The media response to David Davis is full of the most rampant cynicism, but as today's Observer pointed out, much of the public is having none of it. Like me, the public has done the calculation and figured out they think Mr Davis means it. Apparently, again according to the Observer, the rest of the blogosphere agrees.
I stand by my open letter to Mr Cameron. Now is the opportunity to put clear blue water between the Conservatives and Labour, yet at the same time force people on the Left, such as myself, seriously to consider voting Conservative. He should see the opportunity to portray Mr Brown as a threat to our liberties and welcome Mr Davis back, as I recommended.
But the media won't have it. On the Today programme on Friday morning, some idiot hack was saying that there was still no better explanation than that Mr Davis meant it. It ain't rocket science, unless you're a cynical idiot hack. As for Eddie Mair on PM on the day, he should be fired for the interview with Dominic Reave. The interview was nothing more than a brazen attempt to spin the story as Tory splits and Cameron losing control. It was partisan, biased and incompetent: when Mr Reave gave simple and straight answers, Mr Mair read stuff into it that was simply not there.
In fact, if you were a conspiracy theorist, and apparently there are plenty of you out there (unfortunately, I suspect you don't read my blog, unless people other than my Mum and a few friends are reading it and just haven't said so), here's one to try. The media is run by liberals like Mr Mair, and they are fighting a rearguard action to prevent the incoming Conservative administration through organs such as the Independent, BBC News, the News Quiz (apparently, someone complained about them!) and the like. There is the legislative curtailing of our freedoms, then there is the attempt to hook our kids to the media (those stupid Government targets for toddlers and ICT - I shall endeavour not to subject my children to the child abuse that would be meeting them), and then there is the above manipulation of the media.
Unfortunately, as I am neither paranoid and gullible, I cannot believe it; and my satirical skills prevent me setting up the appropriate scaremongering blog as a fake. Someone else can do it - I've given you the pointers. Only thank me if you're a satirist - I guarantee my reading your work, if it's funny.
Sunday 15 June 2008
Romans 2:1-16
Most of my talks in church have been all-age of late, but I preached a sermon to the adults only today, and as they work in written form, here it is:
Romans 2:1-16 – No Leniency for the Law-Abiding
Chapters 1 and 2 of Romans are not easy. They speak of the state of human beings without Christ. Guilty before God. Caught in the power of sin. No excuses. Paul showed that in Romans 1 for the unbelieving world. He showed that they had no excuse for not knowing God. Creation gives them sufficient knowledge of God. But they suppress it because they don't want to glorify God and thank Him. So God hands them over to the power of sin. They have a knowledge of God's righteous decree. They ignore it. And so they are guilty. You can imagine the situation in Rome as the letter is read. Someone stands up. “Here, here, Paul. You tell it like it is. It's dreadful what's going on out there. Praise God that we have His laws and know the way to go.”
Paul answers back in verse 1 of chapter 2.
You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgement on some else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.
The language of this section and the discussion of the law in verses 12 to 16 persuade me that Paul has a very specific audience in mind for these words. He's talking to the synagogue. Many of Rome's Christians will have come from synagogues. Synagogue thinking was in their bloodstream. In the synagogue there were two groups of people. There were the Jews, to whom he will speak specifically in verses 17 to 29. But in this first half of the chapter, he's not just speaking to them. He's speaking to a second group as well. Those Gentiles, non-Jews, who had found in the synagogue a refreshing change from Gentile society. They realised that the Jewish Law offered a superior lifestyle. They found the God of Israel plausible. These so-called God-fearers are also being addressed here. Paul's speaking to all who, verse 13, hear the law, that is, the Law of God. He's speaking to all who, verse 2, share his basic view of God's judgement. He's speaking in his own day to the synagogue. He's speaking in the 21st century to all who hear God's Law. He's speaking to all who call themselves Christians. And his message is stark. Some parts of this passage sound a little tricky. But the main argument is simple and devastating. If you came to church to be patted on the head today, you'll leave disappointed. If you came today thinking you're the kind of person God wants around, forget it. Until we despair of such things, we won't hear God's real good news. That's where Paul is taking us today: to the point where we despair of our own righteousness.
