Perfection
“Therefore, be perfect as Abba, God, in heaven is perfect.” — Matthew 5:48.
An article in The New York Times on Thursday marveled that an author dead nearly 400 years had so many plays in the process of being presented in the Big Apple. Needless to say, that author was William Shakespeare.
The article stated this was the last weekend to see a production of The Merchant of Venice starring Academy Award winner Al Pacino in one of Shakespeare’s greatest roles, Shylock, the moneylender. But not to worry, if you missed it. Even though this production was closing Sunday, next weekend F. Murray Abraham, also an Oscar winner, will open in the very same role in an entirely separate, different production.
By the time mid-March rolls around, two productions of Macbeth will be gracing the boards in the city. As if that were not enough of the Bard, the rarely produced Timon of Athens is also on tap in the next several weeks.
As You Like It is running currently. And, shortly, the non-profit troupe known as “The Red Bull” will do Henry VI and Richard III one after another in an effort to follow the progress of Margaret of Anjou, a character in both those plays, as she moves through them.
Just to round out the picture, before the end of July New York stages will see The Comedy of Errors, King Lear, All’s Well That Ends Well and Measure for Measure on top of what’s already been mentioned. Why is all this Shakespeare getting produced? Well, a director of one of these productions puts it this way: “You know the writer isn’t going to let you down and that audiences will always come out for good Shakespeare.” [1] (Slight pause.)
I think there are two reasons the plays of Shakespeare get produced over and over and over. One is: the genius of Shakespeare was to write about people, about relationships. Hence, it is timeless. A second and related reason is, because he wrote about people and relationships, the writing seems to live, to breathe, to adapt and to be adaptable, no matter the era.
Indeed, I have seen productions of Shakespeare set in its native Elizabethan time frame. I have seen a play of Shakespeare performed as if the characters were living in the 1890s in America. I have seen a play set in the 1930s, in the Italy of Benito Mussolini. I have seen a play performed as if it took place in modern day Scandinavia.
I have see Shakespeare done without any set at all. I have seen it done with the most elaborate, realistic set imaginable. Many moons ago I saw A Midsummer Night’s Dream directed by Peter Brook, staged within a surrealistic set, simply a blank white box, a production so amazing it is still referenced and talked about as a landmark production by theater professionals.
I, myself, wrote a musical version of Much Ado About Nothing— the Beatrice-Benedict play with my friend and collaborator, David Schaefer, a show, which with great good perversity, we called All’s Well That End’s Well (as opposed to Much Ado About Nothing, you see). Now, after I did that, another friend suggested to me I had done what every writer must dream of doing: re-writing Shakespeare.
“No,” I told him. “You can’t re-write perfection. Shakespeare is the master. You can, however, collaborate, have a relationship with the play as it comes to life off the printed page and, thereby, with the Bard.”
Indeed, maybe that’s why Shakespeare is done so often in so may ways. Theater professionals think of Shakespeare as perfection, because the writing is about real people. Because the writing is about real people, it has this amazing ability to adapt and to be adaptable, to change— even though a word is never changed. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the Gospel know as Matthew: “Therefore, be perfect as Abba, God, in heaven is perfect.” (Slight pause.)
As was stated when the reading from Leviticus was heard: the so called Ten Commandments pop up here and there in Hebrew Scriptures. Many, many people take these to be a set of rules. Nothing could be further from reality. These are not a set of rules. [2]
No matter which version of the Ten Commandments we look at— and there are several in the Hebrew Scriptures— they can be broken down into two sections: relationship with God and relationship with neighbor, relationship with each other. That is what the Ten Commandments are about, not about rules. This is about relationship.
Indeed, as was also stated earlier, this should be evident even to the casual listener: Who is speaking when these words are recited is by far the most important aspect of the passage. It is absolutely clear: God is speaking.
The same thing can be said about the Gospel reading— the context clearly points to God. Yes, that Gospel reading lifts up demands that are serious, radical and costly. They require “unnatural responses,” responses that are not “business as usual,” at least not business as usual according to the ways of the world.
These words invite the community to reflect on, to imagine, and to devise measures of loving neighbor that go beyond typical human response and thereby reflect the character of God. This is life re-discerned in covenantal categories. To reorder life in this way requires of us a deployment of energy— our energy— and resources— every fibre of our being— in ways that our society does not usually celebrate or appreciate. (Slight pause.)
Coming back to the Hebrew Scriptures reading, if we look carefully it, the very utterance of the name of God identifies Yahweh as the guarantor of life and well-being for the vulnerable and the disabled. Further, the laws concerning one’s neighbor are repeatedly grounded in the assertion that Yahweh is holy. Thus, these words link the reality of neighbor to the reality of God.
Holiness in heaven is enacted as justice on earth. Israel has no viable way to be holy except in and through transformed social relations. Hence, the invitation placed before us by God says the holiness to which God calls us is enacted with one’s neighbor.
And, indeed, this is also true with the Gospel reading. A central proclamation of Jesus is that the reign of God draws near. Jesus then says Abba, God is perfect. This perfection— teleios in the Greek— has to do with wholeness and authenticity of relationships, genuine relationships made manifest because the reign of God is near.
Jesus lays out ways of relating which, in terms of behavior show themselves in extravagant moves toward reconciliation, moves toward simple truth telling, moves toward outrageous expressions of generosity, moves toward the distinctive care of one’s foes— all these essential to the reign of God. The pointedness of the rhetoric is meant to jolt the imagination to project a sense of duty to this (quote): “perfect” (unquote) perfect God. [3] (Slight pause.)
We live in a world that doubts perfection is possible. So, as a writer, as a theater person, why would I say Shakespeare is perfect? Because Shakespeare writes about relationship, thereby inviting collaboration. And, because Shakespeare writes about relationships, the possibility of change is not just a given. It is an invitation toward perfection. (Slight pause.)
As a theologian why would I second what Jesus has to say: Abba, God, is perfect? Because God invites relationships. God invites collaboration. God invites change. Thereby, God invites us to strive toward perfection.
As I said, we live in a world which doubts perfection is possible. But that’s because we live in a world which sees perfection as static, frozen. Relationships cannot be frozen. Relationships demand flexibility.
All of which begs the question: are we willing to be as flexible as God? Are we willing to pursue the ways of God? Are we willing to change? Are we willing to strive toward the kind of perfection God invites: the constantly changing perfection known as relationship? Amen.
02/20/2011
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The Constitution of the United States starts with these strange words: (quote): ‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...’— a more perfect union. If it was perfect, how could it get to be more perfect? Were the people who wrote this stupid, or did they have a deep understanding that governing ourselves, something no other nation had ever tried to do, needed to be flexible, needed to be about relationship and, thereby, needed to change. You tell me.”
[1] NY Times ~ 02/17/2011 ~ All of New York Is Shakespeare’s Stage ~ by Patrick Healy ~ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/theater/18shakespeare.html?hpw
[2] “...was also stated earlier...”— a reference to the introduction offered by the liturgist when the passage was read.
[3] Texts for Preaching, CD-ROM Edition ~ A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV—Years A, B, and C ~ Walter Brueggemann, Charles B. Cousar, Beverly Roberts Gaventa, J. Clinton McCann, and James D. Newsome Jr. ~ found in the commentary for this reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment