Is Responsibility for Art Limited to Temptations for People You Know Personally?
Last Tuesday–two days ago–E. Stephen Burnett wrote the post on Speculative Faith entitled Should Christian Storytellers Keep Their Fans From Temptation? The article started out with a strong nod to the idea that it really is a subject of the Bible to talk about causing others to sin or providing temptation for them, referencing specific verses that talk about that very thing. The article also began saying what it had to say it was for Christians and people who wanted to honor God. But it ended by concluding that when the Bible is talking about temptation, it’s only talking about present tense temptation–no hypotheticals–and only talking about people we personally know. People we know about but don’t know personally don’t count. Not only did E. Stephen say it is not only unworkable but also “unbiblical” (his word) to do otherwise, he ended his post implying that caring about tempting others stems from some kind of warped hero complex.
A number of commenters replied positively, both here and on Facebook, as if breathing sighs of relief. If I could summarize that sense of relief in my own words (which almost certainly would be different words than commentators would use for themselves and which may not represent their actual thoughts), it would be something like: “Thank God, we are free from all responsibility except for those rare cases where we happen to know someone in person in the middle of a temptation at a particular moment! But that hardly ever happens, maybe never! Whew! What a relief!”
The reasoning E. Stephen used, as much as it may give a sense of relief, merits a reductio ad absurdum counter, because it falls apart when cross-examined. To give just one possible example [EDIT: I changed the example based on certain comments below], I have never known anyone who admitted to me to being addicted to erotica. Oh, I myself have had problems with pornography/erotica, and I hear enough about this issue to know the problem is common in the Christian world, but nobody has ever confided in me personally that “I have a problem with porn” or “I’m addicted to erotica.” So the standard E. Stephen offered would allow me to write erotica (assuming what I write didn’t have any effect on me), all the while telling myself I’m not tempting anyone, because I mustn’t engage in hypothetical thinking about temptation. Obviously that was not E. Stephen’s intent and I think he tried to account for these kinds of arguments by stating his article was for Christians who desire to honor God. But that would only imply a positive reason for not doing porn–that is, I don’t want to do that because I want to honor Christ. The negative impact on others becomes insignificant, even when I know not everyone will admit issues that they have. So this reductio ad absurdam shows that he has left some very important things out of his approach to this subject. Clearly, his reasoning is incorrect–sadly (sadly because I’m not enjoying disagreeing).
More on what he’s left out is coming up, but let’s circle back to the sense of relief his article produced for some people.
That relief, my friends, is not the fresh air of Christian liberty. Nor is it necessarily pushing towards legalism to say that responsibility goes further than what E. Stephen stated. I realize it may seem like he spoke as a prophet of liberty, but Christian liberty also requires Christian responsibility. Such liberty is rather like owning your own house for the first time–you may feel you can do whatever you want within the confines of your home and you really do have tremendous leeway to paint and redesign and redecorate. But you must also pay the house bills and take care of the place–or you will find yourself living in a mess, with no utilities, or worse. Or to speak more plainly–yes, God gives us tremendous freedom, but he also gives us very real responsibilities. Not virtually non-existent ones.
What E. Stephen called “unworkable” in his post could otherwise be called “hard.” Yes, Christian responsibility is hard–though God by his grace makes it possible and the Holy Spirit enables as well, not only making doing God’s will possible, but actually making it enjoyable to consider consequences and to trust our works into the hands of God.
So note that I am not writing this to take away your Christian liberty–but I’m telling you what liberty really means. It includes responsibility.
Christian responsibility actually does exist beyond particular individuals one happens to know at a particular moment in time. But it’s hard to peg clear rules on how that responsibility should operate. Yet humans are tempted to cut out the need to seek advice of the Creator on what to create, the personal soul-searching and introspection that Christian liberty (believe it or not) demands, and instead substitute a set of rules that make decisions easy. People love clear rules, though some lean towards rules that are demanding, while others lean towards rules that are permissive.
What E. Stephen did in his article, rather than support Christian liberty, was to offer a rule. A permissive rule, yes, but by declaring all other opinions on the topic “unbiblical” I’m afraid E. Stephen has abandoned what Christian liberty actually means and has set himself up as a sort of legalist. I take no pleasure in pointing this out. Nor do I believe he acted this way deliberately or out of ill-will. Still, his categorization of any opinion other than his own as “unbiblical” was troubling and the sense of relief his article generated strikes me as a product of an easy-peasy form of legalism, where all the thinking is already done for you in advance, so you don’t have to concern yourself with thinking about the issue of responsibility yourself.
So, casting aside the simple rule and looking deeper, what might Christian responsibility for artists and creators of stories actually include?
That’s a hard question. Please note the point I want to emphasize is there’s no substitute for seeking God yourself, there is no such thing as simple 1-2-3 answers, that responsibility requires some wrestling with the Lord to find out what His will really is on any particular thing you create. So if you expect me to drop some simple guidelines on you that you can follow easily, without having to think about these matters yourself, without getting into the Scriptures yourself, I’m telling you that’s not simple. That takes time and work to explain. And in fact, the most I can possibly do is point you in the direction of things that might be included in Christian responsibility. It’s between you and your Maker what you will and will not incorporate into your life.
Fortunately, I’ve already done some of this work to explain my positions here on Speculative Faith. I addressed the complex issue of how one should consume culture/art in my article Licking the Chocolate off Poison Pills: A Comment on Cultural Engagement. To summarize that article, I advised against consuming things you know can be temptations for you to sin, that is, a consumer of culture ought to cultivate a sense of being sensitive to personal issues. Sometimes these are very subtle, sometimes they are not. In the category of “not subtle,” I cannot watch shows that feature female nudity (as Game of Thrones does) without having a problem. I am not being a legalist to decide that I cannot watch that show (note I’m only applying any rule to myself)–I’m being sensitive to the will of God, following the Holy Spirit, and obeying the Scripture that references, “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (II Corinthians 10:5)
Yes, I happen to agree that readers or consumers of culture are primarily responsible for themselves! But as someone who creates art or stories, the fact that readers or viewers are primarily responsible doesn’t mean I therefore have no responsibility. At the very least, I should avoid creating artwork or stories that has embedded in it things I personally find to be temptations to sin. Because I don’t want to tempt myself to do wrong via what I’m imagining as I create–which is a specific reason why I can’t write erotica–I would be tempting myself, let alone anyone else. So avoiding sinning yourself while creating stories/art might be an aspect of Christian responsibility beyond tempting people you know personally.
