Nathan, Shakespeare, and Dramatic Preaching; or, David had a Little Lamb

“Literature and drama? Hmmm, interesting. And how do you see that fitting in with, you know, the mission of the church?” As an English literature PhD student finishing a dissertation about Victorian theater—Oscar Wilde, Bernard Shaw, and a few other nineteenth-century writers you have probably never heard of—I’ve heard this question a good many times from my friends in church. I used to bristle at this question, however kind and polite the tone; it was like being asked, “Please explain why you should be allowed to exist.” But now that I think about it, it’s not such a bad question. I’m making it my life-work to do what most people do for fun in their spare time—read and write and talk about books. What excuse do I have?

Maybe the best answer to this question is in 2 Samuel, chapter 12. It’s a familiar story: King David has gotten Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, pregnant, and he arranges a convenient “accident” to kill off Uriah, so he and Bathsheba can get married. And just when he thinks he’s got the whole mess neatly swept under the rug, God sends Nathan to rebuke him. And what does Nathan say? Does he say, “David, you have sinned, and God is angry with you”?

No. Nathan begins Uncle Arthur style: “Once upon a time, there lived two neighbors, a rich man and a poor man. The rich man had a big comfy house and servants to wait on him. He had sheep and cattle, oxen and donkeys, horses and camels, goats and chickens, so many animals he couldn’t count them all. The poor man lived in a one-room shed, and had barely enough to eat—but he did have one little lamb. And everywhere the poor man went, the lamb was sure to go. He played with that lamb, he fed her with his own hands, he slept snuggled up to her at night—that lamb was his baby. Then along came a traveler asking to stay with the rich man for the night, and the rich man didn’t want to go to the expense of killing one of his own animals—not when his neighbor’s lamb was wandering across the yard, right there for the taking. So the rich man and his guest had tasty lamb chops for dinner that night, and lived happily ever after.”

That was Nathan’s story. And what did David have to say about it? King James tells us that “David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man” (verse 5). In the NIV, “David burned with anger.” Think about the last time you “burned with anger.” Your face got hot, your breath came in gasps, maybe your hands were shaking. Maybe you kicked something or yelled at somebody—or if you didn’t, you wanted to. That’s where David was. His face turned bright red, he leaped to his feet, and he spluttered out, “As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die!”

Now hold on—wasn’t David overreacting a little? Nathan was just telling him a story—he hadn’t even said whether it was a true story or not. Did you “burn with anger” while reading this story about the rich man and the poor man and the lamb? Frankly, I didn’t. I felt sorry for the poor man. I thought, “That wasn’t very nice—what a mean, greedy rich man.” I might even have drawn some modern-day parallels about corporate executives who line their own pockets by cutting back on their employees’ wages and health benefits. But the kind of anger that speeds up my breathing and makes my heart pound—not really. When I “burn with anger,” it’s usually about something very personal—if someone mistreats or insults someone in my family, for instance.

But for David, it seems, this story was personal. Remember, David had grown up herding sheep. Perhaps, as a boy, he had had his own little pet lamb, whom he cuddled, chased, and bottle-fed. Maybe he knew what it was to have his pet lamb hurt or mistreated—he had seven older brothers, after all, whom he wasn’t always on friendly terms with. We don’t know—I’m speculating here. But we do know that for whatever reason, David reacted to Nathan’s story in an intensely emotional way. He identified strongly with the poor man, putting himself in his place. He saw the rich man as his personal enemy, “burning with anger” against him.

And then Nathan yanked the rug of righteous indignation from under David’s feet: “Thou art the man” (verse 8). “No, David, you are not the poor man with the little pet lamb. You are the rich, mean man who stole the lamb away. You’re the one who had it all, but it still wasn’t enough for you.” Nathan went on to enumerate David’s sins in sickening detail, along with the punishment God was planning.

Nathan could have begun with this open condemnation; he could have skipped the story and said, “David, you have given in to your lust and covetousness; you have committed murder and deception, and hideously abused the power God has given you, and now you must repent.” And perhaps David would have repented. We know that David was a man after God’s own heart—a simple reproof might have been enough to make him say, “I have sinned.” But God did not want David to simply listen and agree and say “I have sinned.” God wanted him to “burn with anger” against his own cruel actions and rotten desires—not just to accept rebuke intellectually, but to feel it deeply, emotionally, viscerally, physically. He wanted David filled with disgust at his own moral filth, and Nathan’s story did just that, driving David to beg:

Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. *** Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. *** Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. *** Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation. (Psalm 51:2-3, 7, 9-11, 14)

In our hymnal, these words are set to sedate, serene melodies—“Whiter than snow, yes whiter than snow, Lord wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.” The pretty, familiar music tends to make us forget the frantic urgency of the words. They are not a dignified anthem; they are a gagging groan from a man drowning in a pit of sewage.

