# Biblical Argument For Spending Valuable Time Reading Fiction?



## Username3000 (Jan 11, 2020)

I’ve been reading The Lord Of The Rings recently, and as much as I enjoy well-written literature, I can’t come to a firm conviction that reading fiction is a wise activity for the serious Christian. 

I know that a book of fiction can have glorious themes, and be full of truths about reality. It doesn’t have to be an immoral book. But, is it the best use of the time? And how many truly soul-bettering books of fiction are out there, really?

Also, it is my understanding that the Puritans considered such reading a waste of valuable time. 

Can anyone provide a biblical argument in favour of reading fiction books for entertainment?


----------



## py3ak (Jan 11, 2020)

The Biblical argument, in brief, is that God has given us all things richly to enjoy; that this is a faculty that is legitimately used for recreation; that we profit more when the profit is mixed or alternated with pleasure; and that people in the Bible (e.g., Jotham, Nathan) use fiction, and that Paul evidences an acquaintance with pagan literature.

The subject has been discussed at some length before:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/against-fiction.92530/

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 12, 2020)

py3ak said:


> The Biblical argument, in brief, is that God has given us all things richly to enjoy; that this is a faculty that is legitimately used for recreation; that we profit more when the profit is mixed or alternated with pleasure; and that people in the Bible (e.g., Jotham, Nathan) use fiction, and that Paul evidences an acquaintance with pagan literature.
> 
> The subject has been discussed at some length before:
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/against-fiction.92530/


Thank you.

Post #2 in that thread may have already put the nail in the coffin:

“The idea of history as philosophy teaching by example has opened the door for fiction to imitate history. But fiction is rarely used so well, which is why I tend to avoid it. Besides, I prefer spending time in actual history and getting to know real people; and there are only so many hours in a day.”

It’s not black and white. There’s worthwhile fiction, and garbage fiction. The same book might not be a good idea for two different people, or at two different times in life. It can be a waste of time, or it may not be. Etc.

Good discussion, thanks! Haha


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 12, 2020)

Speaking as one who generally dislikes fiction and thus hardly ever reads fiction, the only "biblical" argument you need to justify reading it _in moderation_ is that it is not forbidden.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 12, 2020)

Like anything else, depends on the fiction. All of the great church fathers read Homer. Full Stop. On his deathbed Gregory of Nazianzus, without whom we probably wouldn't have had the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, wanted Homer's Iliad.

Another argument is that Grace restores nature, it doesn't destroy it. Anyone who says we shouldn't read fiction because it is lies or something, has just destroyed nature. They are probably an Anabaptist.

Good fiction can teach you how to think critically on human development, psychology, etc. I wouldn't make it primary. My own fiction reading is maybe 20%.

And, horror of horrors, if you are doing word studies in BDAG, you will note that they are referring to words in Greek fiction (Aristophanes, Sophocles, etc). So even when you are doing bible studies in Greek, you are going to be drawn to fictional accounts.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Poimen (Jan 12, 2020)

St. Basil, Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature

"it is sufficiently demonstrated that such heathen learning is not unprofitable for the soul… [for] we shall receive gladly those passages in which they praise virtue or condemn vice. For just as bees know how to extract honey from flowers, which to men are agreeable only for their fragrance and color, even so here also those who look for something more than pleasure and enjoyment in such writers may derive profit for their souls. Now, then, altogether after the manner of bees must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the flowers without discrimination, nor indeed do they seek to carry away entire those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is adapted to their needs, they let the rest go. So we, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest. And just as in culling roses we avoid the thorns, from such writings as these we will gather everything useful, and guard against the noxious. So, from the very beginning, we must examine each of their teachings, to harmonize it with our ultimate purpose, according to the Doric proverb, '‘testing each stone by the measuring-line.' "

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 12, 2020)

Poimen said:


> St. Basil, Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature
> 
> "it is sufficiently demonstrated that such heathen learning is not unprofitable for the soul… [for] we shall receive gladly those passages in which they praise virtue or condemn vice. For just as bees know how to extract honey from flowers, which to men are agreeable only for their fragrance and color, even so here also those who look for something more than pleasure and enjoyment in such writers may derive profit for their souls. Now, then, altogether after the manner of bees must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the flowers without discrimination, nor indeed do they seek to carry away entire those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is adapted to their needs, they let the rest go. So we, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest. And just as in culling roses we avoid the thorns, from such writings as these we will gather everything useful, and guard against the noxious. So, from the very beginning, we must examine each of their teachings, to harmonize it with our ultimate purpose, according to the Doric proverb, '‘testing each stone by the measuring-line.' "



The reference to the bee is interesting because John of Damascus later used a similar illustration with respect to reading the philosophers: "In imitation of the method of the bee, I shall make my composition from those things which are conformable with the truth and from our enemies themselves gather the fruit of salvation. But all that is worthless and falsely labelled as knowledge I shall reject." For the full quotation, see John of Damascus and reading ancient philosophers discerningly.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 12, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Can anyone provide a biblical argument in favour of reading fiction books for entertainment?



I am 68 years old and, therefore can only plan for two more years. (Psalm 90:10) And I do have a plan. But when I meditate on this before the Lord, I am instant in telling Him that I am far presumptuous knowing that even now I may be uttering my last breath. I have a big Logos library with most books yet unread. I just don't have the time for fiction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## wcf_linux (Jan 12, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I’ve been reading The Lord Of The Rings recently, and as much as I enjoy well-written literature, I can’t come to a firm conviction that reading fiction is a wise activity for the serious Christian.
> 
> I know that a book of fiction can have glorious themes, and be full of truths about reality. It doesn’t have to be an immoral book. But, is it the best use of the time? And how many truly soul-bettering books of fiction are out there, really?
> 
> ...



As for the Biblical argument, I'm with Reformed Covenanter:



Reformed Covenanter said:


> Speaking as one who generally dislikes fiction and thus hardly ever reads fiction, the only "biblical" argument you need to justify reading it _in moderation_ is that it is not forbidden.



Since we're talking about "moderation" and implicitly Christian liberty, I'll add a practical argument.

The Bible contains a rich and varied set of texts, so a person's ability to read it well is aided by reading a variety of different genres and categories of books. (To the extent that is practical and prudent, of course.) Even if a given genre or type of writing is not represented in the Bible, reading it builds ones general literacy and so potentially improves the ability to profitably read the scriptures.

As for fiction vs historical writings: modern histories (as in post-1800) as a rule do not put the same emphasis on narrative and rhetoric that the classical histories did. That means in part that modern histories don't give practice for all the same literary elements that classical or ancient histories covered. Luke wasn't writing a modern biography, and 1 & 2 Kings have a very different style and organization of writing than modern historical narrative. In a way, Tolkien in _Lord of the Rings _and the _Silmarillion_ wrote in forms and styles more similar to ancient histories than those seen in modern histories.

