Should Christian Fiction be "Christian?"

[james1611]

Hey all,

I'm looking for opinions on this subject. I just finished reading a wonderful Christian Fantasy novel: Auralia's Colors, by Jeffrey Overstreet and Waterbrook Press. The only problem is that I couldn't find the "Christianity" in the story.

Now it's not as though I wasn't looking for it--quite the opposite.

My question to the forum is this: Should we expect certain elements of Christianity to be present in Christian Fiction?

Faith
redemption
God, Christ, represented (at least allegorically)
spiritual warfare, etc...Thanks in advance for all opinions on this. I'm not looking for one answer, but some discussion on it.

by way of an example: would you expect a "Christmas movie" to be set on a beach in July with absolutely no mention of the holiday, santa, Jesus, christmas trees or the usual holiday mentions?

blessings,
James

[CACTUSWENDY]

Interesting question.

I think Christian work should have the elements of something Christian in it, otherwise.....what merits it to be in that genre?

I guess a Christian love story would just be a bland boy meets girl, they hold hands....get married and live happily ever after? I think that would be very boring.

If a mystery story did not have a mystery...

A horror story no scary parts.....

You get my drift. I would feel ripped off if I bought a book representing a Christian story and it did not have something to do with the Christian out looks. But, this is just my two cents.

[Theognome]

Hey all,

I'm looking for opinions on this subject. I just finished reading a wonderful Christian Fantasy novel: Auralia's Colors, by Jeffrey Overstreet and Waterbrook Press. The only problem is that I couldn't find the "Christianity" in the story.

Now it's not as though I wasn't looking for it--quite the opposite.

My question to the forum is this: Should we expect certain elements of Christianity to be present in Christian Fiction?
Faith
redemption
God, Christ, represented (at least allegorically)
spiritual warfare, etc...Thanks in advance for all opinions on this. I'm not looking for one answer, but some discussion on it.

by way of an example: would you expect a "Christmas movie" to be set on a beach in July with absolutely no mention of the holiday, santa, Jesus, christmas trees or the usual holiday mentions?

blessings,
James

Yeah, I hear ya. It seems to me that some writers/publishers consider anything that's rated 'G' to be Christian... regardless of the actual content. And no, I don't consider something to be Christian just because it's inoffensive. Indeed, there is nothing more offensive in the universe than the true Gospel of our Lord and Savior, who is Christ Jesus; who shall reign with power, glory and majesty forever, amen.

I have not read the work you mentioned above, but I have read other works that placed the Christian label on them for some unknown reason. But then, there's plenty of folks that are looking for some kind of 'spiritual' experience from their reading, whether it's the Holy Spirit or some other. So as long as there's a lack of discernment out there, there will be a market for such aimless ilk.

Theognome

[andrewhollinger]

I think Christian fiction needs to have those elements of Christianity literature that you mentioned.

On the same issue, I don't think that all books by writers who are Christian belong in the Christian section of the bookstore. And I think that's where some of the problem lies.

I am a Christian, but not all my story ideas are Christian fiction. I don't think those books belong in that section of the bookstore, even if I have other books there.

[NancyMehl]

I want every book I write to touch people with the Gospel. I pray that God will use each book to minister to everyone who reads them. If an unbeliever picks up my book, I want them to enjoy the story AND come away with the impression that God really loves them. For Christians, I want the Holy Spirit to use the my story as a "word in due season" to minister to them in whatever way God wants to.

Although I strive for excellence in my stories, if I couldn't impact lives for the Lord through my writing, it wouldn't be worth it to me.

Nancy

[Roger J Carlson]

Hey all,

I'm looking for opinions on this subject. I just finished reading a wonderful Christian Fantasy novel: Auralia's Colors, by Jeffrey Overstreet and Waterbrook Press. The only problem is that I couldn't find the "Christianity" in the story.

Now it's not as though I wasn't looking for it--quite the opposite.

My question to the forum is this: Should we expect certain elements of Christianity to be present in Christian Fiction?

Faith
redemption
God, Christ, represented (at least allegorically)
spiritual warfare, etc...Thanks in advance for all opinions on this. I'm not looking for one answer, but some discussion on it.

by way of an example: would you expect a "Christmas movie" to be set on a beach in July with absolutely no mention of the holiday, santa, Jesus, christmas trees or the usual holiday mentions?

blessings,
JamesGenres (like Christian Fiction or Science Fiction) are really marketing categories. It's a device created by publishers and booksellers to help people know what books to buy. If they enjoyed one book in this category, they'll probably like another book in that category.

It's the same with SF. People are constantly arguing about what Science Fiction really is. But really, there's no single set of criteria because someone can always come up with at book that is clearly SF, but does not meet that criteria. John W. Campbell (long-time editor of Astounding Science Fiction - now Analog) defined it best IMO. He said, "Science fiction is what science fiction editors buy."

If a Christian publisher liked and published it and they think people who read Christian fiction will like it, then I don't see a reason not to call it that.

[BruceJ]

If a Christian publisher liked and published it and they think people who read Christian fiction will like it, then I don't see a reason not to call it that.
This is a toughie. I understand all the sentiments in the above threads, but--marketing or not--if something is going to have a Christian handle on it, it would seem they'd expect to find something identifiably Christian in it. That would be the basis of them responding to the marketing decision to put the Christian brand on it; indeed, to be browsing that section of the bookstore in the first place. If they feel misled after putting their money down for a 'Christian' work only to find nothing Christian in it, I don't think the marketers are justified by saying, "Well, we thought you might like it anyway." Wouldn't the resulting mistrust just serve to devalue the very tools (i.e., the genre categories) the marketers are using to categorize their customer base, and so they'd actually be working against themselves?

This thread will very possibly lead to a discussion of what's "Christian content" and what isn't. I hope not, because, although it's a value discussion topic--and one that's been batted around this forum in several threads already--it would derail the original question. CS Lewis made a good point: something to the effect of, 'We need fewer books on Christianity and more books on science, arts, etc. that have the Christian message embedded in them.' (paraphrase, not a quote). His context was more in the non-fiction realm, but based upon his own works, it appears he believed the same regarding fiction. How overt, or discernable, that message is/should be is the question and it's a really good one, too.

I kinda took both routes in my WIP (maybe 'copped out' is a better verb phrase :)). My series is on a historical Biblical figure--who is not fictional--but the fiction I fill the story out with contains its own theological nuggets for thought (some subtle, some not so subtle). So it's clearly identifiable as a religiously based work, but the embedded messages are not necessarily part of the contemporaneous Scriptural record--although they don't violate it, either. So anyone picking my book up off the shelf would know it's obviously a Judeo-Christian work (being Old Testament), but would not be aware in advance of the theological nuances scattered throughout it.

Interestingly, my Christian publisher tagged it as "Historical Fiction" rather than "Christian Fiction" and it ended up on the Borders/B&N book shelves next to James Joyce (alphabetical phenomenon). I feel honored to be in such company, but it's less likely anybody interested in a book like mine is going to search that part of the bookstore for it.

[Plot Device]

Jeffrey Overstreet is a regular comentator and film reviewer for Christianity Today. He also very VERY regularly posts at another forum called ArtsAndFaith. He has posted very very extensive opinions about Christians and their role in the arts going back more than three years that you can copiously find all over that message board.

That particular message board is far more skewed toward film than any other form of the arts (novels, music, etc) so a LOT of Christian film buffs hang out there.

He wrote a non-fiction book last year called "Through a Screen Darkly" where he indephtly explores Christians and the film industry and Christians IN the film industry.


I realize a lot of people on this message board have a lot of great and insightful things to say coming from their own perspectives on Christians and film, and also on Christians and novels, etc. But if you want HIS opinion and HIS perspective on why he wrote what he wrote, try checking out that other board.

One of the most frequent quotes I find Jeffrey Overstreet REPEATEDLY employing in his many posts over there is from Olympic medalist and Christian missionary Eric Liddle: "You can glorify God by peeling a potato IF you peel it very very well." And that's JO's way of saying the action or the service (or the novel) doesn't have to be OVERTLY churchy to be of God and for God.

[Plot Device]

CS Lewis said: "There should be Christian Literature inasmuch as there should be Christian cookery." Which was Lewis' absurdist way of saying: good food is still good food, regardless of whether it is "Christian" food or "secular food." A dish well-prepared by a Christian will neither taste any differently nor nourish any differently than the same dish equally well-prepared by a heathen. Ditto for the writing of a book.

