A few months ago I highlighted those books that, in my two years reviewing for Lorehaven Magazine, were most memorable. These highlights were mostly flash reviews with a slight turn of book recommendation, if you want to take them that way (I disclaim). I decided to reprise the idea and broaden it – not highlights of Lorehaven books, or explicitly Christian books, or even necessarily books. These are highlights – flash reviews, book recommendations if you want them – of speculative fiction. There is no unifying theme to the stories chosen except that I, personally, liked them. 

“Bobok”, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Last year, in one of my sporadic efforts to become well-read, I read a collection of Dostoyevsky’s short stories. I would have read one of his novels, but they all seemed to be a minimum of 600 pages, and I didn’t have that kind of commitment. In “Bobok”, a man lingers in a graveyard after a funeral and overhears the corpses’ conversation. It’s hinted that the man is a drunk, and possibly a lunatic (I mean, even before the eavesdropping on the dead begins). But he might have really heard it, and it almost doesn’t matter. What matters is the conversation. This short story is horror, but of a different flavor than its bare premise suggests. Although not overtly religious, “Bobok” possesses a spiritual horror, less from death than from what death unveils.

Night of the Living Dead Christian, by Matt Mikalatos. Reading the title, it’s a parody. Reading the book, it’s really more of an allegory – but a hilarious one. Humor and profundity mix easily in this book. The struggle between humanity and monsters is internalized, fought in the human heart even more than out in the world. The idea is true, and serious, and Mikalatos achieves poignancy with it. But more often than serious, the book is funny. How would you think an android, a mad scientist, and a purportedly-but-not-really normal person would go about hunting a werewolf? Well – do you know how impossible it is these days to find silver bullets?

“Leaf By Niggle”, by J.R.R. Tolkien. This short story is an absolute masterpiece. Broadly allegorical of Death’s journey and Life’s purpose, it summons up those deep, half-formed longings sometimes stirred by nature or art. The style is light, with a leavening of humor, and still cuts straight and true to the most momentous ideas. I have rarely seen any story deal so wonderfully with Heaven. There is something gentle about this story and the mercy it finds for people like, well, most of us: not heroic, and not villainous, sometimes trying and too often not. “Leaf By Niggle” is one of Tolkien’s obscure works, but there is no reason for it.

The Man Who Was Thursday, by G.K. Chesterton. I suppose you could call this a detective novel because, after all, it is. I’m still including it. It’s the sort of witty, merry romp that defines Chesterton – serious about everything and somehow always having a good time. The narrative is thickly veined with the philosophical, occasionally mystical excursions Chesterton never could resist. In the last act, it curves into speculative fiction. The ambiguous ending is a small part of that; most of it is the mystery of the man called Sunday – the mystery not only of who he is, but what he is (“I am the Sabbath,” he tells an interrogator. “I am the peace of God”).

What do we mean by saying that a story is “a Christian story”?

That’s the big theme of our new Fantastical Truth podcast episode (new ones release every Tuesday). You can listen here, or right here:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

And you can get the full show notes here. Excerpt follows:

What do we mean by saying that a story is “a Christian story”?

Also: should Christian fans feel they should “look for the Christian label”?

Many people say they prefer avoiding the label:

• Critics of Christian movies
• Critics of Christian books
• Some readers at Speculative Faith

They might say, “We don’t need any more Christian stories. We just need more good stories that happen to be made by Christians.”Others parody this line, such as the Babylon Bee article “Man Not A ‘Christian Pastor’—He’s A Pastor Who Happens To Be Christian.”

So let’s talk about what images/meanings we have when we say “a Christian story” or “a Christian movie.” . . .

Listen (and subscribe) on Apple Podcasts, Google, Spotify, TuneIn, Stitcher, and beyond!

The point of this post is to build on what I already talked about concerning the spiritual war through culture in Bible times in a previous post and do a brief comparison and contrast. How is our world different from the past? And especially, what role has speculative fiction in particular played in the modern spiritual war through culture? What kind of spiritual influences are working their way through our culture in its entertainment especially? What should we be concerned about? (Note I use Star Trek as my primary example.)

Technology Has Made Entertainment Ubiquitous (of course)

Let’s state up front, as obvious as it is, that while human beings have always taken times of rest at various moments, have always played games (especially games that involve throwing or kicking objects or moving pieces on a board), and have always enjoyed music and hearing stories, our era is unique in human history. Sure, the lives of the elite in, say, ancient Rome (and many other places) could in fact consist of unending entertainment, from theater to chariot races to gladiatorial games and much more. But even in ancient Rome there was downtime where the games were not playing. And most people in the past did not live like the ancient elites. Most people spent most of their awake time working.

