Stuart already posted about “Sci-Fi’s Brave New World,” the excellent article in Christianity Today by James A. Herrick, a professor at Hope College here in Southern California.  I want to encourage Spec Faith visitors to read the article. It can be a springboard to some excellent conversation over the next few weeks.

Here are a couple teaser quotes to spark your interest:

I have labeled the modern myths arising from science, science fiction, and new religions scientific mythologies. These powerful narratives represent a cultural current the church needs to take seriously as the source of a growing worldview. Propelled into post-Christian public consciousness by the powerful machinery of mass marketing and media, techno-spiritual myths do not draw audiences of millions because of compelling storytelling and mind-boggling special effects alone. They also provide spiritual seekers answers to perennial questions about our nature and place in the cosmos, our predicament and redemption, and the future.

And this one:

Which stories will guide us as we make our way through the perilous 21st century with its stunning technologies and burgeoning data about our bodies, minds, and universe? As science holds out to us possibilities previously only imagined, which myths will shape the imaginations of our decision makers? Which narratives will form our religious sensibilities, provide our spiritual values, and craft our view of the supernatural—indeed, of God? Only the true myth at the heart of Christianity is powerful enough to prevent excesses and avert atrocities. How can the church respond?

Let the discussions begin!

It is interesting how some aspects of Christian culture are starting to explore how Science Fiction has influenced modern culture. From a group of Christian filmmakers discussing the themes and implications of science fiction movies, to the February 2009 issue of Christianity Today having a cover story discussing how science fiction has shaped a new image of redemption stripped of Christ.

There is no doubting the impact that science fiction has had upon the world, as it has inspired generations of scientists to try to bring the fiction into reality. Unfortunately the influence has been mostly void of God. Deepening the thought pattern that science and God can’t mix.

What I found most interesting about the magazine article and the filmmakers review, is that they aren’t really looking to engage in science fiction from a Christian worldview. Rather, they are  warning Christians to just be aware that what they are seeing in science fiction is substituting redemption through Christ with redemption through technology/evolution/knowledge.

Over the next few weeks I’m going to be exploring how I think that we as Christians can begin engaging in science fiction actively (as I know many of you already are). Not just overlaying our worldview over the original storyteller’s in order to force spiritual insight on a story, but in crafting effective stories that ask questions and force the reader to find the answer for themselves.

My question for this week is: What is it about science fiction that you think enables it to influence the way people think about the universe and the rules that govern our existence?

You probably know by now that Walt Disney Pictures on Dec. 24 withdrew from its distribution deal with Walden Media, maker of the two Chronicles of Narnia films to date, 2005’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and 2008’s sequel, Prince Caspian.

But what wasn’t mentioned in last week’s column by the returned Jason Waguespack is that the third planned film adaptation of C.S. Lewis’s classic series, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, is back in action. Walden Media struck up a deal with 20th Century Fox, revealed by Variety and other publications on Jan. 28. So, Lord willing, the film will release Christmas 2010, with the original cast and much of the crew, and a new director (as planned before, anyway) — Michael Apted (Amazing Grace) will replace Andrew Adamson.

Much has been written and discussed about the reasons why Disney backed out of the film franchise. Yes, it can be traced back to Prince Caspian’s lack of huge blockbuster status in theaters. Still, though, the film remains on the list of top-20 2008 earners. It was just not as huge a blockbuster as the corporate heads had hoped, especially considering the first film’s higher domestic and international numbers.

For that lack of success, we have multiple reasons to consider.

1. The film’s release date and marketing difficulties

Prince Caspian, many have noted, released May 16, the height of summer blockbuster season, just before the much-hyped fourth Indiana Jones film and just after the surprise hit Iron Man.

However, the first Narnia film released in Christmas 2005 and its only competition was Peter Jackson’s King Kong, which released the next weekend. Narnia lost some ground because of the Lord of the Rings director’s anticipated remake, but eventually audiences seemed to agree with some critics that the film was a long, drawn-out, very expensive flick that didn’t have as much commercial appeal as Rings. Therefore, Narnia ultimately beat Kong that month.

