So one of my writer friends posted a link to this article.
Go ahead and read it, then come back for my thoughts on this topic. I started to reply to the the person who posted it on facebook, and the reply got a little out of hand.... I've seen a LOT of this kind of article over the past few years, and they all seem to say the same kind of thing.
I see a LOT of articles on various sites asking "What's wrong with Christian fiction", or a variant of that question. They don't every say, but they must not be reading the same stuff I am. There's a LOT of good stuff being put out by small presses and indies in the last few years. Even the CBA has a small fingerfull of good stuff (Anything by Donita K. Paul, Cast of Stones series by Patrick W. Carr, the Prophet series by R. J. Larson). Okay, it might have improved in just the last year or so... but why do these articles, all by different people on different sites, but still saying the same things, keep popping up?
They there's my pet peeve. This sentence, or one almost identical to it, pops up in every one of these articles: "Stories with compelling drama, convincing heroism and well-crafted, true-to-life characters are often dismissed by Christian publishers because of things like swearing, violence or overtly sexual references."
I completely, wholeheartedly reject the notion that a book must contain anti-biblical content to be considered "good."
Don't misunderstand me. I think I know the point they're trying to say, that books are too "clean", that the bad guys in some books are more good than the good guys in some secular books, that it isn't telling the truth to show the world as if it's populated entirely by Pollyannas.
In part, I disagree with that premise as well, but that's a rant for another time, and since I at least partially agree with them on this point, I'll refer you back to my opening paragraph. None of the books I mentioned are like this, yet they're not filled with filth either. (I could give you a list of indie and small-press examples, but we'd be here all day...)
The point that really irritates me is the call in all of these articles for Christian fiction to contain foul language and sex (we've already dealt with the violence issue above, in which I've partially conceded. I can rant more on that topic if you'd like, though... ;) ) These articles always seem to include of list of words that seem to make the reader think "Gosh, there's no harm in most of those words..." But there's always at least one word that is offensive to most people tossed in.
Are these lists of disallowed words overly excessive? Yes. But where do we draw the line? Why are we "pushing the envelope" of what's acceptable? Is it really to tell a better story, or do we have a spiritual problem that we are afraid to deal with, so instead we lash out at others that don't?
These articles always cry out for realism. Every one says we must include these controversial elements 'for realism.' Why? The real word is a horrible, awful place. We all know that. Why must fiction remind us of that? Instead, why can't fiction point the way to a person that shows us that it doesn't have to be that way? (In the long term, at least...) Sure, in a good story, we paint a world that the reader can relate to... but I think those calling for Christian fiction to be indistinguishable from secular fiction to be considered 'good', are hiding there candle under a basket. We must be different to stand out. Different isn't necessarily 'bad.'
Do I have a problem with some of these words? No, not if there used appropriately. I use the word "breast" in one of my stories, and I've read several indie Christian books that have had 'gasp' sex in them, in a proper married context, without being gratuitous.
We must ask ourselves, however, if we are lashing out at perceived restrictions in language because they truly hurt our stories or not. And, if the removal of such words does truly hurt our stories, we need to take a hard look at them and see if they are honoring to Christ, or not.
That's what really bothers me about such articles. On the surface, they try to take a literary look at the problem, and don't bother to address how we can best serve and honor Christ with our words. Oh, sure, they always pull out the phrase, "We can reach more people with our message if we put in (un-biblical thing here)...", or a variant of it. But reaching more people is pointless if the message has been corrupted.
The authors of the articles seem to anticipate this criticism, and thus toss in a sentence like this: "Such an attitude comes at least in part from a poor reading of the Bible. Jesus spent much of his time engaging with and speaking into the darker sides of life - prostitutes, the demon-possessed, the ill and rejected."
Yes, Jesus did spend his time with such people. Paul even said "To the Jews, I become like a Jew, to the Greeks, I become like a Greek, all so that the message may be preached."
Still missing the point. The whole article goes on about how we need filth in our Christian books so that non-Christians will read them, then tosses this in here to support it? Talk about missing the point. Yes, Jesus hung out with sinners. He didn't, however, change his message. When the woman who was caught in adultery was brought before Jesus, did he condemn her? No. "Ah-ha!" the author of the article is probably saying, "You've proved my point!". Hold on. What'd Jesus tell her next? "Go, and sin no more." (emphasis mine.) We shouldn't change our message to get a bigger audience. Change how it's done? Sure. But if we change what we're saying, what's the point? What's the worlds number one criticism of Christians? It's that we're hypocrites. What's going to happen if we 'reach' someone with our violent, sexual, and foul-languaged book, then try to witness to them? Yes, I know, we can't change them, only God can, and its only our job to tell them... Still, what's going to happen to that person spiritually when they're reading the Bible, and the Holy Spirit tells them not to do... the stuff they just read about in a book by a 'Christan' author....
Okay, this one's actually new to me (in these articles, that is. I've heard plenty of people spew this ill-informed crap in real life):
"There is a sentimentalism in Christian culture, there's a definitive division between good and bad guys, and there is a simple way of making these separations. When you deal with a theological tradition dealing with the fallenness of humanity, you realize there are no white hatted good guys. The only means to fight evil are often evil themselves."
Does anyone else smell horse manure? The sad part of this kind of comment is that it's half-true. We do live in a fallen world. People do make mistakes, and there often shades of grey. That's where the 'truth' here ends, though. There IS such a thing as absolute truth. It IS possible to know it (him). The phrase "theological tradition" here is also a warning sign, but I don't have the time or space to go into that quagmire...
Also realize that I'm not saying we can't have shades of grey in Christian fiction, but what I am saying is that this is not a valid argument for putting filth into "Christian" fiction, and calling it good. Now, this is a good time to step back and ponder where the line is... I'm not going to tell you that, that's something that you have to decide for yourself. You might have a problem, though, if you find yourself fighting for any kind of an excuse to include such content, and flippantly ignoring any reason against.
Another quote from the linked article:
""In noir fiction, they accept that there are no white hatted good guys. We all have this potential to be seduced and corrupted. I can't explain why that topic doesn't interest the evangelical reader."
I can explain it. Quite easily, in fact. It's because we can be seduced and corrupted. We all know that, its a fact of the world we live in. Playing it out on the page is just depressing. Now, if we take that same concept, and show that God can get us through it, that there IS a way out, that it doesn't have to be that way, now we've got something interesting.
And now, for a quote that I DO agree with:
"The first book I published, I had a ghost in there. Ghosts are not
welcome in Christian fiction because evangelicals often see ghosts as
demons. It had a lot of rejections early on because Christians have a
lot of problems with ghosts.
"When it was published, I was asked to write an afterword explaining
my understanding of the possibility of ghosts. Speculative fiction
challenges a whole bunch of theological concepts, very sticky for lots
of Christian publishers.
"That's why fantasists and speculative writers look badly on the
Christian market. They don't want to jump through all the theological
hoops just to tell a story. If the guy's a wizard, he's a wizard, why do
I need to have theological explanation for where his power's coming
Note that I haven't read the book in question (but I have read a really good christian ghost story...) This is a better way to do things. Yes, the Christan market status quo needs to be challenged, but we can't toss the good things of Christianity out just to do so.
And, my favorite, the topic that comes up in all of these articles: "The evangelical drive to know the answers and not to let fear and confusion in strangles our fiction," says Metcalfe."
Ah, yes, those pesky evangelicals, they're the real problem. How dare they look for answers, how dare they try to be like Christ... anyone else see an undercurrent of spiritual jealousy? No? Just me?
I'll grant that no one is perfect... but lets leave our theological turf wars out of the discussion of fiction, hmm?
(In case you didn't know, the indention of "evangelical" is: "of or relating to a Christian sect or group that stresses the authority of the Bible, the importance of believing that Jesus Christ saved you personally from sin or hell, and the preaching of these beliefs to other people." Thought you might want to know that, as they way we are portrayed... everywhere... is, um, not like that definition...)
The argument here goes that evangelicals have their shorts in a twist, and the stick is up there so far that they can't tolerate anything that's not 10000% literally true. Horsehockey. That's not true at all. Sure, there are people like that out there. Problem is, there are people like that in any kind of people group you can find, and they're always the loudest ones. Doesn't mean they're all like that.
"But the key factor here is that these are 'Christian' publishers.
While they are a business, that should not be their first identity.
Their first identity should be as a ministry sharing the kingdom of God
with others, and it is clear that the bland flavour of large swathes of
present Christian fiction isn't doing that.
Too many Christian publishers are looking at a commercial interest of
selling to their market ahead of representing Christianity to the
literary world. Representing Christianity should mean the best possible
books, with the best possible stories, because we believe that at their
heart is our God who is the best there possibly is."
With this, I wholeheartedly agree.
Wait, we're supposed to represent God who is "the best there possibly is", with content that that he told us he finds offensive? Back to our ghost story as an example. First, the Bible does contain ghosts (sort of) in it, so there's that... The article here also makes a good point that this is fiction. Speculative fiction especially deals with "what if..." Asking "what if..." is obliviously going to take us out of reality. For example, I write about aliens. Do I believe they exist? No. What I write is just a story, which, among other things, deals with the question "Well, what if they did exist?"
So, in my story, I'm not being literally true with the real world, just like the ghost story isn't being true to the real world, as it takes place in a fictionalized version of reality where ghosts do exist.
So, how is such fiction "Christian" if it's not real?
I believe that a story can still stay true to christian principles.
If you throw any kind of secular content in, as these sorts of articles seem to want to do, what makes it Christan fiction?