Righteousness is a key word in Romans. To be righteous is match up to the standards of God's Law. The righteous person is found innocent and worthy of eternal life in God's court. People in the synagogue thought themselves righteous. They thought they would be fine on the last day. Paul has a shock in store for them and us. He has two main points: God judges deeds by the highest standard. God's kindness and patience will come to a terrible end.
Here's the major point.
God judges deeds by the highest standard.
Let's read some verses together – follow along as I read them out: Verse 1 again:
You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgement on some else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.
Verse 6:
God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”
Verses 9 and 10:
There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew and then for the Gentile; but glory, honour and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew and then for the Gentile.
Verse 13:
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
Judgement is all about what you do. Hearing the law, verse 13, won't do. Judging others by the law, so agreeing with its standards, verse 1, won't do. Those in the synagogue listened to the law. They agreed with its judgement on the outside world. They nodded sagely in agreement with its standards and condemnations. They knew something of God. But the judgement is by deeds. God doesn't make people His favourites because they know about Him. God does not show favouritism, verse 11. Which means verse 12:
All those who sin apart from law will also perish apart from the law, and all those who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
If a person sins not knowing God's standard, they die. As we saw two weeks ago, they're without excuse – they have the message of creation. But if we sin knowing God's standard, then we'll be judged by it. And the standard is high. In fact, it couldn't be higher. Verses 7 and 8:
To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, He will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
What kind of doing good wins glory, honour and immortality? Persistent doing good. No mistakes, nor errors, nor slip-ups. The words Paul uses mean unwavering, unfailing, without fault. The standard is unchanging perfection. If we want to be righteous, that's the mark we have to hit. But self-seeking, being motivated by what we can get for ourselves, will kill us. As soon as we pursue our own agendas, so reject God's truth and follow evil, that's it. Our English Bible here has done very well with “self-seeking”. Some, verse 7, seek glory, honour and immortality. They seek God – for these things are of God. Others, verse 8, are self-seeking. Again and again their deeds are besmirched by ambition and selfishness. There are the God-seeking and the self-seeking. And as soon as self-seeking slips in, we belong to that group. Isn't that all of us? If we are measured by the standards of the Law, are we not lost? If all we have is knowledge of God and His laws, we have nothing. All we have on the last day is the very Law that exposes and condemns us. And that day is coming. Paul's second devastating point:
God's kindness and patience will come to a terrible end.
Paul has shown us that when God judges, He judges by works and His standard is perfection. And Paul has said that there is no favouritism. But there is one hope surely? What about God's kindness, tolerance and patience? Won't He forgive His people their sins?
Paul has said to his audience that their best will never do. So they start to hope that God will overlook their sins. They want God to be lenient. Let me say that this is common thinking in Christian circles today. It is increasingly common to think of God as lenient. That precious word forgiveness has been used to support this view.
Firstly, some Christians think that God grades on a curve. It's as if heaven is for those who get 60% or more on the being good exam. God is forgiving. Get your 60% and He'll forgive the rest. But essentially heaven is for good people. And that viewpoint quickly leads people to a second. It doesn't really matter what you believe. It matters how you live. We talk about deeds mattering more than creeds. Or we see the beautiful character and lifestyle of a non-Christian and think, “oh, God will surely let them in.” In conservative, Bible-believing circles a similar view has found respect. People say, “God welcomes you into the church because of Jesus. Your sins are forgiven. You have a wonderful relationship with God. But you need to work at that relationship. God gives you His Spirit so that you can. But you need to keep that relationship going and growing. Because on the last day, God will judge whether you've fully lived that relationship.”
I've myself said things pretty close to that. But, again, human effort is required. This time, God begins the process and we finish it up. But again, our deeds will be judged. Without our deeds, no heaven. We have to contribute something, we have to be good, do the right things. It boils down to something like this: God is gracious to people who are good. Or: Do your best and God will forgive the rest. Perhaps more subtly: God forgives people who live for Him.
