Writing Fiction = Presumption/Idolatry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
VerticalLiftEnjoyer

VerticalLiftEnjoyer

Puritan Board Freshman
I was reading an article about the imagination today, and a scruple I’ve been having for several months now reappeared: is it presumption to write God’s actions in fiction? Or idolatry?

He has no say in what we write with His name save for His prescribed will, and if we’re essentially creating a fictional “God” with each story; planning what He shall do, whom He shall elect (if any salvation be seen) and what He shall will to pass. There was a thread on this in the ancient days, and it touched upon the subject exactly. I’ll be ignoring Dabney’s points, as he’s merely saying that fiction is infectious and unprofitable (something debatable in my eyes), but the Free Presbyterian article speaks on this directly.

The point was only touched on once in the thread, and not to my satisfaction.
 
Would any sermon illustration that uses fiction or conceives of a fictional hypothetical be included as well?
 
Polanus1561 said:
Would any sermon illustration that uses fiction or conceives of a fictional hypothetical be included as well?
Click to expand...
The article (the only base for this view; Dabney's complaint was only fiction's uselessness If I recall correctly) covered this, classifying that as a parable at best, an allegory at worst.
1699247310310.png
 
This might be off-topic, but this is for OP and everyone else that is interested in the topic of fiction:

my wife and I were talking last night and we were bemoaning the members in our church who regularly watch the Chosen TV series. The 2CV is bad enough, but the posted dialogues are theologically questionable and the so-called Christian producers supported their LGBT crew in their posting rainbow flags around the set.

Anyway, we were talking about Biblical fiction, and I told my wife one day I was desperate for theologically sound fiction that I watched a Samson movie that was free online, and (of course) was even more deeply frustrated by the story being hamfisted into the normal Hollywood structure of epic hero stories (and as always, the Philistine women - even Delilah - was a sympathetic character as if they did out of fear or hope that the Philistines would still not succeed and she was shocked and broken into pure pity and compassion when they triumphed over him; utterly ridiculous interpretation that I think borders on a satanic twist of Scripture).

So bottom line is: I was telling her I still wish there was theologically sound fiction. Like if the KJV of the story was printed and around the edges of the Scripture was a fictional rounding out of known historical details and other points of theological and edifying interest from other linking verses in Scripture and all comments firmly planted on the Bible (in other words, Reformed confessional interpretation).

Like a fictional commentary.

Like a commentary for people who don't enjoy reading commentaries.
Or Biblical fiction for people who hate all past forms and modes of Biblical fiction.

What would you think of that idea for a project?
 
Last edited:
John Owen engaged his own publisher to have John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" printed. It immediately became a best-seller, becoming the second most read book in the world (after the Bible). Who was purchasing and reading it?

I say this merely to point out that it seems that quite a few Puritans didn't have anything against fiction in itself, although they absolutely would have objected to the content of much fiction that was published.

Bunyan wrote about what was clearly already revealed by God about himself in Scripture but he (almost certainly wisely) didn't make God a character in his book. Just an observation.

I know in many sermons Calvin paraphrased what God was saying, "it is as if he were telling us...", but again, that was directly from Scripture and not an imaginary conversation or saying. It seems to me to be dangerous to create a God who does or says anything other than what he has revealed about himself. I wouldn't dare.
 
Logan said:
Bunyan wrote about what was clearly already revealed by God about himself in Scripture but he (almost certainly wisely) didn't make God a character in his book. Just an observation.
Click to expand...

I think the OP objects to the use of God doing things in fiction like affirming Faithful died as a martyr by presenting to Christian the vision of him being taken up to glory. To this (misguided) view, Bunyan is usurping the role of God by dictating what God would do in this fictional setting.

The article the OP presents presumes any use of fiction uses imagination and that "our darkened self-centered imaginations have oftentimes “exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator" while not being careful to make the categorical distinction between imaginations pre-regeneration (Romans 1) and that while we are exhorted to cast down imaginations that dare exalt themselves above God, we are not prohibited from the use of imagination altogether.

