Augustine on Love, Grief, Drama, and Life
“Oh, have mercy on me and tell me, oh Lord my God, what you are to me. Say to my soul, ‘I am your salvation.’ Say it loudly enough that I may hear.” -Augustine, 398 A.D.
I have been reading Augustine’s reflections lately, his popular “Confessions.” Augustine is called the father of theology, and is renown as one of the greatest and most influential men in the development of Christian thought. However, Augustine was also a very passionate and moving writer. He often interjects poetic praise in the midst of his thoughts, and it creates a very intimate and engaging atmosphere in his work.
Before becoming such a strong pillar of the faith, he also lived a life of self-admitted depravity. He came to the city of Carthage, which was infamous for its lavish lifestyle of hedonism. He has some very interesting thoughts on the culture, which I found interesting. It is reproduced here in abridged form, below:
To Carthage I came. There I put my ear to the cauldron and heard from within and all around a song of unholy loves.
I did not love, but I loved the thought of love.
And in the depths of my desires, I detested the fact that I could not love more. I looked for something to love, in my love of loving. I hated safety and wanted no path that did not have its snares.
The reason was that inside me there was a famine of inward food. I was starving for You, my God. This was not the sort of famine in which I realized my hunger. Indeed I lacked any longing for incorruptible sustenance, not because I had been filled with it, but because I was empty and loathed it. As a result, my soul became feeble and full of sores.
In misery my soul cast about, seeking sensual objects that could scratch where the pox itched. Yet there was no love to be found. None of these things had a soul, so they could not be objects of love. Outwardly my great vanity appeared refined and sophisticated. So I fell head first into the love that I had so wanted to be captured by.
***
The theater enchanted me with its images of my own miseries. Its plays added fuel to my fire. What makes someone want to be made sad? Why behold doleful tragedies, vicariously experiencing what does not have to be suffered? Yet the spectator wants to feel sorrow at the stories, and this very anguish is pleasure. This seems to be wretched insanity. As more false emotion is elicited by what happens on stage, there is less freedom for one’s own true feelings.
How odd that when one suffers personally, it is called “misery.” When it is vicarious, it is styled as a sort of mercy. How is it compassion to feel made-up emotions about imaginary acts? The one who watches is not called on to help relieve pain, but only to grieve. More applause is given to the actor who can elicit more grief. If the calamities depicted (whether historical or just made up) do not move the spectator to tears, he goes away disgusted and criticizing. If he is moved to passion, he watches intently and weeps for joy.
Do we really love to grieve? Certainly all want to have joy. No one wants to be miserable. So perhaps it is that we are pleased if we can act with merciful affection. Since mercy cannot exist without passion, we stir our passions for this reason alone.
***
So shall we avoid all feelings of compassion? Certainly not, nor is it wrong to take up grief out of affection. But be careful of that temptation to impurity. Oh my soul, whose guardian is the exalted God of my fathers, beware of impurity.
However much someone may be commended for loving others enough to share their misery, genuine compassion is not about looking for some excuse to feel sad. Sorrow is permitted human beings, but it is not to be desired if we would be like You, Lord God.
It was a sign of my desolation that I loved theatrical emotions, and looked for occasions to empathize with fake, impersonated misery. So I loved acting and was attracted to the stage with a passion, even though performances stirred only tears.
Is it any wonder that this straying, hapless sheep, who was dissatisfied with your shepherding, was infected with a foul disease? Since I had come to love unhappiness, why shouldn’t an occasion for it sink deep into me? I didn’t care what I looked at, and it didn’t matter that I was listening to fictions that only scratched the surface of real life. And so it was as if infected claws scratched my skin and left inflamed, swollen wounds and putrid sores. Was such an existence really a life, oh my God?
Augustine here highlights the fascinating trend of existentialism that exists inherently within the human condition. Without God, life is emptiness, and there is no hope for humanity. Mankind, in its Fallen state, cannot be but shackled in its prison of sin. Augustine elsewhere writes, “I fear my own self-deception, for my corrupt heart lies even to itself.” Paul writes in his letter to Rome, speaking of man in his natural state, “No one is righteous, not one. No one understands, no one seeks after God.”
