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
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.
Discussion