Martin Luther seemed to think so:
I am persuaded that without knowledge of literature pure theology cannot at all endure, just as heretofore, when letters [literature] have declined and lain prostrate, theology too, has wretchedly fallen and lain prostrate; nay, I see that there has never been a great revelation of the Word of God unless he has first prepared the way by the rise and prosperity of languages and letters, as though they were John the Baptists. . . . Certainly it is my desire that there shall be as many poets and rhetoricians as possible, because I see that by these studies, as by no other means, people are wonderfully fitted for the grasping of sacred truth and for handling it skillfully and happily. (Martin Luther, Letter to Eoban Hess, 29 March 1523. Werke, Weimar edition, Luthers Briefwechsel, III, 50.)
For those who would argue—as I would—that modern literature has “declined and lain prostrate,” do you agree that theology has also “wretchedly fallen and lain prostrate”? Do you find that reading great works of literature prepares the way for comprehending sacred truth?
(Via: Between Two Worlds)
June 22nd, 2009 | 7:15 am
Joe,
Insightful thought. Yes, of course, literature has the potential of supporting a theological perspective and often does. Flannery O’Connor, comes to mind, as does Wendell Berry, not to mention a personal favorite, Dean Koontz.
Sadly, these authors are a minority in our derailed era.
June 22nd, 2009 | 9:45 am
Pre-literature, the great gospel stories, compositional allegory, fairy tales, become part of a child’s inner life and prepare the way for the great authors both literary and theological. They create a timeless milieu and make belief in Truth possible. The narrow confines of today’s literature would have been a prison to me – worse, a place of spiritual starvation.
June 22nd, 2009 | 9:56 am
I think one of the major problems and reasons for the decline in the quality of literature in modern and contemporary times is the absence of GOD. Indeed Fitzgerald tries to warn us about this absence of GOD in The Great Gatsby as Joyce does in his magnificent short story, “The Dead.” In our century as well as in the past century, when a character is faced with a problem, the dependence on GOD has been replaced by psychology and presently, reduced to a dependence on sex in literature. “We have given our hearts away” Wordsworth warns us and the great themes of literature that Faulkner speaks about in his Noble Prize Speech, what he refers to as the old verities, need to embraced in our literature.
June 22nd, 2009 | 10:37 am
Bob: I remember you made a similar point about Dean Koontz before. (If anyone missed that, it can be found here: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2009/01/03/dean-koontz-metaphysics-and-the-search-for-the-ground/)
Linda: Excellent point. There is a common belief that the character forming aspects of literature cease at the end of childhood. Maybe that is why the best modern literature is still found in books for children and adolescents.
Joe: I completely agree.
June 22nd, 2009 | 11:26 am
Joe, I am curious to know if you would agree with Luther about the literature of his day.
June 22nd, 2009 | 11:46 am
Joe, I am curious to know if you would agree with Luther about the literature of his day.
That’s an excellent question. To be honest I’m not familiar enough with the literature of that period to give a good answer (though I’m pretty impressed with the work from that fellow over in Geneva was producing then). I’ll have to defer to Luther on that one.
I’d be interested in knowing, though, who he might have been thinking of when he made the comment. Maybe some more familiar with Luther’s work can shed some light on that.
June 22nd, 2009 | 2:14 pm
Not really. The only literature I think would be helpful for contemporary theology is science fiction (aka speculative fiction), as a corrective to the backward-looking theology that’s happening, particularly in the ‘orthodox’ camp. This is exemplified by the popularity of fantasy novels among conservative Christians (Tolkein, Lewis).
Christianity is built around a proleptic or ‘once and future’ event, namely, the Resurrection. We need to (re-)learn how to think in the light of the future.
Like Rosa Park’s famous bus ride, the Resurrection is a living image of the very future that it’s creating. Science fiction would help us, I think, pursue valuable, but neglected lines of inquiry. For example:
Is the Resurrection is proleptically at work in biotechnology? Is NT’s anti-temple rhetoric is at work in the Web and virtual online communities?
Very exciting stuff.
June 22nd, 2009 | 5:39 pm
Most people seem to forget that Luther was a close follower of the Renaissance humanists, including its leading figure, Erasmus (with whom he only reluctantly broke when ecclesial push came to shove).
Luther’s comment has to be understood in the context of his whole-hearted endorsement of the humanist scheme of education and of Christian humanism generally. Central to this vision was the importance of literature, meaning primarily the pagan classics.
Humanism was embraced not only by Catholics like Erasmus; the early Protestant schools were dominated by the study of Greek and Latin literature.
The humanists believed that literature and rhetoric were extremely valuable because they sensitized minds to interpretation — context, form, meaning. A person who cares about language can grasp the meaning of scripture more readily — because most of scripture is in the form of narrative and poetry.
Ironically, the Renaissance Christian humanists were diametrically opposed to negative sweeping statements about “the state of literature” made in this post.
They sought out and found much that was good in their times — and stimulated the production of more.
June 23rd, 2009 | 12:04 pm
I see that there has never been a great revelation of the Word of God unless he has first prepared the way by the rise and prosperity of languages and letters, as though they were John the Baptists
Come, come. Revelation can occur whenever God wills it. Acceptance of revelation, however, depends on one’s disposition, and that disposition can be formed by persuasive literature. I doubt that anyone’s heart is ever deeply converted by fiction or poetry, but compelling literature opens the heart and makes it susceptible. Grace then reaches down to touch it, and the effects can last forever. But Grace does not depend on this, since life itself can open the heart in ways literature has yet even to conceive.
And what of literature and theology? One thinks of St. Paul, who had no trouble doing theology and writing to people who had little training in aristocratic Roman rhetoric. He had passion and sincerity, which apparently counted for a great deal. He was a man speaking among men. Perhaps if theologians were to get out of their ivy towers and write like crazed people possessed of a new and real spirit, a spirit in touch with reality, “theology” would flourish once more. That, and not the “prosperity of language and letters,” will likely have more effect.
And of course the more astute a reader you are, the more astute a reader of Scripture and theology you may be. To an extent, the skills are transferable. But I know plenty of Ph.D.’s in literature who, far from being led to comprehend sacred truth, are led pointedly reject it.
June 23rd, 2009 | 2:38 pm
Dare one mention Dante?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact