Bought In Blood
New Member
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
Posts: 19
|
Post by Bought In Blood on Feb 15, 2013 11:12:32 GMT -5
I’ve skimmed this thread and I don’t really want to get caught up in a deep, heated theological discussion on the sovereignty of Almighty God versus the free will of man, so I’ll just answer the original question. I think a work of fiction can be called Christian when the overall message glorifies God. ‘Now what exactly does that mean, Bought In Blood?’ I’ve always been a fan of showing rather than telling, so I’ll reference a few works of better writers than I. In LOTR, Tolkien never has an explicit Christ figure, never names God, and doesn’t talk of redemption or salvation. However, I would call LOTR a Christian work because of thematic elements as well as hints that there is a force of good that dwarfs the will of evil by its power. I’d like to reference another Anomalian’s comment on the same topic: "I get little thrills when reading The Lord of the Rings and hearing Gandalf tell Frodo that he was meant to find the ring, and not by the ring's maker. That there is another power at work in the world. And later, at the council of Elrond, how all these people came together from the far corners of the earth purely by chance; each of them had his own personal errand unrelated to anyone else's, and yet somehow, they all happened to come together precisely at the same time that the ring is found and the fate of the world hangs in balance. It is very clear that there is a higher power at work in the story, and that is Christian enough for me.”
rjj7 I don’t want to stir the pot too much since this debate is more about preference claims than truth claims. I’ll just close with a few thoughts. When Jesus told parables, He never mentioned God or Himself in the actual story. His intention was to take a godly principle and put it into terms easier for us to understand. The word “Christian” literally means “Christ Follower”. I feel that if the teachings of Jesus are woven into your story, then it’s Christian. |
|
rjj7
Full Member
Today I'm a drake
Posts: 202
|
Post by rjj7 on Feb 15, 2013 15:09:57 GMT -5
After some discussion in the real world with some people I respect, I have a few thoughts to share in this thread. To start off with, I'm going to type up a passage from C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity, from which I will extend the reasoning to apply to the matter under debate. This is taken from the Preface, where Lewis is defining terms and outlining the course of the book. It's a great book, and one highly recommended.
Far deeper objections may be felt--and have been expressed--against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: 'Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?' or 'May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?' Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone a 'gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said--so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully--'Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man 'a gentleman' in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact,not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is 'a gentleman' becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the world will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say that he is a bad Christan that to say he is not a Christian.I extend this reasoning to say that Christian Fiction is simply fiction written by a man who is a Christian. This clears up the matter, and avoids all of the sticky situations which develop if one wants to have a deeper meaning. For example, let us suppose that one wishes to define Christian Fiction as something that has a true message in accordance with God's word. Well by that definition, I've read some fiction by non-Christians that could be considered, in my opinion, to be Christian fiction. And by the same token, I've read some 'Christian Fiction' that would be nothing of the kind; containing, as it did, core messages that I think are in direct opposition to certain scriptural teachings, including some that opened the door to absolute license to sin so long as one was being used by God (however one determines that). But regardless of whether I'm right or wrong in my opinions on the accuracy of the author's theology, the fact remains that the definition of "Christian Fiction" would be moved into the realm of opinion. As C.S. Lewis argues, the term would become more a manner of praise than a factual description. Likewise, if I understand Resha correctly, his definition of "Christian Fiction" is, as Lewis would say, anything but useful. " First, there is writing that is inspired by God. When you get down to it, this is really the only writing that I would label as "Christian" writing - something for which God has a purpose and has, therefore, breathed his Spirit on the writer. The purpose could be to convey a message, provide support to those who are hurting, challenge the evil purposes of others, etc." How can we use this term? It is God who determines what his purposes are, and it would be the height of presumption to make judgements ourselves, just like it is against God's teachings for us to judge others with respect to eternal salvation. Resha concedes and states this problem explicitly in another post. " I can't decide my novel is Christian literature. That's God's decision." If a term is entirely useless for purposes of communication, why does it exist at all? Dave came very close to a definition that would satisfy me, but even he acknowledged a weak point in it. " my feeling is that Christian Writing will contain Christian themes (a whole other topic for discussion) which spring from and enforce a Christian world view at a bare minimum". As Resha also noticed, the idea of what constitutes a Christian Theme severely weakens this definition. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with a definition that relies on another definition. In fact, my own definition depends on what constitutes a Christian. But in this case, it seems to me that Dave's definition is slightly more ambiguous, because there are far more mixed opinions on what constitutes a Christian theme than what constitutes a Christian. There are some debates over what makes one a Christian, but it is much easier to narrow the question down than it is to contemplate the vast, spreading ocean of doctrines and determine which ones would be considered inherently Christian and which not. So in rejecting Dave's definition of Christian Fiction, I am not criticizing it for being flawed, merely presenting my own as being a somewhat stronger and more useful term for the purposes of communication and clarity of discussion. The aforementioned work of Christian Fiction that I described as " [opening] the door to absolute license to sin so long as one was being used by God" I would still consider Christian fiction. The author was clearly trying to glorify God and would probably be horrified if I could convince him that that was the logical conclusion of the theology he was presenting. But rather than try to argue that it isn't Christian Fiction (a move that would be laughed to scorn by any secular member of society), I will simply describe is as "bad Christian Fiction" and, in a linguistic sense, move on. |
|
|
|
Post by Resha Caner on Feb 16, 2013 0:47:46 GMT -5
To start off with, I'm going to type up a passage from C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity, from which I will extend the reasoning to apply to the matter under debate. This is taken from the Preface, where Lewis is defining terms and outlining the course of the book. It's a great book, and one highly recommended. It's been a long time since I read Mere Christianity, so I had forgotten this. The passage fits well, so thanks for quoting it. I agree with what it says. When talking to unbelievers, I've found the term "Christian" to be pretty useless. It's lost its power to convey much of anything. But, in Christian circles saying the word "Christian" is useless often raises hackles. Anyway, I'm going to highlight a specific part of what you quoted. Likewise, if I understand Resha correctly, his definition of "Christian Fiction" is, as Lewis would say, anything but useful. I meant my statement in the sense of the highlighted section from Lewis. As such, I differ from you, and think it very useful. It is useful in the sense that it keeps me humble and keeps me from presuming that I know all the ways in which God will use my writing. I strive to write God-pleasing literature, but whether God uses it - whether it is "Christian" literature - is truly none of my business. In some cases he may reveal its use. In other cases he may not. Further, it keeps me from judging others. It is simply not my place to judge whether others have written "Christian" literature. I extend this reasoning to say that Christian Fiction is simply fiction written by a man who is a Christian. This clears up the matter, and avoids all of the sticky situations which develop if one wants to have a deeper meaning. Yes, this is one possible definition, but, per your earlier comments, seems only a preference to me. I'd be fine with this definition except that I don't see its use. As I mentioned, this leaves it to each individual to decide if his own work is Christian. I guess that's OK, but then what? If we're going to talk of "useful" definitions (and by that I assume we mean useful to people), it seems to me that the publishers get to decide what is and isn't Christian. As I said, it becomes a matter of appealing to an audience that calls themselves Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by Gwenllian on Feb 21, 2013 11:50:37 GMT -5
If I may resurrect an almost dead thread, I think what is hanging people up here is what makes a term "useful". Resha considers his definition useful because of it's effects on him, personally. Randy is, I think, (based on my understanding of the C.S. Lewis passage he quoted) arguing for a definition that is useful in a conversational sense--a word that can be used because people understand what it means. To take Randy's definition of Christian fiction is to take a term that can then be used in conversation, because it is not subjective. It is objective in the sense that it has a precise definition that can be readily ascertained. If someone were to say, "I'm reading a Christian fantasy", then it would be understood that what he means is a fantasy written by a Christian. Nothing more. Resha's definition is useless in the sense that it cannot be used, because it is outside the realm of human judgment. If we, as people, cannot tell what is "Christian fiction" (if that is, "Christian fiction" is fiction that God has inspired) then it becomes a term of useless speculation, because we cannot know what is and is not Christian fiction. There really becomes no such thing as Christian fiction, because the moment you label something as Christian fiction, you are presuming you know God's mind. Words are communication. If people can't agree on a definition, or if a definition is so vague as to be no definition at all, the word serves no purpose. So I think this has been a very important discussion. (even though supposing we reached a consensus it would by no means permeate through the rest of the world!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by newburydave on Feb 21, 2013 23:16:53 GMT -5
The issue of Christian Themes is something which we discussed at some length in this forum and over in the Sandbox. We were discussing them from the practical sense of how to weave them into our stories.