Marketing for PC proved to be a bit stranger than that of LWW as well. Trailers for the first film presented this as “C.S. Lewis’s beloved masterpiece,” crediting the author and certain viewers would recognize the title and familiar story. The audience was more distinct for LWW: children, families, and adults who had grown up with the books and would appreciate a film adaptation.

However, PC’s marketing was very vague. “All that you know is about to change” was such an odd travesty of a promotional tag. The story wasn’t stressed as much as the visuals — a difficult-to-market blend of serious battles (older audiences?) and friendly talking animals (younger audiences?). Meanwhile, as Box Office Mojo noted, “the Prince Caspian character took center stage with no context or reason to care shown for those who haven’t read the books.” As for the Pevensies and Aslan, they were in the giant promo posters’ background.

2. The book’s relative obscurity

As a book, Prince Caspian itself ranks in the “lesser liked” category of the Chronicles of Narnia, if readers are forced to choose. I suppose I would place it there myself if compelled to make a choice, below my top three favorites (The Magician’s Nephew, The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle) and middle-three favorites (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Silver Chair, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader).

By virtue of being the first in the series, and a fantasy “groundbreaker” for its time, LWW was more easily recognized. Its story elements — a faun in the snow, a hundred-year winter, the Christlike death and resurrection of Aslan — are more unique.

Furthermore, in many ways, the PC book follows LWW in plot and pacing. And though the film took liberties with the storyline (more on this later), it was not able to make itself distinct.

3. Walden’s and the C.S. Lewis estate’s new hopes for release dates and marketing

NarniaWeb members “Rilian” and “GlumPuddle” (who himself visited the set of Prince Caspian, discussed in a Jan. 18 podcast what they knew or had guessed about Walden Media’s reaction to the second film’s lackluster success. Very likely, both the filmmakers and the C.S. Lewis estate (producer Douglas Gresham is Lewis’s stepson) had seen the flaws with Disney’s summer release for PC, as opposed to the Christmas-season release of LWW, and wanted to return to the holiday-release framework for Voyage.

However, if Disney kept the franchise, the company would probably insist on giving Voyage another summer release because of its seafaring themes, the podcasters proposed. Perhaps Walden was inflexible in its wishes, and that, along with continuing differences with adaptation and marketing strategies, resulted in a break between the two parties. Disney, as a larger and more powerful company, would understandably want more control over such decisions.

Coming soon

Continuing next week, I hope to cover more reasons and also offer my hopes for the forthcoming Voyage film, speaking from some experience as a moderator on the NarniaWeb forum. Here’s hoping Fox, who has distributed many other Walden films, will be able to overcome PC’s shortcomings and deliver audiences a much better Dawn Treader than the Disney/Walden pairing could have achieved.

Moreover, creators of other Christian fantasy and sci-fi can take note of what the films did right and what they didn’t — and what makes a truly great work of speculative-faith fiction.

I’m hoping that we can get Stuart Stockton, the man himself, to stop by Spec Faith and write a blog post or two, but in the meantime, marketing is underway for the April release of Starfire (Marcher Lord Press). In fact there is a contest at Stuart’s site, A Flip Side of Normal, which you won’t want to miss.

There are numerous ways to become eligible for one of the prizes being offered. One is to print and distribute Starfire fliers, then contact Stuart via the contest email to let him know the details (to whom, how many, and how you distributed them). Another is to include a Starfire button—available at The Flip Side of Normal—in one of your posts. (And of course none of the buttons are working here today, so I can’t upload the image I saved to my desktop!) A third is to sign up for the Marcher Lord Press Newsletter, also something you can do at Stuart’s Web site.

Besides looking into the contest, check out Jill Williamson’s site. You might remember that Jill’s novel By Darkness Hid, another Marcher Lord Press publication, is also releasing in April. In fact, her novel is one of the possible prizes you might win in Stuart’s contest.

Me, I’d love to win both Starfire and By Darkness Hid.