Among other articles I’ve already written that relate to Christian responsibility versus liberty, way back in 2017 (I think this was one of my first articles for Speculative Faith), I wrote an article specifically about Cosplay–Do the Bible and Conscience Limit Christian Cosplay? The article explains in detail exactly what I mean by Christian liberty, yes in a specific context but broadly as well, that Christian liberty means that I am free in relation to what human beings tell me I should do, but not free to do whatever I want (I Corinthians 7:22 very aptly addresses the dichotomy of being free in Christ but also a slave to Christ). I am free to individually follow convictions God lays on my heart–likewise you are also free in the same way–and we are supposed to accept the fact our convictions may not always be the same. Yet that freedom requires you and I to ask real questions about what is right and what is wrong–what am I representing and am I in agreement with representing that? I concluded the article on cosplay stating for my own self that I would not wear costumes I consider to show too much of my body, ones that represent characters other people look to as heroes that have beliefs I’m completely opposed to and don’t want to represent, and I would not dress as a female character because I think our culture is confused about gender enough and I don’t want to add to the confusion. But then I said those are convictions I draw myself from my study of the Scriptures–what are your convictions? I.e. my expectation is every Christian will do what I do–search the Scriptures for guidance and seek God’s will in every aspect of life. Including concerning every item you create.
Note I am not expecting you to develop the same convictions as me. But I am expecting you to develop convictions for yourself, as I have done, perhaps including about what you want to represent or do not want to represent. Avoiding representing something in a positive way you believe is wrong while creating stories/art might be an aspect of Christian responsibility beyond tempting people you know personally.
Note that there’s one aspect of Christian responsibility that I became aware of from a writer who does not identify as a Christian. Back in the early 90s I read the Tom Clancy novel, The Sum of All Fears. In that novel, Clancy, who delights in including very specific and as correct-as-possible technical details, explains in a note that he deliberately misrepresented how to make an atomic bomb in his story. Because even though all the details on how to make one for real are available online, he did not want to be responsible for specifically instructing people how to do something he felt was horrific. I likewise as a Christian author might choose to forgo explaining exactly how to build a bomb, perform a real-world magical spell, how to obtain illegal drugs, or how to kill someone and get away with it. A story may require such details, but I may (may, perhaps, maybe) not want to include them in a realistic way out of concern for what others might do with the knowledge I have, just as Clancy was concerned. So avoiding teaching someone exactly how to perform an evil act while creating stories/art might be an aspect of Christian responsibility beyond tempting people you know personally.
Am I laying on you the yoke of legalism? Am I offering easy answers that tell you exactly what to do, whether the answers be strict or permissive? No. I am telling you though that being a disciple of Christ requires you to deny yourself and to take up your cross daily and follow him (Matthew 16:24). Is that hard? In your own will it is, but God makes this possible, easy even, through the gift of his Holy Spirit, which provides us the fruits of the Spirit (please reference Galatians 5). You ought to be in prayer about all things (I Thessalonians 5:17)–your responsibility as a sub-creator included. The responsibility to pray about all things you do, including creating stories/art, might (er, wait, no “might” about it) actually is an aspect of Christian responsibility beyond tempting people you know personally.
I addressed a specific issue in fantasy as well, concerning the role of magic in stories. I noted that the Bible creates separate terms for supernatural power that comes from God and power that does not come from God. I laid out seven ways to deal with the problem of magic in stories that called in effect for Christian writers to find solutions to how to apply magic in stories that differs from what the world does with fantasy magic (and I explained in part why I think at least a certain measure of separatism is important in another article). Why would I do that? Well, I see some value in creating separate Christian cultural institutions. I know very well not everyone will agree with me on the need to do that, but for those who do agree with me, having separate cultural institutions in story writing would seem to include having genre expectations for works by Christian authors that would be different from what’s standard in the world. If we are to create distinct genre expectations for works by Christians, the need to create stories/art that match these genre expectations might be an aspect of Christian responsibility beyond tempting people you know personally.
To get to the real crux of my differences with E. Stephen and his article, I wrote an article in which I talked about how fantasy magic can in fact promote modern Paganism (in “What Harm Could Come from Fictional Magic“), which is a reason for me wanting to portray magic differently. And in yet another post I combined a promo for a book I published, Dawn Before the Dark, with a discussion of its magical system being beyond what I would normally publish, but explained I made an exception to the rule because I’m not actually focused on rule-keeping and I’m looking forward to what will happen with future books in that series.
In the article on “What Harm Could Come From Fictional Magic,” I talked about possible future effects. E. Stephen Burnett in his article specifically said that we should not worry about hypotheticals; we should only worry about present issues with people we know personally and that doing otherwise is “unbiblical.” So E. Stephen and I are in direct conflict on this issue–we can’t both be 100% correct (though both of us could be partially right).
First, let’s look at his use of the word “unbiblical”–does E. Stephen have the right to say someone disagreeing with him on a cultural issue is “unbiblical”? Doesn’t the Bible actually say that when sincere believers disagree on cultural issues, such as which holidays to celebrate or not, that each is allowed to have his or her own conviction and each of those convictions matter–that there is no one correct answer in cases like this? Please see Romans 14:5: “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” Note Romans 14 overall is about stronger and weaker believers, but that particular verse is not–the verse references the fact that different believers will have different convictions about things like holidays, and within limits implied by Biblical context, that’s normal and good. We are free to discuss our differences, but we are not free to decide we only are correct and nobody else is. So how can it be “unbiblical” for me to disagree with an interpretation of Scripture on particular things where the Bible allows f0r leeway for personal convictions?
Second, stemming from the point above, it happens to be the case that I really do look at the same Bible passages E. Stephen referenced and see them differently than he did. Did Paul avoid hypotheticals in the discussion of weaker brothers? Did he only refer to people he knew personally? Let’s take a look at I Corinthians 8:9-13 (NKJV) and find out:
“9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.”
Note the Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says if “anyone sees you.” Anyone. Anyone who has a problem of course, but that’s not a reference to a specific person Paul happened to know, if “anyone” actually means, you know, any possible person. Which is the ordinary meaning of “anyone.”
Note also Paul says “if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat.” Hmm, that doesn’t sound present tense to me. Yes, it does relate to a specific, known issue, but once Paul became aware of the issue, he expressed a willingness to give up meat forever if need be. “I will never again” is not only a hypothetical–it’s in future tense.
I suppose there must be some way of interpreting this passage so the future tense is really a present tense and the “anyone” is a reference to someone I know. But that’s not the most obvious reading of this passage. In fact, the passage seems to call on us to engage in thought about hypothetical impacts on other people whether we know them or not and to think in future tense, before walking into a Pagan temple (or doing the modern equivalent)–but in fact only concerning known issues. Not concerning hypothetical issues–the passage doesn’t mention hypothetical issues at all.
Note that not mentioning hypothetical issues is not the same as saying “we should never consider hypotheticals” but putting that point aside, it’s clear enough that concerning known issues it doesn’t matter if we know a particular person tempted by that issue or not and that Paul thought in future tense–not just in present. In fact, the responsibility to care about weaker brothers goes beyond the ones you know personally and does include hypothetical impacts on people, at least at certain moments–even if limited to known, specific issues.
So applying what I just said to the reductio ad absurdam argument I used in the edit of this post, I would be able to realize that even if erotica doesn’t cause me to sin personally (which would not be true in real life), even if somehow I thought erotica was beautiful and pure because sex comes from God (not my actual position, but one some people have held), then I might hesitate to write erotica because I know for a fact that lots of Christian people struggle with porn/erotica in way that’s sinful and I don’t want to contribute to their struggles. Even if I don’t know anyone who has admitted to me in person that this is an issue for him or her and even if that person isn’t in the middle of the struggle in the present tense, during the time I’m writing. Thinking ahead a bit and anticipating what is very likely to happen isn’t an unreasonable burden–and I think that’s the kind of reasoning Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 8.
I think the actual crux of E. Stephen’s disagreement with articles I already wrote for Speculative Faith and what he wrote afterwards may stem from the fact he doesn’t actually know any open Neo-Pagans, so for him, the issue is not real. In his mind, there is no known, specific issue in regard to getting people to stumble related to the use of magic in the real world. He’d be like an original reader of the letter to the Corinthians who had no idea that anyone could ever be tempted to sin by him eating meat at the temple of Zeus, because nobody had ever mentioned to him, “Hey, it’s a problem for me if you do that.”
I believe he’s wrong, so I’ve presented a case explaining why I think so. But in the end, E. Stephen answers to God for his conscience, not me. I’ve told him what I know and it’s up to him whether to listen or not.
But note how the case of the weaker brother and the passages E. Stephen focused on are not even actually appropriate. I mean, passages on weaker brothers would be appropriate if we were aware of a serious issue regarding Christians converting from Neo-Paganism and then being tempted to sin by going back to it. But I’m not aware of any such issue–so I don’t concern myself with that at all.
My comments on the harm of fictional magic actually stemmed from concerns about representing a positive view to the world at large that could qualify as a sort of free advertisement or publicity for modern Paganism. It stemmed from concerns about making it easier for people who are not Christians to adopt a non-Christian religion rather than to adopt Christianity. That’s not the same as offering up temptation to sin for a Christian brother or sister.
An artistic representation of both the push into and the pull towards temptation. Image credit: African Broadcasting Network
Does representing something in a positive way in a story affect people’s attitudes towards it? Make them people feel more accepting about it as a general rule? If it doesn’t, then SJWs are wasting their time trying to cast women and other perceived marginalized communities into as many strong roles as possible. And advertisers are wasting their money on paying for placing their products within movies.
Conclusion
I offered five areas of Christian responsibility in creating art or stories that E. Stephen did not address. In fairness, some or all of these he might have addressed at different times and places, other than the post I’m responding to. But note that those five were suggestive–you may not agree with all of them. Or you might in fact, if you study Scripture and seek God, have an approach entirely different from my own to this issue. But there is no such thing as a Christian free from responsibility to the Lord or responsible only for Christian brothers or sisters you happen to know, restricted to the present tense. That’s a dubious reading of the Bible in the first place and responsibility is broader than that in any case. And that’s not me being a jerk and taking away your P-A-R-T-Y. It’s telling the truth and representing the Scriptures as accurately as I’m able.
You are free–free to develop your own convictions and live them. Free to make your own choices–but you should realize the Lord gives guidelines concerning what he does and does not want you to do, through a variety of ways, most importantly his word and the Holy Spirit. If you’re a creator, it’s appropriate to wonder if your works could have negative effects. Not that you let fear paralyze you, but in fact your entire life should be examined before the Lord, every moment bathed in prayer. That may be a lofty goal, but that’s the goal every Christian should be aiming for–not, “I’m free, so I can do what I want.”
Comments on this post from Christians who may or may not agree are of course welcome. What are your thoughts on this topic?
This seems about control to me, but how much can you control another person? How much SHOULD you control another person?
The thing is, you can do everything right but still not have things go like what you want.
Right. The practical outworking of it is that you have to, at a certain point, put blinders up and say, “It’s not under my control. I did what was reasonable.” And what’s “reasonable” looks different for different people in different situations.
The only point I can think of at which my statements can be interpreted as a desire to control is I state that Christians ought to restrict themselves as creators according to the guidance of God. That we ought to think and pray about what we create. Now, it’s true I’m trying to use the power of laying out a logical argument to get other Christians to see my point of view. But that’s not trying to control them.
I’m tempted to see your comment about “control” as a slander designed to make my points less persuasive to anyone who happens to read them. Because you know, Travis doesn’t actually mean what he says about sub-creators submitting voluntarily to God–he’s only trying to control people.
But I don’t actually know if you’re trying to torpedo my 3000 word article with a false insinuation about my motives that weighs in at less than 30 words. Maybe you actually really think I have a desire to control things and people I can’t.
I remember meeting a Special Forces officer who told me he didn’t believe in luck–he believed it was possible to control everything by working hard enough and training hard enough. He seemed a bit out of his mind to me–yeah, it makes sense to control what you can in combat, but no human being has control over everything, not even close. It’s enough to do your best, including in prayer, and be willing to face the unexpected that will surely come about, no matter what you thought was going to happen.
I think it’s a common pitfall that anxious people get stuck in. Maybe you don’t have anxiety issues, but there are definitely people in this pool of thought who do use that as a coping mechanism.
I would say I’m not very anxious compared to most people. I am on occasion anxious, but not commonly.
As I remarked to Autumn, that may be ironically why I feel the need to point these sorts of things out. What others may do without even thinking about, I won’t do unless I identify an issue and face it head on. Because otherwise I tend to ignore issues and do what I want.
It may be that I’m not the only person in the world like that though…
Now that I have a full keyboard, Imma expound upon this.
Travis’s version of separatism doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and the more common version of Christian separatism largely concerns itself about purity and protection from corruption.
For example, how do you make sure your kids become good Christians, happy and successful? Ken Ham will sell you this stuff so that your kids will become good Christians, and if you don’t, they will learn about evolution and die in a ditch with a hypodermic in their vein.
Or Focus on the Family. Do you want your kid to be happy, successful, and Christian? Buy Dr Dobson’s stuff and spank your kids into submission, and they won’t turn gay and die in a ditch from AIDS.
Or Campus Crusade for Christ. Do you want your kid to be a good Christian? Do you want to protect your kids from eeeeevil librul professors? Give us money.
They let their kid trick or treat? Don’t they love their kid enough to protect them??!? Jack Chick will sell you these pamphlets to hand out to those compromising backsliders, so everyone can be safe again.
It’s the same place where the idea comes from that Christian fiction needs to be squeaky clean and safe from swears, sex, gayness, and jaywalking so that it doesn’t corrupt any little minds. Don’t we spend half our time on here complaining about how absurd and boring that kind of pearl-clutching thinking leads fiction to?
Notleia–I’m not a pearl-clutcher.
And my personal perspective here is arguing that a sizable chunk of people here on Speculative Faith are in effect making a knee-jerk reaction away from something that actually can work–or I say it can–but has to be done differently than Focus on the Family et al.
This knee-jerk reaction I’m talking about does rather remind me of someone who just got out of their parents’ house into a house of their own and “free from all the rules” immediately trash the place. Then, people normally grow up a bit and say, “Ok, some rules aren’t necessarily bad. But the rules have to make sense.”
For what it’s worth, something like 90% of the comments you make argue for my position indirectly. You are pretty much indistinguishable from any other feminist SJW person–except you apparently read a number of books by Christian authors and you choose to comment here. Since I have never seen you defend what we might call a Christian cultural position–not even a liberal Christian cultural position, since you don’t even pull out the Bible to suggest we ought to love refugees and the poor and downtrodden, you represent what I do NOT what to see Christian fiction become. You represent cultural extinction by Christian authors as they become exactly like non-Christian authors.
Actually, while I avoid swearing and graphic sexuality in my writing because that’s an expectation for Christian writers. I don’t think getting gritty is necessarily bad. What is bad, in my opinion, is shying away from broad issues like the nature of good and evil, the work of God in redemption and creation, etc. I.e. I’m in favor of not being afraid to tackle a deep idea from a Christian perspective. So to borrow from Jesus, I believe in Christian from the inside of the cup, not the outside.
I see what both of you are saying. She does have a point that this whole topic comes back eventually to what control (“influence”) we have over others. It’s an important element of all this.
I tend to think of the responsibility towards other people as being directed towards God, though. I believe I have a duty to care about this issue, but that duty is primarily fixed in my relationship to God. If I’m sensitive to the leadership of God, I believe he will let me know if I’ve done enough.
Yet he leaves much ambiguous for us to work through. Which means we have to consider how much influence we hold over others, and that impacts how we behave publicly, what we write, etc. What your saying doesn’t negate the necessity to consider it.
I guess my general problem is that I don’t understand what we in the peanut gallery are supposed to take away from you expressing your comfort zone and the reasons behind it. Like, what are the wider implications supposed to be? Do you just mean to express your opinion?
You are uncomfortable with magic in fiction because of the reasons you mentioned. But you also mentioned that treating magic as a sort of alternate science is more okay. Except, anymore that’s the norm. It would actually be harder to find an example of a fictional magic system that doesn’t have science-like rules. (That’s the real substance of my problem with that topic. But there are also a lot of other, littler ones about the nature of how pagan practices corrupt, which I keep getting lost in the weeds over.)
You’re leery about Burnett’s article about Christian freedom because you feel a greater sense of responsibility to the social order. Okay, cool! But the only concrete things you’re offering here is pretty much along the same lines as a garden-variety legalist. So how are you different? All I’m getting here is a “these guidelines, but not like that.”
“But the only concrete things you’re offering here” is a telling comment on your part. I put my emphasis on honoring God, developing personal methods to answer hard questions, and staying in prayer, all of which are things that emphasize personal freedom before God and put responsibility in terms where I am not dictating to anyone exactly what to do. Yet these notions for you are apparently “not concrete.”
When I offer some specific recommendations intended to shape the thought process required to deal with these sorts of issues, a process I recommend all Christian creators go through, and those for you are the concrete parts of what I said. “Seek God as an individual,” apparently for you is not concrete.
And the rules I offered, even if you treated them as hard and fast rules, which I didn’t do, are NOT the same as the standard legalist approach to these issues. I am not suggesting Satan will get you if you ever talk about magic, like a Jack Chick tract. As you yourself noted when observing my “rules,” they would allow the production of pretty much any kind of magic. Yeah, that’s true, but they would require the author to think of some way to point that system back to God via the in-story system.
Even my own personal preference of avoiding polytheism in stories, which is pretty close to a solid law for me, I went around to publish Dawn Before the Dark because I think I can direct series so it points back to God over the length of the series. So I’m not following hard rules and I’m not preaching rules, either.
What’s bizarre is I offer flexible guidelines based on making tough individual choices. What I’m really arguing for is taking cultural issues seriously and working for individualistic ways to honor God, instead of employing a checklist that clears a writer from responsibility (do I know anyone with this problem?–nope–YAY I’m good to go!). I make the case for all these things that you apparently consider nebulous–you ignore all that as “non-concrete” and extract rules from what I offer as guidelines based on the idea that those things are concrete. Then you go, “That’s standard legalistic fare.” Hey, the problem here is what you are judging to be concrete!
Though I must say your implication that I’m in essence a pearl-clutching legalist is powerful here on Speculative Faith. There’s a lot of people fleeing legalism here, to the extent they are willing to say things that really make no sense in order to ensure we are nothing close to legalism (i.e. one author suggested that if you feel too guilty about something you’re doing, that might be a sign you are a legalist—OR MAYBE it’s a sign you’re doing something you shouldn’t, I would say).
So you’re making your case in a powerful way. Your case is in opposition to good, I would say, so I’m against what you stand for. But you are making your case cleverly. I’ll grant you that.
I’m not saying you’re a pearl-clutcher, I’m saying your articles are not very helpful (to me, IMO, etc)
Well, let’s do a little comparison and contrast. E. Stephen wrote an article about when to worry about temptation and concluded, in short, that unless you know someone in person going through a particular problem, you shouldn’t worry about it. Was that useful to you? I’d guess “no,” because you don’t even worry about the issue of temptation to sin at all from what I know about you.
“Seek God and here’s some guidelines but no, you are not so simply clean from responsibility as E. Stephen said” cannot possibly be less useful to you than what E. Stephen offered. Yeah, granted, if you still aren’t worried about temptation to sin, it isn’t very useful, but instead of me in essence cutting you free to basically do whatever you want (which as far as I know is your attitude anyway) I’m challenging you to think about it first. And pray.
You may not find someone recommending you think about what you create before you create it useful. Okay. But if so, I think I detect some hypocrisy on your part.
You have shown you do really care about some issues. For example, how women are portrayed in fiction. I doubt you’d adopt the position that misogyny in literature is OK as long as a story creator doesn’t personally know anyone who has confided that he (or she) is struggling with misogyny. Which would be the equivalent of what E. Stephen said.
I imagine you would like writers to think about their portrayals of women before publishing. At least a little–and if you’re capable of caring about that, you logically should concede I was correct versus E. Stephen. Even if my specific examples are issues you don’t care about.
Well, I can’t personally say I was relieved by E. Stephen’s post. (No clue if you were including me in the relief thing, but thinking about it, I found it interesting why I didn’t feel relieved OR directly upset by the article) Honestly, the things I wrote in the comment section of Stephen’s post have been things I thought and felt for a long time. And it’s not that I don’t worry about how people might react to my stories.
Quite the opposite, actually. I pay a ton of attention to other people’s thoughts, and constantly worry about the effect I have. I do want to help people and make things better through writing. I’m conscious of the experiences I give other people, whether they are entertained or made comfortable or motivated to change. I can’t help caring about that and derive fulfillment from it. But then it still leaves me stressed and exhausted.
And it isn’t just with the weaker brothers issue, either. I try not to invite trouble, but know it could easily come from anywhere, like some of the uber strict liberals. Ultimately, there comes a point where, after all my worrying about quality control and the impact and reactions I get, I have to draw boundaries for the sake of self preservation. There’s due diligence, and then there’s baby sitting. There’s being considerate for others’ feelings, and then there’s compromising my own right to have my own convictions and discuss important issues.
There have been some things I’ve been concerned about with my writing. For example, one story I’m going to try and write WAY off into the future shows how a religion develops in a world that’s fantastical but has an edge of technology to it. It contains personifications of certain psychological aspects, and I worried that people actually could identify with it enough that people could adopt it a little too much. But, I know that some of it is just me worrying. Most people won’t adopt it to any real extent. I think discussing how a religion could form is important in many ways, (heck, you could even use it to point out why the magic in fiction thing could be a problem). And so is discussing the psychological aspects that fake religion will point out. So instead of censoring it, I will use it as something to discuss(in this case, that it is for discussing psychology and the religion part isn’t needed) One reason I’m going to have a youtube channel for my writing is so I can talk about stuff like this. Although I can’t control how people receive my stories, I think it’s important to be able to get out there and make assertions about certain things. Plus, it can be fun for readers.
Autumn, I found this statement of yours very interesting:
“Quite the opposite, actually. I pay a ton of attention to other people’s thoughts, and constantly worry about the effect I have. I do want to help people and make things better through writing. I’m conscious of the experiences I give other people, whether they are entertained or made comfortable or motivated to change. I can’t help caring about that and derive fulfillment from it. But then it still leaves me stressed and exhausted.”
I in contrast don’t understand very well what other people think at times and rarely worry about it. I’m occasionally aware of being in the minority and realize what I have to say may be unpopular, but I usually say it anyway.
It may be the message you need is “stop worrying so much” and the message I need is–“hey, be more responsible.” But each of us, I would say, should be getting the message we need from the relationship we have with God.
No, we should not be paralyzed by fear. But neither should be ignore our responsibilities to others. A balancing act is definitely called for.
Yeah. It’s a complex mix of psychology and life experiences. I struggled with social interaction a lot growing up, and looking into certain aspects of Jungian Depth Psychology lately, everything makes so much sense. When truly understanding how my personality type (INTJ) works, it’s scarily detailed and accurate on how I’ve developed, including why I felt misunderstood and bizarrely different. INTJs make up an tiny portion of the population, and have their own weird brand of intensity that makes them easily dislikeable in many cases.
Te (Extroverted Thinking, which has to do with rational thinking and other people’s thoughts.) Brings awareness of reputation, rank, and social standing, since those things depend on what people think of each other. I don’t like fame or being in the center of attention for long, but as an INTJ Te is my second most dominant function, and thus my second greatest awareness. I care about Te things because of how strongly they affect how people treat each other.
On the other hand, Fe (Extroverted feeling, which has to do with other people’s feelings and social norms) is my second to lowest function(and thus pretty much my biggest blind spot). A person’s second to lowest function is often nicknamed the Trickster function. A person kinda sorta tries to be good at their Trickster function, but since it’s such a low awareness in their mind, it just doesn’t take a very high priority. People might even think they’re good at their Trickster function, but they’re not(and thus the Trickster nickname). So basically, it’s easy for me to walk around thinking things are just fine, until I randomly find out I upset someone or tripped over a social norm.
Honestly, I still would take high Te over high Fe any day, though. Not having an innate sense of social norms is hard, but Te (along with other functions like Fi and Se) do help me compensate enough to function. Furthermore, Fe just sounds vague and not very actionable. Ok, it might grant a better sense when someone’s mad/going to be mad, but that doesn’t tell me all the hows and whys and what I can do about it. And then, even though I care about other people’s emotions, I prioritize other things higher (like their safety and overall well being). I want people to be happy, but many times, people hurt others or themselves because of their emotions (as I’ve learned from first hand experience) so I don’t think emotions should be the primary/only tool for decision making in most cases.
Not nearly every INTJ has had my life experiences, so they don’t actively worry about it or handle these issues like I do…quite frankly because they haven’t run into enough reasons to. But when certain things happen, these issues can trigger them and it becomes quite clear that they do care about reputation and such even if they previously didn’t think they did.
As you said, it’s about striking a healthy balance. To an extent I do have to worry a lot, since it motivates me to improve and I would be downright careless otherwise. But I’m working on developing discretion on the whens and hows and whys of that. And then there’s developing a sense of peace with certain things, like the fact that I can’t change everyone. Like…do what I can and realize that the rest doesn’t necessarily need to reflect on me as a person.
