I owe E. Stephen Burnett some public thanking. First because he asked me to take this regular Thursday slot on Speculative Faith, which I’ve used to talk about what I want to talk about. Second because he sincerely strives to be a decent person in how he treats me and others (which isn’t to say he’s a perfect person, but who is?) And third, because sometimes he says some things I sharply disagree with, but which get me to thinking in a way that in the end benefits me by getting me to clarify and solidify things I’ve been thinking for decades. Such as what I’m going to post about today. What I’m calling Re-Creation.

Randy Alcorn on Heaven

E. Stephen has posted numerous times on Speculative Faith about what heaven will be like (such as: Heaven Will be the Happiest Place on Earth, The Top Six Myths we Believe About Heaven, When You Long For New Earth, Start Biblical and ‘Normal,’ Then Dream Bigger) His thinking has been influenced by Randy Alcorn’s book Heaven and Alcorn’s thought in general (as set forth for the public by Eternal Perspectives ministries) as evidenced by a post E. Stephen did on Heaven all the way back in 2011.

Alcorn in short believes the New Heaven and New Earth will be substantially like the Planet Earth and heavens we have now–only without sin. He has applied certain passages of the Old Testament that most Dispensationalists say belong to the Millennial period as pertinent to what he believes eternity will be like. Perhaps he was correct to do so, because while I do believe in a literal Millennium of Christ’s rule, perhaps conditions in eternity will parallel the Millennium–or perhaps they will not. That “perhaps not” is really the center of my disagreement on this topic.

If you want to look at a rather detailed and technical-about-the-Bible view of my main disagreement with Alcorn and E. Stephen, check out what I say in the comments section of When You Long For New Earth, Start Biblical and ‘Normal,’ Then Dream Bigger. In short, I think there’s a degree of uncertainty about future things and so there’s a range of things that could be true. The concept of “Start Normal,” as in the New Heaven and the New Earth of eternity (Rev. 21) being highly similar to the Earth we know today (well, actually an update of this Earth, according to Alcorn and E. Stephen) is a possibility, I would say. But its also possible the New Earth will be dramatically different from the Earth as we know it–in fact, the Bible drops a few hints that could be interpreted as it being dramatically different (e.g. the Bible seems to say neither darkness nor sunshine will exist in eternity–which is nothing like the Earth we know: Revelation 22:5).

It’s possible to overstate the differences between Randy Alcorn/E. Stephen Burnett and me. I agree the Bible clearly teaches some similarities exist between the New Heaven and New Earth and the heaven and earth we know. I agree that the New Heaven and New Earth in essence undo the curse of Genesis chapter 3 and point back to the blessing of the Garden of Eden, fulfilling God’s original purpose in the creation of the universe (Rev. 22:2-3). However, it’s entirely possible from my point of view for this current world to be completely wiped out and then created once again and still fulfill God’s plan for the creation of the universe. God has the power to utterly obliterate, then bring back from nothing. Re-Creation, if you will.

Will This World be Destroyed?

In fact, this parallels what happens to some people who die–sure, some people leave bones in a grave that could be dug up and examined. But others, due to exceptional circumstances, are destroyed in death in a way you could not find the tiniest scrap of that person anywhere–all the constituent molecules and atoms are completely separated from one another and absorbed into other things. Yes, God knows what became of all those atoms and molecules, but when he re-assembles a person in the resurrection, does it really matter if God will use all the exact same atoms that were in your body? Couldn’t the carbon, oxygen, hydrogen (etc) atoms you will be made of be drawn from physical substances which never part of any human before? Wouldn’t the end result would be just the same? Wouldn’t that be rather like God making Adam from the dust of the earth in the first place?

Image source: Bible info dot net

Likewise, is it really important if this world will be entirely destroyed before God’s “Re-Creation” of a new one? What’s the difference between letting part of the planet survive and re-building it versus wiping all out and engaging in re-creation? I don’t see any important difference.

So all that matters is what the Scriptures say God will do…and the Scriptures don’t say with crystal clarity from what I see. I think II Peter 3:10-12 implies complete destruction of all things, including the destruction of chemical elements in verse 12 and beginning over. Mr. Alcorn insists II Peter 3:10 prevents the Earth from being destroyed because the “best Greek text” says the Earth will be “laid bare” or “exposed” instead of “burnt up.” I think relying on one Greek text, even if the best, is in general not a good idea–even if I for sake of argument concede his preferred text might be the best in this place. Revelation 21:1 says the old heaven and earth will “pass away”–whatever that means, but that seems to imply they won’t be hanging around in any significant way. Isaiah 65:17 says God will create a new heaven and new earth–and the former things will not be remembered, which by referencing forgetting the “former things” seems to be saying the new work will not be connected to the past. As a re-creation. Or that’s one way to read it.

Psalm 102:25-26 talks about changing the heaven and the earth like changing clothes–which seems to show the New Heaven and New Earth are of a similar pattern as the old, but are new in substance (new clothes may be similar to old clothes, but are literally something physically different from the old). Isaiah 51:6 likewise talks about the old earth wearing out like clothes–in contrast to God’s salvation, which is eternal (and which will be expressed in the re-creation of new earth, according to elsewhere in Isaiah).

All of these could in fairness be read in more than one way. God could in effect heal a sick Planet Earth, like healing a person struck with leprosy. Or could in effect raise the planet from the dead by reassembling every single particle, as will happen with certain human bodies which have been completely destroyed. And what’s the difference? None really, except a healed patient will presumably not become a superbeing of some sort. The healing will only go up to “normal” but not beyond–but could go beyond if God chose to perform that type of re-creation.

