things i learnt #3: stage directions

'Things I Learnt' is an occasional blog series, highlighting some of the less obvious knowledge learnt at school that's still useful in everyday life today - for this author anyway. To read previous posts, click here.



Something learnt at school, relearnt at university, refreshed when I returned to education as a secondary school teacher, and still hounding me (at least) weekly are four words: stage left, stage right.

You think it would be simple, as the diagram above illustrates (which I'm almost considering getting tattooed on the inside of my wrist at this point.) But the problem has always been that the wires between "house" and "stage" in my brain seem to get tangled. A lot.

I remember learning basic blocking at age 11 or 12 in drama class. Now, my junior school Drama teacher was an interesting fellow. He was also our cricket coach (I say "our" - I mean the 10-15 or so of us who were actually interested, come the summer term. It's the only school sports team I was ever guaranteed a place on. But that's another story.) He seemed pretty prolific when it came to organising the school drama productions. However, in the classroom, he seemed a bit less interested. Mind you, years later as I was attempting to teach junior school Drama in the same room to the same age group, I had a lot more sympathy - not to mention even less patience. Again, another story.

And so he would write the directions on A4 pages, and stick them on the relevant walls. Then we played games akin to the church hall favourite, Port & Starboard. Often at the start of every lesson for a few weeks. And yet can I remember? Can I heck.

Several years later, and I'm attempting to completely bluff my way around a production meeting with some actors on a short film. Getting carried away, I think I've convinced one of the leads to do exactly as I want him - but crucially, as he blocks it out, he keeps coming from the wrong direction into frame. I'm getting more and more exasperated, and he's getting more and more confused. Eventually, he realises I've got the directions the wrong way around.

Never give an actor the upper hand, because you'll never get them back.

Another couple of years on, and I'm about to play the Port & Starboard game with my own Second Form class (that's Year 9 for those from normal schools.) I stick up Upstage and Downstage. And then I'm suddenly standing in the middle of the room with Stage Left and Stage Right signs in my hand. I haven't a clue.

I end up asking the class if anyone wants to show if they can remember which is which. I think it worked. I still wasn't sure.

Stage directions are from the perspective of the stage. But then, how come stage up and stage down don't seem to correspond in the same way? And so I get stuck, time and time again.

Technically therefore, I'm not sure if it counts as a 'Thing I Learnt'. Really, it's a 'Thing I Am Still Learning Again and Again and Again...'

Exit stage left right SIDE...

doctrine #6 - contextualisation

Full credit to the continuously magnificent Jon Birch @ AsboJesus


Question: What are the limits of contextualisation and inculturation?

Contextualisation of a church and its theology is somewhat of a balancing act: on one end, the Word; on the other, the indigenous culture; and at the pivot, the fledgling body of believers trying to make sense and gain an understanding of it all. I can immediately envision three key problematic areas in this.

Firstly, the more a church adapts to a specific culture, the more danger there is of it becoming homogeneous – that is, composed of elements specific to that culture, logically therefore running the risk of being closed to those from other backgrounds. A church must always maintain a welcoming, all-inclusive nature ahead of giving any population complete ownership.

Secondly, there is the issue of syncretism – the attempt to reconcile contrary ideas, and melding practices together despite opposing practices. In some areas of the church, fusion of methodologies should not be problematic, such as finding a good style of music for a worship setting. But there has to be a limit. For example, different methods of leadership may be appropriate and recognizable to different cultural settings; indeed, a missionary may wish to structure a congregation in a way that reflects local tradition. But consider if oppression, even violence, towards women was prevalent locally – this is not something the leadership of a church could reflect in its decision-making, as it goes directly against Christian values

In truth, we realise that on our seesawing scales of Word and culture, the poles are not really balanced – and so thirdly and finally, inculturation must be limited, with the one fluctuating pole (culture) in practice filtered out by its steadfast opponent (the Word). I therefore conclude that although methodologies can always be contextual, the Word is not; and like so many things, the real balancing act is not to find a line down the middle of the two poles to deliver a message, but to, in fact, keep that very message – the Gospel message – central at all costs.


Editor's note: There was a bibliography for this essay, but the named articles are not freely available (journals, etc.). Boo, and indeed, hiss.

doctrine #5 - person of Christ

Question: How recognisable do you think the Christ of orthodox Protestantism would have been to the early church?

Initially, it is pleasing to note some difficulty in pinning down some of the specifics: perhaps we have not warped the message over time as much as we sometimes think. As the Council of Chalcedon (451) indicated, provided Christianity recognizes the twofold nature of Christ being “truly divine and truly human” (McGrath, 273) there is a much lesser importance to how people explore or articulate it. Indeed, it appears many models of contemporary thinking are shared with the church of Acts: recogising Jesus as Messiah, as Saviour, as Son of God – terms all used by Paul and other NT authors. Equally, the 20th century rediscovery in recognition of Jesus as the bearer of a new relationship to the Holy Spirit (McGrath, 300) holds forth strongly in post-Pentecost Acts.

However there remain sore points of conflict (Gunton, 245-72.) For example, though Luther declared Christ’s legacy was both pro me (for me) and pro nobis (for us) it appears that we Protestants continues to skew pro me, with a heavy emphasis on personal relationship – leading to the emotive thinking that Scripture must speak to us as individuals for us to truly believe and accept it. Equally we can be tempted to equate our God-consciousness with how Jesus related to God – something Friedrich Schleiermacher was conscious to try and differentiate, and perhaps the apostles would have been shocked by, having walked with Jesus and known his perfection in the flesh. Whilst of course relating to God is a matter of a personal heart – for only we know our own minds – it is often key to reflect on the corporate reverence the early church held Christ in.

Though we might think nothing of calling Jesus God, the NT writers were all too conscious of just how much weight this statement carried – and so on the three occasions it clearly appears in Scripture, the words are picked and chosen with extreme care (McGrath, 281.) Perhaps we would do well to think the same.


Bibliography
K Tanner, ‘Jesus Christ’ in C Gunton, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, (Cambridge: CUP, 1998) pp. 245-72.
A McGrath, Christian Thelogy: An Introduction, fourth ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007) pp. 272-305.