As the title indicates, this is a dialogue or debate on the subject of writing. It is written by my brothers, Joey, Jamie, and yours truly. When I came to Nicaragua six months ago, one thing that I missed a lot was the friendly debates that would take place 'round the Shantz supper table. This is the improvised replacement for those discussions. The discussion long, and is not finished; it is on going. So perhaps it is better to begin reading with the mindset of a book, instead of a blog. If your have an opinion you wish to add, by all means make yourself be heard! I believe that the topic is of utmost relevance. How do you, as a literate follower of Christ view literature?
On Writing
*NOTE: This is written with the hope of a rebuttal. I love to write – and hope that my writing,
if the Lord wills, is not only justifiable, but also up building.
1.
Jason
In the past
several years, I have thought on, considered, meditated and prayed about no
other career more than that of writing. The irony of writing about writing. Further still, the irony of writing on why
not to write. Though the subject of
writing has consumed many of my waking moments, not all thoughts have been for writing. Some have been antagonistic. Why not write? Let me antagonize writing.
Down
through the ages of history, no other form of communication has been more
timeless than writing. In fact, no other
comes close. The vast majority of what
we know about ancient Egypt, Maya, Rome, Israel – every people group, is from
the written word. The Bible, Koran,
Apocrypha, and Rosetta Stone, as well as the writing of Plato, Aesop, Aristotle
and all the other greats from the past are virtually timeless. Long after all other forms of communication
fade, writing stands.
The written
word is how we learn history. To a
writer, that is sobering. The words of the writer are the sketching
of the face of a culture hundreds of years from now. Yes, we learn from architecture, drawings and
folk lore. But the real core of our
knowledge of a culture is from its writing.
Consider
our schooling system; though loaded with various forms of communicating
information accurately and effectively, is nearly entirely based on the written
word. Not only is writing timeless, it
is effective and accurate as well.
What I mean
by effective is that it can be read and reread by thousands of people. In English, with only 26 characters, pictures
can be painted, stories can be told, people can be informed and emotion can be
expressed. By accurate, I mean that in a
drawing or carving, ideas can be conveyed but nothing exact or definite. For example, you can have a picture of a fat
man. But only by words can you know that
he is 360 pounds. Or in folklore, a
story can be retold, but we all know how unwritten folklore changes over
time.
God knows
this.
He chose to
share his story and plan in a book form.
Remember, Timeless, Effective, and Accurate. The fact that God wrote, should scare the
pens out of the hands of all writers.
Does it not seem that every book written by man is like giving a strong,
freshly brewed mug of hot coffee to a dehydrated man in the desert, when in the
other hand we hold a glass of cool (living) water? When the man is already dehydrated we hand
him a dehydrating beverage. What I mean,
is that every minute spent reading a man-written book, is a minute potentially
spent in the Word of God. Personally, I
know for a fact how much more difficult it is to find meditation and
fulfillment in the Bible when my reading time is split with another book. Nearly without fail, I pick up the “other
book” as my pleasure reading, and then I pick up the Bible, for a few minutes,
as my “swallow without chewing” meditation (or medication) for the day.
Beyond
this, to be a writer, is to put oneself in the public coliseum. Every single writer has critics. I know and understand that we should not let
what others think and say about us determine how we act or what we say, but
really, writers are put through the mill.
Take C. S. Lewis as an example.
By many, considered the elite Christian author of the century, Lewis is
likely the most quoted Christian in the last one hundred years. When I scan a page in nearly any genre of
Christian writing and see the capital letters C. S., I know, nearly for a fact,
that we have another Lewis quote coming.
However, Lewis has critics; lots of critics. Many consider him a mixer of Protestantism,
Catholicism, Greek mythology and whatever else he pleases to put into his
Narnian fantasy. I’m not writing to
defend or condemn Lewis – or I too, would gain a host of critics. Ironically, what I write here is essentially
critically of all writers. Yet it seems
that when pen touches paper the critics stand.
Permit me
to make one more argument to ensure I do
have critics. Is there not enough
Christian books written already about every legitimate and not so legitimate
subject? What more is there to write? What is left to say? What has not been covered by the Christian
author greats of today and yesterday? Or
more, what is not covered in the Holy Bible?