Shakespeare, in his play Hamlet, shows a scene very like the one between Nathan and David. In the play, the king of Denmark, Hamlet, has been murdered by his brother, Claudius. Claudius has been crowned as the new king and married his sister-in-law, the wife of the previous king. He seems to have gotten away with it. Then one evening King Claudius decides to go to the theater. The play he sees is called The Murder of Gonzago, and it shows a king being murdered, and the murderer claiming the crown and marrying the queen. Claudius sees his own crime being acted out all over again. He is horrified, and his immediate impulse is to pray for forgiveness in language reminiscent of King David’s: “O, my offense is rank, it smells to heaven. . . . Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens / To wash [my hands] white as snow?” (Act III, scene 3). Sadly, his repentance is mostly inspired by a fear of exposure and punishment, and it doesn’t last long. But for the moment at least, the play has managed to “catch the conscience of the king” (Act II, scene 2). The Murder of Gonzago may not be a great play, but it touches Claudius as nothing else could, because it is his own story.

Shakespeare, like the prophet Nathan, offers an example of how God can speak through literature. God uses poets, novelists, and dramatists to convey truth to our intellects and emotions in a much deeper way than we could otherwise understand. Bernard Shaw, a dramatist and theater critic working in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, summed up the aim of his plays in Nathan-like terms: “It annoys me to see people comfortable when they ought to be uncomfortable; and I insist on making them think in order to bring them to conviction of sin” (Preface to Man and Superman 8). This experience of conviction has happened to me again and again while researching Shaw and his contemporaries. Through Henrik Ibsen, God convicts me of envy and self-absorbed unreason. Through Elizabeth Robins, God convicts me of laziness and apathy. Through Arthur Wing Pinero and Henry Arthur Jones, God convicts me of my self-righteous, judgmental attitude. Through Oscar Wilde, God convicts me of gossip and willful ignorance. A great dramatist, Shaw explained, “can stab people to the heart by shewing them the meanness or cruelty of something they did yesterday and intend to do tomorrow”; by this means, the writer is “teaching and saving his audience” (The Quintessence of Ibsenism 145).

The idea of theater as a place for “teaching and saving” might sound strange to many in the Adventist church. After all, we are familiar with some of Ellen White’s comments on theater:

[A]ttendance at theaters and such places of worldly amusement . . . is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ and the apostles. (1 Testimonies 554)

[T]heatrical performances . . . will so confuse the senses of the youth that God and heaven will be forgotten. (Messages to Young People 214)

Among the most dangerous resorts for pleasure is the theater. Instead of being a school of morality and virtue, as is so often claimed, it is the very hotbed of immorality. Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments. Low songs, lewd gestures, expressions, and attitudes, deprave the imagination and debase the morals. Every youth who habitually attends such exhibitions will be corrupted in principle. There is no influence in our land more powerful to poison the imagination, to destroy religious impressions, and to blunt the relish for the tranquil pleasures and sober realities of life than theatrical amusements. (MYP 380)

Many Adventists of my parents’ and grandparents’ generation took these warnings, and others like them, as an absolute prohibition of theater-going (and, by extension, of film and TV), being taught that if you walk into a movie theater, you leave your guardian angel at the door. Today, many younger people in the church prefer to discount her warnings entirely, supposing that Mrs. White’s comments on entertainment, given so long ago, probably don’t apply to today’s theater and film anyway. And, they ask, did Ellen White ever actually go to a theater? If she didn’t, she knew nothing about it; if she did, her condemnations are a piece of blatant hypocrisy; either way, they conclude, her prohibitions needn’t interfere with our fun nowadays.