So, like the people Paul was writing to, Christians hope that God in His kindness, tolerance and patience will be lenient towards their failings. We hope that He will be lenient because we're doing enough to win His leniency. Paul's answer to that thought is a massive blow. Look at verse 4:
Do you show contempt for the riches of God's kindness, tolerance and patience, not realising that God's patience leads you towards repentance?
God won't accept they've done their best and then forgive the rest. His patience with them now is so they get their lives sorted out, up to scratch. God is patient with people now not because He's lenient. He wants people to repent. And when people don't repent, His patience means this, verse 5:
You are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath.
Notice how Paul repeats that word “wrath” for good effect? God is kind and patient to everyone at the moment. He hasn't come in His full wrath fully to reveal His righteous judgement on all. But one day that kindness and patience will end. And anyone who does not get themselves sorted out, who does not repent and match up to God's standards is going to find wrath stored up against them.
The hope of Jew and God-fearing Gentile in the synagogue was that God would acknowledge their listening to and approving the law, even keeping much. They hoped that God would then forgive their failings. But Paul says “no”. God judges deeds, and judges them by the highest standard. God's kindness and patience will come to a terrible end. The only option is repentance. And we're only in Romans 2. Paul hasn't told us about Jesus yet. That repentance is a turning away from sin to perfection. Our only hope in Romans 2 is to reach the standard of God's judgement. And that is no hope at all. There is no good news in our passage. The reason for that is simple. This passage is here to drive us away from any last trace of trust in our own righteousness. Every moment in which we are unrepentant concerning our sins stores up wrath. Oh, we may be hearers of the law, but verse 13 tells us we must do the Law. We may approve God's judgement of outsiders, but verses 1 and 3 tell us that we judge ourselves and our own sins when we do that. No, we are no better off than unbelievers. As verse 14 points out, they too sometimes do what the Law requires. And we see that every day. As verse 15 points out, they have crises of conscience. They have thoughts accusing them as well as thoughts defending them. You don't need to be a God person to be a good person.
It may even be that our sins are very secret. But look at verse 16.
This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets.
Even our secret sins will be found out. We can't hide our secrets from God. Verse 16 puts an end to every hope that we can trust in our own righteousness. Let me ask you this question. If I put on a video of edited lowlights from your thoughts this week, would you stay? Would you ever come again? I wouldn't. My secrets condemn me. They reveal how I am part of humanity under sin. Even going half and half with God won't do. Verse 16 surely ends our hope. Our righteousness is in tatters. However good we are, we'll never meet the standard. And God simply is not lenient. Hope is gone. Or is it? Verse 16 again:
This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
When Paul proclaimed his gospel of Jesus Christ, he proclaimed this judgement. This message prepares us to accept what comes next: The good news. God's judgement is by the highest standard. But there was One who, in the words of verse 7, sought glory, honour and immortality, to whom God has given eternal life. Jesus Christ.
Our hope is not that we'll reach the standard or God will be lenient. Our hope is Jesus Christ. He reached the standard for us. And God the Father has given Him glory, honour and immortality. That glory includes being the Saviour of sinners. It reveals just how perfect, righteous and obedient Christ was that God declares Him Saviour of sinners.
We're celebrating Communion, so let me explain what I'm saying using Communion as an illustration. And as you receive, consider each step as acting out the drama of your salvation. We're going to use the Prayer of Humble Access. Look at it on the service sheet. Look how we say that we come “trusting not in our own righteousness.” We declare ourselves unworthy. Then we look away from ourselves to Christ, to His death. We ask for cleansing through His death.
Then, the meal having been consecrated, we come. We kneel – in heart, even if our bodies can't manage it. We are not worthy. Who are we? We are those who have not matched the standard. We have no hope of leniency. But what do we receive? We receive Christ. We receive tokens of that righteous body that died a sinner's death. We receive tokens of that righteous blood that was shed. We receive by faith the Righteous One. And so, one with Him, the Righteous One, we meet the standard, because He met the standard for us and we have received Him by faith. And receiving Him means receiving His righteousness. So we need no leniency from God. We need no leniency because God has shown us something better. He has shown us His grace.
