# Theatrical Scripture Reading?



## Nate (Aug 1, 2010)

We visited a reformed church in our town this morning. Scripture reading was Genesis 19, but instead of the pastor or an elder reading the text, a member of the congregation came up and gave what I guess would be considered a "theatrical reading" of the passage. I felt a little bid uncomfortable during this time as my attention was sometimes drawn away from the meaning of the text and towards what the performer was doing on stage. Although the individual did not have a Bible in hand, the entire "performance" was the entirety of Genesis 19, word-for-word. 
Does anyone know if this is a common practice in some churches, and if so, does this practice become less distracting over time?


----------



## christiana (Aug 1, 2010)

I'm not just uncomfortable; I object! Paul told Timothy to preach the word. He didnt say to act it out in pantomine or do a theatrical reading to tickle the ears but to preach sound doctrine as in God's word!
So many novelties, fads, adding to, taking away and thats not even counting all the compromise and circus and magicians! 
The slippery slope has just increased its tilt! Very sad!
I googled 'theatrical scripture reading' and was amazed at what turned up; imagine all the ways to make scripture 'fun' and worse!


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 1, 2010)

Nancy - 

Unless I'm mistaken, Nate wasn't saying that this was "the sermon". (if that was the case, then I strongly object as well) Rather, I think what occurred was simply a "beefed up" reading of the chapter, rather than having it simply read. Now i don't like that, either, but I don't find as much difficulty with it as if they did what you seem to have inferred from Nate's story.

Todd


----------



## FenderPriest (Aug 1, 2010)

We've had dramatic recitations of Scripture at our church. They aren't in place of the preaching of Scripture, but they are also in line with Paul's command: "Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching" (1 Tim. 4:13).

Here's a video of a recitation by one of our pastor's recently that was very powerful. Since he was reciting a sermon from Acts (which we're preaching through right now), it almost felt as though it actually _was_ the sermon!

[video=vimeo;12974319]http://vimeo.com/12974319[/video]


----------



## Nate (Aug 1, 2010)

Right, Todd. There was a sound and edifying sermon following the Scripture reading. The style of the Scripture reading just seemed out of place.


----------



## goodnews (Aug 1, 2010)

My guess is that we'll hear some good points on both sides. Here's my  Personally, I don't like a monotone reading of Scripture, especially beofre a sermon. The Word is alive and should be presented as such. That's not to say that the Word needs our help to be alive. But, a monotone reading is distracting, In my humble opinion. As a result, I also own the entire Bible on CD, and decided to go with the dramatic version. What that simply means is that much of the reading is done dramatically, including sound effects in the background (nothing overly dramatic though). On the other hand, I have also observed a Scripture reading that was accompanied by interpretive dance. The problem with such a style was that the dance had absolutely nothing to do with what the Scripture was saying and it was also distracting. We don't need to overdo it since the Word has a natural vivacity. And any reading should help present the text contextually.


----------



## christiana (Aug 1, 2010)

I guess I still wouldnt approve but at least it was not in lieu of the sermon. Pardon.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 1, 2010)

There's a difference between objecting to something like this because it isn't appropriate (the Bible was meant to be read, not acted out -OR- we shouldn't think we need an actor to make God's Word interesting) and objecting to it because it doesn't fit our personal preference (it was distracting to me -OR- I didn't like the style of it).

I'm inclined to think there may be some legitimate questions about its appropriateness. But we must be on guard not to make this about personal preference.


----------



## Idelette (Aug 2, 2010)

This morning's sermon addressed the importance of reverence during the reading of God's Word. It is as much part of worship as preaching, and should be held with great reverence. This isn't appropriate by any means!

The Elements of Worship:
WCF 21:3-5
III. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of his Spirit, according to his will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue.
IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful; and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter: but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death.
V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 2, 2010)

Knowing more own sinfulness, I might object to this practice because there is something greatly amiss if a performed passage of Scripture is more powerful than a plainly read portion; am I moved by the speaker or the what he is speaking? Of course, this logic gets me into trouble when considering what sermons to listen to since I love fiery yet thoroughly biblical preachers (Paul Washer, Al Martin, etc.).

---------- Post added at 11:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------

By the way, FenderPriest, that was a fantastic recitation. If that is what a "theatrical" reading is like, then I am quite open to it.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Aug 2, 2010)

I'd be quite open to a "theatrical reading" if it were similar to the one that Jacob posted. When I first read the post title I visualized costumes and actors, but the posted scripture reading seems to me to be just with emphasis and passion.


----------



## louis (Aug 16, 2010)

Scripture should be read as it was written. It is communication—if reading it theatrically helps convey the information and the story then it should absolutely be done. Do you not even consider the dynamics that punctuation adds to the text? How about the poetry? I don't want Ben Stein reading the Bible to me, that's for sure.


----------



## MarieP (Aug 16, 2010)

From Trevin Wax

[video=youtube;yqObk63-GGo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqObk63-GGo&feature=player_embedded[/video]

[video=youtube;Advywyimtrk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Advywyimtrk&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## louis (Aug 16, 2010)

I think that was beautiful... very well delivered.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 17, 2010)

My concern here is the natural ability and talent that this kind of a performance requires. In any church it will inevitably elevate the one who pulls it off. Not that I think its necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, it should probibly not be a regular part of worship. 

