The Importance of Imagination
When most people think of imagination they think of kids at play, or maybe day dreaming in an office cubicle. Generally the word conjures thoughts of escapism, wasting time, and indulging oneself in un-reality.
What would you say if I told you that imagination is one of the most powerful parts of the human capacity for thought? and communication?
Certainly most will admit upon more thought, that imagination is at the root of all invention, most art work and creative endeavours. Most would not think of this, but imagination is crucial in most scientific inquiry as well. This is at least partially because the capacity for wonder, which motivates the best science, and the capacity for abstract thought are both closely linked to imagination.
The importance of all those things can hardly be over estimated. Yet there is something deeper that I want to get at. Something about imagination which I think is even more important. This has to do with vision, and communication.
One of the most important things in any human life is vision. God has said in the scriptures, of course, that without a vision, the people perish. This is fairly obvious in the facts of life as well. Life without vision becomes nothing more than an endless string of days bound together by monotony and drudgery. This knowledge is so common and so routinely referenced that it has become cliche. We see on a daily basis, people around us who exist, but do not live. They go through the motions of life, but everything has become blah, and routine.
One of the most famous statements of this affliction was from Marie Antoinette - "Nothing tastes".
This is the affliction of people who do not have vision. Not only " a vision" as in a goal, or a driving desire to accomplish something, but even "vision" in general. The ability to see.
Throughout history we can put forward dozens upon dozens of examples of people who have had "A vision". People consumed with passion to accomplish a goal, to achieve something. Life certainly had meaning for them. Yet even that aside there is just 'vision' itself. The ability to see.
The world we live in is a marvelous, wonderful place... wonderful in the true sense of the word. Full of wonders. Our world is magical, life is magical. Those who exist but do not live have lost the ability to see the true reality of the world around them. They have lost their vision.
A person with vision can see each sunset as a moment of such poignant beauty that words fail to describe it. A person with vision can watch the stars and begin to grasp the ungraspable concept of infinite wonder.
A person without vision can look at a thousand sunsets and see nothing but the end of another day with the promise of more drudgery tomorrow. They can see a thousand starry nights and see nothing but what they didn't get that day, or how early work will come tomorrow.
I have called it vision.. but it could as well be called revelation. The opening of ones eyes to see a reality that escapes most people.
This ability to see rests in the human capacity of imagination.
Most people think of imagination as the ability to see what isn't really there. Ironically those who view imagination only in this way often fall prey to a 'reason' that is most accurately described as the ability to not see what is really there.
It is on the level of imagination that vision is communicated, it is on the level of imagination that our eyes are opened to see new revelations of the true reality in which we live.
What would you say if I told you that perhaps the two most influential christian authors in recent history were J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis?
There have been many authors who have written reams upon reams of theology, and motivational books without end. Yet I would wager that none of them have even come close to speaking to as many people, or speaking with such profound impact as Tolkien and Lewis.
If I said this to many people I know they would laugh me off. How could fantasy novels by influential, or speak profoundly?? The somewhat ironic answer I would give is that they are almost the only kind of books that can!
It is the imaginative part of us that makes things profound. That is where we receive and interact with vision.
Aside from being a fan of Tolkien and Lewis, I am amazed by the clarity of vision they possessed regarding the times in which they lived. They recognized half a century ago the problems and evils of the 'modernist' mindset that had engulfed the world. They recognized the perils attached to a worldview that largely shunned imagination and defined itself by naturalistic realism. Only the visible natural world exists. Only that which can be proven, can be believed.
They recognized then that reason, devoid of imagination and ultimately faith, became unreasonable. They recognized that the core of modernist philosophy inherently and inevitably destroyed vision.
What is more they deliberately set out to combat the philosophy they loathed. While they did not write their fantasy to make statements (that is exactly what modernists would do, and the very type of thing they both loathed), in their fantasies and fictions, they told truth. The conveyed vision. Not agendas, not causes, not propaganda, not moralistic message. Vision, nothing more, nothing less. Vision of life, of the world, of truth.
In his tales of middle earth, Tolkien communicated a vision of our world, more accurate, and real than a dozen scientists who know all about atoms and thermodynamic laws, but nothing about forests and stars and the full moon rising on a foggy night.
Lewis, in a single phrase about "death working backwards" conveyed more vision of redemption than a horde of Harvard M.Div's writing essays on legal justification.
We are currently living at the cusp of a philosophical struggle, when one dominant philosophy is on the verge of being over thrown by a revival. The modernist philosophy which began in the enlightenment and the scientific revolution (and probably the reformation too) is in the struggle of its life with the somewhat unimaginatively named "post-modernism".
Post-modernism is, in many ways, a rejection of the very things that Tolkien and Lewis despised about the modernist worldview. Those dry, vision less ideas have failed. They have utterly failed to provide what people really need. The problem is that post-modernism goes to far in its reaction to the failure of modernism. Both Tolkien and Lewis were medievalists. They were not only scholars of medieval history, language, culture, and literature, they held a medieval world-view. That is likely to be misunderstood by people today who have a rather inaccurate, backward view of 'medieval'. What that meant to Tolkien and Lewis (who understood medieval history and worldview) was a worldview that consists of a marriage between reason and imagination. Each in their proper place.
Post modernism, on the other hand, tends to go overboard in its rejection of reason. Logic and reason were the gods of modernism. The unquestionable arbiters of truth and meaning. Thus in post modernism, logic and reason are viewed as subjective and largely meaningless. Thus it becomes questionable whether anyone can truly know anything.
So, as is the world's wont, it will likely move from one philosophy which stifles vision, to another which relegates truth itself to subjective, isolated, experience devoid of external meaning. Conditions under which vision, also, can not thrive.
What would you say if I told you that imagination is one of the most powerful parts of the human capacity for thought? and communication?
Certainly most will admit upon more thought, that imagination is at the root of all invention, most art work and creative endeavours. Most would not think of this, but imagination is crucial in most scientific inquiry as well. This is at least partially because the capacity for wonder, which motivates the best science, and the capacity for abstract thought are both closely linked to imagination.
The importance of all those things can hardly be over estimated. Yet there is something deeper that I want to get at. Something about imagination which I think is even more important. This has to do with vision, and communication.
One of the most important things in any human life is vision. God has said in the scriptures, of course, that without a vision, the people perish. This is fairly obvious in the facts of life as well. Life without vision becomes nothing more than an endless string of days bound together by monotony and drudgery. This knowledge is so common and so routinely referenced that it has become cliche. We see on a daily basis, people around us who exist, but do not live. They go through the motions of life, but everything has become blah, and routine.
One of the most famous statements of this affliction was from Marie Antoinette - "Nothing tastes".
This is the affliction of people who do not have vision. Not only " a vision" as in a goal, or a driving desire to accomplish something, but even "vision" in general. The ability to see.
Throughout history we can put forward dozens upon dozens of examples of people who have had "A vision". People consumed with passion to accomplish a goal, to achieve something. Life certainly had meaning for them. Yet even that aside there is just 'vision' itself. The ability to see.
The world we live in is a marvelous, wonderful place... wonderful in the true sense of the word. Full of wonders. Our world is magical, life is magical. Those who exist but do not live have lost the ability to see the true reality of the world around them. They have lost their vision.
A person with vision can see each sunset as a moment of such poignant beauty that words fail to describe it. A person with vision can watch the stars and begin to grasp the ungraspable concept of infinite wonder.
A person without vision can look at a thousand sunsets and see nothing but the end of another day with the promise of more drudgery tomorrow. They can see a thousand starry nights and see nothing but what they didn't get that day, or how early work will come tomorrow.
I have called it vision.. but it could as well be called revelation. The opening of ones eyes to see a reality that escapes most people.
This ability to see rests in the human capacity of imagination.
Most people think of imagination as the ability to see what isn't really there. Ironically those who view imagination only in this way often fall prey to a 'reason' that is most accurately described as the ability to not see what is really there.
It is on the level of imagination that vision is communicated, it is on the level of imagination that our eyes are opened to see new revelations of the true reality in which we live.
What would you say if I told you that perhaps the two most influential christian authors in recent history were J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis?
There have been many authors who have written reams upon reams of theology, and motivational books without end. Yet I would wager that none of them have even come close to speaking to as many people, or speaking with such profound impact as Tolkien and Lewis.
If I said this to many people I know they would laugh me off. How could fantasy novels by influential, or speak profoundly?? The somewhat ironic answer I would give is that they are almost the only kind of books that can!
It is the imaginative part of us that makes things profound. That is where we receive and interact with vision.
