Richard Hays–Literary Criticism

It is impossible, this much is clear, to exaggerate the heroic self-inflation of academic literary criticism. . . . The fundamental, if only implied, message of much literary criticism is self-righteous, and it takes this form: “T. S. Eliot is a homophobe and I am not. Therefore, I am a better person than Eliot. Imitate me, not Eliot.” To which the proper response is: “But T. S. Eliot could really write, and you can’t. Tell us truly, is there no filth in your soul?” (199).

Richard Hays, a great Biblical scholar, laid this famous saying against literary criticism. Important to note that Hays teaches at Duke, home (along with Yale) in America of self-inflationary literary criticism.

Of course the quotation is hyperbolic, but it gets the point across. There are such awful writings out there. And great artists can be, and often are, morally questionable, even despicable human beings. But that does not mean their art might not still be great. Picasso’s hypocrisy in transcendentally decrying the horror of Guernica (because it was committed by Fascists), while turning a blind eye, even applauding, similar war atrocities by the Socialist-Communists in the Spanish Civil War comes to mind.

The question doesn’t answer the question though whether imitation in regards specifically and only to the question of the treatment of gays & lesbians of Elliot or this other non-homophobic author is preferable? Let’s say that author does recognize “filth” in her own soul and yet still stands the ground of saying her conduct (in this one specific context only) is in fact better nevertheless?

That’s an important question to consider. I’ll come back to it in a bit.

Hays applies the same basic criticism to biblical readings and theologies like (as you may guess) feminist, liberation, queer, and the like.

Liberal and liberationist readings (of all varieties) begin with the experience of the writer and his/her community (or sub-community). The danger of such self-inflation is therefore ever-present. Such a method can easily degenerate into an idealization of one’s own community or experience or pet theory.

For Hays, a student of Paul’s letters, the method for Christians today reading the Bible is the same as he reconstructs Paul’s method of reading and preaching the OT: reading typologies of Christ into the Hebrew text. I have no problem as such with that method, so long as we realize its weaknesses. First and most importantly, it is an interpretation/transformation of the Tanakh. The original authors of those texts did not have Jesus or early Christians in mind. That does not invalidate their method of re-reading their Scripture in light of THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE of Jesus, but it does problematize Hays’ too easily dismissal of using one’s own experience as a measuring stick when it comes to these texts. Maybe feminist readings are not that radically dis-similar from the early Christian reading of the Psalms as the Prayers of the Messiah-Christ?

Hays follows in the line I’ve been exploring in other posts (see here) on narrative theology–from Hans Frei, Karl Barth (one could argue), N.T. Wright, and Jack Miles. On the literary side, I’d put him roughly in the same camp as Harold Bloom in his critique of pomo critical theories.

Put far too crudely, the narrative theological view is that we don’t read the text from our point of view, it reads us. As such it is not to be taken piecemeal, with the individual–by his or her own whims–picking and choosing which to keep and which to leave out. Theologically, this leads most of the authors (Hays and Wright) to argue for exclusion of gays and lesbians from the life of the Church. As sinful activity. So the homophobe line is not a throwaway you see.

The liberal-literary criticism-liberationist readings, conversely, according to this simplistic categorization of mine, are us reading the text. The argument by the other side being the reading is never accomplished and all that happens is a circular search, an ideological rupture/transgression of values, a confirmation of one’s already held belief.

Again, I think that certainly takes place.

But I think the criticism from the liberal-literary frame of the narrative frame is also valid: A)for the NT text (in theology now) the analogy breaks down because the early disciples did read the text in light of their own experience. B)It never answers questions like those I raised above: which is a better action? Do we never in fact learn anything new? Do we never evolve moral opinions and attitudes that now must stand in judgment of our own past?

My own thinking is that it is both ways. The textualist/narrative and the structuralist/liberal. [For AQAL types, I’ve thought of this divide in terms of 1st person versus 3rd person approaches to the interior quadrants respectively].

I find it is very sad, that to date in the field of Biblical studies, particularly New Testament interpretation, the battle lines are drawn quite sharply and neither side seems particularly willing to face (what I believe to be) the true but partial elements and critiques of the opposing camp. And it is not just my thinking, but an actual way of reading the texts that has come to bring deep meaning to me–from both angles. From authors on both sides. To express my gratitude, I want to include both, but am saddened by the attacks (and arrogance or at least ignorance it usually is) of one on the other.

The narrative tradition is an antidote to arrogance, engendering at its best, humility and humanist persuasions. The liberal-critical reading at its best questions our participation in modes of thinking and acting that are oppressive, that are sinful.

There is a current of Ascent and Descent in this universe. On every breath in and out we participate in it, re-enact it, orbit in it.

These two reading practices/theologies are the currents of Ascent and Descent I’m convinced. The narrative-canon-humanities approach the Descending Current. It reads and meditates us. The liberationist-liberal-critical the Ascending Current. An evolving matrix and (though humbly put), confessing there are emergent leaps in history and once those barriers are crossed we must re-translate our texts, or better re-translate our minds and ears when reading or hearing these texts, to hear with an asterisk. On those contexts only in which major leaps have taken place (e.g. slavery).

Ascent without Descent becomes arrogant because it forgets that the Ascent-Achievement is only possible because of Grace (Descent).

Descent without Ascent too often, I believe, becomes enmeshed in the social-moral-cultural frame of the time in which the Descent initially occurred, mistaking the context in which the Revelation took place (Biblical or Literary Canon) for the Truth itself. It all too often sadly expresses humility and warm humanism and e.g. homophobia. Or misogyny. Or fill-in-the-blank.

Because change on those fronts comes through perspective-taking. Imagining what it would be like to be in the shoes of that other person. If our classical texts do not give us insight into the mindset, the feelings, the desires, hopes, fears, struggles, and dreams of a group of people, and IF we ONLY let the text read us, whole (without parts), then perhaps we are never taught to incorporate that person or culture or group into our circle of compassionate care and justice-making activity.

In sum…

A hermeneutic of trust (narrative) PLUS a hermeneutic of suspicion (liberal-critical).  Trust because the universe is Graceful, the great artistry of history evidence of that hypothesis.  Suspicion because we are fallible creatures and should never believe we have finally understood the answer, much less even trusting we have asked all the right questions.