How evil must evil be? As we march steadily closer to Halloween here in the US, and the “celebration” of evil that the holiday has become, at least in some respects, I find myself thinking more about evil in fiction, particularly fantasy. Must fantasy include a unifying evil force that opposes the good?

We know in real life that there are evil people who do malicious and harmful things because they love to hurt others. But I suggest those are in the minority. Rather, any number of people would declare themselves neutral. They simply want to go along to get along. They don’t want to bother anyone else in hopes that no one bothers them. Are they evil?

Is the mom who did not get help for her troubled son or did not correct him when he started lighting fires in the neighborhood—and maybe even covered for him so others wouldn’t know about his issues—is she evil?

How about the guy who says he’s protecting others and in the process denies their freedom and right to choose? Is he evil?

The point is this: evil in the real world is not so easy to pin down—not without God’s clear standards. There are a number of Psalms in the Bible, even some by King David, that talk about the way of the righteous in contrast to the way of the wicked. But David was a murderer and an adulterer. Would he be part of the righteous or the wicked?

Sometimes I think our speculative fiction, because it is predicated on the trope of good versus evil, approaches the subject in a way that draws a stark line between the two, when in reality there is no such line.

Narnia certainly told stories with clear lines of a sort, but then Lewis slipped in “the good dragon” Eustace who was trying to protect the Dawn Treader rather than destroy it. But he was a dragon. Was he good or evil?

The Narnia books had central antagonists, wicked characters, such as Jadis in The Magician’s Nephew. But that book also includes Digory, who Aslan must rebuke, and his Uncle Andrew, who brags, from time to time, about his association with the witch. So was Digory evil, until he wasn’t? How about the somewhat repentant Uncle Andrew?

Ultimately, would a fantasy be strong if the only evil was “quasi-evil” acting independently and unattached from a clearly defined evil antagonist?

I think of The Lord of the Rings and the many evil characters in those books. Some were independently wicked, such as the white wizard-turned-to-his-own-way, Sauruman. What about Wormtongue and King Theoden? Or Boromir’s father, Denethor II? Or Bormmir himself? He wanted to force Frodo into giving him the One Ring to Rule Them All, so that he could protect Gondor. Was he evil?

The consequences of his actions seemed wicked. Are a person’s actions what qualify him as evil or are we to look at the character’s thoughts and intentions?

In truth, in the real world, all people are born into sin, essentially putting us into the camp of the enemy, as either a victim or a perpetrator, until we are rescued and transferred into the Kingdom of God’s own Son.

Must Christian speculative stories show this ultimate divide between God and His enemy? Is that truly what sets fantasy apart as a genre because it can show the realities of spirituality in ways that other stories can’t? Or is it OK for stories to center on a dragon who is terrorizing the Lake Town or Shelob, the spider who guards the passage into Mordor? Can a story be about a Boromir who wants to accumulate power for himself as a means to do good, but by doing so, becomes the very evil he wants to defeat? Are those stories “evil enough”? Or must there be the over-arching enemy of all that is good that takes center stage in the conflict?

Interestingly, in Lord of the Rings, the Dark Lord, Sauron, rarely makes a personal appearance. Yet, clearly, he is the motivating factor behind the forces aligned against the men of Gondor.

I wonder which would be the scariest on Halloween: a dragon, a witch, a spider, an orc, Golum, a black rider, or a searching eye. Which, if it were real, would be the biggest threat? My guess is, the greatest wickedness would be the one we least fear. It’s familiar, comfortable even, without the dangerous elements we usually associate with evil.

And the parallel: which characters in our contemporary Christian speculative fiction are the scariest to our characters? to our readers?

Photos available at Pexels.

Caution: This article contains spoilers from It: Chapter Two.

It: Chapter Two finds seven childhood friends reuniting after twenty-seven years to face off against an enemy that has returned to terrorize their hometown. The film, while offering up plenty of hilarious moments, takes viewers on a roller-coaster of memory, disguises, and revelatory truths.

Although I’m someone who generally shies away from horror films, I found the defeat of Pennywise supremely satisfying.

If memory serves

After a couple of gruesome murders, Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa) becomes convinced that Pennywise has returned to Derry, Maine. He calls up the six friends with whom he made a blood oath almost three decades ago. Richie, Eddie, Stanley, Beverly, Ben, and Bill have moved on from the past. But once they return to Derry, it becomes evident that they don’t remember much of what happened during that blood-drenched summer.

Mike convinces them that the first step in defeating their enemy is for them to remember their past experiences. Rich and Eddie argue against this. After Pennywise tortures them psychologically at the Losers Club reunion dinner, the two want to leave the past in the past and return to their current lives. They even go back to their hotel to pack. However, Beverly reveals that she has been having nightmares of each member of the Losers Club dying. The group realizes that they only have one more chance to defeat It. If they don’t, they will all eventually die in gruesome ways.

Each Loser sets off on a mission to uncover something (an “artifact”) from the past—a token of their prior battle with the monstrous clown.

It’s natural to want to block out negative memories and bad experiences—especially when those experiences involve personal failures. But memory is a powerful weapon in our battle with the force of evil in the world.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes” (2 Corinthians 2:11). As each of the Losers take a trip down memory lane, they relive past experiences. Repeatedly, each of them nearly succumbs to Pennywise’s lies about who they are and how they failed in the past. And, repeatedly, each of the now grown-up Losers realizes that they are only being manipulated by their enemy into believing that they are still bound by the failures of their youth. “It’s not real. It’s not real,” they pant in desperation.  And then they break free from the mind games—learning from the past, but not living in it.

By returning to their past experiences, the Losers are reminded of their weaknesses and blind spots. This knowledge arms them for future combat with Pennywise. Likewise with believers, by being aware of the temptations that easily beset us, we can brace for the blows of the enemy.

He comes in many forms

The plot of It: Chapter Two is driven by Mike Hanlon’s secretive plan to destroy Pennywise. Mike believes that Pennywise is just a physical manifestation of an extra-dimensional evil force that fell from the sky hundreds of years ago—information he found out from a Native American tribe during his research on the history of Derry. In a drug-induced vision scene, Mike and Bill witness the “Deadlights” fall comet-like from the sky and strike the earth.

The scene instantly reminded me of Isaiah’s words: “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!” (Isaiah 14:12). Or, as Jesus put it: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18).

In 2017’s It movie, the Losers focused on defeating Pennywise the Dancing Clown. However, Pennywise is only a tangible representation of an evil spiritual power. That spiritual power took on a different form for the Native Americans. The clown is only the form in which it appears for the people of Derry. Mike believes that the same ritual that freed the Native Americans from It’s terror can be used again to eradicate Pennywise and permanently destroy the influence of the Deadlights.

Like the Deadlights, the Wicked One in our world is adept at shapeshifting. Satan is a master of disguise who often “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). However, our method for defeating Satan is always the same. We are not fighting a person, a place, or a set of circumstances. We are fighting a “roaring lion who walks about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8)—even if he appears as a cuddly Pomeranian.

He’s just a clown

In the climactic battle, Pennywise grows to an enormous size. He also morphs into a massive spider-clown with giant shears at the ends of its appendages. It chases the Losers around an underground cavern, making light work of Mike’s elaborate ritual aimed at destroying It and the Deadlights for good. After Pennywise stabs Eddie in the chest, the Losers despair of ever defeating their enemy. In a last-ditch effort, they attempt to trick the clown into following them into a small space so that he will be forced to reduce in size, giving them a better chance at killing it. Pennywise, however, thwarts that plan.

All is lost, until the Losers realize, “There’s more than one way to make someone small.”

They turn the tables on Pennywise and use his own tricks against him. They tell the monstrous circus freak: “You’re a headless boy. You’re a weak old woman. You’re just a clown. You’re just a clown!”

Pennywise’s biggest weakness turns out to be the very tool he uses to terrorize his victims. He twists the truth to keep people under his power, but he can’t handle the truth about himself.

Similarly, Satan deceives us into believing that our faults, failures, and weaknesses are the be-all and end-all of our existence. He wants to keep us trapped and tormented by fear so we can never cast him out and be made perfect in the Father’s love (1 John 4:18). If we believe Satan’s lies about ourselves—and Satan’s lies about himself—we will never break free from fear, torment, trauma, depression, anxiety, and sin. Like Rich and Eddie at the beginning of the film, we will believe that there’s no hope and that we are better off not attempting to fight the evil that has taken hold in our lives and in our environments.

Pennywise doesn’t know how to handle the Losers telling him the truth about himself. He turns out to be just as vulnerable as any child. As the verbal assault continues, he stumbles backward, falls, and shrinks in size till he’s no larger than a toddler. With every second, the Losers grow bolder. They realize that they’ve had this power all along. They just didn’t know how to use it.

Like Christ in the wilderness, we defeat Satan with the power of words—God’s words, the living Word that abides in our hearts and minds. And what does the Word tell us about our enemy?

