Should a Christian Read Mystery Novels?

After reading the entire Sherlock Holmes series, which I enjoyed immensely, I began a search for another mystery series with a similar style - deductive and logical, not gruesome or mystery-turned-horror-story. I discovered the work of Agatha Christie, the world's bestselling author and mystery writer. She wrote many of her novels in the 1930-50 era. I decided to read one of her most famous works, "The A.B.C Murders," with the famous detective Hercule Poirot and his sidekick Captain Hastings. It was an easy read, very engrossing, and pretty clean; I finished it in two days time. The content was not gruesome, and the characters had fairly good morals, excepting the bad guys. No details were crude or inappropriate, and there were only a few "mild" profanities - the book was, by today's standards, very clean indeed. And yet, when I had finished reading, something stirred within - the Lord convicted me of several things. The question arose, "Is it God-honoring for a Christian to read mysteries, especially those centering on murder?" Not, again, that the book was inherently bad or wicked, if viewed from a purely "checklist" sense. Nevertheless, the Lord showed me several points that related to this sort of reading (and honestly, any reading we chose to do).
   
     First, several Scriptures came to mind, and as I searched through the Scriptures last night, more followed.

--"For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret."   ~Ephesians 5:8-12

--"He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love..."    ~Colossians 1:13

--"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin."    ~1 John 1:5-7

As evidenced in these Scripture verses and many more, we are called, as Christians, to live in the light. The Lord reminded me that reading about dark things, dark deeds, as a form of enjoyment is a very risky business. This is certainly not to say that we are never to read about anything bad, or any bad deeds. It is also not to say that we are never to read a mystery. One must be especially careful, however, where the focus of the narrative lies. Just because the book is about how a murderer was discovered, and even punished, does not mean it doesn't have a subtle delight in darkness. If the focus is continually on gruesome details or the murder itself, then the author may very well delight in darkness. If the detective is desiring for something to occur, some crime to take place - a very big problem in "The A.B.C Murders" - then they are delighting in darkness. I really appreciated the Sherlock Holmes series in this aspect: It laid out the problem (robbery, murder, ect) and then focused mainly on the logical solution to that problem. In this way, I did not get a pervading sense of dwelling on the darkness.

     Furthermore, the way the crime/criminal is viewed plays a critical role in whether the mystery is suitable. Does the detective condone darkness? Does he sympathize with workers of iniquity? Does he use methods of darkness (robbery, for example) to come at a solution? Where Sherlock Holmes may have lacked focusing on darkness, it, in many cases, condoned it all the same. This often takes the form of excuses. "I'll let the criminal escape, though justice would forbid it, because he really loved that lady and was simply ridding her of that nasty brother of hers." Or, "He wasn't really doing a wicked thing, he was just executing vengeance for a terrible wrong done him years ago." I am, of course, not talking of situations where the justice system of a particular nationality is perverted, so that honoring God means disobeying the government. There were no cases of the sort in any of the Sherlock Holmes series or in the Agatha Christie book. If the book causes you to sympathize with or condone darkness, then it is rejoicing in darkness, and has no part in the light. The Bible says, "You shall not murder." Period. End of discussion. Furthermore, the penalty for murder is capital punishment. Numbers 35:31 says, "Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." The Lord is a God of justice. The book should reflect this fact. If it does give the proper perspective in this area, and does not in any way condone darkness, it may be plausible. Again, I am not implying that all mysteries are bad. Many of the Sherlock Holmes challenge the mind to reason and deduce, while not perverting justice or dwelling in darkness. These may have some value.

     Another point that is of definite import, which the Lord impressed upon me, is language. Is there really such a thing as "mild" swearing? Or can we say, "Oh, but there were only a few profanities," as though the Lord's standard makes exceptions? What are the Lord's standards regarding this? Many of the verses regarding darkness, listed above, apply to this issue. Another one is Hosea 4:2, "By swearing and lying, killing and stealing and committing adultery, they break all restraint, with blood shed upon bloodshed." (emphasis mine) Swearing, in this verse, is on the same caliber as murder. Using the Lord's name in vain, often viewed as less of a problem than profanity, is even more highly condemned in Scripture: "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless, who takes His name in vain."

     I understand how difficult it is to find books that meet this criteria, but we must be set apart, for God has set us apart.

