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
[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
I believe it is 1 Cor 7:31 where Paul implies that there are valid uses of the present world, even while it is possible to abuse it. In the context, it would have been a perfect opportunity for Paul to decry anything other than prayer and Bible study as inferior pursuits, but such a declaration is conspicuously absent.
I have yet to hear anyone suggest that mythological fiction can or should replace Scripture as the source of truth. Any truth found in such manmade works certainly originates in Scripture.
you still have not answered my question about what, if any, activities other than Bible study are acceptable according to your stated standard. For instance, is it alright to season your food? I mean, if you season it, you might enjoy it and you could possibly become a glutton. Should our goal be to make our meals as bland and unenjoyable as possible to avoid the risk?
[pvawter] Kevin, I believe it is 1 Cor 7:31 where Paul implies that there are valid uses of the present world, even while it is possible to abuse it. In the context, it would have been a perfect opportunity for Paul to decry anything other than prayer and Bible study as inferior pursuits, but such a declaration is conspicuously absent.
No one has stated this. I have to work, mow my lawn, eat, etc. The arguments are clear above (I even gave a list). It is possible, to have wrong focuses, which are distractions or time wasters instead of focusing upon what God clearly says should have our attention.
[pvawter] I have yet to hear anyone suggest that mythological fiction can or should replace Scripture as the source of truth. Any truth found in such manmade works certainly originates in Scripture. you still have not answered my question about what, if any, activities other than Bible study are acceptable according to your stated standard. For instance, is it alright to season your food? I mean, if you season it, you might enjoy it and you could possibly become a glutton. Should our goal be to make our meals as bland and unenjoyable as possible to avoid the risk?Again, no one has stated this. The article we are discussing suggests that mythology can be used to “reset” or “recover” someone’s thinking, suggesting that the Word Itself is unable to be the Power it claims to be. That is not replacing Scripture, but it certainly undermines it. It does not argue in anyway against enjoying things. My objection relates specifically to the context of the article. I do not think that mythology is necessary or helpful in the study of the Bible, nor can it 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
[Greg Long]Greg, for clarification within the context of the article in which these discussions are happening, would those resources which you use to help you better understand Scripture include mythology, such as The Lord of the Rings series? If so, how do they help you better understand Scripture?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.
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
Again, I was only addressing Dave’s argument that all we need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit. But we are probably having a separate conversation from the main thread so I will leave that alone.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
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.
Kevin,
Here is what Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, professor of N.T. at Denver Seminary had to say in his book, Neither Poverty or Riches: A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions. “Paul also readily acknowledges how wealth can be a blessing. God ‘richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment’ (6:17b) We may enjoy the fleeting pleasures that wealth can provide for a short time in this life, but we dare not put our trust in material possessions. Instead we must lay up treasures in heaven ‘as a firm foundation for the coming age.’………Again Paul is challenging the conventional Hellenistic system of patronage and reciprocity. He is telling those who have this world’s goods not to count on being able to buy the favors of others in return. But one way in which he does draw on convention is to command rich people to be generous benefactors themselves (6:18) There are four terms in verse 18 that all reinforce the same command: ‘to do good’, ‘to be rich in good deeds’, ‘to be generous’, and to be ‘willing to share’ their material possessions.”
Another commentary I checked out, Walvoord and Zuck’s The Bible Knowledge Commentary had this to say about this passage. “Paul had dealt with those who did not possess wealth, but who deeply desired it (vs. 3-10) Now he addressed those who had it and instructed them as to what their attitude should be toward it. They are not to be arrogant as if their wealth is deserved. Nor must they put their hope in wealth, which so uncertain and transient. This is perhaps the the greatest temptation to wealthy Christians, into which category most modern Western believers fit. Christians should put their hope in God, who is the Source of material things. Again material possessions are among those things God has given for our enjoyment. Yet Christians must not merely consume material possessions selfishly. Possesions are to be shared with those who have less. Thus Timothy was to charge the well-off to do good, to be rich, not ultimately in money, but in good deeds.”
Both these interpretations coincide with what I am saying. That God has given everything on this earth for our temporary enjoyment. That there is nothing wrong with enjoying this world’s resources, but that we also need to generously share our resources with those in need so that we can lay up treasures in heaven. I have never seen any commentary on this passage that held your interpretation that implied that ‘God richly provides us everything for our enjoyment’ the enjoyment referred to giving. That enjoyment of what God has given us is on this earth is somehow wrong or insignificant because we need to hate the world.