I even made one of the Sandbox "Roolz" say "Do use Christian Themes in your writing." The idea was that this should be one dimension of a good Critique of the work. This led to many useful discussions in the Sandbox around various MSs that were put up for critique.
My rule of thumb for identifying Christian themes was quite pragmatic and IMHO practical. The best Christian themes are those which are found in the Bible. They are the Thematic elements (the outlook and values which the stories in the Bible teach us) and they are the underlying world view, Philosophy and metaphysics of being which the Biblical scribes and Jesus tried to enforce as Truth to those who heard them.
A theme in literature is what is taught to the reader by the Actions and Choices that the characters make in the story. These teach the readers a certain view of Right and Wrong, what is truly Valuable and the kind of Moral Choices which are excellent. It is my contention that these themes grow naturally out of the Christian World view of a person who is being transformed by their living relationship with Jesus.
Ergo, the shorthand for this is "Stuff written by a committed Christian". To Rjj7's point the key is that the writer be a Christian; but I must object to the idea that we cannot characterize what are Christian Themes, we have 66 books of history and stories which exemplify nearly all the Christian Themes which can exist within the human experience in this Story of God's passionate search for a bride out of the human race.
Thus I would say that there is an objective standard against which we should compare out themes (the values our stories teach). These would comprise the touchstone to be used to discuss how "Good (biblical)" or "Not Good (anti-biblical, secular, profane)" our themes are.
In a very real sense this is the Critique that Jesus gave to Peter when Peter tried to tell Him that he couldn't be crucified in Jerusalem. Jesus said to Peter "you're thinking like this world, you're not keeping God in view in you thoughts."
I think that may be one of the best practical "rules of Thumb" for our writing, does it just rehearse secular, profane Anti-wisdom or does it point to God, His works, His higher values, His judgements on things in this world and the proper reactions of His indwelt children (those who are striving to be 'Good Christians') when they are confronted by the conflicts and reverses we throw at them.
Beyond the semantics I guess I'd ask, do our stories teach people the truth about how real Christians are and how we interact with our Savior, or do we leave them believing the lies that the secular media have brainwashed people into thinking?
My calling was to try to counter the Satanic propaganda that the world is swallowing about us and about Jesus. They've been brainwashed to believe that we are Bigoted, narrow minded, legalistic, hate mongers. It's the big lie, given a powerful media voice.
What are we doing to show it is a lie, other than living our the Christ Life before our friends and acquaintances. The secularists are the narrow-minded haters. Jesus told us to love the way he loves us. My vision for Christian fiction is to portray Christians in the typical fictional conflicts as people like you and I who are fighting the battle against sin and temptation and struggling to let the Unconditional Love of Christ control and master every part of their lives.
An example of this from one of my more recent novels is a primary POV who sees his wife and all of his friends murdered by a deceptive act of Religious Terrorism. He is the head of a military force whose charter is to root out violent religious terrorist groups. The Theme of his internal struggle is between the natural rage and desire for bloody revenge and the Christian Character that Jesus has built within him.
This Theme, by the way, is not speculation, there are several testimonies of Saints from earlier ages in America who had to overcome this same temptation and in some cases ultimately won the murderers of their loved ones to Christ. This is one of the grand themes of Jesus' teaching that we must love our enemies and do good to them, just as He did.
Since I write for the secular market I can't do this with some kind of overtly religious scenes, but it must be woven into the natural ebb and flow of normal human transactions. The key is that all the major good guy POVs are devoutly religious in one or another of the world's major religions, and the main POVs are all one flavor or another of Christian.
This novelization project was stalled for more than a year because I didn't have this primary theme straight in my own mind. I had been trying to write a Police Proceedural/Space Opera/Political Cliff hanger/War Story with out any real major Christian Theme tying it together. Finally about four months ago the Lord hit me up the side of the head and made me realize that the primary conflict, driver of the story was this internal battle / journey of the Main POV. It was glaringly obvious when I saw it. It was the only thing that differentiated my story line from any other Space Opera that dug deep into the speculative scientific details.