Aside from being a fan of Tolkien and Lewis, I am amazed by the clarity of vision they possessed regarding the times in which they lived. They recognized half a century ago the problems and evils of the 'modernist' mindset that had engulfed the world. They recognized the perils attached to a worldview that largely shunned imagination and defined itself by naturalistic realism. Only the visible natural world exists. Only that which can be proven, can be believed.
They recognized then that reason, devoid of imagination and ultimately faith, became unreasonable. They recognized that the core of modernist philosophy inherently and inevitably destroyed vision.
What is more they deliberately set out to combat the philosophy they loathed. While they did not write their fantasy to make statements (that is exactly what modernists would do, and the very type of thing they both loathed), in their fantasies and fictions, they told truth. The conveyed vision. Not agendas, not causes, not propaganda, not moralistic message. Vision, nothing more, nothing less. Vision of life, of the world, of truth.
In his tales of middle earth, Tolkien communicated a vision of our world, more accurate, and real than a dozen scientists who know all about atoms and thermodynamic laws, but nothing about forests and stars and the full moon rising on a foggy night.
Lewis, in a single phrase about "death working backwards" conveyed more vision of redemption than a horde of Harvard M.Div's writing essays on legal justification.
We are currently living at the cusp of a philosophical struggle, when one dominant philosophy is on the verge of being over thrown by a revival. The modernist philosophy which began in the enlightenment and the scientific revolution (and probably the reformation too) is in the struggle of its life with the somewhat unimaginatively named "post-modernism".
Post-modernism is, in many ways, a rejection of the very things that Tolkien and Lewis despised about the modernist worldview. Those dry, vision less ideas have failed. They have utterly failed to provide what people really need. The problem is that post-modernism goes to far in its reaction to the failure of modernism. Both Tolkien and Lewis were medievalists. They were not only scholars of medieval history, language, culture, and literature, they held a medieval world-view. That is likely to be misunderstood by people today who have a rather inaccurate, backward view of 'medieval'. What that meant to Tolkien and Lewis (who understood medieval history and worldview) was a worldview that consists of a marriage between reason and imagination. Each in their proper place.
Post modernism, on the other hand, tends to go overboard in its rejection of reason. Logic and reason were the gods of modernism. The unquestionable arbiters of truth and meaning. Thus in post modernism, logic and reason are viewed as subjective and largely meaningless. Thus it becomes questionable whether anyone can truly know anything.
So, as is the world's wont, it will likely move from one philosophy which stifles vision, to another which relegates truth itself to subjective, isolated, experience devoid of external meaning. Conditions under which vision, also, can not thrive.
posted by Simon Templar | 8:43 PM
21 Comments:
This is an absolutely beautiful essay, Josh! I know, even the word 'essay' seems to defeat the purpose of the document...it kind of dampens the freshness of it. Three things I disagree with:
While they did not write their fantasy to make statements (that is exactly what modernists would do, and the very type of thing they both loathed)
Actually didacticism goes back before modernists. It's a very Christian idealogy to make a moral or a point in what you are writing. To our detriment, we have abandoned this principal.
Lewis, in a single phrase about "death working backwards" conveyed more vision of redemption than a horde of Harvard M.Div's writing essays on legal justification
I of course see your point, that often times we get more light when we view something imaginatively than analytically, but perhaps your statment is a bit exaggerated. :-)
There have been many authors who have written reams upon reams of theology, and motivational books without end. Yet I would wager that none of them have even come close to speaking to as many people, or speaking with such profound impact as Tolkien and Lewis.
How can you raise Tokien and Lewis' fantasy's above ALL theology books? There is a place for imagination, no doubt, but when it supercedes doctrines and specific inferences from Scripture, we are on shaky ground.
I am glad that you addressed postmodernism at the end of your article, I was beginning to fear that you were slipping into it!
On the postive end, you speak very well about the value of imagination and especially vision!
In my Human Responsibility and Free Will blog entry I posited that "We are creative by nature because we have been created; and not only have we been created, we have been created in the image of our Creator."
I immediatedly thought of this upon reading your own recent article, which I readily devoured! I enjoy your insights, perspective, and articulation. Imagination is sorely needed toward comprehending our Creator and His moving amidst His creation, and unfortunately imagination is sorely diminishing among our supposed "great thinkers" of today.
It is indeed shameful that many of those in academia who profess to be Christian are so far from such a reality in that they too often supplant imagination with canned dogma, which in turn is rooted in variant forms of pride... a circumstance that is unbecoming of those who are considered ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Jonathan,
always good to hear from you :)
You are of course correct that didacticism is much older than modernism. In fact, I would say it is as old as story telling. Of course as we know, "there is nothing new under the sun".
Also, I would say that all good stories "have something to say". The best stories are those that have meaning and convey truths. There is, however, a significant difference between a story that has something to say, and an attempt to wrap a 'moral' in story format.
Didacticism is often seen as making the 'moral' or the 'lesson' the main point of the artistic endevour. In otherwords the story, or whatever other art form takes a back seat to getting the intended message across.
This is the kind of expression that I am disagreeing with. It essentially defeats the purpose of using a creative medium of expression in the first place. Such mediums are used for the purpose of speaking to people at a deeper level, because they speak to the imagination as well as to the rational mind etc.
When the quality of the art involved is sacrificed for the purpose of packaging the message, it is immediately obvious to the audience who then perceive the medium of communication to be artificial, uninteresting, and 'preachy'.
This is one big reason many 'christian' arts (from books to movies to games to music) have been viewed as sub-par, and disliked even by christians.
In addition, when the story we are listening to seems artificially constructed to convey a given message, it comes across on a different level of communication. More like a sermon, or an allegory, and so on. We perceive it differently. We annalyse it. As we would with a thesis, or a logical argument. We disect it looking for what the author was 'really trying to say'. Thats if the work is constructed cleverly. If the meaning is blatantly obvious, it is often dismissed as uninteresting and little more than propaganda or overly preachy.
Now, I'm not arguing here that other forms of writing and communication don't have their place. We certainly need theological exposition, and instructional writing, etc. They do, however serve different purposes, and accomplish different things than imaginative, creative writing.
Its not at all that good stories can't convey meaning, or messages. Rather it is that in order to be good, the meanings, the messages, must be a natural part of the story. The story itself must be the point. It must be the primary objective.
Who would think that the Lord of the Rings doesn't contain a good many different meanings, and messages? Yet those who look at the story searching for a "point", or a "statement" look in vain. Whenever people start suggesting that Tolkien was talking about his experiences in WWI, or his views on WWII, the have already missed the point. Tolkien had no intention of making a statement about WWI, or WWII or any other such topic. The point of his endevour was to tell a good story. Yet in so doing, he made many points about war, and politics, and so on.
Further, when you begin to see LOTR as a commentary on WWI, or WWII, or man's role in nature, it immediately loses its true power, and the real vision of the story is lost. Yet if you let it be just a story, it has much to say about wars, and a great deal to say about man's role in nature, and it communicates those ideas with vision.
-Cont-
I will anxiously await your continuation...until then, I've posted a review of your blog on mine, check it out, and let me know what you think.
In answer to your second point. It is very possible that I exagerated. However, I have a fair amount of experience in reading doctrinal/theological exposition and reading imaginative writing. The two fields serve different purposes, and both are necessary. The same truth can be addressed by both, and it will almost always be more powerfully communicated by imaginative writing than by doctrinal writing.
Doctrinal writing is more precise, and thus capable of defining complex ideas more fully. It is thus easier to avoid error, and elucidate detail in doctrinal exposition. Imaginative writing, on the other hand communicates ideas with power and energy. Most people, including those of us who are interested in theology and doctrine, can read doctrinal essays and books and assimilate facts, and ponder ideas contained within, but rarely do we ever get vision from them, or inspiration. Rarely do ideas become real to us through those types of writing.
People are far more often moved by the impact of imaginative communication, than analytical communication. Thus, if a truth can be expressed through imaginative writing, it is much more likely to become real to people, than if they encounter it in merely analytical writing.
Now, I have been comparing and contrasting the two, but they need not necessarily be opposites. I think it is possible to combine them to some degree if it is done with artistry.
In answer to your last point, I would have to take issue with the words "raise above" not because they are incorrect, but because they are too imprecise. I am raising Tolkien and Lewis' works above doctrinal exposition, but not in terms of total worth or utility. I'm doing so specificly in terms of the ability to communicate vision.
Certainly there are numerous theological works which teach more truths, in better detail etc.
But I can't think of any "theological" work that has ever really moved people, that has really shaped many people's vision of the world etc.
