“Awkward”—actors often use this word when they refer to the filming of nude and sex scenes, and we can’t deny Game of Thrones has plenty of these.

Yet many Christians find enough redemptive material in the show to watch it anyway.

I’m among those who have reservations about the show’s graphic sexuality. But my problem isn’t ultimately that the sex and nudity are a potential stumbling block for those serious about moral purity. That issue is secondary. After all, we can shut our eyes or fast forward or use products like VidAngel to skip scenes that we find awkward.

However, most actors have no such escape from the actual filming of those scenes. Some participate in these scenes without any qualms, but others experience serious reservations. For them, the awkwardness is unavoidable.

I submit that “awkward” is a masking word, a euphemism to describe the uncomfortable realities behind actors’ experiences. I’m sure many factors play into the awkwardness of their situation. But for this article, let’s examine three specific elements that might inspire their use of the word.

1. It’s a privacy violation.

On a movie set, it’s easy to imagine that your sexual acting out is a discreet affair. Such scenes are often filmed with minimal crew present to keep things “private.” The use of this smaller crew includes the implicit acknowledgement that a large audience would be inappropriate.

But the thing is, Game of Thrones has a very large audience. Considering that an estimated 16.1 million people watched this season’s first episode, the proceedings on set aren’t anything close to private. Pretending otherwise is tantamount to walking out of your house completely naked except for a blindfold over your eyes. You might think, “People can’t see me if I can’t see them.” But that’s not how it works.

In an interview last year, Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke gave a revealing (no pun intended) statement about interacting with fans:

[T]here are times with certain dudes where I’m like, “You’ve seen my tits. OK, sure, you can have a selfie.” Awkward!

There’s that word: “awkward.” It’s obvious, and understandable, that Clarke would feel embarrassed when forced to face this fact: that despite a veneer of privacy while filming, almost everyone in the world has had the opportunity to see her naked, at her most vulnerable, as often as they like.

Nude and sex scenes like those in Game of Thrones are a violation of an actor’s privacy. They’re more than just awkward; they’re shame-inducing.

2. It’s a dignity violation.

One of the most popular descriptions of Game of Thrones in popular culture is the term “tits and dragons.” The result of this gratuitous parade of flesh is that actors—especially women—are objectified in the minds of the audience, leading to a collective mental treatment of them as expensive props and cheap thrills.

Even organizations far removed from conservative and religious circles are calling attention to this problem. For example, Caitlin Roper at Collective Shout says the following:

[T]he objectification of women…has been repackaged as female empowerment or women owning their sexuality (which incidentally tends to be indistinguishable from the porn-inspired fantasies of heterosexual men…go figure). Empowerment, it appears, means women being reduced to object status on their own terms.

An “empowering” striptease in a show like Game of Thrones is a violation of an actor’s dignity. It’s more than just awkward; it’s dehumanizing.

3. It’s a sexual violation.

As Speculative Faith has discussed before, Game of Thrones utilizes pornographic methods to tell its story. This is a matter beyond dispute, confirmed not just in the minds of Christians, but also in the minds of the general public. Paisley Gilmour at Cosmopolitan wrote just last month, “Look, we all know Game of Thrones is essentially 70% porn and 30% beheadings.” Even one of the executive producers of the show is quoted as saying he wanted more graphic sexuality in order to appeal to a perverted audience base.

And audiences are loving it.

For example, Ranker.com contributor Ron Mexico says the sex and nudity “will make you want to renounce technology and find a way to exist in the lust-filled, debaucherous world” of the show.

Or consider GQ contributor Paul Schrodt, who as a self-proclaimed “admirer of Game of Thrones’ more primal pleasures,” has decided to catalog and rank the quality of every nude scene in the show’s history thus far. Yes, for many, the series’s rampant sex is not a distraction—it’s a highlight. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Caught between debased producers and salivating audiences are the actors themselves. They participate in conscience-searing lasciviousness, not primarily for the sake of art or the good of the story, but for the sake of a ravenous culture intoxicated with perversion. Cultural commentator Gene Edward Veith says this:

To pay a woman to take her clothes off in front of crowds of ogling men is to violate her in a very brutal way. Public sex is obscene, not because sex is evil but because sex is sacred.¹

Pornographic scenes in shows like Game of Thrones are a violation of an actor’s sexuality. They’re more than just awkward; they’re brutalizing.²

Playing with (ice and) fire

Of course, the problem is much greater than just one TV show.

Game of Thrones is emblematic of a widespread moral epidemic. Sex is sacred, and yet we’re willing to put up with sexual sacrilege and manipulation of other human beings, so long as it provides us with a cathartic experience. The love we are to show to our neighbor, even at the expense of our own freedom, is mysteriously absent.

Taking into account how much sexual degradation actors go through for our amusement, I find it concerning that so many people—especially professing Christians—would not only excuse, but also defend such content. Considering the violations of privacy, dignity, and sexuality inherent in productions like Game of Thrones, such a defense seems … well, more than just awkward.

If you do your job as a Christian, someone will always Associate you with evil sinners.

Imagine you invite three people for dinner into your home: a neo-Nazi, a Sexualityism¹ activist who hates Christians, and Donald Trump. You don’t approve of their behavior. You tell them so. You also connect with them over shared interests. (Maybe you all like the same anime.) And you share the gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s what you do, as a missionary.²

You manage to have a nice dinner, and then snap a few photos. After your guests leave, you share one or two photos on social media. You say something like, “Enjoyed dinner with X, Y, and Trump, discussing our differences, similarities, and sharing the gospel of Jesus.”

Then your guests share these photos too, in their own special ways.

The neo-Nazi puts white racial supremacy propaganda all over his hashtags.

The Sexualityism activist is nice about you, but slanders other Christians and Jesus.

Trump or his publicist tweets out whatever they do because I’m not even going there.

And before you know it, at least three entirely different species of troll are clubbing at your virtual door and maybe your physical door. This person eats and even poses for friendly photos with tax collectors and sinners! He has been Associated with white supremacy, Sexualityism, and a divisive political figure. Outrageous. It’s simply outrageous!

Welcome to the world of Evil Associations. In this world, doing your job as a Christian—living in community with flawed or terrible other Christians, and sharing the gospel with a dead-in-sins world—always, always gets you Associated with some bad person or group.

In fact, Christian fantastical fiction fans may have it worse, because they get associated with at least five different bad(?) groups:

• Christians, because that’s what we are;
• escapists, because we enjoy fantastical stories;
• legalists, because we have some moral views;
• licentious Christians, because we don’t agree with some notions of “evil” stories;
• and worldly compromisers, because we don’t think popular culture is all good or all evil.

I’m sure this has happened to you. It’s happened to many others too. You’re not alone:

1. As we saw last week, some Christians were disturbed or angered by a video in which male ballet dancers performed in a New York City church. Right or wrong, these viewers Associated the dance with “effeminate” men, or some other kind of sin.
2. An internet acquaintance of mine, Karen Swallow Prior, who teaches English and literature at Liberty University, ministers to nonbelievers, including to alternate-sexuality advocates. This angered quarrelsome “discernment” bloggers, who slander this professor and Associate her with people who hate a biblical view of marriage.
3. Christian apologist and scholar Dr. James White, who has spent decades debating people from other religions, including Muslims, changes his format once. In January he joins a Muslim scholar, Dr. Yasir Qadhi, for a two-part dialogue (not debate) about the differences between Christianity and Islam.³ Months later, quarrelsome “discernment” bloggers and radio host(s) get ahold of this information. They go and Associate a Christian brother with compromisers, “useful idiots” to be duped by terrorist-sympathizing Muslims, who want to destroy the United States and overthrow the Constitution with sharia law.

Shameful, just shameful, all this I hear about @DrOakley1689. Why does he eat with tax collectors, sinners, and Muslims?

— E. Stephen Burnett (@EStephenBurnett) July 20, 2017

In all this, I must fight my own Associations. As I mentioned last week, I also instinctively Associate ballet dancing (or dancing in general) with something not natural or human—though dancing is one of the most human activities in the world and I’m wrong. It’s hard not to Associate all discerning Christian bloggers with internet slanderers. And it’s very hard not to Associate all of White’s attackers with prophecy-crazed, gold-hoarding nuts.

In these cases, we need to look to Scripture for wisdom, not the internet or our feelings. Does it glorify God if we avoid all possible associations with sinners or things used for sin?

Does Jesus condemn association with sinners?

Several Scriptures warn against one type of Association with sinners, but not others.

1. It’s good to associate with sinners to love and share the gospel with them.

From The Passion of the Christ (2004).

Jesus’s hypocritical enemies condemned Him for personally Associating with sinners:

And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”⁴

To the Pharisees, getting near a sinner meant you were yourself sinning—a wrong view.

2. It’s bad to associate, as professing Christians, with a falsely professing Christian.

But Jesus and His apostles warn against associating with false(?) Christians in the church:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”⁵

Paul says we shouldn’t enable a Christian who claims the faith but isn’t acting like it. He contrasts this with the notion of separating from the very dark world that needs us: “since then you would need to out of the world,” a thought unthinkable to godly missionaries.

3. It’s bad to associate the label “Christian” with leaders who don’t teach the gospel.

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.⁶

The apostle John warns about anyone who “comes to you” with anti-biblical teaching. They shouldn’t come “into your house,” that is, to teach in your home (the only place you could have church meetings back then). You don’t “greet” them either. Back then, that didn’t mean just saying hello, but actively showing you’re spiritually aligned with this person.⁷

As Christian fantastical story fans, how can we practice good Associations and avoid bad Associations?

Aye, there’s the rub. Because we’re all still figuring this out, aren’t we?

This goes double for situations that aren’t in local churches. Here the limits for teaching and membership are much clearer, e.g., “Only qualified Christians allowed, but everyone else is welcome to stop by and be our friend and get our love while learning the gospel.” The local church’s goal is to work differently. It has “genre” limits. If you make the local church look like the world, or try to make the world look like the local church, things go bad.

But in all other areas, things are fuzzier.

You can’t treat an organization, friend group, website, fandom, or conference like a church!

At the same time, we must clarify what beliefs, and behavior, do or don’t align with Jesus.

Lord willing, for my part, I’ll spend the rest of my life trying to balance these two missions. Already these challenges have begun, even thanks to my work at Speculative Faith:

• Of course, people Associate fantastical fiction with evil magic/sorcery, or at best a waste of time when so many people abuse entertainment, while really, shouldn’t be only preach the nonfiction gospel and not be distracted by all this worldly stuff?
• At least one novelist who wrote for SpecFaith now Associates himself (no outside help needed) with the “alt-right” movement. Another writer, whom I personally recruited for a guest article or two, has gone on to disavow the biblical gospel of Jesus; he now favors a “liberal”/progressivist version of Christianity. Both articles remain up. So if someone wanted to, they could Associate this web ministry with either of those false movements. They could accuse us and ask, “Why didn’t you predict these guys would go there?”
• I also write for for Christ and Pop Culture and for Christianity Today, and some folks (even a family member or two) aren’t thrilled that I’m now Associated with them. Doesn’t CAPC have a “social justice warrior” bent? Doesn’t Christianity Today write about heretical teachers as if they’re Christians, and fail to condemn other unorthodox movements?
• And of course, if you say anything positive about, say, Trump, I would get Associated with his nastier fans (nationalists who go too far, along with racist). But if I say anything negative about Trump, I’d get Associated with his nastier enemies (country-club elitists who can’t confront the evil media). Say nothing at all? That’s likely the wisest course, but then people can rightfully charge you with being complicit with (a) dictator(s).

So far, all that’s quiet. But in an internet age of hot takes and impulsive reactions, it’s only a matter of time. In fact, this ministry and others want to reach even more fans, to promote Christian-made fantastical stories and a Christian view of all fantastical stories. So it is inevitable we, and I, will get Associated with sinners no matter what we do.

One week away. See you there?

How do we address these situations when they arise?

On a case-by-case basis. In love. With respect and gentleness, yet truth. And always, always, based on Scripture over emotions.

Especially as we head into the Realm Makers conference next week (Reno, Nevada, July 26-30!), please pray for this ministry of Speculative Faith. Pray for all of our writers and allies, and their various Associations with others. Pray for the Realm Makers organizers! And pray for the success of our future projects, for Jesus’s sake and our readers’ glorification of Him.

I have occasionally had the thought that modern Christian fiction has not so much departed from mainstream publishing as stayed where everyone used to be. The idea was first prompted by the Clayton Standard, which promised clean stories and “intelligent censorship” to the people – more than two million a month – who read the romance, western, sci-fi, and detective stories published in Clayton Magazines. I don’t have the evidence to support the thesis, but periodically, I read something that resurrects it.

This happened, most recently, with Pearl, a poem dating to the fourteenth century and attributed to the author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Pearl tells of a father who, grieving for his dead little girl, meets her on the shores of paradise and even sees heaven. The poem is filled with scriptural allusions and theological discussion and is only slightly less religious than the Bible. It sounds like a modern Christian novel, maybe even a bit The Shack meets 90 Minutes in Heaven.

In justice to the author of Pearl, his premise is moderated in a way that The Shack – and many other stories, Christian and secular – are not. For reasons J.R.R. Tolkien explained in the introduction he wrote to his translation of the poem, Pearl is almost certainly based on the author’s real-life loss of a very young daughter. Such losses were sadly common in his time, and the tragedy of Pearl feels grounded in life (unlike the faintly lurid melodrama of The Shack, which feels like someone was trying to think of just the worst thing). Still, the premise of Pearl holds a familiar ring.

Ultimately, Pearl is set apart by its execution rather than its premise. In two significant ways it stands apart from, and perhaps above, most fiction of our own day. First, its visions of heaven and of God are strictly bound by orthodoxy, by the teachings of Scripture and the doctrines of the church. Here is no imagining of God as a woman, or even of a chatty, casual Jesus; the grieving father’s brief sight of Christ is made up of imagery from the Apostle John: Christ dressed in white with a wound in His side, the elders bowing before Him, the angels offering up incense. In its vision of heaven, Pearl is even more indebted to the Apostle John, employing his descriptions of the New Jerusalem. (Most of the poem takes place beside a river that symbolizes death – in other words, at the border between this world and the next; the father never enters heaven and is only permitted a glimpse of Jerusalem across the river.)

Secondly, Pearl distinguishes itself – from both secular and Christian fiction – by the limited ground it gives to emotion. There is no treacle here, no sappiness. The emotion is very real – the image of the father dropping his precious pearl and losing it in the grass is a painfully beautiful allegory – but it does not consume the work. In part, this is because the father’s grief is mature; he has had time to think deeply as well as feel deeply, and the poem seeks to answer him with scriptural exposition. The calm, clear-eyed debate of these passages changes the air of the entire poem.

More importantly, Pearl never goes the way of tears and warm hugs and joyful reunions on the hither shores. Father and daughter remain separated by the river, never crossing to the other. His consolation lies in other, sterner things – in the conviction that God’s way is right and his own duty is patient submission. His father’s love must be satisfied by the knowledge that his daughter is a queen in heaven, redeemed and glorified; he must resign his pearl to God.

In its reverently orthodox imagery and restraint of emotion by reason, faith, and duty, Pearl distinguishes itself from the typical Christian novel. In its unabashed religiosity and theological exposition, however, it exhibits one of the most distinctive traits of traditional Christian fiction. Mainstream fiction has moved on from such things. But whether that is due to an evolving attitude toward art or an evolving attitude toward religion is a matter for debate.

Things have become wibbly-wobbly in the Whovian corner of the universe. Sunday, BBC revealed the much-anticipated and debated identity of the 13th Doctor, Jodie Whittaker.