Is not our book shelves packed
with books by “excellent Christian authors” merely a candy coating attempt to
write truth, when Truth himself has authored a perfect script?
What better way to close this writing than with something that we can
know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is true, a Bible verse. Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brethren,
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there
be any virtue, and if there be
any praise, think on these things.”
Doesn’t that have “Bible” written all over it? What other book and author dare compete?
2. Joey and Jamie
Wowee
brother,
You know
how to make a guy think!!! I enjoy when we disagree, no matter how minute
(sometimes we don't even disagree- one of us just argues the other side for a
while for strict enjoyment) because without fail an all-out debate ensues, in
which many spiritual and deep matters get touched upon and brought in to
support our view or decry the others. Much, much fun!! I only wish that this
discussion could take place over the kitchen table and a coffee rather than
over these newfangled computers.... :) here goes, o yes, and Jamie got sucked
in to the debate already to because as soon as any debateable topic comes up
than the rest of us seem to smell it out and get involved. Jamie emailed some
thoughts that he had and they're included.
You
started your article with several paragraphs of pros to writing. These boiled
down into 3 words: timeless, effective, and accurate. I won’t bother expounding
on the truth of those as being pros to writing because you obviously already
see them as that.
The
first line that I actually disagreed with was in the paragraph starting with
the line "He chose to share his story..." In there you say how man’s
writing is like coffee to a dying man when what he needs is water. I don't
think that’s quite accurate. If a claimed Christian authors work is
"coffee" than that person is not writing Christian work. Jamie put it
this way- it’s more like giving them a cup of water, not the well. I hope that it is leading them to the well,
pointing the way to the well. It better be refreshing or its not Christian
work.
See the
Christian writing is not taking away from the Bible. It also is not adding to
it. It is merely speaking about the Truths of the Bible in another way, quite
possibly showing Biblical Truth in a story form. Man learns so much from
stories. Hard concepts and ideas are understood when expressed through a story
that the individual reading can identify with.
The
article ends with the verse from Philippians, and I believe that this verse can
actually add to the argument to write Christian literature. The writing must be
about things that are true, honest, just etc... Writing, whether it be story,
admonition, blog, etc. etc. that exudes these qualities is living out Philippians
4:8. It’s expressing these very things that we are supposed to! It’s not
detracting from it because it is the fulfillment of thinking on these things.
The
example of us being drawn to the "other" book rather than the Bible
is not a problem with the author of the book but rather the reader.
This may
come across as heresy so I'll need to hear your thoughts on it. But do we
possibly have a slightly wrong impression of Truth... Truth is God, which is
way bigger than Words. This is why the KJV is not the only way. Truth can be
said in different ways as long as the Truth does not change. See
the words in the Bible spell out Truth. What Truth is, what it looks like, and
how we can know it. So if that Truth, the same Truth, not in the same words,
but still that same Truth is presented in a book other than the Bible is it not
still Truth. I mean, just because it is no longer between two black covers
doesn’t somehow not make it Truth. It does put an incredible amount of
responsibility on the author to make sure that their writing is still Truth.
It’s not adding, not taking away, just presenting Truth again and again and
again in different stories, in different songs, in different blogs, in
different newspaper articles and essays and speeches and messages.... Read Mark
9:38-41 if the book is for God and its pointing to Him and its showing Him
off, I believe it’s blessed by Him.
Here are
some of Jamie’s thoughts the way he wrote them:
1) Jesus
himself used stories or parable to explain things. I do not
know that he actually wrote these but it shows that stories can be
instructive in a good way.
2) By writing you can preserve God’s work in you to the next
generation. By this I mean that people can learn from your writings
what may have taken you years of experience to figure out. Even though
you are not creating something new, your unique perspective may
benefit others in the future. (I particularly like this one because I like to
do this all the time in my classroom. Tell my kids about something that I've
learned so that hopefully when faced with a similar experience (i.e. respecting
my parents when they don't want me to play in that hockey tourney) that they'll
know better how to respond)
3) By writing something such as a blog you may be inspiring someone
else to a deeper relationship with Christ. Writing with biblical
principles can be a way to guide someone toward God. Perhaps this can
be compared to listening to a message. What you are being taught in a
message is from the Bible yet it has many thoughts in it that are not
necessarily taken directly from scripture. What you hear may inspire
you and likewise a well written story or blog may inspire someone
else.
Beyond
this I think too that there is something, and I'm not sure I can capture the
idea and explain it correctly, but that we have the mind of Christ... Think
about that for a minute, when Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 2:16 that we have the mind
of Christ and then again in Phil 2:5 that we're supposed to have the mind of
Christ, what did he mean?? I remember Collier Berkshire speaking on it at the
tent meetings... He meant exactly that -- that we would love like he does, hate
what he hates, show compassion, give and give and give... And so when we write
we have this amazing opportunity to engage in something God did! Not coming up
with new Truth, just writing about Him and what He wrote because He has given
us the mind of Christ- we now think like Him. It’s like art- that’s so amazing
that we can express beauty on a canvas, similar in small ways to how God
expressed beauty when He created the world. And I really think that God puts
these different desires and dreams into His people to be glorified by them
discovering them and then performing these little pictures of God and His abilities
and His attributes here on His earth.
I really
wish we could be talking rather than writing...
Can’t
wait to hear back!!!
God
bless bro, love ya
3. Jason
A most
excellent and entertaining rebuttal, who knew that the topic of “writing” could
produce such an excellently debateable topic?
Yes, excellently written and thought out to the both of you. However, I have a few “cranial puffs” which I
wish to engage you in. So let’s enter
the ring for Round Two!
That idea of writing being a vehicle or avenue of expressing truth is
a classic, epic truth. You can’t make
more truth, just like you can’t create or invent another element. The Periodic Table of Elements isn’t growing. My cellphone, the ground in the garden, and
the toenail on your big toe, are all made from elements found on the Periodic
Table of Elements. You can’t make more
elements. You can, however, arrange the
elements in a new way to create a “new” product. The Bible is our Periodic Table of
Elements. It is Truth. You can’t make more truth; all you can do is
rearrange the “elements” of Truth to create a new perspective, a new
story. It is a different method, but
still the unchanging Truth. Yes, an
excellent point. As one wise old sage
put it, “The Truth is the Truth is the Truth!”
You very easily and smoothly brushed
away one of my better points! You said,
regarding what I said, that “the example of us being drawn to the "other" book rather than
the Bible is not a problem with the author of the book but rather the
reader”. I think that I understand what
you’re saying, and maybe even agree, but I am compelled to mention something on
the subject. Yes, it is true. First and foremost, we are responsible for
ourselves, but notice what the Bible says about our responsibility to our brothers. Rom 14:21 “It is good not to eat meat or drink
wine (or write books!) or do anything that causes your brother to
stumble.” Yes, I know that many books
are intended to bring a person closer to
God and not farther away, but consider what I read recently, ironically, in a
book, “(In) many of these books, your mind can remain in neutral. The author carries you along from exciting
event to exciting event, always tantalizing you and tempting you to continue
on. But the Bible is different. It demands that you get involved. It requires you to analyze your life and make
hard choices. It isn’t always easy to
understand and requires time for meditation.” (Gary Miller, “Charting a Course”
pg. 87)
I think to analyze and illuminate the truth of this whole discussion
is that writing MUST cause the reader to THINK!
I agree, writing as a whole, is not – no, cannot, be wrong. However, I question the validity of reading,
or writing, solely for the purpose of pleasure.
Is not “pleasure reading” solely putting the mind into a pathetic state
of neutral dormancy? Writing must cause
the reader to think, to get involved; to work!
The reader must become a part of the story. He needs in some way to see himself in the
characters or plot of the story. John
Bunyan was an expert at this; consider his works, “The Pilgrim’s Progress” and
“The War against Man Soul” (not sure if that is the right title). These timeless books can hardly be read
without the reader seeing a shocking image of one’s self from page to page. I’ve heard it said too, that a writer must
write to bring change. To inform is good, but what is information
without reformation?
