JULY 2020

MUSIC: Great Classical Pieces, Part 2

    Back in the January 2020 edition, we mentioned some of our favorite Classical music pieces, including a modern piece in a Classical music and orchestral style. I usually just like to talk about Mozart, and we have highlighted several of his pieces (see the first two Mozart articles here). However, there are other great Classical pieces, and every few months we want to highlight some of our favorites. Here are the next four:

    Symphony No. 9, “Choral,” Fourth Movement, “Presto,” by Ludwig van Beethoven. The fourth and last movement of Beethoven’s ninth and last symphony is probably his grandest piece, though I am a big fan of Beethoven’s Sixth, the “Pastoral Symphony,” as well.

    Aside from the grand and only slightly-ostentatious scope of this fourth movement of the Ninth symphony, a unique feature of this movement is the addition of a chorus. The movement opens with a dark and brooding symphonic section which eventually gives way to a very familiar tune. After exploring this tune for a while, however, the song reverts to its dark and brooding beginning, but only briefly.  

    Suddenly, a vocalist sings, “My friends, not these tones” (except he sings this in German), and the song, hereafter shifts toward more explorations of this familiar melody. Eventually the chorus gloriously joins in to the “Ode to Joy” (“An die Freude”) and sings lyrics that Beethoven adapted from a poem by German poet Friedrich Schiller.

    The fourth movement of Beethoven’s Ninth is long, about twenty-three minutes. However, it is rarely boring nor tedious, like many of Beethoven’s other works. Though Beethoven was allegedly completely deaf when he composed it, the last movement of this ninth symphony is a treat to listen to for any classical music aficionado. 

    The Planets, Op. 32, No. 1, “Mars, the Bringer of War,” by Gustav Theodore Holst. “Mars,” the first movement of Holst’s The Planets, is a rich and powerful piece that rivals most big-budget movie soundtracks today. Holst began to work on “Mars” just as World War I was beginning; more than just an appeal to Greek mythology, it represents the existential threat of the Great War and resonates with its “relentless and brutal power” (All Music Guide to Classical Music, 616).

    The piece begins ominously and crescendos up to warlike rhythms and patterns until it reaches a faux ending about halfway through the piece. The song then slowly builds back up, intentionally and methodically, until it resumes the warlike march and finally concludes somewhat abruptly. It is as though the song mirrors an actual war: the tensions build, flare up, die down, and then once again increase until they end dramatically, tragically, but conclusively. In an interesting collection of songs named after our solar system’s planets, Holst’s “Mars” is certainly the most powerful installment reflecting the real-life power of international war.

    Bagatelles, Op. 47, Allegretto scherzando, Part 1, by Antonín Dvořák. This may be one of my absolute favorite non-Mozart piece, or at least in the top five. Haunting and heartbreaking melodies incarnate a pensive enjoyment. This first movement especially flows flawlessly from one phrase to the next. It is a true joy to listen to it.

    If you are going to pursue this piece, I would encourage you to get the Dennis Russell Davies recording from 1988; it is about the most perfect CD you will ever purchase. If you listen to this CD and it sounds redundant, well, that’s because it is. The first five tracks feature the five movements of Bagatelles, Op. 47 with a chamber orchestra (which is still smaller than a full symphonic orchestra). Track 10 through 14 replays Bagatelles, Op. 47, but with the four instruments that it was originally written for: two violins, a cello, and an organ. Of course, the songs are the same, but the smaller group sounds much more intimate and organic.

    I received this tape when I was younger and practically wore it out listening through it. I recently bought the CD so that I could continue to enjoy this recording. The tracks that separate the two versions of Bagatelles, Op. 47 are the four tracks of Serenade in D minor, Op. 44. Is good on its own right, but unfortunately, it sounds slightly clunky sandwiched between two versions of the Bagatelles. It is far more woodwind based, which is not bad, but just lacks the fluid nature of Bagatelles.

    Outside of Mozart, the first movement of Bagatelles, Op. 47 is, in my opinion, one of the most perfect pieces in classical music.

    “Descent Into Mystery,” from Batman, by Danny Elfman. I always try to end these lists with something more modern. The best classical-style pieces that we hear today come from movie soundtracks, just like the best Classical pieces back in . . . well . . . Classical times came from operas and symphonies.

    We have highlighted Danny Elfman’s work on the Batman soundtrack (1989) previously; you can see our full article about that here from the March 2011 edition. However, it is still delightful to revisit a favorite song from this album.

    The track “Descent Into Mystery” pulsates with dramatic movement and gothic sounds. It starts quietly with a few instruments and an intriguing chorus. Like “Mars” above, “Descent” builds to a false climax. It then suddenly backs off from it, only to build up to it again in an even more dramatic fashion. The song truly captures the essence of the dark and heroic nature of the film, and I think that in many ways it captures the very essence of the character of Batman himself.

