Is there nothing “we” can be tolerant about?
A bit of background is probably necessary here – Paul is a new play by Howard Brenton which is being staged at the National Theatre at the moment.
Howard Brenton is well-known chiefly because of his play “The Romans In Britain”, which was infamous for Mary Whitehouse launching a private prosecution against the play’s director for staging a production which simulated gross indecencies. Whatever the true meaning of the scenes that outraged Mary Whitehouse and her supporters, that is forevermore going to be remembered.
Try here for some extra background.
But, Paul seems a rather different kettle of fish. This is the story of St Paul, but is told from a secular point of view. I admit now that I haven’t seen it – and anything I refer to is from the reviews I have read. But a secular retelling of a Biblical life is a good thing, as far as I am concerned – it has been done with the life of Jesus countless times – maybe not quite on the same scale, but it has. And ok, Howard Brenton is perhaps no stranger to controversy – but there is nothing particularly controversial about the play except the one element of questioning whether the resurrection actually took place, and I admit that this probably quite rightly causes a little bit of caution in Christians. But it's an interesting theory - forces us to actually THINK about the nature of faith, and question, which can only be healthy, surely?
According to Nicholas Hytner, there were 200 complaints on his desk before the play had even previewed, and all the complaints were on the assumption “that the play is about Paul being homosexual and misogynist; they assume it's going to be a prurient hatchet job.”
I can see how the idea would provoke some worry amongst a certain type of Christian, but why must they always assume that everything that approaches faith from an unusual angle is out to offend and provoke? I may be hilariously isolated on this, but really, guys, learn to relax a little.
Now, to me, this sounds quite good. I’m interested, and I probably wouldn’t be if no one had protested about it – mainly because I would never have noticed it! It might just be me, too, but I love the quotes that bookend this:
Paul
A new play by Howard Brenton
Forgive me brother, let’s keep our relationship strictly commercial. I hear people get killed in Judea because of religious arguments. All I want is a tent, not a new god.
A divine revelation on the road to Damascus moves Saul to renounce his former life. He changes his name, converts from Judaism, and devotes himself to preaching the Gospel.
Taking the remarkable life and moral teachings of this profound religious thinker, Howard Brenton explores the extraordinary phenomenon of faith. While offering a secular reading of the story of Christ’s resurrection, at the play’s heart Paul preaches from his Letter to the Corinthians, the eloquence of which cannot fail to move.
An irreverent, provocative new play by the author of The Romans in Britain.
Though I command languages both human and angelic – if I speak without love, I am no more than a gong booming or a cymbal clashing. And though I have the power of prophecy, to penetrate all mysteries and knowledge, and though I have all the faith necessary to move mountains – if I am without love, it will do me no good whatever.
Doesn't sound as offensive as we're led to believe it is. And presumably people got a bit excited because it looked like this could be a Jerry Springer Mark II. I'm glad they have been disappointed by the fact its not. But then, I couldn't stand the debate on Jerry Springer either - to me, it was a very intelligent and funny show. Yes, I didn't like bits of it, but there's this thing called suspension of disbelief. It's quite handy when you're watching/reading/listening to FICTION. How can people see us in a serious light if the loud minority (and I think it is a minority - and if its not, it should be) take the first opportunity to shout their complaints without thinking whether anyone would seriously be swallowing what they're seeing and believing every word. You don't go to the theatre to learn hard facts, you go to enjoy yourself. Perspective needs to be remembered. After all, how are we supposed to show people the good reasons to follow God when all they see if what "we" don't like, not what we do?
I actually think that this is an important play. There have been so many instances in the last few years where mainstream theatre hasn't been brave enough to put on a play which questions belief - and this production in particular is an important milestone as far as I am concerned. This is a serious play, which is, according to the Metro, "...a rare thing: a thrilling drama that grapples with big ideas."
What's wrong with that? I can't think of a more worthwhile kind of play to see, to be honest. It's a hard balance, I understand that. But its a risk worth taking, and people really should be less sensitive towards interesting ideas - it is not mocking the Christian faith, it asks questions about the nature of faith. And that, after all, is a very worthwhile exercise in a society and culture looking for something to believe in. And besides, the play itself doesn't renounce the gospel, it does not criticise the Christian faith, but in many ways affirms it and backs the moral covenants and values preached.
I want to go and see this play, and I certainly wouldn't have too many doubts with performing it given half the chance - theatre is fantastic for sparking proper involved debate on subjects, and this would release a debate and a half. It might not even be out of place if used in an alpha course, as they both share the common theme of exploration of faith.
I'm angry because they claim to represent Christians. I'm sorry, but I respect myself and my faith too much to be considered represented by you. We can't outlaw people discussing the nature of faith and our own backgrounds - in fact, that's something we don't do enough ourselves.Anyone agree/disagree?
