The Fall
The fall of man has given much trouble to evangelicals on apologetical grounds, and the inclusion of it as part of God's story may be seen as problematic both to Christians and non-Christians. It is one of those “chaotic” moments when God's purpose seems to have been thwarted and the characters to have revolted and upset the intended plot of the drama. How could a loving God subject His creation to frustration and provide for the damnation of millions by ordaining the fall of one? But perhaps the mainstream response is inappropriate.
The Westminster Confession affirms that the providence of God “extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends.” (V.4) This is corroborated by Romans 8:20: “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.” Neither Adam nor Eve nor Satan subjected the creation in hope; by process of elimination we may conclude that God's providence and ordination did indeed extend to the Fall and the subjection of Creation to frustration and vanity, in order to bring about greater glory to Himself as He manifested His redemption of creation.
The Drama of the Fall
Thus far we have seen that the idea is not so theologically repugnant as it is made out to be. And on apologetical grounds, it can be defended by the argument that, God's glory being the highest good, anything He does to His glory is good. At this point it may be objected that the fall was not to His glory. The force of the argument is strong, however, there is biblical reason to reject it—Romans 8:20-21, for example. This is for the Christian, of course, the primary reason to accept or reject an argument. However, a literary argument can also be made that it was indeed to God's glory for the Fall to occur.
In contrast to the anthropocentric argument saying that God chiefly desires relationship with His creation is the theocentric vision of God revealing Himself and His glory to His creation by means of a story. As this is not a primarily theological paper, I will rely on the earlier discussion to support this assertion on theological grounds and shall attempt to defend it strictly on literary. Bentley says, “Without violence, there would be nothing in the world but goodness, and literature is not mainly about goodness; it is mainly about badness.” He is both right and wrong here: he is right in that literature is not only about goodness, and has badness as a prerequisite. Tension is necessary to a story. A tale without tension may be a recounting of facts, but is not a story, for there is no plot. It is merely a day to day living without any end to strive for. There is no beginning, no middle, no end; neither improvement nor decay. It is hard to see how this is even a coherent possible world with volitional beings. But in any case, a procession of events with no end, in either the temporal or logical sense, would certainly lack the ability to display the complex array of God's attributes—e.g., His justice, mercy, might, and love—is no story, and would seem a very boring way to live.
The Fall then introduced tension into the creation, and the the creation was left in the tension of waiting to see if good or evil would win, and men actively chose sides in the contest (all opting for the wrong side because of the natural corruption of their will). Thus was set the stage for the great tragicomedy of God's plan—the fatal flaw in each minor actor being original sin, the lex talionis being God's righteous judgment on them, and the happy ending—for those chosen by grace alone—being by God's forgiveness. Thus there is tension in this world, and good literature reflects that. Each event has its place in history, in its proper context. We should beware of saying that all things are good, because there is certainly and truly evil in the world. Sin alone is not glorious. However, the judgment of sin, or, alternatively, the redemption of sin, is glorious. But those require sin to set the tension and begin the cycle.
Modern liberalism, and to an increasing extent, “evangelicalism,” has weakened and cheapened the great tragicomedy of the history of the world by attempting to take the out the badness and reduce life to goodness—moralistic platitudes on what we ought to do, or simplistic, cringing platitudes on the nature of God. But Bentley was right in his assessment that badness is necessary to story, and thus to life. We must, however, disagree with Bentley's last clause—life is not chiefly about badness. Though we live in a world of pain and sorrow, underlying it all is the unifying thread of the goodness of God's glory, for which He ordains all things. And He will redeem the world, punishing evil and showing His grace to His people. So, while there is badness, and perhaps this world is mostly badness in some sense, it is a warp of badness against an immovable and eternal weft of goodness.
Tragicomedy's Tension
What then is tragicomedy, and how does history exemplify it? How is it most true to life and most effective as a dramatic genre? Tragicomedy can be defined in a number of ways. The modern tragedies, as discussed before, are generally a mixture of tragedy and comedy. They are fundamentally tragic, with comedy for embellishment. They comprise a laughing in the face of death; as such, they would be farcical in their absurdity were it not for the earnest straight face with which they are written and performed.
The other form is that of “a tragedy averted.” (Bentley, 316) There is all the tension of a traditional tragedy, and all the usual forms—tragic flaws, tragic heroes, destiny, etc. But despite all these things, which traditionally lead to a tragic ending, the final downfall and destruction of the hero is avoided, and a happy ending is achieved.
There is a special tension in tragicomedy, though, between the motivations that would traditionally result in tragedy and the extenuating circumstances that result in its aversion. And it is this tension and its resolution that is perhaps most intriguing about the genre. Bentley deals at length with the lex talionis: the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. This is what traditionally drives the
tragedy and makes it such a powerful vehicle for truth—men instinctively believe that justice ought to be done when moral laws are broken. But in tragicomedy, the punishment of the hero either does not materialize or is so considerably lessened by the time it is applied as to be dubiously fitting. This necessitates a discussion of Justice and Mercy and their interrelation.
To be continued.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
From the Ashes: The Tragicomedy of Justice and Mercy in a Providential History, Pt. 2
Providential History
We see then, that the anthropocentric foundation of Romanticism results in chaos and bears within itself the seeds of a latent existentialism. “How should we then live?” How should we, as Christian authors, then write? All literature is an expression of the author's worldview. Even in the famous dictum of John Cage--”I have nothing to say, I am saying it, and that is poetry”--his having “nothing to say,” let alone his saying it and analysis of what it means, speaks volumes about what and how he thinks of reality. Is it not strange, though, that those stories which most conform to the ideals of real life are those which are most enduring and touching to the human soul? “Eternity is in the heart of every man,” and thinking God's thoughts after him is the most coherent way of viewing the universe. It is not possible merely to report, as the Naturalists attempt. How one reports—nay, even the very fact of reporting—betrays a worldview giving significance to, if nothing else, the reporting itself. Christians thus ought not be afraid of not only reporting, but also analyzing. They have more philosophical right than anyone else to do so.
On the one hand, then, we need not be self-conscious as we write “Christian literature,” and we ought not write Christian literature for the sake of its being Christian literature. Rather, we ought to be fully conscious of our worldview and seek to understand it as fully as possible. When we write, our stories will then naturally fit into the form of our worldview and express it in concrete characters and plots.
What is the difference between being self-conscious of ourselves as writers as Christian literature and being fully conscious of our Christian worldview? Our worldview is neither egocentric nor anthropocentric. We should not be concerned with presenting ourselves primarily as Christian, nor primarily with trying to make other people Christians. Rather, we should first be Christian and exalt Christ in our literature and drama. And we may do this by following the examples of drama set forth for us in the narrative of Scripture.
Scripture presents God as providing for His people by His grace, on the basis of His eternal purpose promised to Abraham. It is best represented by a covenantal Reformed theology. The Scripture does not emphasize man's initiative or action (though his action is truly important, as will be discussed below), but rather God's sovereign power and action, both in despite of man's attempts to thwart Him and as in control of man's action.
The prophecies of Isaiah are examples of this:
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever....With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing....Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. (Isaiah 40: 7-8, 13-15, 21-26)
The Psalmists, also, emphasize not what they and Israel are doing, but rather what God has done and is doing on behalf of His people, and for the glory of His name. Psalm 2 asks “why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” (Psalm 2:1) Ezekiel proclaims from God, “I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.” (Ezekiel 36:22) Paul exalts Christ, saying “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever.” (Romans 11:36)
God is thus both the author and chief actor of His providential history, and He has written the story to His own glorification. What implications does this have for us as we analyze the procession of history and compare it to a well-formed drama? We can analyze it as having a meaning derived from God's character and His purposes for it (which are ultimate insofar as He is understood as the ultimate being). It is not chaos, though it may sometimes seem so. We may be forced to relegate some events to the realm of mystery—i.e., we cannot explain ourselves how they fit into the plan of God, but we can rest assured that they do and that they further the plot of His story in a way that may only be seen when the story is completed.
Providence, Plot, and Character
This would seem to imply a sort of despairing fatalism over our actions in history. If God has ordained everything and works everything out, it would appear there is no significance to human action. But on the contrary, we have a part to play. A plot would not exist without action, and action would not exist without actors. Further, the characterization of each actor is important to the plot—would Joseph's brothers have sent him to Egypt had they not been of a jealous turn and he of a somewhat prideful and boastful character?
Though we must insist that the plot is primary over the characters—the characters exist to serve the plot, not vice versa—yet remains the paradox that the characters of the actors are crucial to the story and that the story would not happen without them. This can be defended by two points. First is the earlier observation that nothing would be acted without actors, which is self-evident. The other is that, for a literary plot to be believable, it must proceed from believable actions of characters—e.g., it would not be believable for a Willy Loman to finally succumb to the job offered by his neighbor, conceivable that Willy would just leave his family without money, knowing that Willy is as loving as he is (weak though he is as well). He thus solves the problem by killing himself so his family can have his insurance money. The characters thus must have personality, and must maintain a consistent personality—one subject to change, indeed, but not comprising merely an amalgam of unrelated actions. This is a reflection of God's rationality in driving His plot, and of His providential use of agents—the Westminster Confession puts it well: “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” (III.1)
History as “His Story”
We must disagree with Bentley on his discussion of plot, at least as applied to the procession of history's events: “plot, then, is nothing if not artificial. Plot results from the intervention of the artist's brain, which makes a cosmos out of events that nature has left in chaos.” (Bentley, 15) Of course he is forced to this conclusion by his worldview, but a Christian must see the plot of history as rather governing the events—the events would not exist, let alone chaotically, without their Creator and His purpose for each event in the plot. Creation is created as a cosmos and needs no further re-arrangement. Christian writers should reflect this, again emphasizing the continuity of history as part of the plan of God. It is not merely a random assortment of brute facts, but is a rational outworking of a preceding plan. The events are not a priori to the plan, but a posteriori. Chance and chaos should play no part in Christian drama, except insofar as it represents merely the ignorance of man as to God's providence: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” (Proverbs 16:33)
We see then, that the anthropocentric foundation of Romanticism results in chaos and bears within itself the seeds of a latent existentialism. “How should we then live?” How should we, as Christian authors, then write? All literature is an expression of the author's worldview. Even in the famous dictum of John Cage--”I have nothing to say, I am saying it, and that is poetry”--his having “nothing to say,” let alone his saying it and analysis of what it means, speaks volumes about what and how he thinks of reality. Is it not strange, though, that those stories which most conform to the ideals of real life are those which are most enduring and touching to the human soul? “Eternity is in the heart of every man,” and thinking God's thoughts after him is the most coherent way of viewing the universe. It is not possible merely to report, as the Naturalists attempt. How one reports—nay, even the very fact of reporting—betrays a worldview giving significance to, if nothing else, the reporting itself. Christians thus ought not be afraid of not only reporting, but also analyzing. They have more philosophical right than anyone else to do so.