Labor-saving devices of the 20th Century changed the dynamic of most people working most of the day. Having time off became a normal, daily experience for most people. Though most people spent that time off with friends and family more than in formal entertainment. At least at first.

But now, on a small, portable device called by most people a “phone” for historic rather than descriptive reasons, this little pocket computer can provide you entertainment at any moment of the day. It can also provide you information at any moment–yes, a lot of the info is actually misinformation, but still, the access to media in our world is unprecedented. And is not limited to elites. Though of course access to media is by no means limited to cell phones or other mobile devices.

I’m in a unique position to have witnessed some of the effects of this transformation in technology through my military service. As a relatively young Private First Class during 1991’s Gulf War, I witnessed what a US Army Reserve hospital unit did during downtime. Some of the time was spent playing sports–volleyball in the sands of our isolated corner of the United Arab Emirates was popular. Other time was spent socializing with others. Some people like me read from the meager library of books the 311th Evacuation Hospital had. Lots of people played cards. A lot. Even me, sometimes.

In 2008 in Iraq for my second war, the world had changed. Most military members in rear areas had personal laptops and seeking relatively hard-to-come-by connections to the Internet had become the norm. Military members still socialized of course, but much less than in the past. You could always retreat to an isolated spot and try to contact the family back home via Skype. Or play on a gaming counsel or computer. Or, as many people did, you could binge watch TV or movies (though back then you’d need physical copies of DVDs to do so). (In theory binge-watching was possible in 1991 via VHS, but in practice it was not. Military members could not haul around their own TV, video player, and video cassette collection. But a laptop with DVDs was doable.)

The effect of the change of technology was obvious–people you know in person became less important, whereas entertainment in general, fictional stories in particular, became more important. And while a laptop was revolutionary in terms of access to information circa twelve years ago, having the same power to consume entertainment via a phone is even more portable–while simultaneously even more isolating.

What Would Satan Do (WWSD) With Ubiquitous Entertainment…?

So if people are spending a lot of time consuming entertainment, many more hours per week than almost all residents in ancient Rome would ever dream of doing, how would Satan react to that? Would he be lassiez-faire concerning what human beings do–let them do as they wish, and we’ll see how it all plays out? Or perhaps even an avoidance of the subject of entertainment, because it reflects God-given creativity and therefore the holy glow of sub-creation will cause Satan to avert his eyes from human imaginative endeavors?

Or did Satan actually think, “If I get in here, I’ll control every idea these people are exposed to!” (Uh huh–yeah–that there.)

Of course Satan doesn’t or can’t control everything, but the idea that he would try to influence human beings to insert messages that serve his purposes into entertainment is such an obvious idea that Satan would have to not be who the Bible portrays him to be to pass by such an opportunity.

Okay, so the Devil is messing with the elements of our culture, especially popular culture, as much as he can possibly influence human beings to perform on his behalf. What does that mean for us? What do we do about it?

The topic of what to do about this is the intended subject of my next post, the last one planned for this series. But let me give you a special showing of most of what I’m going to say right now: Be alert to the possibility and consume entertainment with prudence, deconstructing false messages. Also–fight for better entertainment. (I do not say to withdraw from everything that may be potentially bad–because that would include everything!)

So WWSD thinking reveals that every form of entertainment has numerous potential pitfalls, since human beings are so vulnerable to falling into sin and believing ideas that isolate them from God. Some forms of entertainment are blatantly promoting ideas Satan approves of–pornography, for instance. Basketball and other sports are not as obvious, even though the Devil would like to insert sinful pride and arrogance as a positive thing in sporting competition if possible. Most forms of entertainment are more like basketball–the potential to influence is there, so the Devil is definitely interested in affecting people–but the affects are not always as obvious as with the case of porn.

So what’s the Devil got to do with speculative fiction?

I’d like to focus on this topic a bit more for the next post, but let’s give an overview now. What general influences can we discern within speculative fiction that the Devil most likely has his hand in?

Probably the single most important thing that speculative fiction does that’s anti-God (thus pleasing to Satan) is to create imaginary worlds that systematically exclude God. So let’s look at a little case study here, deliberately picking a franchise that’s been one of my favorites since my childhood: Star Trek.

Characters from all the versions of Star Trek. Image source: Star Trek’s Facebook page.

