Christian Fiction Devourers discussion
Archived Favorite Discussions
>
What makes a book "Christian"?
Isn't a Biblical worldview one that aligns itself with the Word? I'm not sure how that's confusing?Also, while there are things that overlap with Muslim beliefs in the Bible, they disagree with the main point, that Jesus is the son of God and the only way to salvation. So I don't see how they would fall under a Biblical worldview and agree with it as Terry means.
Some Biblical/Christian worldview definitions:http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith...
http://www.gty.org/resources/Question...
http://www.colsoncenter.org/the-cente...
Hi Bob!A Biblical world-view is a phrase that seems to have fallen into a bit of disuse in the last decade. I've encountered several people of late who have not heard of it. That is, I believe, partly because both the Reformed and Emergent movements have gotten away from using it in discussions for different reasons. Here is a good article that explains what is meant by a Christian worldview:
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith... There are three related articles, so make sure to click on the links to get each one.
For several generations there was also a term used about a Judeo-Christian worldview, focusing more on the moral absolutes given in the Old Testament, particularly in a legal sense of how the American Justice system was founded. Here's a link with a brief definition of that: http://www.gotquestions.org/Judeo-Chr...
What you mention sounds like a theocratic worldview—that there is a God in creation, and that those religions of the world which adhere to a single deity must then be enlightened and on separate paths to the same goal. Correct me if I've inferred wrongly.
Well, worldview goes WAY deeper than that. It basically refers to the lens a person views life through. For example, it refers to your moral code, your theological belief, and the basics of how you make choices while living life. Two people who are of two different religions will have two different worldviews unless their religion has no effect on them.
No, a Christian worldview is not the same as a Jewish or a Muslim worldview. Jewish is the closest because of the common portions of the Bible, but Judaism is works-based, where Christianity is faith-based. Major ramifications in daily life for that little difference. A devout Jew will need to observe rules and festivals, etc, to attain rightness with God.
Christianity and Islam, however, have little common ground in this sense of worldview. Though many Islamic values were taken from the Jewish law and history, the core beliefs of who their God is are different. Again you have the difference of faith vs. works, but now we have a completely different set of holy writings. The Bible offers a clear path to Jesus through the New Testament, with careful foreshadowing through prophecy in the Old Testament. The Koran offers a path to a single God, but not the same God. It is a religion that believes in morals, but which does not always have a clear view of what those morals are.
More later...have to head to work...
Bob wrote: "Terry wrote: "What makes a book Christian? I'd answer the question as follows.Christian fiction is fiction that is consistent with the biblical worldview. If the biblical worldview is true as it ..."
Ugh, Bob, I'm sorry for the shortness of my comment - I had more typed up but I was on my phone and apparently deleted it without realizing.
I won't bother trying to re-gather all of those thoughts because they were very much along the lines of what Hannah said, especially in her third and fourth paragraph.
In my limited understanding, I see worldview as the lens through which a person views the world, and your understanding, decision-making, etc is derived from that. For it to be a Biblical worldview, that would mean that you view the world through a lens that is based on the Word and most importantly, the fact that believing in and following Christ is the cornerstone of it.
In regards to fiction, I think Terry is saying that a Christian story illustrates a truth based on the Biblical worldview and won't be counter to that if it's truly coming from that perspective. A bit convoluted, I said it better in my earlier comment.
Bob et. al.,A biblical worldview focuses on the deity of Christ, and as such, is where it diverges from other monotheistic worldviews such as Judaism and Islam. I have written a short worldview series on my blog:
http://terrybarnes.us/blog
So back to the question, what makes a book Christian? In general terms, I'm saying it's a story that adheres to truth. But if you think about this answer, it broadens the traditional definition and contains massive implications.
Hi Terry, Beth and Hannah,Thanks for taking the time and thought to reply.
No, I wasn't proposing that a bare Theism (much less a theocratic regime!) was a 'Biblical world-view'. Far from it! Rather, I was asking what people mean when they use that term. Nothing was further from my intentions than to annoy or offend.