Something more that I recently read on the topic of writing that I
thought is most definitely worth mentioning; is a reaffirmation of its
timelessness. In his book “Don’t Waste
Your Life” John Piper says this of C. S. Lewis, of all people. “He has
made me wary of chronological snobbery.
This is, he showed me that newness is no virtue and oldness is no
vice. Truth and beauty and goodness are
not determined by when they exist.
Nothing is inferior for being old, and nothing is valuable for being
modern. This has freed me from the
tyranny of novelty and opened for me the wisdom of the ages.” (pg. 19, “Don’t Waste Your Life”)
I think that is valuable wisdom.
I fear we sometimes get caught up in the “new best seller list”
mentality, when some of the best literary minds lived long before “best seller
lists” ever existed. The best of writing
can scarcely be confined by time.
This is definitely not conclusive, but there are a few more
thoughts. Would love to hear more from
any of you on this!
-Jason
4. Joey
Once
again some interesting and wise thoughts!
To the
point about causing our brother to stumble, I don't think that Bible would say
that we should stop doing good when our brother says it is causing him to
stumble... What if I were to say that my spiritual life took a hit when you
left for Nicaragua... would that than mean that you going was wrong? Not
necessarily, in my opinion. It does have to make you pause and consider, but neither
should our brothers perceived "stumbling blocks" stop us from God's
plan for our life. Mr. Lichty made me think once when we were talking about
keeping the Sabbath… ((((Another huge debate topic right there :))))) And we
were discussing along the lines of how the Sabbath was made for man, not man
for the Sabbath. And then I tried saying the "don't want to make our
brother stumble" line. And his comment to that, was who are we making to
stumble?? Are we causing newborn Christians to stumble and get a distorted
picture of God and His Word?? In which case, it would be completely wrong. OR
are we shaking up some old traditionalists who are perhaps spiritually weak of
their very own accord and are doing nothing to change their state – for which
it then should not be considered causing to stumble, since they are very
well in need of thinking a little more about their walk anyhow.... All of this
to say that I'm convinced that not all books draw away from the Bible, and that
the problem of choosing the book over the Bible lies far more often with the
reader than the writer. This is assuming that the book is one that points to
the Bible and reiterates its Truth.
I
definitely agreed with your point about "good" books needing to cause
you to think not just slip into a dormancy state. However, I may challenge that
slightly as well.... :) I don't think I would go so far as to say that every
book that we read must be of a deep spiritual nature causing one to
philosophize during each read... The book must be appropriate in that it does
not draw away from God or detract from Him in any way. However, does an
afternoon nap bring any more or less glory to God than reading a book that is
completely amoral??
And so I
100% agree- books written to bring change (the #1 being the Bible) are of much
greater importance and thus should be of highest importance in our lives. Other
books as many other things in our lives must align themselves and fall in place
behind....
Very
interesting....
-Joey
5. Jason
I really
appreciated what you said about causing our brother to stumble. I find it difficult to know how responsible
we actually are to our brothers. Perhaps
it is a case by case situation.
I would like to think a bit on Paul’s
stated creed. “Wherefore, if meat make
my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make
my brother to offend.” I Cor. 8:13 (KJV)
I think
that we often use the word “offend” differently that the KJV Bible
definition. I think the Bible speaks of
an “offence” as a sin, while modern society defines “offence” as an act
contrary to someone’s personal desires.
Or perhaps this verse is speaking of an offence (the “act against
personal desire” type) against God, which in turn would be sin, because
anything against God’s wishes is sin.
You spoke
of a book that is entirely amoral.
Amoral; whenever the word comes up in debate or discussion my brain is awash
with a mixture of confusion and apprehension.
What does “amoral” actually mean?
Does it not mean that something is neither right nor wrong in and of
itself? It is a cute definition, but
perhaps slightly shallow. Should not a
so called “amoral” subject or thing be defined by the moral aspects that make
it up? Certainly, the “amoral book” of
which we talk will have moral topics and issues play into it, hence making it
moral; morally good or morally bad. This
all sounds pretty good until you use this philosophy in the afternoon nap
example.
Here is how
the “nothing is amoral” reasoning would be applied.
The
afternoon nap seems amoral, but is it?