Neither should the Word be read monotonously. I like what Terry Johnson has to say on this point:



> Read slowly, clearly and with nuance. J. C. Ryle credited the reading of Scripture in the context of worship as being instrumental in his own conversion. The text was Ephesians 2:8, described by J. I. Packer as skillfully read in church “with significant pauses, thus achieving great emphasis” (J. I. Packer, Faithfulness and Holiness: The Witness of J. C. Ryle [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2002), p. 27].
> 
> Scripture may be read with more or less skill. Our final concern is that care be taken to read the Scripture well. The reading should not be rushed. Neither should the reading drag. The text to be read should be studied carefully enough that it can be read with comprehension and nuance, enhancing the understanding of the congregation. There is a direct relationship between the skill with which Scripture is read and the value of that reading for the listeners. Edification, after all, is the goal at which we are aiming.
> 
> ...



So, I like to instruct our men not to read monotonously nor theatrically, but _with nuance_. I think this is an appropriate balance that any church (especially those without theatrical talent) can attain.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 17, 2010)

I have never seen it done in church. But twice I attended a theatre for a one man show that was simply a recetation of scripture. I found them to be very moving & powerful.

The gospel of Mark was very famously done this way a few years ago.


----------



## louis (Aug 17, 2010)

The purpose of the written word is to communicate. Perhaps theatrically is not the best word, but I believe the words should be read as best we can imaging them to have been spoken by the author.


----------



## Philip (Aug 17, 2010)

I don't see a problem with a person reading or reciting the Scriptures in such a way as to clearly illustrate what they say, whether it be to change tone when different figures are speaking, or to inflect in such a way as to communicate clearly what the text says. I have heard too many people (even pastors) read the Bible aloud in sort of a "responsive reading" manner. That is, they inflect it phrase by phrase without connecting it to the context of the passage and without any sense of narrative, (in teaching passages) argument, or (in poetry) artistic intent. 

As long as one stays faithful to the clear meaning of the text, it's perfectly fine to animate it: it's not that we should try to make the Bible come alive, but that in our reading, the Scriptures need to make us come alive. So when I am called upon to read a passage aloud, I take it slowly and try to capture the intent in my delivery by speaking naturally, as I would if I were reading any other book aloud to someone.


----------



## Nate (Aug 17, 2010)

louis said:


> Do you not even consider the dynamics that punctuation adds to the text? How about the poetry? I don't want Ben Stein reading the Bible to me, that's for sure.



Of course I consider punctuation and poetry. But, I'm sure you'll agree there is a world of difference between utilizing punctuation in reading Scripture and acting out men attempting to sodomize angels.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 18, 2010)

Nate, that was not even fair comment!!

If the scripture can record it, then we can think it, and if we can imagine it (as un-appealing as it may be) then we can visualize it.


----------



## Nate (Aug 18, 2010)

How was that not fair? I'm simply relating what I saw acted out during the theatrical reading of Genesis 19.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 18, 2010)

There was a time when elocution was a standard part of education and students were graded on clarity of speech, projection, expression, ability to convey the author's rhythms through punctuation, etc. This is an art largely lost when a TV camera can pick up every subtle whisper. But it's different than putting emotional content into a text -- I'd find the latter distracting and a real loss during worship. So many times, I've picked up thoughts from a text that is simply read by my husband or pastor -- things I missed when reading it with my own eyes. That said, there's no excuse for a poor, mumbled reading.


----------



## Nate (Aug 18, 2010)

Kevin, are you trying to convince me that reading a passage is no different than acting it out? Certainly you'll agree that no matter how entertaining reading Shakespeare can be, reading is no comparison to attending a theatrical Shakespeare production. Shakespeare's works were intended to be acted out. I contend that Scripture was intended to be read, not acted out... especially during corporate worship.


----------



## Philip (Aug 18, 2010)

> There was a time when elocution was a standard part of education and students were graded on clarity of speech, projection, expression, ability to convey the author's rhythms through punctuation, etc. This is an art largely lost when a TV camera can pick up every subtle whisper. But it's different than putting emotional content into a text



But what of when the text actually conveys emotion? For example, Paul's, "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" or the various places in the Psalms where the Psalmist is crying out to God in grief, trouble, or even anger. To elocute these properly, one must emote while reading.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 18, 2010)

It's a fine line, I agree: in elocution, you should hear that "O foolish Galations!" is an exclamatory phrase. And you should hear the grief David is trying to convey. But trying to find the motivation of the character and essentially showing how _you_ as the reader feel about what is being read just seems to be going too far. Let me hear what the text says and let the Spirit illuminate that within me.


----------



## louis (Aug 18, 2010)

NateLanning said:


> louis said:
> 
> 
> > Do you not even consider the dynamics that punctuation adds to the text? How about the poetry? I don't want Ben Stein reading the Bible to me, that's for sure.
> ...



I don't think anyone is suggesting the latter. Certainly reverence, dignity and decorum trump reading with emphasis, nuance, emotion, etc.


----------