Star Trek, throughout all its manifestations, has never once portrayed a Christian in the future. Not a single one. In fact, none of the human characters in Star Trek have any clear religious belief at all. Sure, Star Trek explores religious belief through non-human races like Klingons and Bajorans and at times makes reference to Christian religious beliefs (for example, Captain Janeway once made a comparison to making an agreement with the Borg to “a deal with the Devil”). But not a single human character has had any religion at all that I know of. (And I’ve seen all forms of Star Trek, every episode, except for the Discovery series.)

Couple that with an imagined future history of Star Trek in which humanity has eliminated wars and poverty on Earth and live in a virtual paradise, only having troubles out in space when dealing with alien species–which means a strong message about the value of religion is buried within the culture of Star Trek. And that message is that religion is unnecessary. Bad even. That it’s part of the violent past of Earth.

Do you suppose Satan approves of that message? And perhaps had something to do with it becoming a part of Star Trek culture in the first place? (WWSD?) He certainly would approve and probably helped to prod the series in that direction when given the opportunity to influence human beings.

So how should we respond to this understanding that Star Trek has messages the Devil definitely loves? Let’s look at three approaches–how “pearl-clutchers” would react, how “anti-pearl-clutchers” would react, and how a sensible person of Christian faith should react.

What would “pearl-clutchers” think we should do about Star Trek?

Ironically I don’t think the “pearl-clutchers” that I mentioned in last week’s post worry about Star Trek all that much. Mostly because Star Trek is generally clean fiction without cussing beyond mild forms, with violence but not graphic, with sexuality but not nudity. It’s just not on their radar. But if I could share with them the facts that Star Trek in actuality (as much as I have enjoyed it) is profoundly atheistic, their response probably would be pretty straightforward: BAN IT! DON’T WATCH STAR TREK AGAIN!

What would “anti-pearl-clutchers” do about Star Trek?

Well, first, scoff that there’s any negative influence there at all. Second, focus in on the general morality of Star Trek and focus on the very real positive aspects of altruism that Star Trek applauds. Also, look for those exceptional episodes where a Bajoran or Klingon who is a good character has a religious moment that strongly parallels Christianity–then read the Gospel into the entire franchise based on the exceptional cases.

What’s a realistic take on Star Trek?

Recognize that it’s art, that art is inspired by human beings. Humans are created in the image of God and the act of creation is good at its base. But humans can be and generally are corrupted by their own sin and are also influenced by Satan. So we can enjoy Star Trek, but we should look for messages we know are wrong there, so we can acknowledge them and confront them in our minds. We can also look for things that are good in Star Trek and mention those, too.

We can enjoy it, but we shouldn’t dash in hog-wild and uncritically lap up every single thing about it because we love the entertainment. If we are personally incapable of controlling ourselves in regard to our understanding of, or viewing of,  Star Trek, perhaps we should ban it for our own self for our own personal well-being. Because, for example, maybe the shots the writers take at belief in God through Q really bother you and cause you to question your faith–whereas I shrug them off or find them a useful tool for discussing God’s actual nature. If your viewing of Star Trek is deeply affecting you in a negative way, don’t watch it. (Don’t worry if your friends think abstaining makes you uncool.)

And as Christians who create speculative fiction, we might want to use of the of the cool things Star Trek does, but adapt them for our own purposes, into something better.

Let’s do this exercise one more time: Harry Potter.

Harry Potter movie posters. Source: TVOVermind

Pearl-clutchers: SATAN WILL SUCK YOUR BRAIN OUT BECAUSE IT HAS THE WORD “MAGIC” IN IT! BAN IT!

Anti-pearl-clutchers: Scoff that there’s anything bad at all in HP. See Harry Potter as a type of Christ. Glory in the fact that in all the books there are two references to Scripture.

Realistic: The worst thing about Harry Potter the franchise is that like Star Trek, none of the characters are actually religious in the ordinary sense of the word. They may be moral, but God is essentially shut out of the story universe. Magic in the story is nothing like the practices that brought Elijah up Mount Carmel to confronting the prophets of Ba’al. But it’s nothing like prayer, either. Some small percentage of HP readers may seek to find out more about magic in real-world Paganism based on the series. A realistic response is to talk about what is good and also what is magic and that in the real world it’s bad to seek supernatural power apart from God. In other words, you can enjoy it, but back off a bit from being a full-out fan.

Literary Fiction Shuts Out God, Too

By portraying supposedly ordinary human beings as functioning in life with no evident need for God, literary fiction shuts God out as well. Usually. Mentioning that just in case you think I’m only picking on speculative fiction here. YEah and sports had negative influences. As does “reality” TV. Documentaries. Comedies. Well, lots and lots of things actually have negative influences.

Some things we ought to avoid altogether based on what personally causes problems for us. We also ought to be aware that other people can be affected by the things we do. But mostly, we can engage at times, but we should not do so uncritically. We can be fans, but admit not everything is perfect.

Shutting Out God is Just the First Thing

We also see in fiction and other forms of entertainment quite a lot of incentive to sin. Lust, envy, pride, wrath, particular sexual sins–you name it, these things are littered throughout entertainment and are in speculative fiction as well.

Entertainment is also littered with false ideas. Just one example would be Dan Brown suggesting Jesus was just a human being who got married and had kids in The Da Vinci Code. Those ideas are part of the spiritual war we are in, means by which Satan is trying to influence our world.

So overall, in parallel with how the cultural war reflected spiritual war in Bible times, we also need to be aware that Satan is active in influencing modern culture. If something creates major problems for us personally in our relationship with God, we should avoid it. If we can enjoy the creative aspect while still pointing out messages that are wrong, we are permitted to do that. But if we can use the same artistic forms, such as the literary genres of speculative fiction, and make our own versions of them with the intent to honor God as much as possible–all the better.

Of course, God is not honored by us ignoring quality of art, including quality of speculative fiction stories. He as the Creator expects our best work…

What are your thoughts on this topic? Do you think my views on the Star Trek and Harry Potter franchises are fair? Can you give your own examples of realistic analysis of a speculative fiction franchise that acknowledges both good and bad?

I recently watched the first season of the new Netflix drama Messiah, a multi-language series that depicts the mysterious arrival of a man named al-Masih who claims to be the Word of God. He causes a few significant social disruptions and demonstrates seemingly uncanny abilities, and thanks to social media, he quickly goes “viral” and gains an eager following of people desperate for hope. As any good show will do, the scriptwriters don’t make things entirely clear as to whether al-Masih is a messiah, a con artist, or something else entirely. There are definitely a few “whoa” moments that will make you think that he might be the real deal, but the hard-nosed law enforcement and intelligence agencies on his tail frequently uncover new information that throw everything into doubt.

Image copyright Netflix

SPOILER ALERT: about two-thirds of the way through the season, we see what becomes the marquee moment for al-Masih and his message. He gives an impassioned speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial and then turns and walks across the reflecting pool towards the Washington Monument as hundreds of smartphones capture the event. There is an obvious parallel with Jesus, and while al-Masih never claims to be the Son of God directly, he does describe himself as “the Word”. Despite being Middle Eastern with an Arabic name, al-Masih never claims to be Muslim. He makes his first appearance in Damascus, and then in Jerusalem, and then he inexplicably arrives in Texas where a tornado has destroyed an entire town, leaving only the church building still standing. He forms a friendship with the downtrodden pastor who helps him get to Washington D.C. where his miracle is performed. It’s curious to see how al-Masih seems to be making a concerted effort to draw parallels between himself and Jesus, rather than with Mohammed or Abraham.

Walking on water is nothing new for illusionists. Criss Angel walked across a pool full of guests in Mindfreak, and a quick YouTube search reveals how he did it (clear plastic pillars set at water level). In the TV show Messiah, skeptics go on television after the “miracle” and denigrate it as just an illusion. We don’t see anything more than fleeting glimpses of his watery stroll, and in real life, someone would probably have jumped in after him to see if he was walking on a solid surface, thereby immediately disproving the miracle. Alas, this is television and people don’t act entirely rational all the time, so we are left to keep guessing along with the characters. But it got me thinking: what kind of miracle would it take for people these days to truly believe?

In ages past, photos and videos were hard evidence, but in the age of Photoshop and deepfakes, we can’t trust anything we see on the screen anymore. And while illusionists have been around for thousands of years, modern technology makes these stunts and spectacles even more incredible (some of the illusions on Criss Angel’s Mindfreak have completely blown my mind). Yet even if we can’t figure them out, we know they are fake. Criss Angel maintains that everything he does is an illusion, which means it has a rational explanation. If someone came along claiming to have supernatural power, we would likely dismiss them off-hand because we would point to someone like Criss and say, “Sorry buddy, he stole your thunder.” We hear the term “miracle of science” but that is a contradiction. If it is a miracle, it is indeed supernatural, and all supernatural power either comes from God or the devil (there is no “good magic”). Even when I hear stories of supposed miracles, my first thought is, “Yeah, right.”

I would love to see a miracle with my own eyes, but in fact I have, many times over. The birth of a child, an entirely new life. God’s grace bringing someone far away from Him to salvation. The preservation of the Jewish nation. We’ve had more than enough signs and wonders to know that God is Lord of creation. We should just be wary of charlatans who appear to wield the same power.

Lorehaven expands again today with our new podcast Fantastical Truth.

Behold.

In the Fantastical Truth podcast from Lorehaven, hosts E. Stephen Burnett and Zackary Russell find truth in fantastic stories, and apply the wonders of these imaginary worlds to the real world our Creator has called us to serve. Join the best Christian fantastical authors and other creative friends on this joyful journey, to find the happiness and holiness of Jesus through his gift of truthful imagination.

Subscribe on Apple Music, Google Play, and many other podcasting services.

Here’s the Fantastical Truth trailer.

And here is episode 1: What If the Three Wise Men Actually Wanted to Crown a King? | The End of the Magi.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Click over there for the complete show notes, such as the following:

Exploring Matthew 2 and The End of the Magi

• What was the star of Bethlehem?
• Why did the magi connect a star with “one born king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2)?
• How many wise men made the journey to find the newborn king?
• What did Chuck Missler believe about Daniel’s prophetic record?
• What did Zack’s college professor, Rick Larson, think about the star?
• How does this story compare with other biblical fiction?
• What can Christian readers rightly expect of biblical fiction?
• Why do we like the idea of seeing into the future?
• Is biblical fiction “fantastical” fiction?

Join the mission

• Subscribe to Fantastical Truth, tell a friend, and email your feedback!
• Read Lorehaven magazine’s winter 2019 issue, with Patrick W. Carr’s interview and the featured book review.
• Join the conversation on this page (or on social medias, such as Twitter @Lorehaven or Facebook @LorehavenMag).

On our next episode

We’ll explore a big question that Christian fantasy fans can’t stop talking about: Should Christians “look for the Christian label” for novels, movies, music and other things that Christian creators make? How do we recognize our own associations with the label—such as a “seal of quality” or a “seal” that guarantees anything but quality?

The series on “What’s the Deal with the Devil” is nearing it’s end. The next-to-last topic will take last week’s post about the spiritual war through culture during the time of the Bible and fast forward to talking about the spiritual warfare through culture, including popular culture, that we fight today. But before we get there, there’s a topic that has to be addressed first. Perhaps two topics, but I’m making them one. First, what’s the downside to skepticism about the topic of spiritual war–which I’m calling “anti-pearl-clutching”–and second, what benefit can we gain from thinking about What Would Satan Do (WWSD)?

Anti-Pearl-Clutching

You know that aunt or great-aunt who reacts in horror, drawing in a deep breath, eyes wide in shock, at the mere mention of Harry Potter? Or the mention of many other things? She may or may not have any literal string of pearls to grasp as her far-too-easily-triggered shock reaction is set off, but you get the idea. She may not be your auntie (who is perhaps very cool),  but she’s somebody’s aunt or mother or grandmother and if you don’t personally know an example you at least know of the idea of someone who over-reacts to certain kinds of things. She and women like her–and yes, men like her too (indeed there are male “pearl-clutchers,” albeit almost always sans pearls) set the eyes of a certain group of people a-rolling. Sure, Auntie, whatever. Or perhaps: OK, boomer.

Who is the certain group of people I just mentioned? Let’s call them “anti-pearl-clutchers” and what they do when rolling their eyes in skepticism, “anti-pearl-clutching.”

Anti-pearl-clutchers perhaps have read Harry Potter or have played Dungeons and Dragons or maybe even messed with an Ouija board briefly and they are pretty sure Satan did not rip off the top of their skull when they did so and come to permanently reside inside their brain. They’re also pretty sure that claims about Satan/the Devil are grossly exaggerated in some circles, like, to the point of being ridiculous. To the point of making human choices seem unimportant, because so much evil is attributed to Satan. In contrast, we know for certain a lot of evil comes from things people decide to do, things people would perhaps do at least at times if Satan wasn’t even around.

By the way, the line I dropped into the paragraph about about messing with an Ouija board and nothing bad happening is not meant to be an endorsement of Ouija boards. That’s not where I’m going at all, since playing with the Occult is something the Bible very clearly forbids–but it is possible to goof around with a Ouija board and/or Tarot cards and similar things without anything noticeable happening. (Not that “anything noticeable” is always the same as “anything.”)

