The principal mark of inspired texts is that they evince the authorship of a greater mind than their writers'. While the writer’s own consciousness of engagement with this mind may range from a true but subordinate synthesis to that of a mere amanuensis, the attentive reader finds himself faced with the unmistakable intuition that there is “something behind” what he is reading that is not the stated author, and has the characteristics of a mind. This is true not only with good writings, but also with evil, so that in some, one hears the voice God hidden, and in others, that of Satan revealed.
I have recently finished something of the latter variety. Its author is an intelligent, highly accomplished zealot for false doctrine–common enough and quite unremarkable–but there is something more here. It is one of those fairly rare books of the sort with which one feels the bottomless futility that Lewis’s Ransom felt when attempting to argue with the inexhaustible wickedness of an un-Man, loose in the world to deceive and destroy, but with whom one’s small self has nevertheless been called to deal.
The elegance of the truth-twisting in some places almost excites one to admiration, while in others its insolent grossness makes one wonder how anyone can be expected to take the book seriously. Generally I conclude that the gross and palpable lies are to deceive the simple and the fine ones are to mock the knowledgeable, as if to say, "You helpless fool–do you think you can overcome me? As though you are the master of truth to the degree I am the Master of the Lie!"
Don’t hold out on us … what’s the book??
I, too, would like to be warned in more specific terms about this Bent Book.
I’ll pass on this, gentlemen, at least for now on Mere Comments, where I am using the book to make several general observations. In my judgment, identifying it would place the negative focus on its author, while for present purposes I wish for it to rest elsewhere.
Steve,
I am reading just such a book now. Ransom’s battle with the Un-man is the perfect analogy – not just for books like this, but for entanglements with particular Egalitarians as well. It’s not only exhausting, it’s icky, smelly and dirty as well. One feels the need for a long hot shower with lots and lots of soap followed by a very long weekend somehwere quiet with a nice long, unbroken stretch of beach upon which to walk — something of that sort after an encounter like this.
Tomorrow, after I finish the book I am reading, a trip to my local spa will have to suffice.
Kamilla
At risk of sounding extreme, I submit that all literature, art, etc. has fallen short, and is degenerate (in degrees) to one disposed. Yet the Spirit of Truth is in all places and fills all things, and can be edifying to another so disposed.
Still, our days are numbered, and our time is better spent reading things like the Ransom Trilogy than… what did you say you were reading, Dr. Hutchens?
This is very true, that authoritative voice in some texts. Pseudepigrapha doesn’t have it–feels obviously manmade. Gurdjieff is an example of an authoritative false prophet.
Nicely played Peter. I don’t think he will fall for it though.
@MARGARET
Good observation about Gurdjieff. Gnostic speculation runs the gamut from ancient apocrypha to bogus climate change models. It’s seductive because we’re ignorant and want to fill in the gaps – hence speculative; we’re proud and rebellious – hence gnostic. Ignorance and arrogance is like bleach and ammonia; individually noxious, collectively fatal.
All writings, like all their sinful authors, fall short of the glory of God, but here I am talking about something categorically different from bad books, or very bad books, or even deliberately wicked books. Their analogates are people who are not just sinners, but demonized–vehicles for strength and intelligence and a maleficent will that go beyond the author’s and evoke the kind of reaction in the Christian of which Kamilla speaks. In reading them one is placed in contact with what the gospels call unclean spirits, and gains a deeper understanding of just why that term is used of them.
I’m doubting that these troublesome books are going to be the choices that might appear obvious at first glance. For example, take Hitchens’ book “God is Not Great”. Even if one might disagree with his conclusions, many of his observations are valid (that is, religion can be abused by some for their own gain). Further, his aims are overt and stated up-front. No one is going to confuse him for a proselytizer. The Christian knows from the onset that he is dealing with an anti-religious bias.
On the other hand, I can think of some statements and books put forth by self-proclaimed Christian apologists that might end up preventing some from ever darkening the doors of a church again.
“Ignorance and arrogance is like bleach and ammonia; individually noxious, collectively fatal.”
Delightful! Is this already an aphorism that is simply new to me, or is it destined to become an aphorism?
@SMH
That sounds slightly more extreme than I risked. Certainly Scripture and inspired icons do not fall into this category, or do they?
Let’s say that all writings are flattenings, mappings, if you will, of a certain territory. In Scripture or icons, these flattenings are eminently appropriate, consistent with depicting a transcendent reality that is to be perceived by our imminent, Minkowski-ish mind.
Some literature may even give dimension to myth. Dostoyevsky’s Brother’s Karamazov didn’t happen, but it happens every day. As chilling as the story may be, it doesn’t leave the Christian reader in need of a shower, but indeed warms the heart.
That you can detect the unclean spirit may speak to your perceptiveness or to the grossness of the author. It may also speak to the potency of the writing.
The danger (if there is danger) in evil amanuensis is the level of granularity. At asteroid level is Alistair Crowley or The Family Guy. At a more subtle level, a seemingly benign man-bites-dog news story, when dissected semiotically, may contain a strange attractor that plays out in future cataclysm. None are really dangerous to one with the full armor of God.
It would help if you clued us in on what the heck you’re talking about.
@KRISTOR
I don’t know. I may have seen it at sometime. The bleach and ammonia thing came up yesterday when I was doing some cleaning. The ignorance and arrogance came up when I looked in the mirror.
“That you can detect the unclean spirit may speak to your perceptiveness or to the grossness of the author.”
Peter,
Perceptiveness, perhaps. Cynicism and a somewhat keen sense of smell honed by long and sad experience, that as well. But I don’t think it takes a lot of either when unclean spirits are driving what we’re reading – having read a good deal from the Egalitarian camp because of my background, I can say honestly that you and SMH have put more precise words to what I have been sensing but hadn’t yet come up with those words.
Kamilla
Writings inspired by the Spirit of God do not fall short of his glory.
And no, I’m not going to give title or author. I don’t want to deal with the trouble that will cause me (and not you). As long as I can pick my battles, I will, and this isn’t going to be one of them.