When we first started Speculative Faith more than two years ago, Stuart was a regular blogger here. On several occasions he posted some of his writing to generate discussion or to illustrate a point, and I remember thinking how amazing it was that he could make me feel for and care for non-human characters so completely. That ability brings to mind Richard Adams and Watership Down. At any rate, Stuart is an author I trust. He knows the craft of writing, and he will bring his readers into an intriguing story and a world he has created from top to bottom. I wouldn’t want to miss Starfire.

I feel just as strongly about By Darkness Hid, though. About two years ago, I met Jill in a SoCal gathering of Christian writers arranged by Rachel Marks. During that time, Jill learned that I do freelance editing, and we made  an agreement to work together. She sent me The New Recruit, a YA novel that is a little hard to categorize, but I think it belongs in the speculative arena. It was captivating, intriguing, well written, entertaining and I had little to do other than copy edit. So it was no surprise when I learned that Jeff Gerke had signed Jill.

One look at the book description convinced me that By Darkness Hid would also be my kind of fantasy. Here’s what other writers have to say about it:

“By Darkness Hid more than fills the bill. With an unpredictable plot, twists of supernatural ability, and finely crafted tension between the forces of good and evil, Jill Williamson’s book had me captivated. I jumped into the skin of the heroine and enjoyed her journey as if it were my own.”
–Donita K. Paul, author of the Dragon Keeper Chronicles

“Jill Williamson is a major arrival. She presents characters full of mystery, and leaves room for plenty of further exploration. By Darkness Hid is a fast-paced addition to the world of swords and sorcery, using a backdrop of political and spiritual intrigue to heighten the tension. When readers begin lining up for the sequel, you’ll find me at the front of the line.”
–Eric Wilson, author of Field of Blood and Haunt of Jackals

My suggestion is, hurry on over to Stuart’s contest and get started so you have a chance to win a copy of both these excellent books.

First off, I have finally, finally figured out how to work this thing, or maybe I just found a better browser. Anyway, after a hiatus of…hmmm….it’s been too long for me to remember…I’m back!

So, now that I’ve gotten that taken care of, on with the show!

*Ahem*

As we began the 2000 decade, it seemed swords and fantasy on the big screen was in. But as we approach the 2010 decade, it seems the genre has run out of gas. Remember when we thought the releases of the first Harry Potter movie and the Lord of the Rings movies would usher in a new wave of fantasy? As it turned out, those plus Narnia were the only ones that truly broke out.

Consider the fantasy titles of the past decade: A Series of Unfortunate Events, Bridge to Terabithia, Eragon, The Dark is Rising, City of Ember, The Spiderwick Chronicles, Inkheart, The Golden Compass, The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep, Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, Peter Pan, and Ella Enchanted. It’s hard to find a movie in there that truly captured the hearts of filmgoing audiences; many of them were in and out before you knew it. Studios sank tons of cash to bring the otherworldly to life, but didn’t get a lot of coin in return.

The ones that succeeded seemed to have to really transcend the genre to achieve widespread success. The Shrek films were mostly satirical jokes on old fairy tales. Narnia and LOTR are like the granddaddies of modern fantasy that everyone else has been ripping off of, and Harry Potter was a pop culture phenomenon that made Pokémon look like Go-Bots. If we want to count the Pirates of the Caribbean flicks, those came from a Disney theme park ride, and seemed to ride the wave of Johnny Depp’s weirdness as much as the swords and swashbuckling.

It seems nothing outside of the Narnia-Lord of the Rings-Harry Potter troika has broken out yet. In fact, if you check boxofficemojo.com, you’ll find a list of live-action fantasy films by box-office gross-and every slot in the first ten is taken up by every Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, or Narnia film. This may not bode well for future fantasy films, as studio heads may conclude that the trio had tons of name recognition and goodwill to put people in theater seats, enabling them to surpass the restrictions of a genre that produces more cult hits than box office hits. Many of these other books that got adapted are generally the books you read after you’ve read one of the troika. Who was talking about The Golden Compass before it became a movie? It was always on the bookshelf, but it never had Harry Potter’s cache, and audiences didn’t know what to think of it when it came out as a movie. The Golden what? And it certainly didn’t help that TGC was written by a man who had a bone to pick with Christianity. Nope, not at all.