Commence the firestorm of opinions.

Reactions range from disappointed and/or disgusted to skeptical to thrilled.

You have to love the Internet, where everyone has thoughts to share about everything. And in the two days since the announcement, the virtual world has exploded as people come to terms with the change.

All of this begs the question, was casting a female Doctor a good move?

Pros of a Female Doctor

1. It provides fresh material and possibilities for the show, one of which is bringing on the first male companion. How new showrunner Chris Chibnall handles this dynamic will prove interesting.

Nothing says the companion must be the opposite gender, but if that’s the case for Whittaker, will her companion prove to be a strong sidekick? To this point, the female companions were anything but weak, sexist-driven stereotypes.

Image via IMBD.com

2. It fits the Whoverse hallmark of change, of offering new adventures, of never letting the storytelling well run dry. As this article stated:

The show owes its longevity to its ability to start over when things are getting stale.

Note that doesn’t assume the show needs a reboot due to becoming boring (though many would argue the storylines are in need of help). It continues the tradition that has allowed Doctor Who to remain popular for decades, albeit it in a radically new way this time around.

3. From what I can tell, nowhere does the Whovian canon say the Doctor can’t regenerate with a different gender. There are no internal worldbuilding violations happening, and the Doctor gains an entirely new body with each regeneration anyway.

Image via tardis.wikia.com

4. The switch allows plenty of room to explore the Doctor’s role from a female standpoint. How will that affect her character arc? Every Doctor needs time to readjust to the regenerated self. Having 13 as a woman will make that process unique and present excellent story fodder.

After all, every Sontaron and his uncle knows that men and women are wired differently. That alone should make for some fascinating character developments.

Cons of a Female Doctor

1. The decision feels forced, or at the very least suspect. Was the move driven by pressures from politically correct influence or feminist demands? Or is the new Doctor a woman chiefly for the sake of creating better stories?

An article in The Guardian expressed this well:

But there’s something uncomfortable all the same about the campaign to feminise Doctor Who. Obviously the character could be a woman. But deciding she has to be? That’s different.

This is one area where politics seems to have encroached upon storytelling. The outcry for a female Doctor has become significant in the last few years. Is it coincidence then that the heretofore solely male cast has been interrupted with such flawless timing?

If the Doctor had regenerated as a woman at a time when gender issues weren’t central to the cultural conversation, it would come across as more natural. As a decision to enhance the story. But that’s not the case.

As I said, seems suspicious.

2. With this development, the Whoverse now has no choice but to forge into new territory. Certainly a tradition of the show, but one that may backfire. After all, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?

(Not everyone agrees it ain’t broke, which further complicates the matter and goes to show you can’t please anyone all the time, and trying to do so results in pleasing no one any of the time.)

3. The choice, while appeasing the critics, may (and has) upset fans. The question becomes how deep does their loyalty run, and will the benefits of a woman piloting the TARDIS outweigh the resistance to her gender change?

4. If the first point is true, it creates a web of problems for the show’s future. If a story yields to one popular demand without regard for whether it actually makes sense for the storytelling, what prevents that from happening again?

And again?

And again?

At what point does the motivation cease to be telling fantastic stories and instead trying to please whatever cultural trend is sweeping town?

5. In his article the last time this topic surfaced in 2013 with Capaldi’s appointment as 12, Stephen Burnett made a strong case for a male lead: the fact that fans of both genders prefer a strong male hero accompanied by strong women who also fill prominent roles.

Personally, I’m torn. If Whittaker can pull off the role and has excellent writing to back her performance, great! I’m a Whovian and at the most basic level, I don’t really care whether the Doctor is male or female.

What I do care about, however, is the underlying motivation. Has storytelling been traded for agenda-filling? I suspect it has, but at the end of the day, what matters is the show’s quality. Give fans amazing adventures through space and time, and it doesn’t matter whether the Doctor can grow a beard or not.

What’s your reaction to the change? What other pros or cons do you see with having the first female Doctor?