So will this current Planet Earth endure, only to be majorly renovated? Or will it be replaced, like a new piece of clothing? I’m not sure–furthermore I don’t think it matters–and object most to insisting this is some point of massive importance. If the physical continuity of this creation into eternity were of extreme importance, the Scriptures would have stated things more clearly.

But on a Personal Level, Why do I Like the Idea of Re-Creation?

Having presented an intellectual case as to why I don’t know for sure if Randy Alcorn (or E. Stephen Burnett) is right about the New Heaven and New Earth, there’s another element here if I’m fully honest with myself. I don’t want Alcorn to be right. I don’t want heaven to be “normal.”

The reason starts, as with so many things for me, as a teenager voraciously reading science fiction (with some fantasy on the side). And running into a lot of the skepticism about any Christian worldview from the science fiction writers. Robert A. Heinlein specifically criticized the very idea of heaven by asking if there was anything at all anyone could do that you’d like so much that you’d want to do it eternally? For ever? “Won’t you get bored?” asked Heinlein.

As a teen who at that point knew I believed in God and Christ even though I hadn’t been to church since age eleven, someone who hardly knew the Bible at the time, I first tried to answer this by wondering if eternity might be a timeless state. Perhaps we will live in one eternal moment of joy, I was thinking. An idea itself influenced by concepts of time being flexible I borrowed from science fiction. But that idea doesn’t square up very well with how people are described as actually doing things in eternity. Such as events around the throne of God in Revelation or the description of the Tree of Life in Revelation 22 giving 12 fruits in its season (a clear reference to the passing of time). Things I learned about later.

But I realize now, thanks to E. Stephen Burnett’s steady dropping of posts on this topic over a long period of time, which caused me to confront my own thinking, that I in fact have carried with me a science fictiony view of heaven into my subsequent very serious study of the Bible. That I have carried with me an expectation that there will be a science fiction aspect to heaven–there will be things about it which are very much unexpected, surprising, shocking. That God will  place us into a world unlike our own, one that will delight us with its freshness and cause our minds to be filled with awe and wonder. A very complex and intricate “otherness” that will never wear out, even over the vast stretches of eternal time. Because God will make his re-creation so complex and so beyond our ordinary experience.

My Emotional Longing for the Strange

The idea of being surprised about what God has in store for us in eternity is so appealing to me and the idea of “Earth 1.2” is so unappealing, that this lead me to some further self-discovery.

You see, with certain exceptions, I don’t like urban fantasy very much. And I think superhero stories, while they can be interesting at times, are far from the most interesting types of speculative fiction stories.

I am at heart a xenophile. Even though I find comfort in familiar things at times, I am most interested in things that are unfamiliar and unusual. Or exotic.

In particular, in a speculative fiction story, I expect to be dropped into a story world unlike what I’ve read before. I don’t like returning to the same type of setting over and over again. Which explains why I usually don’t read long series of fantasy books that keep returning to the same imaginary universe over and over again. I don’t like that–I want new imaginary worlds.

So I don’t actually want to think of the New Heaven and New Earth as “normal.” Normal is not fun or interesting! I want a re-creation, an eternity with familiar touches, but which overall is completely unlike anything I’ve ever experienced!

This bit of my internal makeup may relate to why I find a great deal of stories by fellow Christian speculative fiction writers lacking in the story setting department…because I want a story world to be unexpected and odd, not warm and familiar…

Longing For the Familiar

Having said that, I do love certain places, foods, and people from my past. I can understand wanting to see them again in eternity.

So I assume that my occasional longings for familiarity coupled with a general preference for novelty are flipped in most people. Most people occasionally want novelty but generally prefer nice things they are familiar with. A favorite restaurant, a favorite pet, friend, food, and place. Favorite art.

And this is what Alcorn is offering, at least in part. He’s imagined a vision of heaven that isn’t strange and off-putting for many people. He instead has focused on aspects that resonate with our past and suggests heaven will be full of the best of this life…with a slice of the unknown added to spice things up a bit. Which is pretty much exactly like the title of E. Stephen Burnett’s post on starting normal when thinking of heaven, then dream bigger.

But I want to start with a big dream of a re-creation that’s mind-blowing, then add familiar slices afterwards.

Heaven Both Strange and Comforting

The four-faced alien-looking seraphim will sing in heaven, we know this for sure. The Bible describes transparent gold in the New Jerusalem, iridescent gates made of what appear to be a single pearl, foundations of shining gemstone light, and all darkness disappearing. The massive city of New Jerusalem would jut out of the atmosphere–yet people seem to breathe there with no trouble.

Four seraphim faces: Image source: Quora

The kings of the earth will enter in and bring their glory–what that means exactly I don’t know. And furthermore am happy not knowing.

But on the other hand, heaven will also feature people we know and love, saints from served God in the past, singing in a heavenly chorus, praising God, eating the fruit of the tree of life (and perhaps other things to eat), pure water to drink (and perhaps other things to drink).

Will we remember the art of this world and be able to re-create it, but even better? Maybe. Will we have the literal art of this world just as it is now? I doubt it, but maybe. Will we have our pets and trees we climbed in and vistas we once enjoyed? I don’t know. Maybe.

Renovation or Re-creation?

Will the baseline of heaven be a renovation of what we have now, or a re-creation of something almost entirely new? I would say I don’t know for sure, not enough definite information is given by the Bible. But certainly God will comfort all of us, no matter who we are. Perhaps our personalities will change even–in fact it’s certain they will to get rid of sin, but perhaps even more than that.

But personally, I’m hoping for a re-creation. An eternity with a lot more unfamiliar things than we’ve been told about. A place stranger but also more marvelous than we can imagine. A place sharing a lot in common with mind-blowing science fiction and fantasy…

Conclusion

So what do you think, dear reader? What kind of thing would you most like to see in heaven? Are you looking forward “re-creation” (my made up word)? Or are you more interested in seeing the familiar, beloved things of this world again in eternity?

(Note the Army Reserve will have me out of town for the next 5 weeks. I’ve arranged for some friends to post in my place, though. 🙂 )

Lorehaven’s summer 2020 issue has arrived.¹ Keep scrolling to get the complete issue content list, complete with links. Yes, and this time, thanks in part to the dark magic of pandemics, you can read the entire issue here at Lorehaven.com right now.

It starts with this Captain’s Log, exploring how truthful stories help us during hard times.

Subscribe today so you get all Lorehaven content, including (this summer) daily reviews.

Captain’s Log, Lorehaven magazine, summer 2020

Speculative author Paul Regnier may not be a household name. I haven’t seen a lot of interviews with him or followed a blog tour that featured him. He does have an active presence on social media in places like Facebook and Instagram, but for some reason—maybe because of the dwindling of active blogs—Paul doesn’t have a lot of “guest appearances.” Happily, we’ve had him here at Spec Faith.

But typically, when an author generates content, he’s more apt to talk about his book or writing or some other related topic. Most don’t talk about themselves much.

That’s OK because, as it happens, I know Paul personally. Until he moved, I was in two writing groups with him.

I first met Paul at the Mount Hermon Christian Writers Conference. A mutual friend introduced us, with the idea that we might want to include him in our small group of speculative fiction writers.

Since then Paul has gone on to co-teach a youth workshop at Mount Hermon. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Our group decided that he would be a good fit. He is a believer in Jesus Christ, a writer who loves various types of speculative fiction, a family man who, at the time, lived in the greater Los Angeles area, which is where all of us in the group live.

When Paul came into our little group of Christians writing speculative fiction, he was transitioning from screen writing to becoming a novelist. In fact, I think the first work of his that I read might have been a screen play.

I noticed a couple things in those early days. One, Paul had a great sense of humor. Some of the lines coming from the mouths of his characters had members of our group laughing out loud! Two, he was really, really good with dialogue. I mean, essentially dialogue is all that screen plays are. That and some stage direction to introduce scenes. (Obviously, I’m not a screen writer!)

At any rate, as Paul moved into the realm of novels, it was pretty clear that “work on your dialogue” was never going to be a critique any of us would offer.

Paul’s first publishing effort was a foray into self-publishing. The book came out before he had much of a social media platform, and I’m not sure it’s even still available. Let’s just say, he learned a lot through that experience.

From that first effort (fantasy, if I remember correctly) Paul moved on to Space Opera. He wrote the first book of his Space Drifters series, The Emerald Enigma, and after moving on from his agent, found a home for it at Enclave. He went on to complete that series, which became a trilogy, all with the same publisher.

Shortly after Paul joined the local chapter of ACFW to which I also belong, he and his wife decided to move. With two young children, they determined that there were better places to raise kids than Southern California (imagine!) Paul and his family now make their home in Treasure Valley, Idaho.

Believe it or not, that first original writing group still “meets” from time to time. We were doing the online meetings before the Covidvirus made so many turn to Zoom in order to “gather.”

After completing Space Drifters, Paul went on to write and self-publish the Paranormia books which I’ve introduced here at Spec Faith (here and here).

I’m a big fan of the way Paul tilts a genre by making humor as integral to the story as the adventure. I think it’s a gift—the sense of humor but also the ability to write it and to make it a part of his characters so that it doesn’t feel forced or contrived.

In the long run, besides knowing that Paul “is a technology junkie, drone pilot, photographer, web designer, drummer, Star Wars nerd, and a wannabe Narnian with a fascination for all things futuristic,” what matters the most to readers are the stories.

Maybe the Paranormia books, because of their unique blend of genres, will put Paul on the map and make him that household name so speculative readers will start looking for his books with regularity. I don’t know. I do know that he’s a talented writer, and he keeps getting better. I don’t think readers will be disappointed if they choose one of his books in their search for a new exciting series or a stand-alone novel.

This will be the final post in the Free Original Storyworld Ideas series. That’s not because I’m out of ideas I could share, but because we’ve gone over some unique ideas for fantasy worlds (such as Spheres), including magic as technology, some unusual ideas about the near future (in the Coronavirus stories) and distant future (Domesticated Humans and Nanites–which are unusual ideas for Christian writers at least), and some unorthodox ways to look at the spiritual world (Agent Angel). I even explained how to mine the public domain for stories and talked about the relatively new genre of GameLit. This last post, on alien angels, will end with another unorthodox view of the spiritual world, capping a multi-part overview of original ideas for fantasy, science fiction, and Christian paranormal in a way I hope at least some writers of Christian speculative fiction find inspiring.

In a previous post on Speculative Faith I talked about methods Christian writers could use to talk about aliens if they felt led to do so. That’s even though I don’t feel there’s any way for me to know if there are actually any aliens or not.

But once we suppose that there might be aliens, isn’t it possible that angels would take the shape of aliens when interacting with them? Just as numerous Bible passages describe angels as looking like human beings? That certainly makes sense, if we presume angels can change their appearance (and the Devil is said to be able to change his appearance in 2 Corinthians 11:14, so why couldn’t they?).

Alien Angels

But let’s take this idea a step further. Let’s imagine that angels, even though they can change their appearance, have a “default” appearance that matches the people they serve. So angels might have different ethnic appearances if they are assigned to different ethnic groups. Perhaps. And, if that’s the case, there might be certain angels with appearances that are permanently non-human because they have the job of ministering to other intelligent life God created in the universe, life other than us. Right?

One could imagine the separate intelligent species God will save will have separate heavens (and by “heaven” I mean “eternal state in the presence of God” which technically doesn’t happen until the New Heavens and New Earth of Revelation 21). But really, why? Doesn’t it make more sense that all the redeemed beings in the universe would be gathered together in one place, just as all the redeemed ethnic groups will be?

A somewhat disturbing view of an alien angel… Image source: Pintrest

Perhaps someone might say because we see the “New Heaven” pegged to the “New Earth,” that means only the Planet Earth will have saved beings—i.e. heaven will be a humans-only zone. Or perhaps one could say, again, that aliens will have their own separate renewed planets in which a heavenly city will come down (such as a “New Heavens and a New Vulcan” 😊 ).

But even if those other planets really are separate, what if they also are linked to the New Earth? Though “stargates” or by even cooler means? So that the New Jerusalem is the eternal city for all species, even non-humans?

So portraying heaven teeming with aliens might be an interesting angle to take. Plus, writers of science fiction might show aliens interacting with “alien angels.” However, so far this doesn’t constitute an entire story setting. Though it could add some flavor to stories featuring aliens with beliefs in God and the supernatural.

Scriptural Evidence of Alien Angels?

Of course a valid criticism of how I’ve presented this idea so far would be, “What evidence is there from the Bible itself that there’s any beings in heaven who actually look like aliens?”

Glad you asked.

As per a personal blog post I did years ago, recall the Seraphim, a Hebrew word that means “burning ones”? They have four faces in four cardinal directions. One face is human, one is of an eagle, one of a cow/calf, and one of a lion. These four beings are the closest to the throne of God and cry out continually, “HOLY, HOLY, HOLY.”

Bible commentators have typically assigned the four faces some kind of symbolic meaning. Maybe based on the characteristics of the four creatures. Or the four Gospels. Or four directions of the compass.

But what if the four faces of the seraphim are not symbolic at all?

Certainly the human face would seem to be there because humans are a creation of God and the human face represents a being worshiping him. Human beings don’t seem to have a strictly figurative meaning–so what if God also created aliens with lion faces? Aliens with bovine faces? Aliens with faces like eagles? What if some of these aliens actually had wings?

That would change the meaning of the seraphim—they’d represent four intelligent species God had created. Them worshiping God together would, in that case, represent the species of the redeemed.

What if Seraphim Reflect Four Alien Races?

Four seraphim faces: Image source: Quora

So imagine a story setting in which humans encounter aliens—exactly 3 species of them other than us. Bovine, leonine, eagle-like. Or perhaps there could be whole sets of species, some humanoid, like Star Trek Vulcans, humans, Klingons, etc. But some “leonoid”—or sharing some aspects of cattle or of eagles. To the degree that the seraphim really do represent a heaven teeming with alien angels?

Such a setting would call on a writer to create a series of stories that feature all these different aliens. Perhaps their relationship with God would be different than ours—perhaps one or more of these species could have remained without sin. Or perhaps one species could have only one member who accepted their Savior through faith.

Seraphim wings. Image source: Legit.ng

Such a story setting could perhaps generate a fresh excitement concerning what the Bible says concerning how it relates to God’s create work outside of Planet Earth.

Though it would be important to avoid the notion that these different races visited Earth in the distant past and therefore the shape of the seraphim comes from early humans having seen them—or perhaps a writer could suggest that’s exactly what happened, but then show in the end the seraphim exist as the Bible describes them. Strange composite creatures, who reflect the creative work of God both inside and outside our Solar System…

Conclusion

So what are your thoughts on this story setting, readers? Have you encountered something similar to “alien angels”? Or exactly the same? How about stories about the seraphim faces? And how would you handle this as a story setting?

Their arrival brought hope to a world in pain.¹ But before long those who looked beyond the beautiful facade presented to the world saw something else. The heavenly visitors who came to earth were heralded by many as angels sent by God. But those who refused to worship the angels were soon destroyed.

Rebellion has arisen but they are in danger of falling to these beings who demand everything, even the human soul. The Garrisons—Ben, Jack, and Trudy—have joined the rebellion, seeking to save humanity and the world they call home from these insidious beings who are enslaving everyone.

Word has come to the last bastion of rebels that they are about to be targeted by the angels by a toxin that will kill all who are within the dispersal zone. With a desperate plan to save their people from this latest attack the Garrisons target the enemy’s headquarters. But all is not as it seems and soon Ben, Trudy, Jack find themselves facing a situation they never expected: becoming hosts for their enemy.

With little time to act and even less support, the battle for humanity and the human soul has entered a critical juncture, one that once begun there is no chance of going back. Sometimes saving the world calls for the ultimate sacrifice, a sacrifice that few have the strength to carry through. But has such a time come? Only time will tell.

Heaven Came Down is the first book in Bryan Davis’s The Oculus Gate series, and if this book is any indication it will be a stellar reading experience. The fate of many depends upon the actions of a few and as a reader one just can’t help wondering at times who can be trusted. The book has a steady pace with periods of action that kept this reader turning the page. This is different from Bryan Davis’s previous works but still written with the same quality and attention to detail that one has come to expect from him. The book ends so that the reader is left with questions but not hanging from a cliff until book 2 is released, which is on the author’s part an incredible kindness.

I was provided a complimentary copy of this book with no expectations but that I provide my honest opinion. All thoughts expressed are my own.

At Lorehaven we’ve been reviewing, editing, and (thanks to world events) even doing a little retooling.

Now Lorehaven magazine’s tenth issue, summer 2020, arrives at this very website, Lord willing, just next week.

We’re aiming to release this issue on Tuesday, June 30.

Gracing the cover is For Whom the Sun Sings author W. A. Fulkerson. We interview him and review the book, of course. But starting in this issue, we print the book’s entire first chapter. Lord willing again, each new Lorehaven issue will feature similar first-chapter goodness going forward.

Here’s a sample of this issue’s amazing offerings:

Book Reviews

Lorehaven’s review team explores the books they like best.

Cover story: ‘I Used to Want to Change the World’

• Explore For Whom the Sun Sings with W. A. Fulkerson
• For Whom the Sun Sings, book review
• For Whom the Sun Sings, chapter 1

Sponsored Review: The Light Unbound, C. S. Wachter

This novel concludes C. S. Wachter’s saga on a high note.

Discerning the ‘Girls With Swords’ Trope

Marian Jacobs: We can see some strong female characters in biblical perspective.

Sponsored Review: A Shattered World, Lelia Rose Foreman

This is the Puritan space colonization epic you never knew you needed.

The Dangers of Anti-Pearl-Clutching

Travis Perry: Let’s not overcorrect for others’ fears by ignoring Satan’s schemes.

The Chosen’s Speculation Meets a True Savior

Cap Stewart: This series may be one of the best Christian stories in our lifetime.

This Thursday’s livestream: How Can Stories Help Us in Traumatic Times?

Save your spot now for my livestream with Realm Makers this Thursday, June 25. It starts at 8 p.m. Eastern (7 Central).

When we groan with God’s anguished creation, what creative works help us work through our sense of trauma? Let’s explore, with biblical faith and sensitivity, how imagination helps us seek healing.

I’d love to hear what kinds of stories you prefer during traumatic times. Our poll at Crowdcast will ask:

What kinds of stories most often help you during traumatic times?

• Lighter, relaxed stories
• Darker, complex stories
• Some lighter, some darker stories

The livestream feed will also be mirrored on Facebook. But by joining us on Crowdcast, you’ll be able to interact in chat and with yours truly. Crowdcast can also send you a notification when we’re about to go live.

When we groan with God’s anguished creation, what creative works help us work through our sense of trauma? Let’s explore, with biblical faith and sensitivity, how imagination helps us seek healing.

Available now: new podcast episode, plus daily reviews

Today we release the Fantastical Truth podcast’s episode 21: In a Blind World, What If Only One Boy Could See?

Each day we’re also posting full reviews from Lorehaven‘s vast backlog. Get all of those in the Reviews section of this website.

And of course, before too much longer, Christian fantasy creators will gather virtually for Realm Makers 2020: Pandemic Edition. Of this we will have much more to say, and I’ll likely keep using my Tuesday article slots for exactly this purpose. Godspeed!

Madeleine L’Engle, an author of 50 some books, most notably her science fiction-fantasy A Wrinkle In Time, famously said when she was asked if she was a Christian writer,

No. I am a writer. That’s it. No adjectives. The first thing is writing. Christian is secondary.

Understandably, that oft repeated statement as stirred a fair amount of debate within the community of Christians who write. What exactly are we to be? Writers first, Christians second? Or Christians who declare the gospel with every word we use to craft our stories?

The first idea has been supported by a number of people who say that we should be writers first because God made us in His image, so by being creative we are, in fact, pointing back to Him as the One who gave us the skill to do what we do.

Certainly there is a measure of truth in that position, but the issue that has constantly tripped me up here is the fact that godless men can use the same talent which originates in them from God, as a means to mock Him or discredit Him. See Philip Pullman as a poster boy for this position, with Dan Brown hanging his own poster right along side.

The point, as I see it, is that SOMETHING ought to set the Christian who writes—or who waits tables or cleans hospital rooms or puts out fires—apart from those who do the same activity who are not believers in Jesus.

Recently I picked up a book entitled Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, and in it she actually addresses this subject in a way that was more thoughtful than I’d heard before (because, yes, this discussion has been around for a while—perhaps the latest post here at Spec Faith on the subject was one Travis Perry wrote a year ago. Certainly that wasn’t the first, and clearly, since I’m writing this one, it isn’t the last.)

In one section specifically on creativity, Pearcey says

Christianity needs to move beyond criticizing culture to creating culture. That is the task God originally created humans to do, and in the process of sanctification we are meant to recover that task. Whether we work with our brains or our hands, whether we are analytical or artistic, whether we work with people or with things, in every calling we are culture-creators, offering up our work as a service to God. (9 59, italics in the original)

One of the points I think that’s significant here is the idea that we are “culture-creators.” I’ve asked before if writers should be reflecting culture or molding culture. Pearcey seems unequivocally to be saying that we are to mold, not reflect.

Secondly, she emphasizes that this approach to culture is not unique to writers. In other words, she is clearly saying, we should be Christians first, and then go out into the world and do the thing that God has called us to do.

In an earlier section she refers to the “Cultural Mandate”—God’s direction to Adam and Eve to subdue the earth, fill it, and rule over it:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen. 1:27-28)

According to Pearcey, our sense of fulfillment and satisfaction in our work comes as a result of completing the thing God has call all of us to do.

The ideal human existence is not eternal leisure or an endless vacation—or even a monastic retreat into prayer and meditation—but creative effort expended for the glory of God and the benefit of others. Our calling is not just to “get to heaven” but also to cultivate the earth, not just to “save souls” but to serve God through our work. (p 48)

For God’s glory and for the good of others.

I think that simplifies things, both for writers and for readers. Part of our evaluation about any story should be, Is God glorified and Are readers built up, encourage, give something essential they need?

