 |
||
 |
||
Jim's PERSPECTIVEAugust 15, 2014They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.” Luke 7:32. “The Games People Play” is the title of a 1968 popular song written and performed by Joe South as a protest song of the era and a negative commentary on the hypocritical, the disingenuous, the deceitful practices and policies of individuals, peoples, and governments. I want to talk about games, too, as a comment on our religious culture, but not in the way the Joe’s song serves as a metaphor for insincerity or inhumanity. Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:16). I say, “By their games you shall know them.” We live in a game culture, or more aptly, a sports culture. I happen to like sports, or rather the game aspects of them—not so much the business (read: money) aspects. However, if I’m truthful, even that is interesting, particularly when Stefan Fatsis talks about it on NPR. The world is captivated by sport. This year’s World Cup soccer tournament is a good example of this, at least for those of us who enjoyed the matches—and expressed disgust in protest at the infractions and injustices that sometimes went down on the field committed by referees or by players against the teams we wanted to win. But again, I don’t want to talk about the down side of sports. I want to talk about the nature of a game. Any game. To be sure there are many differences. For example, the field of play in baseball is called a field, but it is also referred to as a “diamond.” A football field is nicknamed a “gridiron.” In basketball and tennis, the field of play is not at all a field. It’s a “court.” In baseball one gets “hits” to score “runs.” In football, one scores “goals,” “touchdowns,” and “points” (PATs). In basketball, one shoots for “points” and “baskets,” which, strangely enough, are also called “field goals.” In soccer (known as “football” by non-Americans), “goals” but not “points” are scored. There are many more differences, but all games, no matter how they are played, have some particular commonalities. And, by the way, I’m borrowing the analysis of a game from a really good book that I had to read for my ethics class in seminary. The book was written by James Wm. McClendon, Jr. and is entitled Systematic Theology: Ethics. To make sense of social order and value, and in the context of “practices,” he quotes Bernard Suits’ 1978 book, The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia. Suits observes that there are four components of a “game”: 1) the End, or Goal, of the game; 2) the Means of playing the game; 3) the Rules that constitute the game; and 4) the Attitude with which a game—in order to be considered “legitimate” (quotation marks are mine)—is to be played. He explains it in these terms: the End/Goal of the game, as I already stated, can be measured in “runs,” “points,” “goals,” etc., and the object here is to score more than the other players (except in golf, wherein the lowest score wins). The Means of the game can be bats, clubs, balls, racquets, helmets, pads, baskets, courts, fields, stadiums etc. It’s the how and where the game is to be played. The Rules of the game cover numbers of players, allowable distances, heights, procedures (e.g., lawful and unlawful dribbling of a basketball, the number of strikes or balls that constitute “outs” or “walks”), weights, dimensions, etc. The basic idea of a game is to voluntarily overcome deliberate and pre-determined obstacles—within the rules—for a specific outcome. It is in this area of Attitudes for playing the game in which outcomes enter the discussion. The right frame of mind and spirit that the player must have to achieve the desired outcome is what “attitude” is about. Suits (the “Grasshopper,” his book’s protagonist) classifies “players” in these four categories: 1. “Real” players; 2) Triflers; 3) Cheaters; and finally, 4) Spoilsports. “Real” players are the ones who skillfully use the means, within the given rules, and have the intention of producing the desired outcome, i.e., to WIN. Real players do not like losing. They don’t like “ties.” Red Sanders, the former UCLA football coach was quoted as saying, “Winning is not everything—it’s the ONLY thing.” And former Michigan State University coach Duffy Daugherty said, “A tie is like kissing your sister.” But everyone knows parents let their kids win, particularly mothers (but not exclusively mothers because some fathers do it, too, and sometimes both parents happen to be real players), but often mothers will say to a younger child’s sibling, “Just let him or her win.” Well, according to Suits, they are “Triflers.” They are not trying to win, nor do they make “winning” the whole point of the game. Triflers are those who recognize the Means, Rules, and Goals of the game, but do not possess the appropriate Attitude: “It doesn’t matter who wins. It’s just important that you had a good time.” Spoken like a true Trifler. Cheaters have the Attitude to win, but want to do so to the extent that, while recognizing Means and Goals, they ignore the Rules. A Spoilsport is one who recognizes the Means and the Attitude to win, but they ignore both the Rules and the Goals. Think about Luis Suarez, the Uruguay soccer player in the 2014 World Cup who bit Italian Giorgio Chienilli. A Spoilsport wants to win so badly that he or she, if on