Romanticizing Christ?
Romance for the "13-year-old soul"
I was put off by that very excess of romanticism; real love does not occur instantaneously; other people and pursuits do matter; no love is unconditional, and shouldn’t be. Edward now seems to me not romantic but creepy: breaking into Bella’s house to watch her sleep, obsessing over her every move, all but stalking her. She seems to me immature in her disdain for everyone but Edward: the “friends” she makes at school, the father who gives her a home and tries to please her, the entire Olympic Peninsula. The vampirism, in fact, seemed to me more believable than the relationship
Her remarks encapsulated what I’ve heard from others, but they also made me wonder: In a similar way, do we Christian writers romanticize Christ?
It’s hard to do, He being perfect and all. How do you make perfect look better than it is?
Perhaps His very perfection makes it daunting for authors to put Him in their stories at all, even in their fantasies. After all, characters need to be three dimensional, the writing experts tell us. We need to show strengths and weaknesses if a character is to be realistic. Putting a perfect Christ-figure into a story, then, would break all the writing rules (even the ones that don’t actually exist 😉 ).
Maybe this is why Aslan and Narnia are so popular. Lewis showed Christ, depicting Him as strong yet loving, still without fault and clearly believable — hence, no hint of romanticism.
I suspect, however, that the problem for most Christian fiction isn’t in romanticizing Christ — because, quite frankly, He isn’t in most Christian fiction, not even in a lot of speculative fiction. Rather we might be romanticizing our relationship with Him.
Christ, like His unseen Father, might be talked about and even talked to. Occasionally characters might hear His voice, though not audibly. And yet this relationship seems perfect. It changes people inside out and heals hurts, provides answers, lifts burdens.
Are there no rocky times? Do characters ever say no to the voice of God? Do they, like Jonah, ever head in the opposite direction, knowing that they are the cause of the disaster that befalls them? Do we only show David defeating Goliah, never him deserting to the Philistines?
And after characters say yes to God, do they ever split from their ministry partner like Paul did from Barnabas? Do they ever act the hypocrite as Peter did with the Gentile Christians when the Jewish ones showed up?
Yes, those last things might happen in our stories, but do we show them as part of imperfect human relationships or part of an imperfect relationship with Jesus?
And in the end, do we resolve the struggle in a way that suggests it is forever resolved?
Fairytale love stories ended, And they lived happily ever after. Is the same ending the implied promise of Christian fiction?
And how, since we know that there actually is an ultimate happily-ever-after ending which comes from our relationship with Christ, do we depict the not so happy here and now that a character must face even after meeting Him? If we leave that part out of the story, are we not creating a romanticized version of our relationship with Christ, one that ends up actually looking immature if not a little creepy to someone on the outside?
Great post and great questions. I lean more towards letting my characters be angry at God, lose their faith because of everything going on around them, confronted with the need to forgive and choose not to (and the consequences of that).
Real Christianity is not easy. Life hurts. Its where you end up at the end of those questions that makes you stronger or causes you to walk away.
Morgan, I think you’ve hit on what I think makes for a satisfying ending of Christian fiction — the characters are stronger or they walk away. In other words, they and all their circumstances aren’t “fixed.” That’s for heaven, the final denouement, as Sally put it. Here and now, the reality is we either grow more like Jesus or we don’t. So at the end of a novel, if the character has grown more like Jesus, then I can suppose he will continue to do so in whatever struggles come his way in the future. (I like to think of the characters going on! 😉 )
Becky
A thought (or two!)
First, I find it interesting that in the reviewer’s quotation, she remarks casually yet isn’t Christ’s love unconditional, in that Yes, mortal (or in Edward’s case, imperfect immortal) characters do not have the ability to love as God does (at least not in their own strength). But if we’re making comparisons, I think the unconditional part of His love is an important distinction, because God’s love is perfect, beyond our understanding.
I think the best speculative representation of that supreme, overpowering love is presented in Dekker’s Circle trilogy, specifically Red. He even uses specific romantic language (the church as Christ’s bride, etc.), but trust me, that book did not feel “romanticised” at all (in whatever insulting way “romanticied” means; having not read Twilight or much Romance, I’m a bit out of my depth here). Instead, it kept me up to the middle or the night and beyond, crying, spiritually and emotionally floored by the pure love Jesus had to possess in order to die for us.
It seems to me that there is an extreme misunderstanding in most fictional mediums (both classic and modern) between lust and love. True love is God’s love, or sacrificial love: 1 Corinthians 13 tells us that love (there’s that relentless unconditional love again), and Jesus said . If love is selfless and unconditional, though, lust is selfish and completely conditional. In love there is freedom, serenity, and trust; in lust there is bondage, strife, and fear. True love brings lasting joy; lust is bipolar, with highs of happiness followed by the depths of despair. It’s important to distinguish that a couple relationship may be largely lustful in the early days of their relationship (let’s be honest, we’re all only human), and desire is a healthy part of any marriage. But if couple never progresses beyond skindeep lust into the boundless ties of love, there is not a firm foundation for them to weather the rocky shoals of life. If there’s a problem with romanticism in fiction (Christian and secular), I think it’s the confusion (or collusion) of these two terms.
I do agree with you, Rebecca, that writing in God in fiction is a daunting task not to be attempted by the faint-hearted; after all, we “write what we know,” and known of us can ever truly say we “know” God that well. I don’t think it’s wrong to choose not to write Him if the writer feels unable to do the character justice. I’d far rather that restraint than weird depictions of God that do not jive with me spiritually or make Him seem completely inept for a deity (**cough** Milton **cough**). Plus, while God did speak audibly to specific prophets throughout His word, He did not do so with every one, and I certainly can’t say I’ve ever sat down and had a normal two way conversation with Him. I pray, and I do feel He has led me in directions throughout my life, but a Voice from on high saying “Michelle, do this!” hasn’t happened yet (though it would make life much much easier).