Not all fiction is equally useful, but reading it can double as practice at the kinds of literacy that is useful for reading the scriptures.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 12, 2020)

This isn why I can’t put LOTR down:

Before Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli leave Fangorn Forest to go to Rohan:

‘Yes, we will set out together,’ said Aragorn. ‘But I do not doubt that you will come there before me, if you wish.’ He rose and looked long at Gandalf. The others gazed at them in silence as they stood there facing one another. The grey figure of the Man, Aragorn son of Arathorn, was tall, and stern as stone, his hand upon the hilt of his sword; he looked as if some king out of the mists of the sea had stepped upon the shores of lesser men. Before him stooped the old figure, white, shining now as if with some light kindled within, bent, laden with years, but holding a power beyond the strength of kings.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Jan 12, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> I have a big Logos library with most books yet unread. I just don't have the time for fiction.



And why do you read the books that you have in Logos?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 12, 2020)

Edward said:


> And why do you read the books that you have in Logos?



Edward,
Now that's a question that needs an explanation before I can answer. ???


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 12, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> This isn why I can’t put LOTR down:
> 
> Before Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli leave Fangorn Forest to go to Rohan:
> 
> ‘Yes, we will set out together,’ said Aragorn. ‘But I do not doubt that you will come there before me, if you wish.’ He rose and looked long at Gandalf. The others gazed at them in silence as they stood there facing one another. The grey figure of the Man, Aragorn son of Arathorn, was tall, and stern as stone, his hand upon the hilt of his sword; he looked as if some king out of the mists of the sea had stepped upon the shores of lesser men. Before him stooped the old figure, white, shining now as if with some light kindled within, bent, laden with years, but holding a power beyond the strength of kings.



The passage on Glorfindel is similarly majestic. We read LOTR because it is near perfect English prose. When cage-stage Calvinist bloggers can write at that level, then I might listen to them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Jan 12, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> Now that's a question that needs an explanation before I can answer. ???



There are a number of reasons a person might read certain books. A few:

Professional growth
Personal enrichment
Personal enjoyment 
Sense of duty
Curiosity

Most would work for fiction as well as non-fiction

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Jan 12, 2020)

I would be interested in someone (more theologically advanced than myself) interpreting Ecclesiastes with regard to this subject. In particular, the end of Chapter 2.
“24 There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, 25 for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment? 26 For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind.”

This is then followed up by the “For everything there is a season” list of various faucets of life.

In contrast, I get hung up on Amos 6:4-5; “Woe to those... who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp and like David invent for themselves instruments of music”


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 12, 2020)

Our conversations, music, entertainment, sports, could all require such a test.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 12, 2020)

Nothing wrong with reading fiction. Chosen wisely, fiction can be edifying as well as entertaining.

And don't forget: the Apostle Paul - a trained Pharisee - was quite familiar with pagan writings.


----------



## Andrew35 (Jan 12, 2020)

I feel this question contains something of a false dilemma: i.e. "entertainment" vs "soul-bettering."

Edward gives a fine range of alternative reasons (above) why someone might want to read fiction.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 12, 2020)

Added to the reasons above (I especially like the one about becoming a more sensitive reader generally, and how that helps us when we come to the Word of God): one which is probably scattered through numerous other threads here: the prophets themselves used fiction to move their hearers and bring them to a place of greater insight about their own condition. Ie, Nathan confronting David. Jesus also told fictional stories. Imagination is a God-given faculty for enjoyment yes, but also for a more vivid grasp of truth. Fiction does not mean false, void of truth. It means unfactual. Truth is worth engaging with, with all our faculties.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 12, 2020)

I would reiterate it does depend on what sort of fiction you are consuming. Even someone as libertine as myself on these issues cannot defend reading the CNN website on a regular basis.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1 | Funny 3


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 12, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I would reiterate it does depend on what sort of fiction you are consuming. Even someone as libertine as myself on these issues cannot defend reading the CNN website on a regular basis.


I actually deleted a comment from my post about the low-quality fiction of the news  ... I agree that it does depend on what sort of fiction we are consuming. Not just those venues that are designed to reinforce inaccurate perceptions and self-justifying responses, but venues that are about wish-fulfillment, a softer reality with us at the center and all we want come true, _escaping from the resistant edges of truth, of real people and the real world_, are very damaging. I found this copied into my journal from Lewis' letters on the right use of imagination -- bracketed comment my own:

‘The true exercise of imagination, in my view, is (a) To help us to understand other people (b) To respond to, and, some of us, to produce, art [which furthers our apprehension of reality]. But it has also a bad use: to provide for us, in shadowy form, a substitute for virtues, successes, distinctions, etc. which ought to be sought outside in the real world -- e.g. picture all I’d do if I were rich, instead of earning and saving.'


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 12, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I’ve been reading The Lord Of The Rings recently, and as much as I enjoy well-written literature, I can’t come to a firm conviction that reading fiction is a wise activity for the serious Christian.
> 
> I know that a book of fiction can have glorious themes, and be full of truths about reality. It doesn’t have to be an immoral book. But, is it the best use of the time? And how many truly soul-bettering books of fiction are out there, really?
> 
> ...


Why would you need a biblical argument for reading fiction? A biblical argument against reading fiction in general would be worthwhile but I don't think/feel that I need a biblical argument for something as much as I need to know what I shouldn't do. These matters are complex and require wisdom to sort through. Paul understood this. As has been pointed out entertainment is a reason. But when I'm reading Langston Huege's or Walt Whitman and watching the Departed at the same time, great movie, I would find it odd to have to "justify" it from scripture to someone. "Quote the verse" type stuff.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 13, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Why would you need a biblical argument for reading fiction? A biblical argument against reading fiction in general would be worthwhile but I don't think/feel that I need a biblical argument for something as much as I need to know what I shouldn't do. These matters are complex and require wisdom to sort through. Paul understood this. As has been pointed out entertainment is a reason. But when I'm reading Langston Huege's or Walt Whitman and watching the Departed at the same time, great movie, I would find it odd to have to "justify" it from scripture to someone. "Quote the verse" type stuff.


Short answer, because I believe that we should examine every aspect of our lives to see if it conforms to Scripture. That includes spending valuable time on entertainment. But I fail miserably at doing so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 13, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Short answer, because I believe that we should examine every aspect of our lives to see if it conforms to Scripture. That includes spending valuable time on entertainment. But I fail miserably at doing so.


Ok, my position is read what you want, how does one differentiate between what is ok and what I s not?


----------



## bookslover (Jan 13, 2020)

If you love good literature - both fiction and non-fiction - you should check out Patrick Kurp's marvelous - and marvelously written - blog, called "Anecdotal Evidence." I enjoy just about every entry, and he posts daily. His blog will give you many examples of how good literature intersects with life. I love it.

A good example is his current top post (January 13), in which he describes the writings of Sir Roger Scruton (who died just yesterday [January 12], at 75) on the subject of beauty, one of Scruton's favorite subjects.

It's here: www.evidenceanecdotal.blogspot.com.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 13, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Ok, my position is read what you want,



What kind of statement is that? Or, is your assumption that you would never "want" to read something you should not?
Didn't you ever want something you shouldn't have? If not, you must be constituted very differently from me.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 13, 2020)

I would love to read recreationally, but I do not have the self discipline to put down a good book. I find myself charging to the end. Thus I set aside the hobby altogether except for some non-fiction books here and there.


----------



## Jo_Was (Jan 13, 2020)

Edward said:


> There are a number of reasons a person might read certain books. A few:
> 
> Professional growth
> Personal enrichment
> ...



