Critical Literary Theory
Through the Biblical Lens
Once we’ve accustomed ourselves to God’s Word, though not perfectly, for we are not capable of that feat on this side of heaven, we can aptly apply what we know of His Word to the media we consume. Namely, literature, then we can move on to more profound substances. Still, I mostly feel that the things I do are barely below surface level, but it is a starting point. Here, we can briefly discuss the many analytical applications of critical literature theories. Not to break into a conversation about each critical theory but about the essential concept of literature theory itself.
Academics across the world recognize several critical theory approaches. These are theories proposed by philosophers, researchers, and essayists who are well known for their arguments and ability to create theories surrounding these ideas. By mentioning each theory, I’m not arguing for or against them; I’m just saying that they exist and were argued into existence by people much more intelligent than myself. I’m reconstructing these from years of memory, so bear with me if you Wiki these and find some slight variation in my definitions or examples.
1. Structuralism: a theory of critical analysis that focuses on the structures of the literary work. Themes, plots, tropes, and the like are structural building blocks, and they build an argument for the text using these elements. For example, what are the repeating structures of the Bible? Men sin, and God redeems.
2. Deconstructionism: a concept that the text can be boiled down to a singular idea between two contrasting ideas, good/evil, and that truth is hard to discover. For example, what is the point of the Bible? To tell the story of God. Whether or not the Bible is true is not the lens we need to focus on, but the story of God.
3. Fundamentalism: a theory claiming the text is the substance of truth. It is a very literal approach that focuses more on what the text says than any surrounding evidence or philosophic thought. For example, the Bible is the word of God because it says it, and everything in the Bible is true because it claims it, and everything will happen just the way it says.
4. Modernism: a contrast of fundamentalism or vis versa. This suggests that everything is subjective and abstract and should be experimented with to test its validity. For example, the Bible could be accurate, but it could not be; everything should be scientifically tested. Even if it is, there are many types of literature, and not all of them should be taken literally.
5. Postmodernism is a theory that nothing is confirmed and only applies if socially accepted. We make truth. For example, the Bible is not true just because it says so or that it can be argued or tested. It is only valid if society accepts it as accurate. If society rejects it, then it no longer bears truth. Truth is relative, anyway.
These are the five big philosophical thoughts that shape critical theories. Many others branch from these, but they branch off from these thoughts. They are not what I’d consider source theories. Nor is the proposal I’ve approached through the Biblical lens. It would be viewed as an eclectic blend of critical theories, and that’s okay. Again, people may argue with me here, but I’ve not seen good arguments that other theories do not utilize concepts from the big five.
Critical theory, then, is concerned mainly with truth. Though postmodernism negates this statement, its disinterest in the truth stems from the truth itself. It is not a rejection of truth but an attempt to shape it to its own will. Many new theories have been proposed from this theory, and indeed, even the Biblical lens theory I propose comes from this.
As a Christian, I believe in the veracity of the Bible, but the arguable point I wish to make stems from the postmodernist thought that truth is relative. I happen to think it is mainly related to the Bible. It is not how I read the Bible but all other literature and consume all media. The Bible is my relative truth, and all other factors must be considered through this truth. That is postmodernism in a nutshell. Consider my truth the singularity of all other facts to flow through. I do this because of the way I inherently read scripture, which is an eclectic variety of the other four philosophies. Which, arguably, we all do. This is not because truth is relative but because we can all come from different angles when seeking truth. Truth remains the same, no matter how we approach it. However, postmodernist ideology provides excellent argumentative and approachable practices to make an argument these days.
What is our argument? It is what I’ve been saying, why we read the Bible, and why I’ve started this whole thing. The Bible is our meta-narrative as Christians. Or, at the very least, it is the source from which we derive our meta-narrative: sinners, loved by God, saved by the grace of Christ on the cross; humans are the Imago Dei, unique in nature, and will one day be fully redeemed or wholly condemned. All that we do ought to be considered through that lens.
This idea is summed up well throughout Paul’s letter to Titus.
“For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:11-14 CSB).
We see here that Paul argues for the life of the Christian to live according to the gospel. This includes what we read, watch, and consume for media. And just before this, he talked about the purity of the pure. "To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted” (Titus 1:15 CSB). The argument is that we live in the truth of the word, according to what it says, testing it constantly against the things of this world because God’s story is more significant than you or me. I’ve summed up the gospel, but how it affects each person, shapes them, and pulls them into God’s story is unique for each individual. Let the gospel narrative do this for you. That is the critical analysis that is most important to the general consumer when we read stories. Find that story, or if you can’t in what you’re reading, watching, listening to, or consuming, maybe find better stories.