Since speculative fiction deals with topics that pearl-clutching avoids, like magic or aliens, it’s probable that the vast majority of readers of Speculative Faith are aligned with the anti-pearl-clutching crowd. At least a little bit. It could be in fact be the case right now that someone is reading this article and thinking concerning my comments here: OK, boomer (I’m actually an older Gen X member, not that when I was born is actually important to this topic). Or something similarly dismissive. There’s a reason for that.

You’ll shoot your eye out!

Image credit: Tenor.com

The movie A Christmas Story famously evokes Ralphie wanting to have a BB gun but being warned by all kinds of people that he shouldn’t have one because if he does, the risk is “you’ll shoot your eye out.” This idea is over-exaggerated to the point of being silly, this hypothetical risk that everyone clings to as if it were a fact showing a classic example of pearl-clutching in a story.

We in fact may know people who used BB guns or pellet guns or airsoft guns for years, perhaps even people who used them recklessly, who suffered nothing more than skin welts. Nothing serious happened to them. So clearly BB guns are safe, right?

Er, no. According to an article Google pulled up for me when I searched “BB gun injuries,” over 23,000 kids went to an emergency room in the nineties because of injuries sustained from a BB or pellet gun in the USA. In 1990 alone in the United States, 12 kids died from injuries sustained by BB guns. Died. (For the medically curious, my brief research on the topic found point-blank shots at the eye with a BB gun may go around the eye, through the eye socket, and into the brain–where is a potentially fatal wound if the BB or pellet hits a major blood vessel inside soft brain tissue.)

Realistic Safety

So in the case of BB guns I just touched on, while it may in fact be laughable to avoid them at all costs because of their dangers, there is actually middle ground between pearl-clutching forbidding any use of air rifles and freewheeling you-can-do-whatever-you-like-son. You can allow them to be used, but recommend caution. Maybe, quite seriously, some eye protection is in order. At least at times. Certainly kids need to be informed that a point blank shot at yourself, especially at your face, represents real danger and should be avoided. (True story, one of my children shot himself point-blank with an airsoft rifle in the face, punching right through his skin with a plastic pellet. He should have known better, but it happened anyway.)

To be clear, what I’m talking about with this What’s the Deal with the Devil series is not me endorsing pearl-clutching. It’s a call for realistic safety and realistic awareness of actual danger.

The Danger of Anti-Pearl-Clutching

We can perhaps compare anti-pearl-clutching to an adolescent phase in a person’s thinking. As a child, you know there are dangers and perhaps might be paralyzed by them. As an adolescent, you might laugh off danger and do some really risky stuff. This is especially common for testosterone-laden young men driving cars (among other things), but some young women are major risk-takers, too. Though of course not all adolescents are risk-takers, but for those who are, after they’ve been in some fender-benders or worse because of a lack of caution, as adults, they come to understand there’s such a thing as healthy fear. Not fear that paralyzes you so you can’t do anything, but a touch of fear that makes you more alert than you would otherwise be. A fear that causes you to put on your seat belt and slow down when road conditions are bad.

Since so many people have over-exaggerated the dangers of certain cultural influences and have over-exaggerated Satan’s power, the natural reaction to that is to go the opposite direction and think the Devil is a chump whom we can safely ignore. That we don’t need to think about Satan at all, that putting any emphasis on the Devil at all is a sheer waste of time, since we know that the cross of Christ has defeated Satan.

Yes, Satan is defeated, but from what the Bible actually says, as quoted throughout this series, he’s still active and still dangerous. My post on how to face the devil in combat (part 1) mentioned that the main thing we need to do to defeat Satan is live for God fully and truly.

Yes, that’s also true, in addition to Satan’s fate being already determined–but how we pray for other people (and ourselves) is affected by the realization that spiritual warfare is real, that Satan is real, that he is actively leading into sin and deceiving whomever he can. Satan is actively ruining the lives of some people and is a significant influence in our culture–we need to be aware of that and alert to the possibility of our own vulnerability. For own safety and the safety of others. Not in panic, but with alertness, trusting God to deliver us when we need him.

So What Would Satan Do (WWSD)?

I’m of course playing off the dead-now craze of WWJD, “What Would Jesus Do,” that for a time adorned bracelets and was on the mind of many Christians. (I’m not saying WWJD is totally dead, but I can’t recall the last time I saw a WWJD bracelet.)