I think also it's helpful to point out that reading has value for more than just the adult mind, but is especially formative for the developing mind. Humans are story-centered, empathetic creatures; often how we work through problems and come to new understandings is by being confronted with something new, or framing situations within a story arc to make sense of some things. I wonder if at one point in our ancient history someone looked to their neighbor and asked what the point is of the oral stories XD I like Kevin's pragmatic approach that it's is near necessary to read different forms of literature in order to even understand or contextualize the literature we see in the Bible. Remember, the Scriptures were not made in a vacuum, and the books -- their styles and literary merit don't appear out of nothing, but rather build on existing traditions of narrative style and, even further back beyond script to oral tradition.

And these things that Edward noted are especially helpful in training up a child to actually be literate in the first place but also help them to grow in understanding. Christ spoke in parables to a people of an oral, story-telling tradition whose understanding was bettered by images and pictures within a narrative framework. David was brought to realization of his own sin and depravity through the example of the "rich man and the poor man." Often, fiction, though it might have baubles like dragons, or talking penguins, or spaceships, still reflects the life of humans and expresses those emotions and conflicts still in everyday life that can be still as revealing to a person in reflection on their own life as reading a biography or a historical account (though even those do not always connect as much in some aspects!)

Also, poetry is largely fiction and an oddly structured one at that. It has grandiose images and ideas that try to convey (usually) a deeper meaning. We are not faulted for reading of trees clapping their hands, Leviathan playing in the ocean like a child, or the story of a man and a woman in love. In considering these kinds of narrative devices, it starts to turn from a question of reading fiction in general to where one wants to draw the line of fiction-devices.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Relztrah (Jan 13, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> I am 68 years old and, therefore can only plan for two more years. (Psalm 90:10)


At 65 I'm catching up with you! And likewise, I just don't have time for fiction. Curiously, however, I find countless hours to spend watching sports on TV.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 13, 2020)

Relztrah said:


> At 65 I'm catching up with you! And likewise, I just don't have time for fiction. Curiously, however, I find countless hours to spend watching sports on TV.



When someone asks me, "How 'bout those Tigers," or whatever team they mention, I have to ask them three questions. Is that the team that plays with the little round white ball? Or the oblong ball? Or the larger round ball they bounce and try to through a ring? I do know what Super Bowl Sunday is, though. Of course, I never watch it, but sometimes I record it to watch the commercials after the Lord's Day. I guess I don't have a problem with sports.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 13, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Like anything else, depends on the fiction. All of the great church fathers read Homer. Full Stop. On his deathbed Gregory of Nazianzus, without whom we probably wouldn't have had the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, wanted Homer's Iliad.
> 
> Another argument is that Grace restores nature, it doesn't destroy it. Anyone who says we shouldn't read fiction because it is lies or something, has just destroyed nature. They are probably an Anabaptist.
> 
> ...





Poimen said:


> St. Basil, Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature
> 
> "it is sufficiently demonstrated that such heathen learning is not unprofitable for the soul… [for] we shall receive gladly those passages in which they praise virtue or condemn vice. For just as bees know how to extract honey from flowers, which to men are agreeable only for their fragrance and color, even so here also those who look for something more than pleasure and enjoyment in such writers may derive profit for their souls. Now, then, altogether after the manner of bees must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the flowers without discrimination, nor indeed do they seek to carry away entire those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is adapted to their needs, they let the rest go. So we, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest. And just as in culling roses we avoid the thorns, from such writings as these we will gather everything useful, and guard against the noxious. So, from the very beginning, we must examine each of their teachings, to harmonize it with our ultimate purpose, according to the Doric proverb, '‘testing each stone by the measuring-line.' "



The most intellectually-profitable reading for myself in the past year has been Sherlock Holmes. The value speaks for itself. Grace improves nature here for sure.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 13, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> What kind of statement is that? Or, is your assumption that you would never "want" to read something you should not?
> Didn't you ever want something you shouldn't have? If not, you must be constituted very differently from me.


His post was a response to my original post. In that post I pointed out and implied 2 things:
1. I don't think or feel that I can find or quote a specific verse that will tell me that it's ok to read Harry Potter or "The Great Gatsby". Implication is that the subject is too complex for that, and therefore wisdom is needed, wisdom gathered from biblical principles.
2. It would be easier to find verses to tell me what not to read. Implication the biblical wisdom will help me determine where I shouldn't go. 
Yes it will give me broad concepts to determine what for me personally is beneficial to read or not read but that's me. The wise applications of those principles might be different for someone else, hence complexity.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 13, 2020)

It has been many years since I read it but I recall that the book “The Undercover Revolution” by Iain Murray had some profitable things to say on the subject of fiction. Amongst the points that stand out in my mind is the point that, even where the material is not evil per se, the worlds that have been created in many of these works of fiction (particularly since the 19th century) are essentially devoid of God, and it is not a healthy thing to stay immersed in these worlds.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2020)

Jie-Huli said:


> the worlds that have been created in many of these works of fiction (particularly since the 19th century) are essentially devoid of God, and it is not a healthy thing to stay immersed in these worlds.



That's true, but by parity of reasoning, many of the worlds are rich in "God" (or such verisimilitude). Therefore, it is a healthy thing to spend a lot of time in those worlds.

As for me, I have a fairly brutal nonfiction reading schedule, so I do spend some time in fiction to let my brain relax.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Jan 13, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's true, but by parity of reasoning, many of the worlds are rich in "God" (or such verisimilitude). Therefore, it is a healthy thing to spend a lot of time in those worlds.
> 
> As for me, I have a fairly brutal nonfiction reading schedule, so I do spend some time in fiction to let my brain relax.



Schaffer, especially in his L’Bri context, spent time interacting with cultural projects but he sought warn people against doing it in excess. I read he spoke of ‘taking a shower’ routinely in Scripture and other solid materials to stay on the right side.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 13, 2020)

ZackF said:


> Schaffer, especially in his L’Bri context, spent time interacting with cultural projects but he sought warn people against doing it in excess. I read he spoke of ‘taking a shower’ routinely in Scripture and other solid materials to stay on the right side.


Yeah I think it's a both situation. In his context he was dealing with college kids who knew enough to sound smart but needed a local guide who understood the terrain enough to say "yeah the lions are beatiful at a distance but don't get too close". Some people can handle it (Schaeffer, Lewis, Edgar, etc.) but its not for everyone. So know yourself and how close you can get. That said I do think its unhelpful for people who can't handle it to want that to be the rule for everyone, and people who overly hang in bars "with the sinners to evangelize to them", how smart is that?


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 13, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The passage on Glorfindel is similarly majestic. We read LOTR because it is near perfect English prose. When cage-stage Calvinist bloggers can write at that level, then I might listen to them.


is prose absorbed through osmosis???


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 13, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> is prose absorbed through osmosis???



Not really, but there is somethign to be said for the subconscious.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 13, 2020)

There's freedom in Christ.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 13, 2020)

JTB.SDG said:


> There's freedom in Christ.


There’s freedom in Christ to read fiction novels all day, every day?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 13, 2020)

I would argue that the Reformed generally read ALL books too much, even non-fiction...and even the Puritans. The early church often put emphasis on deeds of mercy and charity. Many Reformed today equate holiness with wading through another archaic tome. 

Read less and do more.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 14, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> There’s freedom in Christ to read fiction novels all day, every day?


Um those goal posts don’t exist anywhere. Are we free to sleep, eat, work, exercise all day, everyday?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 14, 2020)

As someone who studied English Literature at University and was very fond of reading fiction up to the end of my course I can say without any hesitation there is absolutely *no* Biblical argument nor justification for wasting one's time reading it.

The argument that fiction was used by the Holy Spirit in the Bible, or utilised by believers in the Bible, is facile. Again as someone who studied this subject what we find is Scripture is not fiction. Allegories are allegories. They may be expanded into fiction but the mere use of an allegory, or a hypothetical situation, is not fiction. To suggest that because Christ used parables therefore I can read the Lord of the Rings is wrong. The two are not the same.

If the reading of fiction were harmless there would not have been the consistent testimony against it within the church for generations until recent times. Perhaps the rejection of fiction was not as widespread in the church as other things which have also recently become perfectly acceptable, but there has been a consistent teaching against it from the best of the church.

At the end of the day fiction is false. It didn't happen and no true spiritual benefit can be gained from falsehood or make believe. Fiction is designed to manipulate our emotions. It has no true spiritual substance. And people who wax lyrical about the truths of the human experience which are to be found in fiction I have to wonder at. We have the Bible. We have godly commentators of the Bible. Why go to the world for Truth? We already have it given to us by God in His revelation.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 14, 2020)

JTB.SDG said:


> There's freedom in Christ.



Are there qualifications to this freedom? If so, what are they?


----------



## Andrew35 (Jan 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> As someone who studied English Literature at University and was very fond of reading fiction up to the end of my course I can say without any hesitation there is absolutely *no* Biblical argument nor justification for wasting one's time reading it.
> 
> The argument that fiction was used by the Holy Spirit in the Bible, or utilised by believers in the Bible, is facile. Again as someone who studied this subject what we find is Scripture is not fiction. Allegories are allegories. They may be expanded into fiction but the mere use of an allegory, or a hypothetical situation, is not fiction. To suggest that because Christ used parables therefore I can read the Lord of the Rings is wrong. The two are not the same.
> 
> ...


I have no idea what to make of that incoherent barrage of assertions. You must be the life of the party... at least those that you'd be willing to attend.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 14, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> I have no idea what to make of that incoherent barrage of assertions. You must be the life of every party... at least those that you'd be willing to attend.



I don't go to parties. Revellings are forbidden in Scripture. But your comment is a very telling indication of what seems to be the modern attitude: that to be entertaining, or to be entertained, one must be taken up with the world's attractions. Even your humorous use of the wine glass says that necessary to having "fun" worldly amusements must be included. The godliest people I know don't read fiction or watch tv show or movies, or bother with sports: their conversation is full of Christ. And they are the happiest people I have ever met. I'm sure that's all very amusing to some people here but this life is short. I'd rather be the one who "isn't fun at parties" if it means I can spend my time learning about Christ and in the company of those who have walked with Him all their lives and from whom He shines.


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> As someone who studied English Literature at University and was very fond of reading fiction up to the end of my course I can say without any hesitation there is absolutely *no* Biblical argument nor justification for wasting one's time reading it.
> 
> The argument that fiction was used by the Holy Spirit in the Bible, or utilised by believers in the Bible, is facile. Again as someone who studied this subject what we find is Scripture is not fiction. Allegories are allegories. They may be expanded into fiction but the mere use of an allegory, or a hypothetical situation, is not fiction. To suggest that because Christ used parables therefore I can read the Lord of the Rings is wrong. The two are not the same.
> 
> ...


Alexander, 
I'm curious to know how far you go in your prohibition of fiction. It sounds like your concern would extend far beyond novels and rule out almost any poetry. Would it also cover any art that did not strictly and accurately represent a real world object? How about when I invent a scenario for an exam question to test whether the students can apply their knowledge in real life ("You receive the following email from a young member of your church...")? That's not an allegory or a parable; more along the lines of a hypothetical scenario, but it is clearly fiction. Should I avoid that practice?


----------



## Don Kistler (Jan 14, 2020)

If the admonition "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God," then it seems that the answer would be, "Because reading this is more glorifying to God than if I didn't do it."


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I don't go to parties. Revellings are forbidden in Scripture. But your comment is a very telling indication of what seems to be the modern attitude: that to be entertaining, or to be entertained, one must be taken up with the world's attractions. Even your humorous use of the wine glass says that necessary to having "fun" worldly amusements must be included. The godliest people I know don't read fiction or watch tv show or movies, or bother with sports: their conversation is full of Christ. And they are the happiest people I have ever met. I'm sure that's all very amusing to some people here but this life is short. I'd rather be the one who "isn't fun at parties" if it means I can spend my time learning about Christ and in the company of those who have walked with Him all their lives and from whom He shines.



Not even to Chucky Cheese?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 14, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Alexander,
> I'm curious to know how far you go in your prohibition of fiction. It sounds like your concern would extend far beyond novels and rule out almost any poetry. Would it also cover any art that did not strictly and accurately represent a real world object? How about when I invent a scenario for an exam question to test whether the students can apply their knowledge in real life ("You receive the following email from a young member of your church...")? That's not an allegory or a parable; more along the lines of a hypothetical scenario, but it is clearly fiction. Should I avoid that practice?



I would see no problem with your hypothetical scenario in an exam. We have hypotheticals/allegories in Scripture but they are not Fiction. I think when we're talking about fiction we're talking about novels/short stories. Literary works of fiction. Which is why I think using these examples of Scripture is a distraction. They are different in their nature. When these discussions are had we're talking, really, about novels. We're not talking about hypothetical exam questions. So by fiction I mean novels, short stories, plays, poetry. These are distinct forms of writing.

In terms of poetry I would also say Christians should avoid it. I suppose one could argue there isn't the time element because a poem is, typically, very short. But the dangers of poetry are the same as those of novels. And I know that eminent Christians of the past wrote religious poetry. Personally I won't read that.

As to art I think there is legitimate concern over non-representative art. Art which is representative of its subject matter is surely more fitting to the Chrsitian sensibility: orderly, true, clear, open, honest. Abstract art, I think, flows from a sensibility which is not wholesome. But art is a distinct form from fiction and should be considered as such, though there is overlap.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 14, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Not even to Chucky Cheese?



We don't have those over here. I twice went to a birthday party at McDonald's. The first time was excellent. The second time not so much. Thankfully it didn't sour me towards their wonderful food which has been a lifelong love!


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 14, 2020)

Don Kistler said:


> If the admonition "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God," then it seems that the answer would be, "Because reading this is more glorifying to God than if I didn't do it."



Surely that admonition doesn't mean "do whatever you want but do it to the glory of God"? It presupposes that whatever one is doing is lawful. The question here is whether reading fiction is lawful. People have argued that grace restores nature and that God has given us fiction. But such an argument assumes a _lot_ in my opinion. Many things have sprung from the heart and mind of Man, that doesn't mean they're all permissable, profitable or to be "restored" by grace. Maybe they are to be eradicated by grace?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> We don't have those over here. I twice went to a birthday party at McDonald's. The first time was excellent. The second time not so much. Thankfully it didn't sour me towards their wonderful food which has been a lifelong love!



Now I am craving a Quarter-Pounder with Cheese! You've led me into temptation.

Reactions: Amen 1 | Praying 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 14, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Now I am craving a Quarter-Pounder with Cheese! You've led me into temptation.



I'm getting a Mickey D's tonight. I have vouchers. Lots of vouchers.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm getting a Mickey D's tonight. I have vouchers. Lots of vouchers.



I live in Asia and I've been looking for a Popeye's Chicken now for 3 months to try that famous chicken sandwich!!!! Weep for me.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 14, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> I live in Asia and I've been looking for a Popeye's Chicken now for 3 months to try that famous chicken sandwich!!!! Weep for me.



Everytime I hear about Popeye's it's in the context of a mass riot in or around the property.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 14, 2020)

What about spending time discussing trivial matters like fast-food chains?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1 | Funny 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 14, 2020)

Why do we need a biblical mandate (proof text bible verse) for every single action?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 14, 2020)

Phil D. said:


> What about spending time discussing trivial matters like fast-food chains?



** Spits out coffee **


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 14, 2020)

I am not sold that if I would be spending time reading fiction, I otherwise would have been doing something productive at that time. Obviously, there needs to be wisdom, but unless you can prove that fiction itself is evil / not good ANYTIME, I think you can put it in a bucket of recreation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 14, 2020)

Phil D. said:


> What about spending time discussing trivial matters like fast-food chains?



Gotta eat, brother!

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Everytime I hear about Popeye's it's in the context of a mass riot in or around the property.



That is because Popeye's belongs in the hood. That's where they get their spicyness from...the streets.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Jan 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> As someone who studied English Literature at University and was very fond of reading fiction up to the end of my course I can say without any hesitation there is absolutely *no* Biblical argument nor justification for wasting one's time reading it.
> 
> The argument that fiction was used by the Holy Spirit in the Bible, or utilised by believers in the Bible, is facile. Again as someone who studied this subject what we find is Scripture is not fiction. Allegories are allegories. They may be expanded into fiction but the mere use of an allegory, or a hypothetical situation, is not fiction. To suggest that because Christ used parables therefore I can read the Lord of the Rings is wrong. The two are not the same.
> 
> ...



Alexander,

I appreciate a lot of what you say.

A sincere question (bearing in mind you did a degree in English Literature): In your view, is there any legitimate place for literary fiction in education? I suppose this question is really twofold:


Is fiction an appropriate/permissible component of education, at any stage of education (from infancy onwards)? I.e., if a Christian is organising the curriculum (whether for a Christian school or home-schooling), do you think it would be permissible to include any type of literary fiction at all?


Regardless of where one comes out on the first question, would it be permissible for a Christian student (regardless of his own views on the merits) to read literary fiction if it were a required part of the syllabus?

Lurking behind these questions, I suppose, is the question of whether one views this primarily as a matter of the most profitable/wholesome way to use one's "leisure" time, or whether reading fiction is viewed as being inherently unlawful of itself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Jan 14, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> is prose absorbed through osmosis???



Not if you're a serious reader of serious works. E.g. Henry James _demands _your attention. Hemingway is the zag to James' zig, so to speak; he doesn't require as much concentration to process.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Jan 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I would see no problem with your hypothetical scenario in an exam. We have hypotheticals/allegories in Scripture but they are not Fiction. I think when we're talking about fiction we're talking about novels/short stories. Literary works of fiction. Which is why I think using these examples of Scripture is a distraction. They are different in their nature. When these discussions are had we're talking, really, about novels. We're not talking about hypothetical exam questions. So by fiction I mean novels, short stories, plays, poetry. These are distinct forms of writing.
> 
> In terms of poetry I would also say Christians should avoid it. I suppose one could argue there isn't the time element because a poem is, typically, very short. But the dangers of poetry are the same as those of novels. And I know that eminent Christians of the past wrote religious poetry. Personally I won't read that.
> 
> As to art I think there is legitimate concern over non-representative art. Art which is representative of its subject matter is surely more fitting to the Chrsitian sensibility: orderly, true, clear, open, honest. Abstract art, I think, flows from a sensibility which is not wholesome. But art is a distinct form from fiction and should be considered as such, though there is overlap.



I'm interpreting your words as denoting that poetry is somehow "dangerous" to one's soul", as opposed to "subversive to Marxist regimes". I respect your right to not imbibe. But my intellectual world would be rather barren if Anthony Hecht, TS Eliot, Czesław Miłosz, Milton, Homer, Virgil, Hopkins, Herbert, Seamus Heaney, Joseph Brodsky et. al were not on my shelves.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Jan 14, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> That is because Popeye's belongs in the hood. That's where they get their spicyness from...the streets.



If you said that in the States, at this moment in history, you'd have a rollicking good time fending off the invectives that'd come flying your way. LOL.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 14, 2020)

Clark-Tillian said:


> If you said that in the States, at this moment in history, you'd have a rollicking good time fending off the invectives that'd come flying your way. LOL.



I've eaten several times at Popeyes in Saint Louis and I was a distinct minority there every time (i.e. the only white customer. Every. Single. Time). The lady behind the counter even asked me one time, "You white boys like our fried chicken, too?" I replied, "This white boy does." And she just laughed and laughed at me. But this was before that fried chicken sandwich came out. If their fried chicken is that good, their sandwich might be a work of sorcery. 

I predict a black comedian like Dave Chappelle will do a comedy bit on this truth and it will get lots of laughs. If a Midwestern white guy says the same thing = he must be part of the Klan. So, I'll wait for Chappelle's routine on the sandwich before I say anymore because black comedians in the US are often hilarious because they can get away with saying things we can't.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 15, 2020)

I have read Piigrim's Progress to my benefit many times over. I also read the the Hobit and the Lord of the Rings books. I have them in cover editions. Everyone should read the Pilgrim's Progress. It has some of the best lived out theology. I also endorse the theological novels of Richard Belcher.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 15, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I also read the the Hobit and the Lord of the Rings books.


No doubt you remember I live in Middle Earth. In fact I live not far from Hobbiton - it is a popular Tourist site.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Everyone should read the Pilgrim's Progress. It has some of the best lived out theology.


Fully agree. I would also add Bunyan's Holy War. In fact I would say: read Part 1 *and *2 of the Pilgrim's Progress, *then *The Holy War. I have said before to parents of teenagers that the Holy War is just as exciting as a Teenage computer war game but far more spiritually profitable!


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 15, 2020)

On God's knowledge of fiction.

Q. Does God know all things?
A. Yes, God knows all things past present and future perfectly having decreed all that has or will come to pass. But God's knowledge extends even to things that do not exist, to all possible and impossible worlds and thoughts and dreams of men and angels and devils. And all this is but the beginning of His knowledge. God has equal knowledge of everything that exists, that does not exist and that could not exist.

Example: I racked my brain over many possible fictitious examples of God's infinite knowledge but the ideas so blew my mind that I decided to forbear. Perhaps you wish to give an example?

Psalms 139:1‭-‬6 KJV
O Lord , thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord , thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.​


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 15, 2020)

Kinghezy said:


> I am not sold that if I would be spending time reading fiction, I otherwise would have been doing something productive at that time. Obviously, there needs to be wisdom, but unless you can prove that fiction itself is evil / not good ANYTIME, I think you can put it in a bucket of recreation.