I guess it was a bit of an Epiphany for me. Our themes, the things we hold up as true and excellent, the life values that our Protagonists teach by example, are the only thing that make our writing Christian; they are the only things that differentiate us from all the other scribbling fools out there who are flooding Amazon with inferior secular Speculative Fiction and the publishers with so many manuscript submissions that ours are like snowflakes lost in a blizzard.
To paraphrase what I just wrote in another thread "Without a strong voice for God and His worldview, we are nothing."
IMHO that is why we as a body of Christian Speculative Fiction writers were called into existence.
Well, my two dollars worth.
Write on Beloved Siblings
SGD
dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Resha Caner on Feb 22, 2013 9:41:08 GMT -5
If I may resurrect an almost dead thread ... There might be several reasons for that: 1) People think someone (probably me) is being ridiculous 2) People just aren't interested 3) People are intimidated or are trying to avoid a confrontation. I hope it's not this last one. I do like to challenge people, but I don't like when it gets emotional (which can easily happen in conversations like this), nor do I mean to be overbearing. It's like critiquing. It can really hurt until you learn to use what is said for something positive. Randy is, I think, (based on my understanding of the C.S. Lewis passage he quoted) arguing for a definition that is useful in a conversational sense--a word that can be used because people understand what it means. As I said, I'm OK with that. Now I know what he means. I agree the definition is concise and easily understood. I was just pointing out that I doubt a publisher really cares what an author thinks of himself. It's how the work will play to the audience that matters to them. Hence, an equally "useful" definition is one given by a publisher. Resha's definition is useless in the sense that it cannot be used, because it is outside the realm of human judgment. If we, as people, cannot tell what is "Christian fiction" (if that is, "Christian fiction" is fiction that God has inspired) then it becomes a term of useless speculation, because we cannot know what is and is not Christian fiction. There really becomes no such thing as Christian fiction, because the moment you label something as Christian fiction, you are presuming you know God's mind. Then how do we know the Bible is inspired? As 1 John 5:13 says, there are such things that we can know. I was raised to be a rationalist. That served me well as an engineer, but it doesn't always serve me well in matters of faith. This whole "define Christian fiction" question is a rationalist question. There are other modes of thought. Reason has its uses in matters of religion, and that has been the focus of my witness. I am best witnessing to those who think everything must fit a rationalist model. So, I know what questions those people will ask if you present these kinds of definitions to them. For example, wrt Dave's comment that the Bible is the source of Christian themes. In a faith group like this I can agree. But if we're really after a definition, I would have to ask what canon he refers to. The 66 books are a Protestant canon. What about the Catholic canon? If I pull a theme from 1st Maccabees does that count? Or what about the Mormon canon or the Gnostic canon? I could go on. The point is, we're still not there. And I don't think we'll ever get there. But the conversation is still worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by newburydave on Feb 22, 2013 17:48:16 GMT -5
Resha;
The 66 books of the Cannon are the core, inspired works that all "Christian" churches agree upon.
Most of the Roman communion's Apocryphal books contain "Christian Themes" based on the rest of the Bible. Before the reformation they were considered "helpful" books, much like the Shepherd of Hermas. They were only declared cannonical in response to the reformers excluding them from the cannon.
It is well to remember the historical context here in that the German reformers, under Luther, were sparked to action by the abuses of Tetzel with his Indulgence mongering. That perversion of Ecclesiastical power was based mainly on the Roman doctrine of Purgatory which was largely drawn from a passage in Maccabees about praying for the dead warriors of Israel who were found with Idol charms on them after the battle.
Have you ever read the Book of Mormon? I've tried; but the writing was so bad and so obviously uninspired that I couldn't stomach it. On top of that some of my Mormon friends and acquaintances have confided to me that because almost all of of the 'premodern American history' recorded in the book of Mormon has been proven to be false they feel a real challenge to their faith.