To specifics, Thanks to Terry for basing his use on 'the deity of Christ'. I understand more clearly now what he means, but I would have called this a 'Christian world-view' rather than a Biblical one (which could equally apply to other approaches that emphasise the Old Testament paradigms more literally).
Beth and Hannah, I wasn't saying that a Biblical world view 'overlaps' with Islam. I was implicitly asking what distinguished it from (among others) Islam. I had hoped that my second paragraph made this clear, and apologise if it was not. The adjective 'Biblical' without qualifiers is much broader than the narrower meaning you have assigned to it. By narrowing the meaning I now understand better what you mean.
I must apologise here for being perhaps too literalist in my use of language. Personally I wouldn't use 'biblical world-view' except in the broadest sense, including the Old Testament. I would use 'Christian' if I wanted to talk about themes common to the New Testament and broad Christian tradition (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc), and 'Protestant' if restricting myself further, etc.
As a worked example, I would have said ''Christian fiction is fiction that sensitively examines a significant aspect of Christian faith or discipleship. This can be done without any overt reference to 'religion' (example - by examining the concepts of personal integrity, commitment and loyalty as in Forrest Gump), or it could be in-your-face (as in 'The Mission' with Jeremy Irons and Robert de Niro). And it need not provide an 'answer', so long as it sensitively presents the question."
In this sense, I think Terry's most recent post is quite close to my current thinking.
Thank you all for your clarifications. I enjoy reflecting on what you say.
Bob wrote: "Hi Terry, Beth and Hannah,Thanks for taking the time and thought to reply.
No, I wasn't proposing that a bare Theism (much less a theocratic regime!) was a 'Biblical world-view'. Far from it! Ra..."
Perhaps it's worth saying that classically the mishmash of ideas in the Koran (which is when all's said and done the megalomaniac ravings of an epileptic child-abuser!) has been summed up as a Jewish-Christian heresy. Ideas, some central and some peripheral, are picked up from both the Old and the New Testaments, and regurgitated in a distorted form, with the core of our Faith being denied.
What makes a book "Christian"When the content helps the reader understand the Father (The Creator) - Son (me) relationship and gives guidance to enhance this relation.
A Christian book, whether fiction or non-fiction, may or may not have direct mention of Christ or prayer or church. But it does have inherent biblical values that shine through the topic, characters, or plot. The traditional publishers used to require certain elements like a mandatory salvation scene. But readers tired of that because it was preachy and often didn't fit the story. But the way I like to describe my books is stories that support a Christian faith walk. If a reader has experienced salvation, they want more than milk. We can add "meat" by showing how our characters address life's daily issues. Just some thoughts on a broad topic.
Hannah wrote: "Hi Bob!A Biblical world-view is a phrase that seems to have fallen into a bit of disuse in the last decade. I've encountered several people of late who have not heard of it. That is, I believe, p..."
What is the "Emergent" movement?
That word has two very different meanings that sometimes cause a lot of confusion in their usage. One means "beginning to emerge" and the other (used by "college graduates" who think they know what it means but don't) means "urgent, as in an emergency".
I assume this movement has been around for a while? Or is it just emergent?
Angela wrote: "A Christian book, whether fiction or non-fiction, may or may not have direct mention of Christ or prayer or church. But it does have inherent biblical values that shine through the topic, character..."Thank you! I agree.
Robert wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Hi Bob!A Biblical world-view is a phrase that seems to have fallen into a bit of disuse in the last decade. I've encountered several people of late who have not heard of it. That i..."
The Emergent church movement is a modern movement. They are different from fundamentalists, in some cases diametrically opposed to them. Rob Bell and others are leaders in this movement. I'll try to look up some links for you in a bit.
A book is Christian if the central theme or underlying truth centers on Christ covertly or overtly. Does it bring u closer to Christ or away? Does it build your spirit, make salvation plain. The Spirit of the writer matters as you cannot give what you do not haveIkechukwu JosephBible Faith Nuggets Series Box Set
This is an interesting thread, thanks for posting. I wonder about Christian fiction and the definitions you've offered. Many of the popular 'Christian' books selling well, centre on God, but in many of them, the 'christ' they portray has little to do with the biblical Christ.