What is your definition of evil?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 15, 2020)

Jie-Huli said:


> Alexander,
> 
> I appreciate a lot of what you say.
> 
> ...



My view, and I think this would have been the view of those who opposed reading fiction as recreation in the past, is that literature is a necessary component of the educational process and so is quite permissable within that context. People have made the point that the Reformers, Puritans quoted people like Homer. I'm sure these Christians would have read these works as part of their education. I do not deny that there are works of literature which have a pedagogical use. Even human philosophy can and has been very useful as a tool in the development of Christian doctrine, when it has been properly and carefully adapted to Christianity. There are also certain works of literature which are quite central to the culture of particular nations and acquaintance with such literature can enrich one's own experience as a member of that people. Shakespeare, for example, for the British. I think when we're talking about recreation, however, and for personal enjoyment fiction becomes particularly problematic.

I also recognise that there are differences amongst works of fiction. Some are more wicked than others. But even the best of fiction is false and I question that real spiritual benefit can be obtained from reading a made up story about people who never existed.

So I would say that is _more _an issue of the use of one's time and how wholesome a recreation it is. However falsehood and artifice are to be rejected by the Christian and that does play a major component in fiction. I don't see how the fact we know it is false somehow neutralises that problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 15, 2020)

Clark-Tillian said:


> I'm interpreting your words as denoting that poetry is somehow "dangerous" to one's soul", as opposed to "subversive to Marxist regimes". I respect your right to not imbibe. But my intellectual world would be rather barren if Anthony Hecht, TS Eliot, Czesław Miłosz, Milton, Homer, Virgil, Hopkins, Herbert, Seamus Heaney, Joseph Brodsky et. al were not on my shelves.



If your argument is that poetry had a subversive and destabilising effect on the Bolshevik regimes then you go a long to proving my point, don't you? It has power. Power to topple governments, indeed. So if it has this power then we should at least recognise in this discussion that poetry, novels, plays are not _neutral_ or _indifferent_ things. They can have very real consequences. They produce effects in those who read, hear, witness them. If they can shake up a society they can certainly affect our souls, our thinking, our emotions.

So the question becomes how is that power harnessed? You mention Milton. _Paradise Lost_ is a wonderful epic poem. It is also deeply subversive when it comes to its treatment of God and satan. That is not a Christian poem. I would go almost as far as to say it is _anti_-Christian. It portrays satan as the hero rebelling against a tyrannical God. Can't really get more anti-Christian than that. But it is beuatiful poetry. _Samson Agonistes_ is, if I recollect correctly it's been a long time since I read, a more _Christian_ poem. But people don't talk so much about that one, do they?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 15, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have read Piigrim's Progress to my benefit many times over. I also read the the Hobit and the Lord of the Rings books. I have them in cover editions. Everyone should read the Pilgrim's Progress. It has some of the best lived out theology. I also endorse the theological novels of Richard Belcher.



_Pilgrim's Progress _is always the hard case in this discussion. However I don't think it's correct to equate it with _Lord of the Rins_. They are coming from two very different contexts, writers and with very different intentions.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 15, 2020)

If you are a Christian who says that all fiction is sinful you're going to find yourself in a tricky spot.

A number of objections and hypotheticals come immediately to mind. As soon as one has been dealt with (and, inevitably, hardly to the satisfaction of all parties), half a dozen more will be found in its place.


What is fiction? Who decides?

Are plays banned? What about historical plays? How much must a work be grounded in history before it is considered a work of fiction? How could such even be measured? Who would do the measuring?

Speaking of history, if the only profitable reading material is of things that are _true_ (that is, not _lies_, as fiction has been labelled) how do we determine which that is? Caesar's_ Gallic War _can hardly be trusted at all points.

Are there any situations where fiction might be permissible? Cultural studies? Telling bedtime stories to children? Singing ballads?

What other activities might fall under the category of toying with emotions (a criticism of fiction that was actually offered above)? If plays are out, then opera is, too, I suppose, but what about other music? Beethoven's Third Symphony does stir the heart, I'll admit.

What about folk songs? I can think of a few that aren't based in true events. (_There once was a jolly swagman_...)



If you are a Christian who says that all fiction is sin and you were to attempt to deal seriously with all of the many legitimate objections against your position, the result would be a work spanning volumes and filled with ever more intricate exceptions and explanations. By the time the manuscript was complete, though, I should hope that you had discovered something of the absurdity of your position.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> What is your definition of evil?



He doesn't have to define it. The burden of proof is still on you.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> _Samson Agonistes_ is, if I recollect correctly it's been a long time since I read, a more _Christian_ poem. But people don't talk so much about that one, do they?



I reviewed it here.
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2019/11/14/samson-agonistes-john-milton/

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> _Pilgrim's Progress _is always the hard case in this discussion. However I don't think it's correct to equate it with _Lord of the Rins_. They are coming from two very different contexts, writers and with very different intentions.



This is special pleading.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He doesn't have to define it. The burden of proof is still on you.



Are you being serious? What burden of proof? I asked a simple question. He said something wasn't evil. That assumes an understanding of what evil is. In order to have a conversation we need to be working on the same assumptions. I'm interested in his understading of evil in particular. Also the question was addressed to him.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 15, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is special pleading.



Did I or did I not say that _Pilgrim's Progress _was a hard case?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 15, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> If you are a Christian who says that all fiction is sinful you're going to find yourself in a tricky spot.
> 
> A number of objections and hypotheticals come immediately to mind. As soon as one has been dealt with (and, inevitably, hardly to the satisfaction of all parties), half a dozen more will be found in its place.
> 
> ...



I suppose it's good no-one here has said all fiction is sinful then. We'll be spared the volumes and volumes of argument.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Did I or did I not say that _Pilgrim's Progress _was a hard case?



Still special pleading. You seem to want to cut Bunyan some slack while still maintaining your (yet unproven) case that fiction is wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Are you being serious? What burden of proof? I asked a simple question. He said something wasn't evil. That assumes an understanding of what evil is. In order to have a conversation we need to be working on the same assumptions. I'm interested in his understading of evil in particular. Also the question was addressed to him.



It's deflecting. He doesn't need to give definitions for everything.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I suppose it's good no-one here has said all fiction is sinful then. We'll be spared the volumes and volumes of argument.


Lovely, yes.

So what is fiction? Lies, but not sin? Not sure how we work that out.

You know, I'm beginning to think you haven't quite thought this through.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 15, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> Lovely, yes.
> 
> So what is fiction? Lies, but not sin? Not sure how we work that out.
> 
> You know, I'm beginning to think you haven't quite thought this through.



I've said there is a pedagogical element to some literature. I've said there is a falsehood to fiction. Does that make it the same as lying? Maybe. Maybe it's not exactly the same but still problematic. Maybe there's some of that "nuance" that some people seem to love so much. I started by saying that reading fiction is not a profitable use of time. That has been my main argument. In education there is a place for literature. Recreationally, I say no.

In terms of "thinking through arguments", as usual the argument in favour of reading fiction has been the usual pivot to "Christian liberty" as if that is some sort of gotcha. No explanation of the doctrine, no attempt to defend the use of that idea in this particular area, and the usual smirking and derision of those who dare to take a more conservative approach. Christian liberty is always used in these sorts of debate. I reject that it is applicable here. I reject such an application as at odds with the Westminster Confession's explanation of the doctrine. And no one has ever given me an argument to reconsider that opinion. Indeed, no argument has been given, period.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I've said there is a pedagogical element to some literature. I've said there is a falsehood to fiction. Does that make it the same as lying? Maybe. Maybe it's not exactly the same but still problematic.


You really should settle your own opinion on the matter. It's impossible to respond to vague and apparently contradictory statements. (Is it a lie or isn't it? Is it a sin or isn't it? "Maybe" doesn't cut it.)

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Are there qualifications to this freedom? If so, what are they?


Yes, His revealed Word. And speaking of His revealed Word, check out what Romans 14 says about binding consciences.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 15, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> There’s freedom in Christ to read fiction novels all day, every day?


Is there freedom in Christ to work in your garden all day?


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> I've eaten several times at Popeyes in Saint Louis and I was a distinct minority there every time (i.e. the only white customer. Every. Single. Time). The lady behind the counter even asked me one time, "You white boys like our fried chicken, too?" I replied, "This white boy does." And she just laughed and laughed at me. But this was before that fried chicken sandwich came out. If their fried chicken is that good, their sandwich might be a work of sorcery.
> 
> I predict a black comedian like Dave Chappelle will do a comedy bit on this truth and it will get lots of laughs. If a Midwestern white guy says the same thing = he must be part of the Klan. So, I'll wait for Chappelle's routine on the sandwich before I say anymore because black comedians in the US are often hilarious because they can get away with saying things we can't.



You must've been in St. Louis City. My time there (96-02), I witnessed no Popeye's in the county. Personally, I like Lee's chicken if I'm not going to hit The Colonel up for some extra crispy/guaranteed angioplasty in 30 years, fried bird.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2020)

Clark-Tillian said:


> You must've been in St. Louis City. My time there (96-02), I witnessed no Popeye's in the county. Personally, I like Lee's chicken if I'm not going to hit The Colonel up for some extra crispy/guaranteed angioplasty in 30 years, fried bird.


 We stayed for a year of missionary furlough about 3 miles from Ferguson, Missouri, at the same time as the Michael Brown riots.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> The godliest people I know don't read fiction or watch tv show or movies, or bother with sports: their conversation is full of Christ.


 So not only reading fiction, but watching movies or sports is not permitted for believers? Or at least, less than ideal?

How about gardening? Is it more holy to read Thomas Boston or share the gospel to your non-Christian co-worker? How about carpentry? That probably doesn't pass the litmis test either, right? Is it more holy to preach than it is to be a gardener, as Adam was? Or a herdsman, as Abraham was? Or engage your time in carpentry? Better be careful, friend. I fear you are off in your understanding of what holiness is.

If you are open to taking any recommendations, one book I would urge you to read is Sensing Jesus, by Zach Eswine.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 15, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Gotta eat, brother!


I don't think that comment was meant for you Pergy.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> If your argument is that poetry had a subversive and destabilising effect on the Bolshevik regimes then you go a long to proving my point, don't you? It has power. Power to topple governments, indeed. So if it has this power then we should at least recognise in this discussion that poetry, novels, plays are not _neutral_ or _indifferent_ things. They can have very real consequences. They produce effects in those who read, hear, witness them. If they can shake up a society they can certainly affect our souls, our thinking, our emotions.
> 
> So the question becomes how is that power harnessed? You mention Milton. _Paradise Lost_ is a wonderful epic poem. It is also deeply subversive when it comes to its treatment of God and satan. That is not a Christian poem. I would go almost as far as to say it is _anti_-Christian. It portrays satan as the hero rebelling against a tyrannical God. Can't really get more anti-Christian than that. But it is beuatiful poetry. _Samson Agonistes_ is, if I recollect correctly it's been a long time since I read, a more _Christian_ poem. But people don't talk so much about that one, do they?



I never asserted it didn't have "power", I agree with your point on that--now that you've made that point clear. Previously you warned of its "danger" without a qualifier, or a justification for the assertion.

I'm also not making the argument that literature is "neutral", as I don't think anything cultural is; I don't think anyone on the thread has attempted to argue that either. So we agree on that, as well.

You brought up using literature for its potential pedagogical benefit. Excellent point. Paradise Lost is speculative-imaginary literature because Holy Writ gives us precious little data on the revolt/fall of Satan, as opposed to say substitutionary-vicarious atonement, or the Fall of man. 

We do, however, have sufficient data to conclude that Satan is evil, so we can easily employ Paradise Lost to place the truth in bold relief, in a comparative lit. manner. We could use The Screwtape Letters in a clear comp. lit. way against Paradise Lost. Knowing it is erroneous in its demonology also allows one to speak intelligently on the matter, and use it as a contact point with certain unbelievers, although very few unbelievers read anything of that length these days. It is powerful linguistically, as well. 

Christians in the States are, in the main, viewed as ignorant, nose-picking morons. But if I'm talking to an educated pagan, and I break out Paradise Lost, Screwtape, and Holy Writ, and then proceed to detail Milton's use of erroneous demonology, I've at least represented the faith as having a capable, sound mind.

Milton could write an awfully fine English sentence, so we can use it to demonstrate the beauty of the English language--although my Latin aficionado brother claims it's for people too lazy to learn Latin! Such an epic won't fair well in a multiple choice test (I hate those), but it is excellent fodder for teaching analytical essay writing. 

I'm admittedly high-brow, even snobbish, in my literary tastes. And although I appreciate Tolkien and Lewis, I dislike fantasy-lit, and allegory I find rather boring. I do not need an allegory--I'll just go to Proverbs, thank you very much. 

Where we disagree is that I think the power of literature is a a force for good in right hands. Fine literature--not trash.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 15, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> The godliest people I know don't read fiction or watch tv show or movies, or bother with sports: their conversation is full of Christ.





JTB.SDG said:


> So not only reading fiction, but watching movies or sports is not permitted for believers? Or at least, less than ideal?


Perhaps these comments might help to bring some unity here. For the record my country produced the Lord of the Ring's Movie, and leads the world in Rugby (almost  )

It does seem to me that there are two key scriptural principles to guide us here: Phil 4:8 "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." Thus when we discuss movies or TV this is the fundamental principle to consider. Correct? If it does not pass the Phil 4:8 test a pastor can recommend his congregation not watch the movie or TV show. Jon, I think if you had guided others in this point it would bring more clarity to the discussion. Yes, I watch movies. I watch TV. But I must say in light of Phil 4:8, there are not that many that pass this test.

Eph 5:15-16 "Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil." I think those 2 verses are self explanatory.

I recently posted a note about my enjoyment of Vitringa's book "The Spiritual Life" I said it goes nicely with Teellinck's book "The Path of True Godliness". I said that both books are fine examples of the spirituality of the Nadere Reformatie. What impressed me about both these books is how 'strict' they were about ensuring all our activities enhance a godly spiritual and godly life. In short, do we have Christian liberty? Yes indeed! But let us use it wisely, redeeming the time, and ensure it enhances our spiritual maturity, and that of others.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Jan 16, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> We stayed for a year of missionary furlough about 3 miles from Ferguson, Missouri, at the same time as the Michael Brown riots.



