BAD BOOKS

Dear Professor Theophilus:

I'm an English major attending a secular university due to a family illness, and I feel that it's God's will for me to remain here. For several years I've felt called to be a fiction writer and a professor, to be an example for Christian students like me at secular universities.

In my spare time, in addition to schoolwork I try to read as many well-written, good books as I can to become a better writer. However, many of these books — especially recent fiction — have a lot of bad language and content, and I don't know if I should be reading them. My writing teachers tell me that to develop as a writer, I need to read a lot of what's being written today, but most important is honoring God.

These aren't the only things I read, and I don't seek out "bad" books, I make sure to read Christian books and study the Bible, and I don't think I'm being drawn away from my faith. Oddly enough, I find myself drawing parallels between what I read and what I know from the Bible.

I feel torn, and would be glad for any advice you can give.

A "wannabe" scholar

Reply:

Quite a question. Of course, we ought to fill our minds as much as possible with good and beautiful things rather than evil and ugly ones. Yet to live in this world at all, we are going to have to reckon with its fallen condition. This dilemma is sharp in every field which deals with human beings — not only writing and literary scholarship, where you think your vocation may lie, but psychology, criminology, and lots of others, even the ministry. I feel the prick of the needle in my own work, too, because the focus of my scholarly writing is moral self-deception — how we tell ourselves we don't know what we really do.

I don't see how you can be a writer at all without exploring human motives, and in a fallen world, it is simply a fact that most of our motives are compromised by sin. You shouldn't be a Pollyanna. On the other hand, you should watch yourself closely to keep from being coarsened or polluted, and if you were especially susceptible (I don't say you are), then I would advise you to choose a different career. You should also work hard to keep your balance. For example, the Comedy of Dante Alighieri is a great and astonishing piece of literature, but I would not recommend that anyone read canticle one, about hell, without going on to the other two parts!

A lot depends on how a writer explores sinful motives, and a lot depends on one's motives for reading his work. On the one extreme you have a writer like Tolstoy. He writes about adultery, but no one reads Anna Karenina for the pleasure of vicarious lust. At the other extreme, there exist novels and stories so vile that even those who are called to make a study of sin should hesitate to touch them lest they be soiled by the contact. Most literature is between these extremes; it has both virtues and vices, and can be read for either good or bad reasons. There are few easy rules. Be discerning.

You call yourself a "wannabe" scholar. Well, I "wanna" see more Christian writers and scholars who have a thirst for holiness like you. May God illuminate your studies, purify your heart, and guide your pen. Go read Romans 12:2, and be blessed.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

GOOD BOOKS

Dear Professor Theophilus:

In "Old Church Burnout," you mentioned several books you recommended to your interlocutor. Can you tell me what they are? I suspect that I am not the only person that has asked you this. But I'm a minister and am often asked for similar recommendations, so knowing yours may prove very helpful to me. Thank you.

Reply:

Sure. Here's what I wrote in the dialogue:

"Good! Then the first suggestion is to start reading the right things." I gave her a short list of books on different subjects — on loving God with all your mind, on basic Christian belief and practice, and on how to read the Bible with understanding."This one," I told her, "will interest you because your old church was so anti-intellectual; this one, because it was so unbalanced; and this one, because it was so eccentric in its approach to the Bible."

And the books I had in mind were as follows.

On loving God with all your mind: J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind.

On basic Christian belief: John R.W. Stott, Basic Christianity; C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity; and J.I. Packer, Knowing God.

On how to read the Bible with understanding: T. Norton Sterrett, How to Understand Your Bible.

Though Sterrett's book is good, it does have one weakness: He doesn't discuss the communal aspect of Bible study. We should "read with the Church" — and I don't mean just with the living faithful, but with the faithful of all the ages.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS

Dear Professor Theophilus:

When I try to uphold an orthodox Christian view with friends who consider themselves Christians, sometimes they argue. I know that some disagreements are unimportant, but others cut close to the heart of the faith. For example, I have one friend who denies the infallibility of Scripture. Should I challenge my friends' confusions at all?How far "off" should I let them get before clearing things up? Sometimes it surprises me how necessary it is to use apologetics in discussions with other who consider themselves Christians!

Reply:

You're right about the need for apologetics even among fellow Christians. Sometimes I think of the visible Church itself as a mission field. It has always been like this; Jude writes, "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (1:3, RSV). Paul agrees about the importance of "contending for the faith" in his first letter to the Corinthians: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (11:2, RSV).

Should you contend for the faith among confused Christian friends? The answer to that one is easy (as you knew it would be): Yes.

Your next question is more difficult: Must you strive to persuade them concerning every single error, or are some errors more important than others? But you've guessed my answer to that one too. The old formula is "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." So first distinguish what is essential from what isn't, and second make sure that your speech is seasoned with gentleness and love even when you are contending for essentials.

But what are the essentials? The Church has labored from the beginning to make them clear. Some of the earliest statements of the essentials are right there in the New Testament. Throughout the book of Acts, for example, we see how the Church stood up for the essential that Jesus (not Caesar) is Lord. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, we find Paul describing another essential, the Resurrection, which he "received" from his own first teachers and "delivered" to the Corinthians. A good Bible study is to work through the New Testament, identifying and studying such statements of essentials.

Early in her history, the Church found it necessary to write creeds — to define the essentials more precisely, and in writing, in order to defend against them against errors. Each new heresy led to a new clarification of the essentials. So another good exercise is to gather and study the creeds adopted at early Church councils, the most important of which is the Nicene Creed.

If you scroll up to my reply to the previous letter, you'll find the titles of several books which give clear and scriptural statements of the essentials and why we believe them. Start with Stott. I think you'll find his book not only a good read, but a great aid in focusing your thoughts when you discuss the essentials with your friends. Some of them may even like to read it themselves; that's what he wrote it for.

Remember, don't quarrel. Speak gently and reasonably.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

DOUBT ROUTED; UNCLE REDEEMED

Dear Professor Theophilus,

I just saw my letter ("Ambushed by Doubt," in "Two Doubts, One Denial"). Just thought you should get an update.

My uncle did pass away. But not before he rallied and accepted Christ. I am so thankful that he made a comeback just long enough to talk to a minister and set himself right. A month before, [I got over my doubt attack and] sent him the book with a personal letter. Did my book and letter matter? I'm not sure, but I know they didn't hurt. Isn't it strange the way things work?

I've been thinking. What if he had died without converting? Would I be right to be angry with God? Certainly not! The fact that someone doesn't take the gift is not a good reason to be angry with the Giver.

Reply:

How wonderful that your uncle was redeemed! Thank you for passing on the news to me. Our readers will rejoice with you too.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS