# Help! Am I adding to God's Word?



## austinbrown2 (Jul 10, 2008)

Greetings all,

I have recently begun a writing venture that resembles, to one degree or another, The Screwtape Letters, by C.S. Lewis. The big difference is that it follows a correspondence between elect angels, not demons.

So far so good. 

But here’s my concern.

As these two angels write one another, discussing all kinds of events that are found in the Scriptures, such as Daniel and the lion’s den, the Fall, rejoicing over a sinner who repents, the writing on the wall, etc., I as the writer retell these stories and by necessity try to fill out certain details that are not mentioned in the Bible (Of course seeking to be faithful to sound theology). This requires imagination. And it means trying to read between the lines.

But at the end of the day, is this “filling out” really just adding to God’s Word or taking away from God’s Word, and thus, breaking the law of God which warns against such practices? The last thing I want to do is that, so the very thought gives me great pause. Actually, it makes me tremble.

So what about this?

Is it alright for a Christian to write about these events and fill out the actions and conversations of the characters in the story? (Assuming, of course, that one is trying to be as faithful to what has been said in the Bible. No doubt one could write like a gnostic, or a liberal, or whatever.).

Thank you,

Austin


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 10, 2008)

*A quick example- (Setting up the Fall of Satan)*

Greetings in the name of the Most High,

I cannot say for sure what is happening, Uriel. I too spoke with Gavreel, and as you expressed when I last saw you near the crystal sea, there is a change in his person. He seemed especially preoccupied in thought. It could have been that he was merely contemplating one of the wonderful works of our Lord’s creation, as I too have been transfixed by the beauty and power of those great flaming orbs, especially the one named Gienah. But even as I write this, a curious feeling in my spirit says that this is not so. I sense there is more to it. I sense, somehow, that he is pondering deeper matters. I know not how else to express it.

Whatever the case, I look forward to speaking with him, as I am sure his face will brighten as with the glory of the Lord when he shares his thoughts with me.

I will not see him immediately, however, for he has been selected to work at Marbah for a short while, after which, he mentioned that he was going to visit Satan, that most excellent cherub, to discuss some ideas about a project that, if it were possible, rival those that have been completed near the throne room. Actually, he said, “Exceed.” What wonders that must be. I cannot conceive of any structure possessing more beauty than the falls of Kranrium where the Seraphim sing. But if anyone can do it, surely Satan, arch ruler of the cherubs, could. I do look forward to what our Lord will accomplish through him, Uriel, for he surely is greatly gifted.

I shall visit again before the next gathering, if the Lord wills. 

Until then, 

Taharial


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 10, 2008)

Milton did, but, then again, there aren't many John Miltons in the world....



austinbrown2 said:


> Greetings all,
> 
> I have recently begun a writing venture that resembles, to one degree or another, The Screwtape Letters, by C.S. Lewis. The big difference is that it follows a correspondence between elect angels, not demons.
> 
> ...


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 10, 2008)

Satan means "Adversary." Prior to his fall, your fictitious angel would have referred to him as Lucifer.


----------



## staythecourse (Jul 10, 2008)

I wouldn't but I may be playing it too safe. This falls into "vain imaginations" in my understanding of Scripture.

Is Satan the Satan we know of or did you mean Lucifer?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 10, 2008)

There is a fine line between Christian fiction" and mythology. 

As a rule, I find that so-called "Christian Fiction" too often crosses that line. That said, works of allegory (ie-Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress) and some of C. S. Lewis' writing are the rare exceptions. The Christian literary world certainly has room for good, biblcally based tales, as there seem to be so few out there now.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 10, 2008)

I think you'd have to have a very lucid appreciation of what you are doing and how it is governed by Scripture, even in being distinct from it. I don't think Lewis had any intention of presenting a demonology, or a Bible history, or a theology. He meant to write a fantasy story that dealt with certain themes, that caught in the net of fantastic plot a very real bird (his own analogy) and he used these Christian symbols in a tradition (in which he was thoroughly versed as a professor of English Literature) of their imaginative usage in literature. In other words he may have consciously and even deliberately been more influenced by writers like Milton than Scripture in writing about demons, which was perfectly consistent with what he was trying to do --he wasn't trying to tell a bible story. Right or wrong, this seems very different than what you are doing above. I was wondering if you could explain more about the purpose for which you are writing the story? I am sure you mean to accomplish more than simply to write a reverse image of someone else's book. What are you are trying to catch in such a net? What are you trying to present or emphasize about biblical history in a way biblical history doesn't, that is vital to your purpose?