“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Romans 16:20)

“Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7)

“Little children, you are from God and have overcome [demonic spirits], for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4)

“And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Revelation 12:9)

“I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer” (Revelation 20:1–3)

Satan knows Scripture, probably better than we do. He’s had a lot more time to study it, and he was there when a lot of it was being recorded. But he can only enslave us to fear if we don’t know—and believe—what Scripture says about him. We must realize that our enemy is just a clown. He’s a loser. He’s already been defeated. He casts a large shadow, but he’s small and shriveled. He only has the power that we give to him.

This article is a re-edited and re-purposed version of an old blog post I wrote on Aliens and Angels.  I’m using what I previously wrote in a different way here–here it will be the first in a series about “Aliens in Science Fiction,” a topic which has as many interesting aspects as “Magic in Fantasy,” aspects of interest to Christian authors looking for means to use common tropes in unique and thought-provoking and yes distinctly Christian ways.

As a self-identified Christian science fiction writer who only dabbles in fantasy and other genres, perhaps it’s no surprise that I’m interested in both angels and aliens as topics for stories. What I find surprising is that some people don’t believe there is any difference between the two.

Such angel = alien correlation has a variety of forms:

American Astronomer Carl Sagan pointed out in 1995 that stories of alien encounters here on Earth resemble stories of demonic capture of earlier times—or of the appearance of angels, or fairy creatures, or gods or demi-gods of even earlier times. Sagan believed that intelligent extraterrestrial life likely exists because he was persuaded evolution certainly could not have produced life only on Earth—yet he denied that made any sense to say aliens actually had already came to Earth, clandestinely visiting and/or abducting people. He was convinced if aliens had come all this way, they surely would have announced themselves. For him, the fact that these kinds of appearances have always existed demonstrated that this is a phenomenon that springs forth from the human psyche rather than what aliens do or do not do. For him, at least one kind of alien, the kind who are supposedly visiting Earth right now—and angels—consist of the exact same thing, that is, pure neurotic human imagination.

Also surprising, the atheist Sagan is quoted by an Evangelical Christian website called “Are Angels Demons?” in order to show evidence for a belief that Sagan would never have agreed to. The creators of the site would concur with the Biblical concept that God has created creatures that serve Him in the spiritual realm—angels—some of whom rebelled against Him and are now called demons. For the creators of the website, Alien visitors to Earth are real but are actually demons. For them, the fact the phenomenon of human beings having reported bizarre encounters with strange beings throughout history demonstrates that the demons are real and have been active for a long time—but now disguise themselves as “aliens” or are mistakenly reported as such. In looking up background information for this post when originally written back in 2012, I stumbled onto an entire sub-culture of Christians concerned about demons posing as aliens. If you’re curious about what they have to say for themselves, I found www.alienresistance.org an interesting, albeit strange, place to look around (also underground science).

Alien-looking angels or angelic-looking aliens?
Image credit: Undergroundscience.net

Note not only Christians view aliens and angels as both being spiritual. I ran into a rather strange YouTube presentation in which a medium explains how aliens and aliens are both spiritual beings–according to the “guides” who explained all this to him. To be honest, this gentleman sounds like a nut to me. But there really are people who connect to the spiritual world through meditation and other means that would qualify as magic forbidden by the Bible–and then claim to interact with both aliens and angels in the spiritual realm. Something I would definitely not recommend anyone dabble in.

By the way, I don’t claim to know for certain what the reality is behind stories of alien encounters and abductions. I’m inclined to agree with Sagan that if an alien species were to travel all this way–which is not at all an easy to do according to the best human understanding of the science of interstellar travel, it would not likely content itself with random captures of lost truck drivers in remote areas and people like that…but I don’t know for sure what real aliens would do. One of the prime characteristics they are supposed to have is to be different from human beings—perhaps that means they would do strange things we would not do ourselves. Like maybe travel all this way and then fail to announce themselves.

I also believe there are fallen angels operating in the spiritual realm—and I further believe there’s such a thing as human imagination and hysterical hallucination, not to mention hoaxes. Which of these is responsible for the alien abduction phenomenon? Real aliens? Unlikely I think, but I can’t be certain. Demons? More likely maybe. Hysteria? Maybe. Hoaxes? At times, sure. I don’t know how to balance these possibilities with certainty, but it at least seems possible that there could be multiple causes of people feeling that they’ve really met aliens or been abducted by them.

As far as the correlation between angels and aliens are concerned, there’s another point of view worth mentioning: the “ancient alien” perspective, the notion that aliens came to Earth in ancient times and were mistaken for spiritual beings. So when the Bible talks about heavenly creatures, these creatures “really” were aliens. Barry Downing in 1968 wrote The Bible and Flying Saucers in which he laid out this idea. He also claimed, by the way, that Jesus was an extraterrestrial, eventually called up to “heaven” by a UFO…It’s interesting to me that Biblical narratives are supposed to accurately capture what aliens look like, as the description given in Ezekiel 1 , but then when these supposed aliens land, everything they talk about concerning, say, the morality and religious practice of ancient Israel either 1) Would not make a lot of sense coming from aliens, 2) Is taken as being an inaccurate representation of what really happened…so Ezekiel would be getting his description of Bible “aliens” completely right, but what they said to him was completely wrong. Which makes no sense–yeah, I’m definitely not in agreement with this particular concept.

But note the variations among the idea that hold aliens and angels to be the same: 1) Both are imaginary 2) Both are spiritual 3) Both are extraterrestrial. I think all three ideas, while interesting, are wrong.

I believe in the reality of the spiritual realm and accept the Biblical descriptions of angels, as far as they go. Though there are actually quite a lot of details about angels the Bible never addresses. Aliens, life existing on other planets in our physical universe, would not be the same thing as angels. One being is spiritual, the other, physical. Aliens may or may not exist but I believe it’s possible they do, though I’ve known Christians who would disagree that aliens can exist—a topic I will bring up again later in this series. My own idea is if alien life exists (if), such life would have to have been created by God, just as God created life on Earth.

Having brought out the interesting confusion concerning the nature of aliens and angels, how can we use this to come up with story ideas?

Adrian Gilbert produced a lecture series on the topic of angels and aliens–supposedly non-fiction. I’m not sure what his conclusions are, but the topic has interested people before. Image copyright, Adrian Gilbert.

I think playing up similarities between the two is inherently interesting as a story device. The anthology I contributed to years ago, Avenir Eclectia, did this. In that story universe, a certain set of intelligent undersea aliens with telepathic abilities are called “angels” by the people of the world Eclectia and their sinister cousins are called “demons.” Grace Bridges wasn’t equating aliens and angels in the world of AE she created, but rather playing with perceived similarities. There were story arcs that mention human beings worshiping the-aliens-partially-confused-with-angels in the anthology set in this world that I helped edit. Which I think would realistically happen—and it would be interesting to see the effects on human beings who met aliens who they thought were angels, even though they aren’t.

Another story idea would be to create alien races that like us have accounts of a creator God and a fall into sin and a redemption…and also of heavenly beings that serve God but resemble the aliens, literally “alien angels.” What would these look like? What would happen if a human character were to actually meet an alien angel?

And if you put “alien angels” into a story from a point of view that takes faith in God seriously, would these angels be the same set of angels that on occasion interact with human beings, just “in different clothing”? Or could it be that the one creator God would retain a whole entirely different set of heavenly beings for this other purpose—who are not mentioned in the Bible because we humans don’t “need to know” about them? If so, what would the relationships be like between angels we know of and the alien angels?

Wouldn’t it be interesting if some sort of alien angel—or alien rather like an angel—resembled something we think of as evil but was not evil? So imagine one that resembled any particular monster…or–entirely innocently–a type that had red bodies, with cloven hoofs and horns…

What are your thoughts on stories that combine ideas about angels and aliens? Have you read such stories? If so, mention them. If you haven’t read such stories, would you be interested in reading them or maybe writing them? What other thoughts do you have on this topic?

At last, Lorehaven magazine’s fall 2019 issue arrives Oct. 22!

One week from today, subscribers can download the complete issue.

And of course, subscriptions are completely free.

This issue starts with a complete Enclave-a-palooza, celebrating the publisher’s 2020 vision. We review Ronie Kendig’s sci-fi launch Brand of Light and Sharon Hinck’s dancing fantasy Hidden Current. Plus we interview both authors and other Enclave voices.

We also review twelve more fantastical stories. Here’s the complete table of contents.

Preview Lorehaven magazine’s fall 2019 issue

Captain’s Log

When stories have tempting moments, let’s be charitable to their authors.

Sponsored Reviews

• Beatitudes and Woes, editor: Travis Perry
• The Flame of Telbyrin, Br. Benedict Dyar, O.S.B.
• Oath of the Outcast, C. M. Banschbach
• The Deceit of Darkness, C. S. Wachter

Book Reviews

• The Alien’s Daughter, JC Morrows
• Going Back Cold, Kelley Rose Waller
• Prelude and Abduction: in A Minor, Keith A. Robinson
• Romanov, Nadine Brandes
• Shard & Shield, Laura VanArendonk Baugh
• The Story Raider, Lindsay A. Franklin
• The Treasure of Capric, Brandon M. Wilborn
• To Ashes We Run, Just B. Jordan

‘Out-of-This-World Stories’

• Cover story: Enclave Publishing grounds creative fantasy in coherent theology
• Ronie Kendig: ‘This book means so much to me’
• Sharon Hinck: ‘Whenever I read, I feel that character’
• Chawna Schroeder: ‘Christian authors have God himself’
• Review: Brand of Light’s sci-fi and fantasy clash in this rapid-fire genre-blender
• Review: Hidden Current’s fantasy dances to the rhythm of our Creator’s heart

How Geeks Can Get Excited About God

Paeter Frandsen

Let’s follow our hearts only if our Creator has first re-shaped us.

Sex in the Story: How Far is Too Far?

Marian Jacobs

Fiction’s sexual content has unique power to tempt young readers.

Lorehaven serves Christian fans by finding biblical truth in fantastic stories. Book clubs, free webzines, and a web-based community offer flash reviews, articles, and news about Christian fantasy, science fiction, and other fantastical genres. Magazine print copies are available by request and at special events.

Today in the US, being the second Monday of October, we are celebrating the national holiday of Columbus Day. Years ago, when I was young, I learned that the day off from school was to honor the explorer Christopher Columbus who “discovered” America, though he actually didn’t. Some 500 years earlier a Viking named Leif Eriksson had led an expedition to North America.

So why was Columbus honored? I never asked that question. Part of the narrative I learned was that Columbus, believing the earth to be round, had sailed west in order to prove it and to reach the rich-in-spices Asians who already had a trading relationship with Europe.

In the process, Columbus landed on an island in the Caribbean, and believing he had reached Asia, named the residents Indians. When he returned to Europe, he publicized his findings, especially the evidence that the earth is round, and established a colonial relationship between the new land and Spain or Italy. Columbus was Italian but Spain had financially backed his exploration.

Apparently that wasn’t the whole story. “Most educated Europeans and mariners already knew that [the earth was round]” (“Columbus and Christianity: Did You Know?”). In addition, as we have come to understand from a deeper look into history, Columbus had made his “discovery” because he made a mistake. He didn’t really know where he was.

He did, however, determine to make the most of his experience. Being indebted to his financiers, he exploited the people he encountered in the new land. Since slavery was on the rise, that exploitation included enforced servitude. Yes, he also opened the door to missionary activity, which often took the form of enforced conversion.

This was, after all, the 16th century and ideas of right and wrong in Europe were largely influenced by the Church. In many places in Europe enforced conversion was standard practice. In essence, Columbus was exporting European custom and tradition.

All this still begs the question: why do we celebrate Columbus? A little research uncovers the fact that Columbus Day only became a national holiday in the 1930s.

Some researchers point to the Italian immigrants who wanted an Italian hero with whom their children could identify. Certainly the group of Italians pouring into “the new world” at that time, makes this idea plausible. Other researchers say the same thing about Catholics, who were a decided minority in the US at the time. Thus, not only Italians honored Columbus with parades and such but so did Irish immigrants.

Although the legacy and discoveries of Columbus had been celebrated unofficially since the 1790’s, the official holiday only happened because of The Knights of Columbus. The Knights of Columbus, an influential male-only Catholic organization, wanted a strong Catholic role model for their children to be dignified by the government. After intense lobbying by the Knights, President Franklin Roosevelt and Congress declared Columbus Day a legal and federal holiday in the U.S. (“Columbus and Christianity: Did You Know?”).

Columbus was certainly a religious man, and a part of his motivation to explore the world was tied to his religious beliefs. However his Christianity was very much influenced by the culture of his day:

he and his faith were wholly medieval. He died more than a decade before Martin Luther would post his 95 Theses protesting the abuse of indulgences. In fact, advances on indulgences helped pay for Columbus’s voyage. He read from the Vulgate Bible and the church fathers but, typical for his era, mingled astrology, geography, and prophecy with his theology. Columbus and his faith reflected, to use Alexander von Humboldt’s phrase, “everything sublime and bizarre that the Middle Ages produced.” (“Why Did Columbus Sail?”)

Fast forward 50 years and beyond from the creation of Columbus Day as a holiday, and the flawed explorer has been so discredited that a movement began to spread to change the holiday from Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day. So instead of celebrating the courage and ingenuity of an explorer who brought the world closer together—albeit, with unexpected and tragic results, in many ways—we are celebrating people who were unaware of the world at large, because, apparently, being unaware made them heroes.

So far we the people have not been asked our opinion. We mostly are glad we get a day off work, that we have a 3-day weekend, although we have to be sure we do our banking on another day and we don’t expect to get any mail.

In short, why does it matter who we honor and what we call the day we are celebrating?

Who we honor and what we name the holiday tells us something about our values. Who do we respect and admire? Apparently the new movement, supported by a lot of people who’s ancestors came from somewhere else, values being “indigenous.”

I could explore that idea a little more, but what I’m interested in here is the way in which the Columbus narrative has changed. It’s essentially an example of the power of persuasion.

Winston Churchill has been reported as saying, “History is written by the victors.” Apparently author Dan Brown did say it in The Da Vinci Code:

History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, “What is history, but a fable agreed upon?”

That statement itself is under revision:

In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then provokes a revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments. (Wikipedia)

Writers have depicted this revision of history, a change of the interpretation of events in order to support a particular narrative, in any number of dystopian fantasies. All a person needs to do is to ignore parts of the story and underline the parts that fit into the preferred way of looking at things. Did the team lose because the opponent was particularly strong or because the offensive line is weak? Did the quarterback fail because he’s injured or because he’s lost some of his skill? Is he average because he’s a “game manager” or “too conservative” or because the defense was not giving him time to throw deep balls?

Storytelling includes perspective, and that’s something to remember when we write and when we read.

Sojourner by Janalyn Voigt
Tales Of Faeraven, Book 3

INTRODUCTION—SOJOURNER BY JANALYN VOIGT

Mara didn’t know her parents were living a lie.

After learning a secret that causes Mara to question her heritage, she runs to Torindan, the High Hold of Faeraven, to seek the truth. What the innkeeper’s daughter doesn’t know is that Rand, the mysterious tracker she’s hired to guide her through the wilderness, has been sent on an errand that puts her life at risk.

Helping Mara, furthers Rand’s purposes, but he doesn’t count on his emotions interfering.

With Faeraven on the brink of war, Rand is faced with a life-altering choice, Mara is torn between escape and learning the truth, and the future hangs in the balance. Will Mara be heir to the Faeraven throne? Can Rand escape the terrors of the dungeon?

As Torindan and Pilaer prepare for battle, anything can happen.

EXCERPT FROM SOJOURNER BY JANALYN VOIGT

Seated at a scarred table in the inn’s common room, Rand did his best to ignore the hostile stares from more than one pair of rounded eyes. He’d chosen a dark corner away from the lanthorn light in the hope of escaping notice. As a Kindren among the Elder, he’d expected to encounter suspicion. From the look of this crowd, he’d better keep watch to avoid being knifed in his bed. He couldn’t let anything happen to him, not with his father’s errand to carry out, although the thought of it made his stomach churn.

Almost as soon as Rand sat down, the man with silver-threaded black hair who had greeted him at the door brought a tankard of ale and called into the kitchen for service. He seemed eager for his Kindren guest to eat and leave. If so, in this their desires matched. A long day in the saddle had sapped Rand’s strength and left him eager for sleep.

He lifted the tankard with his left hand, favoring his bruised side, acquired courtesy of his half-brother’s ambush. The sudden memory of Draeg standing victorious over him, and looking far too much like their father, tightened Rand’s jaw. He banished the image, unwilling to let himself think of defeat at a time that called for courage.

A maiden pushed through the swinging door from the kitchen, balancing a tray of small pies. She glanced about the room, and her clear green eyes fastened on his. He’d never seen such beautiful eyes. Hair black as an eberec’s wing crowned her head in a braid and also rippled down her back. Her face showed no blemish, so youthful he might take her for a child save for the female form her kirtle failed to hide.

A shy smile touched her lips as she lowered the tray before him. He accepted her offering and, diverted by hunger, crammed his mouth full of venison pie. She stepped back and away, all the while watching him. He must look rough after days on the road, or perhaps she’d never seen a Kindren before. He stared back, as fascinated with her as she seemed with him.

He’d known her at once from the description given him, but he’d never expected to find his quarry so quickly.

AUTHOR BIO—SOJOURNER AUTHOR JANALYN VOIGT

Janalyn Voigt is a multi-genre novelist who has books available in the western historical romance and epic fantasy genres. Her unique blend of adventure, romance, suspense, and whimsy creates worlds of beauty and danger for readers. An inspirational, motivational, and practical speaker, Janalyn has presented at the Northwest Christian Writers’ Renewal Conference and Inland Northwest Christian Writers Conference. She has also spoken for local writing groups, book events, and libraries. Janalyn is represented by Wordserve Literary and holds memberships in American Christian Fiction Writers and Northwest Christian Writers Association.

Connect with Janalyn Voigt online at any one of the following places:

• Mailing list
• Website
• Amazon Author Page
• Goodreads Author Page
• LibraryThing
• Bookbub Author Page
• Pinterest
• Facebook Reader Group
• Facebook Author Page
• Twitter

You can find Janalyn Voigt’s guest article from last week here.

