This really should be a continuation from the last post, but I didn’t want to bury it underneath 16 comments (especially when some contain the term presuppositional, which makes most people’s eyes glaze over). 🙂
I happened to get into a conversation with someone I respect on this very topic of children’s fairy tales. She raised an objection to the portrayal of magic (specifically casting of spells) in a positive light. The specific example of concern was the Fairy Godmothers casting of the spell that created Cinderella’s ride to the ball. The concern was that in Deuteronomy 18:9-14 God lists the casting of spells among the practices of the nations that He detests, and that we grieve God by glorifying sin and calling evil good.
My response was that there was no equivalence between the practices addressed in that passage and the fairy tale use of magic. This sounded like mere rationalization to my friend. The reasoning was pretty simple… God detests the casting of spells. The Fairy Godmother casts a spell. God detests the practice that is portrayed as good in the story.
I would say that a fairy tale takes place in an imaginary universe where the power that the Fairy Godmother harnesses is from good and used in opposition to evil. My friend points out that in the story the Fairy Godmother does not credit God with her power and takes the glory for herself, becoming the savior of Cinderella, robbing God of His glory. I say that it’s a make-believe universe and doesn’t require Biblical accuracy. This sounds like more rationalization.
The suggestion is made that we have become so desensitized that we buy the culture’s lie that this sort of thing is harmless and we diminish the authority of God’s Word in our lives.
So, what do you think? Am I rationalizing sin, or is there a legitimate distinction between Deuteronomy 18 and what we see in Cinderella?
Also, here is a link to the NIV version of the passage that uses the actual phrase “casts spells.”
This is the reason Christians are ridiculed. How do you site Mosaic Law as things that grieve God but barely recognize the majority of the more archaic practices of aforementioned law? It’s a legalism of convenience as we condem “spells” cast by imaginary Disney characters and Harry Potter along with homosexuality but conveniently ignore the majority of the law. It’s an endemic problem in our church and I wish someone had the courage to address it. What’s the difference between the “magic spells” of Cinderella and Lord of the Rings? Tolkien was a Christian so we accept his writings as okay but criticize Disney. There is no logic to this reasoning and it’s embarrassing to be associated with it.
Amen. Satan uses partial truths, mixed with a touch of lies that he uses to “make believe” regarding magic. Either way, you can rest assured that he is INDEED deceiving the masses! This pastor included. Such a shame the church has been wooed to sleep by satan’s kingdom, which is far feom make believe. Forgive them Father, they know not what they do.
So if instead of magic, the Fairy Godmother was rich and provided a carriage and dress with a contract that expired at midnight, then this person would think the story was OK? In other words, is it the magic that really causes the problem or the fact that most of the stories to tell our children do not have God as the hero, either blatantly or behind the scenes?
What if, instead of a magic setting, it is a super-technological setting in which some made up scientific rational is given for the ability to do things which would seem “magical” to our society (Star Wars)? What about comic books and superheroes? Is it only the actual casting of spells, etc. which is seen as wrong or anything which does not attribute its power to God?
Personally, I think that one can draw a distinction between Deuteronomy 18 and Cinderella. We need to think through, what exactly magic would mean in the Old Testament context. For people in ancient times, magic was always tied up with the spiritual world and other “divine” beings. To do magic or even want to do magic, was inherently tied up with other gods. There is still literature today which looks at magic in this way, and I would definitely consider that to be a sin.
However, many of the fairy tales seem to put magic as an impersonal force that is controlled for either good or bad by the individual doing magic. I would say that in those cases it is merely a part of the setting and we must judge the story itself rather than its individual elements.
I think there can still be a danger in those stories as it is possible to focus on the magical/supernatural things rather than the point of the story. But this happens from Biblical stories as well, for example, the story of Samson. I don’t think we can call magical stories inherently sinful, but I think we need to be careful to explain the fact that they are fictional and to focus less on the setting and more on the story itself. This is especially true in our times with supernatural TV shows like Charmed and with the rise of witches and Wicca – just go to the Barnes and Nobles and look at the number of books on the occult under the New Age section.
Matt, yes, the problem was with the fact that magic was being employed, and even more specifically that a spell was being cast. If it were not a ‘spell’ it would not have been as bad. In addition, my friend is OK with Superman, because, although make-believe, there is not magic or spells involved.
I’m with you, Eric.
The magic in Cinderella is entirely incidental to the story. Nobody would cite Cinderella as a story about witchcraft – it’s a story about redemption.
I’d dispute whether the fairy godmother is even accurately described as Cinderella’s savior. (That’s probably a role better suited for Prince Charming, if you’re looking for a Christ-figure.) The fairy godmother just gave Cinderella a dress and a ride to the party – she did not do anything like a work of transformation in Cinderella’s heart. Quite the opposite – the fairy godmother was a literary device for revealing to Cinderella’s imaginary world what the audience knew from the beginning: that Cinderella was beautiful in spite of the lowly station she held in her stepmother’s house.
I could probably spin an interpretation that perhaps the fairy godmother is entirely figurative… perhaps the fairy godmother is just an allegorical device representing some abstract idea of “that which changes a person?” The fairy godmother barely makes an appearance in the story. She doesn’t bring about the happy ending. Hey, this is starting to sound like a term paper for English Lit…
Anyway – my point is, no matter how you spin the story, the magic and spell-casting and hocus-pocus is one of the first things to fall away. We love the story for its timeless theme – the magic is just along for the ride.