Michelle, I almost addressed the unconditional love line in my post, but I thought it would sidetrack me from my central point. To my knowledge, Ms. Kress is not a Christian, and she wasn’t taking into consideration at divine love.
I completely agree with your analysis of love versus lust. Well done.
And yes, I’ve wanted a voice from on high telling me what to do, too. I’ve come to understand that just because we don’t hear His voice in that way doesn’t mean He isn’t guiding us just the same in response to our prayers.
Becky
Wonderful post. Edward WAS creepy. 🙂
I love the “happily ever after” endings, and I’m not sure they aren’t good for us. We will live happily ever after and as we walk here and now, most of realize we aren’t in the “happily every after” stage. We have not reached the climax and gone on to the denouement and then closed the cover on our earthly existence and entered “ever after.”
But I agree that during the story there has to be rocky times in the characters’ lives. There has to be real struggle. Otherwise the book is boring. Whether those hard times depict the way sin hurts their relationship with God or not…I’m not sure because I don’t read many books with Christian characters. Most of the books I read, even if there is a God of the story world, have no Christ, though most of them have Christ figures.
Sally, I like happy endings, too, but I’m thinking that Christian fiction ought not promise a happier ending than is realistic. I’ve read a book or two that makes it seem as if when the current story problem ends, then there will be no more problems.
I guess I’m advocating for a little more open ended ending. Truly it wouldn’t be satisfying to read, And now their real troubles started. The end. 😆 But maybe there’s something in between?
Becky
On Twilight, just to get it out of my system. To be clear, I have never, nor do I intend to, read book four.
I was put off by that very excess of romanticism;
I contend it wasn’t a romance. Sure, she idealized him, but there was nothing romantic about their relationship.
Edward now seems to me not romantic but creepy: breaking into Bella’s house to watch her sleep, obsessing over her every move, all but stalking her.
Edward had potential that’s never reached. I still contend he’s no Christ figure. Meyers had something interesting going when she started the subplot of whether or not he could be redeemed, but it kinda disappears after awhile.
She seems to me immature in her disdain for everyone but Edward: the “friends” she makes at school, the father who gives her a home and tries to please her, the entire Olympic Peninsula.
Bella devolves as a character. She loses her humanity and her personality. Her father is a bit clueless for a police chief, and her friends are equally immature.
The vampirism, in fact, seemed to me more believable than the relationship
That it does. That it does.
Her remarks encapsulated what I’ve heard from others, but they also made me wonder: In a similar way, do we Christian writers romanticize Christ
It’s hard to do, He being perfect and all. How do you make perfect look better than it is?
Well, to idealize something is to cast it in your own image, to make it something it isn’t and can never be. I don’t think most people so much as try to ‘over-perfect’ him as much as rewrite him. In fact, the entire “God is Love” thing, to the extent of denying very real aspects of his nature, is arguably one means of ‘idealizing him,’ in that people think that makes him more palatable.
Perhaps His very perfection makes it daunting for authors to put Him in their stories at all, even in their fantasies. After all, characters need to be three dimensional, the writing experts tell us. We need to show strengths and weaknesses if a character is to be realistic. Putting a perfect Christ-figure into a story, then, would break all the writing rules (even the ones that don’t actually exist 😉 ).
The main reason I wouldn’t put Jesus in a story is because I’m quite likely to screw something up. The idea of putting words in his mouth terrifies me.
That said, I don’t think perfect characters by default become one dimensional. Jesus showed the whole spectrum of emotions, and he had plenty of moments where he was physically and emotionally weak. He just didn’t sin in the process.
Maybe this is why Aslan and Narnia are so popular. Lewis showed Christ, depicting Him as strong yet loving, still without fault and clearly believable — hence, no hint of romanticism.
Aslan was kinda distant to me, to be honest. I mean, I understood him as a great person, and I liked him, but for me the story was about the kids.
I suspect, however, that the problem for most Christian fiction isn’t in romanticizing Christ — because, quite frankly, He isn’t in most Christian fiction, not even in a lot of speculative fiction. Rather we might be romanticizing our relationship with Him.
Hum.
Christ, like His unseen Father, might be talked about and even talked to. Occasionally characters might hear His voice, though not audibly. And yet this relationship seems perfect. It changes people inside out and heals hurts, provides answers, lifts burdens….Yes, those last things might happen in our stories, but do we show them as part of imperfect human relationships or part of an imperfect relationship with Jesus?
There’s a lot of voices in our heads. The trick is figuring out who’s saying what.
And in the end, do we resolve the struggle in a way that suggests it is forever resolved?
Real life doesn’t necessarily have a resolution.
Fairytale love stories ended, And they lived happily ever after. Is the same ending the implied promise of Christian fiction?
Admittedly, the entire “Jesus -as-lover” thing, while true, to me is kinda….odd. I don’t think that way, so it’s very weird for me to draw the connections. Another point where I think the Church has fixated for some bizarre reason.
And how, since we know that there actually is an ultimate happily-ever-after ending which comes from our relationship with Christ, do we depict the not so happy here and now that a character must face even after meeting Him? If we leave that part out of the story, are we not creating a romanticized version of our relationship with Christ, one that ends up actually looking immature if not a little creepy to someone on the outside?
Unless you’re planning on writing the Second Coming, there’s really no reason to write the final act. Besides, he might be the Hound of Heaven, but that’s not the same thing as the Vampiric Stalker. 0=)
Okay, so I’m probably the token weirdo….
I’m going to save myself a lot of time and just say “ditto” to what Kaci said.