I've written several Kingdom based novels, but I'm currently writing a collection of science fiction works that explore social, political and scientific issues. I wouldn't call them christian stories, but my faith and values are expressed by the characters and the events that occur.
I see 'Christian' books the way I see 'Christian' music. I don't think U2 call themselves a Christian band, but their faith is expressed and communicated through their music. I'm finding the same principle with my writing.
Okay, I did some research of my own on the "emergent" church. It is part of the "Emerging" movement, which sounds like another word for the "progressive" movement I've criticized as of late.Regarding the idea of a "Biblical" world-view, I have to say that's a pretty broad spectrum. There's a lot of Bible to build a view upon. I suppose that's why there's so much diversity amongst different denominations and movements. People can get some pretty weird ideas and still say it's based on a "Biblical world view".
What I see lacking in much of the newer movements is a Design-based view. I think the popularity of "democracy" has taken its toll on a lot of people's perspective. They think that the majority of human opinion is somehow stronger than God's original intentions. Like we can just vote to accept evolution and it becomes truth. Or if we can vote to accept a sin and it becomes acceptable. I mean, if you really think about it, do you really think the wheat can just vote to accept the weeds? Do you really think the sheep can band together and convince the shepherd not to separate the goats?
We can say God is Love and God wants us to be free all we want, but if we recognize God's original Design, there's not much margin for deviation, now, is there?
Gary wrote: "This is an interesting thread, thanks for posting. I wonder about Christian fiction and the definitions you've offered. Many of the popular 'Christian' books selling well, centre on God, but in m..."
Hi Gary,
I'm glad you picked Science Fiction as a vehicle for 'social, political and scientific issues', and are using a Christian perspective to inform your characters and plot line.
I have previously posted that Sci-fi is an excellent genre for such work.
I've also written one novel based in the present day which (primarily) follows the career of a Catholic priest. Yes, I'm Anglican, but I wanted to simplify the plot line. The book considers what might happen if chruches and priests placed their duty of care (in EVERY sense) to their most vulnerable as their highest priority.
But my second book examines more broad-based social issues such as patriarchal vs. matriarchal cultures, co-operative vs exploitative economic relationships and pacificism. So I have turned to sci-fi as the vehicle. Nothing 'gospelly' about it, but written from a Christian perspective.
Well, I come from the point of view that any book ought to illustrate truth. If a book lies, I don't give it the time of day. So for me to say that any book illustrating a truth that can be found in the Bible...well, the Bible is the ultimate truth. I don't believe that Christian writers should write anything but truth from their perspective. If that happens to be a book for the general market, such as Charles Martin or Jan Karon, so much the better. We are providing a good work of literature for the world to see. Such books are not Christian fiction, except in the sense that they are produced from the pen of a Christian.
Where the line gets more gray is where to draw the line between an inspirational-type message, such as Guideposts would be comfortable with, or a message specifically geared toward Christian readers or toward evangelism.
So I feel quite strongly that inspirational stories ought to get their own category, since in generations past these books were put in the general market section, but the general market now frowns upon mentions of God or prayer. However, I think this is mostly the section of writing that we're currently discussing the boundaries of, right?
Christian fiction to me is a book that contains one or more of the following:
-Direct reference to Scriptures
-Direct reference to Jesus
-People claiming to be born again who actively live a holy life or at least realize there's a standard of such to attain to
-People being saved
-People talking about or living out their faith
-People learning from their mistakes and acknowledging God as the standard for truth in their lives
Beyond that, I expect a Christian novel to adhere to standards of cleanliness along the lines of "Whatsoever is pure" etc etc. If there's sin, it should be frankly spoken of, but not in lurid detail. Bed scenes are not necessary or edifying. Strong language can easily be shown by "cursing" without spelling out the words. Sin should have consequences shown and not be brushed off as a casual oops.
A few posters have made a special point about 'truth'.I'm all in favour of truth! As much of it as I can get!