The article does not account for a carte blanche approval for us as believers to do all kinds of work as it is done unto the Lord (Col. 3:23) with the understanding now that any job that is impossible to do unto the Lord is out of bounds (slave-master, trafficker, drug dealer, bookie, IRS agent, and - so I have been told - physics teacher etc etc)
 
VerticalLiftEnjoyer said:
is it presumption to write God’s actions in fiction? Or idolatry?
Click to expand...
Another previous thread addressed that topic more directly:

Representing a Divine Person as speaking

There are many ways in which words have been, so to speak, put in the mouth of one of the Persons of the Trinity; but are all those ways equivalent, and are they all bad? One way of "putting words in God's mouth" no one who subscribes to the Confession (and indeed, I think no one who has...
www.puritanboard.com www.puritanboard.com
 
Some previous discussions on fiction here:

Holiness, world culture, and its arts

Holiness, world culture, and its arts

I was carefully considering the various points of view in the recent (now locked down) “http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/evils-drama-30417/” thread, and thought I would recast the issues in a different form: Holiness, world culture, and its art, and their places in our lives. Of course this...
www.puritanboard.com www.puritanboard.com

Holiness, world culture, and the arts revisited

Holiness, world culture, and the arts revisited

I’ve written on this topic here at PB once before, and due to a recent thread on TV and Film (shut down, as these sort of threads often are, due to a conscience-binding type of legalism that flares up, even if unintentionally), I have been thinking about it again, two years after my earlier...
www.puritanboard.com www.puritanboard.com
 
Last edited:
VerticalLiftEnjoyer said:
The article (the only base for this view; Dabney's complaint was only fiction's uselessness If I recall correctly) covered this, classifying that as a parable at best, an allegory at worst.
View attachment 10656
Click to expand...
Tolkien and C.S. Lewis come to mind. Both authors have written fictions that symbolically represented biblical concepts and are widely embraced by people on this board. I'd have to read more of Dabney's interpretation of fiction to get a better understanding of where he's going with this. But, he doesn't appear too antagonistic to fiction me. Seems like he's just pointing out the difference between fiction and parables. Now as for the usefulness of fictions, that's pretty subjective in terms of spiritual inspiration. For me, the L.O.T.R. was great entertainment, but to this day, I fail to see the Christian message in it. However, I know of several godly men and women who have been inspired spiritually by it. Now, C.S. Lewis' fictions were far more direct and I couldn't miss the relation between his fictions and Christianity. But, I don't pick up a fiction book to get an education, it's purely for entertainment. Generally speaking, to criticize fiction because it useless, is like criticizing a screwdriver because it won't drive a nail.
 
You should maybe try Andrei Tarkovsky's movies. They are not "made for television commentaries," but him being a devout Russian Orthodox most of his movies were Christian allegories. I have only watched two of them so far, most of them being over 3 hours, but each were good. You can watch most of them free on Youtube.
 
As far as representing God in fiction, in all its mediums, is wrong because we are only permitted to represent God as he has revealed himself in scripture. Hence idolatry outside of that.
As far as fiction in general I would apply Dooyeweerd’s thought and say the structure of creation is not inherently sinful (how corrupt the curse is and all) but the direction of development our sinful minds/lusts/etc take it. Its like unfolding the possibilities of creation. But are we unfolding them in a sinful or non-sinful direction?
We are imagining, creative, story telling creatures. So unless those things are inherently sinful activities (imagine trying to convince a parent that telling their children fictitious stories is sinful) they must be adiaphora.
I'm not saying that anyone here is saying that merely providing a helpful way to view cultural activities, not perfect but useful.
 
A 5 day old thread by now, but after some digging I've found some tidbits on puritans and their opinions of it.