Here’s a humorous take on WWSD. Image copyright by Pat Byrnes.

By the way, I never personally bought into WWJD because I keep seeing Jesus’s disciples being surprised at things Jesus did–such as meeting with the Samaritan woman, or driving money changers out of the temple, or even when he mentioned “the leaven of the Pharisees” (Matthew 16:6-9), they thought he was talking about provisions for a trip. He surprised them and can surprise us too–though if thinking WWJD is helpful to you, don’t let me stop you from doing so. I’d say though that one of the reasons the Holy Spirit was given to Christians was to guide us into what Jesus wants us to do–as opposed to us using our imagination to guess WWJD.

This is the apparently serious theological book on WWSD on Amazon. Image copyright: R.P. Nettlehorst.

Note that while writing this article for Speculative Faith I found four titles on Amazon for What Would Satan Do? One is a satirical novel that seems to glorify Satan, one is a set of comics full of dark humor that I made into the featured image for this post, one seems to be a serious book of theology about the Devil, and one is an odd bit of wacky theology and a story combined. So I’m not even close to being the first person to say “WWSD.”

But my reasons relate to military thinking. US Army doctrine includes sketching the terrain around you to identify what is there in a fixed position in a combat zone (part of a “range card”)–so if something changes, you’ll be aware of it. Military doctrine also encourages a person to consider probable “avenues of approach.” As in, “if an enemy is going to attack me here, what’s the most likely way they would get here?” Army operations orders include a section on enemy activity that lists both the most probable action the enemy will take and also the most dangerous action the enemy could take.

I don’t want to lead a descent into paranoia by suggesting Christians continually worry about what Satan would or could do–I’m saying this intended to shore up the “Realistic Safety” point I made above. A person who is going to be realistically safe is going to consider what could go wrong at appropriate moments and then take steps to avoid the worst, if at all possible. And if you have an active enemy trying to hurt you, it might be worthwhile to consider what the enemy would do under the circumstances, what the enemy would think–or in the case of spiritual warfare, WWSD.

Lest you think the idea of considering What Would Satan Do is unbiblical, note that in the context of discussing unforgiveness among Christians, the Apostle Paul (as inspired by the Holy Spirit) mentions an awareness of the schemes of the Devil (2 Corinthians 2:11). The context clearly suggests that being aware of the kinds of things Satan does helps a person avoid falling for Satan’s schemes.

So perhaps we ought to consider what is Satan could do in any given situation we face. Certainly the “Billy Graham rule” practiced by some Christian leaders in which male leaders refuse to meet with a woman alone would seem to account for WWSD. Because Satan is not only capable of provoking sexual temptation to sin when a man and a woman are together without anyone else around, he’s capable of putting it into someone’s mind to accuse the Christian leader of impropriety, even if he’s done nothing.

The Billy Graham rule or variations thereof should also be considered when dealing with other people’s children. Just sayin’.

Great advice, but do you “practice what you preach?”

In truth, I’m actually mediocre at WWSD thinking. At major points in my life I have failed to anticipate how I could come under attack by Satan. Or how other people would be attacked by the Devil, people I should have been praying for. I have as a result made some major mistakes and have been a sucker for common sins at times. And have failed to help other people the way I should have. (But I don’t always fail, thank God. 🙂 )

I talk about caution and thinking about what the enemy could do not because I’m a natural for pearl-clutching, but rather because I’m a natural risk-taker and have seen how my natural lack of caution has hurt me at times. In some aspects of my life, even though I talk about anti-pearl-clutching as a danger, I’m a de facto anti-pearl-clutcher. So what I’m writing is for me–even though I have learned to apply more caution to my spiritual life than I used to, I’ve still got to do better at applying what I know to be true. Some other people might not need to think along these lines any more than they already do–but what I mention here is important for me and people like me.

What about you? Do you ever think about the worst Satan could do in various situations (WWSD)? Do see a value in such thinking? What have I not mentioned that perhaps I should have? Other thoughts?

You have to take success where it comes, even if it happens to come on Netflix. That can be a little galling if what you really wanted was success on the silver screen, all across the United States. I learned that from Martin Scorsese, who has received a great deal of acclaim for The Irishman but wanted, in addition, a good, long theater run.

There was no room for him in the theater. This, at least, is Scorsese’s read on the situation. As he explained,

[T]he fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.

And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.