Readers never get heard. OK, rarely. Writers are told to write to their audience, but who ever asks that audience what kind of books they want to read? Well, I did once before, but I think it’s time to revisit the subject.

So here’s your chance.

1. What do you most want to see in books you read? Action? Romance? Mystery? Science fiction? Epic fantasy? Dystopian? Super heroes? Something else altogether?
2. What do you think is overdone?
3. What makes you want to buy a book? The cover? The book blurb? Amazon reviews? Recommendation from a friend?
4. What kind of a book would you most likely give to someone as a gift? Fiction? Non-fiction? A “gift book”? A book you love? A book you think they’ll love? A book you’ve heard about in a subject you think they’re interested in?
5. What bugs you the most when you see it in a story? Characters with insufficient motivation? Cliched actions? Predictable endings? Something else?
6. What makes you close a book and never come back to it?
7. What makes you throw a book across the room?

I look forward to reading what readers think! Feel free to answer some or all of the questions. It’s your forum to say what you want to say!

What hath male ballet dancing in church to do with Christians enjoying fantasy stories?

Answer: Both ballet dancing and fantasy fandoms are seen as weird, and misunderstood. Christians can slander both of these as if they’re automatically sinful. Yet both can be ways to glorify God—though not necessarily in a local church service.

So who actually did ballet dancing in church? Last November, Redeemer Presbyterian Church did, at one of its locations in New York City. Its video from last November is simply titled “Life Together.” It features three male ballet dancers clad in white (thank God they don’t have those tights) who portray a three-part, interwoven relationship.

But without further explanation, you can’t tell for certain what the performance is about.

One biblical pastor, who posted the video nearly eight months later, said that its theme confused him. Then he said he read this excerpt from the church’s pastor, Tim Keller:

If God was unipersonal, there would have been no love until he created the world. However, if the world was created by a triune God, then relationships of love are what life is all about. The Godhead is characterized by mutual self-giving love as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit orbit around one another in a dance. It is impossible for us to join in if we focus on ourselves, but through Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death on the cross, we can be brought into the dance.

So far, I haven’t found if the performers meant to portray the Trinity’s relationship of harmony. (If they only meant to portray something more human, such as members of the Church working together, it’s interesting that viewers compared this to the Trinity!)

It’s easier to see that people thought the performance was really, really “gay.”

A few of the comments:

Is the Trinity gay?

I always thought Tim Keller was effeminate. No respect for him at all.

Too effeminate….men shouldn’t be moving and dancing like this…it’s gross…

Add this to the dung Hill of heresy that attempts to feminize God.

There are dance moves that are masculine and feminine. And clearly, this entire dance routine was feminine.

Then one Christian leader got into the “effeminate” accusation. He claimed the performance was “gayer than the kiwi queen of the fire island fruit festival.” (I don’t even know what this means, though it must have felt really awesome to put that phrase on the screen.)

All this is nonsense.

Totally “gay.”

You can’t call men dancing, with classical ballet moves, and even touching or lifting each other (this is part of ballet!), “gay.” Or “effeminate.” Such a slander is not based in biblical discernment. The point is worth a quick exploration before we move on.

Nothing in Scripture supports any kind of “everyone knows” definition, of which speech patterns, colors, gestures, or interests count as “masculine” or “feminine”—meaning that if a man likes or does “women’s” things, he counts as sinfully “effeminate.” There is no single, advanced culture that “fixes” biblical masculinity as denoted by muscular bodies, trucks, tools, sports, blue instead of pink, nonfiction over drama, or no-dancing over dancing.¹

As one commentator rightly noted:

I’ve been all over the world and grew up in different cultures. And, yes, I have seen plenty of male/male kissing and hand-holding and dancing that would be considered effeminate by men here. I’m quite familiar with the American fundamentalists’ conception that anything uncomfortable to them is necessarily an abomination. … I get weary of any kind of less-than-American-cowboy machismo being decried as effeminate, as if that is what the biblical conception of effeminate actually meant.

