by Hobbes - Published: December 14th, 2007

Back in May, on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, I heard a fascinating interview with John Rutter and John Tavener. The transcript can be found below.

Edward Stourton: [John Rutter] has said in an interview with Gramophone magazine that he doesn’t think composers need to believe in God to write religious music. He’s an agnostic himself… [John Tavener] does believe in God. John Rutter, I suspect a lot of those who listen to your music, because it’s very widely played in churches these days, might be rather disappointed to hear what you’ve had to say.

John Rutter: I do get letters and sometimes old ladies send me bibles and things and say they’re praying for me, but so far without effect, I’m afraid.

ES: And you write music without any sense of religious inspiration - even though you so often choose religious themes.

JR: No, that’s not true. I think I’m nourished and inspired by religion, and by the traditions of faith. I think we all can be, and that’s really where I’m coming from in writing the music that I write.

ES: But, by “religion”, as distinct from “God”?

JR: Well, I as an agnostic don’t say I have all the answers, I just say I don’t really know, but that I grew up singing in a church choir and in my school chapel choir - the same chapel choir that actually John Tavener sang in - and I think my life has been shaped by that in many ways. And given that I love the choirs that we have in this country - we’re very lucky to have all the cathedral and church choirs that we do - it would seems a terrible shame not to write for them.

ES: But, John Tavener, you take a rather different view - you think there needs to be rather more to the process of composing religious music than that.

John Tavener: Yes, I tend to think that the act of composing puts me into a higher state of being, and I become a believer when I write music, as it were - or it’s not even belief - I know that God exists when I’m actually writing. And, all the great traditions say this: Hindus say that my true self is God; Christianity says the kingdom of Heaven is within you; Islam says God is closer to me than my jugular vein. So one has to discover that ‘god’ within oneself.

ES: Do you think that that difference of approach - the profoundly spiritual approach that you just outlined - and the slightly more nuanced ideas that we’ve had from John Rutter - do you think those are reflected in the quality of the music?

JT: Not necessarily. I don’t necessarily think that belief or knowledge of God presupposes great music. I don’t think that necessarily is the case. Also, you don’ t necessarily have to set [sacred] texts. When Mozart set sacred texts and masses, he’s far more mundane and boring than he is when he’s in his operas, where he’s taking ludicrous subjects but raising the characters to almost a sublime, or totally sublime level - it’s the divine level. He does what Shakespeare does.

ES: Do you think, John Rutter, that some people might feel that a fraud is being perpetrated on them, in the sense that when people listen to religious music they feel like they are celebrating the greatness of God and that the music is doing that for them, but the chap who wrote it - you - doesn’t completely believe in God?

JR: Well, of course, I am told by some people, particularly in America, that God is actually guiding my pen - that I just don’t know it. So, there’s always that possibility. And, I think it’s the role of the artist to enter into states of being which are not necessarily one’s own. I mean, I hope that Shakespeare never wanted to murder his wife, but in Othello he gave us a fantastic portrayal of what it feels like - you have to believe the texts that you set at the moment you set them. I absolutely agree with John Tavener on that one. So, I hope there’s no fraud involved.

ES: Well, it’s a fascinating area. John Rutter and John Tavener, thank you both very much.

Comments: No Comment - Category: Music
by Hobbes - Published: December 12th, 2007

It is not now and never has been a valid goal to make our gospel message more winsome, more politically correct, more sophisticated-sounding, or simpler than it already is. Since Scripture recognizes and makes no apology for the fact that the message of the cross is itself a stumbling block and mere foolishness to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 1:23-25), Christians who are determined to devise a smart-sounding or inoffensive message are not being faithful ambassadors for Christ. He has commanded what our message should be. Our only duty is to deliver it without altering the sense of it.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/12/gospel-lite.html

I agree so much it hurts. It also hurts that I know of some people who would regard me as offensive, harsh, rigid and foolish for thinking that the unadulterated and unadorned gospel message is the power of God. Contextualization is one thing. Human innovation or modification is another. Those who adorn and edit the biblical message are simply veiling the gospel behind man-made revisions, and “if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing” (2 Cor. 4:3, ESV).

Comments: No Comment - Category: Gospel
by Hobbes - Published: December 10th, 2007

With the confidence and insight that only a wife can possess, my wife claims that I am addicted to books. In my more reflective moments (or, “less proud” moments), I can admit that this statement is not totally untrue. I do tend to purchase 2 books for every book that I read. But, if a great book is spotted in a second-hand bookshop, it would be careless not to buy it. Who is to say it will not be snapped up that same day by someone who shares my fine taste in books? It must be bought! After all, it is very cheap!

About this time last year, I was challenged to go through a whole year without buying a book. I confidently took up the challenge. Once I realised what I had done, I subsequently softened the blow by allowing some procurement, but with the restraint of a tight budget. Very quickly this budget was blown. Massively and without remorse.

I am tempted to begin this challenge once again. I have plenty of books on my shelves that I have not yet read - and some of these are Puritan classics that demand slow reading (particularly a set of “Puritan Papers”, edited by J.I.Packer and D.M. Lloyd-Jones), and some big contemporary work (e.g. N.T. Wright). I have also recently re-joined the University of St. Andrews library, so I can plunder their stock of commentaries for sermon preparation, etc. So, really, I don’t need to buy any new books for at least a year.

So, here I stand: I will not buy a book for myself until 2009! As a token of public accountability, I have configured a day counter on the sidebar.

Oh, and for the record, the last book I bought was “The Deliberate Church” by Mark Dever and Paul Alexander. A fine book on Church if ever I read one. I intend to blog through this book once I have finished reading it, probably after Christmas.

Comments: No Comment - Category: Books