There is also the fact that most of us have been more influenced by Star Wars in our imagination of unseen realities than by Scripture (or even by a high tradition of English literature); usually, when I read someone else's visualizations of heaven, I am deflated. Their conceptions make a noise like burping tupperware. Their glorified beings have all the same limitations as their fallen minds-- all the same limitations that matter-- thought patterns, etc: there is no sense of otherness. Lewis was writing about something he knew very well: temptation and evil; it is perhaps easier for fallen people to write about these realities. But he is one of the few people who has also written suggestively about heaven in a way that makes the imagination gasp, and he does so not by writing a description of the streets of gold but by writing about the light on the grass, talking in metaphors. Even when he uses an angel he uses it as a metaphor, not as a mental picture he conjured up a biblical reality. I think imagination has to go further than visualing 3d images and filling in background, to write real fantasy. I think perhaps taking more advantage of metaphor and the symbolic way symbols can be very powerfully used, and not merely imagining history from an unfallen perspective we can't possibly achieve, preserves the distinctions and communicates the glory of the unseen better than the approach you are taking? Just my two cents, as someone who has also thought and wondered much about this.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 10, 2008)

*Lucifer, not Satan*

Yea, that was a mistake. I realized it but didn't change it. Thanks for pointing it out though.

Austin


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 10, 2008)

Milton was brilliant, no doubt, but I think William Blake nailed it when he said, "The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet, and of the Devil’s party without knowing it."



Christusregnat said:


> Milton did, but, then again, there aren't many John Miltons in the world....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## turmeric (Jul 10, 2008)

If you'll notice, C.S. Lewis wrote a disclaimer at the beginning of _Screwtape,_ and also at the beginning of _Great Divorce,_ explaining that in no way were his works to be taken for more than what they were - fiction illustrating his own thoughts about these matters. They were not intended to be theology, though he tried his best to be orthodox, but fiction which might illustrate something. In my humble opinion, he did not wholly succeed in being orthodox, but it's still great fiction and I'd be interested to read what you finish. Don't forget the disclaimer, though.


----------



## staythecourse (Jul 10, 2008)

> The self-control and self-sacrifice of the Puritans moulded the armies of the Commonwealth, and overthrew the tyranny of Charles. But their finer qualities were clouded by the fanaticism which a long persecution had engendered. A phrase in our description of the London housewife unconsciously tells the story: "Loving all that were godly, much misliking the wicked and profane." The godly were the sharers of her own faith, the "wicked and profane" were all those without its pale. Here lay the weakness of Puritanism: its narrowness, its lack of sympathy with the world at large, its indifference to the sufferings of those who had no place in the ranks of the elect.
> 
> Among such men we must look in vain for literary productions having the aim of entertainment. The literature of the time was chiefly polemical, and commentaries crowded on the book-shelves the volumes of classical and Italian writers. To Puritanism, fiction was the invention of the Evil One, but still to Puritanism we owe, what is now, and seems destined ever to remain, the finest allegory in the English language.



(On Pilgrim's Progress)

This was from about.com. So take it for what it's worth: one blogger's poor understanding of the riches in Puritanism. But he understood the Puritans had much disdain for fiction. I have mentioned how Bunyan had to give a defense for his book because people just did not like fiction for the most part.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 10, 2008)

turmeric said:


> ...and I'd be interested to read what you finish...



I'd be interested in seeing more of what you've written as well.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 10, 2008)

*For a "Mere" Housewife*

Very thoughtful. I thank you.

As for why or what purpose I would write this work, well, as one who loves theology and feels passionate about teaching it, I thought it would be an excellent medium with which to express a number of ideas. C.S. Lewis pulled this off wonderfully with the Screwtape Letters.

I would like to have them pontificate upon the physical realm and how sin affects it (death, decay, etc.). The depravity of man would be prime also. Typological themes could be discussed as these angels discuss what God’s working out in history. Apologetics, protecting believers from the evil one, the angel of death going out and striking down the firstborn in Egypt, the Flood, the strategy of demons (but not too much, that’s already been done), witnessing the worship of humans (think Hebrews 12:22), prayer, etc. etc. etc. Basically, the purpose is to communicate Biblical truth through a fascinating lens. Frankly, angels are popular these days. It would pique interest. And, oh, a letter would have to be on angels talking about the foolishness of humans worshipping angels and not Christ (Think Colossians).