I'm so much in favour of it that I think a great deal about the precise nature of 'Truth'.
Let's start simple. A statement is 'true' if it accurately represents something real. The Parables are a case in point, and they are 'true' even if there never was an historical Prodigal Son or an historical Good Samaritan. They are 'true' because they accurately portray some word about how God would have us live.
Of course, ultimate Truth is to be found in God alone, and human words or thoughts are not up to that task. But in so far as our words and thoughts can convey a metaphor, they can be 'true'. For this reason, both 'work out your salvation in fear and trembling' is true when it urges us to a certain personal effort, and 'because it is God who works in you' is also true when it says that it is entirely a work of God. Metaphors are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, 'truth' as an abstract absolute is a very Greek concept. The Hebrew word 'Emeth' means 'true', but its primary meaning is 'reliable'. A friend is 'true' if you can rely on him, advice is 'true' if it provides a wise basis for a decision, etc. And God is 'true' because he is reliable, unlike all the false (i.e., unreliable) gods in the Ancient Near East.
So yes, Hannah and Terry and others are putting forward an excellent working definition of what a Christian book should do when they require it to be about truth. The book should prompt the reader to ponder one or more 'truths', in this Hebrew sense, to adopt ways of thinking that are based on God and His revelation to us.
Bob wrote: "Gary wrote: "This is an interesting thread, thanks for posting. Thanks Bob, I also have a heart for the most vulnerable, the 'least' and the most broken. I actually left a ministry in the Anglican church to minister to street people, prostitutes and addicts. I've used my experiences in my fiction stories though not directly bringing real people and events in to my fiction world.
As for using stories—I was fortunate enough to do some study on the Jewish culture, sages and Rabbinic teachings that Jesus spoke out of and quoted.
One Teacher I had [D Prior] said he discovered historical stories that were similar to the story of the Prodigal Son. In one case, the Father was so devastated by his son's greedy and disrespectful actions in wanting his inheritance, that he was said to have died from a broken heart.
What a fantastic question! As pertinent as "what makes a Christian christian?" Almost as many different answers as there are people with an opinion on this one.I know a pastor who sees great Christian truth in the Star Wars series (although I heard recently that George Lucas was writing from an anti (Vietnam) war position.
So is it enough to feel inspired to show love and kindness having read a particular book? Does that make it Christian? The faithful of other religions might feel excluded by this assertion.
One of the greatest, most important books (plays) I ever read was Nathan the Wise, which to my understanding was a book about love, tolerance, understanding, the promotion of peace, but was banned by the church (in the 1700s) as it failed to proclaim that Christianity was the greatest of the three monotheistic religions.
Sorry, no real answers for you, just some musings and more questions...
Hannah wrote: "Well, I come from the point of view that any book ought to illustrate truth. If a book lies, I don't give it the time of day. So for me to say that any book illustrating a truth that can be found i..."So does a book that is "true" also need to be "realistic? Not so much to say that Science Fiction is off-limits, but to say that the human nature depicted within needs to be accurately portrayed?
My thoughts go instantly to romance novels, which are the staple of many large Christian publishing houses, but still often cater to the unrealistic expectations of romance. A few years back I kept hearing about these "Twilight Divorces" brought on by women who would read those romance books and start wishing their husbands could live up to the incredibly unrealistic expectations of the characters. I know that's not Christian, and it's obviously not realistic, but neither is Amish or Western romance. So I guess what I'm asking is: If there's a great Christian message, but it's wrapped up in an unrealistic romance, does the former outweigh the damage done by the latter?
Well, I don't think I was clear enough in my comment. Here's what I meant to say:Just because a book illustrates some great cosmic truth does not automatically make it Christian.
Just because a book promotes peace or justice or kindness or reconciliation does not make it Christian. Just because it shows somebody praying or mentioning God does not make it Christian.