Thursday 12 June 2008
Dear Mr Cameron
I've been meaning to write for a while. The very thought of writing to a Conservative Party leader fills me with a sense of self-loathing: I was brought up on the Left, I rejoiced with tears in 1997, I consider the privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s insanity and as far as I am concerned, much of the economics of Thatcherism, for which I consider you to stand, is morally neutral to the point of immoral.
But I am disillusioned. I was under the illusion that the current Administration would be a panacea for the ills of post-Thatcherite Britain. Oh, the work of Chancellor Brown on child poverty, pensioner poverty, Third World debt poverty and the like were of vital importance: these are the unsung songs of British political achievement. When I read "Servants of the People" and found listed the unspun success of Labour, I wept. But then we went into Iraq: oh, you voted for it, and some would consider that unforgivable, but I voted for it (well, not really, because I'm not an MP). I honestly could not believe Mr Tony Blair would commit our troops without the best and highest of motives, without being convinced that it truly and undubitably was the right thing to do.
But I am writing today because of Mr Davis. I have always liked his style, even if his policies were on occasion too strident, and was not surprised when someone worked out he was Britain's most straight-talking politician. Maybe I am being duped again, but I believe in his resignation: it seems personal folly and political folly, even party folly. But he is right. Our fundamental freedoms are at issue here. And I find myself believing that actually I believe in political freedom and personal liberty from the State before I believe in the reduction of poverty. We were not made to be comfortable slaves.
There is now the possibility of a deeply plausible conservative narrative: Conservatism loves Britain, and now Britain is under threat. It is under threat from the environmental catastrophe, it is under threat from authoritarian government, it is under threat from political apathy caused by over-centralisation and the concentration of power in Westminster and Whitehall. Britain, Britain as a temperate nation of rain and green grass, of civil liberties and gentle but real civic concern, the Britain of Mr Major's foolish yet true aphorism, needs conserving.
Could I vote for you? It would pain me greatly: I would look at the cross on the ballot paper and consider myself a traitor. But perhaps the point has been reached where political discourse will be restructured, and Conservatism can recast itself as the party of the environment, local decision-making and traditional freedoms, being therefore truly conservative of this country.
When Mr Davis is returned to Parliament, re-appoint him Shadow Home Secretary, or Shadow Attorney-General; commit to repealing 42 days and give him a remit to restore our freedoms. Put someone serious in charge of the environment and nick Liberal Democrat policies concerning switching the burden of tax on wealth creation onto pollution. Finally, get someone of Mr Straw's calibre onto constitutional questions so far as Parliamentary powers and the powers of local government are concerned: strengthen the Houses and commit to devolving power down. Whatever the outcome, it will be good for our country, whether it sharpens our government or puts a (genuinely - we don't want to be let down, like we were post-1997) reforming administration in their place.
There are tears in my eyes.
The Incorrigible Amateur
But I am disillusioned. I was under the illusion that the current Administration would be a panacea for the ills of post-Thatcherite Britain. Oh, the work of Chancellor Brown on child poverty, pensioner poverty, Third World debt poverty and the like were of vital importance: these are the unsung songs of British political achievement. When I read "Servants of the People" and found listed the unspun success of Labour, I wept. But then we went into Iraq: oh, you voted for it, and some would consider that unforgivable, but I voted for it (well, not really, because I'm not an MP). I honestly could not believe Mr Tony Blair would commit our troops without the best and highest of motives, without being convinced that it truly and undubitably was the right thing to do.
But I am writing today because of Mr Davis. I have always liked his style, even if his policies were on occasion too strident, and was not surprised when someone worked out he was Britain's most straight-talking politician. Maybe I am being duped again, but I believe in his resignation: it seems personal folly and political folly, even party folly. But he is right. Our fundamental freedoms are at issue here. And I find myself believing that actually I believe in political freedom and personal liberty from the State before I believe in the reduction of poverty. We were not made to be comfortable slaves.
There is now the possibility of a deeply plausible conservative narrative: Conservatism loves Britain, and now Britain is under threat. It is under threat from the environmental catastrophe, it is under threat from authoritarian government, it is under threat from political apathy caused by over-centralisation and the concentration of power in Westminster and Whitehall. Britain, Britain as a temperate nation of rain and green grass, of civil liberties and gentle but real civic concern, the Britain of Mr Major's foolish yet true aphorism, needs conserving.
