Christians and Mythology (Part 6: Recovering)
The series so far.
As many of us brought up in the Christian tradition can attest, there is a regrettable familiarity that comes from constant contact with Christianity. This includes everything from the order of service, to the songs we sing, and even to what we read in the Bible. As terrible as it feels to admit this, I don’t think I’m alone in saying that the force of the gospel wears off once in a while. Amazing grace is not so amazing the millionth time you’ve heard it. Speaking of this desensitizing, Bradley Birzer writes that there are many “things we have taken for granted or which have become commonplace.”1
This is not because we have fallen away as apostates, but it is hapless condition of human beings: We need constant refreshing and reminding that we are the recipients of a truly amazing inheritance. Meeting weekly as a body of believers is one way to remind us of the riches that we have in Christ, but repetition doesn’t always do the trick.
In 1947 J.R.R. Tolkien’s essay “On Fairy-stories” appeared in a collection published by Oxford University Press. This essay put forth Tolkien’s vision for what fairy-stories2 were and what benefits they could bring to readers. One of his main points included the concept of “recovery.” According to Tolkien, we need to see things, not merely in addition (i.e., week after week), but from a new position. We are characters in a marvelous story, and Tolkien firmly believed that the creation and reading of fairy-stories could awaken us to the wonder of reality.
Tolkien describes this new sense of wonder as a “regaining of a clear view…. We need…to clean our windows; so that the things seen clearly may be freed from the drab blur of triteness or familiarity—from possessiveness.” Tolkien continues:
This triteness is really the penalty of “appropriation”3: the things that are trite, or (in a bad sense) familiar, are the things that we have appropriated, legally or mentally. We say we know them. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Recovery is a concept Tolkien borrowed from G.K. Chesterton (who himself had picked up the idea from Charles Dickens). One dim and cloudy day, Dickens saw the word mooreeffoc on the window of a door. It was a door he had passed many times, but he couldn’t recall having seen that word there before. However, it took him only a split second to realize that he was viewing the word “coffeeroom” from the other side of the pane.
This startling experience caused Dickens to stop and examine the door, something he would have otherwise had no cause to do. Just as we often do in church, with a ho-hum attitude we tend to look right past the “ordinary” things of life, from the miracle of our beating heart, to the fact that a god once walked among us.4 To use Tolkien’s wording, mooreeffoc “was used by Chesterton to denote the queerness of things that have become trite, when they are seen suddenly from a new angle.”5
Similarly, when literary critic Cleanth Brooks read the British Romantics, he noticed their “preoccupation with wonder—the surprise, the revelation which puts the tarnished familiar world in a new light”:
In his preface to the second edition of the Lyrical Ballads Wordsworth stated that his general purpose was “to choose incidents and situations from common life” but so to treat them that “ordinary things should be presented to the mind in an unusual aspect.” Coleridge was to state the purpose for him later, in terms which make even more evident Wordsworth’s exploitation of the paradoxical: “Mr. Wordsworth [purposed] to give the charm of novelty to things of every day, and to excite a feeling analogous to the supernatural, by awakening the mind’s attention from the lethargy of custom, and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before us …” Wordsworth, in short, was consciously attempting to show his audience that the common was really uncommon, the prosaic was really poetic.6
Because of the Fall, we do not see things as clearly as we should, and for Tolkien, the point of “recovery” was a “return and renewal of health”7—a sort of postlapsarian convalescence. It is true that in regeneration Christ removes the veil from our eyes (2 Cor. 3:16), but just as sanctification is a process, we have a need for a constant removing of the veil—not so much the veil of unbelief as the veil of familiarity. Russian Formalists might have called this process “defamiliarization”—that is, helping familiar ideas or objects appear in a new light.8
To aid in this veil-removal, Tolkien suggests that we “meet the centaur and the dragon, and then perhaps suddenly behold, like the ancient shepherds, sheep, and dogs, and horses—and wolves. This recovery fairy-stories help us to make.”9 C.S. Lewis also recognized the essential nature of “defamiliarization.” In one of his essays, he writes the following, describing our veils of familiarity as “watchful dragons”:
I thought I saw how stories of this kind [fairy tales] could steal past a certain inhibition which had paralysed much of my own religion in childhood. Why did I find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or about the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze feelings. And reverence itself did harm. The whole subject was associated with lowered voices; almost as if it were something medical. But supposing that by casting all these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday school associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their real potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.10
In his review of The Lord of the Rings, C.S. Lewis wrote, “This excursion into the preposterous sends us back with renewed pleasure to the actual.”11 Mythology is a form of reification—making something abstract more concrete or real.
While we’re talking about looking at things from another angle, let’s look at this issue itself from another angle. This fall I am teaching several sections of a freshman writing course at a community college. One of the standard pieces of writing advice I give to students is to write a draft well before the due date, and then give their brains time to forget about it. What often happens during last-minute “revision” is that the student skips over blatant mistakes because he reads what he thinks he wrote—what he meant to write. But when he comes back to the paper once his brain has relaxed and forgotten, he is able to analyze it, as if for the first time. This is why true “revision” (literally, “seeing again”) requires a kind of template reset.
I am not suggesting that we take a break from our Bible study or weekly church meetings. But I am suggesting that mythology can provide this template reset that is necessary to see life afresh with a childlike wonder. Tolkien says that “we need recovery,” and “a taste for [fairy-stories] may make us, or keep us, childish.”12 Even through our reading life we can recover our amazement of grace when we see it again for the first time.13
Notes
1 J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2003), p. 38
2 Again, I am using a broad definition of mythology, which includes fantasy, fairy tales, etc.
3 Tolkien’s use of appropriation is different from my use of the word in Part 2.
4 Even the fact that I used a small g for God can make us think of, say, Greek gods. Our jaws would drop if we saw a Greek god walking among us, and that minor lettering change—far from trivializing Christ’s deity—can make us exclaim, with a new sense of astonishment, “Wow—it’s like that!”
5 All of the above Tolkien quotes are from “On Fairy-Stories” in The Tolkien Reader (New York: Del Rey, 1986), pp. 77-78.
6 “The Language of Paradox” in The Well-Wrought Urn (Orlando: Harcourt, 1970), p. 7
7 The Tolkien Reader, p. 77
8 Russian Formalists looked to Tolstoy as their ideal literary artist, a writer who uniquely stripped away the “automatic” feeling (one we often get while mindlessly driving a car) and jolted us into perceiving something familiar as if for the first time. See here for more on this “making strange”
9 The Tolkien Reader, p. 77. Similarly, G.K. Chesterton writes in Orthodoxy (New York: Random House, 2001; p. 51): “[Fairy] tales say that apples were golden only to refresh the forgotten moment when we found that they were green. They make rivers run with wine only to make us remember, for one wild moment, that they run with water.”
10 “Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What’s to be Said” in Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories (New York: Harvest/HBJ, 1975), p. 37
11 Qtd. in Faerie Gold (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2005), p. 278
12 The Tolkien Reader, p. 77
Jeremy Larson Bio2
Jeremy Larson earned a BA in creative writing (English minor) and an MA in English, both at Bob Jones University. He has taught high school and college English for several years, and he and his wife and daughter recently moved to Waco, TX, where he will begin PhD studies in English at Baylor University (with a dual concentration in religion and literature). He blogs occasionally at The Mundane Muse.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece, Jeremy. Enjoyed it.
Reminded me of often, paradoxically, even Christians tend to be antisupernaturalists these days… it’s the spirit of our times I guess.
In our men’s Bible study we’ve been reading through the Bible and just reached Numbers 5. There’s a law of the jealous husband there—for determining guilt or innocence of a wife he suspects of unfaithfulness when there are no witnesses and she denies it. There’s a drinking of what we today would see simply as dirty water… water with dust from the tabernacle floor. And then if she’s guilty something terrible happens and if innocent, nothing happens.
Tell me that doesn’t initially strike you on some level as pagan and superstitious. But really it’s our modern antisupernaturalist mind kicking in. The accused doesn’t drink dirty water. She drinks water mixed w/the dust of the place with the shekinah hovering over it… dust from God’s presence. The water is mixed with something more real than dust.
Anyway, sometimes I do wonder if the speculative fiction I enjoy reading is escapism from reality or, in a way, escaping to reality. Probably sometimes one, sometimes the other.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thanks for the comment. Yeah, that Numbers 5 passage is fascinating. I hope to cover escape a little more in the next part.
"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!" ~Abraham Kuyper
The point about supernaturalism and Christians being anti-supernatural reminds me of this video clip from Doug Wilson on “Magic in Literature.”
