Not all contemporary novelists intend readers to interpret their visionary expressions and words like ‘hope’ and ‘faith’ in a mystical sense or try to convey to readers an alternative reality that is loftier than their present prosaic one. Most of them, maybe, are happy to make money, attain modest fame, and provide a few transient thrills. They aim no higher than to please, and are guilty of enclosing their stories in a vacuum where nothing higher than the mortal world is ever hinted at. Novelists of neither camp—existential or skeptical—care to make it appear that there is a heaven from which a knowable Divine Being governs the universe—a knowable God who will hold moral agents responsible for their beliefs, deeds, words, thoughts, and motivations.
If critics are anything to judge the currents by, novelists have become less comfortable with the word, or concept, of ‘redemption,’ and more comfortable with the word, or concept, of ‘liberation.’ If this is so, it is no surprise because the former word connotes more biblical theology than the latter word does. A word that is less suggesting of a ransom from the bondage of sin is desired, for the word that educes more than mere liberty is less tolerated by publishing houses. Rick Groen is an award-winning film critic. His three reasons for literary fiction as the chief art to indulge are: (1) for the aesthetic pleasure derived; (2) for its tragic realism, by which he means: the strain between good and evil from which more questions than answers are raised; (3) for its liberating factor. He enlists the help of Jonathan Franzen for this threefold division, who speaks of a kind of ‘redemption’ through an ‘aesthetic rendering of the human plight.’ A redemption such as that, however, is of no practical or permanent benefit. What effect can a portrayal of plight produce? There cannot be a heavenly redemption in a plight for which no answer is given, only a transient one. This redemption is nothing but a good feeling or a sense of wonder through an ornamental presentation of the author’s, or the character’s, plight. This sense may come about, not only through reading superlative passages of literature, but by identifying with a man on the losing side in a book or movie. The best example that comes to mind is Rocky Balboa in Rocky 1. He loses, but we are lifted up anyway. At first, his loss causes us a sinking feeling. Then we are relieved that he lost, for we cannot help but feel that the fighter is more like us by losing than by winning. Subsequent to our initial letdown from seeing the man we love, lose, we experience a kind of redemption through the vicarious loss. Such is our identification with the character’s unexpected denouement. Notice how minimal and insignificant this redemption is compared to redemption of the biblical kind. In the fictional case, we have a temporary sense of ambiguous redemption from losing vicariously. In the biblical case, we have a definite redemption from the curse of the law through a Saviour suffering in our stead, which redemption, in its fruition and future aspect, entails our resurrection from the grave, which in turn leads to our permanent settlement in heaven instead of the awful hell that we had been condemned to prior to our faith in Jesus Christ.
Though the word ‘redemption’ is usually made to mean something less, to say the least, than what redemption in God’s Revelation is, it is common to never mind the meaning of the word and to preach it as if it means nothing more than to liberate. This is the norm in black churches and among black ministers, where, and from whom, redemption is preached as nothing more than liberation from circumstantial (often lied about or exaggerated) oppression by capitalist white folks. For example, about four girls killed by a bomb in the basement of a Baptist church in Alabama in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. said: “The innocent blood of these little girls may well serve as the redemptive force that will bring new light to this dark city” (Phyllis Theroux, The Book of Eulogies, p. 147.) So Martin Luther King means political liberation here, not saving redemption. He means ‘liberation’ even when he uses the word ‘redemption.’ His meaning is that the death of these girls could be the impetus to progress in civil rights. And ‘redemption’ is often, if not usually, used inferiorly just like that, even when the subject is Jesus Christ.
To ‘liberate’ is less offensive to obstinate sinners than to ‘redeem.’ Liberation does not communicate a redemptive ‘price,’ and therefore doesn’t suggest a need to be bought from the bondage of sin—sin that must be quit and turned away from. In the Bible the word ‘liberty’ means to ‘release,’ to ‘forgive,’ or to ‘pardon.’ To be ‘set at liberty’ comes closer to encompassing what the word ‘redemption’ imports. But to ‘redeem’ is something more. In the Bible this word means to ‘buy back,’ to ‘purchase,’ or to ‘ransom.’ Even if it is not known (and it is seldom known these days) that to ‘redeem’ is to ‘buy back,’ the Bible has been so influential for so many centuries that the very word ‘redeem’ casts too much light for some committed sinners and authors to tolerate, notwithstanding its use in black churches to speak of liberation from social injustices. The word ‘liberate’ avoids the associations that the word ‘redeem’ continues, after all these years, to cling to. It avoids alluding to the salvation of being set at liberty from the curse of the law—which, in the Bible, is by the bloody ransom provided by Jesus through his death on the cross. Though the word ‘redemption’ fits into his theory somewhere, Groen cannot mean much by it, considering his first two reasons for consuming literary fiction: for pleasure and to raise questions about the stress between good and evil. If his theory is that readers ought to read in order to raise questions instead of nail answers down, his point about reading for the liberty factor (his third reason) means nothing much at all. If raising questions and deriving pleasure are the reasons for literary fiction to be indulged, this fiction is for nothing but maintaining ignorance while being entertained. It is true that he says that ‘more’ questions than answers should be raised, which seems to imply that some answers are okay. But his partial allowance, I think, is rhetorical, not actual. And to raise questions, in literary circles, means to discuss without driving at a satisfying answer. Critics, philosophers, and professors are too much like the Athenians in Acts 17, who spent their ‘time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing’ (verse 21.) Regrettably, I have lost my note respecting what work Mr. Groen’s theory was culled from, though I did find some frame of reference to the words that he borrowed from the aforesaid Franzen.
No comments:
Post a Comment