Samuel Wells has a written a very important book in Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics. It deserves to be widely read. Reading it over the last few days more carefully, there is much to be welcomed and considered ecclesiologically.
He argues that Christians are not 'called to be heroes ... they are called to be saints' (42-44, see here where I have posted previously on this). This is such an important distinction to make. In a time and place where the church is seemingly struggling, the temptation is to look for heroes or try and be heroic as if the outcome of history all depends on us. This is to forget that 'the saint is always at the periphery of a story that is really about God' (43).
Building on this concept of narrative or story, he claims this narrative is in fact a drama. Here he takes Tom Wright's model of a five-act play, and develops and revises it, and so it becomes: creation - Israel - Jesus - church - eschaton. He then argues that 'there are two kind of mistakes that can be easily made' (55). The second mistake is an important one for us as we reflect upon and theologise about the future of the church: 'the second mistake is to get the wrong act' (55). If we think we're in act one, we talk as if the play begins with us - to act as creator - rather than God. Where this is the case, Wells says, 'there have been no significant events before one's appearance in the drama. There is no experience to learn from, no story to join, no drama to enter' (55). Similarly, Wells says, if we think we're in act five, we act as if we're the finishers of the story, it all depends on us to bring it to its conclusion: 'humans are not the creators, nor the finishers, of God's story' (56). The assumption in act two is to behave as if the Messiah has not yet come. While the assumption in act three is we are the Messiah and we believe '[everything we do] has decisive significance for the world - and even for God' (56) - the attempt to be the hero. In act four, the drama has been going for a long time, 'the most important things have happened', our role therefore is to be faithful followers - we find our character 'by becoming a character in God's story' (57).
Having argued that the Christian story is drama, Wells goes on to say that 'ethics, the embodiment of that story, is appropriately regarded as ... [improvisation]' (59). Improvisation, according to Wells, is inevitable, is scriptural and is ecclesial. This of course, echoes some of what Tom Wright has said, as well as others, what is helpful about Wells is he puts some flesh on the bones. Wells describes what it means to improvise and how to improvise (which I might blog about later).
Wells takes the work of Hauerwas, (Tom) Wright, Brueggemann and others to the next level. If Hauerwas and Brueggemann help show us and free our thinking from the 'secular' narratives in which we find ourselves, I think people like Samuel Wells (who incidently is to be new Dean of Duke University, where Hauerwas resides) and Brian Walsh will help show us how to live immersed in the Christian narrative, faithfully improvising towards Christ-like-ed-ness, by the power of the Spirit.
:o) This is really interesting. I like the drama analogy, it's actually quite helpful. (that might be because i'm a drama student, but hey). I'd definately be interested in the "how to"s here, do please blog on!
Posted by: -ash | April 04, 2005 at 10:23 PM