This is Armageddon Week on the History Channel. That means that they put out lots of programs describing possible scenarios for the end of the world and theories about preventing that great catastrophe. Man’s great technologies and innovations for diverting earthbound rocks are the focus of much of the programming, along with bioterrors and nuclear holocaust, but my interest was perked by the program covering religious theories about the Anti-Christ (in particular, dispensationalism) and how differently these theories were narrated from those of the artificial or “natural” disasters.
Of course, the History Channel presents the religious perspective as straightforwardly as possible, but there is one thing that betrays their bias against religious ideas, and that is the use of narrative. When explaining what would or could happen in the dispensational armageddon, either subjunctive and conditional statements are used or the story of the armageddon is told indirectly (i.e. “Dispensationalists believe that…”), but direct, indicative narration is used–complete with CGI animations, actors, and video of natural disasters–to explain more “scientific” concerns about artificial disasters and asteroid strikes.
The use of the narrative, telling the even as if it was happening right now or will soon happen, is far more engaging than the distanced and subjunctive language utilized in the religious narratives. In effect, narrative–that is, telling the idea as a story and not merely an idea–gives validity to the idea. The narrative form makes the idea real and concrete, even though it might only be a possibility.
There is something very right about this observation. It reminds me of Bruegemann’s description of the Old Testament:
The form of the utterance seems to divide witness from scornful observation, yet another demonstration of the centrality of rhetoric wherever revelation is concerned.
Funny. I was actually going to mention the same thing from Brueggemann. I would also actually take it in a direction Brueggemann would perhaps be reticent to go. He says, “In the decision of the court, by the process of the verdict, the testimony is turned into reality.” This corroborates Matt’s perceptive observation – narrative (testimony in its most effective form), necessarily becomes an ontological reality, or, is real or concrete and becomes an acting agent.
I see it from a slightly different slant, in that I agree narrative can make something seem more real, alive. I’m just not sure the history channel withholds this from religious ideas because of bias, or because its immensely difficult to illustrate a religious idea cinematically without it seeming self-parody. Take something like Christian armageddon. How do you do that without it coming across really, really unintentionally funny? I think narrative might be avoided there simply because that’s a very difficult idea to portray by vignette, or cutscene, which are the storytelling devices the history channel favors.
I think you have a good point, Tom. However, I think there probably remains an aspect of belief that determines whether one would even attempt to portray such a narrative. If the producers sincerely believed it (which wasn’t really the main point of my post), it is likely that they would have taken further steps. And, what one person finds utterly hilarious, another might take quite solemnly, even when the theatrical is really, really badly done. When it comes to narrative, particularly in movies, it can be hard to say where the line between belief and aesthetic quality falls.