Music Monday: Open Doors: A Story of Beginnings

"Let's call it 'Open Doors,' because that's what I do."

When I asked Sebastian "Seb" Bonaiuto, my college composition and conducting mentor, to choose the title for the second piece I'd premiere and guest conduct with the Boston College Concert Band (the first was "Ave Maria" and the third "Hollywood Lament"), that's what he said.  

And he was right.  Composing and premiering "Open Doors" opened tons of new doors for me. Although looking back, the piece lacks a lot of the finish of my more recent work and the performance isn't flawless, it has its moments - like the saxophone solo that I wrote for one of my closest friends, Becca "Bawlz" Brooke (don't ask).  

Seb and I in 2014

Most of all, I can still hear my compositional imagination at work.  I didn't intend for it to be the case, since I finished the piece before it had a title, but the different soundscapes that arise over the course of "Open Doors" are a lot like peeks in through different doors, into different dimensions of sight, sound, and experience (not to sound too much like Rod Serling of The Twlight Zone fame).

Beyond that, this was the piece that made me realize I could never stop composing, not even after beginning a PhD in Theology!  So, I hope "Open Doors" opens doors for you, dear listeners.  Enjoy!

And Seb, I can never thank you enough for all the doors you opened for me.

Creation, Evolution, and Faith, Part 2: Is There Conflict? Is there a Debate?

In yesterday's Part 1 post, I defined some basic terms and outlined Ian Barbour's four ways of understanding the interaction of science and religion. In this post, I'll argue that despite the public obsession with conflict, there's actually no conflict between religion and science - or, at least, between religion and science thought of in a certain way.

And if there's no conflict, there's no debate.

But how can that be?

When Creationism and Hard Materialism say that the other is wrong - when they say there's a conflict between science and religion - they're assuming that the "data" of science and religion are data of the same kind. In other words, they're saying religion and science are doing the same thing in the same way.  But are they?

The Bible, the inspired Word of God, is a written account of the encounter between people of faith and the God in whom they believe. Although it's God's Word, it's God's Word recorded by particular people in a particular place, time, and culture.

Its truth may be timeless, but its creation is time-bound.

The authors of the Bible had no resources to talk about particle physics or evolution or waves or even gravity or a round earth or cars or simple machines. Ideas like these would be totally unintelligible, incomprehensible! The Bible contains their worldview, not ours. And it can't contain ours, because the terms of our worldview are completely different from theirs.

It's the same world and a different world all at once. 

Creation, Evolution, and Faith, Part 1: Terms & Models

These days, the so-called "Creation-Science" debate is everywhere.  Whether it's on the lips of Ham and Nye or Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens, the basic ideas are the same:

Evolution and the Bible aren't compatible.  

You can't "believe in the Bible" and "believe in evolution" at the same time.

But I disagree.  Personally, I don't take my Ham on Nye (a-thank you!). In this four-part Theology Thursday series, I'll look at the problem, challenge the idea that there's a debate, and present my own view. This week, we're just mapping the terrain - looking at the terms and possible ways science and religion might interact.
The real fun will start next Thursday, so stay tuned!

But first, it's important to get the terms right.  Just so we're on the same page, here's what I'll call the people and ideas involved:

1. Creationism/Creationist:  The belief (or someone who believes) that the world was created exactly as recounted in the Book of Genesis. 
2. Hard Materialist:  Someone who believes everything can be reduced to physical processes, leaving no room for God.
3. Intelligent Design:  The belief that there's a "divine plan" or "blueprint" for the cosmos. This blueprint "unfolds" through the evolutionary process, according to God's will.

A really helpful thinker for understanding what's going on and what's at stake in this 'debate' - if, as we'll see, it is a debate at all - is a British philosopher named Ian Barbour (or "called" Ian Barbour, if you're British). Barbour writes about four ways of understanding the interaction of science and religion. They go like this:

1. Conflict: Religion and science are totally incompatible, each one's "data" disproving the other's in an either-or way. The Bible proves evolution wrong, and evolutionary science proves the Bible wrong. It's religion or science. This is the way most people think of the interaction of science and religion.  Examples include Creationism and Hard Materialism.
2. Independence: Religion and science are incompatible, but they should each just do their own thing and not worry about the other. They serve different purposes and have different ways of doing things. They're not the same, and shouldn't be thought of as the same.
3. Dialogue: Science and religion are neither incompatible nor totally compatible.  They do have different purposes and ways of doing things, but they both look at the same world, and they should talk about that world together while respecting each other's limits and methods. They shouldn't try to prove one another wrong, because they can't.
   
4. Integration: Religion and science are totally compatible, and their data "fit" one another, hand-in-glove. That means that science is discovering God's plan in nature, and we can see that, if we look closely at the data. Examples include Intelligent Design and Process Theology.

If you're really interested in this stuff, pick up Barbour's book, When Science Meets Religion. (You're welcome, Sir Ian.)

So, those are the basics. But which of these approaches makes the most sense? Which is the best way for talking about the way in which science and religion meet?

Find out in Part 2!  Click here.

"Say Yes" to Michelle Williams' Christian Soul Jam (with Beyoncé and Kelly to boot!)

They're baaaa-aaaaack!  

Who's back, you ask?

Who?

It's Destiny's Child (divided by three!).

That is, while they're no longer Destiny's Child (though the band still has a website), you'll find Michelle, Kelly, and Queen Bey herself reunited (and it feels so good) in this soulful, African-Latin-grooving, booty-shaking, Christian praise tune written and headlined by Michelle Williams.

It may lack the drama of Solange's recent battle with Jay-Z, but this instance of collaboration over competition is noteworthy for a bunch of reasons.  But first, hit play and enjoy some Christian soul.

When Jesus say yes, nobody can say no.  Amen?

Amen, Michelle!

The song opens with a simple but super-catchy beat that carries it along. After Michelle's initial chorus and verse, which will implant themselves in your brain quicker than an alien probe, somebody else shows up (around 1:20). Who is joining Michelle's catchy Christian street-dancing romp?  

Why, it's...Beyoncé! 

Music Monday: "Elicit Dimensions" Takes Me to New Dimensions

Happy Music Monday, everyone!

I'm excited to share this piece, which may be the least heard of anything I've ever written, despite being one of my most mature compositions - and a piece of which I'm very proud.

Here's how the piece came to be:

In October of 2008, at the West Side Nut Club Fall Festival in Evansville, IN (second only to Mardi Gras as street festivals go, mind you!), my close friend Blake Goedde introduced me to Julie Wilder, a woman he'd met the summer before through his tubist friend. Julie was finishing up her Master's degree in Tuba Performance at Western Michigan University. We talked about a lot of things - mostly music and my composition background. 

I had no idea, however, that Julie had plans for me!

Shortly thereafter, Julie asked if I'd be willing to compose an original piece for her Master's recital.  I'd never written for tuba, so I was a little hesitant at first, but after talking with her a little more, I agreed to write a trio: for Tuba, Horn in F (aka French Horn), and piano. The composition process itself was tough. I didn't know how to make a tuba soloistic, but with Julie's help, I came up with something that made us both happy. And that's the essence of collaboration, right?

After an initial statement of the theme, the piece journeys off in many directions, eliciting dimensions - Julie's titular choice - along the way. 

I hope you enjoy the piece, and thanks to Julie for allowing me the chance to write this piece - it was a truly enjoyable and groundbreaking experience! I'll never think of tubas the same way again...

Elegy in Eight: Remembering Cheryl Barbara Grotius Hunt

My Aunt Cheryl was a remarkable, wonderful woman.  I know we all say that about our aunts, and I'd never say it wasn't true of a single one of them.  Most often, aunts are special blessings, not-mothers who love and support us - but at a safe distance.  Like I've heard so many grandparents say, there's joy in caring for grandkids but a certain grace in being able to "give them back" at the end of a day or a stay.  I think the same goes for aunts.

From every summer and holiday break from as far back as I can remember up to today, I've looked forward to my visits with Cheryl, her husband Jim, and my eight Hunt cousins.  That's right, eight.  Cheryl was remarkable if for no other reason than that she gave birth to eight fantastic little Hunts, who I've been blessed to call some of my best friends for my entire time here on this rock of ours.  Yvette, Erin, Frankie, Todd, Rachel, Adam, Alexis, and Zachary - also called The Redchild - are like my second family.  