Unapologetically Pearcey builds the case that all Christians should be engaged with the world as Christians, instead of compartmentalizing our faith, instead of segregating it from the other parts of knowledge in which we traffic on a regular basis:

“Thinking Christianly” means understanding that Christianity gives the truth about the whole of reality, a perspective for interpreting every subject matter. (p 34)

The two functions of Christianity can be summed up with two statements:

First, it is a message of personal salvation, telling us how to get right with God; and second, it is a lens for interpreting the world. (p 35)

From my perspective, much of what receives the classification of “Christian fiction” deals with personal salvation. Very little deals with creating a lens to interpret the world. In fact, a growing group of writers seem to think that ignoring Christianity, as if it belongs in church or in the privacy of a person’s own heart, will be their approach to writing stories.

To their credit, they do not pretend to write “Christian fiction.” But I wonder, then, what impact Christianity has on their writing. Are they content to write “clean” stories? Does that provide for readers in a “Cultural Mandate” way?

I can see an argument being made for that approach, but then I wonder, are we saying that what sets a Christian apart from the culture is the words we don’t write or the sex scenes we don’t include in our stories? I’m not sure that’s creating a lens to interpret the world.

I would think, at a time when the world seems steeped in unrest—from violence and disease and fear and uncertainty—Christians have more to say than a critique of the F-words plastered on the walls of businesses in the CHAZ/CHOP area of Seattle. Or in the latest fantasy release we’ve discovered. Or that we’re writing.

Modern comic writers often face a challenge when writing for Superman: how to give Superman enemies who are real threats. After all, Superman may seem so overwhelmingly powerful that he needs an opponent who is equal to him or near enough to be a real threat.

However, writer Tom King doesn’t take that approach in his mini-series Superman: Up in the Sky.

King brings a unique perspective to the world of comics. His writing career began after joining the CIA as a counter-terrorism expert after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. His work is often dark and cynical. In the pages of Batman, he spent a year teasing and preparing for the caped crusader’s wedding to the Catwoman, only to leave Bruce jilted at the altar at the end of the highly marketed Batman #50. He also wrote the controversial Heroes in Crisis, a miniseries that attempted to raise mental health issues by afflicting superheroes with mental illnesses, but left many fans angry for having “ruined” various characters.

However, in Superman: Up in the Sky, we’re treated to a warm, mostly positive take on the Man of Steel.

When Superman stooped to help the weakest

Readers often compare Superman to Christ. Of course, the hero was created as a Moses-figure by two Jewish kids from Cleveland. Yet most modern writers treat him like a Greek god, primarily known for his exploits against powerful monsters that will consume us all. Yet in the beginning, Superman was just as concerned for individuals and smaller problems. In Superman’s earliest comic strip and newspaper adventures, he was not just involved in epic battles against villains. He would also care about regular people in their problems. Superman used his great power to help an orphan trapped in an abusive orphanage, to give a second chance to a boxer, and to help the father of a veteran suffering from PTSD understand that his son was no coward.

In one 1940 newspaper strip story, a letter arrives at the Daily Planet. It came from “the meekest man in the world,” who was constantly picked on and whose life was failing. Lois Lane laughed at the letter writer and considered him pathetic. But Superman took up this mission, declaring, “This fellow and his problem may seem petty, but to him it’s the greatest crisis in the world!” And so Superman spent months (by newspaper strip time) helping this man straighten out his personal and professional life.

Since then, this vision of a Superman touching individual lives has become far less prominent. One of the more recent exceptions is J. Michael Straczynski’s Superman: Grounded storyline, which has Superman returning from Earth after events in deep space and walking across America to connect with and help ordinary people. However, Superman: Up in the Sky takes it to a whole other level.

A super-search for a lost soul

In Superman: Up in the Sky, a foster child is kidnapped is kidnapped from Gotham City. Evidence indicates she was taken into outer space. Superman advises the Green Lantern Corps to watch for her. But in a big universe, she’s like a needle in the haystack. Her only realistic hope is if Superman dedicates himself to search for her. Thus, Superman leaves Earth in search of the kidnapped girl.

Originally this story was serialized in ten– to twelve-page chunks over the course of the year, in the 100-page comics sold at Walmart. That’s why King doesn’t tell this story as a coherent narrative, moving from start to finish. Rather, Superman: Up in the Sky unfolds vignettes that explore Superman over the course of this quest.

Stories are full of beautiful artistic splash pages by artist Andy Kubert, an tons of text boxes share the character’s thoughts.

In one installment, Superman must engage in a brutal boxing match to continue with his journey.

In another, Superman worries about Lois and fears she will die because he’s not around to save her.

In yet another installment, readers are reminded that King was a philosophy major. Superman is split into two parts: man and Superman.

In another, Superman is tempted by an idyllic life to stop his quest.

In another story, Superman’s dialogue becomes a strange poem where he addresses the villain as “sir” and each line is a contradiction of the villain. (such as, “No, sir, I do not”). This story shares more than a few dark turns, including the revelation that this kidnapped girl has been bounced from foster home to foster home and that she has suffered abuse.

Despite the darkness, or because of it, this may be one of the stories where Superman best reflects Christ and the heart of our spiritual hunger. The book asks this key question: “Is it worth leaving the world to save one lost, abused, cast-off child?” Many characters debate this question, but Superman is emphatic that he will. Many challenge the logic of the decision, but friends and foes alike know what Superman will do because it’s in his nature. Superman will journey, and even undergo physical and emotional suffering, as he reaches out to save her despite the great cost he must pay.

Many readers doubtlessly love this approach. (Apparently so does Tom King, judging by his attempts to address these longings.) Some readers, however, will dismiss this positivity as something only found in the pages of jumbo comics from Walmart or Trade Paperbacks. Still, I think Superman: Up in the Sky works because it shares beautiful common grace, which points to the deepest longings and desires of the human heart.

King’s style is not for everyone. But if you want a mainstream superhero comic, with unusual storytelling and emotional depth, Superman: Up in the Sky is worth checking out.

This post combines four different personal blog posts I did on science fiction story settings that relate to the human brain. All of them play along with the idea that the brain is the center of consciousness (as many people believe) and when manipulation of the brain becomes advanced enough, life will completely change for human beings (if that should ever happen in the real world). These ideas include what we’ll call the Revive idea which relates to a “black box” for the brain, which would allow a person to be re-booted in case of death. But if the black box can be swapped between humans, then brains would become interchangeable, so spending time in another human’s body would be possible–perhaps making swapping out bodies like buying a new car. But if that were possible, then it might be possible to manipulate the inputs of what goes into the brains, allowing what I called “modular brains,” which receive data the human body was never designed to do. But if it were possible to swap out inputs, some people would want to re-live moments of famous people or play video games etc from the point of view of a body which was never actually theirs–we’ll call that the I Live You Very Much idea.

These ideas all have various forms of science fiction antecedents. One of the best-known today is the TV series Altered Carbon, which has a lot in common with my ideas about brains being interchangeable (though I haven’t watched the series myself, I’m told that’s what it does). But I did first blog this idea in 2012…Altered Carbon came six years later. Though there’s even earlier sci fi precedents for this kind of thing (and fantasy precedents for that matter). But combining them all together does wind up being uncommon, if not actually unique.

Note that talk of swapping out brains will raise in some readers’ minds questions about the soul and also about eternal life. I’ll briefly address some of these concerns near the end of this post. But first, let’s review my ideas on swapping out and altering brains in order:

Revive

Extra lives used to be a standard feature in video games even earlier than Pac Man and still remains a feature of some video games even today.  Some corner of my brain wondered how that would work exactly, which inspired an idea for a new story setting.

In Revive, which I think would be more appropriate as an actual video game than a work of GameLit (though it could easily be both), a future exists where medical technology is so advanced that it’s possible to bring people back from the dead on a routine basis.  This would be based on massive brain reconstruction after death and sophisticated chips implanted in the brainstem that record a person’s mental status at the time of death–a sort of “black box” for the human mind.

People who could afford the regeneration services could be routinely brought back to life–though a medical technology as advanced as this would probably be able to keep the very wealthy alive forever–that is, keep them from death of natural causes.  Death would only come as a result of accidents or by some sort of violence.

The world of Revive would be violent in the extreme.  With no more fear of death, ancient ideas of individual honor being resolved by personal combat would come back to life.  The very rich would dominate the rest of society by their immortality–physically dominate it–acting with a lordly brutality that has a parallel in some vampire stories.

The main character I’d want to write would not be super rich–he’d be an elite soldier who is revived by the government on a regular basis to preserve his enormous knowledge of combat and the political situation.  This character could have many possible motivations. One could be to maneuver through the political and personal combat machinations of the dominant families of the very rich with an eye to right the death of one of his friends.

Perhaps this type of story world could feature a war between a religiously-motivated underclass, led by a man like a futuristic Oliver Cromwell, who constitute an army of mortal soldiers, “roundheads” of the future. They’d have many disadvantages, but their religious fervor could give them a boldness in the face of death even greater than the near-immortals. Perhaps they’d fight against the godlike immortals who spread fear over Planet Earth and any other realms where the humans in this story would roam…

The Interchangeable Brain

The “black box for the brain” idea I discussed in my suggested video game concept (here’s a link to the original post) carries with it some interesting implications:

And if a brain can be surgically reproduced in such a way it could be placed in a body other than the one it belongs to, why couldn’t someone make multiple copies of the same brain? (yes, this brings up implications concerning a soul I’ll address sin a bit) Especially if this were frowned upon or illegal–the law may say you are allowed only one brain and doctors are forbidden to do more than that. But the antagonist has found a way around that rule so that he and she, or she, she, and he–they–act together to foil the hero in a way he never understands at first, because there is only one of him (or her) and many of them, many exact copies of the same interchangeable brain and personality working together, masked by differing bodies…

The Modular Brain

This permutation of the idea of altering brains originated in me wondering if humans like to kiss because the mouth is the part of the face, which (in my wild speculation) is the part of the body most closely associated with our conscious self, the part of the mind where we mentally abide, our own internal living room as it were (as if the face, including vision, were the primary window the conscious mind uses to connect to the world, whereas other means are more distant, like windows in a basement you can access but have to move your vantage point to do so). As opposed to our subconscious, which is perhaps more connected to inner parts of your body, like your internal intestines or kidneys. Things you can feel but normally are not aware of unless you are in pain, like your breathing or how your knee is operating, would occupy a borderline between the conscious and unconscious mind.

As I was thinking about this, an image of old Nintendo style game cartridges plugged into a human skull popped into my head. What if it were possible to have a living human being with a modular brain, a plug & play brain system?

This is would be just one aspect of being a cyborg and of course being a cyborn is not original to me. Perhaps possibly though it is original to think of writing a science fiction story in which different parts of the brain could be mixed on a modular basis. So I could match the conscious mind of a human being with the brain control to operate the limbs of an octopus. Or horse. Or an alien creature. Or a story could flip the subconscious so it operates machinery, while the conscious self perhaps believed it was still fully human. Or I could plug an alien conscious mind into human limbs…Etc.

Or more narrowly, what if you could pick eagle eye input, bat sonar, and an elephant nose input to be fed into one brain? And the brain parts would be adapted in this form of plug & play to be able to process these unusual inputs and harmonize them into the whole system? Like a sort of mental USB that in these examples, connected to exterior sensors?

What if wholly internal thought processes were subject to his same modularity? So you could adopt Vulcan logic as a plug-in and swap it out for a Klingon battle mindset when you needed it? (The possibilities seem endless.)