Prior to the troika, it’s hard to think of a fantasy film that really was a major hit. Legend, Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, Dragonslayer, Dragonheart, none was a huge hit. Even George Lucas couldn’t push straight fantasy when he did Willow. It’s not an easy genre to master, and it’s not easy to make on the cheap unless you’re doing a Conan or Hercules rip-off in Italy with muscled guys in furry shorts. There are even signs that the big troika is running out of gas. Prince Caspian’s performance was so disappointing that Disney bailed on the forthcoming Dawn Treader picture, which is being picked up by Fox instead. The next Harry Potter flick was delayed until summer for fear that it wouldn’t perform as well.

So why does fantasy seem to be petering out? Is it just cyclical? Or were most of the movies just not that good? I personally saw Eragon, The Seeker: The Dark is Rising, and Inkheart. All of them disappointed me. Somehow, moviemakers just aren’t connecting with audiences. Or perhaps the genre itself is limiting in such a way that you need something more to make the leap to the mainstream, perhaps not unlike Star Wars. There were a number of sci-fi films made shortly after Star Wars, but none were big hits. Aside from LOTR or Harry Potter, a lot of the successful fantasy films were more like adventure pieces, like Indiana Jones or The Mummy. They had fantastical creatures or supernatural powers, but they were grounded more in the real world, taking their cue more from adventure serials than straight fantasy.

So, is it the movies themselves, or the genre? Maybe a bit of both?

Because I am not just a fantasy writer but a fan of fantasy, I’m happy to announce the coming of a new series, this one co-written by Christopher Hopper and Wayne Thomas Batson.

Last week Christopher announced the project and an upcoming book signing on his blog. The series is called The Berinfell Prophecies, and starts out with Book 1: Curse of the Spider King. I’m guessing this is aimed at the young adult audience because  the press release mentions Inkheart, a soon-to-be-released movie based on a YA novel by the same name written by Cornelia Funk.

Christopher also hints at something new and interesting as far as marketing goes, so you’ll want to keep an eye out for more information on that.

– – –

If you don’t subscribe to Latest In Spec, I encourage you to consider doing so. This newsletter is a great way to keep up with the what Christian speculative fiction is being released, who has reviewed what novel, where your favorite author is going to appear, how you can join in live chats, and much more. You can also download this free resource from the LIS Web site. The January issue is already available.

On Monday over at A Christian Worldview of Fiction, I began a discussion, in conjunction with the CSFF featured book for January, The Book of Names, about what constitutes too dark when it comes to fantasy. The comments were enlightening and prompted a second post. Again, a number of people responded, to the point that I felt I wanted to make some wrap up comments, but I had yet to give my review of the book. In the end I opted for continuing the darkness discussion here.

First, my basic assertions:

• Darkness is in the eye of the beholder
• But there is a line writers can cross that would create too much darkness
• For me, that line means I must not glorify evil or make it look appealing

One commenter noted that evil is appealing, which is why it is so deadly. I thought that was a great point and is actually something I try to convey in book 2 of my fantasy quatrain. But here’s the thing. The evil needs to be appealing to the character without being appealing to the reader. That’s a tough one, I think, if the reader is identifying with the character. But I think it is necessary or else the book will actually be informing readers of evil.

This brings up another point. Several comments pointed out that we live in an evil world where there is prostitution and where spouses cheat, sons go to war, women are raped, and men desire to bed children. Granted, all that is true. But as others pointed out, evil is also gossip and lying and disobeying parents and pride. On one hand, if we only show the “trivial sins,” people living in the raw world may scoff at our naivete. But if we depict the “majors,” others may think we’re giving a pass to the things God is opposed to.

To be honest, this is why I love fantasy. I don’t have to show the specific sins that my evil characters do, though I suggest them. Instead, I aim to show that they are evil, and let readers extrapolate what all that might entail.

One commenter made the point that the darkness should not be gratuitous—meaning that it should be properly motivated and necessary to the story.