Could I vote for you? It would pain me greatly: I would look at the cross on the ballot paper and consider myself a traitor. But perhaps the point has been reached where political discourse will be restructured, and Conservatism can recast itself as the party of the environment, local decision-making and traditional freedoms, being therefore truly conservative of this country.
When Mr Davis is returned to Parliament, re-appoint him Shadow Home Secretary, or Shadow Attorney-General; commit to repealing 42 days and give him a remit to restore our freedoms. Put someone serious in charge of the environment and nick Liberal Democrat policies concerning switching the burden of tax on wealth creation onto pollution. Finally, get someone of Mr Straw's calibre onto constitutional questions so far as Parliamentary powers and the powers of local government are concerned: strengthen the Houses and commit to devolving power down. Whatever the outcome, it will be good for our country, whether it sharpens our government or puts a (genuinely - we don't want to be let down, like we were post-1997) reforming administration in their place.
There are tears in my eyes.
The Incorrigible Amateur
Sunday 8 June 2008
Enough said
What's wrong in the Church today? Why do churches shrink, or end up having little to say? Why do people die, face up to their Maker and wonder why their church-going didn't get them right with God? Want to find out my fundamental criticism of too much of even the British, well-founded evangelical ministry I experience? CLICK HERE.
Saturday 7 June 2008
Why religious tolerance comes first
I've been sitting on this thought for a while, but now it's time to try it out. Religious tolerance is the most important one.
Let me begin with John Stuart Mill:
"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs [to be] protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them ..." (On Liberty, Chapter I Introductory)
Well, we are at a point in Britain that Mill in Victorian England could not have imagined. In On Liberty, Mill begins his main argument in Chapter II with a discussion of "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion", assuming that the argument for freedom of the press has been won and arguing that freedom of opinion is a necessary and healthy right. In Chapter III onwards, he argues concerning Individuality - essentially, free action.
In the UK today, the majority opinion, certainly in the elite, would not argue with Mill on the freedom of action to be secured to all men, to develop their individuality as they wish, within certain liberal constraints (I will not enter the debate on Mill's harm principle here, and remain intentionally vague).
But freedom of thought is not secure in the UK, and freedom to develop as an individual is secured firstly by freedom of thought. Now the magistrate is being used by the "prevailing opinion and feeling" to fight against against all who will argue that any action of man within those constraints could still be morally wrong.
In that context I believe religious freedom is the biggest challenge facing us. Religion is under double attack from the "prevailing opinion and feeling". Firstly, it is being privatised: "that's your opinion, what you believe, fine." Secondly, where it expresses opinions on questions in the public square, it is condemned as backwards (issues in medical ethics) or as verging on the illegal (particularly homosexuality). I remember hearing Sir Iqbal Sacrani very carefully state the Muslim position on homosexuality on Radio 4 and knew that he would be accused by someone of a hate crime simply for doing so. He did not encourage attacks on homosexuals, he did not say that they were lesser human beings because of their sexual orientation or even for their acts, which he did say were wrong. He merely said that the acts were wrong. Yet he was accused of stirring up hatred. Why? Because what is really wanted is the rendering of the opinion illegal. Thought policing.
I will grant that for the Britain of the 20th century, the tests of liberalism were questions of racism, sexism and homophobia, and at the street level they remain huge issues. I face and challenge all three on a regular basis at school. As a Evangelical Christian, combatting these forms of intolerance is about whether all people are in the image of God or not, which they are. But for the liberal elite, tempted to thought policing, the challenge is religious tolerance: they need to put it first. Let people say what they want on ethical, social and family questions, from whatever religious or atheistic viewpoint they want. The only rules ought be no ad hominem arguments and no calling on people to act violently against others for their beliefs or actions.
After all, once the liberal destruction of the family is complete and children live in completely unstable homes and go on to live completely unstable lives, someone will be wanting to find the truth that counters the "prevailing opinion and feeling".