To bring Augustine’s contemplations to today, what relevance do these thoughts bear on our own contemporary context? With particular note to his dealings with the dramas and plays, how does this speak to our current trend of films and sensationalist, engulfing forms of media?
Do we similarly in our culture stir our passions unnecessarily, and does this speak to something deeper that our passions and empathy are intended for? Is this behaviour indicative of a greater purpose, that in our fallen nature, has been tainted and corrupted by our abuse?
I thought this was interesting, and simply figured I would share.
-ACR
EDIT: I have found a great article discussing modern films in holistic manner. Here is an excerpt:
Consider this graphic Hollywood plotline: A man travels to Las Vegas to retrieve his cheating wife. On the way back to Los Angeles, the two stop at a rundown motel in Death Valley. During the night, a mob of sexual degenerates surrounds their cabin, threatening to sodomize the man. Hoping to appease the bloodlust, the man throws his wife outside—and when morning comes, the mob has left nothing of her but a corpse. The man cuts up her body and sends pieces of it to his friends… But that’s nothing compared to the bloodbath that follows.
No, this isn’t the synopsis for Saw IV or the latest Quentin Tarantino gore-fest. It’s an update of a not-so-familiar biblical story from Judges 20-21. But imagine if that story were made into a film. How the critics would rant, Christian and otherwise. If told without flinching, the story would earn an NC-17 rating for sure; and there’s probably no way to tell it in a fashion that would cut the rating to PG-13. Of what possible redemptive value could such a story be?
You can read the full article HERE.
Author Rathbun, you provoke thought with your ponderings when you ask:
“Do we similarly in our culture stir our passions unnecessarily, and does this speak to something deeper that our passions and empathy are intended for?”
For those so inclined, careful examination of our personal habits and natural gravitations might yeild uncomfortable truths that we fill our days with useless entertainments and frivolous pursuits. You are right to query if our pursuits are better intended for God’s greater purposes.
I recently had an older relative pass away. In the dying process the normal appetite for food, entertainments, and chat of current gossip of news and events fell away about three weeks before death. In its place came a hunger to spend what precious time remained on important, unfinished business with people.
It was both encouraging and convicting to see the transformation. I couldn’t help but wonder what this person’s life would have been like had they had that revelation sooner.
I look forward to more of your insights.
~CSP
So what are the righteous empathies and passions and their original purposes?
Augustine’s “Confessions” was a required reading for one of my previous classes so I have read them as well.
I think the real issue here is the individual. Augustine’s passages are no doubt true in his own life, his own thoughts reflect on just that, however is it true of our lives?
In his day and age, the biggest form of theater was drama; the “Greek Tragedies”, if you will, that were designed to conjure grief and sorrow. The rapid success of this genre led to its popularity and is still present in main stream society.
Augustine was quick to point out just how depraved he was without God, that in his search to fill that void he turned to the things that stirred his emotions because of the fact that he enjoyed it and I think it’s very important to point that out. Augustine could have used a dozen different examples of daily actions to relate to his brooding grief.
Does that mean that movies/plays are bad and to stir sorrow among the audience is a bad thing? Certainly not, for no entertainment medium in itself is a bad thing, but rather what people do with them. Any obsessive act could be used as a substitute for spending all your time with movies.
I love movies, it’s the field I want to enter for my future career. I too grieve when a performance turns that direction, when the heroic hero that I had come to love over the last hour falls in combat. I also experience joy when good triumphs, when against all odds they prevail.
So do I want to be sad? Do I want to grieve? In a way, for in so doing the story is made that much better. However, to me, that is not a bad thing by any means. We can enjoy things without letting them consume us.