[Plot Device]

I am now recalling one of my favorite quotes from Jeffrey Overstreet. He did a review for Christianity Today this past winter on the film The Last Sineater. He found that film to be very trite and cliche, and summed up his disappointment by saying it was: "Yes another film that is nothing more than a two-hour setup for an Evangelical punchline." (That's my paraphrased recollection of how he put it.)

One of his biggest complaints--especially about film (not novels but films) is when they are too "on the nose" (a term frequently used in Hollywood circles to describe substandard scripts that are insultingly overwrought). The old addage "Don't TELL us, SHOW us!" is one he finds Christian cinema to be grossly ignorant of (at least in practice).

An exploration of the American Christian sub-culture (particularly Evangelical culture) is on order here.



That sub-culture is VERY focused upon the written word of God, and upon the adept delivery of a very well-executed sermon on Sunday mornings. These are life and death stakes! People's eternal SOULS are at risk here! You MUST get that sermon right! You MUST get that message across! Leave no room for confusion in their minds! Deliver this vital message as clearly as you possibly can! And so the Sunday morning sermon -- the epicenter of ALL of Evangelical culture-- is the end-all and be-all. And these sermons TELL IT ALL and they do so IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS! There is NO vaguery in a Sunday morning sermon. Sermons are ALWAYS "on the nose," by design.

An extension of the Sunday sermon is the Christmas pageant or the Easter pageant, or a passion play or SOME kind of a stage drama where the kids from the youth group (or the young adults from the singles group) get up on satge at church and present a brief sketch or a full blown play with an Evageical message to it. And once again, these productions are "on the nose," by design.

And then we have Christian cinema. Good cinema is NEVER "on the nose," but Christian cinema is painfully and embarassingly so.

Embarassingly so.

I will repeat it one ore time: Christian cinema is embarassingly "on the nose." And all of Hollywood LAUGHS dismissively at the paltriness of what some in the industry refer to as "Christer films."

Jeffrey Overstreet's biggest complaint is the inability/refusal for most Christian films to allow the viewer to THINK and to PONDER. Instead, those films spell it all out in nasueating detail and leave nothing left for the viewer to figure out on their own.





So ............ why was "Auralia's Colors" NOT a specimen of OVERT Evangelicalism? Why did it NOT hit you over the head with the salvation message? Because that's not Overstreet's style. When it comes to fiction, he would NEVER write anything that was "on the nose." Ever. Just check out his position in Through a Screen Darkly as well as three years worth of postings at ArtsAndFaith and you'll see what I mean.

[Roger J Carlson]

I probably shouldn't respond to this because I don't know that much about cinema.

However, aren't there movies every bit as much "on the nose", which "preach" a moral lesson, but DON'T receive the mockery of Hollywood? I'm thinking of movies like "China Syndrome", "Erin Brockovich", "Greed", and everything by Michael Moore. Aren't these not "embarassingly on the nose" simply because they are beliefs that Hollywood holds dear?

[Simple Living]

I've been enjoying reading this thread. I've held back in responding because my brain is bursting with responses and I don't want to monopolize the thread. I'm not an expert, but I have first-hand experience.

I was in the entertainment industry for years. I did well. I hated it. Although Hollywood needs Christians in it, I wasn't meant to be one of them. God bless Hollywood's Christians.

Roger brought up a great point. The world isn't worried about shoving their values and way of life down everyone's throat. They're blatant about it. It's when Christianity make a point of bringing Jesus and biblical values into Christian films and books, that it's labeled "propoganda" (read NetFlix reviews of Christian films) and "intolerant." But, we know the world is intolerant of Christianity. It's a double standard they won't admit to.

However, this shouldn't shock any of us. In fact, I'm surprised there's not more of it. Jesus warned us, in Matthew, that the world will hate us because it first hated Him. And no slave is better than his Master. He described the persecution the church would go through in the last days and we're seeing it.

On the other hand, most of the Christian films out there are so low-budget and low-quality in production, including the screenwriting, that it's embarrassing. (I loved the Left Behind book series, but the movies are horrific.) The message clobbers people over the head because it's so obvious and forced that the viewer feels like they've been Bible-thumped.

When it comes to novels, I believe the message should be there but not so blatantly obvious or it will invite the due criticism that all books with hammering messages receive. Christian fiction should, in their actions, point to the message of Christ. That can be done without mentioning Jesus or even having a pastor in your story. That's not to say that all Christian fiction should be that way. I'm just saying I don't believe it's always necessary.

[Plot Device]

I probably shouldn't respond to this because I don't know that much about cinema.

However, aren't there movies every bit as much "on the nose", which "preach" a moral lesson, but DON'T receive the mockery of Hollywood? I'm thinking of movies like "China Syndrome", "Erin Brockovich", "Greed", and everything by Michael Moore. Aren't these not "embarassingly on the nose" simply because they are beliefs that Hollywood holds dear?

Fair questions.

I can only comment on those films I have seen. I saw Erin Brockovich and China Syndrome. I also saw Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11. Never saw Greed.

I did not find the first two to be "on the nose." The second two (especially F911) were very skewed into outright propoganda, (and Michael Moore fully admits this, he even said "No, it's not a documentary, it's a propoganda film").


Erin Brockovich in particular was not at all "on the nose." The message of that film was that a beautiful woman with guts and smarts can achieve amazing things, in spite of the rest of the world telling her she's nothing else but a beautiful (and useless) woman. She started off as next to worthless from a financial and social perspective, meriting no respect whatsoever from any person from any corner of life (including the other employees of the law firm). But by film's end she was admired and respected by her co-workers at the law firm, deemed a heroine by the people from the water-contaminated town, and given a huge paycheck amounting to about 1.5% of the $400 million court settlement that she almost singlehanded delivered to her boss. And she never once knuckled under by changing either her manner of speech or style of dress. BUT, if at any point in the film someone came along and said "You know what, Erin? I used to think you were just a pretty face in a trailer trash wardrobe. But it turns out you're MORE than just a pretty face. You're smart and gusty and you singlehandedly achieved what few others with twice your education and social standing could have done. You're a classy lady and don't let anybody tell you otherwise." THEN the movie would indeed have been "on the nose" because it would have SAID in thirty seconds what it had already SHOWN in two hours.

But Christian cinema typically TELLS things rather than SHOWS them. And the "two hour set-up for an Evangelical punchline" is when a film takes the full two hours to build toward a "climax" that shows a heartfelt conversation in which the unsaved charcater "says the sinner's prayer" right on camera and "surrenders to Jesus," and thus the movie TELLS the audience how to "get saved."



As for China Syndrome, that film's message was: "The nuclear industry is in fact an industry whose sole interest is to make money. And yet those in charge of it cannot be trusted to ALSO be ethical when it comes to the safety of the power plants themselves. They will always prioritize the money, even to the point of risking other people's lives--possibly even TAKING other people's lives." No one in the movie ever came out and SAID that. We pieced it together ourselves during the course of the two hours.

[Plot Device]

Let me give another example. (And I'm quite certain I'm definitely repeating myself here in this post. I know that I have already made the same argument elsewhere in this same sub-forum and cited the same two films.)

Two of my favorite non-Christian (ie, not made by Christian production companies) films are:

The Good Son with Elijah Wood and McClaulay Culkin
Autumn in New York with Richard Gere and Wynona Rider

Both were utterly lacking in ANY preaching or "on the nose" dialogue. But both had deeply moving moral messages at their cores. The first film basically had a message that said: "If you do not make it a deliberate point to raise your child to be morally upright, this moral vacuum will cause him/her to follow a path of evil by sheer default." And the second film's message was: "Monogamy, fidelity, and marriage are all vitally important to the fabric of human society, especially when it comes to protecting women from unscrupulous men and sheilding women from having their lives ruined by them." No one actually SAID any of this during the course of either film. We had to figure it out on our own in both instances. Meanwhile, to my knowledge, not one person connected to either film was overtly Christian. But the messages of both films are arguably quite Biblical.

[windyrdg]

Quote - "He did a review for Christianity Today this past winter on the film The Last Sineater. He found that film to be very trite and cliche, and summed up his disappointment by saying it was: "Yes another film that is nothing more than a two-hour setup for an Evangelical punchline."

Substitute three hundred page for two-hour, and he unfortunately described most Christian fiction.

As long as the Evangelical viewpoint drives most Christian publishing things will never change.

Why not write a novel about real people living in a real world? Through their foibles, failures and fumbles, they can say a lot more to the reader about the Christian walk and faith struggles.

Sorry if I sound cynical, but I find most 'Christian Fiction' unreadable.

[Plot Device]

I was in the entertainment industry for years. I did well. I hated it. Although Hollywood needs Christians in it, I wasn't meant to be one of them. God bless Hollywood's Christians.

We should talk. :)


Roger brought up a great point. The world isn't worried about shoving their values and way of life down everyone's throat. They're blatant about it. It's when Christianity make a point of bringing Jesus and biblical values into Christian films and books, that it's labeled "propoganda" (read NetFlix reviews of Christian films) and "intolerant." But, we know the world is intolerant of Christianity. It's a double standard they won't admit to.

A film called Agnes of God starring Jane Fonda did a HORRIBLE job of shoving anti-Christian values down the public's throat. It was VERY preachy and over-the-top and unabashedly "on the nose" in its angry, self-righteous message that religion is bad bad bad. THAT was an embarassing film!

And I have to say that Soderberg's highly acclaimed Traffic --with it's many Oscars-- was also very "on the nose" to the point of being embarassing. (Although I don't believe it's anti-drug message is anything too many Christians would disagree with.)

So I'm not pretending that there's some tried and true axiom in place that:

"All Christian films are on the nose while all secular films are not,"

--not in the least.

I'm simply saying Christian production companies have a track record --and therefore (quite sadly) a REPUTATION-- of cranking out two-hour altar calls and pretending they are works of cinema.

A screenplay is not a novel is not a stage play is not a radio script is not a sermon. They need to be kept separate from each other, and for good reason.


However, this shouldn't shock any of us. In fact, I'm surprised there's not more of it. Jesus warned us, in Matthew, that the world will hate us because it first hated Him. And no slave is better than his Master. He described the persecution the church would go through in the last days and we're seeing it.

I do not dispute the validity of that verse. However, I think Christian artists need to guard their hearts and their spirits against the sin of pride by striving for some very very shrewd discernment over when it's Christ that is being rejected versus when it's the quality of their work that's being rejected. The answer that is easier on one's pride will ALWAYS be: "My work is good, they're just blind Christ-haters! Glory Hallelujah! It's an honor to suffer for Christ!" But that kind of self-righteous embrace of persecution as an alleged badge of honor can sometimes really just be blame-shifting of the sort that falls a little too seductively close to: "If you can't see the emperor's clothes, you are a fool!" It's never good to PRETEND and to DENY. Self-examination, no matter how painful, iz yer fray-und.


On the other hand, most of the Christian films out there are so low-budget and low-quality in production, including the screenwriting, that it's embarrassing. (I loved the Left Behind book series, but the movies are horrific.) The message clobbers people over the head because it's so obvious and forced that the viewer feels like they've been Bible-thumped.

One of the tragic thnigs I have been hearing from Christian artists and craftspeople who wolk at these Christian production companies (and these are film school graduates who truly want to make decent movies) is that when the budgets are tiny, they can't do much. And when the budgets are huge (which is rare, but it DOES happen from time to time) it's usually because someone was savvy enough to wine and dine a few super-duper rich Christians into signing up as executive producers (which means they signed them up to finance the film out of their bulging bank accounts) and then these super-rich Christians pretty much DEMAND (and they are holding the purse strings at this point!) that the Gospel be presented in full force. These super rich mucky mucks know nothing about good cinema, they just know (in all sincerity and with the best of intensions) that they want to try and glorify God through movies, and so they DEMAND that the films hold back nothing when it comes to the Gospel. They will often scrutinize the scripts during developemnt and pre-production, making suggestions on how to pump up the Jesus factor in the stories. They will hover around the sets during principle photography, they will watch the dailies, screen the early cuts, and they just plain meddle meddle meddle. This is surely the WORST nightmare of "movie by committee." And because this is how most Christian films are being financed today, this is also how most of them get bastardized into being half-filmic/half-homiletic freaks of cinema that the rest of the industry laughs at.


When it comes to novels, I believe the message should be there but not so blatantly obvious or it will invite the due criticism that all books with hammering messages receive. Christian fiction should, in their actions, point to the message of Christ. That can be done without mentioning Jesus or even having a pastor in your story. That's not to say that all Christian fiction should be that way. I'm just saying I don't believe it's always necessary.

Amen! :cool:

[Plot Device]

Why not write a novel about real people living in a real world? Through their foibles, failures and fumbles, they can say a lot more to the reader about the Christian walk and faith struggles.

That said, I personally feel that the writings of Jane Austen should be classified as "Christian fiction." ;)

[BruceJ]

CS Lewis said: "There should be Christian Literature inasmuch as there should be Christian cookery." Which was Lewis' absurdist way of saying: good food is still good food, regardless of whether it is "Christian" food or "secular food." A dish well-prepared by a Christian will neither taste any differently nor nourish any differently than the same dish equally well-prepared by a heathen. Ditto for the writing of a book.
Thanks, but wrong quote, if you were stepping off my post. I was referring to "What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects--with their Christianity latent." (God in the Dock: Christian Apologetics). In that, he actually supports your contention, near as I can tell, concerning it not being necessary for Christianity to be "overt" in a work--in fact, it's better if it isn't. Don't know if you consider him absurdist in that context, too. I'm not sure if I agree with your extrapolation regarding the Christian vs. heathen contribution. I guess it depends what you're looking for.

[Plot Device]

Sorry, Bruce. My post #9 had nothing at all to do with yours.

And I'm not at all sure what you mean by "wrong quote." Wrong application by me perhaps????

But here's the precise quote from Lewis (oddly enough my Google search on the simple phrase "Chrisytian Cookery" just now brought me to a Jeffrey Overstreet column in Christianity Tdoay. Go figure!):

"Christian literature can exist only in the same sense in which Christian cookery might exist."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/mayweb-only/41.0b.html

And Lewis is deifinitely trying to invoke a sense of the absurb, thus my choice to label it "absurdist."

[BruceJ]

My mistake, Plot. Sorry. Your Lewis quote came on the heels of my Lewis paraphrase and I didn't know if I was being misunderstood. Also clearer on the absurdist reference.

Again, sorry for the glitch. :)

[Plot Device]

My mistake, Plot. Sorry. Your Lewis quote came on the heels of my Lewis paraphrase and I didn't know if I was being misunderstood. Also clearer on the absurdist reference.

Again, sorry for the glitch. :)

Sorry. I only just read your Post #7 up above and I can now totally see where you're coming from.

No biggie. :cool:

[Plot Device]

BTW getting back to the OP, I believe I recall JO explaining that many years ago he was trying to imagine a world where there was no such thing as color, and then along comes a girl who knows what color is and who tries to tell the people of this world what it's all about. And when she shows them these colors they do indeed see, but they just don't understand it all.

This is all, of course, allegorical of the words of Christ who said: "though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand."

And I confess I have not read the book itself (yet).

But in the end, we the readers are supposed to FIGURE OUT ON OUR OWN that this is all allegorical and that it applies to Jesus. For Overstreet to have something at the end where he blatantly explains the allegory to the reader would simply ruin everything.

[III]

Faith
redemption
God, Christ, represented (at least allegorically)
spiritual warfare, etc...

Yeah, I'd have to agree with your assertion, James. Just because the writer is Christian and the material is rated G and has good morals shouldn't really land it in the "Christian" genre. I appreciate the list above that you came up with. So often "Christian" work gets pidgeonholed as a message of salvation, but like the rest of our gang here I much prefer a realistic story that just has a geniune Christian character or some other genuine element of Christianity as part of the story.

That's what I really loved about the movie Saved! Even though much of the Christian community condemned it as an anti-Christian film, I thought it was incredibly honest and had genuine charcters who were just trying to figure out how their faith fit in with the realities of life.

[Plot Device]

I am also a fan of Saved! Each character had a beautiful arc involving personal struggle and difficult choices. And the pastor had a characetr arc that remained flat and neautral. He was the only character who didn't change. He remained blind and unbudging.

[III]

I am also a fan of Saved! Each character had a beautiful arc involving personal struggle and difficult choices. And the pastor had a characetr arc that remained flat and neautral. He was the only character who didn't change. He remained blind and unbudging.