What if there is something that God wanted us to do instead isn’t it
morally wrong to nap? Or maybe God
wanted us to be rested for something coming up, so wouldn’t it be morally wrong
to not have taken the nap? Wait a minute, morally wrong to not take a
nap? Did I just say that? I kind of like this idea!
Clearly, I
am confused. Can you expound on the
meaning of amoral? I believe that the
topic of moral vs. amoral is of utmost import when speaking On Writing.
-Jason
6. Jamie
I do believe that there are things
in this life that are amoral. Not EVERY single little decision in life is
a moral decision. As Joey's example was: whether or not I wear black or white
socks makes no difference to God. It is an entirely amoral decision with no
consequences.
However, I would say that in
something as big as a book (at least a book of any reasonable length) there
will always be either good or bad morals presented in it. To write a book that
would have no good or bad morals presented would consist of a book with almost
no plot as there could be no big decisions made. So I would say that
every book will present good or bad morals.
In worldviews class we talked
about it a bit how worldly books and movies often present a worldview as an
underlying theme or promote things such as abortion or other issues as being ok
even if the book or movie does not directly state that. Morals are
sometimes hidden almost in the background of a story yet can cause us to think
that maybe this sin or issue may not be so bad after all. It's something that
we must watch for in worldly literature. This being said, I would also believe
that a book that presents good morals is a perfectly fine read.
You, Jason, are familiar with the
story of Lord of the Rings. In this story there is a fight between
good and evil. The good side wins and the evil that is displayed in the story
is condemned--not glorified in any way. A book must have evil in it for
good to be triumphant.
This is seen all the time in the
Bible. There are countless stories--particularly in the Old Testament where
good is displayed because of the evil that has been condemned. The Bible does
not ignore the evil, because that part of the story is necessary for us to see
just how great God's forgiveness and goodness are. Back to Lord of the
Rings; I believe that a book such as this is a perfectly fine read because
it presents good Biblical morals. Evil is not glorified but is present so that
we can see just how good, the good really is. So in my opinion, books are not
amoral, but a book that condemns evil and exalts good, is fine for a Christian
to read---or write.
The question that I cannot answer;
is how much evil may a book contain – even if it is condemned – before it is no
longer a worthwhile read. If a book is causing you as a Christian to
focus too much on the evil and the evil in the story is affecting your thought
life then it is time to stop reading that book.
However, many books do not do this
and we see evil condemned and good glorified. Lord of the Rings is
a good example of this. I really enjoy the Lord of the Rings series
and though it was not written as an allegory for the biblical story, it
contains many biblical truths that cause me to reflect on my own life and even
on what Jesus went through to pay for the sins that I have committed. It's a
wonderful read.
Anyway, I went a little beyond the
question of whether books are amoral or not with my opinions but I had to add
my two cents to this debate sometime =). I really want to hear what you
think of this... It is something that I
have thought about quite a bit since your first email and I have used some of
the thoughts from a book that we are reading in Literature class called Lit-A
Christian Guide to Reading Books.
Anyway, would love to hear all of
your thoughts on this,
-Jamie
7.
Jason
Yes, thank
you Jamie for adding your two cents! You
bring up some very relevant and interesting points. What you have to say about “amoralism” I
believe, is true. Moral decisions are
the making of a plot. I also appreciated
what you said about writers “hiding” their morality; it’s serious, dangerous,
and true.
What I’m not
so sure about what you said, was how much credit you gave to Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. Yes, I am familiar with the story but I
don’t feel knowledgeable enough to properly assess it. This is my caution; you alluded to it, but I
wish to expound.
We must be
careful that what we call “good” when we are reading is actually “good”. For example, I could write a book about bank
robbers and write it from the perspective of the robbers. I could depict the detective as the
antagonist. I could make him ugly and
intellectually challenged. Then I could
make the robbers funny, friendly and smart.
Without consciously thinking about it, the reader begins to “cheer” for
evil simply because it was presented as good.