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
That’s a great resource, Bob. Here are some other helpful places to look (with some overlap to your recommendation):
http://www.dougwils.com/Book-of-Samuel/the-witch-of-endor.html
http://themundanemuse.blogspot.com/2010/04/magic-in-literature.html
http://themundanemuse.blogspot.com/2011/11/wilson-and-magic.html
"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!" ~Abraham Kuyper
I’m sure I’m in the extreme minority, but I struggle with the value of this type of literature at all. I don’t see it endorsed (and I’ve read Bauder’s series on it). I’m not convinced - at all. If we are to focus on “what is true” etc., and meditate on the Word day and night, what place does fiction have in our lives? I have a hard time saying Tolkien or Lewis, etc. have true value, or can capture something that is somehow lacking in the Word. How can extended fiction works (not Scriptural analogies or parables) produce something that the inspired Word cannot? I see no hint of this need from Scripture itself.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Kevin Subra]I’m sure I’m in the extreme minority, but I struggle with the value of this type of literature at all. I don’t see it endorsed (and I’ve read Bauder’s series on it). I’m not convinced - at all. If we are to focus on “what is true” etc., and meditate on the Word day and night, what place does fiction have in our lives? I have a hard time saying Tolkien or Lewis, etc. have true value, or can capture something that is somehow lacking in the Word. How can extended fiction works (not Scriptural analogies or parables) produce something that the inspired Word cannot? I see no hint of this need from Scripture itself.
The genre under discussion is a useful tool to to teach character traits such as courage, loyalty, strength of character (and more).
Where the Bible says “be of good courage” (and I by NO MEANS mean to indicate that the Bible in itself is insufficient in any way), the books of Tolkien present a character in such a way that many readers respond, “THAT’s what a man of courage is like.”
Remember, the Bible we read is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. I am sure that, if we knew those languages fluently, and read Scriptural passages - especially the books of History, the Gospels, Acts… - in the original languages, they would be even more exciting than they are in our English translation.
On the other hand, there are many people who just don’t like this type of literature. (Just as in food, my wife likes liver, and I don’t.) There is nothing wrong with that, and I am not here to convince you that you should like this type of literature.
God be with us all, and help us to keep one-another sharp.
[Rev Karl] Where the Bible says “be of good courage” (and I by NO MEANS mean to indicate that the Bible in itself is insufficient in any way), the books of Tolkien present a character in such a way that many readers respond, “THAT’s what a man of courage is like.”
To me, this is a good example of the problem. Using unbiblical, man-generated sources to define Biblical ideas. Often the Bible defines things in ways that our own minds do not (Prov 3:5-6), such as being the least, being weak, etc.
[Rev Karl] Remember, the Bible we read is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. I am sure that, if we knew those languages fluently, and read Scriptural passages - especially the books of History, the Gospels, Acts… - in the original languages, they would be even more exciting than they are in our English translation.I agree. Though I do not know why this would argue in any way for the use of fiction, rather than the increased focus on the Word.
[Rev Karl] On the other hand, there are many people who just don’t like this type of literature. (Just as in food, my wife likes liver, and I don’t.) There is nothing wrong with that, and I am not here to convince you that you should like this type of literature.Personal appreciation seems to be something not great enough to approve or disapprove of anything. It is our sinful tendency to live by our lusts, wanting and doing what pleases us, rather than what might please God.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Kevin,
what role does preaching play? Isn’t preaching more than simply restating the Biblical text? Doesn’t it involve more than simple exegesis? I think it does. Good preaching doesn’t speak where God has not spoken, but it is not simply reciting Scripture either.
Warren Wiersbe offers a thorough perspective on the use and exercise of our imagination in communicating biblical truth in his book “Preaching and Teaching with Imagination.” In it he argues that we ought to be well read in order to effectively communicate God’s Word with sensitivity to the needs of our congregation, and we can often benefit from seeing truth in a new light ourselves.
[pvawter]Kevin,
what role does preaching play? Isn’t preaching more than simply restating the Biblical text? Doesn’t it involve more than simple exegesis? I think it does. Good preaching doesn’t speak where God has not spoken, but it is not simply reciting Scripture either.
Warren Wiersbe offers a thorough perspective on the use and exercise of our imagination in communicating biblical truth in his book “Preaching and Teaching with Imagination.” In it he argues that we ought to be well read in order to effectively communicate God’s Word with sensitivity to the needs of our congregation, and we can often benefit from seeing truth in a new light ourselves.
I’m not sure how the comparison relates. Preaching is primarily explaining and applying a text. You know, “preach the Word” and “[teach] them to observe whatever I have commanded you.” Preaching certainly would not be the telling of fictitious stories with vague correlations to the truth.
To be fair, I have not read Wiersbe’s book. I certainly would be interested in knowing the basis for his premise. Jesus certainly used parables to illustrate a truth, but not a volume to weave in things like this series discusses.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
It seems that Paul and other biblical writers were familiar with extrabiblical literature.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Kevin Subra]I’m not sure how the comparison relates. Preaching is primarily explaining and applying a text. You know, “preach the Word” and “[teach] them to observe whatever I have commanded you.” Preaching certainly would not be the telling of fictitious stories with vague correlations to the truth.
To be fair, I have not read Wiersbe’s book. I certainly would be interested in knowing the basis for his premise. Jesus certainly used parables to illustrate a truth, but not a volume to weave in things like this series discusses.
Bro. Kevin,
Have you ever used an illustration not found in the Scriptures to explain the passage under discussion?
Have you ever used a visual aid not specifically described in Scripture to help people understand the Word?
Have you ever used a personal testimony of an experience to praise and worship the Lord? In the IFB churches I have been a part of, this has been an acceptable part of the ministry, but obviously it (our personal experience) is not found in Scripture.
All that being said, I would NEVER use an illustration out of the type of literature being discussed as an illustration in the pulpit. While Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, John Bunyan, and scores of others have written books which elaborate desireable character traits, the triumph of good over evil, etc., I would not use them in a sermon, or as a book study in a church setting.
God be with us all.
[Rev Karl]Have you ever used an illustration not found in the Scriptures to explain the passage under discussion?
Have you ever used a visual aid not specifically described in Scripture to help people understand the Word?
Have you ever used a personal testimony of an experience to praise and worship the Lord? In the IFB churches I have been a part of, this has been an acceptable part of the ministry, but obviously it (our personal experience) is not found in Scripture.
All that being said, I would NEVER use an illustration out of the type of literature being discussed as an illustration in the pulpit. While Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, John Bunyan, and scores of others have written books which elaborate desireable character traits, the triumph of good over evil, etc., I would not use them in a sermon, or as a book study in a church setting.
To answer your three questions - yes. However, I think using “an illustration not found in Scripture” is missing the point of this series, and at least my argument. How does that relate to focusing on a large work of fiction (hence, is not true) that itself has to be interpreted? One is a self-standing, made-made work, not necessarily created for explaining (or even illustrating) truth. The other, the Word of God which we are commanded to learn, meditate upon (as opposed to other things like fiction?), and live.
God never included such works in Scripture. What did He miss by not doing so?
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Odd to see telling the truth pitted against fictional stories as though there was some kind of tension between them. Fictional stories tell the truth quite often. Jesus did it quite often in parables.
The burden of proof falls on the anti-fantasy position to show that fantasy fiction is different from parabolic fiction—sufficiently different to demonstrate that it cannot be a suitable vehicle for telling the truth.
I’ve read the Lord of the Rings twice. It did me a great deal of good as a teenager. There is much truth in it. For starters, the beauty of heroic sacrifice, the allure of power, the danger of deception by degrees (Wormtongue vs. that king of Rohan guy), the danger of technology even when devised with good intentions (the whole ring saga), on and on it goes. It rings true (no pun intended) all over the place.
I have used these as sermon illustrations. Can’t see any reason not to other than lack of familiarity with some of the audience—and then you have too much story telling to do. Other than that … if stories are good enough for Jesus, who am I to say they’re unfit for the pulpit?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Where are the “description does not prove prescription” people when you need them? (They’re always on my case. ;>D)
I will suggest just a few of things:
- Nothing that Jesus used remotely resembles The Lord of the Rings. God wrote the majority of the Bible in chronology and prescription. He did not write us an allegory to decipher (we have enough trouble with clear revelation, don’t we?).
- The Bible is inspired (including what Jesus said). That is a HUGE distinguishing characteristic from what you suggest. Apples versus [uninspired] oranges. Man’s works are full of holes (Pilgrim’s Progress has many of them, for example).
- Fictional works have no redeeming value whatsoever without accurate understanding of Scripture. It is open to major fallacy and pseudo-application. They also may be given more weight than their authors even intended.