--"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; once who were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy."    ~1 Peter 2:9-10

--"But know that the Lord has set apart for Himself him who is godly; the Lord will hear when I call to Him."    ~Psalm 4:3

I speak these things as convictions from the Lord, and I know many will disagree. It is between you and God to determine what crosses the line from light into darkness. Not all mysteries do, certainly. Please remember, however, that if the Lord reveals something like this to us, and we disobey it, we are placing that thing higher than God. We love reading this book more than we love Jesus. This is a dangerous position to be in, my dearest friends. Until you deal with this area, the Lord will not reveal another to you. He reminded me of these Scriptures also:

--"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."    ~Matthew 6:24

--"If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor."    ~John 12:26

--"And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."    ~Joshua 24:15

I have made the commitment, however difficult, to refrain from reading anything that dwells in, condones, or uses the language of darkness. Will you join me? I will be creating a list of good books to read, both fiction and nonfiction, sometime in the future, and they will be posted on this blog by summer.

Please, please, please leave a comment. I do so enjoy hearing from you!

I-Robot: Are we morally programmed?

I know I promised the pictures of our trip this week, but I am simply unable to pull it off until after Thanksgiving. I haven't even loaded them onto our computer yet! Things, as you may have guessed, have been very busy. What with school, continuing to work on our house, everyday homemaking, and the holidays coming up, I have had little time to spare. In addition to this, we are searching for a companion for our dog Samson, so I have had to spend quite a bit of time searching the shelters online. In the meantime, I will be posting some of my writing assignments from the last several years. The topics range from courtship vs. dating to price caps in the economy, so please stay tuned!

Today's paper is one I wrote last year for the worldview class I was taking at the time. It was one of my favorite classes, especially because it challenged me to think critically and logically about our postmodern world. Without further ado, please enjoy reading!

 

I-Robot: Are we morally programmed?

     Headlines on the Fox News website this week included, "New York Mother Reportedly Accused of Encouraging Schoolyard Brawl", "Wheelchair-Bound Vietnam Vet Uncovers Multimillion Dollar Medical Aid Fraud", "Authorities: Teen Beat Parents to Death", and "Pennsylvania Mom Who Lost Job After Donating Kidney Is Put Back On Salary." When people read about a teen killing his own parents or a mother getting involved in a schoolyard brawl, they know inside, "That is just wrong!" When a woman receives her employment back after sacrificing a kidney to her son, they rejoice in the right decision. However, in a purely relative world, when morality is based on subjective standards, claims to objective right and wrong cannot exist. Therefore, an objective Moral Law, common to all of humanity, cannot exist; and, by default, only subjective morality remains. Do we live in a purely relative universe, or does some Law or Code govern our sense of morality? What causes us to view murder as wrong, and heroism as right? A careful study of the evidence shows that Someone must have created that law, and programmed us to know it. Many arguments try to explain the Moral Law, and our knowledge of it apart from God; however, after careful examination, none of these arguments adequately explain how we came to know the Moral Law.

 

     Let us start by defining objective moral laws. To better understand objective moral law, let us contrast it with subjective moral law. Objective moral law consists in rules outside of humanity, which are universally accepted. For instance, "do not murder". Subjective moral law, on the other hand, consists of rules that we created for ourselves. For instance, "do not eat too much food". Nearly everyone presupposes murder as inherently wrong; however, no everyone believes eating too much food is inherently wrong. One was created outside of any particular society (a universal law) and the other by our own devices. From now on we will singularly focus on objective moral law.

 

     There are various arguments regarding the source of the moral law. In other words, the real question lies in how we know the moral law. After all, when it comes down to it, everyone understands certain intrinsic rights and wrongs. The difference in opinion comes with how we know about intrinsic rights and wrongs. Some say that it is simply a law of nature, such as the law of gravity. Others claim we do it for our own convenience. Still others believe that we know we ought to do it because it benefits society. Even still others contend that we know it instinctively, and follow it in the same way an animal follows its herding instinct. Finally, some hold that we learn it through cultural norms - we are taught to do it. We will examine these arguments in succession.

 

     Firstly, a faction of people believe that our knowledge of the Moral Law simply represents a law of nature, such as gravity. They contend that in the same way gravity compels a stone to fall to the ground, we are compelled to follow the Moral Law. It simply exists, just as gravity unquestionably exists. However, two problems arise with this point of view. For one thing, the Law of Gravity is descriptive - we describe what occurs by physically observing it. On the other hand, the Moral Law is prescriptive - it tells us what to do. Just as a doctor prescribes medicine, the Moral Law prescribes us to act in a certain manner. Whether we take the medicine, or obey the Moral Law, depends upon our own choice. This leads to the second objection. Namely, a stone always falls to the ground when dropped, we do not always obey the Moral Law. If the Moral Law were indeed a law of nature, then we would have to obey it. We would have no choice about it, just as a stone does not have a choice whether to fall or float.