There is also an educational use to movies/plays/stories that allows us to highlight messages and present them to our students. I can’t even begin to tell you how many times I’ve used movies to relay Young Life’s ministry to the high school kids. Through grief, through sorrow they empathize and they understand the costs and the relation to whatever scripture I’m using.
The biggest issue that Augustine highlights is the pursuit of such forms of entertainment as a substitute for God or in the absence of God in someone’s life. It is not the medium, but the individual and every other aspect that affects his or her life.
Most would all agree that emotions are not bad; some would say they are. I am glad a big fat book of emotions is centered right in the middle of Scripture - the Psalms. It is the highs and lows, joys and laments, thanksgivings and complaints of David and others concerning their life in God. And let’s not forget Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. I do not believe the Psalms are first and foremost written for theological purposes in the strict sense (they are theological because they are addressed to God, Theos, and words about Him). But it was David and others pouring their hearts out to God, not trying to establish theological teaching.
Now concerning the stirring of emotions: Based upon my own experience, I wouldn’t try and stir up emotions just for the ‘fun of it’. But I wouldn’t say that is a rule. Many times in my life I have sensed it not necessary to stir up what God Himself is not stirring in me. I am not even speaking of a specific ‘word’ or ‘move’ of God. I know that even through the normal circumstances and quandaries of life God can stir deep things in us. But if I sense that unhealthy fear is deep in me that needs to be dealt with, I don’t have to force myself to deal with it. I can rely on Him to speak into and deal with it at the appropriate time. Of course not being 100% passive and irresponsible of dealing with unhealthy things in my life. Yet, I also know that I have at times found myself trying to stir up tears. I don’t cry a lot. I don’t mind crying, but I don’t do it a lot. So sometimes I just want to turn on movies that I know will make me cry - The Green Mile and The Kid - so I can just cry. Is that unhealthy? Sometimes I want to pick up a fiction book so I can be peaceful and happy and tranquil while reading. Is that wrong? I am not sure if and where the line would be in our stirring up emotions.
Movies aren’t bad - they are great connection points to life in many ways, just as music, literature, and art are great connectors for us. We love these things because we were built for these things, in their pure and wholesome form. And we don’t even have to be ‘fruity’ to love them. We all love them in some sort. They seem to awaken the heart to something bigger than ourselves. Watching the movie The Fellowship of the Ring is awesome. But then I consider that there is no beautiful musical score written to my life in the literal sense. I don’t climb a mountain with a symphony orchestra in the background. And that can sadden me. But then I think, there is a musical score if I listen carefully. John Eldredge addresses a lot of this stuff in his books, especially his short work, Epic. Life is truly a story with music set to it, and our lives are part of a bigger story, a bigger movie if you will. We are in a drama playing an important part alongside the great Hero.
And yes, movies (picture form of stories) are educational. There have been some great truths portrayed through movies, and those movies didn’t even have a Christian emphasis. We all love Braveheart, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, Good Will Hunting and so many others that we personally like that others might not (me, The Green Mile). Where appropriate, I look to include movies and stories in my own lectures to teach eternal truths of life.
So Chach, is this blog specifically for Reformed Calvinistic believers? :)
I like that comment Scott, and Adam’s comments earlier.
Many external kinds of media move me - and that is a good not a bad thing. God made me as an emotional, feeling being. Of course, when emotions are my only point of reference my outlook on life becomes a little narrow. But these things are not mutually exclusive. God gave humanity the mandate to create culture - and that includes art forms such as music, literature, theatre etc.
More than that, creation itself moves me to my core. At BCW I would regularly go down to the beach, because it was beautiful, vast and moved me emotionally. It reminded me of God’s size and how small I was and how much I needed him; but also how amazing it was that he loved me, some little guy among billions stood on some beach in South Wales. You know, when we watch creation, we see that it is a drama in and of itself - waves crashing against the shore; birds raising their young; lions chasing a herd of wildebeest on the African plains.