I’m happy with the Bible as my source of truth. I’m glad to use illustrations, etc. but I will not lift up man’s work to a level which is seen to somehow enhance Scripture (which it cannot do), nor distract people from what they should be meditating on by redirecting their attention to man’s works.
Oh, and I prefer the term “pro-Bible,” rather than anti-fantasy (would I be fair to call it the “anti-revelation” position?). ;>D
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Bro. Kevin,
Is the basis of your comment(s) on this thread that believers should no make use of *any* non-scriptural source material for any reason? Not for personal relaxation? Not to be read in the five minutes waiting for the bus? Are we to avoid newspapers and news magazines? Are we to avoid political information? Are we to avoid reading material dealing with current sin/social issues in our country? Are we to avoid the internet? (Are we to avoid SI? After all, there is nothing in the Scriptures dealing with believers blogging.)
What is the scope of your comments? Is it Universal?
Just thought that would help us understand where you are coming from.
God bless us all.
The best fiction does tell the truth. The setting may be futuristic or other-worldly, but when it isn’t consistent with what we know to be true about the human condition, we feel that and reject it as being of poor quality.
That is, unless one has the IQ of a cabbage. There’s plenty of that going around, but those folks aren’t reading the Bible anyway.
Fiction is also a way to experience a life other than one’s own, and gain perspective from another POV. It is an enjoyable way to learn about other cultures and times. We can exercise critical thinking by deconstructing themes and metaphors.
However- reading fiction doesn’t help me understand the Bible any better. The work of the Holy Spirit is what interprets and guides and informs my understanding of Scripture.
On a side note, just because a book is in the nonfiction section doesn’t make it factual. One of my favorite authors is Neil deGrasse Tyson, and it’s safe to say that much of what he writes is either theoretical or pure fantasy. I can say that I gain an appreciation for the complexities of the universe by reading his stuff though.
People spend their ‘down time’ doing something. Reading has a quantifiable, beneficial, physical effect on the mind and body, and is a healthy way to spend time relaxing. If reading fiction develops the intellect, it is a worthwhile endeavor.
I will not… distract people from what they should be meditating on by redirecting their attention to man’s works.
Do you read non-Biblical story books to your kids?
[Rev Karl]Is the basis of your comment(s) on this thread that believers should no make use of *any* non-scriptural source material for any reason? Not for personal relaxation? Not to be read in the five minutes waiting for the bus? Are we to avoid newspapers and news magazines? Are we to avoid political information? Are we to avoid reading material dealing with current sin/social issues in our country? Are we to avoid the internet? (Are we to avoid SI? After all, there is nothing in the Scriptures dealing with believers blogging.)
What is the scope of your comments? Is it Universal?
Just thought that would help us understand where you are coming from.
I think I have answered your first question already. I believe the scope of this is an affirmation of fictional works as a means of teaching (and even study - hey we’re on part SIX of this series). The series, if I can gather it to some degree (I’ve only read this part) lauds the writing and use of fiction as a means of teaching the truth. I see nowhere in the Bible that this is commanded, encouraged, or illustrated (I’ve already stated that they no way resemble parables). We quote Tolkien, Chesterton, Cleanth, and Lewis to prove our points, but not the Bible. Why? Isn’t that supporting the greatness and use of extra-biblical writings by extra-biblical writings? If the Bible doesn’t present this as a practice, encourage this as a practice, or present Itself in such a way, on what basis should I pursue it? I have not seen anywhere in Scripture where I am to write such things or study the works of others in order to know God or His Word better.
Is it wrong to read newspapers? Any other sources? That is not the scope of the discussion. I read this article, so I think you can answer many of these questions on your own. I do not read newspapers (OK, news web sites, etc.) to understand the Bible. I do read the Bible to help me have a right understanding of what I read in newspapers, etc.
Is it wrong to read [insert your list]? I would answer by saying that we are commanded to meditate on the Word day and night (Psalm 1:1-3; Psalm 119; Joshua 1:8-9, etc.). Does the Word forbid other reading [I’m a non-fiction guy myself…]? No (you didn’t mention STOP signs…). It does, though, place a preeminent focus and priority of time upon the Word of God. If we are experts in [name your fictional novel, past time, sports event, movie character, etc.] and not the Bible, that should indicate a wrong focus, wouldn’t you say? If we do not meditate on the Word, however you decide to reason through it, we have ceased to focus upon what God has indeed told us to fix our attention upon.
The Word does say that it is complete, and able to complete us for every good work. That sounds wholly sufficient to me. For someone to say that we need some method of writing outside of the Word seems to diminish the Word.
Hope this helps.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[DavidO]I will not… distract people from what they should be meditating on by redirecting their attention to man’s works.
Do you read non-Biblical story books to your kids?
Yes. (Are you going to tell me Dr. Seuss was written to teach us the Bible? I do not claim that, nor is that the scope of these articles, from what I can discern.)
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Susan R]The best fiction does tell the truth. The setting may be futuristic or other-worldly, but when it isn’t consistent with what we know to be true about the human condition, we feel that and reject it as being of poor quality.
That is, unless one has the IQ of a cabbage. There’s plenty of that going around, but those folks aren’t reading the Bible anyway.
Fiction is also a way to experience a life other than one’s own, and gain perspective from another POV. It is an enjoyable way to learn about other cultures and times. We can exercise critical thinking by deconstructing themes and metaphors.
However- reading fiction doesn’t help me understand the Bible any better. The work of the Holy Spirit is what interprets and guides and informs my understanding of Scripture.
On a side note, just because a book is in the nonfiction section doesn’t make it factual. One of my favorite authors is Neil deGrasse Tyson, and it’s safe to say that much of what he writes is either theoretical or pure fantasy. I can say that I gain an appreciation for the complexities of the universe by reading his stuff though.
People spend their ‘down time’ doing something. Reading has a quantifiable, beneficial, physical effect on the mind and body, and is a healthy way to spend time relaxing. If reading fiction develops the intellect, it is a worthwhile endeavor.
I would like to see you present your arguments / support your statements from Scripture. I can put any number of ‘down time’ activites in your paragraph in place of reading and justify most anything from your logic.
If you argue that reading helps us learn to think, helps our imagination, stimulates our thinking, I’m on board. Fiction is not inspired, and often clouds or distorts reality rather than reinforces it. Whether or not I can do it a great deal and still mediate on God’s Word, or think on things that are true is another argument.
H. Norman Schwarzkopf said in the introduction to his autobiography that there is enough fiction in non-fiction as it is… ;>D
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Susan R wrote:
Reading has a quantifiable, beneficial, physical effect on the mind and body, and is a healthy way to spend time relaxing.
Just curious how reading benefits the body? I understand the mind, imagination and intellect, just not clear about how reading in of itselfs does to benefit the body. Sure you can relax while doing it but that doesn’t mean the reading is beneficial to the body, but the relaxation that is beneficial.
[Kevin Subra] I would like to see you present your arguments / support your statements from Scripture. I can put any number of ‘down time’ activities in your paragraph in place of reading and justify most anything from your logic.I don’t understand what you are objecting to, but maybe I can clear some things up.If you argue that reading helps us learn to think, helps our imagination, stimulates our thinking, I’m on board. Fiction is not inspired, and often clouds or distorts reality rather than reinforces it. Whether or not I can do it a great deal and still mediate on God’s Word, or think on things that are true is another argument.
H. Norman Schwarzkopf said in the introduction to his autobiography that there is enough fiction in non-fiction as it is… ;>D
First, I don’t believe one can put ‘any number of activities’ in place of reading, since ‘any number of activities’ are already dealt with specifically in their own right. IOW, you can’t substitute ‘getting drunk’ or ‘torturing puppies’. You could, I suppose, substitute another allowable activity, such as golf or checkers or building a tree fort or knitting sweaters, as all these things are not only allowable, but have actual physical or mental benefits. Just don’t use the knitting needles to stab your mother-in-law.
I did not say or imply that fiction is inspired. I do not equate reading fiction to reading Scripture. Perhaps you missed the part where I said “…reading fiction doesn’t help me understand the Bible any better. The work of the Holy Spirit is what interprets and guides and informs my understanding of Scripture.”
Reading the Bible informs our lives- our relationships, our vocations, our ministries, our recreation, not the other way around. I don’t propose nor would I agree with anything said to the contrary. I don’t read fiction to refresh my mind, I read the Bible to refresh and readjust my thinking.
Reading fiction can be a good thing if we treat this activity with the same thoughtfulness and purpose with which we should endeavor to approach everything, even relaxation. Perhaps I should say especially relaxation, which is when we tend to let our guard down. “Relax” doesn’t have to mean ‘vegging out’ or dropping our moral boundaries.