Scorsese is making two points here. Both are interesting; one is correct. He is saying, first of all, that franchise movies are not overwhelming our theaters because that is simply what people want. This statement rides on the implicit belief that the public taste is broader than that, that people can – and would, if Hollywood chose to offer them – enjoy films that break the ascendant formulas.

That belief does Scorsese credit. In the first place, it’s a compliment to his audience. In the second, it lays hands on a critical truth. Hollywood makes so much of its franchises and its formulas because they’re safe, not because they’re all the movie-going public wants. The studios are gambling millions on every film; naturally they are averse to unique formulations that have not been tested against public taste. But people are ready to enjoy, and to pay for, more than the current fads.

Still, it must be granted that the franchises and formulas are safe because people really do like them. Here we reach Scorsese’s second point. Scorsese argues that people want franchise films because they are given franchise films. No doubt Hollywood does help to create the demand it supplies. No doubt it doesn’t do so to the extent that Scorsese suggests. It is, as the cliche goes, a free country. The paying public is constantly allowing movies to hit the theater and flop. Why not the movies that so grieve cultured filmmakers?

Because people want those movies. At least, they want that sort of movie, and they will forgive failures in art to get it. This is a truth that critics, and artists with the souls of critics, have a tendency to miss: In terms of enjoyment, type matters as much as quality. If it’s comedy you want, then even bad comedy will do more for you than tragedy. The popularity of the franchise doesn’t prove that the movies are good. It doesn’t even prove that the public thinks the movies are good. But it does prove that the public wants them.

It is very profitable to find what people want and sell it to them. The whole aim of the franchise is to give the people what they want, and it hits the mark more often than not. Scorsese is wrong to believe that Hollywood creates the demand by supplying it. But he is right to believe that people want more than the franchise and the well-tried formula, that there is space yet for the different and bold. The public always holds surprises. You never know what people might like, or love, and even – for that is the way of things – turn into a new franchise.

I’ve returned to the Pop Culture Coram Deo podcast to talk about the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut fandom with Jeff Wright.

Good news: Jeff joins me on this quest to get director Zack Snyder’s original, complete, three-hour epic Justice League film released.

Bad news: He disagrees with me and believes Snyder’s challenges of Superman and Batman make their characters “irredeemable.”

Oh noes! Fans, even DC fans, disagree on a particular film. That means we must bite and devour one another on the social medias, yes?

Of course, in this case, no. Jeff and I want to disagree graciously, as disagreeing fans should. And in fact, a big part of this episode explores the nature of fandoms like these: their “stories,” worldbuilding, graces, idols, and solutions in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

‘Reboot the whole universe of expectations we have of stories’

Here’s one favorite moment. After I described the “worldbuilding” of the Snyder Cut fandom, including its flaws, Jeff asked me this:

So let me ask you. Just out of all that stuff you have raised . . . if you could change any of it, Twitter herd mentality, binary response to art, is there something you would just flip the switch and say, Things are going to be different in this way?

I replied:

I know exactly what I would change . . .

I would change our very expectation for what a story is supposed to do. I would take us back to the Bible’s portrayal of human culture and what that is for, going back to that first chapter of Genesis where God tells people to be fruitful and multiply, start families, fill the earth, steward the resources.

And then implicit in that command and explicit in later content of the Bible is that command to make culture. Which includes stories. Which would include technology. Put them both together, you get popular culture: mass media distribution, movies, radio, songs, computers, internet.

I would go back to the very beginning and reboot the whole universe of expectations we have of stories: superhero, fantasy, and otherwise, so that we at least have a better chance of appreciating what stories are for, and keeping them in perspective.

They’re gifts that God has given us, to be able to make these stories. They’re therefore going to be subject to the idols that we have and the graces that we have—those parts that God has put in the universe, versus the distortions that people come up with. And that also means that all of that is going to get into any story. Some more than others. But it’s also going to get the fandoms, the stories that we tell each other, that we create on our own, surrounding the stories.

I think if we were to reboot our perception of the whole thing, then we could probably avoid seeing stories as either “yes or no,” absolute good/absolute bad, thumbs up/thumbs down, or the nastiness that fans have if they’re for or against The Last Jedi or for or against The Rise of Skywalker. . . .

To spread it beyond the Snyder Cut or Justice League fandom: this happens with a lot of fandoms, particularly when the story choices that the creators make are not pleasing to everybody. Or if they’re perceived as subverting the old stories. . . .

Listen to the whole podcast at Pop Culture Coram Deo.

And watch this space for another podcast-related update, coming very soon.