Re: the Nathan the Wise book: You don't have to call the book Christian to say you have found it life changing. For example, "Tale of Two Cities" deeply influenced my historical worldview, and it is not a Christian book. "Nathan the Wise" did not "fail to proclaim Christianity the greatest"; it placed Christianity equal to Judaism and Islam. Major difference. Christianity is not simply "a greater religion"—it is radically different. Not to say you can't learn lots of great things from that book, but it is not Christian by any definition.
Robert wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Well, I come from the point of view that any book ought to illustrate truth. If a book lies, I don't give it the time of day. So for me to say that any book illustrating a truth that..."Hehe, of course you had to bring that up!!
Short answer: when a book focuses too much on the flesh (adding sex scenes, etc) then, yes, it can easily become an idol in someone's life. I have authors that I trust who write romantic fiction that portrays a pretty balanced view.
I had someone recommend a romance once that was supposedly by a Christian author, though published in general market. The book's message, loud and clear, was "if you love someone well enough, you can help them get over their past sins." Umm...no. That's what we need atonement for.
Another book I picked up recently was published for the Christian market, and its message was clearly "oh, we sinned, but we're Christian, so we get forgiven" and showed no consequences.
Both of those types of books are contrary to the Bible's message.
However, just because I occasionally read a book of romantic fiction doesn't mean I have an issue with my view of the real world. It all depends on the author and what message is sent...
For the record, my wife introduced me to Love Inspired books while I was recovering from a surgery many years ago, and I found some of them to be very enjoyable. I do sometimes read romance (although I don't post it in my bookshelves here), and I've noticed that sometimes even the mainstream ones seem to have a bit of "Christian" message in them. I can't help but wonder if the author is trying to reach out to the readers with a little more "truth" than what they bought the book for.Romance is not the only genre rife with misleading expectations. What can be said for all those non-fiction "Christian" books that offer promises and prophecies that so often fail to be true? My Christian book store is full of them. I like to walk by the clearance shelf and laugh at all the prophecy books that are no longer relevant, but at the same time, how many people are being given inspirational advice that is only going to lead them to disillusionment later on? And how many non-fiction Christian books feature happy endings that are not realistic? After a while, a guy can start to feel like God is not treating him the same way as all those "happily ever afters" he's reading about. It's kind of like a Twilight Divorce, only it's God who isn't living up to those expectations.
I consider a book christian if it's Biblically sound in doctrine or if it's based in a Biblically correct frame.
What do you get if your "Biblical world-view" is based on a "worldy Biblical-view"? So often we call the Bible "God's Word", but what do we think God is saying? Can our own assumptions about the Author and His message lead us to see something completely different than what He wanted us to see?
I think most of us don't realize that that "worldly Biblical..." in any sense is an irreconcilable oxymoron.
I disagree. When Constantine turned the symbol of the cross into a sign of conquest, he was imposing his worldly view (that of conquest) onto the image of Christianity. When the Church finally embraced "Samhain" by creating a "Christian" imitation holiday at the same time of year (All Saint's Day, or Halloween), it was also an infiltration of the worldly view into the culture of Christianity. When the Anglican word and imagery of "Hell" replaced the concept of Hades that was used by Jesus and the NT authors, it was yet again an imposition of the "worldly" view imposed on the interpretation (and translation) of the Bible. The real question is this: how much of what we know to be the Bible (or at least, our interpretation of it) is based on worldly influences that found their way in?
A few years ago, one of the kids in my class came to me with what he thought was a really great idea for a "Christian" video game. The player had to fight your way through a set of dungeons to collect pages from the Bible, and each page gave you increased powers and abilities. After he described it to me, I asked him if the player would ever read the Bible's pages, and the kid just gave me a blank stare. Read? The Bible? His worldly view assumed that the Bible was just a sacred book; like any other sacred item from the video game world, you didn't actually try to understand it. You just collected its pieces with the expectation that it would somehow, magically give you power.He's not the only kid I know who thinks that way about the Bible, either.
Robert wrote: "A few years ago, one of the kids in my class came to me with what he thought was a really great idea for a "Christian" video game. The player had to fight your way through a set of dungeons to coll..."I'm currently in a Bible study that is reading What to Do When You Don't Know What to Do. The third chapter talked about the modern perception of what the Bible says. People may say they know the Bible, or that they believe it is the inerrant word of God, then be unable to even name the Gospels, much less to be able to identify passages or concepts within them. Yes, it's scary.