That said… I did write in a whole vision quest thing into my current novel where one character ends up having quite an extensive sit down with a guy who turns out to be the Christ-figure (and for whatever reason sounds a lot like Liam Neeson in my head). Not sure I’m going to leave it in, though–primarily for the reason Kaci alluded to: I’m not sure I got it right. Plus, I don’t want people thinking I did my own version of “The Shack.”
Amy
Thanks for your comment, Kaci. You mentioned this about Ms. Kress’s review: I contend it wasn’t a romance. Sure, she idealized him, but there was nothing romantic about their relationship. Ms. Kress spent the first part of her post saying how the story would resonate with a 13-year-old soul. In other words, it was like a juvenile crush, so I think she would agree with you.
Later you said this: In fact, the entire “God is Love” thing, to the extent of denying very real aspects of his nature, is arguably one means of ‘idealizing him,’ in that people think that makes him more palatable. That’s a great insight! Yes, I think an over emphasis of one aspect of God’s character at the expense of another would be a means of “fixing” God, making him into the image we want him to be. Which is exactly what happens in an immature “love” relationship — one person sees the other as he (or she) wishes, not as she (or he) actually is.
And by the way, I wasn’t trying to paint Jesus as lover. Sorry if that’s the way my analogy came across.
And finally, this: I don’t think perfect characters by default become one dimensional. Jesus showed the whole spectrum of emotions, and he had plenty of moments where he was physically and emotionally weak. He just didn’t sin in the process. Yay! I’m so glad to know someone else believes this! I’m also of the mindset that evil characters don’t have to show some “good” qualities to be realistic. I think characters need to plot, plan, strive, have motives, even be complex, but I don’t think the author needs to equivocate about a serial killer or make the school teacher or the nurse something less than caring and sacrificial.
But now I’m talking about human characters, and of course we ARE a mixed bag. However, if we’re reflecting Christ or his adversary in speculative fiction, I think it is possible to make the character an accurate representation of good or evil and still three dimensional.
Becky
Just a quickie: I think one of my favorite Christ depictions (and I don’t mean a Christ-figure, I mean actually writing Jesus) is Eric Wilson’s. I loved it so much I read it three times, bookmarked it, and emailed him to say so. 0=)
Becky, on the Twilight comments, I figured as much, but I was making random comments.
Ms. Kress spent the first part of her post saying how the story would resonate with a 13-year-old soul. In other words, it was like a juvenile crush, so I think she would agree with you.
Well, I’d disagree on ‘resonating.’ When I was 13, I wouldn’t have touched Twilight with a ten-foot pole, and likely would have gagged had I tried. But I was a weird kid. I hated Romeo & Juliet. Hated.
That’s a great insight! Yes, I think an over emphasis of one aspect of God’s character at the expense of another would be a means of “fixing” God, making him into the image we want him to be. Which is exactly what happens in an immature “love” relationship — one person sees the other as he (or she) wishes, not as she (or he) actually is.
Mhmm.
And by the way, I wasn’t trying to paint Jesus as lover. Sorry if that’s the way my analogy came across.
I didn’t think you were, but I either wasn’t sure at the moment, or was having an off-day where I rant whether I agree with you or not. It’s one of those days. 0=) More or less, the concept creeps me out, and putting Edward and Jesus in the same sentence makes my skin crawl right off my muscles.
Yay! I’m so glad to know someone else believes this! I’m also of the mindset that evil characters don’t have to show some “good” qualities to be realistic. I think characters need to plot, plan, strive, have motives, even be complex, but I don’t think the author needs to equivocate about a serial killer or make the school teacher or the nurse something less than caring and sacrificial.
Right. I kind of think of Criminal Minds when I make the serial killer point: Even when you understand the logic, it’s still twisted logic. Knowing why the guy cuts up bodies really doesn’t make me feel for the guy. That’s one thing the CM cast is good at: The charisma or occasional goodness of a bad guy doesn’t negate how vile the guy is. In fact, it makes him worse, because even his “goodness” is perverse.
As far as naturally good characters, I think we tend to turn them into emotionless Jedi, and there lies the problem. We have it in our heads that good people don’t struggle — which *gasp* is another idealism.
All that aside: If perfection immediately makes one void of temptation and weakness, we have an even bigger problem. How in the world was Jesus tempted if he could not feel real hunger, real isolation, and real exhaustion? Real pain. Satan could not have tempted Jesus had it not been equally possible for Jesus to have succumbed. (Wholly God, wholly man. God can’t be tempted, but man certainly can – and it was certainly Jesus begging the Father for another way in Gethsemane.) He had to be tempted for real, or he could not be our sympathetic High Priest (Hebrews).
But now I’m talking about human characters, and of course we ARE a mixed bag. However, if we’re reflecting Christ or his adversary in speculative fiction, I think it is possible to make the character an accurate representation of good or evil and still three dimensional.
Well, and the real trick is presenting a believable foe knowing full well Christ can squish Satan with a thought.
Okay, I really gotta go for now. I’ll say more later.
May have more thoughts on this great discussion later, but it occurs to me that it could be confusing to folks, Christian and non-, to say that God/Christ has unconditional love. In one sense that’s true, yet in another sense the condition of God’s love is also very true: we must obey His Law and be perfect! Yet Christ Himself kept that Law and fulfilled it — and thus for those who believe, God’s law is now unconditional. Without that specification, some folks take their own imaginations to the extreme of saying God loves us without regard for what we do.
But yes, that’s a different topic. Yet perhaps that’s another reason why Twilight‘s “romance” strikes many readers as so unrealistic. If even Christ had to die as an atoning sacrifice for His people’s sins, fulfilling God’s own condition for love between Himself and His human creatures/sons, why do we expect human love, apart from some higher vision of love defined (the Gospel) to be “unconditional”?