Indeed, this is a very modern, Western notion. It skews what Paul meant by “effeminate” in 1 Cor. 6:9 (NASB). Other translations combine this word into the phrase “men who practice homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9, ESV). Instead, this judgment of what counts as “effeminate actions” is based in cultural assumptions, and very, very strong feelings. This may include some strong feelings of men, who may feel personally threatened by other men who do not act or behave in “traditional” masculine ways, or share “traditional” male interests.

No, Christians can’t discount those feelings. We can’t just say, “No, that’s just your feelings talking. So shut up and let them do their thing.” Instead, let’s keep talking! Ask, “How did you feel about that?” Or, “What did that thing they did mean to you personally?” Or even, “Yes, there are people intentionally trying to blur the differences between sexes. This is absolutely wrong. But do you think ballet has been, or can be, only done to do this?”

How I often feel watching ballet. (From Arrival, 2016.)

But we must see that the discussion is based on strong feelings either way. It is not a matter of “firm biblical conviction against the thing, versus worldly compromiser for the thing.”

For my part, I don’t get ballet. It’s an alien language to me. Watching it feels like repeated attempts to make first contact with an alien civilization. I don’t get why we “need” ballet. I don’t get why people would need to dance out their emotions. After all, we have perfectly great words, images, and even music to reflect those feelings?

Yet these are just my feelings. They are my preferences. Other people watch and perform dances, including ballet, and they are strongly moved.

Worst of both worlds: the “effeminate” wizard Howl from Howl’s Moving Castle (2006).

But I do know fantasy fiction.

I know why we need it and why God has used it so powerfully in my life to glorify Himself.

And I know that many other people don’t understand this. They may even think fantasy suspicious, or sinful. Or else they justify some fantasy, such as A Christmas Carol, but dislike other fantasy for subjective reasons (e.g., “that picture of that one creature creeps me out”).

They’re wrong, of course. But we can work with that, based in love. God does command His people to work with these issues in love (Romans 14, 1 Cor. 8-10, Gal. 5:13). If you feel a thing is sinful for you to do, don’t do it. If you feel a thing is not sinful for you, but you also know someone who knows you do it is tempted to sin, then in love, avoid that thing.²

However, the question remains: could ballet performances be included in a church service?

My strong inclination is to say no. I don’t say this because I personally don’t get ballet. It’s because I can compare this to my enjoyment instead. Then I can ask, “What would I think of someone reading a great fantasy novel excerpt in church?” That wouldn’t seem right. It would distract from the central purpose of the local church service: to teach and sing about Jesus’s gospel teaching among the people of God in fellowship.³

Dancing can glorify God. It can even do this with behaviors certain Christians would call “effeminate” (because it makes them feel weird). Fantasy novels can also glorify God. But at least for now, let’s not try to force either thing into local church services. Anyway, whoever said you can’t really, super-glorify God with a thing unless you do it on Sunday mornings?

I have a new book coming out next week, but I am going to resist the irresistible temptation to talk about it. I will, however, talk about a prominent element in the book that reaches far beyond the pages of my humble story.

In my new book, the main character seeks out the help of a Mississippi swamp hoodoo practitioner, or “root doctor” as they often prefer to be called. Hoodoo is different from voodoo, in that it is much more nature-focused and medicinal, rather than reading the bloody guts of disemboweled chickens or pushing pins into dolls to torment one’s enemies, as is the common theatrical portrayal of voodoo. Still, there is a definite mystical component of hoodoo that hearkens back to pagan rituals and pantheism. It may seem less “sinister” than voodoo but it grows from the same root.

I incorporated this practice into my story for dramatic effect but more importantly, to warn readers of the dangers of dabbling in these very dark, and very real, powers. Make no mistake: magic is very real, and none of it is good.

