1. Galadriel says:

    Amen! I think it was Chesterton who used the image of children playing high atop a island with walls. But when the walls fell, they ceased to play and huddled together in fear. We need those safe limits to be truly free.

    • Interesting, Galadriel. I hadn’t hear that from Chesterton (haven’t read enough of his work, I’m afraid). But interestingly, there’s been an educational study on this. I don’t remember all the details, but the short of it is that children in a fenced yard played from one end to the other, and those in an open field without any restriction stayed huddled close to the building. So interesting!

       

      Becky

  2. Kaci Hill says:

    Just for fun….
     

    At the same time, however, the hammer comes down, claiming theology has no place, that it’s too restrictive, too confining, too box-like.

    I don’t think theology is confining, but I still maintain that the speculative genre should be the safest place in the literary world to explore theology–both good and bad.

    speculations and lofty things aimed at revealing a true knowledge of God would receive Paul’s approval. The key seems to be in the last part of the verse: we are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

     
    I’m going to go completely church brat on you and ask how this plays out practically as writers.

    Think of our thoughts as beautiful stallions, sleek and strong. They can either run wild or they can be tamed and trained. Are those tamed and trained stallions inferior to the wild ones? That question, I think, expresses the fears of some writers. If we submit our thoughts to “theological correctness” somehow we will be giving up something vital and necessary for good storytelling. Somehow the captive thoughts, the tamed ones won’t express the messiness of the human soul.

     
    Just to be evil, I’m going to remind you that tamed animals, or even wild animals that have been raised by humans from birth (an orphaned or wounded animal) or simply kept in temporary captivity due to injury have to be slowly prepared for release into the wild to ensure the animal’s survival upon said release. Just saying, tamed or temporarily held, an animal in long-term care of humans is vulnerable to the outside world.

    Moreover, I think on some level the worry isn’t so much that theology hinders as much as there are so many flavors within  the Christian world to behold.  It’s very easy to get frustrated and decide you no longer care who gets offended.

    Personally, I go about as back-and-forth on this as I do the whole Philippians 4 bit. On the one hand, of course I don’t want to be writing heresy. On the other, my characters are not me, nor do they necessarily express my beliefs(and I can name more that don’t than do).  On the one hand, I’m going to write what the scene calls for. On the other hand, I want an even-handed treatment of whatever subject I’m using.   On the one hand, I don’t care to write grotesque. On the other, I sometimes have to eat literary poison to get across what I need to (and then under go an imperative purging phase).
     
     
     

    • Fred Warren says:

      Moreover, I think on some level the worry isn’t so much that theology hinders as much as there are so many flavors within  the Christian world to behold.  It’s very easy to get frustrated and decide you no longer care who gets offended.

      And with so many different flavors, no matter what you do, you’re bound to offend someone. Awareness is important, but setting inoffensiveness as a criterion will result in blandness at best and paralysis at worst.

    • From Kaci:

      The speculative genre should be the safest place in the literary world to explore theology–both good and bad.

      About this I would tend to agree, with some qualification. It’s the pulpit, or specific Kingdom leadership positions (such as elders and missionaries), that requires very clear boundaries between right and wrong teaching. But in the “reality” simulated by a story-world, the boundaries should be fuzzy. The Devil shines as an angel of light, and a wolf is not so easily seen under that woolly costume — at least at first.

      By a good story’s end, though, we should know something about who was right and wrong, to an extent (and this itself is fuzzy) that a reader confused about which is which bears the fault entirely on his own for not paying sufficient attention.

      I’m going to go completely church brat on you and ask how this [taking every thought captive in Christ] plays out practically as writers.

      Easy/difficult answer: the same way it plays out in any other Christian’s life. We’re only secondly writers, or family members, or friends; first and foremost, we are God’s creations. “That relation is older and dearer,” as one of “non-evangelical” C.S. Lewis’s characters reminded his self-centered adult sister in The Great Divorce.

  3. John Weaver says:

    The only problem is Christian writers clearly are not the best on the market, especially if by Christian one means “born again evangelical”. Sure, there’s some great Catholic writers: Gene Wolfe and Walter Miller especially (although I think Miller renounced his faith shortly before he died); and there’s C.S. Lewis, who always WRONGLY gets labeled an evangelical; but among evangelicals there’s no one approaching the talent of a Dan Simmons, a Maria Doria Russel, an Orson Scott Card, Frank Herbert, etc. The closest we got is Stephen Lawhead, and as admittedly decent a writer he is, he is simply not in that league. There are structural problems in current Christian writing that need to be solved before Christians can reach the next summit of writing ability. We’ve gone a long way down since Charlotte Bronte and Harriet Beecher Stowe.
     
     

    • Christian says:

      I’ll admit Orson Scott Card is an excellent writer, but Frank Herbert? No, no, no! His writing is rather poor. It’s his world-building and the ideas he molded together that continue to fascinate. As for Stephen Lawhead, what have you got against him? Try Steven James if you want to read a brilliant speculative fiction author. He writes suspense/thrillers. What of Dean Koontz? He’s amazing.