Sometimes I can be a stubborn man, a little too self-absorbed and egocentric, and it takes things like music, good poetry, a landscape (etc.) to lift me out of that and realise that there is something far bigger going on in the world. God forbid that I become merely some rational automaton - I was made for more. The earth, including a lot of human culture, has much beauty; and that beauty moves me because it is a reflection of God’s beauty - and if I am left unmoved, then I am simply a walking corpse :o)
So what do we think about the Bible being a story and drama rather than a rule/guide book. It’s hard to say that sometimes. I can say it theologically, and believe it in my head, but sometimes my heart has a hard time believing. There is doctrine/teaching and there are commands. But I think those things are within the bigger umbrella of a redemptive drama being played out over thousands of years. Wow, thinking about that begins to captivate and stir my heart even now! And I actually am hearing the amazing musical score behind the thousands of years of drama!!
The Westminster Catechism asks, “What is the chief end of man?” It answers, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” This is a suiting definition, noting both our ultimate God-made purpose, and the joy of worshiping the Creator. John Piper accentuates this by modifying it to, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God *BY* enjoying him forever,” in his promotion of “Christian Hedonism.” (take note of his provoking vocabulary ;-).
I certainly think Augustine’s thoughts are 100% applicable to our current cultural context, *when understood in the context that Augustine INTENDED them to mean*. More on this in a moment.
Today, we have our own tragedies, simply using today’s idiom. I think it is right to point out that he over-indulged in it in his contemporary time, so perhaps he is over-reactively abstaining, but he makes good general points nonetheless.
Adam, I think you make the perfect point in noting the neutrality of the medium, and simply its abuse by fallen man. The internet is another example. It is 90% porn, but does that make the internet bad? It is used for bad, but the tool is neutral, or even actually *good*.
Scott and Simon, you guys perfectly highlight the innate “goodness” of Creation, which is in a similar and progressed stream of thought. God created art so that it could be appreciated, music to be enjoyed, and performance to be moved by. The powerful communication that is achieved through these means can be far more potent than a simple exposition on a truth. The rhythm and device of poetry is itself a mode of language God used to communicate to us in his Holy Word.
I think the point being overlooked here is the *context* of Augustine’s writing. He is not describing these mediums of entertainment in the context of the born-again believer, who understands the cultural mandate and appreciates the goodness of Creation for God, and uses them appropriately. He is highlighting this for the depraved, unsaved culture, and the hole that it tries to fill with these cultural elements- specifically the misuse and abuse of such things. This abuse leads to this kind of unnecessary “stirring” of the inherently good emotions.
For example, look how obsessed our culture is with twisted, gory horror films. Is fear a God-given thing? Yes. Can fear as an emotion be harnessed in appropriate and moving ways in film? Yes. But these particular films (sensationalist and engulfing, as I describe above) are a deeply marred abuse of playing on fear.
This is the context to which Augustine is speaking.
Augustine is underscoring the opening words of Ecclesiastes, “Meaningless!” Life without God is meaningless.
Colleen’s above example of her unsaved friend is on par with this kind of example.
Scott, I don’t understand your question re: a reformed audience, as it pertains to this topic. Perhaps you can elaborate =). I think I know what you mean, but if I understand correctly, then what you mean wouldn’t make sense, as I understand it. So I assume that I don’t understand correctly, hehe.
***
I definitely see the Bible as more God’s unfolding story of redemption, revelation, and Kingdom; as opposed to rule/guidebook, or “handbook to life.” While it serves these functions, it comes to us in the form of God’s great metanarrative of history and creation.
This is actually my major area of interest. I have a great personal emphasis on the discipline of *Biblical* Theology, rather than Systematic theology, for this very reason. Systematics are not bad to any degree, but it is refreshing to have Biblical Theology’s cohesiveness with the scripture as it is transmitted to us. Progressive revelation, Covenant theology, etc.
Ironically, a blog post I am currently working on is a synopsis of these themes throughout the Bible, intended for a non-Christian audience. (I originally started it for some non-Christians on some other forums I post on, and decided to put in on my blog as well).