As for I Timothy 4:1-5, of course I do not believe that you somehow hold that marriage and eating food are wrong. But there is a deeper principle at work here. Let me again quote Walvoord and Zuck’s Bible Knowledge Commentary. “Paul went to the heart of the dualistic error by stating that matter is not inherently evil: it is rather part of what God created (I Tim 6:17b) Hence those who believe and who know the truth can gratefully (4:4) receive and use the things God created, which were designed to be received “for partaking.” Contrary to the teaching of the errorists, everything God created is good. Here Paul echoed God’s own verdict (Gen 1:31). Whereas the false teachers were intent on “forbidding” and “abstaining” (I Tim. 4:3), Paul said that nothing is to be rejected–-nothing that is, that God created. Man can abuse what God has created, as adultery is an abuse of the marital sexual relationship, and gluttony is an abuse of a normal appetite for food. Such abuses should certainly be rejected. But God’s creations themselves are all good and should be received with thanksgiving, not with taboos. All of the seemingly ordinary things of life can then become extraordinary as they are consecrated by the Word of God and prayer. In the light of the scriptures A Christian recognizes God’s good hand behind the things provided, and offers thanksgiving to the Lord. In this way the ordinary things so easily taken for granted (some of which are forbidden by errorists) become sanctified as occasions of worship and praise.”
“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.)”
I would totally agree. I am not defining my enjoyment from myself, but actually from God’s Word says. But from your definition ‘all we do is to be governed and directed by God’s revealed Word, not our own self-defined beliefs,’ is it possible that you may even be neglecting a few aspects of the cultural mandate (however having 15 kids, you certainly are following that aspect of the cultural mandate :)) and may possibly be embracing an unbiblical dualism that is not found in scripture, but has more in common with Greek platonic philosophy (Spiritual over matter)?
[Kevin Subra]I’m sure you think I’m being obtuse, but you have asserted that nothing other than Scripturally defined and encouraged activities are acceptable for the believer. Your argument seems to require total abstinence from all non-biblical pursuits, doesn’t it?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.
f
God could have created a gray box for the human race to “have dominion” over. But He didn’t. Instead, he gave him a rich and fertile garden and told man to cultivate it. There was no Bible then, no Great Commission, no church.
And yet God said it was “very good.”
What does that mean to us now? It means that the Bible and the Great Commission are means to a higher end: the glory of God through His creation. The Fall sets up Redemption as a huge part of that… to the praise of the glory of His grace.
But none of that reverses or nullifies God’s heart for a people that knows Him, loves Him, serves Him by cultivating the creation—by using God-given imagination and energy to make new things out of what He has provided.
So the question is not “How can we prove fiction has value?” It’s “Can we prove that any broad category of human creative output does not have value?” We have to frame the question in the truth or there’s little chance of answering it correctly.
Secondly, I zeroed in some questions earlier for Kevin, one of which was along the lines of “Are fiction and Scripture inherently competitive?” I’m still not sure I can fairly summarize your answer, Kevin.
- But if they are inherently competitive, then we should pile all the fiction we’ve got—Les Miserables included—and burn it.
- If they are not inherently competitive, then the question becomes what are the criteria for evaluating good uses of fiction and poor uses of fiction, or what are the criteria for evaluating good works of fiction from bad works of fiction. Which leads to the question, why should fiction that is longer and more imaginative be regarded as inferior to fiction that is shorter and less imaginative?
But going back to the beginning of the argument—what basis do we have for thinking fiction is inherently competitive with Scripture? Nobody reads the Bible 7x24. And it’s clear that Paul did not read only the Bible. But even apart from reading, our creation tells us that we’re intended to engage in other activities, especially creative ones—not just because we have to, but because it’s “very good.”
So there appears to be no valid argument in this thread for rejecting fiction in general or for rejecting fantasy fiction in particular.
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.
Earlier in this thread, I posted some thoughts based on Augustine’s De doctrina christiana as to how extra-biblical literature can be helpful in understanding the Bible. I should note, however, that Augustine did not believe in the usefulness of fiction. In fact, he thinks of it as a lie. You can read his argument in the Soliloquies.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion