Books
Censorship, or What Johnny Can’t Read Today
by Jeff Miller
I’ve heard a lot of talk recently about strange things such as censorship, banning books, etc. from people of our theological stripe.
Now I expect this from people who advertise themselves in certain ways. (Extreme hardline religious fanatics (of all religions), Fascists, extreme nationalists, Racist groups. etc.). The picture of Nazi Germany comes immediately to mind, but there have been and are many others. This comes from a two forked stream of ideas: control and fear. When a person or group decides that it is necessary to have control over another person or group, control of information is essential. Ideas have consequences and the wrong ideas can upset the whole cart. Fear of this happening begins with control and eventually leads to paranoia.
In the context of Christianity, this is very problematic. People will often use Scripture to try to support their argument for or against some particular issue. Many have positions of authority and therefore have ears ready to hear (and often adhere to or obey) whatever is said.
Here’s the problem: Once a little legalism slips in, the slope falls from underneath your feet. There is no end to legalism. Our base nature feeds on it. It only serves to increase the control of the leader or to puff up the adherents and root out the nonconformists.
Where am I going with this?
Some of our brethren in various parts of the country, I’m told, are taking it upon themselves to try to limit what the congregants in their local circles read and how they view theological issues, etc. Some, apparently, have lost jobs, for having read/subscribed to certain magazines. (Christian/theological magazines, at that- nothing that resembles immorality, etc.). Some are being told that certain subjects & theological ideas are off the table for discussion. This is absolutely insane! These people would be offended and appalled if you called them Papists (and they are not), but their current actions are reminiscent of an earlier time in which such things were done on a much larger scale. None of us is above this kind of foolishness if the conditions are right- we are, after all, idol factories and the most common idol of today is our autonomy, but I digress…
As believers in Christ, we are free in Him to enjoy all of life and to investigate ideas and critique them according to Scriptural principles.
Do I have disagreements with Biblical teachers- YES! (Probably most, actually.) Am I right to tell you that you and I can’t have fellowship if you read a certain book or author? NO. Not only would I not be right, but there is a very real sense in which I could be putting myself in what should be the jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit in someone else’s life.
Certainly, there are many books that you would be better off playing tennis or something rather than reading, that’s a different point. You only have a short time on Earth- don’t read poor books or drink bad wine. Again, I digress…
I came running to the Reformed tradition in order to get away from the aforementioned type of idiocy. I’m not going back…..
Posted by Jeff Miller at May 30, 2007 11:43 AM
Thanks for voicing that, Jeff. I’m still having trouble believing that this has taken place and especially to the extent that I’ve heard. May no semblance of this sort of thing ever arise at Riverwood. Thanks for your public stand on it.
Jeff, I can’t source the quote but it’s something like this: “New presbyter is but old pope writ large.” You nailed it on the head— this is a new kind of reactive lunacy that is running through our Reformed circles. Addressing theological error is one thing, but limiting the ingestion of information is another. Thanks for the post, and I, too, publicly stand with you.
I’m just happy I can read the last Harry Potter this summer without fear of condemnation and/or reprisal - at least for theological reasons.
No reprisals forthcoming… Read on, Prathima!
Tim, I agree- thoelogical/doctrinal reproof is necessary and healthy as long as restoration is the goal until no longer possible. If we as believers in Christ are no longer a priesthood and must have not an overseer, but an earthly protector and (dare I say it) intercessor/interceptor, there’s a real problem afoot.
I got the quote a bit wrong; it actually is: “New presbyter is but old Priest writ large.”
it is the ending line to John Milton’s “On the New Forcers of Conscience under the Long Parliament.”
Sorry, folks.
To say that some information is off limits is pretty much the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and say “lalala I’m not listening!”. This type of legalism is absolutely counter-productive, though some ideas may be dangerous or wrong, shutting yourself off from them is just plain stupid. Ideas have a way of making themselves known, whether you want to see them or not. What would you do you do when an issue comes up that you have no knowledge about and are not allowed to discuss it? A strong believer must have knowledge outside his belief system or he risks a complete crisis of faith when some unknown idea calls into question everything he believes in.
Also, about the slippery slope idea… I do believe that legalism is a very slippery slope. However, I think that the other direction is just as slippery, because it can lead to complete relativism. I think that this speaks to human nature’s need for absolutes. It is easier for us to see black and white than gray areas I fear, easier to be completely legalistic, or to let it all go. There is a balance somewhere, one that has been hard for me to find between rules and complete freedom. I tend to lean toward existentialism/relativism, which sometimes gets me in trouble… However, I’ve come to think that the answer is somewhere in the middle.
Tyler