy in every form, He never will approve any putting on of voice, or sex, or age; He never will approve pretended loves, and wraths, and groans, and tears.

de profundis,

I did not suggest that Tozer was in anyway favorable to religious films - only that he expressed no objection to non-religious films, unless I missed it. As far as I can tell, his objection to movies was limited to religious movies. And why does Tozer's argument about sincerity not apply to all fiction?

In De Spectaculis, Tertullian rightly objected to gladiatorial games, but I'm not sure the same reasoning would apply to baseball. It seems on theater, too, Tertullian was objecting to something more specific.

I think we're on the same page when it comes to drama in church, or for religious purposes in general. But, I don't see where it was argued that all forms of acting for any purposes is always harmful.

My comment about "Reformed Theology" was not related theater. I suppose I should have left that part out, or posted a separate comment.

Dan,

We’ve gone afield, but apparently I need the exercise in writing clearly.

First of all, I share your aversion to Christian fiction. I have no use for it– at least its contemporary, popular versions. But I have not come to categorize it with drama as inherently immoral. Since Jesus often told stories I am slow to entirely dismiss fiction as genre. What Tozer thought of fiction, I do not know.

As far as athletics, I am not sure how that is connected to drama as a form. Tertullian and others often address them in single works, but their arguments against them have some differences. If baseball players competed in the nude and killed the losing team I’m sure they would object. Even with the civilities and non-violence of the game of baseball I believe the fathers would still object as the 40,000 people in attendance hardly act in a way conducive to living soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age. Their arguments against such spectacles often focused upon to arousal of ungodly passions and excitements that did nothing to foster spiritual growth. Such would be true of the dramas, circuses, and athletic competitions.

As for Tozer and theater, I think you are missing his objection to drama as a form. I am not sure you see his distinction between the technology of the moving picture and the form of drama. Tozer has several statements indicating an aversion to drama itself:

Within the last few years a new method has been invented for imparting spiritual knowledge; or, to be more accurate, it is not new at all, but is an adaptation of a gadget of some years standing, one which by its origin and background belongs not to the Church but to the world.

Here I think he is speaking of drama as worldly and not motion pictures because two sentences later he says,

For the motion picture as such I have no irrational allergy. It is a mechanical invention merely and is in its essence amoral; that is, it is neither good nor bad, but neutral.

And then goes on to cite the profit of the motion picture in educational settings. A little later he seems to state clearly that the problem with religious movies is the dramatic element not the moving picture element:

By the religious movie I mean that type of motion picture which attempts to treat spiritual themes by dramatic representation.

Tozer’s first two arguments are focused on the religious drama in the church and do not say much against drama as a form. But his third argument is clearly an argument against the form itself.

The religious movie is a menace to true religion because it embodies acting, a violation of sincerity.

Is it only wrong for believers to be insincere or is it wrong for all? Throughout the third argument Tozer consistently speaks of man in general. He never states that it is wrong for Christians as a group apart from unbelievers to act, but that it is wrong for any man to act because all men are unique individuals. Notice the universality of the very first paragraph [emphasis mine throughout],

Without doubt the most precious thing any man possesses is his individuated being; that by which he is himself and not someone else; that which cannot be finally voided by the man himself nor shared with another. Each one of us, however humble our place in the social scheme, is unique in creation. Each is a new whole man possessing his own separate "I-ness" which makes him forever something apart, an individual human being. It is this quality of uniqueness which permits a man to enjoy every reward of virtue and makes him responsible for every sin. It is his selfness, which will persist forever, and which distinguishes him from every creature which has been or ever will be created.

In your first post you stated, “Tozer didn't seem to think movies were always harmful.” Yet in his third argument he states,

Bacon has said something to the effect that there are some professions of such nature that the more skillfully a man can work at them the worse man he is. That perfectly describes the profession of acting. Stepping out of our own character for any reason is always dangerous, and may be fatal to the soul. However innocent his intentions, a man who assumes a false character has betrayed his own soul and has deeply injured something sacred within him.

.

Most of the remaining arguments are again focused on drama in the church. However in the sixth argument he does say,

Let a man dare to compare his religious movie show with the spirit of the Book of Acts. Let him try to find a place for it in the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians. Let him set it beside Savonarola's passionate preaching or Luther's thundering or Wesley's heavenly sermons or Edwards' awful appeals. If he cannot see the difference in kind [emphasis Tozer’s], then he is too blind to be trusted with leadership in the Church of the Living God. The only thing that he can do appropriate to the circumstances is to drop to his knees and cry with poor Bartimaeus, "Lord, that I might receive my sight."

This statement, along with his earlier distinction between the motion picture and drama and his mention of the worldly origin of theatrics would lead me to suppose that Tozer was against theater. But his third argument absolutely clinches it. If acting is wrong for any man, how can theater be right for any man?

Perhaps the strongest statement of all is in the fourth argument,

To this I reply: The movie is not the modernization or improvement of any scriptural method; rather it is a medium in itself wholly foreign to the Bible and altogether unauthorized therein. It is play acting---just that, and nothing more. It is the introduction into the work of God of that which is not neutral, but entirely bad. The printing press is neutral; so is the radio; so is the camera. They may be used for good or bad purposes at the will of the user. But play acting is bad in its essence in that it involves the simulation of emotions not actually felt. It embodies a gross moral contradiction in that it calls a lie to the service of truth.

