Coleridge and Sci-Fi, Part II

In my previous post, I cited an excerpt from Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and hinted that I think there is a connection between his words and why I enjoy watching/reading sci-fi/fantasy movies/tv/books.

Here is the first part of the quotation:

In this idea originated the plan of the 'Lyrical Ballads'; in which it was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith. (Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1817. Biographia Literaria ch. 14 p314 in Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed. by H.J. Jackson, Oxford, 1985)

What I would like to focus on is Coleridge's statement concerning a "willing suspension of disbelief." In order to fully participate in a work of fiction, an audience must be willing to suspend their disbelief, to accept the story on the story's terms.  If a story is told well, this suspension of disbelief is usually easy, but this also depends on genre.  In a typical television drama, say a medical or crime drama, the threshold for willing suspension of disbelief is low.  These shows do not stretch reality all that much, and therefore, the audience does not have to suspend much disbelief.  In a sci-fi or fantasy show, the threshold of willing suspension of disbelief is high.  The audience is asked to accept a reality that is far beyond the confines of our own reality.  Yet, anyone going into a sci-fi movie or television show already knows this (usually) and they are prepared to suspend their disbelief.

For example, it is no great stretch for the creators of Battlestar Galactica to introduce robots that are indistinguishable from humans in every way, down to their anatomy and physiology.  It is a sci-fi show, and therefore the audience is expecting strange things.  Likewise, in the Matrix, it is not a stretch that in the virtual world, Neo can move faster than a bullet, or that one can jump across impossible distances from rooftop to rooftop.  The audience expects this kind of un-reality reality.  And this is the kicker, because the threshold of willing suspension of disbelief is already so high, these shows can stretch reality in other ways, especially on the religious and philosophical boundaries of what moderns call reality.

Because the audience is already willing to suspend disbelief to such a great degree, these shows can also treat other issues that lie at the boundaries of reality.  [Spoiler Alert Lost] For example, given the strangeness of the island in Lost, is it such a great stretch to imagine a semi-divine figure such as Jacob, one who stands at the crossroads of predestination and free will.  [Spoiler Alert Battlestar Galactica] Is it so hard for the audience believe in Battlestar Galactica in the death and resurrection of Kara Thrace, and perhaps the possibility that she is an angel?  Is it so hard to believe in an "oracle" who knows what people will do before they do it in the Matrix? No, these elements are seamlessly woven into the narrative and are unobtrusive, because the audience has already suspended so much of their disbelief.

Therefore, the sci-fi and fantasy genres are able to deal with mystery, with the boundaries of reality, in ways that would be nearly impossible in other genres.  In a crime drama, a divine figure like Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation would be simply unbelievable and absurd.  Yet, the questions that a character like Q, or like Jacob from Lost, prompt, are dealt with easily in the sci-fi and fantasy genres.   These genres can embody these mysteries, usually reserved for discussions of religion or philosophy, in compelling stories, and they can do so unobtrusively.  Therefore, I think that the best literary discussions of these questions of mystery, or metaphysics, take place in these genres with a high threshold of willing suspension of disbelief.  And, imho, these stories often do a better job at grappling with these mysteries than do religion or philosophy proper.  These mysteries are better dealt with embodied in a story than they are in abstract religious or philosophical concepts.  These mysteries are communicated more powerfully in story than they ever could be in propositional language.

Coleridge and Sci Fi

In this idea originated the plan of the 'Lyrical Ballads'; in which it was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith. Mr. Wordsworth on the other hand was to propose to himself as his object, to give the charm of novelty to things of every day, and to excite a feeling analogous to the supernatural, by awakening the mind's attention from the lethargy of custom, and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before us; an inexhaustible treasure, but for which in consequence of the film of familiarity and selfish solicitude we have eyes, yet see not, ears that hear not, and hearts that neither feel nor understand. (Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1817. Biographia Literaria ch. 14 p314 in Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed. by H.J. Jackson, Oxford, 1985)

I hope to unpack this statement over the next couple of days, because in this sentence, I find one of the main reasons that I watch/read scifi/fantasy movies/tv/literature.

Barth Reading Redux

In a project initiated by Dr. Kirk (jrdkirk.com, Barth reading schedule here), several bibliobloggers have signed on to a seven year reading project through Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics.  This last Friday was the end of the first reading assignment and saw a number of great posts on CD I.1 § 1. 

I love this synchroblogging project because it allows for a personal reading, then an outlet for reflecting on that reading through a blog, and finally, a chance to read and respond to what others have said. I have found my tour through the other Barth synchroblogs to be highly rewarding, noting things that I may have passed over, sharing frustrations over Barth's style, and finding clarifications on things that I did not understand in my reading of Barth. 

