Featured Why we should read OT narrative like general fiction

Thank you. Good examples.

But not fiction.

But you know, this is an awesome chance to find out what is in the mind of the students of your class. Put it to them. Ask them what they think of fiction, and of the idea of reading the Bible as if it were fiction. You could have a great discussion and I'm sure they'd bring up things we haven't thought of here. (At Caribou Coffee with the family.)

 

Apparently the author of the OP Bible study material is himself a fiction novelist (UFO/paranormal genre)?

 

AMEN to that! That was a terrible book.

 

A disconnect seems to have developed in the discussion due to an emotional misinterpretation of "like." The intent is not at all to say that OT history is fictional, only that "it lent itself" to the same sort of opportunities for presenting a message as fictional literature. What else should we expect from an inexhaustively creative author able to direct events as he sees fit? His is the "mythology" that proves true at every point, and poignant.

 

In some cases here there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding literature in general. Literature is usually broadly categorized as fiction and non-fiction, but that can be very misleading. Fiction can contain truth, and non-fiction, lies. Invariably, authors have intentions for their writing, most importantly what they want their audience to think, to believe.

In this way, all forms of literature and media wield influence, sometimes in profoundly successful ways. Predicting technological progress has little to do with it. At stake is the battle for the mind, the soul, shaping culture and worldview toward or away from God.

Perhaps you read a book or see a movie and notice nothing along these lines, possibly because it aligns with your worldview, or you dismiss it as mere entertainment. But it is possible to be subtly influenced, and even if you are immune, others can still be swayed. Non-fiction can be worse. Darwin's Origin of Species, Marx's Das Kapital, and Fake News come to mind. The "descent of man" indeed.

 

Aha! Now it becomes more clear. He writes fiction of a sort, so he may think about all literature in a fictional sort of way. Hmm. Reading the reviews of his fantasy book on Amazon was an eye opener. I won't be buying any of his books.

Here is what may be going on theologically. According to Millard Erickson, New Evangelicalism teaches that God reveals Himself through human culture. (I can't find the quote, but it's in The New Evangelical Theology.) However, to me that is only valid in the sense that sometimes we can see beauty in art, and that is showing forth the image of God in man. (C.f. Francis Schaeffer in Art and the Bible.) So in my view the vast majority of human culture is corrupt.

Schaeffer wrote, "The culture is to be constantly judged by the Bible, rather than the Bible being bent to conform to the surrounding culture. The early church did this in regard to the Roman-Greek culture of its day. The Reformation did this in its day in relation to the culture coming at the end of the Middle Ages. And we must never forget that all the great revivalists did this concerning the surrounding culture of their day (The Great Evangelical Disaster, 56).

 

Furthermore, Heiser is one of a group of writers nowadays who are saying and writing some outlandish things about the antediluvian world, and even later. The description of his novels on Amazon rang a bell with me, and I looked on my shelf and found Exo-Vaticana, a book by Chris Putnam and Thomas Horn with some of these ideas (flying saucers, aliens/demons, etc., etc.), and it was recommended by Heisler. The subtitle is: "Petrus Romanus. Project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., and the Vatican's Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior." My son and I were checking on some books given to our college library, and I found this one. It is so bizarre that we decided not to put it on the shelfs; I kept it for a personal look. Really weird.

 

I opined on something he had endorsed, some of which I had read and now reject. Is that bad? Seems like what a person endorses says something about what he is.

 

Here is that Millard Erickson quote I mentioned, plus another:

"The new evangelicals believe that the grace of God is operative in cultural expression, that it restrains sin in its worst manifestations and may even give expression to God’s truth. It is therefore at least potentially a legitimate field of interest for the believer."
Millard Erickson, The New Evangelical Theology (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1968), 174.

"Similarly, the new evangelicalism tends to be more culture-affirming than was fundamentalism. God does work through even unregenerate man, and there is something to be learned from general culture."
Erickson, 94.

So what is going on theologically is the difference between affirming all culture as God given, and opposing much of human culture as sin-tainted, or even worse, originated by Satan. What affirming all of culture as God given leads to is nonsense like finding God in the Harry Potter stories.

As one who lived in a heathen country for decades, I recognize beauty in human culture as being representative of the image of God in most cases. I have a beautiful sumie (ink drawing) picture of a horse on the wall of my office. However, anyone who does not see the decline of morality and increase of depravity in modern American culture is the frog in the gradually boiling pot. He doesn't even know he is dying! Just compare "The Dick Van Dyke Show" with typical 21st century TV fare such as that super hero show (I forget which one) with a homosexual couple of two super heroes. That's on broadcast TV! (Or anything on HB0. What kind of a Christian watches "Game of Thrones"?)

 

I would reserve application to pre-Christian cultural expressions, akin to the examples found in the book Eternity in Their Hearts. Cultural expressions rejecting Christ, mocking Christ, replacing Christ, or misappropriating Christ would fall well outside the limits. This does not mean there can be no proper cultural expressions otherwise, but with the Gospel being preached, the bridge back may often be very different.