On the one hand, then, we need not be self-conscious as we write “Christian literature,” and we ought not write Christian literature for the sake of its being Christian literature. Rather, we ought to be fully conscious of our worldview and seek to understand it as fully as possible. When we write, our stories will then naturally fit into the form of our worldview and express it in concrete characters and plots.
What is the difference between being self-conscious of ourselves as writers as Christian literature and being fully conscious of our Christian worldview? Our worldview is neither egocentric nor anthropocentric. We should not be concerned with presenting ourselves primarily as Christian, nor primarily with trying to make other people Christians. Rather, we should first be Christian and exalt Christ in our literature and drama. And we may do this by following the examples of drama set forth for us in the narrative of Scripture.
Scripture presents God as providing for His people by His grace, on the basis of His eternal purpose promised to Abraham. It is best represented by a covenantal Reformed theology. The Scripture does not emphasize man's initiative or action (though his action is truly important, as will be discussed below), but rather God's sovereign power and action, both in despite of man's attempts to thwart Him and as in control of man's action.
The prophecies of Isaiah are examples of this:
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever....With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing....Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. (Isaiah 40: 7-8, 13-15, 21-26)
The Psalmists, also, emphasize not what they and Israel are doing, but rather what God has done and is doing on behalf of His people, and for the glory of His name. Psalm 2 asks “why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” (Psalm 2:1) Ezekiel proclaims from God, “I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.” (Ezekiel 36:22) Paul exalts Christ, saying “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever.” (Romans 11:36)
God is thus both the author and chief actor of His providential history, and He has written the story to His own glorification. What implications does this have for us as we analyze the procession of history and compare it to a well-formed drama? We can analyze it as having a meaning derived from God's character and His purposes for it (which are ultimate insofar as He is understood as the ultimate being). It is not chaos, though it may sometimes seem so. We may be forced to relegate some events to the realm of mystery—i.e., we cannot explain ourselves how they fit into the plan of God, but we can rest assured that they do and that they further the plot of His story in a way that may only be seen when the story is completed.
Providence, Plot, and Character
This would seem to imply a sort of despairing fatalism over our actions in history. If God has ordained everything and works everything out, it would appear there is no significance to human action. But on the contrary, we have a part to play. A plot would not exist without action, and action would not exist without actors. Further, the characterization of each actor is important to the plot—would Joseph's brothers have sent him to Egypt had they not been of a jealous turn and he of a somewhat prideful and boastful character?
Though we must insist that the plot is primary over the characters—the characters exist to serve the plot, not vice versa—yet remains the paradox that the characters of the actors are crucial to the story and that the story would not happen without them. This can be defended by two points. First is the earlier observation that nothing would be acted without actors, which is self-evident. The other is that, for a literary plot to be believable, it must proceed from believable actions of characters—e.g., it would not be believable for a Willy Loman to finally succumb to the job offered by his neighbor, conceivable that Willy would just leave his family without money, knowing that Willy is as loving as he is (weak though he is as well). He thus solves the problem by killing himself so his family can have his insurance money. The characters thus must have personality, and must maintain a consistent personality—one subject to change, indeed, but not comprising merely an amalgam of unrelated actions. This is a reflection of God's rationality in driving His plot, and of His providential use of agents—the Westminster Confession puts it well: “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” (III.1)
History as “His Story”
We must disagree with Bentley on his discussion of plot, at least as applied to the procession of history's events: “plot, then, is nothing if not artificial. Plot results from the intervention of the artist's brain, which makes a cosmos out of events that nature has left in chaos.” (Bentley, 15) Of course he is forced to this conclusion by his worldview, but a Christian must see the plot of history as rather governing the events—the events would not exist, let alone chaotically, without their Creator and His purpose for each event in the plot. Creation is created as a cosmos and needs no further re-arrangement. Christian writers should reflect this, again emphasizing the continuity of history as part of the plan of God. It is not merely a random assortment of brute facts, but is a rational outworking of a preceding plan. The events are not a priori to the plan, but a posteriori. Chance and chaos should play no part in Christian drama, except insofar as it represents merely the ignorance of man as to God's providence: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” (Proverbs 16:33)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
