I saw the first CT headline and thought immediately of that scene with Thomas in John's Gospel, so I didn't bother to read it. Silliman's apology that he had forgotten about the story of 'doubting' Thomas is emblematic of a phenomenon I have observed often in recent years, of leading Christian figures who make assertions while seeming to be totally ignorant of contradictory information in the Bible. I first noticed it around Old Testament history, usually details of stories that got scrambled. More recently, though, I've been seeing it in relation to the basic teachings of Jesus Christ, and that is much more worrying.
The York mystery play sounds as alternately creative as any modernistic theatre production.
In fairness to the medievals, they had little access to the Bible. These plays were their attempt to share the stories of the Bible with no claim to proper reading or interpretation! They are fascinating works. Very modernistic in some ways, as you say!
Oh, I was bring complementary. They didn't take a direct didactic approach, the way most modern evangelical theatrical productions do, yet their production is thought provoking.
Oh, got it! Very glad. These plays are so delightful. As I think about this survey of British literature we are doing, I always think about the things we don’t cover. If I go back around and start at the beginning again, I will definitely cover some of these mystery plays!
Oh, I loved the York Play of the Crucifixion when I read it with my students several years ago. It is so...real? Blunt? Gritty almost. (And of course, you know me: I love a good play! :D) "Just another day on the job" for these guys. The way art and literature was used in the Middle Ages so fascinates me because they were communicating with a mostly illiterate population. Their creativity through the visual arts and through drama is really beautiful. Thanks for your article!
An excellent example of "both/and" rather than "either/or". Nails and rope, reason and imagination.
Exactly!
I saw the first CT headline and thought immediately of that scene with Thomas in John's Gospel, so I didn't bother to read it. Silliman's apology that he had forgotten about the story of 'doubting' Thomas is emblematic of a phenomenon I have observed often in recent years, of leading Christian figures who make assertions while seeming to be totally ignorant of contradictory information in the Bible. I first noticed it around Old Testament history, usually details of stories that got scrambled. More recently, though, I've been seeing it in relation to the basic teachings of Jesus Christ, and that is much more worrying.
The York mystery play sounds as alternately creative as any modernistic theatre production.
In fairness to the medievals, they had little access to the Bible. These plays were their attempt to share the stories of the Bible with no claim to proper reading or interpretation! They are fascinating works. Very modernistic in some ways, as you say!
Oh, I was bring complementary. They didn't take a direct didactic approach, the way most modern evangelical theatrical productions do, yet their production is thought provoking.
Oh, got it! Very glad. These plays are so delightful. As I think about this survey of British literature we are doing, I always think about the things we don’t cover. If I go back around and start at the beginning again, I will definitely cover some of these mystery plays!
Oh, I loved the York Play of the Crucifixion when I read it with my students several years ago. It is so...real? Blunt? Gritty almost. (And of course, you know me: I love a good play! :D) "Just another day on the job" for these guys. The way art and literature was used in the Middle Ages so fascinates me because they were communicating with a mostly illiterate population. Their creativity through the visual arts and through drama is really beautiful. Thanks for your article!
This play is one of my favorites! So glad you love it too.
Your column is so helpful, Karen. Thank you.
Thank you, Teri!
I’d did not see the CT piece. What might have led them to print the piece that is so plainly contentious at best?
I really don’t know. It was odd. Even Homer nods.