I'm not Mormon bashing here, on the plane of practical Godly living most of the Mormons who I know put the majority of Evangelicals in the shade and the core of their Soteriology is strictly orthodox relative to the fundamentals of Evangelical theology. They've added some weird cosmology and eschatology; but I've known godly evangelicals who believe and preach some pretty wierd cosmology and eschatology.
But to return to your question, Resha, I'm referring to the common cannon accepted by the overwhelming majority of the visible Church. That is the cannon that I find to be the living word, and upholder of my faith. I really think trying to parse things beyond that is over intellectualizing things.
At the core of it Jesus told us to Love each other as He loves us and Follow Him; not to Follow our Reason (that's the Free Mason's motto). IMHO the theologians who tried to follow their reasoning too far are the ones who have caused most of the destructive schism's in the Church.
I strongly believe that it pleases God when we of the household of faith emphasize the things that hold us together, work together and love each other despite our hotly debated differences.
When we start calling each other hard names I think we may be going too far in our critiques of each other's ideas. Let us remember that God loves mercy and grace NOT sacrifice. Proverbs tells us that contention only comes from pride. Let us not get drawn onto contention among ourselves lest the Devil get the victory over us.
Write on my beloved Siblings
SGD
dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Resha Caner on Feb 22, 2013 20:35:47 GMT -5
Simply to balance what you said, I will note Matthew 10:34. God does not acquiesce to false doctrine simply for the sake of peace. Throughout the Bible, rather, the terminology is one of warfare.
Maybe you missed it, or maybe I have not emphasized it enough, so I will try to be clear. I never stand in judgement of an individual whether they be Catholic, Gnostic, or Mormon. So, I don't know what "hard names" you are referring to.
But I will call out false doctrine to the best of my ability. As such, I would call Catholic doctrine "errant". Moreso, Gnostic and Mormon teachings are not Christian. I am well aware of the strong morals of Mormons. My aunt's family is Mormon, my college roommate was an ex-Mormon seeker, and one of my son's good friends is Mormon. But we are not saved by works, and so the fact that they are "good", while it is a convincing witness for their church, does not save them.
Approaching unbelievers is different every time. Some certainly need gentleness and love. But others need a stern awakening. There is no "one size fits all" approach. The best way to witness is to learn how to serve each and every person - to the point that one should merely seek to serve and not worry about the numbers of conversion.
I don't see that anyone here needs to be converted, but likewise I realize some will be persuaded by gentle persistence while others need a more direct approach. All of that is merely to say that I think I hear you saying that my approach is too direct for you. I didn't think I was pushing that hard, but I'll try to tone it down.
With that said, I should point out again that I am Lutheran, and therefore familiar with the history of Luther and the Reformation. I need to amend what you said slightly. Though the modern Lutheran church accepts a canon of 66 books, Luther himself did not. He questioned the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation and included the apocrypha in his translation. I know of others who question the books of John. It is incorrect to say the canon had settled on those 66 books before the Reformation. Rather, the Reformation is what settled the issue (at least for Protestants & Lutherans).
It's just my opinion, but I don't think we need all 66 books. Having Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, and Matthew would be quite enough. With that said, let me be clear that I accept all 66 books as inspired. And our lives are much richer for having 66 inspired books rather than just 4. But I also believe it likely there were more than 66 inspired books, but we don't know about the others because they were used by God for a specific purpose at a specific time. God simply makes available to use what we need for our time. For example, modern society increasingly questions the historicity of Jesus (think Talpiot). Isn't it interesting, then, what archaeology has been finding in recent years - proof of Pilate, Caiaphas, and possibly even James.
That's my speculation on the matter. I hope you realize much of your last post was speculation as well. There were a lot of "I think" and "in my opinion" statements. There's nothing wrong with that. I enjoy hearing your view on the matter. I've enjoyed the discussion. But I hope you realize that I don't feel obligated to agree with your opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by newburydave on Feb 22, 2013 23:35:56 GMT -5
IMHO and "I think" are not intended to imply Speculation, rather they are critiquing tools which are added so as not to come across as some kind of authority and soften what I say into suggestions so as not to be offensive.
I'd refer you to my document on "Effective Critiquing" which the Yahoo robot emailed to you when you joined the Sandbox. Specifically to "The Demeanor for useful Critiquing", my discussion of the Psychology of effective critiquing and how we must avoid the authoritarian approach if we want our advice and observations to be listened to and seriously considered.
In this and every other discussion thread we are usually "Critiquing Ideas" so I would recommend this approach to maintain Christian Civility.
Given the existential reality of human existence and communication everything that we know and think is properly categorized as "speculation". I believe we all understand this. IMHO when we engage in collegial discussion to bring up that underlying assumption is really not productive.
SGD
dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Resha Caner on Feb 23, 2013 0:09:30 GMT -5
Learning each other's personality is part of the process. I much prefer a direct approach. I see directness and rudeness as two different things. So, I don't need "IMO" qualifiers. Rather I take a statement that includes "IMO" to mean just that - it is an acknowledged opinion. In contrast, given my degrees in engineering and history, I would hope others would respect those degrees and afford them an authority that goes beyond simple opinion. I try to do likewise.
So, I'm going to be frank. I wouldn't want to be critiqued in the manner you suggest.
With that said, extra care is certainly wise when dealing with sensitive issues with new people. It is best to keep things in check until one has a feel for the temperament of the other. I did try to pace myself, and it seemed you were comfortable enough with me to poke at some of my statements, so I poked back - without any ill will. I've taken no offense at anything you've said, and meant none in what I said.
As I noted in my previous post, I now realize we would prefer to carry on this conversation in different ways. I respect your choice to do it that way. I'm sure you realize by now that I disagree with you. I would enjoy exploring our differences further, but you don't seem to feel the same - nor am I sure, given our different approaches, that I could do it without making you uncomfortable.
So, God bless brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by newburydave on Feb 23, 2013 17:40:58 GMT -5
Adam Clarke, a Methodist minister, biblical languages scholar, friend of Issac Newton, several times head of the London Scientific society, and author of one of the most comprehensive commentaries on the whole Bible once said that when the most ignorant man speaks he listened carefully because that man always knew something that he (Clarke) did not.
As an engineer myself and manager of other engineers, and as both a Church history student and a Pastor I had to learn the value of consideration and humility when trying to communicate and motivate others. Those things that I put into my "Effective Critiquing" treatise I learned the hard way, in face to face critique groups as the recipient of harsh critiques from self styled experts. Dr. Burt is one of the most respected writing teachers in the English speaking world and I got a lot of it from him as well.
You may not feel that my advice is worthy but I believe your endeavors would be easier if you would heed what I have written.
Write on my brother
SGD
dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Resha Caner on Feb 23, 2013 18:50:48 GMT -5
Adam Clarke, a Methodist minister, biblical languages scholar, friend of Issac Newton, several times head of the London Scientific society, and author of one of the most comprehensive commentaries on the whole Bible once said that when the most ignorant man speaks he listened carefully because that man always knew something that he (Clarke) did not. Of course one should always listen. Yet listening does not require accepting. As an engineer myself ... Cool. My question is way off topic, but what area do you work in? I've focused my career on the dynamics and control of rotating systems. I started out working with diesel engines, but now I work with transmissions. My particular interest is in nonlinear systems, but my employer doesn't see much need for that kind of expertise. Similarly, when I was in college and told my engineering adviser that I wanted to double major in history, he dissuaded me. So, it was 20 years later before I actually picked up the history degree. I also considered English (the writing thing), but its literature I'm interested in, not grammar and so forth. And I considered philosophy, but my conservative views would make that a tough journey in today's academic environment ... my pastoral adviser started out in philosophy and didn't finish for that reason. So, my focus for my history degree was the history and philosophy of science ... it kind of combined all my interests into one degree. At one point my thought was to teach after I retire from engineering (my Dad was a math teacher), but I'm not sure now that idea will work out. Sorry for the digression. |
|
|
|
Post by newburydave on Feb 24, 2013 16:53:54 GMT -5
I worked in high energy Circuit protection, Military Aerospace, Nuclear sensor/control systems, Power Piping measurement systems and did a bit of management system consulting and training after my last gig at a big multinational corp.
But Engineering was just a sideline, my true calling and avocation was Gospel ministry, specifically inner city mission work. The Lord used me to raise up two separate independent inner city works over the the thirty years I was active in the minstry.
