Tocar y luchar

Quotes from the amazing documentary about the music program in Venezuela. Sir Simon Rattle calls Venezuela the most exciting place for classical music in the world.

"We think of social programs providing food and shelter and housing and medical care... But by feeding people's souls they will find a way to feed themselves and house themselves and find the basic human necessities, and they will, at the same time grow into people of significance and contribution. ...But when you establish the inner life of somebody, which is done through these music programs, then the possibility of those lives to contribute, to enhance and to uplift society is endless."

-Mark Churchill, Dean of New England Conservatory

"It is evident that music has to be recognized as an element of socialization, as an agent of social development in the highest sense, because it transmits the highest social values such as solidarity, harmony, mutual compassion, and it has the ability to unite an entire community and express sublime feelings."

"Originally, art was by the minority for the minority, then it became art by the minority for the majority, and we are beginning a new era where art is an enterprise by the majority for the majority."

-José Abreu, Founder of Venezuela Youth Orchestra System

Worship and Life in the 1st-Century Church

Gathered from the collection of texts called the Apostolic Fathers

I feel a little sheepish because I read The Apostolic Fathers with a fairly shallow purpose in mind: to find evidence for the way worship was conducted in the 1st and 2nd centuries. I had been told that the Orthodox Church had preserved the 1st century's practices, but hadn't found out for myself, and was a little sceptical that it would be so easy to prove. So, here are my findings, so that you can also read them for yourselves.

(The Apostolic Fathers are the writers who followed just after the 12 Apostles, in many cases they knew them personally or even were their disciples.)

Music:
"Thus it is proper for you to run together in harmony with the mind of the bishop... Therefore, in your unanimity and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung. You must join this chorus, every one of you, so that by being harmonious in unanimity and taking your pitch from God you may sing in unison with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father, in order that he may both hear you and, on the basis of what you do well, acknowlede that you are members of his Son." Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:1-2.

This seems to reflect a practice that Christians at the time were familiar with: singing in "unison" (presumably a melody against a drone or "ison" as in Byzantine music), singing congregationally and singing a cappella. I know that seems like a lot to read in tangentially, but my argument has to do with the analogy to the bishop. Ignatius wants the congregation to be united to the bishop, and so gives them as an example of this the music that they sing in worship. The analogy wouldn't work so well if the music were complicated, sung by a small, elite group only or accompanied by instruments. Take it or leave it.

Prayers for the departed:
"Let nothing appeal to you apart from him [Jesus], in whom I carry around these chains (my spiritual pearls!), by which I hope, through your prayers, to rise again." Ignatius to the Ephesians 11:2.

It seems to me that Ignatius expects that the prayers of the Ephesians will make his coming martyrdom more perfect, and I see no reason to believe he expects their prayers to stop after he has been martyred. Note also the casualness of the clause "through your prayers" which suggests this is not a new concept but a well-established practice to pray for martyrs.

Salvific power of the Eucharist:
"...Breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote we take in order not to die but to live forever in Jesus Christ." Ignatius to the Ephesians 20:2.

No matter how you read it, it's a pretty "high" view of the Eucharist.

Clergy:
"Similarly, let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters [i.e. priests] as God's council and as the band of the apostles. Without these no group can be called a church." Ignatius to the Trallians 3:1.

The New Testament itself mentions these three categories of clergy, but our modern translations tend to de-emphasize their presence, namely by choosing the word "overseer" over "bishop" when translating "episcopos."

Ignatius was martyred sometime between the years 98 and 117. His letters' main theme seems to be "follow the bishop." Remembering that he is commenting on a practice rather than introducing one, it seems to me to indicate a clear and distinct (and authoritative) clergy was formed quite early (as in while the apostles were still alive) rather than 100s of year later like I used to think."

Real Presence in the Eucharist:
"They [those who hold heretical opinions and don't care for the widows, the oppressed, etc.] abstain from Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up." Ignatius to the Smyrneans 6:2.

Fasting days:
"But do not let your fasts coincide with those of the hypocrites [i.e. Jews?]. They fast on Monday and Thursday, so you must fast on Wednesday and Friday." Didache 8:1

There is a wide span of time that we think the Didache was written: from the year 50 to the 200s. However, the editor says it was probably compiled by 150 and most likely before 100. This helps to date the origin of the practice of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, which would be even earlier than the date of the writing of the Didache.

Closed Communion:
"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the the name of the Lord, for he Lord has also spoken concerning this: "Do not give what is holy to dogs."" Didache 9:5

I find it hard to think that people would accept to call their children "dogs," so I also think this suggests infant baptism.

Assurance of Salvation:
"Seeing that God's righteous acts toward you are so great and rich, I rejoice with an unbounded and overflowing joy over your blessed and glorious spirits; so deeply implanted is the grace of the spiritual gift that you have received! Therefore I, who also am hoping to be saved, congratulate myself all the more because amony you I truly see that the Spirit has been poured out upon you from the riches of the Lord's fountain." Epistle to Barnabas 1:2-3

Written between 70 and 132. Those who hope to be saved seems to include every Christian--namely, even the ones who have the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts. Surely if anyone can claim assurance of salvation it would be these people!

Lord's Day, not Sabbath Day--Sunday, not Saturday:
"It is not the present sabbaths that are acceptable to [God], but the one I have made; on that sabbath, after I have set everything at rest, I will create the beginning of an eighth day, which is the beginning of another world. And that is why we spend the eighth day [Sunday] in celebration, the day on which Jesus both arose from the dead and, after appearing again, ascended into heaven." Epistle to Barnabas 15:8-9

This seems to be in response to Judaizers who would naturally be confused as to why Christians were not keeping the Sabbath. Personally, it makes sense that Christians would celebrate on the day of Resurrection, over and above the Sabbath.

"Shoulder angels": (I thought this was funny and interesting)
""Now hear," he said, "about faith. There are two angels with a person, one of righteousness and one of wickedness.... The angel of righteousness is sensitive and modest and gentle and tranquil.... Whenever all these things enter your heart, you know that the angel of righteousness is with you.... Now observe the works of the angel of wickedness. First of all, he is ill-tempered and bitter and senseless, and his works are evil...."" Shepherd of Hermas 36:1-4

Written c. 70s?-175. Apparently a very popular book among Christians at the time. I don't mean to suggest this parable needs to be taken literally, but it made me think that there might be something to those old cartoons with the 2 consciousnesses that would appear on character's shoulders. It's fun to think that 2nd-century Christians thought that, too. ...Let alone the fact that there is something very profound being said here.

Servants of God must struggle:
"For the evil desire is savage and only tamed with difficulty, for it is terrible and utterly destroys people by its savageness; in particular, if servants of God become entangled in it and lack understanding, they will be terribly destroyed by it." Shepherd of Hermas 44:2

Again, there are overtones of the real possibility of losing salvation. In other words, what we do with our lives (even after becoming Christians) matters. Also, I include this because of the suggestion of salvation as process since the evil desire it tamed with "difficulty." In other words, we have to try.

Written-out, communal prayer:
""Sir," I said [i.e. Hermas to the Angel], "everyone is eager to keep God's commandments, and there is no one who does not ask the Lord to be strengthened in his commandments and obey them..."" Shepherd of Hermas 48:1

Hermas is preparing to ask a question, and he prefaces it by telling the angel what the believers' current practice is. He could not make his point, unless he knew for sure that everyone was asking this in prayer, in other words I don't believe he's talking about what ideally everyone SHOULD ask for in private prayer. This seems to give evidence for an established rule of prayer where everyone reads the same written-out prayer, and/or for communal prrayer in church when the whole congregation asks for these things at the same time.

Fasting, again:
""I am fasting, sir," I responded, "just as I have been accustomed to." "You do not know," he said, "how to fast to God, and this useless fast that you are keeping for him is not a fast."" Shepherd of Hermas 54:2-3

He goes on to explain that true fasting is living a clean life and giving alms, etc. Though this might seem to be an objection to fasting, I don't think it is: he couldn't make this point unless everyone was already used to fasting and needed a wake-up call. (Who of us doesn't?) The reader's response shouldn't or wouldn't be to stop fasting, but rather to pay more attention to living pure, etc.

The Archangel Michael:
"And the great and glorious angel is Michael, who has authority over this people and guides them, for he is the one who puts the law into the hearts of those who believe. He, therefore, examines those to whom he gave it, to see if they have kept it." Shepherd of Hermas 69:3

Dedicated to those who are named Michael. :)

Hockey Theme Song Race

I love that this is currently the top-rated new Hockey Night in Canada theme. Particularly the comments which range from going-along-with-it to is-this-for-real?. (Do you really have to ask?) Nothing brings a nation (especially a nation of Canadians) together like satire!

A Feast for the Senses

Why do I love sacraments? Because of the rich new meanings they give to physical objects and actions. Here's a compilation of as many liturgical objects and actions that I can think of from the church year. See how many you recognize and have a gut response to. I welcome additions to my list.

bread
wine
water
oil
charcoal
wax
flame
lamp
wood
paint
gold
altar
white
red
blue
green
purple
hair
head
eyes
ears
mouth
neck
chest
hands
feet
rope
fruit
wheat
fish
meat
kiss
adorn
bow
kneel
eat
drink
complete
pray
cross
vest
read
sing
dance
submerge
wash
scrub
polish
spit
carry
knock
shout
burn
bury
cense
breathe
cover
dye
repeat
abstain
bake
ferment
fortify
smell
touch
taste
see
hear
offer
receive
preach
stand
weep
procéss
bless

Another politically correct Canada Day anthem

Enjoy!

O Canada, our living quarters and aboriginals persons, including Inuit, Métis, and First Nations land
True patriot love, implying affection, but not in a sexual way, in all thy gender non-specific spouse offspring's suggestion
With glowing hearts, (phrase censored--sorry), the true North strong and free
From far and weight-challenged, O Canada, we stand or sit on guard for thee
Non-denominational, gender-unspecified supreme being keep our land, glorious and free
O Canada, we stand ready to sit down and discuss our differences in a civilized manner for thee
O Canada, we stand ready to sit down and discuss our differences in a civilized manner for thee

Piss Christ

Or, "A Polemic Against Kitsch"

A controversial photograph was the centre of debate today among some friends, and intermitent thinking about this issue has prompted me to try to circumscribe my thoughts on art, namely the kind that is traditional, modern, conservative, shocking, true, good or otherwise.

"Piss Christ" entered my life while I was writing a paper on the death of classical music. It, a photograph by Andres Serrano, won the Visual Arts Award at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Arts in 1989. I probably would not know this photograph, the artist, the award or the gallery if it hadn't been for the fact that the religious right chose this piece (as well as nude photographs of homosexual males with HIV/AIDS symptoms by Robert Mapplethorpe) to spur on a controversy over public funding of modern art. The resulting loss of faith in art by the general public and pressure on government officials resulted in a gigantic loss of funding to public art in the US, contributing directly to today's pathetic and fragile state of the arts in general in America and beyond.

Naturally, I am sensitive to this issue.

Interestingly (to me at least), I am sympathetic to both projects (Piss Christ and Mapplethorpe's above-mentioned series). They have become symbols for me of the rift between audience and artist, and the fount for interminable questioning about the place and value of so-called high art in the 21st century--and not simply the role of "modern" art, but also of traditional art: that generally impotent category of once cutting-edge masterpieces reduced by misunderstanding and misuse to fuzzy feelings, fat-cat comfort and background noise. Okay, I let my objectivity lapse there, but is anyone surprised I feel this way? I am, a little bit.

For this reason, among others which I will explain briefly, I like Piss Christ.




If I didn't know it was a crucifix submerged in urine, I might call this a strikingly haunting picture. The overexposure which whites out the features of Christ's face, the eerie orange glow, the streak-effects which make it look like some ancient artifact (like perhaps the faded picture of a distant ancestor one would find in an old desk)--I might put this in a frame on my wall. "Piss Christ" is beautiful. I don't think anyone will disagree with this if the image is taken at face value. Clearly, it is its interpretation that turns many people off.

