I’ve been thinking a lot about how stories can make anything look good if the author wants them to. It’s strange how easily a narrative can wrap something in light, give it a soft glow, and suddenly it feels profound—even if, when you step back, it’s not actually true or good or wise. It’s like emotional lighting tricks. You can take a bowl of wax fruit, shine it just right, and for a moment your brain forgets it’s not edible. You almost reach for it.
And I guess what’s been unsettling me is realizing how often I’ve trusted that glow. Not in a gullible way, but in that instinctive “oh, this feels meaningful, so maybe it is” way. Especially when I’m reading with a biblical worldview, where I’m used to the idea that God can show up in unexpected places, in the cracks of a story, in the longings of a character, in the ache of a theme. That’s still true, I think. But I’m noticing that the author’s conclusions aren’t automatically transcendent just because they’re framed beautifully. They’re just… the author’s conclusions. A choice. A craft decision. Aesthetic persuasion, not revelation.
And that’s where the tension sits for me. Because I don’t want to become cynical, the kind of reader who refuses to be moved because “well, it’s all just technique.” But I also don’t want to be naïve, swallowing themes whole because they’re wrapped in emotional resonance. It’s weirdly humbling to admit that a story can make something look noble that isn’t, or make something destructive feel romantic, or make a worldview seem deep when it’s actually shallow. Not because the author is malicious—just because they’re good at arranging words.
So then I start wondering: what does it mean to “see Him in everything” if the “everything” is sometimes dressed up in illusions? Does that mean I’m projecting? Does it mean I’m reading too generously? Or does it mean I need to shift what I’m looking for?
I think the answer is somewhere in that shift. Maybe seeing God in a story doesn’t mean assuming the author has stumbled into cosmic truth. Maybe it means paying attention to the human heart behind the story—the longing, the fear, the hunger for meaning, the ache for redemption. Those things are real even when the conclusions are wax fruit. The longing is real even when the solution is counterfeit. And maybe that’s where the transcendent stuff actually lives: not in the author’s thesis, but in the cracks where their humanity leaks through.
It’s funny how freeing that feels. I don’t have to pretend every beautiful moment is spiritually valid. I don’t have to treat emotional resonance as proof. I can let myself be moved by the craft and still step back afterward and ask, “Okay, but is this actually true?” I can enjoy the glow without mistaking it for light.
And maybe that’s the whole point. Discernment isn’t shutting your heart down; it’s keeping your eyes open while your heart stays soft. It’s letting the story do what stories do—stir, provoke, comfort, unsettle—while remembering that not every shining thing is gold. Some of it is wax. Some of it is fruit. And some of it, occasionally, is something deeper breaking through.
I think I’m learning to live in that space. Not suspicious, not starry‑eyed. Just awake. And maybe that’s where I can see Him most clearly—not in the author’s conclusions, but in the deeper currents that run underneath them, the ones they didn’t invent and can’t quite hide, no matter how they frame the scene.