Amy, I can see your point — after The Shack Christ figures who are identified as such will certainly come across as derivative.
Yet I wonder if we can’t put in Christ-figures by means of representation rather than actuality. Like the Old Testament heroes of the faith foreshadowed Christ — Moses as the one freeing the captives, David as the King, Boaz as the redeemer kinsman, and so on. Might we not create characters that reflect one aspect of Christ or His work? In that case, then, I think we wouldn’t be obliged to make the character perfect, either.
Becky
I totally agree with that, Becky. And in fact, that’s an underlying thought as I develop my characters. 🙂 I just have one that I kind of need to have go through an epiphany of some sort. It’s the results I need–I just have to figure out the right way to do it. 🙂
Good post, by the way. Lots of good questions.
Amy
Am not sure if Christ’s love is that unconditional. Just saying. He has an awful lot of “if”s and perhaps many Christians are tainted by the “once-saved-always-saved” doctrine but “if you abide in me…” and “if you do not forgive, you cannot be forgiven.” True, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And we don’t have to earn God’s love but we are told to abide in his love and to show that love by obeying God and loving others.
Which leads to the second point. We can only be in relationship with God if we are in relationship with others. In Twilight, people can live without others as the height of “true” love if they want but in Christianity, nada.
As for romanticizing…. Christians romanticize everything. I’m always trying to tell people that the Esther story is not a love story but a “living sacrifice” story where some poor woman gets pushed into a marriage by her uncle and is forever doomed to be one of many wives, and who sees her husband once every three weeks if that. But American Christians romanticize.
In my stories, when I show a Christ figure, I tend to aim for the parts of Christ that offend Christians. He wept and was “sore amazed” and at his wit’s end in the garden. We don’t see that in Christian depictions because it isn’t manly enough. As William Blake said, “The vision of God that thou dost see is my vision’s greatest enemy. Yours is a friend to all mankind, mine speaks in parables to the blind.”
The wussy Jesus is very romanticized…the pale Galilean gentle Jesus meek and mild type…which doesn’t exist at all in the Bible.
Good post. -C
Probably one of the main reasons it’s so hard to write a good Jesus or God-figure is because of our fallen nature. How can we accurately portray something that we can’t comprehend or understand? And yet, isn’t it interesting how we understand just enough to know when a Christ-figure has fallen short of the mark?
BTW, Carole, your comment about certain aspects of Jesus not being shown because they’re not “manly enough” made me think of Testosterone Jesus in Imaginary Jesus. 🙂
What troubles me most about Twilight is the overwhelming adoration many Christian adult women have with it.
The series’ treatment of interpersonal relationships is a female pattern of idealization which is psychologically identical to the male pattern of idealization which results in pornography. Time and again many of my Christian female friends wax rhapsodic over the emotional interactions as though they were harmless fun, but then I see the same wedge of disappointment and distance creep up in those marriages that I’ve seen in marriages with porn addicted husbands.
And yes, that’s also why a lot of women fall into that same pattern with Jesus. It’s that desire to stay always in the first flush of emotional excitement, to not grow past that into a mature relationship. The post WW II church has in many ways fallen into a pattern of, as an above commenter said, “romaticising everything.”
That is also why men are more and more likely to become disenfranchised with church.
As a Free Will Baptist, I certinaly don’t have any affliation with the “once saved always saved” doctrine or belief. But I think we’re getting into dangerous territory by arguing that God’s love is conditional: to me, that contradicts the entire point of the Gospel message. God loves us, regardless of what we do or who we are. We can do nothing to earn that love: it is freely given. Even before He laid the foundations of the universe, He loved us. I think the Bible is very clear about this concept.
Now, salvation is conditional on our accepting God’s sacrifice for our transgressions. Salvation involves repetence, which as I mentioned in my Sunday School class yesterday requires both a true pentient spirit for one’s sins and a committment to resiting that sin in the future (which requires God’s help to achieve). The blessings God has planned for us are conditional on our humbling our natures to His will. The wonderful destiny God has divinely planned for each of us is dependent on opening ourselves to His direction and accepting His plan for our lives.
But love? Nothing can stop God’s love. Even if we choose not to follow God, if we reject Him and turn away from Him, He never stops loving us. Like the Prodigal Son’s father, God desires that all would turn to Him. Again, that does not mean all our saved; until the Prodigal Son repented and returned to his father, he could not abide in and benefity from the love his father so keenly felt. But his father never stopped loving him, and our Heavenly Father never stops loving us.
“But I think we’re getting into dangerous territory by arguing that God’s love is conditional: to me, that contradicts the entire point of the Gospel message. God loves us, regardless of what we do or who we are.”
Does God love all unconditionally or does He love those whom Christ died for? Is God’s love conditional upon our place within Christ.
John 14:15
” If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 14:21
” He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
Romans 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose
Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
1 Thessalonians 2:12
That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
The Father loved the prodigal because he was a member of the family even if separated for a time.
“Now salvation is conditional on our accepting God’s sacrifice for our transgressions. ”
is the acceptance a work which would place God in our debt for the act of believing?
but like others have said that is another topic and one that to often divides unnecessarily.
Life is hard and Christian fiction should reflect the truths of life. have we forgotten that all who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution or that the trying of our faith is like the refiner’s fire? Although we have entered into His rest we will not find the ultimate fulfillment of that this side of Eternity.
First, I find it interesting that in the reviewer’s quotation, she remarks casually “no love is unconditional, and shouldn’t be;” yet isn’t Christ’s love unconditional, in that “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us?” Yes, mortal (or in Edward’s case, imperfect immortal) characters do not have the ability to love as God does (at least not in their own strength). But if we’re making comparisons, I think the unconditional part of His love is an important distinction, because God’s love is perfect, beyond our understanding.