I can't blame people for the typical reaction they have to this image because I had it when I first saw it, and surely the artist expected this reaction; it is part of the work's content/message. If I can attempt to put words in people's mouths, a typical reaction is that the artist is defacing Christ's likeness and thus blaspheming all that He is by soaking the image in a disgusting substance. The message taken from this interpretation is that the artist hates Christ (and by association Christianity and Christians) because he shows no respect for their sacred images. (Some interpreters go on to suggest some kind of association with corroded family values, etc. but I think this is an uncalled-for assumption and rather politically motivated.) The response is emotional, which is certainly what the artist intends, but I'm not sure he anticipated the form of this response; namely, "We need to stop funding modern art because it is clearly bad, disgusting and morally corrupting."

I would like to note that "bad" and "in bad taste" are two different things. I feel that "Piss Christ" may be in bad taste but that it is not "bad." Here's why:

The other way to interpret this image, and the way the artist hoped (on some level) it would be interpreted was that it is a shocking wake-up call to a culture that has become overrun with comfortable, kitschy images of Christ. The result is an over-spiritualizing of God Incarnate. By putting a crucifix in urine he didn't mean so much to say I'm desecrating Christ (though he was playing with this association--a visual "pun" maybe?) as I'm thinking about what it really means for God to become human. I'll leave it at that because any attempt to offer a comparison will probably lead to me composing verbal variations on "Piss Christ" which is not what I'm interested in doing (one is enough).

As for Mapplethorpe's photos... the incorrect interpretation is to call them gay porn. This gives me cause to mourn our fallen nature which too often equates nudity with sex. Though this is the reality now, I hope Christian readers will remember that this was not the Original intention. But throw in some passive reference to sodomy and it's a recipe for reaction. But why can't the reaction be sympathy or sorrow? Why is it invariably rage and censorship? Can it be that the World is better at self-control than...? I'm only asking.

I really am asking myself today why I am so moved by radical modern art. And also the flip side: why am I not moved by traditional art that is supposed to be so edifying?

To be honest, I am frequently moved by the great masterpieces of the 18th and 19th centuries, but not in the ways most other people are.

I do find Beethoven's 9th's "Ode to Joy" movement exhilarating, but overall I find it excessively idealistic and naive. Not to mention that the poetry is decidedly anti-Christian with its secular-humanistic raving about a brotherhood of man, its imagery of God as some kind of impersonal Buddha that's just as pleased as punch with everything, and the grossly sentimental "I kiss the whole world" (my paraphrase).

I find I have to turn a blind eye to what's really going on in "traditional" art in order to get the enjoyment out of it that everyone else seems to be getting. If we were to censure all art that was not edifying there would be virtually nothing left, certainly very little of what we are most familiar with and now call "great."

For me, modern art faces contemporary issues, and similarly produces in me a willingness to face myself honestly.

Contemporary art has always done this: in the 18th century it dealt with the achievements of humanism, the rise of individual rights and freedoms, the dominion of Man over the chaos of nature. In the 19th century it was the overthrow of all forms of hierarchy, of following one's fantasies. These works of art certainly are powerful, but they are not "safe." The only reason they are not rated PG-13 or R is because "we have become more primitive" (great words from a colleague) and can't or refuse to understand the art we enjoy. If we did, we would be more careful with art and not use it as decoration or background noise.

20th-century art, called "Modern," deals very emotionally with feelings of isolation, perdition and despair that naturally come from our culture's embracing of secularism. Why would I want to interact with these terrible feelings? Well, first of all, I don't like "Modern" art; I only study it because I have to. It makes me want to point my finger and say, "See? This is what the so-called Enlightenment has brought you! Are you happy now?" But secondly, I admit I sometimes feel lonely, lost and sad. Perky music doesn't always reflect who I am. Sometimes Mozart's version of "sad" is too antiquated for the version of sad I feel.

I don't know if I believe in the transcendent quality of art: did Bach capture some essence of beauty or goodness that flows from 1720 into my soul? If he did it's a miracle, and it is God's work, not Bach's. Mostly, I am extremely skeptical of statements about the fundamental goodness and beauty of traditional art for reasons made clear by some of the above paragraphs. I do not believe under any circumstances that something is good because I (or you) like it. It is my experience that I like it if it is bad. Conversely, if I don't like it at first and come to love it over time, maybe it is good. So much for Pachelbel's Canon. (That was a little bit tongue-in-cheek.)

How can I summarize my thoughts? I haven't even asked an eighth of the questions that are floating around in my mind. Here are some more of them:

What is the difference between "feeling good" and hedonism?
Can shock art have a place in society?

I firmly believe that traditional, religious art belongs in Church. That is not a place for "experimenting": it is a place for innocence and straightforwardness (not shock-value, cynicism or sarcasm), order and peace, focus and the most uplifting thoughts on virtue, goodness and beauty.

I am impatient with art that is purposefully ugly. "Message" art--popular lately--like installations and the stuff that happens at "happenings" is rather weak and seems to me to be more fitting for parliament or a cocktail party than a gallery or concert hall.

That being said--what is the role of art outside the Church? For me, this notion is explained through art as prophecy. The prophets were compelled to do things and say things that would have been absolutely inappropriate had they done them in the Holy of Holies rather than out in society in general.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with the abstract and the absurd? If so, why do I like these genres best?

Forgive me for my chaotic sentences and thoughts. I hope one day I can find a way to say what I mean.

Thy Will Be Done

This is currently my favourite prayer, from the small compline:

O Master, Christ God, Who has healed my passions through your Passion and has cured my wounds through Your wounds, grant me tears of repentance, for I have sinned greatly against You. Transform my body with the fragrance of Your life-giving Body and sweeten my soul with Your precious Blood from the bitterness with which the evil one has fed me. Lift up my downcast mind to You and take it out of the depths of Hades, for I have no repentance, I have no repentance. I have no consoling tears, such as the tears of innocent children, which ensure their place in Heaven. My mind has been darkened through through earthly passions. I cannot look up to You in pain. I cannot warm myself with tears of love for You. But, O Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ, Treasury of good things, give me thorough repentance and a diligent heart to seek You; grant me Your grace and renew in me the likeness of Your image. I have forsaken You--do not forsake me! Come out to seek me; lead me to Your pasture and number me among the sheep of Your chosen flock. Nourish me with them on the grass of Your Holy Mysteries, through the intercessions of Your most pure Mother and all Your saints. Amen.

When I first encountered this prayer, I was attracted to it in a masochistic way. I must admit that I liked the melodrama of "I have no repentance, I have no repentance" and "do not forsake me!" It felt like I could really expressing myself, or at least stir up emotions I thought I should have. This is not ultimately why I like this prayer.

After a recent talk with Fr. Gregory, I have come to like many prayers a lot more, namely Psalms (which tended to seem similarly melodramatic). Instead of reveling in the gratuitous morbidity of such penitential prayers, I have started to see in them the exact opposite: a childlike optimism for a fairy-tale ending. Notice the verbs: "grant" "transform" "sweeten" "seek" and "nourish." They are simple, wholesome and action-oriented. The only way this prayer becomes morbid is if one prays it without believing it will be answered. In that case, the supplicant is left in "tears" and "bitterness;" sinfully unrepentant and forsaken. He pleads and pleads and pleads and gets no answer.

On the other hand, if the supplicant believes that God is "good and loves mankind" he also knows that God desperately wants to sweeten, nourish and grant and is already seeking and transforming. It becomes impossible not to be excited about saying this prayer. Another thing is that it detaches our sin from God's mercy. The supplicant can come to terms with his lack of repentant tears and his seemingly continual forsaking of God. And yet when he prays "Do not forsake me!" while still in this state, there is an inevitable answer: "Okay!" How can we believe God will forsake those he is seeking to save? This is why I like this prayer.

This leads me to a point about God's will I want to make. We know God's will runs along the lines mentioned above: seeking, transforming, sweetening, nourishing. And yet the line in the Lord's prayer "Thy will be done" is such a difficult thing to say earnestly. Even the fact that we ought to say it reminds me that there is a fundamental conflict inside me (see Romans 7). But we also know that it is through suffering that we are saved. If I didn't feel a little twang of discord when saying "Thy will be done" I think I would have cause to be worried.

How can these two things co-exist, the fresh-air trust in God's goodness and the ominous rumble of competing wills that reminds me I'm still "alive"? How can I wrestle and be victorious at the same time? What a weird feeling that must be, like a final chord that makes you want to jump out of your seat and double-over in pain.