I think a more productive response to Mrs. White’s warnings is to examine the attributes of theatrical performance on which she expresses concern. She points to a few specific features, such as the coarseness and sexual suggestion of some plays—their “low songs” and “lewd” behavior. But her most often-repeated criticism is her general argument that theater is a “worldly amusement,” an escape from “sober realities,” from the responsibilities of everyday life. She warns against plays that deaden viewers’ capacity for serious reflection. By repeatedly viewing vapid and inane entertainments, audiences become intellectually and spiritually empty. By beholding, they are changed.

In studying the drama of the nineteenth century, I’ve found that Ellen White wasn’t the only one making criticisms like this—in fact, her concerns were shared by some who were not only familiar with theaters, but made their livings in them. Bernard Shaw was, if possible, even more vehement than Mrs. White in pointing out the powerful influence theatrical entertainment often wielded and the harm that often resulted from this influence. In the preface to one of his early plays, he wrote:

I am convinced that fine art is the subtlest, the most seductive, the most effective instrument of moral propaganda in the world, excepting only the example of personal conduct; and I waive even this exception in favor of the art of the stage, because it works by exhibiting examples of personal conduct made intelligible and moving to crowds of unobservant and unreflecting people to whom real life means nothing. I have pointed out again and again that the influence of the theatre in England is growing so great that private conduct, religion, law, science, politics, and morals are becoming more and more theatrical, whilst the theatre itself remains impervious to common sense, religion, science, politics, and morals.” (Preface to Mrs. Warren’s Profession 236)

During his years as a theater critic, he claimed that many of his contemporaries’ plays functioned as unofficial recruiting advertisements for the brothel business, displaying attractive pictures of prostitutes and mistresses with beautiful clothes and luxurious lives. Such plays, he claimed, ought to be not only avoided, but outlawed, made an “indictable offence,” because “the writing or performance of a play is a moral act, to be treated on exactly the same footing as theft or murder if it produces equally mischievous consequences” (Preface to Profession 236).

Shaw agreed with Ellen White, then, in believing that the theater had an enormous and often dangerous influence on viewers’ minds and actions. But they differed on the question of what to do about that influence. Mrs. White concluded that “The only safe course is to shun the theater, the circus, and every other questionable place of amusement” (MYP 380). Shaw, by contrast, insisted that theater could be transformed into an engine for constructive change. “I fight the theatre,” he explained, “not with pamphlets and sermons and treatises, but with plays; and so effective do I find the dramatic method that I have no doubt I shall at last persuade even London to take its conscience and its brains with it when it goes to the theatre, instead of leaving them at home with its prayer-book as it does at present” (Preface to Profession 236). He spent decades of his life writing plays that would be more intellectually honest, morally responsible, and spiritually challenging. He wrote plays to attack prostitution and other exploitive business, political corruption, and laziness and apathy of all kinds. He wrote a collection of “Plays for Puritans” to demonstrate that it was possible to create interesting stories without any suggestion of sexual desire or romantic love—a revolutionary stance against the sentimentality and eroticism that infected the drama of his time (as well as ours). He wrote plays that he knew would not be popular, because he believed they needed to be written and performed, whether they made money or not. He gave moral and financial support to actors, managers, and other dramatists who were helping to create more intelligent, observant theater, and also promoted intelligent and responsible drama by writing theater reviews. His efforts at theatrical reform were fueled by the conviction that the world needs “men who will not take evil good-humoredly, and whose laughter destroys the fool instead of encouraging him. . . . The English cry of ‘Amuse us; take things easily; dress up the world prettily for us’ seems mere cowardice to the strong souls that dare look facts in the face” (Ibsenism 134). Effective drama, Shaw argues, confronts viewers with the truth as Hamlet confronted Claudius, as Nathan confronted David.

As a person who studies and teaches literature, I seek to understand words, images, and stories—some of the most powerful forces that shape us as people, the forces that influence our minds and emotions and imaginations. These are the tools that Jesus most often used in spreading the Good News, the tools that helped bring David to repentance. As I’ve studied, I’ve seen that Ellen White was right in insisting that the influence of theater and literature can be a poison if wrongly used or wrongly received. But that weapon does not have to stay in Satan’s hands. To adapt a remark of Shaw’s: why should the devil have all the theaters as well as all the good tunes? That is why it is so important to me to help people learn to write and read attentively, thoughtfully, critically, in order to use drama and fiction as forces for good—to use stories the way Nathan used them.

"Mary Christian lives in Bloomington, Indiana, where she has recently completed a Ph.D. in English literature at Indiana University, specializing in drama and Victorian studies. She leads the music ministry and Earliteen Sabbath School at Bloomington SDA church, and is an active member of IU's Adventist Christian Fellowship chapter. She also serves as membership secretary for the International Shaw Society, and her research on Shaw and other nineteenth-century dramatists has recently appeared in Religion and Literature, Theatre Survey, and SHAW: The Journal of Bernard Shaw Studies."

Photo Credits: International Shaw Society & BBC

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/7417
3 Likes

As a senior, E.M.C. Acadrmy, I studied Macbeth, and The Merchant of Venice under Mrs. Burman. the is now anAdvebtist University carrying the Burman name. I was in the last baptismal class of Elder Burman. I then took English literature under Proffessor Tippett. I owe them a debt of gratitude, in making me an avid reader., Thank You for making the case for good reading and good theater. TZ

2 Likes

I long ago gave up on trying to get my Mother view David realistically. She died being a loyal fan of the king. No doubt she loved his poetry, his alleged musicianship and, perhaps as much as anything else, his bravery under extreme pressure. She loved not so much for his nurturing of defenseless little lambs,although that counted for something as well, butI believe,moreso for his slaying of the oversized Philistine giant with a sling- shooter. What spoils this is that many learned Christian theologians now-a-days say that the most famous duel in history never happened. In other words it was one of those insertions (read “pious lies”)in the Bible to achieve an aim. In this case to thank the great king for his military services to the kingdom . We catch the redactors most notably when they wrote that David took the Philistine’s head to Saul in Jerusalem. At the time Gibeah was Saul’s seat and it was David, it seems who captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites some years after the death of Saul. In the case of Shakespeare I am one of those who do not support the authorial claims of the man of Stratford. I believe in what I consider the much stronger claims of the 17th Earl of Oxford (Edward de Vere) even despite the need to explain output after 1604. I also think there is a possible case to consider that drafts of the English Bible(KJV) was sent to de Vere(the "real"Shakespeare) when he was exiled on Tempest Island due to his copious notes on the Holy scriptures. So POSSIBLY the bard MAY have something to do with the exquisite phraseology of the greatest compilation of all time.

3 Likes

An excellent article, written clearly and reminding me of five reasons why the theater is a positive experience in my life. Theater is a good thing for me and here are my five top reasons:.

First, it influences the way we think and feel about our own lives and encourages us to take a hard look at ourselves, our values, and our behavior.

Second, theatre is a sophisticated expression of a basic human need – one might call it an instinct – to mimic, to project stories onto ourselves and others, and to create meaning through narrative and metaphor is wise and wisdom as the right use of knowledge is a good thing.

hird, theatre models for us a kind of public discourse that lies at the heart of democratic life, and builds our skills for listening to different sides of a conversation or argument, and empathizing with the struggles of our fellow human beings whatever their views may be.

Fourth, theatre does no harm. Theatre is one of those human activities that doesn’t really hurt anyone or anything (except for its carbon footprint – but let’s ignore that for now). While we’re engaged in making or attending theatre, or any of the arts for that matter, we are not engaged in war, persecution, crime, wife-beating, drinking, pornography, or any of the social or personal vices we could be engaged in instead. For this reason alone, the more time and energy we as a society devote to theatre and the arts, the better off we will be. We see this instinct expressed in children when they act out real or imagined characters and events. We have evidence of theatre-like rituals in some of the oldest human societies, long before the foundations of Western theatre in Ancient Greece. So theatre matters, in essence, because we can’t help it. It’s part of what makes us human.

Fifth, both the making of theatre and attending of theatre contribute to education and literacy. Watching the characters talk back and forth in the theatre is tricky; it requires sharp attention, quick mental shifts, and nimble language skills. It teaches us about human motivation and psychology. In historical plays we get lessons in leadership and government. In contemporary plays, we learn about people and cultures in different parts or our own country or in other countries. Studies have shown that students who participate in theatre do better in school. Making plays together also draws kids out of their shells and helps them learn to socialize in a productive and healthy way.

6 Likes

Sister White says theatre, plays, novels etc are a bad thing.That should be all the counsel SDAs need to avoid such things like the plague.

What is the point of having an inspired prophet and then ignoring her pronouncements as to what is right or wrong.

What - are we to be intellectually forever twelve?

6 Likes

Happily, this is all explained in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

We cannot control our fates when faeries are afoot.

4 Likes

Something we SDAs DO NOT do, DO NOT teach, DO NOT experience is
The Bible As Literature, especially in the Stories.
Now we do in Psalms, Proverbs, Eccl, Song of Solomon, and a few passages from others.
But Literature is satire of real life. Even stories about famous people. Literature helps us
to look at ourselves individual and in community. Laugh at ourselves, become angry at
ourselves, and maybe the most important, Forgive Ourselves, Forgive Others.
Yes, Uncle Tom made people angry. But Anger was good. Anger at ourselves helped us
to rid ourselves of at least Open Slavery. It did cost millions of lives, But the Anger was
needed. It could have been legislated out, but others would not have it. Would not have
Justice and Compassion. So Justice and Compassion had to come by force.
Literature calls us to look at real life and consider Justice and Compassion. Most of the
time we have to have it acted out in movies, theatre, in fictitious stories acted out in
dialogue.
Ellen, in her closed world, of course could not be expected to see the VALUE of acted
out literature. to see the need for angry books like Uncle Tom, or character like uncle Tom,
Simon Legree, little Liza. Even in the time of the Silent Films with printed dialogue, Little
Liza was a needed heroine. Heroine for whites, heroine for blacks, for orientals, for latinos.
These helped to promote the ability to see evil in society – the need for women voting, the
need for blacks to sit in the front of the bus, good jobs for ALL, regardless of sex, color, to
as MLK said, just look at character. Quality education for all in reading, writing, math.
Movies, Plays, Literature help us to want to see Justice, see Compassion and DO
SOMETHING about it, personally, collectively in community.

6 Likes

Agree 1000%. Ignoring great literature would be to include much of the Bible. There is so much to learn about the world and about ourselves from good literature, theater and yes, movies. That’s where the church has been negligent in both teaching good literature and how to differentiate between the good and the cheap.

It’s always amazing to read and hear that EGW was such a great writer, such beautiful language, etc. It could only be because such persons had never been acquainted with the best.

2 Likes

Mutton dressed up as lamb. Rene G.

There is no such thing as totally bad literature, but it is a mixture of good and bad. We consume poisoned food and drink, and we pay the price in the form of many diseases, which unfortunately we accepted as something normal. We have adopted the same attitude toward spiritual food and drink with the same consequences. It is enough to listen to the news on radio or TV to see the results of consuming that spiritual food; society is sick, but again, we regard it as something normal.

Mary, you do us proud. Thank you for this surprising and eloquent shaping of theatrical art forms. Methinks Ellen and George Bernard would be pleased as well.

Blessings to you and your creative connections.

2 Likes

So…

You don’t believe in researching the context of her time, place, manner?

What was she talking about at that time?

What kind of content was presented then?

You are just no, no, no, no, no, no, no…without research.

Got it.

4 Likes

“society is sick, but again, we regard it as something normal.”

It is good to remember that the church is a reflection of society as well. So when “society” is sick, so are things/people within the church. There is nothing here on earth which is “perfect” except for the love God has for us.

People have used the Bible for their own nefarious and twisted intentions throughout the centuries.

God has created us with minds so that we can discern with the help of the Spirit what is good and discard the rest.

I would like to thank the author for a very good article and for the “creative” message that it gives.

3 Likes

It’s all well and good to look at the context in which she was writing, but at a certain point one has to conclude that so much has to be filtered through context that if she was inspired at all, there’s little in her writings that were meant to apply to today’s world.

4 Likes

It’s about our ability, as mature Christians, to differentiate between principles and the application of principles in a different historical and cultural setting.

3 Likes

This was a very nice article, Mary. Thank you. Your background enriches our understanding of Nathan and David and the Psalms, but it also expands the way we view our faith. When someone asks you what the evangelistic value of your degree is, say that the Adventist Church needs people with widely divergent backgrounds who can bring thoughtful discussion to many issues.

My own Ph.D. is in Mass Communication, with an emphasis in Mass Communication Law, and a dissertation on cameras in the courtroom. That’s a long ways from evangelistic preparation. But I like to think my diverse background brought value to the classes I taught at an Adventist university, and to my days in leadership at the GC Building, and to my years as pastor. God leads us down long - and often very strange - pathways. Our role is to follow. Keep following.

2 Likes