George Swinnock in his "The Christian-man's Calling" has something to say on it in the section on Recreation & Pleasures:
Avoid all occasions and appearances of evil; sports sinful in the act, like the play between Abner's and Joab's soldiers, will be bitterness in the end. When Thespis, a poet at Athens, made a play which delighted all the citizens, grave Solon himself went to see it; but when the play was ended, wherein Thespis acted a part, Solon called him to him, and asked him, if he were not ashamed to lie so openly in the face of the whole city? Thespis answered him, that it was no matter, so long as it was but in sport. But Solon, beating his staff on the ground, replied, If we allow lying in sport, we shall shortly find it in earnest in our bargains and dealings. Certainly heathens will another day condemn our mongrel Christians; the sober sort of them seemed to hate and abhor that harlot vice, though presenting herself upon a stage with her painted face, and most gaudy dress, which many among us love and like, and even dote upon her; but such must know that sins in jest will bring at last sufferings in earnest.
Click to expand...

Samuel Shaw in "The True Christian's Test" in the section on Fantastical Pleasures:

Who can sufficiently lament the sad disorder of the Fancy, and the evil that it betrays us to? How unseemly and unjust is it that our thoughts, which are the first-born of our Souls, should be so squandered away in a wild-goose chase, much sillier than children\s pursuing of butterflies, or following of crows through thick and thin, testaquae lutoquae.

O my mind, hast thou so lowly an object, and such important matters to bestow thy self about as God, and the things of Eternal life; and canst thou have leisure to dream away thy time, and spend thy powers upon things that are not, that need not be, that never will be? Dost thou laugh at the Chimerick fictions of Poets, and yet spend thy strength in Poetry? Dost thou account it time next to lost, to read Romances; and yet canst be at leisure every day to make them?

Lord what a fickle, fluid, ungovernable thing is Mans Fancy! How is this contexture of the body a snare to my Soul; diverting, hindering, spoiling its operations? Fancy is a necessary faculty, without which I can perform no action; and alas how has sin got into it, and desiled it, poyson'd the very fountain?
Click to expand...

Yet--and this shocked me when I found out about it--he made a comedy! And apparently some others, too. Perhaps there is a difference between comedy and "theatre" that I'm not aware of, but to write one seems to contradict his own advice. Perhaps someone can help comprehend it? I've found that I'm no good at reinterpreting their sayings (vain conversation; experimental religion; vain sports, etc)
 
Wilhelmus a Brackel in, “A Christian’s Reasonable Service”, vol. 3 pg 232 on the Ninth Commandment negatives:
(2) There are lies for the purpose of entertaining others with fabricated stories. "They make the king glad ... with their lies" (Hos 7:3).
Click to expand...

Edit: Upon further inspection, the verse seems to be speaking of general wickedness. The commentaries were divided to the particulars, but agreed that it was speaking of either idols (“they were given over to believe the lie”) or just flat out slander, lies and false witness. Did I misunderstand a Brackel?
 
Last edited:
Was just thinking about this while I was making dinner, but: fictional, fantastical stories were not unknown in the Lord's day, nor were they even experimental. Warn me if this is a dangerous mode of thought here, but if God viewed fiction as abominable and against the Ninth, would He not have commanded Paul to write on it, especially in such an ungodly & entertained society? Would He not have commanded him, "Keep yourself separated from all such tales of fancy; such a one is given over to false witness."? Yet I see examples of early church fathers using it copiously, with St. Basil saying:

"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.' " (Address to young men on the right use of Greek literature.)
Click to expand...

And if we should only approve of "parables & allegories; truths spoken in other words"--yet what is the limit of advance for such "other words"? Would John Bunyan's Progress turn from a godly and edifying book to a doctrine of demons if he called, "the City of Destruction", Kolechia? And are not all good novels, which build up and edify, merely "truths in other words" & with many extra details of a world only seen by the author?

I hope I don't infect you with my own way of thinking on this, I very much do fear my own sophistry & millstones--but I also hope people will consider it.
 
I don't know that we can draw out too much from what we would expect God to do under certain conditions, because our ability to anticipate God's thoughts is so limited (Isaiah 55:8-9).

But that being said, Paul approvingly quotes Greek authors. The Instructions of Amenemope are incorporated into Proverbs. The creators and enjoyers of literature are responsible for an edifying involvement with it, but Biblical examples and commands do not require an avoidance of it for everyone.
 
