Greek Tragedies & Christian Churches: Musings and Observations
Modern-day generations tend to think in groups and categories. This tendency, while helpful for critical analysis, has its dangers, however. When notions that are otherwise connected in an organic way are split apart, harmful consequences may follow—the relationship between substance and form, for example. As evident in biblical and extra-biblical precedent, notions of substance and form are intricately related. Some critics object to the use of non-biblical evidence to make a substantive point about Christian practice. Tertullian asks, “What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?” On the other hand, several biblical figures utilize secular sources in their sermons and epistles (see Acts 17:16-34).
The purpose of this essay is not to explore what is and what is not a proper manifestation of substance and form in Christian life and worship. Rather it is 1) to note the relationship between them, and 2) to explore the consequences of disregarding either.
The Greeks have made countless contributions to the West. Examples include geometry, logic, and politics. According to many scholars, their most significant contribution is the theatre. Although the Greeks wrote comedy, they are most remembered for the tragedy, which is comprised of a series of tragic events that most often leads to the downfall of the hero. The significance of the tragedy is seen most notably in its purpose, plot, and technique.
The Purpose of the Tragedy: The purpose of the tragedy was to teach the Greek audience a lesson. They did not exist to entertain (although they may, in fact, have been entertaining at times) but to teach a lesson. The early playwrights designed these plays as a ritual affirmation of fundamental, community values. For example, what did it mean to be a son, daughter, husband, wife, citizen, or leader in the Greek culture? Through the exposition and unfolding of the plot, as well as the technique, the playwright answered these questions.
The Plot of the Tragedy: First, by use of plot, the playwright affirmed fundamental, community values. Greek plots followed a very simple structure: The main characters were introduced, a conflict ensued between them, and the audience was invited to resolve the conflict. It was from these conflicts, typically revolving around a familial and/or political tension, that the lessons were learned. From a cultural standpoint, the Greek was reminded of what it meant to be a Greek. From a jurisprudential standpoint, the Greek was reminded which law to follow. The examples are endless.
The Technique of the Tragedy: Second, by use of technique, the playwright affirmed fundamental, community values. For example, the playwrights were master linguists and were thus able to retain metrical, rhythmic language throughout the tragedy. As a result, the playwrights were able to appeal to the audience’s emotions and sensibilities, all through the use of technique. A far more significant example was the playwright’s use of the chorus. Like a church choir or the members of a jury box, the chorus was chosen from among the community. Often speaking between scenes and providing meaningful commentary, they gave expression to the conflict at hand. This technique was not the result of convenience or relevance, but was crafted intentionally to serve a purpose and teach a lesson.
The playwrights were able to more effectively teach their Greek audience the fundamental values of their culture because they recognized that learning comes in many forms. It occurred in the plot and in the technique of the play—that is, both the substance and the form. Critics may object that substance and form bear little relation. However, the Greek playwright rejected this notion, believing that the two join to deliver the message. To change either is to change the very essence of the play.
This is true of any message—a Greek tragedy, a sitcom or film, or a Christian service. For example, the very form of the ordinances contains a message. In the ordinance of feet washing is a message: Christ’s humiliation and incarnation (e.g., Jn. 13:1-17, Phil. 2:5-11). In the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is a message: Christ’s broken body and spilt blood (e.g., Lk. 22: 17-20, 1 Cor. 11: 23-26). In the ordinance of baptism is a message: Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead as well as the believer’s death to the world and resurrection in Christ (e.g., Matt. 28:18-20, Rom. 6:3-4). Another example, even as preachers often stand central and elevated in relation to the congregation, so God’s Word must stand central and elevated in the life of the believer (see Neh. 8:4). Irrespective of substance, there is something conveyed in the way a thing is done.
The lessons of history and the Bible deserve our consideration. How can the purpose, plot, and technique of the Greek tragedy advise current generations? What do the sacred ordinances say regarding the relationship between substance and form?
With the rise of modernity and postmodernity, the world is changing more dramatically and quickly than any other period in history. As a result, some churches, for all practical purposes, have retreated from the world. However, a church is unable to let its light so shine before men if they have withdrew from the culture. These churches cease to be even in the world (see Jn. 17:15, Matt. 5:16).
Instead of retreating, other churches have embraced the world, in some fashion or another, for all practical purposes. To appeal to the ever-changing culture, they have adopted much of its substance and many of its habits. This is a dangerous response! The church is unable to transform the culture if it is too closely wed to it. As churches seek to engage the culture, they should be mindful of two dangers:
Changing the Substance of Their Message: By getting too close to the culture, some churches have actually changed the substance of their message. They now downplay doctrines that offend cultural sentiments. Examples include churches that tolerate abortion or homosexuality. However, there are more subtle examples as well such as the avoidance of controversial issues, watering down the Gospel, or minimizing the reality of Hell.
Changing the Form of Their Message: Other churches have opted not to change their message, but the way in which they present their message. While this is biblical, it can be taken too far. Churches that adopt the ever-changing forms of the world become ever-changing themselves—not wise for an institution that ought to demonstrate some permanence in a fleeting age. In an effort to contextualize in the name of relevance, the church itself becomes irrelevant.
The continuity between substance and form is apparent in both secular history and Scripture. Like the Greeks, we should remember the didactic aspect of the Christian service: To teach sound doctrine, not to entertain. This is accomplished not only in what we do, but in how we do it. It is for this reason that the Greek tragedy was so effective a teacher in its own day and has survived nearly 2,500 years. The church must remember that a simple change in substance or form, though seemingly insignificant, may have negative implications for the church’s ability to teach biblical doctrine. Form is not always a mere cultural construction, but is often so tied up with the substance that the two become inseparable.
Recent Comments