Good grief. Not a very relaxing time, I imagine. Hopefully, some profitable witnessing opportunities came your way.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 16, 2020)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Good grief. Not a very relaxing time, I imagine. Hopefully, some profitable witnessing opportunities came your way.



We got involved in a Ferguson church sometimes and my kids played baseball and floor hockey there with the local teams. A ray of light and a good influence in a dark place. The church community was nice and healthy and tried to do their best for a decaying community. We bought Christmas presents at the Toys R Us, right before it was looted and closed down. Got called an "Old White Cracka" while jogging, too. It is safer in my jungle tribe than in some parts of Saint Louis. It was what it was; I am not willing to sugar-coat it for the sake of political correctness.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 16, 2020)

JTB.SDG said:


> So not only reading fiction, but watching movies or sports is not permitted for believers? Or at least, less than ideal?
> 
> How about gardening? Is it more holy to read Thomas Boston or share the gospel to your non-Christian co-worker? How about carpentry? That probably doesn't pass the litmis test either, right? Is it more holy to preach than it is to be a gardener, as Adam was? Or a herdsman, as Abraham was? Or engage your time in carpentry? Better be careful, friend. I fear you are off in your understanding of what holiness is.
> 
> If you are open to taking any recommendations, one book I would urge you to read is Sensing Jesus, by Zach Eswine.



What has carpentry to do with watching movies? We're just lumping any and all activities together now are we?

And Zach Eswine? Who has been published on the Gospel Coalition? LOL

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 16, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> What has carpentry to do with watching movies? We're just lumping any and all activities together now are we?
> 
> And Zach Eswine? Who has been published on the Gospel Coalition? LOL


Your arrogant spirit saddens me brother.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 16, 2020)

JTB.SDG said:


> Your arrogant spirit saddens me brother.



I would assume our brother is just very careful. Maybe not arrogant. I have a friend on the mission field who I would describe as "overly scrupulous" and his conscience hurts him over many mundane and minor issues. It is its own punishment in a way because one's life is bound up in unnecessary strictness, but he is not arrogant. Just a bit tiresome over 2ndary issues. He just wants to honor the Lord. I think Alexandersmith may mellow in time. Hopefully he doesn't think he is more holy than us due to his greater strictness.

I do think it is legit to question all of our recreational activities. How much of what we are doing is vanity and useless for eternity? How hard must I work for God? 

Perhaps to my dishonor, I've never really been bothered by that, though. I have worked hard for God out of love. He has given His life for me, so I can endure some hard work for Him.

But, if I can find some free time to chill out, I like to take it. To "clock out" and engage in some escapism is very welcome, especially when one has lived overseas (it seems needed to preserve the psyche sometimes when encountering culture-stress). Especially when sick, I love my chill-out time lest I be eaten up by feelings of inadequacy and worry over ministry needs not being met and unreached areas that I know of, but will probably not be reached by me due to my physical limitations. What to do? Well, praying for one thing. But I have never been a very long pray-er, but short frequent bursts (and again, maybe this is to my shame). But I say what I mean quickly and without flowery statements and then move on. During long times of sickness, after these prayers, I then look for something to occupy my mind in a pleasant way, some deep puritan works only serving to depress me further (and I do think that some people who dwell on some of the puritans develop unlikeable and brooding personalities instead of joyful countenances). Animal videos, watching the silly and imaginative play of my small children, or other pleasant ways to pass the time when sick seem to calm the soul and not stir it up to unpleasant feelings, such as of guilt, unfinished work, and depression. 

And so I praise God for idle time and distractions from the pains of life. 

Ecclesiastes tells us to eat, drink, and be merry, and enjoy the wife of our youth, and so I try to vigorously do these thins. When eating and drinking and being merry, we are not told to do so efficiently so as not to waste time, but it seems that God commands us to thoroughly and fully enjoy these activities. And so I try.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 16, 2020)

@alexandermsmith:

It's one thing to have personal convictions. But it's another thing to take those personal convictions and impose them on other people. It seemed to me that's what your comments were about. If I'm mistaken, forgive me.

When I was a younger believer, I was quick to judge others and quick to impose standards. I thought I was honoring God, because I wanted other people to pursue holiness. What I forgot was that the Lord has commanded us to neither take away from his law, nor add to it. I was actually adding to God's law, though I didn't think of it that way. That's what I'm reacting to here. Another Scripture that comes to mind is what Paul says in Colossians 2: "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." I may be wrong, but it seems to me that these kinds of questions fall into this sort of category. Dancing can lead to bad stuff, therefore we shouldn't dance. Alcohol can lead to bad stuff, therefore you shouldn't ever drink wine. etc. The problem is that it doesn't actually deal with the heart, which is from where true gospel change takes place. When we are abiding in God's word and walking in His Spirit, He leads us into all truth. We develop convictions based on what we're learning, and how He's molding us. The wine begins to mold the wineskin. But to impose a wineskin of rules and regulations from the outset, which are all grey areas that God has not explicitly said anything about in His Word, not only, as I see it, adds to God's Word, but it also puts the cart before the horse. It seems to me this was the mistake of the Pharisees.

Brother, I'm not trying to accuse you of being a Pharisee. And forgive me for the ways my own pride came out and the ways I have sinned against you with my words. I'm a sinner. I need Jesus. I hope I can at least communicate these are my concerns. If I've misunderstood the intent or thrust of your comments, please forgive me. Thanks and Blessings.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 17, 2020)

JTB.SDG said:


> @alexandermsmith:
> 
> It's one thing to have personal convictions. But it's another thing to take those personal convictions and impose them on other people. It seemed to me that's what your comments were about. If I'm mistaken, forgive me.
> 
> ...



I wasn't offended so no need to worry about that. I appreciate what you say here. My only push back is that I think we just have different ideas of what the Law of God requires and prohibits in particulars. You believe it allows the reading of fiction and others things which I think it either prohibits or at the very least discourages. With all due respect when you write

*"When I was a younger believer, I was quick to judge others and quick to impose standards. I thought I was honoring God, because I wanted other people to pursue holiness. What I forgot was that the Lord has commanded us to neither take away from his law, nor add to it. I was actually adding to God's law, though I didn't think of it that way."
*
you're making the assumption that your application of the Law is the correct one and I am adding to the Law (intentionally or not). Obviously we both think our application of the Law is correct otherwise we wouldn't be making the arguments we do. However what I get from those on your side of this discussion is that it is "obvious" and "accepted" that your side's view is the correct one. I don't agree. Often the only (or at least the main) argument offered is "Christian liberty" and then I have to repeat myself that Christian liberty does not, in my opinion, apply in these cases. The Westminster Confession defines Christian liberty as primarily freedom from sin and liberty to serve Christ. It is also freedom from the doctrines of men, but in the context of worshipping God. Too often the blanket statement "we are free in Christ" or words to the affect are proffered as a check mate. But free from what?

But certainly there are no hurt feelings. I don't post here in some "this is what you all must do" sort of way. I just come here to engage and give my opinions on things. What people do with that is up to them. They are free to discard what I say.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