VerticalLiftEnjoyer said:
Would John Bunyan's Progress turn from a godly and edifying book to a doctrine of demons if he called, "the City of Destruction", Kolechia?
Click to expand...

What?
VerticalLiftEnjoyer said:
And are not all good novels, which build up and edify, merely "truths in other words" & with many extra details of a world only seen by the author?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone presume the pre-Revolution of the colonies "seen" by Esther Forbes in Johnny Tremain is only "seen" by the author and not the readers as well?
VerticalLiftEnjoyer said:
I hope I don't infect you with my own way of thinking on this
Click to expand...

Not very likely as your own way of thinking on this honestly eludes me.

I have no idea where you come down / will come down (?) re: fiction.
 
No Other Name said:
What?
Click to expand...
If John Bunyan had done anymore worldbuilding beyond the basic outline, would he be guilty of falsehood, for crafting a fictitious world, or would the allegory still stand? (Kolechia is a fictional nation from Papers, Please)

No Other Name said:
Why would anyone presume the pre-Revolution of the colonies "seen" by Esther Forbes in Johnny Tremain is only "seen" by the author and not the readers as well?
Click to expand...

It’s only seen by the author until its published. I’m just arguing for if writing it is sin; if it is, reading it is believing a lie.
 
It seems the argument has shifted. At one point the question concerned whether fanfiction about God was presumption, and a case could be made for that. Now it looks like whether fiction itself is a sin, operating on a very narrow (and probably unworkable) definition of truth and falsity.
 
VerticalLiftEnjoyer said:
It’s only seen by the author until its published. I’m just arguing for if writing it is sin; if it is, reading it is believing a lie.
Click to expand...

Not only do I agree with Jacob above, I would also add that this way of defining fiction removes everything from acceptable - including allegories and parables.

Any hypothetical scenario is a "lie" in this view making not only Bunyan (and so many others with far less famous allegories like Benjamin Keach, R.C. Sproul et al) guilty of sin, but Christ himself would be indicted by this irrational definition.
 
And then Jesus' parables aren't really factual events, nor is the story of the bramble bush in Judges. But no one seriously believed those events occurred and they were "believing a lie."
 
RamistThomist said:
It seems the argument has shifted. At one point the question concerned whether fanfiction about God was presumption, and a case could be made for that. Now it looks like whether fiction itself is a sin, operating on a very narrow (and probably unworkable) definition of truth and falsity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my belief that writing fiction is presumption died out on closer examination. If it’s presumption to use God’s Word to show an X happens so Y follows relationship, then allegories are presumption as well. Perhaps a few cases would have to be trodden carefully, but my pastor agreed (and so did a couple others) that writing God’s actions as He says they will happen (“the soul that sins shall die”) is not sin, nor shoving words in God’s mouth.

The argument that fiction is falsehood is argued in the FPJ article above, saying:

"Fiction is akin to falsehood … in anyway to trifle with truth is not right. ... The admission that a book is a fiction will not pince it on the level of honest history. . . .


On the whole, while we honour the motives of the religious story writer, we cannot approve the methods used, and we believe that the good that is said to be done by his story, is done rather in spite of the fictitious clement, than by means of it; and that the same amount of good might he hetter done by safer and more legitimate means."
Click to expand...

As we see here it’s a very narrow argument. It doesn’t exactly give any borders for what’s allegory and what’s fiction, and subsequently makes everything hostile. The only possible limiting factory is, “fancies and inventions”—yet where does that end and begin? I’m okay with chucking this article out of my thoughts—it’s more a collection of quotes about how evil novels are, and the author himself could only find one strong protest.
 
VerticalLiftEnjoyer said:
Thanks for the resources. I certainly found the stage play section to be helpful, especially with Ames' comments.
Click to expand...
I noticed a conspicuous omission from that section myself, namely Prynne's Histrio-mastix

 
alexmacarie said:
I noticed a conspicuous omission from that section myself, namely Prynne's Histrio-mastix

Click to expand...
The concern on the page is not about whether it’s forbidden by association with evil, but if it’s forbidden at all. The concern in this thread at the moment is whether fictional writings are untruths/false witness, and subsequently outright forbidden.