SOJOURNER PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITY

As a thank-you gift for any purchase of Sojourner, buyers can receive free ebooks by speculative fiction authors Becky Minor, Jennette Mbewe, and Heather L.L. Fitzgerald. Details about verifying your purchase and receiving the free fiction are here.

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?

There is a happy phrase bandied about the Internet and, for all I know, in the real world as well: the best worst thing ever. The best worst thing is some piece of art – a song, a movie, a book, a show – that is absolutely terrible and yet somehow riveting. It is so bad it is almost, but not really, good. The Best Worst Thing will stay with you forever, long after the passably good has hopelessly faded. The Best Worst Thing makes you laugh, even if it’s that awkward giggle you do when something isn’t funny but it is. If you don’t laugh, it’s not the Best Worst Thing.

You all, I am sure, have some awful, unforgettable piece of art to nominate for the title. And you would all be wrong, for none of you has seen Finian’s Rainbow.

We all blame our parents for something. I blame mine for exposing me to this movie. I’m sure that, when they made the fateful decision, it seemed harmless. G-rated. 1960s. A musical. Keenan Wynn, an icon of the era. Frank Sinatra, an icon of an even older era. Also, leprechauns. How wrong can you go with leprechauns?

And so the family viewing of Finian’s Rainbow was duly initiated. I wandered into the event a few minutes late. Possibly I missed the best part of the movie, much like the entire eight thousand pages of Moby Dick is downhill from Call me Ishmael. At any rate, I was in time to catch the introduction of the central conflict: Finian had stolen the pot of gold from the rainbow’s end. A leprechaun is now stalking him to steal it back, because without the gold Ireland is doomed.

Admittedly, this is not high art. You might even question why Ireland is doomed without the gold, because if poverty could spell the end of Ireland, the Emerald Isle would have been swallowed by the sea the first century of the British occupation. Still, I can get behind a story about leprechauns chasing gold thieves across the Atlantic Ocean, I really can.

But that wasn’t the plot of the movie. I can’t tell you what was the plot of the movie. Nobody who saw it could. The movie had so little connection with itself. Every scene was a new movie, and every movie was worse than the last one.

I will let you in on something: I never intended to watch the movie, family event or no. My plan was to drop in for a few minutes, confirm that it was as lame as I expected, and then leave, happy with the knowledge that I was missing nothing. My expectations were low. The movie fell far, far beneath them. It got so bad that I simply could not leave; I had to see what they were going to do next.

It all seems like a dream now. Who was that girl who would randomly pop up and mince across the screen, like a mime, and somehow everyone would understand that she was talking about love or something? Did I really watch a love song that included, among other sequences, the happy couple chasing a small pig through grass? Did I really hear the ringing and unironic declaration, “If this isn’t love, my heart needs a plumber”? Did I really see Keenan Wynn in blackface?

No, I really think I did not. It all seems as impossible as a reality TV star becoming president of the United States. I must have dreamed it, and I hope to all that is sweet and pure in the world that I had a 102-degree fever when I did.

Clearly, Finian’s Rainbow never existed. On that technicality, it cannot win the title of Best Worst Thing Ever. So the floor is open. What are your nominations?

What do these three story-related controversies have in common?

• Comedians get criticized for triggering audiences with their jokes.
• The movie Joker gets criticized for potentially inciting real-world violence.
• Fantasy authors may be faulted for seeming to endorse real-world magic practices.

Answer: In each case, storytellers are being challenged (at best) or blamed (at worst) for leading their fans into temptation.

Which leads us to this vital question:

Should Christian storytellers help keep their fans from temptation?

One article can’t answer this question. But let’s try a condensed exploration.

Should Christian storytellers individuals …

I do limit this discussion to Christian storytellers.

So when we say Christian, we’re talking about people who want to glorify God (according to God’s word.) However, before their identity as storytellers for other people, these folks have a more important and individual identity before their Creator. They are Christ-ians. They are people whom Jesus calls to die to themselves and become spiritually reborn. These creators have (to some extent) a biblical worldview. God has called them to strive to live like Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.

That’s a simple definition of Christian. But let’s pause to note what callings this definition does not include:

• Helping fix all that’s Wrong with the Church.
• Using their work to push “conservative” or “progressive” culture.
• Creating stories in order to enact social change or preach the overt gospel.

I don’t mean that particular Christian storytellers should not have these callings. But I do mean that if someone does have these callings, they are not the callings of every single Christian.

. . . Help keep their fans other people from temptation?

Again, before we speak about Christian storytellers and fans, let’s ask this:

What is the Christian person’s responsibility to keep another person from temptation?