A few years ago I wrote a Bible study that explored the same issue. I used the illustration of a treasure map. Two guys find this Bible with a map inside. The map doesn't make any sense, but they both make assumptions about what it is going to lead them to. Turns out they're both wrong. As they start following the clues, they start to get a deeper and deeper understanding as to where the map is leading them. In the end, they discover that the map is really leading them to a portal into another world. One of the guys is curious what's on the other side and goes through. The other guy is disappointed that it is not what he expected it to be, and he stays behind.Guess which character the rest of the adventure is about.
Robert wrote: "What do you get if your "Biblical world-view" is based on a "worldy Biblical-view"? So often we call the Bible "God's Word", but what do we think God is saying? Can our own assumptions about the Au..."Absolutely true, Robert!
That's why the oh-so-boring craft of good exegesis is so important. Many people think this is an academic way of 'explaining away' what should be 'the commonsense meaning' of a Biblical passage. But often the 'commonsense meaning' is something that would have left the original writers wondering how we got that meaning out of what they wrote.
Every mature Christian should know that context is critical but that doesn't just mean the verse either side, or even the whole chapter. Historical and cultural context is just as important. For example, Matt 27:54 has a Roman centurion saying of Jesus 'Truly this was the Son of God!'
Modern readers interpret this within the context of Trinitarian teaching, and they're not wrong in that respect. But they fail to realise that the Emperor of Rome was also titled 'son of god'. Augustus in particular stamped on his coins 'son of the divine Julius (Caesar)'. Therefore they fail to see that this statement was a recognition by one sworn to follow Caesar that even the transitory gods of this world acknowledge Jesus as the TRUE 'son of God'.
The meaning of Scripture doesn't change over time. Sometimes the application might have to adjust for unforeseen circumstances, but the root meaning never! Therefore Scripture should always be read with the central question being 'what would this have meant to the original writer?', and not with a later filter in front of our eyes.
I am re-posting this from another thread since I think it's a good illustration of how somebody can get the wrong idea in their head and think they have it right:When I was a kid, my dad was what some would call a "treasure hunter". We lived in the Pacific Northwest, where pirates buried their treasure and gold miners and stage-coach robbers hid their strongboxes full of gold out in the woods all around us. Dad would pour over maps and research clues about some of the legends, then take me and my brothers out into the woods to try and find some of the lost mines and buried treasure. It's how I spent a lot of my Saturdays.
Then R.E.M. released that song onto the radio: "Stand in the place where you live, now face north...." I pored over those lyrics. I was convinced that it was a set of clues to find buried treasure. After all, wasn't that what I had been raised to expect? Combined with all those Hardy Boys mysteries where clues always led to treasure, such a cryptic set of lyrics could have only been a map to find some kind of lost trove.
Years later, I laugh about that song. But I also use it as a lesson to those who are convinced that they are reading a "holy" book the way it was meant to be read. Could it be that the authors, like the artists behind that song, had something completely different in mind when they wrote it?
Robert wrote: "I disagree. When Constantine turned the symbol of the cross into a sign of conquest, he was imposing his worldly view (that of conquest) onto the image of Christianity. When the Church finally embr..."But you are talking about "worldly Christianity." Things added that are not Biblical. Things of the world are opposed to the Bible, including the traditions of men and the ceremonies men enjoy adding. Constantine is not Biblical; Constantine is worldly.
For example, some people come to the Bible and start by seeing something about "God wants good for me." So, logic takes them from "God wants me successful" to "God wants me happy" to "God wants me rich." Are any of those in the Bible? Especially not the last! And yet many worldly churches have added such beliefs to their canon of teaching. The Bible says "count it all joy when you enter divers temptations..."—so evidently God has a lot different definition of joy than financiers want us to think.
The Bible is not worldly. The Bible does not change to be what the generations want it to become.