As for an angelic perspective, it would allow for a very interesting viewpoint. And since we know that angels do in fact long to look into these things (1 Peter 1:12), and God manifests His manifold wisdom to the principalities and authorities in the heavenly realm (Ephesians 3:10), then it seems fitting to have curious watchers of human history discuss these matters… of course, not by letter.

I’m kind of rambling, but I hope that explains my rationale sufficiently.

Again, thanks for the thoughts.

Austin


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 10, 2008)

*Thank you all. Any more thoughts? To Turmeric...*

Turmeric:

That is a very good point about Lewis. And I would definately want to say something along those lines. Basically, "Hey everyone, the Scriptures are the sole, infallible guide on these matters. Not this work. Be a Berean and search and see what is true and what is, well, I trust sanctified imagination. Feast on the good doctrine, smirk at the rest."

As for reading it when I am finished... Well, I do appreciate the interest, and yes, I'd be happy to pass it along.

Actually, maybe one or two here would like to be beta-readers and offer suggestions and warn me if I'm playing footsie with heresy. 

But alas, I've got one humorous book about being a Mailman (my profession) which I'm presently trying to publish (some bites from agents thus far have me feeling mildly hopeful), another book seeking to make a point about abortion, which I've been working on for a few months... although now am totally stuck in a bog, so, in order to dislodge the writers block, I thought about starting Taharial's Correspondence, which came to me quite suddenly and only very recently. So who knows. Sometimes I cannot write one decent sentence  

Cheers,

Austin


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 10, 2008)

austinbrown2 said:


> As for reading it when I am finished... Well, I do appreciate the interest, and yes, I'd be happy to pass it along.
> 
> Actually, maybe one or two here would like to be beta-readers and offer suggestions and warn me if I'm playing footsie with heresy.



Austin:

Sent you a PM.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 11, 2008)

*I sent you a PM*

I responded to your PM, but seeing how I have never done that before (on this board at least), I'm a wee bit concerned that it didn't work. So... if you didn't get it, let me know.

Thanks!

Austin


----------



## py3ak (Jul 11, 2008)

Are you sure you want to try to get inside a mind like the description below? It seems almost superlatively difficult to accomplish without falling into banality, etc.

Angelic minds, they say, by simple intelligence
Behold the Forms of nature. They discern
Unerringly the Archetypes, all the verities
Which mortals lack or indirectly learn.
Transparent in primordial truth, unvarying,
Pure Earthiness and right Stonehood from their clear,
High eminence are seen; unveiled, the seminal
Huge Principles appear.

The Tree-ness of the tree they know — the meaning of
Arboreal life, how from earth’s salty lap
The solar beam uplifts it, all the holiness
Enacted by leaves’ fall and rising sap;
But never an angel knows the knife-edged severance
Of sun from shadow where the trees begin,
The blessed cool at every pore caressing us
–An angel has no skin.

They see the Form of Air; but mortals breathing it
Drink the whole summer down into the breast.
The lavish pinks, the field new-mown, the ravishing
Sea-smells, the wood-fire smoke that whispers Rest.
The tremor on the rippled pool of memory
That from each smell in widening circles goes,
The pleasure and the pang — can angels measure it?
An angel has no nose.

The nourishing of life, and how it flourishes
On death, and why, they utterly know; but not
The hill-born, earthy spring, the dark cold billberries
The ripe peach from the southern wall still hot,
Full-bellied tankards foamy-topped, the delicate
Half-lyric lamb, a new loaf’s billowy curves,
Nor porridge, nor the tingling taste of oranges–
An angel has no nerves.

Far richer they! I know the senses’ witchery
Guards us, like air, from heavens too big to see;
Imminent death to man that barb’d sublimity
And dazzling edge of beauty unsheathed would be.
Yet here, within this tiny, charm’d interior,
This parlor of the brain, their Maker shares
With living men some secrets in a privacy
Forever ours, not theirs.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jul 11, 2008)

For what it's worth, I have read some "imagination" and "filling-out" (as you say) in children's bibles. Some of them are more troubling than others because they are stating as fact something in a source that is intended to be educational - especially in educating children on Holy Writ. 

In the end we have to distinguish between an interpretation of scripture (permissible) and sheer addition to scripture (forbidden). Where that line actually falls is not so clear. For I can say something to the effect of Noah having to pluck splinters out of his hands during several occasions or David sitting by a well sharpening his sword. Did both happen? We do not know, scripture is silent. But are they both likely to have happened? Very possible. What is the litmus test? Is it very possible versus not as likely? We are pondering subjectivity with subjectivity.

So I don't know. I would venture to the safe road when dealing with matters concerning the very words of the living God.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 11, 2008)

austinbrown2 said:


> I responded to your PM, but seeing how I have never done that before (on this board at least), I'm a wee bit concerned that it didn't work. So... if you didn't get it, let me know.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Austin




I got your PM


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 11, 2008)

Austin, I would say go for it. It distresses me no end that the only writers of imagination in the Christian world have been either Roman Catholic or Anglican. Reformed writers almost pride themselves on having no imagination, and in fiction that is death. Appropriate disclaimers as to what you are trying to do and not do are appropriate. If you were claiming to add to Scripture, that would be one thing. However, an imaginative retelling is something different.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 11, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Austin, I would say go for it. It distresses me no end that the only writers of imagination in the Christian world have been either Roman Catholic or Anglican. Reformed writers almost pride themselves on having no imagination, and in fiction that is death. Appropriate disclaimers as to what you are trying to do and not do are appropriate. If you were claiming to add to Scripture, that would be one thing. However, an imaginative retelling is something different.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 11, 2008)

*Re:*

Thanks for the encouragement Greenbaggins. And yes, I have to agree. Imagination is often in short supply amongst Christians, let alone in Reformed circles. Or maybe I should say that good imagination is in short supply.

ChristopherPaul:

I think those are sound words. The last thing I want to do is join the ranks of those gnostic writers whereby they wrote about the apostles talking with the Lord about all kinds of wild and unhinged things. May it never be! 

Py3ak:

Naturally it is quite impossible to get into the mind of an angel. I have a hard enough time with humans, let alone other beings in another dimension. 

That being said, yes, I do want to try, but only for the sake of teaching certain doctrinal truths which might be overlooked by many a layman because they aren't willing to pick up Turretin or Calvin or Edwards, men who do ponder deep truths and have unearthed wonderful truths from the Scriptures. 


Cheers all,

Austin


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 11, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Milton was brilliant, no doubt, but I think William Blake nailed it when he said, "The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet, and of the Devil’s party without knowing it."



Ha! Blake had Milton come back and be purged from his puritanism, and then go to hell. Do you trust his quotations?

Adam


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 11, 2008)

For what it's worth....

Calvin Miller has written a similar fiction, though it is set in modern times. The name of his book is "The Valiant Papers". Very similar to Lewis' "Screwtape Letters".

Also, I used to be a big fan of Frank Peretti, I now believe he crosses the line into vain imaginations that you are trying so hard not to cross.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 11, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > Milton was brilliant, no doubt, but I think William Blake nailed it when he said, "The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet, and of the Devil’s party without knowing it."
> ...



Well, I think Blake's quote could apply equally to himself, for his attacks on orthodox Christianity, and for writing "at liberty" in _The Marriage of Heaven and Hell_, although I do not presume to know the state of anyone's soul. Nevertheless, Milton, while he favored the Puritans initially came to despise them and may even be rightly considered as an Arian if he indeed wrote _De Doctrina Christiana_. So, it may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. However, my overall point is simply that I agree with Blake that, in my opinion, Milton succumbed to the literary temptation of putting words in the mouths of Satan (who can forget "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heav'n") and portraying God the Son in a manner that elevates the former, in both a literary sense and theological, at the expense of the latter. This is a danger when making them into characters who must be given dialogue and development; or turning to characters like Raphael who clearly add extra-Biblical and heretical teachings about the origin of the Son to the Biblical narrative of _Paradise Lost_. I know there is debate over whether Satan is the hero or not and everyone will have an opinion, but one ought not to read an epic poem about the Fall and come away with uncertainty about such matters. So, Milton, genius that he was, in my opinion, did write in fetters about God, but not so about Satan.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 11, 2008)

Austin, you just said that you want to do something impossible: don't you think that's going to be rather challenging? I don't want to put myself in the position of being the bitter grouch, here, but I think you're going to run into a lot of difficulty. There are several problems: one is the problem of the pitfalls of banality and cutesiness. It would be very easy to make the angels talk like saps. I don't think those august being are really apt for the purposes of even morally earnest fiction.