I’m doing a followup on tracing the thread of “Redemption” in the form of “Exodus” throughout the entirety of the Bible, to highlight principles of progressive revelation.
A fun way to read the Bible, while obviously not canonical, is in a chronological Bible. Prophesies are intertwined with narratives, psalms are woven into stories. It’s a refreshing new look at the scriptures. They also have a harmonization of the gospels, which is nice for reading all the episodes of Jesus in one nice package. It’s obviously not any good for textual study, but very fresh nonetheless.
Chach - I was just joking myself in noting that all topics brought up on this blog tend to have quotes and arguments from “reformed” perspectives (though Augustine was not “reformed” in the way we think, but most reformed thoughts agree with Augustine). It would be interesting to see someone non-reformed/non-Calvinistic read some of the articles and leave comments.
In your next article, you might challenge yourself in discussing a topic in which you do not quote any reformed thinking people. :)
“I’m doing a followup on tracing the thread of “Redemption” in the form of “Exodus” throughout the entirety of the Bible, to highlight principles of progressive revelation.”
Wouldn’t this be systematic theology? Studying the theme of redemption throughout the whole of Scripture is a topic. Of course they both overlap in many ways. But simple Biblical Theology is studying things book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse with no specific theme in mind. When themes/topics come in, we are starting to systematize.
Here is a blog you might be interested in that my friend started:
http://meta-echo.blogspot.com
Be careful ascribing the label “Reformed” to Augustine, I got in trouble with Gary for doing that to Calvin and Paul, hehe. The Catholics uphold and draw from Augustine to the same degree that protestants do ;-). I will quote non-Reformed people if it is not on the issue of soteriological thought. Greg Boyd, for example, has some good stuff on civil government. But he also subscribes to Open Theism, which is not even maintained in orthodox Christianity. Soteriologically, however, I firmly believe Arminianism is a man-centered, man-focused, man-sovereign hermeneutic.
Re: Biblical Theology
I think it depends on how you understand and define “Biblical” theology. What you describe here, I would define more as exegesis and exposition. Biblical Theology as I have come to understand it (which may be misunderstood) is the study of the actual revelation itself *contained within the text*, rather than the study of the text itself.
This is not to be mistaken for a liberal, low view of the authority of the text. Neither is this to be confused with a loose defining of the text as merely the container into which revelation is held. Geerhardus Vos dedicates an entire section of his volume “Biblical Theology” to the fact that the name of the discipline is so ambiguous, and defines it well.
He writes, “The term ‘Biblical Theology’ is really unsatisfactory because of its liability to misconstruction. All truly Christian theology must be *Biblical* theology- for apart from General Revelation, the scriptures constitute the sole material with which the science of Theology can deal. A more suitable name would be ‘History of Special Revelation’.”
He goes on to explain, “Biblical Theology occupies a position between Exegesis and Systematic Theology in the encyclopaedia of theological disciplines. It differs from Systematic Theology not in being more Biblical, or adhering more closely to the truths of the scriptures, but in that it’s principle for organizing the Biblical material is historical rather than logical. Whereas Systematic Theology takes the Bible as a completed whole and endeavors to exhibit its total teaching in an orderly, systematic form, Biblical Theology deals with the material from a historical standpoint, seeking to exhibit the organic growth or development of the truths of Special Revelation from the primitive pre-redemptive Special Revelation given in Eden to the close of the New Testament canon.”
He explains the exegetical process in great detail and very well, so I will simply quote him at length:
*****
The usual treatment of theology distinguishes four great departments, which are named Exegetical Theology, Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, and Practical Theology. The point to be observed for our present purpose is the position given Exegetical Theology as the first among these four. This precedence is due to the instinctive recognition that at the beginning of all theology lies a passive, receptive attitude on the part of the one who engages in its study. The assumption of such an attitude is characteristic of all truly exegetical pursuits. It is eminently a process in which God speaks and man listens.
