In this post, I'll abstain from dense and tedious theological arguments. I could make'em, but I'm not trying to persuade anyone via debate. My only goal is to explain how I see things; if anyone finds my perspective helpful or thought-provoking, so much the better. So, I'm not going to argue that I'm right or counter opposing positions except to clarify my own. That's a job for another time--if there is another time.
What I offer my readers is not an argument, but an analogy. Analogies, I've found, engage the imagination in a way syllogisms have never managed to do. Besides, using analogies helps us to remember that our attempts at theology are really exercises in metaphor anyway, and to acknowledge the mystery that makes metaphor necessary.
We make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker--J.R.R. Tolkien
Humans are storytellers: we delight in weaving words, summoning into our listeners' imaginations visions of adventures real and invented. In this, we emulate our Creator, Who spoke all things into existence. This is not, I believe, an incidental detail: instead, the human capacity for creativity, especially in storytelling, is one of the clearest marks of the imago dei. (I didn't invent this: I borrowed it from Tolkien and Sayers.*) Thus, I think it's appropriate to turn to story-telling for insight into the interplay of Divine providence and human agency: we may learn something about how God works with his creation by examining how we work with our own creations. Specifically, I compare God's relationship to humans to the relationship of an author to his story's plot and characters.
I'll start with a question: which is more important to a story--the plot or the characters? Without a plot, the audience will not be engaged, no matter how interesting the characters--because without a plot, nothing happens. Would you read the phone book for fun? No? So plot is certainly vital. But what would a story be without characters? Things may happen, but nothing of consequence to anything the audience cares about. Take a geology textbook, for example: those are pretty action-packed, with volcanoes and earthquakes and so forth. But who cares, really, without characters to sympathize with in their suffering or cheer on in their heroism? So characters are vital, too. A story needs both elements to work.
The difficulty in writing a story is in constructing and balancing those two elements. Stories can be "plot-heavy": characters who are little more than named cliches move from point to point, hopefully distracting the audience from their shallowness by keeping up narrative momentum. (In movies they do this with special effects, fancy editing, and nekkid people.) The opposite flaw in a story is superfluous character development. Inordinate space may be wasted on developing aspects of characters that have little or nothing to do with the story they are in. The worst problem is when a strong plot struggles to subdue inappropriate characters to its design. Characters may act inexplicably, against all we expect of them from their revealed character thus far, just to move the plot forward: at such times, we say they are "out of character."
So, then, a good story has a plot and characters, but those elements are intimately related: they are shaped to fit each other. The plot is designed to achieve desired outcomes in the characters; the characters are designed to achieve desired outcomes in the plot. When I've written stories (no, you may not read them--none of them are finished), this tension has concerned me most, but it usually resolves itself naturally. When I invent a character, certain kinds of stories coalesce around them: I know the characters, so I know what they would do and the kinds of experiences they need to become the personalities I imagine them to be. Also, when I begin to think out a plot, character-shaped holes form and gradually solidify, until I know what sort of personality needs to fit there. I love my characters and I love my plots, but I cannot make them act against their natures, mixing and matching plots and characters willy-nilly. No, as they grow, they form their own kind of artistic necessity: they must be as they are meant to be. My control as an author lies not in making characters do whatever random thing that occurs to me, but in creating detailed and realistic characters and placing them in a story that fits their unique natures. They do what I want them to do because they are what I want them to be, not in spite of that.
Now let's make the metaphorical leap! God tells His story much as we do, I think. He has a definite plot in mind--all the history of creation--as well as His cast of characters--all created agents, humans and angels. (And whatever other things there might be that He hasn't chosen to tell us about.) On His level of reality--that ultimate, transcendent level where God exists and thinks in Himself outside of all created time and space--God is the author, totally in control of the story He is telling. But does that mean that we are passive automatons, acting out a meaningless script? No, because God is not a bad storyteller. On our level of reality, we behave "in character," acting authentically and doing what we want, compelled by no necessity outside of our own natures. That's my definition of "free will." Does that mean that God is not in control of the story, that we are characters running amuck and making our own plot as we go along? Again, no, because God is not a bad storyteller. Yes, we act according to our wills and our natures--but God created our natures, too! He not only knew us from before the beginning, but also invented us, as much as He invented our ultimate grandparents, Adam and Eve. And He invented us for a purpose: to tell His story. But that doesn't make us props: remember, the story is told not only for the pleasure of the author, but also for the love of the characters. We are in this story not only because we are right for it, but also because it is right for us. That's my definition of "providence."
This idea is very personal to me. In eternity God imagined me: the true David Nathaniel Grubbs. And, because of His great grace and for no virtue in my nature, He loved me. So He placed me in a story: only a small part of His grand epic, but a little story all my own, in which I am the protagonist. Now, in this story I do, have done, and will do many different things, all the things a David Nathaniel Grubbs naturally does. But, because I trust that God is a good storyteller, I trust that whatever happens--the outcomes of my actions or other people's actions or natural "accidents"--is all the proper story as God means it to be. By being what I am, I am telling the story He means to tell. And because I trust that God is a good storyteller, I know that His story not only pleases Him, but also is for my own good. The goal of a story is to develop a character, and that is what my story does: shape me to be the David Nathaniel Grubbs God imagined from the very beginning, the true and perfect and ideal me. Folks can hash out the philosophical nuances of determinism and human agency to their hearts content: I shall take comfort in knowing there's a plot, that I'm a character the Author loves, and that I know the ending.
* I wrote an article on Tolkien's ideas about storytelling and how they fit into his own fantasy novels. It exists in two versions, long and short: The Maker's Image and Tolkien, Fantasy, and Magic. Peruse if you've a hankerin'.
No comments:
Post a Comment