Another said the key is also showing the light in proper balance with the darkness.

Rachel Starr Thomson gave us the link to her excellent article, “Beauty and the Beast” in which she said

Evil can’t be overcome by ignoring it.  You have to buckle on your sword, swallow your fears, and overcome evil with good.  In a way, that’s what fantasy authors are doing every time they set their Frodos on the road to Mount Doom.  Many of us realize, as I do, that this world of ours is in the midst of its own epic battle—our stories are one way we hope to tip the scales in the heroes’ favour.

Another commenter said the way to identify whether or not a work is too dark is to look at the intent. If the darkness is present for the sake of darkness, if it is glorifying darkness, then it has crossed the line.

In all fairness, since it is his book that sparked the whole discussion, I thought I’d quote D. Barkley Briggs’ comment and let him have the last word—that is, until you all respond. 😉

Becky, what a fascinating and thoughtful thread…and a great angle to feature my title. Thank you! As for my own personal view, I tend to side with Ted Dekker, although perhaps with a bit more caution regarding the final outcome. If evil is not presented as truly evil, there should be cause for suspicion and alarm, since we are left unclear as to the great need for divine intervention. The difference between Hitler taking over Europe vs. Mikhail Gorbachev (just pulling a name out of a hat) are instructive. If Hitler was not recognized for his evil ambitions, the Allied powers would not have marshaled to defeat him. On the other hand, a writer wishing to portray the realities of evil too explicitly can perhaps begin to revel in it, with the net effect bringing fascination and allurement to the reader for things which should otherwise horrify. Of course, this is subjective, as you say. And each person, before the Lord, will have a different threshold for what defiles their own conscience. The target audience of a writer will likewise vary. Those steeped in, let’s say, Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles may be so conditioned to a certain level of darkness that they would dismiss as naive, and therefore never read, something less than Dekker. Therefore, Ted stands a chance of reaching folks I might not. But I don’t think this should be interpreted as literary carte blanche. God does not shrink from his depictions of evil, but a great deal of what he clarifies is how attractive evil is to the human soul at the most subtle and fundamental levels, simply because we are fallen creatures. Therefore any depiction of evil must be clear-minded in its ultimate aim, which is to create an atmosphere in which the light may shine the brighter.

Thanks for letting me add my two cents! And thanks for a very thoughtful treatise.

Comment by D. Barkley Briggs

If you haven’t already had a chance to check out the others participating in the blog tour, I encourage you to set aside some time this week and check out these: Sally Apokedak/ Brandon Barr/ Keanan Brand/ Rachel Briard/ Melissa Carswell/ Valerie Comer/ Frank Creed/ Amy Cruson/ CSFF Blog Tour/ Stacey Dale/ D. G. D. Davidson/ Shane Deal/ Jeff Draper/ April Erwin/ Karina Fabian/ Andrea Graham/ Todd Michael Greene/ Timothy Hicks/ Joleen Howell/ Jason Isbell/ Cris Jesse/ Jason Joyner/ Carol Keen/ Magma/ Rebecca LuElla Miller/ Mirtika/ Eve Nielsen/ Nissa/ John W. Otte/ Steve Rice/ Crista Richey/ Alice M. Roelke/ Chawna Schroeder/ Rachel Starr Thomson/ Steve Trower/ Fred Warren/ Phyllis Wheeler/ Jill Williamson/

As I’ve planned, my hope this week is not so much to write a giant essay or series of essays, as I’ve done during the past year. Instead, I’d like to start conversations with a question — and gradually let my own views on the topic be revealed, and perhaps developed, in the comments.

So my question for this week is this:

Are extraterrestrials and extra-fast travels alien to Christianity?

This has been a hot topic in Christendom for years, and it especially related to how Christians approach science fiction, whether enjoying futuristic stories, or creating them.

Most of the Christian sci-fi stories I’ve seen either focus on Earth only. Or they’re set in Star Wars-like parallel universes in which Earth and Earthlings are nowhere to be found and God and Christianity exist in symbolic form — such as in Kathy Tyers’ Firebird trilogy.