The world of fiction is much more complicated in regards to magic and spiritualism than the real world. In books, we find good and bad wizards and witches, evil powers being used for good and vice versa, spells, potions, rituals, incantations, etc., all being used for a wide variety of purposes and springing from countless sources. Some stories, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, employ magic in an allegorical manner to mirror Christian truths in our real world. Others are tales that are not meant to be more than entertainment but the incredible power being wielded in the story can easily be a metaphor for real-world power, such as wealth, intelligence, beauty, and strength, all of which can be used for good or ill. More often than not, fictional magic isn’t based on real-world religions and deities, because honestly, that’s not very “magical.” If God and the devil and angels and demons are present in the story, it becomes “spiritual” or “paranormal” or “supernatural,” which can have its own degrees of factual or fictional depictions.

However, in the real world, it is very cut-and-dried. There is no such thing as “good” magic. All good supernatural power comes from God alone. Anything else is evil. I know I sound like a grumpy old dad (and I’m getting there very quickly) but these are not my words. Consider the Word of God:

“Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 19:31).

“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).

“Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (Rev. 22:15).

There are dozens of verses in the Bible which speak out against magic and sorcery, along with numerous instances in which sorcerers compete against the prophets and disciples for supernatural supremacy (guess who wins every time). There are only two sources of supernatural power: God and His angels, and Satan and his demons. There are no “fire spells” or “water spirits” but there are powers and principalities that are doing battle everyday for our souls.

I have no problem with fictional magic. Let Gandalf and Harry Potter and Tinker Bell do their thing. But as believers, we need to be careful not to let that enjoyment in our entertainment bleed over into real life, where even the brightest and happiest magic comes only from darkness.

Do you love reading fantasy?

Are you a fan who can’t stop talking about your favorite characters and loves geeking out with other fantasy fanatics?

Then you’ll love the second annual Silmarillion Awards.

The Awards have returned this year, ready for another grand time of celebrating, talking about, and generally enjoying all the amazing things we love about fantasy characters. Co-creators DJ Edwardson and Jenelle Schmidt (along with our fantastic Silmarite group of bloggers) have been hard at work to make the Awards even better than last year.

If you’re new and wondering what in Middle-earth I’m talking about, the Silmarillion Awards are basically the Oscars for fantasy characters. How cool is that? If you want to read more, you can check out Jenelle’s introductory post.

The nomination week ended this past Friday (and since last week was July 4th, my regular post didn’t go up to alert you about the commencement of the awesomeness). BUT…this week we’ve begun the voting phase. Five finalists in ten different categories ranging from Least Competent Henchman to Most Epic Heroine.

In addition to voting for your favorite characters, you can also enter the Grand Prize Giveaway—aka One Grand Prize to Rule Them All. Which happens to be none other than a fantabulous Tolkien-themed package…that may or may not include a map. (Because maps are amazing and beautiful and necessary.)

If you want to get involved, you can join the scavenger hunt running this week on our blogs.

I’m one of the participating bloggers, and we’d love to have you stop by, join the fantasy fun, and make this year’s Silmarillion Awards one for the ages.

You know…since ages and Middle-earth kind of go together.

Here’s a quick reference list of the awards:

• Most Magnificent Dragon Silmaril—hosted by DJ Edwardson
• Most Nefarious Villain Silmaril—hosted by Jenelle Schmidt
• Wisest Counsellor Silmaril—hosted by Tracey Dyck
• Silver Tongue Silmaril—hosted by Madeline Rose
• Most Epic Hero Silmaril—hosted by Abbey Stellingwerff
• Most Mischievous Imp Silmaril—hosted by E. E. Rawls
• Least Competent Henchman Silmaril—hosted by Kyle Robert Schultz
• Strangest Character Silmaril—hosted by Savannah Grace
• Most Epic Heroine Silmaril—hosted by Deborah O’Carroll
• Most Faithful Friend Silmaril—Zachary Totah (aka me)

The voting ends this Friday at 11:59 pm CDT.

Beginning next Monday, we’ll start announcing the winners.

It would be grand to have as much participation as possible. After all, these are fan-based awards, so it’s all about having fun and showing our love for fantasy along the way. So spread the word!

Congratulations to our 2017 Summer Writing Challenge winner:

M. A. Zeller.

I’ll be contacting our writing challenge winner privately to arrange the gift card from either Amazon or B&N.