Would any consider John Bunyon's PILGRIM'S PROGRESS to be fiction? If so, it is the only work of "christian fiction" I have read, and well worth it.
O my goodness! I just read the prologue ("Author's Apology")!
What a pretensious load of dung! One moment he is claiming that all he ever meant to do was mindless scribbles, next he is comparing his work to the gospels, exposing his claim to half-mindedness to be a sly, self-congratulatory claim of prophetic influence. And still he goes on, promising that if you only obey him, you will be taken to the Holy land!
"This book will make a traveler of thee,/ If by its counsel thou wilt ruled be;/ It will direct thee to the Holy Land"
... I think I'll pass on what appears to be neo-gnostic self-idolatry...
I read more of Pilgrim's Progress... finally motivated to by the realization I could probably read it free, at night, when I was having trouble sleeping.
As for my disgust at the prologue... well, let's say I didn't find the rest of the book as bad. It's got a very Screwtapish way of teaching Christians to avoid pratfalls along the way to salvation, which may be quite beneficial. And I sorta like precisely what others may be taken aback... He got himself to safety, then sent for his wife and kids when he could prove his success... It's too hard to carry them against his will and his cross and make it through the dismal swamps,... best to keep in mind that the best way to save them is to get saved.
The author is a self-righteous, pompous, pretensious ass in a lot of ways, and this manifests itself in some very judgmental and even hateful attitudes; he is sincerely what Rush Limbaugh playfully outs on the airs of. But in all honesty, while there is such great pretense in some ways, such as his attempts to induce his readers into believing he was inspired, there's almost a lack of pretense which makes his most glaring faults somehow less dangerous; he doesn't hide his sins with pretensious civility like the Mainstream Media. He lets them be seen, and even though he offers no repentance, the transparency of them makes them quite forgiveable.
What am I talking about? Well, when he identifies true dangers, he has a tendency to do so with brilliant insight. When he identifies dangers which are merely a product of his imperfections of prejudice, they are so clumsy and void of insight, they are completely harmless. For instance, being English, his characterization of Popery as a savage, horrificly violent monster is so hypocritical, no-one who doesn't already hate Catholicism is going to find anything to take seriously in it, except for perhaps where his greater insight has previously lent a credibility. ("THere must be something wrong with Catholicism if it has inspired such an otherwise godly man to such unhinged hatred!")
I read more of Pilgrim's Progress... finally motivated to by the realization I could probably read it free, at night, when I was having trouble sleeping.
As for my disgust at the prologue... well, let's say I didn't find the rest of the book as bad. It's got a very Screwtapish way of teaching Christians to avoid pratfalls along the way to salvation, which may be quite beneficial. And I sorta like precisely what others may be taken aback... He got himself to safety, then sent for his wife and kids when he could prove his success... It's too hard to carry them against his will and his cross and make it through the dismal swamps,... best to keep in mind that the best way to save them is to get saved.
The author is a self-righteous, pompous, pretensious ass in a lot of ways, and this manifests itself in some very judgmental and even hateful attitudes; he is sincerely what Rush Limbaugh playfully outs on the airs of. But in all honesty, while there is such great pretense in some ways, such as his attempts to induce his readers into believing he was inspired, there's almost a lack of pretense which makes his most glaring faults somehow less dangerous; he doesn't hide his sins with pretensious civility like the Mainstream Media. He lets them be seen, and even though he offers no repentance, the transparency of them makes them quite forgiveable.
What am I talking about? Well, when he identifies true dangers, he has a tendency to do so with brilliant insight. When he identifies dangers which are merely a product of his imperfections of prejudice, they are so clumsy and void of insight, they are completely harmless. For instance, being English, his characterization of Popery as a savage, horrificly violent monster is so hypocritical, no-one who doesn't already hate Catholicism is going to find anything to take seriously in it, except for perhaps where his greater insight has previously lent a credibility. ("THere must be something wrong with Catholicism if it has inspired such an otherwise godly man to such unhinged hatred!")