Some end-times thrillers acknowledge alien activities, only to have it be revealed (shockingly!) that these things are actually demonic in origin (a plausible view that I share, but I don’t think it’s that shocking a conclusion anymore).

Only one Christian-published book I’ve read so far — John Olson’s and Randall Ingermanson’s The Fifth Man — includes the finding of extra-terrestrial life, though in keeping with both less controversial theology and more realistic science, the discovery is that of microbes, not some kind of humanoid civilization.

(By the way, I had thought to address this topic even before the London Sun said today that NASA scientists would unveil the news of evidence for living Martian microbes. …)

Answers: Yes, no …

I think we actually have three potential answers to the question about whether extraterrestrial life exists.

The first would be yes. Along with creating Earth and all its lifeforms in six days as described in Genesis 1-2, God could have also placed different civilizations on other planets. They could be humanoid, they could be more creature-like, they could be something we can’t even imagine based on our own experience with the way life operates. Of course, we can’t know for sure.

That phrase, though, almost immediately follows after speculation that God may have created extraterrestrial life: of course, we can’t know for sure. I haven’t run into any Christians yet who claim that someday we’ll be able to meet these aliens. Instead, Christians who speculate about this are wise enough to realize that the Bible is at best silent on the question. There’s plenty we can know for sure from Scripture, but God hasn’t directly revealed the truth on that issue.

Thus, any speculation outside of Scripture needs to be clearly disclaimed for what it is. But I would argue that even Christians speculating — even in fiction — must conform to God’s Word.

The second answer would of course be no, God didn’t create alien life. I’m sure we’ve heard that response before, especially by those Christians who aren’t too fond of science fiction or a lot of speculation about space travel and science. However, even more-imaginative Christians find indirect, though clear, Biblical basis for disbelieving the existence of aliens.

Gary Bates, author of Alien Intrusion, runs down the reasons with a quick logical overview (I blogged a longer excerpt here). Scripture is clear that if aliens were to exist, God must have created them, Bates writes. But the original creation was both a) centered on God’s creation of man in His image on day 6, and b) corrupted by the sin of Adam and Eve sometime afterward. Thus, the whole universe was affected by the resulting disease and death. However, the Bible tells us repeatedly that Christ died for the sins of human beings. The entire Biblical narrative of sin and redemption has humans as its focus. No mention is made of something literally “out there” such as the inevitable question: how would some form of sentient alien race be redeemed from sin?

Bates concludes his argument:

[Christ] died once. That’s it. Moreover, in the new creation, ruled by Christ, redeemed humanity is going to live as Christ’s “bride” throughout eternity (Eph. 5:22-33; Rev. 19:7-9). Not only is it clear that even the new creation will be designed for mankind, but the idea of Christ separately visiting the planet Vulcan to redeem aliens living there falls down here, too. Because marriage is defined as monogamous—one man for one woman, and the marriage of Christ and His church, born from the spear wound in His side, is a clear parallel to the first man and his bride, born from a wound in the side of Adam. In other words, Christ will not be a bigamist or polygamist. He will have one bride in eternity, not two (an earthly and a Vulcanian one).

Thus, both Scripture and Biblically based logic rule out the existence of extraterrestrial life.

One derivative from this view explains all the UFO sightings and religious fervor over the ideas of aliens, abductions and such — saying that Satanic trickery is at the root of most of it. From what I’ve read in both the Bible and Biblically based material, I agree: plenty of Scripture verses speak clearly about demons still being active in today’s world, deceiving those who reject Christ. Many Christians who’ve been delivered from these false teachings have testified that their New Age practices were interconnected with “UFO” occultic beliefs. Alien Intrusion does a great job of documenting the ways those deceptions work together.

Answers: … Or maybe someday

Bates in his book not only addresses the alien question, but other science-fiction concepts such as interstellar travel, or speculative propulsions such as warp drive or hyperspace jumps.

