No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘How Do You Read It?’ Rowan Williams, Marilynne Robinson and Mapping a Postmodern Reading of the Good Samaritan Parable
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2013
Abstract
To explicate the Good Samaritan parable, this paper employs Rowan Williams’ interpretations of the parabolic imagination as explored in On Christian Theology (2000) and in Marilynne Robinson's novel Housekeeping (1980). Williams identifies reading strategies that open possibilities for reading parables through the lens of contemporary texts. Robinson's novel Housekeeping with its unconventional cast of unconnected women provides a contemporary way to explore the parable's opening question. Both Williams and Robinson, in their respective thoughts about ‘housekeeping’ as mutuality, discover that privileging established answers, conventional families and coded traditions interrogates the question ‘who is my neighbor?’ Both the theologian and the novelist explore behaviors that open the boundaries of family and traditions so that the elusive/allusive answer to the parable's question is found in unexpected haunting places with unfamiliar transients and on an ancient public road with one who has no name and voice.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Journal of Anglican Studies Trust 2013
Footnotes
1.
Maxine E. Walker is an Affiliated Scholar in the Department of Religious Studies, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH, USA and Professor Emerita of Literature, Point Loma University, San Diego, CA, USA.
References
2. Naughton, Philippe, ‘Prelate Frowns on Brown Rescue Plan’, The Australian, 20 December 2008, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24824426-2703,00.html (accessed 20 October 2010).Google Scholar
3. Beckford, Martin, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury Warns Recession Britain Must Learn Lessons from Nazi Germany’, Telegraph, 22 December 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3885458/Archbishop-of-Canterburysnewyearmessage (accessed 21 October 2010).Google Scholar
4. Beckford, ‘Archbishop of Canterbury Warns Recession Britain’.Google Scholar
5. Rowan Williams identifies parables not only as the designated gospel ‘parables’ but also narratives that are ‘effective images of a new world like the parables of Christ’. Williams, Rowan, On Christian Theology, in Gareth Jones and Lewis Ayres (eds.), Challenges in Contemporary Theology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000), p. 27.Google Scholar
6. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 42.Google Scholar
7. Lyotard, Jean-François, quoted in Madan SarUniversity Press, An Introductory Guide to Post-structuralism and Postmodernism (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1989), p. 139.Google Scholar
8. Castle, Gregory, ‘Ousted Possibilities: Critical Histories in James Joyce's Ulysses’, Twentieth Century Literature 39.3 (Autumn 1993), pp. 306–328 (326, n. 11).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. xvi. However, Nancy Murphy and Brad Kallenberger view Williams as a postmodern theologian due to Williams being ‘indebted to Wittgenstein’. Murphy, N. and Kallenberger, B., ‘Anglo-American Postmodernity: A Theology of Communal Practice’, in Kevin J. Vanhoozer (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 26–41 (40).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. See Ryken, Leland, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids: Academic Books, 1984). Another overview on hermeneutical practices is found in Robert J. Plummer, ‘Parables in the Gospels: History of Interpretation and Hermeneutical Guidelines’, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 13.3 (2009), pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
11. Narrative criticism discerns a theological, or ideational, viewpoint that may enhance the story's structure. Rhoads points out the unifying dominant point of view in tension with the ideology of the characters and a close reading of other narrative elements has the potential to reduce the narrative to an ordinary story. Rhoads, David, ‘Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark’, JAAR 50 (1982) pp. 411–434 (413). Narrative criticism also is critiqued because the influence of secular literary theory on biblical narratives has led to concern whether ‘this privileges against any kind of scrutiny that does not come from within the traditions of the faith community claiming the book as its own’. David Gunn, ‘Narrative Criticism’, in Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (eds.), To Each its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticism and their Application (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), pp. 171–95 (193).Google Scholar
12. Williams, Rowan, ‘Knowing our Limits’, Crisis and Recovery: Ethics, Economics and Justice (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 19–34 (19–20).Google Scholar
13. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 6.Google Scholar
14. Williams, ‘Knowing our Limits’, p. 22.Google Scholar
15. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. xvi.Google Scholar
16. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 14.Google Scholar
17. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 13.Google Scholar
18. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 30.Google Scholar
19. Higton, Mike, Difficult Gospel: The Theology of Rowan Williams (London: SCM Press, 2004), p. 78.Google Scholar
20. Williams, On Christian Theology, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
21. A postmodern view of history moves away from totalizing narratives and the notion that any historical period has a single point of view. On the other hand, biblical scholarship in whatever method has confronted the accuracy, objectivity, evidentiary sources, intentionality of how history shapes or does not shape the written text. J. Maxwell Miller helpfully describes two extremes of reading the Bible historically: At one extreme are those who insist that the Bible is literally accurate in all historical details, including the chronological data provided in Genesis–2 Kings that place the creation of the world approximately 6000 years ago. … At opposite extreme are those who regard the biblical accounts as being so theologically and nationalistically tendentious … that any attempt to reconstruct the history of ancient Israel is fruitless … an essentially ahistorical approach to the text. ‘Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian's Approach’, in Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (eds.), To Each its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticism and their Application (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), pp. 11–28 (15). Williams says of his position about historical and critical inquiry: ‘I am not happy with either an apologetic colonizing of historical study or a theologically dictated indifference to history’. On Christian Theology, p. 194.Google Scholar
22. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 42.Google Scholar
23. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 23. David Ford sees this strategy as a way forward for postmodern theology: ‘it is deeply rooted in premodernity (especially in its and the traditions of their interpretation through commentary, theology, and “performance” in worship and community living.’ Ford, David, ‘Holy Spirit and Christian Spirituality’, in Kevin J. VanHoozer (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 269–290 (283).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Williams, On Christian Theology, pp. 36, 171.Google Scholar
25. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 188.Google Scholar
26. Bible and Culture Collective, Postmodern Bible (ed. Elizabeth A. Castelli; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), p. 135.Google Scholar
27. Williams, On Christian Theology, pp. 195–96.Google Scholar
28. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 187. Speaking about this constant movement in Christian experience, Williams says there is movement again and again to the ‘central and fruitful darkness of the cross and outwards in affirmation and inwards to emptiness’. Wound of Knowledge: Christian Spirituality from the New Testament to St. John of the Cross (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2nd rev. edn, 1990), p. 190.Google Scholar
29. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 187.Google Scholar
30. ‘Resurrection’, in Markus Bockmuehl (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 102–18 (113).Google Scholar
31. Williams, On Christian Theology, pp. 187–88.Google Scholar
32. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 94.Google Scholar
33. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 29.Google Scholar
34. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 97.Google Scholar
35. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 98.Google Scholar
36. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 105. Williams cites Jacques Pohier (God: In Fragments [London: SCM Press, 1985], p. 295) on the meaning of Christ: ‘The central and perhaps (paradoxically) “universal” meaning of Christ is in Christ's revelation, over against all religious totalities of interpretation of a God who is authentically creator of a world because this God does not wish to be everything.’ Williams links eschatological tribalism with ideological violence: ‘the third Reich's assault on the Jewish people in the urge to bring a kind of finality into history has rightly become the paradigm of ideological violence’ (On Christian Theology, p. 102).Google Scholar
37. Kathryn Tanner, “Review of On Christian Theology,” Anglican Theological Journal 83.1 (Winter 2001), pp. 161–62.Google Scholar
38. Tanner, ATR, p. 162.Google Scholar
39. Higton, Difficult Gospel, p. 63.Google Scholar
40. Rowan Williams, ‘Speech to the Trinity Institute: The Archbishop of Canterbury at Trinity Wall Street’, 29 January 2010, pp. 2–3, http://episcopalian.wordpress.com/2010/01/29full-text-the-archbishop-of-canturbury-rowan-williams (accessed 5 February 2011).Google Scholar
41. Williams, Crisis and Recovery, p. 19.Google Scholar
42. Williams, ‘Speech to the Trinity Institute’, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
43. Williams, ‘Speech to the Trinity Institute’, p. 3.Google Scholar
44. Williams, ‘Speech to the Trinity Institute’, p. 3.Google Scholar
45. Amato, Joseph, Surfaces: A History (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2013), p. 99.Google Scholar
46. Books of the Times, New York Times (Sec. 3, Late City Final Edition, 7 January 1981), p. 18.Google Scholar
47. Robinson, Marilynne, Housekeeping (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1980), p. 85–86.Google Scholar
48. Robinson, Housekeeping, p. 86.Google Scholar
49. ‘Marilynne Robinson (1944–),’ in Laurie Champion and Rhonda Austin (eds.), Contemporary American Women Fiction Writers: An A–Z Guide (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), pp. 318–21 (319).Google Scholar
50. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 45. Stephen Moore argues that there are two paradigmatic shifts influencing biblical studies: a methodical shift from diachronic to synchronic and from history to story. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 130.Google Scholar
51. Williams cites Old Testament narratives such as the reforms of Ezra that conflict with the contemporeity of Ruth's mixed marriage and the tension between James’ letter and Paul's soteriology. These two reading strategies Williams does not view as false modern polarizations, but these ways enable a Christian community to articulate itself as a point of reference, given competing interpretations emerging from the intratextual tensions in the Church's diverse texts (On Christian Theology, pp. 53, 55).Google Scholar
52. Williams notes that synchronic reading or the non-literal will always be less influential than unfolding diachronic reading, because as TeSelle points out, ‘we love stories because our lives are stories’. TeSelle, Sallie, Speaking in Parables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 138 quoted in On Christian Theology, pp. 48–49, n. 15.Google Scholar
53. Robinson, Marilynne, Death of Adam: Essays on Modern Thought (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), p. 27.Google Scholar
54. Robinson, Death of Adam, p. 90.Google Scholar
55. Robinson, Housekeeping, pp. 100–101.Google Scholar
56. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 55.Google Scholar
57. Hunsinger, George, ‘Postliberal Theology’, in Kevin J. Vanhoozer (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 42–57 (47).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 22, n. 15.Google Scholar
59. Tracy, David, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: Crossroad, 2002), p. 408.Google Scholar
60. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 53; a central aspect of establishing the unity of the God of the covenant and the God of Jesus is establishing the continuity, the analogical relation, between the role that a Christian may stand before the God of Jesus and the role of an Abraham or Moses before the God of Israel: this life now can have that [sic] kind of structure (On Christian Theology, p. 23).Google Scholar
61. Williams, On Christian Theology, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar
62. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 172.Google Scholar
63. Genette describes the diegetic (telling of the story by a narrator), the metadiegetic (stories told by a character inside a diegetic narrative), and extradiegetic (stories that frame the primary story). Bal, Mieke, A Mieke Bal Reader (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), p. 11.Google Scholar
64. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 133.Google Scholar
65. In Valdés, Mario J., (ed.), A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66. Williams, On Christian Theology, pp. 23–24.Google Scholar
67. Kearney, Richard, On Paul Ricoeur: The Owl of Minerva (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004), p. 131.Google Scholar
68. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. xiv.Google Scholar
69. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. xiv.Google Scholar
70. ‘Postmodern Theology as Cultural Analysis’, in Graham Ward (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001), pp. 3–23 (5).Google Scholar
71. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), p. 119. In the ‘cultural-linguistic’ approach, prominence is given to how doctrine is used for communally authoritative rules of discourse, attitude, and action (p. 18). For Lindbeck recovering the historical world of scripture means to interpret a text in terms of its immanent meanings, ‘that is, in terms of the meanings immanent in the religious language of whose use the text is a paradigmatic instance’ (p. 116).Google Scholar
72. John Riggs in Postmodern Christianity: Doing Theology in the Contemporary World agrees with Lindbeck that liberal theology sought to explain Christian claims in terms of human emotion and needs. Jesus was turned into a human person, and the Bible was turned into a ‘historical book in which one could find the truths that supported the liberal project. The answer to this unacceptable accommodation of Christianity to the modern world is to let God be God by letting the canonical narrative be the canonical narrative’ (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003), p. 93.Google Scholar
73. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 29.Google Scholar
74. Volf, Miroslav, ‘Theology, Meaning and Power: A Conversation with George Lindbeck on Theology and the Nature of Christian Difference’, in Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis Okholm (eds.), The Nature of Confession: Evangelicals and Postliberals in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1966), pp. 45–66 (63). Graham Ward also notes that ‘Christianity, though rooted in all its various previous forms and traditions, is conceived in the cultural terms available, the cultural terms which maintain its current relevance and render it comprehensible … in contemporary society.’ ‘Suffering and Incarnation’, in Graham Ward (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001), pp. 192–208 (206, n. 1).Google Scholar
75. Robinson, Death of Adam, p. 98.Google Scholar
76. Robinson, Housekeeping, p. 158.Google Scholar
77. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 30.Google Scholar
78. Robinson, Housekeeping, p. 179.Google Scholar
79. ‘The Return of the Prodigal Son’, in Peter Brooks (ed.), Western Literature: The Modern World (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), III, pp. 461–474 (466, 473).Google Scholar
80. Phillips and Okholm, Nature of Confession, p. 124.Google Scholar
81. Bal, A Mieke Bal Reader, p. 393.Google Scholar
82. Bal, A Mieke Bal Reader, p. 394.Google Scholar
83. Bal, A Mieke Bal Reader, p. 395. In The Wound of Knowledge, Williams makes a cogent point that ‘the future has appeared already; what the Christian life moves towards is the pattern of a human life already lived, in the conviction that this life is of enduring authority for all ages because it is the life of God-as-man’ (p. 31).Google Scholar
84. Robinson, Housekeeping, p. 180.Google Scholar
85. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 286.Google Scholar
86. Oldenhage, Tania, Parables for our Time: Rereading New Testament Scholarship after the Holocaust (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 104–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87. Robinson, Housekeeping, p. 209.Google Scholar
88. Oldenhage, Parables for our Time, p. 107. This is not to take lightly Oldenhage's concerns regarding both Crossan and Paul Ricoeur's anti-Judaic tones in their interpretations. Parables for our Time, pp. 107, 122. Oldenhage believes Crossan is attracted to these stories because they speak to the ‘horrors of this century’ and that ‘hidden in Crossan's hermeneutic premise is a promise that Jesus’ sayings, like the writings of Camus or Vonnegut, can be read and understood in confrontation with twentieth-century catastrophes.’ Parables for our Time, p. 107. As Williams says about Crossan's premises in The Historical Jesus, Crossan identifies an ‘unbrokered’ society – one that does not work by privilege and power. On Christian Theology, p. 245.Google Scholar
89. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 51.Google Scholar
90. Reinhard, Kenneth, ‘Toward a Political Theology of the Neighbor’, in The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology, from series Mark C. Taylor and Thomas Carlson (eds.), Religion and Postmodernism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 11–75 (66).Google Scholar
91. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 42.Google Scholar
92. Williams, On Christian Theology, p. 142.Google Scholar
93. Joan Acocella, ‘A Note of the Miraculous’, The New York Review of Books, 9 June 2005, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/jun/09/a-note-of-the-miraculous (accessed 15 February 2013).Google Scholar
94. The Poems of Rowan Williams, Foreword Phoebe Pettingell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 71.Google Scholar