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.
- 150 views
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.
Discussion