An interesting question that has been weighing on my mind these past few weeks as I lay in bed, or push my grocery carts at the store where I work is this:

As God does not require us to be perfect, but simply to seek him, how much freedom do we have in allegory?

Particularly, do we have to get all the aspects of a God-figure right all the time?

For example. If I have a character who dies for his true love, like Christ died for His church, he'll inevitably be compared to a Christ figure. I'm writing something allegorical.

But must I then reflect all of Christ's other attributes in him? Must I make him perfect, sinless?

Or it it possible to teach some allegorical lessons without having to represent everything, perfectly, through tedious research?

For example, if I write a story about a little magician who makes a garden, and populates it with little children whom he loves, but who then run from him, and he goes after them to bring them back into the fold, do I have to also make sure to include some sort of trinity?

I personally believe that we have a bit more freedom in allegory. That it's possible to teach a single lesson at a time, rather than biting off more than we can chew. After all, that tends to lead to despair, at least on my part.

I really enjoyed the fact that the book The Shack (though heretical in regard to universalism, granted) helped point out to its readers that we stereotype God too much, by portraying Him as a middle-aged African-American woman named "Papa". Not all of His attributes were correct, but it really taught us a good lesson.

Is it better to learn one good lesson, or attempt to cover many lessons in not so much depth out of a vain attempt to capture the scope of scripture and the gospel?

After all, won't we spend all eternity marveling at that, never fully understanding it?

This is probably a discussion for another day, but...why do you think God does not call us to perfection? He says "Be ye Holy as I am Holy", and yes, that is impossible, and He has made provisions for that in Jesus, but that doesn't mean we can just say, "Well, God knows I'm not perfect, so I can do whatever I like."

Simply to buck stereotypes, we have no right to portray God as the opposite of what he is shown to be in the Bible. God is always portrayed with the masculine pronoun in the Bible, and I believe there is a reason for this (although I am not sure what it is). The Shack was wrong to portray Him as a woman. I think there are some things that we really should not try to change. God's nature, the Trinity, certain elements of human nature are some of them.

On the other hand, in many ways I do agree. David was used in many ways to foreshadow Christ, and yet he committed murder and adultery! I don't think that a Christ-figure in an allegory must necessarily be perfect, unless he is supposed to BE Jesus. (As in the case of Aslan.) Then, it would be wise to follow what we know of Jesus in the Bible.

Allegories ARE stories too, even if they represent things. I think in the case of the magician story you're talking about, it would be fine. We, as finite human beings, cannot ever portray an infinite God in all His perfect entirety, but we CAN portray parts of His glory accurately, I think...

It's an interesting idea to ponder...

I think that as long as you do not go against what he tells us about himself in his Word, then you should be good.

*agrees with Willow and Novadar*

We have freedom in allegory, as long as we don't teach something wrong. There's a difference between being creative, and making a sloppy or even completely wrong theological point. Jesus did not use "perfect" allegory in all of His parables, but He also did not teach wrong things through them.

Using your example:
You don't need to include the Trinity, because the point of the allegory is about God's love. It doesn't say there is not a Trinity or that it is a Duality. It also does not say God is exactly like the little magician. It is just a story illustrating a truth.

If, however, the magician gave a speech to the children about how they would all go to the magical garden in the sky whether they came back to the fold or not, then it would be saying something theologically wrong. That is the difference, and what we have to watch out for.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. -- Isaiah 5:20

*agrees with most everything that's been said here*
I think it also has a lot to do with what you're trying to do, like Willow said, if you're trying to make a Christ figure, you should do your utmost best to make it accurate, or at least not inaccurate (yeah, I'm making a distinction there)...Gandalf was a type of Christ in his willingness to die in order to save his friends, but he was also prideful at times and was definitely below perfection--but Tolkien wasn't making a Christ figure, he was making a character that had certain Christ-like qualities (not necessarily on purpose, though).

I like most of what was said here.

And Willow - Papa was God, taking on a female form, just like he's taken on an animal form. He was still who He was, but he was trying to correct the MC's assumptions by making a point.



I love this^. It's exactly what I believe. We can write stories illustrating truths. And we can probably make them more compelling than an attempt at getting all truths correct, in their contexts, which we will never do anyway.

Yes. I think that is the beauty of fantasy, we can separate things out, good and evil can be made as plain as we want (or as confused as we want, Gollum comes to mind here)...we can also single out certain issues to illustrate a point, oh the possibilities are endless!

I love you Lycanis. That's a perfect summary... grace, freedom, so good!

.... ... Thank you, I'm glad I was able to communicate something valid here. YES, it's amazing...

Yes, allegory doesn't have to encompass everything... Jesus used parables to make his points, but one thing that Papa points out about parables is that taking them farther than they were intended to be taken is unwise and can get you some weird ideas.

I think what you would call this is a parable rather than an allegory though, I'm not sure...kingjon tells me that an allegory is not as broad a word as I have used it. Anyway, I liked his way of describing a parable as an extended metaphor. Metaphors are not all encompassing counterparts.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that a story, an art form, must convey a truth, or rather, must be truthful. And there is an assumption that you cannot write a story which brings in and primarily seems to put forth something not taught in Scripture. My characters do not reflect my convictions and beliefs unless I *want* them to. I have written stories where the main is a female exemplifying Christ's sacrificial love, I have written stories of an apathetic young man who has committed a heinous crime, I have written a story about a drug addict from the first person, I have written a story form the perspective of an agnostic/skeptic do all these reflect my beliefs and my theology? No. I'm the author of a novel, a story and thus to some extent I can rightly be called god of that world.
I will say this: if you write a specific allegory where someone is specifically Christ then yeah you might not want to make Christ something he was not. But within any story as a Christian your worldview will shine through regardless. I will write stories that push my limits and the limits of what i deem to be decent but not unbiblical and in the process my ideas on grace and God will come through, and hopefully accurately. Writing is about writing, even in allegory, and not about getting your theology right. God calls us as we are - screwed up people trying to write to His glory and for his benefit and for our own enjoyment. He is not calling us to be perfect and oh so mighty and avoid evil....live life to the fullest, write to the fullest and God will be in your work.

Very interesting thoughts all around.