What if a story featured fine-tuning and customizing your own brain as a major industry of the future?

I Live You Very Much

So if you could fine-tune your brain and capture brain memories, what if an industry sprung up around people selling their life experiences? (This idea, by the way, was inspired by a friend commenting that her spell check corrected her writing “I love you very much” to “I live you very much”…)

Imagine a story setting in which you could assume the body of another person. Any other person, living or dead, complete with their memories.

Something like my idea has been done in a variety of ways in the past. An original Star Trek episode featured a machine that was able to transfer a woman’s inner self, her soul if you will (though the episode didn’t use that term) into Captain Kirk’s body and vice versa. Later, in the movies, Doctor McCoy carries around Spock’s Katra, the Vulcan equivalent to a soul (given to him in a mind-meld) prior to it being returned to a new version of Spock’s body.

Stories have even featured robot surrogates that a person can project their consciousness into. Or on a technologically simpler level,virtual reality projections have been proposed in which anybody could assume the shape of anyone or anything in a highly realistic digital projection that hits all of a person’s senses.

But let’s take what all these previous stories have done and develop their notions further. Imagine a story world in which a human being could be rapidly grown from DNA samples, (which sci fi has done numerous times). Then the brain of this new clone could be reprogrammed with a person’s mind (again, as stated above, this has been written before). But to take this a step further, imagine a world in which careful genetic research could reproduce the bodies of people no longer living. Then implant their brains with recreations of their memories based on what is known of that person from history–and then place a living person into that system. You would not be yourself in another body–your would literally be, as much as science could reproduce, an actual figure from history. Your very thoughts would be changed, merged with those of the person you entered.

Figures from history would be very popular for this sort of thing, but so would living celebrities. Imagine living celebrities getting paid high royalties for allowing people to copy their memories. So that strangers could merge their thoughts and inner selves into the bodies of the rich and famous.

Note this sort of procedure could be done in a way that isn’t a merger–it instead could be set up so the stranger would be just an observer in another person’s mind. Playing back past experiences as if a movie–but with everything there. Smells, thoughts, bodily urges, the works.

Couldn’t a story like this feature a Jurassic Park type setting of historical figures? Or make it possible to put a as realistic as possible Napoleon in a battle versus Genghis Khan versus Julius Caesar?

The ability to load yourself into historic or celebrity brains would allow unique opportunities of learning about the lives of fascinating people from the past and present. Though for the historic figures, a lot would depend on the types of memories loaded into a brain and what DNA was used to create a person. People like Jesus or Socrates would be highly controversial. Because for them only some thoughts and experiences are preserved by history and any direct relatives from which DNA could be extrapolated are long since gone. (Though Jesus might be somewhat slightly a teeny bit more controversial than Socrates…). There would have to be multiple versions with radically different characteristics for further-in-the-past or obscure historical figures.

In theory, the same sort of reproduction of the past could be done digitally, without actual growth of clones or recreating brains. But genetic systems–what I would call in a story using this idea, “wet modeling”–would develop a complexity that due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle digits may never be able to reproduce. And even if totally realistic virtual reality were possible in some super-technological future and were as good as cloning, some people might just prefer “wet models” anyway. So in an imaginable future world with sufficiently advanced technology, “I live you very much” might be an actual thing.

What About Souls? And Mortality?

I’m offering this idea up for use by anyone interested in using it, but if I were to write this up myself, I’d be interested in aspects of the soul in such a story.  Perhaps someone who was revived would never quite feel like himself or herself again. The difference perhaps would be mild, but perhaps would be profoundly disturbing.

Perhaps an attempt to make multiple copies of a brain would fail for mysterious, inexplicable reasons. Perhaps a single brain could be brought back–but for reasons the brain scientists in the story don’t understand, the copies are notably different from the original. (The reason would be there’s only one copy of a soul, which a story would imagine cannot be xeroxed…)

I’d also feature people who refuse to undergo “Revival” even though they can afford it, because they cling to the religious concept that humans are supposed to be mortal. Though emphasizing that even those who copy themselves would eventually die would also be important.

But let’s explore the theoretical possibility that the soul is at least partially a product of brain function. What if the soul really does come from the brain, but is immortal because God retains a copy of it in His memory? Like a heavenly “cloud” drive (pun intended) that backs us up at all times?

So as an alternative to what I suggested above about failed copies or not-quite-so revivals, perhaps a story could portray people coming back exactly as they used to be–or very close anyway. Again, not that I think such surgery will ever be possible, no matter how advanced medicine may become…

A Christian Motivation

The reason to tackle this sort of story as someone who has Christian convictions would be because it gives the opportunity to ask: “What is the difference between the contents of all a person’s memories and the soul? What does it really mean to be who you are? Is it possible to think radically different thoughts, ones you’d never thought before, and still be yourself when you’re finished?”

That leads to how I would carry out such a story. I’m make it so that radical alterations including merging your mind with another person’s mind would be filled with unexpected failures and unpredicted reactions. Even in such a super-technological world as the one I’ve imagined, God is the master of circumstances, not we human beings.

And I would say that thinking someone else’s exact thoughts, or experiencing the world as another creature even, even for a short time, would change who you are. There would be no going back to thinking the exactly same way as you had beforehand, not entirely. The Bible itself states in Proverbs and elsewhere that what people think reflects who they are.

Conclusion

So what are your thoughts on this mini suite of story ideas? What have you seen or read that’s similar? What ideas would you be interested in exploring?

(By the way, my podcast covering this same topic in different words is at: https://travissbigidea.podbean.com/e/free-original-storworld-ideas-part-9-the-interchangeable-black-box-brain/)