But in fairness he was "kickin' it Jesus style" and "getting his Christ on", so he had that going for him. So where you been PD?

[Unique]

"What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects--with their Christianity latent."

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I like the word 'latent'; to me that seems 'unrevealed' but ... perhaps. Many people have a bad taste in their mouth over Christianity because of what has been done to them or thrown at them by 'so called' Christians. So keeping it 'latent' might get them to pick up the book in the first place ...



:::: Backing out slowly now ::::

[BruceJ]

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I like the word 'latent'; to me that seems 'unrevealed' but ... perhaps. Many people have a bad taste in their mouth over Christianity because of what has been done to them or thrown at them by 'so called' Christians. So keeping it 'latent' might get them to pick up the book in the first place ...



:::: Backing out slowly now ::::
Good point, Unique. I'm not sure what the nuance of latent may have been in mid-20th century England. At the risk of interpreting Lewis or putting words in his mouth, perhaps we'd use "embedded" or "implied" in today's American vernacular.

And no need to back out. Your point is well taken. :)

[Judg]

A screenplay is not a novel is not a stage play is not a radio script is not a sermon. They need to be kept separate from each other, and for good reason.
Absolutely! A novel is not a sermon. And people who buy a novel and get a sermon instead are going to be very frustrated.

What frustrates me is that Christians too often expect their novels to be sermons and use that as the sole criterion for judging them. *sigh*

There is definitely a place for writing novels that don't present the Gospel as such but see the world through Christian eyes. I've heard this called pre-evangelism.

It's joining a secular discussion forum online. If you barge in and immediately start with "Praise the Lord, hallelujah, are you saved, brother?" everybody will run in the other direction with their ears plugged. However, if you make yourself a respected member of the community by contributing to it ON ITS OWN TERMS then you will occasionally get the opportunity to discuss spiritual things and actually get listened to. This is the lesson that Christian artists need to learn.

Larry Norman said it well years ago (and I'm paraphrasing here): if you want to write music for Christians, you've got to get beyond the salvation message. They're already saved. Give them meat, not milk. If you want to make music with a salvation message, you've got to get out of the Christian ghetto and do it in such a way that non-Christians will listen.

When non-Christians decide they want a sermon, they have no trouble finding a church to hear one in. If we want to talk to them, we can't do so in sermons.

If they like Jeffrey Overstreet's books, they'll start looking for stuff by him and about him. And then they'll know where he stands. And they'll be willing to respect him. Some will be willing to listen. In the meanwhile, there is no shame whatsoever in bringing a well-crafted story into the world, even if it isn't a sermon.

Please note, as a church-goer and wife of a former pastor, I am all in favour of a good sermon. But not when it clumsily tries to pretend to be a work of art. Blech.

[james1611]

I appreciate all of the great discussion on this subject.

As I said before: I really enjoyed Mr. Overstreet's novel.

I do have one other question though which arises when considering this whole topic and that is: Shouldn't Christian artists (novelists, etc) be shooting for some "eternal value" with their work?

This is of course in light of the judgment seat of Christ where it is God's standard we must meet to have our work rewarded or found worthless and lose reward.

James

[Simple Living]

Shouldn't Christian artists (novelists, etc) be shooting for some "eternal value" with their work?

This is of course in light of the judgment seat of Christ where it is God's standard we must meet to have our work rewarded or found worthless and lose reward.

James

Frankly, James, I think you've touched on the only thing that matters at all. Right now, we're all on the outside of the cemetary gates. But, one day, if the Lord tarries, we're all going to be on the other side. At that point, the only thing that will matter, not only with our writing but in our lives as a whole, is what we did to further His kingdom. That being the case, anything we write should honor Him.

[Judg]

Yes, definitely. But there are more ways to honour Him than by directly presenting the gospel. Didn't Jesus make that clear when he said that even those who gave a drink of water in his name would not lose their reward? Helping people edge towards a place where they will be willing to listen is also a very valid thing to do. Much more subtle, but valid. Challenging Christians in their comfort zones, where they confuse personal and cultural preferences with God's will is also a valid thing to do. There are an infinite number of ways to serve and many things of value to do.

[Unique]

Who decides and how would one decide what an 'eternal value' is?

What men deem 'valuable' and what Christ deems valuable are often very different things.

To me, first and foremost, a novel entertains. I would be highly suspicious of a novel that tried to do anything else. I have learned things from novels but holding one up to the mercy seat of Christ? Whatever for?

[james1611]

Who decides and how would one decide what an 'eternal value' is?

What men deem 'valuable' and what Christ deems valuable are often very different things.

To me, first and foremost, a novel entertains. I would be highly suspicious of a novel that tried to do anything else. I have learned things from novels but holding one up to the mercy seat of Christ? Whatever for?

Why hold a novel up to the Judgment seat of Christ?

first of all: everything we undertake will be judged there for believers to be found "worth reward" or "worthless."
second: Christ often presented spiritual truth to "those with an ear to hear," in the form of PARABLES. Parables are fictional stories where spiritual truth is held below the surface of the narrative for those who are seeking to know the deeper meaning.
A good Christian novel can do exactly that and thus present more than just "entertainment value" to those willing to dig deeper.This is what happened in Christ's ministry: some only heard the narrative and left it at that, but others sought the underlying relevance of the story.

As far as the "standard" for what is good or not: God's word is the standard. Does it present truth according to God's word, does it lead one to a greater understanding of faith, repentance, grace, mercy, etc with regard to God. These weighty matters can be incorporated in a novel which draws the reader with an interesting story and with the gold of spiritual truth.;)

blessings,
James

[Unique]

Does it present truth according to God's word, does it lead one to a greater understanding of faith, repentance, grace, mercy, etc with regard to God. These weighty matters can be incorporated in a novel which draws the reader with an interesting story and with the gold of spiritual truth.


That seems like a great load for a novel to carry. Is that what people are looking for when buying Christian fiction?

[james1611]

That seems like a great load for a novel to carry. Is that what people are looking for when buying Christian fiction?

Would you say it was a great load to carry--all of the fantasy writers who were inspired by Tolkien's Hobbit or Lord of the Rings?

Tolkien certainly never thought about the weight of it or the results when crafting his beloved Middle Earth...he only meant to tell a great story. But a great story can do so many unexpected things, can't it?

If a great story can inspire then why not choose the direction for that inspiration...and can't the Lord of Heaven and Earth empower it if he so chooses?

Perhaps God would use us, if we were desiring to be used.;)

blessings, and Happy New Year! :partyguy:
James

[BruceJ]

Is that what people are looking for when buying Christian fiction?
Some are. I do, but there's certainly a balance to reach between being overly "preachy" as noted above, or overly "latent" (so as to be undescernible). I think the question this thread started out with inlcuded where that point of balance might be--and the varied responses show it's very subjective. It still seems to me that a novel should be identifiably Christian if it purports to be Christian fiction. I expect it to make me think about my Christian walk, or reflect on my perspective of Christianity. If it's simply a novel that has a moral message, then that's just what it is: simply a novel.

Different readers look for different things. If someone is shopping the Christian fiction section of a bookstore (or the fiction section of a Christian bookstore), it seems they're probably at least as interested in the 'Christian' aspect as they are the 'fiction' aspect.

Again, just my own subjectivism kicking in.

[Unique]

I don't know about all the fantasy writers being inspired, james. I really can't speak to that. I know fantasy is popular but I absolutely loathe it. I don't understand the attraction and would personally rather read fortune cookies all day.

I read the Hobbit years ago; it was okay. I tried the rest and just did not like them. I've heard people say those elements were in there - perhaps they were, it's been a long time and I don't remember.

When people come up to check out books where I work, the ones with Christian and inspirational books invariably say they want something light and entertaining or they're looking for something without swear words or graphic sex and they know those things won't be in those books.

So I'm thinking about what you're saying and what my patrons are saying and they don't match up. That's all I'm saying. What you write and how you write it is up to you - I'm just thinking about what people tell me they're looking for in a work of Christian fiction.

[Plot Device]

I don't know about all the fantasy writers being inspired, james. I really can't speak to that. I know fantasy is popular but I absolutely loathe it. I don't understand the attraction and would personally rather read fortune cookies all day.

I read the Hobbit years ago; it was okay. I tried the rest and just did not like them. I've heard people say those elements were in there - perhaps they were, it's been a long time and I don't remember.

When people come up to check out books where I work, the ones with Christian and inspirational books invariably say they want something light and entertaining or they're looking for something without swear words or graphic sex and they know those things won't be in those books.

So I'm thinking about what you're saying and what my patrons are saying and they don't match up. That's all I'm saying. What you write and how you write it is up to you - I'm just thinking about what people tell me they're looking for in a work of Christian fiction.

Sounds like your book customers are people who are already saved. I'd rather have my stuff read or my films watched by people who AREN'T. And THAT is a far greater challenge I think.

[Strongbear]

I have a question. If you're a Christian, is it okay for you to write a book which might not be overtly Christian? Now I'm not talking about something that is anti-Christian, but rather... well, to explain... I've written a spy/ action thriller novel. Now typically in spy/ action thrillers, you expect certain elements to be present. For example, you might expect there to be some fighting or even killing, as well as various methods of deception. If those elements weren't present, it might not work very well as a spy/action thriller at all. However, as a Christian, one wouldn't resolve conflicts in that way. But if your characters did just turn the other cheek all the time or sat down to pray with someone, certain scenes would never occur. So what should one do?

And if a novel has certain Christian themes in it, but not specifically about the gospel message - say for example, it's more about certain aspects of life and a Christian response to it (not all sermons are always about salvation but sometimes just about Christian living in the every day world) - would that be enough for a novel to be vaguely classified as Christian?

Thanks

[Plot Device]

I think a different (and perhaps better, although other could argue with me) way of looking at all of this would be to realize that the term "Christian fiction" is more meant as a marketing thing. Instead of saying on a philosophical level "Only Godly people buy hrisdtian fiction," and instead of saying on a digmatic level "All Christian authors will/shall only write Christian fiction," it would be better to say from a business perspective: "The label of 'Christian Fiction' is conveneintly used to designate those publications/works that are meant to espouse Christian values."

If we can stick to THIS, then we're separating the writer from the finished work. And then that frees up the book distributors to market different works from the same author to different target audiences.

Isaac Azimov is most well-known for his sci-fi stuff, but he also wrote romances, westerns, murder mysteries, and loads of non-fiction (including Biblical exegesis). It would be silly to put his Bible commentaries in the sci-fi section.

In the case of Jeffrey Overstreet's book "Aurelias's Colors," it is DEFINTELY meant to convey Christian truths, so it quite deservedly should go in the Christian section of the book store. The fact that those truths are so subtle is a matter of style and execution.

[Gravity]

I have a question. If you're a Christian, is it okay for you to write a book which might not be overtly Christian? Now I'm not talking about something that is anti-Christian, but rather... well, to explain... I've written a spy/ action thriller novel. Now typically in spy/ action thrillers, you expect certain elements to be present. For example, you might expect there to be some fighting or even killing, as well as various methods of deception. If those elements weren't present, it might not work very well as a spy/action thriller at all. However, as a Christian, one wouldn't resolve conflicts in that way. But if your characters did just turn the other cheek all the time or sat down to pray with someone, certain scenes would never occur. So what should one do?

And if a novel has certain Christian themes in it, but not specifically about the gospel message - say for example, it's more about certain aspects of life and a Christian response to it (not all sermons are always about salvation but sometimes just about Christian living in the every day world) - would that be enough for a novel to be vaguely classified as Christian?

Thanks

Fighting, killing, deception: you've just described what's in every book I've written (or will write). Seriously. And by the Christian hero. And more amazingly, they were published by a mainstream CBA house, got national distribution, and garnered better reviews than I deserved. I think people would astounded at what Christian publishers are greenlighting these days. I know I was. Pleasantly.

[Strongbear]

Ok thanks. These other opinions are helpful.

I have another question. What do people think of Christian books having sensuality in it? For example, in a romantic scene, should it be devoid of anything (eg descriptions etc) that might arouse the reader's senses too much? And should you cut away from actual love scenes like they might do in some movies where it simply shows the scene afterwards?

And would scenes where characters kill each other, sleep with each other, deceive each other etc suggest that you are advocating those values yourself?

[III]

Ok thanks. These other opinions are helpful.

I have another question. What do people think of Christian books having sensuality in it? For example, in a romantic scene, should it be devoid of anything (eg descriptions etc) that might arouse the reader's senses too much? And should you cut away from actual love scenes like they might do in some movies where it simply shows the scene afterwards?

And would scenes where characters kill each other, sleep with each other, deceive each other etc suggest that you are advocating those values yourself?

Personally, I think it really depends on the audience you're targeting with your writing. If you want to reach a conservative audience, write conservatively. If you want to reach a broader audience, write broadly. If you want to reach a rough-and-tumble audience, write rough-and-tumble.

The Bible contains explicit sex and violence in historical settings. I think if you pray about it and search your heart, you'll discover what's "edifying to your readers". And always strive for the best writing you can achieve. Gratuitous sex and violence can be the results of lazy writing, or they can be poignantly portrayed to have an intellectual and visceral impact on the reader for a purpose. Write excellently.

[Judg]

Writing about something doesn't mean you agree with it. I will disagree with III about the Bible containing explicit sex in a historical setting. It doesn't. It tells us what happened in a very brief, factual way, but there is no blow-by-blow stuff.

I personally do not want to get aroused by what I'm reading. That's intruding on my husband's turf. ;o) Remember what Jesus said, "If anyone looks at a woman to lust after her..." So yes, I have a lot of trouble with Christian authors telling too much. Or non-Christian ones for that matter. I skip those bits altogether.

[III]

I will disagree with III about the Bible containing explicit sex in a historical setting.

I guess it depends on how you definte "explicit". An example that comes to mind is the story of Judah's sons. It talks about his son spilling his semen on the ground so as not to impregnate his dead brother's wife. It doesn't go into the "show vs. tell" detail, which is the point you're making - it states events succinctly rather than describing them in detail. But to me, the details themselves still fall into the realm of "explicit" but not "gratuitous".

Does that sound like a fair useage of the terms? I know you're a well-educated wordsmith, Judg, so I'll defer if you think I'm using them improperly.

If we do use "explicit" and "gratuitous" as I've used them above, I think the question is, is it okay to be "explicit" as long as you're not gratuitous (as regards "Christian" literature)? For example, could Strongbear say "he took her back to the coat closet, stripped off her clothes and made forceful love to her", as a way of being explicit, but succinct?

[Judg]

Oy. It's always hard to know exactly where to draw the line, isn't it? I guess for me, the bottom line is I don't want to read things that will stimulate lust in me. If I'm stimulated by the mere mention of sexual activity, then I probably have issues to work out.

On the other hand, Christian books that avoid any mention of sexuality altogether can get a little silly. It is a central drive and motivation in the human experience and everybody has to deal with it in one way or another. It isn't important for every story, but almost.

I will confess to using the fade-out technique and the scene afterwards. We know what happened, but don't see it on the screen. I also make it pretty clear how the MC feels about his wife, hopefully in a tasteful way.

I guess I do object to blow-by-blow stuff (and yes, that's how I define explicit. I haven't looked it up to see if that's the correct meaning). Whether I want it or not, my body - like everyone else's - has a hormonal response to certain stimuli. I also want to keep images of other people's love-making out of my own marital bed, thank you very much.

[III]

Okay, so I just have to share part of a scene from my last book. The two MC's (Noah and Sabrina) are having a heated argument. It's the only mention of sex in the book, but this thread reminded me of it. Thought I'd share the fun :D

“Okay, okay, okay!” Noah pleaded, holding up his hands. “I’m sorry! Geez, why’d you have to hit me?”
“Because I’m mad at you.”
Noah rubbed the top of his triceps. He knew there would be a bruise there later. “Why are you mad at me? I thought you were just trying to be nice!”
“I am nice!” Sabrina swung for the same spot, but No saw it coming this time and grabbed her fist. He could tell she was still legitimately mad and she would have really hit him again.
“That’s it,” he said, and grabbed her, pinning her arms as she wriggled to try and get free.
“Let go of me you big ape!” she said as she struggled. They wrestled for a moment before Noah let her go and rolled out of her reach, narrowly avoiding a backfist that would have rung his ear, almost rolling off the ledge. She was glaring at him.
“I can’t wait to marry you,” he said, still staying out of her reach.
“What, like you think these arguments are gonna end in sex if we get married?”
“Oh sweet merciful heavens I hope so.”
“Yeah, you keep on hopin’.”