In other words, in addition to the theological concerns (where the usage of angels binds you into difficulties which I don't see a way through), there are literary and critical concerns. I think you've chosen a form which makes the exercise of imagination be largely limited to the invention of names. Your explicitly didactic purpose raises another difficulty: you are endeavouring to communicate human-perspective knowledge from a platform of acknowledged ignorance. 

I'm all for using your imagination; but I think this idea is too involved for it to be a successful venture, whether you consider it as a work of imagination or as a work of instruction. 

You can see in the remarkable story, _Unworthy of the Angel_, that even a great writer like Stephen R. Donaldson cannot do a whole lot with angels: they don't lend themselves to good fiction. Lewis had to employ the help of mythology to supplement Ezekiel.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 11, 2008)

P.S. to Andrew: Douglas Bush's remarks in his introduction to _The Portable Milton_ on the question of Satan are worth considering: it has some sane criticism in it.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 11, 2008)

Andrew,

I hold the position that Milton did not write DDC.

With the title being Paradise _*Lost*_, one could hardly expect the emphasis to be uplifting and victorious; hence the Satan theme. I think Milton engaged in poetic license, but I don't think that it should be thought of as a theological treatise, but as a creative and thought-provoking epic drama.

The same may be said of many of Shakespeare's classical and pagan illusions; take them as they were intended, and you can see what he's getting at. Take them with a literal eye, and you will condemn them.

Then again, I do happen to be partial to Milton, so I'm probably not that unbiased.

Cheers,

Adam





VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Well, I think Blake's quote could apply equally to himself, for his attacks on orthodox Christianity, and for writing "at liberty" in _The Marriage of Heaven and Hell_, although I do not presume to know the state of anyone's soul. Nevertheless, Milton, while he favored the Puritans initially came to despise them and may even be rightly considered as an Arian if he indeed wrote _De Doctrina Christiana_. So, it may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. However, my overall point is simply that I agree with Blake that, in my opinion, Milton succumbed to the literary temptation of putting words in the mouths of Satan (who can forget "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heav'n") and portraying God the Son in a manner that elevates the former, in both a literary sense and theological, at the expense of the latter. This is a danger when making them into characters who must be given dialogue and development; or turning to characters like Raphael who clearly add extra-Biblical and heretical teachings about the origin of the Son to the Biblical narrative of _Paradise Lost_. I know there is debate over whether Satan is the hero or not and everyone will have an opinion, but one ought not to read an epic poem about the Fall and come away with uncertainty about such matters. So, Milton, genius that he was, in my opinion, did write in fetters about God, but not so about Satan.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Jul 11, 2008)

*Py3ak and Southern Presbyterian*

SP, I wasn't aware of the book "The Valiant Papers." Thank you for mentioning that. If Amazon is any indication, it looks like it didn't do well.

Py3ak, I'm afraid you're right. I definately sense these difficulties. But more than the literary challenges, I still feel this uncomfortable feeling swirling about me that all of this is treading far too close to the whole vain imaginations thing. Besides, if C.S. Lewis considered the topic and refrained, then who am I.

I don't know. I'll mess with it, write a bit here and there and then post some here to obtain a "Yea" or "Nay."

Thank you all. It's good to know that a brother can get good advice, yes, even on the Internet.

Cheers,
Austin

P.S. I do think I have a good theory about the nature of the fall of Satan and how that relates to the human drama (Like why. I was hoping to express that through this medium. If not there, then I suppose I'll have to cause a raucous in one of these threads  (Just kidding).


----------



## staythecourse (Jul 11, 2008)

Write sermons not fiction. There you can expound truth. There the angles talk for God and carry out some awesome feats of destruction and salvation for us. The angels speak for God and do what He says. They are fearsome, they are earnest, they are loyal to God, but not human. The only difference I see in the angels is there strength, glory, duties, and nearness to God (in proximity and revelation) Scripture has them as stern and severe messengers who protect or judge.


----------



## etexas (Jul 11, 2008)

I am not going to say what I think of your topic for a book, I will say this: It concerns me that it concerns you. Holy-Writ say what does not come from faith is sin. The very fact you seem disturbed by it at this juncture would make me say if this does not feel right to your heart or mind you should pray about it, talk about it with your Pastor, then pray again. If it still seem not totally right in your conscience, I would say drop it.  Grace and Peace.


----------