The statements “...medium in itself...”, “...entirely bad”, “...is bad in its essence...”, and “...gross moral contradiction...” all seem to indicate an aversion to drama itself.

As for how these arguments apply to fiction I have cannot say. Since I was raised in a fundagelical environment my exposure to such arguments is still somewhat recent. I am still trying to work through all the ramifications. One of the main differences I see between literary fiction and theater is the absence of necessary deceit in fiction. That is, the characters are entirely imaginary so there is no necessary involvement of deceit or insincerity of someone pretending to be what they are not.

I joy at the chance to delve deeper into this issue and Tozer’s treatment of it. I named my son Aiden, so I obviously have quite an affection for the man. Thanks for the interaction Dan. I pray we can both continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and His will.

Apologies for the extended quote, but this might help add light to Tozer's views:

"I must note here a modern method of dealing with human fear, human guilt, human sin. Psychology is somewhere at the center of it. I speak of the expansion in our day of the old Greek idea that realistic drama could be utilized as a moral catharsis. The Greek authors said they wrote all of the harshness and terror, anguish and sorrow into their famed plays so those in the audience could experience the complete sweep of human emotions. Men and women were supposed to be able to live through it all by watching the portrayal by someone else.
I have never believed that the Greeks succeeded in bringing their idea to any desired moral fruition. In our day, however, the concept is still advocated. It is being carried out to a ridiculous extreme.
Many persons who make up our television and theater audiences, who may have never shed a real tear for any real person, will actually weep over the emotional trials and tribulations of the TV and movie actors. A moral catharsis, the Greeks said. Get yourself so identified with some imaginary character that you can live out all of your emotions. Then you will experience a kind of purification.
You will experience nothing of the kind!
What will happen is that you will become an artificial zombie! You will get so wrapped up in your feelings for what is unreal and artificial that you will never have right feelings of concern for what is real and true." - Jesus, Author of Our Faith

I think Tozer's objections based on the detrimental effects of acting to the soul of the actor, have to be taken very seriously. The lives of our Hollywood celebrities appear to be miserable failures when it comes to things that normal humans value, and that has to be coming from somewhere. Naturally, I disagree with Tozer about the impossibility of images to convey truth, but I do have authority for that.

Re: comment 9. I was never anything but Baptist so I can't speak too authoritatively about other sects. However, we made a survey of the denominations a while back, and it did seem to me that the Baptist ideal has largely become the American ideal, and that most evangelical churches are fairly Baptist in their outlook, even if not in name or in their position on the sacraments.

I do wonder if it's the other way around from what you've proposed: that Baptists embraced the local church in lieu of the universal church, and are now losing the local church too? The church I grew up in is basically a throwback to what Baptist fundamentalism looked like in the 50's and in those circles, "local church" was everything. To leave your local church was compared to spiritual adultery, and many theorized that the local was the only kind of church that actually exists. I know that this represents the original Maranatha viewpoint, at least.

de profundis,

Yes, I reread The Menace of the Religious Movie and see where I missed it.

I was next going to bring up the idea of deceit, but you did it for me:

One of the main differences I see between literary fiction and theater is the absence of necessary deceit in fiction. That is, the characters are entirely imaginary so there is no necessary involvement of deceit or insincerity of someone pretending to be what they are not.

I can't see where acting involves deceit, since everyone knows (or should know) the actor is pretending to be someone else. Deception happens when people don't know someone is pretending. I see a huge difference between pretending for entertainment and pretending to commit fraud.

When my daughter was quite small, she would stand behind a box and pretend she was a Sunday School teacher. It never occurred to me to punish her for lying. Should I have? And I'm not being sarcastic. That's a sincere question.

Is the basis for objecting to all theater then, that acting is where the harm comes from?

David,

Thanks for the Tozer quote. That definitely deserves consideration.

Dan,

As for your daughter, the obvious question to answer is WWJDD? What Would James Dobson Do?

(Laugh track plays...)

Without discounting the possibility of self-deception, I think there is somewhat of a difference between a child's pretending and someone acting. I suppose every parent has to trust the Lord for wisdom to know if their child is pretending too much or in inappropriate ways.

"Is the basis for objecting to all theater then, that acting is where the harm comes from"

No.

I know what you mean, Dan. It strikes me that play-acting is a natural faculty of human beings and I don't believe anything truly natural to us can be evil in itself. Oftentimes playacting is something that we do either to make one another laugh or to practice a skill, either seriously or in play, that we need. I've already said that we have to think seriously about what Tozer said about this, but it seems like it would be a mistake to jump up and make a vast rule against or a blanket judgment of all playacting. Maybe there's something more specific that we need to get at, relative to having a career in theater.

BTW, I happen to have read the reminisces of a man who was present at some conference where Mr. Tozer got up and spoke with scathing disapproval of Christian fiction. He said that fiction was false and therefore could not be a vehicle of truth. (What about Christ's parables, everyone immediately wondered?) I have to wonder if Tozer was on to something but perhaps did not make fine enough distinctions to really say it the way we need to hear it. (He wasn't college educated - just widely and deeply read, as I remember.) If that's true of his ideas about fiction, then maybe that gives us a clue to what use we should make of his statements about acting.