Let me begin with John Stuart Mill:
"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs [to be] protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them ..." (On Liberty, Chapter I Introductory)
Well, we are at a point in Britain that Mill in Victorian England could not have imagined. In On Liberty, Mill begins his main argument in Chapter II with a discussion of "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion", assuming that the argument for freedom of the press has been won and arguing that freedom of opinion is a necessary and healthy right. In Chapter III onwards, he argues concerning Individuality - essentially, free action.
In the UK today, the majority opinion, certainly in the elite, would not argue with Mill on the freedom of action to be secured to all men, to develop their individuality as they wish, within certain liberal constraints (I will not enter the debate on Mill's harm principle here, and remain intentionally vague).
But freedom of thought is not secure in the UK, and freedom to develop as an individual is secured firstly by freedom of thought. Now the magistrate is being used by the "prevailing opinion and feeling" to fight against against all who will argue that any action of man within those constraints could still be morally wrong.
In that context I believe religious freedom is the biggest challenge facing us. Religion is under double attack from the "prevailing opinion and feeling". Firstly, it is being privatised: "that's your opinion, what you believe, fine." Secondly, where it expresses opinions on questions in the public square, it is condemned as backwards (issues in medical ethics) or as verging on the illegal (particularly homosexuality). I remember hearing Sir Iqbal Sacrani very carefully state the Muslim position on homosexuality on Radio 4 and knew that he would be accused by someone of a hate crime simply for doing so. He did not encourage attacks on homosexuals, he did not say that they were lesser human beings because of their sexual orientation or even for their acts, which he did say were wrong. He merely said that the acts were wrong. Yet he was accused of stirring up hatred. Why? Because what is really wanted is the rendering of the opinion illegal. Thought policing.
I will grant that for the Britain of the 20th century, the tests of liberalism were questions of racism, sexism and homophobia, and at the street level they remain huge issues. I face and challenge all three on a regular basis at school. As a Evangelical Christian, combatting these forms of intolerance is about whether all people are in the image of God or not, which they are. But for the liberal elite, tempted to thought policing, the challenge is religious tolerance: they need to put it first. Let people say what they want on ethical, social and family questions, from whatever religious or atheistic viewpoint they want. The only rules ought be no ad hominem arguments and no calling on people to act violently against others for their beliefs or actions.
After all, once the liberal destruction of the family is complete and children live in completely unstable homes and go on to live completely unstable lives, someone will be wanting to find the truth that counters the "prevailing opinion and feeling".
The Early Music Show
There's something disturbingly middle-class and aging about having post titles that reflect the BBC Radio 3 Saturday lunchtime line up!
Why is the Early Music Show so called? Why was the label Das Alte Werk so called? After all, the history of music-playing culture stretches back as far as our knowledge of civilisation, and that must be thousands of years! Most people have held in their hands books that contain songs thousands of years old, whether the Psalms of the Bible or songs in Hindu or Buddhist works; and if the Guru Granth Sahib contains Hindu hymns, which it does, perhaps there are works thousands of years old there too. Mesopotamia, India, China and South America can look back over thousands of years and so have music that really is early. Yet the Early Music Show is essentially about the Baroque period of European music: Bach, Handel, Vivaldi - yet they were around only 300 years ago. Das Alte Werk produced recordings of these and composers of a similar period. If you get all the way back to Tallis, then you are getting into musical prehistory on that basis, and he was around under Henry VIII, from whom at school we dated the Early Modern Period!
I am not so worried by the Eurocentricism of that, not because Eurocentricism isn't wrong, but because there are plenty of other people bothered about that online, and they no doubt have commented interestingly. My problem is the underlying assumption in terms of history. Everything pre-Bach, pre-1750, can be called early and covered in that context. Only the most recent deserves any more careful differentiation. We assume the superiority of the contemporary, that everything else is just old, even early, but have you listened to Bach and compared him to Britney? Exactly, no, you haven't. It would be an insult to Bach's quality even to consider making the comparison. And I apologise.
But this one goes deeper. We assume that what is modern renders the wisdom of the past obsolete. However, what we in fact find is that there is nothing new under the sun, that humanity's big issues have already been faced up to, and, if Romans 1:30 is right, that much of progress is inventing evil. We fail to listen to the past at our peril; we exalt the contemporary to the point of idolatry; and we dismiss those who disagree with the Zeitgeist - shutting them up with laws dressed up in the language of tolerance - at the cost, potentially, if J S Mill, that great Victorian liberal, was right, of progressive thought itself.