As far as Christ goes, I think the point of saying ‘unconditional love’ is to dispel the idea of “Christians don’t/can’t sin” or something.
At any rate, I’m choosing not to delve into an OSAS/not OSAS or a “sinless Christian” discussion, for my own sanity. Call me the weaker sister, if you will.
It seems to me that there is an extreme misunderstanding in most fictional mediums (both classic and modern) between lust and love. True love is God’s love, or sacrificial love: 1 Corinthians 13 tells us that love “always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (there’s that relentless unconditional love again), and Jesus said “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends”. If love is selfless and unconditional, though, lust is selfish and completely conditional. In love there is freedom, serenity, and trust; in lust there is bondage, strife, and fear. True love brings lasting joy; lust is bipolar, with highs of happiness followed by the depths of despair.
I just liked that part. 0=)
Maybe, too, we don’t mean ‘unconditional v. conditional love,’ either. Maybe we mean “perfect’ love v. ‘imperfect’ love.
Plus, while God did speak audibly to specific prophets throughout His word, He did not do so with every one, and I certainly can’t say I’ve ever sat down and had a normal two way conversation with Him. I pray, and I do feel He has led me in directions throughout my life, but a Voice from on high saying “Michelle, do this!” hasn’t happened yet (though it would make life much much easier).
Right. But I think the hard part comes in trying to translate God’s response onto paper. It might not have been an actual voice, but to explain what happened in words is to kind of ‘translate’ it into human language.
I was in a class one time where the prof quoted someone as saying “Fiction is saying what can’t be expressed any other way.” In other words, the second you try to dissect the story, it’s gone. A good story requires no other words.
Random sidenote:I I tend to dislike overly happy and overly depressing endings…
But yes, that’s a different topic. Yet perhaps that’s another reason why Twilight‘s “romance” strikes many readers as so unrealistic. If even Christ had to die as an atoning sacrifice for His people’s sins, fulfilling God’s own condition for love between Himself and His human creatures/sons, why do we expect human love, apart from some higher vision of love defined (the Gospel) to be “unconditional”?
For me, the Twilight romance was non-existent, so there was no conditional/unconditional love to even consider. Bella is infatuated, spellbound by the vampire allure, and Edward is both craving her blood and mesmerized by her. They have that conversation repeatedly. It solves, in my mind, a myriad of plot and character issues if they’re simply friends. I could buy their friendship. I could NOT buy their ‘romance.’
And now we’re getting into why I won’t read Breaking Dawn. Heh.
As for romanticizing…. Christians romanticize everything. I’m always trying to tell people that the Esther story is not a love story but a “living sacrifice” story where some poor woman gets pushed into a marriage by her uncle and is forever doomed to be one of many wives, and who sees her husband once every three weeks if that. But American Christians romanticize.
Hahahaha. Thank you! Imagine me hugging you right now. The “One Night with the King” movie did an excellent job trying to make Xerxes likeable and the entire situation mostly sweet ( almost a Beauty & the Beast story), but the real story is so horribly disturbing it’s not even funny.
Mordecai was the oddball to me in Esther. He loved his cousin, raised her as his own daughter, and seems to be a very godly man. But on the other hand, I think he was worried something worse might happen if they tried to refuse on the grounds of her Jewishness (he did tell her to keep that part to herself, until they didn’t have a choice). I can’t help but think he didn’t believe there was much other option, with Esther fitting the “every pretty young woman in Susa” description.
Sorry, I know that’s a tangent.
I liked Jehosheba–the queen who saved her nephew from Athalia’s slaughter, and Abigail, who stopped an enraged, vengeful David and his men with breakfast. Hannah. Anna. The widow Elijah saves. Ruth. Rebekah, even, I think.
The wussy Jesus is very romanticized…the pale Galilean gentle Jesus meek and mild type…which doesn’t exist at all in the Bible.
There’s this ridiculous song they taught us…oh, maybe in middle school at church. I can’t remember all of it, but the first lines start soft and go something like:
“Gentle Jesus, meek and mild…”
And then the chorus shifts into drums and screaming:
“But our God ain’ no pansy!
[I forgot the next two lines] and crushed the hairy skulls of his enemies!
Just ask [ name here] and Og, Og, Og!!!!!”
We were ridiculous. But the boys loved growling that chorus out. Hehe. I’m pretty sure it’s from one of the Psalms that mentions God crushing the heads of Og and some other Canaanite king.
Katherine Coble – I have nothing to add to the comments on emotional porn other than “good thoughts.”
Michelle wrote:
That’s why I would be careful about saying that to someone whom I happen to know believes that the Gospel is “be good and God will accept you.”
However, I would argue that God’s love is “conditional” on us following His Law, to someone I was quite sure is not a Christian and who believes God’s “love” (as he defines it) is the sentimental variety that patronizes and looks the other way when we reject Him.
For that person, the truth must be told: no, God’s love is conditional and can’t be separated from His justice. However, Christ Himself died as a substitute, a wrath-absorbing sacrifice to ensure that God Himself met His own condition. In this way, anyone who repents and believes in Christ can be assured of salvation, not just to Get Out of Hell Free, but to live forever in gratitude and genuine love for the most wonderful, infinite God Who is love/justice/merciful/holy, worshiping Him in all we do.
In summary: yes, God is clear in Scripture that His love is conditional. But because He is kind and good and merciful, He Himself fulfills that condition for all those who will repent and believe.
I think the understanding of God’s unconditional love depends on some of our other theology. I happen to agree with Michelle. I believe God’s love for His creatures is expressed in verses like Jesus’s cry: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37, emphasis mine).
Or Peter’s statement in 2 Peter: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
One more: “[God our Savior] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4).