They find themselves rooting for the robber. Just because something is presented as good
in a book does not mean that it actually is good. What is to say that “good” is actually
winning in The Lord of the Rings? Imagine the story written from the
perspective of the middle earthlings, why could they not be good? What did they do to be deemed bad? At times, Satan is presented as the “angel of
light”; beautiful, inviting, powerful but wrong. He is a mirage of truth.
You
mentioned the question of how much evil can, and should, be present in
writing. Something to remember; good is
not the absence of evil – evil, is the absence of good. Or in other words, passivism is not good, it
is bad. It is evil. Jesus wasn’t passive, and we shouldn’t be
either. Passivism mixes warm water with
cool water and the Bible is clear that lukewarm water is bad.
I wonder too
how much “bad” can be present in a book without being inappropriate. If I were to write a book and attempt to
publish it by a Christian publisher, with some of the things that the Bible
says in it, I would no doubt be considered vulgar and very likely asked to
change my script. What is the answer? Why did God put some of seemingly sensual
things in the Bible?
8.
Joey
Ok, I must stick my feet back into
the fire. It's been awhile since I've thrown any extra fuel on so here goes.
:)
So going back to Jason’s second last
email I must affirm a couple points! In your opening paragraph you say that as
far as the causing a brother to stumble thing it is probably a case by case and
I totally agree. 2 paragraphs later you make the point on the word "offence"
that the Bible is speaking of, as being sin and what we commonly refer to
as "offence" as being an act contrary to someone's personal
desire. Again I couldn’t agree more. And I think that makes a huge difference
in how we live our lives. Not that we try to go against peoples personal
desires but... ya, you made the point why am I expounding on it????
The second last paragraph in that
email is about the afternoon nap thing and I can't fully agree with the
questions thrown out there. I do believe that there’s a point that a nap could
be wrong at times or very necessary at others but I really don't think God
wants us to live under a constant cloud of do I? Or don't I? Probably the
colour of the socks makes it even clearer than the nap- can you imagine all of
heaven cheering "he selected the white socks on today, Monday, Oct 29!!!
Yeah!!!" or "O NO, he choose the black socks and the Father fully had
in mind that today was the white ones with the grey tips.." Obviously not,
in my world! Freedom in Christ is a huge
and necessary part of a mature Christian. Think of Paul radically eating
"defiled" meat that had *horrors* been set in front of a block of
wood!! That was ground breaking at the time and a sign that someone was actually
feeling the heart of God; as opposed to someone hung up on a “do or do not”
religion.
Jamie presented a great case as well
in his email! And it was so good that maybe if both Jay and I take a bit of a
run at a couple of his points we'll convince him to write again in defence :)
I agree with his point about evil
needing to be present if redemption of any sort is to happen in the book.
However, in my opinion, The Lord of the Rings is not an
accurate picture of redemption... throwing a ring that has mystical powers
into a burning mountain? Especially when you read the history about the
rings and strange creatures involved and then the rings being forgotten for a
while... and then also how Frodo seems almost unsatisfied at the end of the
books too and decides to go to this otherworld... (Or do I understand the book
wrong?) And on that note, why is it all these Christians who are trying to hold
the book up and say it is "good" because of its Christian aspects,
when the author himself says it has nothing to do with religion. I mean shouldn’t
he be the guy that knows if he meant it to be or not?? Maybe after all it is
just the thriller he meant it to be....
And then this ties into what Jason
was saying in your last email; I agree with the line that we must be
careful that what we call "good" is actually "good". And
that just because something is presented as good does not necessarily make it
good. Consider that just as God is Truth, God is Good. Goodness does not come
from anywhere else. And so in The Lord of the Rings case, in order for
the book or any book to be deemed "good" it must than show God's
character, right? Now I know I haven’t read the series, so someone fill me
in... Does it show God's character?? Or is it rather a thriller where
"bad" tries to conquer "good" and eventually after many
heart pounding and emotionally traumatic sweat inducing climaxes
"good" finally does prevail?? Like what characteristics of God are
the "good" of the story? Is it the rings- surely not, rings are
evil!! :) ok I put that in as comic relief :) but the basic story line, and I
know I'm debating on grounds I should not be not having read the books, is that
these rings which were made thousands of years ago with special powers and thus
and thus and thus before finally being discovered by 2 dudes at the bottom
of a river. Immediately the 1 guy kills the other so he can have the
ring. Eventually the ring is in the hand of a good guy and the books
revolve around that guy needing to destroy the ring by throwing it
into the fires of Mordor or something... All of that to ask, what exactly
is the "good" in this story?? Remember the definition. Or debate the
definition- take your pick, I'm cool with either or :)
Now another aspect I have to comment
on from Jason’s last email is the thoughts in the last paragraph about
passivism. See I think there are times where passivism is fine, it’s
irrelevant. It’s along the same lines as amoral. If you offer me an apple or a
banana- and you say I may take my pick; then I say I really don't care,
throw me one. Than what else could you describe that attitude than being
than passive?? In my opinion, that decision is void of good and bad. It’s amoral.