 

     Another common argument for the source of the Moral Law is that it is internally developed for our own convenience. The facts themselves contradict this idea, however. Acting according to the way dictated by the Moral Law is often inconvenient. For instance, consider the multitude of emergency responders that went into the burning towers after 9/11 to rescue people. If they had simply consulted their own convenience, they would have run away. In spite of this, they knew their true responsibility, and many gave their lives in sacrifice. Another problem also arises: Intent overrides convenience when determining "right and wrong". Let us say, hypothetically, that a man goes camping, and a bear steals his food. Although he may get angry at the bear, he will not require justice from the bear...he will not cry out, "The bear wronged me!" However, if a man took the same food, then the camper would want justice for the wrong action done him. Both situations are just as inconvenient, but one reflects instinct, and the other intent.

 

     Similar to the previous argument, some believe that we have the prompting to obey the Moral Law because it benefits society. This argument, however, leads to circular reasoning. Suppose I adhere to this viewpoint, and someone asks me why they should care what benefits society. I would then answer, "Because it is good for you to do so." After which, my answer would continue to go on in the same way: the Moral Law benefits society; therefore, you should obey it because it is good to do so. I am still stuck with the questions, "Who says it is good?" or, "Why should I care what benefits society?" and so on. In short, this argument is only based on the Moral Law we all know, particularly that we should practice consideration for others.

 

     Other individuals content that the Moral Law is instinctual, and thus we obey it. However, we are, in a sense, forced to obey an instinct, whereas the Moral Law gives us a choice to obey or disobey. If, for instance, hyenas attack a pack of elephants, the adult elephants make a circle around the juveniles to protect them. They do not make this decision; rather, they do it instinctively, just as a mouse flees a cat instinctively. On the other hand, observe soldiers in battle. When under fire, their strongest instinct is self-preservation. However, they also have a weaker "instinct" yelling out, "Stay with your partners, no matter the cost." Besides these two instincts, they have a third something determining between the two causing one to appear right, and the other to appear wrong. This thing cannot itself be an instinct, because it judges between two other instincts. In addition, while in animals the stronger instinct conquers every time, many times it is opposite with humans. The weaker instinct usually wins as right, because we have compared both to some standard, some Moral Law.

 

     Finally, a large fraction of people believe that our sense of right and wrong comes from society. In other words, we learn it from youth, and it only reflects our cultural beliefs. While we are undoubtedly taught right and wrong from birth, our knowledge does not primarily come from this source. A key piece of evidence that our sense of goodness is not cultural consists in the similarities between completely unrelated societies, and throughout different eras. Consider, for example, the punishment inflicted for theft in most cultures throughout the world. In Iran the common consequence for theft is the amputation of hands or feet. In Nigeria, a similar process is followed, where the hands of the thief  are cut off. In Canada and the United States theft results in imprisonment. Finally, in some cases, China enforces capital punishment for thievery. Despite the many differences in culture and practices, most nations view theft as wrong. This implies some Moral Law that surpasses people groups and cultures, that determines correctness and incorrectness. In addition, another problem exists with this viewpoint. How could we judge between societies if right and wrong simply reflected culture? Clearly, we couldn't. However, we do judge between societies, to tell whether one is right and the other wrong. Most cultures would agree that Muslim men treat their women abominably and wrong, despite the fact that they were taught to do it from birth and it is consequently their culture. We know that on this issue Americans stand on the right side of the battle, and our laws against abuse are moral. If it were merely a matter of culture, we could not judge between the two.

 

     In conclusion, then, we see that no other arguments adequately explain the existence of the Moral Law, the code we all inherently know. The only explanation left is that a great and powerful Programmer purposefully put that code into us. If a scientist programmed a robot to hug every child he saw, and to slap every adult he saw, we would not deny the existence of a programmer. It would be evident, in the way the robot acted, that someone who programmed him loved children and disliked adults. In the same way, when we look inside of ourselves and see the Moral Law, it points to a Someone who programmed us with His ideas of right and wrong. If that Someone has so much control over us as that, then we can rightly call Him God!

 

 

 

Please leave a comment on your thoughts about this essay. I can't wait to hear from you!