It is the church that takes the Bible off the podium and uses the world to interpret the Word. That never works out well!
Many years ago, when I was helping with an Older Teens group in a Brethren chapel, I set up a discussion circle. The kids were told that they were a formerly unknown tribe, iron-age technology, and some Christian missionaries had turned up. I divided the group into five 'Chiefs', who had power in the tribe, ten 'traditional commoners', and five who had converted. We walked through a series of likely reactions by all groups to how the other two groups were acting. That's how 'history' happens.After a bit over an hour of very intense discussions, which included a couple of cycles of persecutions as traditionalists tried to suppress a new faith that might offend the old gods, we got to an interesting place. These Brethren kids, whose whole Church culture included the independence of each Assembly from all others and the rejection of any form of ordination, had established an association with other nearby villages to train their young men in the Scriptures and required that only single young men should be trained this way so they would be able to move quickly in case of persecution. They were also cheaper for the church to support if they had no family, so they could concentrate on study and teaching.
Then, after more traditionalists joined the believers despite all these efforts, one of the 'Chiefs' said that trying to get rid of this new faith wasn't working. If you can't beat them, join them!
That was when I called her 'Constantine' and pointed out that they had developed many of the structures of the third-century Catholic Church, complete with professional celibate clergy.
Which Church Tradition is best? I asked. All of them have their own merits and demerits, so don't be hasty to condemn.
Robert wrote: "I am re-posting this from another thread since I think it's a good illustration of how somebody can get the wrong idea in their head and think they have it right:When I was a kid, my dad was what..."
Which is exactly why we should study, also, the context in which the verses were written. It has always fascinated me to study, for instance, why it was so incredible that Joseph would stand for one God in the midst of an Egyptian culture of many gods and yet gain such prominence in society...etc.
Recently my Sunday School class was discussing David and Goliath...all of our literature and traditions depict Daivd as a skinny kid. However, Samuel had already anointed him to be the next King, and he must have been tall, as Saul himself offered his armor, and Saul was head and shoulders above his fellows. It was pretty fascinating.
I just noticed that this conversation has moved a long way from the original question 'What makes a book 'Christian'?It's a good question that can lead out onto new territory as creatively as this!
Thanks, B.C.! You have done us all a good service!
I think to have a thread of some length depicting the Christian journey and its challenges. Just to shed some light on who God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are to humanity.
Hey guys,Can a nonbeliever write a Christian book?
Do you mean nonbeliever literally, or just any unsaved person?
I consider the two the same thing. So can a nonbeliever, or unsaved person, write a Christian book?
Terry wrote: "I consider the two the same thing. So can a nonbeliever, or unsaved person, write a Christian book?"I do believe the Bible teaches once saved always saved, so if someone differs from that point, they'll probably disagree with this one.
Nonbeliever: Someone who does not like Christianity nor proclaim that God is supreme will not be able to disguise their hypocrisy even if they attempt to write a Christian book. If they don't at least have some pretense of believing it, the writing will be easily distinguished as false.
Unsaved/false prophets/wolves in sheep's clothing: These folks, on the other hand, may be Christian by habit and culture and never have known God. They will be familiar both with the beliefs and practices of faith and may deceive many by their writings/teachings. These sorts of people can be found in the headlines every year as their true colors show and their "ministries" suffer shipwreck. I don't think I even need to name some names.
So, yes. People who are not saved can and do write books which show up on Christian shelves and occasionally are responsible for greatly helping build faith in others, while in themselves they are simply hypocrites.
For example, my grandfather was a preacher who counted many salvations and had a ledger of how many people he'd baptized in the front leaf of his pocket Bible. He could cry over the people's sins in the pulpit in the morning, see souls saved, and go tryst with the deacon's daughters in the woods afterward. He destroyed his own family and many others, stole church money over and over again, etc; yet he had the gift of oratory. He never gave any evidence of having been born again himself, yet seemed to think that God would credit him for the people he'd preached to.