Another thing – notice the way the fairy godmother is drawn in the Disney cartoon. In Disney cartoons, the people you’re supposed to take seriously are drawn in a somewhat lifelike manner… the characters belonging to the backdrop of fantasy are drawn in caricature.
Think about it…
Cinderella vs. the fairy godmother (and all those talking mice)
Aladdin vs. the Genie
Belle vs. a house full of talking furniture
Snow White vs. the dwarves
… interesting…
I’ve been pondering it all day but I think I’ve finally gathered some of my thoughts.
I think the issue has more to do with specifying a specific religious system (Deuteronomy is dealing with real Canaanite religious practices) than the idea of magic (supernaturalism and miracles) itself. One may say they are just calling it like they see it – “The Fairy Godmother is a witch, plain and simple” – but a lot of what we think of when we say “witch” is based more on fiction than the Wiccan religious system. Much like our views of the devil – how can any good Christian possibly buy ham with the image of Satan printed right on the label? ;^)
In fictional stories like Cinderella and Lord of the Rings, Fairy Godmothers and Wizards characterize (the literary tool of allegory) the idea of the supernatural in the plot as it communicates a higher moral.
Applying this thought process to the rest of the list found in Deuteronomy, we could easily have a great story where for some reason a father chooses to sacrifice his only son to save the world. Then the son magically comes back to life and everyone lives happily ever after.
If your friend applied the same logic here that she does to the idea of magic then the very Gospel story would be off limits because it paints child sacrifice, magic, and maybe even suicide (depending on the perspective given) in a positive light.
I do agree that we Westerners are desensitized, but not to the idea of supernatural power being evil. I think we are desensitized to the idea of supernatural power being real. Best selling books that glorify the literal religious system of witchcraft are excused as “make believe” that gets kids to read. (Sorry but no. It’s a real religious system that calls on real spiritual powers.)
I also think of all the good Christian parents that watch movies like Cinderella with their kids on Saturday night and in exercising good parenting skills tell their children that it’s all just “make believe.” Then the next morning they take there kids to church to hear stories about people walking on water, donkey’s talking, angels announcing the birth of a child, giant fish being used as cruise ships, people coming back to life and flying off into the clouds, and so on.
Don’t just rule it all out as “make believe” but let fictional stories be an opportunity to teach your child about the Christian world view – one that embraces the supernatural.
A lot of this sounds a little like situational ethics being applied to a children’s movie.
I like the unique genre argument that Hugh proposes, but I don’t think that gets us out of the trouble here. A lot of things are done in the “make-believe” world of entertainment that are not God-honoring. Slapping a label on them as entertainment and explaining it to children doesn’t have bearing on whether or not these things are morally good or evil. I personally wouldn’t let my kids watch a cartoon that has a homosexual character, but a witch? Hmmm.
I wonder how that lady would interpret 1 Samuel 28:7-20? Should we just not read that part of the Word of God because it talks about witches? The Bible blows our situational ethics right out of the water.
What do you mean?
I taught for over 30+yrs K-12 Music, starting in 1974. I often used Disney themes w/large Musicals & songs from those films. Over the yrs I became weary of what was happening in the public (Govt indoctrinated) schools as most began to remove all Christian themes, Christmas programs, songs or anything that smacked of Christianity. In time, I have come to believe that I too, was indoctrinated & lulled into a sleep where I should have stood for American Freedom. I saw myself as standing up for my Faith, but in retrospect I believe we have become deluded & brainwashed as a church. We’re in this perverse mess because we sat around being “tolerant & nice”. We are in a battle not against flesh & blood, but serious demonic forces that are after the very lives of our children. Disney-all those nicey nice looking cutsie films, are filled w/ungodly occultic themes—& they are NOT innocuous. Today, I stand firm, & am fighting against a media and Hollywood org that is raping our children’s minds-not to mention all the pedophilia. This is even evidenced by commentaries here that excuse and homogenize evil. It’s sad-but it’s True. Also, as a professional entertainer, I have yrs of experience rubbing elbows in the Music Industry as a solo pianist & playing in bands in my youth (Nevada shows, Casinos as well). There is a plan to destroy our whole culture thru the god’s of Hollywood & Music-& they’ve been succeeding. We’re long overdue in getting our heads out of the sand & taking a dynamic stand for truth and righteousness as Jesus calls us to do. Many of our male leaders, called to be Braveheart WARRIORS, have become lukewarm, blinded and sissified in their “hip Hollywood, nightclub, latte churches”. I’m not being negative-just telling like it is based on yrs in the Music business & seeing our churches go astray. As we counsel and do chaplaincy, it’s a no wonder kids are so confused, hopeless, involved in sexual immorality, occult interests, doing pop drugs & making excuses for all kinds for sin. Well..enough.. Here’s a good review on “Disney-& the TRUTH ” for those that are in the Lukewarm camp:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfQdZjxn9wU
I couldn’t agree with you more… it’s all hollywood, and it will only be a matter of time…. we need to fast and pray and understand what we are doing
Sorry, for some reason I typed my email in the wrong line on my previous post.
As I think about it, I did not mean situational ethics in the sense that Joseph Fletcher meant it. I should have more accurately said that it is relativistic ethics that we are relying on. We are reducing this issue to that of personal taste. One might simply say, “I don’t have a personal problem with Cinderella despite the fact that God finds divination detestable.”
The problem is that Deuteronomy does not speak to the issues of personal taste, it speaks in absolutes. God finds divination detestable. Does he find it equally detestable when it is portrayed in the Lord of the Rings as when it is portrayed in Cinderella? Good question.
We start reasoning from a place that says I don’t personally have a problem with Disney’s portrayal of this practice, and then we fit the evidence into our (pardon the term) presupposition. We say things like it is not exactly the same as the practice that the OT is referring to, it is not the center of the plot (though we find a graffic sex scene in a movie to be destestable for spiritual reasons even though it is not central to the plot), it could be interpreted as picturing part of God’s character, it is not meant to be taken seriously by the way it is drawn, Deut. refers to a religious system and not a practice, and it is just a literary device.
While any one of these arguments may be true, I think they fail to deal adequately with the problem presented to us by the Bible and picked up on by the lady you talked to- God finds it detestable. Should we be entertained by what he finds detestable? God also finds murder, extra-marital sex, and gossip detestable but we have become hardened against these things and are eager to watch them on TV.
I propose that the lady who is concerned about these elements in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potterand yes, even Cinderella may be more spiritually sesitive than I am. That stinks, but it is the truth.
I will ask my OT professor (Dr. Richard Belcher) tomorrow during my class on the prophets. I will post his answer on how to interpret the Deut. passage and apply it to situations like the one we are discussing.
Sorry for the long reply.
For the record, my claim is that Deut 18 is not applicable to a the way magic is portrayed in this fairy tale. This claim is not related to whether or not I personally like Cinderella. If I become convinced that God finds Cinderella detestable, she gets the boot–even if she is a nice lady.
Your comments seem to beg the question (or at least assume a particular answer to it). If the passage does apply, then my friend might be well-described as more spiritually sensitive. If the passage does not apply, then I don’t see how that would be the case (in this situation).
I’m looking forward to hearing your OT prof’s take on this.
We are in complete agreement. I meant to imply that I don’t know the answer to this particular question. Sorry, for the accusative tone, it was not intentional.
Eric, it seems that your argument that Deut. 18 is not applicable in the way magic is portrayed in a fairy tale, is comepletely right.
Dr. Belcher believed that all of our arguments are valid and he specifically stated that genre argument was the strongest. He said that in his day, no one liked “Bewitched.” Essentially, that lady’s concern is the same as those who don’t like Haloween. Belcher believed that there was some danger in letting these images and stories get too far into what is dishonoring to God, but with good parental guidance we can help our kids to put this material in perspective.
He also said that we should let someone such as that have her personal conviction because it is always better to err on the side of caution. Maybe she is spiritually sensitive, but if your conscience is not troubled, then that is okay because this is not an issue that is exegetically clear.
Of course, the Bible is our authority, but if it is not clear, then conscience is very important in determining such personal stances.
Your point is a good one; just because magic is not at the heart of the story doesn’t address whether or not it falls under the banner of “detestable content.”
“Relativistic ethics”… ouch. Maybe “subjective” is a better word here… There are some things that are truly subjective – that is, they are properly assessed in terms of the subject rather than the object.
(begin detour into subjective/objective distinction)
For example, consider the “meat sacrificed to idols” situation: for Paul, it was fine to eat such meat, but the “weaker brother” would be sinning if he ate it.
Now, if it were objectively wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols, we would be saying something about the meat itself (the object) and it would be wrong for both – the question would be an objective matter.
However, Paul does not treat it that way; he makes a distinction according to the person doing the eating. He says nothing about the meat, but rather about the meat-eater (the subject). To Paul, the question was therefore a subjective matter.
(end detour)
So let’s pose an objective question:
Is the question, “Is it permissible to present a favorable depiction of magic arts in a work of fiction,” a subjective or objective question?
Sorry our posts crossed in the mail Jason… I guess your prof would say it’s subjective.
What exactly is the “genre argument” again?
It’s nice to hear that I have one more scholar in my camp. 🙂
Also, I agree with your prof about this being a matter of conscience and said to my friend that I would advise her to stay away from the stories that she believes are dishonoring to God. I believe that she is wrong (i.e., that the Bible does not teach that these stories are dishonoring to God). But if she believes it is sin, it becomes sin for her (see Romans 14:14).
I found an article where the author defends the basic position that I hold, using the words of J.R.R. Tolkien. The article is not long and worth a read, but here is a taste…
PS: The article is written in defense of Harry Potter, which I have not read and so withhold judgement on.
Great case in point…
Eric, your link points to Youth Specialties.
Youth Specialties is a big Emergent Church-type organization.
Let’s suppose (for the sake of discussion) that the Emergent Church is detestable to God for its insipid moral relativism.
Does the fact that you’ve cited an Emergent source (even to quote Tolkien) invalidate this whole blog?
D’oh!
I meant incipient, not insipid…
Slightly off-topic, but relevant…
narniaweb.com
In regards to being an EC site … LOL!
Similar to the homosexuality road that Jason almost took (figuratively speaking of course), what would you say to a Fantasy genre story similar to The Bridges of Madison County — adultery for a greater good in an alternate universe?
If you assume the question, “Is it permissible to present a favorable depiction of magic arts in a work of fiction?” is subjective then you must also consider the question “Is it permissible to present a favorable depiction of homosexuality in a work of fiction?” to be subjective — both actions are declared as being detestable to God.
Can you really put it in the same category as eating meat offered to idols? Can you really say that witchcraft/sorcery/casting spells is no longer clean or unclean but created by God for us to enjoy and use for good – either in real life or fantasy?
Yeah, there is a certain irony with my source. It’s really Tolkien’s ideas that underly the point, though.
To your question about an imaginary world where adultery is good, it’s hard to imagine such an imaginary world, but it is theoretically possible. And if the story taught something that were actually true, then I think it could be OK.
Why?
You are implying that the two statements are equally valid just because the sentence structure was retained while substituting one word.
By that logic, you could also say that the question, “Is it permissible to present a favorable depiction of Christ in a work of fiction?” is subjective. I’d cast my vote for “objective” on that one…
Eric – about Tolkien – that was my point.
You had something good to say and you used a handy source to make your point.
Likewise, the authors of Cinderella had a good story to tell and they used a handy vehicle (a fairy godmother) to tell it.
Because both are described as being acts that are detestable to God — Christ is not described that way.
What difference(s) do you make between the favorable depiction of homosexuality and magic arts in a work of fiction?
This reminds me of The Parable of the Shrewd Account Manager. Here Jesus tells a story about an Accountant that is about to get fired. The accountant then steals from his boss to win friends when he is inevitably unemployed.
Jesus then goes on to praise the man for his attribute of shrewdness (keen awareness, sharp intelligence, and sense of the practical).
Jesus himself wrote a story — in a non-alternate universe — that seemingly glorifies sin to illustrate a moral.
Just a note on the idea imaginary worlds.. Narnia is an imaginary world where there is no Christ, no Holy Spirit and no God the Father. Instead we have Aslan, a lion who teaches us something about sin, the curse, redemption, and the character of God. It does not purport to be ‘Biblically accurate’ (and it is not). To apply the elements of Narnia to the actual universe (replacing Christ with a lion, etc.) would be wrong.
And tacking on to David’s point…
We don’t call Jesus a liar when he tells a parable about fictitious people because they don’t really exist or the story did no really take place. We understand that He is using a literary device to teach something that is true, even if the story is a product of His imagination.
Likewise, we don’t accuse Jesus of necromancy when he tells the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. He is using that imaginary story about a dead man to teach something to his living listeners.
Wow, we are really kicking this around now…great. To back up a little, Hugh, I think the term “relative” is closer to what I meant to say. Subjective feelings are a relative standard for judging morals, wouldn’t you agree? The standard by which things are judged morally wrong in “relativistic ethics” is personal taste. That is what we are talking about here. Did I mean to call you guys a bunch of relativists- no, and I apologize if that offended you.
I believe that all Christians, including myself are hardly consistent absolutists and therefore fall victim to practicing relativistic ethics regularly. But that is a rabid trail.
I think there are problems with using the example of meat sacrificed to idols as a parallel to this case of fictional wizardry, as I believe Eric began to point out.
Tolkien’s defense of his own creation is interesting but, does Tolkien really believe that he created a world apart from the moral laws of God? Is God not sovereign even over our imaginations? The Bible is clear that our imaginations and thought life should also be used for God’s glory.
2 Corinthians 10:5 “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.”
I am also a little disturbed that Lewis put Aslan on the same level as Christ. I am pretty sure Christ did not say everything that Lewis’ creation did. Not only that, does Lewis really believe he has that kind of insight into the mind of God? Yikes! Also, his prayer sounds like the equivalent of “God, please stop me from sinning if I am.” Those prayers tend to go unanswer and that is not a good lesson on how to repent.
I think that these men’s writings can be justified, but not using the arguments quoted here.
Eric, I did not mean to imply that your argument was not good until validated by my prof. I am sorry if it came across that way to you or anyone else who offered great insights to this issue.
I would reject a subjective morality. There are subjective applications of morality, however – that’s the whole meat-eating thing. It’s a limited analogy, sure… I just meant it to illustrate that there are valid cases of “what’s right for you” not matching up with “what’s right for me” because the operative factor is the subject in those cases, not the object. That’s all I meant there.
If the use of magic hinges on a person’s conscience, then the conscience is the operative factor – making it a subjective matter. If it hinges on the use of magic itself, then it’s objective. Hence the “objective question” above…
Your take on Tolkien… I don’t think Tolkien believed he created a world apart from the moral laws of God. I think he believed he wrote a book. The fictional world in that book echoes the moral laws of God, but he cringed at any suggestion that the LOTR series was in any way allegorical.
2 Cor. 10:5 – is that the best hermeneutic for that verse? The Greek there (noema) is only translated “thought” this one time. Usually this word is translated as “mind,” and in the context of the rest of 2 Cor. 10, I think it’s probably incorrect to make primary application to our imagination and thought life.
An alternative take on this would be that Paul is telling the Corinthians, “I hope I don’t have to beat you guys up like I do with the unbelievers, but if I have to, I will – of course, not like those who fight by the sword, but like those who fight with ideas.” Just my off-the-cuff exegesis — please don’t take it uncritically. What do y’all think?
Furthermore, even if you do take 10:5 as addressing specific thoughts held by individual believers, you still have to establish that allowing magic into our imagination is detestable to God. So we’re back to the original question.
And finally, yes, I’ll grant that the way Lewis’s letter treated the “Aslan-as-Christ” and repentance issues falls on the sloppy side. But remember – he’s writing to a little boy. If that turned out to be the extent of his adult reflection on the matter I would be concerned. But c’mon, it’s “Jack” we’re talking about here… 😉
I brought it to the discussion in keeping with the original premise of Eric’s post – baptizing a child’s imagination by using the art of story to keep the child from becoming materialistic and dismissive of mystery.
Hugh, good points and great thoughts. I think (though I am not certain) that we are saying the same thing concerning the distinction of subjective and objective. I am sorry I am missing your point.
While I appreciate your desire to put 2 Cor. 10:5 in context, I will have to disagree with your interpretation of that verse. Theology is done at the concept level and not at the word level. But I think your argument, even at the word level, runs into some problems. You are correct that the word noema only occurs this one time in this form. It is used in 2 Cor. 3:14; 4:4; Phil. 4:7 and is translated as “mind(s).” It is also used in 2 Cor. 11:3 and is translated as “thoughts.”
You can see the logical connection here, how can minds be sanctified without the thought life of that person being sanctified? Therefore it is not a bad application of 10:5 in my opinion, to say that the thought life must be conqured by Christ.
I don’t see how your paraphrase contradicts my interpretation. Do you mean to say that Paul is speaking hypothetically here? If not, then how does he intend to fight against false “ideas?”
Many passages seem to point to the fact that it is not enough to keep the letter of the law, but our hearts/minds must be submissive as well.
As previously hashed out, I think it is safe to say that it is not detestable to God that magic enters our imaginations, and I don’t think I said this in my post. I was taking issue with Tolkien seeming to say that the “imaginary” world (ironic because once he created it- in one sense it is no longer imaginary) is free from the scrutiny of God’s will.
Heh, I knew why you quoted “Jack” I was just commenting that I was surprised that he chose that line of arguing to defend his books.
Thanks Hugh, by replacing the sin of magic with sexual sin, I feel much better about reading Penthouse Forum now. ;^)
Jason, the bit about noema (and I confess again that I’m speaking from just enough knowledge to be dangerous) was that Paul was simultaneously comparing and contrasting his ideological campaign against the way those who war according to the flesh.
It just seems odd to render chapter 10 like this:
It just doesn’t flow. This seems better to me:
Theology is done at the concept level, sure… but words mean things, and I don’t think Paul meant it the way you’re using it.
Your point still has merit; I just don’t think the text you’ve chosen gets the job done. A better text for what you’re trying to say is probably Philippians 4, esp. verse 8.
David, I think Jesus had that part of our thought life pretty well covered… if you need the chapter and verse I’m sure somebody can come up with it for you. 😉
Hugh, to be fair, I am not suggesting that the passage be paraphrased the way you suggest.
Please answer some of my questions that I previously posted, I try to respond to yours. It is fine if you do not agree with the interpretation of 2 Cor. 10:5, but please help me understand your position as to why. I agree with you that Paul is saying that he will not fight as those who fight according to flesh fight. He will fight using great arguments for the faith. But what is changing when a person’s arguments have been destroyed? His thoughts! That is the goal in making an argument in hopes to persuade someone. (To anticipate a possible objection- hearts and minds are synonymous in scripture)
How do you interpret the military language of taking a mind captive? It seems to imply more than making a case, but actually conquering another’s mind.
I understand that you think the words do not mean what I say they mean, but I do not see how what you are saying is getting you away from my interpretation. Explain further please.
I appreciate the suggestion to use Phil. 4:8, but help me understand better your reason for steering me away from 2 Cor. 10:5.
But seriously though … by trying to limit the discussion to magic you give the appearance that some things that are detestable to God are okay to use in fiction while others are not. This raises the red flag of compromise and creates confusion.
We either have to accept or reject that it is okay to use sin in stories to illustrate truth no matter what the sin is. Like it or not, I think by the example of Christ we have the answer to that — yes.
Penthouse Forum doesn’t have a greater good that is Biblical truth so it doesn’t apply. On that thought though, and similar to fictional porn, if you start projecting yourself in your imagination as a sorcerer or magical being due to the influence of the Fantasy genre then you’ve crossed the line. (Finding yourself dressed up at DragonCon is generally a bad sign too.)
David, my point is that the magic that the Fairy Godmother wields is not the magic spoken against in Deuteronomy 18. That magic has its source in demons. If there are demons in the Cinderella universe, they are clearly not the source of the spell that turns the pumpkin into a carriage.
Eric wrote:
I’ve read the Chronicles many times, and being a big fan of allegory, I’ve studied their parallels to the “real world.” I think Lewis made them more relevant than you give them credit for, Eric (and certainly more so than LoTR). If you read the Chronicles carefully, you see three personifications of the Deity: Aslan, the Lion (God the Son); the Emperor beyond the Sea, Father of Aslan (God the Father); and a certain emphasis on the breath of Aslan (God the Holy Spirit). Perhaps the third of my conclusions is the hardest to defend, but if you read closely, Aslan’s breath: frees stone animals (in LWW), performs miracles to validate him as Aslan (in PC), and carries children on a mission for him (in SC). Maybe I’m just defending my pet allegory…but I think it’s a better allegory than most people believe!
Cool. I’ve just read the first three casually. Actually, I listened (and once or twiced dozed off) while Donna read them to our kids.
Well my “Shrewd Accountant” analogy doesn’t hold up for me any more. A better movie for that analogy would be Christ citing Bridges of Madison County saying, “Did you see the passion those two people had? You should have that kind of passion in life.” Everyone knows the adultery is wrong but Christ looked past it and pointed to something good. In stories like LoTR and Cinderella there isn’t this general idea of “everyone knows sorcery is evil but…”
Eric’s “Rich Man, Lazerus” example doesn’t work either. Jesus is God, doesn’t He reserve the right to interact with the dead – during the transfiguration for example?
Jeffrey, can you defend this question that I read on some site, “How can we represent God by something He states as being clearly detestable to Him?”
Eric, I see what you’re saying but I’m trying to think about it outside of the Children’s genre and include LoTR (sorcery), Narnia, Star Wars (clearly sets up a religious system), and maybe this will bring a few more people into the discussion … A Christmas Carol (necromancy).
A Christmas Carol–now that’s a great example for this discussion.
David I am inclined to agree with you. Logically, I doubt any of our arguments (including Tolkien’s and Lewis’) can logically get us off the hook on this one. It seems to be a matter of conscience.
(Didn’t mean to derail the previous discussion, again.)
Jason, to answer your questions specifically:
Here’s the problem: what does it mean to “take a thought captive and make it obedient to Christ?” A thought is not a person; it cannot obey… If you use the word “mind” there it makes more sense.
Even in the modern era, we use phrases like “battling for the minds of America.” It’s a figure of speech that refers to “thinking people.” I think it is more modest to take Paul’s use of noema to be talking about the people involved, with specific emphasis on their ways of thinking.
So inasmuch as thoughts are incapable of obedience, I do not think the context of 2 Corinthians 10:5 supports a doctrinal imperative about Christians controlling their thoughts or imaginations. Rather, I submit that it is a merely a specific communication to the recipients of the letter in Corinth that Paul and those on his side are going to fight aggressively to defeat and/or win over the minds of those who oppose them.
For the record, I neither affirm nor reject your statement about hearts and minds being synonymous.
No, I don’t see how it could be hypothetical. As you suggest, fighting against false ideas entails argument, and argument serves to change the way people think. So far, so good. But this doesn’t begin to address 1) the fitness of 2 Cor. 10:5 as a basis for a doctrine of imagination, or 2) whether one’s approval of a story that features a fairy godmother who uses magic constitutes a pattern of thought that needs to be demolished in the first place.
Sorry if I put the wrong words in your mouth in trying out the two paraphrases. The idea in paraphrasing like that is just to check your understanding in context; it can illuminate the semantics of your understanding. If you extract a concept, paraphrase it in a way that captures your understanding of the concept, and put it back in context only to discover that it no longer makes coherent sense, maybe there’s something amiss…
For the record, I am not suggesting that the paraphrase can be used interchangeably with the text of Scripture itself. It’s simply a technique for validating one’s understanding of the meaning of an individual verse within the context of the passage it belongs to.
Question for you: Jason, how would you make the argument that 2 Cor. 10:5 is a doctrinal imperative that requires us to banish from our thoughts (for example) fictional accounts of fictional characters inhabiting fictional worlds using fictional magic to tell a fictional story that echoes a beautiful and edifying real-world theme?
Jason, I don’t think we’ve met officially but I’m a pretty big sci-fi/fantasy fan and I’m desperately trying to work this out myself. :^)
Here we go (this is my processing of Eric’s idea)…
Okay, here we have the law listing out specific actions. It’s easy to focus on the labels and the actions themselves, and not see the purpose of the law and what it is really prohibiting.
In reality the law is not about restricting supernatural actions (AKA: miracles, predicting the future, speaking to the dead, etc). If it were then many of the Patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and Jesus himself would be guilty of just about all of these. The law is about prohibiting the worship of and calling on of evil spirits — whether to speak to the dead, manipulate the environment/people, or to see the future.
Though the actions and results appear to be the same — much like murder and God commanding Israel to slaughter entire nations — the law is not about the actions themselves but the authority behind the action.
In a fictional story that involves magic, unless otherwise specifically stated, there is no truth in saying that demonic spirits are the authority behind the actions and the resulting effects — it is only the idea of supernaturalism itself.
David, I agree with your take on Deut. 18. I think you have a great point about the authority behind the law, but the actions themselves have some weight. The ban on the Canaanites was commanded by God and the actions of Deut. 18 are not, but that doesn’t change the point you are making. I also agree that the passage is not forbidding the supernatural (God himself is a spirit).
Actually, the practices condemned in Deut. 18 have more to do with divination (the process of using mediums to interpret the will of God). You can see how such acts fly in the face of having faith in God and trusting him despite not knowing his will.
For that reason, I like the arguments that say the fantasy genre of literature is okay…divination is not at all in view in any of the books we have discussed.
Hugh, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Sorry if I sounded somewhat accusative….I struggle with how to convey tone in a blog (I thought I sounded somewhat whiney above).
Now I see that our disagreement concerns our differing philosophy of hermeneutics (or methods of biblical interpretation).
To continue our discussion…you asked, “what does it mean to take a thought captive and make it obedient to Christ? A thought is not a person; it cannot obey….if you use the word ‘mind’ there it makes more sense.”
Etymologically speaking, any Greek lexicon will tell you that noema can be translated as “thought.” This makes sense because how can individual thoughts be separated from the mind? There is a logical connection. Even if we did what you suggest and translated 2 Cor. 10:5 as, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every mind captive to obey Christ,” you still have not solved the problem you are creating by your argument.
I would ask, “What does it mean to take a mind captive and make it obedient to Christ? A mind is not a person; it cannot obey.” I think it is easy to see why these words are synonymous. Mind=Thoughts
Maybe I simply do not understand your argument because then you said, “I think it is more modest to take Paul’s use of noema to be talking about people involved, with specific emphasis on their ways of thinking.” I could not agree more. I believe this adds to my case (which by the way, the ASV, ESV, KJV, NAS, NIV, NKJV, and RSV Bibles all agree) that the translation of noema as thought is appropriate. Saying this sounds as though you are of two minds on this issue (no pun intended).