By and large when people read theology they take ideas away from it, which can eventually change their worldview. Usually, in my experience those ideas don't become 'real' to us until we get a vision of them.
Its one thing to know that God is omnipresent.. it is quite another to see God revealed in the starry host, in the rising sun, to feel Him in a summer breeze etc.
I have occasionally experienced something like revelation when reading theology or doctrine. Yet I tend to think that much even of such experiences is due to the already existing vision of things which I have.
It is difficult for many people to gain much from reading things like that, I think because they don't have a framework of vision for it to fit in to.
There is a big difference between getting an idea in your head and having it 'become real' to you.
As for your first post, I’ll agree to an extent. Just remember though, that as Christians our primary goal should be furthering the kingdom of God, and right now that means fighting the devil and winning souls. We’re on mission Rescue. Mission Art is going to be fully realized in heaven (I believe). So I see as more valuable a slightly less artisticly pleasing book that presents the gospel clearly, than a beautiful work that allows the message to rest in the reader’s own interpretation. Of course, as an author myself, I believe that some day I’ll master the art of a distinct message AND a compelling art style.
People are far more often moved by the impact of imaginative communication, than analytical communication. Thus, if a truth can be expressed through imaginative writing, it is much more likely to become real to people, than if they encounter it in merely analytical writing.
Precisely why some of the best preachers, the Puritans, mixed their very doctrinal sermons with hundreds of parables, and illustrations. Even our Lord did this. However, imaginative communication, though it may capture interest can never be our ultimate avenue to truth. It’d be like trying to read the Psalms without the epistles. We need both.
Its one thing to know that God is omnipresent.. it is quite another to see God revealed in the starry host, in the rising sun, to feel Him in a summer breeze etc.
Yes Nature is the first way we learn God, but you always must remember that revealed Scripture is superior. Therefore, I believe that discussions of Scripture (theology) will lead us further in practical Christianity than vague imaginations.
Perhaps what bothers me the most is that you can consider Lord of the Rings, a series which isn’t even distinctly Christian, more potent for inspiring vision than theological works. And while I’m at it, I’ll present some of my challenges to LOTR:
1. The use of runes (runes are an occultic alphabet)
2. The use of wizardry
A common argument I’ve heard is that since it’s a secondary universe, magic is okay…more of a technology. So does that mean that I can create a book about a secondary universe where free sex is a technology and it no longer has immoral complications? If anything, LOTR seems to be a glorified Norse myth than anything else.
In conclusion, imagination is a wild thing. It motivated people of every philosophy. One of the most compellingly-written essays “the Madman” by Friedrich Niechie (sp?) had a diabolic message, but it was imaginative. Properly channeled through Scripture and theology, though imagination can be a powerful tool, but it always must bow to it’s rudder.
1. The use of runes (runes are an occultic alphabet)
2. The use of wizardry
A common argument I’ve heard is that since it’s a secondary universe, magic is okay…more of a technology. So does that mean that I can create a book about a secondary universe where free sex is a technology and it no longer has immoral complications? If anything, LOTR seems to be a glorified Norse myth than anything else.
Okay, I want to address a few misconceptions about LotR first (since I'm the self-appointed defender of Tolkien. :P ).
(1) Runes is a term that refers to ANY carved alphabet that isn't pictographic like Near Eastern ones.
(2) I'm assuming you mean Gandalf and the "good guys." Magic, in regards to Gandalf, et al. is not wizardry, but a natural gifting - much like some humans have an ability to art or music, etc...this is evidenced in Tolkien's own writings.
(3) Only Sauron's and Saruman's distortions are technology. Tolkien despised technology and what it was doing to Britain and the rest of the world.
LotR has a clear moral framework and, yes, there's Norse influence, but, guess what, there's Greek influence in the Chronicles of Narnia, etc. Then, too, you're misunderstanding the purpose of mythology, which is to place in literary terms the reasons for why things are the way they are. Myth is NOT synonymous with falsity.
At any rate, this is a fairly fine post, Joshua...very impressive...I definitely agree that imagination is more powerful than this simplistic, hyper-logical systems we use for theology and doctrine...
Thus one of the reasons I accept a sort of soft postmodernism and am part of the Emerging Church movement...the narrative of what God has done is infinitely more powerful than any logic we can place to it!
