I appreciate the comment Poet, but I have to respectfully disagree. In the spirit of lively academic discourse, allow me to reply.
The basic premise, that a great work of literature is no more sanctifying than a bad day might be true, but does this invalidate it. Are we not saying the same thing in different forms? You say that it is only good for pushing us to rely on our saviour, but I say the same thing sans only. Great literature is transformative by nature. Whether or not one attributes it to a deity or to the inner man (Plato, Thoreau), it causes one to become more profoundly related to that force which grows and/or sustains them. An atheist can experience catharsis (Aristotle) through art, and this is in some way connected with the Christian experience by the very nature of truth. Is truth not truth in any form that it is wrapped in (Augustine)? Whereas the atheist experiences a healing catharsis, a Christian grows in a deeper understanding and potential reliance upon his/her saviour. It is a matter of attribution, is it not? The Christian gives glory to God for the truth that is written and transformative, whereas the atheist does not.
It is not an issue of salvation. I would never replace literature and philosophy with the Bible, though it seems to dabble in both, and the requirements for salvation seem clearly stated, but the poet may be an avenue to spiritual growth and maturity. Surely one could argue that morality can make one a better believer; not save them, but lead them to a great Christian existence?
Because of the perseverance of truth, regardless of the particular manifestation of it, whether Thoreau, Plato or Tarantino, I need not concern myself with the author’s intent. Perhaps Thoreau was writing a transcendentalist’s novel, touting the virtues of self-sufficiency and isolationist ideals, but he nonetheless gives by all accounts a clear exposition on at least one of the explicitly Christ-stated pillars of the faith: denial of worldliness and its trappings. Christ presents the maxims in different fashion, “birds have holes, foxes….”, “whoever would come after me must…”, and Christ even gives parables that explain his statement axioms, but these particulars are no more than 1-2 pages in length. Thoreau, regardless of his intent, gives several hundred pages of explanation that a Christian should weight as a potential handmaid to his faith.
Authorial intent is certainly important in the study of literature. One who will teach and understand a work must not mistake one’s own interpretations as that of the author’s, and so a careful study of the original intent is vital, but this is a modern notion that can be carried to far. To read a piece, judge its beauty and effectiveness based on a scientific formula of positivistic checklists is to castrate it, guaranteeing it will bear no more fruit.
Perhaps there is a second dimension to reading, something akin to digestion. One can certainly be fed intravenously, receiving the proper nutrients through absorption into the bloodstream, but is that eating? Is not eating the taking in of food into one’s mouth, chewing it fully, allowing the flavors to permeate the taste buds, eliciting enjoyment with each bite, and finally to be swallowed and transformed into something that sustains life. So too should a book be chewed, digested, and transformative. If one is left unchanged by the partaking of great literature, it is nothing more than science, factual and flat.
The basic premise, that a great work of literature is no more sanctifying than a bad day might be true, but does this invalidate it. Are we not saying the same thing in different forms? You say that it is only good for pushing us to rely on our saviour, but I say the same thing sans only. Great literature is transformative by nature. Whether or not one attributes it to a deity or to the inner man (Plato, Thoreau), it causes one to become more profoundly related to that force which grows and/or sustains them. An atheist can experience catharsis (Aristotle) through art, and this is in some way connected with the Christian experience by the very nature of truth. Is truth not truth in any form that it is wrapped in (Augustine)? Whereas the atheist experiences a healing catharsis, a Christian grows in a deeper understanding and potential reliance upon his/her saviour. It is a matter of attribution, is it not? The Christian gives glory to God for the truth that is written and transformative, whereas the atheist does not.
It is not an issue of salvation. I would never replace literature and philosophy with the Bible, though it seems to dabble in both, and the requirements for salvation seem clearly stated, but the poet may be an avenue to spiritual growth and maturity. Surely one could argue that morality can make one a better believer; not save them, but lead them to a great Christian existence?
Because of the perseverance of truth, regardless of the particular manifestation of it, whether Thoreau, Plato or Tarantino, I need not concern myself with the author’s intent. Perhaps Thoreau was writing a transcendentalist’s novel, touting the virtues of self-sufficiency and isolationist ideals, but he nonetheless gives by all accounts a clear exposition on at least one of the explicitly Christ-stated pillars of the faith: denial of worldliness and its trappings. Christ presents the maxims in different fashion, “birds have holes, foxes….”, “whoever would come after me must…”, and Christ even gives parables that explain his statement axioms, but these particulars are no more than 1-2 pages in length. Thoreau, regardless of his intent, gives several hundred pages of explanation that a Christian should weight as a potential handmaid to his faith.
Authorial intent is certainly important in the study of literature. One who will teach and understand a work must not mistake one’s own interpretations as that of the author’s, and so a careful study of the original intent is vital, but this is a modern notion that can be carried to far. To read a piece, judge its beauty and effectiveness based on a scientific formula of positivistic checklists is to castrate it, guaranteeing it will bear no more fruit.
Perhaps there is a second dimension to reading, something akin to digestion. One can certainly be fed intravenously, receiving the proper nutrients through absorption into the bloodstream, but is that eating? Is not eating the taking in of food into one’s mouth, chewing it fully, allowing the flavors to permeate the taste buds, eliciting enjoyment with each bite, and finally to be swallowed and transformed into something that sustains life. So too should a book be chewed, digested, and transformative. If one is left unchanged by the partaking of great literature, it is nothing more than science, factual and flat.
I think that in a lot of ways we are talking past each other. I agree with everything you've said in this post, though I think I would take what you siad about the Bible a little further.
First, let me say that I do not in any way intend to devalue literature. I own and have read parts, thought not all, of Walden. I think that Thoreau makes some amazing points that all Christians should pay attention to (especially in the area of philanthropy..."If you give money, spend yourself with it"...AMEN!). There for example, he shows us things that we all wish that we were doing/could do/should do and in many ways pulls our minds out of the materialistic mindset in which we live. All in all, a book like Walden points out things that are valuable, that should make us say, "I should to that", or even "That is how people should treat each other." But it should also make us, as Christians, say, "I can't do this without the help of the Holy Spirit. Apart from Christ I can't do this...and if somehow, as in the case of Thoreau, I can, what would be the point." That is what I was getting at in my comment on the earlier post. But, I think reading like that has to be done through Christian lenses....part of the chewing you were talking about. But I don't think that is what Thoreau intended his readers to do when they read it. If I were able to walk up to Thoreau today and tell him that his book helped me to walk closer with the Lord, I honestly think that he would tell me that I missed his point. That is what I was getting at in my comment. It seemed like what you were getting at was inconsistent with what you said about the Scarlet Letter.
Second, as far as the place of the Bible is concerned, I think that your posts make it sound like it is just another book. Whereas I think that it holds the place of supremacy over all other books. You are right that it should not take the place of literature and philospohy. Rahter, it should stand as the measuring stick for the value of all literature and philosophy. Through its careful lense I can read and find value (pride of place going to Walden) in Walden, Plato's Republic, or even Nietzsche's The Antichrist and come away holding my faith more firmly. Without it, I walk away a confused, self-succicient, highly moral atheist.
All that to say that I think what you are getting at is right. Literature and Philospphy are definitely of value to the Christian, but I would add to what you said and say that we as Christians should first train our tasetbuds by chewing scripture before we start chewing on anything else.