The spiritual aspect can be hard for me sometimes. But something I did a lot growing up was ask God to give me life experiences that would sculpt me into something better, and I think he’s been doing that, at least.
I test about equally INFP and INTP. A blend of those two categories matches me best–but I’ve been told those two categories are not supposed to blend.
And even combining them, I do many things that don’t really match either of those two personality types. Such as my general tendency towards risk-taking.
Perhaps it’s no surprise that I find personality tests to be of limited value, capturing only part of what a person is at best. I’m glad you found yours helpful, though.
Anyway, thanks for the empathy. I appreciate it.
Neither of those would surprise me, though the test is more of a Myers Briggs thing. The type of psychology I’m looking at tends to kinda reject Myers Briggs tests in a lot of instances, except maybe as a starting point to help ballpark someone’s actual type. And then of course nurture affects development and manifestation of traits. So it wouldn’t be enough to say ‘INFPs and INTPs don’t take risks’. Everyone takes risks, but how often and why? And although those two types don’t ‘blend’, they have enough similarities in behavior that they’re easy to confuse in some instances.
The strain of Jungian Depth Psychology I subscribe to types people based off assessing speech patterns and behavior to determine their temperament and interaction style. Difficult to learn, but well worth it for those that are interested.
Thanks for bringing that up, though, since that’s an important point to clarify when discussing this type of personality stuff. But yeah, you’re welcome. Thanks for letting me ramble XD.
You know what I’m loving about this whole debate?
At no point did either of you say, “Other person isn’t a Christian because he disagrees with me.” Instead, you both wrestle with an issue and present your viewpoints and where you specifically disagree with a person. At the end of the day, you’re still friends.
Going back to the idea of writing, which is where this all seems to of started, instead of the theoretical crazy scenario of causing a person to sin (I think the pedophilia example is a terrible one because it’s recognized as sin no matter what).
In my writing, limited as it is, I’m not going to portray magic in a way that seems it could be realistic. I liked your reference to Tom Clancy and not giving a clear written example of how to construct a nuclear bomb. In the same way, I’m not going to try and recreate how people truly use magic in this world.
However, I’m not doing so from the “Weaker Brother Argument” and more because of other reasons I’m still trying to puzzle out what they are. It just feels wrong, and I couldn’t give you an exact reason Biblically I’m going to say it’s wrong. It’s also why I’m not going to call someone out who behaves differently than me, because I recognize this is what God has called ME to do.
Thanks for reading it through. I know it was long. Thanks also for noticing neither of us are in effect excommunicating one another. Totally true.
I know the child porn example felt icky but E. Stephen’s approach to the issue as shared in his article didn’t cover the portrayal of obvious sin. Though he did say his approach was for Christians, he actually only thereby allowed an implication of a positive reason not to do something like that, i.e. I shouldn’t want to do kid porn because I want to please Christ. The influence I may have on others wasn’t an issue at all from his perspective as he explained it–unless you happen to know someone personally who has told you, “I have an issue with that.” I felt there’s something fundamentally wrong with thinking that way–concern for negative influence should go beyond people we know have an issue, especially when we know not everyone will say what issues they have. I felt the extreme case I used helped make that matter clear. Perhaps I could have picked a better example.
Yeah, Tom Clancy of course knew he couldn’t stop someone determined to build an atomic bomb (who managed to get the materials) from doing so. But he didn’t feel right that someone would learn how from him. He told the story he felt inspired to tell, but made some alterations to it out of a sense of responsibility. I clearly think a sense of responsibility is a good thing, something Christians should care about.
So I applaud the fact there are certain things you don’t feel right about including in a story, even if your specific reasons are different from mine. Yes–that’s what I’m talking about!
By the way, I went back to the original post and used an example of producing erotica that doesn’t affect me personally instead of using child porn. Maybe that example is more on point and won’t needlessly offend people.
Obviously I can’t know for sure what E. Stephen meant in his footnote, but some things occured to me while reading it.
Authors can’t necessarily know if a stranger will read their stories. But, chances are, someone they know will. Taking the church example, if someone is open about their authorness, their fellow church members are probably going to get curious and check those books out. That is a big reason for an author to worry about content in that instance. It’s not that they should dodge their impact on strangers, but who a person knows is more within their locus of control. They have a lot more impact then.
I do agree the stuff you’re mentioning matters, but current social issues and the way Christians behave has a lot more impact on whether or not people keep their faith, so I tend to be more concerned about that. We should still talk and care about magic and paganism, but if a less common issue like that should take prevalence, our communication to others as Christians should be even higher. At least in a general sense. I do think that everyone has different areas that they should be able to specialize and focus on, though(so there’s nothing wrong with paganism being yours).
I’m not ashamed of my faith, and believe I should be free to talk about it. But aside from being too lazy to use avatars or signature banners most of the time, I don’t stick bible verses or ‘If you love God copy and paste this in your signature!!!’ Type things on my profiles. I’m well aware that I’m a difficult person, so no matter how hard I try to be nice I will slip up sometimes(or even a lot)
If upset, most people won’t see a flawed person that is genuinely trying to get better. They’ll see a jerk that they want to get rid of or dismiss. I don’t hide my faith, but I don’t hang flashing neon signs on myself because I don’t want to make my faith look bad. Not only is that obnoxious and stereotypical(upending stereotypes can actually go a long way in convincing people). But instead of just realizing that maybe I had a bad day or had a legitimate reason to defend myself, people will see the Christian symbol on my profile and blame Christianity instead of me. Or they’ll blame me and not know to leave Christianity out of it.
So, I talk about my beliefs, but considering how big an impact my behavior as a Christian can have, I try to be conscious of how I do it, because failing at that will drive people away from Christianity far faster than Marvel will.
An interesting aspect of speculative fiction fans is often we are outliers from the society at large. So Lelia Rose Foreman, my friend and a Christian author I admire, is autistic. Kerry Nietz, another Christian author I admire, has enormous inside knowledge of computing that goes way beyond what most people have. He can talk about cyborgs and programming in a way few people can match. The two of them are among many examples I could use.
I am an outlier, too. I am in so many ways different from how most people are, in part a product of spending a great deal of my childhood in isolation, that it’s really hard for me to predict how the things I say will come across. Perhaps in compensation for that, I’m sensitive in person and often read immediately if I’ve gone the wrong direction in a conversation from the facial expression people have.
It does occur to me that my emphasis on responsibility may be what I need more than others. That I will say things other people find very offensive without it having occurred to me that what I said was offensive at all. That other people will naturally refrain from saying something or portraying something in a story because it doesn’t seem right to them, whereas in my own nature I will say pretty much anything–so I need specific reasons to hold myself back.
Maybe that’s the case, but one of the things I have come to believe is living the Christian life requires the power of God every moment of every day. I’m far from appropriating the power of God 100%. But I’m striving for it.
The answer E. Stephen offered to seemed to me to say that for the most part, Christians, you don’t have to give any thought about the consequences of your actions. Only if you know somebody and only if the event is happening in the present. Perhaps he said that while unconsciously restricting what he says and does in numerous small ways out of an unspoken sense of responsibility that he might not even be aware of, responsibility not only to himself, but also to others.
But I actually need to state, “Responsibility is important.” And things along those lines. Subconscious performance without conscious understanding doesn’t work for me.
Eh, yeah. As implied earlier, I can definitely sympathize with feeling isolated and having a hard time dealing with other people. I wasn’t geographically isolated, but I was from a psychological standpoint. When something bad happens, it hurts, so I’ve practiced predicting/understanding people’s thought patterns so I can figure out how to keep the bad things from happening as often as possible.
Obviously it’s impossible to be accurate all the time, but it’s staved off some of the worst things for me, so I think there’s definitely something to what you’re saying about compensating. Maybe you do that more through an awareness of other’s feelings than their thoughts. I don’t know since I don’t know you well enough to type you. I’ve always believed thoughts influence emotions(people think and therefore they feel), which is another reason why I pay more attention to thoughts. Maybe to you it’s the other way around?
But yeah, responsibility is important. The fun part is navigating how to go about it, and where the boundaries are.
In a way, embracing responsibility is like embracing any other artistic limitations. I mean, certain things you just cannot do the same with water colors as oil paints. You accept that, do your best, and move on.
Likewise I think people who are going to produce literature they identify as Christian will have to accept limitations that secular writers don’t have to worry about. But that’s ok–and it’s a long way from the end of creativity.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that Christians have no responsibility to examine their art or motivations. Rather, the issue is “are there clear biblical parameters for the type of art and fiction Christians are responsible to make”? That question seems a lot more sticky than the author appears to concede.
I think that’s what’s missing here — an allowance for the often ambiguous nature of art. No matter how clear an author’s intentions, offense may occur in the reader or viewer. Indeed, offense may be an important effect of the piece! Exploring the topic of spousal abuse, sex trafficking, or occult experimentation SHOULD trouble the reader! Even a circumspect approach to storytelling could potentially result in misinterpretation on the part of the reader. Compound that if said stories navigate sensitive subject matter. Isaiah prophesied naked for three years as a testament to Israel’s shame. The potential for “stumbling” his audience must have been incredible. Likewise, good art seems to walk a similar balance. Shocking our audiences is often necessary. Despite the offense that may ensue.
The great Welsh preacher Martyn Lloyd-Jones suggested that grace, when preached rightly, will always be misunderstood. Likewise, I think that even the most well-intentioned art can be misunderstood. In fact, being misunderstood may be a reasonable test of its relevance.
Mike, but I am the one arguing for stickiness as it were. I’m arguing that a Christian ought to embrace the idea that responsibility is real, even though we can be misunderstood. That we ought to do all we can, even though we know not everyone will get it. That we ought to be in prayer and we ought to TRY.
I never said not to shock the audience–though I think some shocking has no redemptive value at all. (Sometimes shocking is just shocking.) But I can agree that sometimes shocking is good.
I said SEEK GOD not “write safe stuff.” My point though was to direct the reader to God, not to go into the danger zone just for the heck of it.
It is E. Stephen Burnett offering a simple checklist on making art–do you know anyone in person who struggles with a particular sin. No? OK, good to go!!!
Almost always the answer will be “no” because it’s rare for people to discuss deep issues (sadly). But in those few cases where it isn’t a “no,” E. Stephen suggested a conversation with the person you know has a problem. Presumably you can persuade this one person to avoid your artwork, “OK, then, good to go!!!” This amounts to a guideline that doesn’t actually represent what Scripture actually says. Because the Scriptures says to love our neighbor as ourselves, not to cut excuses to do what we want, to hell with any effect on our neighbor.
Responsibility is real. Embracing that is walking the tightrope. And yes, I really do think looking for a simple checklist answer to this question really can function as a way to avoid examining one’s own art or motivations. Key word is “can.” I did not say it always functions as such–but looking for simple answers “can” function as a means to escape examining one’s motivations.
That’s why I am overtly and openly saying we must examine our own art and own motivations. Don’t pull out a ridiculously simple checklist.
One more thought–Martyn Lloyd-Jones is not someone I’m greatly familiar with, but first of all, his words are not Scripture. And his idea that grace will always be misunderstood as you are quoting him makes me think you are actually misunderstanding him. He had to mean the unbelieving world would misunderstand grace. It seems unlikely that he meant that everyone, Christian or not, would misunderstand.
If being misunderstood is a reasonable test of relevance, than what I said in this post must be relevant, because not just you, but the majority of commenters here misunderstood my point.
However, “being misunderstood may be a reasonable test” of relevance doesn’t hold up to scrutiny very well. Yes, some things that are relevant are misunderstood–certainly we see that in the prophets. Certainly Jesus was often misunderstood. But some things people understand just fine–but don’t want to hear anyway. (Please refer to the reactions to the preaching of Jeremiah–they understood what he was saying. They just didn’t like it.)
Thank you. This article is very encouraging. While I agree that we aren’t ultimately responsible for other people’s choices, we do have responsibilties as writers and especially, as Christians.
I heard once of an author who wrote a middle grade novel that glorified suicide. When several middle schoolers committed suicide after reading the book, the author made no apology and claimed no responsibilty. I found the story disturbing and have often contemplated our responsibilties as authors. I am thankful you put into words what I have always had a difficulty expressing.
Glorifying suicide at the middle grade level? How awful! Wow, I’m a bit surprised that got published because when it comes to younger kids, even this corrupt world engages in a bit of caution.
Thanks for getting what I’m talking about, though. I appreciate it.
I don’t think erotica is a much better example than child pornography, because i think there are solid Biblical arguments that erotica, whether you personally find it titillating or not, is wrong to write or read. The matter of tempting weaker brothers is tied to things that are explicitly not sinful — Paul is quite clear that there is nothing wrong about eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols — but nevertheless affects the consciences of other Christians.
Sarah, I don’t mind embracing complexity and you’ve opened up an issue that’s actually complex. Some people would argue that erotica is OK under some circumstances. I would not be one of those people, but they do exist.
Also, the matter of tempting weaker brothers itself is complex–it reveals that some things are sins for some people and not sins for others. What matters is violation of conscience. So while it is not inherently sinful to eat meat offered to an idol, it really WAS a sin for those who believed eating the meat involved worship of the idol. So the picture there is one person thinks that something is not a sin and other thinks it is–and they are both right.
I consider Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 to deal with “moral middle matters”–because on one side of them are things that are clearly always correct–like “pray without ceasing” and on the other side things that are always wrong, like blaspheming God. But some things are wrong based on how the person does it, what they are actually thinking at the time. Some things can either be right or wrong, and that’s what the passage deals with. I would not say that passage is actually about things that are explicitly not sinful.
But let’s say that passage really is about things that are not explicitly sinful. And erotica in your thinking is sinful, period. Then E. Stephen was being super inappropriate in dealing with temptation in writing, wasn’t he? Because if writing really can be sinful no matter what you the writer think about it, he should have offered some kind of guideline focusing on that FIRST and then getting around to the case of the weaker brother afterwards.
Whereas what I intend to be my emphasis–seek God in all you do and do your best to consider the consequences of your work–holds up against work that is sinful all the time and also against causing a brother or sister in Christ to stumble.
E. Stephen edited his footnotes, in case you haven’t seen/wanted to read 🙂
I’ll do that. Thank you.
His edits don’t change much of substance, but I’m glad he at least acknowledged a couple of things.
Yeah, just thought you and maybe anyone else interested in the conversation might like knowing there was a response, even if it doesn’t change anything for you 🙂
Mainly the insertion of a related theme, such as “here’s how this may apply to pagans/nonbelievers,” really needs to be done while showing the work, as it were. The central point is that sin comes from an inward attitude and is not directly transmitted by external things, such as food (Mark 7) or creative works. This biblical concept applies to both Christians and non-Christians.
E. Stephen, while I agree that sin comes from an inward attitude, the idea that what you are calling “external things” has no connection to sin people commit doesn’t match what I see in Scripture. Wasn’t ancient Israel influenced by the culture of their Pagan neighbors to worship gods other than God? Don’t people normally let their hearts be influenced by what they see other people doing? Of course the strong believer should be like Joseph or Daniel–who could live surrounded by Pagan culture yet maintain a witness for God and doing things God’s way to such a degree that when men jealous of Daniel’s success were looking for a way to accuse him, the only thing they could come up with was that Daniel would pray to God without concealing his prayers. (Daniel 6)
But Joseph, as much as he is an example of a strong believer in a Pagan culture, did he physically remain in the presence of temptation in confidence that his heart was strong enough to resist? At least on one occasion, no. He physically ran out of the presence of Potiphar’s wife, fleeing the external stimulus she provided, to ensure the battle in his heart would be won (Genesis 39).
As far as sensitivity to Pagans and their false worship, when Paul and Barnabas were at Iconium and they faced a crowd willing to see the two of them as Zeus and Hermes (based on a miracle they did in God’s power), their reaction was not indifference to the Paganism of people arguably committing the sin in their hearts already. No, they were afflicted that they might reinforce such Paganism–they tore their clothes and begged people not to worship them (Acts 14:8-18).
Though of course they didn’t abandon doing miracles at all for the sake of avoiding giving anyone the impression that they might be gods. Yet when faced with the reality that they could be seen that way, they were not indifferent to the fact. They tried to influence people not to do that–and couldn’t we call such an influence an outward thing, since refusing to receive worship as gods did not actually cure the Pagan beliefs of those who sought to worship them?
In Acts 19:19, people who had practiced magic yielded up their books of spells to be burned. Note I don’t believe such works are inherently full of demons or anything like that. I think it is possible for a Christian believer to own such works and be protected from demonic influence–yet the original users of these magic books saw nothing but temptation in their works. So they destroyed them. This example isn’t a call for censorship as it has been mistakenly seen. But what it was, paralleled what happen with Joseph. Destroying something that tempts you or otherwise separating oneself from the outward source of temptation is not something the Bible says is an evil thing to do–instead, the act of burning books of magic was seen as a sign of the power of the prevalence of God’s word (Acts 19:20).
Christians are directly commanded to flee from sexual immorality (I Cor 6:18), flee from idolatry (I Cor 10:14), flee from the love of money (I Tim 6:10-11) and more broadly, to flee “youthful lusts” (II Tim 2:22). Yes, I understand the use of “flee” in these contexts is at least at times figurative, probably even most of the time, as in “do everything to separate your hearts from”–but at times it is NOT figurative, as in the example of Joseph fleeing Potiphar’s wife, King Josiah destroying the idols the Israelites had worshiped (II Kings 23:6-30), and Jesus driving out the money changers (because of the sin they represented).
Physical objects and outward manifestations *can* actually provoke reactions from people that are wrong and disturb people’s spirits, even if that theoretically should not be the case. We can say that we all should be like Daniel and be able to surrounded but not affected. But putting aside the physical temptation if need be is seen in the Bible as a good thing.
Yes, the responsibility lies primarily with readers in how they react to literature–but I’ve already said that. But as creators, could it be that something we do could cause people to react in the wrong way? Isn’t caring about that issue stem from loving our neighbors as ourselves?
No, we cannot guarantee caring about such things will prevent harm–we can’t even get close to a guarantee about that. But since when does caring about our influence on others come with guarantees? Is parenting simple? Does being a good parent have guaranteed results? How about being a good friend or good teacher or good pastor? We cannot really be certain what our influence will be–yet we still TRY to be positive influences. We seek God and pray we can have positive effects. Why wouldn’t creators of stories or artworks be in the exact same position as a parent or a friend, in which we want to influence for good but can’t be sure what the outcome will be? We try, we pray, but in the end we have to trust God for any results.
But even though we trust God for the results, we realize we are responsible for what we do. Even though we can’t predict it fully.
Why would you want to suggest this issue is simple, boiling down to one way to look at one topic in the Bible, deciding that topic applies to only one set of people (a very small set)? When things aren’t that simple?