[Inspiewriter]

I have a question. If you're a Christian, is it okay for you to write a book which might not be overtly Christian? Now I'm not talking about something that is anti-Christian, but rather... well, to explain... I've written a spy/ action thriller novel. Now typically in spy/ action thrillers, you expect certain elements to be present.
?

Thanks

I am pondering this also, since I want to work on another time travel romance. I've read Christian fiction that includes time travel, so I know at least some markets accept it.

But I am wondering if I can make this something that still has the message of an "inspirational" romance, despite the "magic."

Then again our world is full of the paranormal, supernatural things, that are all very real even if we can't see them.

[althrasher]

(My first post in this sub--sorry if I beat dead horses.)

I don't think Christian writing has to have blatent appearances of God or Jesus or religious characters to be religious in nature. I think the approach of real problems from a moral standpoint can be very religious. Also I think the themes of a novel are very important, too. If something has themes of justice, charity, and love, does it have to have a Jesus cameo?

[Strongbear]

On the other hand, Christian books that avoid any mention of sexuality altogether can get a little silly. It is a central drive and motivation in the human experience and everybody has to deal with it in one way or another. It isn't important for every story, but almost.

I guess this is part of what I'm saying. I wouldn't put gratuitous scenes in a novel, but should one avoid it altogether? Even kissing scenes however could come into question. I personally would think kissing is okay because in a romance novel, for example, that would seem almost integral to it as a vital ingredient. Of course, I know some Christians wouldn't even advocate kissing between unmarried couples on the argument that it might arouse them too much and that one thing leads to another. By including kissing, would you be seen to be endorsing such behaviour?

[Mac H.]

Of course, I know some Christians wouldn't even advocate kissing between unmarried couples on the argument that it might arouse them too much and that one thing leads to another. By including kissing, would you be seen to be endorsing such behaviour?Crikeys. Whoever those people are, I can guarantee they wouldn't be buying a Christian romance novel either way.

Who are your audience? The Amish may be a great Christian group, but even if you eliminated every sign of technology from your stories to avoid offending them, they still won't be buying your book.

Going by the list of desirable traits I've seen so far in this thread, not even Jesus would have been able to class most of his parables as 'Christian Fiction' ! (The debauchery of The Prodigal Son ? And what about the parable of 'The Dishonest Steward' - if that was written as a novel length story it certainly wouldn't be 'Christian Fiction' !!)

The book of Esther has already been mentioned ... a tale of a woman using her good looks to sleep with the boss .. already knowing that he's having sex with plenty of other girls too!

Change the names and set it in modern times. Would it be a soap opera or Christian Fiction ?

Mac

[Gravity]

Somebody once gave me some sage advice: "write the story the story requires."

In other words, if one is penning Christian chick-lit novels to middle-aged Baptist ladies, the story will, of neccessity, find itself tailored to that. On the other hand, if you're writing action/suspense tales geared to Christian men, the novel will take a much different tack. I guess what I'm saying, Bear, is at the end of the day write what's on your heart, and screw the consequences.

[james1611]

This might be a good point to interject with this question.

What is your purpose as a Christian Author?

Do you desire to entertain only?
Do you want eternal value to your work--which means of course it must stand up to The Lord's scrutiny at the BEMA.
Are you hoping only to become well known as a published author
etc...There may be many and varied reasons why you as a Christian are also a writer. This will undoubtedly determine WHAT you end up writing and including in your stories.

James

[callalily61]

What is your purpose as a Christian Author?

Do you desire to entertain only?
Do you want eternal value to your work--which means of course it must stand up to The Lord's scrutiny at the BEMA.
Are you hoping only to become well known as a published author
etc...

What's the "BEMA"? I get the feeling this is one of those things that Cradle Catholics never heard of, like AWANNA. (I never heard of the latter till about 3 years ago. Still not sure what it is. Preschool church camp?) :)

On to the questions:

Do you desire to entertain only?
--I desire to scare the pants off people in broad daylight. Yes, to entertain them. I don't attend church or listen to/read sermons. I'm a "tell a parable while serving up the dessert" person.
Do you want eternal value to your work--which means of course it must stand up to The Lord's scrutiny at the BEMA.
--Within that context: snuck in between the bad guys, gore, humor, and good food, perhaps a question or two about the underlying spirituality will sneak in. But I'm not pushing it.
Are you hoping only to become well known as a published author
--I'm hoping to become a good "beach read." Seriously. I don't write deep, thoughtful books. I write "commercial" fiction for the doubting, the angry, the rejected, the fringe-- the folks Jesus hung out with. It's who I am, still, after all these years.

[Plot Device]

This might be a good point to interject with this question.

What is your purpose as a Christian Author?

Do you desire to entertain only?
Do you want eternal value to your work--which means of course it must stand up to The Lord's scrutiny at the BEMA.
Are you hoping only to become well known as a published author
etc...There may be many and varied reasons why you as a Christian are also a writer. This will undoubtedly determine WHAT you end up writing and including in your stories.

James


This laundry list seems a little slanted toward guilt-trip sanctimoniousness. I notice that the word "only" apears in the two goals that are being looked down upon, while the one LACKING the word "only" is being artificialy propped up as the altruistic winner. How about you go back and insert the word "only" somewhere in that bullet point also, and then see what happens.

[althrasher]

To now participate in TOTAL thread derailment...

My purpose as a writer is to write the stories in my head that want to be told. Often times they are spiritual in nature, often times not. To go for a work that is a touch of heaven and enlightenment is, IMO, quite arrogant and impossible.

[callalily61]

To now participate in TOTAL thread derailment...
<snip>
To go for a work that is a touch of heaven and enlightenment is, IMO, quite arrogant and impossible.

And to solidify my reputation as flippant:

No, no, althrasher, it's quite possible. I have my MC eat a baked apple with caramel sauce and she insists she died and went to heaven. :tongue

[althrasher]

And to solidify my reputation as flippant:

No, no, althrasher, it's quite possible. I have my MC eat a baked apple with caramel sauce and she insists she died and went to heaven. :tongue

LOL. Of course, using Divine Foods is almost cheating.

[Inspiewriter]

Larry Norman said it well years ago (and I'm paraphrasing here): if you want to write music for Christians, you've got to get beyond the salvation message. They're already saved. Give them meat, not milk. If you want to make music with a salvation message, you've got to get out of the Christian ghetto and do it in such a way that non-Christians will listen.
.


Oh I like this quote/paraphrase. Such a good point.

[Inspiewriter]

What's the "BEMA"? I get the feeling this is one of those things that Cradle Catholics never heard of,


The Bema is the judgement seat of Jesus. There is a wonderful novel about it by Tim Stevenson, Haven Publications, 2000. (of course the novel is just this author's interpretation, but an interesting read.)


BTW--I was also raised Catholic and don't know what AWANNA is either.:Shrug:

[III]

BTW--I was also raised Catholic and don't know what AWANNA is either.:Shrug:

AWANA's stands for Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed. It's kind of like scouts, but the focus is on memorizing scripture. Generally for kids age 5 - 12. We didn't have it when I was a kid, but I wish we did. All 4 of our kids have been in AWANA's at our church and they love it. It's amazing to see them memorizing so much scripture.

[flutecrafter]

This laundry list seems a little slanted toward guilt-trip sanctimoniousness. I notice that the word "only" apears in the two goals that are being looked down upon, while the one LACKING the word "only" is being artificialy propped up as the altruistic winner. How about you go back and insert the word "only" somewhere in that bullet point also, and then see what happens.LOL
and yet, they are all perfectly acceptable goals. Just depending upon what
you're shooting for. :)

mark

[james1611]

This laundry list seems a little slanted toward guilt-trip sanctimoniousness. I notice that the word "only" apears in the two goals that are being looked down upon, while the one LACKING the word "only" is being artificialy propped up as the altruistic winner. How about you go back and insert the word "only" somewhere in that bullet point also, and then see what happens.

Plot Device--

Perhaps my "only" motivation for stating it the way I did was because the second bullet is by nature an "INFINITE" goal--while the other two by nature are only "FINITE" possibilities.

