Fragmenting the Narrative World: Losing the Effectiveness of Story

Here's my paper proposal for the CSC:

Before the Enlightenment, the worldview of western civilization was fairly consistent, yet after the Age of Reason, it split into a Christian worldview and a naturalistic one, which further fragmented into existentialism, postmodernism, multiculturalism, and so on. This fracturing is amply evident in the literature produced from the 18^th century onward. Most narratives are an attempt to tell the truth, or at least to explore some facet of it, but if western culture has removed God and ultimate truth as a unifying force, how else can one approach “story” but from fragmented identities—race, gender, ethnicity, or some other type of self-defined category? There must be some kind of drive, unifying force, or “truth” behind the narrative: Women are oppressed; African-Americans are oppressed; British imperialists commandeered our culture; God is dead.

Of course, not everyone abandoned a Christian worldview, and some only compromised. Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer calls this compromise the top story/bottom story dichotomy. Compromisers buy into a naturalistic worldview based on logic and reason for everyday life (the bottom story), and take a “leap” into the upper story when they want to practice their “faith.” Many believers are so conditioned by society that they are not even aware of the fragmentation, and non-believers are not threatened as long as believers leave faith in the upper story and don’t try to incorporate it into “real life.”

This paper will explore the effects of a dichotomized worldview on narrative—both how it shapes the narrative we choose to tell and how effectively we are able to tell it. Does a fragmented worldview cause us to move from a comprehensive approach to narrative to a fragmentary one? Does the existence of “Christian Fiction” as a genre mean that some have bought into this dichotomy as it applies to literature? Is there a bottom story—Fiction, and a top story—Christian Fiction? Does a synthesized worldview, whether consciously or unconsciously held, lead to writing Christian Fiction to compete in the multicultural marketplace of Chick Lit, African American Lit, Post-colonial Lit, Gay and Lesbian Lit, ad infinitum? Instead of “all truth being God’s truth,” a belief resulting in stories of real people grappling with real issues in a real world, do some Christians today feel they have to tell “Christian stories,” which are often sanitized and unrealistic? If we truly have a Christian worldview, will we choose to tell stories that incorporate all of life—spiritual and physical, good and evil, victory and defeat—in realistic ways?

And how does this fragmenting of narrative affect the role of literature as an exploration of truth, a pathway to God? Many authors of “Christian Fiction” look at their work as a form of personal evangelism, but is choosing to tell stories from this platform really effective? Is it not just preaching to the choir and reinforcing the idea of faith as separate from real life?

Now, all I have to do is write the thing! Any ideas to contribute? Suggestions will be duly considered, and if used, full credit will be given. :-D

What Was I Thinking?

Way back in December, my good friend Julie told me about a conference she was helping with that I absolutely must submit a proposal for. I checked out the Call for Papers, and was intrigued:

CHOOSING A NARRATIVE

Choosing a story to tell often shapes the messages we send about faith, history, literature and our world view. How should a scholar balance a comprehensive perspective with the voices of race, class, and gender? To be considered for this peer reviewed session, please submit proposals on topics relating either to how we effectively communicate a narrative – whether in the classroom, pulpit, through media, or in the public sector– or how and why we choose a narrative to communicate.

Then, I found out that Billy Collins (former poet laureate) and Marilynn Robinson (author of Gilead and Home) were the keynote speakers. I was hooked. In the euphoria engendered by the exciting topic and the wonderful speakers, I thought, sure, I can work on my dissertation and write a paper for a conference, too. I'll have plenty of time.

What in the world was I thinking?

The conference begins on the 26th, and I don't have my paper written yet. Just what I needed. More stress.

I'll tell you what my paper's supposed to be about tomorrow.

The Girl Who Cain't Say No

Yep. That’s me. It isn’t enough that I’m working full time on my doctorate. Of course, not. See, really, I think I’m Superwoman.

I spent all last Fall preparing for my Comprehensive Exams, doing research, and writing my dissertation proposal. Oh, and also writing a paper and presenting it at the Harding Lectureship.

This Spring, I’m writing my dissertation. Oh yeah, and preparing to lecture at Harding’s WINGS conference this weekend.

And to top it all off, I think I must be wearing a sign on my back that says “Give me all the controversial topics!” Last Fall I spoke on “Is Jesus a Feminist?” My topic this weekend? “Tolerance and Variance.” I have to wonder if I’m being set up for a fall.

No, really, I’m glad to speak on these topics. First of all, they are so important, and I’m really glad Harding sees the need for these discussions.

And secondly, I feel about preparing these talks the same way I feel about writing papers. It’s not as much fun or as interesting to write about something that you’ve already got figured out. You miss the sense of being a seeker; there is no thrill of discovery. It’s really pretty exciting.

But, boy, is my brain tired.

Oh, and I forgot to tell you that I also wrote a proposal (that was accepted) for the Christian Scholars Conference this summer. The theme of the conference is “The Power of Narrative,” and the speakers will be Billy Collins and Marilynn Robinson. It’s gotta be worth writing a paper to get to hear them speak.

Now, if I can just figure out WHEN I’ll write it . . .