Beyond her remarkable childbearing (and childrearing!) capacities, Cheryl possessed the same intoxicating smile, vibrant laugh, and peculiar sense of humor that is the mark of any member of the Grotius-Macksoud clan.  Plus, she was a woman of profound faith.  As Todd wrote in her obituary (the rest is below), "Upon hearing an ambulance, a shadow of pain and worry would pass over her face as she said, "Thank you, Jesus," while making the sign of the cross. She loved her husband and children, family and friends without judgment."  And we loved her right back.  With a love like hers, there was no other choice.

It was all the sadder, then, when Cheryl died at age 61, after a 3-1/2 year battle with cancer on June 22, 2008, surrounded by Jimmy and her eight children.  You can read a written reflection on her death here.

I wrote this elegy two days after her death, while I was on retreat at St. Meinrad Archabbey in Indiana.  Entitled "Elegy in Eight," it's a tribute not only to Cheryl but to the family she raised.  I performed it after the funeral ended, so none of the family probably got to hear it then.  It may have circulated a bit after that; I'm not sure.  In any case, it's here now.  I go more into the structure of the piece - yes, it's dissonant in places - below, but you only have to read that if you want to.  For now, just hit play and remember with me a woman of boundless faith and incredible love.

Cheryl, we miss you.

About the piece:
I don't want to overanalyze my own music, but I do want to give you a sense of what's behind how this piece is constructed and, as a result, how it sounds.  This might be especially important to the family, because despite the fact that I know Cheryl wanted (and had!) a joyous funeral, I didn't write the piece for her - so it may not be in the style we'd expect when thinking about her wishes for the funeral.  Rather, I wrote as an expression of my memory of and my feelings for her, especially in her relationship to the family as a whole.

Here's how it comes together:
The opening theme is "Cheryl's Theme."  Light, a little playful, melodic.  After the initial statement, a second theme, "Jimmy's Theme," enters and interacts with the first, sometimes in harmony, sometimes in in tension.

In the next section, the first pitches in a series of eight pitches that will dance throughout the piece enter the mix, forming new chords, interspersed with variations on the first two themes (like 1:24-1:40) meant to depict the warmth of a family growing together.  This sequence repeats itself as the second set of four pitches in the sequence are introduced, one by one.  Then, with a clash, adversity enters the life of the family.

After a final statement of Cheryl's theme at 2:50 and a rapid-fire playing of the eight pitches in sequence, the eight tones enter the bass line in sequence under a soaring chordal adaptation of the theme, depicting one's final rising above the adversity of life before passing into silence.

Finally, the entire obituary, by my cousin Todd Austin Hunt:
Cheryl Barbara Grotius Hunt; beloved wife, adored mother of eight children, cherished sister and daughter, surrendered her time upon this earth Sunday afternoon.  She was 61.

In the midst of a years-long struggle with cancer which she fought with her brilliant faith and beautiful smile, she underwent a second operation to address a staph infection on June 9.  In conjunction with her courageous fight with cancer, Cheryl emerged from the procedure unusually weak.  After much prayer, the Hunt family took her to Hunt Country, the family home in Lexington, Friday June 20.  Cheryl Hunt died peacefully, surrounded by her husband and eight children.

The oldest sibling of six children all concentrated with talent, Cheryl blessed those in her presence with a lovely singing voice.  Her voice saturated the Hunt home with a divine harmony.  For each of her children, she composed a song to celebrate their names in infancy.  She was a devastatingly beautiful woman who captured the hearts of many, but chose only one to love for her life.  Gifted with a wild imagination, she told improvisational stories to get her children to sleep.  Cheryl, with her husband Jim, loved to travel; they journeyed to Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Mexico and Central America, as well as much of the United States.  During those travels, she would discover the wonderful purses and craftsmanship which thrilled her.

Cheryl Hunt’s greatest legacy is her encompassing love and faith in Jesus Christ.  She loved all without the barrier of selfish, personal gain.  Upon hearing an ambulance, a shadow of pain and worry passed over her face as she said, “Thank you, Jesus,” while making the sign of the cross.  She loved her husband and children, family and friends without judgment.  She lived her life in imitation of Christ, giving and giving, until that point when she could give no more.  She is loved and will be sorely, sorely missed.

Cheryl Hunt is survived by husband Jim Hunt of Lexington, KY; daughter Yvette Andrejczak; daughter Erin Hunt Ferguson; son Frank Hunt; son Todd Austin Hunt; daughter Rachel Hunt, son Adam Hunt, daughter Alexis Hunt and son Zachary Hunt of; mother Najla Grotius, sister Dianne Berry, sister Terese McKannan, sister Bobbie Ann Schutz, brother Joseph Grotius and brother Gregory Grotius of Evansville, IN.  

Three Thoughts About Pentecost

Happy Pentecost, everyone!  

So sorry I've been a little quiet lately. Things actually got busier after the end of the school year, so I've been struggling to post. But what better day than the birthday of the church for a new beginning. Today, Christians around the world celebrate the descent of the Holy Spirit and the foundation of the church's mission to the world. To celebrate, I'd like to share three thoughts about this great feast.

Here they are:
1)  "Pentecost," Greek for "50th day" or "50 days," is the Jewish harvest feast, like our Thanksgiving.  It's celebrated 50 days after Passover, just as our feast falls at the end of the Easter Season, 50 days after Easter. The Jewish feast existed long, long before Christians celebrated their Pentecost and the descent of the Spirit. That's really important, because:

2)   Acts 2:1-11, the first reading in the Catholic Church (and many lectionary-based churches), reminds us that - to confuse the issue a little - the first "Christians" weren't Christians at all.  That name came much later.  They were Jews.  All of them.  The early believers in Jesus were Jews that believed that Jesus was the Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures.  They weren't Messianic Jews, either.  They were just "Jews and converts to Judaism," as Acts 1:11 states.  So, while it's true that the proclamation "Jesus is Lord," which according to Paul happens only "by the Holy Spirit," these words were first proclaimed by Jews in a Jewish context and understood in a Jewish way.  The idea of the Spirit of God as breath is everywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.  There was nothing like the Christianity we know today in that time period. There was Judaism with and without belief in Jesus, and there was paganism.

Now, you might say I'm just mincing words when I say that believers in Jesus were Jews, not Christians - because if they believed in Jesus, they were Christians, right?  I'd say wrong. Their beliefs and practices were Jewish - and only Jewish. They learned Hebrew. They prayed in Hebrew in the synagogue (no churches yet, folks!). They read only from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), because the Gospels didn't exist yet!  At the time the events remembered in Acts 1 took place, Paul hadn't even begun writing.

In short, they couldn't be Christians in the way we understand Christians today, because no such thing existed yet!  Why does this matter?  It matters because:

3)  Lots of people know "Jesus was a Jew" and will talk about that.  But just stating the fact doesn't really get at what's at stake here.  As a Jew, Jesus' words and actions were decisively Jewish; as I said above, the gospels take place in the context of Jewish thought and practice.  So, Jesus didn't come to start anything new.  That happened on its own.  Jesus came to reveal the fullness of God's presence within the context of Judaism.  He knew the saving power of God in his own Jewish tradition; he had heard the stories of the Exodus and knew the prophets, and the words he spoke were intended as reforms of Judaism, not as the start of something new.  That would be violent.  Horribly violent.  So if Jesus saw salvation coming through his own Jewish tradition, salvation comes through Judaism; Paul consistently makes this point, putting Jews first.  And when Paul speaks of salvation coming "first to the Jews," he does so in contrast to gentile converts to Judaism, not Christians. Because like I said, there weren't Christians yet!

I don't want to take this reflection any further today.  I just invite you to really think it over, putting aside easy and familiar interpretations and giving the historical development of faith in Jesus Christ its full due.

And, of course, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Happy Pentecost, church!  Let the Holy Spirit be our guide in all things, enlivening and inspiring us always.  Amen.