Why are you so eager to separate “thought” from “mind?” What is your reason?
To address the hermeneutics of this passage: In this verse Paul uses the plural pronoun “we” by saying “we destroy.” To whom is he referring to? It seems that he believes others are engaging in this warfare with him. Who are they? I think it is safe to say this verse has applications for all Christians. Shouldn’t we as Christians be like Paul?
You also said, “Insomuch as thoughts are incapable of obedience….” I agree, but the thinking people are the focus in the verse (which I believe you said- again, I see this as double-mindedness).
You also said, “I do not think the context of 2 Cor. 10:5 supports a doctrinal imperative about Christians controlling their thoughts or imaginations.” Fair enough, that is a hermeneutical issue. I will grant you that it is not an imperative, but you might be overstating your point by destroying any modern application of this verse. How are we supposed to apply this verse today (I asked this above) today?
I agree that it is poor hermeneutics to use any one verse to build a doctrine, but I don’t believe I am guilty of this. I am guilty of providing a proof text without fully developing its context from scripture, not trying to build a doctrine off one verse- but I believe I provided a relevant proof text.
This verse is not an imperative, but are we only to apply and obey those verses that contain a clear imperative? I will even grant you that my application of this verse might not be the primary application of this verse (but given that it addressing Paul’s methods of arguing it is relevant for apologetics, and therefore I believe it is worthy of heeding and modeling).
If you grant me that the heart and mind are synonymous in scripture- I will have no problem building a case for Christ’s Lordship over our thought lives (including the imaginations thereof) from the whole of scripture. Using Phil. 4:8 and many other verses.
The sense I get from you is that this is not necessary because you agree that Christ is Lord of our thoughts.
I did not try and establish the argument that “one’s approval of a story that features a fairy godmother that uses magic constitutes a pattern of thought that needs to be demolished in the first place.” I used 2 Cor. 10:5 to refute the possibility that Tolkien was implying in that the creation of his imagination was somehow outside of the Lordship of Christ. He said,
“Since the whole matter from beginning to end is mainly concerned with the relation of Creation to making and sub-creation…it must be clear that references to these things are not casual, but fundamental: they may well be fundamentally ‘wrong’ from the point of view of Reality- but they cannot be wrong inside this imaginary world, since that is how it is made.”
I believe that Tolkien could be guilty of wrong thinking, or, he could be of a wrong mind.
I believe that he is right in the sense that magic does not offend the Gods of Middle-Earth as he created it, but that does not change the fact that his imagining magic in Middle-Earth could be offensive to the God of Realtiy. I do not believe that this is the case (due to the divination issue discussed with David above), but his thinking is flawed if he believes that God will not hold him accountable on the Judgment Day for the creation of his imagination- an imagination that has influenced millions.
Maybe he will be blameless in this (I tend to think he did not sin in his creation), but to think that his ‘sub-creation’ is under a different Lordship just because he imagined it…if that is what he is thinking, is wrong.
Sorry for the long post, and the bold tag was supposed to end behind the first question mark. My bad. I am not shouting.
Ouch, sorry for the really long post. Won’t happen again.
I fixed the post.
I don’t think that Tolkien is saying that his creation not subject to Christ’s lordship, but that the elements within his creation (characters, etc.) are not. This is because they exist in an imagined world with different rules (Strictly speaking they do not exist [i.e., Are leprechauns under the lordship of Christ? No, because there are no leprechauns, so the question is nonsensical.]). For example, in Narnia, the characters are under the lordship of Aslan, which is not ‘Biblical.’
What do you mean, “there are no leprechauns”?!
What’s next, there’s no Great Pumpkin?!
Argh. Don’t know if anybody’s listening anymore and I’m kinda cranky about now…
I’m stuck on the 2 Corinthians verse and the whole mind/thought thing because I have no idea what it means to “make a thought obedient,” especially in the context of a real guy (Paul) writing a real letter to real people (the Corinthians).
When you ask, “but are we only to apply and obey those verses that contain a clear imperative?” — of course not. But we should apply and obey the verses in keeping with the way they were penned. How should we make application of what Paul wrote? He said something about himself (or his party) in a particular context. You’re going to have to show me how the verse, in its context, supports a doctrinal position on what is proper for our imaginations. Like I said, Phil. 4 offers a much stronger prima facie grounding for the point you’re making.
… er… what?
Yeah, sorry. I felt bad as soon as the post published and I saw that I was basically asking you to read a novel to interact with this issue. I just type fast. I think you are right about nobody listening. We can drop it.
I do see your point. I think we are touching on all kinds of big issues that are connected, but we can leave them alone. I apologize for bombarding you and the issue.
Just to answer you last post, I think that based on 2 Cor. 10:5 we can learn that even our imagination should be captive to Christ, but that is not it’s primary emphasis. I also agree about the usefulness of Phil. 4:8 to strengthen this argument.
To make one’s thoughts obedient to Christ, we should “think God’s thoughts after him,” or in other words-think in a way that is consistent with revelation, more specifically the Bible itself. The sanctified mind, by the aid of the Holy Spirit and the words of scripture, can learn to reject the foolish speculations of man and think in a way that is consistent with the world as it really is and not how his sinful heart interprets it.
New Living Translation offers this:
See also Open To Interpretation. :^)
Then there was this….
You couldn’t be more wrong, bucko… right about now I feel like I’m of no mind at all. I could use a spare! 😉
G’nite all!