After reflecting on the posts of others, one thing stood out to me that I passed over in my Barth blog post.  I noted this when I first read it, but it escaped my mind when I went to blog.  That is, Barth's threefold division of theology as follows:

"Does Christian utterance derive from Him [Jesus Christ]?  Does it lead to Him? Is it conformable to Him?  None of these questions can be put apart, but each is to be put independently and with all possible force.  Hence, theology as biblical theology is the question of the basis, as practical theology the question of the goal, and as dogmatic theology the question of the content of the distinctive utterance of the church." (CD I.1 pp. 4-5)

Therefore, there are three types of theology.  At the center of each is the reality of God's free gift, namely Jesus Christ.  Yet, while Christ is the center and the true goal of each, each type of theology, biblical, practical, and dogmatic, all have their own spheres.  Biblical dealing with what has been said about Christ in the scripture.  Practical theology dealing with the work of the church, and dogmatic theology dealing with the "distinctive utterance of the church" about Christ.  For, again, as Barth writes,

"Hence dogmatics as such does not ask what the apostles and prophets said but what we must say on the basis of the apostles and prophets." (CD I.1 p. 16)

 I see in this a positive evaluation of biblical exegesis, which is the goal I have set my life to, and also a distinction of dogmatics from biblical exegesis, which is the goal to which Barth in the Church Dogmatics has set himself.  Barth is interested in challenging, reforming, and setting forth the church's distinctive utterance about God.  This is based on, but not identical to biblical exegesis and theology.  It is not merely restating and systematizing what has been said in the Bible, but rather, it is, on the basis of what has been said, formulating what now the church must say about Jesus Christ.

In all of this, typical of Barth, Jesus Christ, and not the Bible, not the utterance of the church, and not the work of the church, is central.  All three, biblical theology, practical theology, and dogmatic theology have as their goal the one true goal of Jesus Christ.  Christ is central, the others are only a means to reaching that ultimate goal. 

I, as a biblical scholar, see the task of biblical exegesis and theology as continually important.  We continue to strive to set forth what "the apostles and prophets" said about Christ.  But, biblical scholars must always be warned, the Bible is not the end.  The Bible is a means to something greater, namely, Jesus Christ.

Barth I.1 §1

I, like many others (see http://www.jrdkirk.com/karl-barth-reading/ for others synchroblogging Barth's CD) will be blogging through Barth's Church Dogmatics over the next several years.  Thanks to Dr. Kirk for instigating this activity. 

I start by saying to myself what Bruce McCormack said to me in my second year of seminary, "Keith, you just don't have the mind of a theologian."  At the time I was very put off by this comment, but I have come to see that he was correct.  I have the mind of a biblical scholar, which I have found is very different than the mind of a theologian.  I have little patience for endless abstract concepts and subjects that are mercurial.  Yet, when I read great theologians, even though they frustrate me to no end, I find myself challenged and enlightened in ways that are good for me.  That said, I will pursue a reading of Barth with great humility.

This first week reading was great, and challenging, for me.  I don't particularly like the way that Barth writes (see my post here).  He often circles around an issue while not saying much.  For example, his talk of theology as a science I found obtuse.  He seemed to be saying: theology is a science, but it is unlike any other science, and cannot be subjected to the norms and standards of other sciences.  Yet, he gives no positive definition of what he means by calling theology a science and therefore no justification as to why he insists that theology is a science.  More in theology as science later.

In the second subsection, Barth discusses theology as enquiry and I found this section refreshing.  At times Barth can rise to great linguistic force, and in this section he does so.  Barth writes,

"Christian speech must be tested by its conformity to Christ.  This conformity is never clear and unambiguous.  To the finally and adequately given divine answer there corresponds a human question which can maintain its faithfulness only in unwearied and honest persistence." (CD I.1 p. 13).

 Barth brings up a very good point that the act of dogmatics is never complete, it is always a stretching and striving for completeness, for a full grasp of the truth, but as a human act, it is always incomplete.

Barth follows up this discussion of dogmatics as enquiry with a discussion of dogmatics as an act of faith.  It is in this section that Barth shows his reformed tradition, basing the truth and attainment of dogmatics solely on the will and free act of God.  Only through faith may one stumble upon a true dogmatics.  The theologian may believe, pray, attempt to speak rightly about God, but only through the free act of God is such a faith granted and a true dogmatics achieved. 

I want to return briefly to Barth's discussion of theology as a science.  I do not know, since I could not find a positive definition of science in Barth, why he insists on calling theology a science.  As the 20th century put to lie the claim of pure objectivity in any field, I wonder what use it is to call theology a science.  Theology, as Barth's section on dogmatics as an act of faith demonstrates, is not a disinterested study of a subject.  Rather, it is the pursuit of true discourse about God based on faith.  Why then call it a science?  Is it to bolster the authority of said theology?  Is it to raise theology to a respectable academic study?  Comments? 

Judicial Activism?

In a previous post, I talked about how the debate over constitutional interpretation mirrors a similar debate about biblical interpretation.  With regard to the constitution debate, I talked about a spectrum ranging on the far right with textual literalists (i.e., the text speaks for itself in its literal meaning) to the left extreme where the text is a living, breathing document in need of constant reinterpretation.  I could not think of a good label for those on the left extreme, so I called them "pragmatists," and "judicial activists." 

My friend Peter Pope, himself a lawyer, rightly pointed out that by using the term judicial activist, I had unwittingly used a pejorative term used by right wing pundits to describe left wing judges.  I meant the post to be neutral and descriptive, but was properly chided by Pope for my improper use of the language. 

Yet, this whole topic gets me thinking.  Though right wing commentators often use the term "judicial activist" or the even more inflammatory language of "legislating from the bench" I have never been able to determine what they really mean.  To my understanding (and I am no legal or constitutional scholar), there is not one law, one sentence, one word or even one letter in any law code or in any piece of the constitution that was written by means of a judicial decision.  By my understanding, every law, every word of every law, is written by legislatures.  No judge, by making a judicial decision, ever gets that decision written down in a law code. 

Sure, through judicial review, judges can rule certain laws unconstitutional, and through judicial decisions, judges get to interpret laws, but they never write any of the laws, that is for legislatures.  So, the language of "legislating from the bench" seems to be completely false and inflammatory rhetoric.  In the sense that right wing pundits use the terms "judicial activist" and "legislating from the bench"  all judges are judicial activists, right and left alike.  In making any judgment on a given law, the judge is interpreting the law.  What the right wing pundits really mean when they say that a judge is a "judicial activist" or is "legislating from the bench" is that the judge made a decision or interpretation that they don't like.  So, if any given judge makes a decision on a law that a right wing pundit does not like, they call that judge a judicial activist and automatically that label is enough to dismiss that judge as a kook. 

So, we are not really dealing with "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" at all, but rather, we are back to the question I raised in my previous post: how do we interpret the constitution.  Should one look for original intent, or should the document be viewed as a living, breathing document in need of constant reinterpretation, or anywhere in between these extremes.

The Bible as Instruction Manual

The other day I heard someone I respect compare to the Bible to an instruction manual for humans.  This is not a new analogy, as a simple Google search of "Bible instruction manual" will demonstrate.

Yet, how does this analogy hold up?  Is the Bible an instruction manual?  Is it a guide to all our problems in life?

In my experience, here is how most people use instruction manuals.  They get a new product, open the product and throw the instruction manual in a drawer.  The manual is only used when something goes wrong with the product.  Then, they pull out the manual, flip to the index or troubleshooting section, flip to the relevant portion of the manual and try to fix the problem.

Unfortunately, I think this is how many Christians use their Bible.  When something goes wrong in life, or some difficult decision comes up, they go searching their Bible for some solution.  They flip to the index (called a concordance when used in reference to the Bible), look for key words, then flip to the relevant verses.  This can lead to the worst kind of proof texting, that is, taking a verse out of context in support of a specific position.  On proof texting, see this wonderful video from the West Wing, which illustrates the danger of taking verses of the Bible out of context.



Right now I am looking for a job.  Just out of curiosity I looked in one of my Bibles with a concordance and found the following entry under "job(s)."

Job(s): should you seek rewards in......... Lk 20:45-47

I then turned to Luke 20:45-47, which reads:

Luke 20:45  In the hearing of all the people he said to the disciples,
Luke 20:46 “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets.
Luke 20:47 They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

 This is clearly a condemnation of seeking rewards from one's job, right?

My big problem with viewing the Bible as an instruction manual for life is that it does justice neither to the complexity and richness of humanity, nor to the complexity or richness of the Bible. Reading the Bible requires context, nuance, historical understanding, literary understanding.  In short, the Bible is not an instruction manual, it is a story, it is history, poetry, confession, memory, prophecy, visions.  It is all of the greatest of God's revelation to humanity and humanity's reaction to an experience of God.  It requires a little more care than merely looking in an index, finding a relevant verse, and doing what it says.  Human beings are also much more than pieces of equipment or technology.  We are living, breathing beings in relationship to God.  No book, however divinely inspired, can merely be mined for quick answers to problems that arise for any given human.  So, next time you pick up your Bible, take time to read it, not just exploit it.

Holiday Whirlwind

It has been a crazy few weeks.  On the 17th of December Brooke and I left for Colorado and the odometer on my car read: 95580.  When we finally ended our holiday tour on Monday, my odometer read 98881.  Two weeks, 3,301 miles, three states, multiple beds, and Brooke and I are ready to finally be home for a while.  For a while it seemed like we were living out of our car.

It was a great holiday time for us.  We first went to Colorado for about a week and visited both of my parents.  We got to spend some great time with both sides of the family, spending our nights in my Mother's cabin in outside of Drake, Colorado.  It was gorgeous.  The weather was perfect, but not very Christmas-like.  No snow to speak of.  Just balmy Colorado winter days allowing for safe driving and gorgeous mountain views.

Then it was back to Waco for a short hiatus while Brooke worked two and a half days.  Then on Wed. December 29th it was off to Houston for the Texas Bowl featuring Baylor vs. Illinois (ughh, no comment).  Then, up early in the morning for a trip down to Brooke's family's ranch for New Years.  It was a great time in South Texas, 90 degree days, watching the wildlife.  I saw many white tail deer, some javelinas, and a gorgeous bobcat. 

We ended the trip with a wonderful evening in the historical Gruene Mansion Inn in Gruene, TX on the Guadalupe River.  It was a nice end to a whirlwind couple of weeks.

Now, back in Waco, gearing up for the Spring semester.  I can't wait to get back to teaching, and blogging.

Happy New Year