Why is the Early Music Show so called? Why was the label Das Alte Werk so called? After all, the history of music-playing culture stretches back as far as our knowledge of civilisation, and that must be thousands of years! Most people have held in their hands books that contain songs thousands of years old, whether the Psalms of the Bible or songs in Hindu or Buddhist works; and if the Guru Granth Sahib contains Hindu hymns, which it does, perhaps there are works thousands of years old there too. Mesopotamia, India, China and South America can look back over thousands of years and so have music that really is early. Yet the Early Music Show is essentially about the Baroque period of European music: Bach, Handel, Vivaldi - yet they were around only 300 years ago. Das Alte Werk produced recordings of these and composers of a similar period. If you get all the way back to Tallis, then you are getting into musical prehistory on that basis, and he was around under Henry VIII, from whom at school we dated the Early Modern Period!
I am not so worried by the Eurocentricism of that, not because Eurocentricism isn't wrong, but because there are plenty of other people bothered about that online, and they no doubt have commented interestingly. My problem is the underlying assumption in terms of history. Everything pre-Bach, pre-1750, can be called early and covered in that context. Only the most recent deserves any more careful differentiation. We assume the superiority of the contemporary, that everything else is just old, even early, but have you listened to Bach and compared him to Britney? Exactly, no, you haven't. It would be an insult to Bach's quality even to consider making the comparison. And I apologise.
But this one goes deeper. We assume that what is modern renders the wisdom of the past obsolete. However, what we in fact find is that there is nothing new under the sun, that humanity's big issues have already been faced up to, and, if Romans 1:30 is right, that much of progress is inventing evil. We fail to listen to the past at our peril; we exalt the contemporary to the point of idolatry; and we dismiss those who disagree with the Zeitgeist - shutting them up with laws dressed up in the language of tolerance - at the cost, potentially, if J S Mill, that great Victorian liberal, was right, of progressive thought itself.
Music matters
Perhaps I should demand payment from Bose, the soundsystem manufacturers. My parents bought one after hearing mine, and now I'm going to write a very positive blog.
In fact, the very fact we now have a competent - even excellent - sound system means I listen to less music. Having a proper system leaves little room for lazy listening, such as whilst marking (I teach, remember) or other activities. Suddenly music is a completely multi-layered experience, full of depth, genuine bass and subtle structure.
My favourite moment in music is in Bach's Matthäuspassion. You can find the order of the movements at http://www.bach.de/werk/bwv/244b.html, and the full lyric rather awkwardly laid out at http://www.musikaltnikolai.de/dmat2-20.html. I'm looking at 47-51 here. You have Pilate's question, "what evil has he done", and the soprano recit of all his good, followed by "Aus Liebe will mein Heiland sterben" - an explanation of Christ' fundamental driving motivation - out of love to die for his people, that "eternal destruction and the punishment of the judgement may not remain on my soul". Then the crowd returns with violence to sing: crucify him. The juxtaposition in both lyrical and musical terms is gut-wrenching.
In fact, the very fact we now have a competent - even excellent - sound system means I listen to less music. Having a proper system leaves little room for lazy listening, such as whilst marking (I teach, remember) or other activities. Suddenly music is a completely multi-layered experience, full of depth, genuine bass and subtle structure.
My favourite moment in music is in Bach's Matthäuspassion. You can find the order of the movements at http://www.bach.de/werk/bwv/244b.html, and the full lyric rather awkwardly laid out at http://www.musikaltnikolai.de/dmat2-20.html. I'm looking at 47-51 here. You have Pilate's question, "what evil has he done", and the soprano recit of all his good, followed by "Aus Liebe will mein Heiland sterben" - an explanation of Christ' fundamental driving motivation - out of love to die for his people, that "eternal destruction and the punishment of the judgement may not remain on my soul". Then the crowd returns with violence to sing: crucify him. The juxtaposition in both lyrical and musical terms is gut-wrenching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)