Even as I believe that God chose and calls and predestines, I also believe He loves unconditionally and does not want any to perish.
I also think there’s a resolution of the two seemingly contradictory concepts, but that might be best saved for another day (and another blog 😉 ).
Becky
It does seem that we’re veering into a Calvinist versus Arminian discussion regarding predestination and free will, which wasn’t my intention. Though I do appreciate the versus you quoted, Becky, since I didn’t have time to look up some on my own. 😉 At any rate, I stand by what I said, but I leave the theological ramifications of that discussion for another day, post, or blog (though, some may be interested in a similar discussion going on at The Rabbit Room: More Like Falling Love Part 1: Why Love Frightens Us).
Getting back to the original blog post, the bit about happy endings in fiction is certainly a worthwhile topic of discussion. Some prefer only sweet happy endings (which is a bit like always eating sweets for dinner) and some prefer only dreary, depressing endings of the “life is meaningless” variety (which strikes me as fasting taken to the extreme, bordering on morbid starvation). I’m against stories that tie everything handily with no consequences in a contrived fashion just to get that happy ending, but I have no issue with things working out for the heroes if it’s done well. Likewise, I don’t think an “unhappy” ending is wrong because things aren’t completely worked out, but I’m against forcing a story into that form of ending simply because the author feels that gives the story greater meaning or authority. Depressing endins can be just as contrived as happy ones: the story should have a properly suppored ending, unhappy or happy.
Also, I like my characters to have flaws; there’s nothing worse than a ridiculously perfect character that makes you feel guilty in comparison (like Fanny Price in Mansfield Park). But again, I’m against adding weird flaws to a character for the sake of having them.
I’m also against this idea that all flaws have to be BAD, in all capitols letters, as if all Christians have these dark secret lives apart from their public “Good” personas. In my experience, most Christians I know (myself included) struggled with issues of pride, gossip, stubborness, and loving our neighbors. Aren’t those sins aplenty? Everyone doesn’t struggle with the same things: abusing alochol, for example, is not a problem for some people, whereas these same people might have issues with patience in dealing with their family members. Just because a person’s sins don’t make the front page doesn’t mean they’re any worse or better, or worthy of character exploration. Not all of us are a Prodigal Son; some of us our the elder brother, with our own issues to work out.
It does seem that we’re veering into a Calvinist versus Arminian discussion regarding predestination and free will, which wasn’t my intention.
Which is why I bowed out. Love yall, but not going there.
Everyone doesn’t struggle with the same things: abusing alochol, for example, is not a problem for some people, whereas these same people might have issues with patience in dealing with their family members. Just because a person’s sins don’t make the front page doesn’t mean they’re any worse or better, or worthy of character exploration.
Exactly. And behind the obvious ones are ten thousand unobvious ones.
Well said. Thanks.
Still not sure how the issue becomes a Reformed-versus-Free-Willie debate (and I’m familiar with a few of those!). Either way, a Christian can agree with the statement:
God is clear in Scripture that His love is conditional. But because He is kind and good and merciful, He Himself fulfills that condition for all those who will repent and believe.
The non-Reformed Christian may look at this and says: Yes, God through the Law reveals what He wants: His “condition” for a person’s relationship with Him. Yet out of His magnificent love God Himself, in Christ, fulfilled His own condition by dying for those whom God knew would repent and believe of their own free-will choice.
Whereas the Reformed Christian may look at this and says: Yes, God through the Law reveals what He wants, which is His “condition” for a person’s relationship with Him. Yet out of His magnificent love God Himself, in Christ, fulfilled His own condition by dying for those whom God had already chosen to save, “unfairly,” to whom He gives faith and the desire to repent and believe.
If anything, it would seem the non-Reformed position places more of a “condition” on God’s love, by requiring that man come up with his own faith to accept Jesus in return, while the “Calvinoid” claims it’s God Who initiates all salvation, from start to finish.
Yet either side could agree that, in one sense, God’s love is “conditional” on a sacrifice being necessary for forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22). If God simply skipped over that (and that is what is meant by “unconditional”), we’d no longer be talking about the Biblical God. That confusion, I think, can be based on referring to God’s love as “unconditional” without being more careful to qualify what that means! And that is the only reason I bring it up here, though others here likely already know the clarity.
Stephen, either I believe very differently from those you describe as “Free Willy” (and that is a distinct possibility), or you are looking at a belief in free will from your Calvinistic bent because what you described doesn’t fit with what I believe.
I believe God’s love is absolutely without condition. He loves the whole world, which is why He doesn’t want a single person to perish. In fact, while we were yet sinners He raised Christ up as the bronze serpent was raised in the wilderness that whoever bitten and dying might live if he but looked. The analogy is clear. All who were bitten and dying could live. All. They had only to obey, the same state Adam had been in.
Today we don’t even have to look. The obedience is childlike faith — God is telling us the truth; He took my sin, paid my debt; I’m free from the bondage of guilt and sin and the law; praise God for His forgiveness and the new life I have in Christ.
But like those in Romans 1 who knew God and did not honor him as God, many will not put faith in Christ. They could. His sacrifice could be for them, too. But for those who do not believe it is not efficacious. It’s as if they’d been handed a blank check to cover their entire lifetime debt, and they tore it up.
God’s love is completely unconditional. He made provision for us and them. They rejected Him. (Which makes me think, do Calvinists refer to people rejecting Christ? I mean, if you don’t believe He died for them, is it accurate to say they rejected Him?)
Becky
Of course Calvinist can refer to someone rejecting Christ because they are doing the only thing their natural will can allow them to do.
God’s common grace is the manifestation of his mercy/love to the entire world but it is not a saving grace.
Blimey, and here I was attempting to get away from that subtopic. I know I’m not very good at that!