Jonathan,
thanks for the plug on your blog :) I was quite flattered.. but don't worry I'll try not to let it go to my head ;)
Okay David, I'll lay aside the things on runes. Thanks for clearing that up. However, I still don't understand how renaming magic (a term which even Tolkein clings to in his mythological world) technology suddenly makes it okay any more than if I wrote a book about a secondary universe where free sex was okay.
Also, Thus one of the reasons I accept a sort of soft postmodernism and am part of the Emerging Church movement...the narrative of what God has done is infinitely more powerful than any logic we can place to it!
This is something I fear greatly the implications of. History generally moves in waves. These waves are often very antagonistic to those previous. So for example we had rationalism, and then romanticism. We've just passed out of another rationalistic era (the 'Science is god' era), and people are revoling with another romantic era (experience, feel, breath nature...the senses are more important than the intellect). However, you CAN not fall into this trap, especially as a Christian. This vagueness leads to unspecific standards etc. We must be thinking AND feeling people, but as always, our rallying cry must be SOLA SCRIPTURA. That authority must reign over our hearts and minds.
Two things, Jonathan.
1)In what way could "free sex" be a technology? Your comparison doesn't seem to work. Magic in LOTR is nothing like the real stuff.
2)You wrote:
I am glad that you addressed postmodernism at the end of your article, I was beginning to fear that you were slipping into it!
That's because you have a different definition for the word "postmodernism". When you hear "postmodernism," you might think of relativism and liberal ideas in general. But this word has a much broader meaning. I don't like seeing disagreements occur between people on the sole grounds that they use the same terms, but give them different meanings. Take slavery for example. American slavery was often justified on the souls grounds that the Bible permitted slave ownership - but the Bible used the same word - "slave" - for a very different meaning. Hebrew and Roman slavery, as we both know, was completely different than the American equivalent. But there were plenty of slave-holders in the U.S. who argued their case by appealling to the Bible's references to slavery. What's was the real problem? Simple - they used the same word for a different meaning! You and Simon Templar are doing the same thing with the word post-modernism. Post-modernism has been used to refer to more than the liberal concepts you've associated it with. I hope that helps the discussion. Like I said, it's difficult for me to watch people disagree who would otherwise agree if not for a semantic barrier.
Jonathan,
I should clarify - that last comment may not have made as much sense as I would have liked it to.
What I wanted to say was this:
The problem is not that he is slipping into post-modernism. The problem is that you are using the word post-modernism to refer to romanticism, relativism, etc., whereas he is using it to refer to a much broader category of ideas.
I'm sorry, but I have to post a third comment.
I think it should be pointed out that in LOTR, Gandalf was basically the middle-earth variation of an angel (I believe the Silmarilion explains it). The point is, he isn't a human wizard, he's a divine being. Now, can angels use magic? Well, that depends on your definition of magic. If you use it loosely to mean nothing more than "supernatural ability" - then yes, angels can do that very thing! So what's wrong with what Gandalf does in LOTR? Nothing!
Lest you say, "Wait! Sauroman obviously isn't an angel, and he's the same kind of being as Gandalf," I should point out that he is basically a fallen angel - a demon!
That may be the weirdest comment I've ever left. Well, close anyway.
The bottom line in evaluating literature is to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God". Do you object to fantasy magic because you know that magic, as it really is, is wrong? Or is it because you have actually sensed that the Spirit of God is against it? I would suggest you try using the latter method, not just the former.
Actually Austin, I have used the latter. I feel very rotten in side whenever I watch LOTR. My question for you all is, if Gandalf is really an angel, then why didn't Tolkien make that so clear that we wouldn't have to wrangle about this? Gandalf, the name means elf-wizard. Gandalf uses spells. Gandalf has nothing like the authority an angel has. An angel speaks the word of the Lord and derives power from that, while Gandalf is confined to sitting in the corner cooking up spells, looking into magic balls and using a magical staff. Now if that is not the appearance of evil, I know not what is. If Gandalf is an angel, it should be made clear that he is NOT a wizard. As far as my analogy on sex, yes the comparison isn't perfect, but the point is this, if you can simply rename the sin of sorcery and that makes it okay, than why can't I simply rename the sin of free sex and make it okay? Let's say in this world its a technology for producing a massive army for the good guys.
Postmodernism...if DJ is using a different definition of this word, than I invite him to share his definition.
I know it may sound like I just want to be divisive, but that really isn't it. I view this playing with sorcery and postmodernism as very dangerous territory. I honestly hope that we all will see the traps the devil has laid for us.
I plan on weighing in on the ongoing conversation here, but I thought I'd put it in the form of another post since there are a number of issues/questions that have come up in the discussion that I'd like to comment on.
Jonathan,
I see what you're saying. I think to figure this out we must ask ourselves what magic is and why it's wrong, because when we answer both correctly, we can apply the same standards to whatever "magic" we may be confronted with in fantasy literature.
Magic/sorcery, as the words are used in the Bible, have the following characteristics:
1)It is not a natural ability, but rather is sought out.
2)It involves demons. Humans don't seem to have any magical ability of their own, so it would seem that all magic we could use would be borrowed from demons.
3)It is rebellion against God.
Now, let's understand something: Not everything supernatural is magic, as the Bible uses the word. God does miracles, angels have supernatural powers, and God's people have occasionally been given supernatural gifts throughout history. This is not sorcery, as the Bible uses the word. But it is "supernatural ability."
So when you read books like The Lord of the Rings, you have to ask yourself - Is this "magic" the demon-loaned tricks of rebellion against God, or supernatural abilities granted for good purposes? That's the real question.
Of course, when you ask yourself that question, you may arrive at a different answer than I, but at least we'll be asking the right questions. And of course, there's no harm in not reading LOTR and other such fantasy writing(I don't really read LOTR myself because I just haven't been able to get into it). I just want to make sure that if you do claim that it's wrong, at least you are making an informed claim, rather than making a simple mistake of not accurately comparing two distinct kinds of "supernatural ability".
I'm linking you.
Austin,
Thank you for your well-considered post. You are right in your analysis of making sure we are asking the right questions.
My problems with LOTR are twofold:
1. All of the nouns (wizard, runes, spells, magic) are those of the occult. Why did Tolkien use these nouns if he was referring to something different?
2. The power-source is kind of ambigious. Where is Gandalf sapping his power from? And I am open to answers from the Similarion, but I challenge those who are well-versed to provide clear, lucid answers, that's all I'm asking for.
Personally, I love a lot about LOTR. I love the heroism, the fight against wrong, the depravity of sin and greed that is evidenced SO strongly, and the triumph of good, but I just need a better explanation of the magic. Great talking with you Austin.
Jonathan,
Hmm...perhaps - now this is just a possibility - but perhaps Tolkien uses those words because he has observed that some of them, such as magic, have been given a very different meaning than they originally had. I do not think that witchcraft has been used any differently, but I don't remember if LOTR even uses the word, so I can't complain about that one. As for magic, nowadays people use it to refer to anything that can't be explained by natural processes.
As for the ambiguous power source, I suppose Tolkien didn't want to alienate non-religious readers before they could have a chance at least to gain some Christian insight from the stories w/o being chased away by an obvious, superficial, evangelistic Christian message.
Simon Templar,
Why can't I comment on your post "The Lord of the Rings (Imagination part II)? Anyway, I'll leave a comment for that here. I just wanted to say thank your for the post, it was very helpful. And you did an excellent job of foreseeing any objections that could be raised and answering them by clarifying yourself where something could be taken the wrong way.
You know, I don't want to argue about this here, but I happen to like Harry Potter. It's just that I don't get a bad or occultic impression from it. It seems to pass the "test the spirits" test to me. I do regret that cultural terms are borrowed that don't really make sense in the context given that they are also used in occultic contexts. But I think the author used them to make the story more real, and at least she made the distinction between fantasy and false religion more than obvious (though some would disagree).
Hey! Neither of your two latest posts have a link for comments! Grr...
Anyway, I enjoyed your post "Lord of the Rings-cont-". I didn't know a lot of the stuff you mentioned, and it really gives me an appreciation for the story that I've never had before. For me, LOTR has always seemed like too much description. I don't need to read two pages describing the beauty of a tree the characters encountered - just say, "They saw a tree" and move on. Anyway, I think I might just read the books again now, without complaining about the over-description, not to mention Tolkien's frequent references to details we know nothing about w/o having read the Silmarilion and other books about middle earth. Um, sorry for ranting. The point is, great post, and I think I'll read LOTR again.
Hey Austin,
Thanks for pointing out that the comments link wasn't available. I didn't realize that it wasn't there. I'm not sure how comments got turned off. I never changed the setting. Anyway I went back and re-enabled comments on those posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home