I'm semi-retired now. Writing is my new avocation and calling. It's ironic, you just get to the place that you've garnered enough wisdom and experience to begin to be effective in a secular calling and then you're too old and burned out to keep working in it.
Ah, well; God's design I'm sure to keep us in mind that our calling is not to succeed in this world. It keeps us from valuing too highly the "knowledge in part" that we struggle so hard to obtain (1 Cor 13:8-12).
This world and all the very minimal knowledge, prophesy and miracles of faith that we gather over a lifetime perishes with the using. It's all for the fire of universal cleansing. Really the academic degrees and vocational knowledge that I scratched and struggled to obtain doesn't amount to a puff of smoke in the eternal scheme of things.
Our human relationships and those souls we help toward Salvation and Heaven are the only things of any true value that we can take with us into God's presence.
Age and experience is humbling and clarifying to those who finally accept wisdom from the Lord's hand. I see now that in the choice between pursuing Knowledge or being Winsome and attractive for the Lord that all my knowledge was just Mud Bricks while my God given winsomeness for Christ was Pure Gold from the eternal perspective.
While you have the youth and strength may you find your place of great fruitfulness for souls in our Masters work.
Write on my brother.
SGD
dave
|
|
rjj7
Full Member
Today I'm a drake
Posts: 202
|
Post by rjj7 on Feb 25, 2013 14:29:32 GMT -5
For my part, my interest in the Anomaly simply rises and wanes over time. Like the tides. Sometimes I'll be here, answering every thread that comes up. Other times I merely crawl on, half-heartedly read a few threads and ooze off. And on weekends, I rarely poke my head on. So I guess that puts me sort of in #2, but with qualifiers. It's not a specific lack of interest in this topic, just general and temporary spikes of apathy and disinterest. Of course, my interest in a topic doesn't exclude the possibility that I also feel #1. Ridiculous people can be very interesting. But in this case, no, I don't think anyone is being ridiculous.  @dave: I absolutely agree with you that we have an objective standard to measure Christian themes. Furthermore, I think that there are a large number of Christian books that one cannot possibly debate their Christianity, in this sense. The Chronicles of Narnia clearly have Christian themes; I don't think it possible that you could come up with a definition that excluded those books. But I am rather more concerned with the less clear situations. For example, does a book that exists to push the idea that Christian's must be pacifists exhibit a Christian theme? On the one hand, I disagree with the premise and think that the concept isn't found in the Bible. On the other hand, such an author (presumably) got his ideas from the Bible, so he undoubtedly considers his theme to be Christian, giving glory to God, and helping to direct people to a closer understanding of God. Furthermore, the implicit theme of submission to God's will even when our own is crying to do something different can certainly be appreciated (even if it's somewhat misapplied). My concern is not that we can't determine what Christian themes are, but rather that other people (not myself, you understand ), might determine Christian themes incorrectly! The horror! That someone might disagree with me about theology!  There is, as C.S. Lewis argues in his book Mere Christianity, a core set of truths that Christians of all stripes agree on. Themes relating to these truths are clearly going to pass the C-Theme test, and get accepted as a Christian theme. But what about round the edges? When someone stops writing "mere Christianity" and starts writing something that is their own personal interpretation that goes against what other people believe? And what happens when the personal opinion is clearly false and teaches something expressly taught against by the Bible while still containing other truths? (I'm not referring to the pacifism question here). These aren't intended to be 'gotchas'. I'm interested in hearing your opinion. Maybe I should just trot over to the sandbox and read discussions there. @resha: I feel that I understand most of your points, but I'm going to quote a Christian brother whom I know and respect who said something pertinent to the situation.  I actually don't necessarily mean useful to people, except insofar as it is useful for the purposes of clearly conveying ideas. I think that you are subtly incorrect in your assessment of my definition. I wasn't intending to say that anyone who labels themselves as a Christian automatically gets the Christian tag. Rather, I would say that whoever openly adheres to the core teachings of Christianity gets that label. That I haven't offered up what those teachings are is because I don't feel myself qualified to lay them out. But hearkening back to what both you and Dave have said in different contexts, there are some things we can know. My intention is to seize on these core truths and build the definition off of them, thus avoiding the fuzzier territory around the edges. The term "Christian