      • Christian, thanks for your response to John. I appreciate hearing an opposing view since I haven’t read Orson Scott Card (not a Sci Fi fan — just can’t make myself do it) or Frank Herbert. I’ve read Stephen Lawhead and will say, I think he’s an excellent writer, but I don’t think he’s writing the kind of stories that will reach a large audience. His new series, The Bright Empires, is really something different, and it may garner him more attention because it is definitely imaginative (though some critiques claim he’s using warmed over tropes). We’ll see.

         

        Becky

    • Hi, John, thanks for weighing in on this. You said

      The only problem is Christian writers clearly are not the best on the market

      You’re right about this, of course. The operative phrase in my closing line is should be. In many respects I wanted this to be a challenge. We ought to write better than we do. Our stories (mine included) should be more imaginative but also more Biblical. There is no reason to slap a little Christianity on to placate the religious publisher, if in fact the story doesn’t have spiritual underpinnings. And honestly, too few stories, I believe, do have religious underpinnings.

      But you know, I’m sure, that I’ll disagree with you about the “especially Evangelicals” part. In fact I can name three Evangelicals who write break out or near-break out quality. Unfortunately their books haven’t sold in such a way as to draw attention from the public at large. But I suspect at least one will in the near future. Then everyone will realize that his evangelical beliefs have not held him back but have actually allowed him to express truth in an imaginative way. 

      There are structural problems in current Christian writing that need to be solved before Christians can reach the next summit of writing ability

      I have my own theories on this, John, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

       

      Becky

    • From Becky:

      I haven’t read Orson Scott Card (not a Sci Fi fan — just can’t make myself do it)

      An editor once told me I had to read Ender’s Game. A modern classic, with all kinds of exploration about the human condition, psychology, and relationships.

      Mainly I remember a lot of sweating and peepee references.

      But you know, I’m sure, that I’ll disagree with you about the “especially Evangelicals” part.

      And of course, I join Becky. I’d note again that while some Christian fiction writers are certainly at fault for both boring man-centered and moralistic-religious themes and dull craftsmanship, others are wrongly faulted for this simply because they dare to “simulate” Christianity directly. These therefore irk readers who claim they want “non-religious” fiction — that is, fiction that’s subtly based on man-centered religious worldviews that they find preferable. 🙂 So we need to exercise customize discernment in who’s fairly faulting the Christian, and who’s just being a troll.

      From John:

      We’ve gone a long way down since Charlotte Bronte and Harriet Beecher Stowe.

      Not to be a troll myself (which is impossible on a site that I help lead anyway). But if evangelicals can’t claim C.S. Lewis, how could we claim Charlotte Brontë? Stowe, maybe, from what I recall, yet to this day the name of the titular character of Uncle Tom’s Cabin gets bandied about as a mocking reference to people who supposedly kowtow to racism. It’s based on what Stowe had intended to be a “noble slave” behavior toward abusive white masters, to illustrate a nonviolent and Christian reaction leading to martyrdom, but can come across as absurd, cheesy, and unjust.

      Maybe you had in mind something else, John. If so, after you’re done sharing with Becky how you think we can write better stories, maybe you’d help me out.

      By the way, absolutely, evangelicals should quit lionizing (ha ha!) Lewis as One of Our Own. Lewis, however, who was still closer to Biblically faithful evangelicaldom than, say, many modern professing evangelicals, such as Brian McLean or Rob Bell.

      There are structural problems in current Christian writing that need to be solved before Christians can reach the next summit of writing ability

      I agree, and suggest that getting the Gospel right, and a more Biblical and God-centered perspective on all things, would be most helpful, primarily for Christians as people, of course, only secondarily as writers.

  4. I’m very glad you addressed this, Becky, because I’ve also seen some unhelpful pushback in both directions: the (mostly rightful) complaints that Christian fiction is too restrictive, but then in response, advocacy for, say, “edginess” for its own sake.

    The original complaints should not be “it’s too restrictive,” and leave it at that. Rather, rightful criticism of any Christian art comes when it’s not Biblically restrictive.

    The same is true with claims that we must be “edgy.” Biblically “edgy,” we should mean.

    You offered a similar statement in a previous column, to which I just commented, and so as a good caretaker of the virtual environment, I’ll do some recycling. This also relates especially to the idea of a tamed or wild animal, and what “freedom” means:

    Whenever we talk about exploring, going beyond, pushing the boundaries, etc., this is — or should be — based on the freedom God has already given us in His revealed Word. To go outside that isn’t just some kind of freedom we’re not supposed to have. It’s a false “freedom.” A non-freedom. An impossible-universe “freedom.” And it does seem that, as Becky wrote on Monday, some defenses of even speculative Christian stories seem to overdo the whole “hey we’re free” rhetoric. Yes, Christ gives us freedom, but freedom for a purpose: to be a “slave” to Him, in perfect joy and truth.

    Any Christian story, or music, or art, should reflect that. It’s only this that gives that naturally occurring emotional response, both in head and heart, and keeps us joyful in Him in the present, yet also yearning — “groaning,” as Paul said in Rom. 8 — for the glorious future, the redeemed universe of the New Heavens and New Earth.

What do you think?