Ever the realist — though it seems Bates enjoys science fiction with the best of the fanboys — the author brings up some dark matters that faster-than-light travel agents would just prefer avoid. That includes the incredible distances between star systems, the unfathomable amount of energy needed to travel even half light speed, space particles that would rip a space vessel to shreds, and the Biblical and logical oppositions to evolution (which is assumed by many to be the way aliens would have come about, without a Creator).

I would like to say, though, that I think while aliens and fantastic space technologies would be impossible now — why wouldn’t they be possible in the New Heavens and New Earth?

Author Randy Alcorn thinks it could be possible, yet he’s wise enough to realize this is all speculation. I don’t have his book Heaven in front of me, yet toward the last of that volume, Alcorn writes chapters about the New Earth’s characteristics and what redeemed residents will be doing there throughout eternity.

Biblical reasoning for fantastic science and technology is easier to come by than aliens being created. But Alcorn rightly observes this: nothing about the idea of God creating new creatures, whether on Earth or outside it, would detract from His glory.

So have hope, space cadets! Even if we don’t have Klingons, Vulcans, Green Martians, Wookies, Slitheen or Judoon (from Doctor Who) in this universe, why couldn’t they exist in the redeemed universe? Even better, with aliens existing in the New Universe, we won’t face threats from invasion, or the unnecessary involvement of anti-Christian beliefs or storylines.

From Scripture, though, we know that God never does anything except that which will bring Him the most glory, and humans are the highlight of His creation and redemptive story. We can be sure nothing He’ll do on the New Earth will contradict those goals, or detract from our enjoyment of His redeemed creation. In this creation, though, I think His people have plenty of freedom for some sanctified speculation — or parallel-universe stories set in fantastic other worlds, where He and humans may not be present directly, but are definitely represented.

What do you think?

“I hope to finish this series by outlining some Biblically based starter concepts, as best I can, next week.” That’s what I said more than three months ago. But I haven’t posted a thing to Speculative Faith at all in between, and that just makes me feel annoyed with myself.

But I suppose I can be glad for the delay. Maybe I can write more effectively about this issue now than I could have before!

My first part of the series dealt with the view that seems the least popular in American Christendom: the legalistic idea that Christians should avoid “bad” stuff and think only about wholesome and inoffensive things. I say that’s the least popular view, given the state of the western Church nowadays, and I kind of cheated writing about it because taking a stand against legalism is very popular (and, dare I say, too easy).

But as I wrote in part 2, some professing Christians head to the opposite extreme: the idea that media choices can’t really affect us, so we can exposure ourselves to all the R-rated crap we like. After all, to think otherwise would be Legalistic, and we don’t want to be like that, right?

In response, I’m offering (Lord willing) a more Biblically balanced view. In the last column, I touched on many Scriptures relating to what we put into our minds and suggested that the Apostle Paul didn’t suggest Christians avoid exposure to all kinds of evil, such as violence or curse words, because they would hurt us or allow the Devil to have “footholds.” Instead, he asked, Would whatever it is glorify God? And he did have a lot to say about avoiding sexual immorality in particular — which is one of the easier sins by which to be tempted in media.

Now I hope to continue this concept, and outline ways this especially affects writers and readers/viewers of the speculative faith-fiction genres.

Bad news comes first

Some weeks ago, I was telling someone about a Star Trek: Voyager episode I had recently viewed. In “The Killing Game,” aliens called Hirogen have taken over the lone starship. The creatures’ culture emphasizes hunting others above everything else, and they’ve brainwashed some of Voyager’s crew members into believing the crew is part of a holodeck story involving French villagers trying to resist Nazis. (The story ends spectacularly, with holographic Klingons from another simulation battling aliens and Nazis alike.)

At one point in the story, one of the holographic Nazi characters is extolling the grandeur of Hilter’s Third Reich. “No one can deny us, no power on Earth or beyond,” he proclaims with stern Aryan arrogance. “Not the Christian Savior, not the God of the Jews. We are driven by the very force that gives life to the Universe itself.”

