A Fundamentalist View of Sci-Fi and Fantasy - Part One
I’ve been pondering in my head for some time how to really answer the question: What fantasy/ science fiction stories are acceptable to a Christian? There’s been some discussion around lately, but I haven’t seen anything that spells out what a Bible-thumping, Born-again, Fundamentalist Redneck Baptist – such as my self – should use as a guideline. I shall attempt to start to answer that question. It will take some time so I’ll probably end up taking several posts to do so. I trust it will all make sense.
Let me define some terms. A Command is an order or set of instructions specifically defined in the Bible. We are expected to obey without question. “Thou shalt not steal”, “whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”. There are many commands clearly stated throughout the Bible.
A Preference is simply what you like and is based on personal satisfaction and enjoyment. I prefer to floss then brush my teeth while you may prefer the opposite. I prefer broccoli over spinach. God has given us lots of freedom to choose and the outcomes of these choices are entirely up to us. There is no requirement to refer to Scripture to confirm our decisions so long as we are not choosing Evil over Good.
A Conviction, however, is a bit stronger and is inspired by God based on Biblical principles but not specifically stated as a command. There may be more than one interpretation and therefore your conviction over a matter may be different from mine. I have a conviction over what version of the Bible to use. You may not, or you may say this or that version is good. That’s between you and God.
I can force neither my preferences nor my convictions upon you, whereas I must point out the commands you are ignoring or failing to obey. Please note I’m talking about Christian to Christian and not about Christian to the World in general. Many Christians fail to recognize the differences between these three concepts and also fail to remember that non-Christians really don’t care about it at all. We get so caught up in making everyone else righteous that we forget our selves. But that’s another topic entirely.
I base my understanding of a personal conviction based on 1 Corinthians chapters 8 and 10 where Paul discusses what to do with meat offered to idols. Such meat may offend one believer because of the pagan worship involved while another will recognize that the idol has no real power and therefore the meat is just fine to consume. I interpret the passage this way: If your conviction is different from your brother, don’t encourage him to act against his conviction because it will become a sin to him. Also, don’t lord it over your brother that your way is more righteous. Be mindful of how God is working in others and use your freedom to submit to their standard out of love.
I try not to beat people over the head with my convictions. Oh, I’ll pick on my friends when they pull out their Non-Inspired Version of the Bible but that’s in jest. We do have real conversations as to why I use the King James and why they do not but the ultimate goal is to READ the Bible. I’d rather someone read ANY version than not at all. Yes, I believe the KJV is better and I’d be happy to explain why. But that’s not the same as saying you MUST read it. I am a KJV-only Fundamentalist, but that’s KJV-only for ME.
The same holds true for other areas as well. Christian music is a great topic that I won’t go into here. Again, your conviction regarding this area is probably different from mine.
Do you see now why saying certain stories, movies, or any other form of entertainment is not so easily placed within the categories of Right and Wrong? Each of us may be lead differently to read Harry Potter, LOTR, Narnia, DIOM, or any other fantasy/science fiction novel. Some Christians won’t read LOTR. I can’t say you must not read Harry Potter. But I can explain some of my thought processes and how I go about judging novels.
Although Part One of this series didn't really cover the topic, it does set the foundation for further discussion and defines the difference between Biblical commands, preferences, and convictions. As we get deeper into the topic we'll see how these three ideas help guide the conversation.
Your post reminds me of that gracious Reformation saying: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in everything charity."
I'm not a fundamentalist myself, but I'll be interested to read the next installments in your series.
Reply to this
A great start, James.
I like your definitions. That really seems to clarify a great deal of what often ends up a wrangle-fodder.
I'll be interested in reading more.
Becky
Reply to this
Thanks for the kind words, Becky and Elliot.
Perhaps I should define what a Fundamentalist really is. We all seem to know, but what, exactly, does that term mean?
Reply to this
Why do you call yourself a Bible thumping fundamentalist?
Where I'm working, fundamentalist is not so hot a label. A fundamentalist, to me, is an individual who will stop at nothing to impose his/her beliefs on somebody else - perhaps to the point of killing somebody who disagrees with them.
I recently read a good article from Pat Buchanan (sp?) discussing lables - particularly "facist", as being a label creating hate. I would also say the same labeling someone a fundamentalist.
I think the best way to get any message accross is via dialogue, and to avoid labels. They set us up for too many pre-conceived notions
Reply to this
I have to admit, I use that label mostly for my own amusement. It started with something my pastor said 12 or so years ago. The net result is a string of descriptive slang terms that are often meant to be derogatory but I use as a badge of honor.
Jesus said people would hate believers because of Him. They mocked Him, beat Him, and crucified Him. As followers of Christ we cannot expect better.
It's true that the term "fundamentalist" has been recently used to describe terrorists and religious fascists but that's not where the term originated. It was first used to describe the "back to basics" movement nearly a hundred years ago. Those churches started teaching the fundamentals of Christianity. Its use has certainly been warped in recent years.
Reply to this
Okay, your amusement or not - definitions are interpreted by today's sociaty - I'm no fan of some aspects of our language, but it is what it is. Many definations of today do not hold the same meaning. Language constantly changes. You and I won't be able to shape that too much.
I think there are ways of getting involved in the basic tenants, or fundimentals of the teachings without associating your family with that catagory.
Reply to this
Well.
As I said, I have been using the term Fundamentalist for about a dozen years. For many years prior to that it was universally (at least in the United States) understood to refer to Christians. Only recently has the term become a synonym for "extremist" and even more recently associated with "fascist".
While I may appear extreme in my opinions on some topics to someone that doesn't understand Christianity, I certainly can't see anything that I've written here or elsewhere that would indicate I'm a fascist. Should I change because someone doesn't understand either my intent or the definition of the term?
I disagree that we can't shape our language. But even if I change to another term (Elementalist? Rudimentarist?) that term will someday be used in a derogatory way sooner or later. Even the word Christian was originally a derogatory epithet.
Reply to this
Not to mention names like Lutheran, Calvinist, Quaker, Mennonite, Wesleyan, etc, etc.
There's a long tradition of appropriating derogatory epithets!
Reply to this