Yes a non-believer can write a Christian book, or a book with an explicit Christian message. However, that doesn't mean that God can't use the book(s) to inspire others and change their lives. In the end, truth is truth whether others believe it or not, and even though the person writing the novel may not truly believe what is being written, it doesn't diminish or reduce the truth of the Christian message in any way.
Tito and Hannah,The key is that the nonbelieving writer must write honestly and truly. Of course this also needs to be true for the Christian writer.
Hannah wrote: "As Peter denied Christ, he did so the third time with "great oaths". Sin is frankly spoken of throughout the Bible, as well as tales of violent nature, but a curse is never spelled out. We don't kn..."That's an interesting point, since some Christians believe that to speak a thing is to give it a bridge between the spiritual and physical worlds. Therefore, to that way of thinking, a spoken curse, even a repeated one, might give it a kind of real-world power.
Mary wrote: "Hannah wrote: "As Peter denied Christ, he did so the third time with "great oaths". Sin is frankly spoken of throughout the Bible, as well as tales of violent nature, but a curse is never spelled o..."That's a crucial point, Mary.
Our 'scientific' world-spirit tends to look only on the material, and ignores the power of words. You only have to see how 'freedom of speech' is the new catchcry for many who seek a licence to spread hate, give offence or otherwise act destructively. 'It's only word!" the would cry.
But the Universe was created by the Word. Not just the pre-existent Son, but specifically by God saying 'Let it be so!' Words are powerful!
And the same continues today when words are used by humans created in God's Image. My marriage was 'created' not by a mere physical act but by an exchange of vows. Laws and contracts create the framework for a civilised society. Orders given and followed can result in the deaths of millions. A bare-handed Christian speaking the Gospel can offer eternal Life.
Words are the most powerful tool (other than specifically spiritual means) available to humans. We would do well to use them carefully.
Well said. It's very true that God created everything we see, and a good deal more that we don't, with His word alone. Since we are made in the image and likeness of God, it stands to reason that our words have power (albeit lesser power) as well. It's good to be reminded occasionally that Christianity assumes the supernatural, and that our worldview should include far more than the merely material.
Gary wrote: "This is an interesting thread, thanks for posting. I wonder about Christian fiction and the definitions you've offered. Many of the popular 'Christian' books selling well, centre on God, but in m..."
Were "The Chronicles of Narnia" Christian? By many of these definitions here, I would say no. Yet Lewis was, supposedly, attempting to infuse readers with Christian principles in these tales. He was evangelizing by insinuation, by the back door. Which may be far more effective a means of evangelism among certain groups particularly in this day and age. If you are attempting to infuse your Sci-Fi works with Christian mores and thereby do what Lewis did so well, best of luck and God Bless. That sort of work is tricky, but worth doing in my estimation.....Oh and I'm new here, hope you don't mind my jumping in. The discussion is interesting.
Tito wrote: "Yes a non-believer can write a Christian book, or a book with an explicit Christian message. However, that doesn't mean that God can't use the book(s) to inspire others and change their lives. In t..."Mark 10 verses 38-41 seem pertinent here.
Christian Fiction Devourers
Books mentioned in this topic
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (other topics)The riddle of the New Testament (other topics)
O Love How Deep: A Tale of Three Souls (other topics)
Deadly Consequences (other topics)
The Global War on Christians: Dispatches from the Front Lines of Anti-Christian Persecution (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Julie Klassen (other topics)Laura Frantz (other topics)
Christian fiction is fiction that is consistent with the biblical worldview. If the biblical worldview is true as it claims, then C..."
Hi Terry,
I'm groping for a clear understanding of what you mean by some of your phrases. 'Biblical world-view', for example. My naive understanding of this phrase is that God is a creator who is separate from the Creation, but intimately involved in it; and that humans are intended to reflect His (her?) character. So far we have a world-view that Jews would agree with, and many Muslims.
So I conclude that what you have in mind is a bit more sharply defined. Please, provide that definition. Or alternatively, confirm that you do indeed mean the term to be as wide as I have interpreted.
I'm not trying to be critical here. I suspect that what you have to say could be enlightening and stimulating, but you might need to walk with me.