Apart from being one of the rare mentions of God, much less Christ, on Star Trek, I simply needed to pause the DVD at that point and recover. Whew. It took a moment to realize this was a picture of true history. There were, and still are, people who think this way. The program presented it for what it was: evil. And this was one of those moments in which I almost prayed for this character to be defeated, then realized my disbelief had been suspended quite high, and that my prayer could be redirected to reality instead.

In that moment, darkness was clear. But then, God and His truths seemed even clearer.

Someone might react with revulsion, though, wondering, How in the world could you stand hearing that? Such an objection is confusing to me. After all, Scripture is full of blasphemous statements, too — if taken out of context. Psalm 14:1 says, “There is no God,” then rebuts it. Ecclesiastes is full of philosophical wanderings that often resemble stream-of-conscious thoughts, and just as often seem to deny God. False doctrines in the church are frequently echoed in the epistles, then refuted and crushed by the Truth.

Moreover, the whole Bible is structured around this example, and I wish many Christians — on both the “legalistic” and “cheap grace” sides — would see that better. How we echo the Gospel, both in fiction and “nonfiction” ways, is strongly affected by our starting points. Do we begin with the good news first, or the bad news?

A Biblical balance of Grace and Truth

Both all-good-news and all-bad-news kinds of “Christianity” (or real Christianity affected by false teachings) often try to overcorrect the other extreme. People who’ve been exposed to “too much truth,” and not enough love and mercy, swerve the opposite way and try to grab more grace, and those who’ve lived their lives with “too much grace,” and few reminders of truth, head the other direction and overdose on truth.

Author Randy Alcorn has a great little book about this — The Grace and Truth Paradox. It’s small, less than 100 pages, with a very simple message: Christ as the Word came to bring both grace and truth, and Christians need to embrace the same.

It’s such a simple message, of course, that many Christians miss it in their “nonfiction” lives. I maintain we need to put both grace and truth in our fiction, too.

Sure, those who’ve been overexposed to either legalistic or libertarian mutations of “Christianity” may need to receive more teaching about either God’s grace or His truth. But the best solution is to include both in balance in our fiction writing and reading. That will help prevent overcorrection into one error or the other, and thus a lack of emphasis on God at the center, not just Avoiding the Other Error Which is The Worst Error of All.

To do otherwise is to fall into an age-old trap, as C.S. Lewis observed:

[The Devil] always sends errors into the world in pairs — pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them.
C.S. Lewis, from Mere Christianity

Biblical starter concepts

So what’s the “best” way to balance grace and truth — and light and darkness, righteousness and recognition of this world’s evils — in fiction? I might condense my suggestions from this and my previous two columns, based on how the Bible itself balances these:

• Avoid unrealistic views of the world and thinking about only pure things if you follow Christ. Bad things will happen. Sometimes we must get our hands dirty.
• Recognize the world’s evils exist, and be as realistic as Scripture is, in your storytelling. But don’t focus on particular presentations of sin — especially sexual sins — so much as to titillate readers. (These standards vary, and it requires prayer, careful discernment and asking people questions to stay balanced.)
• In echoing the Gospel, especially, skipping the bad news about human depravity is just as damaging as skipping the good news about grace and love. Make sure a Biblical balance is included — focusing on Scriptural truth and grace, and not just overcorrecting the perceived extreme of one or the other.
• Most importantly, I would suggest: maintain your own exposure to Biblically balanced nonfiction about good and evil, truth and grace, light and darkness, spiritual safety and taking risks in the name of the Kingdom. I think that if we are overexposed to “cutesy Christianity,” both our spiritual growth and capacities to withstand evil will be stunted. At the same time, overexposure to blood-and-guts truths of the world not only leads to depression about sin’s presence, but temptation to give in to those evils, forgetting that God will win.

I would add to that last that growing in balanced, in-depth study of Scripture and nonfiction works about the Bible are helpful to Christian authors for many other reasons. Some of those I might elaborate upon in a future column. But I think I’d like to write something about “Scripture, superheroes and human sin nature” first!

So there it is — at long last, the complete The obscurity of ‘purity’ and Christ-honoring art column series on Speculative Faith. I hope it was helpful, and I’d love to hear any reactions about this or the previous two columns. Soli Deo gloria!