It’s not lacking good, nor is it lacking bad, simply because it doesn’t even
have those characteristics... I think there has to be a realm of the amoral.
Can a book be amoral??? ....I would probably lean towards yes.... for now :)
9.
Jason
To begin, I
want to tackle the seemingly joint topic of passivism and moralism. Perhaps for starters we need to refocus. Passivism and a moralism are mute points when
they do not have consequences of a moral nature. Which socks or fruit are morally unimportant
decisions. However, at times, seemingly
morally unimportant decisions take on gigantic moral consequences. For Adam and Eve, the fruit that they ate was
an extremely important decision.
However, that story is interesting.
Satan took an extremely important decision and made its importance look
meniscal. Satan does that. He takes very important decisions and masks
them appear as amoral everyday decisions.
He did it to Eve and he will do it to you. And so, look out, beware! Something that seems unimportant may actually
be a decision that affects mankind. Yes,
I agree Joey, passivism is not inherently wrong, but we must not let it infiltrate
moral aspects of our lives.
Joey, you said that you believe a book
can be amoral. Therefore you must
disagree with Jamie’s definition of such a book. I quote Jamie, “To write a book that would have no good or bad
morals presented would consist of a book with almost no plot as there could be
no big decisions made. So I would say that every book will present good
or bad morals.”
Also I would like to quote you,
Joey, “in order for the book (Lord of the Rings) or any book to
be deemed "good" it must than show God's character.” So I believe what you are then saying is that
for a book to be amoral it will not show the character of God or the character
of Satan – who loves all which God hates.
Again, to me, this thought process
of a book being amoral is extremely dangerous.
A writer has extreme power. A
reader generally accepts his “pleasure books” as truth. Yes, perhaps as fiction, but as basically
good and reliable. Pleasure reading is
not first and foremost done with the purpose of criticizing. The purpose, first and foremost, is pleasure. This is big stuff folks! The writer’s world view and view on many
issues is hidden in his writing. And we
accept it as truth without mentally processing it.
Take the
popular comic book of Calvin and Hobbs as an example; if any book could be
amoral this would be it. But then think
of his respect level for his parents, his non resistance level, and his
relationships with his friends. Folks is
his life something we endorse? I’m
beginning to think not. Why would you
want your son pleasure reading about a boy who has relational problems with his
dad?
On top of
all that, why do we teach our children all the Old Testament stories? Many are bloody, gory, some even immoral and
definitely not at all filled with the “New Law”. Is it healthy or unhealthy for young children
to be hearing these stories? Obviously,
God had a purpose for the Old Testament, what it was exactly I’m not sure. The “heroes” in the Old Testament stories
used methods that we would never consider using. But without blinking we accept them as good
stories and teach them faithfully to our children. What in these stories, do we actually see
that is a true picture of the mind and heart of God of the New Testament?
Jamie, you
tell me what you see in “Lord of the Rings” that mirrors the character of
God. Joey says that it needs that in
order to be considered “good” (a good verse to back that philosophy up is Mark
10:18).
And Joey,
you tell me more about your amoral book.
Jamie says it needs morals in order to have plot, and I say that a story
without plot doesn’t make it to the printer.
And while
you’re at it, tell me what you think about teaching Old Testament stories in
our Summer Bible Schools and in our home, to our children.
In fact, please explain the Old Testament to me!
Look forward
to hearing back!
-Jason