Becky, once again I think we’re in agreement at the end. What I note about your reminders is that while you say “God’s love is unconditional” you nonetheless include some statements that do indeed indicate “conditions”: “if he but looked,” “they had only to obey,” “put faith in Christ” or accept God’s free offer instead of tearing up the check.
Both Reformeds and non-Reformeds (my affectionate term is “free -willie” only because “Arminian” seems to me confusing jargon) must ultimately say that God’s love comes with some kind of a “condition,” even if it’s as simple as “you must accept that love.”
And thus both sides would be within orthodox Christianity for sure, and my brothers and sisters in Christ.
It’s the folks who take “God’s love is unconditional” and then go off into a derivative of that slogan, which could be confusing at best, and take it apart from the whole context of Scripture. You and I both know which popular author is famous for pushing the notions of “if it’s truly unconditional love — the only kind of real love, then why should we even say a person must accept Christ to be saved by Him?”
Again, that’s the reason why I’m even more skittish about saying “God’s love is unconditional.” Sure, some may go too far into defining the “condition” as “you must be very, very well-behaved on your own to get God’s love.” But striking back against that wrong view with another wrong view — saying “there’s no condition” at all — too often leads to Christ’s sacrificial death in place of His people / the world being disregarded. God does have a “condition”: we must be perfect. And He Himself fulfills it for us!
Sounds like I’m saying the same things repeatedly. (Checks) Yep. Maybe, in case the confusion continues, we should define “unconditional”? To me that means “it keeps on going despite any other interference.” For that believes that’s certainly true, but only after Christ has fulfilled the condition: God’s wrath against sin must be satisfied.
God does have a “condition”: we must be perfect.
I simple do not believe this, Stephen. God’s LOVE has no condition. His holiness requires perfection from those with whom He communes.
We must not confuse His attributes as **some** are are like to do.
And it is because **they** are trying to co-opt God’s love and claim that nothing less than everyone in heaven would equate with love, that I am fighting so hard for this. GOD IS LOVE. That has not changed. Neither has the fact that those who do not believe on the name of His Son will not be saved, or that judgment follows death.
Becky
Wow. That was nicely said, Becky. I might add that God’s justice is a required part of his love, or else he is neither just nor compassionate – and therefore not holy. (Say that three times fast. )
Stephen, as I said up there somewhere, I think the entire concept of “God loves me so I can do whatever I want” is simply not love. It’s abused grace, at best, and abused grace is grace rejected.
So God’s love is unconditional, because it’s part of his nature. He loves justice and prefers mercy (my paraphrase of Micah 6.8). But to abuse his love is to reject him, to slap him in the face.
But the real question is, was Stephen predestined to continue the subject, or did he choose to continue the subject? 😉
Ha ha! Both! I’m a compatibilist. 😀 (Randy Alcorn makes one of the best presentations for that view in the latter chapters of his book on why the Lord allows death and human suffering: If God is Good.)
I’ll have to look into it. Personally, I think both the Calvinist and Arminian position are wrong, because the logical conclusions of both are wrong once it’s all worked out.
And after reading all that, here’s what I have to say
Twilight stinks!
I haven’t actually read a complete book by Meyers, but I’ve skimmed a few pages and read summeries–I ain’t touching those books with a ten foot bookmark.
The unconditional love line popped right out at me, too. We must be very grateful for His unconditional love. This is a very thought-provoking blog. I feel it’s one that can serve to help writers hone their craft and consider the wonderful points made as we write. I don’t feel I should try to be God in my writing or make Him into a character. I see my writing as a way to lead others to Him and to His Word. It is my hope that someone who does not know Him at all might happen to like romance, read my novel, and decide to give Him a chance and get to know Him better, or that Christians who read it will GET IT and enjoy a clean romance. Blessings. BJ
Thanks for stopping by, Barbara. I appreciate your input. I don’t think every story or every writer needs to include a Christ figure. God has made us differently, and it’s no surprise we see different goals for our stories or different means to the same end, even.
My hope certainly is, as yours, that readers will want to know our God and Savior more because of the stories I write. How to accomplish that is a topic I can’t leave alone, it seems. 😉
Becky
Come on, Stephen…God loved Jacob, but Esau He loved unconditionally 🙂
You are a rotter this week! 😀
I’ve heard the” God loved Jacob and hated Esau” verse used to support limited atonement, certainly. However, I believe the evidence shows that God “hated” Esau in the same way Jesus said we are to hate our father and mother. It’s a comparison issue. Compared to God’s special treatment of Jacob, His love for Esau looked like hatred. But God blessed Esau with lands and goods and children, He protected his descendants from Israel on their march to the Promised Land. He certainly did not treat Esau with the kind of wrath He reserved for those who forsook Him.
And when He brought judgment on his nation it was so that they would know He is Lord. No, I don’t think the evidence bears out God withholding His love. That He chose to bestow special grace upon Jacob isn’t proof that He withheld mercy from Esau.
Becky
Hey Becky-hope things are well with you…
Limited (definite) atonement would be an ancillary concern and one I did not have in view here. My comment was a reductio based on some of the commentary. Here’s the problem: Paul uses ἠγάπησα toward Jacob in Rom 9:13, which we all understand as unconditional, or a very special, love, as was mentioned previously. However, in the same sentence–indeed an integrated thought distinguishing the brothers-Paul applies a discriminator toward Esau, ἐμίσησα, one that is markedly not agape love, which is further evident by the fact that he just applied agape, in word specifically, to Jacob.