the losing side, will wreck it for the winners. Aside from just being interested in game theory, I brought it up to talk another kind of “practice” or “game”: Worship. I can imagine someone taking offense at my comparison of Worship to a Game, but, forgive me, I think that it is absolutely that: a game in which Players, Means, Rules, Goals, and Attitudes are incorporated. And the style of worship will determine who and what the Players, Means, Rules, Goals, and Attitudes are to be. Take, for example High Church worship. The Players often will be high-caliber and/or academy-trained organists, pianists, vocalists, sometimes string, woodwind, or brass players. The Means would be the instruments used—or NOT used—as the case may be (pipe organs but not pianos, pianos but not guitars, bells but not drums). In terms of means, and within some High Church contexts, Bach, Buxtehude, Beethoven and Brahms et al. would be the norm. A hymn such as “In the Garden” quite possibly would not be played here. (Incidentally, I love that song). However, in Low Church circles, that same description of High Church Means would not work nor would be they allowed. Pianos, guitars, drums, saxophones, and occasional trumpets will be used, but probably not pipe organs or strings (unless it is a fiddle). Rules and Means in worship are sometimes difficult to differentiate because “How We Play the Game” and “What We Are Going to Use to Play It” often go hand-in-hand. “There’s no place in church for drums” was actually spoken to me some years back by a well-meaning but ill-informed parishioner who apparently thought that a rule. While some Pentecostals and Charismatics would make “Raising of the Hands” a rule, others—to their credit—will encourage “Raising of the Hands,” not as a requirement, but, rather, as just another Means. Attitudes vary from High to Low Church (or vice versa). Many people believe that ceremony, ritual, pomp and pageantry, are necessary for the proper religious disposition, namely, Regality. The thought here is, “We worship a King; therefore, something befitting the worship of Royalty is required.” Furthermore, in showing reverence for a King, marches—because they exude regality—would be favored, while certain jazz or pop rhythms would definitely be unacceptable (Of course, certain New Orleans folk are exceptions to this; they have taken marches to another level.) Others would feel the exact opposite. For some, worshipping in Spirit and in Truth means to worship with the whole body—standing with raised hands—and even with dance. I believe that, in the end, everyone has the same Goal in mind: to experience a sense of the Transcendent, or the ‘Holy.’ “Numinous” is a word that Professor Rudolph Otto used in his book, The Idea of the Holy, to describe the Mysterium Tremendum, or, awe-inspired, majestic, unapproachable sense of unworthiness associated with human interaction with the Power of the Divine. I will admit that the formalized, if not ritualized, High Church style captures some of the sense of other-worldliness that ordinary life, or even more modest means of Low Church worship, does not supply. On the other hand, Low Church worship attempts to dispense with the sense of reverence and respectful “distance” that one should observe while in the presence of an all-powerful Deity. Their desire and Goal is about the doing away with distances for the sake of loving union with the Divine. I think that both styles and attitudes are legitimate and proper, and have their respective places. I wish that there was room for both, but often times, both High Church and Low Church worshipers will insist that only their style is the “right” style, and, in that view, when a tune is called, one is expected to offer the “appropriate” response (See the above quote from Luke 7:32). I love certain aspects of the High Church style. A welldone chorale can lift and transport me into the Divine Presence in ways that Low Church worship does not touch me. But, on the other hand, so can a “Low-Brow” spiritual work with a tasteful drummer and guitarist. Both styles played with skillful instrumentalists have a unique quality and an energy that appeals to me and brings me into joy in ways that one style by itself cannot. I have a pastor friend (a really good guy, too) whose motto and mantra in regard to Worship is “All Contemporary, All the Time.” I do not share his perspective. But the worshipers who seem only able to recognize, or legitimize, the “High Brow” forms are just as problematic. In Psalm 33, we are told to “Give thanks to the LORD with the lyre; make melody to him with the harp of ten strings! Sing to him a new song; play skillfully on the strings, with loud shouts!” I would love to see and hear someone in a Low Church setting get excited and shout “Hallelujah!” after a Bach chorale, and someone in a High Church setting shout “Praise You, Jesus!” at the finale of something by the Staple Singers. I also realize that in our present reality, because of our cultural backgrounds and individual tastes, what works for some does not work for all. It most likely will “in heaven,” but I long for the acceptance of one by the other to be a reality “on earth, as it is”….well, you know. - Jim Radford |
||
|
©2013 Jim Radford. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication prohibited.
|
