Religious tolerance has to be the oxymoron of the twenty-first century. (Oxymoron, by way of clarity, isn’t a toothpaste for idiots.) It, and its first cousin, “diversity,” may have their roots in good intentions, but have had their respective meanings twisted all out of shape.
One would expect that, in this enlightened society so many fervently believe they live in, diverse opinions would be celebrated, embraced, discussed, and — I hope you’re sitting down for this — respected. Well, that didn’t even work in several incarnations of Star Trek so you know it’s not going to work here in the real world.
Maybe I’m in the minority on this, but I find I am perfectly capable of having an enjoyable and pleasant conversation with anyone who isn’t intent on doing me bodily harm. I do my best not to discount out of hand someone’s point of view simply because I happen to have a different political point of view on some matter, or because my religious beliefs happen to be in contravention to someone else’s. Once I find someone is from planet earth, I figure we have more in common than not, and surely there’s something to talk about. I guess I’m just silly that way.
But not everyone agrees with that way of looking at life. So, in keeping with that theme, I bring you: Gospel magic.
This is a piece I’ve been writing in fits and starts for many years. For some, the subject matter is as much an enigma as, say, Ryan Seacrest’s star on the walk of fame or the relative popularity of Jessica Simpson. For others, it’s part and parcel of why they entered — and stayed — in the world of magic.
“Gospel” and “magic” juxtaposed? Seriously? Well, yes, seriously.
Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I fully understand the concept of not preferring a particular aspect of performance magic. For instance, when I see someone produce doves on stage, first I begin to itch. Then I experience an overwhelming — almost uncontrollable — urge to shove my fingers deep into my eyeball sockets and wiggle them around, all the while hurling epithets containing calculus terms. I’m sitting here trying to think of some aspect of magic I dislike more than a tux and tails act with silks, and doves and, well, I’m drawing a blank.
I feel the same for much of what passes for stage illusion these days (or, properly enunciated, “stage illooooooooooooosion“.) If it weren’t for the chicks dancing around the perfectly normal boxes I probably wouldn’t stomach stage illusion at all, period.
Card magic? I have seen very little of what I could honestly call card magic. I’ve seen loads of card tricks, but not much card magic.
Bizarre magick? I fully grok the bizarre part. But my chalice dothn’t runneth overeth with magick, that’s for sure.
So I understand why some people would have something of an issue with Gospel magic. Except, for many, it doesn’t seem to be with the magic part so much as ridiculing the Gospel part. I find that imbecility just part of today’s tolerant and diverse society. I mean, that’s what it means to be tolerant of diversity, isn’t it? I either believe what you believe, or if I dare to disagree with you it’s considered “hate speech.” Isn’t that the way it works?
Whatever.
There are so many aspects of magic, so many interpretations, so many avenues — it’s an artform, for pity’s sake — I’m not sure why it is that some people find the need to denegrate this particular aspect of magic. Given everything that makes up the wide and long cloth of magic, certainly there’s room for a brand of magic that caused the following to be written in the prelude to a book on the subject:
“I believe in this unique method of teaching great and important religious truths.
“In the early history of the church false teachers used the art of magic to disturb the peace and confuse the thoughts of the faithful. This they did by the performance of false miracles and a sham display of supposed supernatural powers. In this book the author who is a famous illustrator has employed the art of magic to illuminate and illustrate the holy truths of our faith and so in this day of light and grace magic has become a teacher and defender of Christianity.
“I have personally known Rev. C. H. Woolston, D. D. for a number of years. He was a close student of the art of magic under my own personal instruction and we consulted together as to the mechanical and magical effects described in the chapters of this book.
“I take great pleasure in saying that these mechanical and magical effects are both dignified and in accord with the highest branches of both ancient and modern magic. It is my candid opinion that they can all be reproduced by intelligent and painstaking practice. I am most happy to welcome to the literary world this volume of demonstrated truth. ”
That, by the way, was Howard Thurston who, if memory serves, may have known a thing or two about magic.
What’s really the point to Gospel magic? Well, that depends upon who you ask.
I’ve heard and read it said that Gospel magic uses illusion to illustrate some Christian teaching — magic with a Message. In fact, much of what you’ll find in the Gospel magic books put quite a bit of emphasis on object lessons. Some are even good and entertaining.
If you are a student of the Bible as either the basis of your religious point of view, or simply because it’s an interesting book and subject of much discussion in and out of religion, you’ll find it is filled with object lessons. For many, many years schools have employed object lessons in teaching because it works so well. Outfitting a magic trick with a Gospel message engages many children — and adults, too — so it works in that venue where, say, a sponge ding dong might not.
In this case, magic is used in the same way I have used it in the corporate arena: not as the message, but as the vehicle for the message.
It’s my opinion that there’s not much in the way of really great Gospel magic. And this is where I agree with some of its detractors: bad magic is just bad magic, regardless the intent. I’ve found too many cases of attempts at shoe-horning a Gospel message into a traditional magic routine and…it just doesn’t fit. (And as we all know, if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.)
I’ve found the best Gospel magic performances are just great magic performances, period. They don’t necessarily fill the routine with any type of message other than fun and entertainment. (Remember those aspects of magic?) Believe it or not, there’s a huge market for good wholesome entertainment devoid of unfortunate language or inuendo. I was disappointed in the David Copperfield performance I saw not so long ago because of the borderline blue material contained in it. Hey, it’s his show and he can script it however he likes. I don’t have much interest in seeing it again, though.
Occasionally I’ve come across people who can’t find harmony in the words “Gospel” and “magic” used in the same sentence, let alone on the same stage. Often I find this is a result of taking the English translation of the word “magic” in the Bible and applying it to our present-day meaning of the word. The “magic” of the Bible is not the magic that is the subject of this blog. But, feel free to apply that mistranslation if it makes you happy.
I’ve also run across people who simply don’t care for Christianity at all and, therefore, are opposed to Gospel magic. Well, obviously I’m not a very big fan of dove magic, but you don’t see me going around biting the heads off doves.
And then there are some of the practitioners of Gospel magic themselves. (Some, not all.) Again, like some of Gospel magic’s detractors, it’s not so much the magic as it is the Gospel part. I’ve never found many people who were just beside themselves with delight to be beaten about the head and shoulders with the Bible and being told they were going to hell — even if it was true. They may have the Good News, but their delivery sure sucks. Some of these people would do well to spend some quality time with another type of bible, one written by Dale Carnegie.
I was talking with my friend Jim Short the other day and I repeated one of my very favorite religious quotes:
“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
That’s a quote from Bennan Manning. It’s bothersome to some of my Christian brethren mainly because it’s true. I like it so much I use it as a bookmark in my own Bible.
The phrase “card magic” or, more accurately “card tricks” causes more than one person to recoil not because card magic is inherently bad, but because they’ve experienced some awful performance of card magic in the past and that’s shaped their opinion of it. That is human nature and extends to religious and political matters as well as card tricks.
I’ve stated this before and I think it bears repeating: you can’t use the word magic without qualifying what you mean. Card? Coin? Rope? Stage? Three-meter? Close-up? Street? Mentalism? Comedy? Bizarre? And yes, even Gospel has its place.
Powered by FireStats
In my opinion, good magic should invoke the paradoxical, with the primary paradox being:
I KNOW that magic doesn’t exist, BUT
What I just saw can only be explained by magic.
In their own way, the parables of Jesus are paradoxical as well. The parables are NOT warm, fuzzy stories. They are NOT allegories. Instead, the parables are sharp, and they cut us to the quick.
One guy will work the whole day, another guy works for one hour, and BOTH guys get paid the SAME?!
It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a RICH man to get into heaven?!(Yikes! Someone alert the rich Republicans!)
A guy is hurt by the side of the road, and the rabbi doesn’t help him, the religious authorities don’t help him, but a friggin’ SAMARITAN is the one that helps him?! (The modern day equivalent would have a priest ignore the man in need, then a Protestant minister ignores him, but the guy is rescued by a member of Al Queda.)
I’d love to see some gospel magic that captures the same edginess that Jesus shows in his parables. That would be a show that might make up sit up and take notice.
(Actually, Robert Neale has some material along these lines…)
Hello, Barry.
You make some excellent points. When one studies the Bible — again, whether or not it is the basis for one’s religious beliefs is immaterial for the discussion — one finds that the parables were exactly as you said. I’ll go further and state that the parables weren’t stories to help people understand the points Jesus was making; they were to make those points harder for people to understand. The parables were for His disciples.
As for Jesus’ edgy side, I’ll point to the two times He cleared out the temple by turning over the money changers’ tables and cracked a whip he fashioned by hand. Meek? Sometimes. Angry? He was that, too. I’m sure He laughed. We know He cried.
These are paradoxes that are hard to understand without taking the Bible from lid to lid — which failing is found in both Christian and non-Christian alike. Picking and choosing your quotes without providing context is not clever, and it’s often not useful. I’d go so far as to tie it in with the post a couple of days ago on lying, and to what Andy stated about audiences finding out the lie; it hurts credibility.
The phrase “Gospel magic” most often brings to mind a Baptist Sunday School teacher holding three pieces of rope, not the edgy character you mentioned you’d like to see sometime. I would, too. It would certainly bring Gospel magic into the twentieth century, and that would make it that much easier to bring it into the twenty-first century where the rest of us are now.
Finally, Bob Neale probably has contributed more to Gospel magic than anyone else. It’s just most people wouldn’t dream of doing any of it for fear of being “too edgy” — or maybe because they don’t get what Neale writes. Either way, quite a shame. And thanks for mentioning Bob; I think the world of him and he should have been mentioned in this.
Thanks for the visit, and especially for your thoughtful comments!
John
Great posting John but I think that magic is also a word that was used a long time ago to talk about “Natures Unexplained Forces”.
And keeping in mind that often magic is also a science and in my hypnosis study I have found that the words science, magic and hypnotism may have the same basic roots.
I feel that science is the modern magic word used for people that study and want to control or bend natures forces to their will or their agenda.
Look at the things we as humans and using the power of human thought – have been invented to study the weather, move mountains build roads and also things that can destroy or build. Take these inventions back into time and would the people of the old days think that we are wizards? Or gods? Would they think a gun was a magic wand that could strike down someone with a loud noise and a flash of fire? Would a gun be science to us and magic to them if we could go back in time to the days when they used the word magic to explain science!
In the book the Magic Of Believing Claude Bristol pointed out the fact that the most powerful force on earth is “human thought”!
In the Magic Cafe and other places I have seen magicians post that “real magic” doesn’t exist. Perhaps for them it doesn’t. But for me “real magic” is only “real science” and for me science is real.
And magic is just an old way of saying science!
I enjoy your blog John Keep Up The Great Work!
Excellent points, Glenn.
Going back around six thousand years, we find the Chaldeans knew a bit about natural science. I think they were the first to personify Arthur C. Clarke’s third law (“any sufficiently advanced technology…”) The apparent grasp some of their numbers (the priests) had of the sciences set them apart from the normal people and they did their best to be considered “gods.”
In the New Testament book of Luke, we learn of Simon the Magus. This was a fellow who, apparently, was quite renowned as a sorcerer. Simon’s brand of magic had its roots in the Chaldean mystery religion, which was filled with idolatry. Peter described Simon the Magus as “the gall of bitterness”, a phrase that has lost much of its meaning in the twenty-first century. Jews of that time, though, knew precisely its meaning (Deuteronomy 29:18). Simon the Magus ended up in Rome, by the way.
I’ve often pointed to the opening pages of the Tarbell Course in Magic Volume One for some fascinating background on how we came to our brand of magic today. Much of the superstitions that still have a hold today, as well as much of what passes for religion today, have their roots directly in the Chaldeans and their brand of religion.
John
I think you may have left out one of the other key aspects of the issue, namely that many people don’t like it when the “message” in their entertainment is too much in the foreground–think of how people get annoyed when a rock star starts spouting political rhetoric.
-Travis
Well, that’s what I meant by:
Also, typically, Gospel magic shows are performed within a venue where such things are expected. I don’t think you’ll find many Gospel magic shows performed at, say, comedy clubs.
That said, there will always be people who seem intent on rudely pushing their agenda — whether it’s political, environmental, religious, whatever — wherever they are. This is just not a good idea and, thankfully, they are in the minority.
John
Regarding the quote: right, but the point I’m making is that the dislike of being preached to goes beyond just religion, and that the dislike of Gospel magic may go beyond the message (and even beyond the delivery, to an extent). There might be a question about the relationship between art and spreading an overt message that goes “deeper” than just a dislike for sponge crosses.
Oh, okay. No arguments from me. I have a list of former favorite movies and albums/CDs I can’t watch or listen to in peace anymore for hearing voices in my head telling me why I’m disloyal/hateful/uncaring/whatever if I don’t (or do) whatever.
In that respect, I agree 110%.
I will note that, for the most part, Gospel magic is either limited in venue, or (as in the case of Andre Kole) overtly advertised so those opposed can go eat a pizza that night. A show like Andre Kole clearly has an agenda. It’s when I’ve paid my $X for a ticket to see an act, and I get broadsided with a political or religious message I take issue with. Which — I think — is what you mean.
I’ve referred to that as being Dixie-Chicked.
As the Great and Mighty Frank put it, “Shut up and play yer guitar.”
John
Point taken.
John,
Good article. We’ve seen way, way too many attacks on gospel magicians. Personally, I’ve wondered why. It is, to me, an over simplification to characterize them as strictly anti-Christian.
Except for Andre Kole, I don’t ever think I’ve seen a performance of “Gospel” magic that wasn’t embarrassingly lame. Worse yet, the performers tend to be a little on the dorky side. Put these together and you’ve got irresistible fodder for the bullies that pervade our lives, both real and cyber.
Most of these “magicians” are good people – something that seems to cause derision by itself – an unfortunate sign of the times, I guess. “Gospel” magic gives them a feeling of belonging and worth and there is nothing wrong with that.
im
I have noticed that people cracking on Gospel magic generally fall into one of two groups: people who are anti-bad magic, and people who are anti-Christian.
The latter is pretty simple to pick out of a crowd: ridicule without substance, ad homenim attacks. The former I have no problem with.
If there’s a grey area it’s with comparing to “regular” magicians those Sunday School teachers who use magic to illustrate a lesson. It’s been my experience that these typically have few if any ties to the world of magic. I’m not crazy about poorly performed magic but I’m willing to cut those folks some slack far quicker than someoen who believe’s he’s Dai Vernon reincarnated.
Also, I agree: typically these people are good people and the Gospel part is the only reason they came into — and stayed — in magic. I have good things to say about the FCM that I can’t honestly say about some other groups I’ve experienced.
John
I don’t have a problem with gospel, magicians, or gospel magicians. I do find, though, that the combination of magic and gospel generally cheapens both…but maybe that’s because the majority of the people who are inclined to combine them don’t really understand either.
I sound harsh. I don’t mean to. It’s just what I’ve seen…
I don’t think you sound harsh at all. In fact, you basically state one of the things I attempted to point out.
Gospel magic, from much of what I’ve experienced, suffers from the same thing so many other endeavors suffer from: it usually takes more than just good intentions to do a good job.
None of this stuff is as easy as it looks. Gospel magic is no different.
John
You have made some very valid comments John. As the current President of FCM UK, I would like to use my tenure to encourage members to look deeper into magic than Professor’s Nightmare (excellent though this trick is – have you seen jon Allen’s cool ‘display’ move?).
When I perform a ‘gospel magic’ trick I want there to be wonder at the ‘magic’ in order to provoke thought about what is being said as well.
I really believe it is possible to fool and feed the mind at the same time.
Simon
(Yes, I know I haven’t blogged for a while – I’ll be back!)
HE LIVES! (Ha ha, a little Gospel humor there.)
Yes, I know there are members of the FCM who are working hard in these areas. (I haven’t exactly flexed my FCM muscles, though I should have.) No, I haven’t seen Jon’s routine, but you have my curiosity up.
I hope you do get back into the Blogging Way again. We need some balance.
John