IOW, I’m saying, as a piggyback to ESB, to the commentary, and not against anyone in particular, that we need to take great care in expressing that God’s unconditional love applies unconditionally across the board in all states of affairs. It doesn’t; Paul’s made that much clear. As to what else Paul made clear in Rom 9–he does apply it to election, after all–I’ll leave that to each individual lover of the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, I thought you made a good point in saying that “God’s LOVE has no condition.” This is a fine, nuanced, point that we should keep in mind, and it was worth the time and effort here for me to contemplate it. Thanks. But, it seems to me, it demonstrates way more than you would have it to, as God’s love, in that sense, in His holiness and perfection, will always achieve its aim toward the object of that very unconditional love, unconditionally.
For the record, I regret my use of the smiley in the original comment. It appears to suggest these are laughing matters, which by no means they are.
MS, I think I answered you in my comment to Luther, but just to be sure, let me mention that Jesus said we are to hate (miseō) our mother and father (Luke 14:26), and yet He upheld the Law which says we are to honor our father and mother (Luke 18:20). Clearly this “hate” is not what we normally think.
The same seems to be true of Esau because of the way Scripture records God’s dealings with him.
There is nothing illogical about this view at all. Rather, it uses Scripture to interpret Scripture and is considerably more logical than taking the “God hated Esau” passages and turning them into a doctrine that God’s love is conditional.
The word you highlighted, ἠγάπησα, is the same word used in John 3:16 regarding God’s regard for the whole world. Jesus taught that we are to have this love for our enemies. How would He teach this if He Himself did not also have such love for His enemies?
Certainly, in understanding God’s nature, we cannot draw an unscriptural conclusion supporting universal salvation. But it is not helpful to wage war against one bit of false teaching by ignoring what Scripture says about God’s very nature.
And of course God’s unconditional love always achieves it’s aim unconditionally, in tandem with His holiness and perfection. He isn’t someone we can slice and dice, seeing His love expressed here and His holiness over there. He always acts from His perfect and complete and infinite nature, which is why it’s so important to understand that His love is unconditional. What a sad world if we had a God who required something of us before He would love us.
Becky
The difference between the grace shown Esau and the grace shown Jacob is one is the common grace shown to all creation and saving grace shown to those God chooses.
Luther, your point, if it is true, illustrates God’s unconditional love. I tend to think Scripture portrays Esau’s blessing as a bit more than what was shown to Lot’s kids, for example. Regardless, it’s obvious that God didn’t “hate” Esau as we use the term, but He extended His covenant to Jacob’s descendants, so in comparison to that relationship, His relationship with Esau was “hatred.”
However, God showed His unconditional love toward the nations of the world by sending prophets such as Jonah to Nineveh, Joseph to Egypt (for the sake of Israel, certainly, but Egypt benefited), Daniel to the Babylonians, the queen of the South to Solomon, and on and on. So, as if natural revelation wasn’t enough, He gave special revelation to any numbers of people. Why? Because of His unconditional love.
Becky
Esau’s an odd one. On the one hand you have:
Joshua 24:3-5 (New International Version, ©2011)
3 But I took your father Abraham from the land beyond the Euphrates and led him throughout Canaan and gave him many descendants. I gave him Isaac, 4 and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau. I assigned the hill country of Seir to Esau, but Jacob and his family went down to Egypt.
” 20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future. ” ~ Hebrews 11.20
On the other:
Malachi 1:1-3 (New International Version, ©2011)
1 A prophecy: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.[a]
Israel Doubts God’s Love
2 “I have loved you,” says the LORD.
“But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’
“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”
And:
Hebrews 12:15-17 (New International Version, ©2011)
15 See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. 16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17 Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done.
I have plenty of imperfect, flawed folk making poor decisions in my books, Christian and otherwise. I love redemption stories too much to ever quit doing that I suspect. I like to show the consequences of sin and the glory of God to restore even the worst of sinners. I will admit I have included Jesus in my stories, with fear and trembling and lots of prayer and, “Lord, help me not to totally mess up here.” My last attempts included lots of searching the scripture and prayerfully basing his lines off of words he actually spoke in similar contexts as in my fictional presentation–so far that appears to have worked well. Isn’t that what we’d do for the lines of any actual historical person we presented in fiction?
In my WIP I decided to do something original (for me) and let the hero be a good kid (albeit not a Christian–yet.)
Hey Becky,
Luther’s comments and mine are unrelated, nor is the meaning of miseo relevant, for mine, that is. For mine, feel free to utilize any sense of meaning for miseo…any at all, with one critical exception: ἠγάπησα. In this particular instance, the text doesn’t allow it. Jacob received A (ἠγάπησα), but Esau received Non-A.
MS, I’ll let you have the last say on this — other duties call.
I wasn’t linking your comment and Luther’s — just my response to him saying much what I wanted to say to you.
I think you’ve made a critical point: Esau didn’t receive.
I cannot negate I John 4:8 with the statement that God hated Esau. I don’t know how the two resolve, but if God is agapē as John says, He won’t stop being agapē. That Esau’s relationship with God appeared as hatred in light of God’s treatment of Jacob fits the facts. God made that distinction as part of His agapē nature. He didn’t stop being unconditional love.
That does not mean, as I said earlier, that His love somehow supersedes His holiness, justice, righteousness, or any of His other qualities.
Sorry this is so hasty.
Becky
Great article but I thought it would be about something else. I’m stuck. I romanticize Him. Im in love with Jesus. To the point where we have conversations in my head where he tells me sweet things and kisses me. No matter how much I try to shake it, i always end back up in love with Him. He as both God the Father and God the Son. I keep getting told its inappropriate to be in love with your Father but I cannot help it. The urges to make love to Him has diminished but I still want to caress Him and cover Him in kisses. It’s not flesh driven. My soul wants Him. But I have dreams telling me He is your dad. Still I cannot stop! Pray for me. I know He will keep His word but I don’t want to be rejected when I stand before Him because I perverted our relationship… Again. Help. Pray. Im addicted to Him.