Is there really a way to compare entertainment and earthly fame with pleasing the CREATOR of the Heavens and the Earth? Somehow I think not. Please don't think me so devious...I'm just not as clever as you gave me credit for. ;)

James

[Leaannie]

Hi! I'm new here, but loving the lively dialogue! What an intriguing subject! If I can thow my two pennies at ya...As a newbie fiction writer, I started trying to write "secular"--i.e. no real mention of God as an active, vital part of my character's lives. I couldn't do it. It wasn't real to me! God is a vital part of every human's life, whether they acknowledge Him or not! To me, reading NYT bestsellers by top authors sometimes rings false and empty. Where is the deep spiritual truth we all seek no matter what the genre? To involve my character in a life or death situation and have her ignore God rings hollow. The problem is not so much with Christian fiction as it is with the intolerance of secular fiction to include noble characters of faith and morality. Most top-selling heroes and heroines are morrally bankrupt individuals. I can think of a few authors who've managed to keep their heroes fairly decent (William Bernhardt), but as a rule, Christians are portrayed routinely as hypocrites or idiots!

True, much Christian fiction is so bland and predictable it is hard to swallow. I agree that presenting truth does not have to be a three-point sermon, complete with 5 verses of "Just As I Am." I just wish the secular audience would give us a chance to compete on their field. They might be surprised!

Annie

[callalily61]

I agree that presenting truth does not have to be a three-point sermon, complete with 5 verses of "Just As I Am."


:ROFL:

Welcome, and thanks for the morning chuckle!

And I'm sad to say I've read Christian fiction like that. :e2yawn:

[III]

I agree that presenting truth does not have to be a three-point sermon,

Three point sermons are too short. You can't get a good head of steam rolling with the alliteration and you can't make a truly impressive acrostic from the points.
(Sorry, am I the only one jaded on the subject of sermon points that use alliteration or form acrostics?)

And :welcome: welcome to the forum, Annie!

[callalily61]

Three point sermons are too short. You can't get a good head of steam rolling with the alliteration and you can't make a truly impressive acrostic from the points.
(Sorry, am I the only one jaded on the subject of sermon points that use alliteration or form acrostics?)


Are the sermons aided by PowerPoints in your church? LOL. I've heard a radio preacher do the alliteration thing: It makes me laugh sometimes at the gyrations they go through to get 3 alliterative points.

[chalks up yet another reason she doesn't miss church one little bit]

[Inspiewriter]

AWANA's stands for Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed. It's kind of like scouts, but the focus is on memorizing scripture. Generally for kids age 5 - 12. We didn't have it when I was a kid, but I wish we did. All 4 of our kids have been in AWANA's at our church and they love it. It's amazing to see them memorizing so much scripture.


Ahhh. Thanks!

[BruceJ]

Three point sermons are too short. You can't get a good head of steam rolling with the alliteration and you can't make a truly impressive acrostic from the points.
(Sorry, am I the only one jaded on the subject of sermon points that use alliteration or form acrostics?)
Alliterative analogies anger audiences across all denominations! You see, I couldn't even bring myself to finish it! :D

[III]

Are the sermons aided by PowerPoints in your church? LOL. I've heard a radio preacher do the alliteration thing: It makes me laugh sometimes at the gyrations they go through to get 3 alliterative points.

[chalks up yet another reason she doesn't miss church one little bit]

Not at our current church, but we went to a big church in Sacramento where the pastor did a Power Point outline and had an OCD about using alliteration. He was also one of the most phenomenal pastors and impacted my life profoundly, but the alliteration thing drove me nuts!

[Plot Device]

Alliteration is a very very old fashioned (read: out-dated) trick for effective public speaking. It's meant as a mnemonic aid to drive home your sermon more deeply into people's consciousness. I find its usage in contemporary settings somewhat patronizing and silly. Post-modern audiences don't need nursery rhymes to grasp a speech.



Another technique (one that annoys me deeply) is over-anunciating the ending-consonant sounds of your words. Such as


"... ANDddd GAWDddddd SAIDdddd unto MOE-ZESSsssssssss ..."

This technique has been taught for many centuries by voice teachers for students who sing classical operatic pieces to live audiences, as well as professional stage actors in places like New York and London, etc. It has also been taught for probably just as long (or longer) by speech coaches (I have no idea how many centuries the trick goes back -- to the dawn of the Enlightenment or maybe even to ancient Greece, I really don't know). The benefit of the technique is that IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A MICROPHONE (which was the case for all public speakers until the 20th Century, and still is the case for live actors and opera singers) over-annunciating the ending consonant will clearly project the fullness of that particular word into the back of a large auditorium.

While many a politician used the technique in both European and American arenas, I suspect that few Christian pastors of any persuasion on either side of the Atlantic used it simply because most places of worship tended to be rather small. Maybe the massive Cathedrals of Europe mandated its usage by Bishops and Cardinals, but even those would have been rare instances.

But then when huge revival meetings began to take place in America the latter part of the 19th Century and into the 20th Century, this borrowed-from-singers-actors-and -and-politicians technique served those evangelists well. But the silly and sad result was that small church pastors (especially the uneducated ones who likely never went to Bible college or seminary for professional speech training) inexpertly immitated the technique with the belief that it was somehow "spiritual." To this day I still encounter "old timers" who do this with a zealousness (even though they are using a microphone) and it makes the crowd go wild with retorts of "He's got the Holy Ghost on him! He's got the annointing!"

It's just dumb, really. The kind of stuff that makes movies like "Borat" possible.

[III]

Another technique (one that annoys me deeply) is over-anunciating the ending-consonant sounds of your words. Such as


"... ANDddd GAWDddddd SAIDdddd unto MOE-ZESSsssssssss ..."


Nothing makes my ears shut down faster than a preacher who talks like that. It's physically impossible for me to pay attention, and I have attention problems as hey a dog just ran by the window!

[Plot Device]

Nothing makes my ears shut down faster than a preacher who talks like that. It's physically impossible for me to pay attention, and I have attention problems as hey a dog just ran by the window!


And I was just about to add:

One of the side-effects that grew out of this whole thing is the "and-uh" variation:

"... AND-uh GAWD-uh SAID-uh unto MOE-ZESS-uh ..."

It's all the same thing, really: the end-consonant sound getting special treatment. The original reasoning behind it makes perfect sense. But when it gets copied by someone who doesn't understand why, it just transforms it into a mystical ritual that eventually becomes a cultural staple.

[callalily61]

Y'all have never had the dubious pleasure of listening to a Catholic priest educated in a "less isn't more; more isn't enough" seminary. 30-minute sermons, some of them, expounding nit-picky Bible verses and applying them to Catholic dogma, lather, rinse, repeat--and Mass is barely halfway over by then! Those priests were always the kind who used the painfully long Eucharistic prayer, too, by which point little kids were getting pinched and slapped right and left to make them shut up, knees were throbbing, people stopped bothering to stifle their yawns, and because they stopped ringing that little bell 3X when the altar got turned around after Vatican II, you'd have to try and pay attention so you wouldn't miss the moment of Consecration.

Then there's the pastor we had growing up. He'd climb into the special sermon gazebo-on-stilts, turn the microphone away (he never needed it) and BOOM his sermon to the back row. And it was a big church. He picked on people below him, too, so you didn't dare read the bulletin or anything.

Ah, childhood. :D

[althrasher]

Y'all have never had the dubious pleasure of listening to a Catholic priest educated in a "less isn't more; more isn't enough" seminary. 30-minute sermons, some of them, expounding nit-picky Bible verses and applying them to Catholic dogma, lather, rinse, repeat--and Mass is barely halfway over by then! Those priests were always the kind who used the painfully long Eucharistic prayer, too, by which point little kids were getting pinched and slapped right and left to make them shut up, knees were throbbing, people stopped bothering to stifle their yawns, and because they stopped ringing that little bell 3X when the altar got turned around after Vatican II, you'd have to try and pay attention so you wouldn't miss the moment of Consecration.

Then there's the pastor we had growing up. He'd climb into the special sermon gazebo-on-stilts, turn the microphone away (he never needed it) and BOOM his sermon to the back row. And it was a big church. He picked on people below him, too, so you didn't dare read the bulletin or anything.

Ah, childhood. :D

:hooray:<--ALT: glad she's Methodist.

[callalily61]

And people like me, who after years of kicking and screaming against Jesus demanding to be let into my life, look back after getting my complacent mind BLOWN and wonder why on God's green earth I put up with going through the motions for so long. All those wasted years...