Mr. Ennis, interesting post thread that you linked to. I enjoyed reading it. My view (and the view of most in the Reformed tradition) is that there is one hermeneutical method that is biblically correct and that it can be found in the Bible itself.
That is not to say that it solves all our problems, but it solves the interpretation problem that Hugh and I are having concerning different interpretations of the same verse.
Translation differences are often due to issues of grammar. More often than that they are issues of theology that is held by the translators. The goal for Christians should be to look at how the Bible interprets itself and then model that.
Most people don’t know that a lot of the current evangelical church operates on a hermeneutical methodology that grew out of the Enlightenment (Historical-Grammatical method). That is not to say that it is all bad, but it needs to be put in a Biblical framework.
Anyway, thanks for the read.
Here’s an article illustrating the modern day hassles of real life divination. Why bother? ;^)
From Cinderella to witchcraft and magic to Penthouse Forum to Sci-Fi? My head hurts.
You seemed to cover the bases so I will be brief.
I find fantasy magic harmless in many cases, but I will continue to ponder some of the points made here.
I saw the “bomb Bewitched movie” over the summer. I admit it! 🙂
One more thing…
What about watching super hero shows, movies or cartoons, with their super powers? (No Bible-Man jokes please) I guess Samson would be the only biblical parallel we could find, maybe even the miracles of Jesus and even the Apostles. Most super heroes we all know don’t acknowledge their super powers are gifts from God.
So do we just throw those out too? I guess I am trying to make a comparison of this to shows dealing with the magical or mystical as the plot almost always the same. Good vs. evil and save the girl. And good usually wins.
I will always keep a discerning eye out for the sake of myself and my family, but for us a good fantasy show or sci-fi series with a good message where good wins over evil is always good fun.
Over dinner the other day, Eric and I wondered why this topic isn’t more of an issue in Christian circles. I admit I held the “seems harmless to me” excuse but when you are faced with the words of Deut., it doesn’t seem to hold up. Do we accept the word of God based on what we deem harmful or benefitial?
Yesterday’s Bible study got me thinking about this again. The example of Elisha cursing the taunting youths seems to exemplify that it’s about the authority behind the action, not the action itself.
Taking the idea out of the fiction realm, something makes me think that Elisha wouldn’t be accepted in many churches these days.
Great point. I also hold the “harmless fantasy” view, but my conscience is not settled over this issue.
My bald friend put that verse about Elisha and the taunting youths on a T-shirt. Silly.
There is a way that seems right to a man…I’ll guess that you the rest…
We don’t make the rules!
Seriously all those of you who think this is nothing, need to ask our wonderful Father for more discernment and wisdom. “My people perish for lack of knowledge. ..” We live in a very deceptive realm and very dark days. If you don’t think the enemy has patience to subtly corrupt you and your children, you’re deceived. If you think you can’t be deceived, then you are! Disney and all things Disney are demonic. You may like to have a look at both these links. Dont be naive…..be alert brothers and sisters!!!!!!! I pray God opens your eyes. God bless
https://youtu.be/RfQdZjxn9wU
https://youtu.be/tH0fBWwpP6A
Amein, sister Michele,
I don’t believe any of these men would condone Cinderella or any of the works of Disney if they knew the pedophilic, pornographic, demonic origins and workings of the man and his mouse. The rising of the magic kingdom has been the working of ha satan, and his hand is over the hearts of the animators. It has been a crafty way to disguise abomination and the agenda to demoralize and corrupt generations, but at this time, the truth is being revealed to those who seek it. #beastalert
“So, what do you think? Am I rationalizing sin, or is there a legitimate distinction between Deuteronomy 18 and what we see in Cinderella?”
The freedom we have in Christ allows believers to seek God’s perspective rather than to provide a list of do’s and don’ts. But it really never gives us permission to judge unto condemnation as we exhort our brothers and sisters in Christ toward Christlikeness, for we will all have to answer to God for the freedom we have been given and how we used that freedom to further His kingdom. (1 Cor. 4:5) But we should seek God’s call on our own lives, for within the church God has vessels for common use and vessels for noble. (2 Timothy 2:20) Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael determined in advance that they would not defile themselves when they were offered the king’s food. When looking into what defiles someone it would be anything that corrupts the purity of something / someone, to sully or dishonor. We see that sanctifying themselves wasn’t limited to food and drink, but in their daily routines as people knew that they would not bow down to other “gods” or “idols” nor would they neglect their daily prayers. So it would seem that what happened throughout the book of Daniel showed that when these men determined in advance not to defile themselves, they were prepared for the persecution to come. But notice also, they were vessels used for honorable purposes, because they sanctified themselves and sought to honor our Lord. (2 Timothy 2:21)
So my prayer for the church is that we would determine in advance how to respond in accordance to the purpose and call we have in our lives. Some will avoid some of the freedoms they have in Christ, because they want to be set apart for noble use as they seek to honor God in ALL things, not just food or drink, but from some movies or books, holiday traditions, etc. Whatever we do, perhaps we should question if what we are doing will bring us closer to God to help us to know Him better and to seek His perspective. We have the Holy Spirit to guide us, and if we want to be used for honorable service, we need to seek to do things that honor Him above all things without regard to how others will view us. The enemy will use ridicule and scoffers to intimidate those who seek to honor God in all things, but from wherever the attacks may come, a man or woman of God will only answer to God for the choices he makes. Stand firm then in your faith and keep moving forward, praying that the church will follow the boldness they see in those who care more about God’s glory than their own.