Fiction" would then mean "the author adheres to these teachings". Maybe they don't live it out, but then as Lewis writes, I would be tempted to call them a bad Christian. The problem with extending "useful" beyond a conversational sense to a broader "it serves a purpose for someone" is that it opens up all sorts of conflicting interests. For example, advertisements and propaganda are both well served by a language that is vague, unspecific, and general enough that one can conjure up false images without saying anything that is technically false. Likewise, I don't think that the use of the term Christian-fiction to publishers is good grounds for making definitions. In some cases, like MLP, the publisher may be honestly trying to limit himself to books that he feels glorify God. In this case, the usefulness of the term is appropriate, as the publisher is trying to objectively describe what the book is. But in others, the publisher may merely be thinking that if they can market this to a Christian audience (or the reverse case), they'll get better book sales than if they send it out into the secular market. The usefulness here is in trying to bend words to create an impression in the minds of the public. The truthfulness and accuracy of the description is of secondary importance to the monetary profit that the publisher wishes to gain. I understand that your earlier definition was offered in a more spiritual sense. And in that light, I think you have some very solid foundations. But likewise, I think there are some inherent drawbacks. Similar to someone who says "A Christian is someone who is saved". As you said, in some cases, this may be clear, but in the majority of cases, it won't be (the Bible is very clear that many people who consider themselves Christians will not actually be saved). You don't seem to regard that as a significant drawback to the term. I do. And I guess there isn't really a whole lot more that can be said about the matter beyond what's already been said. |
|
|
|
Post by newburydave on Feb 26, 2013 11:28:42 GMT -5
"Useful" can be a very undefined word, I agree. My intent in using it harks back to John Welsey's use of the concept of "Fruitful" in the spiritual sense. "Something which causes people to draw closer to God, live more carefully before Him by grace and move farther away from sinful actions and attitudes."
The old Methodist writers used a phrase that I always found intriguing; "(a person) was very hopefully converted."
In the contexts where it was used the sense I got from it was that this person showed all the signs of truly doing business with God and seriously beginning the process of walking with Him toward heaven.
The context here is the old Methodist idea that a Soul was not truly "Saved" until they died in the faith with a present testimony of victory in Jesus. I think you will find that this agrees with the historic Redemption doctrines in all of the different major branches of the Christian Church, including mainstream Calvinism. The concept here is of "Initial Salvation" when someone begins to be religious and try to walk with God and "Final Salvation" when they die in the faith and enter into their eternal reward.
I leave it to the reader to look at the other teachings about Salvation that are current today. I fear that we have fallen from the historic norm in modern times.
**********
RE: the idea that someone might write something that (gasp) I don't agree with.
Do we really believe what Jesus said about not Judging each other, but rather being instruments of God's Grace in everyone's lives? God beat the sectarian theologicalness out of me back when I was a rescue mission pastor just before I made a terrible practical mistake due to my "Theological Certainty."
The fact He showed me is that we humans have no such thing as Theological Certainty since theology is a creation of man's depraved intellect attempting to categorize what we know about God. It may be "Useful" in certain contexts but the only Certainty we have is our own direct experience of God Himself in Salvation, upbuilding, maintaining our faith and leading us in the practical things of life.
Isn't God bigger that what any or all of us collectively can understand. He told me to let Him be God and just walk in the truth which He has blessed me to understand. Faithfulness to our own duty is our only qualification. How far did Peter get when he asked Jesus about what John was supposed to do.
Personally, I am content to encourage anyone who is trying to work for God, however they perceive their calling and duties to Him. The Judgemet will sort out all the questions, I have all I can do just to keep myself in the center of His revealed will for me.
Just let Go and let God run things; believe Him to make His will triumph in the end after we've done what we could.
Write on beloved siblings;
you'll get no judgmental theological cavails from me, but I may point you to some examples in Scripture or Church history and ask you to consider them. We're all groping through the darkness of space-time; we need to hold hands and help each other as much as we can.
Yours for the better Resurrection, may we all finally stand wholly in Him, complete in that day.
SGD
dave
|
|
)