We should take this question seriously because the Bible takes sin seriously. Jesus himself presents firm warnings about leading someone, especially a weak individual, into sin (see Matthew 18:6, 23:15).

The apostle Paul warns Christians about being sensitive about actions that aren’t sinful, but which can tempt other Christians (see Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8–10).¹

So it’s not rude or legalistic to ask, “Does my non-sinful action tempt anyone into committing sin?”

Note that when Jesus and Paul warn against tempting other people, they refer to specific sins or even abusive acts. Then, when Paul warns about not making others stumble, he doesn’t caution against us just causing someone to be offended. He warns against spiritually “weak” people, who see another person’s non-sinful action, associate this with their own beliefs about evil, and fall into actual temptation.

• Example 1: I invite a new family from church to a fall costume party. They tell me they believe that’s the same as a Halloween party. Now they can’t help wondering if they should go along with Halloween, even including the anti-resurrection themes associated with it.
• Example 2: You invite me to see Joker with you. Despite my my disinterest, I go along. But unlike you, I end up being dragged down by the movie’s apparent deconstruction of Society and things, and depressed about a life of nihilistic villainy with no heroes in sight.

Such challenges call for biblical wisdom.

You need to know your Bible, and what it says about sin and where sin comes from.

You also need to know the person or type of person. Often this is where the issue becomes more challenging. After all, do we talk only about immature Christians when we talk about discernment? Or should we also make room for mature Christians who may be more free? That is, they are not carefree or foolish, but are more advanced in their faith and thus have built spiritual immunity to some temptations?

Tense argument: Present temptation versus future temptation.

But could Christian time-travelers prevent temptation that would have occurred in the past?

Let’s note one vital assumption about these examples: they’re in the present tense.

When we limit the question to the present tense, things get simpler. Just as they do when we compress the question to the individual level.

But things get more complicated if we ask whether Christians must prevent people from being tempted by our actions in the future.

• Example 1: I think that family might be strange. But if I try to invite them to do anything, could they end up associating me with sin?
• Example 2: You suspect I might not be interested in Joker. But if you let me know you’re seeing it, will this tempt me to see it and sin?

Those are mild examples. But note their chilling effect. If we try to avoid even the tiny change that these actions will cause hypothetical temptation, we end up causing tiny little communication blocks. These in turn can wedge into Christian relationships. Even if we want to keep the other person from sinning, we’re not treating them like a person. And this creates greater distance. Instead of talking with the person, we’re trying to guess about what we would do that might cause them to “stumble.” We’re trying to keep our interactions absolutely temptation-free in the future.

We can’t prevent all future, hypothetical temptation.

If we try to keep anyone from being tempted by anything we do, that’s both unworkable and unbiblical.

First, it’s unworkable. In theory, anyone doing anything could “tempt” someone to sin. Even reading the Bible or praising Jesus looks like evil to some non-Christian people! Similarly, if a good Christian enjoys discussing doctrine, others may associate this with discord and conflict, and associate him with sin.

Second, it’s unbiblical. Paul himself did not urge believers to find all those possible temptation hot-zones and steer clear of them in advance. Instead, he addressed an actual, present-day problem in an actual church. Paul’s solution wasn’t hushing up the temptation problem or blaming anyone. Instead he aired it publicly in his open letters. He urged more talk, not less. Only then did the tempted people have greater chance to grow, and the mature people (who weren’t tempted) have a chance to respond in love to their family in Christ.

What if Kronk had told a friend about his temptations?

Christian storytellers can’t keep every fan from temptation, but we can talk openly about our struggles.

This reframing of the question—on individuals, not groups; and on the present tense, not future tense—may help to clarify a lot.

Christian storytellers are individuals before they are creators. And they cannot foresee all potential fan-temptations.²

They can only respond, in the present, to any temptations their stories may have actually caused their actual readers.

It’s unworkable, and unbiblical, to expect any Christian to do more than that.

Thus, if a Christian storytellers seems to have caused temptation to actual people, we ought to encourage more communication, not less.

So, if we’re concerned about a Christian creator’s story that has potentially tempting themes, why not reach out to the author? Assume the best, contact that storyteller (maybe privately at first!), and graciously ask about this storytelling choice. You might need the author’s perspective. And, of course, the author might need your reminder that at least one reader, and maybe a few more, may truly struggle with the story’s presentation about such-and-such.

If we do this, however, let’s ensure we’re not acting like big dang Heroes, speaking up for the hypothetical “little guy” of tempted victims( that is, people we know about, but who are nowhere near us personally).

Such posturing can easily lead us into the wrong kind of hero complex.³

Instead, let’s remember that it’s Jesus, not us, who leads real people out of temptation and delivers us from evil.