Exegetical Theology, however, should not be confined to exegesis. The former is a larger whole of which the latter is indeed an important part, but after all only a part. Exegetical Theology in a wider sense comprises the following disciplines:
(a) the study of the actual content of Holy Scriptures
(b) the inquiry into the origin of the several Biblical writings, including the identity of the writers, the time and occasion of composition, dependence on possible sources, etc. This is called *Introduction*, and may be regarded as a further carrying out of the process of Exegesis proper;
(c) the putting of the question of how these several writings came to be collected into the unity of a Bible or book; this part of the process bears the technical name of *Canonics*;
(d) the study of the actual self-disclosures of God in time and space which lie back of even the first committal to writing of any Biblical document, and which for a long time continued to run alongside of the inscripturation of revealed material; this last named procedure is called the study of *Biblical Theology*.
The order in which the four steps are here named is, of course, the order in which they present themselves successively to the investigating mind of man. When looking at the process from the point of view of the divine activity the order requires to be reversed, the sequence here being:
(a) the divine self-revelation;
(b) the committal to writing the revelation-product;
(c) the gathering of the several writings thus produced into the unity of a collection;
(d) the production and guidance of the study of the content of the Biblical writings.
*****
Therefore, Biblical Theology would be a study of the divine revelation itself, rather than a textual analysis of the verses and chapters and books. The revelation is simply contained within these verses, but this textual analysis is the project of exegesis, which formulates the building blocks to move on toward Biblical Theology.
Since we are on the topic of great epic dramas, and the Bible is the best one, here is an appropriate metaphor. This is from Prof. Richard Gaffin:
“More recently, I’ve found it helpful to use the analogy of plot analysis of a great epic drama to describe the Biblical Theology / Systematic Theology relationship. The history of redemption (set against the backdrop of creation and fall) is the ‘drama,’ and ST, under appropriate topics (God, man, creation, sin, salvation, etc.) and with an eye to the whole, discusses the actors and their interactions that constitute the ‘plot.’ In this way the topical concern of ST with what the Bible in its unity and as a whole teaches is maintained, but in a way that keeps it focused on the unfolding of covenant history to its consummation in Christ (the concern of BT).”
Your friend has a cool blog, I’ll keep an eye on it =). How do you know the dude?
Why do we care what Augustine thinks?
If it ends in an “ism” it’s too small for God
In the end, it mainly matters what the Scripture teaches, but we do have to respect our “fathers” before us. In one sense, the writers of Scripture are our fathers as well. We are not bound by the historical thoughts of believers of previous ages, but it does give us a sense of what they have pondered, considered, and prayed through themselves. Why does it matter what anyone says at all other than we do have valid thoughts that need to be considered, even if they are different from ours. I don’t think it healthy to go the Roman Catholic route where we put the traditional teachings of our fathers (for them the Popes) as equal to Scripture, but it is good to know and understand and consider their thoughts.
Yes, “isms” are too small for God - communism, fundamentalism, marxism, etc. But even in those things that are not the full truth, there are little nuggets to make connections with non-believers. Paul did this with the Athenians in Acts 17 - connecting with their unknown god and quoting the pagan poets they read. Not because they were THE truth, but because there were connection points to THE truth he was trying to share. But yes, all “isms” fall short of the kingdom of God.
Oswald Chambers wrote a poem in defense of poetry describing such things as, “…those divine essences we call Music, Poetry, Art, through which God breathes His Spirit of peace into the soul.” (quote by John Eldredge in The Way of the Wild Heart).
Eldredge goes on to say, “Through his (C.S. Lewis’s) writings, and the others, through the fields and forests, the art and music, my heart was being wooed in so many ways. For that which draws us to the heart of God is that which often first lifts our own hearts above the mundane, awakens longing and desire. And it is that life, my brothers, the life of your heart, that God is most keenly after.”
I have added an article re: this subject to the end of the original blog post, beneath the “EDIT” at the bottom.
For anyone interested, it is a very good way of describing a holistic attitude a Christian can take to engaging with film, whether Christian or not, whether PG or NC-17.