Although those years are fodder for my next two books. In that sense, they're not wasted at all. :)

[Roger J Carlson]

:hooray:<--ALT: glad she's Methodist.Yeah, but now we have to stand for a half hour while a bad band plays Seven-Eleven* worship songs.



*Seven words sung Eleven times.

[Unique]

7-11? Is that what the Methodists call them? The Baptists call the 'praise choruses'.

I thought it was just me being 'old fashioned' but my 10 year old doesn't like them either.

"Why don't you like them?"

He says, 'They're boring.'

[Roger J Carlson]

I'm not Methodist. I meant the Protestant "we".

My point, I guess, is that any form of worship can be onerous if it doesn't speak to you. I find the "contemporary" worship nearly unbearable. I think one of the strengths of Christianiity is the variety of worship styles. If we could just get over our squabbles about the differences and concentrate on Jesus, we'd be a lot more effective in this world.

[callalily61]

Preach it, Roger! :D

[Inspiewriter]

We have recently started attending a Methodist church (long story) and I am amazed at how little time is spent singing! Unless it's just this particular church, it's about 10% of the time we sing in Lutheran or Catholic services.

[james1611]

And I was just about to add:

One of the side-effects that grew out of this whole thing is the "and-uh" variation:

"... AND-uh GAWD-uh SAID-uh unto MOE-ZESS-uh ..."

It's all the same thing, really: the end-consonant sound getting special treatment. The original reasoning behind it makes perfect sense. But when it gets copied by someone who doesn't understand why, it just transforms it into a mystical ritual that eventually becomes a cultural staple.

We've gone to calling this type of preaching: Hacking Preacher. "Ha" or something like it in between every few words. Now, I'm a preacher and pastor myself and I like preaching that is fiery and exciting--because I believe we've got something to be excited about--but the "uh" or "Haa" acts as a metronome in my ear and I have a terrible time hearing anything else that is said. It's such an unnatural way of speaking. I can't get anything from the message itself. Personally I can't even do it. I like plain speaking...normal language. I find the stuffed shirt literary preaching a bit over the common man's head. I'm sure many enjoy that as well, but personally I just want plain truth from God's word in plain simple language.

That all said--A writer has the opportunity much like a preacher to either present truth or go for something else. As with the preacher's preaching: will it present truth to honor God in an interesting, attention grabbing way or will it just dodge around uselessly to glorify the writer alone. Many preachers preach messages to make themselves look good, highly educated, spiritually alive, etc...How about the Christian writer.

All that we do will end up before the Judgment Seat of Christ: Preaching, writing, etc...how will I fare before the Lord in that day I wonder?

James

[james1611]

I'm not Methodist. I meant the Protestant "we".

My point, I guess, is that any form of worship can be onerous if it doesn't speak to you. I find the "contemporary" worship nearly unbearable. I think one of the strengths of Christianiity is the variety of worship styles. If we could just get over our squabbles about the differences and concentrate on Jesus, we'd be a lot more effective in this world.

Roger--I would heartily agree! So much of what goes on in churches is simply ceremony we've constructed for whatever reason and it's been handed down without necessarily having much rhyme or reason to it. For instance, the order of a service. I recently rearranged the order of our services just to get away from the "Way it's always been done" mentality. It leads to the mundane "come in-sit down-stand up-sit down-pray-go home or to the cracker barrel" form of christianity that has unbelievers saying "Don't need it, don't want it."

We'd do much better to come to worship Jesus Christ sincerely--seeking his will and to be completely surrendered to him. Wow, now that's when people get saved and people leave a service saying "it was good to be in church today!"

James

[althrasher]

Oh, I can't STAND those stupid praise things! They're not very sincere and just get on people's nerves. My church sings a lot, though, way more than any Baptist or Lutheran I've been to. So I guess it mostly depends on where you go.

There's a great facebook group called "Praise Bands Annoy God." It amuses me.

And Roger, it wasn't my intent to draw lines by any means. Just making a joke. Some wonderful mission work is done ecumenically (I probably spelled that wrong)

[Strongbear]

Do people think books by a Christian author should have girls in bikinis if part of it is set in a tropical location, or should they all be covered up on the beach? And is it okay for characters to dress sexily? Or should they be dressed conservatively?

[althrasher]

I think bikinis are the least of our worries in this world ;)

[Gravity]

Do people think books by a Christian author should have girls in bikinis if part of it is set in a tropical location, or should they all be covered up on the beach? And is it okay for characters to dress sexily? Or should they be dressed conservatively?

Again, it's your book. Write it any way you want, Bear. I"ll say it again: it's YOUR BOOK. You know the audience you're going after, and some people will be offended at your prose or your descriptions or your dialogue no matter how carefully you try to tread. All this dithering and fretting and hair splitting won't won't get it written. You could fart around with this from now until next year, wondering if what you've written is going to offend somebody's Aunt Minnie in Toledo. The answer is, probably, yeah, it will. WHO CARES? Just write the thing, and hang the consequences!

[Roger J Carlson]

And Roger, it wasn't my intent to draw lines by any means. Just making a joke. Some wonderful mission work is done ecumenically (I probably spelled that wrong)I know. So was I. :) Then I got to thinking how negative it all sounded about hating this style or that. People looking in from the outside think, "Where's all this love they talk about when they're sniping about worship styles?"

[Roger J Carlson]

Do people think books by a Christian author should have girls in bikinis if part of it is set in a tropical location, or should they all be covered up on the beach? And is it okay for characters to dress sexily? Or should they be dressed conservatively?People should dress the way they would dress. If a character in your book wants to flaunt his/her body, then that's how he/she should dress, Christian or not. Of course, that says something about their walk with God, and that should fit the story as well. Everything should advance the story.

[Inspiewriter]

People should dress the way they would dress. If a character in your book wants to flaunt his/her body, then that's how he/she should dress, Christian or not. Of course, that says something about their walk with God, and that should fit the story as well. Everything should advance the story.


I agree. You can always have your main character grow in his faith as the story develops, and start dressing differently.

[small axe]

Do people think books by a Christian author should have girls in bikinis if part of it is set in a tropical location, or should they all be covered up on the beach? And is it okay for characters to dress sexily? Or should they be dressed conservatively?


I think each individual has to walk their own spiritual path ... with the caveat that a Christian would be walking their own path to the extent that they're walking in Christ's company (but Who is walking with Whom? is perhaps open to discussion! Someone once told me that we shouldn't presume to walk CHRIST'S path, because we cannot succeed in that as mortals; rather, we are in the world to explore the path that we believe leads towards God, and walk it in a direction Christ honours us by sharing with us)

I am always personally called to remember the Scripture about not being a stumbling stone for our brothers and sisters in faith (and I believe outside the faith too)

Can a Christian 'dress sexily' or create characters who 'dress sexily' ??? Who are we responsible to protect from stumbling there? I can see it in two ways:
1) We should illustrate to the world that Christianity does not sink to the levels of Fleshly and Materialistic craven things, no.

2) That said, we do others no favour if we allow the world to think Christians are sexless, joyless, drab drones (which is, in fact, a predominate view of Christians, I think ... made worse by the HYPOCRISY the world scoffs at, when a Christian who preaches non-worldly things is discovered to be a liar lost in material craving)

Who blinds the good folks outside the Church to the true nature of Christianity ... ???

The Christian who judges another and gossips because someone wore make up or a dress an inch too short to Church?
The Christian who makes a spectacle of themselves over some "unholy" movie like HARRY POTTER, while the poor suffer and the hungry starve and the sick go uncared for?
The Christian who judges another's soul because of skin colour or a tattoo or an article of clothing?
Who brands all loud rock music "satanic" even though the music may be bringing thousands of teens to really hear Christ's message for the first time?

I say there is no disgrace in wearing a bikini so that everyone on the beach can see the John 3:16 tattoo across your spine. :) Some will be annoyed, some will be confused, and some will have their eyes openned.

Better a bikini than a burqa, my friends. At least in our culture (I respect the wishes of other cultures though) ...

I think "Christian" art is determined by its inner CONTENT not it's outer APPEARANCE ... just like the Christian person is.

One person's stumbling block is another's footstool to offer elevation and perspective. Either way, it offers a radical chancge of perspective, if one is needed! :D Humility and Elevation to us all, as needed!