In Search of a Charitable Reading

Alan Jacobs' thoughts in "The Hermeneutics of Love" stimulated and refreshed my mind by offering a contemporary, Christ-oriented commentary on types of criticism. I could definitely pick out the aspects of his theory that seemed to align themselves with Christianity, and I enjoyed his ability to use well-known literary critics as examples.

Jacobs does an excellent job of presenting the theories of Mikhail Bakhtin. I had no idea that this theorist-- whom I had noticed in our anthology's table of contents-- had such an interest in Christianity. I found myself tempted to absorb everything he said because I was so enthralled with his ideas. However, this attitude is exactly what Bakhtin denounces as unethical. By swallowing his theories whole and unquestioningly, I would prove that I had not truly applied this critic's contributions.

I have several questions or points of contention for both Alan Jacobs and Mikhail Bakhtin. My first concern deals with the issue of eschatological community which the two critics celebrate. They seem to see the ideal interpretation as a "homecoming" when polyphonous voices will come together and form a larger, inclusive truth. Jacobs condemns exclusion under these assumptions and sees this framework as making room for those who are otherwise seen as outsiders within the context of certain texts. My question concerns the difference between "differentiation," which Jacobs sees as legitimate, and "exclusion." Is there such an interpretation that is completely irrelevant to the larger picture? If so, where are those boundaries? If Bakhtin and Jacobs are willing to accept any interpretation in the name of heteroglossia, I would become quite worried. Not only does this attitude bring about problems in the realm of literary theory by abolishing the need for and the authority of criticism, but such beliefs have shown their their true nature by causing strife and heartache within the Church, as seen in the crises occurring in many of our mainline Protestant denominations. If, however, Bakhtin and Jacobs merely celebrate the diversity of "tested" viewpoints while maintaining the need for discernment, I gladly endorse their theory. Not only does such a theory evoke a warm emotional response in me, but I see precedent for it within the Scriptures and in Christian tradition.

My second question concerns the issue of self-renunciation. What does Bakhtin mean by this? And how do we practice self-renunciation while we read? I understood this to mean that we should attempt to see the subject at hand from the perspective of the author, giving him or her the benefit of the doubt without blindly accepting everything they offer. Jacobs links self-renunciation to unconditional love, so I interpret this to mean that we should expound energy and dedication as readers and critics in an attempt to understand without fearing that the author would not reciprocate.

In addition, Bakhtin and Jacobs alerted me of the possibility that I could be guilty of reading without interacting with the text. Have I become a lazy, passive reader? If the author truly desires that readers interact with and critique his or her text, have I fulfilled those wishes? I must admit that when I read works of fiction for my literature courses, I tend not to question the ideas and forms presented. Wanting to complete the reading assignment as quickly as possible in order to move on to the next task, I seldom take time outside of class discussion to "seek the vice." I confess that this habit has left me bored and disillusioned. Perhaps forming a critical response in my mind would make my assignments more interesting, and I wouldn't feel as though I had a case of intellectual bulimia. I could restore the meaning and purpose that has often been lacking in my reading.

Finally, these chapters make me pause and question whether the reading of non-Biblical texts is a "theologically significant activity." If reading holds no theological significance, Jacobs states that all his theorizing is useless. After pondering this question, I must say that I believe that reading is theologically relevant because it concerns the shaping of one's heart and mind. God has given us our minds so that we might exercise them and use them for His glory, and secular, substantial reading accomplishes this. Furthermore, our reading forms our sense of values and can illuminate the good that remains in human nature as a result of God's creation of us in His image. For these reasons, I believe that Alan Jacobs' work was not in vain.