Benefits of reading include reducing stress, increasing mental acuity, broadening the vocabulary, improving writing skills, sharpening the memory, and there are studies that indicate it can slow the progress of the mental deterioration we experience as we age. These are all positive things that are beneficial in every area of our lives.
Bro. Subra- you are obviously not in danger of becoming coleslaw. You know the difference between Herman Melville and E. L. James. I am certainly NOT advocating that every book in the universe is equally useful, informative, or of the same literary quality.
Got behind so this might be repetitive. But anyway….
[Kevin Subra] Where are the “description does not prove prescription” people when you need them? (They’re always on my case. ;>D)
The relevance of description vs. prescription depends on what one’s claim is. If we’re claiming a biblical requirement to X, we’d need prescriptive passages to support it rather than descriptive ones. If we’re claiming that X is permissible, descriptive is sufficient.
[Kevin Subra]1. Nothing that Jesus used remotely resembles The Lord of the Rings. God wrote the majority of the Bible in chronology and prescription. He did not write us an allegory to decipher (we have enough trouble with clear revelation, don’t we?).
First, Lord of the Rings is not allegory. Second, “remotely resembles”… parables are fiction, LoTR is fiction = much more than resemblance. They are species of the same genus. Third, there is some allegory in Scripture… but a subgenre doesn’t have to exist in the Bible in order for us to use it. It’s just that a positive presence of a subgenre in Scripture helps us see more clearly that it is not forbidden. (Omission is not prohibition.)
[Kevin Subra] 2. The Bible is inspired (including what Jesus said). That is a HUGE distinguishing characteristic from what you suggest. Apples versus [uninspired] oranges. Man’s works are full of holes (Pilgrim’s Progress has many of them, for example).
Again, the relevance depends on the claim being made. Since nobody is claiming that fiction by human authors is infallible, the absence of that characteristic doesn’t support the idea that human fiction is unuseable. (In fact, we use hymns—not infallible; poetry—not infallible; textbooks—not infallible… list goes on)
[Kevin Subra] 3. Fictional works have no redeeming value whatsoever without accurate understanding of Scripture. It is open to major fallacy and pseudo-application. They also may be given more weight than their authors even intended.
This one depends on what “redeeming value” means. We were created in God’s image so that, like Him, we would—among other things—imagine and create. So even a lost person who enjoys an imaginative work is, in a small way, being what God made him to be. Personally, I think it’s a mistake to look at fiction strictly in terms of its message. I’ve seen lots of Christian writers go that route. The creative act and the act of experiencing story are good things in themselves, other things being equal. But even if we suppose fiction is worthless to those who aren’t biblically informed, the claim that it has value for those who are biblically informed stands.
[Kevin Subra] I’m happy with the Bible as my source of truth.So are we all. The question is whether God has put 100% of the truth that exists in the pages of the Bible and 0% anywhere else. I don’t think you’d want to take that position. But if there is even 1% somewhere else, we should pursue that 1%.
[Kevin Subra]… nor distract people from what they should be meditating on by redirecting their attention to man’s works.
The assumption here is that man’s works must distract and cannot add to our understanding. Doesn’t fit Paul’s use of secular poets in his speaking and writing (see Titus 1). And the act of preaching itself—as someone mentioned upthread—is human work. We don’t just read Scripture for an hour. We add our perspective and experiences into our delivery as an aid to understanding. Scripture has to be hitched to Life if we’re going to use it faithfully. That involves understanding both Scripture and Life. Stories of all sorts help a great deal with the latter.
(Being a bit relationally-challenged by nature, I’m so thankful for all the stories people have written that have helped me understand human nature better. Stories are almost a way of living multiple lives and gaining the wisdom of experiences without the risks of really experiencing them.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Kevin Subra]I think I have answered your first question already. I believe the scope of this is an affirmation of fictional works as a means of teaching.
OK. And in my own personal opinion and preference, I responded:
[Rev Karl]All that being said, I would NEVER use an illustration out of the type of literature being discussed as an illustration in the pulpit. While Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, John Bunyan, and scores of others have written books which elaborate desirable character traits, the triumph of good over evil, etc., I would not use them in a sermon, or as a book study in a church setting.
So I am now going to shut up and bow out.
God be with us all.
[Susan R] Reading fiction can be a good thing if we treat this activity with the same thoughtfulness and purpose with which we should endeavor to approach everything, even relaxation. Perhaps I should say especially relaxation, which is when we tend to let our guard down. “Relax” doesn’t have to mean ‘vegging out’ or dropping our moral boundaries.I do not disagree. I just think that the emphasis placed upon fiction in this thread far exceeds its true value and seems to indicate a heavy focus upon it rather than the Word. Too much of anything takes us away from our required attention to the Word.
[Susan R] Benefits of reading include reducing stress, increasing mental acuity, broadening the vocabulary, improving writing skills, sharpening the memory, and there are studies that indicate it can slow the progress of the mental deterioration we experience as we age. These are all positive things that are beneficial in every area of our lives.Is there too much of a good thing possible here? Just asking. I managed a bookstore for awhile. Fiction was the hottest commodity and soared out the door (you can guess what kind too - yep, the romances). I doubt if Bible reading was high on anyone’s list, even though their vocabulary was higher and their mental acuity was increased. ;>D Their realism and expectations in marriage were probably fictional with all of that exposure. ;>D
I know who Edgar Rice Burroughs is. :>D Fascinating reading back in the day (but a real waste of time as I look back). I encourage people to read biographies, histories, and non-fiction, hoping that they receive some of the same benefits you suggest with a higher level of benefit.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Aaron Blumer]This is where I start sounding stupid and uneducated. I disagree with this dual standard. God had 1500 years and 66 books (in English) to relate His means of relaying truth. He did not do it via a novel. Jesus spoke directly, and used no more than short stories to illustrate specific truths. We are to preach the Word, not someone’s novel that weaves the truth in by means of the mind of man.The relevance of description vs. prescription depends on what one’s claim is. If we’re claiming a biblical requirement to X, we’d need prescriptive passages to support it rather than descriptive ones. If we’re claiming that X is permissible, descriptive is sufficient.
[Aaron Blumer]I will repeat, nothing Jesus used remotely resembles a multi-volume fictional work like LoTR. Small and direct, versus long and opaque is quite a difference. (My son would argue about the allegorical content of LoTR, and I’d probably say it would be easy to understand it allegorically.) Omission is not permission, either, I’d say.[Kevin Subra]1. Nothing that Jesus used remotely resembles The Lord of the Rings. God wrote the majority of the Bible in chronology and prescription. He did not write us an allegory to decipher (we have enough trouble with clear revelation, don’t we?).
First, Lord of the Rings is not allegory. Second, “remotely resembles”… parables are fiction, LoTR is fiction = much more than resemblance. They are species of the same genus. Third, there is some allegory in Scripture… but a subgenre doesn’t have to exist in the Bible in order for us to use it. It’s just that a positive presence of a subgenre in Scripture helps us see more clearly that it is not forbidden. (Omission is not prohibition.)
[Aaron Blumer]Aaron, we are suggesting and encouraging people to read this type of fiction because in some way the Scripture as it stands is insufficient and needs this effort to explain it. That is not found in Scripture, and it really defies what Scripture does say (“thoroughly furnished unto all good works”). It also gives more credit to a work of man that deserves our time and focus. We are to rightly divide the Word, not Tolkien. We are not talking hymns (non-fiction, which often repeat doctrine in metered form), textbooks (non-fiction, which explain the Word much like a sermon), and poetry (depends upon the context).[Kevin Subra] 2. The Bible is inspired (including what Jesus said). That is a HUGE distinguishing characteristic from what you suggest. Apples versus [uninspired] oranges. Man’s works are full of holes (Pilgrim’s Progress has many of them, for example).Again, the relevance depends on the claim being made. Since nobody is claiming that fiction by human authors is infallible, the absence of that characteristic doesn’t support the idea that human fiction is unuseable. (In fact, we use hymns—not infallible; poetry—not infallible; textbooks—not infallible… list goes on)
[Aaron Blumer][Kevin Subra] 3. Fictional works have no redeeming value whatsoever without accurate understanding of Scripture. It is open to major fallacy and pseudo-application. They also may be given more weight than their authors even intended.This one depends on what “redeeming value” means. We were created in God’s image so that, like Him, we would—among other things—imagine and create. So even a lost person who enjoys an imaginative work is, in a small way, being what God made him to be. Personally, I think it’s a mistake to look at fiction strictly in terms of its message. I’ve seen lots of Christian writers go that route. The creative act and the act of experiencing story are good things in themselves, other things being equal. But even if we suppose fiction is worthless to those who aren’t biblically informed, the claim that it has value for those who are biblically informed stands.
I have to disagree. Unless man’s imagination is first taught and tempered by the Word, the “creative act and the act of experiencing story” are not “good things in themselves.” Man’s imagination is evil from his youth (Gen 8:21). We have deceitful and desperately wicked hearts (Jeremiah 17:9). To be honest, though I understand what you say about the image of God involving imagining and creating, i don’t find that clearly defined in Scripture, do you? I do find that we should reflect him. We certainly can imagine, design, etc., but apart from the influence of the Word and the proper focus on the Creator Himself, it is just another form of idolatry, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator.
[Aaron Blumer]The Word defines what truth is. You still have to start and end with the Word, or you cannot identify what is true. (And fiction is not a source of truth, by definition, I would think.) And we are still told to meditate on the Word day and night, to rightly divide the Word, to preach the Word, etc. That seems to have some weight, doesn’t it?[Kevin Subra] I’m happy with the Bible as my source of truth.So are we all. The question is whether God has put 100% of the truth that exists in the pages of the Bible and 0% anywhere else. I don’t think you’d want to take that position. But if there is even 1% somewhere else, we should pursue that 1%.
[Aaron Blumer]I don’t argue using illustrations if the truth is the central focus. If you want to read a volume-length story and study it at length, as opposed to studying the Word directly, I’d pass.[Kevin Subra]… nor distract people from what they should be meditating on by redirecting their attention to man’s works.The assumption here is that man’s works must distract and cannot add to our understanding. Doesn’t fit Paul’s use of secular poets in his speaking and writing (see Titus 1). And the act of preaching itself—as someone mentioned upthread—is human work. We don’t just read Scripture for an hour. We add our perspective and experiences into our delivery as an aid to understanding. Scripture has to be hitched to Life if we’re going to use it faithfully. That involves understanding both Scripture and Life. Stories of all sorts help a great deal with the latter.
Paul’s references to secular writers doesn’t validate this conversation. He acknowledges their existence. He leverages a short comment. He does not turn and suggest to study the works, seeking what truth may be found there.
When I suggest that man’s work distracts, it can easily do so by mere logistics. Time spent on something else is time spent away from 66 books that God did give for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. I don’t know about you, but I’m still a bit shy from the comfortable mark on my knowledge of those 66 books. I think of Luke 8 which talks about the cares, riches, and pleasures of this life which choke us and prevent us from bringing fruit to maturity. I think of redeeming the time because the days are evil. I think that we are to meditate on the Word day and night. It sure appears to me that distraction is very, very possible (not just from reading - it could be from spending too much time on SI ;>D).
For what it is worth, I like Les Miserables. I read the abridged version in high school. I saw the Broadway musical a couple of times. I listened to the 62 hour unabridged audio version. I found it fascinating in many ways. (The priest as the hero of the book occupies 10-12 chapters before Jean Valjean even is mentioned.) I enjoy the music too. However, the entire book only has meaning as I understand what the Word says. I cannot preach the story - there are way too many falsehoods in the midst of the noble intentions. I might take a slice of one moment as an illustration - explaining the context a bit first - and then use that to illustrate a point. I would never use Les Miserables (or LoTR, or Chronicles, etc.) as a text to try to teach the truth. That is backwards. The Word is much to rich to leave it for something that can only pale in comparison.
I’ll end here. I have never used “subgenre” ever. I know when I’m over my head. ;>D
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Several people on this thread have suggested that, whatever the merits of fiction, it does not help one read the Bible better. Kevin Subra’s bit about newspapers calls into question whether even (purportedly) non-fiction books can help one read the Bible better. Susan contrasted the illumination of the Holy Spirit to the process of reading. I believe that extra-biblical works, both fiction and non-fiction, can help one be a better Bible reader, and that this help in no way competes with the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t necessarily mean that any work WILL help someone.
Saint Augustine’s De doctrina christiana (On Teaching Christianity) is a manual to help priests interpret and expound the Bible. The preface to his work offers a justification for it. I have written about that elsewhere: http://wp.me/pMeOB-7S
He has some points worth making. First, people who are reading the Bible are, well, reading. How did they learn to read? Someone taught them. So, there can never be an absolute separation between general knowledge and scriptural interpretation. I would extend the point further. Being a good Bible reader shares many attributes in common with being a good reader in general: thoughtfulness, attention to detail, genre recognition, empathy, etc. How are these developed? Usually by reading other books.
Almost all Christians believe that the historical and grammatical contexts matter for interpretation. But how does one understand a word that is used only once in the Bible? Perhaps the context makes the meaning beyond doubt, but often one is forced to draw from the broader corpus of Hebrew or Greek literature. If there were not some people who read many other books, one would not even have a reliable English translation to read. How does one make sense of an obscure practice in the Bible? Cultural histories can reveal to us the meaning that would have been obvious to the original reader. Also, if one acknowledges the necessity of orally teaching about Scripture, any objection to written forms of that teaching seems hypocritical.
As for fiction, many of the genres that make up the Bible are what we would today call literature, or are at least heavily imbued with literary qualities. A good bit of the Old Testament is poetry. Some resembles epic. There are psalms. Many of the genealogies, annals, and covenantal codes are shaped by ancient near eastern genre expectations. (A great resource on this is Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament by John Walton.) So, if ancient or modern fiction can help one become a better reader of a genre, the skill is transferable.
As for the Holy Spirit, I don’t think it does well to pit him against “natural” skills, though his role extends beyond them. I don’t think Susan meant to do such a thing, but it behooves us to be careful about our disjunctive statements.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Glad you made that point, Charlie. I agree whole-heartedly.
I became a serious reader of poetry about 6 years ago, and it has helped me immensely in my reading and interpreting the Bible.
To further clarify- reading fiction or nonfiction hones our reading skills, and therefore can help us understand the Bible. I was trying to make a distinction between interpreting Scripture on a spiritual level and an intellectual level.
This could be similar to studying to be a better mechanic, if that was one’s vocation, as excellence should be a part of a Christian’s testimony. (Whatever thy hand findeth to do …) Everything we do to better ourselves for the work of the Lord is ‘spiritual’ in that sense.
I didn’t and don’t propose that our intake of fiction/nonfiction, secular or otherwise, takes the place of or diminishes our reading and studying of Scripture. But we need to be careful about saying that we should spend more time reading the Bible than we do anything else. Who else has a job and needs more than 2 hours of sleep a night? Does God expect us to neglect our families or take an extra-long lunch break or call in sick to spend time studying the Bible? Of course not. I am assuming an audience that understands extremes or abuse of liberty are not being promoted here.
The thread focuses on fiction, but I also recommend reading nonfiction, and it’s safe to say I read much more nonfiction than fiction, even with the YA book reviews that I do for one of my blogs. But nonfiction, as I have mentioned, is not automatically better than fiction. Some fiction is more ‘factual’ and thought provoking than nonfiction. It really depends on the skill and intent of the author.
Kevin,
I’m curious. Are there any pursuits or activities which do not constitute Bible reading or study that are worthwhile in your view? I know that you have been arguing against reading fiction, but it seems that your arguments are generic enough to be applied to almost every activity a Christian might engage in.
Kevin, I’m having a little trouble now seeing what your view is. Which of these would you say best summarizes it:
- Fiction is inherently competitive with the Word and the Spirit: more of one necessarily means less of the other.
- Fiction has value but not very much and is not useful in preaching (unless maybe it’s very short and/or inspired fiction)
- Fiction is good but the tendency is to overuse it.
Related … your argument is that LoTR is bad fiction because it’s longer than the short fiction Jesus uses in His parables? If that’s the case, what is it about length that ruins fiction?
(FWIW, I don’t think anyone here is saying that we should preach fiction at all, much less preach it instead of the Word.)
One more: is Les Miserables good and LoTR bad because Les Mis. is less imaginative? In what way is LM “better” than LoTR?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Charlie] I believe that extra-biblical works, both fiction and non-fiction, can help one be a better Bible reader, and that this help in no way competes with the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t necessarily mean that any work WILL help someone.Saint Augustine’s De doctrina christiana (On Teaching Christianity) is a manual to help priests interpret and expound the Bible. The preface to his work offers a justification for it. I have written about that elsewhere: http://wp.me/pMeOB-7S
He has some points worth making. First, people who are reading the Bible are, well, reading. How did they learn to read? Someone taught them. So, there can never be an absolute separation between general knowledge and scriptural interpretation. I would extend the point further. Being a good Bible reader shares many attributes in common with being a good reader in general: thoughtfulness, attention to detail, genre recognition, empathy, etc. How are these developed? Usually by reading other books.
Charlie, it seems to me that your are discussing something entirely different. The article above is not discussing learning to read well via practice. Reading most anything (from the Bible and comic books, the Koran and anything in between) would produce more proficient reading skills. The more one reads, the more one develops his/her reading skills. No argument there. The article above promotes reading mythology to “recover,” which infers (to me) that such is needed outside of Biblical revelation to make Biblical revelation work (my summary). I think this diminishes the Word, and has no foundation in Scripture. I am not arguing for or against reading other things besides the Bible, per se.
[Charlie] Almost all Christians believe that the historical and grammatical contexts matter for interpretation. But how does one understand a word that is used only once in the Bible? Perhaps the context makes the meaning beyond doubt, but often one is forced to draw from the broader corpus of Hebrew or Greek literature. If there were not some people who read many other books, one would not even have a reliable English translation to read. How does one make sense of an obscure practice in the Bible? Cultural histories can reveal to us the meaning that would have been obvious to the original reader. Also, if one acknowledges the necessity of orally teaching about Scripture, any objection to written forms of that teaching seems hypocritical.Once again, I think this deviates from the article and the discussion. Reading mythology will not help one better understand a word used only once in the Bible, unless you are suggesting that everyone learn Classical Greek to do so (and in my limited understanding, Classical and Koine are not the same). Reading such things in English would not help the “once used” understanding, as English is not that precise.
As far as understanding words, we have lexicons and precise tools that cite such usages. It doesn’t require us to become students of mythology to do so. Understanding an obscure practice in the Bible is not furthered by reading mythology either, if mythology is mythology.
[Charlie] As for fiction, many of the genres that make up the Bible are what we would today call literature, or are at least heavily imbued with literary qualities. A good bit of the Old Testament is poetry. Some resembles epic. There are psalms. Many of the genealogies, annals, and covenantal codes are shaped by ancient near eastern genre expectations. (A great resource on this is Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament by John Walton.) So, if ancient or modern fiction can help one become a better reader of a genre, the skill is transferable.These statements miss my argument. I do not suggest that there are not many different genres represented in the Bible. I argue that we do not need to read or study works of mythology to get “reset,” or to understand the Word. I also argue that just because the Bible uses brief forms of fiction in no way validates works of mythology as a source of training or truth, or something required outside of Scripture in order to understand Scripture better.
Finally, I am ignorant of Augustine’s work in any detail. I just hope that what he proffers can still be proven from Scripture. If so, then I’m with him.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[pvawter]My objections are specifically connected to the premise that mythology is somehow something that can help us understand the Bible, which puts it in opposition with the Word’s sufficiency. Your question seems to deviate from that, but I understand why you would ask it. To me, your question isn’t one answered by “what” nearly as much as by “where” and “how much.”Kevin,
I’m curious. Are there any pursuits or activities which do not constitute Bible reading or study that are worthwhile in your view? I know that you have been arguing against reading fiction, but it seems that your arguments are generic enough to be applied to almost every activity a Christian might engage in.
You ask a “what” question. There are certainly things that are clearly forbidden in Scripture. There are also things that we are commanded to be doing. Both can be answered by “what.”
You also find in Scripture the idea of “where,” (as I call it) in that something unrestricted becomes wrong because it is placed above or before God, or that prevents us from doing “what” we are clearly commanded to do. It becomes an idol if it removes God from His rightful place. It becomes our determining factor, our primary influencer, etc.
Tied with “where” is “how much.” Is it wrong to read fiction? I would say it is not. However, if our enjoyment of fiction displaces our meditation on God’s Word, our responsibilities as believers, etc. then it becomes wrong. Can I watch a football game? I’ll answer a generic “sure.” (I don’t follow football, but for the sake of discussion…, and I’ll not discuss possible reasons for not watching football not related to this discussion). However, when I immerse myself in football at the cost of neglecting God’s other commands to me, then it becomes wrong. (That does seem to be our heart’s tendency, as illustrated in OT and in the NT.)
Several passages dictate my understanding in this area:
- Luke 8:14, where people are “choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity.”
- Luke 14:27 where Jesus says that “…whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.” (Carrying a cross seems to be an ongoing self-denial to pursue Christ, not piety for piety’s sake.)
- Ephesians 5:15-16 “See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.” (We are to make the most of our time.)
- Colossians 3:1-2, where we are commanded very directly: “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.”
- Colossians 3:16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” (Probably parallel to meditating on the Word day and night in Psalm 1 and Joshua 1:8-9)
- 2 Timothy 3:1-5 “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!”
- Titus 2:11-14 “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. (This tells us what we are not to be driven by, and also what we are to be driven to do.)
- 1 John 2:15-17: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world— the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life— is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.”
There are multitudes of verses like this expressing God’s direction that we be different. We somehow have the idea that we are saved to do whatever we want, when God has indicated clearly otherwise. We can get more specific about what we are to be doing (reading, meditating upon, memorizing the Word; praying; good works; etc.). However, suffice it to say the Bible seems to not leave us to ourselves to fully determine our focuses and efforts. Yet we are a culture of believers that revels in doing what we want because God hasn’t said we couldn’t. However, He has spoken more clearly than we often care to recall.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Aaron Blumer]Kevin, I’m having a little trouble now seeing what your view is. Which of these would you say best summarizes it:
- Fiction is inherently competitive with the Word and the Spirit: more of one necessarily means less of the other.
- Fiction has value but not very much and is not useful in preaching (unless maybe it’s very short and/or inspired fiction)
- Fiction is good but the tendency is to overuse it.
Related … your argument is that LoTR is bad fiction because it’s longer than the short fiction Jesus uses in His parables? If that’s the case, what is it about length that ruins fiction?
(FWIW, I don’t think anyone here is saying that we should preach fiction at all, much less preach it instead of the Word.)
One more: is Les Miserables good and LoTR bad because Les Mis. is less imaginative? In what way is LM “better” than LoTR?
Sorry about confusing you. It’s all clear in my mind. ;>D
I would probably agree to some extent with all three statements (and the several concepts in each one):
- As I’ve expressed in another response, we are to focus upon what is true. Fiction by definition is not true. Mixing truth and fiction seem to me to distort truth, because it cannot (as a man-generated work) add to it. We begin to think in terms of the fiction rather than the truth. We have what we know to be true clouded and defined by what isn’t true. Quantitatively (logically?), we can give ourselves to concentrating (meditating) on the Word or something else. If we immerse ourselves in something else, does it not remove us from the Word?
- Personally, I probably can accept fiction as a means to some ends (learning to read, entertainment) but not (as my primary objection is to this article) in some way thinking that it can assist the Word to make it better, or as necessary to “reset” us as though the Word cannot be effective without fiction. As I see it, and as I have expressed before, I do not see any Biblical justification for using the LoTR, Chronicles, or Les Mis as some type of God-approved (or some, even God-mandated or God-reflecting) teaching activity. The Bible wasn’t written as a fictional triology, nor did Jesus use fiction apart from a direct lesson (or to confuse listeners).
- Some fiction can be good (“fiction is good” is too general and includes all fiction, and I’m sure not what you intended). Often fiction (such as historical fiction) can confuse fact & fiction, so people really do not gain the ability to know what happened, but lose the ability to do so. I believe our primary focus (in quantity and quality) is clearly to be on the Word.
Your FWIW comment: The entire Part 6 quotes nothing of the Bible to validate any of its claims, and yet suggests that fiction can be used to awaken us, reset us, recover us. On what Biblical principle is this based? My entire objection finally in a concise question.
Les Miserables and LoTR - Reread my comments. I did not suggest that Les Mis was better. I was only relating that I had indeed read another popular fictional work, and liked it. I don’t think it should be used as a means to learn the Word better either. I wasn’t proclaiming it any better.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Kevin Subra]I don’t think the sufficiency of the word can be used the way you mean it, otherwise, there would never be any need for teaching or preaching once one is converted. Clearly, that is not the case — we don’t say that once the things of the Word are no longer foolishness, we then therefore automatically understand everything, since the Word is “sufficient.” The Bible says “Be not many masters,” and that’s certainly not because all saved are now automatically in that category.It would be easier to argue (and more correct, IMHO) that it’s the *insufficiency* of humans (not the insufficiency of the Word) that makes teaching, preaching, and yes, examples from the real world useful (and modeled by Jesus) in getting the meaning across to fallen man.Since there is that insufficiency on our part (and again, because it’s modeled in scripture), there are plenty of things that help get the full meaning of scripture across to us. I wouldn’t argue that we have to spend large amounts of time with ancient literature, fiction or non-fiction to understand the Bible, but that’s not the same thing as saying studying it can’t be of any help and is therefore completely unnecessary. You refer pretty easily to lexicons, but where did those come from? They certainly were not inspired and handed to us by God, and those that wrote them or did the hard work to understand how to put them together would have had to delve into all sorts of writings to get a full understanding of the meanings of the words.In addition, he men who did many of the great works in Bible translation, lexicon work, commentaries, etc., were indeed well-learned, and often versed in much ancient literature of all types. Clearly it benefited them.I’m sure I can hear you object that we don’t “need” any of that, and it’s certainly true that God’s Holy Spirit can illumine the Word and make it clear, even to the unconverted when drawing them to himself, without anything else needed. However, it’s also true that God has told us to study to show ourselves approved. It’s been my observation that the right division of the Word of Truth is pretty rare among those who eschew any studies outside the Word itself. I’m sure many would like to think of themselves in the same league as the “unlearned and ignorant” disciples, able to speak with authority without further study, but we haven’t been called to spend 3 years in study with Jesus in person, and then to go forth and speak miraculously.My objections are specifically connected to the premise that mythology is somehow something that can help us understand the Bible, which puts it in opposition with the Word’s sufficiency. Your question seems to deviate from that, but I understand why you would ask it.
Dave Barnhart
Yes. Kevin, there’s all kinds of material in your posts that is just not in dispute. The problem lies partly in your premises but mostly in the conclusions you’re drawing from them.
The entire Part 6 quotes nothing of the Bible to validate any of its claims, and yet suggests that fiction can be used to awaken us, reset us, recover us. On what Biblical principle is this based?
This would be a premise problem. The premise seems to be: “Everything must be proved from Scripture in order to be true.”
I would probably agree to some extent with all three statements (and the several concepts in each one):
This illustrates to a degree what I mean by “conclusions you are drawing from them.” View A is not compatible with B or C. Because, if it’s true that “fiction is inherently competitive with the Word and the Spirit: more of one necessarily means less of the other,” then it follows that fiction is to be avoided entirely and there is no good in it at all. (And Jesus should have given us a disclaimer: “I am using fiction in my public ministry but nobody else should.”)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Yes. Kevin, there’s all kinds of material in your posts that is just not in dispute. The problem lies partly in your premises but mostly in the conclusions you’re drawing from them.
The entire Part 6 quotes nothing of the Bible to validate any of its claims, and yet suggests that fiction can be used to awaken us, reset us, recover us. On what Biblical principle is this based?
This would be a premise problem. The premise seems to be: “Everything must be proved from Scripture in order to be true.”
I would probably agree to some extent with all three statements (and the several concepts in each one):
This illustrates to a degree what I mean by “conclusions you are drawing from them.” View A is not compatible with B or C. Because, if it’s true that “fiction is inherently competitive with the Word and the Spirit: more of one necessarily means less of the other,” then it follows that fiction is to be avoided entirely and there is no good in it at all. (And Jesus should have given us a disclaimer: “I am using fiction in my public ministry but nobody else should.”)
Aaron, the key phrase in my lengthy response to your multiple choice question is “to some extent.” I didn’t simply answer with letters, because there were multiple points in each, and I could agree with parts of each. I have not said that fiction should be avoided entirely. I just argue that it is not something necessary to help people understand Scripture, which is the premise of the article.
I do believe that such a claim needs more support than “the Bible doesn’t prohibit it, and therefore all things are allowed.” I have stated that there is no hint of such a need in Scripture for man-written mythology to help one understand Scripture, and that saying so diminishes the Gospel and Scripture. The Gospel is the power of God to salvation, Aaron, not the LoTR. Jesus did not point us in that direction, and used fiction in a very limited, direct way to make specific points. The Bible is not written in such a way, which I believe gives us a pattern to learn by and teach by. Justifying things solely by silence with nothing more is trusting man’s heart rather than God’s revelation, as I would see it.
If you are comfortable encouraging people to read fiction as a means to understanding the Word, do so. I do not believe it to help or enhance, nor do I believe mythology can do so. I do not believe the Scriptures hint at such a use in any way, and actually argue against it by what is done and what is used. At worst, I’d rather err on the side of studying the Word, rather than J.R.R. Tolkien.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[dcbii][Kevin Subra]I don’t think the sufficiency of the word can be used the way you mean it, otherwise, there would never be any need for teaching or preaching once one is converted. Clearly, that is not the case — we don’t say that once the things of the Word are no longer foolishness, we then therefore automatically understand everything, since the Word is “sufficient.” The Bible says “Be not many masters,” and that’s certainly not because all saved are now automatically in that category. It would be easier to argue (and more correct, IMHO) that it’s the *insufficiency* of humans (not the insufficiency of the Word) that makes teaching, preaching, and yes, examples from the real world useful (and modeled by Jesus) in getting the meaning across to fallen man. Since there is that insufficiency on our part (and again, because it’s modeled in scripture), there are plenty of things that help get the full meaning of scripture across to us. I wouldn’t argue that we have to spend large amounts of time with ancient literature, fiction or non-fiction to understand the Bible, but that’s not the same thing as saying studying it can’t be of any help and is therefore completely unnecessary. You refer pretty easily to lexicons, but where did those come from? They certainly were not inspired and handed to us by God, and those that wrote them or did the hard work to understand how to put them together would have had to delve into all sorts of writings to get a full understanding of the meanings of the words. In addition, he men who did many of the great works in Bible translation, lexicon work, commentaries, etc., were indeed well-learned, and often versed in much ancient literature of all types. Clearly it benefited them. I’m sure I can hear you object that we don’t “need” any of that, and it’s certainly true that God’s Holy Spirit can illumine the Word and make it clear, even to the unconverted when drawing them to himself, without anything else needed. However, it’s also true that God has told us to study to show ourselves approved. It’s been my observation that the right division of the Word of Truth is pretty rare among those who eschew any studies outside the Word itself. I’m sure many would like to think of themselves in the same league as the “unlearned and ignorant” disciples, able to speak with authority without further study, but we haven’t been called to spend 3 years in study with Jesus in person, and then to go forth and speak miraculously.My objections are specifically connected to the premise that mythology is somehow something that can help us understand the Bible, which puts it in opposition with the Word’s sufficiency. Your question seems to deviate from that, but I understand why you would ask it.
I am at a loss to what you are addressing that I said. I do not believe mythology or fiction is necessary, per the article, to reset or recover someone in addition to Scripture. I see great value in studying the efforts of others in helping learn the Word. We are commanded to rightly divide the Word. I’m in, unless you count The Lord of the Rings in with commentaries.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Dave Gilbert] I’ve personally come to the place in my life where Scripture is the only thing I read anymore …
No offense, but that’s flat crazy, not to mention inhumane.
[Dave Gilbert]So then Scripture ISN’T the only thing you read anymore.I reiterate my stance on these articles, and it appears Kevin is in agreement. I’ve personally come to the place in my life where Scripture is the only thing I read anymore ( if one discounts the occasional newspaper for world news, and various websites for news and other articles of use to believers, such as contending for the faith once given ).
To me, mythology has no place in the life of a believer and is only of any value if one meets another person who has been converted out of mythology ( other gods and goddesses ) or one preaches the Gospel to those who are involved in idolatry. IMO, further involvement takes our attention away from the finished work of Christ and worship of God the Father and His Son. Scripture is all we need ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ).
Dave.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Dave, most Christians throughout history have not taken the approach that all we need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit. The Bible itself says God has given teachers to build up the church, and teachers teach both in person and through writing books. Also, in 2Tim. 4:13 Paul asked Timothy to bring “the books, especially the parchments” to him in prison.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Greg, weak argument, my friend. We are not arguing “no books,” Rather, a keen focus on the Bible without the distraction of such things as mythology, for which we argue are of little value.
Do you think the books were mythological works? Did you catch “especially the parchments” part? What do you think those were?
Paul, from prison: “My life is near the end. Please bring me The Lord of the Rings, that I may end my life immersed in mythology” is probably short of the truth. ;>D
You can expand the argument to anything, but certainly it is easy for us, with all of the sports, past times, etc. to become distracted by the “cares, riches, and pleasures” of this life so we have no time for meditating on the Word day and night. The latter eclipses the former, and should. We can argue that all of these focuses do not draw us away from the Word, or somehow make us better understand it. However, the Word seems to argue otherwise.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Kevin, I was specifically addressing Dave’s argument that all we need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Kevin,
You have made a declaration that mythological fiction is of little value, but by what rubric do you define the value of a work of fiction?
You can expand the argument to anything, but certainly it is easy for us, with all of the sports, past times, etc. to become distracted by the “cares, riches, and pleasures” of this life so we have no time for meditating on the Word day and night. The latter eclipses the former, and should. We can argue that all of these focuses do not draw us away from the Word, or somehow make us better understand it. However, the Word seems to argue otherwise.
So there is no way to do both? Enjoy God’s creation such as sports, past times, and etc… and meditate on God’s word? The view that it “eclipses the former” shows that you may have an underdeveloped theology of what it means to be made in God’s image, which is directly connected to the cultural mandate that was given to Adam and his descendants. Correct me if I’m wrong, but my fear is that you have embraced a more dualistic, gnostic view of life by interpreting these passages about the things of this world ontologically instead or morally.
[pvawter]Kevin,
You have made a declaration that mythological fiction is of little value, but by what rubric do you define the value of a work of fiction?
I’m repeating all of this from above, but here is a quick summary:
- TRUTH: We are to focus upon what is true (Phil 4:8)
- TIME: We are to use our time wisely (Eph 5:18)
- INSPIRATION: Man’s works are not reliable (2 Tim 3:15-16; Col 2:6-8)
- FOCUS: We are told to meditate on the Word day and night (Psalm 1:1-3; Josh 1:8-9)
- PATTERN: The Bible was not written in mythology; Jesus only used simple stories to explain specific truths
I don’t think those are all the arguments by a long shot. Those are the ones I’ve mentioned in this discussion.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Joel Shaffer]You can expand the argument to anything, but certainly it is easy for us, with all of the sports, past times, etc. to become distracted by the “cares, riches, and pleasures” of this life so we have no time for meditating on the Word day and night. The latter eclipses the former, and should. We can argue that all of these focuses do not draw us away from the Word, or somehow make us better understand it. However, the Word seems to argue otherwise.
So there is no way to do both? Enjoy God’s creation such as sports, past times, and etc… and meditate on God’s word? The view that it “eclipses the former” shows that you may have an underdeveloped theology of what it means to be made in God’s image, which is directly connected to the cultural mandate that was given to Adam and his descendants. Correct me if I’m wrong, but my fear is that you have embraced a more dualistic, gnostic view of life by interpreting these passages about the things of this world ontologically instead or morally.
Joel, how do you explain how we are to take up our cross and follow Jesus? Does that sound like “enjoy your life and experience all that God wants you to experience as being created in the image of God?” I personally don’t think so. The Bible commands us not to love the world, or the things in the world (defined by the lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life), further explaining that those things are not of God (1 John 2:16) and are temporary (1 John 2:17).
The Bible does tell us that we can be choked by the cares, riches, and pleasures of this life. How do you correlate that with what you call the cultural mandate that was given to Adam and his descendants (which, though you did not explain, causes me to “fear” about your view of the five mandates in Genesis 1:26-28)?
How do you correlate the “friendship with the world is enmity with God” concept in James 4:4? The last days “lovers of themselves,” “lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God,” phrases? Can the study of mythology, sports, [insert anything here] be the pursuit of pleasure? Absolutlely. The Ephesians “be filled with the Spirit…redeeming the time because the days are evil,” and the correlating “let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly” passages? etc? Where do you see where the general populace and their focuses and activities are inert and in no way impede one’s walk with God? How much is too much focus on these “other things” before they become idols, and we begin worshipping (by heart, time, focus, energy, etc.) the creature rather than the Creator?
Dualistic? No. I do believe that there is a god of this world that presents himself as an angel of light, in direct contrast to the True God. I believe that there is truth and that we are commanded to preach the Word (not mythology), because people will be drawn away by their itching ears heaping to themselves teachers (it is not the failing to study, but listening to the wrong teachers). I believe that “men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.” There is light and darkness, and that is all. We were sometimes darkness, now we are light, so we are to walk as children of light. There is the old man and the new man. We are to put off the old man, and we are to put to death our members which are on the earth (Col 3:5). We are to see those things which are above, setting our minds on things above, not on things on the earth. There is so much that says there are two distinct realms. If one doesn’t follow Jesus as the light, he walks in darkness.
Is the world evil? I believe creation is cursed. I believe that our motives, intents have to be enlightened and tempered by the Word (Heb 4:12). I believe our hearts are “deceitful and desperately wicked,” and we can talk ourselves into justifying most anything, even in the context of religion. I believe that we are not to lean on our own understanding, but we are to acknowledge God in all things. Apart from God’s revelation, nothing is clearly interpreted or understood correctly.
When I read of how we are free to do [insert topic here] without regard for all of these concepts taken into account, I believe it is an abuse of liberty. We are saved for good works (Eph 2:10; Titus 2:15), not self fulfillment. That’s what Adam pursued. I think we’re here to please God, not to pursue what we want, whatever that may be.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Ken,
I Timothy 6:17-19
17 Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
In this passage, God is described as richly providing us with everything for our enjoyment (including wealth). Of course verse 18 tells us that with everything that we have from this world for our enjoyment that we must do good, to be rich in good deeds and be willing to share.
My point is that there is no platonic dualism about the things of this world coming from Paul in this passage. They are also for our enjoyment.
Also, I Timothy 4:1-5
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Interestingly, even after the fall (which of course distorted everything in the world with sin), Paul clearly teaches a view that verifies the goodness of creation. He describes everything that God created as good. Paul is preaching against a form of gnostism that was forbidding certain cultural activities such as marriage and abstaining from certain foods.
When people quote “Love not the World,” I know that it is the sin that has permeated the world (lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life) that John is talking about. That is why I interpret these passages morally rather than ontologically. If I interpret them ontologically as well, I am afraid of falling into the category that Paul warns Timothy of in I Timothy 4
[Joel Shaffer]I Timothy 6:17-19 - Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
In this passage, God is described as richly providing us with everything for our enjoyment (including wealth). Of course verse 18 tells us that with everything that we have from this world for our enjoyment that we must do good, to be rich in good deeds and be willing to share.
My point is that there is no platonic dualism about the things of this world coming from Paul in this passage. They are also for our enjoyment.
Joel, this passage actually says something different than what you suggest. It tells the wealthy not to put their hope in wealth. They are not to focus on their wealth as an end. The idea that God gave everything to enjoy is modified by these wealthy doing good with their wealth, being rich in good deeds, and to be generous / sharing. The enjoyment is in doing what God would have them do, not what they would want to do with it in some self-focused way. The purpose of the enjoyment is that they might “take hold of the life that is truly life.” It is living life, enjoying it, as defined by God, not as defined by self-interest.
[Joel Shaffer]Also, I Timothy 4:1-5
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Interestingly, even after the fall (which of course distorted everything in the world with sin), Paul clearly teaches a view that verifies the goodness of creation. He describes everything that God created as good. Paul is preaching against a form of gnostism that was forbidding certain cultural activities such as marriage and abstaining from certain foods.
When people quote “Love not the World,” I know that it is the sin that has permeated the world (lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life) that John is talking about. That is why I interpret these passages morally rather than ontologically. If I interpret them ontologically as well, I am afraid of falling into the category that Paul warns Timothy of in I Timothy 4.
Joel, who here is forbidding anyone to marry? I thought we were discussing the value of mythology. (For the record, I affirm God’s plan of marriage. I’ve been married for 31 years. My wife and I have 15 children.) I’m not talking about food either (though the sins of gluttony or just living to eat for the enjoyment of eating I believe would be governed by the Word.)
The world is cursed, affected by sin. However, that isn’t the issue - our issue. I’m not saying that matter is evil. It certainly is impacted by evil. The big issue is the deceptive nature of our own hearts. We must view things through God’s revealed Word, not by means of our own faulty, self-deceiving, right-in-our-own-eyes, sin-infected hearts. It is how we approach the world (via our eyes, our flesh, our pride). It is the evil world system (not the physical world) that is the issue. It is a moral interpretation of 1 John 2:15-17, but it understands that all we do is to be governed and directed by God’s revealed Word, not our own self-defined beliefs. Our enjoyment is not to be defined by us, or in some open way when the Bible most definitely directs us how to use our time, focus our minds, etc. That would be taking one truth at the expense of all of the rest. (See my previous post for a larger list.)
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Dave Gilbert]Well, I for one am very thankful for the many resources that are available to us today, resources which the Holy Spirit uses to help us better understand Scripture.Teaching from books based on observation of Scripture is another. Sorry Greg, I don’t agree with the concept of needing anything else besides Scripture to show us what Scripture means, or “news ways in which to see it”. To me, that equals, ” I get my teaching and knowledge from the Bible plus “Rev.” So-and-So’s interpretation ( or commentary, etc. )”. I don’t intentionally wish to offend, but rather to place my trust in Scripture itself. Men are fallible, God’s word is not.
As for Paul ( writing by inspiration of the Holy Ghost ) requesting “books and parchments”…keep in mind that books are also folios or bindings of pages of some type that could also just as well have been blank, while parchments themselves are loose pages. For Paul to request them from someone while he was in prison probably meant he was going to do some writing while he was there.
Dave.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Discussion