P.s. I hate when articles like this get into a wrath, calling dissenters sons of hell etc. Stuff like this makes me want to become a monk. No arguing over worldliness when there is no world.
 
VerticalLiftEnjoyer said:
The concern on the page is not about whether it’s forbidden by association with evil, but if it’s forbidden at all. The concern in this thread at the moment is whether fictional writings are untruths/false witness, and subsequently outright forbidden.

P.s. I hate when articles like this get into a wrath, calling dissenters sons of hell etc. Stuff like this makes me want to become a monk. No arguing over worldliness when there is no world.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the page "On Theatre, Stage-Plays, Movies, Acting, etc", as Prynne deals with the subject in itself and also regarding associations. Just seemed quite an omission, given that Puritan laws of the day outlawed acting.

Which article do you mean? If you mean Prynne's book, he was a bit over the top in some of his points.
 
alexmacarie said:
I was referring to the page "On Theatre, Stage-Plays, Movies, Acting, etc", as Prynne deals with the subject in itself and also regarding associations. Just seemed quite an omission, given that Puritan laws of the day outlawed acting.

Which article do you mean? If you mean Prynne's book, he was a bit over the top in some of his points.
Click to expand...
From what I’m seeing, @Travis Fentiman is simply trying to post that acting in itself isn’t sin, nor is a play. The quotes don’t argue much for the institution of theatres themselves (the rest of Baxter’s paragraphs all say it’s a worthless institution due to the culture), but rather the lawfulness of acting. (personally I don’t know why puritans hated it so much other than the below; Swinnock is the only one I’ve seen talking about lying in reference to acting)

What little I’ve read on Stuart-era plays show that they really were just state-funded p0rnography, so on second thought I don’t blame Prynne—but I still think he’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
The quotes don’t argue much for the institution of theatres themselves, but rather the lawfulness of acting.
Click to expand...
Which is why I thought Prynne's work would be appropriate to have a mention in that section. Seeing as he attempts to prove,

by divers Arguments, by the concurring Authorities and Reso∣lutions of sundry texts of Scripture; of the whole Primi∣tive Church, both under the Law and Gospell; of 55 Synodes and Councels; of 71 Fathers and Christian Writers, before the yeare of our Lord 1200; of above 150 foraigne and domestique Protestant and Popish Authors, since; of 40 Heathen Philosophers, Hi∣storians, Poets; of many Heathen, many Christian Nations, Repub∣liques, Emperors, Princes, Magistrates; of sundry Aposto∣licall, Canonicall, Imperiall Constitutions; and of our owne English Statutes, Magistrates, Vniversities, Writers, Preachers.

That popular Stage-playes (the very Pomps of the Divell which we renounce in Baptisme, if we beleeve the Fathers) are sin∣full, heathenish, lewde, ungodly Spectacles, and most pernicious Cor∣ruptions; condemned in all ages, as intolerable Mischiefes to Churches, to Republickes, to the manners, mindes, and soules of men. And that the Profession of Play-poets, of Stage-players; together with the penning, acting, and frequenting of Stage-playes, are unlawfull, infamous and misbeseeming Christians. All pretences to the contrary are here likewise fully answered
Click to expand...

personally I don’t know why puritans hated it so much other than the below
Click to expand...
Might find some insights in that book!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RBachman
  • Locked
Living by Faith versus Presumption
Replies
4
Views
577
Jeri Tanner
Jeri Tanner
Scott
  • Locked
idolatry
Replies
0
Views
2K
Scott
Scott
Shanny01
  • Locked
Idolatry Definition
Replies
6
Views
2K
Shanny01
Shanny01
Wannabee
  • Locked
Theological Idolatry
Replies
3
Views
2K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
W
  • Locked
Theology as idolatry
Replies
3
Views
2K
Peters
P
Back
Top