    Do you have any favorite classical pieces that we haven’t mentioned yet? Let us know by sending an e-mail to feedback@eclectickasper.com and include one sentence about why you like the song. We’ll mention your favorite classical piece and your summary of it in a follow-up article.

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK – EMERGENT CONCERNS: Off the Deep End

        This article is originally from the June/ July 2012 edition of The Eclectic Kasper.

    We all say goofy things once in a while; I’ve certainly mis-blurbed my fair share of oddities in teaching and speaking and had to walk them back later. However, it is entirely different to publish odd comments online or in a book and consciously make goofy or bizarre statements that are clearly at odds with Biblical doctrine.

    In this article, we want to show you some of the more ridiculous quotes from emergent leaders. It would be unfair to build our understanding of this movement on these bizarre quotes alone; however, the eyebrow-raising effect of these assertions from leading emergent figures like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Leonard Sweet raise serious questions about the legitimacy of these authors, and, ergo, of the movement as a whole. I provide these with limited comment, because, I think, most of them speak for themselves.

    Regarding Biblical authority, Brian McLaren sees a “generous” multiculturalism in the creation of the Bible: “Scripture is something God had ‘let be,’ and so it is at once God’s creation and the creation of the dozens of people and communities and cultures who produced it” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 162). Pauline doctrine seems to provoke ire from some emergents: “Maybe some evangelicals should tear the book of Romans out of their Bibles and read a Romans-free Bible for a few years. Then they can paste it back in” (Tony Jones, from his blog, February 26, 2008; please note that despite how widely attested this quote is, I have not been able to find it on Tony’s blog, which interestingly, doesn’t have this post up anymore!).

    In an apparent attempt to undermine orthodox doctrine and propositional truth, Erwin McManus declares, “The power of the gospel is the result of a person—Jesus Christ—not a message. The gospel is an event to be proclaimed, not a doctrine to be preserved” (“The Global Intersection,” The Church In Emerging Culture, 248). Sorry, Erwin, I believe that the apostles would strongly disagree (John 8:31; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 4:6, 16; 6:3; Titus 1:9; 1 John 2:23; 2 John 1:9). McManus also asserts: “Let’s abandon the well-worn path of searching for truth in the midst of information and even reason. There is one who calls us . . . to follow him” (ibid., p. 225). Yes, it is about following Jesus, but why the dichotomy between following Christ and following truth when Jesus Himself removes this divide (John 1:14; 8:31-32; 14:6; 18:37)?

    Rob Bell proclaims either a universalism or a works-oriented theology when he oddly states: “And this reality extends beyond this life. Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust” (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting The Christian Faith, 137). Note the subtitle of the book from which this quote is taken: “Repainting the Christian Faith” — repainting, indeed!

    Similarly, some emergents want to completely redefine (or “repaint”?) the gospel message entirely to match the doubt and ambiguity of post-modern society: “The more I have interacted with them [postmodern seekers], the more questions I have had about not just my changing methods but my so-called unchanging message” (Brian McLaren, “The Method, the Message, and the Ongoing Story,” The Church in Emerging Culture, 194). Later, McLaren reflects a frightening uncertainty about the Gospel: “If we feel successful—that we’ve captured the gospel just right, for example—we are in danger . . . even though I believe, I am still seeking” (ibid., p. 224). They even want to reformulate how we understand Christ: “A major New Light undertaking is the designing of newstream communities that can be ‘in connection’ and ‘in-formation’ with the spirit of Christ. Christ will be embodied for the postmodern church in information” (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, p. 122).

    Even the idea of belief in Christ and Christian truth is increasingly shunned by emergents and replaced with a feelings-oriented gospel: “I am no longer interested, in the first instance, in what a person believes. Most of the time it’s so much clutter in the brain . . . I wouldn’t trust an inch many people who profess a belief in God. Others who do not or who doubt have won my trust. I want to know if joy, curiosity, struggle, and compassion bubble up in a person’s life. I’m interested in being fully alive” (Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your Mind, p. 79).

    And what is the deal with “reimagining” or, as previously mentioned, “repainting” Christianity. Emergent authors who throw these “re-” words into their book titles are completely missing the point and reflecting a belief that there is something wrong with the Bible or with the Christian faith. Many of emergent leaders’ criticisms are valid, but these criticisms should be directed toward Christians not toward the Biblical orthodox Christian faith. To put it differently, the problem is the failure of Christians who are not living up to their Christian calling. Emergent leaders frequently undermine the doctrines and practices of Christianity, where the solution should be to teach (not “reimagine,” “recreate” or “reformulate”) Biblical doctrines and practices to Christians.

    Abandoning Biblical categories of belief and doctrine produces subjectivity and mysticism akin to that of the medieval church. While the focus on mysticism is increasingly fashionable in Christian circles, terms like “mystic” and “mysterious” require significant qualification, lest it devolve into invalid individualism or become an excuse to jettison propositional Biblical truth. Don Miller, in his popular book Blue like Jazz does just that when he claims: “For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced but not explained” (Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz, p. 115). He goes on to state: “You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic” (p. 202).

    Well, that’s plenty for now, but unfortunately, there’s more of this silliness from the emergent movement than we can fit into one article. Have you encountered any other bizarre quotes from our emergent friends? Send the quote, author, book, and page number to feedback@eclectickasper.com and we’ll print it in a future edition.

CULTURE/ SOCIETY: In Defense of Silence

    I have seen many memes and articles about the need for people to stand up and speak out.

    Drew Breese, Ellen DeGeneres, and Heidi Klum – who holds the position of a “judge” on a talent show – did speak out about something they believed in or about a concern that they observed. They then received backlash for presenting their perspective, or for being tone deaf or for daring to say something that had a trace of patriotism.

    Some of us feel badgered to speak up; we are told that “silence is violence.” CNN anchor Don Lemon recently started a podcast called, “Silence is Not an Option,” a strangely intolerant statement for the “tolerant” left.

    But as soon as we speak up and say something, we are immediately told that we are not allowed to say those things because they are racist, or tone deaf, or bigoted, or fascist, or whatever.

    It seems that when someone says we need to speak up, that person is just saying that they need more people to parrot what they believe. Those who want the rest of us to speak up don’t want us to think for ourselves and say something that may contain facts and common sense that may contradict or undermine their cause.

    I often emphasize the need for Christians to be proclamational, to proclaim the gospel of Christ to unbelievers and to speak words of encouragement and edification to believers. However, just because you’re a Christian, that doesn’t necessarily mean you always have to be saying something.

    In fact, there is a rich biblical theology of silence before the Lord as part of our corporate worship or individual devotions (Job 33:31, 33; Psa 62:1, 5; 65:1; Isa 23:2; Lam 3:28; Hab 2:20; Zeph 1:7; 2:13; Rev 8:1). There is also a rich Biblical ethic about knowing what to say, knowing when to say it, and often deciding that it is more beneficial not to say anything. Scripture affirms the value of strategically-timed deployment of our words (Job 13:5; Prov 10:19; 11:12; 12:23; 15:2; 17:28; Eccl 3:7; Isa 42:14; Amos 5:13). Proverbs 11:12 is representative of what Bible says about the value of sometimes deciding to not respond or speak: “He who despises his neighbor lacks sense, but a man of understanding keeps silent.” Proverbs 10:19 is a great one, too: “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise.”

    In fact, strategically-deployed silence was used by Jesus Himself, even though He could never say anything wrong. He probably used strategic silence in many instances, but it was even prophesied that this would accompany His suffering: “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth” (Isaiah 53:7). He fulfilled this in passages like Matt 26:63 and 27:12-14.

    People on both sides of the aisle say dumb stuff. They would benefit in their causes and in their careers from recognizing that they don’t always need to say, or tweet, or post something. With so many opportunities to proclaim anything we want, our society has lost the art and the power of choosing to say nothing.

    Maybe, too, some of us are not speaking because we’re thinking. The process of thinking-before-speaking also seems to be a lost art, and is also addressed in Scripture: “The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things” (Proverbs 15:28; see also Col 4:6 and 1 Peter 3:15, ). Maybe some of us are watching, waiting, allowing the dust to settle, and then considering how we can maximize the impact of our words by saying something concise, of high quality, and deployed at a strategic moment.

    Of course, all of that is just a nice way of saying that you don’t have to say the first thing that pops into your mind, a lesson I have learned the hard way. Again, one of our problems today is that there is too much talking without thinking. There are too many responses and too few facts. There is too much reaction and not enough contemplation. Ravi Zacharias frequently noted that many people in our culture think with their feelings, and these emotions are rarely analyzed before they come out.

    Modern technology allows us to get our thoughts out to as many people as possible as quickly as possible. However, the convenience and the speed of the distribution of our thoughts may compromise the amount of thinking we put into our thoughts before they get mass distributed.

    In fact, and not to be too dramatic, but I think that the phenomenon of talking without thinking is one of the greatest epidemics our age, and one of the most destructive forces in our society. Talk without thought creates an unsustainable society. It does not produce solutions, but only divisions.

    I will stand up and defend the right of some to protest, and I will respect those who don’t want to. I can defend the rights of those who want to speak out, and I defend the wisdom of those who want to wait and not yet speak out.

    I respect the right of people to say what they want to. Just don’t judge me if I choose to do so silently.